Posted on 05/24/2015 1:30:01 PM PDT by Timber Rattler
The United States is making headway on two historic trade agreements, one with 11 countries on the Pacific Rim and another with America’s friends in Europe. These two agreements alone would mean greater access to a billion customers for American manufacturers, farmers and ranchers.
But before the U.S. can complete the agreements, Congress needs to strengthen the country’s bargaining position by establishing trade-promotion authority, also known as TPA, which is an arrangement between Congress and the president for negotiating and considering trade agreements. In short, TPA is what U.S. negotiators need to win a fair deal for the American worker.
(Excerpt) Read more at wsj.com ...
What is wrong with you, Ted?
More here:
Because he, like pretty much all of ‘em, is owned by the powers that be. Oh he has is rhetoric, but at the end of the day, he is bought and paid for. And those PTBs are drooling to get this passed.
This is neo feudalism. Combined with total surveillance and the police state, one world government is just around the corner.
“In short, TPA is what U.S. negotiators need to win a fair deal for the American worker.”
bull$6!+
This is a head scratcher. A bill shrouded in secrecy, with documents pertaining to it held under guard, and politicians seeking to look at them could only read their contents, but not take notes. Of all people Ted Cruz should have been out there denouncing this from the beginning, but then he goes ahead and signs on with a McConnell backed bill, and gives this administration another blank check to control trade policy. I’ve heard too much spin on this. Whether you’re a Cruz backer or not this was one bill he should have run away from. This was probably a concession to his big money donors.
http://www.epi.org/publication/trade-deficits-consequences-policy-implications/
From the Congressional Research Service: "Although large trade deficits do not necessarily reduce the total level of economic activity, they can alter the composition of domestic output and employment. The rising exchange rate generated by the net inflow of foreign capital increases the incentive to allocate resources away from production of domestic tradable goods, and toward the import of foreign tradable goods. In most circumstances, the market churning associated with U.S. trade deficits can be expected to have a negative effect on the output and employment of the U.S. tradable goods sectors such as manufacturing.
"This effect on the composition of U.S. output was evident during the period from 2000 to 2007. From 2000 to 2007, the real output for the overall economy increased at a 2.5% average annual rate; however, real output of the manufacturing sector increased at a significantly slower 0.5% average annual rate, indicating that the manufacturing sector was not advancing apace with the wider economy. Also during the 2000-2007 period, manufacturing employment fell from about 17.3 million employees to 13.8 million employees, a fall of about 3.5 million jobs. A sharp fall during the 2001 recession was not unusual, but a failure of manufacturing employment to increase during the subsequent economic expansion was unusual. "
http://www.hsdl.org/?view&did=20963
Perhaps Cruz and Ryan would like to take a stab at why this is good for America, how we have gone from a $1.6 bil surplus with Mexico in 1993, to a deficit of $60 bil in 2014.
20 years of NAFTA, and now Mexico is suing us in the WTO (itself a product of Fast Track) to force us to overturn US law which mandates country of origin labeling for fresh foods, (in this case beef).
How long before it will be against the law to label baby formula with the fact it was produced in Viet Nam?
That lie, or at best a half truth, has been used to push every trade agreement since NAFTA and probably before. The problem is, these agreements also eliminate, or almost eliminate tariffs on goods exported from the trading 'partners' to the US.
Removing tariffs on goods exported to the US just increases the incentives for US firms to move manufacturing facilities from the US to the world's cheapest labor nations. They can then take advantage of the world's cheapest labor and pay little or no tariffs on US brand goods shipped to the US.
More firms are likely head here (Vietnam) after the passage of the TPP, they said, because it will reduce tariffs on Vietnamese exports to the US to near zero.
I've already posted the above in a couple of threads, but I believe more than anything else, this is the real motive behind TPP and other agreements.
Remove tariffs on goods exported to the US from cheap labor nations, then move US production to the cheap labor nation. And, like with NAFTA and Mexico where our trade has gone from a slight surplus to a $60 billion deficit, we can expect the same with the TPP nations in Asia.
US firms move footwear factories to Vietnam ahead of TPP
Higher trade deficits as more US factories and jobs are moved to cheap labor nations.
As someone who WAS going to vote for Cruz I am puzzled by this turn of events. I would like to hear an explanation of why he voted the way he did. Otherwise I may change my vote but I’m willing to hear what he says first.
This is disappointing. How can a Conservative support a bill that is not transparent! Re-thinking my support for Cruz2016.
Republicans are completely INSANE if they think TPA/TPP will not get them unelected on a massive scale in 2016.
It will be in the history books 200 years from now if civilization still exists.
Nonsense. The TPA has been around forever. This move made sense to get a good free trade deal. UUnless you’re a pro-union protectionist like Hoover, there’s no reason to be upset.
The hype that there’s secrecy surrounding this is bogus. The TPA that Cruz voted for ensures that there is no secrets.
I don’t think I’ve ever seen so much misinformation and lies being spread about a piece of legislation as there has been about the TPA.
Protectionism economics is a proven loser throughout history. Sorry.
So said the Republican shill who joined FR ver, very recently because "he just couln't STAND it anymore".
Hey, Astroaddict, what is your profession?
Would you please take a look at the posting history of astroaddict and his email address?
This guy presents as a party shill carrying water for the Chamber of Commerce and Republican Party.
That said, he has been mostly polite, but very, very active on all threads associated with TPA/TPP.
And, there may be more than one person posting under the name.
Why would Ted Cruz want Barry Soetoro negotiating trace pacts? I wouldn’t let the guy negotiate the price of a popsicle from the Good Humor truck.
Lol, protectionist! The curse words of the establishment. That little slur has about as much meaning as Al Sharpton and JJ whining about racism to anyone who challenges them.
And since you are so well informed, provide us some details about the terms of the TPP.
Under TPA, Congress lays out three basic requirements for the administration. First, it must pursue nearly 150 specific negotiating objectives, like beefing up protections for U.S. intellectual property or eliminating kickbacks for government-owned firms. Second, the administration must consult regularly with Congress and meet high transparency standards.
And third, before anything becomes law, Congress gets the final say. The Constitution vests all legislative power in Congress. So TPA makes it clear that Congress—and only Congress—can change U.S. law. If the administration meets all the requirements, Congress will give the agreement an up-or-down vote. But if the administration fails, Congress can hit the brakes, cancel the vote and stop the agreement.
Trade-promotion authority will hold the administration accountable both to Congress and to the American people. Under TPA, any member of Congress will be able to read the negotiating text. Any member will be able to get a briefing from the U.S. trade representative’s office on the status of the negotiations—at any time. Any member will get to be a part of negotiating rounds. And most important, TPA will require the administration to post the full text of the agreement at least 60 days before completing the deal, so the American people can read it themselves.
The stakes are high, because if you’re not moving forward in trade negotiations, you’re falling behind. In the first 10 years of this century, the countries of East Asia negotiated 48 trade agreements. The U.S., on the other hand, negotiated just two in that region. As a result, America’s share of East Asia’s imports fell by 42%. Every top U.S. competitor did better—every one of them.
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.