• 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 Democrats Block Progress on Obama’s Trade Authority

i cant give you one, because i have not studied that issue, because i have much other reading to do, concerning constitutional law.

but i can tell you i have always been for free trade, however that trade must be equal trade from both sides.

Ok, fair enough, Thank you.
 
I will admit that I don't know enough about the bill to know where I stand. I've read some of this thread and I still don't know enough about this bill to comment. I don't think any others do either. Everyone seems to have a grip on the partisan nature of the bill however. I honestly don't trust democrats, republicans or Obama. If someone can talk about the merits of the bill, good or bad, it would be interesting.

Republicans may like fast track because they understand that Obama has a short time left in office and eventually it will open some doors for future presidents. The devil is in the details though and it's the details I would be concerned about.

To the bolded. I've thought the same thing myself as I've tried to figure why the republicans would do that. I understand easily why republicans like US corporate enhancing trade deals, and why they hate unions and social safety nets, but fast track to Obama. It's as you said, by the time this deal becomes law and begins being implemented, Obama's long history.
 
i will make it simple what i mean....

your threads have become the james d. hill of threads, because you make post... to make one politician party worst then other, thats your MO.....and no one has to think hard on the one you wish to demonize..

my point had to do with the comment you made which i highlighted, which you were trying to put forth that democrats were doing the right thing, and that things should be out in the open or nothing.

my point was... republicans want to keep things from the public, but both parties do it, as when the ACA was being formed, [and i showed you links, which you acted as thought none existed]....which i also stated you would not accept and would reject as you have.

because the truth for you exist only in your post.

again.... this among others are peddling post for a party.

I didnt bring anything about partisanship up in my op other than the OP title from the NY Times. If you read into the article it clearly indicates that many Democrats voted for the motion while many didnt thus splitting the party. And what are you talking about "the truth"? You were the one that was called out on a bull**** example.
Again this is called ****ing reality, members of the Democratic party blocked a procedural motion to give Obama fast track authority to authorize the TPP.
 
I didnt bring anything about partisanship up in my op other than the OP title from the NY Times. If you read into the article it clearly indicates that many Democrats voted for the motion while many didnt thus splitting the party. And what are you talking about "the truth"? You were the one that was called out on a bull**** example.
Again this is called ****ing reality, members of the Democratic party blocked a procedural motion to give Obama fast track authority to authorize the TPP.

Yep, and I'm glad they did. But like Helix, its joy with pause, I'm still concerned that it becomes law in the end.
 
Yep, and I'm glad they did. But like Helix, its joy with pause, I'm still concerned that it becomes law in the end.

I agree. Unless there is more public attention brought to the issue it will unfortunately pan out just like it is now.
 
I will admit that I don't know enough about the bill to know where I stand. I've read some of this thread and I still don't know enough about this bill to comment. I don't think any others do either. Everyone seems to have a grip on the partisan nature of the bill however. I honestly don't trust democrats, republicans or Obama. If someone can talk about the merits of the bill, good or bad, it would be interesting.

Republicans may like fast track because they understand that Obama has a short time left in office and eventually it will open some doors for future presidents. The devil is in the details though and it's the details I would be concerned about.

That's of course the main problem with fast track authority. All ANYONE not a corporate lobbyist (for the most part) knows is what's been leaked by various sources. It's impossible to really know whether to support the bill or not because we and most of Congress can't see the damn thing, but the POTUS wants fast track authority on this giant black hole.
 
That's of course the main problem with fast track authority. All ANYONE not a corporate lobbyist (for the most part) knows is what's been leaked by various sources. It's impossible to really know whether to support the bill or not because we and most of Congress can't see the damn thing, but the POTUS wants fast track authority on this giant black hole.

And republicans that wouldn't trust Obama if they asked him what time it is, suddenly have the trust to give him "decider" authority on TPP!!!!!!!!!
 
That's a bit cryptic, but it fits with the ideology of almost all republicans, big business, the Chamber of Commerce, multinationals, etc. I'm not sure what your point is here.

What is indicates to me is the socialist etc. label for Obama is ridiculous. He's a middle of the road, centrist, neo-liberal on economic matters like pretty much the last several POTUS's. Not much different than Bush or Clinton.

I'm glad democrats and republicans stopped fast track on a bill negotiated in secret by lobbyists for the behemoth corporate interests. It's like asking Congress to take a pig in a poke, which I'm vehemently opposed to on this trade deal.

It isn't cryptic at all. Why would a president who constantly spouts he is for the American worker sign a bill that has a huge negative effect on American companies?

I have to find it but one article had them opposing it because it would allow foreign nations to sue the US government for actions that undermine investment "expectations" and hurt their companies. what? since when do we allow this to happen?

It wouldn't even be in US courts but before the World Bank and the UN which have anti-American views to begin with.
there also were some other big negatives in the trade bill that will hurt American people and America itself.

however when you consider the fact that Obama is an anti-colonialist then well it fits right in line of why he would give other countries power over America
instead of protecting America's sovereignty.

the other sticking point in the bill is the regulation on currency manipulation that Asian countries like China pull to keep a favored value over the dollar.
that should be part of any trade agreement that we are going to deal on even terms as far as currency goes.
 
That's of course the main problem with fast track authority. All ANYONE not a corporate lobbyist (for the most part) knows is what's been leaked by various sources. It's impossible to really know whether to support the bill or not because we and most of Congress can't see the damn thing, but the POTUS wants fast track authority on this giant black hole.

the problem with fast track is that means that congress can only approve it or not. they can't amend the trade agreement like they normally would be able to.
 
And republicans that wouldn't trust Obama if they asked him what time it is, suddenly have the trust to give him "decider" authority on TPP!!!!!!!!!
That's a good point. I have to admit, I am not familar with the details of TPP, but anything that checks this out of control presidency has to be a good thing. Hence, the POTUS should not be given even more power in the form of fast track authority.

I applaud the democrats for having wisdom in this case, or at least acting in a wise manner for whatever reason, and chastise the republicans for lacking it.
 
That's a good point. I have to admit, I am not familar with the details of TPP, but anything that checks this out of control presidency has to be a good thing. Hence, the POTUS should not be given even more power in the form of fast track authority.

I applaud the democrats for having wisdom in this case, or at least acting in a wise manner for whatever reason, and chastise the republicans for lacking it.

Connect the dots. Republicans are pro corporation, not that anybody should be anti corporation, and asking for fences if you will (certain restrictions and regulations) is not anti-corporation. Given human nature and the corrupting power of greed, which each and everyone of us has, we need people looking over the shoulders of big business (small business too) and the financial sector just as we need oversight, checks and balances in government. Because after all, as someone famously said, we wouldn't even need a constitution if men were angels, and we're not. 85% of the negotiators on 28 committees are corporate executives and industry lobbyist! Look at that imbalance and conflict right there. The deal began as a trade agreement between four smaller PRC's until the US jumped in and took the lead with the primary motivation of keeping China out of it. Containment of China. Now then, the GOP largely (not completely, TEA Party!!) wants to give to the presidency, decider authority on this trade. Ok, no big deal for the GOP, realizing that by the time TPP becomes law and is being implemented, Obama is long history. Still, why the desperation for no congressional oversight? It's not that all of that is necessarily bad, but what's missing in it is the benefit/liability to and representation of the average American worker. I've already pointed out labor unions and labor advocacy groups, which have scant input in the negotiations are voicing their concerns, but nobody seems to be willing to hold a microphone up to them. People argue the natural necessity of such treaties to be negotiated in secret and while I can see some merit to that argument, some people are tired of big ground shaking deals being done in secret and then made public for a minute and then voted on or just signed into law.
This deal is a decade old almost, hundreds, maybe thousands of people have been working on it, when complete it will be 29 chapters and we're told that when it's complete, it will be made public for 60 days before processing for our scrutiny. But even if that does happen, and we've been promised such things before that didn't actually materialize, 60 days to look at, comprehend and distill something that hundreds or thousands of people have been working on for nearly a decade!!!??? It really needs help.
 
It isn't cryptic at all. Why would a president who constantly spouts he is for the American worker sign a bill that has a huge negative effect on American companies?

I have to find it but one article had them opposing it because it would allow foreign nations to sue the US government for actions that undermine investment "expectations" and hurt their companies. what? since when do we allow this to happen?

It wouldn't even be in US courts but before the World Bank and the UN which have anti-American views to begin with.
there also were some other big negatives in the trade bill that will hurt American people and America itself.

however when you consider the fact that Obama is an anti-colonialist then well it fits right in line of why he would give other countries power over America
instead of protecting America's sovereignty.

the other sticking point in the bill is the regulation on currency manipulation that Asian countries like China pull to keep a favored value over the dollar.
that should be part of any trade agreement that we are going to deal on even terms as far as currency goes.

I guess you realize that if the bill is consistent with Obama's ideology, it's also consistent with the ideology of the vast majority of the GOP, big business, the Chamber of Commerce, etc. So I guess you're saying the GOP, Chamber etc. is overwhelmingly against the American worker and American business as well.
 
I understand. But I looked at your first post in this thread, and I can't tell whether or not you support TPP?

Well, he is against ACA. That much we know.
 
i have always been for free trade, however that trade must be equal trade from both sides.

TPP is managed trade. It is NAFTA/CAFTA on steroids.

Certainly you have an opinion on fast track?
 
I have to say I find it curious, and just a little bit humorous, that some of the same posters who were criticizing Republicans for not wanting to let Obama bind America to a secretly negotiated deal with Iran are now cheering on Democrats for not wanting to let Obama bind America to a secretly negotiated trade deal with the Asian group.

American politics are wonderful.

I was trying to figure out what mystified me here, and you nailed it.

Interesting.

I actually have no opinion either way on what I know about this; everything written or spoken has a partisan slant. So I'm not going to criticize either side (Obama & those for it, nor those against it).
 
i belive all legislation should be out in the open, and plenty of time to read understand and debate it.

Do you want the president to have fast track authority on such a vast trade deal, or do you want congressional oversight?
 
Well, he is against ACA. That much we know.

But over all, the PPACA is positive. There are negatives about it as any such monstrosity will have, some big, many many small ones that we deal with in our business (medical billing and consulting) daily, literally that are being ironed out. You might be surprised how many times we've received new guidelines (particularly from Medicare and Medicaid) from the implementation of PPACA, only to be modified due to industry complaints of too imposing for the benefit. I'm trying to say that not everything in the 2,000 pages of the bill have rolled out smoothly as you might expect, and I'm talking about lots of little things in addition to the initial roll out trouble that everybody's aware of. That said, there's great benefits to it and those that want to "repeal every last word of it" are wrong.
 
That's of course the main problem with fast track authority. All ANYONE not a corporate lobbyist (for the most part) knows is what's been leaked by various sources. It's impossible to really know whether to support the bill or not because we and most of Congress can't see the damn thing, but the POTUS wants fast track authority on this giant black hole.

I heard Rand Paul on the radio who claimed he read the bill. He said it was not easily understood because it was written in Washingtonian legalese. I still don't know if I support it but I know that the process should be transparent. I understand that the dems in the Senate have come to some kind of agreement. and passage is imminent.
 
Apparently they can abdicate that power to the president and plenty of GOPer's want it.

this has been done over several decades, however there is no power in the constitution to shift power from 1 branch to another...to do that is unconstitutional
 
this has been done over several decades, however there is no power in the constitution to shift power from 1 branch to another...to do that is unconstitutional

Well, we won't disagree on that. Presidents have committed to unconstitutional behavior for some time now, and congress has been abdicating.
 
Well, we won't disagree on that. Presidents have committed to unconstitutional behavior for some time now, and congress has been abdicating.

i not saying it has not happened..i am saying there is no power per the constitution to do so

part of of american federalism is a separation of powers among branches of government...if powers are mixed then there is no separation
 
Back
Top Bottom