Some Facts (for a change) About the TPP

Jack Hays said:

You cannot wish away the world.

Click to expand...

We can pull out of trade deals that are harmful to American workers.We can enact Tariffs to balance out the fact that companies are exploiting dirt cheap labor and little to no worker and environmental safety laws.

jamesrage said:

We can pull out of trade deals that are harmful to American workers.We can enact Tariffs to balance out the fact that companies are exploiting dirt cheap labor and little to no worker and environmental safety laws.

Click to expand...

And thereby make all Americans poorer.

The fact this thing is so secretive should be a red flag in and of itself. If rumors about intellectual property and pharmaceuticals are true, this will impose the United States' bad patent law on the member countries. Not something to cheer about.

Lakryte said:

The fact this thing is so secretive should be a red flag in and of itself. If rumors about intellectual property and pharmaceuticals are true, this will impose the United States' bad patent law on the member countries. Not something to cheer about.

Click to expand...

All treaty negotiations are confidential.

Jack Hays said:

And thereby make all Americans poorer.

Click to expand...

How doe preventing companies from outsourcing and therefor not shipping jobs overseas make Americans poorer? You make no ****en sense.

Jack Hays said:

All treaty negotiations are confidential.

Click to expand...

They should not be.The only reason for making them confidential is to hide details from the general public.

jamesrage said:

How doe preventing companies from outsourcing and therefor not shipping jobs overseas make Americans poorer? You make no ****en sense.

Click to expand...

All Americans benefit from cheaper goods.

jamesrage said:

They should not be.The only reason for making them confidential is to hide details from the general public.

Click to expand...

It has been that way from the founding of our Republic and is the same in nearly all other countries. It's how grown-ups act.

Jack Hays said:

All treaty negotiations are confidential.

Click to expand...

That doesn't mean they should be. And what is different with this agreement is the scale and scope of it and the fact there are some very questionable chapters within it, including the one about intellectual property which has already been partially leaked.

Lakryte said:

That doesn't mean they should be. And what is different with this agreement is the scale and scope of it and the fact there are some very questionable chapters within it, including the one about intellectual property which has already been partially leaked.

Click to expand...

It is neither the biggest nor most important treaty in our history, and it is being handled just like all the others.

Jack Hays said:

It is neither the biggest nor most important treaty in our history, and it is being handled just like all the others.

Click to expand...

Again, that doesn't mean that is how it should be handled. You act as if the answer "we've always done this" is a logical reason to do something. It isn't. And this would in fact be the largest free trade agreement in our modern history, encompassing countries comprising 40% of global GDP within it.

This agreement will have a direct effect on every citizen in the United States. It could effect wages, employment, businesses, local tax revenues--everything. There is no reason sufficient enough to make such a decision without the public's knowledge.

Lakryte said:

Again, that doesn't mean that is how it should be handled. You act as if the answer "we've always done this" is a logical reason to do something. It isn't. And this would in fact be the largest free trade agreement in our modern history, encompassing countries comprising 40% of global GDP within it.

This agreement will have a direct effect on every citizen in the United States. It could effect wages, employment, businesses, local tax revenues--everything. There is no reason sufficient enough to make such a decision without the public's knowledge.

Click to expand...

Those are the terms. They will not be changed, nor should they.

Jack Hays said:

Those are the terms. They will not be changed, nor should they.

Click to expand...

Nobody disputes those are the terms. But the fact that they are the terms does not mean they should be. And so far, your argument amounts to nothing more than "Those are the terms, therefore those should be the terms." And that reasoning is objectively and irrefutably invalid.

Lakryte said:

Nobody disputes those are the terms. But the fact that they are the terms does not mean they should be. And so far, your argument amounts to nothing more than "Those are the terms, therefore those should be the terms." And that reasoning is objectively and irrefutably invalid.

Click to expand...

They are neither valid nor invalid. They simply are givens. I happen to think it's a good way to do things, but I'm not going to try to convince you.

"Using data from the Federal Election Commission, this chart shows all donations that corporate members of the US Business Coalition for TPP made to US Senate campaigns between January and March 2015, when fast-tracking the TPP was being debated in the Senate:

Out of the total $1,148,971 given, an average of $17,676.48 was donated to each of the 65 “yea” votes. The average Republican member received $19,673.28 from corporate TPP supporters.The average Democrat received $9,689.23 from those same donors.

The amounts given rise dramatically when looking at how much each senator running for re-election received. Two days before the fast-track vote, Obama was a few votes shy of having the filibuster-proof majority he needed. Ron Wyden and seven other Senate Democrats announced they were on the fence on 12 May, distinguishing themselves from the Senate’s 54 Republicans and handful of Democrats as the votes to sway. In just 24 hours, Wyden and five of those Democratic holdouts – Michael Bennet of Colorado, Dianne Feinstein of California, Claire McCaskill of Missouri, Patty Murray of Washington, and Bill Nelson of Florida – caved and voted for fast-track. Bennet, Murray, and Wyden – all running for re-election in 2016 – received $105,900 between the three of them. Bennet, who comes from the more purple state of Colorado, got $53,700 in corporate campaign donations between January and March 2015, according to Channing’s research. Almost 100% of the Republicans in the US Senate voted for fast-track – the only two non-votes on TPA were a Republican from Louisiana and a Republican from Alaska. Senator Rob Portman of Ohio, who is the former US trade representative, has been one of the loudest proponents of the TPP. He received $119,700 from 14 different corporations between January and March, most of which comes from donations from Goldman Sachs ($70,600), Pfizer ($15,700), and Procter & Gamble ($12,900). Portman is expected to run against former Ohio governor Ted Strickland in 2016 in one of the most politically competitive states in the country. Seven Republicans who voted “yea” to fast-track and are also running for re-election next year cleaned up between January and March. Senator Johnny Isakson of Georgia received $102,500 in corporate contributions. Senator Roy Blunt of Missouri, best known for proposing a Monsanto-written bill in 2013 that became known as the Monsanto Protection Act, received $77,900 – $13,500 of which came from Monsanto. Arizona senator and former presidential candidate John McCain received $51,700 in the first quarter of 2015. Senator Richard Burr of North Carolina received $60,000 in corporate donations. Eighty-one-year-old senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa, who is running for his seventh Senate term, received $35,000. Senator Tim Scott of South Carolina, who will be running for his first full six-year term in 2016, received $67,500 from pro-TPP corporations...."
Here's How Much Corporations Paid US Senators to Fast-Track the TPP Bill

Pardon me it I distrust what the federal government does. So far every trade agreement I've seen has benefitted everyone but the U.S. in the long run.