Obamatrade goes down in flames...

[BDKJMU]

Interesting that a plurality of conks supported it and a plurality of donks were against..
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/ ... story.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[travelinman67]

Getting tougher for the Oligarchs to find cheap goods.

[DSUrocks07]

Hardcore, lockstep conks are so confused by this.

[kalm]

Hardcore, lockstep conks are so confused by this.

[CID1990]

The fact that Obama is a rank amateur isnt very confusing, nonetheless.

[Ivytalk]

Too bad. I support fast track, and even a broken clock (Obama) is right twice a day. One more example of Donk loyalty to greens and union goons.

[BDKJMU]

Hardcore, lockstep conks are so confused by this.

One, I don't need to know whats in the bill to hear its a turd. The bill is 800 pages. Anything that big is a turd.

Two, they're doing it in secret, which should send up all kinds of alarm bells unless you trust Obama and Congress to do the right thing, in which case, well, you need to have your head examined.
"Extreme secrecy eroding support for Obama's trade pact

If you want to hear the details of the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal the Obama administration is hoping to pass, you’ve got to be a member of Congress, and you’ve got to go to classified briefings and leave your staff and cellphone at the door.

If you’re a member who wants to read the text, you’ve got to go to a room in the basement of the Capitol Visitor Center and be handed it one section at a time, watched over as you read, and forced to hand over any notes you make before leaving.

And no matter what, you can’t discuss the details of what you’ve read.

“It’s like being in kindergarten,” said Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.), who’s become the leader of the opposition to President Barack Obama’s trade agenda. “You give back the toys at the end.”

For those out to sink Obama’s free trade push, highlighting the lack of public information is becoming central to their opposition strategy: The White House isn’t even telling Congress what it’s asking for, they say, or what it’s already promised foreign governments......"
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/05/s ... 17581.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


They weren't going to release the full text of it to the general public before voting. Most in Congress haven't read the thing in its entirety. How do you vote to pass a bill that you haven't read and haven't full debated all aspects of, you know, because many aspects are secret..
PAUL RYAN’S PELOSI-ESQUE OBAMATRADE MOMENT: ‘IT’S DECLASSIFIED AND MADE PUBLIC ONCE IT’S AGREED TO
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government ... agreed-to/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I have ZERO trust in either Congress (all the donks and a good chunk of conks) nor Mr lack of transparency Obama to trust them to do the right thing with their 800+ page 'secret' bill. F*** that..

[BDKJMU]

Kind of a long explanation in regards to some immigration laws on how 10 pages of this TiSA agreement in Obamatrade would unilaterally alter current U.S. immigration law and would give expanded executive authority to a POTUS that has already abused executive authority vis a vi immigration.

"REVEALED: THE SECRET IMMIGRATION CHAPTER IN OBAMA’S TRADE AGREEMENT
Discovered inside the huge tranche of secretive Obamatrade documents released by Wikileaks are key details on how technically any Republican voting for Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) that would fast-track trade deals like the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade deal would technically also be voting to massively expand President Obama’s executive authority when it comes to immigration matters....."
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government ... agreement/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[kalm]

You know it's a bad deal when BDK and Kalm are united behind it and..........Ivytalk is for it.

[CitadelGrad]

Too bad. I support fast track, and even a broken clock (Obama) is right twice a day. One more example of Donk loyalty to greens and union goons.

Yeah, NAFTA worked out so well.

[Ivytalk]

Too bad. I support fast track, and even a broken clock (Obama) is right twice a day. One more example of Donk loyalty to greens and union goons.

Yeah, NAFTA worked out so well.

You prefer Smoot-Hawley, Reb?

[houndawg]

Kind of a long explanation in regards to some immigration laws on how 10 pages of this TiSA agreement in Obamatrade would unilaterally alter current U.S. immigration law and would give expanded executive authority to a POTUS that has already abused executive authority vis a vi immigration.

"REVEALED: THE SECRET IMMIGRATION CHAPTER IN OBAMA’S TRADE AGREEMENT
Discovered inside the huge tranche of secretive Obamatrade documents released by Wikileaks are key details on how technically any Republican voting for Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) that would fast-track trade deals like the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade deal would technically also be voting to massively expand President Obama’s executive authority when it comes to immigration matters....."
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government ... agreement/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Relax, Nancy, if the conks win the election you'll think it's the greatest thing that ever happened.

[SDHornet]

Meh...if this was in Congress 2 years ago conks would be unanimously opposed and donks in lock step with Obama.

[CitadelGrad]

Yeah, NAFTA worked out so well.

You prefer Smoot-Hawley, Reb?

Have you ever seen the NAFTA text? It is much closer to Smoot-Hawley than any reasonable perception of free trade.

[kalm]

BDK, kalm, and now cgrad vs. Ivytalk.

[HI54UNI]

In general I would be a free trade supporter. But 800 pages in secret? Nothing good can come out of that. Sunshine is the best disinfectant.

And the funniest thing is all the bitching by Republicans about Obamacare, how it was rushed through so no one had a chance to read it, etc. applies here as well. And yet a lot of them are in favor of it.

[kalm]

In general I would be a free trade supporter. But 800 pages in secret? Nothing good can come out of that. Sunshine is the best disinfectant.

And the funniest thing is all the bitching by Republicans about Obamacare, how it was rushed through so no one had a chance to read it, etc. applies here as well. And yet a lot of them are in favor of it.

Exactly

And nowhere is the corruption more fully on display right now than the revolving door of the federal trade negotiators. Yeah...lets give up a little sovereignty in the name of "free trade" and campaign finance. Ganny and Ivytalk will be singing in the streets!

The Office of the United States Trade Representative, the agency responsible for negotiating two massive upcoming trade deals, is being led by former lobbyists for corporations that stand to benefit from the deals, according to disclosure forms obtained by The Intercept...

The contents of the trade deals are secret and therefore still veiled from scrutiny by the public and even most members of Congress. Only trade officials and select corporate representatives have been able to review them.

https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015 ... ving-door/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Here's a linked article in the piece from Joseph Stiglitz regarding the affects it would have on pharmaceutical pricing.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/31/opini ... .html?_r=0" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[GannonFan]

Seriously, I think you're forgetting that, drum roll please - everyone gets to see what's in there prior to anyone voting on this thing. I'm shocked that kalmie is descending into such rank drama over this, I've come to expect much better. The bill could be great, or the bill could be an absolute disaster, and it's likely to be somewhere in between. But at the end of the day, no matter how it gets here, Congress would still have the ability to 1) read the thing and 2) vote on it. Why is that a bad thing? Such tearing of sack clothes over "sunshine" and "negotiating behind closed doors" and "yada yada yada". It would be one thing if Congress was given a piece of paper that said "trade bill" and had nothing else and had to vote yes or no on it. They're going to have the whole bill, lock stock and barrel, to read through. And if they don't want to read it themselves, they can hand it over to the media and they'll disseminate it to everyone along with commentary over what's in the thing. Such drama is considered normal for some posters, but for others, what a pity. This is how logic and reason die, buried in a political messageboard where everyone tries to outshout each other without actually considering the issue at hand.

[kalm]

Seriously, I think you're forgetting that, drum roll please - everyone gets to see what's in there prior to anyone voting on this thing. I'm shocked that kalmie is descending into such rank drama over this, I've come to expect much better. The bill could be great, or the bill could be an absolute disaster, and it's likely to be somewhere in between. But at the end of the day, no matter how it gets here, Congress would still have the ability to 1) read the thing and 2) vote on it. Why is that a bad thing? Such tearing of sack clothes over "sunshine" and "negotiating behind closed doors" and "yada yada yada". It would be one thing if Congress was given a piece of paper that said "trade bill" and had nothing else and had to vote yes or no on it. They're going to have the whole bill, lock stock and barrel, to read through. And if they don't want to read it themselves, they can hand it over to the media and they'll disseminate it to everyone along with commentary over what's in the thing. Such drama is considered normal for some posters, but for others, what a pity. This is how logic and reason die, buried in a political messageboard where everyone tries to outshout each other without actually considering the issue at hand.

1). Define everyone.

2). Why even push for fast track then?

Hint: it reminds me of my question to you about why businesses waste so much every year in campaign finance when it doesn't really matter...an issue at hand which you never seem to consider...

[GannonFan]

Seriously, I think you're forgetting that, drum roll please - everyone gets to see what's in there prior to anyone voting on this thing. I'm shocked that kalmie is descending into such rank drama over this, I've come to expect much better. The bill could be great, or the bill could be an absolute disaster, and it's likely to be somewhere in between. But at the end of the day, no matter how it gets here, Congress would still have the ability to 1) read the thing and 2) vote on it. Why is that a bad thing? Such tearing of sack clothes over "sunshine" and "negotiating behind closed doors" and "yada yada yada". It would be one thing if Congress was given a piece of paper that said "trade bill" and had nothing else and had to vote yes or no on it. They're going to have the whole bill, lock stock and barrel, to read through. And if they don't want to read it themselves, they can hand it over to the media and they'll disseminate it to everyone along with commentary over what's in the thing. Such drama is considered normal for some posters, but for others, what a pity. This is how logic and reason die, buried in a political messageboard where everyone tries to outshout each other without actually considering the issue at hand.

1). Define everyone.

Everyone, pretty simple word. You, me, Dupree, anyone in Congress, everyone in the media, everyone on any kind of social network, anyone who reads a paper, anyone who doesn't read a paper. I'd draw you a Venn diagram but two concentric circles with the same diameter is a pretty boring drawing.

2). Why even push for fast track then?

Hint: it reminds me of my question to you about why businesses waste so much every year in campaign finance when it doesn't really matter...an issue at hand which you never seem to consider...

The reason to push for fast track is simple, even for you - by going fast track and giving Congress just an up or down vote, it gives the trade bill a chance to pass even with stuff in it that Congress normally would never vote for. It's the same thing as putting ammendments onto bills. It's not terribly complicated. It's a way to get Congress, as well as parties in other nations, out of the way so that fewer people are around the table when the negotiations happen and you have an actual chance to get a win-win trade bill that would benefit both nations. Since Congress still needs to vote on it (see the above definition of "everyone") they get to see it and they can determine if they can live with the consequences of the bill that don't favor us. None of these bill are ever going to be perfect where every single portion of it is a win for us - the real world doesn't work that way.

So it's trying to see what's there (before voting on it, not the Pelosi way of voting on it and then reading it), if we can live with it the way it's written, and vote yes or no. It's really that simple. It doesn't matter who wrote it, who paid the person to write it, who got to whisper in someone's ear when they wrote it. It may be written behind closed doors but it gets voted on with the doors wide open. If we don't like it, we vote no and they can always write another one. But at least this way these bills actually have a chance of being pulled together into a vote - without fast track, legislation like this wouldn't get off the ground. But hey, we can and probably will keep piecing free trade bills together, one country at a time, and hope that China's penchant to do the same isn't fast than us. Stick your head in the ground all you want, but you can't wish competition and the rest of the world away, no matter how many times you click your heels.

[SDHornet]

I’ve heard on the radio (NPR I think, I forget though) that pretty much every trade agreement since Eisenhower was fast tracked. This process doesn’t sound like anything new...but given Congress' piss poor job in every other area, why would we trust them with this?

[GannonFan]

I’ve heard on the radio (NPR I think, I forget though) that pretty much every trade agreement since Eisenhower was fast tracked. This process doesn’t sound like anything new...but given Congress' piss poor job in every other area, why would we trust them with this?

The big ones are always fast-tracked simply because of what I said - you can't go through 535 legislators with every detail just to draw one of these things up. It's way too inefficient and surprisingly, other nations are not terribly enamored of trying to deal with every single one of those people. All fast-tracking is is pushing those people to the back so that a smaller, more manageable number of people can write the bill. The 535 still have their say, but they have their say before it becomes law and they have a yes or no. No nitpicking, no tweaking, no ammending, just whether they want the bill to become law or not. Efficient, to the point, and plenty enough sunshine. To argue otherwise is just sinking into the morass of politics.

[BDKJMU]

I’ve heard on the radio (NPR I think, I forget though) that pretty much every trade agreement since Eisenhower was fast tracked. This process doesn’t sound like anything new...but given Congress' piss poor job in every other area, why would we trust them with this?

The big ones are always fast-tracked simply because of what I said - you can't go through 535 legislators with every detail just to draw one of these things up. It's way too inefficient and surprisingly, other nations are not terribly enamored of trying to deal with every single one of those people. All fast-tracking is is pushing those people to the back so that a smaller, more manageable number of people can write the bill. The 535 still have their say, but they have their say before it becomes law and they have a yes or no. No nitpicking, no tweaking, no ammending, just whether they want the bill to become law or not. Efficient, to the point, and plenty enough sunshine. To argue otherwise is just sinking into the morass of politics.

800+ pages isn't efficient & to the point...

[kalm]

The big ones are always fast-tracked simply because of what I said - you can't go through 535 legislators with every detail just to draw one of these things up. It's way too inefficient and surprisingly, other nations are not terribly enamored of trying to deal with every single one of those people. All fast-tracking is is pushing those people to the back so that a smaller, more manageable number of people can write the bill. The 535 still have their say, but they have their say before it becomes law and they have a yes or no. No nitpicking, no tweaking, no ammending, just whether they want the bill to become law or not. Efficient, to the point, and plenty enough sunshine. To argue otherwise is just sinking into the morass of politics.

800+ pages isn't efficient & to the point...

And 5 years in the making...

[kalm]

1). Define everyone.

Everyone, pretty simple word. You, me, Dupree, anyone in Congress, everyone in the media, everyone on any kind of social network, anyone who reads a paper, anyone who doesn't read a paper. I'd draw you a Venn diagram but two concentric circles with the same diameter is a pretty boring drawing.

2). Why even push for fast track then?

Hint: it reminds me of my question to you about why businesses waste so much every year in campaign finance when it doesn't really matter...an issue at hand which you never seem to consider...

The reason to push for fast track is simple, even for you - by going fast track and giving Congress just an up or down vote, it gives the trade bill a chance to pass even with stuff in it that Congress normally would never vote for. It's the same thing as putting ammendments onto bills. It's not terribly complicated. It's a way to get Congress, as well as parties in other nations, out of the way so that fewer people are around the table when the negotiations happen and you have an actual chance to get a win-win trade bill that would benefit both nations. Since Congress still needs to vote on it (see the above definition of "everyone") they get to see it and they can determine if they can live with the consequences of the bill that don't favor us. None of these bill are ever going to be perfect where every single portion of it is a win for us - the real world doesn't work that way.

So it's trying to see what's there (before voting on it, not the Pelosi way of voting on it and then reading it), if we can live with it the way it's written, and vote yes or no. It's really that simple. It doesn't matter who wrote it, who paid the person to write it, who got to whisper in someone's ear when they wrote it. It may be written behind closed doors but it gets voted on with the doors wide open. If we don't like it, we vote no and they can always write another one. But at least this way these bills actually have a chance of being pulled together into a vote - without fast track, legislation like this wouldn't get off the ground. But hey, we can and probably will keep piecing free trade bills together, one country at a time, and hope that China's penchant to do the same isn't fast than us. Stick your head in the ground all you want, but you can't wish competition and the rest of the world away, no matter how many times you click your heels.

Meh.

For something this important the process should be transparent the entire way through. I could give a fuck if others are worried that greater congressional oversight and media attention trips up the process in our favor. We're not obligated to play nice when it comes to our interests and ideals of labor rights and environmental protection. It's a slow process to begin with and hell, the consequences of negotiations spanning 5 years could even affect the outcome of elections during that stretch of time, thereby affecting how final approval may go in the congress.

But your love affair and trust in the executive branch and multinational corporations to decide what's right for the entire country is admirable.