I am surprised to see no interest in TPP here in this forum

[arkirk]

This is our idea of a political forum yet so much is alive in Washington that gets next to no mention here. This week our fearless president Obama lost his bid to act like a God for the American People in trade deals. This TPP (Trans-Pacific Partnership) trade deal has been going on for a number of years behind closed doors with only corporate voices speaking for "America." When Obama failed to get fast track authority from congress, that meant the cat must be let out of the bag before it gets passed (if we are lucky). It appears to me that the Clintons' wealth may well be from their support of trade deals in the 90's. Obama was just looking for his....

Andrea Mitchell on NBC acted so disappointed that the "union interference" in the process has stymied this jewel of goodness for the American people. What she and in fact most people do not understand is that increasing trade also equals increasing carbon footprints IN ADDITION TO JOBS WANDERING OFF OVERSEAS. There are a lot of reasons why these trade deals need to be killed. Until we have a more humane approach to international diplomacy, there should be a prohibition of trade negotiations having any power over sovereign laws governing the environment and labor conditions. Our laws and in fact the entire configuration of our economy should never be the product of back room dealing out of sight of the public.

 

[Axulus]

This is our idea of a political forum yet so much is alive in Washington that gets next to no mention here. This week our fearless president Obama lost his bid to act like a God for the American People in trade deals. This TPP (Trans-Pacific Partnership) trade deal has been going on for a number of years behind closed doors with only corporate voices speaking for "America." When Obama failed to get fast track authority from congress, that meant the cat must be let out of the bag before it gets passed (if we are lucky). It appears to me that the Clintons' wealth may well be from their support of trade deals in the 80's. Obama was just looking for his....

Andrea Mitchell on NBC acted so disappointed that the "union interferrence" in the process has stymied this jewel of goodness for the American people. What she and in fact most people do not understand is that increasing trade also equals increasing carbon footprints IN ADDITION TO JOBS WANDERING OFF OVERSEAS. There are a lot of reasons why these trade deals need to be killed. Until we have a more humane approach to international diplomacy, there should be a prohibition of trade negotiations having any power over sovereign laws governing the environment and labor conditions. Our laws and in fact the entire configuration of our economy should never be the product of back room dealing out of sight of the public.

So if the deal is bad, then why would congress need to kill the fast track authority? Why not kill the deal itself once it is complete and released to the public? They still have authority to vote no on the deal.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

If the details about how the deal is being put together aren't open and transparent, then the deal should be killed on general principle.

 

[Axulus]

If the details about how the deal is being put together aren't open and transparent, then the deal should be killed on general principle.

Why does it matter how the deal is put together? The details of the deal will be fully released once it is complete. Inquiries into the specifics of the deal (and why those details are in place) can be discussed once the deal is released and up for debate. If the completed deal hurts the US, then the vote should be "no". If the deal helps the US, then the vote should be "yes". If you don't know if it will hurt or help the US, why in the fuck should the deal be killed before you even know the details?

Do you also hold the same position on the Iran deal, for example? Or any other internationally negotiated agreement?

 

[arkirk]

If the details about how the deal is being put together aren't open and transparent, then the deal should be killed on general principle.

Why does it matter how the deal is put together? The details of the deal will be fully released once it is complete. If the completed deal hurts the US, then the vote should be "no". If the deal helps the US, then the vote should be "yes". If you don't know if it will hurt or help the US, why in the fuck should the deal be killed before you even know the details?

Do you also hold the same position on the Iran deal, for example? Or any other internationally negotiated agreement?

How would you like ME making a binding deal for YOU? How would that be. Just give me the authority and I will start to work on it at once!

These trade deals are about "everything" and are thousands of pages in extent. Many of the provisions have the potential to overturn labor and environmental laws. Legislation is different from these deals, which do not have human goals other than get rich quick. On the other hand, negotiations with Iran are about a single aspect of our relationship...nukes. Got that? That is important enough to deal with in any way humanly possible. Your business can easily be sacrificed without you even knowing it. You don't want that do you. You seem to think Americans are such superior beings they always have some sort of "natural advantage" in trade. It depends on which Americans, Axulus.

 

[Axulus]

Why does it matter how the deal is put together? The details of the deal will be fully released once it is complete. If the completed deal hurts the US, then the vote should be "no". If the deal helps the US, then the vote should be "yes". If you don't know if it will hurt or help the US, why in the fuck should the deal be killed before you even know the details?

Do you also hold the same position on the Iran deal, for example? Or any other internationally negotiated agreement?

How would you like ME making a binding deal for YOU? How would that be. Just give me the authority and I will start to work on it at once!

It is _not_ a binding deal. The deal is to be voted on by congress. Fast track authority does not mean congress can't vote "no" on a bad deal.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

If the details about how the deal is being put together aren't open and transparent, then the deal should be killed on general principle.

Why does it matter how the deal is put together? The details of the deal will be fully released once it is complete. Inquiries into the specifics of the deal (and why those details are in place) can be discussed once the deal is released and up for debate. If the completed deal hurts the US, then the vote should be "no". If the deal helps the US, then the vote should be "yes". If you don't know if it will hurt or help the US, why in the fuck should the deal be killed before you even know the details?

Do you also hold the same position on the Iran deal, for example? Or any other internationally negotiated agreement?

My main concern is who's lobbying for what clauses and why. If they have a good reason, then fine, but if something's in there solely so that a political contributor can profit then I have an issue and I want to know about that issue.

I'm limiting that concern to trade deals and not security deals, where a level of secrecy is often necessary for reasons that don't exist (or shouldn't exist) in trade deals.

 

[Axulus]

Why does it matter how the deal is put together? The details of the deal will be fully released once it is complete. Inquiries into the specifics of the deal (and why those details are in place) can be discussed once the deal is released and up for debate. If the completed deal hurts the US, then the vote should be "no". If the deal helps the US, then the vote should be "yes". If you don't know if it will hurt or help the US, why in the fuck should the deal be killed before you even know the details?

Do you also hold the same position on the Iran deal, for example? Or any other internationally negotiated agreement?

My main concern is who's lobbying for what clauses and why. If they have a good reason, then fine, but if something's in there solely so that a political contributor can profit then I have an issue and I want to know about that issue.

I'm limiting that concern to trade deals and not security deals, where a level of secrecy is often necessary for reasons that don't exist (or shouldn't exist) in trade deals.

How would you find out who is lobbying for what clauses and why from a preliminary text of the deal? How would you know which proposals are trying to be negotiated out and changed by the various countries involved? Should everyone be required to detail out their negotiation strategy so that all sides involved in the negotiation reveal their hand to the other side?

 

[Achwienichtig]

Here's the deal. Fast-track authority is not a freebie for the executive branch. Obama knew this. AFAIC, congress is under no obligation of acquiesce to the President's desires. It's his job to convince congress to give him that power, and in this case it looks like he couldn't even convince his own party.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

My main concern is who's lobbying for what clauses and why. If they have a good reason, then fine, but if something's in there solely so that a political contributor can profit then I have an issue and I want to know about that issue.

I'm limiting that concern to trade deals and not security deals, where a level of secrecy is often necessary for reasons that don't exist (or shouldn't exist) in trade deals.

How would you find out who is lobbying for what clauses and why from a preliminary text of the deal? How would you know which proposals are trying to be negotiated out and changed by the various countries involved? Should everyone be required to detail out their negotiation strategy so that all sides involved in the negotiation reveal their hand to the other side?

There seems to be some part of the meaning of "open and transparent" which is closed and opaque to you.

 

[arkirk]

Here's the deal. Fast-track authority is not a freebie for the executive branch. Obama knew this. AFAIC, congress is under no obligation of acquiesce to the President's desires. It's his job to convince congress to give him that power, and in this case it looks like he couldn't even convince his own party.

Fast Track permits no negotiation and no debate in congress...just an up or down vote. Fast track is the road to a lot of compromised laws. This "agreement" is thousands of pages long and once passed, it is BINDING. The public is not allowed to even glimpse it before it is voted on by congress. You like that kind of law, written by corporate shills?

 

[Axulus]

How would you find out who is lobbying for what clauses and why from a preliminary text of the deal? How would you know which proposals are trying to be negotiated out and changed by the various countries involved? Should everyone be required to detail out their negotiation strategy so that all sides involved in the negotiation reveal their hand to the other side?

There seems to be some part of the meaning of "open and transparent" which is closed and opaque to you.

And why can't you find out all these things once the deal is ready to be voted on?

- - - Updated - - -

Here's the deal. Fast-track authority is not a freebie for the executive branch. Obama knew this. AFAIC, congress is under no obligation of acquiesce to the President's desires. It's his job to convince congress to give him that power, and in this case it looks like he couldn't even convince his own party.

Fast Track permits no negotiation and no debate in congress...just an up or down vote. Fast track is the road to a lot of compromised laws. This "agreement" is thousands of pages long and once passed, it is BINDING. The public is not allowed to even glimpse it before it is voted on by congress. You like that kind of law, written by corporate shills?

False - debate is allowed. If congress wanted to increase the amount of debate, why don't they amend the fast track authority bill to allow for more debate?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

There seems to be some part of the meaning of "open and transparent" which is closed and opaque to you.

And why can't you find out all these things once the deal is ready to be voted on?

Because getting things taken out of a finished product after significant political and financial capital has already been expended in getting them put in in the first place is significantly more difficult than halting their inclusion during the preliminary phases of drafting them.

 

[arkirk]

There seems to be some part of the meaning of "open and transparent" which is closed and opaque to you.

And why can't you find out all these things once the deal is ready to be voted on?

- - - Updated - - -

Here's the deal. Fast-track authority is not a freebie for the executive branch. Obama knew this. AFAIC, congress is under no obligation of acquiesce to the President's desires. It's his job to convince congress to give him that power, and in this case it looks like he couldn't even convince his own party.

Fast Track permits no negotiation and no debate in congress...just an up or down vote. Fast track is the road to a lot of compromised laws. This "agreement" is thousands of pages long and once passed, it is BINDING. The public is not allowed to even glimpse it before it is voted on by congress. You like that kind of law, written by corporate shills?

False - debate is allowed. If congress wanted to increase the amount of debate, why don't they amend the fast track authority bill to allow for more debate?

What don't you understand about FAST TRACK? No debate. This is trade deal is a ready laid mine field of unknown quantities and obligations to buy the right to protect our environment with law. You seem to think this is transparent. If it is, please tell me what it contains...even the number of chapters. You don't know what you are talking about. This has been negotiated in private and you will not know about it till it is too late...and we will be fighting with ourselves again. Will your congressman read the entire agreement? Is there that much time left in his term? Get real, fast track and the trade agreement in the first place is a calloused business adventure for those allowed input. The whole thing needs to be scuttled!

 

[Axulus]

And why can't you find out all these things once the deal is ready to be voted on?

- - - Updated - - -

Here's the deal. Fast-track authority is not a freebie for the executive branch. Obama knew this. AFAIC, congress is under no obligation of acquiesce to the President's desires. It's his job to convince congress to give him that power, and in this case it looks like he couldn't even convince his own party.

Fast Track permits no negotiation and no debate in congress...just an up or down vote. Fast track is the road to a lot of compromised laws. This "agreement" is thousands of pages long and once passed, it is BINDING. The public is not allowed to even glimpse it before it is voted on by congress. You like that kind of law, written by corporate shills?

False - debate is allowed. If congress wanted to increase the amount of debate, why don't they amend the fast track authority bill to allow for more debate?

What don't you understand about FAST TRACK? No debate. This is trade deal is a ready laid mine field of unknown quantities and obligations to buy the right to protect our environment with law. You seem to think this is transparent. If it is, please tell me what it contains...even the number of chapters. You don't know what you are talking about. This has been negotiated in private and you will not know about it till it is too late...and we will be fighting with ourselves again. Will your congressman read the entire agreement? Is there that much time left in his term? Get real, fast track and the trade agreement in the first place is a calloused business adventure for those allowed input. The whole thing needs to be scuttled!

Fast track does allow debate, you are misinformed. Also, what don't you understand about the fast track bill itself? That bill itself can be amended to allow more debate. If it's more debate that is desired, why not simply allow more debate in the fast track bill?

 

[ksen]

So if the deal is bad, then why would congress need to kill the fast track authority? Why not kill the deal itself once it is complete and released to the public? They still have authority to vote no on the deal.

Why does the president need this fast track authority? Why do you think it is so important to him?

 

[Axulus]

So if the deal is bad, then why would congress need to kill the fast track authority? Why not kill the deal itself once it is complete and released to the public? They still have authority to vote no on the deal.

Why does the president need this fast track authority? Why do you think it is so important to him?

It is important to other countries negotiating with the US. Without it, they won't negotiate in good faith or may not even negotiate at all, killing any possibility for a deal all together:

Assurance for foreign governments: According to President Reagan's Attorney General Edwin Meese III, "it is extremely difficult for any U.S. President to negotiate significant trade deals if he cannot assure other nations that Congress will refrain from adding numerous amendments and conditions that must then be taken back to the negotiating table". The very nature of Trade Promotion Authority requires Congress to vote on the agreements before they can take effect, meaning that without TPA, "those agreements might never even be negotiated".

 

[Angry Floof]

I've been following this for a while but on facebook, so I don't look for it here. I was happy and surprised to hear this. I had been pretty pessimistic in my guesses about what might happen with it.

 

[dismal]

So if the deal is bad, then why would congress need to kill the fast track authority? Why not kill the deal itself once it is complete and released to the public? They still have authority to vote no on the deal.

Why does the president need this fast track authority? Why do you think it is so important to him?

Are you saying he shouldn't have fast track authority because he's black?

 

[ksen]

It is important to other countries negotiating with the US. Without it, they won't negotiate in good faith or may not even negotiate at all, killing any possibility for a deal all together

I'm pretty sure other nations will want access to our markets with or without fast track authority.

- - - Updated - - -

Why does the president need this fast track authority? Why do you think it is so important to him?

Are you saying he shouldn't have fast track authority because he's black?

Yes, everyone knows they can't be trusted.