The loss on TPP could be really bad long term

[AngryAmish]

But we will never know since they kept the damn thing secret.

Anyway, since Bush I, the bipartisan US policy on the east is thus, surround China but let her rise. Many of the trade deals goodies would go to places like S Korea, Vietnam, Japan and heck maybe Burma got thrown in there. We are flipping India. Most of the other east asian countries can't stand Chuna for historical reason (as regional hegemon for millenia).

The secrecy was baffling and left the worst thing as the only thing. At least NAFTA was debated - remember Al Gore v that Texas nutter?

I think trade deals are bad as a rule, the Pakistani bricklayer scenario. I would trust Hillary and Obama to do the right thing, but, again, the secrecy was baffling.

[bigwillq]

1. I don't trust Obama or Hillary on anything.

But, as a general rule of mine, I don't really trust any politician.

[cantbeserious]

20. ^^^ THIS ^^^

eom

[woo me with science]

35. [phone]

The extensive record of corporate predation is ample reason not to trust.

[840high]

41. + a zillion

[Binkie The Clown]

2. Peak oil will make global trade a moot point.

Soon enough the cost of shipping cheap goods from China will be higher then the cost making them here at home.

(Cue the peak oil deniers to enter stage left.)

[jwirr]

8. Agree. When we are destroying out planet to get out the last drop of oil it is a good sign that the

end of cheap oil is coming.

[99Forever]

3. Got news for you, buddy:

That "Texas Nutter" was absolutely correct about NAFTA and Gore was absolutely wrong.

Perhaps you don't "remember " quite as well as you think.

[AngryAmish]

4. I agree he was right but he was a nutter.

Remember his daughter's wedding?

[99Forever]

10. What the fuck does his daughters wedding have to do with ANYTHING relevant to my world?

On the other hand, it shows that even a "Texas Nutter" can see that neoliberals are a bunch of bought and paid for scam artists.

[orpupilofnature57]

12. I did . Without that " nutter " George H Bush Sr would

have sold us to the Saudis in the mid 90's .

[Elwood P Dowd]

5. That Texas "nutter was right and Al Gore so wrong that its laughable.

NAFTA opened up the flood gates and since then we've been listening to that "Great Sucking Sound" for 22 years.

[Eleanors38]

11. "That giant sucking sound" is indelibly lodged in my progressive friends' vocabularies.

[okaawhatever]

38. Oh bullshit. I'm so sick of hearing all the lies about NAFTA. I know you don't want to learn the

truth, but here it is. The Congressional Budget Office has done several reports (at the prompting of Democrats). Here is some info for you to peruse. Be careful though, the truth won't support the so-called "progressive" party line. I ignore reports from the Economic Policy Institute as those I discovered were paid for by labor unions and their methodology flawed. I am using only non-biased CBO and The Economist which is a highly respected left leaning journal/magazine. I've also included FactCheck.org's answer to the same question.

CBO: pages 2 & 3 have the pertinent information

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/report_0.pdf

From The Economist: NAFTA 20 Years On

The American and Canadian economies were already pretty well integrated before the creation of NAFTA, so there was no great leap in trade between the two. But America’s trade with Mexico increased by 506% between 1993 and 2012, compared with 279% with non-NAFTA countries. In 2011 America traded as much with Canada and Mexico as it did with the BRIC countries (Brazil, Russia, India, China), Japan and South Korea combined. The “giant sucking sound” that Ross Perot, a presidential candidate, predicted would be heard as Mexico hoovered up American jobs never materialised; if jobs have moved anywhere in the past two decades, they have gone to China, not Mexico. Industries from aerospace to cars have woven supply chains back and forth across North America’s borders. Some 40% of the content of imports from Mexico into the United States, and 25% of the content of imports from Canada, originated in the United States itself. Helped by rising energy production in all three countries, Factory North America is being created (see article).

http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21592612-north-americas-trade-deal-has-delivered-real-benefits-job-not-done-deeper-better

FactCheck.Org:
Q: How many U.S. jobs have been lost since the inception of the North American Free Trade Agreement?
A: Actually, nearly 25 million jobs have been gained. Nearly all economic studies say NAFTA's net effect on jobs was negligible.
FULL QUESTION
How many U.S. jobs have been lost since the inception of the North American Free Trade Agreement?
FULL ANSWER
NAFTA took effect on Jan. 1, 1994. Since that time, the U.S. economy has added just over 25 million jobs, of which nearly 20 million were added under President Clinton, who pushed for ratification of NAFTA and signed the agreement.
This chart shows the growth in total nonfarm employment in the U.S. since NAFTA's inception, as measured by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics:

http://www.factcheck.org/2008/07/naftas-impact-on-employment/

CBO: Summary of 4 Studies

NAFTA had little or no impact on aggregate employment. NAFTA is at
the heart of a long-standing debate over the employment effects of trade because of fears
that trade with developing countries causes U.S. job losses and that trade deficits equate
to higher unemployment. None of the reports attributed changes in aggregate U.S. or
Mexican employment levels to NAFTA, but the author of the first chapter of the Carnegie
study suggests that changing the assumptions of a USITC model would allow for a net
gain in U.S. employment over the past decade of between zero and 270,000 jobs, a small
increase. For Mexico, it concludes that “the sum of the effects of the trade pact to date
has not been a strong net gain in overall employment.” The second chapter (different
author) argues for zero net growth in U.S. jobs. The USITC study demonstrates, contrary
to some popular opinion, that U.S. trade deficits tend to occur during periods of low
unemployment, and “vice versa.” This evidence supports well-established economic
theory that would suggest both the U.S. trade deficit with Mexico and U.S. employment
levels over the past decade were responding to economic growth, not each other.9

http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/34486.pdf

[TheKentuckian]

6. Really hurt how? There isn't a damn thing in there to increase wages, environmental protections,

raise lackluster labor standards, reduce corporate capture and influence, or anything beneficial for American workers. No one even has the gall to pretend such.

[cali]

7. huh? This isn't over. It's just beginning.

Not to mention that China finalized a regional free trade agreement with ten other nations within their sphere of influence, in 2011. Malaysia and Vietnam, the Philippines, Indonesia are all partners.

I don't believe in trusting politicians to do the right thing. I think that's none too swift. I'll use my own brain, thanks very much.

[RiverLover]

15. +1. /nt

[orpupilofnature57]

9. Their " Secrecy " isn't baffling it's become " Business as usual "

Thomas Jefferson said our children would be foreigners in their own country if we let the government be taken over by the " Monied Interests " this might be the final stage of what he was talking about . And my trust for the honesty and " Doing the right thing " of either President Obama and Secretary Clinton has been worn thin .

[Warpy]

13. The secrecy is what killed it, IMO

The secrecy is what pissed off legislators and their constituents, alike, and allowed the conspiracy factory to run overtime.

I know I wondered what the hell they were hiding in there. In addition, every other "free trade" treaty has cost American citizens dearly as the good jobs got shipped overseas and wages have gone into a slump while a few fat cats have turned into potentates, buying up the government.

I don't know if they were hiding things from us or from the potentates. It could be either.

[RiverLover]

16. It's not over, the vote is just delayed

nt

[Warpy]

40. I know, they'll keep on plugging away until they get it

no matter how many tantrums they have to throw.

[Fred Sanders]

14. Correct me if I err.

If TPP is fast tracked pursuant to current law, wouldn't the TPP "secrecy" end instantly?

Would Congress then not openly debate/negotiate/amend/etc. the gruesome details, line by line in the open?

And then when the 60/90 day limit for debate is over, there HAS to be an up or down vote, because if there is no limit there may never be a vote?

And a question in return in thanks for the answers if I erred:

Do folks know why there even is a TPP law "fast track" law, because I think some folks do and those that do I would prefer those answering.

[orpupilofnature57]

17. It can't be amended or debated, Hence " Fast Track " giving authority, as They did in

2001,2002,2008, Between WMD's and Bailouts We should never " Fast Track " anything again .

[Fred Sanders]

18. I do believe that is mainly correct, but the actual TPP, being a revenue bill, still has to be passed by regular process.

Procedure

If the President transmits a fast track trade agreement to Congress, then the majority leaders of the House and Senate or their designees must introduce the implementing bill submitted by the President on the first day on which their House is in session. (19 U.S.C. § 2191(c)(1).) Senators and Representatives may not amend the President’s bill, either in committee or in the Senate or House. (19 U.S.C. § 2191(d).) The committees to which the bill has been referred have 45 days after its introduction to report the bill, or be automatically discharged, and each House must vote within 15 days after the bill is reported or discharged. (19 U.S.C. § 2191(e)(1).)

In the likely case that the bill is a revenue bill (as tariffs are revenues), the bill must originate in the House (see U.S. Const., art I, sec. 7), and after the Senate received the House-passed bill, the Finance Committee would have another 15 days to report the bill or be discharged, and then the Senate would have another 15 days to pass the bill. (19 U.S.C. § 2191(e)(2).) On the House and Senate floors, each Body can debate the bill for no more than 20 hours, and thus Senators cannot filibuster the bill and it will pass with a simple majority vote. (19 U.S.C. § 2191(f)-(g).) Thus the entire Congressional consideration could take no longer than 90 days.

[orpupilofnature57]

24. WOW! Thank You

[RiverLover]

19. No the purpose of fast track is to not allow

any changes or amendments. Just up/down votes. And it would be in place for all trade deals for the next 3-6 years, not just the tpp and tipp. Congress, the people supposedly representing us, won't have a hand in crafting trade deals for all that time.

It will allow US to see the tpp for 2 months before finalized, but it can't be altered at that point.

[Fred Sanders]

21. But as the TPP is a " revenue bill" it still has to be opened up and debated in the Seante....there

would 15 days for negotiations with 20 hours of floor debate, not amendments per se, but negotiations to change the text by agreement.

[cali]

31. hey, river. that's actually only one feature of the TPA

The TPA actually governs how trade agreements are negotiated and lays out requirements of all kinds, so in a very real way, Congress does have a hand, albeit an indirect one, in crafting trade agreements.

[cali]

22. Fail as usual. aargh. that is irrelevant, fred, old boy. I've explained this to you

repeatedly:

THE UNPRECEDENTED SECRECY CAN END RIGHT NOW. THE PRESIDENT DOESN'T NEED THE TPA TO RELEASE THE ALMOST FINISHED TPP TEXT>

Oh, and your last sentence makes no sense, however there is no such thing as a "TPP law "fast track law" There is simply the Trade Promotion Authority legislation which would govern the TPP and all the other FTAs in the USTR pipeline, for the next 6 years until it expires. sheesh.

Maybe you should concern yourself more with the politics of your own country.

[Jesus Malverde]

34. lulz

[savalez]

26. I believe you are correct.

The "secrecy" claim may have been just marketing to cause a stir. My understanding is that only allowing senators to view these things during the bargaining stage is common.

[TheKentuckian]

27. How does any of that matter when the votes aren't there to change the outcome?

Passing fast track for all practical purposes just allows us to be spectators to a slow motion car wreck.

The only possibility after that is fucking absurd as it depends on a significant amount of TeaPubliKlans to step up to protect American workers and the environment WHILE holding even the most hardline neolib Democrats or losing them and finding even more TeaPubliKlans looking out for Americans (like there are any).

[Agnosticsherbet]

30. The secrecy ends when Congress is asked to approve

The deal.

Fast Track authority means Congress con not amend the trade treaty. They must vote it up or down. It also limits the amount of time Congress has to approve or disapprove the bill.

[bemildred]

23. Trusting politicians is for chumps.

Self government is a hands-on activity.

[fadedrose]

25. I cannot accept that my President

one of the most intelligent we've ever had, who always says the right thing at the right time, and always lands on his feet no matter what terrible things happen, would not know us, his people who voted for him and believed in him, well enough to know that no way on this planet that Democrats would accept a secret trade agreement.

It goes back to, "I belong to no organized party. I am a Democrat."

And we don't follow blindly, even our beloved President....

Something is going on here....

[GoCubsGo]

29. Yep.

None of it makes sense. Is there a "good cop-bad cop" sort of thing going on? Or, some other sort of political jujitsu? Some kind of extortion thing? I'm another one who can't believe he's pushing this monstrosity. For whatever the reason, I'm glad the rest of his party is obstructing it.

[bemildred]

33. I toyed with the idea he really wanted to sabotage it.

And with the idea that he was under some sort of duress.
This is not the guy that kicked Rmoney's ass, that's for sure.

[Fred Sanders]

37. What is going on is there is confusion about the difference between following blindly and following open-eyed.

The ""why are you such a blind follower?" canard is a highly combustible strawman.

Americans are averse to giving out compliments and trust no one, - other than NFL quarterbacks - I get it, but twice elected President Obama is on a whole other level.

[Agnosticsherbet]

28. Democrats filibuster ed Fast Track authority for the President the TPP..

The Congress has not yet been asked to vote on the TPP.

[Bluenorthwest]

32. Today the TPA or Trade Promotion Authority, commonly called 'Fast Track' was rejected by the

Senate. The TPP itself has not in fact been halted. It has been potentially greatly hindered. Not halted.

[NRaleighLiberal]

36. "I would trust Hillary and Obama to do the right thing" - Why?

In fact, substitute any politician's name. I still say - why?

[840high]

42. Why indeed. +1

[WhiteTara]

39. Now it can be debated. It will all be in the open

and that's good for all of us. This doesn't mean the deal is dead, it just means it won't be the same./