‘Critical Alert': Jeff Sessions Warns America Against Potentially Disastrous Obama Trade Deal

[NACBA]

Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL)
is sounding the alarm to his colleagues Senate-wide, warning them and the American public with a “critical alert” published Sunday evening that voting for the Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) deal that would set up the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade deal with Asian countries is fraught with problems and concerns.

“Congress has the responsibility to ensure that any international trade agreement entered into by the United States must serve the national interest, not merely the interests of those crafting the proposal in secret,” Sessions’ team writes in a document that lays out the top five concerns with the Obama trade deal. “It must improve the quality of life, the earnings, and the per-capita wealth of everyday working Americans. The sustained long-term loss of middle class jobs and incomes should compel all lawmakers to apply added scrutiny to a ‘fast-track’ procedure wherein Congress would yield its legislative powers and allow the White House to implement one of largest global financial agreements in our history—comprising at least 12 nations and nearly 40 percent of the world’s GDP.

“The request for fast-track also comes at a time when the Administration has established a recurring pattern of sidestepping the law, the Congress, and the Constitution in order to repeal sovereign protections for U.S. workers in deference to favored financial and political allies.”

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/05/03/critical-alert-jeff-sessions-warns-america-against-potentially-disastrous-obama-trade-deal/

[Brian4Liberty]

First there was TARP, then there was ObamaCare. The crony corporatists look forward to another win with ObamaTrade.

http://obamatrade.com/

[Zippyjuan]

5. Immigration Increases. There are numerous ways TPA could facilitate immigration
increases above current law—and precious few ways anyone in Congress could stop its
happening. For instance: language could be included or added into the TPP, as well as any
future trade deal submitted for fast-track consideration in the next 6 years, with the clear
intent to facilitate or enable the movement of foreign workers and employees into the
United States (including intracompany transfers), and there would be no capacity for
lawmakers to strike the offending provision.
https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.documentcloud.org/documents/2071559/top-five-concerns-with-trade-promotion-authority.pdf

So there isn't any but MIGHT at some date in the future be some language added which would somehow lead to mass immigration into the US?

Gotta be afraid of foreigners!

(Side note- TARP was a Bush program)

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

So there isn't any but MIGHT at some date in the future be some language added which would somehow lead to mass immigration into the US?


Well, who would have thought that your boy Obama could circumvent law and all common sense by proposing his law, but he did it. You got what you wanted there, so why do you think anything is impossible?

[Christopher A. Brown]

Its the same sell out of US industrial capacity to foreign nations that GATT and NAFTA represent, which we suffer from.

Rather that corporations controlling their environmental impacts, they worked a WTO deal to send manufacturing to other countries. An entire region of China has banned technojunk because of pollution resulting from uncontrolled recycling of computer equipment and other electronics.
US workers lost out big time. Sure, profits for shareholders would have dropped to remain competitive, but vital skills an industry would not have left our cities, towns, states and nation. This is a direct result of corporate money controlling politics and international trade deals.

This deal is an upgrade to GATT and NAFTA which they got away with despite efforts in 1999 to create information on media about the extent of the problem. Remember the riots in Seattle? Media again is failing to let the public know what officials are doing.

[Brian4Liberty]

https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.documentcloud.org/documents/2071559/top-five-concerns-with-trade-promotion-authority.pdf

So there isn't any but MIGHT at some date in the future be some language added which would somehow lead to mass immigration into the US?

OK, we'll just trust Obama and the crony corporatist establishment to wield that power fairly and sparingly. :rolleyes:


(Side note- TARP was a Bush program)

Keep pushing the false left/right narrative. The crony establishment always has their say. TARP was pushed by both parties. Only a fool would say it was just one party.

[r3volution 3.0]

1. Consolidation Of Power In The Executive Branch. TPA eliminates Congress’ ability to amend or debate trade implementing legislation and guarantees an up-or-down vote on a far-reaching international agreement before that agreement has received any public review. Not only will Congress have given up the 67-vote threshold for a treaty and the 60-vote threshold for important legislation, but will have even given up the opportunity for amendment and the committee review process that both ensure member participation. Crucially, this applies not only to the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) but all international trade agreements during the life of the TPA. There is no real check on the expiration of fast-track authority: if Congress does not affirmatively refuse to reauthorize TPA at the end of the defined authorization (2018), the authority is automatically renewed for an additional three years so long as the President requests the extension. And if a trade deal (not just TPP but any trade deal) is submitted to Congress that members believe does not fulfill, or that directly violates, the TPA recommendations—or any laws of the United States—it is exceptionally difficult for lawmakers to seek legislative redress or remove it from the fast track, as the exit ramp is under the exclusive control of the revenue and Rules committees.

Moreover, while the President is required to submit a report to Congress on the terms of a trade agreement at least 60 days before submitting implementing legislation, the President can classify or otherwise redact information from this report, limiting its value to Congress.

Is TPA designed to protect congressional responsibilities, or to limit Congress’ ability to do its duty?

Congress will still have the final say, yea or nay. End of story.


2. Increased Trade Deficits. Barclays estimates that during the first quarter of this year, the overall U.S. trade deficit will reduce economic growth by .2 percent. History suggests that trade deals set into motion under the 6-year life of TPA could exacerbate our trade imbalance, acting as an impediment to both GDP and wage growth. Labor economist Clyde Prestowitz attributes 60 percent of the U.S.’ 5.7 million manufacturing jobs lost over the last decade to import-driven trade imbalances. And in a recent column for Reuters, a former chief executive officer at AT&T notes that “since the [NAFTA and South Korea free trade] pacts were implemented, U.S. trade deficits, which drag down economic growth, have soared more than 430 percent with our free-trade partners. In the same period, they’ve declined 11 percent with countries that are not free-trade partners… Obama’s 2011 trade deal with South Korea, which serves as the template for the new Trans-Pacific Partnership, has resulted in a 50 percent jump in the U.S. trade deficit with South Korea in its first two years. This equates to 50,000 U.S. jobs lost.”

Job loss by U.S. workers means reduced consumer demand, less tax revenue flowing into the Treasury, and greater reliance on government assistance programs. It is important that Congress fully understand the impact of this very large trade agreement and to use caution to ensure the interests of the people are protected.

Furthermore, the lack of protections in TPA against foreign subsidies could accelerate our shrinking domestic manufacturing base. We have been getting out-negotiated by our mercantilist trading partners for years, failing to aggressively advance legitimate U.S. interests, but the proponents of TPA have apparently not sought to rectify this problem.

TPA proponents must answer this simple question: will your plan shrink the trade deficit or will it grow it even wider?

Pure economic illiteracy. Cheap imports directly benefit the domestic consumer and cause inefficient domestic producers to reform or die (as they should if they cannot produce the goods/services demanded by consumers). If you buy the argument from Sessions, you should be in favor the government bailing out failing businesses to "save jobs," because it is the same flawed logic.


3. Ceding Sovereign Authority To International Powers. A USTR outline of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (which TPA would expedite) notes in the “Key Features” summary that the TPP is a “living agreement.” This means the President could update the agreement “as appropriate to address trade issues that emerge in the future as well as new issues that arise with the expansion of the agreement to include new countries.” The “living agreement” provision means that participating nations could both add countries to the TPP without Congress’ approval (like China), and could also change any of the terms of the agreement, including in controversial areas such as the entry of foreign workers and foreign employees. Again: these changes would not be subject to congressional approval.

This has far-reaching implications: the Congressional Research Service reports that if the United States signs on to an international trade agreement, the implementing legislation of that trade agreement (as a law passed later in time) would supersede conflicting federal, state, and local laws. When this occurs, U.S. workers may be subject to a sudden change in tariffs, regulations, or dispute resolution proceedings in international tribunals outside the U.S.

Promoters of TPA should explain why the American people ought to trust the Administration and its foreign partners to revise or rewrite international agreements, or add new members to those agreements, without congressional approval. Does this not represent an abdication of congressional authority?

1. This is true of virtually all legislation. Bills passed by Congress are effectively guidelines, which the executive implements in the form of specific rules and regulations. This is indeed a problem, but there's no solution unless you drastically reduce the role of government. It's simply impossible for Congress to actually approve of the hundreds of thousands of individual regulations. This is not an argument against TPP.

2. Despite all of the above, the claim that the executive (or foreign states party to the TPP) can amend the agreement in various ways without the approval of Congress is a misleading statement. Ultimately Congress can repeal the TPP at any time. Or threaten to repeal in order to force certain changes. There is no real loss of control/sovereignty here.


4. Currency Manipulation. The biggest open secret in the international market is that other countries are devaluing their currencies to artificially lower the price of their exports while artificially raising the price of our exports to them. The result has been a massive bleeding of domestic manufacturing wealth. In fact, currency manipulation can easily dwarf tariffs in its economic impact. A 2014 biannual report from the Treasury Department concluded that the yuan, or renminbi, remained significantly undervalued, yet the Treasury Department failed to designate China as a “currency manipulator.” History suggests this Administration, like those before it, will not stand up to improper currency practices. Currency protections are currently absent from TPA, indicating again that those involved in pushing these trade deals do not wish to see these currency abuses corrected. Therefore, even if currency protections are somehow added into TPA, it is still entirely possible that the Administration could ignore those guidelines and send Congress unamendable trade deals that expose U.S. workers to a surge of underpriced foreign imports. President Obama’s longstanding resistance to meaningful currency legislation is proof he intends to take no action.

The President has repeatedly failed to stand up to currency manipulators. Why should we believe this time will be any different?

Again, economic illiteracy. Cheap imports are not a bad thing. The only problem with currency manipulation by China is for the Chinese people. In effect, the Chinese government is stealing money from them and giving it to US consumers in the form of artificially cheap goods. Sad for them, good for us, and beyond our control in any event.


5. Immigration Increases. There are numerous ways TPA could facilitate immigration increases above current law—and precious few ways anyone in Congress could stop its happening. For instance: language could be included or added into the TPP, as well as any future trade deal submitted for fast-track consideration in the next 6 years, with the clear intent to facilitate or enable the movement of foreign workers and employees into the United States (including intracompany transfers), and there would be no capacity for lawmakers to strike the offending provision. The Administration could also simply act on its own to negotiate foreign worker increases with foreign trading partners without ever advertising those plans to Congress. In 2011, the United States entered into an agreement with South Korea—never brought before Congress—to increase the duration of L-1 visas (a visa that affords no protections for U.S. workers).

Every year, tens of thousands of foreign guest workers come to the U.S. as part of past trade deals. However, because there is little transparency, estimating an exact figure is difficult. The plain language of TPA provides avenues for the Administration and its trading partners to facilitate the expanded movement of foreign workers into the U.S.—including visitor visas that are used as worker visas. The TPA reads:

“The principal negotiating objective of the United States regarding trade in services is to expand competitive market opportunities for United States services and to obtain fairer and more open conditions of trade, including through utilization of global value chains, by reducing or eliminating barriers to international trade in services… Recognizing that expansion of trade in services generates benefits for all sectors of the economy and facilitates trade.”

This language, and other language in TPA, offers an obvious way for the Administration to expand the number and duration of foreign worker entries under the concept that the movement of foreign workers into U.S. jobs constitutes “trade in services.”

Stating that “TPP contains no change to immigration law” is a semantic rather than a factual argument. Language already present in both TPA and TPP provide the basis for admitting more foreign workers, and for longer periods of time, and language could later be added to TPP or any future trade deal to further increase such admissions.

The President has already subjected American workers to profound wage loss through executive-ordered foreign worker increases on top of existing record immigration levels. Yet, despite these extraordinary actions, the Administration will casually assert that is has merely modernized, clarified, improved, streamlined, and updated immigration rules. Thus, at any point during the 6-year life of TPA, the Administration could send Congress a trade deal—or issue an executive action subsequent to a trade deal as part of its implementation—that increased foreign worker entry into the U.S., all while claiming it has never changed immigration law.

The President has circumvented Congress on immigration with serial regularity. But the TPA would yield new power to the executive to alter admissions while subtracting congressional checks against those actions. This runs contrary to our Founders’ belief, as stated in the Constitution, that immigration should be in the hands of Congress. The Supreme Court has consistently held that the Constitution grants Congress plenary authority over immigration policy. For instance, the Court ruled in Galvan v. Press, 347 U.S. 522, 531 (1954), that “the formulation of policies [pertaining to the entry of immigrants and their right to remain here] is entrusted exclusively to Congress… [This principle] has become about as firmly imbedded in the legislative and judicial issues of our body politic as any aspect of our government.” Granting the President TPA could enable controversial changes or increases to a wide variety of visas—such as the H-1B, B-1, E-1, and L-1—including visas that confer foreign nationals with a pathway to a green card and thus citizenship.

Future trade deals could also have the possible effect of preventing Congress from reforming abuses in our guest worker programs, as countries could complain that limitations on foreign worker travel constituted a trade barrier requiring adjudication by an international body.

The TPP also includes an entire chapter on “Temporary Entry” that applies to all parties and that affects U.S. immigration law. Additionally, the Temporary Entry chapter creates a separate negotiating group, explicitly contemplating that the parties to the TPP will revisit temporary entry at some point in the future for the specific purpose of making changes to this chapter—after Congress would have already approved the TPP. This possibility grows more acute given that TPP is a “living agreement” that can be altered without Congress.

Proponents of TPA should be required to answer this question: if you are confident that TPA would not enable any immigration actions between now and its 2021 expiration, why not include ironclad enforcement language to reverse any such presidential action?

TPP might increase legal immigration? Great, that makes me like it even more.

Immigration is economically beneficial.

Yes yes, if they get welfare that's not good - but then fix the welfare system, don't restrict immigration.

[ClydeCoulter]

"Quiet down son, we can find something in it for you."

[No1butPaul]

If you like your job, you can keep it.

There is a petition in the "action center" link on this anti-Obamatrade site if anyone is so inclined.

http://obamatrade.com/


Obamatrade aka the TransPacific Parthership (TPP) is misleadingly called a “trade agreement.” But only two of its 26 chapters actually cover trade issues such as tariffs and quotas. Obamatrade is really an expansive system of enforceable global government that the Obama administration is negotiating with eleven Pacific Rim nations: Vietnam, Brunei, Singapore, Chile, Malaysia, New Zealand, Australia, Japan, Canada, Mexico and Peru. Obamatrade would impose one-size-fits all international rules to which U.S. federal, state and local law would be forced to conform. It would also give preferential treatment to foreign banks and other firms operating here, exempting foreign companies in the US from financial, environmental and land use regulations that US businesses would still be required to obey. Obamatrade would subject the U.S. to the jurisdiction of two systems of foreign tribunals, including World Bank and United Nations tribunals. These foreign tribunals would be empowered to order payment of U.S. tax dollars to foreign firms if U.S. laws undermined the foreign firms’ new special privileges.

[oyarde]

Obamatrade.Good Lord.Anyone read it ?

[Brian4Liberty]

Congress will still have the final say, yea or nay. End of story.



Pure economic illiteracy. Cheap imports directly benefit the domestic consumer and cause inefficient domestic producers to reform or die (as they should if they cannot produce the goods/services demanded by consumers). If you buy the argument from Sessions, you should be in favor the government bailing out failing businesses to "save jobs," because it is the same flawed logic.



1. This is true of virtually all legislation. Bills passed by Congress are effectively guidelines, which the executive implements in the form of specific rules and regulations. This is indeed a problem, but there's no solution unless you drastically reduce the role of government. It's simply impossible for Congress to actually approve of the hundreds of thousands of individual regulations. This is not an argument against TPP.

2. Despite all of the above, the claim that the executive (or foreign states party to the TPP) can amend the agreement in various ways without the approval of Congress is a misleading statement. Ultimately Congress can repeal the TPP at any time. Or threaten to repeal in order to force certain changes. There is no real loss of control/sovereignty here.



Again, economic illiteracy. Cheap imports are not a bad thing. The only problem with currency manipulation by China is for the Chinese people. In effect, the Chinese government is stealing money from them and giving it to US consumers in the form of artificially cheap goods. Sad for them, good for us, and beyond our control in any event.



TPP might increase legal immigration? Great, that makes me like it even more.

Immigration is economically beneficial.

Yes yes, if they get welfare that's not good - but then fix the welfare system, don't restrict immigration.

Well hell, you convinced me! This backroom monstrosity will be good for all of us. Just like Obamacare. After all, Obamacare was really the "affordable care act", and it has made healthcare affordable for us all, just as promised. I'm so happy that Obamacare has opened up the healthcare market!

[Brian4Liberty]

Obamatrade.Good Lord.Anyone read it ?

You can read it after you pass it. But like Obamacare, it's a living law, and it's not quite finished, so it will evolve and change over time, whenever the executive branch decides to change it, in consultation with the corporate branch of course.

[wizardwatson]

Well hell, you convinced me! This backroom monstrosity will be good for all of us. Just like Obamacare. After all, Obamacare was really the "affordable care act", and it has made healthcare affordable for us all, just as promised. I'm so happy that Obamacare has opened up the healthcare market!

Rand supports it so he supports and rationalizes it. Simple as that.

If we want to support Rand apparently we have to do it blindly and abandon whatever principles or reasons we have for dissenting.

[Christopher A. Brown]

dupe

Web 2.0 hi jinks? When I quote wiz, the above text appears. Meaning O have to copy/paste wiz's comment as seen below.


Rand supports it so he supports and rationalizes it. Simple as that.

I cannot express how sick I am of corporate collusion with government. Particularly when foriegn entities are given preference/immunity in American territory relating to American law.

Disgusting!

[wizardwatson]

Web 2.0 hi jinks? When I quote wiz, the above text appears. Meaning O have to copy/paste wiz's comment as seen below.

Nah, somehow my edit turned into a repost. I changed the text to "dupe" to indicate it was a duplicate post.


I cannot express how sick I am of corporate collusion with government. Particularly when foriegn entities are given preference/immunity in American territory relating to American law.

Disgusting!

Be disgusted with American complacence. Because we have everything and we do nothing. We have cell phones, internet, computers, cars to drive around and meet, resources to campaign, cheap food, education, and all the other necessary tools and resources to make a difference. And all we do is sit around and pretend we are oppressed more than the rest of the world when we are the ones doing the oppressing. That is far more disgusting than corporate collusion which has been going on since the beginning of time.

[Brett85]

Rand supports it so he supports and rationalizes it. Simple as that.

If we want to support Rand apparently we have to do it blindly and abandon whatever principles or reasons we have for dissenting.

Yes, Rand supports lowering and eliminating tariffs, which this agreement does.

[Zippyjuan]

Obamatrade.Good Lord.Anyone read it ?

Senators and Representatives aren't reading it- even though they can (while complaining they can't). It has been available for the last three years for them to look at.

http://thehill.com/policy/finance/240050-lawmakers-play-catch-up-with-secret-trade-text


Lawmakers pass up chance to read ‘secret’ trade text

About 40 House members and three senators have asked to view the text of a massive Asia-Pacific trade deal in the three years since it was made available by the White House, according to records obtained by The Hill.

The document is at the center of an intense battle between President Obama and liberals in Congress, who have assailed the White House for what they say is a cloak of “secrecy" surrounding the 12-nation Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement.

A congressional uproar led the Obama administration to relax the rules for viewing the TPP text, which is now kept in the basement of the Capitol and is available to any lawmaker — and their staffers with the proper security clearance — who wants to see it.

Liberals have long argued that the White House doesn’t want them to see the TPP details because they would confirm their beliefs that the deal will harm U.S. workers.

Some critics, such as Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), are going so far as to call on the Obama administration to release the TPP text to the public.

But despite those calls, few lawmakers have taken the opportunity to examine the trade pact even with votes looming in the House and Senate on trade-promotion authority (TPA) legislation.

Lawmakers have a range of theories about why their colleagues haven’t been rushing to view the text, even after the change in rules that lets them see the TPP at their convenience.

Rep. Pat Tiberi (R-Ohio), chairman of the House Ways and Means Subcommittee on Trade, told The Hill that he is not surprised by the numbers because the deal is “still a work in progress.”

“It’s not just about reading the text, it’s about having a dialogue with the U.S. trade representative’s [USTR] staff,” he said.

Tiberi said he expects more lawmakers will look at the text with the trade debate getting more attention.

Rep. Ron Kind (Wis.), one of two Democrats to support trade promotion authority during a committee vote on Thursday, told The Hill he thinks the number of lawmakers who have reviewed the deal is now probably more than 40.

Kind said that he has helped organize dozens of walk-throughs for Democrats to delve into parts of the accord.

“It’s really up to the individual member to determine what level of engagement they want because the text is out there, we have access to it and [Michael] Froman and his team are more than willing to come up and sit down and make sure we have access to it and answer our questions and, at the same time, get our feedback on what we’d like to see,” Kind said.

“USTR is encouraging all members to do that,” he said.


More at link.

Civilians can try WikiLeaks: https://wikileaks.org/Second-release-of-secret-Trans.html

[Lois]

If Rand Paul supports this, he's disappointed me again. Just because he supports lowering and eliminating tariffs is no reason to support this back-room deal. Everybody knows it's like all the other trade agreements - Crony Capitalism. I'm getting kind of sick of Rand Paul's pandering to the Establishment.

[r3volution 3.0]

Rand supports it so he supports and rationalizes it. Simple as that.

If we want to support Rand apparently we have to do it blindly and abandon whatever principles or reasons we have for dissenting.

If you'd have to abandon your principles to support free trade, evidently you and I have different principles.

I'm a libertarian, I'm for free market capitalism. You are not?

[JohnGalt1225]

Congress will still have the final say, yea or nay. End of story.



Pure economic illiteracy. Cheap imports directly benefit the domestic consumer and cause inefficient domestic producers to reform or die (as they should if they cannot produce the goods/services demanded by consumers). If you buy the argument from Sessions, you should be in favor the government bailing out failing businesses to "save jobs," because it is the same flawed logic.



1. This is true of virtually all legislation. Bills passed by Congress are effectively guidelines, which the executive implements in the form of specific rules and regulations. This is indeed a problem, but there's no solution unless you drastically reduce the role of government. It's simply impossible for Congress to actually approve of the hundreds of thousands of individual regulations. This is not an argument against TPP.

2. Despite all of the above, the claim that the executive (or foreign states party to the TPP) can amend the agreement in various ways without the approval of Congress is a misleading statement. Ultimately Congress can repeal the TPP at any time. Or threaten to repeal in order to force certain changes. There is no real loss of control/sovereignty here.



Again, economic illiteracy. Cheap imports are not a bad thing. The only problem with currency manipulation by China is for the Chinese people. In effect, the Chinese government is stealing money from them and giving it to US consumers in the form of artificially cheap goods. Sad for them, good for us, and beyond our control in any event.



TPP might increase legal immigration? Great, that makes me like it even more.

Immigration is economically beneficial.

Yes yes, if they get welfare that's not good - but then fix the welfare system, don't restrict immigration.
Oh yeah great! Now I'm convinced! The mouthpieces for the corporate interests that own theFedGov assured us all the same thing when they reformed the immigration system in 1965, gave out amnesty, and put in place NAFTA, CAFTA, and GATT. Look at how awesome the American economy is and note how we have zero unemployment since we've been invaded from the south and American jobs have invaded Asia and South America. People like you never learn, you'll be a mouthpiece for Corporate America for every piece of shitty legislation they push trough. "Free trade is always beneficial!" "Immigration is always a net positive!" Yeah that is why America is so much stronger and richer than it was before 1965. And the naivety of libertarian immigration proponents is astounding, as if the people moving here (if they get the right to vote at some point) don't overwhelmingly vote for bigger and bigger government and less freedom.

By cheerleading on unrestricted immigration and "free" trade you are standing with Bill and Hillary Clinton, President Bush I and II, Barack Obama, and just about every other big government corporatist toady in politics and against Ron Paul.


http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/05/03/critical-alert-jeff-sessions-warns-america-against-potentially-disastrous-obama-trade-deal/
Rand Paul voting for the TPP might end up being a deal breaker. Especially if he ends up supporting fast track.

[JohnGalt1225]

If you'd have to abandon your principles to support free trade, evidently you and I have different principles.

I'm a libertarian, I'm for free market capitalism. You are not?
You think you support free market capitalism but you do not.

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

You support crony capitalism and corporatism that hides under the guise of free market capitalism.

[Lois]

Thanks, JohnGalt1225, for posting this video! I was wondering 'what would Ron Paul say' on the trade agreements, and was going to look it up, but you saved me the trouble.

[r3volution 3.0]

Oh yeah great! Now I'm convinced!

You're unconvinced that free trade is good or unconvinced that the TPP will reduce barriers to trade?

In the first case, you'd be indisputably wrong.

In the second case; that's possible, but all evidence we have indicates the opposite.

Hell, most of the people criticizing TPP are criticizing it because it reduces trade barriers.


The mouthpieces for the corporate interests that own theFedGov assured us all the same thing when they reformed the immigration system in 1965, gave out amnesty, and put in place NAFTA, CAFTA, and GATT. Look at how awesome the American economy is and note how we have zero unemployment since we've been invaded from the south and American jobs have invaded Asia and South America.

You actually believe that America's economic problems are a result of free-er immigration and free-er trade?

As opposed to, say, the massive growth in the size and scope of government?


By cheerleading on unrestricted immigration and "free" trade you are standing with Bill and Hillary Clinton, President Bush I and II, Barack Obama, and just about every other big government corporatist toady in politics and against Ron Paul economic logic.

FIFY

Incidentally, you're on the same side of the issue as the AFL-CIO.


Rand Paul voting for the TPP might end up being a deal breaker. Especially if he ends up supporting fast track.

How ridiculous

[Zippyjuan]

Maybe we need more government intervention to protect US companies from foreign competition. Or would that be crony capitalism?

[Christopher A. Brown]

You actually believe that America's economic problems are a result of free-er immigration and free-er trade?

As opposed to, say, the massive growth in the size and scope of government?


Lots of jobs went overseas in order to avoid environmental restrictions that were costing shareholders profit.

The environmental damage was shifted to another part of the planet while fuel was burned to move the products. Very unsound practices in the long run, and that is now.

TPP promises to be more of the same.

[JohnGalt1225]

You actually believe that America's economic problems are a result of free-er immigration and free-er trade?
Well why don't look at unemployment rates from before open borders and pre-NAFTA to now. Why don't we look at inflation adjusted wages? Why don't we look at manufacturing? Who has been winning since the borders were flung open and our "free" trade agreements went into place? It hasn't been the American worker or the middle class.

And you talk about trade agreements and big government as if they are different from each other whey they really aren't. These agreements are enthusiastically supported by big government lovers and corporatists. I'm sure it's just a coincidence that big government and big business love these trade deals and they just want to stand on the side of "economic logic." Meanwhile people like Ron Paul and Pat Buchanan oppose them, but I'm sure their issue is they just doesn't understand economics well enough, perhaps you could give them a lesson.:rolleyes:

As for immigration...anyone who thinks that those swarming in from the south are coming here so they can support a free and open society or Austrian economics is hopelessly naive.

[Zippyjuan]

Well why don't look at unemployment rates from before open borders and pre-NAFTA to now.

OK. NAFTA took effect in 1994. The US unemployment rate that year was 6.6%. It kept falling the next seven years to below four percent. The only time it got higher than that was not until 2009 and the recent recession.

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/unemployment-rate

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/charts/united-states-unemployment-rate.png?s=usurtot&d1=19900101&d2=20151231

As for the rest- what swarm from South of the border? They have actually been leaving since 2007- not swarming here.


As for immigration...anyone who thinks that those swarming in from the south are coming here so they can support a free and open society or Austrian economics is hopelessly naive.

http://www.pewresearch.org/files/2014/11/mexican-unauthorized.png
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/11/18/5-facts-about-illegal-immigration-in-the-u-s/