Pat Buchanan : America's Hollow Prosperity

WorldNetDaily.com ^ | 02/15/2006 | Patrick Buchanan

[rcocean]

Reagan was NOT a neo-Con.

Neo-Conservatives are only conservative on SOME things, thats why they labeled themselves "NEO".

Reagan was 100% conservative. And guess what? He hired Pat Buchanan to work for him, and Pat B. supported Reagan from the time he was elected governor in 1966 to 1989.

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

Pat wants to give US tax dollars to Hamas

Quote please. I sincerely hope this is more than some cheap smear attempt.

[A. Pole]

Half of the population has an IQ below the median, not average.

If so, how different is average IQ from median? Is the difference large enough to change my point?

[Aquinasfan]

If the money they have is just so much worthless paper, that would mean the money we hold would be worthless.

The point is that if they never trade it for anything, it's worthless. Paper money has no intrinsic value. Gold, on the other hand...

[A. Pole]

BTW...Ronald Reagan was a NEO-CON!

You seem to be running out of bullets, Ma'am.

[jeremiah]

There are companies in China that sell the intellectual property of those "protected" by copyright in the west. In America, you go to jail, in China, you get MFN status, and wealthy.

[Toddsterpatriot]

better yet...defend your position that ever expanding trade deficits are good and healthy for the US economy.

You're funny. You complained that no one has taken Pat's article on, and when I tried, you won't even take Pat's side. Do you agree with him? Are trade deficits bad? If so, why?

I never said trade deficits are good. I'm disputing Pat's assertion that they're bad.

[expat_panama]

284 "Let's be consistent-- tariffs are taxes."     1,037 Let's be truthful too. Tariffs paid for the operating costs of the US government before state and federal income taxes.

We're on the same side here-- we're both in favor of truth and consistency.   We both like tax-cuts so we both should want to cut import taxes too.  Our only serious questions should be which, how much, and when.

Import taxes did not finance the American revolution, they caused it.    Britain recognized US independence in 1783.  It wasn't until 1789 that the US central government was even allowed to impose tariffs; before then it had gotten all it's money from state taxes and deficit spending financed by borrowing.   After '89, the feds got most of it's money from sales taxes.   There was a tax revolt and Washington (the guy not the town) sent in troops.   The first US embassy was set up in Amsterdam to negotiate free trade.  Washington's administration was even working on a bilateral agreement with China.   It's all available on the internet.  Read about it here:  It tells about how tariffs weren't important until the 1890's when the Supreme Court ruled the flat tax unconstitutional.

[Final Authority]

When I began writing that comment I was thinking of a grocer in the small town I grew up in (very large town now) because it was obvious to adults that the grocer was getting rich, by offering credit directly, causing nearly every customer to run a week to week deficit, before payday. He built a golf course and vacation property in Florida. I don't listen to Rush however so I would have never known he used the grocer example before. But, the banker example, I think, is better.

The lesson is that if you want to be rich, be on the lending side of investment, borrow only to leverage growth. (leveraging growth for example is to borrow 90% of the value of a business or real estate, 10% down, and then realize 100% of the growth in value of the investment. If the interest rate is 7% and the business or real estate grows by 10% then you can make a lot of money by borrowing, but if you can't, then be on the lending side.)

The lesson here is that one should not borrow for consumption alone. A car is one of those things we borrow for or lease that is neither an investment or consumption. Right now, as a nation, we are borrowing for consumption, and it is not necessarily a good thing, for some it is, because someones consumption is someones business, and certain consumption translates into property development and asset growth, but it would be better if the lending originated within.

[looscnnn]

If you are under the impression that china owns, is going to own, runs, manages, leases, or controls the canal you have been grossly misled.

Really, so the fact that the HW leases/controls/runs/manages (25 year w/option to extend) both Balboa & Cristobal ports (the entrances to the canal) is misleading? How is that?

[Jack Black]

Interesting. I've been in the software industry for years and wasn't aware that our foreign sales are not accounted for as exports. I wonder if that's really true? As a public company we report sales outside the USA in our annual report seperately.

How is the balance of trade calculated? Which department does it?

BTW: What was your old tag line.

[DoughtyOne]

You know what, I left a lot unsaid to try to leave this thread. You had made statements that didn't address what I had stated. You extrapolated rediculous meanings from what I had stated and tried to shoot those false impressions down. It's not worth my time to play that game.

[DoughtyOne]

Well, it didn't help my sanity, but it was nice to know that some people out there are able to extrapolate meaning from the words that are actually used. LOL

This issue goes much deeper than is evidenced on this thread.

Lets address schooling. Is anyone going to make the claim that parents can send their kids to public schools today with the clear conciences our parents did in the 50s? In some places yes, I won't deny that. But in the vast majority of places, today's parents can't. The education agenda today is destructive to wholesome values and instills an inferior knowledge product.

Let's talk about folks who decide to have less children today based on economic circumstances, then watch as foreign nationals are funded with their dollars.

Oh well, some would rather play (or not) dumb than discuss the issues on their merits.

[chasio649]

When NAFTA was up for a vote in 1993, the Clintonites and their GOP fellow-travelers said it would grow our trade surplus, raise Mexico's standard of living and reduce illegal immigration.

---

How's that working out for us??? .....blinders back on.

[Toddsterpatriot]

When NAFTA was up for a vote in 1993, the Clintonites and their GOP fellow-travelers said it would grow our trade surplus, raise Mexico's standard of living and reduce illegal immigration.

They also said it would increase trade. Did it? Protectionists said it would destroy manufacturing jobs. Did it?

[chasio649]

no

yes

[Toddsterpatriot]

I don't suppose you have a source to back up your answers?