Ta-da! You win! 
Damn, even Kewpie dolls are coming from Japan now.
Posted on 06/19/2015 6:37:41 PM PDT by VitacoreVision
No argument on that. With the advances in technology and travel the world's economy is changing. To me the question is what do we do in response?
I don't see trying to fend off the inexorable logic of economics as wise or effective. We can't pretend that we're going back to a world where the US worker can continue to raise his standard of living doing relatively low-skilled work.
We need to do two things. 1) Focus our energies on those areas where we have a comparative advantage - technology, medicine, financial services, creativity, etc., and 2) Establish trade agreements which lower the barriers to our selling internationally and which require our trade partners to raise their standards for safety, wages, environmental protection, etc. closer to ours.
I am not holding my breath that Cruz will change his vote on TPA when it comes back to the Senate either.
However, without TAA being attached to the newly passed House version on TPA in the upcoming Senate version of TPA via bill amendment, they may likely not be able to get to the 60 vote threshold to pass cloture anyways. I can see 41 or more rat senators voting against cloture on TPA without TAA being attached, plus some GOP senators like Sessions who in no way will vote to give Obama unchecked powers.
I doubt more than two or three of the senate rats will vote to pass cloture and advance the bill for a floor vote on a vague promise to pass a separate TAA bill in the future. Most all will want to see TAA added to TPA before they vote for cloture.
What do you consider those barriers to be?
1 United States...........$2,334,000,000,000......2014 est.
2 European Union......$2,312,000,000,000......2012 est.
3 China........................$1,949,000,000,000......2013 est.
The World Factbook Exports
1 China........................$2,252,000,000,000......2014 est.
2 European Union......$2,173,000,000,000......2012 est.
3 United States...........$1,610,000,000,000......2014 est.
US loses to China in WTO trade dispute
The World Trade Organization (WTO) has ruled against the United States in a trade dispute with China. The body has found US punitive duties slapped on some Chinese imports 'inconsistent' with global trade rules.
Yep, nothing like a body not elected by Americans settling trade disputes, is there.
You reckon all of the upcoming trade deals will be governed by the WTO as well?
I can show you what TPA says about it if you like or don't know.
They can take several forms but usually they're in the form of tariffs or the inverse of "buy American" type of restrictions.
So you think any country would agree to let a US body settle trade disputes with them? Of course not.
What's your proposal? Let us rule everything or no trade?
Oh, my... TITLE I—Trade promotion authority
(13) WTO AND MULTILATERAL TRADE AGREEMENTS.—Recognizing that the World Trade Organization is the foundation of the global trading system, the principal negotiating objectives of the United States regarding the World Trade Organization, the Uruguay Round Agreements, and other multilateral and plurilateral trade agreements are—
(A) to achieve full implementation and extend the coverage of the World Trade Organization and multilateral and plurilateral agreements to products, sectors, and conditions of trade not adequately covered;
(B) to expand country participation in and enhancement of the Information Technology Agreement, the Government Procurement Agreement, and other plurilateral trade agreements of the World Trade Organization;
(C) to expand competitive market opportunities for United States exports and to obtain fairer and more open conditions of trade, including through utilization of global value chains, through the negotiation of new WTO multilateral and plurilateral trade agreements, such as an agreement on trade facilitation;
(D) to ensure that regional trade agreements to which the United States is not a party fully achieve the high standards of, and comply with, WTO disciplines, including Article XXIV of GATT 1994, Article V and V bis of the General Agreement on Trade in Services, and the Enabling Clause, including through meaningful WTO review of such regional trade agreements;
(E) to enhance compliance by WTO members with their obligations as WTO members through active participation in the bodies of the World Trade Organization by the United States and all other WTO members, including in the trade policy review mechanism and the committee system of the World Trade Organization, and by working to increase the effectiveness of such bodies; and
(F) to encourage greater cooperation between the World Trade Organization and other international organizations.
My, my my...who is this supposed to benefit? The United States or the WTO member nations?
I didn't bother marking up yhe rest of it.
Who said anything about a US body?
How about a body comprised of duly elected members of the trade agreement member nations? No WTO, no UN...just the trade agreement partners. We do have an International Trade Administration and U.S. Department of Commerce as part of the federal government, don't we?
What's your proposal?
Make treaties, not trade agreements.
Let us rule everything or no trade?
There's no sense in answering a rhetorical question.
Uh, we are a WTO member nation.
Why? We can't work out trade for ourselves? It seems we managed it quite well for quite a long time without the WTO.
Well we're voluntarily members of the WTO because we think it's to our benefit. With that comes an obligation to pay attention to their rulings.
From everything I've seen there's a body to resolve disputes being proposed as part of the TPP. Exactly what you're advocating, yet some are attacking it as a surrender of US sovereignty.
“require our trade partners to raise their standards for safety, wages, environmental protection, etc. closer to ours. “
No. Just plain ‘no’.
It requires everyone, including us, to obey these standards set by the agreement as determined by unelected bureaucrats. It is pure foolishness on several levels for any country to do so: social, economic, political.
It is unconstitutional to commit to such standards without a 2/3 vote of the Senate. These are very different from merely setting tariffs.
The agreement is being negotiated by representatives of our President, and will be voted on by the House and Senate. All elected by us. What more do you want?
Who is "we"? Do you speak for all of America?
And "we" doesn't know by now if our membership is to our benefit?
What has America's "membership" actually gotten it in comparison to other member nations?
Ta-da! You win!
Damn, even Kewpie dolls are coming from Japan now.
The part you left out:
It is unconstitutional to commit to such standards without a 2/3 vote of the Senate. These are very different from merely setting tariffs.
And if you don’t care to be responsive go ahead and pat yourself on the back now for ‘winning’.
The WTO is an extension to GATT which has been in place since the end of WWII. Every president since then has been a supporter and I'm not aware of any serious congressional opposition. Can you point to any?
These agreements provide a framework and rules-of-the-road for international trade. What do you propose as an alternative? Our way or the highway?
That's simply not the case. Congressional-executive agreements have been the exclusive mechanism for implementing international trade agreements for over 100 years. Over 5000 have been done this way and none have been deemed unconstitutional.
Please name one trade agreement that was implemented as a treaty subject to 2/3 ratification by the Senate.
Oh, that's reassuring. Not.
...and will be voted on by the House and Senate.
Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) and the Role of Congress in Trade Policy
Expedited Legislative Procedures
Should the above requirements be fulfilled to the satisfaction of Congress, it has agreed to follow certain expedited legislative procedures as defined in Sections 151-154 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended. In effect, these rules require that Congress must act on the bill sent over by the White House, and in other ways represent a significant departure from ordinary legislative procedures. The major rules are listed below (see Appendix C for greater detail):
2. automatic discharge from House and Senate Committees after a limited period of time;
3. limited floor debate; and
4. no amendment, meaning that each house must vote either up or down on the bill, which passes with a simple majority.
There are stipulations;
Article Two Clause 2: Advice and Consent Clause
He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.
A trade agreement isn't a treaty, unless you can show me otherwise.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.