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

[Brett85]

You are speaking of people or politicians that misuse those labels. You cannot call yourself a Conservative if you support trade policy that sacrifices national sovereignty to international government organizations and support trade agreements that supersede state laws.

If an organization supports trade policy that violates the Constitution and serves special interests and big business, not citizens, then they they are disingenuous if they refer to that position as being Conservative.

So I guess Pat Buchanan is the only true conservative left.

 

[kahless]

I don't quite understand that logic. So Rand is now equivalent to Jeb Bush because he agrees with him on one issue? Jeb Bush also supports tax cuts. I imagine you do too. Does that mean that your political views are exactly the same as Jeb Bush's political views?

This is not simply just about trade. It that he is willing to support a secret agreement that overrides the Constitution and state laws. If he is willing to compromise on that then what else is he going to compromise on. Support for these kind of trade agreements I would expect from someone with the last name Bush or Clinton, I do not expect it from a Paul.

 

[Brett85]

This is not simply just about trade. It that he is willing to support a secret agreement that overrides the Constitution and state laws. If he is willing to compromise on that then what else is he going to compromise on. Support for these kind of trade agreements I would expect from someone with the last name Bush or Clinton, I do not expect it from a Paul.

Who says he supports it being done in secret with no input from Congress? He's voted against the trade promotion authority in the past, which means that he wants Congress to debate the issue and have a chance to weigh in on whether changes need to be made to the agreement.

 

[Brett85]

When it comes to free trade, Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., appears to be following in his father’s footsteps.

If President Obama attempts to get “fast-track authority” to push the Trans-Pacific Partnership, or TPP, through Congress before attending the summit meeting of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, or ASEAN, in October, he can anticipate strong opposition from Rand Paul as well as from the senator’s father, former Republican congressman Ron Paul of Texas.



However, granting to the president fast-track authority violates the Constitution’s separation of powers, charges Washington-based attorney Bruce Fein, an adviser to Sen. Paul.

In a letter addressed to Rep. Walter Jones, R-S.C., Fein wrote that the “constitutionally illicit purpose of the Trade Promotion Authority legislation is to endow the President with a decisive vote over international trade legislation in violation of the separation of powers by usurping the power of the House to determine its own rules.”

“The Trade Promotion Act would give the President an overruling influence over Congress in exercising its power to regulate foreign commerce under Article 1, Section 3, and thus would be unconstitutional,” Fein wrote.

Ron Paul has a long history of opposing attempts by Congress to grant the president fast-track authority, or “Trade Promotion Authority,” as it is euphemistically called.

In 1998, he made a statement on the House floor opposing the granting of fast-track authority to President Clinton.

“The fast-track procedure bill,” he said, according to the Congressional Record, “in addition to creating an extra-constitutional procedure by which international agreements become ratified, sets general international economic policy objectives, reauthorizes ‘Trade Adjustment Assistance’ welfare for workers who lose their jobs and businesses which fail, and creates a new permanent position of Chief Agriculture Negotiator within the office of United States Trade representative.”

http://www.wnd.com/2013/08/rand-paul-warns-of-obama-fast-track-to-global-trade-zone/

 

[Anti Federalist]

I think we may want to take a step back on this... I'm not sure we're all getting the true picture of what this is.

Based on reports, it sounds like a bad thing, but I have to question why Bernie Sanders and Paul Krugman are so vehemently against the TPP.

Add to the list of anti-TPP:

Robert Reich
Economic Policy Institute
Joseph Stiglitz
CEPR
Noam Chomsky


Generally, when these folks oppose an economic program, I'm intrigued because there must be something good about it. Of course, it's hard to tell the final analysis of this because the details are largely secret. And you know secrets lend themselves to all sorts of conjecture.

Anyway, I'm withholding judgment for a while on this. Gotta see what's really going on.

I'm thinking their opposition is strictly an "anti business" or "anti corporation" bias.

I know they give don't two shits about national sovereignty or independence or middle class jobs.

 

[CaptUSA]

I'm thinking their opposition is strictly an "anti business" or "anti corporation" bias.

I know they give don't two shits about national sovereignty or independence or middle class jobs.

See that's what gets me. They're the biggest globalist apologists around. If this truly did what Wikileaks seems to be suggesting, these guys should be 100% on board. Something seems amiss here. It's late, but I'm going to dig a little deeper later this week.

 

[CaptUSA]

Dup

 

[Natural Citizen]

It's late, but I'm going to dig a little deeper later this week.

This forum is the best place to start. Just have to know what yer looking for is all. Key word search os okay but not great.

 

[jjdoyle]

See that's what gets me. They're the biggest globalist apologists around. If this truly did what Wikileaks seems to be suggesting, these guys should be 100% on board. Something seems amiss here. It's late, but I'm going to dig a little deeper later this week.

Walter Jones voted no on it when it was first up for vote in the House, but Amash voted yes. Seeing why Jones voted no, might give a good idea as to why some others did. The votes on it did appear to be split pretty much down party lines, minus a few like representatives like Jones.

 

[kahless]

So I guess Pat Buchanan is the only true conservative left.

and the Constitution party it seems.
http://www.constitutionparty.com/fr...ense-sovereignty-and-the-american-job-market/

Congressmen Ron Paul (R-TX) and Walter Jones (R-NC) wrote a letter to their House colleagues stating: “Free trade theorists such as Adam Smith and David Ricardo must be rolling in their graves to see pacts like President Obama’s Korea Agreement called ‘free trade.’ It includes endless pages of rules and regulations enforced by foreign tribunals. This act is a sneaky form of international preemption, undermining the critical checks and balances and freedoms established by the U.S. Constitution’s reservation of many rights to the people or state governments.”
....
Now we’re negotiating the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) – a deal that sets rules on non-trade issues such as food safety, internet freedom, medicine costs, financial regulation, and the environment. TPP binding regulations would require the U.S., Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, and other Asian nations to conform their domestic policies to its rules. This time, incredibly, it is being cobbled together in secret: 600 corporate “trade advisors” are withholding the text from Members of Congress, governors, state legislators, the press, and the public. In an appearance on the Bill Moyers program, Dean Baker, co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research stated, “This really is a deal that’s being negotiated by corporations for corporations and any benefit it provides to the bulk of the population of this country will be purely incidental.” Yves Smith, an investment banking expert who runs the Naked Capitalism blog added: “There would be no reason to keep it so secret if it was in the interest of the public.”

As far as Rand this quote from him below pretty much says it all. He is a full GW Bush trade policy supporter. I do not see how he can recover from this. I guess today is the day I get off the Rand train.

President George W. Bush understood that part of the projection of American power is the exporting of American goods and culture. His administration successfully brokered fourteen new free trade agreements and negotiated three others that are the only new free trade agreements approved since President Obama took office. Instead of just talking about a so-called “pivot to Asia,” the Obama administration should prioritize negotiating the Trans-Pacific Partnership by year’s end.

I will see who the Constitution Party runs, it is a long way off yet, maybe there will be other options. This cycle will probably be rigged in favor of Jeb Bush anyway so not sure why I even bother.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

Walter Jones voted no on it when it was first up for vote in the House, but Amash voted yes. Seeing why Jones voted no, might give a good idea as to why some others did. The votes on it did appear to be split pretty much down party lines, minus a few like representatives like Jones.

Amash always posts his reasoning. Wonder why he voted yes?

 

[jjdoyle]

Amash always posts his reasoning. Wonder why he voted yes?

Traditional Conservative posted it a few posts back:
https://www.facebook.com/repjustinamash/posts/208102755927263

 

[CPUd]

Title misleading, he never said anything about 'passage'.

Speaking at the Center for the National Interest dinner in New York City on October 23, Senator Paul said:

Our national power is a function of the national economy. During the Reagan renaissance, our strength in the world reflected our successful economy.

Low growth, high unemployment, and big deficits have undercut our influence in the world. Americans have suffered real consequences from a weak economy.

President George W. Bush understood that part of the projection of American power is the exporting of American goods and culture. His administration successfully brokered fourteen new free trade agreements and negotiated three others that are the only new free trade agreements approved since President Obama took office. Instead of just talking about a so-called “pivot to Asia,” the Obama administration should prioritize negotiating the Trans-Pacific Partnership by year’s end.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

Traditional Conservative posted it a few posts back:
https://www.facebook.com/repjustinamash/posts/208102755927263

Thank you. It may have been a bad vote, but apparently it's a bad vote with liberty company. :-/

 

[kahless]

Title misleading, he never said anything about 'passage'.

President George W. Bush understood that part of the projection of American power is the exporting of American goods and culture. His administration successfully brokered fourteen new free trade agreements and negotiated three others that are the only new free trade agreements approved since President Obama took office. Instead of just talking about a so-called “pivot to Asia,” the Obama administration should prioritize negotiating the Trans-Pacific Partnership by year’s end.

This is an endorsement of the Bush trade policies. That last sentence may as well mean passage.

 

[Brett85]

I will see who the Constitution Party runs, it is a long way off yet, maybe there will be other options. This cycle will probably be rigged in favor of Jeb Bush anyway so not sure why I even bother.

My guess is that they'll nominate Rand if Rand ends up being the GOP nominee, despite the disagreement they have on the issue of free trade. (I know the TPP isn't "free trade" in the sense that we understand free trade to be, but the CP doesn't even support our concept of free trade.)

 

[Brett85]

As far as Rand this quote from him below pretty much says it all. He is a full GW Bush trade policy supporter. I do not see how he can recover from this. I guess today is the day I get off the Rand train.

I'm glad I'm not a purist. I don't think I could ever support a politician for any political office if I had to agree with them on every single issue in order to support them.

 

[kahless]

I'm glad I'm not a purist. I don't think I could ever support a politician for any political office if I had to agree with them on every single issue in order to support them.

I am not a purist and this is much more than trade policy. He is showing that he is willing to support policies that override the Constitution and state-local laws.

 

[kahless]

My guess is that they'll nominate Rand if Rand ends up being the GOP nominee, despite the disagreement they have on the issue of free trade. (I know the TPP isn't "free trade" in the sense that we understand free trade to be, but the CP doesn't even support our concept of free trade.)

Oddly the trade issue hurts Rand more than it does Jeb Bush due to Bush voter ignorance, those willing to over look it and the media will give Jeb a pass on it. The same cannot be said for Rand and the average voter willing to sample Rand. The media will likely beat him over the head with it.

If the sheep and the media want a Bush they will be voting for Jeb Bush anyway not someone that endorses the Bush trade policies that polls show the people are overwhelming against. I can sit home or write-in someone else in if there is not a 3rd party option. If Rand wants to be Mitt Romney this cycle and lose by the few percent that sat home then good for him.

 

[H. E. Panqui]

As one wag put it, "It's pretty simple..for obvious, selfish reasons, people who already have a lot of money strongly tend to want no/much less new money creation...people who are relatively poor want/need more new money creation"..

These stinking Republicrat scumbags are speaking for the rich...who want cheap goods/labor...and the monetary slaves needed to produce them..

Btw, 'Free-traders'..stfu...any honest understanding of 'our' stinking money/economic system reveals there is no, and has never been, any 'free market'...the wealthy have all kinds of control mechanism$ for themselves...occupational licensure, bankster privilege$, etc. ad GD nau$eam..

I NEVER hear the loud stoooooooooooooopid 'free-traders' uttering a peep about any of thi$...