General Discussion

alc

(1,151 posts)

28. why? to negotiate a deal that is most likely to pass congress

Mon May 11, 2015, 10:21 AM

May 2015

I know some in congress can see the text now. But those in congress who like it now may change their mind when they get public feedback (corp & think tank feedback not joe-i-am-not-a-lawyer-but-i-hate-it) .

If there is text that should not be in the deal because it will kill passage, it would be good to know before the agreement is made. And if there is text that would be acceptable IF there is other text to explain/restrict the questionable text, then it would be good to get the additional text in before the agreement is made. It would suck for supporters if the agreement is made but one paragraph (included or missing or ambiguous) kills it.

If you don't think one paragraph can be make-or-break, look at the ACA. If the phrase "exchanges established by a state” was changed to the word "exchanges" we wouldn't have the current court case which can potentially kill the ACA. It would be good to have as many proponents and opponents read this over as carefully as possible for as long as possible and make sure the final text doesn't have any make-or-break phrases that will kill it. If that one phrase exists, it can kill passage. And if it exists but isn't recognized in time it can kill implementation.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

45 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

There's a simple way Obama could bring everyone on board to support the TPP. [View all] Kablooie May 2015 OP

He will when it's finished. I'm betting 95+% who are saying it's bad won't read it. Hoyt May 2015 #1

When it's finished is too late. CaliforniaPeggy May 2015 #2

No it's not. Congress can vote it down. They can even tell Obama to go back to the table Hoyt May 2015 #3

I'm not sure why you think we'll get to see it. However, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. CaliforniaPeggy May 2015 #5

Well you'll probably only get three months, so take a refresher on speed reading. Hoyt May 2015 #8

Three months would work. And I am a pretty fast reader. CaliforniaPeggy May 2015 #10

Good deal. Hoyt May 2015 #11

We only get 60 days. That's all that TPA allows for and it is reported to be Exilednight May 2015 #37

Actually it can be sent back to Prez. First if it doesn't meet the standard Congress placed in the Hoyt May 2015 #41

Sorry. Duplicate from Chinese phone. Hoyt May 2015 #8

Because that's the law Recursion May 2015 #14

So if it's that simple, why the big push for fast track. bluesbassman May 2015 #12

Amendments and filibusters Recursion May 2015 #15

It's amazing with so much cussing and discussing this issue few understand these simple facts. DCBob May 2015 #25

The system is broken, but the system is what our Democracy was designed to run on. bluesbassman May 2015 #32

It's the way to get the best agreement. Hoyt May 2015 #21

Really? billhicks76 May 2015 #18

I agree with you on Congress, but this agreement is important to our future. Hoyt May 2015 #22

"OUR" Is The Operative Word billhicks76 May 2015 #35

Do you work for a corporation? Do you think you'd be in a better position Hoyt May 2015 #36

Not Against Corporations billhicks76 May 2015 #43

A totally different matter, but I agree about prisons. Government officials want to shirk Hoyt May 2015 #44

I Have A Friend Just Out Of Private Prison billhicks76 May 2015 #45

You are correct. It will be too late. Once fast track is passed, we're done. And it is too late. GoneFishin May 2015 #29

Oh I assure you the annexes will have something to be fraught over. joshcryer May 2015 #4

Then, when he releases it, Congress can consider fast track. Jim Lane May 2015 #19

Congress won't read 95% of it. nt Erich Bloodaxe BSN May 2015 #26

Probably not true, but their constituents darn sure won't. They'll be too busy saying Hoyt May 2015 #30

Queue the bizarre lines of reasoning AgingAmerican May 2015 #6

eliminate the fast track provisions. took 5 years to "negotiate" another year won't hurt the filthy msongs May 2015 #7

agree. barbtries May 2015 #13

Open your mouth and close your eyes and you will get a big SURPRISE! BrotherIvan May 2015 #16

Yep, if it's so great he should be overjoyed with everyone reading it. Scuba May 2015 #17

I don't know that I can read it and understand the convoluted language it's surely written in. 99Forever May 2015 #20

It's not even finalized. Why release texts that may not even be in the deal? JaneyVee May 2015 #23

We'll see it after it's signed, sealed and screwed. eloydude May 2015 #24

why? to negotiate a deal that is most likely to pass congress alc May 2015 #28

If he was not asking for a vote on this now before it is done there would be not be such an outcry jwirr May 2015 #39

600 corporate lobbyists worked very hard to help draft this treaty. We don't need congress, think May 2015 #27

Actually, not true. The US Trade Reps did it, and they are mostly career diplomats. Hoyt May 2015 #31

Career diplomats like Micheal Froman who got a $4,000,000 bonus from Citigroup before joining USTR? think May 2015 #33

He hasn't worked for them in years and has a long history of diplomatic work. Hoyt May 2015 #34

You might want to catch a few episodes of House of Cards sometime. n/t Psephos May 2015 #42

Or at least it confirms that someone will not like it. jwirr May 2015 #38

Why would he release something that is still being negotiated. He didn't do it with Iran or Cuba or pampango May 2015 #40