Thread: I Was Wrong About Ron Paul On Immigration

http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2007/tst120207.htm

I have also supported the strengthening our border and increasing the number of border patrol agents. It is an outrage that our best trained border guards are sent to Iraq instead of guarding our borders. For national security, we need to give more attention to our own border which is being illegally breached every day, and yet the government shirks one of its few constitutionally mandated duties, namely to defend this country. Citizens lose twice with our current insecure border situation – we don’t have the protection we should have, and then taxpayers have to deal with the fallout in the form of overstretched public resources and loss of jobs.

He does not want the Army and Marines on the border - he wants to create a proper Border Patrol division. I agree with that. Countries that have their armies on the borders are socialist / fascist.

Originally Posted by AngelaTC

When any interviewer inquires how we would pay for things if the IRS was abolished, he always responds, in part, with tariffs and fees.

If we cut spending back to the year 2000 levels, we wouldn't need money from the income tax.

I wonder if people realize how broke we actually are. Both parties raided the Social Security excess, and spent it. They replaced it with IOU's. But those IOU's aren't included in the numbers that we see as posted as our official national debt, because the government uses essentioally the same accounting system that Enron did.

Judging from your avatar, we agree.

I think he responds with tariffs and fees because they are constitutional and not as immoral as the income tax. Ideally he would like to have neither; but given the choice between those....

I know what you are saying about being broke. The people supporting the Iraq War are simply selling out our nation. The Iraqi people have their freedom now, let them do as they see fit; time for us to leave.

Staying in Iraq is like subsidizing illegal immigration here in the U.S. The longer we stay there and in control, the less incentive they have to fix things. Personally, I don't want ONE MORE CENT of my money to go to Iraq.

Originally Posted by AngelaTC

Originally Posted by BearFlagRepublic

I must admitt my self that I am not really well versed in "fiat money."

The economic stuff makes me nod off too. But here's how part of it was explained in little words to me - when a quarter was made entirely of silver, it was worth about 2 gallons of milk. Now, if you were to sell a piece of silver that contains that same amount of silver today, it would be worth about $7.50. Roughly 2 gallons of milk.

I remember a guy at a gas station that would give me double the gas if I paid in silver coins. About 1971.?

I could buy dollar worth of coins for 1.35 if I remember right or that may have been Silver Certificates.

Gas was 25 cents a gallon then I think.

A $600,000 dollar house was about $28,000 but about 15 years before that it was about $13,000. Brand new! Same House!

I can't remember how the story went but I figure the Grasshopper and the Ant both got reamed. Or sucked into fighting someone else's war.

agrneydgrl worte:

Also, I have heard him say that we need to bring troops home to put on the border and to build our military up.

Than that would make Ron Paul a hypocrite! As I've already proven, he has voted against sending our military to the border on numerous occasions. Actually, to my knowledge he never has supported placing our active duty military on the border. I certainly can't find a vote of his that supports such an action. If you know different, please provide evidence. Additionally, he supports closing our bases throughout the world and bringing all of our soldiers home. Sorry, anyway you want to look at it - that's not building our military up. If Paul had his way, there would be massive reductions in our military strength.

Additionally, he supports closing our bases throughout the world and bringing all of our soldiers home. Sorry, anyway you want to look at it - that's not building our military up. If Paul had his way, there would be massive reductions in our military strength.

How does bringing them back here mean a reduction in our military strength?

What does it have to do with building our military up?

Personally, I think having our military strewn across the globe stretches our military. It doesn't build it up.

All the money we now spend in foreign countries through our military bases, which is going into foreign economies, would now be circulating here in our own economy and would be a great boon.

As for military on the border, I don't know why he voted against it. I would have to read the bill. I don't know that he has said he would bring them home and put them on the border, although he may have. One thing we do know, if they are here and we need them, they could be on the border. It might be kinda hard to defend ourselves with our military scattered to the far corners of the earth and stretched to its limit fighting some war in Iraq.

Our military can be as strong here as it is around the world.

Originally Posted by MW

agrneydgrl worte:

Also, I have heard him say that we need to bring troops home to put on the border and to build our military up.

Than that would make Ron Paul a hypocrite! As I've already proven, he has voted against sending our military to the border on numerous occasions. Actually, to my knowledge he never has supported placing our active duty military on the border. I certainly can't find a vote of his that supports such an action. If you know different, please provide evidence. Additionally, he supports closing our bases throughout the world and bringing all of our soldiers home. Sorry, anyway you want to look at it - that's not building our military up. If Paul had his way, there would be massive reductions in our military strength.

Not necessarily a hypocrit we are just looking at one segment of the conversation and have no idea what he was referring to, maybe if we were under attack...

Explain to me what is wrong with closing government owned/leased property on foriegn land and bringing our citizens/troops home? IMO we should only have our military elsewhere, other than the Navy, only if we are at War (as per the Constitution)! Our private sector can fund foriegn countries through trade there is no need for occupation.

As far as occupation who is pays for our military in foriegn countries? Think about this, for real, we pay for the occupation in foriegn countries through more taxation! If we had good/fair trade relations obviously there is not need to occupy because our trade will provide countries the means to defend themselves. Do not forget our Navy is powerfull and transits our Marines we can be nearby however they need to defend themselves and relieve our taxation.

Our Navy can protect the transfer of goods and with carriers and Marine ships there is absolutely no need for occupation only good trade relations with the countries in the hot zones!

I agree with the principle that our currency has been devalued since we dropped the peg to gold. I don't believe that the Gold Standard was the cornerstone of our economy-Milton Friedman has some cogent critiques of the theories espoused by some of the radicals in the Austrian School peppered throughout his economic treatises-but doing away with the peg to the value of concrete assets did encourage the government-as if it needed encouragement-to continue its disastrous policy of deficit spending, printing money that we don't have, which contributed to inflation and a whole host of even more consequential problems.

The critique of fiat money is exaggerated though. Our economy thrived-for the most part-from the Civil War to the Great Depression even after fiat currency was introduced. Things like the Federal Reserve's manipulation of the money supply, runaway deficit spending, unfunded ponzi scheme entitlement programs like SS and Medicare, and the federal income tax are a lot more harmful to society in the long run, IMO.

A lot of Ron Paul's economic views are commendable, but some of them are Harry Brownesque in their wackiness, his absurd support for free trade agreements with our sworn enemies-and despotic regimes like the SLORC in Burma-being one of them.

I am for tariffs, if put into the hands of the American people and not in the hands of the government. You can tariff any way you want to but as long as you are dealing with slave owners (China) it is all for nothing. The United States Government wants to blame the trade gap on unfair trade. Ok, when you deal with crooks that enslave people and steal ther hard eerned labor you cannot compete with them!
All the goverment does with the tariff/tax money is use it against us to prop up their agenda and split Americans so they can continue to run their con game. If the tariffs were actually put into the hands of the American Business owner providing the Exported product, the business owner would see a greater profit and therefore might not want to hire illegal immigrants. Or, the business owner might hire Americans and decide they don't want to charge a tariff to stay competetive, either way it is the American people benefitting and then the government might benefit from the taxes paid by those companies. It would also encourage more people to make a product for export. What sense does it make to say, we need cheap labor to compete in the global market and then drive the price up with tariffs? If thats the case lets drop the tariffs and hire Americans to do the job, end result is the same price for the same goods except govco gets cut out of their mafia action and American benefit all the way around. Government needs to get out of the way and let The People decide where to put the tariff money, right in their pockets! All we hear is American needs to be competetive and obviously we are or China wouldn't put these ridiculas tariffs on our products to make them un-competetive. Since we can't do anything about what China does on their end like putting tariffs on our products so they cost more and make our products un-competetive on their store shelves, What we really need to do is stop all trading with China until they establish a free society. Then all the shacanery will end because the people of china also want a good standard of living. It isn't sbout the tariffs, anytime you do business with slave owners they can beat your price any day of the week. Even if we were to give our products away, we can't compete with crooks and slave owners. As it is now, we are being made slaves to compete with China's slaves while both governments rack up the big bucks at our exspense. That is why we didn't do business with China years ago, because all it does is spread the slavery, not freedom!
If you really want to spread freedom then stop aiding and abetting slavery. What govenment fails to tell us is that in order for us to compete, we have to be competing by the same rules and as long as China has slaves to use in their production process, the playing field will never be level. And if we just jack up the prices of their goods with tariffs here, we are supporting them continuing the slavery. On the other hand if we do away with tariffs, we are still supporting slavery! Plain and simple, doing business with slave owners tells them they don't have to play by the rules and they are re-inforced into believing there cause is right. The only way to end all this slavery is to stop all business with the slave owners. Now, the only obsticle is .... you really have to care about the humans and humane condition of the people over the welfare of the billionairs. It is clear where the American and Chinese governments stand!
So, the obvious answer to all these problems is to end the slavery! Either China does the right thing or they just don't get access to the biggest market in the world. As govco (co-slave owner - just can't seem to get out of the slavery business) continues to let China bring these slave owner made goods into the US thus causing businesses here to fold and move to China so they can use the slaves too, the American people are somewhat being forced to buy the slave made goods and therefore making us accessories to the fact. The more we trade with China (the slave owners), The more we have to enslave our own to compete with the slave owners. This is just a race to see who can degredate themselves quicker, China or the US, all on order to make some rich snob like Bill Gates another $100 Billion Dollars! All while they claim to care som much about humans and Americans. Give me a freaking break!

Where do the candidates stand on this?
Do any support stopping trade with China or any other dictator, communist or slave nations?

One reason I feel we used to be number 1 in the world is because we stood on moral grounds, that have all but completely eroded. We used to say we will have no part of the slavery or anyone that does, now it just doesn't matter. Bush rants on spreading freedom but you never hear him say anything about the biggest slave faactory on earth, China.
At least we still have some moral people left in this country, although not many. How many Church goers are sitting in church praising God and the freedom he gave us while reading a bible made by China slaves?

Worlds biggest bible factory is in China.
http://news.monstersandcritics.com/asia ... s_in_China

Good Day!

I watched Ron Paul on CSPAN last night and I was impressed.

Here is a video of Ron Paul in New Hampshire. I would like to see him win here. The Democrats are trying to make New Hampshire a sanctuary state and I want to stop them in their tracks.


http://www.dailypaul.com/node/15826

Bring Back Honest Money

by Rep. Ron Paul, MD

Ron Paul in the US House of Representatives, July 25, 2003

Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Honest Money Act. The Honest Money Act repeals legal tender laws, a.k.a. forced tender laws, that compel American citizens to accept fiat (arbitrary) irredeemable paper-ticket or electronic money as their unit of account.

Absent legal tender laws, individuals acting through the markets, rather than government dictates, determine what is to be used as money. Historically, the free-market choice for money has been some combination of gold and silver, whenever they were available. As Dr. Edwin Vieira, the nation’s top expert on constitutional money, states: “A free market functions most efficiently and most fairly when the market determines the quality and the quantity of money that’s being used.â€