It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The GOP Debate: Reagan Library

page: 5
4
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 09:29 AM
link   
reply to post by Janky Red
 



And you think Americans want to stand there, with a name badge selling the stuff???

Well, 60% of the jobs lost during this recession where within the small business sector so, I'd say yeah some people like working for themselves.



They are struggling since the introduction of this model, which is based upon the very toothbrushes, socks, shoes and many other things

So we would all be richer if we just had to pay more for everything?




posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 09:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rockdisjoint

Not a trade war, fair policy.
Europe didn't do that, probably because America helped liberate Europe.


Why are you equating similar volume of trade with war??? I think you are being unreasonable.




In a way an economy is always a service economy. Servicing and manufacturing are both processes of production and the utility of the goods being produced always comes from the value of the service it contributes to satisfy others.


Yes, but the model of turning the majority of the economy into a service and consumption platform is a method
to create the Mexican economy. 1 Billionaire for every 100,000 people living in the Mexico city shanty towns.
What you do not seem to recognize is this transformation has paced Americas decline, along with Reagan policies...



No, I live in the U.S but I like Asian products. If I want to go to the store and buy Japanese manga, I should be able to do that without paying artificially high prices meant to force me to buy U.S made comics.


Is Japan, China???


I am suggesting that the ratio of imports and exports to any US trade partner should be balanced.
Any Chinese doctor can tell you that the fundamental cause of illness is a lack of balance, I think
that can apply equally to an economy.




You said they would instate a 3rd world economy and 3rd world economies are normally socialist

Germany, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Denmark and the UK have much more socialistic governments,
and all of them have higher wages, better healthcare, more vacation time and stronger base currencies,
AND TRADE POLICIES.

I was challenged the other day to name a stronger economy that is NOT socialist.

Can you help me?



You might not want to, but some people probably do and they should have the option to do that rather than sitting around and begging corporations to come back and give them a job... the U.S use to be full of entrepreneurs.


They can do that, sure.





I like the U.S and I care for the U.S I just don't think cutting off trade with China would help the U.S. In fact I think it will greatly impoverish the rest of the U.S. The same way the smoot–hawley tariff act intend to increase U.S jobs during the great depression did nothing but increase unemployment and poverty.


I suggest requiring a balanced trade model - closer to equilibrium



Dude protectionism IS republicanism, free trade is a liberal idea and even FDR ran on free trade..... Free trade was working just fine until Reagan came along... and began to regulate it.


I think the political paradigm has changed much more than you care to realize,

I would like to start off with balancing the trade ratio - closer to equilibrium



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 09:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rockdisjoint
reply to post by Janky Red
 



Well, 60% of the jobs lost during this recession where within the small business sector so, I'd say yeah some people like working for themselves.


Did you forget what I was responding to???



So we would all be richer if we just had to pay more for everything?


Are we gonna be richer if we have start paying wages comparable to Chinese wages, just to stay afloat?



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 11:12 AM
link   
reply to post by DZAG Wright
 



They have taken the economy global...of which America has NO chance of competing in our accustomed lifestyle.

If our economy hadn't gone global we would've never gotten to experience this type of life style, if the U.S would have kept its goods strictly in the U.S after WWII our middle class would have never risen at the rate it did.



Why not, when you don't have to provide healthcare and you pay workers $1 per day.

That 1 dollar per day is better than what they got before and that was nothing..... that 1 dollar per day is more than what many doctors make in those countries... that 1 dollar per day allows those people to keep their kids away from prostitution.

That 1 dollar a day means a lot to some people and taking that opportunity away would do more harm than good.



The very thing that had us living middle class (factories) have been taken away in the name of capitalism, and placed in China, Mexico, etc.

What about manufactures in Germany that send their factories to the U.S? Or what about the manufactures in Japan that send their factories to the U.S? Why didn't Germany's or Japans middle class fade away when they sent some jobs to the U.S?



On the contrary, the countries our factories have relocated too, are beginning to form a middle class! Reason being....they have the components that CREATE a middle class.

Yes, they are forming a middle class, have you ever wondered why U.S manufactures can't sell goods to them?



They come in here and other boards FIGHTING for capitalism when capitalism has royally BENT THEM OVER!

Actually many americans favor protectionism, even the people on this forum like protectionism. Protectionism only impoverishes, but many people like the idea of it. I guess it looks great on paper to them but historically it has never worked...



They don't realize that America has LOST in the game of CAPITALISM! It's capitalism that has them losing their homes and possessions. Yet they misdirect their attention toward Obama and government.

No america has lost capitalism, this is evidenced by no longer practicing any of the basic tenets of capitalism.



ORPORATIONS HAVE A RIGHT to move their factories to China! We will fight so that in the name of capitalism, Mr. CEO can move his company to India and pay them $1 per day....it's his Right!

Why shouldn't people have the right to move their businesses where they want to? Would you want to stop someone from moving their business from Maine to Washington or from Canada to Texas?



Then they look round and wonder why their job which was previously paying the mortgage and sending the kids to college is gone. DUMB AZZ...you sent it away!

They can always find another job or they can start their own. That's what my mom had to do and she's not complaining and her new jobs pays much more than what her old job use to pay her...
edit on 8-9-2011 by Rockdisjoint because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 11:14 AM
link   
reply to post by Janky Red
 



Why are you equating similar volume of trade with war??? I think you are being unreasonable.

Because when goods can no longer pass borders soldiers will, just look at the middle east. Wouldn't you have preferred it if we traded with them peacefully rather than going to war and stealing their oil and other natural resources?



What you do not seem to recognize is this transformation has paced Americas decline, along with Reagan policies...

The U.S has been declining ever since 1971, trying to bring up the Reagan bogeyman is just being intellectually dishonest.



Is Japan, China???

No, but it's the same principle.



I am suggesting that the ratio of imports and exports to any US trade partner should be balanced. Any Chinese doctor can tell you that the fundamental cause of illness is a lack of balance, I think that can apply equally to an economy.

That's my point trade would be balanced if it wasn't for govt intervention within our monetary system.



Germany, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Denmark and the UK have much more socialistic governments, and all of them have higher wages, better healthcare, more vacation time and stronger base currencies, AND TRADE POLICIES.

I'm not sure how you could consider those countries socialist though....... Socialism means public ownership of the means of production, i.e. the state, those countries still have private ownership.



I was challenged the other day to name a stronger economy that is NOT socialist.

None of those countries you listed are socialist, interventionism and welfarism aren't socialism.



Can you help me?

Mhm, maybe New Zealand, Switzerland, Ireland, Hong Kong, even Canada. They all have higher levels of economic freedom, EU members even have more trade freedom than the U.S.



I think the political paradigm has changed much more than you care to realize,

Bush was in office just a few years ago, protectionism or economic nationalism has always been a republican thing....



Are we gonna be richer if we have start paying wages comparable to Chinese wages, just to stay afloat?

Why would U.S workers have to compete with Chinese wages? U.S manufacturing workers have higher wages than Chinese manufacturing workers now, I don't see why that would change. Low skilled Chinese workers cost less, but they will also produce less. What matters to the employer is labor cost per unit produced. Workers receive higher wages because their productivity is such that they are worth more.
edit on 8-9-2011 by Rockdisjoint because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 12:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rockdisjoint
reply to post by Janky Red
[


Because when goods can no longer pass borders soldiers will, just look at the middle east. Wouldn't you have preferred it if we traded with them peacefully rather than going to war and stealing their oil and other natural resources?







The U.S has been declining ever since 1971, trying to bring up the Reagan bogeyman is just being intellectually dishonest.


Americas debt model started with Reagan, Reagan effectively indebted America, in actually terms, more than
ALL the presidents combined by the end of his presidency. Infact 8 Trillion of our current debt is principle and
interest on his initial debt.




That's my point trade would be balanced if it wasn't for govt intervention within our monetary system.


A point that I am supposed to accept 'cause you wrote it???




I'm not sure how you could consider those countries socialist though....... Socialism means public ownership of the means of production, i.e. the state, those countries still have private ownership.


Germany, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Denmark and the UK - ALL of these countries are far more socialist than America, higher taxes and regulation, are you kidding?



None of those countries you listed are socialist, interventionism and welfarism aren't socialism


All those countries have far more government intrusion into the market place, SOCIALIZED MEDICINE
and viable socialist parties.




Mhm, maybe New Zealand, Switzerland, Ireland, Hong Kong, even Canada. They all have higher levels of economic freedom, EU members even have more trade freedom than the U.S.


New Zealand, Switzerland, Ireland, even Canada - All have more socialist policies and Socialized medicine
and protectionist policies in place.




Bush was in office just a few years ago, protectionism or economic nationalism has always been a republican thing....


Well I am against corporatism and I am protectionist, What am I???



Why would U.S workers have to compete with Chinese wages? U.S manufacturing workers have higher wages than Chinese manufacturing workers now, I don't see why that would change. Low skilled Chinese workers cost less, but they will also produce less. What matters to the employer is labor cost per unit produced. Workers receive higher wages because their productivity is such that they are worth more.


Because corporations would like to eliminate wage entry, pay people $9 a day so Executives can earn the difference. GOP would like to help that too, as long as there are "jobs", failing to mention that this proposal will
create servitude



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 12:26 PM
link   
Isn't it nice how MSNBC treated Ron Paul. Here you go Paul, talk about school nutrition while we give the other candidates more questions.

They treated Paul like he wasn't in the room, as if he is the little brother of the other candidates, when in fact he is the front runner in the GOP.

The debate was a setup! Made for Romney vs. Perry.

Ron Paul is a front runner created by the people.

Rick Perry is a front runner created by corporate media.


BEWARE
Rick Perry is FAKE and a LIAR..... he is a stupefied POSER!



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 12:31 PM
link   
paul gets it the others not so much and i dont want newt as potus but i love his style putting the moderate in their place about getting them to fight with each other.

imo the best response of the night was paul and the silver dime.

its all about the money as in the value of the dollar aka infation and if their not thinking about that

they wont even begin to fix whats gone wrong in this country.

id love to see paul as potus so the left and rights heads explode



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 01:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Janky Red
 



Americas debt model started with Reagan, Reagan effectively indebted America, in actually terms, more than ALL the presidents combined by the end of his presidency. Infact 8 Trillion of our current debt is principle and interest on his initial debt.

Okay. I agree with that.



A point that I am supposed to accept 'cause you wrote it???

No, because it's self evident -- if Chinese citizens could afford to buy more of our goods they would buy more.



Germany, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Denmark and the UK - ALL of these countries are far more socialist than America, higher taxes and regulation, are you kidding?

Well, as I said before govt intervention isn't socialism, Marx hated most govt intervention in the market. Besides that what makes you think that Sweden has more regulations than the U.S? According to market ranking surveys and stuff Sweden has a freer market than the U.S.



All those countries have far more government intrusion into the market place, SOCIALIZED MEDICINE and viable socialist parties.

Why do you keep typing in caps? Calm down.... I really don't see how their govts are any different than ours, the U.S gives away hand outs and regulates a lot too and yes they have socialized health care, but the U.S health care system isn't market health care.... and I'm still not seeing what free health care has to do with socialism.



New Zealand, Switzerland, Ireland, even Canada - All have more socialist policies and Socialized medicine and protectionist policies in place.

Yes, they still have some intervention and welfare, but their economies are still market economies, less interventionist and freer than ours. Do you have any proof when you say they are protectionist?

In fact, Canada didn't even engage in any type of govt stimulus [monetary or fiscal] during this recession.



Well I am against corporatism and I am protectionist, What am I???

You're still a corporatist, since you want to shield American corporations from foreign competition.



Because corporations would like to eliminate wage entry, pay people $9 a day so Executives can earn the difference. GOP would like to help that too, as long as there are "jobs", failing to mention that this proposal will create servitude

If people think the wages are too low then they won't take them.
edit on 8-9-2011 by Rockdisjoint because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 11:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rockdisjoint
reply to post by Janky Red

A point that I am supposed to accept 'cause you wrote it???


No, because it's self evident -- if Chinese citizens could afford to buy more of our goods they would buy more.


You are completely changing the basis of what I was responding to aren't you.

You arrested that government that... "That's my point trade would be balanced if it wasn't for govt intervention within our monetary system."

You are all over the place, it sounds like you are just regurgitating popular rhetoric just for arguments sake.

if Chinese citizens could afford to buy more of our goods they would buy more.

AND

trade would be balanced if it wasn't for govt intervention within our monetary system

Are two completely separate considerations.

The second one sounds like magical conjure of some sort

IT is like saying; "I can go to space, if the oceans would stop producing waves"

Make your point and stick to it, then I can respond




. I really don't see how their govts are any different than ours, the U.S gives away hand outs and regulates a lot too and yes they have socialized health care, but the U.S health care system isn't market health care.... and I'm still not seeing what free health care has to do with socialism


You don't see what free health care has to do with socialism?

Did you come here to discuss or play patty cake?



Yes, they still have some intervention and welfare, but their economies are still market economies, less interventionist and freer than ours. Do you have any proof when you say they are protectionist?


Canada charges a 15% tariff on import cars...

U.S it is 2.5%


New Zealand does not want Canada joining negotiations for the Trans Pacific Partnership agreement because Canada wants dairy products exempted from any deal, Prime Minister John Key said in Ottawa last night.

"The sticking point is Canada wants to exclude dairy, and that would be unacceptable to us," Mr Key told the Herald.

"Our focus is on getting an agreement that is comprehensive and flexible.

"We certainly would be resistant to anything that halted the process up."

The TPP issue was discussed at talks yesterday between Mr Key and Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper, but Mr Harper gave nothing away in his comments at a press conference.






You're still a corporatist, since you want to shield American corporations from foreign competition.


That's rich, a corporatist is someone who advances the agenda of business, before the well being of
the American citizen.



If people think the wages are too low then they won't take them


You are unreasonable and not very logical, I know it has to do with your ideological outlook... but dumbing yourself down, to protect a notion is treasonous to your own being and mind. I assume, due to the lack of cohesion or insight that his whole debate with you has just be superficial sport on your behalf, a chance to jettison out some pre canned political chum maybe?

People all around the world work for wages that are sub human. It is called hunger, the motivation is
force of hunger

Mexican Minimum wage is $4.70 a day

You can buy a chicken and a liter of milk, for one days worth of work.

I don't think you really care to understand the implications of what you and other globalist corporatists
are inviting here. Your argument and understanding seems to reflect that, it is like advocating for
AIDS as a weight loss program. It is fine to be tough and square, but not when it makes you blind and
ignorant.
edit on 8-9-2011 by Janky Red because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 05:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Janky Red
 



Make your point and stick to it, then I can respond

My point was that the U.S still manufactures a lot and most of our current trade and account deficits are due to govt intervention within our monetary flows, such as the Fed promoting unsustainable consumption by keeping interest rates artificially low, which helps U.S citizens borrow in order to buy foreign goods and erodes national savings.

This excessive money creation has also prevented prices from dropping relative to Chinese prices, which has prevented the Chinese from having greater purchasing power in order to buy more U.S made goods. Foreign central banks have also kept their currencies at artificially low exchange rates to the USD by buying U.S Treasury Bonds weakening their currency, keeping their citizens purchasing power artificially low.



You don't see what free health care has to do with socialism? Did you come here to discuss or play patty cake?

I honestly don't. Maybe you could explain? What does govt subsidized health care have to do with workers taking control of the means of production?



Canada charges a 15% tariff on import cars...

Tbh, I would only consider a tariff over 20% to be protectionist and as I stated before the U.S is protectionist in several areas of its economy too.



That's rich, a corporatist is someone who advances the agenda of business, before the well being of the American citizen.

Well, would you consider Mitt Romney a corporatist? If so he agrees with you on tariffing China and placing blame on Asia for our current economic problems instead of where it belongs. Link

You're essentially saying that corporatism is okay, as long as the corporations and state are merging to benefit the U.S....



You are unreasonable and not very logical, I know it has to do with your ideological outlook... but dumbing yourself down, to protect a notion is treasonous to your own being and mind.

How is wanting to trade with China treasonous to my mind? My problem is that you rah-rah americans don't really even hate free trade, you're just selfish. You guys have absolutely no problem with firms from other nations coming to the U.S and creating jobs.

The day I see you protectionist protesting Toyota, or any other foreign company and telling them to go back home is the day I will take you protectionist seriously.



assume, due to the lack of cohesion or insight that his whole debate with you has just be superficial sport on your behalf, a chance to jettison out some pre canned political chum maybe?

What a grumpy old man you are.



People all around the world work for wages that are sub human. It is called hunger, the motivation is force of hunger

I understand that, but would you rather the worker getting paid $5 a day get paid nothing and starve?



I don't think you really care to understand the implications of what you and other globalist corporatists are inviting here.

I'm not a globalist or corporatist, I'm just not a protectionist because historically protectionism has never done what you protectionist claim it would. In your head you say trade barriers will put 14 million people back to work manufacturing, but what about the other 336 million people? How do you know the trade barriers you advocate won't force them to lose their jobs, companies, homes, quality of life, etc?

Protectionist tariffs always have unforeseen consequences, just like the fruit juice tariffs in 2002 people thought that would increase U.S agricultural jobs, but it didn't do anything like that. Instead it forced U.S consumers to pay 8 times more for fruit juice.

What makes you so sure protectionism will work well this time, even though it has never worked as intended before?



your argument and understanding seems to reflect that, it is like advocating for AIDS as a weight loss program. It is fine to be tough and square, but not when it makes you blind and ignorant.

You just keep attacking me, like insulting me will make me agree with you....
edit on 9-9-2011 by Rockdisjoint because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 10 2011 @ 03:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rockdisjoint

I don' t think we are getting anywhere, I am sorry I have been insulting to you.

I am not going to discuss this anymore with you, there is not much point to it.

Take Care



posted on Sep, 10 2011 @ 06:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Janky Red
 

You should read Pop Internationalism, that's the first book I ever read regarding free trade and it made me change my mind. Maybe it will help you too.


In 1970 US residents spent 46 percent of their outlays on goods (manufacturing, grown or mined) and 54 percent on services and construction. By 1991, the shares were 40.7 and 59.3 percent, respectively, as people began buying comparatively more health care, travel, entertainment, legal services, fast food and so on. It is hardly surprising, given this shift, that manufacturing has become a less important part of the economy.


Pop Internationalism

edit on 10-9-2011 by Rockdisjoint because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 01:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Fury1984
A gallon of gas for a silver dime!!


As no one seems to have responded to this question. It refers to the value of silver in a dime that is pre 1965. It is referred to as junk silver in the investors market. You will be very lucky if at all to find any floating around in circulation today.

Sorry I missed the posting during the debate, but not the debate itself.

Ron Paul may have been asked an proportionate amount of quetions, as stated by Tupac, however the type of questions asked of him were to set him apart from the other Republicans, and not in a good way.

I only wish when he had the chance to respond about Perry, he would've attacked his positions on the NAU or North American Union, and the NASCO freeway he so readily backed, as well as the people/drug trafficking. You know the freeway that would've allowed the Mexican truckers to drive across our borders unchecked.

I am against the War on Drugs, Terror, and any other form of Government programs that are more about not wanting competition than solving a problem.

All of a persons points of view don't necessarily matter, it's about the policies and use of power they understand and can utilize to help fix the problems we've allowed the Government to create and get us into.

Are the people awoken enough from the educational system, media, governemental, and other propaganda systems in place to understand and overcome this?



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 10:22 PM
link   
Mhm, in a earlier post I had said that Canada hadn't engaged in any type of monetary stimulus, but I was wrong and they have and it looks like they have created a huge housing bubble of their own......

link
link
link
link

edit on 14-9-2011 by Rockdisjoint because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join