• 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!

Do You Support Fast Track (TPP/TPA)?

Do You Support Fast Track (TPP/TPA)?


  • Total voters
    31
That's right and anyone who is for or against it is just guessing.

Good point.
The thing is kept under lock and key.
Ours reps are only allowed to gaze at it for short intervals and NO taking notes??!!
I'm certain there are valid reasons why the specifics are being kept secret.....not.
With this thing, my worry would be that the trade deal will be approved and then, when the messy details are revealed we'll hear that......

".....the good far outweighs the bad, so in the USA's best interests we must approve this deal...."

which, translated into plain English means.....

" You just got screwed....deal with it."
 
Yes I do because the good that it does for the business Im in will help Americans ten fold

How are you privileged to know these facts, while the rest of us can only guess about the contents?

and its the first ****ing thing I can think of that Republicans and Obama agree on.

I dunno, JW.
The results of both parties agreeing on any ****ing thing is mixed at best.
 
I don't support the fast tracking of any bills. Also makes me scared that I agree with the Democrats in the house.
 
I would only support such agreements unless they are with other nations of similar standards, not poorer nations where cheap labor can be exported out of the US by US based companies.
 
I would only support such agreements unless they are with other nations of similar standards, not poorer nations where cheap labor can be exported out of the US by US based companies.

This is basically my view on trade agreements. Trade agreements should not be used just so companies can outsource to exploit cheaper labor and lower standards
 
20:3 against fast tracking this latest piece of ****.

thumbs up, DP. well done.

thumbs_up_by_weapons_expert_cool-d6sx4o7.gif
 
Tell me everything that's in it and I'll tell you if I support it.

Fast Track Authority allows the Executive to negotiate on behalf of the United States when it comes to trade deals, and then requires that the trade deal be presented to Congress for an up-or-down vote prior to being enforced.

In short, it keeps Congress from trying to to the State Departments' job, and keeps the Executive from trying to do the Legislature's job. Apparently it's this newfangled theory called "Separation of Powers", or some such.

Unfortunately, because the Executive at current is headed by someone named "Obama" some conservatives are going full-head-spinning-360-while-spewing-vomit on it, and because the bills contain the word "Trade", some liberals are doing the same. It's a weird alliance between the far right types and Labor Unions and their lackeys', right now.
 
Well damn. I completely misunderstood what was going on with this. I was under the impression this was being suggested as a means to allow more American exports into other countries.

Yup. DemSocialist is right - these kinds of things will indeed slow the utilization of information.

Like, for example, the use of copywrited and patented plans and content. It's a way to keep southeast asian countries from simply taking whatever America makes and then making a bunch of cheap knockoffs through intellectual theft.
 
Negative consequences on internet freedom, and copyrights: https://www.eff.org/issues/tpp
Corporate influence and economic sovereignty: Now We Know Why Huge TPP Trade Deal Is Kept Secret From the Public*|*Dave Johnson
List of some negative aspects with drug prices, internet freedom, banking: What Is the Trans Pacific Partnership?*|*Judy Frankel

:doh

So. When asked about why Trade Promotion Authority and Fast Track is bad....

....you list a bunch of reasons why the Trans Pacific Partnership is bad......




Dude. That's like listing off a bunch of reasons why you don't like the ACA as an argument against Congress' ability to vote on legislation. The two are different things.
 
Fast Track Authority allows the Executive to negotiate on behalf of the United States when it comes to trade deals, and then requires that the trade deal be presented to Congress for an up-or-down vote prior to being enforced.

In short, it keeps Congress from trying to to the State Departments' job, and keeps the Executive from trying to do the Legislature's job. Apparently it's this newfangled theory called "Separation of Powers", or some such.

Unfortunately, because the Executive at current is headed by someone named "Obama" some conservatives are going full-head-spinning-360-while-spewing-vomit on it, and because the bills contain the word "Trade", some liberals are doing the same. It's a weird alliance between the far right types and Labor Unions and their lackeys', right now.

If it is that simple I will not have an issue with it. I doubt it's that simple and as time goes by, details will come out.
 
I don't support fast-track anything, except emergency aid relief...

:doh

All Fast Track means is that it is an up or down vote - Congress doesn't get to renegotiate the trade deal, that's the Executives' job. It doesn't mean that Congress has to pass it in any length of time, or even that they have to pass it. It just means they can't amend it. This is the exact same process that we already have in place for Treaties.
 
If it is that simple I will not have an issue with it. I doubt it's that simple and as time goes by, details will come out.

Fast Track and Trade Promotion Authority =/= the actual Trans Pacific Partnership. People are trying to conflate unlike issues.
 
And that's the crux. What's the hurry? Why the secrecy? It's not like this is something that is so super-critical time wise that it must be done right now, damn the torpedoes.

No. Be methodical. Be open. I hate the phrase "If you have nothing to hide...", but in this case I cannot help but think that.

:doh


Okay. How many people in this thread think that FT/TPA = TPP?
 
:doh

So. When asked about why Trade Promotion Authority and Fast Track is bad....

....you list a bunch of reasons why the Trans Pacific Partnership is bad......




Dude. That's like listing off a bunch of reasons why you don't like the ACA as an argument against Congress' ability to vote on legislation. The two are different things.

Uhhh what. The whole point of TPA is to give authority to authorize this agreement, which includes these parts....
 
Uhhh what. The whole point of TPA is to give authority to authorize this agreement, which includes these parts....

Giving the President the ability to negotiate without Congressional interference and then present the trade deal to Congress for an up or down vote is an independent issue from the Trade Pacific Partnership itself.

One of them is a separation of powers, and the other is a trade deal that requires congressional approval. The Executive would retain the ability to present trade deals to Congress and have them actually vote on them after the TPP either passed (which I hope it does) or failed.
 
:doh

All Fast Track means is that it is an up or down vote - Congress doesn't get to renegotiate the trade deal, that's the Executives' job. It doesn't mean that Congress has to pass it in any length of time, or even that they have to pass it. It just means they can't amend it. This is the exact same process that we already have in place for Treaties.

Yep, that seems to make it sound pretty cherry... And I misspoke throwing aid relief in. Always happy to have my ignorance pointed out and corrected.

However, my answer still largely remains. Which is weird. Normally I'd be all for bills being passed without congress inserting their special little projects as riders.

Lately though, I've just plain had it with all things secretive. Tired of trade plans being sold as beneficial to the masses when they do little good for American workers and give all the gains to corporations and their top investors and executives.

Unconstitutional: Groups opposed to Trade Promotion Authority claim that it places too much power in the executive branch, "allowing the president to unilaterally select partner countries for ‘trade’ pacts, decide the agreements' contents, and then negotiate and sign the agreements—all before Congress has a vote on the matter. Normal congressional committee processes are forbidden, meaning that the executive branch is empowered to write lengthy legislation on its own with no review or amendments."
"Fast Track: An Undemocratic Path to Unfair 'Trade'". Public Citizen

Lack of transparency: Democratic members of Congress and general right-to-know internet groups are among those opposed to trade fast track on grounds of a lack of transparency. Such Congressmen have complained that fast track forces "members to jump over hurdles to see negotiation texts and blocks staffer involvement. In 2012, Senator Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) complained that corporate lobbyists were given easy access while his office was being stymied, and even introduced protest legislation requiring more congressional input."
Carter, Zach; McAuliff, Michael. "Why House Democrats Might Kill Obama's Big Trade Deal". The Huffington Post.
 
Giving the President the ability to negotiate without Congressional interference and then present the trade deal to Congress for an up or down vote is an independent issue from the Trade Pacific Partnership itself.

One of them is a separation of powers, and the other is a trade deal that requires congressional approval. The Executive would retain the ability to present trade deals to Congress and have them actually vote on them after the TPP either passed (which I hope it does) or failed.[/QUOTE]

Ummm we have been negotiating this trade deal way before we gave him the authority....
 
Yep, that seems to make it sound pretty cherry... And I misspoke throwing aid relief in. Always happy to have my ignorance pointed out and corrected.

However, my answer still largely remains. Which is weird. Normally I'd be all for bills being passed without congress inserting their special little projects as riders.

Lately though, I've just plain had it with all things secretive. Tired of trade plans being sold as beneficial to the masses when they do little good for American workers and give all the gains to corporations and their top investors and executives.

:doh

A) Congress has no business negotiating with other countries - that is explicitly an Executive function. It is Constitutionally an Executive Function. It is, in fact, one of the reasons we have the Constitution in the first place. Under the Articles of Confederation, other nations didn't know who to negotiate with (and differing portions of the government all attempted to claim a role), and it created havoc with American foreign policy.

B) Keeping negotiations to the negotiators during the negotiation itself is a fairly typical part of the process, not some sinister, secretive plot. It's a way to allow all partners to make offers and compromises without having interest groups destroy the process before a deal is made. A Constitutional example of this would be the Constitutional Convention itself, which was conducted in extreme secrecy before being made public, being put up for public debate, and being sent to the States for an up-or-down vote... which is pretty much the exact same process here. It's not secret before you vote, it's public before you vote. It's simply secret while going on.

Even Ted Cruz (who has taken a look at this thing) says he didn't see any problems. You're not likely to find someone who can be trusted more to oppose this administration and even his own party leadership than Cruz.






As a Side Note: Everyone here who is upset about giving the executive the ability to do it's job in negotiating with foreign countries without Congress attempting to take part in the negotiations who was also upset or thought it was wrong when Congressional Republicans wrote a letter in the Wall Street Journal to the leadership of Iran, raise your hands. Care to explain your position to us?
 
Clinton's Profile in Cravenness on Trade - New York Post

Hillary Clinton wouldn’t be the first Democratic presidential nominee who was for something before she was against it. But her turnaround on President Obama’s trade deal rivals John Kerry’s famous flip-flop on the war in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Secretary of State Clinton was one of the most vocal and enthusiastic supporters of Obama’s ambitious 12-nation Trans-Pacific Partnership trade pact.
She cited its “strong protection for workers and the environment” and its promise of “better jobs with higher wages and safer working conditions for women, migrant workers and others too often in the past excluded from the formal economy.”
But she wasn’t for running for president then, just working for one. Now, with her eye on Obama’s job, she’s not such a big fan. . . .
 
Back
Top Bottom