Rand Paul to Obama: "Prioritize" Passage of Trans-Pacific Partnership

[Brett85]

The first is the rising clamor from Corporate America for the newly empowered Republicans to grant Obama fast track authority and support his Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement.

Fast track would be a unilateral surrender of Congressional authority, yielding all power to amend trade treaties to Obama, and leaving Congress with a yes or no vote on whatever treaty he brings home.

This would be a Republican ratification of the policies of Bush I and II that produced $10 trillion in trade deficits, hollowed out our manufacturing base, and sent abroad the jobs of millions of Reagan Democrats.

Globalization carpet-bombed Middle America and killed the Nixon-Reagan coalition that used to give the GOP 49-state landslides.

Why would Republicans return to that Bush-Clinton-Obama policy that ended the economic independence of Eisenhower’s America?

That sounds like nativism/protectionism rhetoric to me, not just opposition to managed trade. That's surprising coming from Lew Rockwell since he's supposed to be an anarcho capitalist.

[Brett85]

The TPP and the TTIP are NOT about "Free Trade". They say they are, to fool those who don't bother to educate themselves.

They are not "free trade deals" as we understand free trade to be, but they are managed trade agreements that contain lower tariffs. My guess is that Rand supports it because he supports lower tariffs, just like he supports lower taxes and wants the government to have less money.

[Anti Federalist]

The first is the rising clamor from Corporate America for the newly empowered Republicans to grant Obama fast track authority and support his Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement.

Fast track would be a unilateral surrender of Congressional authority, yielding all power to amend trade treaties to Obama, and leaving Congress with a yes or no vote on whatever treaty he brings home.

This would be a Republican ratification of the policies of Bush I and II that produced $10 trillion in trade deficits, hollowed out our manufacturing base, and sent abroad the jobs of millions of Reagan Democrats.

Globalization carpet-bombed Middle America and killed the Nixon-Reagan coalition that used to give the GOP 49-state landslides.

Why would Republicans return to that Bush-Clinton-Obama policy that ended the economic independence of Eisenhower’s America?

[Lucille]

That sounds like nativism/protectionism rhetoric to me, not just opposition to managed trade. That's surprising coming from Lew Rockwell since he's supposed to be an anarcho capitalist.

It's Buchanan.

[Brett85]

It's Buchanan.

Oh. I didn't click the link to see who actually wrote the article. Libertarians certainly shouldn't take the same position on free trade that Pat Buchanan takes. I understand the managed trade/sovereignty argument and the opposition to TPP based on that, but I've seen a lot of protectionist rhetoric here as well that runs counter to libertarianism.

[cajuncocoa]

The Official Organ of "Rand 2016" on this board, The Collinz, has already made that perfectly clear.

They'd prefer all us weirdoes to go away, that we are not really wanted or needed and are just an embarrassment to the insiders, the "professionals", the cocktail party and wife swapping crowd in DC.

I'm torn: whether to walk away in disgust or hang around to $#@! up their scene?

hang around....it'll be more fun

[Brett85]

It's still unclear to me what exactly Rand's position on trade is, because he's voted against trade promotion authority in the past and is on record as opposing it. It seems like maybe he supports these trade deals as long as Congress gets a say and gets to vote on amending it.

http://www.wnd.com/2013/08/rand-paul...al-trade-zone/

[GunnyFreedom]

Most of his base voters aren't going to refuse to support him because he supports free trade.

You don't...seriously...believe the TPP has anything whatever to do with 'free' trade, do you?

[GunnyFreedom]

They are not "free trade deals" as we understand free trade to be, but they are managed trade agreements that contain lower tariffs. My guess is that Rand supports it because he supports lower tariffs, just like he supports lower taxes and wants the government to have less money.

You don't...seriously...believe that the TPP is "more free" than our current system...do you?

[Anti Federalist]

Oh. I didn't click the link to see who actually wrote the article. Libertarians certainly shouldn't take the same position on free trade that Pat Buchanan takes. I understand the managed trade/sovereignty argument and the opposition to TPP based on that, but I've seen a lot of protectionist rhetoric here as well that runs counter to libertarianism.

There is a One World Order / Globalist wing of libertarianism that I am most certainly NOT a part of.

[Brett85]

You don't...seriously...believe the TPP has anything whatever to do with 'free' trade, do you?

It pretty much eliminates all tariffs between 11 different countries. That certainly makes the trade far more free than it would be otherwise.

[Brett85]

There is a One World Order / Globalist wing of libertarianism that I am most certainly NOT a part of.

There's no libertarian argument for higher tariffs. I understand the opposition some libertarians have to "managed trade," but actually supporting the concept of high tariffs can't be defended from a libertarian perspective.

[A Son of Liberty]

There is a One World Order / Globalist wing of libertarianism that I am most certainly NOT a part of.

What brand of libertarianism is that, exactly?

[ZENemy]

[twomp]

Oh. I didn't click the link to see who actually wrote the article. Libertarians certainly shouldn't take the same position on free trade that Pat Buchanan takes. I understand the managed trade/sovereignty argument and the opposition to TPP based on that, but I've seen a lot of protectionist rhetoric here as well that runs counter to libertarianism.

Usually libertarianism means following the constitution. Do you realizes there are parts of this bill that run counter to that? Probably not since you keep throwing out the word "libertarianism" to defend Rand Paul. But it's consistent with you evangelical christian types. Running around saying life is precious and you are pro-life then in your next breath say it's okay to kill innocent civilians in foreign countries if we kill a few bad guys next to them. Life is only precious when YOU folks decide it is.

[Brett85]

Usually libertarianism means following the constitution. Do you realizes there are parts of this bill that run counter to that? Probably not since you keep throwing out the word "libertarianism" to defend Rand Paul. But it's consistent with you evangelical christian types. Running around saying life is precious and you are pro-life then in your next breath say it's okay to kill innocent civilians in foreign countries if we kill a few bad guys next to them. Life is only precious when YOU folks decide it is.

Whatever. You can change the subject if you want, but I've been very anti war in the positions I've taken here, opposing the vast majority of wars and U.S military interventions.

[Brett85]

Probably not since you keep throwing out the word "libertarianism" to defend Rand Paul.

Rand may not be a libertarian, but he's far more libertarian than those who advocate high tariffs.

[Brett85]

I don't know whether I would vote for this if I were a member of Congress or not. There are good parts to it and bad parts to it, and I would have to determine whether or not the good parts out weighed the bad parts. But I certainly don't think it's unreasonable for a libertarian to support a trade deal that dramatically lowers or eliminates tariffs between 11 different countries.

[twomp]

I don't know whether I would vote for this if I were a member of Congress or not. There are good parts to it and bad parts to it, and I would have to determine whether or not the good parts out weighed the bad parts. But I certainly don't think it's unreasonable for a libertarian to support a trade deal that dramatically lowers or eliminates tariffs between 11 different countries.

Lowering taxes for foreign countries is not in the Constitution. Ceding power away from Congress towards the UN is.

[Brett85]

Lowering taxes for foreign countries is not in the Constitution. Ceding power away from Congress towards the UN is.

Congress shall have the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitut...iclei#section8

[thoughtomator]

Most of his base voters aren't going to refuse to support him because he supports free trade.

The TPP is the antithesis of free trade.

[thoughtomator]

Rand may not be a libertarian, but he's far more libertarian than those who advocate high tariffs.

Unless you can demonstrate someone advocating high tariffs, spare us the insulting strawman arguments.

[thoughtomator]

That sounds like nativism/protectionism rhetoric to me, not just opposition to managed trade. That's surprising coming from Lew Rockwell since he's supposed to be an anarcho capitalist.

"Nativism"?

Are you being paid to write this stuff, or are you a volunteer propagandist?

[Peace Piper]

Congress shall have the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitut...iclei#section8

The Trans-Pacific Partnership treaty is the complete opposite of 'free trade'
The TPP would strip our constitutional rights, while offering no gains for the majority of Americans. It's a win for corporations

But the TPP and its promoters are full to the brim with ironies. It is quite amazing that a treaty like the TPP can still be promoted as a "free trade" agreement when its most economically important provisions are the exact opposite of "free trade" – the expansion of protectionism.

Exhibit A was released by WikiLeaks last week: the latest draft of the "intellectual property" chapter of the agreement, one of 24 (out of 29) chapters that do not have to do with trade. This chapter has provisions that will make it easier for pharmaceutical companies to get patents, including in developing countries; have these patents for more years; and extend the ability of these companies to limit access to the scientific data that is necessary for other researchers to develop new medicines. And the United States is even pushing for provisions that would allow surgical procedures to be patented – provisions that may be currently against US law.

All of these measures will help raise the price of medicines and health care, which will strain public health systems and price some people out of the market for important medicines...

One part of the TPP that shows why negotiators want to minimize public awareness of the agreement consists of provisions giving corporations the right – as is the case under the North American Free Trade Agreement (Nafta) – to directly sue governments for regulations that infringe upon their profits or potential profits. This, too, is much worse than the WTO, where a corporation has to convince its government to file a case against another government. These private enforcement actions – which if won collect from the defendant government – are judged by special tribunals outside of either country's judicial system, without the kinds of due process or openness that exists, for example, in the US legal system. A currently infamous example is the action by Lone Pine Resources, a Delaware-incorporated company, against the government of Quebec for its moratorium on fracking.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentis...usurp-congress

Mark Weisbrot is co-director of the Centre for Economic and Policy Research in Washington DC. He is also president of Just Foreign Policy.

Why is it so secret, if it's a good thing for everyone?

[Anti Federalist]

There's no libertarian argument for higher tariffs. I understand the opposition some libertarians have to "managed trade," but actually supporting the concept of high tariffs can't be defended from a libertarian perspective.

If tariffs were the only means of supporting a limited central government, like the constitution states, and income and corprate and "user" taxes were eliminated, bet your ass I would be in favor of tariffs.

What I am not in favor of is ceding even more regulatory authority to foreign interests.

We already have enough "Regulation without Representation".

[devil21]

My question is whether Rand really knows what the TPP is or was he just reading his speech that someone else inserted that language into? Im still going to see how he votes before throwing him under the bus. Rhetoric doesn't mean much these days, regardless of the content, it's the votes that matter. Im just too jaded by politician-speak (say one thing, do another) to get worked up by speech snippets anymore. ymmv

[Brett85]

Unless you can demonstrate someone advocating high tariffs, spare us the insulting strawman arguments.

There were several people on this thread promoting a Pat Buchanan article where he used protectionist rhetoric. I've also seen comments from a lot of people here that trade agreements cost Americans jobs. That's a protectionist argument and an argument against free trade.

[Brett85]

The TPP is the antithesis of free trade.

I think I would argue that it makes the trade freer than it was before, because it lowers or eliminates tariffs, but it's obviously not the ideal concept of free trade that most of us understand. Free trade is simply trade between two countries with no taxes on imports and exports and no regulations. But the question is whether or not the lower tariffs contained in these trade agreements trump the regulations, including some bad regulations. I'm not exactly sure how I would vote on it and what conclusion I would come to if I were a member of the U.S Senate, but I would imagine that Rand is in favor of this agreement because he supports lowering tariffs between countries.

[NewRightLibertarian]

Lets hope Rand is just being a demagogue. If he comes out with serious sustained support of the TPP in its present form, I will not support his Presidential run nor his Senate career and neither should anyone who supports liberty.

[Natural Citizen]

From another discussion here on the forum... http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...Paul-Forum-and

...Trans Pacific Partnership being negotiated between the United States and 12 other mostly Communist Asian Nations . First off why would this destroy the Ron Paul forum because this treaty has sneaked in it INTERNET CENSORSHIP and we mean EXTREME internet censorship. Please read this link just posted today from the Electronic Frontier Foundation https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/0...get-seats-back & http://www.thenewamerican.com/econom...ic-partnership

Not only that this Trans Pacific Partnership Treaty or TPP puts an end to affordable generic drugs http://www.fool.com/investing/genera...the-drugs.aspx & http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_...01-100314.html

Puts an end to MADE IN THE USA on all food products including products made in America and allows unregulated food with NO INSPECTION into the US Supermarkets without ANY REGULATIONS http://www.wnd.com/2014/02/trans-pac...trade-madness/ & http://www.exposethetpp.org/TPPImpacts_FoodSafety.html

There is plenty more that the Trans Pacific Partnership will do to both the left's and right's values and that includes Libertarian and Ron Paul beliefs. As you can see the Trans Pacific Partnership will end US Sovereignty as we know it and will allow the creation of New Courts that will ignore and US laws and US Constitution http://www.thenewamerican.com/econom...omestic-courts & http://www.alternet.org/world/trans-...orporate-power

The end of free speech online and censoring content and so much more will happen if the Trans Pacific Partnership becomes law and Congress wants to debate the Trans Pacific Partnership after the August recess.

Sadly many Republicans favor this horrible trade treaty and many do not know what is even in this treaty, but like Congressman and minority leader Nancy Palosi the Republicans just want to pass it and then the American citizen can find out what is in it which will not be good. President Obama also favors the Trans Pacific Partnership treaty and is at odds with Democrats over this bad trade treaty. http://www.wnd.com/2014/01/gop-set-t...ld-order-pact/

Now as the link above states, how the Republicans plan to pass the Trans Pacific Partnership or TPP without debating the TPP trade treaty is to use a method called Fast Track and let me explain Fast Track or it's NEW name Trade Promotion Authority

What Fast Track or Trade Promotion Authority for the Trans Pacific Partnership is, it is usually in Congress when an international trade treaty is agreed to such as this one the Senate votes on Trade Treaties and it must be heavily debated and in order to become ratified it needs 67 votes in the Senate in order to pass and there are usually amendments or changes put into place on an international Trade Treaty. If Congress (HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AND SENATE PASS TRADE PROMOTION AUTHORITY) Then an international Trade Treaty only needs 51 votes and there can be NO AMENDMENTS OR CHANGES TO THE TREATY AND NO FILIBUSTER OR STOPPING THIS TRANS PACIFIC PARTNERSHIP TREATY ONCE IT HITS THE SENATE FLOOR)


Read this link for more details on how Trade Promotion Authority or Fast Track is meant to SCREW the American people with this trade deal.

http://dailycaller.com/2014/02/17/th...c-partnership/

I urge you all to call Congress 2022243121 and tell them No to the Trans Pacific Partnership and Trade Promotion Authority before it is too late. You can also e-mail Congress www.house.gov or www.senate.gov

Please as well sign this petition from the Electronic Frontier Foundation in order to stop the Trans Pacific Partnership and Trade Promotion Authority before it is TOO LATE PETITION>> https://act.eff.org/action/demand-an...ht-trade-deals <<

Please as well Facebook and Twitter this petition to friends and family alike. Let us not let the liberty movement which is promoted mostly by a free and open internet, let us not let this movement slip away. You can bet if TPP goes through the first sites that will be shut down by the Establishment Republicans and Democrats will be the liberty movement websites and Ron Paul Forum as well.

Please help stop the Trans Pacific Partnership and Fast Track or Trade Promotion Authority.