- 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.
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.
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.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??
it has to be voted on, but they prolly will.. I like this quote:They probably gave him fast track right?
I don't have the source, but that says it all :shock: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."
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.
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:
Because Obama is just another centrist Democrat just like Clinton... Not the left wing radical many of you played him out to be.
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-TrackYou 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.
Hahahaahahahahaha..........Obamacare ain't centrist.
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?
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.
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.
Uh, no, Clinton signed NAFTA.
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.
North American Free Trade Agreement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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.
Okay we're going to flip-flop and now argue for income inequality in this case?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) 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.(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.
So you gonna blame Bush for this one, too?
Why is Obama championing it?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?