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

[William Tell]

Amazing that this is such a big deal here, especially when most people would consider Rand's position on this to be the libertarian position.

The issue is not so much trade, as it is this SPECIFIC deal, which a number of us are all too familiar with.

 

[Brett85]

He'd better wake the F up because if he goes into those 2016 primaries without his father's base voters, his chances of winning are zero.

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

 

[Lucille]

No clarification is needed:

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.

 

[Brett85]

The issue is not so much trade, as it is this SPECIFIC deal, which a number of us are all too familiar with.

Rand probably feels that the lower tariffs trump some of the other things in the deal which aren't so good. I don't see how it's as clear cut as everyone here makes it out to be on this forum.

 

[William Tell]

No clarification is needed:

Of course clarification is needed, Rand needs to explain his position on national sovereignty. That does not mean you need to support him, but he must do so for his own good. Talking about negotiating trade does not have to mean total endorsement of the deal as written. Although it could.

 

[philipped]

 

[Southron]

Rand probably feels that the lower tariffs trump some of the other things in the deal which aren't so good. I don't see how it's as clear cut as everyone here makes it out to be on this forum.

If the article is correct, then tariffs are the least of our worries.

 

[Peace Piper]

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

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

These articles can help you understand why:

Thanks to WikiLeaks, we see just how bad TPP trade deal is for regular people
http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...ns-pacific-paternership-intellectual-property

The Trans-Pacific Partnership treaty is the complete opposite of 'free trade'
http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...-pacific-partnership-corporate-usurp-congress

Any idea why it's kept so secret?

And they're called "Agreements" so as to bypass the legal requirements for TREATIES just like NAFTA is the "North American Free Trade AGREEMENT"

Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership Agreement
Transatlantic Free Trade Agreement (TTIP)

 

[Lucille]

http://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/11/patrick-j-buchanan/first-the-wave
/

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]

More here: Rand supports TPP?
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?462312-Rand-supports-TPP

I just posted something on it the other day:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?462448-The-TPP-and-a-Republican-Congress

 

[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 fuck 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-warns-of-obama-fast-track-to-global-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.