Trade Bill Fails In the House 413
schwit1 writes: President Obama suffered a major defeat to his Pacific Rim free trade initiative Friday as House Democrats helped derail a key presidential priority despite his last-minute, personal plea on Capitol Hill. "In a remarkable rejection of a president they have resolutely backed, House Democrats voted to kill assistance to workers displaced by global trade, a program their party created and has stood by for four decades. By doing so, they brought down legislation granting the president trade promotion authority — the power to negotiate trade deals that cannot be amended or filibustered by Congress — before it could even come to a final vote." This was after Silicon Valley heavyweights made a last minute push to pass the bill and the White House got personal with many Democratic lawmakers.
so trade bills (Score:5, Interesting)
are the last vestige of the place congresscritters respect the will of their voters
in every other realm plutocrats own them
this will be "corrected"
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
RTFM, this isn't TPP or any of those treaties. This is some other small sacrificial lamb so everyone stops paying attention.
Re:so trade bills (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Regardless. This is a good thing. It puts the power back in the hands of congress and takes it away from the emperor^H^H^H^H^H^H^HPresident.
Re: (Score:3)
At least they're more. It increases the chance, at least ever so slightly, that crap like TTIP can't simply be rubber stamped without anyone noticing.
Re:so trade bills (Score:5, Insightful)
Some policies must have a "national" consensus (Score:3)
Yes. Congress is MUCH more responsible with the use of their power than the President is.
Both cooperation and gridlock are preferable to a lone individual making US trade policy. Some national policies must have a national consensus of some sort.
Re:Some policies must have a "national" consensus (Score:5, Insightful)
And for some truly ill-advised and unpopular ideas its more practical to wait for a President of a suitable ideological bent than wait for a Congressional majority.
Hence the founding fathers wisely distributing powers amongst branches. Ie the executive negotiating a treaty, the legislature making it law, and the supreme court deciding if the law is constitutional.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Thanks for the warning. :)
Re: (Score:3)
RTFM, this isn't TPP or any of those treaties. This is some other small sacrificial lamb so everyone stops paying attention.
What this would have aloud is for Obama to submit the TPP to congress and all they can do is yeh or nay. No debate, no amendments. Since the TPA did not pass, when it is proposed to congress, it is open to debate, amendment and the public.
Re: (Score:2)
RTFM, this isn't TPP or any of those treaties. This is some other small sacrificial lamb so everyone stops paying attention.
What this would have aloud is for Obama to submit the TPP to congress and all they can do is yeh or nay. No debate, no amendments. Since the TPA did not pass, when it is proposed to congress, it is open to debate, amendment and the public.
Which means it will have no chance of passing.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Which means it will have no chance of passing.
... which means the countries of the Pacific Rim and Southeast Asia, will stop looking to America for economic leadership. Most of them, likely including Japan, and certainly Australia, will join the Chinese led AIIB [wikipedia.org]. Without America, TPP is dead, but there will likely be a new free trade agreement to replace it, anchored on China, rather than America.
When the history book of America's decline is written, this will likely be listed as one of the milestones.
Re:so trade bills (Score:4, Insightful)
If "economic leadership" requires sacrificing our highest held values, (the right to self-rule, the public's input on how it is governed, etc.), then I'm all for letting another country take the lead.
The problem with these so called "agreements" is that they have become a host for the agendas of special interests, who seek to actively harm society in-general for their own self-benefit. Given that, regardless of which country takes over as "economic leader", it will only be a matter of time before the demands of the special interest groups become too much for their societies to bear, and their societies will revolt as a result.
Countries that promote this kind of behavior against their people, are only hastening their own demise, and I for one am happy and grateful that in this one case the leadership in the US made the correct decision.
Re: (Score:2)
China seems to be doing okay not in that role now. Being the leader isn't always the best thing--it can be more of a straitjacket than an advantage.
Re:so trade bills (Score:5, Insightful)
Without America, TPP is dead, but there will likely be a new free trade agreement to replace it, anchored on China, rather than America.
That's because China sees a trade agreement as being about trade and making money, not a means of furthering the global agendas of whichever megacorporations pay the people writing it the most money. I'm from a country that has a free trade agreement with China, negotiated openly and available for anyone to check (heck, there's even a web site set up to tell you all you need to know), that basically says "you sell us your stuff, we sell you ours, the rest is up to you". That's a free trade agreement, not the stuff US corporations are trying to force on the world.
Re: (Score:2)
You haven't been on this planet for long, have you? Just 'cause you get asked for your opinion every 4 years doesn't mean that it matters.
Actually most people forfeit offering an opinion (Score:2)
You haven't been on this planet for long, have you? Just 'cause you get asked for your opinion every 4 years doesn't mean that it matters.
Actually most people forfeit offering an opinion by being loyal to a particular political party. When one is loyal to one party then both parties may ignore you. One already has your vote, the other cannot attain your vote.
Being a member of a party to promote an issue or message is fine. But do not vote for a party, vote for a candidate regardless of their party. That is the only way to make candidates care about your opinion.
Remember the true currency of politics is votes not money. As long as its on
Re:so trade bills (Score:5, Interesting)
The defeat of fast-track authority makes it more likely that the content of the TPP will be revealed to the public before it gets voted on. If fast-track had passed, the TPP would have been the world's largest shrink-wrap agreement.
Re: (Score:2)
TAA, a displaced workers assistance bill failed. TPA passed the house. They're going to take this to the 7th game.
Re: (Score:2)
are the last vestige of the place congresscritters respect the will of their voters
Maybe. I'll bet you 78% of voters don't even care about this bill, though; and even fewer care about the trade deal itself.
Re: (Score:3)
Welcome to Fascist America! (Score:5, Insightful)
You do realize that the Government has already made similar deals with Canada and Mexico, so what we see now is simple hoodwinking. Wikileaks has blown their cover too many times and people are largely fed up. If they could have kept it all secret it would have happened, so now we have to find all of the back door bullshit they are pushing through elsewhere.
The US has not been Capitalist since at least Reagan, but at least until NAFTA we could say "pseudo capitalist". More and more control, more and more wealth redistribution where the majority goes to the wealthy, Fascism at it's purest definition.
How is that Utopia working out for all of you people that keep thinking more Government will solve all our problems? (Not directed at GP, just a general audience question)
Re:Welcome to Fascist America! (Score:4, Interesting)
How is that Utopia working out for all of you people that keep thinking more Government will solve all our problems?
That's sort of how the libertarian viewpoint evolves, I guess. Like Reagan started out as a democrat, presumably because he cared about people and favored social reforms. Then after living through the Communist purges in the McCarthy era, he realized that more government power means more chances for government abuse. Which is why he came to say, "Government is not the solution....government is the problem." As many people like to say, the NSA is a greater threat to US liberty than Al Qaeda.
Which doesn't mean you have to like Reagan. The debts he piled up were unconscionable. Realizing that government bureaucracy can be as bad as a Kafka nightmare is something you can do no matter what party you prefer.
Re: (Score:2)
That's sort of how the libertarian viewpoint evolves, I guess. Like Reagan started out as a democrat, presumably because he cared about people and favored social reforms. Then after living through the Communist purges in the McCarthy era,
Living through and not exactly vigorously opposing [gmu.edu] them. Whilst he did say he didn't think that the Communist Party should be outlawed:
Re: (Score:2)
This article suggests [time.com] that "Reagan disagreed with some of the tactics of organizatio
Re: (Score:2)
There is a very interesting read, which is a review of two books, one a biography and the other an autobiography. The article appeared in New Republic sometime in the late 80s or early 90s. It can be found here [newrepublic.com].
The story is long and complicated. Excerpt: "Whatever his reasons for turning against communism, he remained left of center long after he did so. As late as 1952, by which date he had been publicly denouncing Communists for six years, the Los Angeles County Democratic Central Committee declined to en
Re: (Score:2)
We knew about Reagan and war movies. What Cannon adds is that Reagan loved peace movies, too. He couldn't stop talking about War Games, a Matthew Broderick movie about a teenage hacker who breaks into the NORAD computer and saves the world from being destroyed by trigger-happy Pentagon generals.
Relevant to the discussion, check out this quote. It's kind of crazy:
Reagan after the war was....an enthusiastic joiner of Communist front groups.
This one is rather astonishing too:
He said he wanted to rid the world of nuclear weapons altogether.
Re:Welcome to Fascist America! (Score:5, Informative)
That's sort of how the libertarian viewpoint evolves, I guess. Like Reagan started out as a democrat, presumably because he cared about people and favored social reforms. Then after living through the Communist purges in the McCarthy era, he realized that more government power means more chances for government abuse. Which is why he came to say, "Government is not the solution....government is the problem." As many people like to say, the NSA is a greater threat to US liberty than Al Qaeda.
So, McCarthyism traumatized him so much that, after being FBI informant reporting on people's political beliefs, he then joined the party that fostered McCarthy, and subsequently used similar techniques against student protesters and pot smokers, which was the foundation of his actual political career, as opposed to his sound bites? Sure, whatever you say.
Re: (Score:3)
To be correct the spies would have had to be who he said they were instead of just the targets he picked to progress his political ambitions - thus he was WRONG.
Mary Jane Keeney, among actually a great many others. McCarthy singled her out himself, and her own diary proved that she was a spy for the Soviets. There are many other such examples I could list here if I wanted to take the time. Annie Lee Moss, who worked at the Pentagon, turned out to be a member of the Communist Party.
Many years later, "liberated" Russian records confirmed McCarthy's suspicions about others.
So no, McCarthy was not "wrong". Yes, there were Russian spies, and it's a matter of publi
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
if we have less government, that's simply less people for the plutocrats to bribe, and their power is extended
weaken government and plutocrats are not weakened, they are strengthened and emboldened
libertarianism is extremely naive and uneducated as to history. you need a strong government to counterbalance the plutocrats. you do that with strong anticorruption laws
the problem with our current government is we have a corrupt government. you don't solve that be weakening government, you solve that with strong
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
if we have less government, that's simply less people for the plutocrats to bribe, and their power is extended
Now you're being silly......"less government" doesn't mean "fewer people," it means "less power." Reducing the power of government gives the people who bribe less power, and you know it.
Re:Welcome to Fascist America! (Score:5, Insightful)
It gives them less need to do any bribing. They just go out and do what they want with no resistance.
Re: (Score:3)
Reducing the power of government gives the people who bribe less power, and you know it.
The people who bribe don't just do it to co-opt the power of government. They also do it to direct the power of government away from them. In effect, they're "buying" power from the government. Reducing the power of government justs lets the bribers get what they want for free.
I'm not saying that bribing should be Business as Usual. Rather, I think circletimessquare is right: the solution is to enact tough laws against corruption (i.e., bribery.)
Re: (Score:2)
Rather, I think circletimessquare is right: the solution is to enact tough laws against corruption (i.e., bribery.)
That's one of those things that's nice in theory, but impossible in practice: give me an anti-bribery law, and I'll tell you a loophole that a congressperson can use to work around it.
Re: (Score:2)
it won't be 100% foolproof, but corruption will be reduced. you can never get rid of corruption 100%, but that doesn't mean we should accept a state of legalized out in the open corruption that is far worse
serious anticorruption laws with a few small loopholes we can continue to close and fight is a far far happier, richer, more socially mobile and simply better country
Re: (Score:2)
serious anticorruption laws with a few small loopholes we can continue to close and fight is a far far happier, richer, more socially mobile and simply better country
OK, let's see how serious you can be. What kind of laws would you make to stop the kind of corruption we see going on in the Clinton foundation? Or are there no laws that could stop it?
Re: (Score:3)
democrats and republicans play this game. it is a sick game and it needs to end
are you telling me you are for corruption because clinton does it?
republicans should be allowed to do evil things because clintons do evil things?
"democratsmurdered somebody so republicans should be able to murder someone"
is that morality in your mind? two wrongs make a right?
the bullshit partisan nature of politics makes people so stupid they will cut out their own eye because the other side said they shouldn't
what are your mora
Re: (Score:2)
What corruption? Aren't the donations publicly disclosed?
Yes, at least a lot of the donations are publicly disclosed. Here are some more publicly disclosed bribes [opensecrets.org].
You've hit on a larger problem: as long as the general public cares so little about government, there is no law you can make that will fix it. A good democracy requires involvement.
Re: (Score:2)
are you telling me you are for corruption because clinton does it?
Of course not. I'm trying to see if you can think. You can certainly insult.
Can you think of a way to design rules that would stop the corruption of the Clinton foundation, or not? If you can't think of such rules, you ought to admit it. It's a tough problem, one that I claim is impossible to solve.
Re: (Score:2)
it's not impossible to solve. the rules are easy and straightforward, other countries implement them and enforce them and enjoy far less corruption
the problem is there is no will to change the rules because the congresscritters are all paid off and the citizens are apathetic. if we can reverse that apathy, we have a chance
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"no outside money in elections, elections paid for by a fund equally split"
"no hiring anyone for regulatory positions from the companies they regulate, no hiring of people who used to be regulators"
this is not complicated nor hard to figure out you moronic jackass
other countries do this. much less corruption and a government that works. canada, the nordic countries
you need me to spoonfeed you the fucking obvious? you're that fucking stupid you can't figure out the very simple easy rules?
Re: (Score:2)
Not only that, you're not a moron. You could easily figure out ways to get around those rules.
Re: (Score:3)
if there is less government what the fuck do you think the plutocrats do? they simply start instituting policies and enforcing them on their own. then you don't even have a fake corrupt government to redress your grievances, you simply are a slave with no rights at all
this is not science fiction. this is historical fact:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
the problem with our current government is we have a corrupt government. you don't solve that be weakening government, you solve that with strong anticorruption laws, make regulators and regulations actually regulate corporations, rather than simply be controlled by the very corporations they are supposed to regulate, the bullshit corrupt status quo we have now
Strong anti-corruption laws would weaken the government since it would greatly inhibit bureaucrats from monetizing their power. And if we had those in place, how much of the current US government really would survive?
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Arguably so, but he was far from the only one, or even the first one, to do so - and Obama dwarfs all of the others. Here is the amount of national debt, in billions of constant 2012-adjusted dollars, accumulated during the terms of various Presidents.
Wilson, 1912-1920 239
Harding, 1920-1922 15
Coolidge, 1922-1928 -78
Hoover, 1928-1932 91
Roosevelt, 1932-1945 3068
(same, prior to WW2 only), (1932-1941) (454)
Truman, 1945-1952 -1091
Eisenhower,
Re: (Score:2)
However since 1912, only Truman, Eisenhower, Johnson, and Nixon left the country's debt better than they found it.
What about Coolidge
Re: (Score:3)
How is that Utopia working out for all of you people that keep thinking more Government will solve all our problems?
Are there, in fact, any people making that rather-broad argument, as opposed to, say, arguing that some particular problem might be better handled with more government?
Re: (Score:2)
How is that Utopia working out for all of you people that keep thinking more Government will solve all our problems?
Are there, in fact, any people making that rather-broad argument, as opposed to, say, arguing that some particular problem might be better handled with more government?
No, but it is common to read people mindlessly repeating these sound bites.
Re:Welcome to Fascist America! (Score:5, Informative)
morons who want to weaken or destroy our government are only helping the plutocrats. the power they have over you does not disappear when you weaken or destroy the government, all you do is give them a smaller roster of people to pay off
the problem is not government
the problem is the plutocrats who buy congresswhores and fake regulators
you want to FIX government, not destroy it. cure it of its corruption
if you have less government, less regulation, the power the plutocrats have over you does not disappear. they simply have less people they have to bribe. then they start hiring their own goon squads and turn you into slaves
that's not science fiction, that's well establish american history:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
we defeated them with labor movements and unions. but, like you said, since reagan the unions have been broken up. scott walker is killing the last of them. and now the plutocrats are back in charge
now we have to fight the fight of our great grandfathers, all over again
the problem is legalized corruption in the usa. we need REGULATION. actual regulation, not corrupt regulation controlled by the people who are supposed to be regulated
of course that's not perfect, but it is 9,000x better than no regulation and less government
look to canada, the nordic countries: places where they actually have effective government, actual laws that control corruption. and where the people are happier, more socially mobile, and spend far less on healthcare and education than we do
in the usa we have a supreme court who in 2010 said "money is speech" and so the rich now have the only real effective speech in the usa. probably the most anti-american and destructive event in the history of the usa. not the war of 1812, not the civil war, not pearl harbor, not 911: the most anti-american event in the history of this country was 2010's citizens united
you want to strengthen your government, and have strong anti-corruption laws passed
that's the only power you really have: your government. YOUR government, not the corrupted piece of shit we currently have. fight to get it back
fix it, don't destroy it (morons who dream of shooting it out in the woods a la the second amendment and revolution are simply dead people waking: you don't have the numbers nor the firepower, and revolutions are far far worse than our current problems regardless)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
And yet BC and Ontario are the only parts of Canada creating jobs. BC is the only Province to have balanced its budget this year. Meanwhile the conservative paradise of Alberta has once again imploded due to the oil bubble exploding with a 5 Billion dollar deficit and the people actually got so pissed off that they voted in the socialists after 3 and a half decades of conservative rule.
I also have news for you, even in private industry you often have people standing around while the heavy machinery works as
Re: (Score:2)
the most anti-american event in the history of this country was 2010's citizens united
Well, since you routinely explain how much you dislike the constitution, I suppose it makes sense you'd say something like that.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think we actually know that. And I don't think you can chain those suppositions together. In three paragraphs you went from "you want to rule over over people." to "We don't want to live under Stalin and Mao mass murderers!". I don't think your logic chain actually links together.
I'm just an innocent bystander, but I do want to tell you that you may be shooting from the hip and missing. Your arguments come off a bit Crazy. But hey, you're anonymous, what do you care?
Bullshit! (Score:2)
You're full of it. Either that or you can't read.
Also, by standing by hired thugs instead of the oppressed people you reveal yourself to be a fascist cunt.
The strikers opened fire first, murdered a few Pinkertons, tried to burn alive Pinkertons who were attempting to surrender, and then after accepting the Pinkertons' surrender, proceeded to torture them.
Not at all suprising that Wikipedia conspicuously fails to mention this.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
The Pinkerton agents attempted to disembark, and shots were fired. Conflicting testimony exists as to which side fired the first shot. John T. McCurry, a boatman on the steamboat Little Bill (which had been hired by the Pinkerton Detective Agency to ferry its agents to the steel mill) and one of the men wounded by the strikers, said: "The armed Pinkerton men commenced to climb up the banks. Then the workmen opened fire on the detectives. The men shot first, and not until three of the Pinkerton men had fallen did they respond to the fire. I am willing to take an oath that the workmen fired first, and that the Pinkerton men did not shoot until some of their number had been wounded."[29] But according to The New York Times, the Pinkertons shot first.[30] The newspaper reported that the Pinkertons opened fire and wounded William Foy, a worker.[30] Regardless of which side opened fire first, the first two individuals wounded were Frederick Heinde, captain of the Pinkertons,[31] and Foy. The Pinkerton agents aboard the barges then fired into the crowd, killing two and wounding 11. The crowd responded in kind, killing two and wounding 12. The firefight continued for about 10 minutes.[32]
After a few more hours, the strikers attempted to burn the barges. They seized a raft, loaded it with oil-soaked timber and floated it toward the barges. The Pinkertons nearly panicked, and a Pinkerton captain had to threaten to shoot anyone who fled. But the fire burned itself out before it reached the barges. The strikers then loaded a railroad flatcar with drums of oil and set it afire. The flatcar hurtled down the rails toward the mill's wharf where the barges were docked. But the car stopped at the water's edge and burned itself out. Dynamite was thrown at the barges, but it only hit the mark once (causing a little damage to one barge). At 2:00 p.m., the workers poured oil onto the river, hoping the oil slick would burn the barges; attempts to light the slick failed.[36]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
The Pinkertons, too, wished to surrender. At 5:00 p.m., they raised a white flag and two agents asked to speak with the strikers. O'Donnell guaranteed them safe passage out of town. Upon arrival, their arms were stripped from them. With heads uncovered, to distinguish them from the mill hands, they passed along between two rows of guards armed with Winchesters.[41] As the Pinkertons crossed the grounds of the mill, the crowd formed a gauntlet through which the agents passed. Men and women threw sand and stones at the Pinkerton agents, spat on them and beat them. Several Pinkertons were clubbed into unconsciousness. Members of the crowd ransacked the barges, then burned them to the waterline.[42]
As the Pinkertons were marched through town to the Opera House (which served as a temporary jail), the townspeople continued to assault the agents. Two agents were beaten as horrified town officials looked on. The press expressed shock at the treatment of the Pinkerton agents, and the torrent of abuse helped turn media sympathies away from the strikers.[43]
That's your "Wikipedia conspiracy" you little fascist cunt.
Feel free to read up on events leading up to the Battle of July 6th.
How Carnegie's asshole Frick put a barbed wire fence around the plant with snipers, search lights and w
Re: (Score:2)
I imagine about the same as we're seeing right now, as people try to push through less government. (Well, less government except where it concerns a woman's uterus or homosexual people wanting to get married.)
Perhaps the problem isn't more or less government? Perhaps the problem is religious indoctrination coupled with corrupt government and the people we elect, regardless of its size?
Re: (Score:2)
You write like government is a thing to be weighed and parceled out instead of an activity people do.
Re: (Score:2)
Trade agreements with other countries require government intervention. They are agreements between two governments. Without such, the other country may refuse to trade with us on good terms.
Anyhow, I view the private sector and the public sector as tools for our civilization. Both tools are needed, and you have to keep eye on both these tools and keep them well-oiled and clean, and use the rig
Re: (Score:2)
I can't believe that no one has yet pointed out the obvious self-contradiction in your post. You start out by complaining about international trade agreements which the government has and is likely to make and end by ranting about more Government. But the purpose of these trade agreements is to remove government imposed barriers to trade across international boundaries. So every trade agreement reduces government interference in how corporations and people to do business internationally, overriding those
Re:Welcome to Fascist America! (Score:5, Insightful)
the nordic countries and canada have more government than us and far less corruption. the people are happier, more socially mobile, and pay far less for healthcare and education
the problem is we want effective laws against corruption. yes: more government -> more government corruption is true as long as the usa does not effective laws against corruption. 2010's citizens united for example simply boldly stated legalized corruption is the way. we must reverse that and install many other anti-corruption laws and only then do we have fairness
but less government and less regulation does not lead to less corruption, it simply means the plutocrats have less people they need to bribe to get what they want. that only helps them
Re: (Score:2)
the nordic countries and canada have more government than us and far less corruption.
The Nordic countries are more like state governments, if you are going to compare them to the US. A bigger EU government would not make the Nordic countries happier; some of them don't want to join as it is.
Re:Welcome to Fascist America! (Score:5, Interesting)
he nordic countries and canada have more government than us and far less corruption. the people are happier, more socially mobile, and pay far less for healthcare and education
The important difference there is that the people of the Nordic countries (at least Sweden and Finland, where I visited and lived) still have faith in their institutions. Americans haven't had faith in our institutions since Watergate. It's not just the Government either; in increasing numbers Americans don't trust business, academia, religion, or any other reasonably sized institution.
The reasons for this are varied -- you could write an entire thesis on the subject -- but at the end of the day it's the reality of the situation, and a Nordic style welfare state is a non-starter in the United States.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That may be a valid point, but it's worth mentioning that the welfare state doesn't have to be run at the national level. Much of Kela [www.kela.fi] is run and funded by municipalities, not the national Government. Finland leads the world in education yet has no standardized tests or national curriculum mandates. Intuitive at the local level is encouraged, not stifled.
Of course it still won't happen here, even if we got over our love affair with top-down control. Our mistrust of institutions doesn't begin or end wit
Re:Welcome to Fascist America! (Score:4, Funny)
the nordic countries and canada have more government than us and far less corruption. the people are happier, more socially mobile, and pay far less for healthcare and education
Canada had this idea that most of the laws would be made in what they call 'Provinces', and only laws that had to be made at a nation-wide level would be made by the national government. This means you have different laws in different parts of the country, which can be tailored to what the people who live there want. Quebec even has its own immigration policy.
If only America had tried something similar, it probably wouldn't be in such a mess.
Re: (Score:3)
Actually Canada was created to have a strong Federal Government as the Fathers of Confederation had just watched the failure of the American experiment (States having quite a bit of independence) in the form of the civil war (they were also worried about the Union turning north for more conquests). Since then the courts have given the Provinces more and more power which is the opposite of the USA where the Federal Government has acquired more and more power with the support of the courts.
In both cases the f
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Being Canadian I can say you have only part of the story correct. First of all Canada is 1/10 the size of the US at best so 'size' is a matter of perspective with respect to 'more government' & since corruption & inefficiency follow 'size' of any organization if Canada has the population of the US I have no doubt there'd be signifcantly less 'happy & socially mobile' Canadians.
On the topic of healthcare, it may be cheaper but its a bit hard to argue it is 'better', depending on your definition o
Re: (Score:2)
More government does not necessarily mean more corruption.
More government without any oversight does. Governments, even "big" governments with lots of regulations and high taxes in place, can be surprisingly free of corruption and pork barreling provided that there is oversight. Of course, if such checks don't exist and if the few that do are essentially under control of those that are supposedly being controlled, this means corruption.
But that's totally independent of whether it's big or small government.
Re: (Score:2)
And the way it will be corrected is by Congress delegating its authority to some small, unelected group of technocrats which controls policy. At that point, it becomes trivially easy to influence the small group of technocrats, and also to hide the influence.
Voting themselves more power (Score:2)
are the last vestige of the place congresscritters respect the will of their voters
No, it's not because they respect the voters. It's because it's time to nerf the boss's power in case we don't like the next one, or perhaps because they want to make a whole bunch of "it's in the interests of our people, honest" amendments to the treaty. When Congress votes themselves more power, I don't automatically think it's for altruistic purposes.
Clinton Democrats (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Yes, there's this amazing technology called a "calendar" that lets you know when an eight-year period of time has elapsed.
I'm not certain that "everyone" is intelligent enough to work this new-fangled device, though.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
And here I've been buying one-year calendars like a schmuck. Eight-year calendars, what a time to be alive!
Re: (Score:2)
Given there are only 14 variations (One with Jan 1 on each day of the week, and another 7 but for leap years), you could just reuse old ones.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
More like centrist Warren Democrats and Sanders Democrats showing Clinton we remember how her husband sold our jobs out.
Re:Clinton Democrats (Score:5, Insightful)
Mr. Clinton and Mrs. Clinton, the former Walmart exec., gave China MFN status which started the huge growth of Chinese industry in the late 90's. The common "Walmart America" upper middle class Clintonista is all about shelves full of Chinese stuff to fill their mcmansions, and with the possible exception of Obama you can't find a bigger proponent of TPP than Clinton.
It was Obama Democrats that tripped up this trade deal. Blacks, labor and others have been made surplus people through competition with disposable foreign workers and they've finally — after half a century — figured it out.
Obama Democrats (Score:2, Interesting)
Time frame simply too long (Score:5, Insightful)
While the summary is trying to make this some kind of huge rebuff of the President by democrats in Congress, the only serious problem with this bill is it was for too long of a time period. Obama is only in office for another 18 months, and this fast track authority would have extended years after he is gone. This vote had almost nothing to do with democrats not trusting Obama; it was them not trusting the unknown President who will take his mantle a couple years from now.
Re: (Score:2)
there is no way that a GOP presidential candidate would be able to get the nomination and move to the center fast enough to win a general election.
Based on past results, I think you entirely underestimate what can happen in less time than you can say "whiplash".
Sane is debatable, but "intelligent" and "decent" gave us Jimmy Carter. We've been happier since we dropped those qualifications. Not logical, perhaps, but true nonetheless.
Besides, if we had decent people as presidents, how could politicians spend millions of dollars on pointless investigations while decrying how government wastes money?
Re: (Score:2)
I think Carter is the only president that I have witnessed doing more good out of office than he did while he was in office.
Re: (Score:2)
The way the GOP has veered into the insane right
If you think Republicans are 'insane right', then you must be far to the left of Stalin.
Re:Time frame simply too long (Score:5, Informative)
Sadly, it isn't that simple. Basically what happened is that the Senate passed a bill (62-37) that coupled the Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) extension with an amendment that extended a worker retraining program. In the House the bills were decoupled. The vote rejected the *retraining* bill (but passed the TPA bill) which effectively requires a revote by the senate to grant TPA separately (if the goal is to get it in a form for the president to sign it rather than just blame someone for its failure to pass).
The extension alluded to by the OP is that there is an extension clause in the bill that allows the president to request an extension from 2018 to 2021, but the extension must be requested before June 30, 2018. If either house can pass a bill that rejects this extension, it is considered denied. FWIW, a similar extension clause has been in most TPA that have been granted in the past and were generally put in as a safety in case negotiations schedules are not maintained.
The only foreseeable situation that this affects is if one party were in control of both houses and the presidency, the out-party could then still theoretically filibuster a vote on a negotiated treaty in the Senate if the TPA authority was not in effect. However, with the recent change in filibuster rules of the senate regarding nominations by the democrats (the so-called 'nuclear-option' that was exercised), it isn't inconceivable that filibustering a treaty could trigger a similar 'nuclear' option in the senate if it came down to it, so it may not even matter in practice and is kind of a red herring.
As to why TPA is necessary, it of course isn't, but not having it allows a few members of congress to essentially hold the enabling legislation for a treaty hostage by offering amendments or failing to issue a committee report to allow a floor vote. Since adding an amendment would force the negotiators back to the table, it is presumed that other treaty parties would never offer their best level of concessions during ordinary negotiations (saving them to counter future nit-picking terms offered by rouge legislators) resulting in a sub-optimal agreement for us.
The TPA isn't like the war powers resolution in that it is a bill that affects the rules congress applies to itself by simply limiting debate, amendments and other procedural measures (which it is of course free to do to itself and has done many times in the past). The WPR is hotly debated as being unconstitutional in that it appears allows the president to take unilateral action and report on it later without action from congress. Also, the TPA also has many provisions in it directs negotiations a certain way and if the president ignores them, the TPA is effectively revoked (debate and amendments are then allowed in these areas). Unlike the WPR, the TPA allows congress to reject a treaty *before* it takes effect (not after the fact like the WPR).
Re: (Score:2)
thank you for the explanation.
Trade authority (Score:4, Informative)
the power to negotiate trade deals that cannot be amended or filibustered by Congress
It is important to realize here that this does not mean that the bills would be automatically passed, rather that congress either has to say "yes" or "no," they can't add pork to the bill (like they tried on this one).
Re: (Score:2)
It is important to realize here that this does not mean that the bills would be automatically passed, rather that congress either has to say "yes" or "no," they can't add pork to the bill (like they tried on this one).
They also can't amend it to remove super shitty clauses that were negotiated in secret over a period of years.
Re: (Score:3)
It also means there's far less time for the American people to actually read the bill and respond, assuming the administration even releases it after Fast-Track is approved.
Not that many care at the moment, but there's a chance that with the full text out there a few of the talking heads on each station might call it out for the crap that it is.
Contact your Congresscritters (Score:3)
To make it clear, this fight isn't over. The House and Senate can still hash out something to grant Fast-Track. The House still passed the Fast-Track part, it was only the assistance that failed and took the Fast-Track with it.
I get the feeling that House Democrats voted they way they did knowing it would further stall the Fast-Track vote; it would be a lot easier to get Republicans to vote against that than the Fast-Track itself.
I'll believe it when the people pushing it give up (Score:4, Insightful)
... there is a long way to go before declaring victory here.
Suck It Palpatine! (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Palpatine's predecessor is the one who sent the two special-ops assassins to "settle" the "conflict".
Re: (Score:3)
"Turmoil has engulfed the Galactic Republic. The taxation of trade routes to outlying star systems is in dispute..."
And by the time the public realizes that the character Jar-Jar Obama, however controversial in his own right, was just a ploy by the Cronies to distract us from their plans for galactic domination, it will be too late.
The battle is won. The war continues. (Score:2)
It will be back. A little more time. A few more congressmen will be investigated and blackmailed. Small slips of paper with a string of offshore bank account numbers and a dollar figure will mysteriously appear on the desks of some wavering legislators, who know the money will be theirs if they cast a vote for TPP. It's all standard operating procedure in DC.
The oligarchs want this, and by hook or by crook, they'll get it.
Secret non-Treaty Treaties (Score:5, Informative)
The TTP should be a Treaty, but what it is instead is a secret agreement that Congress would vote on as a regular bill, not a Treaty. The whole point of "fast track" is that it wouldn't be approved even on this basis, so the President needs advance approval on an agreement with terms that are not final and in any case cannot be legally revealed in public. (Congressmen and women have to go to a special room to read them, and can't take notes out.)
Never mind that this "trade agreement" really just represents corporations trying to get things through the back door they could never get through Congress directly, even if it just contained recipes for Apple pie it should be opposed by anyone who cares about our Constitutional system of Government. Treaties, or for that matter normal laws, can be negotiated in private, but they need to be discussed and passed in public.
Re: (Score:2)
It contains recipes for Apple Profits, actually.
Not just Apple profits, of course, but they're among the others lined up at the trough. It's about the WalMartization of a big chunk of the globe.
Watch the other hand! (Score:5, Interesting)
The Democrats voted against TAA (the fig-leaf program that pretends to help workers who lose their jobs to a new trade bill), which was contrary to their normal voting pattern, AS A TACTIC TO INDUCE A DELAY. "Fast Track" actually PASSED. Given that TAA and Fast Track passed together in the Senate, their failure to pass together in the House is a temporary shoe tossed into the gears of this monstrosity, BUT it can be overcome easily by the Senate simply mimicking what the House did.
This was political magic for a bunch of people; Democrats Senators will be able to tell their union supporters that they supported TAA (in the earlier Senate action), even as enough of them voted for Fast Track. Democrat House members will be able to say they stood against Fast Track, even though many supported it and the Senate may align their work with what the House did and thereby pass it. Many Republicans who opposed Fast Track were able to vote "yes" in order to placate their business backers even as the thing stalled. Many Republicans who oppose TAA but did not want to be the ones to kill it got to watch as the Dems did that, etc. Nearly every political group in DC got something they can use to deceive this or that voting block. Ultimately, the groups pushing this massive crap sandwich are going to demand it and get it, unless the public (from labor-concerned Dems, to sovereignty-concerned TEA Partiers) stand up and make it clear that votes out-weigh campaign cash.
After 200+ years, the congress critters have highly-optimized the political theater in Washington so their big money backers get what they want without the public getting too mad. They have gotten away with this garbage over and over again with things like NAFTA, the WTO, etc. People on the other side of the Atlantic have had the same thing done to them by their political elites.... The UK into the EU, followed by continual-but-never-filfilled promises of a public vote on that membership was such a trick that subsumed national rules into an international agreement. These things are all alike: they allow the wealthy and powerful to get what they want and the politicians to pretend to be powerless because: unaccountable international body and treaty. They never want the public to ask "WHO CREATED THAT BODY OR THAT TREATY?"
Helped derail???? (Score:2)
What's with the "helped" bit? The House Reps were pretty solidly in favour of the Bill, the House Dems were pretty solidly against it.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you talking about the vote on HR 1314 today, motion to agree on the Senate amendment, which I believe is the topic? Because you couldn't be more wrong if so.
Final roll call:
R, 86 aye, 158 nay, 2 not voting
D, 40 aye, 144 nay, 4 not voting
"House Reps" were most assuredly not "pretty solidly in favour of the Bill" with the Senate amendment, which is what TFA is about.
And people called GWB "the emperor" (Score:2, Interesting)
I don't know if any US president has ever over-stepped his authority as constantly as Obama.