• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama quest for fast-track trade bill defeated for now in House

a351 said:
Export supported jobs exist too you know, and will be bolstered by the deal, not to mention the immense foreign policy benefits. It's sad to see a bi-partisan effort only to submarine good policy.
Click to expand...

and if it was actually an exercise in good public policy, why was it something to be hidden from the public?
no doubt there were benefits
but i suspect the disadvantages would outweigh those benefits. but because only the insiders can know what is in the proposed TPP, i cannot assure my assessment is a valid one

looking back on NAFTA, there was a substantial amount of opposition, yet that FREE trade agreement passed. and many jobs were lost. my state went from being the first in the nation in the portion of employment coming from industry/manufacturing to second tier. we lost much of the textile, communications, furniture, and tobacco production

it was great for walmart because they were able to buy cheaper products from china, and assisted the chinese to be able to pass us and emerge as the world's foremost economic power
we bought cheap stuff
at least those who had money to buy
it wasn't from those who lost their jobs due to FREE trade

and now they want FAST track

we should insist on transparency about what is (supposedly) being negotiated in our behalf

and we should insist on FAIR trade for a change (we can actually believe in)

out trading partners, to access our lucrative markets, should be required to comply with OSHA, Labor and EPA rules just as American companies must. only then it would be FAIR trade
 
Fenton said:
Its a little late for that don't you think ?
Click to expand...

I don't get you. Some day Hillary is an evil bitch capable of plotting the coverup of your Benghazi conspiracy theories, then next day she is a fool. Which is it? Get your narrative right. Either she's the Wicked Witch of the West or she's a Sarah Palin with fewer gaffes.
 
Hatuey said:
I don't get you. Some day Hillary is an evil bitch capable of plotting the coverup of your Benghazi conspiracy theories, then next day she is a fool. Which is it? Get your narrative right. Either she's the Wicked Witch of the West or she's a Sarah Palin with fewer gaffes.
Click to expand...

You can be both.

A fool and a evil bitch.

She lied right to the faces of the parents who lost their sons in Benghazi

She's a evil bitch.

She's a Progressive.

She's a fool.

See ?
 
Fenton said:
You can be both.

A fool and a evil bitch.

She lied right to the faces of the parents who lost their sons in Benghazi

She's a evil bitch.

She's a Progressive.

She's a fool.

See ?
Click to expand...

Well, let it never be said that you're not inconsistent. She's both a mastermind who covers up conspiracies, and she's a fool.
 
Hatuey said:
You do realize that the specifics are not what are required for her to state her support. Right? She stated support for the TPP and its intended goals. Whether the specifics actually achieve this is an entirely different matter and up to subjective understandings of the final document. However, Hillary supports its intended goal to further expand and liberalize trade between nations.
Click to expand...

EVERYBODY supports goals to further expand and liberalize trade between nations. Even the most staunch isolationist like a Ron Paul is in favor of that. The devil, however, is always in the details. There is no political liability whatsoever in agreeing that talks should commence. But only the brave are willing to stand up and defend their point of view when a specific policy is on the table.

Hillary has rarely been brave. And even when she has been, she is quick to back down and change her position when her bravery might be a political liability.

Right now Hillary is banking on unions and minorities to be her primary winning base. These groups oppose the TPP.

So where does Hillary, candidate for President of the USA, stand? You don't know. I don't know. It is quite possible she doesn't know until she can be certain which way the wind is blowing.
 
AlbqOwl said:
EVERYBODY supports goals to further expand and liberalize trade between nations.
Click to expand...

Umm, that's categorically untrue. NAFTA did exactly that and people to this day are bitching about the way in which jobs have moved either down to Mexico or ceased to exist or shipped over to another country. Hell, you can look at Detroit's decline (due for the most part to liberalization) and conclude that the people most affected by it are not in support of it. Hell, the average blue collar production line employee in America doesn't want to hear anything about these free trade agreements because of how damaging they've been to the whole idea of American manufacturing.

Liberalization doesn't just mean lower tariffs and cheaper products. It also has implications on the notions of intellectual property, agriculture the strength of local industries and the flow of labor. So no, liberalization is not something supported by everybody or even the majority of people. Good grief, haven't you seen the protests against the G20?

Even the most staunch isolationist like a Ron Paul is in favor of that.
Click to expand...

I stopped reading here. If you think Ron Paul is an isolationist in economic terms, you're less informed than I thought on the matter and I'm not even a Ron Paul fan.
 
Hatuey said:
Umm, that's categorically untrue. NAFTA did exactly that and people to this day are bitching about the way in which jobs have moved either down to Mexico or ceased to exist or shipped over to another country. Hell, you can look at Detroit's decline (due for the most part to liberalization) and conclude that the people most affected by it are not in support of it. Hell, the average blue collar production line employee in America doesn't want to hear anything about these free trade agreements because of how damaging they've been to the whole idea of American manufacturing.

Liberalization doesn't just mean lower tariffs and cheaper products. It also has implications on the notions of intellectual property, agriculture the strength of local industries and the flow of labor. So no, liberalization is not something supported by everybody or even the majority of people. Good grief, haven't you seen the protests against the G20?

I stopped reading here. If you think Ron Paul is an isolationist in economic terms, you're less informed than I thought on the matter and I'm not even a Ron Paul fan.
Click to expand...

And since you seem unable to understand what I said and are completely missing the point I have been making and seem determined to change the subject, I will accept that my communication skills are unequal to that task and will wish you a good day.
 
AlbqOwl said:
And since you seem unable to understand what I said and are completely missing the point I have been making and seem determined to change the subject, I will accept that my communication skills are unequal to that task and will wish you a good day.
Click to expand...

I understand it perfectly. I just find your claim that Hillary remains mum on the issue false. She has stated her support for the TPP. Unless its intended goals have changed, then there is no reason for her not to support it. :shrug:
 
Hatuey said:
I understand it perfectly. I just find your claim that Hillary remains mum on the issue false. She has stated her support for the TPP. Unless its intended goals have changed, then there is no reason for her not to support it. :shrug:
Click to expand...

If she supports it based on stated goals rather than stated policy, she is absolutely unqualified and unfit to be President. That's the truth, short and simple.
 
Helix said:
sweet. thumbs up!

the trade agreement is going to pass anyway and screw over US workers like all of the other ones, but at least it is stalled for a microsecond.
Click to expand...

My major concern is that companies can sue Govts for lost profits- goes to an independent arbitration board.We had the case up here when Canada banned MMT, a gasoline additive. Govt paid up, removed the ban. Australia is having the same problems with their trade deals.
So environmental, is up for grabs, rules for banks, open season on lessening regs as many want, basically eviscerating good sense regs and laws. that do not hinder trade in any way what so ever.
This is just not is regard to TPP but the trade deal with the EU as well.
 
AlbqOwl said:
If she supports it based on stated goals rather than stated policy, she is absolutely unqualified and unfit to be President. That's the truth, short and simple.
Click to expand...

Politicians support issues based on goals rather than stated policy all of the time. It's how we got so many key elements of the Patriot Act overturned. It's not indicative of their capabilities as executives in the least bit as even major corporations do this. What you should know however is that it is Democrats who are being lauded for overturning this bill. What does that tell you about your party's position on the matter? :)
 
Hatuey said:
Politicians support issues based on goals rather than stated policy all of the time. It's how we got so many key elements of the Patriot Act overturned. It's not indicative of their capabilities as executives in the least bit as even major corporations do this. What you should know however is that it is Democrats who are being lauded for overturning this bill. What does that tell you about your party's position on the matter? :)
Click to expand...

I could give a flying fig about what party has a position on the matter. It is good policy or it isn't regardless of which party does or does not support it. Still trying to change the subject?

I was answering the question of whether Hillary Clinton has taken a position on this matter. Given her track record of usually taking the position her audience wants to hear, it is safe to say that she has not taken a position on the TPP. And I will stand by my conviction that if she supports a binding treaty based on its stated goals rather than on what is actually implemented, she is unfit to be President of the United States.
 
justabubba said:
and if it was actually an exercise in good public policy, why was it something to be hidden from the public?
no doubt there were benefits
but i suspect the disadvantages would outweigh those benefits. but because only the insiders can know what is in the proposed TPP, i cannot assure my assessment is a valid one

looking back on NAFTA, there was a substantial amount of opposition, yet that FREE trade agreement passed. and many jobs were lost. my state went from being the first in the nation in the portion of employment coming from industry/manufacturing to second tier. we lost much of the textile, communications, furniture, and tobacco production

it was great for walmart because they were able to buy cheaper products from china, and assisted the chinese to be able to pass us and emerge as the world's foremost economic power
we bought cheap stuff
at least those who had money to buy
it wasn't from those who lost their jobs due to FREE trade

and now they want FAST track

we should insist on transparency about what is (supposedly) being negotiated in our behalf

and we should insist on FAIR trade for a change (we can actually believe in)

out trading partners, to access our lucrative markets, should be required to comply with OSHA, Labor and EPA rules just as American companies must. only then it would be FAIR trade
Click to expand...

Not an issue for Canada and the EU on safety, regs and such. many are comparable.
For 2nd tier countries a time frame to adapt would be reasonable.
 
AlbqOwl said:
I could give a flying fig about what party has a position on the matter. It is good policy or it isn't regardless of which party does or does not support it. Still trying to change the subject?
Click to expand...

Nobody has changed the subject. You couldn't really counter my information with anything so you tried to get on some silliness about whether Hillary supports the specifics of a deal that nobody seems privy too except the people making it. I already said she supported the deal and unless its goals and the way it is being achieved have drastically changed - which I doubt - she still does. Is she keeping quiet on it? That's entirely false. It's more likely that as a former member of the administration, it would not be a practical idea to trash talk the very deal you advocated for right up until you left office. So what do we have? The same thing I stated in the beginning. Unless you can show Hillary changing her position on this issue - AT ANY POINT - the only logical choice is that she continues to support it and is more concerned with issues pertinent to the election. The TPP - supported by many Republicans - is hardly an issue that the GOP is going to try and run on, so why the hell would Hillary when she was amongst the first people to support it?
 
jamesrage said:
This is good news.Hopefully this trade deal never passes.It amazes that Many of these same politicians who voted for this trade deal do not want to help workers who will lose their jobs as a result of this trade deal.

Obama quest for fast-track trade bill defeated for now in House | Reuters
The House of Representatives on Friday delivered a blow to President Barack Obama's signature goal of strengthening ties with Asia but could try again as soon as Tuesday to reverse defeat of a measure central to a Pacific Rim trade pact.
In a dramatic vote, Obama's own Democrats, as well as Republicans, rejected a program to give aid to workers who lose their jobs as a result of U.S. trade deals with other countries. The measure was soundly defeated in a 302-126 vote.
That was quickly followed by the House's narrow approval of a separate measure to give Obama "fast-track" authority to negotiate the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal. But the legislation is stuck in the House because of the defeat Obama and House Speaker John Boehner suffered on the first vote.
A House Republican aide told reporters Republican leaders hope to try again Tuesday to pass the worker aid portion of the bill. That would allow the entire trade promotion authority (TPA) legislation to be signed into law by Obama, but its chances were unclear.
White House spokesman Josh Earnest dismissed the failed vote as a "procedural snafu" and was confident Democrats would come around to support the measure.
Republican Pete Sessions said Democrats would have to do some "soul-searching this weekend" to figure out the future of the worker support program, known as trade adjustment assistance (TAA.)
"We're going to pass TPA," said Sessions, the head of the powerful House rules committee. "The question is going to be whether TAA is going to be in it."
The worker aid program drew heavy opposition from both parties, with 158 Republicans joining 144 Democrats in voting "no."
Trading partners such as Japan have urged the U.S. Congress to pass fast-track to help wrap up a Pacific Rim trade deal covering 40 percent of the world's economy.
Click to expand...

The fact that there is so much resistance to the present trade deals in every signing county shows how entrenched the special interests are and how large the welfare benefits will be, if we get the deals done.
 
Hatuey said:
Umm, that's categorically untrue. NAFTA did exactly that and people to this day are bitching about the way in which jobs have moved either down to Mexico or ceased to exist or shipped over to another country. Hell, you can look at Detroit's decline (due for the most part to liberalization) and conclude that the people most affected by it are not in support of it. Hell, the average blue collar production line employee in America doesn't want to hear anything about these free trade agreements because of how damaging they've been to the whole idea of American manufacturing.

Liberalization doesn't just mean lower tariffs and cheaper products. It also has implications on the notions of intellectual property, agriculture the strength of local industries and the flow of labor. So no, liberalization is not something supported by everybody or even the majority of people. Good grief, haven't you seen the protests against the G20?



I stopped reading here. If you think Ron Paul is an isolationist in economic terms, you're less informed than I thought on the matter and I'm not even a Ron Paul fan.
Click to expand...

Sure jobs will change and shift and there is pain. All change has brought that with it. So you would rather be a caveman?
 
joG said:
Sure jobs will change and shift and there is pain. All change has brought that with it. So you would rather be a caveman?
Click to expand...

I'm not opposed to all liberalization. I am however disappointed with the way in which Obama has gone about this. I may support his views on many issues, but this is one he clearly screwed up on simply so he could say he got a bipartisan victory.
 
ocean515 said:
I find it interesting how this trade bill requires a component in it to deal with all the people who will lose jobs should it pass. That little trip wire sure causes me to step back a few paces from understanding what is being attempted here.
Click to expand...

I think what the "lost employment" component of this trade bill is trying to do is protect jobs that otherwise might be lost because foreign employers may want to "hire their own" similar to what took place in the early-80's when American auto manufacturers retooled using Japanese ingenuity to remake the auto industry after the 1979 recession. It was about that time that outsourcing began to can hold and subsequently soar. If this is true, it makes me wonder why House Democrats voted against this provision given our current low employment figures in manufacturing jobs overall.

As to the fast-track measure, I'd have to give it more thought (not to mention read the bill) but on the surface it seems a good idea since all the bill appears to do is ensure an up or down vote on trade deals submitted from the President. What gets me, however, is why the House is voting on this? I suppose of such trade deals are presented to Congress as a bill, then this makes since. But if such are presented as "treaties," then shouldn't this be between the President and the Senate?
 
Objective Voice said:
I think what the "lost employment" component of this trade bill is trying to do is protect jobs that otherwise might be lost because foreign employers may want to "hire their own" similar to what took place in the early-80's when American auto manufacturers retooled using Japanese ingenuity to remake the auto industry after the 1979 recession. It was about that time that outsourcing began to can hold and subsequently soar. If this is true, it makes me wonder why House Democrats voted against this provision given our current low employment figures in manufacturing jobs overall.

As to the fast-track measure, I'd have to give it more thought (not to mention read the bill) but on the surface it seems a good idea since all the bill appears to do is ensure an up or down vote on trade deals submitted from the President. What gets me, however, is why the House is voting on this? I suppose of such trade deals are presented to Congress as a bill, then this makes since. But if such are presented as "treaties," then shouldn't this be between the President and the Senate?
Click to expand...

House Dems voted against that aspect because the bill as a whole can't pass without both parts, and the ... here....

Obama quest for fast-track trade bill on ice in House | Reuters

Hours before lawmakers were due to vote on the legislation, Obama arrived at Capitol Hill with Labor Secretary Thomas Perez for the culmination of a short but intense blitz to counter union efforts to use the worker support program to kill fast-track.

The AFL-CIO, the country's largest labor organization, claimed that funding for the worker aid program would be insufficient.

But it also rallied support for its cause by arguing that a vote against worker aid would be the perfect tactic for stopping fast track.
Click to expand...
 
ocean515 said:
I find it interesting how this trade bill requires a component in it to deal with all the people who will lose jobs should it pass. That little trip wire sure causes me to step back a few paces from understanding what is being attempted here.
Click to expand...

Along with 700 million pilfered from Medicare to pay for the retraining of all those that lose their jobs because of it.
 
joG said:
Sure jobs will change and shift and there is pain. All change has brought that with it. So you would rather be a caveman?
Click to expand...

Lol. So there's nothing in between the caveman and acceptance of a trade deal negotiated by corporate execs and industry lobbyists? ;)
 
Hatuey said:
Nobody has changed the subject. You couldn't really counter my information with anything so you tried to get on some silliness about whether Hillary supports the specifics of a deal that nobody seems privy too except the people making it. I already said she supported the deal and unless its goals and the way it is being achieved have drastically changed - which I doubt - she still does. Is she keeping quiet on it? That's entirely false. It's more likely that as a former member of the administration, it would not be a practical idea to trash talk the very deal you advocated for right up until you left office. So what do we have? The same thing I stated in the beginning. Unless you can show Hillary changing her position on this issue - AT ANY POINT - the only logical choice is that she continues to support it and is more concerned with issues pertinent to the election. The TPP - supported by many Republicans - is hardly an issue that the GOP is going to try and run on, so why the hell would Hillary when she was amongst the first people to support it?
Click to expand...

Again there seems to be a real disconnect between what I post and what you are reading. I haven't countered anything you have posted about what Hillary supports because she hasn't told us what she supports. Again, if all you have is that she supports the stated goals of the TPP three years ago and that hasn't changed, I will ask you how you know that hadn't changed. And if she is supporting something based purely on the general goals rather than the nuts and bolts of how those goals will be achieved, that in no way qualifies her to be President and in fact is an very good reason she is unqualified.
 
AlbqOwl said:
haven't countered anything you have posted about what Hillary supports because she hasn't told us what she supports.
Click to expand...

EXCEPT I POSTED HER WORDS SHOWING THAT SHE IS CLEARLY SUPPORTIVE OF IT. Do you believe that she was praising the deal when it first got underway because she was against it or neutral on the matter? If you want her to comment on the existing specifics of the deal, that's silly as she stopped being head of the DOS nearly 2 years ago and would have no role/knowledge of separate sections. However, her support for the deal is unquestionable unless you have SOMETHING else to contradict it. If this is too much for you, I understand.
 
justabubba said:
it was great for walmart because they were able to buy cheaper products from china, and assisted the chinese to be able to pass us and emerge as the world's foremost economic power
we bought cheap stuff
at least those who had money to buy
Click to expand...

I'm glad you mention Walmart. While NaFTA was getting signed don't forget Hillary Clinton was on the board of directors for Walmart.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom