TAA crushed by House, but the game is not over yet

[Torie]

There are a couple of more moves of pawns left on the chessboard. One is reconsideration, with a vote next Tuesday in the House (unlikely there will be a mass changing of Dem votes).  The other is for the Senate to agree to pass TPA without TAA, since the TPA part of the package passed the House.

The weird thing is that the labor unions, after realizing that the votes were there for TPA, decided to try to defeat the more progressive part (the TAA), which most Pubs oppose as a form of worker welfare. So the Dems needed to provide the lion's share of the votes for that.

So one wonders if the Senate will agree to pass just TPA, with enough Pubs agreeing in exchange that if the TPA without TAA then passes both houses, enough Pubs will still vote for the TAA, leaving the Dems with the choice of TPA without TAA, or TPA with TAA. With that being their choice, then labor's gambit will bite the dust, and TAA will then pass. We shall see if there are 60 votes in the Senate to go there.

[Ban my account ffs!]

The dems obviously should toa the taa and one wonder the taa in the tpa thriugh which the rook can slander the tpa in the taa while the pubs override through that which the ppn over the tna which has to leave two or three pawns left presiding on the precipice of pubs tpa senate in the taa.

[Torie]

The dems obviously should toa the taa and one wonder the taa in the tpa thriugh which the rook can slander the tpa in the taa while the pubs override through that which the ppn over the tna which has to leave two or three pawns left presiding on the precipice of pubs tpa senate in the taa.

Hey, t_host1, would you mind translating this for me? Thanks!

[Ban my account ffs!]

The dems obviously should toa the taa and one wonder the taa in the tpa thriugh which the rook can slander the tpa in the taa while the pubs override through that which the ppn over the tna which has to leave two or three pawns left presiding on the precipice of pubs tpa senate in the taa.

Hey, t_host1, would you mind translating this for me? Thanks!

But surely once one deciphers yours, mine is a breeze!

I am glad the dems nailed this to the dirt.  If Obama wants it, he cam have it with the Republicans...or be more transparent.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

There are a couple of more moves of pawns left on the chessboard. One is reconsideration, with a vote next Tuesday in the House (unlikely there will be a mass changing of Dem votes).  The other is for the Senate to agree to pass TPA without TAA, since the TPA part of the package passed the House.

The weird thing is that the labor unions, after realizing that the votes were there for TPA, decided to try to defeat the more progressive part (the TAA), which most Pubs oppose as a form of worker welfare. So the Dems needed to provide the lion's share of the votes for that.

So one wonders if the Senate will agree to pass just TPA, with enough Pubs agreeing in exchange that if the TPA without TAA then passes both houses, enough Pubs will still vote for the TAA, leaving the Dems with the choice of TPA without TAA, or TPA with TAA. With that being their choice, then labor's gambit will bite the dust, and TAA will then pass. We shall see if there are 60 votes in the Senate to go there.

Democrats voted against TAA because it helps kill TPA, and also had some Medicare cuts. There's nothing progressive about cutting Medicare to pay for window dressing for workers screwed over by the anti-worker bill you just passed.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Excellent news!

[Simfan34]

Excellent news!

But why? I'm with Snowguy on this one... just a bunch of letters.

Either way, the loser here is Obama. And for once, that makes me sad.

[Lief 🗽]

What a joke of a political party.

[Torie]

There are a couple of more moves of pawns left on the chessboard. One is reconsideration, with a vote next Tuesday in the House (unlikely there will be a mass changing of Dem votes).  The other is for the Senate to agree to pass TPA without TAA, since the TPA part of the package passed the House.

The weird thing is that the labor unions, after realizing that the votes were there for TPA, decided to try to defeat the more progressive part (the TAA), which most Pubs oppose as a form of worker welfare. So the Dems needed to provide the lion's share of the votes for that.

So one wonders if the Senate will agree to pass just TPA, with enough Pubs agreeing in exchange that if the TPA without TAA then passes both houses, enough Pubs will still vote for the TAA, leaving the Dems with the choice of TPA without TAA, or TPA with TAA. With that being their choice, then labor's gambit will bite the dust, and TAA will then pass. We shall see if there are 60 votes in the Senate to go there.

Democrats voted against TAA because it helps kill TPA, and also had some Medicare cuts. There's nothing progressive about cutting Medicare to pay for window dressing for workers screwed over by the anti-worker bill you just passed.

I believe the medicare cuts were removed as a concession by the Pubs. Obviously it was not enough. The TPA isn't really about tariff cuts on tangible goods anyway, as David Brooks pointed out on NPR radio just now. Those tariffs are already at rock bottom levels. Rather, it is about protecting US intellectual property, and restrictions on the provision of US services, both areas in which the US has a huge advantage, and is discriminated against, particularly in Asia, which this deal is all about. The Dems are just channeling their anger at prior trade deals that they think screwed US manufacturing workers, rather than focusing on the merits of this one. Thus, they cut off their nose to spite their face. I suspect the Dems will get back in line on this one in due course, either by the Senate Dems doing what I stated above, leaving the House Dems twisting slowly, slowly in the wind, or as pressure builds on them. It will be interesting to see what Hillary says tomorrow. Probably something about more US worker offsets in the TAA, blah, blah. I don't think the Pubs will give any more on that one than they already have, but I suspect Hillary will avoid crossing that bridge tomorrow. We shall see.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Excellent news!

[Gass3268]

Excellent news!

[Adam Griffin]

The dems obviously should toa the taa and one wonder the taa in the tpa thriugh which the rook can slander the tpa in the taa while the pubs override through that which the ppn over the tna which has to leave two or three pawns left presiding on the precipice of pubs tpa senate in the taa.

OBAMA AND TRADE DEALS
https://youtu.be/1TphEh0Qgv0?t=6s

[/]

So will the TPP end up getting passed?

[Simfan34]

What a joke of a political party.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Let's hope it's passed without the silly nonsense about copyright/drugs patenting.

[RFayette]

Terrible news! 

[Rockefeller GOP]

What a joke of a political party.

Progressive Lief, everyone.

[Ebsy]

I'm not necessarily happy about the outcome, but Obama's strategy to pass these bills with Democratic support was all kinds of awful. It was a losing strategy and deserved to lose in this fashion. You can't, as a lame duck president that just suffered horrendous midterm losses, ask for your party to just "trust you" on trade legislation they would likely be unwilling to support under even the best circumstances. And you don't say that those who are opposing it are doing it for selfish reasons, because that just alienates those leaning no that you need to persuade. Beohner for once did a great job getting Republican votes for the legislation, but Obama couldn't convince Pelosi to back him on it, and ultimately, he needed her full support.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

There are a couple of more moves of pawns left on the chessboard. One is reconsideration, with a vote next Tuesday in the House (unlikely there will be a mass changing of Dem votes).  The other is for the Senate to agree to pass TPA without TAA, since the TPA part of the package passed the House.

The weird thing is that the labor unions, after realizing that the votes were there for TPA, decided to try to defeat the more progressive part (the TAA), which most Pubs oppose as a form of worker welfare. So the Dems needed to provide the lion's share of the votes for that.

So one wonders if the Senate will agree to pass just TPA, with enough Pubs agreeing in exchange that if the TPA without TAA then passes both houses, enough Pubs will still vote for the TAA, leaving the Dems with the choice of TPA without TAA, or TPA with TAA. With that being their choice, then labor's gambit will bite the dust, and TAA will then pass. We shall see if there are 60 votes in the Senate to go there.

Democrats voted against TAA because it helps kill TPA, and also had some Medicare cuts. There's nothing progressive about cutting Medicare to pay for window dressing for workers screwed over by the anti-worker bill you just passed.

I believe the medicare cuts were removed as a concession by the Pubs. Obviously it was not enough. The TPA isn't really about tariff cuts on tangible goods anyway, as David Brooks pointed out on NPR radio just now. Those tariffs are already at rock bottom levels. Rather, it is about protecting US intellectual property, and restrictions on the provision of US services, both areas in which the US has a huge advantage, and is discriminated against, particularly in Asia, which this deal is all about. The Dems are just channeling their anger at prior trade deals that they think screwed US manufacturing workers, rather than focusing on the merits of this one. Thus, they cut off their nose to spite their face. I suspect the Dems will get back in line on this one in due course, either by the Senate Dems doing what I stated above, leaving the House Dems twisting slowly, slowly in the wind, or as pressure builds on them. It will be interesting to see what Hillary says tomorrow. Probably something about more US worker offsets in the TAA, blah, blah. I don't think the Pubs will give any more on that one than they already have, but I suspect Hillary will avoid crossing that bridge tomorrow. We shall see.

SOPA/PIPA was also about protecting intellectual property. We don't need a bill worse than SOPA/PIPA. Also, Hillary isn't exactly a profile in courage, so I doubt she says much of anything.

[politicallefty]

I am glad to see this vote go down as it did, I oppose this bill on the merits. If you need any example that there is something seriously wrong with this trade bill, just note Leader Pelosi's opposition. I cannot honestly recall the last time she stood in active opposition to President Obama. In virtually every instance, even when the party has been divided, Pelosi has stood with Obama. To me, that is absolutely stunning and almost historic. She's basically a bridge between the more progressive wing and the establishment in the party.

I think this is also just another display of John Boehner's failure as Speaker. He is incompetent and totally out of his game. This kind of vote just shows how much power Pelosi has, even controlling a minority of votes in the House. Make no mistake that she still retains the overwhelming confidence of her caucus and the Democratic Party as a whole. The President has severely overstepped his bounds on party orthodoxy. If he has lost Pelosi, his Presidency is effectively over. Whether the bill passes or fails is practically irrelevant in the short-term domestic arena.

[Lief 🗽]

I agree that Boehner sucks, but this is one of the few instances where he has shown his competence and the Democrats have failed spectacularly. Now we're going to get TPP without TAA, which is basically the worst outcome.

[Ban my account ffs!]

I agree that Boehner sucks, but this is one of the few instances where he has shown his competence and the Democrats have failed spectacularly. Now we're going to get TPP without TAA, which is basically the worst outcome.

Only if Obama signs it.

[politicallefty]

I agree that Boehner sucks, but this is one of the few instances where he has shown his competence and the Democrats have failed spectacularly. Now we're going to get TPP without TAA, which is basically the worst outcome.

I'm glad to hear you aren't blindly going along with this trade deal. If Pelosi means what she says, I think she may be able to pull some votes away to defeat the bill. If she is actively opposing this bill, I have little doubt it will fail.

I like this President just like you do, but I cannot understand his forcefulness in pushing this bill. I don't reflexively oppose free trade like some do, but there is too much wrong with this deal for me to support it. I truly cannot understand why the President is pushing this bill in the face of so much Democratic opposition. The text of this agreement will allow corporations to eviscerate so many of our regulations designed to protect the American people.

[Vega]

Why can't they just scrap the ISDS part of the TPP? I believe that's where a lot of progressive/liberal discontent with the TPP comes from. It would pass easier without it, and would just be standard free trade.

[Frodo]

Can Fast Track pass the Senate without the TAA tethered to it?  Are there enough Democratic senators who are willing to vote for TPA without the TAA?