The Trans-Pacific Partnership

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > The Trans-Pacific Partnership

Are you in favor of the TPP?
	Yes
	No
	N/A without more data

thrakkorzog: Nov 16, 2007

Can anyone explain to me why the house Dems voted for TPA, but then voted against TAA? Because I'm a bit confused here.

As a general rule the Republicans like TPA, but aren't fans of TAA. The Democrats and the unions like TAA, but hate TPA. So why did a bunch of Democrats vote for TPA, and then vote against TAA?

All I can think is that they were trying to kill TPP in the most political way possible. "Hey, I voted to give Obama fast track authority, but it never made it out of the House." Please tell me I'm being overly cynical, and there was another perfectly good reason for the vote breakdown.

# ¿ Jun 13, 2015 13:51

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 16, 2024 03:34

thrakkorzog: Nov 16, 2007

Zarin posted:

Let's assume that the fast-track legislation got passed and the TPP goes to a vote in Congress:

1). How long does Congress have to read the thing before the final vote?
2). During this period, is the language no longer secret, so the public can see what is in it? Or would be "for Congress eyes only"?

1.) It depends. It's 60 to 90 days minimum before it goes up for a final vote, depending on the language of the particular fast-track authority that manages to get passed.
2.) After fast track gets passed, then full text of TPP is supposed to become public.

Kalman posted:

Because most of the posters here have focused on bullshit secrecy arguments, and because most of them are too dumb to actually understand what the provisions they're whining about do.

The secrecy over the deal easily lends itself to conspiratorial arguments. Since none of us plebians are allowed to know what is actually in TPP, we have to guess. Lizard People landing pads can be laughed off. But Disney lawyers abusing copyright law are plausible.

thrakkorzog fucked around with this message at 13:13 on Jun 14, 2015

# ¿ Jun 14, 2015 10:57

thrakkorzog: Nov 16, 2007

Obdicut posted:

how real are the environmental protections in the TPP?

Particularly, these two points:

Considering that Brunei is a signatory to the TPP, I kind of doubt that environmental protections are all that strong, especially when it comes to fossil fuels. The Sultan of Brunei didn't get to be one of the richest men in the world from wind farms. There's also the issue that Mexico, Canada, and the U.S. are sitting on top of 50 million year old swamps, nobody is about to kill that free money train.

# ¿ Jun 15, 2015 12:34

thrakkorzog: Nov 16, 2007

LookingGodIntheEye posted:

What are the economic benefits of +70 term copyright?
A quick search claims that a 20-year increase in copyright term only increases the present value of a work by 0.16% (Section 1a). That's negligible for a living author, so the only one that really benefits in the long run are the inheritors of that copyright i.e. businesses in the entertainment industry or owners of the author's estate.
If the opportunity cost outweighed the benefits of shorter terms, +70 might be understandable, but I'm not seeing that here.
I ask because your post indicates that internationally standardizing +70 term copyright is at least not a significant economic loss or reason for concern.

I'm guessing he's being somewhat sarcastic. As it stands now, U.S. Copyright law means that Mickey Mouse won't fall into fair use until about 30 years after the heat death of the universe.

# ¿ Oct 10, 2015 10:51

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > The Trans-Pacific Partnership