Thread: Ron Paul is NOT the Answer!

Excerpt:

Ron Paul is NOT the Answer!
September 16th, 2007 · 12 Comments

People are desperate for someone to represent their views and many are turning to Ron Paul. He sounds good, but you have an awful feeling underneath, something is wrong with this picture. But, wait, is he really representing positions you want? I don’t think so! Look at this voting record and position on labor arbitraging guest worker Visas!

Ron Paul is for massive H-1B Visa increases. Conservatives who think Ron Paul is the cats meow, think again, please. This is a corporate lobbyist driven issue. It’s all about globalization, forced migration under corporate control.

Ron Paul cosponsored more guest worker Visas.

Cosponsoring legislation to increase H-2B workers who are present in the U.S. at any one time in 2005-2006..

Rep. Paul is a cosponsor of H.R. 793, the Save Our Small and Seasonal Business Act of 2005, to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to limit the timing of issuance of H-2B visas during a fiscal year.

Specifically, H.R. 793 would split the H-2B visa cap so no more than 33,000 visas are made available for the first six months the fiscal year, and another 33,000 visas would be available in the second half of the year.

HOWEVER, H.R. 793 exempts from the annual cap aliens granted an H-2B visa within three years prior to approval of an H-2B petition, thus potentially TRIPLING the number of H-2B workers in the United States at any one time.

Although timing the issuance of H-2B visas is a common-sense approach that would help prevent the situation that occurred in FY 2004 and FY 2005 when the 66,000 annual cap on H-2B (low-skill) nonimmigrant visas was hit within the first quarter of the year, H.R. 793 would ultimately harm American workers by creating exemptions which potentially could triple the number of H-2B workers in the U.S. at any given time.

Pardon the reference, but this is after all an article exposing a GOP candidate, so look at this interview:

Q: What do you think of the H1-B program?

Ron Paul: I’ve supported that because it’s legal. I know some people say they don’t follow the law….

Q: The argument is that it’s a form of corporate subsidy—powerful interest groups have arranged to break down their workers’ wages by bringing in temporary workers.

Ron Paul: the market always works to put pressure on the businessman to spend the least amount of money to provide product. So what some may call a corporate subsidy is also a subsidy to the consumer. The consumer is the one protected in the free market. The object of labor is to push wages up as high as possible. The object of business is to get the most efficient labor at the best price. In the free market, that works out. But the problem is we have too much welfare and we have a currency that’s losing value.

Q: If you’re President, various interest groups are going to come to you and say, there’s a shortage of nurses or teachers or (goodness!) possibly journalists; therefore we have to have these temporary work programs to bring in labor in this area. If the labor is organized, it’s going to say to you, look, the problem isn’t that there’s a shortage, the problem is business doesn’t want to pay higher wages. What will you do?

Ron Paul: Well, whatever we do will be legal. Congress has to have a say, they have to pass a law, and the President has to decide to sign it or not. And I would lean in the direction of saying, if there is indeed a shortage, and this is a legal process, this shouldn’t be threatening to us.

Q: How would you determine that there was a shortage?

Ron Paul: Well, I don’t think it would be easy but if there’s a need and immigrants can get a job, that means there’s a shortage. If there was no shortage, they wouldn’t have jobs. Obviously the companies can’t fill some of these jobs and they’re looking for people to fill them.

Q: Well, the counter-argument is that they can’t fill them at the price that they’re offering.

Ron Paul: That’s right, but the market has to set the price. Set the product and set the price of labor.

Q: But the argument of the displaced software engineers is that the government is colluding with the business owners to break down the price by importing temporary workers.

Ron Paul: I don’t think we should have minimum wages to protect the price of labor. I want the market to determine this. At the upper level as well.

Q: It’s really a question of defining the rules, isn’t it? Is it fair for corporations to increase supply by bringing in temporary workers?

Ron Paul: Which, means they’re going to fill a need for a certain time at a certain price, by people who have come here voluntarily. Otherwise, you have to be anti-immigrant and I don’t think our country is anti-immigrant. I think its anti-illegal immigrant. I think the problem you identify is occurring because we don’t have a healthy free market economy and we reward people for not getting training and becoming the type of individual who might get a job in a software company.

Oh really? U.S. citizens with education from the best universities in the world, with patents and skills are magically now just lazy and stupid? Isn’t the consumer also a worker? Isn’t the real consumer here the multinational corporations seeking their global cheap labor supply? How about the freedom to work without labor arbitrage?


cartoon from CorpWatch

Now Ron Paul sounds good on trade, but what is his policy answer? Well, claiming that free trade is for the consumer however that is defined, probably should tell you that a policy based on the United States National interest, the middle class probably is outside the scope of this philosophy.

http://blog.noslaves.com/ron-paul-is-not-the-answer/

You can still write-in Duncan Hunter, or someone else. Lord knows that McCain, Huckabee, Clinton, and Obama certainly aren't the answer, either.

Ostrich

TheOstrich wrote:

You can still write-in Duncan Hunter, or someone else. Lord knows that McCain, Huckabee, Clinton, and Obama certainly aren't the answer, either.

Ostrich

This is not about Hunter, McCain, Huckabee, Clinton, Obama, or anyone else (except Paul) for that matter. I just ran across this today and thought it was an interesting interview, don't you? Honestly, I don't know what the answer is anymore.

Even as an Independent I don't think he could make it.

Ron Paul is too strident. If you listen and read what he says...
Everything comes back to it being the fault of the US being a
Welfare State, however I haven't heard any solutions about that.

I really don't like libertarian philosophy. Everything economic is based on price, and driving down wages. It looks like Paul thinks that if an immigrant can make it here, and an employer wants to hire them to cut labor costs, then there is a shortage of American labor, and a guest worker program is needed. This is why he is very much in favor of returning to the Bracero Program, because that dichotamy certainly applies there, and it is directly related to our illegal immigrants from Mexico and Central America.

I don't see this as any different than globalism. Its all about, "let the market decide." This is a nation, not a market-place. Let the law of our sovereign republic decide. If corporate America if free to hire anyone they want from around the world to save money, then there is only one issue. Will the immigrants have the means to make it here? Because you can probably find almost anyone from around the globe to work the same job as an American for far cheaper. In this increasingly globalized and modernized world, it would only be a matter of time that this would equate to essentially open borders, and a one world, integrated, hegemon. Different tactics, same result.

I think the founders would fundamentally disagree with what Paul is saying here. Paul is more of a libertarian than a Constitutionalist, and yes there is a difference.

This article illustrates exactly why Paul has always rubbed me the wrong way. I hear nothing cultural or nationalistic from him. he just opposes government intervention, but government intervention on the border and in the fields is exactly what we need right now.

BearFlagRepublic wrote:

I really don't like libertarian philosophy. Everything economic is based on price, and driving down wages. It looks like Paul thinks that if an immigrant can make it here, and an employer wants to hire them to cut labor costs, then there is a shortage of American labor, and a guest worker program is needed. This is why he is very much in favor of returning to the Bracero Program, because that dichotamy certainly applies there, and it is directly related to our illegal immigrants from Mexico and Central America.

I don't see this as any different than globalism. Its all about, "let the market decide." This is a nation, not a market-place. Let the law of our sovereign republic decide. If corporate America if free to hire anyone they want from around the world to save money, then there is only one issue. Will the immigrants have the means to make it here? Because you can probably find almost anyone from around the globe to work the same job as an American for far cheaper. In this increasingly globalized and modernized world, it would only be a matter of time that this would equate to essentially open borders, and a one world, integrated, hegemon. Different tactics, same result.

I think the founders would fundamentally disagree with what Paul is saying here. Paul is more of a libertarian than a Constitutionalist, and yes there is a difference.

This article illustrates exactly why Paul has always rubbed me the wrong way. I hear nothing cultural or nationalistic from him. he just opposes government intervention, but government intervention on the border and in the fields is exactly what we need right now.

Excellent response, Bear. I would be interested in what some Ron Paul supporters have to say regarding the interview. Do you agree or disagee with the ideas expressed during the interview?

If we had a healthy economy this would be a nonissue. The fact is we have an very sick and quite frankly dying economy. Paul believes in a free and open market. The market will decide. In theory he is correct. If manufacturing wast not all but gone, jobs outsourced, illegals flooding our borders. Too many ifs.

However, our current markets (all of them) are manipulated to the point that nothing is working. As much as I believe in RP and believe that his economic policy is spot on as far as what is wrong and how to fix it, I have my doubt whether at this point it could be done anyway. We may be too far gone to turn it around.

Bottom line, while I do not agree with him that we need to import labor, this is far, far from the most important issues facing this Country.

Originally Posted by dmartin

If we had a healthy economy this would be a nonissue. The fact is we have an very sick and quite frankly dying economy. Paul believes in a free and open market. The market will decide. In theory he is correct. If manufacturing wast not all but gone, jobs outsourced, illegals flooding our borders. Too many ifs.

However, our current markets (all of them) are manipulated to the point that nothing is working. As much as I believe in RP and believe that his economic policy is spot on as far as what is wrong and how to fix it, I have my doubt whether at this point it could be done anyway. We may be too far gone to turn it around.

Bottom line, while I do not agree with him that we need to import labor, this is far, far from the most important issues facing this Country.

What do you think are the most important issues facing our nation?

It is clear that RP sees America as a marketplace rather than a nation. This puts him in the Globalist camp.