• 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

Happy Sunday morning, Jack. :2wave:

I have loved Maureen Dowd for years! Sharp lady! Her articles are always well-written, and she doesn't hesitate in skewering either side when necessary, which is fair! :thumbs:

Happy Sunday Polgara.:2wave:

Like most columnists, sometimes she makes me smile, sometimes not.
 
Happy Sunday Polgara.:2wave:

Like most columnists, sometimes she makes me smile, sometimes not.

To me, that's the sign of a good columnist. I don't need someone to parrot, nor do I need someone to disagree with and vilify. I appreciate someone who makes me consider aspects I may not otherwise. To me, that means it's likely that they actually think about the issues, too.
 
To me, that's the sign of a good columnist. I don't need someone to parrot, nor do I need someone to disagree with and vilify. I appreciate someone who makes me consider aspects I may not otherwise. To me, that means it's likely that they actually think about the issues, too.

I like best someone who agrees with me all the time.:mrgreen:
 
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

[/quote]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.[/quote]

So, you're saying the House Dems voted against the bill not because they really didn't want a fast-track up or down vote on trade bills but because the Union leadership (AFL-CIO) didn't support it over a worker aid funding measure?
 
What is this talking about?


Originally Posted by ludin
yea well we shouldn't be losing that much, and the gains that we get should cover those people that lose.

It is not my job to keep you informed of the conversation so go back and read and figure it out.
 
It is not my job to keep you informed of the conversation so go back and read and figure it out.

Good dodge, or was it a Chrysler.
 
GOPs and DEMs opposed TAA for opposite reasons.
GOPs are against giving aid to workers who lose their jobs due to trade pacts.
DEMs wanted more aid to displaced workers.

Pelosi has been a huge factor in this House since she DID NOT whip against the Cromnibus last December--saving the asses of both Boehner and Obama .

Well, that's wrong. The primary opposition in the Republican party was to the transfer of power from the Congress to the Presidency.
 
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?

I would guess there is a sense there will be jobs lost to foreign competition should this trade bill pass, and the training is designed to help those who are impacted. It seems to me we have never done a very good job with trade negotiations, and I'm a bit skeptical that history is going to be overturned this time around.
 
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.
I can't say that I am surprised. They do not mind screwing workers by shipping jobs overseas. So I can't imagine that they would care what happens to these people who lost their jobs.Plus if they voted for the assistance to these people they would be admitting that these trade deals screw Americans out of their jobs.
 
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.

That has been a standard feature of every trade bill since 1962, IIRC.
 
As I've said previously, I found it funny that some of the same people who wanted to give Obama authority to bind the US in a deal with Iran didn't want him to have authority to bind the US to a trade deal. The opposite is also true.

At the time of the Iran Deal president Obama was doing something most of them agreed with.If they had opposed the Iran deal then they would have opposed Obama on the Iran deal. Chamber of commerce politicians love sucking the cocks of big business and kissing the asses of fat cats.So they are supporting Obama on this TPP deal.If they did not like American jobs being shipped over seas,president having more authority on immigration or jobs given to forign workers on tech visas at the expense of American workers then they would oppose the TPP deal.
 
At the time of the Iran Deal president Obama was doing something most of them agreed with.If they had opposed the Iran deal then they would have opposed Obama on the Iran deal. Chamber of commerce politicians love sucking the cocks of big business and kissing the asses of fat cats.So they are supporting Obama on this TPP deal.If they did not like American jobs being shipped over seas,president having more authority on immigration or jobs given to forign workers on tech visas at the expense of American workers then they would oppose the TPP deal.

I wasn't so much speaking to the details of each issue but to the principle of providing the President authority that normally rests with Congress - if it were me, I'd always vote no on giving up my constitutional authority regardless of the issue.
 
I wasn't so much speaking to the details of each issue but to the principle of providing the President authority that normally rests with Congress - if it were me, I'd always vote no on giving up my constitutional authority regardless of the issue.
If your party is in the minority in both the house and senate and the president is your guy of course they would be willing to give the president more more. I believe the republicans did the same thing when Bush was office.Often times they do not seem to think about what would happen if it is the other party's guy is president.
 
That has been a standard feature of every trade bill since 1962, IIRC.

Is that right? Well, it seems to me they have been underestimating the impact. As a time when we have dealt away our manufacturing strengths, it seems curious to be choosing job loss retraining as a hill to die on.
 
Is that right? Well, it seems to me they have been underestimating the impact. As a time when we have dealt away our manufacturing strengths, it seems curious to be choosing job loss retraining as a hill to die on.

They did it to stop the overall bill. Worker assistance goes back to JFK, in 1962 IIRC.
 
Back
Top Bottom