Ron Paul on free trade

[primative1]

People here seem to hae liked his run in with Rudy about the root of terrorism, so for the heck of it I plugged into his website to see what he thought about free trade. I found this

************************************************************************

http://www.ronpaul2008.com/html/issue-Independence_fx.html

So called free trade deals and world governmental organizations like the International Criminal Court (ICC), NAFTA, GATT, WTO, and CAFTA are a threat to our independence as a nation. They transfer power from our government to unelected foreign elites.

The ICC wants to try our soldiers as war criminals. Both the WTO and CAFTA could force Americans to get a doctor’s prescription to take herbs and vitamins. Alternative treatments could be banned.
The WTO has forced Congress to change our laws, yet we still face trade wars. Today, France is threatening to have U.S. goods taxed throughout Europe. If anything, the WTO makes trade relations worse by giving foreign competitors a new way to attack U.S. jobs.

NAFTA’s superhighway is just one part of a plan to erase the borders between the U.S. and Mexico, called the North American Union. This spawn of powerful special interests, would create a single nation out of Canada, the U.S. and Mexico, with a new unelected bureaucracy and money system. Forget about controlling immigration under this scheme.

And a free America, with limited, constitutional government, would be gone forever.

************************************************************************

This guy realy is starting to look like an anomoly.
Do we even have a single democrat willing to say stuff like this?

[Nickster]

1. Can't say that I disagree with Ron Paul on this issue at all. n/t

[Imperialism Inc.]

2. Other than the disdainful immigration comment I think he has it right.

And we have very few Democrats willing to say anything like this.

[mark414]

8. what is disdainful about it?

it is a problem...there are too many people, period, no matter where they come from. this country can't support it.

[unlawflcombatnt]

12. Exactly

I completely agree with Paul on free trade, illegal immigration, and Iraq. Of all the candidates, his positions are the most favorable for American workers. He's the only candidate of either party that isn't largely controlled by big-money special interest groups.

unlawflcombatnt

Economic Populist Forum

[kwolf68]

3. He's fine here too

But I still dont want him near 1600 PA Avenue. The guy is pretty good on a few issues, but would be just atrocious on others.

[primative1]

4. Having trouble here ..

Prioritizing issues is tough.
He seems to rate 100% on the ones that spark me, while our candidates rate a 40-50 at best.
Paul rates a zero on social issues but I am not much into them. I guess the question is, as a Libertarian would he abstain from those issues as I personally do or would he seek to actively legislate his personal opinions?
Wouldn't that be outside of his views on the proper scope of government? Hmmm ...

[txaslftist]

24. A Democratic congress would keep him in check...

...on his off the wall issues. On the war he's perfect, and for me that's job number one. Plus, he's not the calculating type to be scheming throughout his first term on how to screw the other party or how to win a second term.

He's that very rare breed of Washington DC cat, like Feingold, Kucinich, Gravel... an honest politician.

[Oldenuff]

27. A Dem Congress would do what?

No offense to you txs..but:

"A Democratic Congress would keep him in check"...you mean like they are keeping Bushco in check?

Maybe Paul is like a lot of other politicians..when elected to carry out the will of the people,he stalls,or blames others,or doesn't do anything because of fear of alienating somebody.

Still,I share his opinions on many issues.

[TheFarseer]

5. Ron Paul is correct on a great many issues

If he was president, I think it would be more good than bad, although some libertarian positions really turn me off - like National Sales Tax, and getting rid of the minimum wage and public schools. I don't know if he supports things like that, but many libertarians do.

[Bullet1987]

6. I don't agree with Paul on any social issue...

...But I keep finding more and more issues I do agree with him on.

[creeksneakers2]

7. Getting rid of the IRS?

We'd wind up with the entire tax burden placed on the working and middle classes.

[TheFarseer]

14. I said those positions turn me off

as in, I don't agree with them and they make me less likely to vote for people that think that way.

[ProudDad]

9. WHAT????

"National Sales Tax, and getting rid of the minimum wage and public schools"

So you don't mind regressive taxes, more people unable to afford to live and education only for the affluent????

ron paul is a LIBERTARIAN. The ONLY things a progressive can have in common with a libertarian is opposition to the phony war on drugs and an ally against corporate-capitalist globalization.

In ALL other things libertarians are ANATHEMA!!!

Don't trust this fucker, he'll have you in a concentration camp even quicker than bush.

[TheFarseer]

13. whoa whoa whoa

I said those things turn me off. Actually, they more than turn me off, but I'm not going to spend too much time criticizing his positions until I know what they are.

[ProudDad]

16. Ron Paul in his own words

"Congressman Ron Paul of Texas enjoys a national reputation as the premier advocate for liberty in politics today. Dr. Paul is the leading spokesman in Washington for limited constitutional government, low taxes, free markets, and a return to sound monetary policies based on commodity-backed currency. He is known among both his colleagues in Congress and his constituents for his consistent voting record in the House of Representatives: Dr. Paul never votes for legislation unless the proposed measure is expressly authorized by the Constitution."

I guess he'd be against women voting and considers black people as 2/3 of a white person?

"He also was a key member of the Gold Commission, advocating a return to a gold standard for our currency. He was an unwavering advocate of pro-life and pro-family values. Dr. Paul consistently voted to lower or abolish federal taxes, spending, and regulation, and used his House seat to actively promote the return of government to its proper constitutional levels."

Wow, anti-choice, "Gold standard"???, I guess he wants to go back to 13 states?

"He has received many awards and honors during his career in Congress, from organizations such as the National Taxpayers Union, Citizens Against Government Waste, the Council for a Competitive Economy, Young Americans for Freedom, and countless others."

God Damn, I thought the YAF was DEAD!!!

* Rights belong to individuals, not groups.

We're not a community, we're a collection of bucaneers!

* Property should be owned by people, not government.

No public space, no commons...

* All voluntary associations should be permissible -- economic and social.

The KKK is OK with him...

* The government's monetary role is to maintain the integrity of the monetary unit, not participate in fraud.

WTF does this mean? Back to the gold standard?

* Government exists to protect liberty, not to redistribute wealth or to grant special privileges.

No minimum wage, no progressive taxation (hell, he wants NO taxation)

* The lives and actions of people are their own responsibility, not the government's.

Ah, no anti-trust laws, no anti-fraud laws, grab all you can grab and steal all you can steal, eh ron?

"For Rep. Paul, each piece of legislation must be examined for its constitutionality; that is, on the basis of whether or not the US Constitution allows the Congress or the Federal Government to engage in the actions described by the proposed legislation. If the Constitution does not allow it, then it must be opposed."

For what ron says is "constitutional" is obviously Constitutional...


Check out his legislative history -- cosponsered bills. He's not consistent with his "principles" -- lots of tax loopholes, etc. from the head of ron paul...

[TheFarseer]

19. typical nutty libertarian in other words

I'm not surprised. Thanks for the info.

[Unvanguard]

30. Real libertarians support immigration, reproductive choice, and gay rights.

Unlike Ron Paul.

[unlawflcombatnt]

Civil Libertarian

All Libertarians are against torture, infringement on civil liberties, and excessive power of the President. Paul is the last person of any of the candidates who'd "have you in a concentration camp even quicker than Bush."

You need to read up on Paul's positions, as well as general Libertarian positions on civil liberties. You're way off base with your comment.

[unlawflcombatnt]

40. Civil Libertarian

All Libertarians are against torture, infringement on civil liberties, and excessive power of the President. Paul is the last person of any of the candidates who'd "have you in a concentration camp even quicker than Bush."

You need to read up on Paul's positions, as well as general Libertarian positions on civil liberties. You're way off base with your comment.

[unlawflcombatnt]

31. Ron Paul is more of an Independent Populist than a Libertarian

Paul disagrees with Libertarians on such issues as unrestricted free trade and unchecked illegal immigration/open borders, both positions of which Libertarians favor.

[brentspeak]

10. Well said

[bvar22]

11. Dennis Kucinich is the ONLY Democratic candidate

who holds the same opinion as Ron Paul on Free Trade.

DK (and Ron Paul) are RIGHT ON this issue.

[ProudDad]

17. That's one

We can get his vote on this good issue.

We should be able to get his vote to dump the phony "war on drugs".

There probably aren't many other "progressive" policies we can get his help for though.

[Heywood J]

15. Now there's an interesting sentence.

They transfer power from our government to unelected foreign elites.

From unelected domestic elites to unelected foreign elites? I don't suppose the foreign crowd could do much worse...

[ProudDad]

18. It's not true

In all cases these egregious global uber-orginizations transfer power and control to the unelected corporate masters.

[ToeBot]

20. The way he throws around the 'national sovereignty' issue, I wonder how he feels about the UN?

On second thought, no, the last thing I want to endure is another Libertarian anti-UN tirade.

[primative1]

21. Thats Two Questions in One ...

There's the "mission of the UN" question and then there is the how well it does at actualy addressing that mission question (and why).
To conclude, let me VETO that emotion :)

[rinsd]

22. He's voted against pay UN dues (nt)

[txaslftist]

23. No democrat would say this.

Well, maybe Gravel or Kucinich. You know, the guys with integrity...

[Renew Deal]

25. Ron Paul is excellent on some issues and appallingly bad on others

I think he's a good candidate for the republicans in 2008. The pukes are unlikely to win the election, especially if they put out another regurgitated republican. The pukes need someone to reset their priorities and Ron Paul is the man for that.

[Unvanguard]

29. Excellent on what, exactly?

Foreign policy, maybe, broadly speaking.

But domestically he's thoroughly awful.

[Solon]

26. He sounds like an isolationist and nationalist here...

I agree with him and Kucinich on Free Trade agreements in general, but both Kucinich and myself have differing reasons for opposing such agreements than Ron Paul. In addition, I want the ICC to try U.S. troops, generals, and even Presidents, when they commit war crimes, we should NOT endorse this bullshit, we are not Lords of the Earth, and should stop acting like it.

[Unvanguard]

28. Ron Paul is a staunch advocate of free trade.

He opposed CAFTA because it wasn't laissez-faire enough for him.

"We don’t need government agreements to have free trade. We merely need to lower or eliminate taxes on the American people, without regard to what other nations do. Remember, tariffs are simply taxes on consumers. Americans have always bought goods from abroad; the only question is how much our government taxes us for doing so. As economist Henry Hazlitt explained, tariffs simply protect politically-favored special interests at the expense of consumers, while lowering wages across the economy as a whole. Hazlitt, Ludwig von Mises, Friedrich Hayek, Murray Rothbard, and countless other economists have demolished every fallacy concerning tariffs, proving conclusively that unilateral elimination of tariffs benefits the American people. We don’t need CAFTA or any other international agreement to reap the economic benefits promised by CAFTA supporters, we only need to change our own harmful economic and tax policies. Let the rest of the world hurt their citizens with tariffs; if we simply reduce tariffs and taxes at home, we will attract capital and see our economy flourish."

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul254.html

Not to mention the fact that he's anti-gay and anti-immigrant, and his economic stances generally make Reagan look like Lenin.

[unlawflcombatnt]

32. You're completely Wrong

"He opposed CAFTA because it wasn't laissez-faire enough for him."

Completely and absolutely wrong. Here' the rest of Paul's statement:

"I oppose CAFTA for a very simple reason: it is unconstitutional. The Constitution clearly grants Congress alone the authority to regulate international trade. The plain text of Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 is incontrovertible. Neither Congress nor the President can give this authority away by treaty, any more than they can repeal the First Amendment by treaty. This fundamental point, based on the plain meaning of the Constitution, cannot be overstated. Every member of Congress who votes for CAFTA is voting to abdicate power to an international body in direct violation of the Constitution.

We don’t need government agreements to have free trade...."

Paul has voted against every single free trade agreement. He's the only person in Congress who has voted against them 100% of the time. He's also co-sponsored legislation for U.S. withdrawal from the WTO.

It's really hard to claim he's a "staunch advocate of free trade" when he's voted against it every single time.

[Unvanguard]

33. "We don't need government agreements to have free trade."

Did you even read what you posted, let alone the rest of the article?

He supports free trade WITHOUT management, without official government agreements: simply the unilateral cancellation of tariffs. As he said in the part I quoted.

He votes against free trade agreements because he's a libertarian absolutist (on some questions, anyway) who opposes any government regulation of it.

"Hazlitt, Ludwig von Mises, Friedrich Hayek, Murray Rothbard, and countless other economists have demolished every fallacy concerning tariffs, proving conclusively that unilateral elimination of tariffs benefits the American people."

This is someone against free trade speaking? Really?

[unlawflcombatnt]

34. Yes, really

Ron Paul has voted against free trade agreements 100% of the time.

He's against what is currently termed as "free trade." Yes, he states in speeches that he favors "free trade." Paul's "free trade" is not the free trade advocated by most Republicans or the Clinton administration. By current definition Paul is not a "free-trader." He does not believe in the unrestricted free trade advocated by the Bush or Tom Friedman. In contemporary terms, Paul would be considered a "fair-trader."

The proof is in the pudding. He's voted against all free trade agreements and "normalizations", from NAFTA to PNTR with China to CAFTA to Fast Track. It's difficult to consider someone a "free-trader" when they've voted against every single agreement that's labeled as a "free trade" agreement.

Paul's positions and votes of trade are nearly identical to those of Dennis Kucinich.

I've made a list of links at my forum to all free trade votes. (See Trade Votes.) See if you can find anyone who has voted "No" on more free trade agreements than Ron Paul.

Economic Populist Forum

[Unvanguard]

35. Most "fair traders"

do not believe in complete laissez-faire trade.

Most people who advocate fair trade advocate things like labor and environmental standards... which, for Ron Paul, are violations of liberty.

Ron Paul is not a fair trader. He is an extreme free trader, for whom the current trade agreements do not go far enough.

[unlawflcombatnt]

36. He Opposes Free Trade Because

He believes Congress (and hence, the people) should be controlling US trade policy, not rich Multinational Corporate lobbyists, as is the case now. Paul believes Congress should reserve the right to put tariffs on each and every country that is using unfair trade practices, such as slave labor, child labor, or prison labor. He believes Congress should have a free hand to legislate on trade with each individual country, and change tariffs and import policies as needed to protect the people of the United States (not Corporate America). Paul believes that American Multinationals should not be able to use their surrogates in the WTO, or any other international body, to supersede the the power of the U.S. Congress to protect the American people and their wellbeing.

Paul does not believe in unrestricted free trade. He believes all trade policy should be controlled by the people of the United States (through Congress), and not by Corporate America through their surrogates in the WTO.

Paul sees current free trade agreements as an increase in international regulatory burdens put on Americans, by rich American multinationals who can not obtain the desired protective legislation through the United States Congress.

Paul sees free trade agreements as a vehicle for American multinationals to circumvent U.S. laws by applying the more Corporate-friendly rules of International trade organizations.

[Unvanguard]

37. Yes, he is in favor of US sovereignty.

But he is also in favor of free trade. These positions are not contradictory.

And prove to me that Paul supports tariffs, ever, in any circumstances. (Except maybe as a revenue source... he might be reactionary enough for that.)

Or even just prove to me that he takes a position that is anything but free trade on anything. And, no, voting against free trade agreements because they aren't free trade enough doesn't count.

[provis99]

38. nonsense. Paul, like all libertarians, believes in completely unregulated free trade

He is opposed to these "free trade" agreements because they are agreements and treaties. He likes neither. BTW, these "free trade" agreements are not for free trade at all; they seek to regulate trade for the benefit of multinational corporations, and oppose labor standards. Paul's idea would be to get rid of any and all standards, agreements, or regulations,including ability of government to control corporations. In essence, he favors the ultimate big corporate wet dream, where corporations would supercede the power of sovereign democratic governments. Thats what libertarian capitalism is all about.

[unlawflcombatnt]

39. Who cares why he votes against "free" trade?

He opposes every piece of legislation that results in American jobs being outsourced to foreign countries. Who cares what his alleged motivations are? His actions and votes, which are far more important, support American workers, as well being universally against the interests of American Multinational Corporations. He's against any government handouts to Corporate America. He's against the run-away credit explosion that has been used to enrich overpaid Corporate CEO's. He's against allowing an International Court's rulings on trade to supersede U.S. law.

Again, who cares what his exact motivations are?? He's the best friend middle America and working Americans have in Congress. And he's the best friend of middle and working Americans who is running for president.

[primative1]

41. I care ..

I am one of the ones considering him and one of my biggest reservations is that I can not resolve what his motivations are in having voted against previous trade agreements.
What evidence there is in his numerous "writings" concerns me.
The biggest trade "problem" we have now is with china.
The noly soultion I have heard even mentioned is to attempt to address the issue of the chinese artificialy manipulating their currency.
In response Paul says things like this:

http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2007/cr050907.htm

One thing certain is that the immediate impact would be higher prices for consumer goods for middle class Americans. In many ways a weaker dollar would act as an import tax just as if it were a tariff. Both are considered protectionist in nature.


What do ya think that means?

[unlawflcombatnt]

43. Hmmmm

"I am one of the ones considering him and one of my biggest reservations is that I can not resolve what his motivations are in having voted against previous trade agreements. What evidence there is in his numerous "writings" concerns me."

I do share your reservations in this area. It certainly is a little hard to follow what Paul is driving at in this speech. I know from his previous commentaries he believes our debt is a serious problem and that we'd benefit from returning to a gold standard.

I know that Ron Paul is in favor of ending the massive credit expansion that's been the sole source of the Bush pseudo-recovery.

This particular speech by Paul should be viewed more as critique of current monetary policy and of fiat currency replacing "commodity"-backed currency (like gold or silver.) I don't think he's trying to convey any message on trade in this speech.

My interpretation of Paul's speech is that he's criticizing current monetary policy, and expressing doubts that allowing the yuan to appreciate (in relation to the dollar) will help with our trade balance, or with our economy overall. In contrast, many others believe allowing the yuan to appreciate significantly will help with the trade balance with China. There is considerable difference of opinion on this. I think much of that disagreement is quantitative. For example, how much of a difference would a 5% appreciation of the yuan make? A 10% appreciation? A 50% appreciation? The logic is that the more expensive Chinese goods become, compared to American goods, the more American goods would be preferred.

I'm not sure where I stand on this. Even a 50% appreciation of the yuan will only make so much difference, if Chinese labor costs are less than 2% that of American labor.

I think Paul is saying that a re-evaluation of the yuan is not going to fix our trade deficit. It also seems like he's saying tariffs won't solve the problem either. On this latter point, I completely disagree with him.

Again, however, I don't think this speech was intended to define Paul's trade policies. I think it was meant as a critique of Federal monetary policy.

To me, the most important concerns about a legislator (and a presidential candidate) are his actions (and votes), not his words. Even Bush has regurgitated some nice, populist-sounding rhetoric at times. But his actions are those of plutocratic, corporatocratic dictator.

With Paul, I think his actions speak louder than his words. I'd rather vote for someone who does something to help workers and the middle class, rather than one who only talks about it, and then votes like a Corporate shill.

[primative1]

44. Understanding Paul is sometimes like trying to read tea leaves

I have put every thing he has ever publicly said or written under a microscope and cant pin him down as to what he actually thinks about trade policy. This bother me because he elaborates so clearly on basically every other topic.
lol
Like wouldn't it be nice if we lived in a world where these guys would sit down and just tell us what they actually thought instead of making us do all this research? Debates?
I am just so sick of hearing how people feel about irrelevant social issues (which I agree 100% with Paul in that they should not be considered on a federal level period) and then having no clue where they stand on matters they should actually be examining.
By the way, I just thought I'd let you know, I've spent some time reading the posts over at your website and I've got to commend you for some great analysis over there. I'd recommend it as good reading for anyone.

[Unvanguard]

42. Are you serious?

As president, Ron Paul would try to eliminate tariffs (and without enacting labor and environmental regulations), destroy welfare, abolish the minimum wage, end federal education funding, get rid of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, and abolish the income tax.

He is the ENEMY of working Americans. On quite literally EVERY economic issue.

Not to mention the fact that he's anti-gay and anti-choice.

The only place where he's halfway decent is on foreign policy.