• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama quest for fast-track trade bill defeated for now in House

All trade agreements are confidential until presented for ratification. This is not new.

Trade, because it affects so many industries and people should be transparent. The last time we got this, Obamacare was the result. Fool me once.
 
Trade, because it affects so many industries and people should be transparent. The last time we got this, Obamacare was the result. Fool me once.

As I said, every international trade agreement is confidential until presented for ratification.
 
Greetings, NIMBY. :2wave:

In studying what is known about this proposed TPP Agreement, I have more questions, so here they are.

1. If it's so great, why is it a secret?

2. We already have trade agreements with many of these countries. This will probably not open new opportunities for American exports, since most of the countries involved won't allow it, except for food. Perhaps that has been dealt with in this TPP, but I don't know. If enacted, however, it will encompass 40% of all global economic activity.

3. Many of the details will not be known until five years after BHO leaves office. Why is this?

4. The Democrats that voted against this feel that NAFTA hurt workers by causing job losses in the millions, and they feel that TPP will be NAFTA on a global scale - which is why they insist that TAA be included in the deal.

You may not know the answers to my questions, but you keep up on things, so I bugged you! Apologies in advance. :mrgreen:

20+ years later, NAFTA receives mixed reviews, pro and con, but it is reasonable to ask whether benefits are outweighing the costs. Mexico's economy is so great that an estimated 1/3 of their population has mostly illegally moved to the USA or is trying to. We have lost an enormous percentage of our manufacturing base and our trade deficits have swelled. But certainly some jobs were created to replace those that were lost.

NAFTA at 20: One Million U.S. Jobs Lost, Higher Income Inequality*|*Lori Wallach

NAFTA, 20 Years Later: Do the Benefits Outweigh the Costs? - Knowledge@Wharton

But NAFTA was made fully public and we knew what our elected representatives were voting on and the public commentary, pro and con was easily understood and evaluated.

Can anybody here tell us what is written into the TPP? If it is so great, why all the shroud of secrecy? We know how a bill called Obamacare has turned out when they 'had to pass the bill in order for us for find out what is in it." By early 2014, at least 35 changes had been made to the bill, most illegally, just to keep it afloat. And that just put us at the mercy of Americans who may or may not have our best interests at heart.

What risks are there for us to hand over sovereignty to foreign nations, many of which have already demonstrated that they do not have our best interests at heart? I am all for free trade, but I do not want us to legally obligate us to requirements that will handicap our negotiating ability and/or give other nations unfair advantage. I hope there are responsible legislators in Washington who will make sure this is not a huge boondoggle and another USA giveaway before they say yes.

And yes, Hillary and everybody else who aspires to be President should have a public opinion about that.
 
Hillary isn't taking a stand on much of anything that matters right now. She is pushing some 'feel good' non consequential ideas publicly but otherwise isn't granting any access to the media who might ask questions like that.
Right, but what a politicians says or doesn't say during a campaign is nebulous, at best. Presuming they've been around enough we should be able to guess pretty accurately where they'd stand based on their track record.
 
20+ years later, NAFTA receives mixed reviews, pro and con, but it is reasonable to ask whether benefits are outweighing the costs. Mexico's economy is so great that an estimated 1/3 of their population has mostly illegally moved to the USA or is trying to. We have lost an enormous percentage of our manufacturing base and our trade deficits have swelled. But certainly some jobs were created to replace those that were lost.

NAFTA at 20: One Million U.S. Jobs Lost, Higher Income Inequality*|*Lori Wallach

NAFTA, 20 Years Later: Do the Benefits Outweigh the Costs? - Knowledge@Wharton

But NAFTA was made fully public and we knew what our elected representatives were voting on and the public commentary, pro and con was easily understood and evaluated.

Can anybody here tell us what is written into the TPP? If it is so great, why all the shroud of secrecy? We know how a bill called Obamacare has turned out when they 'had to pass the bill in order for us for find out what is in it." By early 2014, at least 35 changes had been made to the bill, most illegally, just to keep it afloat. And that just put us at the mercy of Americans who may or may not have our best interests at heart.

What risks are there for us to hand over sovereignty to foreign nations, many of which have already demonstrated that they do not have our best interests at heart? I am all for free trade, but I do not want us to legally obligate us to requirements that will handicap our negotiating ability and/or give other nations unfair advantage. I hope there are responsible legislators in Washington who will make sure this is not a huge boondoggle and another USA giveaway before they say yes.

And yes, Hillary and everybody else who aspires to be President should have a public opinion about that.

Greetings, AlbqOwl. :2wave:

I also wonder 1) who is going to decide if unfair currency manipulation might be taking place; 2) what the criteria might be for determining same; and 3) who's going to be responsible for handling the problem. Since countries have been known to manipulate their currency to avoid domestic problems like excess inflation and/or deflation - even we have done that - how could it be argued that it should or should not also apply to foreign trade?
 
Right, but what a politicians says or doesn't say during a campaign is nebulous, at best. Presuming they've been around enough we should be able to guess pretty accurately where they'd stand based on their track record.

Well, if we are going by track record, IMO we can't believe ANYTHING Hillary tells us now. So it really doesn't matter what she says she thinks about the TPP.
 
yea well we shouldn't be losing that much, and the gains that we get should cover those people that lose.

And you have this on the authority of the three legislators that actually read the RD?
 
Greetings, AlbqOwl. :2wave:

I also wonder 1) who is going to decide if unfair currency manipulation might be taking place; 2) what the criteria might be for determining same; and 3) who's going to be responsible for handling the problem. Since countries have been known to manipulate their currency to avoid domestic problems like excess inflation and/or deflation - even we have done that - how could it be argued that it should or should not also apply to foreign trade?

I have a smidgeon of training in economics, but stuff like that is over my pay grade, Polgara. I know it happens, and when people think the USA is manipulating currency, they complain. When we think others are doing it, we complain but I don't know how it works or how to explain it. So I'm sure that is a component the experts should be looking at along with many other factors. But the fact that it is all being done under such a cloak of secrecy makes me think there is a lot of stuff being negotiated that they don't want us to know about. And when it involves each and every one of us, that is never a good thing.
 
Well, if we are going by track record, IMO we can't believe ANYTHING Hillary tells us now. So it really doesn't matter what she says she thinks about the TPP.
There is that. :lol:

Which is why I don't buy for a second her sudden concern for the common person.
 
And you have this on the authority of the three legislators that actually read the RD?

again you need to go back and read what is being said and understand the conversation because you don't know what you are talking about.
 
There is that. :lol:

Which is why I don't buy for a second her sudden concern for the common person.

Exactly. Words are really cheap and not to be taken seriously when people don't back them up by the way they conduct themselves and live their lives. And when a person's values, attitudes, and convictions shift easily according to the audience being addressed, the only conclusion that seems reasonable is that the person is thoroughly untrustworthy.
 
again you need to go back and read what is being said and understand the conversation because you don't know what you are talking about.

Pretty stupid to discuss the "merits" of a trade deal that only three legislators have actually looked at.
 
Exactly so.
And it's not only that.
I frankly don't trust some of the people on either side of this.

Another big factor is that on the one hand we're told that the deal has restrictions on Presidential power, yet Barack Obama is a proponent.
We know that the language in Laws that seem clear to most means very little to Obama.

Bottom line, like many things it seems we're not getting honest analysis on this deal ... partly because very few people are allowed access to it.
Never a good sign.

this is the first i have seen that TPP would limit presidential power
how so?
 
Pretty stupid to discuss the "merits" of a trade deal that only three legislators have actually looked at.

The legislation on which the House and Senate voted was made public and available to all members of the House and Senate. The TPP is not yet agreed, so there is no text of the agreement. If an agreement is reached, it should be made public and all Members of the Congress will have the opportunity to examine it.
 
The legislation on which the House and Senate voted was made public and available to all members of the House and Senate. The TPP is not yet agreed, so there is no text of the agreement. If an agreement is reached, it should be made public and all Members of the Congress will have the opportunity to examine it.

The drafts have been available to them all along. Last I heard, there had actually read them and quite naturally, those three do not support TPP!
 
The drafts have been available to them all along. Last I heard, there had actually read them and quite naturally, those three do not support TPP!

What you're talking about are incomplete negotiating drafts. There's no agreement, so whatever is finally voted on may differ--and perhaps significantly in some cases--from those working documents. I reserve judgment on TPP until there is an agreement and I've had a chance to read it. If more provisions are favorable than unfavorable, in other words the nation would have a net economic gain, then I'll support it. But right now, it's premature for me to take a stance on something that has not yet been agreed, much less finalized.
 
this is the first i have seen that TPP would limit presidential power
how so?

That's part of the distrust I was talking about ...
On Thursday’s broadcast of Laura Ingraham’s radio show, Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL)80%
, an outspoken opponent of the so-called fast-track Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) being currently being considered by the U.S. House of Representatives, took on his fellow Republican Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI), who has been speaking out for the passage of the legislation.

Sessions responded to Ryan’s earlier claim that the TPA would limit President Barack Obama’s ability to negotiate trade agreements, to which Sessions said if that were indeed the case, Obama should considering a veto of the TPA. [8:30 in]

Sessions: Paul Ryan Claim TPA Limits Obama 'Ridiculous' - Breitbart

That's what pisses me off ... whotf to believe? ... I'm inclined toward Sessions ... but we need to see the language and the holes therein.
 
Pretty stupid to discuss the "merits" of a trade deal that only three legislators have actually looked at.

we aren't talking the merits of that trade deal which is why I said you don't know what you are talking about.
 
What you're talking about are incomplete negotiating drafts. There's no agreement, so whatever is finally voted on may differ--and perhaps significantly in some cases--from those working documents. I reserve judgment on TPP until there is an agreement and I've had a chance to read it. If more provisions are favorable than unfavorable, in other words the nation would have a net economic gain, then I'll support it. But right now, it's premature for me to take a stance on something that has not yet been agreed, much less finalized.

Oh I'm well aware of the incompleteness, and the fact that there's more material added regularly for the legislators to travel to the basement to read. But typical as it is, only a few have done so, and based upon what they're seeing now, they oppose it.
 
we aren't talking the merits of that trade deal which is why I said you don't know what you are talking about.

What is this talking about?


Originally Posted by ludin
yea well we shouldn't be losing that much, and the gains that we get should cover those people that lose.
 
The drafts have been available to them all along. Last I heard, there had actually read them and quite naturally, those three do not support TPP!

If others chose not to be informed, that says a lot of about their work as legislators. That the working drafts, not final agreement, have been readily available debunks some of the conspiratorial narratives advanced by some political pundits. Access exists. Many Members of Congress chose not to take advantage of that access.
 
If others chose not to be informed, that says a lot of about their work as legislators. That the working drafts, not final agreement, have been readily available debunks some of the conspiratorial narratives advanced by some political pundits. Access exists. Many Members of Congress chose not to take advantage of that access.

Have you read what's involved in reading the drafts?
 
Back
Top Bottom