• 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

There are two bills. Dems were expected to provide the votes for worker assistance,

By whom? You keep repeating this but won't say by whom or where the evidence for this comes from. I've never seen Democrats support giving aid to workers displaced because of global agreements. Have you? Apparently not or you would have posted it already.
 
By whom? You keep repeating this but won't say by whom or where the evidence for this comes from. I've never seen Democrats support giving aid to workers displaced because of global agreements. Have you? Apparently not or you would have posted it already.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_Adjustment_Assistance

Trade Adjustment Assistance consists of four programs authorized under the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 and defined further under the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. § 2341 et seq) (Trade Act). The original idea for a trade compensation program goes back to 1939.[1] Later, it was proposed by President John F. Kennedy as part of the total package to open up free trade. President Kennedy said: “When considerations of national policy make it desirable to avoid higher tariffs, those injured by that competition should not be required to bear the full brunt of the impact. Rather, the burden of economic adjustment should be borne in part by the Federal Government.”[2]
 
Interesting. I did not know that. However, I looked up the bill authorizing the bill and the majority of Republicans voted in favor of it. Why weren't they expected to be overwhelmingly in favor of it seeing as how their leaders support this bill?

As already posted, many Repubs have longstanding ideological objections to that assistance. It has heretofore always passed with a majority of Dems and a minority of Repubs. It was the Dem defections that sank it.
 
As already posted, many Repubs have longstanding ideological objections to that assistance. It has heretofore always passed with a majority of Dems and a minority of Repubs. It was the Dem defections that sank it.

Democratic... defections? I didn't know the democrats who voted in this had passed every single one of those trade acts or were expected to vote in the same way as democrats of the past. Jack, you seem to be hellbent on this narrative that Republicans remain the minority party. However, they have the numbers to do it. They had the numbers to pass it without Democrat help. That's 245 Republicans in the House. They simply couldn't and it's obvious by the fact that the majority of the party voted against the bill.
 
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.

similar to NAFTA. look at that mess and all the jobs that were shipped to mexico and we got very little back in return on that deal.
also truck drivers got screwed because the junk shipping from mexico could then do it and they don't have the same safety spec's required
that US truckers do.
 
Democratic... defections? I didn't know the democrats who voted in this had passed every single one of those trade acts or were expected to vote in the same way as democrats of the past. Jack, you seem to be hellbent on this narrative that Republicans remain the minority party. However, they have the numbers to do it. They had the numbers to pass it without Democrat help. That's 245 Republicans in the House. They simply couldn't and it's obvious by the fact that the majority of the party voted against the bill.

A majority of Repubs voted against worker assistance, as expected. Repubs passed trade promotion, as expected. A majority of Dems voted against worker assistance, which was unprecedented and sank the bill. As Boehner noted, he delivered his votes; the Dems did not deliver theirs.
 
Assistance for impacted workers has accompanied every trade pact negotiated since WW2.

I have no problem with assistance but the fact is that those jobs should be replaced by other things from the trade agreement.
if it isn't then the trade agreement is a bad deal and this TPA is a really bad deal for us.

I am glad the house stomped it in the ground.

the thing is we shouldn't be losing jobs in trade agreements we should be gaining jobs.
 
I
Democratic... defections? I didn't know the democrats who voted in this had passed every single one of those trade acts or were expected to vote in the same way as democrats of the past. Jack, you seem to be hellbent on this narrative that Republicans remain the minority party. However, they have the numbers to do it. They had the numbers to pass it without Democrat help. That's 245 Republicans in the House. They simply couldn't and it's obvious by the fact that the majority of the party voted against the bill.

House Democrats rebuff Obama on trade, delivering major defeat - The Washington Post


[h=1]House Democrats rebuff Obama on trade, delivering major defeat[/h]
The House of Representatives blocked legislation to “fast-track” trade deals through Congress, dealing a big blow to President Obama. House Democrats dealt President Obama a humiliating defeat on his free-trade initiative Friday, derailing a key priority for the president and rebuffing his rare, personal pleas for their support.

The defeat at the hands of his own party placed Obama’s trade agenda in limbo and exposed deep party divisions on economic policy, leaving the pro-trade Democrats marginalized by the anti-corporate wing of the party, which has been on the rise since the 2008 financial collapse. It also exposed the weakening hand of House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), who had worked for days to avoid a Democratic takedown of the president’s agenda, only to throw her support in with the rank-and-file rebellion at the last minute. . . .


[/FONT]
 
Last edited:
I have no problem with assistance but the fact is that those jobs should be replaced by other things from the trade agreement.
if it isn't then the trade agreement is a bad deal and this TPA is a really bad deal for us.

I am glad the house stomped it in the ground.

the thing is we shouldn't be losing jobs in trade agreements we should be gaining jobs.

We gain and we lose. The assistance helps those who lose.
 
We gain and we lose. The assistance helps those who lose.

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

A very surprising vote, and a give props to leadership who lead the charge against this and i give props to everyone who voted against. Send it back to the Senate, lets hear more debate, lets see some fight. Keep it up! :applaud
 
A majority of Repubs voted against worker assistance, as expected.

And a majority of Democrats voted against it because the democratic base simply isn't supporting this 2 for 1 bill. Unless you were expecting something else?
 
I'm glad you mention Walmart. While NaFTA was getting signed don't forget Hillary Clinton was on the board of directors for Walmart.

i keep asking what is it that hillary has actually accomplished to deserve to be elected leader of the free world and you are the first to be able to offer a reply

thanks!
 
i keep asking what is it that hillary has actually accomplished to deserve to be elected leader of the free world and you are the first to be able to offer a reply

thanks!

Well I meant that as a barb against Hillary. Instead of protecting American manufacturing she was sitting on the board of one of the largest companies that contributed to the loss of American manufacturing jobs. She was on the board when Wal*Mart started treating their employees like dirt.

Hillary supporters don't know anything about her except that she's a woman who was married to a pretty cool president. That's why the closest thing to an accomplishment you'll see is when it's connected with her bigger failures.
 
Last edited:
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.

I would say that TPA is really important, while reeduction is not really something government should do.
 
Well I meant that as a barb against Hillary. Instead of protecting American manufacturing she was sitting on the board of one of the largest companies that contributed to the loss of American manufacturing jobs. She was on the board when Wal*Mart started treating their employees like dirt.

Hillary supporters don't know anything about her except that she's a woman who was married to a pretty cool president. That's why the closest thing to an accomplishment you'll see is when it's connected with her bigger failures.

This is why Sanders is the dude!
 
Greetings, NIMBY. :2wave:

In studying what is known about this proposed TPP Agreement, I have more questions, so here they are.

1. If it's so great, why is it a secret?

2. We already have trade agreements with many of these countries. This will probably not open new opportunities for American exports, since most of the countries involved won't allow it, except for food. Perhaps that has been dealt with in this TPP, but I don't know. If enacted, however, it will encompass 40% of all global economic activity.

3. Many of the details will not be known until five years after BHO leaves office. Why is this?

4. The Democrats that voted against this feel that NAFTA hurt workers by causing job losses in the millions, and they feel that TPP will be NAFTA on a global scale - which is why they insist that TAA be included in the deal.

You may not know the answers to my questions, but you keep up on things, so I bugged you! Apologies in advance. :mrgreen:

On principle I will not support any bill that Congress keeps secret. Paul Ryan supports it and Nancy Pilosi opposes it. I feel like this is an alternate universe. Something is wrong.
 
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.

Exactly so.
And it's not only that.
I frankly don't trust some of the people on either side of this.
Another big factor is that on the one hand we're told that the deal has restrictions on Presidential power, yet Barack Obama is a proponent.
We know that the language in Laws that seem clear to most means very little to Obama.

Bottom line, like many things it seems we're not getting honest analysis on this deal ... partly because very few people are allowed access to it.
Never a good sign.
 
On principle I will not support any bill that Congress keeps secret. Paul Ryan supports it and Nancy Pilosi opposes it. I feel like this is an alternate universe. Something is wrong.

Greetings, sawdust. :2wave:

I believe that the Congress-people who have looked at this document are adhering to some rule that BHO has put in place that it remains "secret." That in itself almost shouts that odds are great that the average person isn't going to like it! I just wonder why not, although Senator Warren did give people a small clue! :thumbdown:
 
On principle I will not support any bill that Congress keeps secret. Paul Ryan supports it and Nancy Pilosi opposes it. I feel like this is an alternate universe. Something is wrong.

All trade agreements are confidential until presented for ratification. This is not new.
 
Back
Top Bottom