• 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
Good evening, Jack. :2wave:

The link was very interesting reading, since I know little to nothing about this hoped-for agreement, but I kept looking to see China mentioned and they weren't. Were they invited to join in these talks and declined, or were they not invited for some reason, since maybe they have their own agreements in place?


Good evening, Polgara.:2wave:
China was excluded. The TPP is important to Asia's other countries as an anchor for the U.S. as a counterweight to China.
 
Good evening, Polgara.:2wave:
China was excluded. The TPP is important to Asia's other countries as an anchor for the U.S. as a counterweight to China.

Ah, that makes sense! :thumbs: Thank you. Should make for an unusually interesting Summer! :mrgreen:
 
I can't believe the forum is against this job outsourcing bonanza! Why won't you all think of the poor Chinese laborers who need your jobs!
 
"Targeting civilians with nukes" saved hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions of lives. Another principle of mine.

How many times must you remind me that targeting civilians in warfare is a deeply held principle of yours. :roll:
 
Looking at what something actually is as opposed to accepting it blindly because of what it is called is not pedantry. I am sorry you are so easily gulled.

He said, it's free enough for him, lol.
 
I accept the real world definition on the basis of which real people make real decisions.

Of course because only corporate executives and industry lobbyists are "real people". Your arrogant and elitist attitude toward the people that at least use to make the **** that gives you your cushy life has never been disguised.
 
Good evening, Jack. :2wave:

The link was very interesting reading, since I know little to nothing about this hoped-for agreement, but I kept looking to see China mentioned and they weren't. Were they invited to join in these talks and declined, or were they not invited for some reason, since maybe they have their own agreements in place?

Howdy Polgara. Foreign affairs, not to be confused with the Council. No, of course China isn't invited to the talks. The fool hearty move by the US has been containment of China. This agreement started years ago with four PRC's and the US only joined it to take the lead in 2009. You can think of TPP as an economic NATO of the pacific, designed to bind PRC's to the US, effectively blocking China out. In reality, USFP which neocons regularly criticize, because you must criticize Obama if your a right winger, is in all actuality supported by right wingers no mater who's in power because of the scant difference in the policies of the two parties, but what you're seeing, as you and I have, I think, agreed upon in the past, is driving both Russia and China closer together. Of the three senators that have gone to the "secret" room and read the draft, Sanders, Warren and the third name escapes me at present, if you listen to their comments on it, you'll get a better understanding from them than you will from Jack, who has criticized another poster for commenting on the agreements negatives when he hasn't even read it, all the while that he supports it when in fact he hasn't read it either, lol. Surely you can see the conflict in a Republican Party that doesn't trust Obama to tell them the truth when they ask him what time it is, to being perfectly willing to give him "decider" authority on this trade deal, at the very same time that his party is steadfastly against it.

Put another way. If Bush was pushing TPP, and his party was against it, and the democrats wanted to give Bush sole authority to negotiate trade deals without congressional oversight, would you be skeptical of it. Oh, and then add to that that of the 28 committees in America that are secretly negotiating this trade deal, 85% of them are corporate executives and industry lobbyists! and add to that that there are churches, environmental groups, and labor unions against it. There really are reasons to be sceptic all of this treaty. And, just like NAFTA was negotiated by the George H. W. Bush administration, and signed into law by Clinton, this agreement is being pushed by the right, and likely will be signed into law by Obama!!!!!!
 
Last edited:
I can't believe the forum is against this job outsourcing bonanza! Why won't you all think of the poor Chinese laborers who need your jobs!

China is not a party to the TPP. Learn first, then post.
 
Good evening, Jack. :2wave:

The link was very interesting reading, since I know little to nothing about this hoped-for agreement, but I kept looking to see China mentioned and they weren't. Were they invited to join in these talks and declined, or were they not invited for some reason, since maybe they have their own agreements in place?

This piece will provide more insight: TPP, China And The Future Of Global Trade Order
 
Howdy Polgara. Foreign affairs, not to be confused with the Council. No, of course China isn't invited to the talks. The fool hearty move by the US has been containment of China. This agreement started years ago with four PRC's and the US only joined it to take the lead in 2009. You can think of TPP as an economic NATO of the pacific, designed to bind PRC's to the US, effectively blocking China out. In reality, USFP which neocons regularly criticize, because you must criticize Obama if your a right winger, is in all actuality supported by right wingers no mater who's in power because of the scant difference in the policies of the two parties, but what you're seeing, as you and I have, I think, agreed upon in the past, is driving both Russia and China closer together. Of the three senators that have gone to the "secret" room and read the draft, Sanders, Warren and the third name escapes me at present, if you listen to their comments on it, you'll get a better understanding from them than you will from Jack, who has criticized another poster for commenting on the agreements negatives when he hasn't even read it, all the while that he supports it when in fact he hasn't read it either, lol. Surely you can see the conflict in a Republican Party that doesn't trust Obama to tell them the truth when they ask him what time it is, to being perfectly willing to give him "decider" authority on this trade deal, at the very same time that his party is steadfastly against it.

Put another way. If Bush was pushing TPP, and his party was against it, and the democrats wanted to give Bush sole authority to negotiate trade deals without congressional oversight, would you be skeptical of it. Oh, and then add to that that of the 28 committees in America that are secretly negotiating this trade deal, 85% of them are corporate executives and industry lobbyists! and add to that that there are churches, environmental groups, and labor unions against it. There really are reasons to be sceptic all of this treaty. And, just like NAFTA was negotiated by the George H. W. Bush administration, and signed into law by Clinton, this agreement is being pushed by the right, and likely will be signed into law by Obama!!!!!!

Good morning, Montecresto. :2wave:

I have no problem with any country on this planet maneuvering to get the best business deal for themself - things wouldn't be normal otherwise, so I expect that! However, when Senator Warren publically butted heads with Obama on this pending agreement, when they are from the same party, it did cause a strong "uh oh" alarm to ring in my mind. Then when Obama got on TV and called Warren "wrong," I thought WTH is going on!

When I read what Jack had posted, which was the first time I had seen any particulars on this deal, my first thought was "where is China?," which is why I queried him on that. His response did make sense to me, since my entire working life has been in the business world, and I have first hand knowledge on how business is conducted. I understand why we would try to "contain" China, as you described it, but China is not Bangledesh or some other little backward country. They are a huge world economy, and growing, which is why the IMF will probably grant them "favored nation status," if rumor is correct. It will remain to be seen what their next move might be in responding to this, since they hold over a trillion dollars of our debt, and that makes me uneasy.

Like I said, it's shaping up to be a long hot Summer in a lot of ways, Monte! :mrgreen:
 

Good morning, donsutherland1. :2wave:

Thank you for posting that link! :thumbs: It looks like there are a lot of cross-currents and competing interests in place here, and I too wonder why the WTO isn't involved, instead of what seems to be taking place. It will be interesting to watch how all this plays out! China has over a billion cell-phone users, as an example, so they aren't a rinky-dink little player on the world stage, and I can't think they would appreciate efforts to marginalize them - we wouldn't, and they are as important on the world stage as we are! If they decide to join in on this agreement, would, or could, they be told "no," as South Korea apparently was for some reason, without financial repercussions, mainly to our country, since it appears we are taking the lead on this? Puzzling....
 
“A multilateral deal [like Doha] (within the existing WTO framework) is the most cost-effective legal framework available to ensure non-discriminatory trading terms for all, in particular for the smallest and poorest groups,” writes Shuaihua Cheng, managing director of ICTSD China, International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development. “It is fundamentally essential to foster inclusive globalization, without which abject poverty gives rise to terrorism and crime.”
 
“A multilateral deal [like Doha] (within the existing WTO framework) is the most cost-effective legal framework available to ensure non-discriminatory trading terms for all, in particular for the smallest and poorest groups,” writes Shuaihua Cheng, managing director of ICTSD China, International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development. “It is fundamentally essential to foster inclusive globalization, without which abject poverty gives rise to terrorism and crime.”

Agreed. TPP is a step in that direction.
 
Good morning, donsutherland1. :2wave:

Thank you for posting that link! :thumbs: It looks like there are a lot of cross-currents and competing interests in place here, and I too wonder why the WTO isn't involved, instead of what seems to be taking place. It will be interesting to watch how all this plays out! China has over a billion cell-phone users, as an example, so they aren't a rinky-dink little player on the world stage, and I can't think they would appreciate efforts to marginalize them - we wouldn't, and they are as important on the world stage as we are! If they decide to join in on this agreement, would, or could, they be told "no," as South Korea apparently was for some reason, without financial repercussions, mainly to our country, since it appears we are taking the lead on this? Puzzling....

A combination of factors is probably responsible including:

1. The TPP will likely be easier to conclude than the larger Doha round, as the differences between developed and developing countries has remained quite large in the Doha Round.
2. The TPP would provide concrete substance that the U.S. is going to remain an integral player in Asia.
3. The TPP, at least from what has been reported, will likely be an open architecture agreement, meaning that China and other countries could join at some later date.
 
I'm all for free trade. The way I look at it is two parties do not trade unless both parties benefit so why limit freedom. What the U.S. needs to do is to change the tax code to lower the cost on job creation, preferably down to zero.
 
A combination of factors is probably responsible including:

1. The TPP will likely be easier to conclude than the larger Doha round, as the differences between developed and developing countries has remained quite large in the Doha Round.
2. The TPP would provide concrete substance that the U.S. is going to remain an integral player in Asia.
3. The TPP, at least from what has been reported, will likely be an open architecture agreement, meaning that China and other countries could join at some later date.

All those things could be true, you don't know though. But even if they are, that doesn't necessitate any benefits to the American work force.
 
As is your lack of knowledge, supporting a thing that you haven't even seen, I'm laughing a little, pardon me.

I support the principle; that's enough. Draft treaties are always confidential; that helps all negotiators. Were you unaware of that?
 
All those things could be true, you don't know though. But even if they are, that doesn't necessitate any benefits to the American work force.

I was just explaining why the U.S. has placed emphasis on the TPP as opposed to relying strictly on the Doha Round. The actual terms of the agreement will determine the trade-offs. Almost certainly, some companies and industries will be worse off, while others will be better off. But if the agreement is well-crafted, the mutual benefits to the various parties should exceed the costs; effective trade liberalization deals leverage the countries' comparative advantages leading to net overall benefits. Finally, at least IMO, there should be some kind of approach e.g., financing for training, etc., to mitigate the transition for adversely-impacted workers.
 
http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/WarrenReport.pdf

seems Elizabeth Warren is taking it to Obama. in the cited report, she shows that Obama, like dubya and clinton, is not enforcing the very provisions of the present free trade agreements that the president insists should not alarm US labor

The promises that the Obama Administration
is making about the TPP are not new. For over two
decades, American Presidents from both political
parties have promised that the trade agreements
negotiated by their Administration would put
American workers first. From NAFTA and CAFTA
to the recent deals with Peru, Colombia, Panama and
South Korea, proponents of these trade agreements
have – again, and again, and again - made nearly
identical promises.
... U.S. agencies reported, and GAO
found, persistent challenges to labor
rights, such as limited enforcement
capacity, the use of subcontracting
to avoid direct employment, and,
in Colombia and Guatemala,
violence against union leaders.
... The United States does not enforce the labor
protections in its trade agreements.
... The U.S. pursues very few enforcement actions.
... Widespread labor-related human rights
violations.
... Failure to curb even the worst abuses. ... Guatemala was named
“the most dangerous country in the world for
trade unionists” five years after entering a trade
agreement with the U.S. In Colombia, despite
the existence of a special “Labor Action Plan”
put in place to address long-standing problems
and secure passage of the Colombia FTA, 105
union activists have been murdered and 1,337
death threats have been issued since the Labor
Action Plan was finalized four years ago. ...

ok Obama, your turn. tell us what Liz got wrong
 
I was just explaining why the U.S. has placed emphasis on the TPP as opposed to relying strictly on the Doha Round. The actual terms of the agreement will determine the trade-offs. Almost certainly, some companies and industries will be worse off, while others will be better off. But if the agreement is well-crafted, the mutual benefits to the various parties should exceed the costs; effective trade liberalization deals leverage the countries' comparative advantages leading to net overall benefits. Finally, at least IMO, there should be some kind of approach e.g., financing for training, etc., to mitigate the transition for adversely-impacted workers.

Well that's the point. It's just hard for me to believe that it will be, given that those negotiators, which compose the 28 committees, are 85% corporate executives and industry lobbyists. That it's supported largely by the Republican Party, the Chamber of Commerce and big business, while it's opposed by labor unions, church's, environmental advocacy groups and largely, the Democratic Party. I'm sorry, but there's just really something troubling about that.
 
Last edited:
Even if a member of Congress were to hunker down and pore over a draft trade agreement hundreds of pages long, filled with technical jargon and confusing cross-references –- what good would it do? Just sitting down and reading the agreement isn’t going to make its content sink in.

For any senator who wants to study the draft TPP language, it has been made available in the basement of the Capitol, inside a secured, soundproof room. There, lawmakers surrender their cellphones and other mobile devices and sit under the watchful gaze of an official from the U.S. Trade Representative’s office while they peruse the pages. Any notes taken inside the room must be left in the room.

Only aides with high-level security clearances can accompany lawmakers. Members of Congress can’t ask outside industry experts or lawyers to analyze the language. They can’t talk to the public about what they read. And Brown says there’s no computer inside the secret room to look something up when there’s confusion. You just consult the USTR official.

http://www.truthdig.com/eartothegro...ated_by_sen_warrens_critiques_of_tpp_20150514

This is utter bull**** that only morons, or people who have some personal advantage by it, would support. Sorry if that offends the sensitivities of any.
 
Last edited:
Well that's the point. It's just hard for me to believe that it will be given that those negotiators, which compose the 28 committees, are 85% corporate executives and industry lobbyists. That it's supported largely by the Republican Party, the Chamber of Commerce and big business, while it's opposed by labor unions, church's, environmental advocacy groups and largely, the Democratic Party. I'm sorry, but there's just really something troubling about that.

Supported by the knowledgeable, opposed by the ignorant.
 
Back
Top Bottom