This message was self-deleted by its author

[KMOD]

This message was self-deleted by its author (KMOD) on Fri Oct 23, 2015, 11:01 PM. When the original post in a discussion thread is self-deleted, the entire discussion thread is automatically locked so new replies cannot be posted.

[1StrongBlackMan]

1. Wow ...

I hadn't read the text of the Fast Track deal (I couldn't find it with a cursory search). But your excerpted segment, both, gives lie to many of the DU arguments, AND concerns me.

The gives lie part is obvious, as it cuts against everything that has been argued in the opposition. It gives me pause for concern because, failing the 60 votes, we can (might) look forward to anti-abortion and anti-SSM amendments, and tax cuts for the wealthy and cuts to SS/Medicare/Medicaid amendments, and balanced budget amendments.

But on the positive side, if/when the gop stuffs the agreement with that crap, it'll have to go back to the trade partners for ratification.

[1StrongBlackMan]

7. The opinions are being formed by ...

a fundamental, but relatively recent, liberal distrust of the federal government.

And the media's failure to do investigative journalism has been replaced by "film at 11:00 for the ratings" journalism.

[Doctor_J]

37. and by the hundreds of democratic reps that are against it

[99Forever]

3. Senior Legal Analyst Norman Goldman did.

I trust his credibility on such matters. Corporations won't like what he had to say about it. Nor will their politicians.

[99Forever]

11. I am not an attorney.

Norm is. A VERY good attorney. A trustworthy attorney.

[99Forever]

18. I'm not interested in "the gist of it."

I want to know the exact LEGAL legislative ramifications it will bring.

They aren't democratic and they aren't good.

[jwirr]

10. Is there a link? I would like to read it.

[Agnosticsherbet]

5. This changes my opinion of Fast Track.

It is not just the meida or people afraid that its NAFTA on steroids with a super charger. A lot of Democrats in Congress have been saying how terible the Fast Trak, and they know what's in the legislation.

[Agnosticsherbet]

43. My opinion about Fast Track has changed

I am no neutral toward Fast Track rather than against.

A lot of people oppose the TPP. I'll wait until I know what it says.

[Hekate]

8. Probably not -- hopefully some will read it now, thanks to you.

[Jamaal510]

9. K&R

[drray23]

13. most people have not

there are even some believing that this fast track bill gives the president the authority to approve the Trade agreement. It does not of course. Just allow the adminstration to negotiate and arrive at an agreement with the other nations before putting it up for a vote in congress. For obvious reasons, amendments are not the preferred way to go. This would mean having to go renegotiate since the other parties to the agreement would have no say in the US congress. If the bill is so bad, then congress can strike it down. they will have four months to read it, we will have 90 days to gripe about it.

[freshwest]

16. Thanks for the download link, will read this tomorrow. n/t

[TheKentuckian]

17. Like there are 60 votes to remove it, the TeaPubliKlans want passage.

If fast track passes there is no practical way to stop a bad bill, even if 100% of Democrats hold the line it doesn't matter at all.

Fast track is not to prevent TeaPubliKlan amendments but to make sure Democrats can't stop the agreement, the TeaPubliKlans support it.

[drray23]

41. thats not how this works.

The 60 vote threshold is to amend it. A simple majority vote is enough to kill the bill.

[TheKentuckian]

42. We don't have a simple majority. Fast track must be filabustered to death.

[cali]

19. read this

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026547878

[DCBob]

20. There are alot of "hair on fire" opinions from opponents.

Fast Tracking trade deals have been very common during the past 40 years. Its a necessity in many cases simply to be able to close any kind of international trade deal. Few countries would waste their time negotiating a deal with the US if they knew congress would be able to easily change or kill the agreement.

[eridani]

21. I'll get right on it when Obama posts the entire text of TPP on the White House website n/t

[stillwaiting]

22. If Fast Track is passed, will it be in force for the Next President?

And, if the next President turns out to be a Republican and the House and Senate remain Republican is that not just a LITTLE big short-sighted and dangerous?

Maybe just a tad?

[DCBob]

23. I think this FT bill is simply for the TPP however..

if a Republican takes the WH and they also control both chambers of congress they will be able to do anything they want.

[drray23]

25. how so ?

A simple majority is enough to kill the bill. The 60 vote is to introduce amendments. If it is bad they can kill it with 51 votes.

[DCBob]

27. I dont understand your question.

[stillwaiting]

29. I had read that Fast Track would be granted for 5 or 6 years.

To include the next Presidential Administration. Hopefully that's not correct.

If a Republican wins the WH in '16 and they retain both houses, I'd like to think that the Senate Democrats would not allow Fast Track to be granted in that case.

Setting the table for the Republicans to feast now seems foolish.

[DCBob]

31. Yes. I think you are right about that.

But assuming Hillary will be our next POTUS..

[stillwaiting]

32. And that's a huge risk to take in my opinion.

We just don't know how this is going to play out.

[DCBob]

33. This are risks on all sides with this deal.

Its a judgment call.

[stillwaiting]

35. Well, that is something we definitely agree on. It's a judgment call. nt

[drray23]

24. fast track authority has been the norm for all past presidents. nt.

[stillwaiting]

26. And the U.S. and the Republican Party itself is in a very different place today.

I don't think granting Fast Track today with the Republican Party the way that it is is particularly wise.

You may differ.

[magical thyme]

30. skipping the 34 1/2 pages of "objectives*," the first paragraph of the actual deal:

13 SEC. 3. TRADE AGREEMENTS AUTHORITY.
14 (a) AGREEMENTS REGARDING TARIFF BARRIERS.—
15 (1) IN GENERAL.—Whenever the President de16
termines that one or more existing duties or other
17 import restrictions of any foreign country or the
18 United States are unduly burdening and restricting
19 the foreign trade of the United States and that the
20 purposes, policies, priorities, and objectives of this
21 Act will be promoted thereby, the President—
22 (A) may enter into trade agreements with
23 foreign countries before—
24 (i) July 1, 2018; or ( later date if TPA is extended)

The president must notify congress, then follows references to other, existing agreements that I'm not familiar with, plus various limitations with details on how much tariffs and such may be reduced.

Then another extremely troublesome paragraph, which seems to state that the President can only change existing laws that are necessary to implement the trade agreement in question:

11 (ii) if changes in existing laws or new stat12
utory authority are required to implement such
13 trade agreement or agreements, only such pro14
visions as are strictly necessary or appropriate
15 to implement such trade agreement or agree16
ments, either repealing or amending existing
17 laws or providing new statutory authority.



Then comes stuff on consultations with Congress, which is very general so subject to interpretation. (e.g. "timely" and "fully&quot

page 100 Sovereignty -- no agreement can violate any US law, but the above paragraph seems to give the president the authority to change any laws that get in the way of the agreement. And, of course, TPP famously gives a foreign tribunal made up of corporate lawyers the power to fine taxpayers when our laws get in the way of corporate profits.

I can't find the section on an "up and down vote" by Congress...or any on how/when any agreements under it are voted on at all.

It's long, it's convoluted, and I don't really understand much of what I'm skimming through. It looks as though it gives the president carte blanche, requiring only that congress and the the public be given reports on it, the consultation part of it is extremely open to interpretation (exactly what is timely, what is fully), I've yet to find the rules under which Congress votes on it, and the opening paragraph appears to empower the President to enter into trade agreements without approval from Congress.

[DCBob]

34. The final tpp agreement has to be approved by congress.

Simple majority no amendments.

[magical thyme]

38. on what page does the TPA address congressional approval of trade agreements?

Because TPA is about more than TPP.

Also, I'm aware from numerous articles that TPP requires an "up/down" vote by congress. Also, that they have 90 days to review the 15,000 page deal.

That's 167 pages/day of heavy reading, not including interpreting and putting page 1 into context of, for example, page 13,657.

Is that 90 business days or calendar days? Because if it's calendar days, that means either reading and interpreting 7 days/week closer to 250 pages/day, assuming no holidays.

600 corporations had 10 years of free access and input. Congress (and the rest of us) get 90 days and no changes.

ISDS alone screams NO DEAL.

[DCBob]

39. I have not read the actual bill but requiring congressional approval..

is standard procedure for deals like this.

[magical thyme]

40. I skimmed through TPA and didn't see it addressed. red herring: I've written twice that TPP requires

approval.

Again, TPA isn't only about TPP. It's about every single trade deal that comes down the pike.

And as far as TPP's approval, 90 days to review 15,000 pages is not even close to sufficient. Or rather, it is sufficient for somebody not on the take to say 'NO' just on the fact that they don't know what they are agreeing to. Therefore, since nobody in Congress is going to really understand what they are signing on to, I presume that *anybody* who votes for TPP is on the take., bought and paid for.

[Doctor_J]

36. why would we? Brown, Sanders, Warren, Lee, and hundreds of trustworthy dems are against

it. Do you like being on the side of Paul Ryan?