CDZ The Political dynamics of Fast Track Authority and Trade Agreements

theDoctorisIn

Platinum Member
Senior USMB Moderator
Aug 12, 2009
37,810
7,317
1,140
In the center of it all
Without discussing the specifics of the trade agreement itself, of which I myself am ignorant, I have been fascinated by the political dynamics of the deal, both in the public sphere and in the halls of Washington.

The terms in parenthesis are my own descriptions, obviously. If you disagree, let's talk about it.

Within the Federal Government:

For:

The White House
Congressional Republican Leadership
Most Republicans in Congress (centrists/moderates to middle-right)
A significant minority of Democrats in Congress (centrists/moderates)

Against:

Congressional Democratic Leadership
A small minority of Republicans in Congress (far right/libertarian)
A majority of Democrats in Congress (centrists/moderates to far left/liberals)


In the public sphere:

For:

Moderate media (radio, television, print, internet)
Big business

Against:

Far-right media (talk radio, internet, commentary)
Far-left media (internet, commentary)
Most posters on this message board, on both sides.
Organized Labor


As I mentioned above, I personally don't know enough about the deal to make any sort of judgement on it. But the ways that I've seen posters discussing it has ranged from those on the left cheering for Warren and the Democrats for voting against it to those on the right claiming that essentially the entire Republican party are just puppets of Obama.

What explanations do you guys have for why this issue has built such odd coalitions? Why are Rand Paul, Jeff Sessions, Elizabeth Warren and Harry Reid voting together? Why are Mitch McConnell, Marco Rubio and President Obama all saying the same things to the press?
 
Probably depends on who has something to gain from passing the measure...You damn well know that people that do things in secret on general subjects such as trade, are cooking the books for a minority to gain advantage of the agreement...
 
Probably depends on who has something to gain from passing the measure...You damn well know that people that do things in secret on general subjects such as trade, are cooking the books for a minority to gain advantage of the agreement...

Oh, I don't disagree with you.

But the bill I'm talking about in the OP isn't on the trade partnership itself, it's about giving the President the authority to negotiate that trade partnership.

The specifics do not yet exist - but everyone's already got an opinion about it, which is more what I'm interested in.
 
The Trans-Pacific Partnership clause everyone should oppose - The Washington Post

One strong hint is buried in the fine print of the closely guarded draft. The provision, an increasingly common feature of trade agreements, is called “Investor-State Dispute Settlement,” or ISDS. The name may sound mild, but don’t be fooled. Agreeing to ISDS in this enormous new treaty would tilt the playing field in the United States further in favor of big multinational corporations. Worse, it would undermine U.S. sovereignty.

ISDS would allow foreign companies to challenge U.S. laws — and potentially to pick up huge payouts from taxpayers — without ever stepping foot in a U.S. court. Here’s how it would work. Imagine that the United States bans a toxic chemical that is often added to gasoline because of its health and environmental consequences. If a foreign company that makes the toxic chemical opposes the law, it would normally have to challenge it in a U.S. court. But with ISDS, the company could skip the U.S. courts and go before an international panel of arbitrators. If the company won, the ruling couldn’t be challenged in U.S. courts, and the arbitration panel could require American taxpayers to cough up millions — and even billions — of dollars in damages.
 
My Opinion on this.................It is the TIES that BIND and the money that created this agreement.............

It gives those with ties, and make money with international companies, to make money..............

It allows these companies to challenge America's laws..........and attempt to receive payment for expenses in doing business with the United States..........

It will offshore more jobs to foreign countries as they get Free Trade when their standards of doing business are laughable compared to the United States............Not all of them..........some have similar standards.............but Congress and the Companies that OWN them want this.................And our Gov't is SELF SERVING........and no longer serve the people..................

I come from the Great State of Alabama.........................Our elected Senators haven't been bought off.............and both VOTED NO...................Sessions challenged the hell out of it...............and was ignored because of the ass hats we have in office are going to line their pockets............

Although they couldn't stop it....................To Sessions and Shelby...................

ROLL TIDE!
 
tumblr_mgbib1yJDU1rqsqmjo1_500.jpg


black-rhino.jpg
 
Your chart eagle explains why I think Jim Cramer on CNBC said it plainly and simply. We've entered into all these trade agreements and our balance of trade accounts go negative even further. It's time to stop doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. Globalism is not benefitting America. Screw the trade deals and more presidential overreach.
 
I think much of the opposition is due to distrust of Obama, who has taken every opportunity to expand his unilateral powers. Thanks to Harry Reid, even agreements within Congress couldn't be relied upon. As a result, opposition has been the only option. Maybe things will change after 2016, but I doubt it.
 

Forum List

Back
Top