TPP

[KAPA]

Trump is against it, Emails was for it a few years ago but seems to be against it now even though she has not said much on it. She is also expected to flip flop on it after the election.

I have researched it a little and my take away is it is basically like NAFTA for the pacific rim. Does not sound like it will increase jobs here in America but will actually eliminate some/many. I am sure this can be argued but I think Trump has it right here and the people of America will end up with the short straw if this thing gets passed.

Any thoughts here? Trying to find concrete info on this thing is tough, it seems to be anyone's guess what will actually happen.

[Grant H.]

From my reading on it, a while back, it was a bad deal for the US.

I'll be honest and say I haven't kept up with it, so if it has been changed, I don't know how it was changed.

[Great-Kazoo]

https://www.ar-15.co/forums/90-Legislation-amp-Politics

[Rumline]

I know Mark Levin is against all the "protectionist crap" (tariffs etc) that both Hillary and Trump are proposing. I haven't heard him articulate why in a meaningful way yet.

Anybody have links to good articles for or against?

[CS1983]

https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2016/06/levin-and-brat-expose-cronies-and-destructive-protectionist-tariffs

But, Levin and Brat are wrong about Tariffs being bad. Instead, what should be done is both solutions. Make it harder for foreign countries (cough, China) to sell their crap here and make it easier for America companies to make their hopefully-not-crap here.

The problem with free market purists like Brat is that the government does have a duty to protect the common good, of which, protecting the internal function of the economy is a part and tariffs assist.

"The fact is, Levin explained, that tariffs hurt American consumers. For example, back in the 1930s, Congress passed the Smoot-Hawley tariff bill, raising tariffs on goods from countries around the world. It led to retaliatory tariffs from American trading partners and actually contributed to the severity of the Great Depression."
https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2016/04/levin-which-goods-should-we-tariff

My question is, are we still in the context of the export model in quantity as we were during that time? If not, then Levin's example is a red herring.


Conservatives are originalists when it comes to their understanding of the Constitution, carefully trying to understand the intent of the founders. However, and for whatever reason, no such scrutiny exists when it comes to the founders and the economy. Fletcher shows how the Founding Fathers were not free traders. He recounts how the second bill signed by President George Washington upon our founding was a bill establishing tariffs. Moreover, he describes that Alexander Hamilton, our first treasury secretary, was a fierce defender of “duties,” tariffs on imports. The nation’s primary source of revenue for 150 years since its founding was tariffs. Why have cheap imports compete with American companies, the founders reasoned. After all, they understood that we had the natural resources, the technology, the labor force and one of the largest consumer markets. Those basic conditions are essentially unchanged today.
http://www.wnd.com/2011/01/247557/

[Jamnanc]

My feeling is that tariffs are silly, but we should reciprocate.

[sellersm]

Let's keep a broader perspective: this is globalism. Period. Ever heard the phrase, "one world government"? TPP is a (big) step on the path... Research it. A lot. It's bad for us. There are many pieces to the globalist puzzle and this is but one of them.

[Aloha_Shooter]

IMO, the original conception of NAFTA was done to push the philosophy of free trade (something I'm generally in favor of) and it was more or less structured that way while TPP is solely an invention of the international financiers and is designed strictly for their benefit. The problem with NAFTA was that they didn't (arguably couldn't) foresee how some people would exploit it or what would happen with the dot com bubble and housing bubble. That's a failure of imagination in the same way as the Apollo 1 fire while TPP is more like the decision to launch Challenger on a day that broke all flight safety rules.

[HoneyBadger]

It's basically anti-capitalist globalism trash. Why was it so secretive? Why is our government making secret deals with other countries that we are not allowed to know about?

[Ronin13]

It's basically anti-capitalist globalism trash. Why was it so secretive? Why is our government making secret deals with other countries that we are not allowed to know about?

Like their motto goes, "We have to pass it to see what's in it." Something tells me they don't even know all of the in's and out's of this agreement.

[DavieD55]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KseYnvYgxiI#t=189

[roberth]

DavieD55 - thanks for posting that up - the first 3 minutes will tell anyone why TPP is a bad idea

[DavieD55]

DavieD55 - thanks for posting that up - the first 3 minutes will tell anyone why TPP is a bad idea


https://througharosetintedlens.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/wpid-facebook_-1855422551.jpg

http://izquotes.com/quotes-pictures/quote-whenever-the-people-are-well-informed-they-can-be-trusted-with-their-own-government-that-whenever-thomas-jefferson-240490.jpg

[roberth]

Yup, knowledge is king. The reason we're in this fix is because some idiot decided that feelings were more important than knowledge.

[BladesNBarrels]

It will be of little avail to the people that the laws are made by men of their own choice if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood.
James Madison 1778

[TheGrey]

Here's the link to the full text of the TPP. Be sure you've got food, water, and someone to check on you every couple of days. It's over 5000 pages.

https://ustr.gov/trade-agreements/free-trade-agreements/trans-pacific-partnership/TPP-Full-Text

[DavieD55]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n1D_nCtxemQ

[sellersm]

Check out the ISDS part of the TPP. Remember the movie, "Rollerball"? Yup, it's coming soon with the TPP...

http://www.aflcio.org/Blog/Political-Action-Legislation/What-s-ISDS-in-the-TPP-Very-Scary

And this article: http://www.thecommonsenseshow.com/2016/08/12/tpp-corporations-will-replace-nations-according-leaked-document/


If a corporation feels that a government has impeded its ability to maximize profits, a suit is filed, outside the country being sued, and the case will be heard by an arbitration panel of trade lawyers, in a jurisdiction totally of the corporation’s choosing. Under ISDS, the dispute panel may only consider the ‘free trade’ values of the case. No other factors may be considered when deciding the case. This means that these corporate panels must disregard values of public health, civil liberties, environmental protection, or the rights of workers (e.g. working conditions) or any other Constitutionally protected liberties.

And a YouTube explaining the EU-US trade 'deal':

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=spBdTcaY3_Q

[DireWolf]

I posted about this a couple years ago when I first heard about it on a foreign new station across the pond (seems to have been in the works for a while), but didn't get much traction then either....Definitely not a good thing (especially for us)....

Sent from my SM-N920T using Tapatalk

[Rhino0427]

As an economic policy, specialization makes a lot of sense. Look at Walmart and cheap Chinese products. If a country can produce a good faster and cheaper than can be done here, then it allows our economy to focus on other things (they make our toasters, we make their iPhones). On a smaller scale, this is one of the key principles that allowed the Union to win the civil war. A diversified, specialized economy can adapt and produce more than one based on individual, broad-spectrum production. That is just an idea from an economic standpoint and has nothing to do with sovereignty and home control of economic policies and regulations. Based on the last 7 years of the Obama administration and their many, many foreign policy victories, [ROFL2] I have no doubt that there are massive initiatives built into the TPP that would erode US sovereignty and rule of law.

[Aloha_Shooter]

The problem with your thesis Rhino is that the US is currently specializing only in stupidity. The PRC is producing BOTH your toaster and iPhone and we're giving them all our IP to manufacture more of it. The self-appointed elitists fool themselves into thinking we are still making stuff because they spend tons of money on "craftsman" items but it leaves the vast bulk of the populace underemployed and dependent on government "assistance".

The dream of the globalists was that these networks of treaties and international agreements would make nations so interdependent that it would eliminate war. We've seen how well that thesis worked over the past 2 decades. So now we get loss of sovreignty to international bureaucrats and lawyers AND continual war. Lovely.

[Rhino0427]

You're not wrong...keep in mind, I only put forward the position that specialization works. When you add in the political manipulation of the system and the proactive initiative to harm your own economy in the process, then you have what we have now. A government actively trying to destroy this country inside and out.


The problem with your thesis Rhino is that the US is currently specializing only in stupidity. The PRC is producing BOTH your toaster and iPhone and we're giving them all our IP to manufacture more of it. The self-appointed elitists fool themselves into thinking we are still making stuff because they spend tons of money on "craftsman" items but it leaves the vast bulk of the populace underemployed and dependent on government "assistance".

The dream of the globalists was that these networks of treaties and international agreements would make nations so interdependent that it would eliminate war. We've seen how well that thesis worked over the past 2 decades. So now we get loss of sovreignty to international bureaucrats and lawyers AND continual war. Lovely.

[DavieD55]

Obama puts Congress on notice: TPP is coming



By Adam Behsudi

08/12/16 10:23 AM EDT

The White House put Congress on notice Friday morning that it will be sending lawmakers a bill to implement President Barack Obama’s landmark Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement — a move intended to infuse new energy into efforts to ratify the flat-lining trade pact.

The move establishes a 30-day minimum before the administration can present the legislation, but the White House is unlikely to do so amid the heated rhetoric of a presidential campaign in which both major party nominees have depicted free trade deals as massive job killers.

Friday's notification is the clearest signal yet that the White House is serious about getting Obama’s legacy trade deal — the biggest in U.S. history — passed by the end of the year, as he has vowed to do despite the misgivings of Republican leaders and the outright opposition of a majority of Democrats in Congress.

Striking a defiant tone, Obama predicted at a press conference last week that the economic centerpiece of his strategic pivot to Asia would pass in the lame-duck session, saying he’d like to sit down with lawmakers after the election to discuss the "actual facts" behind the deal, rather than toss it around like a "political football."

"We are part of a global economy. We're not reversing that," Obama said, describing the necessity of international supply chains and the importance of the export sector to U.S. jobs and the economy. "The notion that we're going to pull that up root and branch is unrealistic."

The notification, a new requirement of the trade promotion authority legislation Congress passed last year to expedite passage of the Asia-Pacific pact, is “meant to ensure early consultations between the administration and Congress,” Matt McAlvanah, a spokesman for the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, said in a statement. “As such, the draft SAA [Statement of Administrative Action] was sent today in order to continue to promote transparency and collaboration in the TPP process.”

The White House's draft document describes the major steps the administration will take to implement any changes to U.S. law required by the deal. Those actions range from the mundane — designating an administration point of contact for communications about the pact — to the complex — setting up procedures to stop harmful surges of agricultural or textile imports.

But the deal is going nowhere until the White House addresses a number of concerns lawmakers have raised about the trade agreement, which Canada, Mexico, Japan and eight other countries joined the United States in signing last February.

First and foremost: satisfying the concerns of Senate Finance Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) and other lawmakers about protections for a new class of drugs known as biologics. They say the pact provides too short a monopoly period for rights to research and development data. Other lawmakers have complained the deal would bar tobacco companies from seeking redress through investor-state dispute arbitrage for damages resulting from country regulations. Still others are seeking assurances that member countries will abide to their commitments to provide access for U.S. pork and dairy exports.

Until these issues are resolved, House Speaker Paul Ryan and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell have made clear that the pact will not get the votes it needs to pass.

Ryan's spokeswoman, AshLee Strong, reiterated the point on Friday.

“As Speaker Ryan has stated for months, there are problems that remain with the administration’s TPP deal, and there can be no movement before these concerns are addressed," she said.

Democrats, meanwhile, have largely called the deal a nonstarter over concerns about the enforceability of labor and environmental standards in countries like Vietnam and the lack of strong protections against currency manipulation.

The administration claims it is making progress on these issues and has resolved others, including banking industry concerns over the exclusion of financial data from rules prohibiting countries from requiring local storage.

But that doesn’t change the reality of the down-ballot drag that candidates are facing as they campaign back home in their districts. In a reversal from years past, many Republicans are on the defensive about their support for free trade because of Donald Trump’s daily tirades about what he characterizes as the serious economic damage wrought by trade agreements like the North American Free Trade Agreement and the TPP as well as his complaints that China is flouting international trade rules.

The Republican platform picked up on this theme, saying significant trade deals "should not be rushed or undertaken in a Lame Duck Congress."

The small band of Democrats who the administration hopes will support the TPP are facing increased pressure within their own party to abandon the president on the agreement. Sens. Bernie Sanders’ and Elizabeth Warren’s strong condemnations of the trade deal have forced Hillary Clinton, who supported the TPP as Obama’s secretary of state, to reject the pact to appease the liberal wing.

"I will stop any trade deal that kills jobs or holds down wages, including the Trans-Pacific Partnership," Clinton said during an economic policy speech at an automotive manufacturing plant in Warren, Mich., on Thursday. "I oppose it now, I'll oppose it after the election and I'll oppose it as president."

Clinton’s clear rejection of the trade deal has emboldened liberal groups like the Warren-aligned Progressive Change Campaign Committee to launch a campaign to press Democrats to publicly oppose a TPP vote in the lame duck.

Sanders also called on Democratic congressional leaders to go on record against the White House’s effort to get the deal done by the end of the year, saying the agreement is opposed by every trade union and the grassroots base of the Democratic Party.

"I am disappointed by the president's decision to continue pushing forward on the disastrous Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement that will cost American jobs, harm the environment, increase the cost of prescription drugs and threaten our ability to protect public health,” the Vermont senator said in a statement after learning of the White House's action on Friday.

Meanwhile, the administration continues to press the deal in key congressional districts — especially those of Democrats who supported the trade promotion authority bill last year.

Interior Secretary Sally Jewell returned to her hometown of Seattle last month to tout the TPP’s potential effects on the environment at a Washington Council on International Trade event with more than 150 business leaders.

Then, last week, Commerce Secretary Penny Pritzker hit the San Diego and Boulder districts of Reps. Susan Davis and Jared Polis — two of the 28 House Democrats that voted for the bill — and visited a steel plant in Cleveland to promote the TPP. Treasury Secretary Jack Lew did the same when he met with local and state officials and Fortune 500 business executives in Minneapolis.

On Thursday, Undersecretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere Kathryn Sullivan spoke at a Seattle clean energy business roundtable focused on the TPP and the environment. And this Monday, Deputy U.S. Trade Representative Robert Holleyman will participate in a World Affairs Council of Atlanta discussion on the trade deal featuring former Republican Sen. Saxby Chambliss and UPS CEO David Abney.

As the political fight plays out, the nuts-and-bolts process of moving the deal forward will continue. Once Congress reviews the draft notification that the White House submitted on Friday, the administration can move forward with sending lawmakers a final statement and the draft of the implementing bill itself. The legislation will describe the actual changes to U.S. law to comply with the rules of the trade agreement.

After that, the Senate Finance and House Ways and Means committees could hold “mock markups” of the bill (because under trade promotion authority, Congress is not actually allowed to tinker with the agreement or its implementing legislation itself, but it can ask the administration to do so).

But given the tenor of the elections, the entire process could be pushed into a crowded lame-duck legislation session, which would mean no time for the mock markups. Instead, there could be a lot of deal-making between the White House and congressional leadership to move the bill before Clinton or Trump takes over on Jan. 20.

Obama said last week that he’s ready to press his case. "Right now, I'm president, and I'm for it. And I think I've got the better argument," he said.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/obama-congress-trade-warning-226952

[sellersm]

Well, since O has turned over the control of the internet to the globalists as of October 1st, we'll never know what happens to this TPP thing. Oh, and on a side note, keep a very keen eye on Thailand as this TPP is implemented...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ioZvAlQyFc

[liberty19]

The TPP is bad for America and Americans. We will lose more sovereignty and freedom because of it. Like an earlier poster mentioned, it is another NAFTA.

[Great-Kazoo]

The TPP is bad for America and Americans. We will lose more sovereignty and freedom because of it. Like an earlier poster mentioned, it is another NAFTA.

I wish Trump hammers Hills over her NAFTA support as well as her many flipflops regarding the TPP and Iraq