• 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!

GOP leaders confirm Friday trade vote

TheDemSocialist

Gradualist
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 13, 2011
Messages
34,951
Reaction score
16,311
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Socialist
The House will vote Friday on whether to give President Barack Obama fast-track authority to negotiate the Pacific Rim trade deal.House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) made the announcement in a closed Republican meeting in the Capitol Wednesday morning. Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) said GOP leadership would do everything it can to move the bill this week.
Story Continued Below


The move indicates GOP leadership is beginning to feel comfortable with the level of support for the measure.


Read more: GOP leaders confirm Friday trade vote - Jake Sherman - POLITICO

Well that really didnt take too long. Boehner must be indicated that they have the votes. Unfortunately there is little hope that this measure is going to be shot down. I hope they can keep a lively debate.
 
Unfortunately, this seems to be all but done. All the right players had to have been paid off well to get this to a Friday vote, meaning I agree that Boehner and McConnell must have the vote issue remedied.
 
Boehner has scheduled votes before thinking he had the votes for passage only to pull it once he realized the votes weren't there. So we will see.
 
Read more: GOP leaders confirm Friday trade vote - Jake Sherman - POLITICO

Well that really didnt take too long. Boehner must be indicated that they have the votes. Unfortunately there is little hope that this measure is going to be shot down. I hope they can keep a lively debate. [/FONT][/COLOR]

It should be noted that the legislation in question is not a vote on the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) Agreement. The TPP has not been agreed. Negotiations are ongoing. Instead, the legislation concerns fast-track authority for Congressional and Senate review should the TPP be agreed. From the Politico.com story, this will be a "vote to grant President Barack Obama fast-track authority to negotiate a massive Pacific Rim trade deal..."
 
Pretty amazing when Harry Reid doesn't gum up the works, isn't it? :lamo
**** actually gets done.

You think giving the president fast track authority is a good thing? Why?
 
You think giving the president fast track authority is a good thing? Why?

Because it is good policy.

TPA, which simply ensures that a trade pact negotiated by the president receives an up-or-down vote in Congress, ought to be utterly uncontroversial: Trade liberalization is generally good for the United States. TPA simply ensures that a proposed trade accord gets a vote rather than die a death by a thousand cuts or suffocation.

Some Republicans have argued that any unnecessary delegation of powers to President Obama is to be avoided, because the president is a habitual abuser of his powers and generally untrustworthy. These concerns are not without merit, but TPA does not bind Congress to the president’s proposal — it only ensures that they are obliged to vote on it. There is at present no reason to believe that TPP is a bad deal, but if it comes in ugly, then Republicans, who control both houses of Congress, can easily stop it. A precedent of opposing TPA per se would be destructive — Republicans should bear in mind that Barack Obama will not be president forever. A President Rubio, President Walker (etc.) might make very good use of TPA, which ought to be maintained as an ordinary procedural mechanism...

And while we're at it, it's also good politics (for conservatives)

...The politics are even better for Republicans, because TPA strengthens their hand in the matter of the Trans-Pacific Partnership. President Obama wants a Pacific trade deal, and Republicans want (or should want) a Pacific trade deal, too. Congressional Democrats are generally hostile to such liberalizing measures, meaning that President Obama knows that if he wants to cross TPP off his to-do list he must bring in a deal that Republicans will find acceptable — more than acceptable: worth fighting for. The best course for the GOP is to fight for TPA and to take affirmative steps to let the president know the TPP limitations within which he is working; Republicans should tell him, in effect: “This is our wish list, these are our must-haves, and these are our deal-breakers.”

The president knows that he will have more success negotiating with Republicans than he will with Charles Schumer and Nancy Pelosi. Republicans ought to appreciate that they will have more success negotiating with President Obama than with Charles Schumer and Nancy Pelosi. For once, they have the undisputed upper hand, a position that some of them apparently find confusing....
 
Because it is good policy.



And while we're at it, it's also good politics (for conservatives)

It is important to note that this authority GIVEN to the President by Congress. The President is granted this authority. Congress is essentially shooting itself in the foot by giving the President this authority, and to approve or deny the TPP with minimal debate and no amendments. Our elected representatives have no actual roll in the trade policy and formulating it other than voting it up or down.
 
It is important to note that this authority GIVEN to the President by Congress. The President is granted this authority. Congress is essentially shooting itself in the foot by giving the President this authority, and to approve or deny the TPP with minimal debate and no amendments. Our elected representatives have no actual roll in the trade policy and formulating it other than voting it up or down.

They are giving the President the authority to submit a negotiated trade deal for an up or down vote which Congress is then free to vote down or vote up as it pleases.

I'm pretty solidly on the side of "we have an imperial Presidency and that's a problem" when it comes to balance-of-powers, but this is still a good move.




FFS, how often am I the one arguing that congress needs to not position itself to maximize obstruction of this Presidents' policy objectives? This is good policy.
 
They are giving the President the authority to submit a negotiated trade deal for an up or down vote which Congress is then free to vote down or vote up as it pleases.

I'm pretty solidly on the side of "we have an imperial Presidency and that's a problem" when it comes to balance-of-powers, but this is still a good move.

So why cant they amend it? Why can not amendments be added or continuation of negotiatoins, etc. Its literally either take it or leave it. And how this will be framed is, "you either are with us or not, this is the greatest trade deal ever (just as every "free trade" deal has been presented) and if you vote against it or somehow convince the majority of congress to vote it down you are shooting an amazingly large portion of the worlds economy in the foot" (oh and dont forget that this is negotiated in secret with corporate powers).
 
So why cant they amend it? Why can not amendments be added or continuation of negotiatoins, etc. Its literally either take it or leave it.

That's right. That's what happens when the Executive negotiates a foreign deal (say, a treaty, or a nuclear deal with Iran that is a treaty in everything but name so as to avoid the supermajority requirement). Congress then votes on it. Congress shouldn't renegotiate the agreement.

And how this will be framed is, "you either are with us or not, this is the greatest trade deal ever (just as every "free trade" deal has been presented) and if you vote against it or somehow convince the majority of congress to vote it down you are shooting an amazingly large portion of the worlds economy in the foot" (oh and dont forget that this is negotiated in secret with corporate powers).

I'm not a fan of the lack of transparency, I agree. This administration is Nixonesque in its' paranoia and desire to control information. I also agree that the President is likely to accuse people who disagree with him on the left or the right of doing so from crass motivations, and generally being an enemy of trade, economic growth, freedom, poor people, and little puppies. It's what he does. That doesn't make this a bad policy.

Partisans vote their side. Ideologues vote their ideas. Politicians vote their base. Be an Ideologue, my friend. :).
 
So if Obama was indeed one of the two or three most liberal Dem senators and he has turned into a corporatist lackey - what hope is there for anybody else?

Yes - I know - we could all vote Republican..... but my view is that Dem president (Obama - Bill Clinton) has no problem from time to time kissing the fat behind of the corporations while the Republicans fight to see whose tongue can make a deeper penetration and then want to brag about the great taste experience. So its a lesser of two evils choice.
 
That's right. That's what happens when the Executive negotiates a foreign deal (say, a treaty, or a nuclear deal with Iran that is a treaty in everything but name so as to avoid the supermajority requirement). Congress then votes on it. Congress shouldn't renegotiate the agreement.
Why shouldnt they have a say in it? They are our elected representatives. Corporate powers get a say in the negotiations, but not congress? Corporate powers get to help draft the legislation, but not congress?

I'm not a fan of the lack of transparency, I agree. This administration is Nixonesque in its' paranoia and desire to control information. I also agree that the President is likely to accuse people who disagree with him on the left or the right of doing so from crass motivations, and generally being an enemy of trade, economic growth, freedom, poor people, and little puppies. It's what he does. That doesn't make this a bad policy.
So what makes it a good policy? So you support the fast track authority, you dont support the lack of transparency? Also what makes fast tracking the deal the correct way to implement the policy?

Partisans vote their side. Ideologues vote their ideas. Politicians vote their base. Be an Ideologue, my friend. :).
:)
 
Read more: GOP leaders confirm Friday trade vote - Jake Sherman - POLITICO

Well that really didnt take too long. Boehner must be indicated that they have the votes. Unfortunately there is little hope that this measure is going to be shot down. I hope they can keep a lively debate. [/FONT][/COLOR]

Unfortunately Chamber of commerce republicans and democrats love sucking the cocks(I use this terminology because this goes beyond just simple ass kissing) of big business owners.These chamber of commerce politicians could care less about the harm these trade deals do to American workers, the harm it does to our industrial sovereignty and the fact these trade deals line the pockets of dangerous countries like China for example.As a result of the trade deal they are able to build up it's military which will pose harm to the US and it's interests over seas.

Karl Marx's said something about hanging the last capitalist they bought rope from. Many people probably thought who would be stupid enough to sell rope to those nutjobs,Well one only has to look at the chamber of commerce politicians with their lips wrapped around the cocks of business and the outsourcing companies so eager to do trade deals with those countries in order to exploit dirt cheap labor and lack of environmental and worker safety laws. These Chamber of commerce politicians and the outsourcing companies are so greedy they would probably sell their own grandma to cannibals and their soul to the devil if it meant they could make an extra dollar.
 
Here's an idea, call and email your senators, your reps and let them know if they vote to allow this you'll never vote for them again, for anything. And mean it.
 
Why shouldnt they have a say in it? They are our elected representatives.

So is the President. It's his job to negotiate on behalf of the United States with foreign governments. It's Congress' job to provide a check on that by voting on it. It's not Congress' job to negotiate or attempt to renegotiate. They can place pressure ahead of time by saying what they will or will not vote for, but negotiation with foreign nations is not their job.

Corporate powers get a say in the negotiations, but not congress? Corporate powers get to help draft the legislation, but not congress?

:shrug: If you've got a problem with that, take it to "The Most Transparent Administration Ever Who Won't Hire Lobbyists".

So what makes it a good policy? So you support the fast track authority, you dont support the lack of transparency? Also what makes fast tracking the deal the correct way to implement the policy?

Fast Track is good policy because it allows trade deals to get an up or down vote rather than getting killed via legislative purgatory and poison pills. It forces Congress to vote on it - and if they don't like it, they are free to vote against it, and the President loses. Just like Treaties. It follows the Constitutional model of separation of powers, keeping the roles of the branches separate, telling the Legislature to be the Legislature, and the Executive to be the Executive. The need to have a single point of negotiation with the United States of America is one of the reasons that we have our current system - under the Articles nobody knew whether they needed to negotiate with Congress, the State Governors, the State Legislators, etc.; and each party felt that it had the right to ride over the others, creating chaos and making it almost impossible to have a foreign policy.
 
You think giving the president fast track authority is a good thing? Why?

And you support this bill why?

Less so support of this particular bill and granting a known weak negotiator such as Obama and his administration fast track, but more so in amazement in the difference in progress, actual accomplishment and legislation passed between a McConnell led Senate and a Reid led Senate is all.
 
Why shouldnt they have a say in it? They are our elected representatives. Corporate powers get a say in the negotiations, but not congress? Corporate powers get to help draft the legislation, but not congress?

Congress gets the ultimate say. If Congress feels that the agreement is not compatible with the national interest it can reject it. Then, the U.S. is not bound by its terms. Then the negotiating parties can decide whether to set it aside or rework it taking into consideration Congress' action. No Representative or Senator is obligated to support the agreement if he/she feels it is against the national interest. In fact, if he/she were to support it despite such a position, he/she should not be in government.
 
Less so support of this particular bill and granting a known weak negotiator such as Obama and his administration fast track, but more so in amazement in the difference in progress, actual accomplishment and legislation passed between a McConnell led Senate and a Reid led Senate is all.

You didnt answer my question.
 
Pretty amazing when Harry Reid doesn't gum up the works, isn't it? :lamo
**** actually gets done.

I guess your a fan of getting horrible **** done. Me... Not so much.
 
It is important to note that this authority GIVEN to the President by Congress. The President is granted this authority. Congress is essentially shooting itself in the foot by giving the President this authority, and to approve or deny the TPP with minimal debate and no amendments. Our elected representatives have no actual roll in the trade policy and formulating it other than voting it up or down.

Its what our congress does anymore. None of them want to be held accountable for their votes come election time therefore they always look for ways to abdicate their responsibilities. This for example and war powers as another example.
 
You didnt answer my question.
I did. 'Less so in support of the bill' Answers your question. Not my fault you have reading compression problems.
I guess your a fan of getting horrible **** done. Me... Not so much.

Not knowing the full details of the legislation I'm not really for it nor against it (can't without an informed opinion on the matter).

Regardless, at least the Senate is now doing the people's business rather than stuck in Reid's gridlock.
 
I did. 'Less so in support of the bill' Answers your question. Not my fault you have reading compression problems.


Not knowing the full details of the legislation I'm not really for it nor against it (can't without an informed opinion on the matter).

Regardless, at least the Senate is now doing the people's business rather than stuck in Reid's gridlock.

Its moving forward because its a right wing agenda that the president agrees with. Just like NAFTA zoomed through under Clinton. It will most likely have the same job draining effect NAFTA had as well.
 
Back
Top Bottom