• 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

TheDemSocialist

Gradualist
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 13, 2011
Messages
34,951
Reaction score
16,311
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Socialist
WASHINGTON — The leaders of Congress’s tax-writing committees reached agreement Thursday on legislation to give President Obama “fast track” authority to negotiate an ambitious trade accord with 11 other Pacific nations, beginning what is sure to be one of the toughest legislative battles of his last 19 months in office.The “trade promotion authority” bill — likely to be unveiled Thursday afternoon — would give Congress the power to vote on the Trans-Pacific Partnership once it is completed, but would deny lawmakers the chance to amend what would be the largest trade deal since the North American Free Trade Agreement.


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
 
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.
 
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.

You think anybody in Congress gives a **** about exporting our regulation? There is a concerted effort in Congress to destroy unions and dilute workers rights down to bare bones. These 'free trade' agreements are all about giving jobs to people who won't complain about making $2 an hour and destroying the standard of living Americans are use to. It's a Democrat-Republican effort and not a single person in either camp is interested in stopping it.
 
Why is Obama championing it?
 
Why is Obama championing it?
darn good question...wish I had an answer..I can't think of anything good about the TPP. China and India aren't even in it.
There is nothing for the US. Why doesn't the Senate get ratification? If this isn't a treaty..what is??
 
darn good question...wish I had an answer..I can't think of anything good about the TPP. China and India aren't even in it.
There is nothing for the US. Why doesn't the Senate get ratification? If this isn't a treaty..what is??

They probably gave him fast track right?
 
They probably gave him fast track right?
it has to be voted on, but they prolly will.. I like this quote:

Indeed, members of the committee had so little information that Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) felt compelled to ask if they were going to be voting Thursday "on an agreement that we have not yet even seen and that hasn't been reached."
I don't have the source, but that says it all :shock:
 
Why is Obama championing it?

Because Obama is just another centrist Democrat just like Clinton... Not the left wing radical many of you played him out to be.
 
Because Obama is just another centrist Democrat just like Clinton... Not the left wing radical many of you played him out to be.

Hahahaahahahahaha..........Obamacare ain't centrist.
 
it has to be voted on, but they prolly will.. I like this quote:

I don't have the source, but that says it all :shock:

You have to vote on it before you can know what's in it. :shock:
 
You think anybody in Congress gives a **** about exporting our regulation? There is a concerted effort in Congress to destroy unions and dilute workers rights down to bare bones. These 'free trade' agreements are all about giving jobs to people who won't complain about making $2 an hour and destroying the standard of living Americans are use to. It's a Democrat-Republican effort and not a single person in either camp is interested in stopping it.
I would say your point is somewhat true. Here is an example of both some Dems and some Republicans speaking out against it More Pushback On Multiple Fronts Against TPP and Fast-Track

One of the two most vocal opponents that I can name off the top of my head are Warren and Sanders. Sanders was just at a labor rally yesterday speaking out against the agreement. The problem is none of this really gets much media attention.
 
To add a little balance to the discussion here so far, Obama has been dragging his feet on trade deals with both the Pacific Rim countries and with Europe. In the meantime, Canada has signed a trade agreement with the EU, pending EU ratification and has signed several trade agreements with Pacific Rim countries in advance of a broader agreement of Pacific states.

Unless America comes to realize that the world is passing it by and that more open and free commerce throughout the world is the wave of the future, you'll be left with watching Pacific and European countries and their companies using Canada and Mexico, as NAFTA partners, for entry into the American market without any quid-pro-quo for America and it's companies into those markets.
 
I would say your point is somewhat true. Here is an example of both some Dems and some Republicans speaking out against it More Pushback On Multiple Fronts Against TPP and Fast-Track

One of the two most vocal opponents that I can name off the top of my head are Warren and Sanders. Sanders was just at a labor rally yesterday speaking out against the agreement. The problem is none of this really gets much media attention.

Warren may be against it, but she's not really 'the party' which is really what I meant by 'nobody'. As much as I like Warren's honesty on labor issues, IMO if she really wanted to make waves and stand behind her convictions, she'd go up against Hillary but as it stands, we won't be seeing that anytime soon. She'd force the rest of the party to take sides on the issue. So we're stuck with Republicans who love this kind of ****, and Democrats who'll get it passed to fatten their pockets. Nobody really has an interest in putting their political careers on the spotlight over this.
 
Hahahaahahahahaha..........Obamacare ain't centrist.

Kinda odd. Wonder why a centrist would promote centrist policies. This trade deal is just another example of it.
 
Warren may be against it, but she's not really 'the party' which is really what I meant by 'nobody'. As much as I like Warren's honesty on labor issues, IMO if she really wanted to make waves and stand behind her convictions, she'd go up against Hillary but as it stands, we won't be seeing that anytime soon. She'd force the rest of the party to take sides on the issue. So we're stuck with Republicans who love this kind of ****, and Democrats who'll get it passed to fatten their pockets. Nobody really has an interest in putting their political careers on the spotlight over this.

So Clinton pushes for NAFTA, and Obama pushes for this, and it's Republicans that are the ones that love it?
 
So Clinton pushes for NAFTA, and Obama pushes for this, and it's Republicans that are the ones that love it?

Your selective anger at my post criticizing both parties exposes the underlying hackery of your positions. :shrug:

Adding: NAFTA was signed under Bush. Not Clinton.
 
Last edited:
Your selective anger at my post criticizing both parties exposes the underlying hackery of your positions. :shrug:

Adding: NAFTA was signed under Bush. Not Clinton.

Uh, no, Clinton signed NAFTA.
 
You think anybody in Congress gives a **** about exporting our regulation? There is a concerted effort in Congress to destroy unions and dilute workers rights down to bare bones. These 'free trade' agreements are all about giving jobs to people who won't complain about making $2 an hour and destroying the standard of living Americans are use to. It's a Democrat-Republican effort and not a single person in either camp is interested in stopping it.

no, i don't think that very many in congress care much about the common worker. in fact, many are actively anti-labor. they become populists right before election day, and then go right back to being corporatists, because that's who has enough money to purchase them. the US political system needs a major overhaul at every level, and it won't happen because the politicians themselves are the ones who can initiate that overhaul.

but since i have the luxury of proposing a more ideal arrangement on a message board, my proposition is no free trade deals with countries that don't adopt the OSHA-type rules and pollution controls that our businesses here have to follow. that would theoretically make the playing field a little more level, and it might result in better labor conditions for workers in developing nations.
 
Wait. I thought the evil Republicans hated Obama so much they would do anything just to stymie him, even if it went against their previously held positions? What are they doing giving him greater authority when he asks for it?
 
Last edited:
Uh, no, Clinton signed NAFTA.

North American Free Trade Agreement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Following diplomatic negotiations dating back to 1990 among the three nations, U.S. President George H. W. Bush, Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney and Mexican President Carlos Salinas, each responsible for spearheading and promoting the agreement, ceremonially signed the agreement in their respective capitals on December 17, 1992.[5]The signed agreement then needed to be ratified by each nation's legislative or parliamentary branch.

What Clinton signed was the implementation law. Clinton revised the agreement to include labor and environmental protections. This is a fact you can't revise.
 
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;
Okay we're going to flip-flop and now argue for income inequality in this case?

(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." (The Trans-Pacific Partnership Is Unlikely to Be a Good Deal for American Workers | Economic Policy Institute). Now we are just one step closer for this deal to become official trade policy.
(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.

(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.
 
So you gonna blame Bush for this one, too?

Oh my jesus, nobody blamed Bush specifically for anything. I made a correction to your erroneous statement. It was signed by Bush. That is a fact. If you can't even deal with your mistake, you're welcome to move right along and ignore my statements. You seem to be on your casual faux outrage anyways. We've no time for that. :)
 
Why is Obama championing it?

To resuscitate our influence in East Asia. China has nearly double the scale of our investments. India isn't far behind.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom