General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsThis message was self-deleted by its author
This message was self-deleted by its author (KMOD) on Thu Oct 22, 2015, 09:29 AM. When the original post in a discussion thread is self-deleted, the entire discussion thread is automatically locked so new replies cannot be posted.
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)Congress will get to have their say. The final deal, which is still being negotiated with our trade partners, will be made public prior to any vote.
Up-or-down vote by the legislative branch.
Period.
I'm not seeing the executive overreach in this case.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)vote one way or the other? Do you KNOW that they will NOT be allowed to add amendments or take out anything that is BAD FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE?
So what were you saying? They can READ IT and just VOTE? That is not the role of Congress.
Please stop defending this, it is indefensible to take away or for Congress to GIVE away, the powers they swore to exercise on behalf of the American people.
We have Corps writing our HC bills, we have Monsanto writing our food labeling bills.
Why do we bother with a Congress at all anymore?
NOW we have Foreign Corporations writing our laws and an outrageous denial of access to what THEY are writing for YEARS.
If Wikileaks didn't provide us with those leaks the people would still know NOTHING about what Foreign Corps are setting up for us.
IF you want to live in a country where the people you elect are not allowed to represent you, I'm sure there are a few of them around. But THIS one is not going to give up those rights without a huge fight.
Bush tried this, in 2007 and Democrats rightly voted against it AND some more intelligent Republicans.
It is hypocritical for any DEMOCRAT to support this after all the arguments they made against it then.
And that power if they do give it to the Executive Branch will last for six yearsl.
So even if you trust this president with it, he will have it for only one year, and what if Kruz ends up with that kind of power?
I will be calling my Reps again this week to make sure they know if they vote for this, we will be out working against them as soon as possible.
More than 65% of the American people DO NOT WANT THIS. THAT is what should matter in a Democracy.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)On Tuesday afternoon, Issa published the entire intellectual property (IP) chapter of the Trans-Pacific agreement as drafted by the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, the White House agency responsible for negotiating trade deals. The document was previously available online through unofficial channels of questionable legality, but Issa's posting of the document dramatically increases the political pressure on USTR and the Obama administration.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/16/darrell-issa-trans-pacific-partnership-trade-deal_n_1521035.html
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)When it comes to fast track and TPP, Congress could sit on their hands and do nothing...then they would not become law.
Pretty simple actually.
I'm still not seeing the executive overreach in this case.
Cha
(297,123 posts)We are supposed to vote on (fast-track), tie our hands and not vote on amendments, before weve seen what the (Trans-Pacific Partnership) is. Ive never seen anything like it, said Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., who has seen something exactly like it more than a dozen times during his 34 years on Capitol Hill
They're shocked!
Cha
(297,123 posts)"Obama has asked Congress to grant him fast-track authority, too. He wants it so the 12-country Trans-Pacific Partnership talks, which began five years ago, can close. He also wants Congress to grant this authority to him under new conditions, including that any final deal have strict, enforceable labor and environmental standards."
snip//
We are supposed to vote on (fast-track), tie our hands and not vote on amendments, before weve seen what the (Trans-Pacific Partnership) is. Ive never seen anything like it, said Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., who has seen something exactly like it more than a dozen times during his 34 years on Capitol Hill
"So why is the left making such baseless, tea party-style claims of executive branch overreach?
Because its desperately trying to prevent a deal from concluding. Withholding fast-track authority looks like a winning strategy. Delegates of other countries involved in the negotiations including Japan, Australia and New Zealand have said that a final deal wont happen without a guarantee of an up-or-down vote from Congress.
You cannot conclude serious trade negotiations without fast track. It cant be done, says Craig VanGrasstek, a trade historian at Harvards Kennedy School. Its like a law of nature. History bears this out, he says, at least if you look at prior multilateral negotiations. No fast-track equals no big, unified deal."
They're shocked!
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)At last, a Benghazi that's getting some traction.
Hekate
(90,633 posts)AZ Progressive
(3,411 posts)After all, the corporate revolution started when Gerald Ford was president (with the start of the deregulation wave and the 1974 recession.)
merrily
(45,251 posts)Buns_of_Fire
(17,174 posts)It's unfortunate that the President is caught in the middle of all this, but giving away the store to these greedy bastards has to stop sometime. I suppose this is as good a time as any to begin the process, and if it kills this particular deal, so be it.
Quantess
(27,630 posts)msongs
(67,394 posts)midnight
(26,624 posts)for all the unemployed.
Agony
(2,605 posts)"But its difficult for U.S. trade representatives to make credible offers if every deal goes back to Washington to get picked apart"
If the USTR didn't act like a dick when he came before congress while allowing select third party access to the process things might go better.
It is laughable that its proponents think it reasonable to RAM an "approximately" voiced agreement of this scope and scale through the political process in 60 days. That is a long term recipe for ordinary people to get badly hurt.