Will you stop it with conflating a vote for the TPA as having voted for the TPP?
Crud, what is wrong with so many FReepers? Are all of you nuts?
Crud, what is wrong with so many Freepers. Are all of you nuts?
60 votes by the Senate allows any trade bill to be changed.
That same 60 would have been necessary to overcome any filibuster, anyway. So, it’s not taking away anyone’s authority.
How many are paid to post here I wonder
> “Will you stop implying that voting for something that removes the ability of Congress to act in their Constituitional role and amend trade legislation is ok?”
TPA is not a trade bill and does not remove the ability of Congress to VOTE on trade deals. It does however, when it is invoked, prevent Congress from turning a negotiated trade deal upside down via amendments. When foreign countries sit at the table to hammer out a trade deal with the USA, they don’t want to waste their time with a US Congress that will come in and change the terms. They are willing to see if Congress accepts the negotiated terms by an up or down vote but they are are not going to waste months and months of work not knowing what amendments Congress is going to bring and knowing that Congress will continue to amend. So they think what’s the use in negotiating with a US President? It’s all going to change again and again. So it never gets done.
That’s why Ted Cruz is right when he says that every trade deal completed since FDR has a fast track(=no amendments) enabling legislation because no trade deal can get done without it.
Now the trade deals that have been passed have burned Americans for sure but that’s because Presidents and Congress have been too willing to give away too much of American industry. They have been poor negotiators. So it boils down to whether President Cruz will deliver something that will improve the lives of Americans, it boils down to TRUST in Ted Cruz.
Therefore, the position people should take is not whether TPA is good or bad for America, it is WHO they trust in getting terms that benefit Americans.
Here’s an example: President Cruz’ Texan constituents want to sell their gas, oil, beef and agricultural products as exports to countries that want then especially LNG. But the democrats in the US Senate do not want to empower Senator Cruz’ constituents because they vote and support conservatives. So they don’t want Ted Cruz to have TPA. But that does not mean Ted Cruz supports the democrat trade bills like TPP. He supports TPA for when he is President, not for Obama and not for Hillary if God forbid she is elected. This is not about ‘Obamatrade’, this is about ‘Cruztrade’.
> “Will you stop implying that ivoting for legislation that gives the President authority to advance a secret trade agreement and carries significant implications to immigration policy and sovereignty?”
TPA does not advance a ‘secret’ trade deal. TPA requires all trade deals to be public for 60 days prior to their vote. Your statement above shows you do not possess the facts.
> “Crud, what is wrong with so many Freepers. Are all of you nuts?”
Your post exemplifies the ignorance of posters that are carried away with emotion and who are not separating out the facts properly. The fact is you are against anything related to trade while Obama is in office because you are afraid of Obama.
The fact is you don’t know and you don’t understand the facts. Ted Cruz does understand the facts and the history, as well as the strategy for HIS VERSION of international trade that will benefit Americans.
TPA under President Cruz is a GOOD thing for America.
TPA under President Hillary is a BAD thing for America.
TPA is not a bad thing in itself. It’s is the person not the thing that is important.
Crud, what is wrong with so many Freepers. Are all of you nuts?
Weird, ain't it...