• 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!

For or against the Trans-Pacific Trade Agreement?

For or against the Trans-Pacific Trade Agreement/.


  • Total voters
    55
Why all the fuss over these trade deals?


Wouldn't it just be so much simpler to just say....hey, here's what I have for sale, what have you got? Why do we need a deal, a law, to say something as simple as, "OK, let's buy and sell stuff to these people."

it not that simple, some countries want the ability to sell their goods on a large u.s. market, yet do not want u.s. goods sold on their smaller market.....among other things

this is nothing new...under the articles of confederation, states were warring with each other over commerce...been going on for a very long time.
 
2a6sbhu.jpg

Im sure close to a $170 billion trade deficit is a good thing!

.... you know that a trade deficit is when we convince others to give us televisions, food, automobiles, and the like in return for little pieces of green paper, yes?
 
.... you know that a trade deficit is when we convince others to give us televisions, food, automobiles, and the like in return for little pieces of green paper, yes?
Yayyy! Chinese TV's!
But, thats not my point...
Results of trade deficit: massive job outsourcing, and less exports to the countries we are trading with. I thought NAFTA was supposed to lessen our trade deficit and increase exports? Opposite occurred.
 
Yayyy! Chinese TV's!
But, thats not my point...
Results of trade deficit: massive job outsourcing, and less exports to the countries we are trading with. I thought NAFTA was supposed to lessen our trade deficit and increase exports? Opposite occurred.

This is true. And worse, in early 2008, Obama told us this, “One of the first things I’ll do as President will be to call the Prime Minister of Canada and the President of Mexico and work with them to fix NAFTA". And I doubt he ever even made those phone calls, let alone actually "fixed" NAFTA. Now, with plenty of republican fanfare, he wants to fast track another trade deal, with plenty of opposition from his own party. This is problematic.
 
To be fair, your short declarations haven't been meaningful, either. Simply saying so does not make it so. Some deeper substance would be helpful.

Really? Please see # 81, 98, 99, 104 and 105.
 
Yayyy! Chinese TV's!
But, thats not my point...
Results of trade deficit: massive job outsourcing, and less exports to the countries we are trading with. I thought NAFTA was supposed to lessen our trade deficit and increase exports? Opposite occurred.

Our exports have grown.
 
In YER wildest dreams.

McConnell did not allow votes today on
1. unfair labor practices,
2. child labor,
3. currency manipulation;
4. help for workers losing their jobs


The TEA party in the House will block TPP .

It's over in the Senate.

Senate Democrats Relent on Trade Bill - Russell Berman, The Atlantic
 
Yayyy! Chinese TV's!

:shrug: sure. In return for a little piece of green paper?

But, thats not my point...
Results of trade deficit: massive job outsourcing, and less exports to the countries we are trading with. I thought NAFTA was supposed to lessen our trade deficit and increase exports? Opposite occurred.

Mercantilism was and remains a dumb economic philosophy. NAFTA was supposed to increase trade. It is worth noting, however, that our exports did increase, and furthermore, they increased much more to our NAFTA partners than they did to the rest of the world. Net job effects were positive, and the same is true of GDP.
 
Strongly against.
 
That's better still. Immigration enriches the U.S.

Oh you think the high number of immigrants entering the US is a good thing? Even if they are considered "legal" or "illegal"?
 
Oh you think the high number of immigrants entering the US is a good thing? Even if they are considered "legal" or "illegal"?

Big-business interests have a large stake in the outcome of the debate over immigration, and they have spent much money supporting libertarian “think-tanks” that espouse an open-border policy for the United States. By all appearances, this has very little to do with any principled commitment to libertarian principles, but is a way to provide ideological cover for multi-national corporations who lobby for the passage of legislation that will undermine the standing of American workers and force taxpayers to subsidize the costs of a cheaper foreign labor force. An open border, or at least a more open border, would allow corporations to further consolidate their hold on the U.S. economy, while the middle class would lose more of its economic and political power.

http://www.fairus.org/DocServer/research-pub/The_(Il)Logic_of_Open_Border_Libertarians-2.pdf
 
For free trade, against this agreement. This agreement is not free trade at all - it is a crony capitalist behemoth. On top of that it has horrific hidden provisions...the crooks in Congress basically tried to sneak SOPA/CISPA in hoping nobody would notice. It is an unacceptable piece of garbage that anyone who cares about economic and personal freedom should be against.
 
For free trade, against this agreement. This agreement is not free trade at all - it is a crony capitalist behemoth. On top of that it has horrific hidden provisions...the crooks in Congress basically tried to sneak SOPA/CISPA in hoping nobody would notice. It is an unacceptable piece of garbage that anyone who cares about economic and personal freedom should be against.

Agreed, and we are.
 
Agreed, and we are.



". . . An accurate description of TPP might go something like this: “The vast majority of trade affected by the deal would be between the United States and countries that are either high-wage developed nations, or moderate-income emerging economies. The deal would enhance the free-trade pacts the United States already has with some countries in both categories. Any modest risk to U.S. jobs from increased Vietnamese and Malaysian imports would be offset, at least in part, by improved U.S. access to their markets, and to that of Japan. TPP is about not only economics but also the geopolitical benefits of making already close ties between the United States and this strategic region even closer.”. . . "
 

". . . An accurate description of TPP might go something like this: “The vast majority of trade affected by the deal would be between the United States and countries that are either high-wage developed nations, or moderate-income emerging economies. The deal would enhance the free-trade pacts the United States already has with some countries in both categories. Any modest risk to U.S. jobs from increased Vietnamese and Malaysian imports would be offset, at least in part, by improved U.S. access to their markets, and to that of Japan. TPP is about not only economics but also the geopolitical benefits of making already close ties between the United States and this strategic region even closer.”. . . "

Nice opinion piece. He might as well weigh in, everybody else is. TPP is an economic NATO in the pacific, designed to tie Asian trade to the US blocking China out. It's not about the American worker.
 
Last edited:
So you don't dispute the facts?

Facts, lol. It's an "opinion" piece, says so at the top. It's a nice opinion, and I think he makes some good points, as do so many others for and against it. But the negotiators are corporate execs and industry lobbyists. There's nothing that he or yourself can say to remove my suspicions. I'll wait to see what's rolled out.
 
Facts, lol. It's an "opinion" piece, says so at the top. It's a nice opinion, and I think he makes some good points, as do so many others for and against it. But the negotiators are corporate execs and industry lobbyists. There's nothing that he or yourself can say to remove my suspicions. I'll wait to see what's rolled out.

The cited facts about the countries involved are undisputed.
 
cpwill​;1064619211 said:
What, you mean like how it is also a pretty good-sized foreign policy victory,
Still nothign relevant I see.

Like I said.
"Let me know when you have something relevant to say.
Like maybe when it passes and has been in effect for some time. :lamo"
 
Back
Top Bottom