The Trans-Pacific Partnership

[Padawanbater2]

"The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) is a controversial proposed trade agreement among twelve Pacific Rim countries concerning a variety of matters of economic policy, about which agreement was reached on 5 October 2015 after 7 years of negotiations. The agreement's goal had been to "promote economic growth; support the creation and retention of jobs; enhance innovation, productivity and competitiveness; raise living standards; reduce poverty in our countries; and promote transparency, good governance, and enhanced labor and environmental protections." Among other things, the TPP Agreement contains measures to lower trade barriers such as tariffs, and establish an investor-state dispute settlement mechanism (but states can opt out from tobacco related measures). The United States government has considered the TPP as the companion agreement to the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), a broadly similar agreement between the United States and the European Union.

Historically, the TPP is an expansion of the Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership Agreement (TPSEP or P4), which was signed by Brunei, Chile, New Zealand, and Singapore in 2005. Beginning in 2008, additional countries joined the discussion for a broader agreement: Australia, Canada, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, Peru, the United States, and Vietnam, bringing the total number of participating countries in the negotiations to twelve.

Participating nations aimed at completing negotiations in 2012, but contentious issues such as agriculture, intellectual property, and services and investments caused negotiations to continue. They finally reached agreement on 5 October 2015.[9] Implementing the TPP has been one of the trade agenda goals of the Obama administration in the US. On 5 October 2015 Canadian prime minister Stephen Harper expected "the full text of the agreement to be released in the next few days, with signatures on the finalized text and deal early in the new year, and ratification over the next two years." A version of the text of the treaty "Subject to Legal Review (...) for Accuracy, Clarity and Consistency" was made public on 5 November 2015.

A number of global health professionals, internet freedom activists, environmentalists, organised labour, advocacy groups, and elected officials have criticized and protested against the treaty, in large part because of the secrecy of negotiations, the agreement's expansive scope, and controversial clauses in drafts leaked to the public."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Pacific_Partnership
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Free_Trade_Agreement#Impact

So, what do you think? Are trade agreements like NAFTA and the TPP good for America? Why/why not?

 

[Not GOP]

In 2012 Hillary said this deal was the "gold standard" of trade deals, to opposing it in 2015
on her TPP flip-flop, here's how Clinton explained the "new information" that changed her mind:

"I did say, when I was secretary of state, three years ago, that I hoped it would be the gold standard. It was just finally negotiated last week, and in looking at it, it didn't meet my standards. My standards for more new, good jobs for Americans, for raising wages for Americans."

Hmm. What exactly was the new information she acquired and how did it not meet her "standards"? We don't know — and her standards for "more new, good jobs for Americans" are, it goes without saying, totally subjective and amorphous. Remember, too, that when Clinton referred to TPP as the "gold standard" in 2012 -- she never said she "hoped" it would be; she said it was -- and she insisted that it would "open free, transparent, fair trade, the kind of environment that has the rule of law and a level playing field. And when negotiated, this agreement will cover 40 percent of the world's total trade and build in strong protections for workers and the environment."

What changed her view? Why? How? When? We don't know — and in the absence of that knowledge, it sure looks like political expedience.
​

 

[Padawanbater2]

In 2012 Hillary said

I'm not much interested in what "Hillary said".

Why don't you tell me what you think, instead?

 

[Not GOP]

I'm not much interested in what "Hillary said".

Why don't you tell me what you think, instead?

I think Hillary got it right the second time. "it didn't meet my standards. My standards for more new, good jobs for Americans, for raising wages for Americans." I also think that she will say anything to get elected

 

[Padawanbater2]

I think Hillary got it right the second time. "it didn't meet my standards. My standards for more new, good jobs for Americans, for raising wages for Americans." I also think that she will say anything to get elected

Why doesn't it meet your standards for raising wages for Americans?

Why do you only care about raising wages for Americans when it seems to suit your hatred for democrats?

Shouldn't your political ideology be about raising wages for Americans because that's the best thing for American citizens?

Why does it seem like you only care about raising American wages when it suits your "NOT GOP" perspective?

Bernie Sanders supports actually raising American wages, can you tell me which republican candidate supports raising the minimum wage?

Which republican candidate supports womens rights? Minorities rights? The non religious? LGBT? No? Crickets?

Exactly. None of them do because they want to lose the 2016 general election and paint their idiot supports as fools

 

[Not GOP]

Why doesn't it meet your standards for raising wages for Americans?

Why do you only care about raising wages for Americans when it seems to suit your hatred for democrats?

Shouldn't your political ideology be about raising wages for Americans because that's the best thing for American citizens?

Why does it seem like you only care about raising American wages when it suits your "NOT GOP" perspective?

Bernie Sanders supports actually raising American wages, can you tell me which republican candidate supports raising the minimum wage?

Which republican candidate supports womens rights? Minorities rights? The non religious? LGBT? No? Crickets?

Exactly. None of them do because they want to lose the 2016 general election and paint their idiot supports as fools

Look you mouth breathing marxist. I understand you don't like me, and that's fine because we have nothing in common.
But you just asked me 10 questions in response to me wanting jobs for Americans. You're trying way too hard bro. Try and contain yourself a little bit.

Trump supports more jobs for Americans. His tax plan will bring jobs back to the US, and prevent other countries from taking advantage of us. Like how they are doing now. China, Japan, Mexico...

 

[FauxRoux]

Hey ....Not GOP....over the few threads I've seen YOU are the 1 clearly getting worked up ....about Hillery mostly...which is funny cause she's never the topic when you bring her up. Then you accuse others of being upset in some vain attempt to throw off their annoyance at your A.D.D. fox news regurgitations. Mostly when prompted to back up your points with facts.

He asked you 10 questions huh? So other then "duhhhh...trump=win!" Which isn't an answer so much as a statement, why don't you express your opinion with some actual info behind it.

What about trumps tax plan makes sense to you? Why?

 

[FauxRoux]

Also if padawanbater is the antagonist here how come you followed him to his own new thread to continue bitching about Hillery? Shes not the topic here

 

[Padawanbater2]

Look you mouth breathing marxist. I understand you don't like me, and that's fine because we have nothing in common.
But you just asked me 10 questions in response to me wanting jobs for Americans. You're trying way too hard bro. Try and contain yourself a little bit.

Trump supports more jobs for Americans. His tax plan will bring jobs back to the US, and prevent other countries from taking advantage of us. Like how they are doing now. China, Japan, Mexico...

"blah blah blah TRUMP!" doesn't do it for me, sorry buddy..

Are you unable to answer a few simple questions?

I asked you why the TPP doesn't meet your standards for raising American wages?

Are you unable to put your response in your own words? Do you need Hillary Clinton to articulate it for you..?

Or how about your opposition to raising American wages?

LGBT, atheists/agnostics constitutional rights?

No? Nothing?

 

[Not GOP]

With Trump, The tax code would be simplified to four brackets and ensure that no one, repeat that, NO ONE in America would pay more than 25% of their income in federal taxes. The death tax would be eliminated, and businesses would pay 15% or less in corporate taxes. Businesses currently pay 35% or more! A 20% + savings could skyrocket economic growth and create that thing we need most desperately… jobs. For those of you who’ve not researched the Laffer Curve, it’s worth a look. Trump’s also offering a tax discount to businesses to bring their money back into the US. Credit where due – this is a good plan. A really good plan that, if it works as outlined, would actually benefit all Americans.

Bernie Sanders wants to take your money and give it to somebody else. Have a business? Bernie Sanders wants to take your money and give it to somebody else. Save a lot of money and invest it to create wealth for your family? Bernie wants to take your money and give it to somebody else. He plans to raise estate taxes, financial transaction taxes, social security taxes, tax dividends and capital gains.

Bernie Sanders wants to raise your taxes and taxes on businesses forcing more jobs overseas. Donald Trump wants to cut your taxes and incentivize businesses to bring more jobs back to the USA. Simple as that.

 

[FauxRoux]

Trump wants to lower taxes for the rich and for Corporations (cant imagine why) While Bernie believes that everyone should pay their fair share because without taxes we cant function as a society.
Whats that you say? With Bernie's plan the average Millionaire cant afford that second Porsche?!?! say it aint so!

And didn't George W. also drop taxes? Cause he created soooo many jobs .....also the way he brought all that money into the economy?...man...brilliant. Cause I mean hey, the chances of Trump pissing off brown people of any kind and getting us in trouble anywhere by creating US policy solely for the purpose of making profit are slim.

He is after all, eloquent in his brevity.

You want to know what would satisfy both of us? If we put a cap on how much an individual can own...make it more then anyone could really ever reasonable need (and more then almost any of us could make). Say $100 Mill. Everything over that goes towards social welfare and infrastructure. That would take a chunk out of the problem. While im wishing i'll also take a pony and BJ from Emma Stone.

But that would be a mockery of capitalism you say??!!!

Cause lord knows we shouldn't update an outmoded system that only helps about 1% of us, despite all the idiots fighting to make rich men richer.

All for the promise of a few trickles down squirted into the mouth of the waiting........until you open your eyes and realize you've been on your knees for nothing. Its simply not coming.

 

[oldtimer54]

No president......Will ever change the status quo . First of all there will never be a president elected that (THEY) don't want elected. This hasn't been a democracy since the execution of JFK he tried to buck the system.
Big money and corporations took controll of OUR government then and have continued to do so and will continue until there's nothing left........one world government here we come !