• 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

AlbqOwl said:
You posted her words three years ago when she was a member of the Obama administration under orders to support the Obama administration.
Click to expand...

Yes, I posted her words when they were relevant to her role in government. Not now that Bernie Sanders and everyone who is new to this thing has decided she needs to make a new soundbite.
 
Hatuey said:
Democrats didn't have the vote to pass it on their end. Why couldn't Republicans muster the necessary votes? :)
Click to expand...

Because the Republicans weren't going to go along with an utterly ridiculous idea of compensating people who lost their jobs because of this legislation. What a nightmare that would be. At least a large group of Democrats had enough common sense to know what an utterly absurd concept that is. Talk about a tangle of entitlements that would cause.
 
AlbqOwl said:
Because the Republicans weren't going to go along with an utterly ridiculous idea of compensating people who lost their jobs because of this legislation. What a nightmare that would be. At least a large group of Democrats had enough common sense to know what an utterly absurd concept that is. Talk about a tangle of entitlements that would cause.
Click to expand...

Obama quest for fast-track trade bill on ice in House | Reuters

A House Republican aide told reporters Republican leaders hope to stage a vote again Tuesday to pass the worker aid portion of the bill. That would allow the entire bill to be signed into law by Obama, but its chances were unclear.
Click to expand...

It seems Republicans are about to go with that ridiculous idea in a few days.
 
Hatuey said:
Obama quest for fast-track trade bill on ice in House | Reuters



It seems Republicans are about to go with that ridiculous idea in a few days.
Click to expand...

If you interpret "hoping" and "chances are unclear' as the Republicans are about to do something, that could explain your quoting Hillary Clinton's statement on the TPP three years ago as her point of view now. That is really reading a whole lot into something that wasn't actually said.
 
Summerwind said:
Once again, when you folks have no where else to go but totally inane black/white extreme choices, you've already lost, and you know it.
Click to expand...

"You folks"? You mean economists?
 
AlbqOwl said:
If you interpret "hoping" and "chances are unclear' as the Republicans are about to do something,
Click to expand...

Nobody has interpreted anything as anything. Somebody working within elite Republican circles has said that the party's leaders are about to go with that very idea in a few days. We'll know on Tuesday whether I am right or not. However, what's available shows that Republicans in DC are more in favor of getting this passed than Republicans on this forum.

that could explain your quoting Hillary Clinton's statement on the TPP three years ago as her point of view now. That is really reading a whole lot into something that wasn't actually said.
Click to expand...

You still don't understand how support for an issue works? I get it. If you repeatedly support something, and then give no indication of the contrary, it means... what? That you're neutral or that you oppose it? Get serious AlbqOwl.
 
Hatuey said:
Yes, I posted her words when they were relevant to her role in government. Not now that Bernie Sanders and everyone who is new to this thing has decided she needs to make a new soundbite.
Click to expand...
She's planning to make a new soundbite soon but she's still practicing her southern drawl. It doesn't come as easy as it used to...
 
reinoe said:
She's planning to make a new soundbite soon but she's still practicing her southern drawl. It doesn't come as easy as it used to...
Click to expand...

... well... it's already started my friend:

 
If you look at a trade in the simplest micro form, both sides benefit in a trade or neither party would make the trade. A person that buys a coke is happy, the seller of the coke is happy. Now multiply that by billions and billions of trades and there is great economic benefit to everyone. If say one job is los because of stiffer competition due to expansion of free trade policies not only does the consumer benefit with lower prices and/or higher quality, there will be other jobs gained because of the expansion of free trade where there is a net effect of much more jobs gained than lost. U.S. companies would have gained access to huge Asian markets with their products creating tons of jobs, and the jobs lost where Asian companies offer lower prices in the U.S. market will not only benefit consumers, but will have the effect of creating U.S. jobs because consumers will have more money in their pockets because of the cheaper prices so they can invest or buy more goods and services which create more jobs. With or without free trade agreements many jobs are leaving the U.S. because of high business taxes and excessive regulation. It is stupid imo to have high taxes on positive externalities like job creation, and have low taxes on negative externalities like earth polluting carbon. You have to raise government revenue somewhere, the smart thing is first raise as much of it as you can by taxing negative externalities.
 
Hatuey said:
Democrats didn't have the vote to pass it on their end. Why couldn't Republicans muster the necessary votes? :) Anyways, can you post evidence of this prospect? I mean something other than what some guy on the internet thought was going to happen.
Click to expand...

Repubs have never had a majority in their caucus for worker assistance.
 
laska said:
If you look at a trade in the simplest micro form, both sides benefit in a trade or neither party would make the trade. A person that buys a coke is happy, the seller of the coke is happy. Now multiply that by billions and billions of trades and there is great economic benefit to everyone. If say one job is los because of stiffer competition due to expansion of free trade policies not only does the consumer benefit with lower prices and/or higher quality, there will be other jobs gained because of the expansion of free trade where there is a net effect of much more jobs gained than lost. U.S. companies would have gained access to huge Asian markets with their products creating tons of jobs, and the jobs lost where Asian companies offer lower prices in the U.S. market will not only benefit consumers, but will have the effect of creating U.S. jobs because consumers will have more money in their pockets because of the cheaper prices so they can invest or buy more goods and services which create more jobs. With or without free trade agreements many jobs are leaving the U.S. because of high business taxes and excessive regulation. It is stupid imo to have high taxes on positive externalities like job creation, and have low taxes on negative externalities like earth polluting carbon. You have to raise government revenue somewhere, the smart thing is first raise as much of it as you can by taxing negative externalities.
Click to expand...
Looks like the TPP is paying people to post on forums now. It's not surprising I just want everyone to have a heads up.
 
Hatuey said:
Democrats didn't have the vote to pass it on their end. Why couldn't Republicans muster the necessary votes? :) Anyways, can you post evidence of this prospect? I mean something other than what some guy on the internet thought was going to happen.
Click to expand...

House Rejects Trade Bill as Democrats Spurn the White House

In a remarkable blow to a president they have backed so resolutely, House Democrats voted to end assistance to workers displaced by global trade, a program their party created and has supported for four decades. That move effectively scuttled legislation granting the president trade promotion authority — the power to negotiate trade deals that cannot be amended or filibustered by Congress.
“We want a better deal for America’s workers,” said Representative Nancy Pelosi of California, the House minority leader who has guided the president’s agenda for two terms and was personally lobbied by Mr. Obama until the last minute.
The vote that prevented the president from obtaining trade promotional authority now imperils the more sweeping Trans-Pacific Partnership, a proposed trade agreement with 11 other nations along the Pacific Ocean that affects 40 percent of the global economy on goods ranging from running shoes to computers.
“They have taken their own child hostage,” said Representative Charlie Dent, Republican of Pennsylvania, adding, “Does it hurt the president? Of course it hurts the president, but it hurts America more.”
The Democratic revolt left Republican leaders trying to summon support from their own party for trade adjustment assistance, a program they have long derided as a waste of money and a concession to organized labor. Eighty-six Republicans voted for the program, more than double the 40 Democrats who supported it. But the trade adjustment assistance bill failed when 126 voted for it, and 303 against.
Republican leaders then passed, in a 219-to-211 vote, a stand-alone bill that would grant the president the trade negotiating authority he sought. But that measure cannot go to the president for his signature, because the Senate version of the legislative package combined both trade adjustment and trade promotion.

 
Jack Hays said:
Repubs have never had a majority in their caucus for worker assistance.
Click to expand...

Apparently neither did Democrats. Unless of course you're saying that Democrats have actively advocated for assistance to US workers displaced by global trade. I haven't seen that anywhere. I'm not sure why you're still trying to pin this on them. Were your expectations not met?
 
Hatuey said:
Apparently neither did Democrats. Unless of course you're saying that Democrats have actively advocated for assistance to US workers displaced by global trade. I haven't seen that anywhere. I'm not sure why you're still trying to pin this on them. Were your expectations not met?
Click to expand...

Please see #88. The NYT captures it.
 
Jack Hays said:
Please see #88. The NYT captures it.
Click to expand...

It doesn't really. All it says is that Democrats weren't in favor of that part of that bill. That says nothing about what was expected from them or who expected it. I know that I personally don't support a bill with some aid to people displaced because of global trade. I don't know a Democrat on this forum who does. Hell, I don't even know a Republican on this forum who supports that. So it seems like this part of the bill had no hopes of getting passed. Republicans are going to try to get it passed on Tuesday apparently. Weird how things change.
 
JANFU said:
Problem is they go the arbitration route and generally win.
Click to expand...

workers would have to organize to have any power. pushed far enough, it might happen again. unfortunately, we are split right down the middle by the stupid duopoly, and that's why we get screwed again and again by both sides.

so yeah, they might sue for lost profits. however, screw their blackmail. Lucy has pulled the ball enough that there is no ****ing way that i'm going in for a kick.
 
Hatuey said:
It doesn't really. All it says is that Democrats weren't in favor of that part of that bill. That says nothing about what was expected from them or who expected it. I know that I personally don't support a bill with some aid to people displaced because of global trade. I don't know a Democrat on this forum who does. Hell, I don't even know a Republican on this forum who supports that. So it seems like this part of the bill had no hopes of getting passed. Republicans are going to try to get it passed on Tuesday apparently. Weird how things change.
Click to expand...

If that's your view I'm not going to try to change it. I think you're wrong and forty years of previous votes support that. Dems have always supported worker assistance and only started talking about opposing it as a way to block trade promotion authority. The irony is that Repubs delivered the votes BHO was counting on but Dems did not.
 
justabubba said:
anyone see where hillary stands on this?
Click to expand...

Yeah, Bernie is trying to get her to talk:

Bernie Sanders Calls Hillary Clinton's Silence on Trade Deal Offensive

"I don't understand how, on an issue of such huge consequence, you don't have an opinion"

Asked if Clinton's refusal to take a position offends him, Sanders said:

"Yes, it does."

"If she's against this, we need her to speak out, right now. Right now," Sanders said. "I don't understand how any candidate, Democrat or Republican, is not speaking out on that issue."​
 
Jack Hays said:
If that's your view I'm not going to try to change it.
Click to expand...

That's not my view. I asked you to show what exactly was expected of Democrats. From all we know, neither Democrats nor Republicans seem to be ready to take that burden with elections less than 2 years away. I don't blame them. However, if you're going to claim that Democrats were expected to pass the bill, I'd like to see some evidence. Not that it's relevant or anything. There are 245 Republicans in the House. If they want bills passed, they better have all the votes for it. Democrats didn't depend on Republicans to pass Obamacare, did they?
 
NIMBY said:
Yet Clyburn and Hoyer didn't vote no--the #s 2 and 3.
Many DEMs were insulted by the President "trying to guilt people and impugn their integrity".
Kind of like calling Sen. Warren "Elizabeth" and never calling her Senator, as she calls him the President .
Click to expand...

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:
 
Hatuey said:
That's not my view. I asked you to show what exactly was expected of Democrats. From all we know, neither Democrats nor Republicans seem to be ready to take that burden with elections less than 2 years away. I don't blame them. However, if you're going to claim that Democrats were expected to pass the bill, I'd like to see some evidence. Not that it's relevant or anything. There are 245 Republicans in the House. If they want bills passed, they better have all the votes for it. Democrats didn't depend on Republicans to pass Obamacare, did they?
Click to expand...

There are two bills. Dems were expected to provide the votes for worker assistance, a program they created and have always supported. (Repubs always opposed it and were not expected to provide more than subsidiary support.) The second bill was trade promotion authority. Repubs were expected to provide the votes for it and did so. You don't need to take my word for it. This is what will be all over the Sunday talk shows.
 
Jack Hays said:
There are two bills. Dems were expected to provide the votes for worker assistance, a program they created and have always supported. (Repubs always opposed it and were not expected to provide more than subsidiary support.) The second bill was trade promotion authority. Repubs were expected to provide the votes for it and did so. You don't need to take my word for it. This is what will be all over the Sunday talk shows.
Click to expand...

If the bill is so great why is there assistance provisions for displaced Americans?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom