TPP

[KAPA]

Trump is against it, Emails was for it a few years ago but seems to be against it now even though she has not said much on it. She is also expected to flip flop on it after the election.

I have researched it a little and my take away is it is basically like NAFTA for the pacific rim. Does not sound like it will increase jobs here in America but will actually eliminate some/many. I am sure this can be argued but I think Trump has it right here and the people of America will end up with the short straw if this thing gets passed.

Any thoughts here? Trying to find concrete info on this thing is tough, it seems to be anyone's guess what will actually happen.

[Grant H.]

From my reading on it, a while back, it was a bad deal for the US.

I'll be honest and say I haven't kept up with it, so if it has been changed, I don't know how it was changed.

[Great-Kazoo]

https://www.ar-15.co/forums/90-Legislation-amp-Politics

[Rumline]

I know Mark Levin is against all the "protectionist crap" (tariffs etc) that both Hillary and Trump are proposing. I haven't heard him articulate why in a meaningful way yet.

Anybody have links to good articles for or against?

[CS1983]

https://www.conservativereview.com/c...ionist-tariffs

But, Levin and Brat are wrong about Tariffs being bad. Instead, what should be done is both solutions. Make it harder for foreign countries (cough, China) to sell their crap here and make it easier for America companies to make their hopefully-not-crap here.

The problem with free market purists like Brat is that the government does have a duty to protect the common good, of which, protecting the internal function of the economy is a part and tariffs assist.

"The fact is, Levin explained, that tariffs hurt American consumers. For example, back in the 1930s, Congress passed the Smoot-Hawley tariff bill, raising tariffs on goods from countries around the world. It led to retaliatory tariffs from American trading partners and actually contributed to the severity of the Great Depression."
https://www.conservativereview.com/c...ould-we-tariff

My question is, are we still in the context of the export model in quantity as we were during that time? If not, then Levin's example is a red herring.

Conservatives are originalists when it comes to their understanding of the Constitution, carefully trying to understand the intent of the founders. However, and for whatever reason, no such scrutiny exists when it comes to the founders and the economy. Fletcher shows how the Founding Fathers were not free traders. He recounts how the second bill signed by President George Washington upon our founding was a bill establishing tariffs. Moreover, he describes that Alexander Hamilton, our first treasury secretary, was a fierce defender of “duties,” tariffs on imports. The nation’s primary source of revenue for 150 years since its founding was tariffs. Why have cheap imports compete with American companies, the founders reasoned. After all, they understood that we had the natural resources, the technology, the labor force and one of the largest consumer markets. Those basic conditions are essentially unchanged today.

http://www.wnd.com/2011/01/247557/

[Jamnanc]

My feeling is that tariffs are silly, but we should reciprocate.

[sellersm]

Let's keep a broader perspective: this is globalism. Period. Ever heard the phrase, "one world government"? TPP is a (big) step on the path... Research it. A lot. It's bad for us. There are many pieces to the globalist puzzle and this is but one of them.

[Aloha_Shooter]

IMO, the original conception of NAFTA was done to push the philosophy of free trade (something I'm generally in favor of) and it was more or less structured that way while TPP is solely an invention of the international financiers and is designed strictly for their benefit. The problem with NAFTA was that they didn't (arguably couldn't) foresee how some people would exploit it or what would happen with the dot com bubble and housing bubble. That's a failure of imagination in the same way as the Apollo 1 fire while TPP is more like the decision to launch Challenger on a day that broke all flight safety rules.

[HoneyBadger]

It's basically anti-capitalist globalism trash. Why was it so secretive? Why is our government making secret deals with other countries that we are not allowed to know about?

[Ronin13]

It's basically anti-capitalist globalism trash. Why was it so secretive? Why is our government making secret deals with other countries that we are not allowed to know about?

Like their motto goes, "We have to pass it to see what's in it." Something tells me they don't even know all of the in's and out's of this agreement.