Posted on 06/11/2015 5:08:44 PM PDT by jazusamo
Constitutional conservatives don't like it. Trade unions abhor it. Obama critics hate it. Environmentalists despise it.
Outside the Beltway bubble, a broad coalition of voters from the left, right and center opposes the mega-trade deal getting rammed through Congress this week by the Republican establishment on behalf of the White House. Here's why.
The Obama administration, House GOP leader John Boehner and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell have sold out American sovereignty. Their so-called Trans-Pacific Partnership Commission will have sweeping authority over trade, immigration, environmental, labor and commerce regulations.
As alert watchdogs U.S. Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., chairman of the Subcommittee on Immigration and the National Interest and U.S. Rep Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., warn: "By adopting fast-track, Congress would be formally authorizing the President to finalize the creation of this Pacific Union and will have surrendered its legislative prerogatives. Before a word, line, paragraph, or page of this plan is made public, Congress will have agreed to give up its treaty powers. ... In effect, one of the most sweeping international agreements seen in years will be given less legislative scrutiny and process than a Post Office reform bill."
The Obama administration, House GOP leader John Boehner and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell have sold out legislative transparency. Boehner smugly asserts that so-called Trade Promotion Authority puts Congress in charge and promotes "more openness" on trade talks. Nonsense. Under the Boehner/Obama plan, Congress gives up its ability to amend any trade deals under fast track, severely limits the ability to debate and lowers the vote threshold in the Senate from 61 to 51. The 11 international parties negotiating with Obama on TPP refuse to sign their dotted lines until Congress agrees to pre-agree to behemoth global trade pacts — sight unseen.
(Excerpt) Read more at creators.com ...
The people who wrote the Constitution were protectionists. Were they lefty? Is it wise to allow the United States to be de-industrialized just to crow about NOT being a protectionist? Are you trying to tell me you don’t use Google? Especially when you need quick facts? A lot of these trade issues are over my head, certainly, but when all these companies, such as Ford, are enticed to leave the country due to trade agreements, something is wrong. Bad wrong.
That number, obviously, refers to the traditional age-group working pool. With an additional huge increase in number of people, we have about the same number of people working as in the 70s.
Well, pardon my observation here, but....the only display of a "typical child" seems to be coming from you.
Reagan was for an open, fair and free trade. NAFTA was not signed by Reagan and it does not represent what Reagan was for. But apparently, it's an either/or scenario for you. If you can't find evidence that Reagan was a protectionist, that must equate to him being for the bad deal that is NAFTA. Childlike, indeed.
Problem is, we are no longer speaking of raising revenue or infant industries . . . we are speaking of "saving jobs" or whatever other BS WE CAN FIND ON LEFTY WEBSITES.
Again, I invite you to provide any evidence that Reagan believed in anything but “you tax me 0%, and I’ll tax you 0%.”
George Washington would have spit in your face and had you run out on a rail.
You know of George Washington? I never had that impression.
You are a classic Tory. You would have been a loyalist for sure.
Anything you say. Tea Act of 1773, I would’ve written (but not a protectionist, oh no).
I really don’t care about the protectionism angle, pro or con.
What I care about is the fact that Obama will use this as a framework to create treaties that cause Americans to be forced into paying ‘carbon taxes’ and treaties that undermine the Second Amendment.
You want to ask for this statement to be removed. Trust me here.
I nail things like an arrow.
A spherical, stationary arrow.
:)
That number is wrong, obviously.
With an additional huge increase in number of people, we have about the same number of people working as in the 70s.
Total non-farm employment. Is 71.2 million in Jan 1970 really "about the same" as 141.7 million last month?
What’s the alternative?
You really think you have it on me with that “left website” meme, don’t you? I can do that, too. Isn’t Obama a lefty (to put it mildly)? Yes. Isn’t Obama for his free trade bill? Yes. Are you for the free trade bill? Yes. So, in your world, you are MORE guilty, by association, than I am. And since when is “saving jobs” BS?
I’m good. Still smacking morons around.
Frankly, if I was in your shoes I'd be embarrassed . . . but it's never stopped with you stooges.
Hey if we get in shooting war with China are you then going to be telling me how great it was we built up the ChiCom manufacturing base and free trade with them destroyed ours when US soldiers are coming home in body bags? Are you? well?
We don’t have free trade with China, but thanks for playing.
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.