How Does Ron Paul Feel About Outsourcing? (NAFTA, unemployed, illegal)

[belovenow]

Originally Posted by Glitch

What unmitigated hogwash. Only Congress can impose tariffs, not Presidents and certainly not the Secretary of the Treasury. Perhaps you should learn a little bit about how your own government functions before asking such moronic questions.

Glitch don't restrain or obfuscate your real opinion - I want to know where you really stand on this idea.

If you do a little research on the terms "Alexander Hamilton" and "Outsourcing" at Google you'll understand what the OP was referring to - and with a little bit of gray matter and applied thought you will surely figure out why. Regardless of whether the President or Sec. of treasury or Congress has specific implied authority or responsibilities the concepts within the top articles still stand as reasonable and politically applicable to today's outsourcing situation.

[Glitch]

Originally Posted by mbuszu

Glitch don't restrain or obfuscate your real opinion - I want to know where you really stand on this idea.

If you do a little research on the terms "Alexander Hamilton" and "Outsourcing" at Google you'll understand what the OP was referring to - and with a little bit of gray matter and applied thought you will surely figure out why. Regardless of whether the President or Sec. of treasury or Congress has specific implied authority or responsibilities the concepts within the top articles still stand as reasonable and politically applicable to today's outsourcing situation.

What a presidential candidate thinks about outsourcing is immaterial, since they have absolutely no power to do anything about it other than to propose legislation to Congress. To choose a presidential candidate based on what they think about outsourcing only underscores the complete lack of education concerning how government functions. Furthermore, whenever Congress imposed tariffs it did nothing but hurt the US economy. The tariffs imposed by Congress in the 1830s on finished goods imported from England virtually devasted the southern states who supplied England with the raw materials. In the 1920s the tariffs Congress imposed was a leading contributor to the depression that followed.

So if your goal is to further erode the US economy, then by all means support tariffs, but at least obtain some understanding on where they originate.

[belovenow]

Glitch - Well from your logic - it matters not whether I support or oppose tariffs since I have no authority or responsibility for that domain. It also matters not if we vote for a president who is for or against anything issue-wise because Congress ultimately represents the people and balances out the President's opinion or powers regarding imposing or approving anything. Fundamentally it would even matter not that we vote at all for President since the electoral college actually puts in place new presidents and most states don't require the electoral college to vote in line with the popular vote majority.

Your opinion regarding the historical or future helpfulness of tariffs is sound but your assertions/implications regarding the OP or myself not having functional understanding of the US government are misdirected. Perhaps you do have more intimate knowledge of the government, if so then use that knowledge more constructively than to unprovoked and unjustifiably devalue other people's opinions in their threads.

For the record, yes it does matter what the future President thinks or does in regards to these issues like Outsourcing. The President directs the foreign policy of this country and indeed both appoints individuals and works with individuals who make decisions regarding this and related federal issues. If you think the President's opinion thus has no influence for this topic area then you are full of beans.

[Glitch]

Originally Posted by mbuszu

Glitch - Well from your logic - it matters not whether I support or oppose tariffs since I have no authority or responsibility for that domain.

You do have a responsibility, and a duty as a citizen in a participatory government, to vote for your House Representative(s) and Senators who do have a direct effect on whether tariffs are enacted or not.

Originally Posted by mbuszu

It also matters not if we vote for a president who is for or against anything issue-wise because Congress ultimately represents the people and balances out the President's opinion or powers regarding imposing or approving anything.

For the areas of responsibility the President has read Article II of the US Constitution.

Originally Posted by mbuszu

Fundamentally it would even matter not that we vote at all for President since the electoral college actually puts in place new presidents and most states don't require the electoral college to vote in line with the popular vote majority.

Quite true. The popular vote for President was instituted by the states in 1824 and can be abolished by the states just as easily. Your vote counts more in the state primaries where district delegates are elected than it does in the General Election when you vote for President.

Originally Posted by mbuszu

For the record, yes it does matter what the future President thinks or does in regards to these issues like Outsourcing. The President directs the foreign policy of this country and indeed both appoints individuals and works with individuals who make decisions regarding this and related federal issues. If you think the President's opinion thus has no influence for this topic area then you are full of beans.

Yes, that is indeed one of the President's responsibilities - Foreign Policy. However, you are mistaken to think that outsourcing is a federal issue. The last time I checked the US Constitution outsourcing was not mentioned at all. Other than Congress enacting legislation that indirectly effects outsourcing (via tariffs or some other means), there isn't anything that they can do that is permitted by the US Constitution, least of all the President.

If outsourcing is such a major concern for you, then abolish private sector unions and drive US wages down so that they will be more competitive with overseas markets. Personally, outsourcing as been a boon to my industry. The more businesses that outsource their programming and database work overseas to India and elsewhere, the more business I get when those businesses find out that the cultural and communication differences have resulted in their program/database being unusable.

[KantLockeMeIn]

You have authority to vote for the candidate of your choice for the house or senate who ultimately control tariffs. While the executive branch does hold the power of veto, the congress holds the ultimate power to override that veto.

Ron Paul is in favor of a very weak executive branch, and given his past record, us supporters believe he will follow through. I've given the forum a direct statement from Paul on outsourcing which should get you started. In the end you should realize that he is in support of a free market and free trade. I agree with that position and I'm employed in one field that is experiencing a great deal of outsourcing and offshoring.

[timjowers]

So far, the sites I've read suggest Ron Paul is for L1 and H1 visas. Everyone in tech knows these are a scam as the DoL never enforces the rules. HCL and Wipro break the L1 rules as a standard practice of business.

The only credit I can give RP on this issue is if the visa gap is removed then we'd see massive immigration of doctors, lawyers, and everything else so prices would drop... or would they?

This issue is REALLY hurting his chances IMO. I have tried to summarize each candidates' stance at: http://www.gouno.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=28

[timjowers]

How much money do you think comes from tariffs? How about from Corporate income taxes? Now how about from paycheck taxes (payroll taxes like SS and medicare plus personal income taxes)?

For every $1 from tariffs about $78 is taken from a paycheck. See this posting: gouno.com • View topic - Import Tariffs

Imagine Black & Decker pays its workers $12/hr in the USA. Their true cost with unemployment taxes and other payroll taxes is around $15/hr. Now they move the plant to China and pay only $0.50/hr. Plus maybe 5 cents import taxes. The property tax alone for having the plant in the USA is more than the ENTIRE import TARIFF. So, the same wealthy stock owners now increase their profit alot while also decreasing the manufacturing base of the USA.

At some point, the service economy fails because no value is being created. Today the USA has benefited as the Chinese workers are largely in servitude (no freedom of speech, religion, or child-bearing exists in China) so produce products of more value than the money they receive and as the USA has relied on an age-old form of taxation called controlled inflation as the central bank and the US government print money (by loaning it out at low interest rates) and greatly increase the money supply. Why do you think the US government stopped tracking the M3 money supply number?

Those who oppose tariffs and favor income taxes are plain and simple not looking out for the average American. Clearly if you are a wealthy stock-holder then you do not want tariffs because this transfer of taxes from companies to individuals favors rich stockholders and hurts the average American. Around the 1950's corporations use to pay about as much tax as individuals. Considering inflation they pay a fraction today. How about the 1900's? Income tax did not even exist early in the US history! Tariffs did!

I invite you to see what the Presidential Candidates have to say about it because some of them also support a Fair Tax which would replace personal income taxes and remove the benefit for moving jobs and companies out of the USA. Check it out at http://www.gouno.com/.

The Fair Tax is The Only Pro-American tax system being considered. The current tax system (income tax) is anti-American and the #1 reason jobs and companies are moving offshore.

[MrTudo]

America seems to be bent on showing the world that it can make socialism work. Cradle to grave "entitlements" , high progressive taxes, no tax breaks at all for domestic manufacturers.

It's gotten so expensive to do business in the US a manufacturer would be crazy to try doing business here.

China is marching into the capitalist stream with HUGE tax breaks for almost anyone who shows they will invest in the country and put people to work. Vietnam is not far behind and is learning from the Chinese.

If America wants it's socialism then America id doomed to betray everything that made this country great and is doomed to lose it all.

Paul will roll back spending to a point where taxes could be cut and income taxes eventually eliminated across the board. That alone would result in an economic boom the world has never seen.

You cannot have socialism and a military complex that's been created AND freedom which creates prosperity at the same time. It's time for America to choose. More socialism and military state with the "candidates" or freedom and prosperity and a beginning of a return to traditional American values and "go man go" spirit with Ron Paul.

[bily4]

Well ironically another thing driving a lot of manufacturers out of America is the private health care burden. Manufacturers are begging for some degree of government intervention/involvement to help control this runaway freight train. GM says health care adds $1500/auto manufactured in the U.S. Small companies are sending employees to India or Mexico for operations because that is their only affordable solution.

I agree that making the climate friendly and competitive for manufacturers is one of the most urgent issues for the country today. If you consider, there are a lot of added costs to manufacture in China or VietNam. Quality defects,what kind of reliable warranties can you expect, how quickly can you roll out new products, contracts are not worth the paper they are printed on, shipping and customs and warehousing and months of leadtime for product production and shipping, most Chinese want payment prior to shipment. Chinese are constantly quitting their jobs to go work down the block so there is constant retraining going on. Loss of intellectual property. Most companies need teams of Americans living over there and making trips back and forth to keep an eye on things which is a big expense. Another SARS epidemic or dispute over Taiwan and a company's entire business gets jeopardized.

So with the proper incentives in place there should be room to entice businesses to come back to America despite the labor differential, which will get smaller as the Chinese start looking to improve their lifestyles from all of this manufacturing.

I also agree that spending more on our military than the entire rest of the world combined is overkill. We need to start worrying about our own country instead of spreading democracy around the world.

[LM1]

Don't know if anyone mentioned this yet, but there is an operative difference between the words "outsourcing" and "offshoring".

While the media and certain pundits have taken to using the terms interchangeably, "offshoring" is more accurate and indicative of the topic they're addressing when they're talking about jobs going overseas... but yeah... It's kinda like how everyone said "Attorney Generals" as the plural for an Attorney General until someone mentioned from the back row that it was supposed to be "Attorneys General" and then everyone corrected themselves.