• 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!

Senate Approves Fast-Track, Sending Trade Bill to White House

Jack Hays

Jack Hays

Traveler
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2013
Messages
94,823
Reaction score
28,342
Location
Williamsburg, Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Lucky for our President that Repubs put country before party and voted for free trade. Too bad the Dems couldn't help.

Senate Approves Fast-Track, Sending Trade Bill to White House

The Senate voted Wednesday to approve fast-track authority, securing a big second-term legislative win for President Obama after a months-long struggle.
The 60-38 Senate vote capped weeks of fighting over the trade bill, which pitted Obama against most of his party — including Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid (Nev.) and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.).
Passage of the bill is also a big victory for GOP leaders in Congress, including Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio). The Republican leaders worked closely with an administration they have more frequently opposed to nudge the trade bill over the goal line.Labor unions and liberal Democrats had fought hard against the authority and are likely to now turn their attention toward stopping the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a trade deal Obama is negotiating with 11 other Pacific Rim nations.
Fast-track, or trade promotion authority (TPA), will allow the White House to send trade deals to Congress for up-or-down votes. The Senate will not be able to filibuster them, and lawmakers will not have the power to amend them. . . .


 
The president working with the party that hates America have moved one step closer to a corporate giveway that will cost thousands and maybe even millions of American jobs! We've got the best government money can buy!
 
reinoe said:
The president working with the party that hates America have moved one step closer to a corporate giveway that will cost thousands and maybe even millions of American jobs! We've got the best government money can buy!
Click to expand...

Free trade enriches America, and Americans.
 
Good. The hysterics about this (on both sides) were idiotic.
 
It is unfortunate that we are willing to discard the middle class for corporate profits with such bipartisan effort.
 
I oppose the idea of expanding powers of the presidency. The diversity of a legislature is much more representative of the people then the president, at least ideally. The worst news here though is that this will likely lead to the passing of TPP, which gives corporate profits far too much legal precedence.
 
AliHajiSheik said:
Several factories. That's the extent of your objection?
Click to expand...

"Several factories" translates into several hundred thousand jobs. This trade bill pretty much guarantees many more hundreds of thousands of jobs being shifted out of the country.

As of 2010, U.S. trade deficits with Mexico totaling $97.2 billion had displaced 682,900 U.S. jobs. Of those jobs, 116,400 are likely economy-wide job losses because they were displaced between 2007 and 2010, when the U.S. labor market was severely depressed.
Click to expand...

Economic Policy Institute PDF
 
Kal'Stang said:
"Several factories" translates into several hundred thousand jobs. This trade bill pretty much guarantees many more hundreds of thousands of jobs being shifted out of the country.



Economic Policy Institute PDF
Click to expand...

"Several factories" translates into several hundred thousand jobs."

That is the point, you reference only several factories as an objection. Why was that?
 
AliHajiSheik said:
"Several factories" translates into several hundred thousand jobs."

That is the point, you reference only several factories as an objection. Why was that?
Click to expand...

I said "several factories" for expedients sake. When asked I expanded on it. :shrug:
 
cpwill said:
Good. The hysterics about this (on both sides) were idiotic.
Click to expand...

I am not so sure. there are several things that I read about in this bill that I do not like. this should have been more
scrutiny done on this bill.

yes I feel it will be a loss for workers just like NAFTA was.

allowing the foreign nations to sue the US government over business deals is a bad bad idea and will only cost the American people more.
 
ludin said:
I am not so sure. there are several things that I read about in this bill that I do not like. this should have been more
scrutiny done on this bill.

yes I feel it will be a loss for workers just like NAFTA was.

allowing the foreign nations to sue the US government over business deals is a bad bad idea and will only cost the American people more.
Click to expand...

Trade Promotion Authority =/= the Trans Pacific Partnership.
 
Question for all those who have routinely and roundly criticized the Reps for being obstructionists and "the party of 'no'": Where's your praise for them for working with the President on this?

Or will there be utter silence until the next thing comes along that you can criticize?
 
cpwill said:
Trade Promotion Authority =/= the Trans Pacific Partnership.
Click to expand...

yes but it is going to be used to pass the TPP or any other trade agreements without congress being able to edit them.
it is pretty stupid.
 
ludin said:
yes but it is going to be used to pass the TPP or any other trade agreements without congress being able to edit them.
it is pretty stupid.
Click to expand...

Actually it's smart. The Founders figured out long ago that you wanted separation of powers, and a single point of negotiation with foreign countries. That is why the foreign-agreement-making structure that they put into place (Treaties) followed the exact same format as the TPA: The Executive is responsible for negotiations, and the Congress is responsible for an up-or-down vote. We live in a world now that's more dominated by soft power and trade than by hard power and war relative to their time, and that's good - but we would be wise to continue to follow their format in this.
 
cpwill said:
Actually it's smart. The Founders figured out long ago that you wanted separation of powers, and a single point of negotiation with foreign countries. That is why the foreign-agreement-making structure that they put into place (Treaties) followed the exact same format as the TPA: The Executive is responsible for negotiations, and the Congress is responsible for an up-or-down vote. We live in a world now that's more dominated by soft power and trade than by hard power and war relative to their time, and that's good - but we would be wise to continue to follow their format in this.
Click to expand...

I don't agree. there needs to be oversite and congress just gave huge power to the president. we could get really really screwed over this
and there is no recourse before it is to late.

no congress is not responsible for an up and down vote and I get so sick of hearing this up and down vote.

congresses job is to pass bills that support the people and protect the people. not give up and down votes on bills.
which in order to do the former they have to be able to stop voting or amend trade agreements if they see something bad.
 
ludin said:
I don't agree. there needs to be oversite and congress just gave huge power to the president. we could get really really screwed over this
and there is no recourse before it is to late.
Click to expand...

That is incorrect - the Congress acts as a check on the Executive, exactly as it is supposed to. Meanwhile, they don't get to pretend to be the executive by trying to renegotiate trade deals, which they are not supposed to do.

no congress is not responsible for an up and down vote and I get so sick of hearing this up and down vote.
Click to expand...

The President has the power to make treaties, Congress has the power to vote on whether or not the treaties that the President has made will actually become binding on the United States. Article 2 Section 2 of the US Constitution.

congresses job is to pass bills that support the people and protect the people. not give up and down votes on bills.
Click to expand...

That is, in fact, part of doing that job - and it is why they have to do up or down votes on all kinds of Presidential proposals. Judicial appointments, for example. Cabinet-level department heads, for another. Treaties and agreements with foreign countries, for another. Congress has no business trying to figure out who to appoint to be Secretary of State under the President, and they have no business trying to upstage the executive functions in negotiating with foreign countries. The Congress is not our Executive, and we shouldn't allow them to try to be, or expect them to be - our Constitution is designed to limit all three branches of government, not just the Executive.

which in order to do the former they have to be able to stop voting or amend trade agreements if they see something bad.
Click to expand...

If they see something that awful, they can vote it down.
 
cpwill said:
That is incorrect - the Congress acts as a check on the Executive, exactly as it is supposed to. Meanwhile, they don't get to pretend to be the executive by trying to renegotiate trade deals, which they are not supposed to do.
Click to expand...

not if they can't amend the agreement there is no check and balance.


The President has the power to make treaties, Congress has the power to vote on whether or not the treaties that the President has made will actually become binding on the United States. Article 2 Section 2 of the US Constitution.
Click to expand...

congress also has the ability to make amendments and they just lost that power.


That is, in fact, part of doing that job - and it is why they have to do up or down votes on all kinds of Presidential proposals. Judicial appointments, for example. Cabinet-level department heads, for another. Treaties and agreements with foreign countries, for another. Congress has no business trying to figure out who to appoint to be Secretary of State under the President, and they have no business trying to upstage the executive functions in negotiating with foreign countries. The Congress is not our Executive, and we shouldn't allow them to try to be, or expect them to be - our Constitution is designed to limit all three branches of government, not just the Executive.
Click to expand...

no their job is to pass and vote for things in the interest of the people of the US not just give up and down votes.

If they see something that awful, they can vote it down.
Click to expand...

This is throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

I might agree with 95% of the bill but not 5% of it. congress should be able to change that 5% not throw the whole thing out.
 
ludin said:
not if they can't amend the agreement there is no check and balance.
Click to expand...

That is incorrect. As long as the Congress has the ability to veto the Executive, they have a check on its power and the powers are balanced, just as the Executive exercises a veto on the Legislature.

The Legislature is supposed to be the dominant actor in the realm of Domestic policy. They get to do the negotiating, they get to do the deals, they get to write the laws. The Executive balances them through a check - he can veto, or sign. The Executive is not granted power to rewrite laws to it's own suiting.

The Executive is supposed to be the dominant actor in the realm of Foreign policy. The executive is the one that does the negotiating, makes the deals, writes the agreements, etc. And, just like in the former, the Legislature balances them through a check - they can veto or approve. The Legislature is not supposed to be granted power to rewrite foreign agreements to it's own suiting any more than the Executive is supposed to be rewriting laws to it's own suiting.

congress also has the ability to make amendments and they just lost that power.
Click to expand...

Can Congress make amendments to treaties? If not, why do you think the Founders deliberately chose to deny them that ability?

no their job is to pass and vote for things in the interest of the people of the US not just give up and down votes.
Click to expand...

Again, this is Constitutionally incorrect - part of their job is indeed to provide up or down votes, on a variety of topics, which includes both Presidential appointments and foreign agreements. As laid down by the Constitution. Surely you are not arguing that the Founders and the Constitution do not understand the role of the Legislature?

I might agree with 95% of the bill but not 5% of it. congress should be able to change that 5% not throw the whole thing out.
Click to expand...

They certainly should not. No more than the Executive ought to be able to toss out or change 5% of a piece of Legislation that gets' passed.
 
cpwill said:
Can Congress make amendments to treaties? If not, why do you think the Founders deliberately chose to deny them that ability?
Click to expand...

Yes they can until they just passed that fast track bill. now they can't.

Again, this is Constitutionally incorrect - part of their job is indeed to provide up or down votes, on a variety of topics, which includes both Presidential appointments and foreign agreements. As laid down by the Constitution. Surely you are not arguing that the Founders and the Constitution do not understand the role of the Legislature?
Click to expand...

Nope it is constitutionally correct. in fact it is the Charge of congress not to give up and down votes but to pass laws that benefits the populace.
they then vote on it but their priority should not be up and down votes.

They certainly should not. No more than the Executive ought to be able to toss out or change 5% of a piece of Legislation that gets' passed.
Click to expand...

they certainly should have up until passing the fast track bill were able to.
 
ludin said:
Yes they can until they just passed that fast track bill. now they can't.
Click to expand...

No they cannot. Congress has never had the ability to amend Treaties, the Founders explicitly designed the process so that Congress would get an up-or-down vote so that it acted as a check on the Executive, but did not attempt to act as the Executive.

Nope it is constitutionally correct.
Click to expand...

:shrug: Article 2 Begs to differ.

in fact it is the Charge of congress not to give up and down votes but to pass laws that benefits the populace.
Click to expand...

Cool. Show me where in the Constitution it says that every single appointment vote, and every single vote on foreign treaties has been unconstitutionally designed since the Founders first put this format into place?

they then vote on it but their priority should not be up and down votes.
Click to expand...

Their priority should be whatever they decide their priority is. However, when it comes to the Balancing of Powers, the Legislative branch has no more business attempting to rewrite treaties and foreign agreements than the Executive does trying to rewrite laws.

they certainly should have up until passing the fast track bill were able to.
Click to expand...

Again, no. Part of having checks and balances is to actually have checks and balances. The Constitutional system set in place by the founders says you are wrong, and common sense says that you are wrong. The Legislative branch has no more business attempting to rewrite treaties and foreign agreements than the Executive does trying to rewrite laws. We conservatives get pretty upset when the Executive tries to seize Legislative power unto itself by rewriting laws because it damages the Constitutional order, and we should get just as upset when the Legislature tries to seize Executive power unto itself by rewriting foreign agreements. Congress shouldn't be "renegotiating the 5% of a treaty it doesn't like" any more than the President ought to be "rewriting the 5% of a law that he doesn't like".
 
Kal'Stang said:
Really? Our last Free Trade bill has several companies factories down in Mexico.
Click to expand...

Yes, and our exports to Mexico have grown. In addition, all Americans benefit from lower prices resulting from reduced production costs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom