Ted Cruz joins the establishment on TPP important article. Rand's position?

[kbs021]

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blo...-establishment


Cruz and Paul Ryan are giving Obama the power on TPP. "The dynamic duo start by asserting that the U.S. must "strengthen the country's bargaining position” by giving President Obama fast-track powers." Any thoughts on this? I believe Rand wants congressional approval correct?

[Patrick Henry]

I certainly hope he comes out against this.

[kbs021]

I do think Rand has stated that he would vote for TPP but I believe that he wants it to be approved by congress. Not sure if he would rethink it, but that alone is looking to be better than Cruz's position.

[r3volution 3.0]

Fast track does not mean that the deal goes into effect without Congressional approval.

It just means that Congress has to give it an up-down vote, no amendments are allowed.

What's the point of this?

To prevent years of negotiations from going down the drain because some jackass Congressman wants to carve out an exception to protect his district's chicken farmers.

If you're in favor of free trade, you should be in favor of fastrack.

If the final deal is no good, fine, let Congress vote it down then.

[Krugminator2]

He will likely vote for the the TPA, though that could go either way. I would be stunned if he voted against the final deal.

[65fastback2+2]

I dont believe that any negotiation is "free trade"...I am not for the TPP just like I would not be for NAFTA. Its not free trade...its forced trade under guidelines. Thats not free.

[r3volution 3.0]

I dont believe that any negotiation is "free trade"...I am not for the TPP just like I would not be for NAFTA. Its not free trade...its forced trade under guidelines. Thats not free.

The status quo is not free trade either.

There are lots of obstacles to international trade in place right now.

These deals eliminate some of them.

That's progress toward free trade.

[kbs021]

“If Congress gives Obama fast-track power, he’ll use it to write more regulations for our economy -- for the entire world. Rules that the next president won’t be able to change.”
I am doing some research on fast-track and it doesn't sound that pleasing. So can the president use fast-track to write regulations? In that case, wouldn't it be better to have the Congress be able amend? Cruz and Rubio are for fast-track and Rand hasn't stated yet. I feel this might be a good issue for Rand. Am I missing something?

[r3volution 3.0]

“If Congress gives Obama fast-track power, he’ll use it to write more regulations for our economy -- for the entire world. Rules that the next president won’t be able to change.”
I am doing some research on fast-track and it doesn't sound that pleasing. So can the president use fast-track to write regulations? In that case, wouldn't it be better to have the Congress be able amend? Cruz and Rubio are for fast-track and Rand hasn't stated yet. I feel this might be a good issue for Rand. Am I missing something?

No, nothing happens until/unless Congress approves the final deal.

[Brett85]

I read an article a couple weeks ago that said that Rand will definitely vote for the actual agreement but is undecided on the trade promotion authority.

[kbs021]

Okay this link has some extra insight on this
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/0...n_7121954.html

This article states that "The ad shows how the trade deal has divided conservatives, despite the perception it has widespread Republican support. Groups like the American Jobs Alliance, United States Business and Industry Council, Tea Party Nation and Eagle Forum have announced opposition to the pact. The Americans for Limited Government ad directs listeners to the American Jobs Alliance website, Obamatrade.com."

With there being this many group against this issue of Fast-Track any ideas why there are some conservatives that are against fact-track? Is it due to misunderstanding that they believe the president could use extreme power to alter trade?

[r3volution 3.0]

With there being this many group against this issue of Fast-Track any ideas why there are some conservatives that are against fact-track? Is it due to misunderstanding that they believe the president could use extreme power to alter trade?

Very simple, they're protectionists.

[65fastback2+2]

The status quo is not free trade either.

There are lots of obstacles to international trade in place right now.

These deals eliminate some of them.

That's progress toward free trade.

a law, is never progress towards anything free...it means it will always be there to hinder free.

[kbs021]

I know Ron Paul was opposed to TPP and it seems like Rand is for it. I am just trying to understand why their are Rand supporters on Facebook who are stating that Ted and Rubio made a big mistake by supporting Fast-Track. Isn't allowing amendments a good thing. Limiting debate is never a good thing right? It may not make a huge difference but the principal of limiting presidential power seems to be hitting a nerve with the backlash against Cruz for supporting this. Rand will need to state a position soon I am sure so we will see what happens.

[r3volution 3.0]

a law, is never progress towards anything free...it means it will always be there to hinder free.

Legislation that shrinks government is bad...

....Becuz deh anarky herr derr.

Gotcha

[Krugminator2]

a law, is never progress towards anything free...it means it will always be there to hinder free.

Managed trade agreements are undoubtedly good for the economy. They open up new markets for American producers. If it forces us to reduce tariffs, it is good for the US consumer. Even if the agreements were pure cronyism for favored industries, they are still better than the alternative of not having the agreement.

[r3volution 3.0]

Even if the agreements were pure cronyism for favored industries, they are still better than the alternative of not having the agreement.

Good point. It's similar with immigration. The critics of free immigration say that Big Business is pushing it for their own selfish interests. That's true. But it's also true that it's good for the rest of us (consumers). Special interests aren't always bad, it depends what they want. Usually they want more government, but sometimes they want less.

[hells_unicorn]

From a practical politics standpoint, Rand Paul should support this bill for the simple fact that he doesn't want to be on the same side as left-wing firebrand and occasional nutcase Elizabeth Warren. Ron Paul suffered severely in the optics department during his presidential runs because of having "common ground" with people like Dennis Kucinich and Barney Frank.

As far as the actual ideology and morality behind TPP, I'm personally a bit disinterested in whatever the contents of the trade deal turn out to be. Free trade tends to be a catch phrase used to describe any deal with another nation(s). If it rolls back any restrictions, it will be embraced by Republicans, and will probably have a mixed effect on the overall economy. It'll be an excrement sandwich for unions, it'll probably be good for certain corporations, and every moron on television will chalk it up to capitalism/free markets, as if they actually know what the terms denote.

I'm bored by the chore of caring about trade deals. Unless we are truly screwing ourselves as an entire nation in some altruistic crusade to benefit somebody else, I can't really get too jazzed up about it. But again, if Rand is smart, he'll simply vote in favor of this thing while trying to make his position distinct from Cruz and Ryan, and a few anarchists and commies who won't be voting for him anyway will get even more pissed off. No harm, no foul.

P.S. - If Rand does win the nomination of the GOP, it will be precisely because he will be ignoring left-wing news outlets like The Hill.

[AuH20]

Good point. It's similar with immigration. The critics of free immigration say that Big Business is pushing it for their own selfish interests. That's true. But it's also true that it's good for the rest of us (consumers). Special interests aren't always bad, it depends what they want. Usually they want more government, but sometimes they want less.

I hate to interject, but you do realize we pay for illegals when they visit emergency rooms, enroll their children in schools and at other avenues? There is nothing free.

[kbs021]

So would you advise that he support TPP but perhaps not support Fast-Track asking for Congress to have the right to put up amendments and debate?

[hells_unicorn]

So would you advise that he support TPP but perhaps not support Fast-Track asking for Congress to have the right to put up amendments and debate?

Yes, and he can even play up his opposition to Fast-Tracking it on the grounds the we need more debate. It would dovetail with his point about "reading the bills", even though in reality just about everybody who votes for the thing won't bother. The issue is optics, not principles, which are a fight for another day.

[r3volution 3.0]

I hate to interject, but you do realize we pay for illegals at emergency rooms, schools and in other avenues? There is nothing free.

We also pay for Americans at emergency rooms, schools, and other avenues.

And you solve both problems by cutting welfare spending, not restricting immigration.

[presence]

All these "free trade" deals ever do is give multinational corporations the ability to sue tax payers in international tribunal jurisdiction; they subvert sovereignty.

[AuH20]

We also pay for Americans at emergency rooms, schools, and other avenues.

Unfortunately, there is nothing we can do about that. Those are American citizens which is consistent with the social contract at the moment.

And you solve both problems by cutting welfare spending, not restricting immigration.

It's actually worse than that. We need to reverse court rulings.

[r3volution 3.0]

All these "free trade" deals ever do is give multinational corporations the ability to sue tax payers in international tribunal jurisdiction; they subvert sovereignty.

Do these tribunals have armies?

If not, how/by-whom do their rulings get enforced?

By the nations party to the agreement, of course.

Which is to say that the nations retain full sovereignty (not to mention that any treaty member can also simply withdraw at any time).

International judicial or legislative bodies cannot and will not usurp an ounce of national sovereignty until/unless they have the means to enforce their rulings/laws themselves.

It's nothing to worry about.

[hells_unicorn]

We also pay for Americans at emergency rooms, schools, and other avenues.

And you solve both problems by cutting welfare spending, not restricting immigration.

The problem is that there will be a sizable group of people that will stop you from cutting welfare spending at the ballot box, and they will be able to do so primarily because of not restricting immigration. Liberty is good, but it becomes a double-edged sword when it is divorced from reality, and the voting patterns of various demographics bear this out. Granted, this isn't unique to various newcomers to America, but it is definitely a consistent pattern with the majority of them.

[r3volution 3.0]

Unfortunately, there is nothing we can do about that.

Well then we're cooked. The cost of welfare for immigrants is totally trivial in comparison to total welfare spending.

You could deport every immigrant and make the border look like Flanders c. 1915 and we'd still be on the verge of national bankruptcy.

[AuH20]

Well then we're cooked. The cost of welfare for illegal immigrats is totally trivial in comparison to total welfare spending.

You could deport every immigrant and make the border look like Flanders c. 1915 and we'd still be on the verge of national bankruptcy.

It's still the principle as well. I'd rather pay (if I had to) for a domestic deadbeat than a foreign one. We have no responsibility to pay for foreigners. It's not our problem.

[AuH20]

The problem is that there will be a sizable group of people that will stop you from cutting welfare spending at the ballot box, and they will be able to do so primarily because of not restricting immigration. Liberty is good, but it becomes a double-edged sword when it is divorced from reality, and the voting patterns of various demographics bear this out. Granted, this isn't unique to various newcomers to America, but it is definitely a consistent pattern with the majority of them.

The current group of immigrants are attached to our programs more than our domestic citizens. So it's a vicious cycle as you outlined if we allow them carte blanche.

[r3volution 3.0]

It's still the principle as well. I'd rather pay (if I had to) for a domestic deadbeat than a foreign one.

I wouldn't.

The state forcing me to pay for my neighbor is not less wrong than the state forcing me to pay for some guy from Jaurez.

We have no responsibility to pay for foreigners. It's not our problem.

None of us has any responsibility to pay for anyone.