• 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
Montecresto said:
The worst trade deal imaginable isn't likely to stop the earth from revolving, but if that's the bar..............................!!!!!

So Perot has been vindicated in his opinion; expanded free trade has not been accompanied by an increase in jobs in the U.S. relative to the vast numbers of jobs created in the rest of the world as NAFTA became just a stepping stone on the pathway to global commerce.

Just how much the giant vacuum has been collecting has been calculated at GEI Analysis. The results are shown in the following two graphs. The first shows manufacturing jobs lost each year starting with 1992 that are equivalent to the U.S. goods trade deficits over the past 19 years. The second shows the cumulative job loss, amounting to almost 29 million jobs by the end of 2010.
Click to expand...
For what it's worth, I didn't believe it then when they tried to sell it to us.
 
Jack Hays said:
Free trade enriches all participants, and any job lost after NAFTA was enacted likely was doomed anyway.
Click to expand...

I just linked you graphs that don't support your claim, but believe as you wish. With 85% of the negotiators in the 28 committees being corporate executives and industry lobbyists, along with the fact that the Republican Party that doesn't trust Obama to tell them the truth if they asked him what time it is, suddenly ready to give him "decider" authority on TPP while the democrats are steadfastly opposed to this, I'm sorry, but I don't care what you have to say about it.
 
radcen said:
That's kind of a "I believe it because I want to" fantasy way of looking at it.
Click to expand...

Well, no. The bit about enriching all participants is pretty standard economic theory, and the bit about jobs being lost anyway was in the link I posted in #73.
 
Jack Hays said:
Well, no. The bit about enriching all participants is pretty standard economic theory, and the bit about jobs being lost anyway was in the link I posted in #73.
Click to expand...
Because of technological progress jobs will always evolve, trade agreement or not.
 
Montecresto said:
I just linked you graphs that don't support your claim, but believe as you wish. With 85% of the negotiators in the 28 committees being corporate executives and industry lobbyists, along with the fact that the Republican Party that doesn't trust Obama to tell them the truth if they asked him what time it is, suddenly ready to give him "decider" authority on TPP while the democrats are steadfastly opposed to this, I'm sorry, but I don't care what you have to say about it.
Click to expand...

Nafta_trade_617.jpg
 
For or against the Trans-Pacific Trade Agreement?
Click to expand...

workers get ****ed by these trade agreements every time, and this one was purchased just like the others. i don't support it. however, my guess is that it will be passed. too much money is riding on it.
 
JohnWOlin said:
Just as the title says. I for one am for it because of what it could potentially mean for import of American autos to countries such as South Korea and Japan.
Click to expand...

Their market is what? 1/40th of our market? Who wins? Not us..
 
Jack Hays said:
I did not anticipate that BHO would fail so badly among his own party's Senators.
Click to expand...

Since BHO didn't fail, due to McConnell's poison pills, YER statement would be false-equivalency .
 
Jack Hays said:
Free trade enables efficiencies among all parties.
Click to expand...

Not in the House--where TEAs and LIBs will send it to defeat.
You have noticed this Amash coalition gaining numbers and strength, I assume !
 
NIMBY said:
Not in the House--where TEAs and LIBs will send it to defeat.
You have noticed this Amash coalition gaining numbers and strength, I assume !
Click to expand...

We'll see. It will be a shame if it does not pass. It would be quite a plus for the country.
 
Jack Hays said:
I did not anticipate that BHO would fail so badly among his own party's Senators.
Click to expand...

He failed because at least on this, the party is keeping to its core principles of protecting the average American worker.
 
Jack Hays said:
Free trade enables efficiencies among all parties.
Click to expand...
It's the whole equalizing water thing... some will rise, some will decline, everybody will meet in the middle. Too bad for us that we were high up and are the ones who have to decline.
 
radcen said:
It's the whole equalizing water thing... some will rise, some will decline, everybody will meet in the middle. Too bad for us that we were high up and are the ones who have to decline.
Click to expand...

Free trade creates more water.
 
NIMBY said:
Not in the House--where TEAs and LIBs will send it to defeat.
You have noticed this Amash coalition gaining numbers and strength, I assume !
Click to expand...

I like that dude. Remember the Amish amendment that would have stopped the NSA from blanket surveillance of American citizens that was killed by republicans. The activity that the amendment sought to derail was just ruled on as unconstitutional by the court! Yep, those constitutional loving republicans.
 
Montecresto said:
Actually 35 years of Reaganomics has done that already.
Click to expand...

The US enjoyed an artificially lush economic environment in the post-WW2 world 1945-75. Thereafter stronger competition was to be expected and has been a sign of improved well being elsewhere. RWR's policies made us more competitive and enabled growth to continue in the tougher environment.
 
This is going to get ugly for the Dems.

[h=2]Democrats vote to block Obama trade authority[/h] Mike DeBonis and Steven Mufson 7:45 PM ET
Senate Democrats derailed one of the president’s major second-term priorities, voting to hold up a measure that would have given the administration authority to negotiate freely with other countries.


[h=2]Feud with Warren breaks open amid ‘fast track’ vote[/h] Paul Kane
The Democratic senator has never been close with the president, but the public is now seeing open animosity.



 
Rand Paul will have to go third-party to tap into this Amash coalition in 2020.
And get himself a few billionaires.
FOX will always be against Rand--as they are now full-court pressing for Rubio.

I'm still waiting for our posters who ALWAYS post 100% GOP on the issues and politics to once again reclaim their GOP brand again . :lamo

Montecresto said:
I like that dude. Remember the Amish amendment that would have stopped the NSA from blanket surveillance of American citizens that was killed by republicans. The activity that the amendment sought to derail was just ruled on as unconstitutional by the court! Yep, those constitutional loving republicans.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom