Ron Paul on the Economy, International Trade, AIDS and the Environment (1988)

1988 http://www.amazon.com/gp/redirect.html?ie=UTF8&location=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.... Watch the full interview: http://thefilmarchived.blogspot.com/2010/10/ron-paul-presidential-campaign.html

Paul is a proponent of free trade and rejects protectionism, advocating "conducting open trade, travel, communication, and diplomacy with other nations." He opposes many free trade agreements (FTAs), like the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), stating that "free-trade agreements are really managed trade" and serve special interests and big business, not citizens.

He voted against the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA), holding that it increased the size of government, eroded U.S. sovereignty, and was unconstitutional. He has also voted against the Australia--U.S. FTA, the U.S.--Singapore FTA, and the U.S.--Chile FTA, and voted to withdraw from the WTO. He believes that "fast track" powers, given by Congress to the President to devise and negotiate FTAs on the country's behalf, are unconstitutional, and that Congress, rather than the executive branch, should construct FTAs.

Paul also has an 83% voting record in favor of protectionism in the House of Representatives, according to Global Trade Watch.

In January 2008, Paul released an economic revitalization plan and named Peter Schiff and Donald L. Luskin as economic advisors to his campaign. National Journal labeled Paul's overall economic policies in 2006 as more conservative than 48% of the House and more liberal than 51% of the House. For 2008, his ratings were more conservative than 91% of the House and more liberal than 8% of the House (80% and 20%, respectively for 2007).

His warnings of impending economic crisis and a loss of confidence in the dollar in 2005 and 2006 were at the time derided by many economists, but accelerating dollar devaluation in 2007 led experts like former Federal Reserve chair Alan Greenspan to reconsider hard money policies such as those of Paul; in his 2007 memoirs, Greenspan described his nostalgia for the gold standard and warned that future conditions could cause "a return of populist, anti-Fed rhetoric, which has lain dormant since 1991."

When asked about his position on implementing the tenth amendment, Paul explained, "Certain medical procedures and medical choices, I would allow the states to determine that. The state law should prevail not the Federal Government." Speaking specifically about Drug Enforcement Administration raids on medical marijuana clinics Paul said, "They're unconstitutional," and went on to advocate states' rights and personal choice: "You're not being compassionate by taking medical marijuana from someone who's suffering from cancer or AIDS .... People should have freedom of choice. We certainly should respect the law and the law says that states should be able to determine this."

As a free-market environmentalist, Paul sees polluters as aggressors who should not be granted immunity or otherwise insulated from accountability. Paul argues that enforcing private property rights through tort law would hold people and corporations accountable, and would increase the cost of polluting activities - thus decreasing pollution. He claims that environmental protection has failed due to lack of respect for private property: "The environment is better protected under private property rights .... We as property owners can't violate our neighbors' property. We can't pollute their air or their water. We can't dump our garbage on their property .... Too often, conservatives and libertarians fall short on defending environmental concerns, and they resort to saying, 'Well, let's turn it over to the EPA. The EPA will take care of us .... We can divvy up the permits that allow you to pollute.' So I don't particularly like that method."

He believes that environmental legislation, such as emissions standards, should be handled between and among the states or regions concerned. "The people of Texas do not need federal regulators determining our air standards."

Category:

Education

Tags:

• Ron
• Paul
• trade
• deficit
• free
• market
• Japan
• money
• loan
• US
• products
• cars
• debt
• stock
• foreign
• military
• aid
• AIDS
• hepatitis
• hiring
• disease
• government
• sick
• socialist
• marketplace
• wealth
• testing
• private
• property
• rights
• environmental
• regulation
• pollution
• rivers
• fines
• air
• EPA
• regulator
• speech
• slander
• libertarian
• congress
• discussion
• video log

[annboylyn]

O my God,He is all that ! Ron Paul 2012.

[Bobsagot90]

It's not enough to say "Vote Ron Paul"

PEOPLE NEED TO SWITCH PARTIES 12 WEEKS IN ADVANCE OF THE PRIMARIES IN MOST STATES.

IF YOU DO NOT SWITCH IN TIME YOU CANNOT VOTE IN PRIMARY.

IF YOU ARE NOT REGISTERED REPUBLICAN YOU CANNOT VOTE IN PRIMARY.

IF RON PAUL DOES NOT WIN PRIMARY, NO GENERAL ELECTION ! REGISTER AS A REPUBLICAN. FIND OUT WHEN YOUR STATE HAS PRIMARIES. FIND OUT WHERE AND VOTE VOTE VOTE ! PLEASE !

WE NEED EVERY LAST VOTE ! Copy & paste this everywhere and THUMBS UP!

[triynizzles]

24 years later and he's saying the same thing! RON PAUL 2012!

[eazydvzit]

NOT ANOTHER WHITE ONE



[2014akshay]

@123boink I said insurance companies are part of the problem since they get rid of direct competition. I just said the insurance companies are fucked up since it makes it so the buyer is not the same as the payer. Re read my previous post.

[123boink]

@2014akshay

Absurd. There's no way to negotiate costs like my friend's cancer - it cost $300,000! I'd like to see his friends and family cover that! If you think the beneficent insurance companies are going to do anything but maximize profits at the expense of consumers, you're nuts. They refuse to even cover pre-existing conditions unless they';re forced to by the government!

[2014akshay]

@123boink Most people in the US don't choose their own health care. Either their employers provide it, or they are covered by medicare.Since they don't get to choose their health care plans, they cant find whats best for them. This means that the competition has been destroyed, because the consumer is locked in their plan and can't switch to a better plan.

[2014akshay]

@123boink A pure capitalistic, free-market in medical care WOULD provide goods and services far more efficiently than a government run system if it were run with just a buyer and seller. However, in the U.S. system of medical care has the buyer, seller, and payer. The patient does not bear the direct cost of the medical care, so he or she has no incentive to reduce frivolous or unnecessary consumption. The doctor is paid on a fee-for-service basis, so they have no reason to work effieciently.

[123boink]

@2014akshay

They would be far worse - most people with HIV in the U.S. now get treatment and are alive and well. They work full time, but they could never afford the incredibly esxpensive medicines. When the "free market" controls things, the HIV medicines that cost $100 in India cost $15,000 in the U.S.! In your deleted post, you said, "friends and families could chip in" - are you nuts? Do you have $25,000 a year to spare? Of course not - medical care is incredibly expensive.

[2014akshay]

@123boink They wouldn't necessarily be any better or worse without the government stealing from others to pay for your illness, because we still have people dying of AIDS. If they could secure a job and afford to pay for their treatment, good for them. If free medical care was ended, the government monopoly on medicine would be gone. This would open up a new niche and the competition would drive prices down. The competition would also spur innovation and increase the effectiveness.