PDA

View Full Version : What is Rand Paul's position on the TPP?




NowhereToGo
04-15-2015, 01:09 AM
I know his father has strenuously denounced it.

NowhereToGo
04-15-2015, 12:41 PM
I had to find the answer for myself. Unfortunately, it appears he supports the TPP

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MWxvdvj11cA

milgram
04-15-2015, 01:29 PM
I really don't understand this position.

There's no "playing the game" because most GOP voters don't even know about it. And if they do, they oppose it.

He's getting a bunch of campaign money from Club for Growth, but they oppose it too.

CPUd
04-15-2015, 01:30 PM
"prioritize negotiating", though he may have clarified since then.

Here is a thread:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?462733-Rand-Paul-to-Obama-quot-Prioritize-quot-Passage-of-Trans-Pacific-Partnership

amartin315
04-18-2015, 11:41 AM
He's opposed to the "fast track" method of passing an agreement, so maybe he's just playing this like he's playing the iran deal. Force a real vote to make it look good for the one side and possibly oppose the bill when it does come to a vote on the other hand.

I mean, without "fast track" senators will be able to filibuster and offer amendments. Maybe that's what Rand wants a chance to do...offer some amendment.

Maybe it's still too early to get mad about this one?

David Sadler
04-18-2015, 09:34 PM
More on the TPP from the GMO labeling angle. I don't know much about Food Democracy Now, but I was sent this link because of my interest in seeing GMO foods labeled.



... the TPP could make make it illegal to label GMOs is the U.S. and Europe.
... so secret that most members of Congress have never even been allowed to read the details of the agreement.

Source: Food Democracy Now (http://action.fooddemocracynow.org/sign/stop_tpp_fast_track_Monsantos_secret_trade_deal_to day/?t=4&akid=1522.860432.UCRk1X)

Krugminator2
04-19-2015, 02:49 PM
I really don't understand this position.

There's no "playing the game" because most GOP voters don't even know about it. And if they do, they oppose it.

He's getting a bunch of campaign money from Club for Growth, but they oppose it too.

Club for Growth supports TPP. They dinged him pretty hard for hedging on it in their white paper they just put out on Rand. http://www.clubforgrowth.org/scorecards/vote-studies/presidential-white-papers/white-paper-senator-rand-paul/

David Sadler
05-05-2015, 07:56 AM
I suppose the idea behind 'playing' issues such as TPP and Iran is to gain the support of the status quo who adhere to the 'mainstream' GOP talking points. Someone should have objected to this approach, because the reverse is also true. By appearing to support the 'mainstream' GOP talking points on issues such as the TPP and Iran, it costs a candidate the support of those who vehemently oppose globalism, imperialism and the agenda behind The Grand Chessboard / Pax Americana.

David Sadler
05-05-2015, 08:09 AM
Extreme secrecy eroding support for Obama's trade pact (http://www.politico.com/story/2015/05/secrecy-eroding-support-for-trade-pact-critics-say-117581.html#ixzz3ZGx9lR5w)
By EDWARD-ISAAC DOVERE
5/4/2015

If you want to hear the details of the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal the Obama administration is hoping to pass, you’ve got to be a member of Congress, and you’ve got to go to classified briefings and leave your staff and cellphone at the door.

If you’re a member who wants to read the text, you’ve got to go to a room in the basement of the Capitol Visitor Center and be handed it one section at a time, watched over as you read, and forced to hand over any notes you make before leaving.
Story Continued Below

And no matter what, you can’t discuss the details of what you’ve read.


Read more here (http://www.politico.com/story/2015/05/secrecy-eroding-support-for-trade-pact-critics-say-117581.html#ixzz3ZGx9lR5w).



The only criticism of the TPP in the article is from Dems. POLITICO is a highly partisan propaganda rag, but I've not heard any GOP criticize the TPP. One would think Rand and Ted would be out front on such criticism.

Oh, that's right. Ted's wife, Heidi:
Is or was a Goldman Sachs vice president in Houston.
She served as an economic adviser for the Bush administration.
According to a Cruz campaign spokesman, Heidi is “an expert on North American trade.”
She was a member of the Council on Foreign Relations.
In other words, Heidi is a card-carrying globalist up to her neck in the deindustrialization of the USA.

But what is Rand's excuse other than this nebulous and ill-fated strategy of 'playing' the system?

Krugminator2
05-05-2015, 05:03 PM
The only criticism of the TPP in the article is from Dems. POLITICO is a highly partisan propaganda rag, but I've not heard any GOP criticize the TPP. One would think Rand and Ted would be out front on such criticism.

But what is Rand's excuse other than this nebulous and ill-fated strategy of 'playing' the system?

Maybe you should ask yourself why it tends to be liberals who oppose it.

You might also consider another possibility instead of immediately thinking it is some Goldman Sachs conspiracy theory. Maybe Rand Paul and Ted Cruz support it because they believe reducing tariffs is a good thing. The issue of breaking down trade barriers was settled in the 1700's by Adam Smith.

William Tell
05-05-2015, 05:38 PM
In the last interview he had with Laura Ingraham, Rand seemed a bit wary of the TPP. I sure hope he votes against it.

CPUd
05-05-2015, 05:46 PM
How can Rand be for or against it if he doesn't know the details?

David Sadler
05-06-2015, 07:12 AM
How can Rand be for or against it if he doesn't know the details?

How could he even begin to be favorable towards it if he doesn't know the details?

David Sadler
05-06-2015, 07:44 AM
Maybe you should ask yourself why it tends to be liberals who oppose it.

You might also consider another possibility instead of immediately thinking it is some Goldman Sachs conspiracy theory. Maybe Rand Paul and Ted Cruz support it because they believe reducing tariffs is a good thing. The issue of breaking down trade barriers was settled in the 1700's by Adam Smith.

We don't know that only Dems oppose it. All we know is that POLITICO only quoted Dems as opposing it.

The US did quite well with tariffs. We should impose new, scientifically calculated tariffs to regain our manufacturing base for national security reasons. In today's world, tariffs are needed to bring a level playing field between those nations that have costs built into economy to protect workers and the environment and those that don't. Laws such as clean air / water, land reclamation after mining, OSHA type worker safety, child labor laws, collective bargaining, unemployment, workers compensation, social security. Even before the first dime is paid to workers, these types of laws, rules and regs increase the cost of production. Nations that don't have one or more of these laws are at an unfair trade advantage from the start. Scientifically applied tariffs would help level this playing field. America became the world's most powerful nation with unions, tariffs and laws ensuring worker safety, prosperity and a clean environment.

NAFTA / GATT / TPP are not about 'free' trade anymore than the PATRIOT ACT is for the liberty of the American people. These globalist trade regulations are destroying the US manufacturing base and the jobs and national security that go with it. 'Free' trade regulations need to be abandoned and fair trade agreements need to replace them.

erowe1
05-06-2015, 07:51 AM
There's no "playing the game" because most GOP voters don't even know about it. And if they do, they oppose it.


Source?

erowe1
05-06-2015, 07:52 AM
Maybe you should ask yourself why it tends to be liberals who oppose it.


It also tends to be liberals who support it.

Brett85
05-06-2015, 11:14 AM
I really don't understand this position.

There's no "playing the game" because most GOP voters don't even know about it. And if they do, they oppose it.

He's getting a bunch of campaign money from Club for Growth, but they oppose it too.

What's so hard to understand about his position? He supports lowering and eliminating tariffs, which is the libertarian position, and what the TPP does. He realizes there are some bad things in the bill but believes that the good things in the bill outweigh the bad things.

dannno
05-06-2015, 11:34 AM
If the net benefit will be that this bill opens up trade and takes down barriers, Rand will be for it.

By supporting it initially, it shows that he is serious about reaching a 'good' trade agreement that will open things up and so when he opposes specific portions of the bill later on he has more ground to stand on than if he took a hard line position like his father. That may not be the optimal solution to our economic problems, I'm sure Ron would advocate something more along the lines of repealing trade agreements and returning it to the market... Rand's is a more realistic approach from a political standpoint and it gives him more traction to help align the bill constitutionally somewhat.

David Sadler
05-06-2015, 01:37 PM
What's so hard to understand about his position? He supports lowering and eliminating tariffs, which is the libertarian position, and what the TPP does. He realizes there are some bad things in the bill but believes that the good things in the bill outweigh the bad things.

'lowering and eliminating tariffs' without consideration and calculation of the many other economic factors adding costs to trade is a knee-jerk and ill-considered position to take. I would hope that Rand Paul is not so simplistic in his approach to economics, the costs of production and simple math.

The US needs to establish scientific tariffs to level the playing field, or it needs to begin to dismantle the laws established over the last several decades that promote worker safety, security, retirement and a clean environment.

Please post/publish those sections of the TPP that you are citing with regards to tariffs.

donnay
05-06-2015, 02:56 PM
How can Rand be for or against it if he doesn't know the details?

Then he should definitely be against it. Just like congress not reading the Patriot Act--most of them should have decline to vote for it without reading it.

Transparency is what we want...nothing good comes from secrecy and usually nothing good for our liberties that is for sure.

Brett85
05-06-2015, 03:22 PM
Please post/publish those sections of the TPP that you are citing with regards to tariffs.

As far as I know no one has seen the text of the TPP. It's being negotiated in secret. That's one of the problems. I'm not necessarily saying that I'm in favor of passing the TPP but still understand that there are both pros and cons to these types of trade agreements. In my opinion either vote is right from a liberty perspective. Most libertarians are at least in favor of free trade as a concept. That's the libertarian position. I understand that these types of trade deals are not what most libertarians would consider "free trade," but many libertarian organizations such as Cato, Reason, and others support these types of trade agreements on the basis that they make the trade more free than it would be without the agreement.

David Sadler
05-06-2015, 08:26 PM
As far as I know no one has seen the text of the TPP. It's being negotiated in secret. That's one of the problems.

Exactly, but the poster I was replying to indicated that he knew what was in the regulation. I was asking for citations and quotes.



Most libertarians are at least in favor of free trade as a concept. That's the libertarian position. I understand that these types of trade deals are not what most libertarians would consider "free trade," but many libertarian organizations such as Cato, Reason, and others support these types of trade agreements on the basis that they make the trade more free than it would be without the agreement.

On trade and national sovereignty issues these days, it's getting difficult to tell a Libertarian from a Globalist. Calling these 'agreements' is misleading. They should be called complex trade regulations on par with the US tax code granting privileges to globalists.

William Tell
05-06-2015, 08:46 PM
On trade and national sovereignty issues these days, it's getting difficult to tell a Libertarian from a Globalist. Calling these 'agreements' is misleading. They should be called complex trade regulations on par with the US tax code granting privileges to globalists.

I agree with you entirely.

Brett85
05-06-2015, 08:53 PM
On trade and national sovereignty issues these days, it's getting difficult to tell a Libertarian from a Globalist.

Well, I'm not an isolationist, and neither is Rand. I'm opposed to foreign military intervention but believe that we have to be part of the global economy. I'm not exactly sure how you define "globalism," but simply being a part of the global economy can be called "globalism." Is that what you're referring to? I'm very much in favor of eliminating tariffs between countries and trading freely. If I read the TPP and found that there was just of terrible stuff in it, then I would likely vote against it, but I certainly favor the concept of free trade in general, of eliminating tariffs between countries.

David Sadler
05-07-2015, 12:21 PM
Well, I'm not an isolationist, and neither is Rand.

I'm not an isolationist either. Are you implying that using tariffs to level the playing field in international trade = isolationist?


I'm very much in favor of eliminating tariffs between countries and trading freely.

There is no such thing as 'free' trade. We can strive to achieve fair trade in our global commerce, but free trade is an ideal that can never be achieved.

Country A mandates that its manufacturers adhere to clean water and clean air regulations. This adds to the cost of production in country A.

Country B has no clean air and no clean water regulations. The cost of such regulations is not added to the cost of its products.

Countries A and B pay their workers exactly the same. All other production costs and taxation are the same. Neither country has tariffs.

Which country wins in your 'free' trade scenario? To which country will those wishing to maximize their profits move their manufacturing?

Krugminator2
05-07-2015, 02:22 PM
It also tends to be liberals who support it.

It is almost exclusively progressives and liberal economists who oppose it. I know of no prominent free market person not associated with Ron Paul in some way who opposes it.


I'm not an isolationist either. Are you implying that using tariffs to level the playing field in international trade = isolationist?

Country A mandates that its manufacturers adhere to clean water and clean air regulations. This adds to the cost of production in country A.

Country B has no clean air and no clean water regulations. The cost of such regulations is not added to the cost of its products.

Countries A and B pay their workers exactly the same. All other production costs and taxation are the same. Neither country has tariffs.



I would say supporting tariffs is protectionist. It is the definition of the word.

The arguments you made to support your point are the arguments I would use for why eliminating trade restrictions is a good thing. If another country has more competitive work rules then they should be the ones producing the products. Trade is a way for market forces to pressure changes in regulatory policy. Tax havens, for example, are putting political pressure on Congress to lower the corporate tax rate.

RonPaulGeorge&Ringo
05-07-2015, 05:57 PM
Gun Owners of America has come out aginst TPP because it would apparently empower global government to restrict and regulate the gun trade.

Maybe Rand can use this new revelation to evolve and pivot to a no vote.

David Sadler
05-07-2015, 07:33 PM
I would say supporting tariffs is protectionist. It is the definition of the word.

That's the definition globalists would use, but not me. I also don't allow the politically correct to rewrite the dictionary and restrict my language and principles. Scientifically applied tariffs are an economic tool to build national security and quality of life for a nation.


The arguments you made to support your point are the arguments I would use for why eliminating trade restrictions is a good thing. If another country has more competitive work rules then they should be the ones producing the products. Trade is a way for market forces to pressure changes in regulatory policy. Tax havens, for example, are putting political pressure on Congress to lower the corporate tax rate.

So you favor dismantling US clear air / clean water, land reclamation, OSHA, minimum wage, social security, unemployment, workmen's comp and child labor laws to become more competitive? Do you also favor outlawing collective bargaining to become more competitive on the global scene?

Such philosophies sound like surrender to many.

David Sadler
05-07-2015, 07:37 PM
Pacific Partnership Will Further Damage America's Borders, Constitution, and Citizens (http://www.alipac.us/pacific-partnership-will-further-damage-america-s-borders-constitution-citizens-3562/)
by William Gheen, President of Americans for Legal Immigration PAC
www.alipac.us
April 7, 2015

Source here (http://www.alipac.us/pacific-partnership-will-further-damage-america-s-borders-constitution-citizens-3562/).

GOP candidates will support the TPP at the expense of the support of Americans who are tired of the 'legal plunder' America is being subjected to.

Krugminator2
05-07-2015, 08:01 PM
So you favor dismantling US clear air / clean water, land reclamation, OSHA, minimum wage, social security, unemployment, workmen's comp and child labor laws to become more competitive? Do you also favor outlawing collective bargaining to become more competitive on the global scene?



Yes. Though I am sure some pollution rules make sense b/c no one owns the water and air.

ClydeCoulter
05-07-2015, 09:00 PM
Should there be free trade between the States?

r3volution 3.0
05-07-2015, 09:31 PM
There is no such thing as 'free' trade. We can strive to achieve fair trade in our global commerce, but free trade is an ideal that can never be achieved.

Country A mandates that its manufacturers adhere to clean water and clean air regulations. This adds to the cost of production in country A.

Country B has no clean air and no clean water regulations. The cost of such regulations is not added to the cost of its products.

Countries A and B pay their workers exactly the same. All other production costs and taxation are the same. Neither country has tariffs.

Which country wins in your 'free' trade scenario? To which country will those wishing to maximize their profits move their manufacturing?

Both


That's the definition globalists would use, but not me. I also don't allow the politically correct to rewrite the dictionary and restrict my language and principles. Scientifically applied tariffs are an economic tool to build national security and quality of life for a nation.

I'm afraid you're the one rewriting the dictionary David.

"Protectionism" has always and everywhere meant the erection of barriers to international trade, to protect domestic industry from competition.


The US needs to establish scientific tariffs to level the playing field, or it needs to begin to dismantle the laws established over the last several decades that promote worker safety, security, retirement and a clean environment.

I vote for the latter.

But eliminating barriers to trade is beneficial to the US whether or not those damaging regulations are in place.


Should there be free trade between the States?

Or counties...

Or municipalities...

Or individuals....

RonPaulGeorge&Ringo
05-07-2015, 10:06 PM
I know of no prominent free market person not associated with Ron Paul in some way who opposes it.

People of integrity tend to associate with one another.

David Sadler
05-08-2015, 11:35 AM
Defining tariff as protectionism is defining tariff in a narrow and pejorative manner. To restrict the synonyms for tariff (http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/tariff) to protectionism is to rewrite the dictionary and redefine the language.

Reversing the reduction and/or elimination of scientifically applied tariffs will be needed as one tool if the US decline is going to be turned around. The US became great with tariffs. It has been steadily deindustrialized as tariffs have been reduced and/or dropped.

Rand needs to strongly oppose TPP while pointing out that:
1) Trade 'agreements' are in fact complex trade 'regulations'
2) 'Free' trade is an ideal to never be achieved. We should strive for Fair trade for that benefits American citizens while minimizing adverse impact upon trade.
3) The US is suffering because it is at a disadvantage in trade regulations that prevent it from imposing scientifically applied tariffs which would level the playing field in international commerce.
4) The factors of trade deficits, lost manufacturing, lost jobs due to globalist 'free' trade regulations have severely impacted the US national security and the standard of living of its citizens. It has led to a an absurd corruption to the English language yielding such oxymorons as, "jobless recovery."

It would not take more than 5 minutes using a PowerPoint presentation showing a table that compares production costs of the US to selected trading partners to convince the average non-government employee, working audience (white collar, blue collar, small business, service) that tariffs are needed and that they are not 'protectionism.'


NOTES:

List of tariffs in the United States (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tariffs_in_the_United_States)

David Sadler
05-08-2015, 11:46 AM
Yes. Though I am sure some pollution rules make sense b/c no one owns the water and air.

Do you think Rand, or anyone for that matter, can be elected by advocating the dismantling of US clear air / clean water, land reclamation, OSHA, minimum wage, social security, unemployment, workmen's comp and child labor laws as well as outlawing collective bargaining to become more competitive on the global scene? Do you see a ground swell among the people to do away with these things?

On the other hand, we do see a ground swell for ending foreign intervention and foreign wars; closing the borders and enforcing immigration laws; returning manufacturing to America; ending surveillance state activities targeting US citizens en masse.

Which set of issues would you suggest Rand embrace to move out in front of the pack and to get America back on track?

JohnGalt1225
05-08-2015, 08:54 PM
In the first quarter of 2015, in the sixth year of the historic Obama recovery, the U.S. economy grew by two-tenths of 1 percent.

And that probably sugarcoats it.

For trade deficits subtract from the growth of GDP, and the U.S. trade deficit that just came in was a monster.

As the AP's Martin Crutsinger writes, "The U.S. trade deficit in March swelled to the highest level in more than six years, propelled by a flood of imports that may have sapped the U.S. economy of any growth in the first quarter."

The March deficit was $51.2 billion, largest of any month since 2008. In goods alone, the trade deficit hit $64 billion.

As Crutsinger writes, a surge in imports to $239 billion in March, "reflected greater shipments of foreign-made industrial machinery, autos, mobile phones, clothing and furniture."

What does this flood of imports of things we once made here mean for a city like, say, Baltimore? Writes columnist Allan Brownfeld:

"Baltimore was once a city where tens of thousands of blue collar employees earned a good living in industries building cars, airplanes and making steel. ... In 1970, about a third of the labor force in Baltimore was employed in manufacturing. By 2000, only 7 percent of city residents had manufacturing jobs."

Put down blue-collar Baltimore alongside Motor City, Detroit, as another fatality of free-trade fanaticism.

--snip--

First, TPP will cover 37 percent of world trade. But 80 percent of that is trade between the U.S. and nations with which we already have trade deals. As for the last 20 percent, our new partners will be New Zealand, Malaysia, Vietnam, Brunei and Japan.

Query: Who benefits more if we get access to Vietnam's market, which is 1 percent of ours, while Hanoi gets access to a U.S. market that is 100 times the size of theirs?

The core of the TPP is the deal with Japan.

But do decades of Japanese trade surpluses at our expense, achieved through the manipulation of Japan's currency and hidden restrictions on U.S. imports, justify a Congressional surrender to Barack Obama of all rights to amend any Japan deal he produces?

Columnist Robert Samuelson writes that a TPP failure "could produce a historic watershed. ... rejection could mean the end of an era. ... So, when opponents criticize the Trans-Pacific Partnership, they need to answer a simple question: Compared to what?"

Valid points, and a fair question.

And yes, an era is ending, a post-Cold War era where the United States threw open her markets to nations all over the world, as they sheltered their own. The end of an era where America volunteered to defend nations and fight wars having nothing to do with her own vital interests or national security.

The bankruptcy of a U.S. trade and foreign policy, which has led to the transparent decline of the United States and the astonishing rise of China, is apparent now virtually everywhere.

And America is not immune to the rising tide of nationalism.

Though, like the alcoholic who does not realize his condition until he is lying face down in the gutter, it may be a while before we get out of the empire business and start looking out again, as our fathers did, for the American republic first. But that day is coming.
http://townhall.com/columnists/patbuchanan/2015/05/08/on-a-fast-track-to-national-ruin-n1995971/page/2

I agree with Pat Buchanan here. All of these so called "free" trade deals have left America weaker, poorer, and worse off. Sure multinational corporations have been greatly enriched as has China but America has taken a beating. Ron Paul knew this, yet so many libertarians are devoted to the free trade and open borders religion that they don't understand how both those ideas are ruinous to a nation.

milgram
05-08-2015, 11:33 PM
There's no "playing the game" because most GOP voters don't even know about it. And if they do, they oppose it.

Source?
Late reply, but I simply had not heard of any grassroots movement making a big push for it. But I had heard Marc Levin, Laura Ingraham, Walter Jones, Justin Amash, Ron Paul, Jeff Sessions, Pat Buchanan, fringe groups like the Birchers and Alex Jones, and now good ol' Huckabee all voicing skepticism.

I guess it depends how you define the GOP base, but I'd say right wing populists and talk radio are included. I wasn't talking about Chamber of Commerce types when I made that comment, so maybe it was poorly worded.

Anti Federalist
05-08-2015, 11:51 PM
Gun Owners of America has come out aginst TPP because it would apparently empower global government to restrict and regulate the gun trade.

Just more regulation without representation.

Snowball
05-11-2015, 09:04 AM
Rand Paul is just another mainstream Republican.
Do not be fooled.
There is no choice in this election.
Hillary Clinton will win anyway.

David Sadler
05-11-2015, 08:50 PM
Senator Warren hits back at Obama in Pacific Rim trade fight (https://ca.news.yahoo.com/senator-warren-hits-back-obama-pacific-rim-trade-161148260--sector.html)
Reuters
May 11, 2015

"Senate Democrats want the bill to be coupled with three other trade measures, including legislation providing training to U.S. workers who lose their jobs as a result of trade deals. They also want to link it to a measure stopping China from manipulating its currency to get a leg up on trade."

Train American workers displaced by these 'free' trade regulations to do what? Wake up, Rand. We need to resurrect scientifically applied tariffs as one tool to level the global trade playing field.



Obama Moves Closer to Inking Pacific Trade Deal (http://time.com/3853641/trans-pacific-partnership-senate/)
TIME
5/11/2015

President Obama may move closer to a career-defining Pacific Rim trade deal Tuesday that could permanently alter the balance of power between the White House and Congress on trade issues.

The Senate is expected to approve a bill to give the president “fast track” authority to make trade deals, reducing Congress’ role to approving or rejecting the entire deal. Members of Congress would not be allowed to filibuster a vote on a trade pact, add amendments, delete parts or otherwise tweak the final version of a trade deal.

David Sadler
05-11-2015, 09:03 PM
FAST TRACK? HOW ABOUT A PRO-AMERICA TRACK?
Phyllis Schlafly: TPP means Congress giving away its authority to 'global busybodies' (http://www.wnd.com/2015/05/fast-track-how-about-a-pro-america-track/)
wnd.com
2015/05/11

Congress, led by Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., and Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, is preparing to betray American workers, and the grass roots should rise up and say, “No, you don’t.” The secretive underhanded deal is called “fast track,” and that’s an appropriate title because, indeed, it puts Americans on a fast track to lower wages and fewer available jobs.

Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., one of the few Members of Congress who has actually read and studied fast track plus its companion trade bill called Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), has compiled a list of objections to it that are downright frightening. They should be read by all who care about their own future and the future of our once-prosperous nation. Here are some of the ways fast track and TPP will betray us.

The text of TPP emphasizes that it is a “living agreement.” Translated out of bureaucratese code language, that means the text of TPP can be changed in major and minor ways by executive action after Congress OKs the document. The TPP could, for example, add additional countries such as Communist China, which for years has been cheating America coming and going.

TPP will facilitate the expanded movement of foreign workers into the United States. TPP opens the door to more waves of illegal immigrants and allows Obama to make future changes without any congressional oversight or expiration date.

Kevin L. Kearns of the U.S. Business and Industry Council calls this “another power grab” that will let Obama and his employees rule by executive action. By not calling TPP a treaty (even though it involves 12 countries on three continents), the globalists induce the Senate to abandon the 67-vote threshold for treaty ratification and even the 60-vote threshold for important legislation.

Fast track consolidates power in the executive branch and eliminates Congress’ constitutional power to amend or even debate trade legislation. Fast track allows only a specified up-or-down vote on this momentous international agreement without any public oversight or ability to amend it or filibuster it.

Attacked, debased, maligned and vilified: This foundational institution is fighting for its life. Order Phyllis Schlafly’s latest book, “Who Killed the American Family?” along with her updated classic, “A Choice, not an Echo”

Fast track will increase our trade deficits, which reduce economic growth. Economists have estimated that the last trade deal, which we made with South Korea and which is the template for TPP, wiped out 50,000 American jobs.

Sen. Sessions called on Obama to rewrite the deal. Sessions said, “We don’t need a fast track but a regular track” so we can evaluate the false promises.

Fast track turns over some of our authority as a sovereign nation to international authorities, which is a major longtime goal of the internationalists, the so-called kingmakers, and big business lobbyists. The code language that hides this in TPP is the statement that calls it a “living agreement.”

This means Obama and his executive-branch pals can take all kinds of actions Article I of the U.S. Constitution reserves to the legislative branch, such as ratifying or changing a treaty and controlling immigration.

Why should we trust the Obama administration and its foreign partners to rewrite international agreements without congressional approval? Is Congress simply giving away its constitutional authority to global busybodies?

Is Congress using secret agreements to cede our once-remarkable American prosperity to Asia? As former Nucor Steel Chairman Daniel DiMicco said, free trade is really “unilateral trade disarmament and enablement of foreign mercantilism.”

Most presidential candidates are trying to avoid this issue, but Mike Huckabee was blunt, warning of “dire consequences if we let Obama have this victory.” Huckabee said he opposes trade agreements that push wages “lower than the Dead Sea.”

Huckabee also reminded us that “The last time we really fast-tracked something was Obamacare. Why do we want to believe that the government fast-tracking something without thoroughly understanding the implications is the best way to go?”

Another possible presidential candidate, Donald Trump, who literally wrote the book on “The Art of the Deal,” tweeted that TPP is a “bad, bad deal” in part because it fails to address Japan’s outrageous currency manipulation, which has caused many U.S. steel plants to shut down this year, idling thousands of American steelmakers. Yet Japan’s prime minister was recently honored with the rare privilege of addressing a joint meeting of Congress (at which he openly lobbied for the TPP) and entertained at a White House state dinner.

Another likely presidential candidate is Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, who declared, “I’m for free trade, but I am not for giving more authority to a president who ignores the Constitution, the separation of powers and will of the American people.”

“This particular president must not be given any more power to do anything else to harm this country,” Jindal continued. “He cannot be trusted.”

Brett85
05-11-2015, 09:23 PM
Rand Paul is just another mainstream Republican.
Do not be fooled.
There is no choice in this election.
Hillary Clinton will win anyway.

Protectionism is not consistent with libertarian principles. Rand is taking the libertarian position on these issues, not people here. There are legitimate reasons to oppose TPP such as the sovereignty issues, but when so called "libertarians" like John Galt above openly admit to being protectionists, it needs to be pointed out that that's a blatantly anti liberty position to take.

William Tell
05-12-2015, 11:20 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mwzXyQpef3E

David Sadler
05-12-2015, 03:34 PM
Senate votes against fast-tracking TPP (http://rt.com/usa/257981-tpp-senate-domocrats-vote/)
RT

Senate votes against fast-tracking TPP (http://www.peopledemandingaction.org/component/k2/item/349-senate-votes-against-fast-tracking-tpp)
People Demand Action

"In a 52-45 vote on Tuesday afternoon, the Senate opposed moving forward for now on the Trans-Pacific Partnership. A procedural vote required at least 60 “ayes” in order to let the Senate host discussions on whether or not to give the president so-called “fast track” authority on the matter."

See the Roll Call here (http://politics.nytimes.com/congress/votes/114/senate/1/176).

Rand voted 'Yes' to move towards Fast Track in support of the TPP.

[The TPP], "is trade Keynesianism. It's not free trade. It's managed trade ... Internationalism, NAFTA and CAFTA and WTO -- the New World Order is here and everything that promotes the New World Order is done at the expense of liberty and that is why we're in deep trouble ..." "
-- Ron Paul, Fast-Track: Free Trade or Protectionism? (https://youtu.be/mwzXyQpef3E)

JohnGalt1225
05-12-2015, 04:17 PM
Protectionism is not consistent with libertarian principles. Rand is taking the libertarian position on these issues, not people here. There are legitimate reasons to oppose TPP such as the sovereignty issues, but when so called "libertarians" like John Galt above openly admit to being protectionists, it needs to be pointed out that that's a blatantly anti liberty position to take.
I'm not a libertarian and I won't ever claim to be. A big part of the reason I'm not a libertarian is that it has become entirely a pro-corporatist, pro-globalist, and open borders movement. Lets get one thing straight, I'm an American and I care about my country above all others. I don't give a damn what other counties do, I want to see my nation in a position of strength, and I'm tired of watching sell out corporatists sell my nation down the river to benefit multinational corporations and 3rd world countries. American workers have been sold out and screwed over systematically since 1965 when Congress flung open the borders.

It's interesting that you claim that Rand is taking the "liberty" position when he is taking the position that Mitch McConnell, Barack Obama, and every other corporatist in this country is taking meanwhile Ron Paul is against these trade agreements. Seems like Ron Paul just isn't "libertarian" enough for you.:rolleyes:

JohnGalt1225
05-12-2015, 04:19 PM
Senate votes against fast-tracking TPP (http://rt.com/usa/257981-tpp-senate-domocrats-vote/)
RT

Senate votes against fast-tracking TPP (http://www.peopledemandingaction.org/component/k2/item/349-senate-votes-against-fast-tracking-tpp)
People Demand Action

"In a 52-45 vote on Tuesday afternoon, the Senate opposed moving forward for now on the Trans-Pacific Partnership. A procedural vote required at least 60 “ayes” in order to let the Senate host discussions on whether or not to give the president so-called “fast track” authority on the matter."

See the Roll Call here (http://politics.nytimes.com/congress/votes/114/senate/1/176).

Rand voted 'Yes' to move towards Fast Track in support of the TPP.

[The TPP], "is trade Keynesianism. It's not free trade. It's managed trade ... Internationalism, NAFTA and CAFTA and WTO -- the New World Order is here and everything that promotes the New World Order is done at the expense of liberty and that is why we're in deep trouble ..." "
-- Ron Paul, Fast-Track: Free Trade or Protectionism? (https://youtu.be/mwzXyQpef3E)
"Ron Paul is a protectionist! Liberty lies with managed trade agreements drawn up in corporate backrooms secretively!" -So many here on RPF sadly.

David Sadler
05-12-2015, 04:23 PM
I'm not a libertarian and I won't ever claim to be. A big part of the reason I'm not a libertarian is that it has become entirely a pro-corporatist, pro-globalist, and open borders movement. Lets get one thing straight, I'm an American and I care about my country above all others. I don't give a damn what other counties do, I want to see my nation in a position of strength, and I'm tired of watching sell out corporatists sell my nation down the river to benefit multinational corporations and 3rd world countries. American workers have been sold out and screwed over systematically since 1965 when Congress flung open the borders.

It's interesting that you claim that Rand is taking the "liberty" position when he is taking the position that Mitch McConnell, Barack Obama, and every other corporatist in this country is taking meanwhile Ron Paul is against these trade agreements. Seems like Ron Paul just isn't "libertarian" enough for you.:rolleyes:

Now THAT'S what I'm talking about!

Brett85
05-12-2015, 04:52 PM
I'm not a libertarian and I won't ever claim to be. A big part of the reason I'm not a libertarian is that it has become entirely a pro-corporatist, pro-globalist, and open borders movement. Lets get one thing straight, I'm an American and I care about my country above all others. I don't give a damn what other counties do, I want to see my nation in a position of strength, and I'm tired of watching sell out corporatists sell my nation down the river to benefit multinational corporations and 3rd world countries. American workers have been sold out and screwed over systematically since 1965 when Congress flung open the borders.

It's interesting that you claim that Rand is taking the "liberty" position when he is taking the position that Mitch McConnell, Barack Obama, and every other corporatist in this country is taking meanwhile Ron Paul is against these trade agreements. Seems like Ron Paul just isn't "libertarian" enough for you.:rolleyes:

Fair enough. I'm not for open borders, but I'm for free trade. Ron Paul is opposed to these trade agreements on the basis that they take away U.S sovereignty, not because he's opposed to lowering tariffs. He supports free trade in theory. He's in favor of unilaterally reducing tariffs. He thinks that we should just reduce if not eliminate the tariffs that we place on goods irrespective of whether or not other countries reduce their tariffs. So it doesn't seem to me like you oppose these trade deals for exactly the same reasons that Ron opposes them.

Brett85
05-12-2015, 04:52 PM
Edit: Another duplicate post. It seems like this website is having problems.

David Sadler
05-13-2015, 02:47 PM
... I'm not for open borders, but I'm for free trade ...

I'm for free and fair trade. I'm also for national sovereignty, national security, personal liberty and prosperity.

International trade regulations which drop US tariffs without considering other factors that put US exports at a disadvantage is not 'free' trade. It is unfair trade. This unfair trade decimates domestic manufacturing which degrades the nation's national security.

Associating tariffs with 'protectionism' and 'isolationism' is a globalist propaganda which evidently has taken deep root in the Libertarian party.

If membership in the Libertarian party has not yet peaked, it can be predicted that it will as the realization begins to proliferate regarding the similarity between the policies of globalists and Libertarians with regards to trade and national sovereignty.

The tyranny of oppressive government and groups is only one form of tyranny. Poverty is a vicious tyrant as well. Maintaining a high standard of living for a large middle class is essential to personal liberty.

NOTES:


Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs (https://duckduckgo.com/?q=Maslow%27s+Hierarchy+of+Needs&ia=about)

GunnyFreedom
05-13-2015, 03:06 PM
Senate votes against fast-tracking TPP (http://rt.com/usa/257981-tpp-senate-domocrats-vote/)
RT

Senate votes against fast-tracking TPP (http://www.peopledemandingaction.org/component/k2/item/349-senate-votes-against-fast-tracking-tpp)
People Demand Action

"In a 52-45 vote on Tuesday afternoon, the Senate opposed moving forward for now on the Trans-Pacific Partnership. A procedural vote required at least 60 “ayes” in order to let the Senate host discussions on whether or not to give the president so-called “fast track” authority on the matter."

See the Roll Call here (http://politics.nytimes.com/congress/votes/114/senate/1/176).

Rand voted 'Yes' to move towards Fast Track in support of the TPP.

[The TPP], "is trade Keynesianism. It's not free trade. It's managed trade ... Internationalism, NAFTA and CAFTA and WTO -- the New World Order is here and everything that promotes the New World Order is done at the expense of liberty and that is why we're in deep trouble ..." "
-- Ron Paul, Fast-Track: Free Trade or Protectionism? (https://youtu.be/mwzXyQpef3E)

Thats the dead opposite of what I heard. I heard Rand voted for cloture to kill Fast Track. Ted Cruz and Mitch McConnell voted against cloture in favor of Fast Track. Only a few people have claimed Rand's vote was for Fast Track, and every one of them have hated Rand.

Brett85
05-13-2015, 04:38 PM
Thats the dead opposite of what I heard. I heard Rand voted for cloture to kill Fast Track. Ted Cruz and Mitch McConnell voted against cloture in favor of Fast Track. Only a few people have claimed Rand's vote was for Fast Track, and every one of them have hated Rand.

Rand voted with the rest of the Republicans to proceed to the fast track bill, but it was merely a procedural vote. It wasn't a vote on the actual bill. Rand will vote "no" when the actual bill comes up for a vote.

GunnyFreedom
05-13-2015, 04:46 PM
Rand voted with the rest of the Republicans to proceed to the fast track bill, but it was merely a procedural vote. It wasn't a vote on the actual bill. Rand will vote "no" when the actual bill comes up for a vote.

Then what's with all the whining?

RonPaulGeorge&Ringo
05-13-2015, 04:55 PM
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=114&session=1&vote=00176

Question: On Cloture on the Motion to Proceed (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Motion to Proceed to H.R. 1314 )
Vote Number: 176 Vote Date: May 12, 2015, 02:32 PM
Required For Majority: 3/5 Vote Result: Cloture on the Motion to Proceed Rejected
Measure Number: H.R. 1314 (Ensuring Tax Exempt Organizations the Right to Appeal Act )
Measure Title: A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide for a right to an administrative appeal relating to adverse determinations of tax-exempt status of certain organizations.
Vote Counts: YEAs 52
NAYs 45
Not Voting 3

(Alphabetical by Senator Name: )
Alexander (R-TN), Yea
Ayotte (R-NH), Yea
Baldwin (D-WI), Nay
Barrasso (R-WY), Yea
Bennet (D-CO), Nay
Blumenthal (D-CT), Nay
Blunt (R-MO), Yea
Booker (D-NJ), Not Voting
Boozman (R-AR), Yea
Boxer (D-CA), Nay
Brown (D-OH), Nay
Burr (R-NC), Yea
Cantwell (D-WA), Nay
Capito (R-WV), Yea
Cardin (D-MD), Nay
Carper (D-DE), Yea
Casey (D-PA), Nay
Cassidy (R-LA), Yea
Coats (R-IN), Yea
Cochran (R-MS), Yea
Collins (R-ME), Yea
Coons (D-DE), Nay
Corker (R-TN), Yea
Cornyn (R-TX), Yea
Cotton (R-AR), Yea
Crapo (R-ID), Yea
Cruz (R-TX), Yea
Daines (R-MT), Yea
Donnelly (D-IN), Nay
Durbin (D-IL), Nay
Enzi (R-WY), Yea
Ernst (R-IA), Yea
Feinstein (D-CA), Nay
Fischer (R-NE), Yea
Flake (R-AZ), Yea
Franken (D-MN), Nay
Gardner (R-CO), Yea
Gillibrand (D-NY), Nay
Graham (R-SC), Not Voting
Grassley (R-IA), Yea
Hatch (R-UT), Yea
Heinrich (D-NM), Nay
Heitkamp (D-ND), Nay
Heller (R-NV), Yea
Hirono (D-HI), Nay
Hoeven (R-ND), Yea
Inhofe (R-OK), Yea
Isakson (R-GA), Yea
Johnson (R-WI), Yea
Kaine (D-VA), Nay
King (I-ME), Nay
Kirk (R-IL), Yea
Klobuchar (D-MN), Nay
Lankford (R-OK), Yea
Leahy (D-VT), Nay
Lee (R-UT), Yea
Manchin (D-WV), Nay
Markey (D-MA), Nay
McCain (R-AZ), Yea
McCaskill (D-MO), Nay
McConnell (R-KY), Nay
Menendez (D-NJ), Nay
Merkley (D-OR), Nay
Mikulski (D-MD), Nay
Moran (R-KS), Yea
Murkowski (R-AK), Yea
Murphy (D-CT), Nay
Murray (D-WA), Nay
Nelson (D-FL), Nay
Paul (R-KY), Yea
Perdue (R-GA), Yea
Peters (D-MI), Nay
Portman (R-OH), Yea
Reed (D-RI), Nay
Reid (D-NV), Nay
Risch (R-ID), Yea
Roberts (R-KS), Yea
Rounds (R-SD), Yea
Rubio (R-FL), Not Voting
Sanders (I-VT), Nay
Sasse (R-NE), Yea
Schatz (D-HI), Nay
Schumer (D-NY), Nay
Scott (R-SC), Yea
Sessions (R-AL), Yea
Shaheen (D-NH), Nay
Shelby (R-AL), Yea
Stabenow (D-MI), Nay
Sullivan (R-AK), Yea
Tester (D-MT), Nay
Thune (R-SD), Yea
Tillis (R-NC), Yea
Toomey (R-PA), Yea
Udall (D-NM), Nay
Vitter (R-LA), Yea
Warner (D-VA), Nay
Warren (D-MA), Nay
Whitehouse (D-RI), Nay
Wicker (R-MS), Yea
Wyden (D-OR), Nay

Brett85
05-13-2015, 09:12 PM
Then what's with all the whining?

I think some people just like to whine.

GunnyFreedom
05-13-2015, 09:24 PM
I think some people just like to whine.

LOL I think you are right sir.

David Sadler
05-22-2015, 10:08 AM
I've called the state and national offices of both of my US Senators and Representative. It's clear that the Republicans are all-in on this globalism - without constraints and without consideration for what it is doing to our national security and standard of living.

It's also clear that for the most part they don't even know or understand the ramifications.



[The TPP], "is trade Keynesianism. It's not free trade. It's managed trade ... Internationalism, NAFTA and CAFTA and WTO -- the New World Order is here and everything that promotes the New World Order is done at the expense of liberty and that is why we're in deep trouble ..."
-- Ron Paul, Fast-Track: Free Trade or Protectionism? (https://youtu.be/mwzXyQpef3E)




"Corporations have gone global. And by going global, governments have lost some control of corporations regardless of whether the corporation can be trusted or can not be trusted. Governments today do not have over corporations the power they had and the leverage that they had fifty or sixty years ago. And that's a major change. Governments have become powerless compared to what they were before."
-- Sam Gibara, former Chairman & CEO, Goodyear Tire, in the short video: Major General Smedley Butler & The Fascist Takeover Of The USA - A Warning From History (https://youtu.be/oMEI8bnbw1o)




"Capitalism today commands the towering heights, and has displaced politics and politicians as the new high priests and are reigning oligarchs of our system. So capitalism and its principle protagonists and players - corporate CEOs - have been accorded unusual power and access which is not to deny the significance of government and politicians, but these are the new high priests."
-- Ira Jackson, Director, Center for Business and Government, Kennedy School, Harvard, in the short video: Major General Smedley Butler & The Fascist Takeover Of The USA - A Warning From History (https://youtu.be/oMEI8bnbw1o)

Brian4Liberty
05-22-2015, 10:34 AM
601607511024619520

601509090804641794

David Sadler
07-26-2015, 01:45 PM
590982593736286208

Higher drug costs ... More internet controls ... "proposals show a deal moving more toward protection than free trade, one more about corporate benefits than boosting economies and development"




Secrecy around TPP trade deal fuels suspicions and worries (http://news.yahoo.com/secrecy-around-tpp-trade-deal-fuels-suspicions-worries-020935017.html) / AFP, 2015.07.26

Higher costs for needed generic drugs. Longer copyright protections than the global standard. Foreign investors empowered to overrule governments. A more tightly-regulated Internet.

Those are just some of the potential pitfalls from any deal that could emerge from the Trans-Pacific Partnership, the 12-country free-trade and investment pact shrouded in secrecy as negotiations head into the final stage in Hawaii next week.

A handful of draft chapters of the TPP, leaked via Wikileaks, have highlighted the proposed treaty's heavy emphasis on expanding protections for corporate rights and assets like intellectual property -- patents, copyrights and databases -- that are far more valuable to advanced economy corporations than traditional cargo trade.

r3volution 3.0
07-28-2015, 01:52 PM
I'm not a libertarian and I won't ever claim to be. A big part of the reason I'm not a libertarian is that it has become entirely a pro-corporatist, pro-globalist, and open borders movement.

Libertarians have always been for free immigration and free trade (because they understand economics).


Lets get one thing straight, I'm an American and I care about my country above all others.

Then you should favor free trade and free immigration, as they increase the living standards of Americans.

r3volution 3.0
07-28-2015, 01:55 PM
Associating tariffs with 'protectionism' and 'isolationism' is a globalist propaganda which evidently has taken deep root in the Libertarian party.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WLI0GMMbQaQ