• 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’s Fast-Track Trade Bill Passes House in Second Attempt

D

donsutherland1

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 17, 2007
Messages
11,862
Reaction score
10,300
Location
New York
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
From Bloomberg.com:

The U.S. House passed President Barack Obama’s fast-track trade bill, one of the president’s top second-term priorities, with mostly Republican votes a week after a Democratic rebellion almost killed the proposal.

The 218-208 House vote Thursday returns the measure to the Senate, which also voted for it last month. Obama wants the expedited trade negotiating authority to help his administration complete a 12-nation Trans-Pacific Partnership.
Click to expand...

Obama

It should be noted that the legislation in question is not a trade agreement. It concerns a process under which a trade agreement would be considered by Congress. In substance, it is similar to a closed rule, as there would be no amendments permitted and it would be subjected to a vote as is. Currently, negotiations remain underway and there is no Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement.
 
donsutherland1 said:
From Bloomberg.com:



Obama

It should be noted that the legislation in question is not a trade agreement. It concerns a process under which a trade agreement would be considered by Congress. In substance, it is similar to a closed rule, as there would be no amendments permitted and it would be subjected to a vote as is. Currently, negotiations remain underway and there is no Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement.
Click to expand...

Very disappointed in the republican house.
 
Right back to the Senate. Here's to hoping that McConnell can get it through!
 
....The measure would let Obama submit trade agreements to Congress for an expedited, up-or-down vote without amendments. It would give the authority to Obama and the next president for six years as part of a package that revamps U.S. trade policy into the next decade.
Click to expand...


That seems reasonable, imo. I do feel better knowing what they voted on. It would be funny if the Senate tries to attach an amendment to a bill about not attaching amendments. lol
 
The only thing these trade agreements end up trading is American jobs, and debt. I challenge anyone to show me otherwise. To show me how any trade bill EVER has made our country better off. Stop trading away our country you political assholes!~


Tim-
 
Hicup said:
The only thing these trade agreements end up trading is American jobs, and debt. I challenge anyone to show me otherwise. To show me how any trade bill EVER has made our country better off. Stop trading away our country you political assholes!~


Tim-
Click to expand...

Heya Hicup. :2wave: All this does is get around public debate and congressional oversight. As all Congress would do is give an up and down vote. Moreover it allows the Executive to Control Congress' Voting Schedule. Funny how then Candidate BO said this was an anti democratic process and would get rid of it, huh?





Fast Track
An Undemocratic Path to Unfair "Trade".....

Fast Track was an extreme and rarely-used procedure initially created by President Richard Nixon to get around public debate and congressional oversight. Fast Track is how we got into the job-killing, wage-flattening North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the World Trade Organization (WTO). Thanks to Fast Track, NAFTA and the WTO included terms that promote the offshoring of U.S. jobs to low-wage countries.

Fast Track is such an extreme power grab that in the past 21 years Congress has only allowed it to go into effect for five years total. Why? Because under the U.S. Constitution, Congress is supposed to write the laws and set trade policy. For 200 years, these key checks and balances helped ensure that no one branch of government had too much power. But, starting with Nixon, presidents have tried to seize those congressional powers using the Fast Track mechanism.

Fast Track allowed the executive branch to unilaterally select partner countries for "trade" pacts, decide the agreements' contents, and then negotiate and sign the agreements – all before Congress had a vote on the matter! Normal congressional committee processes were forbidden, meaning that the executive branch was empowered to write lengthy legislation on its own with no review or amendments. These executive-authored bills altered wide swaths of U.S. law unrelated to trade – food safety, immigration visas, energy policy, medicine patents and more – to conform our domestic policies to each agreement's requirements. And, remarkably, Fast Track let the executive branch control Congress' voting schedule. Unlike any other legislation, both the House and Senate were required to vote on a Fast Tracked trade agreement within 90 days of the White House submitting it. No floor amendments were allowed and debate was limited....snip~

Fast Track - Presidential Trade Negotiating Authority
 
Ross Perot nailed it on this stuff. The republicans are getting this one very very wrong.
 
I'm pist !!!!
My congressman Stutzman who wants to be my next Senator voted for this POS!!

Guess I wont be voting for senator next year unless its Libertarian!!:rantoff:
 
donsutherland1 said:
From Bloomberg.com:



Obama

It should be noted that the legislation in question is not a trade agreement. It concerns a process under which a trade agreement would be considered by Congress. In substance, it is similar to a closed rule, as there would be no amendments permitted and it would be subjected to a vote as is. Currently, negotiations remain underway and there is no Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't this legislation return the rule to what it was from 1977 to 2007?
 
donsutherland1 said:
From Bloomberg.com:



Obama

It should be noted that the legislation in question is not a trade agreement. It concerns a process under which a trade agreement would be considered by Congress. In substance, it is similar to a closed rule, as there would be no amendments permitted and it would be subjected to a vote as is. Currently, negotiations remain underway and there is no Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement.
Click to expand...


Heya DS. :2wave: Corporate America needs to start investing in their own country rather than those overseas. Don't you think?
 
MMC said:
Heya DS. :2wave: Corporate America needs to start investing in their own country rather than those overseas. Don't you think?
Click to expand...

IMO, investments in becoming more competitive would be helpful in the long-run (R&D, human capital development, etc.). Currently with near zero borrowing costs, its very easy for companies to borrow and then buy back shares. With a reduced number of outstanding shares, Earnings per share (EPS) growth is higher (one can spread each new dollar of earnings over a smaller number of shares). The problem is that this creates the illusion of stronger performance while doing little to improve competitiveness. There is a risk that such policies are actually undermining the long-term competitive positions of some companies, especially in cases where international competitors are becoming stronger rivals.

As the TPP has not yet been agreed and I've seen no drafts, I'm hesitant to speculate on its terms. As is typically the case, some companies and industries will be "winners" and others won't be. The distribution of the kinds of companies in each position will shape the employment effects.
 
MMC said:
Heya DS. :2wave: Corporate America needs to start investing in their own country rather than those overseas. Don't you think?
Click to expand...

That would happen if, you know, our corporate tax wasnt the highest in the world.
 
donsutherland1 said:
From Bloomberg.com:



Obama

It should be noted that the legislation in question is not a trade agreement. It concerns a process under which a trade agreement would be considered by Congress. In substance, it is similar to a closed rule, as there would be no amendments permitted and it would be subjected to a vote as is. Currently, negotiations remain underway and there is no Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement.
Click to expand...

It will fail in the Senate.
 
I see all the descriptions of what this bill is but I don't see any actual verbage from the proposal. I don't trust any reporter or politician to tell me what something is unless I get to look at it. For me it is a non starter. I am of the belief that most politicians haven't read it and are taking the word of someone that told them what the bill was. To be honest I don't believe any of what I have read about what the bill does or what the bill is. Anyone that would believe all this crap please loan me $1,000.00. I promise that I will owe you for life. I would rather owe someone than screw them out of it.
 
Obama’s Fast-Track Trade Bill Passes House in Second Attempt
Click to expand...

big ****ing surprise there. looks like congress and Obama can agree on at least one thing : ****ing over the American worker for fun and profit; mostly profit.
 
Helix said:
big ****ing surprise there. looks like congress and Obama can agree on at least one thing : ****ing over the American worker for fun and profit; mostly profit.
Click to expand...

That is why I would like Trump to be POTUS. He doesnt need the position to be wealthy. Hillary NEEDS the Presidency for her wealth....without it her influence ends immediately. The $250k speeches end.

If Hillary loses, her little time pulling the puppet strings are over. The time of that family screwing with people are over. Stopping the political elite should be the goal of every American.
 
donsutherland1 said:
IMO, investments in becoming more competitive would be helpful in the long-run (R&D, human capital development, etc.). Currently with near zero borrowing costs, its very easy for companies to borrow and then buy back shares. With a reduced number of outstanding shares, Earnings per share (EPS) growth is higher (one can spread each new dollar of earnings over a smaller number of shares). The problem is that this creates the illusion of stronger performance while doing little to improve competitiveness. There is a risk that such policies are actually undermining the long-term competitive positions of some companies, especially in cases where international competitors are becoming stronger rivals.

As the TPP has not yet been agreed and I've seen no drafts, I'm hesitant to speculate on its terms. As is typically the case, some companies and industries will be "winners" and others won't be. The distribution of the kinds of companies in each position will shape the employment effects.
Click to expand...


It is apparent which certain companies will be the winner. Especially those connected to our so called and self alleged Trade Advisors. There is no reason to give any President this special lil privilege.....and never over trade.


Fast Track set up a system of more than 500 official corporate U.S. trade advisors who have access to secret trade agreement texts and who have set the "U.S." trade agenda whether we have Democratic or Republican presidents.

Fast Track has only been used 16 times in the history of our nation, often to enact the most controversial of "trade" pacts, such as the NAFTA and the establishment of the WTO. Meanwhile, hundreds of less controversial U.S. trade agreements have been implemented without resort to Fast Track, showing that the extraordinary procedure is not needed to approve trade agreements......snip~

Fast Track - Presidential Trade Negotiating Authority
 
MMC said:
It is apparent which certain companies will be the winner. Especially those connected to our so called and self alleged Trade Advisors. There is no reason to give any President this special lil privilege.....and never over trade.
Click to expand...

I empathize with some of those concerns, but believe a fast track process essentially puts trade negotiations on equal footing with other negotiations where the President negotiates possible agreements. Congress should, of course, turn down bad deals. But an amending process would basically require new negotiations, essentially taking away what is customarily a Presidential authority.
 
WSUwarrior said:
That is why I would like Trump to be POTUS. He doesnt need the position to be wealthy. Hillary NEEDS the Presidency for her wealth....without it her influence ends immediately. The $250k speeches end.

If Hillary loses, her little time pulling the puppet strings are over. The time of that family screwing with people are over. Stopping the political elite should be the goal of every American.
Click to expand...
Wha?

Mr. Trump is so out-of-it he thinks the President is a Kenyan born Muslim who doesn't have a birth certificate! Can you imagine what a guy that far 'off', or drunk on the KoolAid, could do if put in-charge?

And you're right - it's time to toss-out the political elites. but not by replacing them with financial elites, particularly one who runs to bankruptcy courts rather than face free-market consequences!

Maybe it's time to replace them with non-elites? You know, put the government back in the hands of the people?
 
donsutherland1 said:
I empathize with some of those concerns, but believe a fast track process essentially puts trade negotiations on equal footing with other negotiations where the President negotiates possible agreements. Congress should, of course, turn down bad deals. But an amending process would basically require new negotiations, essentially taking away what is customarily a Presidential authority.
Click to expand...


This part cannot be said any better. Which we know each time, the Office of the Presidency added what some would be termed creative writing, that had nothing to do with was in a written up in a trade agreement.

Fast Track allowed the executive branch to unilaterally select partner countries for "trade" pacts, decide the agreements' contents, and then negotiate and sign the agreements – all before Congress had a vote on the matter! Normal congressional committee processes were forbidden, meaning that the executive branch was empowered to write lengthy legislation on its own with no review or amendments. These executive-authored bills altered wide swaths of U.S. law unrelated to trade – food safety, immigration visas, energy policy, medicine patents and more – to conform our domestic policies to each agreement's requirements.
Click to expand...


Moreover.....this is the New Day and Age. Any reason why the Office of the Presidency couldn't teleconference with Congress when conducting business? New tech and all. There shouldn't be any excuse why Congress couldn't answer the call?

Do you think Congress should think about.....reducing their vacations and a lot of the time with the Camera? Limit those endorsements and things of this nature?
 
penn1954 said:
I'm pist !!!!
My congressman Stutzman who wants to be my next Senator voted for this POS!!

Guess I wont be voting for senator next year unless its Libertarian!!:rantoff:
Click to expand...

You should know better than to vote for Stutzman in the first place. Just a partisan hack that votes party line. He has no character whatsoever.

And btw just up the road from you.
 
Chomsky said:
Wha?

Mr. Trump is so out-of-it he thinks the President is a Kenyan born Muslim who doesn't have a birth certificate! Can you imagine what a guy that far 'off', or drunk on the KoolAid, could do if put in-charge?

And you're right - it's time to toss-out the political elites. but not by replacing them with financial elites, particularly one who runs to bankruptcy courts rather than face free-market consequences!

Maybe it's time to replace them with non-elites? You know, put the government back in the hands of the people?
Click to expand...

Red herring is delicious.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom