- 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. [/FONT][/COLOR]
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]
Pretty amazing when Harry Reid doesn't gum up the works, isn't it? :lamo
**** actually gets done.
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?
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...
...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.
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).
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?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.
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?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..
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]
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?
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?
You think giving the president fast track authority is a good thing? Why?
And you support this bill why?
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?
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.
Pretty amazing when Harry Reid doesn't gum up the works, isn't it? :lamo
**** actually gets done.
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.
I did. 'Less so in support of the bill' Answers your question. Not my fault you have reading compression problems.You didnt answer my question.
I guess your a fan of getting horrible **** done. Me... Not so much.
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?