Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: Balog on June 18, 2015, 02:16:41 PM
-
http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-06-18/obama-s-fast-track-trade-bill-passes-house-in-second-attempt
They're not even pretending to be on different sides anymore.
-
http://www.congressionaldish.com/representatives-who-voted-for-fast-track-have-taken-91-more-money-from-corporations-backing-the-trade-deals/
"Representatives who voted for fast track have taken 91% more money from corporations backing the trade deals"
Buying Congresscritters is the heart of capitalism.
-
I'm not getting it. Why should there be conflict over free trade? FTAs benefit everyone, rich or poor, consumer or corporate, Democrat or Republican. Protectionism makes us poorer. This is well-established economics, not crazy conspiracy theory nonsense.
What, exactly, do you oppose here? Free trade agreements in general? Free trade with Asia specifically? Obama's role in negotiating with foreign governments? Republicans encouraging Obama to negotiate?
Or do you just like paying hidden taxes on all the stuff you buy?
Seriously, I don't get it. Set aside all of the tinfoilery, and what's left that's so objectionable?
-
Especially since this vote is not on the actual agreement all it secures is a straight up and down vote on any agreement reached. No amendments and riders.
Heck all legislation should be like that
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
-
Especially since this vote is not on the actual agreement all it secures is a straight up and down vote on any agreement reached. No amendments and riders.
Heck all legislation should be like that
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
This.
There was a lot of Jade Helm tinfoilery attached to all of this. Although running it again in a cleaner version is better.
Looking at who was opposed to it on principles, (unions) it's probably something most of us here wanted in theory to pass. Of course Obama can/could/will give away the farm, but the Congress should vote it down if so.
-
It amazes me how many folks believe that this is the actual agreement they are voting on
Led by such luminaries as jeff sessions
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
-
So, we should ignore historical examples of legislative chicanery and sleight of hand, some burningly recent? This case may be as innocuous as claimed, but it's a procedural step closer to another "we have to pass the bill so you can find out all the wonderful things in it" debacle. A healthy dose of paranoia may be warranted.
-
Nice to see our GOP apparatchiks popping up.
This is not the TPP, it's merely intended to ease the passage of that monster.
I'm not against free trade per se, but all of the "free trade" agreements have as much relation to their namesake as the Affordable Care Act or the Patriot Act or the shiny new Freedom Act.
-
I was hearing that this gave Obama the power to create his own trade agreements without further Congressional consent. I guess that was overblown.
-
Nice to see our GOP apparatchiks popping up.
This is not the TPP, it's merely intended to ease the passage of that monster.
I'm not against free trade per se, but all of the "free trade" agreements have as much relation to their namesake as the Affordable Care Act or the Patriot Act or the shiny new Freedom Act.
So, basically you've got nothing.
Rather than your usual knee-jerk opposition to, well, everything, why don't you wait and see what the trade deal actually contains before condemning it? Just a thought...
-
I was hearing that this gave Obama the power to create his own trade agreements without further Congressional consent. I guess that was overblown.
Most of this mess is overblown.
The TPA is a statement of good faith from congress saying that if Obama's negotiator works out a deal, congress will give it a fair debate and vote it up or down. It's a sign to our foreign counterparts that the negotiations are worth taking seriously.
There's a bit of history of presidents going out and securing trade deals only to have congressional opponents spike the deal out of political malice. I believe Pelosi did that to GWB a few times, for instance.
You can understand why the foreign governments might not want to stick their necks out too far without knowing whether congress is willing to give the deal a shot.
That's all there is to it.
-
So, basically you've got nothing.
Rather than your usual knee-jerk opposition to, well, everything, why don't you wait and see what the trade deal actually contains before condemning it? Just a thought...
The best indication of future performance is past performance. And if there's one thing we can learn from the Congressional track record, it's that secret bills and treaties funded by multi-national corporations are in America's best interests. We have top men working on it folks. Top. Men.
-
Most of this mess is overblown.
The TPA is a statement of good faith from congress saying that if Obama's negotiator works out a deal, congress will give it a fair debate and vote it up or down. It's a sign to our foreign counterparts that the negotiations are worth taking seriously.
There's a bit of history of presidents going out and securing trade deals only to have congressional opponents spike the deal out of political malice. I believe Pelosi did that to GWB a few times, for instance.
You can understand why the foreign governments might not want to stick their necks out too far without knowing whether congress is willing to give the deal a shot.
That's all there is to it.
This. AL it does is give Obama the ability to negotiate a deal and Congress to vote it up or down. In the past, presidents have negotiated treaties only to have Congress tack on various amendments and riders, that then had to go back to the countries we had negotiated with to re-do the treaty with Congress' changes.
But there is no "secret deal", in fact there is "no deal" just a framework to negotiate. What comes out should be available for all to see.
-
The best indication of future performance is past performance. And if there's one thing we can learn from the Congressional track record, it's that secret bills and treaties funded by multi-national corporations are in America's best interests. We have top men working on it folks. Top. Men.
Are you serious or just trolling?
-
I'm not getting it. Why should there be conflict over free trade? FTAs benefit everyone, rich or poor, consumer or corporate, Democrat or Republican. Protectionism makes us poorer. This is well-established economics, not crazy conspiracy theory nonsense.
What, exactly, do you oppose here? Free trade agreements in general? Free trade with Asia specifically? Obama's role in negotiating with foreign governments? Republicans encouraging Obama to negotiate?
Or do you just like paying hidden taxes on all the stuff you buy?
Seriously, I don't get it. Set aside all of the tinfoilery, and what's left that's so objectionable?
I already have a religion, thanks. And the free traders are engaging in grand acts of faith in the face of empirical data.
OK, I may relent a bit and give the free trade faith all the credit due Marx and Marxism.
-
Well, it is sort of like "free markets". A lot of people use that term to describe markets that are not free at all.
-
. . . What, exactly, do you oppose here? . . .
As a matter of principle, I oppose legislation I'm not allowed to read before it gets passed.
-
The end result of all this is that the GOP will lose millions more voters. As folks come to realize that in many respects, there is no practical difference between a dhimmicrat administration, and a Republican administration, they will just drop off the voter rolls, and not participate.
Earlier this year, I dropped the "R" on my voter registration, and became another "I".
There seems less and less reason to vote, since the vast majority of issues that are wrong with America today, have no remedy, nor do they have any politicians willing to actually do anything about them.
When your voice is not heard, when you are unable to change the course of things with your vote, you have ceased to be a Citizen, and have become a subject.
-
This. AL it does is give Obama the ability to negotiate a deal and Congress to vote it up or down. In the past, presidents have negotiated treaties only to have Congress tack on various amendments and riders, that then had to go back to the countries we had negotiated with to re-do the treaty with Congress' changes.
But there is no "secret deal", in fact there is "no deal" just a framework to negotiate. What comes out should be available for all to see.
And in fact that availability is part of the deal that sessions continues to lie about
-
As a matter of principle, I oppose legislation I'm not allowed to read before it gets passed.
???
Again, not sure if serious or trolling. Neither TPA nor TPP are secret. Surely y'all know this by now.
The end result of all this is that the GOP will lose millions more voters. As folks come to realize that in many respects, there is no practical difference between a dhimmicrat administration, and a Republican administration, they will just drop off the voter rolls, and not participate.
Earlier this year, I dropped the "R" on my voter registration, and became another "I".
There seems less and less reason to vote, since the vast majority of issues that are wrong with America today, have no remedy, nor do they have any politicians willing to actually do anything about them.
When your voice is not heard, when you are unable to change the course of things with your vote, you have ceased to be a Citizen, and have become a subject.
Eh, you're probably right that the Republicans will lose votes over this issue. But they were never in danger of winning the low information vote, so probably no net loss.
-
???
Again, not sure if serious or trolling. Neither TPA nor TPP are secret. Surely y'all know this by now.
Eh, you're probably right that the Republicans will lose votes over this issue. But they were never in danger of winning the low information vote, so probably no net loss.
Tell me - how does free trade affect wages? Particularly considering that free trade almost never means free movement of labor.
These are much like other free trade agreements - huge benefits for multinationals who can protect profits at their highest levels, while chasing costs (read, wages) to their lowest.
-
???
Again, not sure if serious or trolling. Neither TPA nor TPP are secret. Surely y'all know this by now.
Please provide a link to the text of the current revision of the TPP that is being negotiated.
-
Cruz is trying to walk his support back. Good luck with that skippy.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/06/23/exclusive-ted-cruz-obamatrade-enmeshed-in-corrupt-backroom-dealings/
-
Cruz is trying to walk his support back. Good luck with that skippy.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/06/23/exclusive-ted-cruz-obamatrade-enmeshed-in-corrupt-backroom-dealings/
I'd rather policritters do the right thing because they want to do the right thing. But I will take conversion in the face of voter unrest, too.
-
I'd rather policritters do the right thing because they want to do the right thing. But I will take conversion in the face of voter unrest, too.
I agree. I'm not sure "I voted yes on it, but now I feel bad." falls under that heading though.
-
Please provide a link to the text of the current revision of the TPP that is being negotiated.
Now I know you're trolling.
-
Now I know you're trolling.
You said it's not secret. Apparently "not secret" doesn't mean the same thing to you that it does to me.
-
I'll make you a deal, Skippy. I'll post the text of TPP right after you post the contents of tomorrow's newspaper today. I'll even split the lotto jackpot with you.
No deal?
You know the text of TPP hasn't been written yet. It can't be posted because it doesn't exist yet. They're still negotiating it.
Resorting to disingenuous arguments proves the weakness of your case.
-
Thats the most amazing part of the zomg. They either have just followed the infowars pieces or the genuinely are unaware what the legislation covers
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
-
I'm with balog on this- my trust reserve is gone- it was skimpy to start with, but it is burned now. The ACA did that quite handily. If I understand correctly, the fast track also reduces the treaty vote for approval in congress from 2/3rds to a simple majority. Also the rumor is the treaty will give a lot of power to international organizations- even overriding State laws that are not in compliance. I have grave concerns about this turning into some excrement like the EU. Or worse. Sort of reminds me of the enabling act.
You folks saying , Oh, nothing can go wrong, it ain't that bad, it's rules as usual -go do two things- reflect on what this administration has done- check the scandal page members here have set up. Then go find a definition of "Polly Anna".
Anyone who thinks this fascist government should have an ounce more power is nuts.
And it IS power they are after. exactly who do you think you are dealing with here?
-
I'll make you a deal, Skippy. I'll post the text of TPP right after you post the contents of tomorrow's newspaper today. I'll even split the lotto jackpot with you.
No deal?
You know the text of TPP hasn't been written yet. It can't be posted because it doesn't exist yet. They're still negotiating it.
Resorting to disingenuous arguments proves the weakness of your case.
One section of it has been leaked. I guess that part exists. What do they call it when the Feds have documents but won't reveal them to the public?
-
When the actual agreement is released will be able to compare it to the park a week see how out there the source was and the legislation does change it to maturity of both houses as opposed to just two thirds of the senateI'm curious why are you so afraid of a straight up and down vote is their a special piece of pork you guys are trying to get through?
-
When the actual agreement is released will be able to compare it to the park a week see how out there the source was and the legislation does change it to maturity of both houses as opposed to just two thirds of the senateI'm curious why are you so afraid of a straight up and down vote is their a special piece of pork you guys are trying to get through?
I will tell you why. Because with the simple majority change, it is going to be a piece of cake for the gov to ram through whatever they want. And because with no amendments allowed, it is going to reduce the give and take and discussion to a minimum, and allow much faster, no debate passage. The general public is going to get NO input.
I repeat- If you think the Obama Administration is to be trusted, and that they have the best interests of this country at heart, you are nuts.
LOOK AT THEIR RECORD! Look at how the ACA was passed. Have you forgotten already?
-
Don't worry, the Republicans would never sell us out :rofl:
-
The problem with TPA is the change to simple majority. Well, one of the problems.
-
One section of it has been leaked. I guess that part exists. What do they call it when the Feds have documents but won't reveal them to the public?
You call it a work in progress, or unfinished, or incomplete. But even the unfinished work has been available for congress to review, and the negotiators have briefed congress on its status many, many times. So calling it "secret" is plainly dishonest.
-
I'm with balog on this- my trust reserve is gone- it was skimpy to start with, but it is burned now. The ACA did that quite handily. If I understand correctly, the fast track also reduces the treaty vote for approval in congress from 2/3rds to a simple majority. Also the rumor is the treaty will give a lot of power to international organizations- even overriding State laws that are not in compliance. I have grave concerns about this turning into some excrement like the EU. Or worse. Sort of reminds me of the enabling act.
You folks saying , Oh, nothing can go wrong, it ain't that bad, it's rules as usual -go do two things- reflect on what this administration has done- check the scandal page members here have set up. Then go find a definition of "Polly Anna".
Anyone who thinks this fascist government should have an ounce more power is nuts.
And it IS power they are after. exactly who do you think you are dealing with here?
The problem with TPA is the change to simple majority. Well, one of the problems.
Uh, wut? Y'all understand that FTAs are not treaties and don't require a 2/3rd vote in the Senate like a treaty ratification requires, right?
=|
Did any of you guys thinking "treaty" ever stop to ask yourselves why the House of Representatives is involved? If it were a treaty ratification they wouldn't be.
-
You call it a work in progress, or unfinished, or incomplete. But even the unfinished work has been available for congress to review, and the negotiators have briefed congress on its status many, many times. So calling it "secret" is plainly dishonest.
Yeah, I wasn't talking about Congress getting briefed on it. Congress got briefed on all the wildly illegal things the NSA was doing too, but I'm going to go ahead and guess that you'd still call that secret. Your desperation to spin this is kind of amusing.
-
Is there anyone here that can explain to me how boehner and mcconnel are better than pelosi and reid?
-
Is there anyone here that can explain to me how boehner and mcconnel are better than pelosi and reid?
Um, they are less competent at procedural manipulation and caucus control, and thereby marginally less dangerous?
I got nothin' else.
-
I'm with balog on this- my trust reserve is gone- it was skimpy to start with, but it is burned now. The ACA did that quite handily. If I understand correctly, the fast track also reduces the treaty vote for approval in congress from 2/3rds to a simple majority. Also the rumor is the treaty will give a lot of power to international organizations- even overriding State laws that are not in compliance. I have grave concerns about this turning into some excrement like the EU. Or worse. Sort of reminds me of the enabling act.
You folks saying , Oh, nothing can go wrong, it ain't that bad, it's rules as usual -go do two things- reflect on what this administration has done- check the scandal page members here have set up. Then go find a definition of "Polly Anna".
Anyone who thinks this fascist government should have an ounce more power is nuts.
And it IS power they are after. exactly who do you think you are dealing with here?
The best possible case scenario, and even this is unlikely, is that the TPP will be a bigger, broader NAFTA, which will make it a minor fail and not a catastrophic fail. I'm far less optimistic.
It's far more likely that language that requires teenage american females are required are to serve 2 years as comfort girls in China than anything enforceably benificial to americans with trade.
-
One section of it has been leaked. I guess that part exists. What do they call it when the Feds have documents but won't reveal them to the public?
With the Obama administration they call it "transperancy".