|
The Congressional Record of Ron Paul (Or, Why He Is Batshit Crazy) (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Lebezniatnikov |
| quote: | Originally posted by Capitalizt
Bottom line: You should be free to live as you please, make as much money as you want and have as much fun as you want. Just don't steal and don't hurt people. It's as simple as that. |
Just God forbid you are a minority or believe in a woman's right to choose in the event of rape and or life-threatening circumstances.
What you RP lovers forget is that Ron Paul would ruin America's standing in the world by reneging on any and every treaty we've ever agreed to. States in transition that rely on American aid to develop would collapse, creating transnational security threats across the world that would make al-Qaeda look like child's play. He would withdraw from the ABM treaty and stop the reduction of our nuclear arsenal, which would probably trigger an arms race with China. He would institute a fixed exchange rate tied to an archaic metal, despite his desire to withdraw from the institution that was created to maintain fixed rate stability (the IMF). He would alter the Founder's Constitution (despite pledging to honor it's original wording) in order to impose his religious morals on gay marriage and abortion on the entire country. He would walk away from America's existing trade agreements, which would undoubtably trigger a raising of tariffs against American goods all around the world, drastically hurting American industries and driving up unemployment as companies cut back. But that's ok, because Ron Paul would have already finished his assault on worker's rights. He wants to repeal civil rights legislation, because obviously America was a better place when it's institutions were intolerant of minority rights.
I've already talked about how imprudent and impractical cutting entire departments of the federal government is.
If he got elected President, he would be a lame duck from day one. He would make Bush look extraordinarily popular by comparison. Nobody in Congress takes him seriously - because he's a loon! You think he would get support from Congress or any actual expert (note: I didn't say conspiracy theorist) on any of his hare-brained proposals? No.
This guy is NOT good for America. It's great that he says he wants to live by the Constitution. The fact of the matter is, he's deceiving you.
If you want a Constitutional candidate, vote Kucinech. When you donate to his campaign, you get a free copy in the mail. |
|
|
| Lebezniatnikov |
| quote: | Originally posted by Capitalizt
Traditional conservative principles have become a RADICAL idea...pretty damn sad if you ask me. |
Barry Goldwater was a traditional conservative. Not Ron Paul. |
|
|
| Capitalizt |
Your misconceptions about Paul are stunning Lez.. Where to begin..
First of all, the US has no business building nations.. Why the f*ck should US taxpayers be responsible for handling the affairs of countries 5000+ miles away? US meddling/interference overseas is what has created many of the problems we have today. We currently have 800 military bases overseas. The CIA has been overthrowing governments left and right for the past 50 years. We have had continuous bombing campaigns and sanctions against many nations, causing hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths. This insanity has caused much of the resentment against America today. It is what has fueled the growth of Al-Queda and other radical groups. Paul is right when he says our foreign policy has made us LESS safe as a nation.
Secondly, if you really believe China, Russia, or any other nation is abiding by these touchie feelie arms agreements, you need your head examined. In any case, abolishing the treaties will never cause another "arms race" between the major countries because one isn't necessary. China, Russia, and the US already have more than enough bombs to destroy the earth 10X over. Even if we reduce the weapons by 95%, a nuclear war will still mean the end of humanity.
Third, about RP imposing his "religious morals" on gay people and the rest of the country. You obviously haven't heard the man speak on this issue. He has said repeatedly that he has no problem with gays or gay marriage. He believes everyone should be treated as an INDIVIDUAL with the same INDIVIDUAL rights as everyone else. Marriage should be between two individuals and their church. Once again, he takes the position that all consensual relationships (in the boardroom AND the bedroom) are not the business of the government. The same goes for abortion. While he may personally find the behavior distasteful, he recognizes that the federal government has no authority over the issue. He said in a recent debate that while he is strongly pro-life, he would NOT sign a federal ban on abortion if it made it to his desk.
Finally, we don't need any formal agreements with international organizations to in order to trade with others. Paul supports peaceful relations, trade, and commerce with all nations. He would reduce or eliminate all tariffs on imported goods, and he is against all government barriers to free markets. He even believes we should be trading with Cuba. How would this position trigger a negative response from other countries? Do tell. |
|
|
| Capitalizt |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov
Barry Goldwater was a traditional conservative. Not Ron Paul. |
My God, is this a joke?
Goldwater had libertarian views on most issues. Paul mirrors those views almost EXACTLY. |
|
|
| Lebezniatnikov |
| quote: | Originally posted by Capitalizt
Your misconceptions about Paul are stunning Lez.. Where to begin..
First of all, the US has no business building nations.. |
I'm not talking about Iraq. I'm talking about USAID. Look it up. I'm not sure how you could possibly have confused the two. Military aid and international development assistance are quite different.
| quote: |
Secondly, if you really believe China, Russia, or any other nation is abiding by these touchie feelie arms agreements, you need your head examined. |
*sigh*
Then Senators Lugar and Nunn, the two biggest proponents of arms reductions, apparently need their heads examined too.
| quote: | The goal of NUNN-LUGAR is to lessen the threat posed by weapons of mass destruction, to deactivate and to destroy these weapons, and to help the scientists formerly engaged in production of such weapons start working for peace.
Overall, NUNN-LUGAR has been a great success and may in fact have been one of the most important US Government's Programs ever. Indeed, among other things, NUNN-LUGAR is said to have helped to deactivate almost 6,000 nuclear warheads. |
http://nunn-lugar.com/
| quote: | | In any case, abolishing the treaties will never cause another "arms race" between the major countries because one isn't necessary. China, Russia, and the US already have more than enough bombs to destroy the earth 10X over. Even if we reduce the weapons by 95%, a nuclear war will still mean the end of humanity. |
Right, because I'm sure there would be absolutely no incentive to innovate. Especially if we were to commit ourselves to a missile shield, which is what proponents of reneging on the ABM Treaty want us to do.
| quote: | | Third, about RP imposing his "religious morals" on gay people and the rest of the country. You obviously haven't heard the man speak on this issue. He has said repeatedly that he has no problem with gays or gay marriage. He believes everyone should be treated as an INDIVIDUAL with the same INDIVIDUAL rights as everyone else. |
Unless you're a minority. Or a woman who wants control over her own body.
| quote: | | He said in a recent debate that while he is strongly pro-life, he would not sign a federal ban on abortion if it made it to his desk. |
Then please explain to me why he has proposed CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS to do just that? Seriously, did you read the original post?
| quote: | | Finally, we don't need any formal agreements with international organizations to in order to trade with others. Paul supports peaceful relations, trade, and commerce with all nations. He would reduce or eliminate all tariffs on imported goods, and he is against all government barriers to free markets. He even believes we should be trading with Cuba. How would this position trigger a negative response from other countries? Do tell. |
*sigh*
For the tenth time (at least):
| quote: | Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov
Right, you're missing my point. And there are some things I would argue that the good Representative misconstrued.
Free trade is not the norm in the international system - autarky is. Free trade necessitates the lowering of tariffs in order to reach parity on both sides, where goods and services can flow between countries unimpeded. Under Ron Paul, this would never happen for several reasons.
First, his unwillingness to negotiate bilateral trade agreements (which is really what the GATT is) is telling - he wants to eliminate all prior agreements for trade liberalization and start from scratch. Ok. But how do we reach freer trade from autarky if we don't craft bilateral agreements with other countries, thereby giving up some of our precious national sovereignty? We can't. Autarky will not only be the state of nature, but it will also be the norm under Ron Paul. He may not profess to be a protectionist, but the international system will force his hand.
Second, bilateral trade negotiation privileges have in the past been given to the President to allow the Executive branch the authority to arrange bilateral arrangements with other countries. It should be mentioned that the provision has been allowed to sunset, and is not one that the Administration currently enjoys. However, taking a look at the method of these negotiations is illuminating. Namely, the United States Trade Representative, not the President, is the official trade liason abroad, and it is her office that has wide-ranging authority over trade agreements. As it should be - she is an economist and understands optimal tariff levels, etc. But it is the USTR that evaluates tariff levels in the United States and reaches out to other countries under the provisions of the GATT to negotiate trade liberalization. Congress simply couldn't handle that today, especially not since they seem to struggle getting so much else done. That is the main reason the President is sometimes granted that fast-track authority - Congress entrusts him to delegate the authority to make decisions to someone both knowledgable and capable of actually getting them done.
Third, going away from free trade would be tremendously bad for the economy. Economists are almost unanimous on the point that free trade is indeed good for countries. Not necessarily individuals, as some certainly are hurt (particularly labor forces in import-competing industries), but on the aggregate, more people are positively affected in greater ways than those fewer who are affected negatively.
Let me illustrate the following point to make this a bit more clear. If you take two countries, the United States, and say, Lira's Brazil, you can see why free trade is a superior strategy to autarky. Under free trade, let's say that both countries have an overall national welfare equal to 100 GDP. Both countries are relatively well off. However, if one country decides to implement a tariff in order to increase government revenue and protect it's domestic industries (protecting domestic industries is the main function of a tariff, and is something that Ron Paul has pledged to do), it's general welfare goes up, as the exporting industries of the other country are hurt and welfare there goes down. Macroeconomic theory demands that the tariff drive a wedge between the national welfare of the two countries - the increase in welfare of the tariff-implementing state is equal to the decline in welfare of the exporting state plus the government revenue the other state gains at it's expense. So in other words, if the US implements a tariff, the US economy stands to gain, but Brazil stands to lose at an even greater rate. So let's place the US welfare at 110 GDP and Brazil at 85 GDP.
So what will Brazil do? They will levy a retaliatory tariff, driving up their own national welfare at the expense of the welfare of the United States. Assuming both countries to be equal in exports for the sake of easy math, Brazil's welfare gains will be equal to the gains made by the US when it implemented a tariff of its own. But since Brazil initially lost greater than the US gained, Brazil will not be able to recapture that pre-tariff level. It will have lost 15, and gained 10, for a net loss of 5. Brazil's welfare stands at 95 GDP, below what it did at free trade levels. The United States similarly will not be better off. From its point at 110, the US will also lose more than Brazil has gained, and will fall 15 to 95 GDP.
So you can see that with tariffs both countries stand to lose... so why do they end up there?
John Nash (the Nobel-winner portrayed by Russell Crowe in A Beautiful Mind) came up with the theorem of Non-Cooperative Equilibrium in order to argue this point. His theorem suggested that countries act in their best interest based on the actions of their counterparts. So given that the US is in a state of free trade, Brazil's best course of action is to enact a tariff, driving it's own national welfare up to 110. And history has shown that this is what countries do. So under this assumption, what will the United States do? Given that Brazil has implemented a tariff, the United States will retaliate in kind, driving its GDP up from 85 to 95. Now both countries are losing.
So why don't they revert back to free trade? Because it's a classic prisoner's dillemma. Both are constrained by the actions of the other country. For the United States to revert back to free trade and remove their tariff, their overall welfare will decline once again back to 85. Hardly seems the politically-expedient thing to do. The same is true for Brazil - there is no incentive for liberalizing trade unilaterally, which is what Ron Paul pledges to do. And if the US does unilaterally liberalize, then Brazil stands to maximize its gains, so it will certainly NOT follow suit with liberalization.
That is where the GATT was born - the GATT is a global governance institution designed to facilitate the arrangement of BILATERAL trade negotiations between countries. The argument that the GATT or WTO takes away national sovereignty is silly and naive - there are no negotiations with the WTO itself, it is simply a conduit for negotiations between governments, and a monitoring organization to ensure that agreements between countries are not infringed in order to cheat the system - in other words, the Dispute Settlement Process under the WTO is in place in order to make sure that once free trade is established, Brazil doesn't secretly implement a tariff to maximize it's profit at the expense of the US. If Brazil continues to cheat, the WTO authorizes the United States to enact retribution measures with no fear of retaliation.
The GATT is simply the framework under which countries liberalize trade - because history has shown that without it, tariffs are levied willy-nilly and trade is greatly curtailed.
Which is why Ron Paul and free trade seem completely mutually exclusive to me.
/rant. |
|
|
|
| Capitalizt |
I'll just refer you to the link in my sig lez..
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/a...nd-sovereignty/
Paul is the biggest free trader in this election...but he also believes in national sovereignty, which is why he opposes these formal agreements that give unelected groups power over the United States. If companies have products to trade, let them trade! Paul opposes ALL taxes and ALL tariffs that inhibit markets. If you remove the red tape and get government out of the way, trade will happen naturally. It's human nature. |
|
|
| Lebezniatnikov |
| quote: | Originally posted by Capitalizt
I'll just refer you to the link in my sig lez..
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/a...nd-sovereignty/
Paul is the biggest free trader in this election...but he also believes in national sovereignty, which is why he opposes these formal agreements that give unelected groups power over the United States. If companies have products to trade, let them trade! Paul opposes ALL taxes and ALL tariffs that inhibit markets. If you remove the red tape and get government out of the way, trade will happen naturally. It's human nature. |
You don't understand non-cooperative equilibrium. Unless there's a tacit agreement, there is no incentive to trade freely. What Ron Paul doesn't understand is that other countries WILL raise tariffs. And if Paul lowers tariffs unilaterally, the national welfare of the United States WILL suffer as a result. It's not a practical stance, and any economist will tell you that eliminating bilateral trade negotiations will never result in free trade.
Think about why the GATT was created in the first place - free trade didn't exist before Bretton Woods. Tariffs were phenomenally high - up to 25% in most industries. The GATT was really a confidence-building measure designed to facilitate a more agreeable solution that could only be achieved by cooperation through bilateral negotiations. If you eliminate the GATT and bilateral trade treaties, explain to me where this free trade is going to come from.
Take a look at non-cooperative equilibrium. There's a reason that economists think Paul is naive. I mean, I've taken more formal economics courses than he has. He's not an economist by any stretch of the imagination. I'm telling you, he's wrong on free trade.
EDIT: And if Ron Paul does naively lower tariffs unilaterally with no overhead provided by the WTO, that would be the rest of the world's wet dream, enabling them to run tariffs up sky-high without fear of US retaliation. The US economy would shrink like George Costanza in a pool. |
|
|
| Capitalizt |
The main reason Paul opposes tariffs and other protectionism is simply because they are unconstitutional. The plain text of Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 is incontrovertible. By signing agreements like CAFTA etc, Congress is abdicating power to an international body in direct violation of the Constitution. Paul correctly sees that all tariffs and protectionist measures are simply indirect taxes on the American people, and reducing tariffs has the same effect of reducing taxes. Our government pays lip service to free trade without practicing it at all. We don't any need quasi government organizations to "manage" trade. We need REAL free trade, meaning the absence of government involvement. If America steps up the plate and sets an example, others will follow our lead. It is in everyone's best interest.
Let's give it a try and see what happens. :) |
|
|
| Lebezniatnikov |
| quote: | Originally posted by Capitalizt
The main reason Paul opposes tariffs and other protectionism is simply because they are unconstitutional. The plain text of Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 is incontrovertible. |
I'm glad you brought up the text of the Constitution. Let's have a looksie, eh?
| quote: | The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes; |
First off, let me say that Clause 3 empowers the federal government to oversee trade and says nothing about not allowing tariffs. Second of all, Clause 1 explicitly says that Congress has the power to level duties on commercial goods. So... what was your point again?
| quote: | | By signing agreements like CAFTA etc, Congress is abdicating power to an international body in direct violation of the Constitution. |
Incorrect. CAFTA is not an "international body" - it is an agreement between governments. I'm sure you're going to take a swipe at the WTO here as well, but the WTO is also not an "international body" persay insofar as that they don't regulate trade - they simply provide a review process that adjudicates trade disputes that arise when bilateral trade agreements between two countries are not followed. The argument that the WTO somehow violates sovereignty is an argument that I have NEVER understood.
| quote: | | Paul correctly sees that all tariffs and protectionist measures are simply indirect taxes on the American people, and reducing tariffs has the same effect of reducing taxes. |
Reducing tariffs does have positive benefits for the consumers, yes. But when conducted unilaterally (aka without a bilateral trade agreement stipulating that both countries will simultaneously lower tariffs), it can kill industries that have a hard time competing with goods produced more cheaply in places where real estate and labor are far less expensive. And when industries suffer, unemployment rises. And when unemployment rises, poverty rises. Which is a convenient time to have cut off social service spending. You're talking about driving a wedge between the rich and the poor in this country to benefit Wal-Mart.
| quote: | | Our government pays lip service to free trade without practicing it at all. We don't any need quasi government organizations to "manage" trade. |
And we don't. Trade deals are negotiated directly between the US Trade Representative (appointed by the President and confirmed by Congress) and foreign governments. No quasi-government necessary. Now if one of the countries violates the terms of the deal, then they can appeal to the WTO, which isn't a quasi-government so much as a court where trade adjudication cases can be heard.
| quote: | | We need REAL free trade, meaning the absence of government involvement. |
Quite the contrary - free trade requires very active government involvement. How else are you going to create the agreements that avoid non-cooperative equilibrium? I'm really getting the sense that you still haven't read my original post on free trade, as you've yet to address any of the points made in it.
| quote: | | If America steps up the plate and sets an example, others will follow our lead. |
How is walking out on every agreement we've ever signed a good example to follow??? This is a really ridiculous assertion.
| quote: | | It is in everyone's best interest. |
"Wrong." - John Nash, Nobel Laureate for Economics and creator of the Non-Cooperative Equilibrium Theorem.
| quote: | | Let's give it a try and see what happens. :) |
Sorry, I'm not willing to toy with the National Welfare to satisfy your curiosity. Especially not when I already know it's a stupid idea.
EDIT: And who died and made Ron Paul some kind of authority on economics? He's a gynecologist who got elected to become an ineffective legislator who is easily marginalized even within his own party. He even said in the debate last night that he gets all of his information on "the internet". Something tells me he doesn't subscribe to online editions of peer-reviewed international economics journals. |
|
|
| Capitalizt |
I'm not familiar with all the details, but I recall a while back when the WTO decided that American policy was unfair to the EU in some way ..and Congress immediately swung into action and changed American tax policy to appease them. This is part of where the "they violate our sovereignty" argument comes from..
And Lez, most politicians listen to experts who read "editions of peer-reviewed international economics journals", and they are the ones who created this $3 trillion monster in Washington. The whole Keynesian/Internationalist/Central Planning philosophy has been at work for 100 years, and look what it has got us...a debt that will hit $10 trillion next year, a record trade imbalance, record household debt, etc. The planners have had their shot. It's time to throw all of your 'equilibrium' formulas out the window and have a fresh start. Let the market take it's course for once. It will make the necessary corrections. We should drop all trade barriers immediately and encourage others to follow. If more governments did this, prosperity in their respective countries would soar...something every politician should want. If they don't follow our example, we can easily slap all the fines/fees/tariffs/taxes back on without much trouble. But once they see the benefits of real free trade, I doubt they will go back.
Governments love to meddle in areas that they have no business, distorting the laws of supply and demand, and preventing real progress and real innovation. When the heavy hand of government is protecting certain industries, they don't evolve to meet the changing needs of the world. By protecting a small group of workers, you are certainly benefiting them...but society as a whole is being held back. Abolish the WTO and every other agency and believe it or not, the market WILL SURVIVE! It will adjust. Industries that need to die will die...and new ones will rise take their place.
Governments historically are very good at restricting liberty. They aren't very good at restoring it. This is what Ron Paul is trying to do.
Let the rest of the world hurt their citizens with protectionism; if we simply reduce tariffs and taxes at home and make America a great place to do business, we will attract capital and see our economy flourish. |
|
|
| Lebezniatnikov |
| quote: | Originally posted by Capitalizt
I'm not familiar with all the details, but I recall a while back when the WTO decided that American policy was unfair to the EU in some way ..and Congress immediately swung into action and changed American tax policy to appease them. This is part of where the "they violate our sovereignty" argument comes from..
|
No!! The WTO handed down an arbitration (that's all they do) that said the US had violated a bilateral agreement it made directly with another country. The Dispute Settlement Board then told the US that it had three months to either change trade policy to conform with the agreed-upon law, or it would allow the other country to take retaliatory measures without fear of adjudication. Those retaliatory measures would include quotas or raising tariffs in order to correct the profit lost from unfair trading by the US.
Nothing says that we have to listen to the WTO. In fact, in some cases, particularly regarding agricultural subsidies, we don't. And the WTO doesn't violate our sovereignty. It simply allows other countries to take measures to compensate for their losses in agricultural trade by raising tariffs to increase their own profits. It levels the playing field. Makes trade fair. Which is the point of free trade, right?
| quote: | | And Lez, most politicians listen to experts who read "editions of peer-reviewed international economics journals", and they are the ones who created this $3 trillion monster in Washington. The whole Keynesian/Internationalist/Central Planning philosophy has been at work for 100 years, and look what it has got us...a debt that will hit $10 trillion next year, a record trade imbalance, record household debt, etc. |
Actually, no, they don't. Reagan and Bush have both crafted their economic plans against the advice of economists too, and look where it's gotten us. The President most known to use economists to influence policy was Clinton (it's the economy, stupid), under whom we did NOT have the deficits that you are so worried about. Clinton marked the first time in thirty years that the US ran a back-to-back budget surplus, an amazing feat after the peak of governmental spending under Reagan.
| quote: | | The planners have had their shot. It's time to throw all of your 'equilibrium' formulas out the window and have a fresh start. |
You don't abandon sound theory just because it hasn't been implemented correctly. You're being ridiculous and naive.
| quote: | | Let the market take it's course for once. It will make the necessary corrections. We should drop all trade barriers immediately and encourage others to follow. If more governments did this, prosperity in their respective countries would soar...something every politician should want. |
Ummmmm.... you are REALLY missing the original poitnt. Prosperity in other countries would soar highest if they RAISED tariffs to maximize their profit at the expense of the United States. Without fear of retaliation, they would place quotas on American goods and tax the rest, and they would flood the American market with cheaply produced goods that can now be sent here for free. In other words, the rest of the world would exploit our market. And the US economy would suffer a great deal for it. Please, before you post again, read my original economics post and learn about non-cooperative equilibrium. It does NOT make sense to think that other countries will simply lower their tariffs because the US says so. We have a difficult enough time getting them to do it when we have the adjudication process over their head as a safeguard against getting burned!!
Do you understand what the WTO does? I mean, actually understand it? Because you're spouting the right-wing line about sovereignty, but I don't think there is any depth to your claim. Here, a brief explanation of the United States' relationship with the WTO.
| quote: | United States:
* largest trader
* most to benefit from WTO system
WTO:
* caps most duties
* prohibits discrimination against imports
* requires transparent and honest customs procedures
United States had filed 71 complaints under WTO by July 2004.
United States won 44 of 47 complaints concluded by July 2004.
If WTO decision comes down against United States:
* United States can change its law
* United States can compensate for harm
* United States can do nothing and risk retaliation
|
It's quite simple really. The WTO is like a referee that calls a country when it doesn't play by the set of rules it agreed to. That's all. It doesn't "tell us" what to do - it gives us a set of options to salvage a trade agreement we signed in the first place. It liberalizes trade. It frees up markets. Because without the WTO, that Would. Not. Happen.
| quote: | | If they don't follow our example, we can easily slap all the fines/fees/tariffs/taxes back on without much trouble. |
Wow, after how long? Do we give the rest of the world a year? Two years? The entire four-year Ron Paul presidency? Each day we spend with no tariffs against an entire world with high tariffs, our ECONOMY SUFFERS.
| quote: | | But once they see the benefits of real free trade, I doubt they will go back. |
The only benefit they are going to see is the one that benefits them most. Which is for us to remain at free trade levels while they hike up tariffs to the optimum level. Because, what you simply aren't acknowledging though I post it again and again and again is that a country is at maximized profit when the country it trades with has no protectionist measures while it itself has high protectionist measures. Seriously, this is International Trade 101, first day lesson right here.
| quote: | | Governments love to meddle in areas that they have no business, distorting the laws of supply and demand, and preventing real progress and real innovation. When the heavy hand of government is protecting certain industries, they don't evolve to meet the changing needs of the world. By protecting a small group of workers, you are certainly benefiting them...but society as a whole is being held back. |
If anything, government fosters innovation by protecting domestic industries that would collapse if faced with cheaper products from abroad, but I'll let you go think that for now since that is a different argument.
| quote: | | Abolish the WTO and every other agency and believe it or not, the market WILL SURVIVE! It will adjust. Industries that need to die will die...and new ones will rise take their place. |
I feel like I'm walking around and around a revolving door and not getting anywhere.
| quote: | Governments historically are very good at restricting liberty. They aren't very good at restoring it. This is what Ron Paul is trying to do.
Let the rest of the world hurt their citizens with protectionism; if we simply reduce tariffs and taxes at home and make America a great place to do business, we will attract capital and see our economy flourish. |
You still don't understand. Protectionism only hurts your own citizens insofar as everyone else is protectionist too. If we insist on making trade decisions unilaterally, other countries WILL raise their tariffs. And then they WILL profit and we WILL lose. They will exploit a naive trade policy from the Paul Administration, and all Americans will suffer because of it. You're right that free trade is best. You're wrong in thinking that we will have free trade under Ron Paul.
And by "making America a great place to do business" you mean a great place to sell your goods cheaply. Nothing more. There will be no influx of foreign capital. If anything, we will lose capital as we see our exports go down to a trickle and our imports rocket sky-high. The balance of trade deficit we currently run (which is huge by the way) will grow exponentially. You won't have fixed any problems. You'll have compounded them. Stop acting like Ron Paul knows something about economics. The more time I spend thinking about this, the more I realize he just plain doesn't.
I feel like a broken record. You haven't brought any evidence to suggest that economics supports your argument aside from an assertion that "we should have faith that other countries will resist the temptation to maximize their own profits in order to blindly follow the United States after we've violated any trust we ever established with them in backing out of all international treaties and agreements."
I don't understand how a rational, logical person such as yourself can buy into this nonsense. Ron Paul is great on the war and on civil liberties (of white people - still can't believe he wants to curtail civil rights legislation though). He is alright on some issues. But the sheer balance of issues he is wrong on precludes me from ever taking him seriously. I urge you to look through the list of legislation he's sponsored. That's not his voting record. That's the list of legislation he has taken personal ownership of. Which means those are the issues that are nearest and dearest his heart. I don't think you know who you are voting for, which is probably something that holds true for most people. But in the case of Ron Paul, I think it is exceptionally dangerous. |
|
|
|
|
