• 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!

Deal Reached on Fast-Track Authority for Obama on Trade Pact

brothern said:
Okay we're going to flip-flop and now argue for income inequality in this case?
Click to expand...
How is this "arguing for income inequality"? What?

(2) Intellectual property rights are important. Artists deserve to be paid for their work, as do inventors and companies. Those that are in the arts and in the business of R&D would go broke if we all stole their work the minute they released it to the public. Just because a poor country is poorer, it doesn't mean that they should have a right to steal a novelist's book or a company's gadget.

There's obviously an argument to be had as to how unfair the intellectual property rights are (... being extended to 120 years now or the freedoms we've given to buy and sell them), but that's an argument about the severity of our policies and that shouldn't kill the idea that we want to protect intellectual property globally just because the US and EU's policies are severe.
Click to expand...
Yes it is important but the point was this makes it even worse by essentially establishing global monopoly rights.
An example they gave: "Take software and pharmaceuticals: Foreign firms serving their home market can make larger profits if they are not forced to pay large royalties to American holders of intellectual property monopolies. Following the intellectual property harmonization that is a standard part of too many U.S. trade agreements, these foreign firms are not just unable to export output back to the United States without paying these royalties, they are often not even allowed to continue serving their own home market without making these royalty payments.13 This has the effect of boosting the rise in exportable prices in global markets that tends to follow tariff-cutting trade agreements. In turn, this increases the amount of domestic reshuffling of production in the U.S. economy, amplifying the regressive redistribution caused by trade.14,15"

(3) Pish posh. It a great step in the direction of letting the global economic citizenry to have an effect on everyone's domestic policies (environment, human rights, worker's rights); instead of our current mis-mash situation of international laws and treaties, and non-recognition of each other's laws that makes it near impossible for anyone but the "global economic elites" to navigate and have influence on the world.
Click to expand...
Oh yes. "Free trade" has done wonders by allowing those Mexican farm workers play a part in the "global economic citizenry", after essentially all of their jobs were killed... Same with American manufactures. Or the global sweatshop industry. Its not like past free trade deals have literally reinforced the "elite", and its not like this one wont do the exact same thing of reinforcing the elite. Its not like this deal was written and negotiated behind close doors by the elite..
 
Lawmakers Unveil Secretly Negotiated Deal To Fast-Track Free Trade



Today we’re meeting in a hearing that was noticed 12 hours before it began on a bill we haven’t seen with witnesses, I assume, who know more than we do, and frankly, will never tell us,” said Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio), who noted that previous trade deals have gotten extensive airings in Congress before lawmakers had to vote on them.
“We can’t fast track fast-track, that’s a complete abdication of our responsibilities,” Brown said.

“This process is not good,” said Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), the heir-apparent to Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (Nev.). “We are supposed to vote on TPA, tie our hands and not vote on amendments, before we’ve seen what the [Trans-Pacific Partnership] is. I’ve never seen anything like it.”

Schumer was referring to the fact that the fast-track authority was being pursued even before the details of the trade deals themselves are known
Click to expand...
how insane is this 'process'?
 
Morality Games said:
To resuscitate our influence in East Asia. China has nearly double the scale of our investments. India isn't far behind.
Click to expand...

And he's screwing his union constituents to do it.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Kinda odd. Wonder why a centrist would promote centrist policies. This trade deal is just another example of it.
Click to expand...

Calling Obama a centrist, is that the new talking point?
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Because Obama is just another centrist Democrat just like Clinton... Not the left wing radical many of you played him out to be.
Click to expand...

He is quite to the left of Clinton.
 
American said:
And he's screwing his union constituents to do it.
Click to expand...

... what Union constituents? Unions barely exist anymore.

Besides, American manufacturing won't be much affected by this.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Kinda odd. Wonder why a centrist would promote centrist policies. This trade deal is just another example of it.
Click to expand...
It helps cement economic power. A strong bloc to China.
 
Morality Games said:
... what Union constituents? Unions barely exist anymore.

Besides, American manufacturing won't be much affected by this.
Click to expand...

Tell that to the unions that funded Obama's campaign.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Okay we're going to flip-flop and now argue for income inequality in this case?
Click to expand...
How is this "arguing for income inequality"? What?
Click to expand...
The nation-state model will be our demise. It is not sustainable. Not with our current level of war-making technologies (biological, chemical and nuclear) and the stark tragedy-of-the-commons type challenges we face as a planet: Climate change, resource-depletion, population growth, dependency on non-renewable energy consumption and others. That's all aggravated by the global wealth discrepancies that makes the world's poor more vulnerable, read desperate, to those challenges than developed nations are. That coupled with the monocultural and sectarian ideals that we operate with today will lead us straight into a war that'll self-eradicate humanity.

We sorely need the global mechanisms in place to see to the fair(er) distribution and consumption of the planet's resources. That we haven't already is why, for example, we're well on our way in destroying the planet's biodiversity and being the next mass extinction event. I think I can safely say that most would agree the best mechanism is a global mixed-market economy that's encouraged to be on the freer side of things, but still kept in check by the well-tested governmental protections we need to protect ourselves. Global trade deals are the first step in that direction. If American see depressed wages because jobs are being farmed out to the global poor who are living on less a couple dollars a day, yeah that will really suck for us Americans, but that goes a long way to fixing the global wealth disparity, and it's far better than living in an isolated world of haves and have-nots who are at each other's throats fighting over scarcity.

TheDemSocialist said:
Yes it is important but the point was this makes it even worse by essentially establishing global monopoly rights.
An example they gave: "Take software and pharmaceuticals: Foreign firms serving their home market can make larger profits if they are not forced to pay large royalties to American holders of intellectual property monopolies. Following the intellectual property harmonization that is a standard part of too many U.S. trade agreements, these foreign firms are not just unable to export output back to the United States without paying these royalties, they are often not even allowed to continue serving their own home market without making these royalty payments.13 This has the effect of boosting the rise in exportable prices in global markets that tends to follow tariff-cutting trade agreements. In turn, this increases the amount of domestic reshuffling of production in the U.S. economy, amplifying the regressive redistribution caused by trade.14,15"
Click to expand...
Foreign firms should not be using stolen intellectual rights in the first place. Just because they're protected right now by being outside the jurisdiction of certain courts doesn't put them in the right.

Regardless I believe I read the pharmaceuticals were given a exemption in certain cases.

TheDemSocialist said:
Oh yes. "Free trade" has done wonders by allowing those Mexican farm workers play a part in the "global economic citizenry", after essentially all of their jobs were killed... Same with American manufactures. Or the global sweatshop industry. Its not like past free trade deals have literally reinforced the "elite", and its not like this one wont do the exact same thing of reinforcing the elite. Its not like this deal was written and negotiated behind close doors by the elite..
Click to expand...
.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Or if you just look through the hyperpartisan rhetoric and look at the policies...
Click to expand...

Policies have to get through Congress, that has nothing to do with his personal politics.
 
kjwins said:
Sure it is, its a Rep's idea.
Click to expand...

No, that's been debunked long ago. It's not even completely Romneycare, which was voted on by the people of his state..............and not the entire nation. Big difference. The Dems had to lie and bribe their own to get this passed into law. No, you are wildly off course.
 
American said:
No, that's been debunked long ago. It's not even completely Romneycare, which was voted on by the people of his state..............and not the entire nation. Big difference. The Dems had to lie and bribe their own to get this passed into law. No, you are wildly off course.
Click to expand...

So it is, in noway similar to the 1989 Heritage Foundation document?
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Read more @: Deal Reached on Fast-Track Authority for Obama on Trade Pact

Well if NAFTA was not enough, get ready for TPP. The TPP has been called "NAFTA on steroids", and is expected to have vast negative consequences for American manufacturing, and the middle and working classes. As a recent study on the implication of TPP stated, "Instead, the TPP looks like it will just constitute one more step toward using commercial agreements to maximize three things: (1) the damage done through global integration to the wages of most American workers; (2) the rents earned by those holding a monopoly on intellectual property claims; and (3) the influence that the preferences of global economic elites have on the policymaking of American trading partners." (http://www.epi.org/publication/tpp-unlikely-to-be-good-deal-for-american-workers/). Now we are just one step closer for this deal to become official trade policy :censored[/FONT][/COLOR]
Click to expand...

Sounds like a good deal to me. Of course losers on the left come up with hostility towards free trade because, well, their losers.

If someone creates a property, intellectual or real, they should hold a monopoly on renting it. They created it, not you, not me.
American wages should be normalized with world wide standards. Or better yet, on the quality they produce, in which case, they deserve about the same or less than the Chinese. Most American made products are **** and cost too much.
 
Helix said:
there should be no free trade agreements with countries that don't adopt the OSHA and pollution controls that our own businesses are saddled with. if we're exporting those jobs, we should be exporting first world labor rights along with them. otherwise, it just isn't fair.
Click to expand...

I disagree. If we want the jobs, then we need to get ride of "momma government" having so much control. As to pollution, greenie-weenies won't be happy until we're living in caves wearing fig leafs. The Environmentalist are so full of **** in this country and Europe, anything that hurts them is a great thing indeed.
 
kjwins said:
So it is, in noway similar to the 1989 Heritage Foundation document?
Click to expand...

Look up the word similar, it doesn't mean the same. Similar could mean any number of things. It could mean something looks the like it or sounds like it, but yet different in key ways. Then you use the absolute term "noway" as a clever trap that fools fall for. Sorry to disappoint your elementary debate skills. The Heritage document has been discussed, try a search.
 
American said:
Look up the word similar, it doesn't mean the same. Similar could mean any number of things. It could mean something looks the like it or sounds like it, but yet different in key ways. Then you use the absolute term "noway" as a clever trap that fools fall for. Sorry to disappoint your elementary debate skills. The Heritage document has been discussed, try a search.
Click to expand...

So parts of Obama Care, are not the same as the 1989 Heritage Foundation document?
 
DVSentinel said:
Sounds like a good deal to me. Of course losers on the left come up with hostility towards free trade because, well, their losers.

If someone creates a property, intellectual or real, they should hold a monopoly on renting it. They created it, not you, not me.
American wages should be normalized with world wide standards. Or better yet, on the quality they produce, in which case, they deserve about the same or less than the Chinese. Most American made products are **** and cost too much.
Click to expand...

Ahh yea loss of jobs for Americans, and specifically American manufacturing. Damn "lefties"! Those damn "leftie" jobs are off to China, Vietnam, and Malaysia, because those places are known to make such great, high quality products! Its not like in 2007 millions of product items were recalled. Such great products made there, from the finest 12 year olds!
 
DVSentinel said:
I disagree. If we want the jobs, then we need to get ride of "momma government" having so much control. As to pollution, greenie-weenies won't be happy until we're living in caves wearing fig leafs. The Environmentalist are so full of **** in this country and Europe, anything that hurts them is a great thing indeed.
Click to expand...

sorry, i don't agree. before environmental regulations, creeks were catching on fire. **** that.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Because Obama is just another centrist Democrat just like Clinton... Not the left wing radical many of you played him out to be.
Click to expand...

Centrist???!?!??! ^^^^LOL^^^^.

Obama is the whiny sniveling American apologist and chief, bowing to and sucking up to the worlds worst scum bag dictators and ruling bodies. He is a globalist that is embarrassed, shamed and resentful of US supremacy and success. This is part of his active policy to knock America down to the same level other countries..........and he is willing to achieve his goal on the backs of the American worker.

PS, quit whining, you voted for this.
 
American said:
Why is Obama championing it?
Click to expand...

Because far from being socialist, he's proven himself, like any Republican, to be entirely corporatist. Trumpeting the "socialist" line constantly can easily prevent one from seeing the obvious, though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom