re: Rand Paul never recovered

quote:

---

How will he do that by opposing the actual "more government" we are seeing with tariffs?

---

The claim that tariffs are “more government” because they’re a tax misses the forest for the trees. Tariffs aren’t just any tax—they’re a strategic tool to level the playing field for American workers and fund the government without leaning on income taxes, which Paul supposedly hates. By opposing Trump’s tariffs, Paul’s inadvertently propping up the status quo: a federal government that’s ballooned out of control while foreign countries exploit us with unfair trade deals.

Let’s look at the numbers since 2011:





Government Growth: Federal spending jumped 87.5% ($3.6T to $6.75T) and debt soared 130% ($14.79T to $33.99T) by 2024. That’s a government addicted to borrowing and printing money, not taxing smartly. Tariffs could bring in ~$100B annually (CBO estimates), offsetting deficits without hitting Americans’ paychecks directly.



House Prices vs. Wages: Median house prices skyrocketed 151.0% ($166,100 to $416,900 by Q1 2025), outpacing wages (44.9% growth) by 106.1 points. Homes now cost 4.96x median income, up from 3.32x. Why? Partly because cheap imports and offshoring gutted manufacturing jobs, keeping wages stagnant. Tariffs protect industries like steel and auto, which could boost wages and make homes more affordable long-term.



Personal Debt: Debt per citizen rose 40.4% ($37,666 to $52,873 by 2024). Families are drowning because wages can’t keep up with costs. Tariffs could revive U.S. jobs, reducing reliance on credit cards (up 44% to $1.21T) by strengthening the middle class.

quote:

---

All you're doing is explaining the emotional talking points they invested in as NPCs to justify their reversal of support of small government. You're not actually making a logical point in reality.

---

The “fed gov is too far gone” is the crux of why Paul’s tariff stance is so frustrating. He’s acting like we can politely debate our way to a smaller government while the system’s already a runaway train. Your NPC jab is harsh but fair—Paul’s defenders are parroting libertarian dogma without grappling with reality. The federal government’s a mess, and tariffs are a pragmatic tool to claw back control, not a betrayal of small-government ideals.

Data since 2011 shows the stakes:





Government Growth: Federal debt hit 122% of GDP ($33.99T) in 2024, up from 95% ($14.79T) in 2011. Spending’s up 87.5%, with no end in sight. Tariffs could replace some income taxes, aligning with Paul’s tax-cut rhetoric, but he’s blocking that path.



Birth Rates: Total fertility rate dropped from 1.89 to 1.62 (2011–2023), with births falling from 3.95M to 3.6M. Economic insecurity—tied to job losses from offshoring—plays a role. Tariffs could protect manufacturing, stabilizing communities and encouraging family formation.



Home Affordability: The Housing Affordability Index crashed from 184.6 to 98.1 (2011–2023). Tariffs on Canadian lumber might raise costs short-term, but protecting U.S. industries could boost wages, making homes (now $416,900) more attainable long-term.

Paul’s emotional appeal to “free trade” ignores how NAFTA and China’s WTO entry gutted U.S. manufacturing. His resolution with Kaine protects foreign interests over American workers, contradicting his small-government talk. If the government’s “too far gone,” why fight a policy that strengthens our economy and reduces reliance on foreign goods? That’s not logic—it’s clinging to a purist fantasy while the country struggles. Tariffs aren’t perfect, but they’re a real-world response to a broken system, not an NPC talking point.

quote:

---

Vague NPC talking points: continued

---

Paul’s tariff opposition isn’t a bold “piece” of reform—it’s a roadblock to a policy that could actually shift the needle. Tariffs are a concrete step to protect U.S. jobs, fundus government smarter, and counter foreign exploitation, but Paul’s stuck in a theoretical rut, preaching free markets while the real world burns.

Since 2011:





Personal Debt: Up 40.4% to $52,873 per citizen, with auto loans doubling to $1.7T. Tariffs could revive auto manufacturing, boosting wages and easing debt burdens.



House Prices: Up 151.0% vs. wages at 44.9%. Protecting industries like steel could stabilize construction costs long-term, unlike Paul’s plan, which keeps us dependent on imports.



Government Growth: Federal Register pages (regulatory output) grew 7.5% (~81,247 to 87,352). Paul’s Write the Laws Act is fine, but tariffs directly tackle trade imbalances that fuel economic decline, which feeds government bloat.

Paul’s “piece by piece” approach—returning $8.3M from his budget, railing against waste—sounds good but hasn’t dented the 130% debt growth or 87.5% spending spike. Tariffs are a practical “piece” to strengthen the economy and fund government without more borrowing, but Paul’s blocking it for ideological purity. That’s not strategy; it’s posturing. If he’s serious about small government, he should back policies that rebuild America’s economic backbone, not ones that keep us tethered to globalist trade deals.