Should there be free trade between the States?
Site Information
About Us
- RonPaulForums.com is an independent grassroots outfit not officially connected to Ron Paul but dedicated to his mission. For more information see our Mission Statement.
Should there be free trade between the States?
"When a portion of wealth is transferred from the person who owns it—without his consent and without compensation, and whether by force or by fraud—to anyone who does not own it, then I say that property is violated; that an act of plunder is committed." - Bastiat : The Law
"nothing evil grows in alcohol" ~ @presence
"I mean can you imagine what it would be like if firemen acted like police officers? They would only go into a burning house only if there's a 100% chance they won't get any burns. I mean, you've got to fully protect thy self first." ~ juleswin
Both
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.
I vote for the latter.
But eliminating barriers to trade is beneficial to the US whether or not those damaging regulations are in place.
Or counties...
Or municipalities...
Or individuals....
Defining tariff as protectionism is defining tariff in a narrow and pejorative manner. To restrict the synonyms for 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
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?
http://townhall.com/columnists/patbu...1995971/page/2In 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.
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.
“When you won, you divided the profits amongst you, and when you lost, you charged it to the bank. You tell me that if I take the deposits from the bank and annul its charter I shall ruin ten thousand families. That may be true, gentlemen, but that is your sin! Should I let you go on, you will ruin fifty thousand families, and that would be my sin! You are a den of vipers and thieves. I have determined to rout you out, and by the Eternal, I will rout you out!”
― Andrew Jackson
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.
Rand Paul is just another mainstream Republican.
Do not be fooled.
There is no choice in this election.
Hillary Clinton will win anyway.
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.Senator Warren hits back at Obama in Pacific Rim trade fight
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."
Obama Moves Closer to Inking Pacific Trade Deal
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.
Last edited by David Sadler; 05-11-2015 at 09:07 PM. Reason: Expand
FAST TRACK? HOW ABOUT A PRO-AMERICA TRACK?
Phyllis Schlafly: TPP means Congress giving away its authority to 'global busybodies'
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.”
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.
Senate votes against fast-tracking TPP
RT
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.
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?
Last edited by David Sadler; 05-12-2015 at 03:54 PM. Reason: expand
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.
“When you won, you divided the profits amongst you, and when you lost, you charged it to the bank. You tell me that if I take the deposits from the bank and annul its charter I shall ruin ten thousand families. That may be true, gentlemen, but that is your sin! Should I let you go on, you will ruin fifty thousand families, and that would be my sin! You are a den of vipers and thieves. I have determined to rout you out, and by the Eternal, I will rout you out!”
― Andrew Jackson
“When you won, you divided the profits amongst you, and when you lost, you charged it to the bank. You tell me that if I take the deposits from the bank and annul its charter I shall ruin ten thousand families. That may be true, gentlemen, but that is your sin! Should I let you go on, you will ruin fifty thousand families, and that would be my sin! You are a den of vipers and thieves. I have determined to rout you out, and by the Eternal, I will rout you out!”
― Andrew Jackson
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.
Edit: Another duplicate post. It seems like this website is having problems.
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:
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.
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LI...n=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
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?"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"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
"Foreign aid is taking money from the poor people of a rich country, and giving it to the rich people of a poor country." - Ron Paul
"Beware the Military-Industrial-Financial-Pharma-Corporate-Internet-Media-Government Complex." - B4L update of General Dwight D. Eisenhower
"Debt is the drug, Wall St. Banksters are the dealers, and politicians are the addicts." - B4L
"Totally free immigration? I've never taken that position. I believe in national sovereignty." - Ron Paul
Proponent of real science.
The views and opinions expressed here are solely my own, and do not represent this forum or any other entities or persons.
Last edited by David Sadler; 07-26-2015 at 01:58 PM.
Libertarians have always been for free immigration and free trade (because they understand economics).
Then you should favor free trade and free immigration, as they increase the living standards of Americans.Lets get one thing straight, I'm an American and I care about my country above all others.
Connect With Us