General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsTPP. Who is right?
When it comes to the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP),
Even more disconcerting is that it will infringe on U.S. sovereignty. It will result in higher trade deficits and send even more jobs, factories and industries out of the country while simultaneously increasing wealth inequality."
In YOUR opinion, with respect to the above three examples, whose opinion most closely reflects your view with regard to TPP?
Cleita
(75,480 posts)for anyone but large transnational corporations to make money. You can kiss whatever middle class life you have good-by unless you are one of the 1%. I don't know why President Obama thinks this is so great but he listens to the gurus at Goldman Sachs a lot and I think they have convinced him that it will be good for America.
Exactly right.
abelenkpe
(9,933 posts)Did he?
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Starting in the 70s, wages stagnate. They fall a little during the 80s. We sign NAFTA, they shoot up during the 90s, then stagnate again after W's tax cuts.
eridani
(51,907 posts)The slight increase did little but put the brakes on for a couple of years. Average income has been dropping since 1980.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)eridani
(51,907 posts)MisterP
(23,730 posts)because if someone else were endorsing it there'd be opposition instead of kneejerk excuse-making and granting of the benefit of the doubt
enlightenment
(8,830 posts)highlighting different aspects of this abomination, so I can't choose one over the other.
I disagree with the President.
NorthCarolina
(11,197 posts)LWolf
(46,179 posts)Combined, that comes the closest to my view.
whathehell
(29,067 posts)The president is all wrong on this one.
RiverLover
(7,830 posts)Just a little tidbit from an excellent article on TPP:
"Jobs provisions: The TPP revives the decades-old debate over whether trade deals create or kill jobs. In November, 23 mostly Democratic senators, including Wyden, Sherrod Brown, Al Franken, Barbara Boxer, and Kirsten Gillibrand, wrote a letter to the Obama administration expressing their concerns that the TPP could weaken the already fragile employment situation in this country: "Trade when done right should create and preserve good American jobs instead of outsourcing them," they wrote, and urged that the TPP not restrict "Buy American" and "Buy Local" government procurement policies. "These trade agreements are often good for large corporations and not so good for American workers," Brown told Congressional Quarterly in March. The USTR responded, "For every $1 billion in American goods and services that we export to other countries, we know that about 5,500 jobs are supported right here at home."
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/07/trans-pacific-partnership-explainer-free-trade-deal
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)We don't know the negotiating position of the U.S.
NAFT/CAFT were clearly losers ... but I read months ago that a/the sticking point of the negotiations is the U.S.' insistence that the agreement include wage and working condition and environmental protections. If that is the case, I have no/little problem with entering into an agreement with out biggest trade partners.
Also, I have read where the "giving up of state sovereignty is mischaracterized ... just as the "World Court" has no/limited power over the U.S., neither would this trade agreement
kacekwl
(7,017 posts)everything you read. The words World Court and U.S. insistence raise red flags .
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)I will wait for whatever the agreement turns out to be, to be presented to congress for approval or reject. At least, then we have something to form an opinion on.
Brigid
(17,621 posts)I remember NAFTA. I am not buying what Obama is selling.
Ykcutnek
(1,305 posts)The advantages and disadvantages always seem to be blown out of proportion.
So I just take a neutral position.
Art_from_Ark
(27,247 posts)Apparently, Japanese lawmakers have more information about it than their American counterparts. Overall, the Japanese left-wing is against it, the right-wing is for it. It is predicted to end up being nearly a zero-sum game in Japan if it does pass, with lots of small losers (like people involved with growing and processing food), and a few big winners.
kacekwl
(7,017 posts)and Mr.Sanders right as rain.
KoKo
(84,711 posts)for a Long Time!
NorthCarolina
(11,197 posts)Or is he referring to some other group? Amongst Congress critters? I hate these non-specific specifics.
TheKentuckian
(25,026 posts)nationalize the fed
(2,169 posts)and ironically, Obama in 2008
and Mark Weisbrot:
The Trans-Pacific Partnership treaty is the complete opposite of 'free trade'
...In case you were wondering why we had to get this information from WikiLeaks, it's because the draft negotiating texts are kept secret from the public. Even members of the US Congress and their staff have extremely limited access...
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/nov/19/trans-pacific-partnership-corporate-usurp-congress
If it's so good why is it so secret?
NorthCarolina
(11,197 posts)Like "Public Option", such views are/were never intended to survive beyond the campaign. Just populist speak to garner your vote, nothing more. It makes sense though when you think about it.
If Obama had campaigned on
instead of
do you think he could have survived the Democratic Party primaries, let alone won the nomination? Nobody would have bought his populist schtick.
JEB
(4,748 posts)msongs
(67,413 posts)RiverLover
(7,830 posts)And he's not alone, Hillary is one of the many Third Way pushing this.
"...Within the populist Democratic movement, there is a rising tide against once-popular trade deals connecting the U.S. with foreign lands. Clinton has been involved with many of the pacts from her time as first lady, in the Senate and finally, as part of the Obama administration.
Clinton saw herself in the middle of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) during her husbands presidency. She supported deals with Oman, Chile and Singapore during her tenure in the Senate. As secretary of State, she was a chief advocate as talks commenced surrounding the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), one of the largest worldwide deals in recent history...."
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/215817-clinton-vs-warren-where-they-disagree
rurallib
(62,416 posts)for good reason
I'll go with Warren then Sanders. I think Obama's statement is a stretch at best.
DCBob
(24,689 posts)I guess because it would be unfair to them also.
Response to NorthCarolina (Original post)
Nye Bevan This message was self-deleted by its author.
Ilsa
(61,695 posts)Hartmann today: other nations can force a lawsuit of US subsidies to oil companies and other thieves of our tax dollars by claiming we are unfairly giving them a price advantage.
Any thoughts?
RB TexLa
(17,003 posts)DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)It would probably help more of us to understand what you're saying if you went ahead and included the rest of the sentence. From your fragment, it looks like you're not into sovereignty.
RB TexLa
(17,003 posts)the tea party types. But I guess not.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)I won't weep if it falls through, or if it is signed.
bhikkhu
(10,718 posts)It doesn't change much that hasn't already changed. I'd be generally in favor of it as the establishment of a uniform regulatory code, but existing regulations aren't bad. Whether it passes or not, we'll be ok, and its not worth getting too worked up over. Good article.
SamKnause
(13,107 posts)Scuba
(53,475 posts)GeorgeGist
(25,321 posts)The rich will get richer. Labor will get cheaper.