Thread: I Was Wrong About Ron Paul On Immigration

Originally Posted by MW

nntrixie wrote:

If we actually accomplish our goal in Iraq, there will be no "bloodbath." Everything is dependent upon standing up a competent Iraqi Army that can protect the citizens of Iraq and protect an established government from insurgents.

Just a point - most countries don't use their Army to keep their citizens in line. Those that do are referred to as military dictatorships, not republics or democracies.

We met the goals of the UN resolution (and i have BIG issues with marching in to protect the interests of the UN, but that's a different subject) and now it is time to go.

As Paul said, we need to give Iraq back to the people of Iraq.

There was an article a day or two ago, pointing out that the factions in Iraq all agree that our continued presence there is their biggest cause of conflict.

Paul should get the other leaders of the Middle East in a meeting, tell them we're leaving Iraq, and get them to help Iraq recover.

A few months ago, my husband had an occasion to talk with two young men back from Iraq.

Both of them said we were mostly fighting Iraqis who didn't want us there.

Now these were not young men who knew each other - it was separate times, separate towns.

I'm inclined to think that is true.

Whatever Al Queda presence there is probably there because of us. The Iraqis don't want us occupying their country. The rest of the ME don't want us occupying that country. Let's remove ourselves and let them sort it out.

Originally Posted by SOSADFORUS

The president does not set trade policys...congress does, remember they are the ones who just voted for the Peru agreement, they voted for Nafta, Cafta, if you want to change them work on your congressmen/women..

True, but when I say NAFTA what is one of the first things that enters your mind? Is it BILL CLINTON? The president is very influential in trade policy, because he/she is the one who signs it into law. The president is a major player in trade policy, as when congress is negotiating they are trying to get something onto the presidents desk that he will actually sign.

Originally Posted by BearFlagRepublic

Originally Posted by SOSADFORUS

The president does not set trade policys...congress does, remember they are the ones who just voted for the Peru agreement, they voted for Nafta, Cafta, if you want to change them work on your congressmen/women..

True, but when I say NAFTA what is one of the first things that enters your mind? Is it BILL CLINTON? The president is very influential in trade policy, because he/she is the one who signs it into law. The president is a major player in trade policy, as when congress is negotiating they are trying to get something onto the presidents desk that he will actually sign.

When I hear the word NAFTA the first thing that comes to my mind is Americans are getting screwed.....Congress is responsible, if the president doesn't like it to bad, that is the object of checks and balances, it is one of the great things about this country, and congress should stand independant of the president, and do what is right for the people, throw out congress, they signed those trade deals that are screwing Americans.

I am sorry "Bear" but the President can only do what our congress will let him, when it comes to laws, trade deals and funding. We must put the responsibility where it lies.

We need to get back to those checks and balances, what we have now is a dictator and an congress with no backbone, my friend.

Originally Posted by BearFlagRepublic

I'm amazed that Paul would say that, considering that everything on his web-site regarding trade is extremely anti-tariff. As I quoted earlier, he has said that unilateral elimination of our tariffs (again, China keeping theirs) would be a good thing for America. His site has nothing but negative things to say about tariffs.

New user here, I hope you don't mind me chiming in.

I think Ron Paul's answer is confusing here because it is a question between personal Ideology and Constitutional authority.

Ron Paul considers the Income tax unconstitutional and immoral. "It is not ok to steal something from your neighbor, but if the government does it for you, then it is ok?" So one of his top priorities is to eliminate the Income Tax.

Tariff's on the other hand ARE Constitutional. So, even though he is an avid "free trader" ideologically, he recognizes that if our government needs to acquire funds in order to operate, tariffs would be an acceptable method, as they are constitutional and not immoral or as immoral.

Also, when considering Ron Paul's ideology in regards to "Free Trade", you have to take into account his entire monetary policy beliefs. Our Federal Reserve system and "fiat money" are responsible for our job loss, not free trade. It is easier and cheaper for us to "print money" out of thin air and spend it than it is to actually produce goods to sell to other countries. This works fine as long as other countries are willing to accept this money. (This is coming to an end quickly)

With a monetary system where the dollars are backed by a hard asset, (such as the gold standard). You don't have trade deficits. If you keep spending money without making any money you go bankrupt and can't buy anymore goods. So, a hard-asset based currency requires you (the U.S.) to be productive and export, if you are going to import.

Note: he has not proposed going back to the gold standard immediately. He wants to legalize competing currencies (backed by gold and silver). Personally: I think he wants to use this method so that people quickly learn the true level of inflation.

Originally Posted by specsaregood

Originally Posted by BearFlagRepublic

I'm amazed that Paul would say that, considering that everything on his web-site regarding trade is extremely anti-tariff. As I quoted earlier, he has said that unilateral elimination of our tariffs (again, China keeping theirs) would be a good thing for America. His site has nothing but negative things to say about tariffs.

New user here, I hope you don't mind me chiming in.

I think Ron Paul's answer is confusing here because it is a question between personal Ideology and Constitutional authority.

Ron Paul considers the Income tax unconstitutional and immoral. "It is not ok to steal something from your neighbor, but if the government does it for you, then it is ok?" So one of his top priorities is to eliminate the Income Tax.

Tariff's on the other hand ARE Constitutional. So, even though he is an avid "free trader" ideologically, he recognizes that if our government needs to acquire funds in order to operate, tariffs would be an acceptable method, as they are constitutional and not immoral or as immoral.

Also, when considering Ron Paul's ideology in regards to "Free Trade", you have to take into account his entire monetary policy beliefs. Our Federal Reserve system and "fiat money" are responsible for our job loss, not free trade. It is easier and cheaper for us to "print money" out of thin air and spend it than it is to actually produce goods to sell to other countries. This works fine as long as other countries are willing to accept this money. (This is coming to an end quickly)

With a monetary system where the dollars are backed by a hard asset, (such as the gold standard). You don't have trade deficits. If you keep spending money without making any money you go bankrupt and can't buy anymore goods. So, a hard-asset based currency requires you (the U.S.) to be productive and export, if you are going to import.

Note: he has not proposed going back to the gold standard immediately. He wants to legalize competing currencies (backed by gold and silver). Personally: I think he wants to use this method so that people quickly learn the true level of inflation.

Welcome to ALIPAC!!!

Good post!

Originally Posted by specsaregood

Originally Posted by BearFlagRepublic

I'm amazed that Paul would say that, considering that everything on his web-site regarding trade is extremely anti-tariff. As I quoted earlier, he has said that unilateral elimination of our tariffs (again, China keeping theirs) would be a good thing for America. His site has nothing but negative things to say about tariffs.

New user here, I hope you don't mind me chiming in.

I think Ron Paul's answer is confusing here because it is a question between personal Ideology and Constitutional authority.

Ron Paul considers the Income tax unconstitutional and immoral. "It is not ok to steal something from your neighbor, but if the government does it for you, then it is ok?" So one of his top priorities is to eliminate the Income Tax.

Tariff's on the other hand ARE Constitutional. So, even though he is an avid "free trader" ideologically, he recognizes that if our government needs to acquire funds in order to operate, tariffs would be an acceptable method, as they are constitutional and not immoral or as immoral.

Also, when considering Ron Paul's ideology in regards to "Free Trade", you have to take into account his entire monetary policy beliefs. Our Federal Reserve system and "fiat money" are responsible for our job loss, not free trade. It is easier and cheaper for us to "print money" out of thin air and spend it than it is to actually produce goods to sell to other countries. This works fine as long as other countries are willing to accept this money. (This is coming to an end quickly)

With a monetary system where the dollars are backed by a hard asset, (such as the gold standard). You don't have trade deficits. If you keep spending money without making any money you go bankrupt and can't buy anymore goods. So, a hard-asset based currency requires you (the U.S.) to be productive and export, if you are going to import.

Note: he has not proposed going back to the gold standard immediately. He wants to legalize competing currencies (backed by gold and silver). Personally: I think he wants to use this method so that people quickly learn the true level of inflation.

WELCOME TO ALIPAC "specsaregood" thank you for posting and I hope you stay around and get involved.

I agree with you on Pauls trade....as I said above when it comes down to it our trade problems all go back to the congress.

You are so right about the dollar but I don't think alot of people realize how much trouble this country is in because of the printing of money without being backed by gold or silver. Inflation will be a hard lesson to learn but then Depression isn't going to be pretty either.

Thank you for the warm welcome.

I happened to read "Gold, Peace, and Prosperity" by Ron Paul last week. It is 52 pages of "pure gold", pardon the pun. It really explains the core basis for his belief structure and details through history how monetary policy and fiat money has been the instrument of tyranny. Once you understand his thoughts on that, every thing else he does just makes sense.

Here is a little tidbit from the book(really more of a pamphlet).
"The monetary reforms drawn up at Bretton Woods, NH, in July 1944 were supposed to be permanent. The agreement lasted 27 years. Harry Dexter White, Director of Monetary Research for the Treasure was the U.S. Representative. (Mr. White was later identified as a high-level fellow traveler of the Communist Party.)"

Liberty and Freedom cannot exist for long without "honest money".

Originally Posted by specsaregood

Thank you for the warm welcome.

I happened to read "Gold, Peace, and Prosperity" by Ron Paul last week. It is 52 pages of "pure gold", pardon the pun. It really explains the core basis for his belief structure and details through history how monetary policy and fiat money has been the instrument of tyranny. Once you understand his thoughts on that, every thing else he does just makes sense.

Here is a little tidbit from the book(really more of a pamphlet).
"The monetary reforms drawn up at Bretton Woods, NH, in July 1944 were supposed to be permanent. The agreement lasted 27 years. Harry Dexter White, Director of Monetary Research for the Treasure was the U.S. Representative. (Mr. White was later identified as a high-level fellow traveler of the Communist Party.)"

Liberty and Freedom cannot exist for long without "honest money".

I will have to find that book so I can read it...thanks

a couple of things i wanted to point out, in case they havent already been.

Dr. Paul changed his position on the fence because it was pointed out that much of the land slated to be built on would be taken by eminent domain. So while he doesn't support the fence, it's not necessarily spaeking to his commitment on illegal immigration.

As for tarrifs, he supports a unified tarrif system, when he says "fair" he means that the tarrifs are applied abroad the entire spectrum as opposed to subvening one industry over the other. agree or disagree i just wanted to firm up his position on those issues.