General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: No traction on DU for TPP (Trans-Pacific Partnership)? This is a FIVE ALARM EMERGENCY, people... [View all]AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)the way that it is described.
It is another wage-lowering, anti-union, let's-send-more-jobs-to-foreign-countries "free-trade" agreement. What better way to destroy more American jobs than to adopt and sign this?
Yet, for short-hand purposes, it is referred to as "TPP." Or, as a slightly more extended version, the "Trans-Pacific Partnership" agreement.
Where's the focus on the fact that it is another job-transferring "free-trade" agreement?
Here's the free-trade agreements that have been signed so far:
1994 - North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)
2001 - Jordan United States Free Trade Agreement
2004 - Australia-United States Free Trade Agreement
2004 - Chile - United States Free Trade Agreement
2004 - Singapore United States Free Trade Agreement
2006 - Bahrain United States Free Trade Agreement
2006 - Morocco - United States Free Trade Agreement
2006 - Oman United States Free Trade Agreement
2007 - Peru United States Trade Promotion Agreement
2005 - Dominican RepublicCentral America Free Trade Agreement (DR-CAFTA; incl. Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, and the Dominican Republic)
2011 - Panama - United States Trade Promotion Agreement
2011 - Colombia - United States Trade Promotion Agreement
2011 - Republic of Korea (South Korea) - United States Free Trade Agreement
Words and labels are important. If it is not described as another jobs-killing "free-trade" agreement, there are those who may not perceive it as such.
Incidentally, Rmoney is in favor of this:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/13/obama-trade-document-leak_n_1592593.html