What private sector experience does Ron Paul bring to the table? What experience does he have in job

ATTENTION

Any further attacks on other Members will be met with the possible loss of posting privileges

Clear enough

Semper

Originally posted by Diablos

Originally posted by Fitch303
He runs his own medical practice.....................

Yeah, and how many jobs has he created through that? 1 secretary and 1 technician at most? Lol. All the while, the other candidates are seasoned veterans of the private sector and experts when it comes to finance, economics, job creation, etc. (Mitt Romney, for example). Not very many people can take a private equity firm (Bain) and turn it into the top prestigious consulting firm in the world. While every doctor who graduated medical school can run their own practice, as it doesn't require much business sense really.

Yes Romney knows how to create jobs. In foreign lands where he sent our jobs while buying out companies and firing the employees here at home. He's a great example of job creation.

I would say Ron Paul creates lots of jobs. He owns stock in gold mines which employs people to mine the gold he wrote several books who employs people to print ship and sell the books. RP has a hand in creating many jobs here at home unlike Romney.

why is "creating jobs" such a strong qualification for the presidency???
the gov't should be spending more time going through that mass of papers known as a budget looking for crap to cut and less time spending money to 'create jobs"!!!!

when they start doing that, maybe, just maybe.....
we will see a little stabilization in the economy that will produce a little job growth.....

and, ummm....I ain't really a big paul follower and I knew he ran his own practice!!!

you should have also!!!

reply to post by Diablos


Any of the Gops proposing bringing jobs back to the USA are LYING THROUGH THEIR TEETH !!!!

reply to post by Diablos


No he reads history and knows what the country needs to avoid and you can't forget your countries history otherwise you end up in the same place you are in now and heading

reply to post by Diablos


Government doesn't create jobs. The free market creates jobs. Ron Paul will allow the free market to operate. If you ask me, we have enough corporatism in government, we don't need somebody with corporate experience, we need someone who understands free markets and capitalism.

When the government "creates jobs" what they mean to say is they have taken money out of your pocket because they know how to spend it better than you. They make an investment in a company for their political reasons rather than you making an investment in a company or you making an investment in yourself and family.

You want to create jobs then elect a candidate that will allow the free market to actually operate not one who says he knows the best way to spend money.

You want to create jobs, get rid of the inflation. When are money has more value the jobs will come back.

I'll answer your question, but most importantly the man has almost always been RIGHT.

Much more so than the "so called experts".

His medical practice of 25 years which not only gives him private sector experience but qualifies him to comment on Obamacare.

He believes in knowledge and wisdom having taught himself the mechanics of economics.

To the point that he has accurately warned us about future events to near startling accuracy.

Its no coincidence that even a neo-con propaganda rag like Time magazine wrote an article about Ron Paulaccurately titled "The Prophet".


PLEASE stop comparing Ron Paul to Obama, who was a 2 year unknown Senator prior to the election.

Ron Paul has a documented history spanning almost 30 years. We KNOW that Ron Paul will keep his promises, he is a man of his word.

Everyone posting here needs to understand one thing before you continue.
Its NOT nor has it ever been a legitimate function of government to "create jobs". Its not the job of President Obama or a Presidnet Paul or President Romney to make sure that every American has a job.
The second thing you need to understand is that the job you may or may not be currently working in does not "belong" to you. Its not your job, or the country's job. The job belongs to the company that you work for. It is their need that you are meeting. If you keep asking for more compensation for the labor that you are doing they have no obligation to continue to provide you access to that arrangement. They have every right to terminate that arrangement and find someone who will meet the need for a lower cost to them. If that person happens to be in another country so be it. Its none of your business and you have no say in the matter. You do have a say if you are a share holder in the company otherwise shut up.
To many of you seem to think that the governments role is to force private business to provide you access to a labor arrangement and to make sure that the terms of that arrangement are in your favor. You also seem to think its the governments job to make sure that businesses cannot pass on the increased cost of those arrangements to the customers who purchase their products. You seem to think that the government exists to force business owners to pay themselves a small wage and then all other profit is given to the employees or to government.
Not many seem to be asking the question that if those were indeed the terms why would anyone ever open a business? Of course I suspect your answer would somehow involve the government forcing them to do so!

Here is a question for Ron Paul Supporters. I just read that Obama has decided to stop the Canadian Pipeline. This is at a cost of 20,000 jobs (so I have read.) Canadians have already said if we don't build the pipeline, they will sell their oil to China (giving them cheaper energy prices.) This seems to place America in a tenuous position of having to buy oil going through the Persian Gulf which could be stopped at anytime and placing us at a strategic disadvantage.

Would Ron Paul veto the pipeline?

He's written books about American AND Austrian economics...
That's good enough for me. Jobs are HUGE PART of an "economy", correct?

reply to post by Diablos
Some important facts you're missing:

1) the president doesn't have a great deal of direct influence over the economy or job creation - this is mainly affected by various acts and legislation of Congress
2) Dr. Paul obviously has a pretty good understanding of the various situations, as he warned us about the economic crash, housing collapse, and various other issues stemming from our banking, business, and legislative practices years in advance.
3) Paul also obviously understands a bit about jobs and their creation directly, as he's actively and vocally resisted and voted against terrible ideas and job killers like NAFTA and others.
4) Job experience doesn't mean a whole lot in federal government anyway, since you can't even try to run a country the same way you do a business, even if such were in the job description and capabilities - which it isn't. Businesses and nations have entirely different forecast outlooks and factors to take into consideration.
5) The people who DO have some other job experience in this race also actively put forth a veritable slew of bad ideas, exhibit lack of understanding of fundamental issues we're dealing with, and for good part lack of general common sense or restraint as per the restrictions on the office itself.

It's frankly quite a silly argument you've built here, for these and various other reasons I haven't thought to mention offhand.

Originally posted by ararisq

Originally posted by MrWendal
Your praising Romney's business sense because his company turned a profit, but you miss the big picture. It only turned a profit cause he took smaller companies, broke them apart and sold them piece by piece. There by putting everyone who worked at these smaller companies on the unemployment line.. but it's ok because HIS company turned a profit.

No you miss the important part. He indebted them to the tune of millions, took the money in to his 'general fund' (e.g. Executive Pay) and then tanked the company. The people were husks and the debt was his corn.

No, I haven't missed anything. It is just my experience when dealing with simple minded people (such as the OP in this case) is just best to keep things very very simple.

reply to post by Dragoon01


Good post!


Mainly because thats more or less what I said last page. Still waiting for the OP to respond so you should get in line.


But I don't think the OP is interested in actual debate over the role of the president/government and their 'creation of jobs'. This thread seems more like a Ron Paul hit piece. Fortunately, we're bringing a bit of sanity in here.

reply to post by Dragoon01

They have every right to terminate that arrangement and find someone who will meet the need for a lower cost to them. If that person happens to be in another country so be it.

Although the rest of your post was correct, this part is problematic.
It IS the governments job to manage the imports and tariffs to protect the jobs at home. For example, a business in the states is doing harm to the people of the states by importing goods from countries that employ slave labor. The outsourcing of jobs overseas is fine if the country has fair labor standards and pays a (local) living wage. In my opinion, we should not allow the import of goods from countries that have extremely bad labor standards. You can't expect a U.S. business to compete, nor can you ask them to demand the same labor conditions that would allow them to compete under these conditions.
Other than that, I agree wholeheartedly with your post.

Originally posted by type0civ
reply to post by Diablos

 

Please post your resume so you can show your qualifications to make such asseesment.

I think he is some 2nd year engineering student from some no name college that believes Romney will create all these jobs for Mmmmericans. He believes that Ron Paul will support free market, outsource jobs, and leaving him with no job; while completely denying the fact that Romney outsourced jobs when he was connected with Bain Capital. His belief that Romney's experience at Bain being the perfect candidate for being the POTUS is just ludicrous and juvenile.

He doesn't realize by nominating more corporate raiders and big bankers, the end result being the same. Ron Paul wants to get rid of the Federal Reserve and the IRS. I don't know about you but that's a great start. You can't solve the current problems if you keep on electing the same criminals that caused the problems. I would think anyone with a common sense would figure this out but it's obvious this isn't the case...

reply to post by SurrealisticPillow


No that leads to trade wars and protectionism as the founders of the US found out. The best practice in that situation is to advertise this and use the market to drive those practices out of favor.

Now I will say something that most people will find ofensive but so be it. There is nothing inherently wrong with third world labor practices. I am not talking about actual slave labor as that is unacceptable but many things that we in the west consider barbaric in terms of working conditions were present in our own past as little as 60 to 70 years ago. Western protectionists rail against things like child labor or peice work and not paying a "living wage" but 70 years ago that was the norm here in the US. Its hypocritical for the west to demand that impoverished nations bend to our standards when they are not ready for that level of economic development. Those changes need to come to those countries in time but they have to develope them internally and via a natural market process. Why is it that the same people who scream for high import tariffs on goods scream and shout about the US meddling in the afairs of the middle east? Placing a tariff on goods to artifically raise their price crushes those third world countries. That is no different than "exploiting" them via invasion. It just sounds better to you because you dont see pictures of people getting killed by western soldiers. They also dont show you the pictures of the people who lose their only source of income once those factories shut down. Well I take that back they show them to you when they are starving and they want you to donate money to their celebrity save the dirty poor fest.
International trade is a complex issue but its still not the place of the government to control the market. I dont have a problem with the government taxing imports provided its equally applied and there are no special classifiactions that allow companies to craft exceptions via political donations.

reply to post by Dragoon01

The government of a people is charged with protecting the interests of those people, not the interests of corporate profits above all else. There is nothing wrong with requiring goods that are imported to be from companies and countries that pay a living wage. How that is determined can be up for debate, but not the simple fact that it would be good for Americans. That is without dispute.
Trade wars usually came as a result of governments imposing unfair tariffs to protect industry at home. This comes back to corporate profits more than wages. I understand that the unions abused their power, that is not the issue here. The issue is whether protecting the wages of Americans is good for Americans.
There is actually very little that the U.S. needs to import. Beneficial trade is a good thing, but not when cheap goods are imported from third world countries that work the dog # out of their people, where the people have no option but this form of slavery or starvation. This does nothing for the people of either country.