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

[acptulsa]

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"..

And do you agree with this wag?

 

[H. E. Panqui]

And do you agree with this wag?


(how could i disagree?..he's the most brilliant wag i know!)​

 

[acptulsa]

And do you agree with this wag?


(how could i disagree?..he's the most brilliant wag i know!)​

Well, one could disagree with said tongue wagger by merely refraining from being, for lack of a better term, 'stoooooooooopid.'

After all, those with money don't care what happens to the value of that money, because they can afford to pay brokerage fees to buy stocks, and they can afford to pay the brokerage fees to convert those stocks to bonds and/or gold when the time is right. If they do care about the value of that money, they generally want it to get devalued, as you said in your second paragraph, so the wages they pay are degraded. And there's nothing more 'stoooooooooooid' than denying that their favorite way to create those 'monetary slaves' is to debase the currency in which they are paid.

Or, to put it another way, anyone who says the rich want the value of the currency maintained because they have some money is a republicrat scumbag speaking (actually propagandizing) for the rich. And that includes '...the smartest wag you know.'

Oh, and free-traders do tend to talk more about trade than monetary policy. Nothing new in that.

If you don't know what the difference is between wealth and money, I've got good news and bad news for you. The good news is you've found the right place to get educated. The bad news is you've found the wrong place to lord your allegedly great knowledge and wisdom over the unwashed masses.

 

[A Son of Liberty]

Well, one could disagree with said tongue wagger by merely refraining from being, for lack of a better term, 'stoooooooooopid.'

After all, those with money don't care what happens to the value of that money, because they can afford to pay brokerage fees to buy stocks, and they can afford to pay the brokerage fees to convert those stocks to bonds and/or gold when the time is right. If they do care about the value of that money, they generally want it to get devalued, as you said in your second paragraph, so the wages they pay are degraded. And there's nothing more 'stoooooooooooid' than denying that their favorite way to create those 'monetary slaves' is to debase the currency in which they are paid.

Or, to put it another way, anyone who says the rich want the value of the currency maintained because they have some money is a republicrat scumbag speaking (actually propagandizing) for the rich. And that includes '...the smartest wag you know.'

Yep. And those with REAL money (FRNs) LOVE monetary (FRN) debasement, because they are first in line at the printing press, allowing them to spend the FRNs before the concomitant increase in the price of other goods.

 

[Carlybee]

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 don't have to agree on every single issue either...just the important ones.

 

[jjdoyle]

I don't have to agree on every single issue either...just the important ones.

Exactly, and it's one of the most important issues that a President can influence, and where Rand is severely lacking in policy and positions IMO. Foreign policy.
How we are more than a decade after 9/11, and even 6 years after the 2008 election cycle with Rudy Giuliani's READING ASSIGNMENT, and some politicians are taking foreign policy positions that make us more likely to be attacked again is beyond me.

 

[Natural Citizen]

A word to the wise. A storm is coming. In fact, we could say the clouds are rolling in as we speak and some would do well to watch the radar in a realistic way instead of just assuming that tomorrow always brings sunshine and rainbows.

 

[PaleoPaul]

Beautiful. This is just what his father wanted. Engaging nations through free trade, as opposed to military adventurism and violence. Go Rand!

 

[Natural Citizen]

Beautiful. This is just what his father wanted. Engaging nations through free trade, as opposed to military adventurism and violence. Go Rand!

Yeah? Well. I don't know. Seems to me that this is what happens when sovereign people produce blowback toward economic hitmen and the almighty coup d'état that proceeds them.

'Slaughterhouse': Civilians die in Kiev's ruthless military attacks (GRAPHIC)

Pappa Paul also knew that sanctions directed toward countries who oppose the actions of these economic hitmen would also lead to war of the physical flavor. Statesman is a man ahead of his time, for sure.

Of course, I'd agree with you if we were discussing honest to goodness free trade here. We're not discussing honest to goodness free trade in the form of this TPP. Arguing against it and saying that it is honest to goodness free trade will prove futile and we'll be left with red faces for all.

 

[milgram]

We see Rand saying a lot of things that we wish he would not say -- things he needs to say so he has the best chance of winning the nomination. What if these are also the views on which he will change positions once elected POTUS?

This question is an intriguing one, as it often comes up when contemplating someone's pragmatism vs. their idealism.

I think when a candidate takes the "easy path" in a low-stakes situation (pre-campaign for president), the candidate is likely to take the same easy path in a high-stakes situation (occupying the Oval Office). Perhaps that's not true every time, but as one ascends the steps of power it become increasingly difficult to push back against certain compelling forces.

 

[Brett85]

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.

Lol. Who in the media is opposed to trade agreements like the TPP?

 

[Brett85]

Exactly, and it's one of the most important issues that a President can influence, and where Rand is severely lacking in policy and positions IMO. Foreign policy.
How we are more than a decade after 9/11, and even 6 years after the 2008 election cycle with Rudy Giuliani's READING ASSIGNMENT, and some politicians are taking foreign policy positions that make us more likely to be attacked again is beyond me.

Trade agreements make us more likely to be attacked? How so?

 

[jjdoyle]

Trade agreements make us more likely to be attacked? How so?

Read it again:

Exactly, and it's one of the most important issues that a President can influence, and where Rand is severely lacking in policy and positions IMO. Foreign policy.
How we are more than a decade after 9/11, and even 6 years after the 2008 election cycle with Rudy Giuliani's READING ASSIGNMENT, and some politicians are taking foreign policy positions that make us more likely to be attacked again is beyond me.

I wasn't talking about this, but his other positions on foreign policy.

 

[Brett85]

Read it again:

I wasn't talking about this, but his other positions on foreign policy.

I see. I think Rand's position that we shouldn't go around overthrowing foreign dictators and implementing regime change will make it less likely that we'll be attacked.

 

[idiom]

Okay, try this, New Zealand has basically no tariffs on anything. Whats in it for us? From what I have seen NZ ends up becoming a Vassal state of the US.

Rather than the US giving up sovereignty, on balance it will basically steal it from the other signatories.

Its Imperialism without bullets.

 

[jjdoyle]

I see. I think Rand's position that we shouldn't go around overthrowing foreign dictators and implementing regime change will make it less likely that we'll be attacked.

That wasn't one of the three reasons given for why we were attacked on 9/11, that Rand is 100% ignoring and not addressing.
Rand is 100% making us less safe and more likely to be attacked again by Muslim extremist, because of one of his publicly stated positions. Unless you don't believe the extremists and the recruiters of the extremist as to why they attack us and what they use to recruit more people to do just that.

Which is the even more important position than this one, IMO. And Rand is failing at it.

 

[kahless]

Lol. Who in the media is opposed to trade agreements like the TPP?

I never said the media is opposed to trade agreements. Selective memory on your part or have you not been paying attention to the anti-Ron/Rand media coverage over the years.

On the right the media will not touch someone like Jeb Bush for supporting the same trade policies but they will attack Rand for it. On the left Rand will of course be lumped in with Jeb as a continuation of the Bush trade policies that sent jobs overseas and lowered wages.

 

[pcosmar]

Some of you guys must really love NAFTA, CAFTA,,and FTAA.

TPP is yet another really bad idea.

 

[jjdoyle]

Some of you guys must really love NAFTA, CAFTA,,and FTAA.

TPP is yet another really bad idea.

I love and trust EVERY law and bill that comes out of Washington DC.
The Patriot Act is a fine example. Not only was it designed to keep us safe, but it was named to help us FEEL patriotic!
The Affordable Care Act was not only designed to give everyone healthcare, but to make it MORE AFFORDABLE for those already with it!
No Child Left Behind? Well, we know of the excellent results showing in our education system!

If a government politician tells me the TPP will increase free trade, I'm not one to argue or question that. They have history on their side.

 

[Brett85]

On the right the media will not touch someone like Jeb Bush for supporting the same trade policies but they will attack Rand for it. On the left Rand will of course be lumped in with Jeb as a continuation of the Bush trade policies that sent jobs overseas and lowered wages.

I've never heard any member of the right wing media criticize anyone for supporting free trade agreements. They all support the free trade agreements. (Yes I know you argue that these aren't actually "free trade" agreements, but I'm just referring to the name of these bills)