• 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!

Trade bill clears Senate hurdle

Im for getting us closer to a free market, not defending the special interests of unions.

Im not entirely sure why Obama wanted this (as many dems did not) but to quote george carlin-sometimes the sun shines on even a dogs ass.

because this bill fits Obama's ideology. it ships American wealth to other countries that he has deemed we stole it from.
that is why it makes no sense to us.

also unless it gets amended it puts American companies at the mercy of foreign courts along with the US government.

he is extraditing US sovereignty to other nations.
 
Well ****. Figured that this was going to move forward, but I always had hope. Most likely will fly through the house pretty quickly.


As much as I would love to see John Boehner kill this legislation, thats over a promise to possibly have a vote on an export-import bank.

Slightly off topic, but related.

I don't understand why some have such consternation about the Export / Import bank. Doesn't it support and / or reduce the risk and expense of US firms selling US manufactured goods for overseas sales? Doesn't that help the US works, workforce, and economy?

From my understanding, there are other governments that have a long standing similar support for their industries selling abroad. Why would the US want to discontinue this leveling of the international playing field?

Because if you take the Export / Import bank issue off the table, the passing of TPP Fast Track becomes questionable, doesn't it?
 
Who did he tell he wouldn't bring it up for consideration now, again? :roll:

Well because
1.)They are on break for a week
2.)It has to first officially pass the Senate and if so with what amendments
3.)Boehner said its going to the House Financial Services
4.)Gonna have an open amendment process, need a strategy especially because Conservatives really dont want that export-import bank
 
Well because
1.)They are on break for a week
2.)It has to first officially pass the Senate and if so with what amendments
3.)Boehner said its going to the House Financial Services
4.)Gonna have an open amendment process, need a strategy especially because Conservatives really dont want that export-import bank


Must be why Boehner said what he did, huh?
 
Must be why Boehner said what he did, huh?

What that he isnt promising the export-import bank? Yea. Still think they are gonna pass this.
 
What that he isnt promising the export-import bank? Yea. Still think they are gonna pass this.



Speaker John Boehner said in his weekly news conference that Cantwell asked him to guarantee a vote on it, and he said he “would not make that commitment.”.....snip~


Seems it was already posted up with what he said.
burp.gif
 
Speaker John Boehner said in his weekly news conference that Cantwell asked him to guarantee a vote on it, and he said he “would not make that commitment.”.....snip~


Seems it was already posted up with what he said.
burp.gif

Yea I know. It is separate from the fast track authority legislation. Even if they export-import bank comes up for a vote(and if it passes or fails), I still think it fast track authority will pass the House...
 
What offends me is our supposedly democratic government thinking it has the right to pass trade deals that are kept secret from the American people.

We have a right to know what our government is doing to us, and we have the right to address our grievances to our representatives.

No we don't.
 
because this bill fits Obama's ideology. it ships American wealth to other countries that he has deemed we stole it from.
that is why it makes no sense to us.

also unless it gets amended it puts American companies at the mercy of foreign courts along with the US government.

he is extraditing US sovereignty to other nations.

Ideologically I he does indeed have an anti-colonial streak, I agree. However last I checked free trade benefits both sides or the transaction does not take place. Going to have to read up about being placed at the mercy of foreign courts-which he certainly has been a fan of in the past.
 
because this bill fits Obama's ideology. it ships American wealth to other countries that he has deemed we stole it from.
that is why it makes no sense to us.

also unless it gets amended it puts American companies at the mercy of foreign courts along with the US government.

he is extraditing US sovereignty to other nations.

With all that conservative republican support. Chomping at the bit to give the guy they don't trust to tell them the truth if they ask him what time it is, "decider" authority!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :shock::shock:
 
Ideologically I he does indeed have an anti-colonial streak, I agree. However last I checked free trade benefits both sides or the transaction does not take place. Going to have to read up about being placed at the mercy of foreign courts-which he certainly has been a fan of in the past.

ol he is an anti-colonialist. that is why he gave brazil millions of dollars to drill for oil off their coast and restricts the US.
that is why he supports this bill and no one can make sense of it. there is to much money being transferred to overseas and other countries for him to pass it up.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/26/b...s-door-for-foreign-suits-against-us.html?_r=0

would allow foreign corporations to sue the United States government for actions that undermine their investment “expectations” and hurt their business

would grant broad powers to multinational companies operating in North America, South America and Asia. Under the accord, still under negotiation but nearing completion, companies and investors would be empowered to challenge regulations, rules, government actions and court rulings — federal, state or local — before tribunals organized under the World Bank or the United Nations.

I agree trade deals are supposed to be equal but we always end up short.
News Release: U.S. International Trade in Goods and Services

this is why our trade deficit is so big.
 
Im for getting us closer to a free market, not defending the special interests of unions.
Im not entirely sure why Obama wanted this (as many dems did not) but to quote george carlin-sometimes the sun shines on even a dogs ass.
he wanted it because he's a corporatist like most other politicians. his benefactors want more cheap labor.
The 'nation state' model was put on notice the very minute we realized that technologies like travel and telecoms would become fast, cheap and universal. Things like commercial jet airliners and the internet are going to kill national sovereignty, and if any country in particular doesn't cooperate with the trend towards globalization, it will be left behind like some weird, self-excluded hermit.

Just ponder it for a minute. It's very strange that we can instantaneously text/Skype/message each other on this forum, but at the same time we cannot visit each other, sell our belongings to one another, or do anything much more than talk, without jumping through hoops of immigration, trade and regulatory laws set by our respective countries'. All of those artificial barriers between us are arbitrary and quite unsustainable in light of what our technology does for us. In a future where we all can make friends, fall in love, or go into business with someone halfway across the world, at the exact same speed as you could do with someone in the same room, it is moronic to believe that things like TTP/TTIP, international commerce and governance are preventable.

President Obama and our countries' leaderships realize this. The world is flattening and if their country purposely chooses not to participate in it, their countries' objectives and preferences of where they'll stand in this transition to a global community will be completely disregarded. Which is why global leaders are in favor of TPP/TTIP. If they oppose it, their economies will be run over by every other country that does enter into the trade agreement.
 
Last edited:
With all that conservative republican support. Chomping at the bit to give the guy they don't trust to tell them the truth if they ask him what time it is, "decider" authority!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :shock::shock:

this has nothing to do with what I posted. I don't support the trade agreement. there are to many fishy issues that have to be worked out before I would even think about supporting it.
however Obama has alternative motives and his ideology is coming before principle. that is why democrats don't understand why he would support this bill.

when you look at the bill and what it does and what it proposes then and compare that to his ideology then it makes perfect sense why he would back it.
 
The 'nation state' model was put on notice the very minute we realized that technologies like travel and telecoms would become fast, cheap and universal. Things like commercial jet airliners and the internet are going to kill national sovereignty, and if any country in particular doesn't cooperate with the trend towards globalization, it will be left behind like some weird, self-excluded hermit.

Just ponder it for a minute. It's very strange that we can instantaneously text/Skype/message each other on this forum, but at the same time we cannot visit each other, sell our belongings to one another, or do anything much more than talk to each other, without jumping through hoops of immigration, trade and regulatory laws set by our respective countries'. All of those artificial barriers between us are arbitrary and quite unsustainable in light of what our technology does for us. In a future where we all can make friends, fall in love, or go into business with someone halfway across the world, at the exact same speed as you could do with someone in the same room, it is moronic to believe that things like TTP/TTIP, international commerce and governance are preventable.

President Obama and our countries' leaderships realize this. The world is flattening and if their country purposely chooses not to participate in it, their countries' objectives and preferences of where they'll stand in this transition to a global community will be completely disregarded. Which is why global leaders are in favor of TPP/TTIP. If they oppose it, their economies will be run over by every other country that does enter into the trade agreement.

I don't know that all the opponents of TPP are against free and fair trade per se!!
 
this has nothing to do with what I posted. I don't support the trade agreement. there are to many fishy issues that have to be worked out before I would even think about supporting it.
however Obama has alternative motives and his ideology is coming before principle. that is why democrats don't understand why he would support this bill.

when you look at the bill and what it does and what it proposes then and compare that to his ideology then it makes perfect sense why he would back it.

And there's no one in the Republican Party that has figured out what ludin has?
 
And there's no one in the Republican Party that has figured out what ludin has?

I am not them I don't know. I just go by what I read in the paper and in the news about it.
I wouldn't support it in it's current version.
 
I am not them I don't know. I just go by what I read in the paper and in the news about it.
I wouldn't support it in it's current version.

I'm with ya on that. Just trying to figure out why so many republicans want to help Obama achieve his "ideology" as you put it.
 
And there's no one in the Republican Party that has figured out what ludin has?

What, you didn't know the Tea Partiers are against this Bill? Actually there is a bit of opposition by Repubs in the House.
 
What, you didn't know the Tea Partiers are against this Bill? Actually there is a bit of opposition by Repubs in the House.

A wee bit yea. And the party is about loathe to recognize the baggers.
 
I'm with ya on that. Just trying to figure out why so many republicans want to help Obama achieve his "ideology" as you put it.

they are ignoring things? not sure.
the senate has amendments to the bill due up next week. so we will see what happens then there are changes in the house that will be made as well I am sure.

any deal that does not have some benefit to us is a bad deal in my opinion. we warned of NAFTA and weren't listened to either and look where that got us.
 
I don't know that all the opponents of TPP are against free and fair trade per se!!
No, I think they're afraid of change. Our respective countries already have pretty well-defined laws, and labor/environmental/consumer rights/etc. interests are all comfortable with being an environment where they know what benefits or hurts them. That's better than a entering a new environment where they don't know where they'll have to stand. International law has largely not yet been written and there's many institutions that still need to be built. Thus is best to oppose globalization and fear change.

I further think that a lot of opponents of TPP don't appreciate that laws are mostly reactionary, and aren't instruments that are supposed to lead changes. Usually we have a problem, and then pass regulations to fix it. You don't pass regulation, and then discover it fixed our problems. We have to establish a framework for global commerce so we know what it'll look like before we can have the go-ahead to improve upon it ...
 
A wee bit yea. And the party is about loathe to recognize the baggers.


Still, some of the Repubs in the house have been in agreement with the Tea Partiers. Which has been known for some time.



"Everybody knew that putting the Schumer amendment on the one bill would not be acceptable in the House and would not be acceptable to the president," Hatch said. The deal is not necessarily dead. McConnell has the authority to bring the legislation back, but it now faces an uphill battle in the Senate and an even tougher fight in the House, where a substantial bloc of Republicans and Democrats don't back the measure.

Many Republicans remain ideologically opposed to TAA, making it an obvious target should it receive a standalone vote. Other Democratic priorities were attached to a customs bill that many believed was destined to be dismembered. Two of those concessions remain controversial: One, a ban on imports of goods manufactured with child labor, is opposed by many Republicans; the other, which would require the Commerce Department to take action on currency manipulation, is opposed by Obama. Democrats also want to see the African Growth and Opportunity Act included in the TPA vote.

But many Democrats and some Republicans fear the TPP in particular will facilitate currency manipulation by foreign competitors, erode labor and environmental standards at home and abroad, and shrink domestic jobs for the middle-class. The Obama administration treats the TPP negotiating texts as classified information, making it a crime for his trade critics to detail their concerns in public.....snip~

Senate Democrats Knock Down Obama's Trade Bill - Tea Party Command Center
 
The 'nation state' model was put on notice the very minute we realized that technologies like travel and telecoms would become fast, cheap and universal. Things like commercial jet airliners and the internet are going to kill national sovereignty, and if any country in particular doesn't cooperate with the trend towards globalization, it will be left behind like some weird, self-excluded hermit.

Just ponder it for a minute. It's very strange that we can instantaneously text/Skype/message each other on this forum, but at the same time we cannot visit each other, sell our belongings to one another, or do anything much more than talk, without jumping through hoops of immigration, trade and regulatory laws set by our respective countries'. All of those artificial barriers between us are arbitrary and quite unsustainable in light of what our technology does for us. In a future where we all can make friends, fall in love, or go into business with someone halfway across the world, at the exact same speed as you could do with someone in the same room, it is moronic to believe that things like TTP/TTIP, international commerce and governance are preventable.

President Obama and our countries' leaderships realize this. The world is flattening and if their country purposely chooses not to participate in it, their countries' objectives and preferences of where they'll stand in this transition to a global community will be completely disregarded. Which is why global leaders are in favor of TPP/TTIP. If they oppose it, their economies will be run over by every other country that does enter into the trade agreement.

i honestly don't have much of a problem with eliminating national borders, but there are borders now, and that's the dynamic that we operate in. that being said, without some kind of protection, labor conditions and wages are going to be a race to the bottom, and that race began years ago. at the very least, there should be provisions to ensure that manufacturers in the third have to follow the same environmental laws and OSHA standards that industry here is saddled with. otherwise, it becomes damned unprofitable to make products domestically.

every one of these trade agreements has ****ed over workers here. let's say the trend continues. what are people going to do for a living? in my area, the former factory workers who were once middle class are working two lousier jobs and are still making less money. the local economic ecosystem almost collapsed. a significant portion of my town is on public assistance. is it worth it? not from where i'm sitting. we used to have a bustling down town, a golf course, and various other nice things that are now gone. but we've got two walmarts twenty five minutes away, so i guess that makes it worthwhile somehow.

i don't know, man. this just feels like Lucy holding the ****ing football every single time they announce one of these agreements.
 
Still, some of the Repubs in the house have been in agreement with the Tea Partiers. Which has been known for some time.



"Everybody knew that putting the Schumer amendment on the one bill would not be acceptable in the House and would not be acceptable to the president," Hatch said. The deal is not necessarily dead. McConnell has the authority to bring the legislation back, but it now faces an uphill battle in the Senate and an even tougher fight in the House, where a substantial bloc of Republicans and Democrats don't back the measure.

Many Republicans remain ideologically opposed to TAA, making it an obvious target should it receive a standalone vote. Other Democratic priorities were attached to a customs bill that many believed was destined to be dismembered. Two of those concessions remain controversial: One, a ban on imports of goods manufactured with child labor, is opposed by many Republicans; the other, which would require the Commerce Department to take action on currency manipulation, is opposed by Obama. Democrats also want to see the African Growth and Opportunity Act included in the TPA vote.

But many Democrats and some Republicans fear the TPP in particular will facilitate currency manipulation by foreign competitors, erode labor and environmental standards at home and abroad, and shrink domestic jobs for the middle-class. The Obama administration treats the TPP negotiating texts as classified information, making it a crime for his trade critics to detail their concerns in public.....snip~

Senate Democrats Knock Down Obama's Trade Bill - Tea Party Command Center

While you're doing you're usual patronizing finger pointing, TPP will be delivered to us. You're a part of the problem, not the solution.
 
Back
Top Bottom