Posted on 05/23/2015 11:44:20 PM PDT by ObamahatesPACoal
Exactly right ripnbang. Why people don’t understand that is beyond understanding.
Astroaddict just because history has shown that Ross Perot was right about that “giant sucking sound” doesn’t mean that anyone bought anything. It only shows that we are not willing to take a chance on a secret trade agreement that could lead the that Giant Sucking Sound II.
Less piety in the H of Reps.
In the title, replace may with will and you will be right on target.
Was Perot right?
I don’t think so.
When industry searched for places to move off shore, it found far better people and places than Mexico.
When you drive the interstates, you never see Mexican trucks but there are a fair amount of Canadian trucks.
Nafta was beneficial, not detrimental
You are the one not understanding this.
1. Ross Perot was hysterically wrong about the “Giant Sucking Sound”.
2. There is nothing secret about the TPA. Nothing. You are confusing the TPP (The actual trade deal) with the proposal to strip Congress of the ability to propose amendments. The TPA was done to bring the TPP to daylight.
Basically, you guys need to pick up the pace and keep up with the dialogue that is going on. You are stuck on two week old talking points.
Bull Sheiate ! (religious connotation interjection)
We have a choice between Commie (Dems)
or, Commie lite (Republics)
That's no choice that I will make !!
I will vote for what is in the interest of America, and the American people !
This isn’t about protectionism or free trade, it’s about handing a criminal President vast new powers. Look at Hillary Clinton and the Clinton foundation to see how the game is played and then tell me you think Obama isn’t going to squeeze this new power for all its worth. and by the way, 40 million illegal aliens later, it’s pretty clear that NAFTA was a GD disaster. Oh, and look how well it increased employment and promoted capitalism too. Things are just great now. woo hoo! Welcome to Free Republic.
'Free trade' has been a republican position. There is various nuance about it. Not all of 'conservatives' believe such positions are correct, nor does it hold true to the idea of 'conserve', as in staying the current condiiton. As the rise of free trade also coincides the fall of the middle class. I don't know if they are connected, but we have helped to raise the incomes and wealth to communist countries all over the world because of our trade policies, while continuing to have stagnant wages for lower income persons here.
Perot, though a gun grabber, was correct in the idea of business capital fleeing America to lower cost production countries. Part of the debate about NAFTA would be increase in the standard for Mexicans and their country, which would help to stop the flow of illegal immigration and drug crime. The elites were wrong again on that prediction, like they are on many things. People who ofter are for 'free trade' and lower trade barriers, are usually in a position of higher wealth or have a position of tenure in academia.
From Heritage, who also brought us RomneyObamaCare:
The North American Free Trade Agreement: Ronald Reagan's Vision Realized
'...The NAFTA also will offer Americans cheaper goods, and increase U.S. exports by making them more affordable for the rest of the world. Moreover, it will create an estimated 200,000 new jobs for Americans, reduce illegal immigration from Mexico, help tackle drug trafficking, strengthen Mexican democracy and human rights, and serve as a model for the rest of the world.'
These aren’t new powers! You are being hysterically inaccurate in what the TPA does. Presidents have hade this power in the past, it’s simply being renewed with the congressional ability to “kill it to death with 1000 cuts” being removed.
President’s have always had the right to negotiate trade agreements. Trade deals never get done because of union pressure. The TPA defangs Democrats in Congress. That’s why they despise it so much and voted against it. Trade deals never get done because of union pressure.
This doesn’t give Obama anymore authority than any President before him. It’s just hyperbole and lies that a bunch of you are spewing.
Perot knew nothing about trade and was only boosted by the media because he was going to help Clinton come to power.
As soon as Clinton was elected, Perot vanished.
Most Freepers know this.
I on the other hand worked for 25 years for the biggest exporter in the USA so I understand trade with other countries probably better than you do.
I am now seeing this fine company destroyed by back room deals and empty promises with our Gov all in the name of “Trade”.
I saw the corruption of Silicon Valley in its prime back in the 90’s when it moved from “innovator to the world” to “money is everything”.
I saw Sr Executives involved in covering up their mistakes in product development and planning using outsourcing to keep their jobs while firing everyone who helped put them in as an executive.
I saw phantom companies show up on the books and then like magic vanish and re-appear in India.
Many friends of mine were FORCED to train their replacements in India and then fired just before they would have gotten full retirement benefits.
Come off your high horse, relax and enjoy being a public FR member.
“What has been released about this bill says that the President cannot make any trade agreement without congress ratifying it. All he gets to do is negotiate it.”
Genius, the POTUS could negotiate a trade deal previously and submit it to Congress for ratification. That is established in the Constitution.
There was no need for this authority except to empower the Executive Branch beyond its constitutional limits. What are those powers?
But you keep telling us it is needed....why? What is specifically in this bill that was lacking in the Constitutionally created system?
I am not being hysterical. We have never had a president the likes of Barack Obama before. They gave up their power to amend and, in so doing, handed the enemy power. Now they will be forced to accept whatever BS he sees fit to insert into this bill and he will see fit to insert BS into this bill. Hillary has shown us, beyond any shadow of a doubt, how they use and abuse power. Obama will use this power to reward and empower his faithful and himself. This is TARP all over again. You’re wrong about everything. Nothing hyperbolic about that.
Shouldn't the bill be publicly available? We're not talking about classified military appropriations, we're talking about legislation that concerns free trade - why the inability for the public to see the bill so they can contact their Congressmen/women after being informed?
The TPA is avaliable for public consumption. There is NOTHING secret about the bill that Ted Cruz just voted for. Nothing.
They haven’t given up their power to reject. If it’s bad, you reject.
The Pro-Free Market Congressmen increased their power because they can demand certain things in and demand certain things out, or it’ll just be voted down from the get-go.
Obama has gained no powers from this. That is a myth. That is sheer hyperbole.
Your understanding of executive-congressional authority is poor at best.
1. The executive branch gained zero power from the TPA. None.
2. TPA’s are not new. They’ve been allowing them for nearly 2 decades now. They have expiration dates and this renewed it.
Allowing a trade deal to be ratified by simple majority vote is wrong.
Mitch McConnell and Sen. Orrin Hatch play another round of let’s make a deal with Obama nothing good to ensue.
You’re entitled to that opinion, but the Supreme Court has no problem with the Constitutional legality issue of it.
In 1993 the balance of trade with Mexico had the US with a $1.6billion surplus.
In 2014 the US ran a deficit with Mexico of $60 billion. In 2004 that deficit was $74 billion.
In the 20 years since NAFTA Mexico has been the net recipient of approximately $1 trillion, net financial gain, augmenting their Capital Stock and transferring jobs south of the US border.
How is this contrary to what Perot said? And, how is this of benefit to the Americans and America?
And while we're at it (oh yeah, you been lurking for over a decade, but "you just couldn't take it anymore") what is your position on the illegal aliens here today? What should be their disposition? And, do we need more legal immigration?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.