Pat Buchanan: Bigger government would have saved the economy
I thought I'd post this because I've seen people on here (naively) wishing that Pat Buchanan would run in 2012 as the liberty candidate:
Pat Buchanan: Bigger government would have saved the economy
Posted by Ryan W. McMaken at November 10, 2008 10:29 PM"I just saw Pat Buchanan on The EWTN (Catholic TV) news show explaining that if the government had slapped tariffs and trade barriers on everything years ago, everything would now be fine and all GM employees would be kings among men. "It's this free trade globalism" that is ruining everything, says Pat. Host Raymond Arroyo, whose entire editorial repertoire consists of mock outrage at things said by left-wingers, nodded knowingly.
If conservative populism makes a comeback, we are all in for a lot more conservative-approved government and taxation in the name of "America First" and "protecting" middle-American jobs. I've long wondered when Pat was going to get on this hobby horse again.
My subscription has lapsed, but the last time I read something in The American Conservativeabout economics, I thought I was reading a copy of The Daily Worker. Buchanan is no longer the editor there, so maybe things have improved."
Big Government?
WHAT! Tarriff = Smaller Government.
Free Trade is a farce brought upon you by the Global Elite.
It is just language warfare. All Libertarians should oppose 'free' trade.
Pat Buchanan was correct with his statements and it is not Big Government, but smaller.
Putting libertarianism aside, what's the Founder's position?
Article I, Section Eight of the US Constitution did NOT authorize income taxation.
Article I, Section Eight DID authorize tariffs and authorized Congress to "regulate commerce with foreign nations".
Which should we follow, as a means of generating revenue?
SUPPORT OUR FOUNDERS' AMERICA
Support the Constitution of the United States
SUPPORT OUR FOUNDERS' AMERICA
Support the Constitution of the United States
"Free trade" is not Capitalism
To say that "free trade" across international borders = free mkt capitalism is to assume that labor laws, human rights, property rights, environmental laws, taxation, etc. are consistent throughout the trading nations.
I once worked for a small U.S. wholesaler/retailer that needed certain chrome-plated auto parts manufactured. That company had these parts manufactured in Taiwan for far less than any U.S. company could make them. One reason was that the Taiwanese company could essentially dump its copper/nickel/chrome waste in the city sewer due to non-existent environmental laws.
So, should we balance the playing field for the U.S. mfg's and allow them to "dump" toxic waste or would a tariff on the foreign goods be a better option?
How about not shopping based soley on price
principles are a consideration in my business purchases.
Explore Orthodox Christianity
I'm with you there.
I always look for items made in U.S.A.
your post got me thinking
remember when you could sell somthing for a bit more because the alternative was made overseas? I miss principles.
Explore Orthodox Christianity
I do remember.
Here is another one to ponder: Is it better (patriotically) to buy a car made in Mexico by a U.S. company or a car made in Kentucky by a Japanese company?
Funny you should say that. I thought the same thing
Everything is so global now that you are supporting US workers by buying japanse goods but costing the nation at the same time. Weird. I guess somebody should call customer service in India.
Explore Orthodox Christianity
Economics Has Never Been Pat's Strong Suit
Which, imo, necessarily interferes with his thinking on other issues. I still like him though.
________________________________________________
"Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it." -- Joseph Goebbels
_____________________________
"Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it." -- Joseph Goebbels
Logical analysis of tariffs
To anyone who believes that tariffs can do good:
Tariffs are antithetical to the freedom of trade. Just another money grab by the state.
"Fair trade" BS
Well said. People who are grasping for manufacturing jobs are ignoring the fact that those are often the worst jobs to have. If politicians allowed the free markets to work, we end up keeping good jobs like design, research, marketing, etc... and the ones that no one wants get outsourced to third world countries.
As for fair trade, I can't believe the irrationality of people who think that's a good thing. I suspect Unions are behind that steaming pile because it makes the third world less attractive as a supplier of labor. And believe me, they want those jobs badly in the third world. It starts to raise their standard of living.
Register as Republican and Vote for Ron Paul
Think your job is safe?
Research and marketing have already been off-shored and design is not far behind. Architectural firms I know are already outsourcing some of their jobs to India. Not everyone is cut-out for sales, marketing, design, etc. Making things is a noble pursuit.
Manufacturing is essential to the prosperity and security of any nation. When war breaks out with China, those F-22's parts we ordered from them just might be "out-of-stock". We have sent thousands of mfg jobs to the 3rd world (Mexico), yet they are still streaming across the border.
First, we should eliminate the Income Tax.
By any means necessary. The American public is now ready for a tax revolt. A year ago, I did not think the general public could swallow the idea of freedom from income taxation. After the bailout, they are ready.
We can debate what to do with tariffs in the context of eliminating the Income Tax. I favor the tradeoff of More Tariffs vs. No Income Tax, if such a tradeoff is necessary.
SUPPORT OUR FOUNDERS' AMERICA
Support the Constitution of the United States
SUPPORT OUR FOUNDERS' AMERICA
Support the Constitution of the United States
Title is a little misleading
The title of this post makes it look like Buchanan said "Bigger government would have saved the economy" when in fact he was just lobbing around his usual protectionism statements. He's always been wrong on that issue.
Register as Republican and Vote for Ron Paul
Pat is a populist when it comes to trade
and he is conservative on many social issues, but if you read his books and his theories, you will find alot that you agree with and his willingness to shine the light on the truth in many areas makes him more courageous than most sheeple. Pat already made his shot for president, we have other options in the future. Gary Johnson, Barry Goldwater Jr. ect.
Buchanan can't be that bad...
if you go to his website he has this posted on the front page:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8484911570371055528...
We may not agree w/ everything, but we have to build some sort of
coalition.
Musician, Blimpographer...Hear my music: www.myspace.com/americanpirates
my videos: www.youtube.com/conservativefunds
Just launched http://iroots.org/
Activism Training.
Yes,
he's good on some issues and bad on others. Nobody here was claiming that he was "that bad."
On the trade issue
I side with Buchanan. The free trade deals that this country has signed onto is one of the main reasons we are having our financial woes. Lets get rid of NAFTA , CAFTA , GATT, and the WTO. Putting on tariffs protecting our workers What is so bad about that idea. Jefferson did it. The south got angry but it helped the American workers and farmers. Our manufacturing base has been depleted. We need to start building things again. When there are tangible items. Your value goes up. Our countries value has been going down Since the early seventies. It time to bring it back. This is not big government. This is what the federal government was set up for. Our protection. It wasn't designed to give our jobs away to other countries. Nixon, Ford, Carter, Bush, Clinton, Reagan were and are free traders. Obama says he wants to redo NAFTA. I am afraid the new agreement could have a worse outlook. It might include. The Establishment of the Amero. The Nafta Super Highway. Free movement between the countries. NAFTA should be abolished. Not tinkered with.
***********Ron Paul for POTUS 2012***********
*************Obama Is A Communist!************
**********Repeal the 17th Amendment**********
Double the size of the House of Representatives
$$$$$$$$$AUDIT THE FEDERAL RESERVE$$$$$$$$$$
"The free trade deals that
When has the country ever signed a true free-trade deal?
It's restricts freedom.
Jefferson also owned slaves. What's your point?
Jefferson
also wrote the Declaration of Independence.
What is your point?
Now is the time to JUMP-START the campaigns for 2010 and 2012.
We didn't lose. The ignorant lost. We know what has happened. Personally I think John McCain Has been used as a patsy. To bring about an Obama administration.
***********Ron Paul for POTUS 2012***********
*************Obama Is A Communist!************
**********Repeal the 17th Amendment**********
Double the size of the House of Representatives
$$$$$$$$$AUDIT THE FEDERAL RESERVE$$$$$$$$$$
Just that appeal...
to authority is a weak logical argument.
It protects freedom
Tariffs do not restrict freedom. They prevent uncaring corporations from moving overseas to undercut the American worker. In case you have not noticed since the 1950's the American government gives tax incentives to move over seas. This is why nothing is made here anymore.
It comes to this.
Fat overstuffed pimps who hoard money by dishonest deals along with the use of low paid workers became tiered of the American worker demanding a part of the profits. Tiered of unions demanding decent standards of safety and health. Job protection and plain human decency.
So they did something about it. The slow moving of manufacturing of all goods over seas. With the use of bribes for the congress and good wishes from the power elite who want the global government (and need the destruction of America to accomplish this goal) they have succeeded.
What is your definition
of freedom?
Freedom .............
the condition or right of being able or allowed to do whatever you want to, without being controlled or limited
None of this has anything to do with tariffs. Freedom is a political philosophy. Tariffs are an economic policy.
If Americans want good paying jobs with health insurance than they need to select products from good paying companies that supply health insurance. Over seas companies that import goods at a reduced cost must be taxed to the competitive level of the comparable American company. This money must go towards the compensation of American workers who would be negatively impacted by these sales.
If you don't Americans will buy the cheaper products until they bankrupt their own country.
See....present news
OK...
The reason I asked your definition is because you made a claim that "tariffs protect freedom."
I needed to know the definition, not to be an arse, but to evaluate the claim.
OK so since tariffs implemented thru physical force (or the threat thereof), how does that protect the condition of being able to do whatever one wants?
It doesn't. It directly violates it..
Agreed
Tariffs protect freedom was a poor choice of words.
Tariffs protect economic prosperity which can be used to protect the political philosophy of freedom.
Hows that?
Tariffs must be approved by the people through their representatives in congress. Like any law it must be enforced. We are not free to kill because as a people we have approved laws against it. We expect it to be enforced.
I think you're very confused about our trade imbalance
You propose no solution and think tariffs or any regulation on trade are 'big government'?
Fair trade is only fair if it is balanced, thus it must be regulated to be so.
Our current free-for-all trading has left this country a disaster and fueled America's over consumption.
You're really grasping at straws while trying to bash Buchanan -- this is borderline trolling here.
Corporations have abused their freedom just like any criminal and now they must be reigned in with sound regulation.
Are you going to sit there and try to argue against our current economic crisis CAUSED by a lack of regulation (which the corporations lobbied for) should continue because it regulation might take away a few of their freedoms?
Why stop there? Why not just release all criminals from the jails and abolish all laws? What's the point of laws if we can't be free?
It's all just big gov trying to keep us down, right?
============================
Glen Beck -- An Exposed Enemy:
http://www.dailypaul.com/node/90198
Glenn Beck Supports NAFTA and taking your job:
http://www.dailypaul.com/node/86643
Ow... ow ow ow ow ow.
It is not, "free for all trading" that has bankrupted this country.
You cannot go bankrupt through trade. You can only consume the things you've traded for and through lack of production have nothing else to trade in order to consume.
There is a huge difference between "fair trade" which gives unfair advantages to certain trading partners of the US, and fair trade, which means treating all countries as economic equals.
Trade does not fuel consumption. The idea that things do not need to be produced and that we can live on the gains of our forefathers in an orgy of consumption till the end of our days is what fuels consumption. It doesn't need to be regulated, it needs to be equal to all comers.
Tariffs? Absolutely necessary because the government needs to extract money in order to pay for the guarding of our borders and checking what goods need to be brought in.
Your idea that "corporations have abused their freedom" is absurd. For that, corporations would need to be free and in an environment where they can work without needing to weedle their way through a thousand congressional loopholes. If you tell a man he is not allowed to work, but that he must have money to buy food, do you expect him not to steal?
Without government interference in the markets, the corporations would have nothing to take advantage of. There is only competition, with the best products winning, and the barrel of a gun not being the deciding force.
Corporate lobbying isn't at fault here, lobbiest do not make rules, corrupt men in congress do. If congress couldn't grant special favors, lobbiests would all be out of jobs.
How many lobbiests take Ron Paul out to dinner? Shower him with gifts? Donate to his charities.
The answer is none, because he's a man of character.
Give me men of character and Washington will sing a different tune.
Eric Hoffer
http://gplus.to/jamesrmoore
Why are you opposed to free-markets?
I could care less about the trade balance.
I could throw a similar charge at you. You are "gasping at straws" to promote restrictions on freedom on a website that is supposed to be pro-liberty.
All corporations? And you want "sound" regulation? That means you are opposed to free-markets. Why are you opposed to free-markets?
Caused by a lack of regulation? Please back up your statement.
I wouldn't want to release all of them. But probably most.
US Constitution gives these rights to the Fedral Government.
. Section 8 - Powers of Congress
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;....................
It is the right of congress to pass tariffs on good being brought into the United States. This was put in to protect the American workers, farmers, and businesses. The way you are expounding is that our government is supposed to give up this right. Hand it over to the WTO, and the United Nations. Form a free trading world. Where the people of this country will be usurped of their jobs, factories, and farms. By them being sent and built on foreign soils. That undercut the pay scale, safety, and environmental concerns of the United States. You would admonish the sovereignty of the United States. Pushing the world towards an globalized economic one world authority.
Would you give up the Right to Bear Arms? Since that was before there were slums and impoverished areas with high murder rates with low aptitude?
***********Ron Paul for POTUS 2012***********
*************Obama Is A Communist!************
**********Repeal the 17th Amendment**********
Double the size of the House of Representatives
$$$$$$$$$AUDIT THE FEDERAL RESERVE$$$$$$$$$$