Posted on 06/11/2015 5:23:08 AM PDT by xzins
“It’s declassified and made public once it’s agreed to,” Ryan said of Obamatrade in Rules Committee testimony on Wednesday during questioning from Rep. Michael Burgess (R-TX) .
I see I am hogging the thread here. I just know this is the major issue of the time and I can’t do anything else but post about it. Can’t hardly think about anything else. Sorry to be post-crazy. I’ll try to stop.
I have many Janesville friends that will definitely vote against him the next time he dares puts his name on the ballot. They are livid in fury at him!
This is what Obama promised on Obamacare and it did not happen. Fool me once . . . etc.
The unique thing is that there are reported to be items in this bill that are uniquely “Obama”: rules to override our gun laws, to wildly increase immigration, to allow corporations to sue states, thereby eliminating our national sovereignty . . . and probably more that we haven’t heard of yet.
That’s what’s unique. Stop trolling for Obama.
Well, that's kind of the point. The theory behind free trade is that it's a benefit to all the parties. It isn't like we're just doing a favor for the other 11 countries by letting them trade with us.
No country, including the US, is going to make the hard compromises they must until they know what they're getting in return. We would be asking them to make politically risky moves knowing that congress would accept their concessions but amend the deal to take ours out.
This agreement has been under negotiation since 2005, with the US joining in 2008. Multiple administrations have been involved with lots of input from congress, business, labor, etc. It remains to be seen how good or bad the TPP will be, but it should be debated on it's merits, not the process/secrecy red herring.
Here's the problem with that. What the "fast track" authority does is set the ground rules for the debate. It essentially means that once the treaty is actually submitted, it must face and up/down vote, and can't be amended. That is what is really being voted on, not the treaty itself (at this time).
I do not believe any treaty negotiated under "fast track" has ever been defeated. Could be wrong about that, but I don't think so.
The bottom line is that I do not trust the current marxists in office to negotiate a treaty that is in our best interest. Given the proximity of the U.S national elections, it should wait until after the elections and the next congress is seated.
There is indeed a very good reason to bring up the content of the legislation and the process.
No argument. It's just that we don't know the content yet so all we have to debate is the process.
But not the "president." What do you think he meant when he said he wasn't finished yet? Where have you been?
The bottom line is that I do not trust the current marxists in office to negotiate a treaty that is in our best interest.
Given the proximity of the U.S national elections, it should wait until after the elections and the next congress is seated.
I think you nailed the facts, and not trusting Obama is a very legitimate concern. I just think the manipulation being attempted using this secrecy argument is bogus.
That clears up why "climate change" is suddenly our president's most important issue.
That is perhaps the good stuff that I mentioned. Surround by a pile stinking garbage.
Agreed. It turns a lot of this into a 'he said, she said' thing. It also makes the folks pushing the 'secrecy' line look disingenuous to thos of us who actually understand what the process is.
Treaties tend to be negotiated in secret. That's pretty much the way it's always been, even when you have multiple parties to the negotiations. The whole thing about limiting ratification to an up/down vote also makes a bit of sense, as you can't very well have congress amend an agreed to treaty with multiple parties and thereby force the entire treaty back to negotiators.
That said, I don't expect anything but bad news to come from this negotiation. I'd even be surprised if it is actually called a "treaty" in the end, so as to get around the 2/3 vote needed by ratification of treaties. They'll call it a "trade agreement" (like that's actually something different - hint: it's not), and then pass it withn a simple 51% majority vote.
And it will pass, my friends, regardless of what is in it. You can take that to the bank. The globalists want it, and if you've been paying attention long enough you will have noticed by now that for those things the globalists really want, they get.
The stench of corruption is overwhelming.
Sickening to see the US swirling due to incompetent politicians.
That is the scum group closely associated with Boehner.
“Of the people,by the people,& for the people” Whatever happened to that,Paul Ryan?
THERE WILL BE NO AMENDMENTS!!! Don’t you see the cram down and the abrogation of the legislative process driven by payoffs?
Was Ryan ALWAYS a scumbag, or has he transformed himself into one by insulating himself in Washington. To think that I was thrilled when Mitt selected this dreg!
That's right, just an up-or-down vote. This is the way international agreements get made because it isn't realistic to expect another country to negotiate with 535 members of congress. Someone has to speak for the US, and in our system that's the executive.
Congress can accept or reject what the executive negotiates, but the time for their input is before the negotiation is final. If they want something changed, lobby the negotiators for it now. If they don't get what they want, they can vote against the bill. They just can't micromanage after the parties have agreed.
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.