Replies

1. I’ve read dozens and dozens of people who agree with Perot’s position on protectionism.

2. 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. As much as I despise Obama, I see no reason why he shouldn’t be allowed to negotiate free trade agreements. They still need to be ratified by Congress. If they are crappy deals, and Ted Cruz votes for it, then he deserves heat. He shouldn’t deserve heat to give the President authority that I believe the President should have. I would certainly want him to have authority to negotiate if Cruz every becomes president.

3. I am about as anti-establishment as it gets, but I do strongly support free trade over protectionism. Protectionism has a long track record of failure in this world. I’m am firmly in Ted Cruz’s corner this cycle as he is clearly the most intelligent, quick-witted candidate that has run for the Republican nomination since Reagan.

“What has been released about this bill says that the President cannot make any trade agreement without congress ratifying it.”

And therein lies the problem...”what has been released”. If the TPP is soooooooooo good for us, then why the secrecy? Sort of like we “have to pass it to know what’s in it”....where have we heard that before?

This stinks to high heaven and those Senators who voted to allow “fast track” status are setting up the Congress to be thrown on the scrap heap of history. This is just wrong on so many levels. Especially with this present administration, though I don’t know if there is any difference any longer, legislation and trade agreements should not be done in “secrecy”! Raises a huge red flag.

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?

What has been released about this bill

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?