I :heart: Ron Paul

[jetsfan]

I live in Ron Paul's district and he will be the only incumbent I will vote for this fall. It is nice to have someone in government speak truthfully.

 

From Ron's blog:

 

Texas Straight Talk

 

A weekly column

Lipstick on a Bailout

 

This time last week, the biggest bailout in the history of the world seemed to be a fait accompli. Last weekend, the Fed Chairman and the Secretary of the Treasury had harsh words of doom and gloom for Congressional leaders, with the rest of the administration parroting along, and by last Monday it seemed both parties were about to fall in line and vote our Republic away by socializing the banking industry through this bailout.

 

Foolish business behavior was about to be rewarded, and propped up a little longer, the bubble blown a little bigger, and our coming Depression made that much greater, but then something happened on the way to the House floor.

 

Citizens made their voices heard.

 

The real story behind the story in Congress this week was the thousands of calls and emails sent to Representatives, clogging up inboxes and even slowing down the House internet system. Slowly, like the Titanic turning around, sentiments on the Hill shifted, and we heard Congressmen capitulating and changing their tune a little, desperately trying to find ways to salvage the bailout without completely enraging their constituencies.

 

Now we hear about taxpayer protections, about golden parachutes, and about other nuances that hardly cover up the fact that we would be creating more money out of thin air and further devaluing the dollar! The problem is not HOW the government is spending this money; it’s the fact that the government is spending this money. We don’t have it. We are already nearly $10 trillion in debt, not including unfunded liabilities. We already spend about $1 trillion a year we don’t have on our overseas empire. Now nearly $1 trillion more is somehow supposed to magically appear and solve all our problems! No – creating more money might delay the inevitable for some well-connected banks on Wall Street, but in a few weeks we will find ourselves right back in this same position, but much poorer.

 

The unfortunate thing is that we’ve already spent at least $700 billion on other bailouts that did not solve the problem. And while all this negotiation was taking place, the auto industry was quietly bailed out, with no controversy, no discussion, to the tune of $25 billion.

 

Inevitably, it appears Congress will call their constituents’ bluff and the bailout will pass, because that is the habit Wall Street and Washington have fallen into. People are right to be concerned about our financial future. I’ve been talking for 30 some years about reasons we need to be concerned and change our ways. We find ourselves now in a position of no good options, and no silver bullets. But the worst thing we can do is to compound our problems by intensifying the mistakes of the past. We do have tough economic times ahead, no doubt, no matter what we do, even if we do nothing. The question, is will we have the courage to take our medicine now and get it over with, or will we prolong the misery for many years to come? I’m less and less optimistic about the answer to that question.

[TimC]

Yep, he's the best...by far.

 

It's too bad the rest of the America are such sheep.

[wiegie]

Let me say the following: If I want to know something about vaginas, I will ask Ron Paul. If I want to know something about the economy, I will ask an economist.

[Perchoutofwater]

Let me say the following: If I want to know something about vaginas, I will ask Ron Paul. If I want to know something about the economy, I will ask an economist.

 

Maybe if we knew a reputable one we would

[Savage Beatings]

If I want to know something about vaginas, I will ask Ron Paul.

 

I'm guessing you won' be interested enough to ask him.

[TimC]

Let me say the following: If I want to know something about vaginas, I will ask Ron Paul.

 

Ron Paul is wiegie's pimp?

[jetsfan]

Ending of Ron Paul's speech on the floor:

 

In conclusion, there are three good reasons why Congress should reject this legislation:

1. It is immoral—Dumping bad debt on the innocent taxpayers is an act of theft and is wrong.

2. It is unconstitutional—There is no constitutional authority to use government power to serve special interests.

3. It is bad economic policy—By refusing to address the monetary system while continuing to place the burdens of the bailout on the dollar, we can be certain that in time, we will be faced with another, more severe crisis when the market figures out that there is no magic government bailout or regulation that can make a fraudulent monetary system work.

 

Monetary reform will eventually come, but, unfortunately, Congress’ actions this week make it more likely the reform will come under dire circumstances, such as the midst of a worldwide collapse of the dollar. The question then will be how much of our liberties will be sacrificed in the process. Just remember what we lost in the aftermath of 9-11.

The best result we can hope for is that the economic necessity of getting our fiscal house in order will, at last, force us to give up our world empire. Without the empire we can then concentrate on rebuilding the Republic.

 

I bolded the second to last paragraph.

[Savage Beatings]

This bill and those who voted for it have me so angry that I may consider writing Ron Paul in for POTUS in November. Sorry if that gets this thread locked. I'm just saying...

[Jimmy Neutron]

Let me say the following: If I want to know something about vaginas, I will ask Ron Paul. If I want to know something about the economy, I will ask an economist.

Sometimes things are pretty simple - I think Paul's approach (simple common sense) to what's been going on in the economy are spot on. He's certainly been more right than the assclowns (you know, "economic experts") that gave us this mess. Ron Paul has been right as rain on these matters for a long time and deserves more respect that he gets.

[bushwacked]

Sometimes things are pretty simple - I think Paul's approach (simple common sense) to what's been going on in the economy are spot on. He's certainly been more right than the assclowns (you know, "economic experts") that gave us this mess. Ron Paul has been right as rain on these matters for a long time and deserves more respect that he gets.

 

Too bad he is a loony kook.

[Jimmy Neutron]

Too bad he is a loony kook.

 

Maybe - but he's been rioting about fiscal irresponsibility (and what it will lead to), the war in Iraq (even before it happened), the folly of the war on drugs and executive abuse of power longer and louder than anyone else I've heard. I'd rather see him running this country than the brand of loony kooks currently in charge. Pick your poison.

[Czarina]

We need some sort of a political blender...throw in a few of these guys and see if we could make one good one out of them.

[wiegie]

Lets see--Ron Paul advocates the abolishment of the Federal Reserve and the US going back on the gold standard. He also favors the government fiscal responsibility (i.e. the government not really spending any money). We can examine history to see where that gets us:

 

Financial Crisis + Gold Standard + No Government Spending = Great Depression

 

Thanks, Ron Paul.

Edited October 4, 2008 by wiegie

[TimC]

Bull. All we need is a good war to get us out of these times if we were on the gold standard. Government spending (aka The New Deal) did pretty much nothing to help. It sure would be nice to be financially responsible and not thought of to be a loony kook. Some people just don't believe borrowing your future to pay for everything.

 

Sometimes it's okay to do without, but when is the last time the Government told you "no"? Answer...they don't say no anymore...no matter the crisis...as evidenced by the pork added to get this handout bill passed.

 

Ron Paul may not be 100% right and there are alot of "gotcha" answers you people love to show off, but he's better than the group we're putting in there.

Edited October 4, 2008 by TimC

[wiegie]

Bull. All we need is a good war to get us out of these times if we were on the gold standard. Government spending (aka The New Deal) did pretty much nothing to help.

I can't tell if you are joking or not. But in case you aren't, your line of reasoning makes no sense at all. About the only reason why a war would help boost an economy is because of the associated government spending that comes along with it (although I guess you could argue that it would help with the unemployment rate as you killed off people in your own labor force).

[Kid Cid]

So wiegie, what you're saying is that fiscal responsibility doesn't ever have to be part of a governement's plan for the future? That spending, no matter the source of the money and no matter what the reason for the expenditure, is the way the government should handle things? Essentially, that a nation's economic strength is directly proportional to the amout of money being spent by the government of that nation. Is this correct?

Edited October 4, 2008 by Kid Cid

[wiegie]

So wiegie, what you're saying is that fiscal responsibility doesn't ever have to be part of a governement's plan for the future? That spending, no matter the source of the money and no matter what the reason for the expenditure, is the way the government should handle things? Essentially, that a nation's economic strength is directly proportional to the amout of money being spent by the government of that nation. Is this correct?

no

[jetsfan]

I can't tell if you are joking or not. But in case you aren't, your line of reasoning makes no sense at all. About the only reason why a war would help boost an economy is because of the associated government spending that comes along with it (although I guess you could argue that it would help with the unemployment rate as you killed off people in your own labor force).

 

You also eliminate the poor of the country you conquer and increase your riches through the time honored tradition of looting.

 

On a happier note, I am proud that Ron Paul represents my district in the House. He is one of only a few who has consistently spoken out about our government's complete disregard for her people.

[Chavez]

Bull. All we need is a good war to get us out of these times if we were on the gold standard.

I thought we were already IN a war?

[Savage Beatings]

I thought we were already IN a war?

 

He did say a GOOD war.

[Kid Cid]

no

Then what are you saying? I mean, you tiptoe into these topics, carefully saying you're wrong to half a dozen people, but never come right out and say what you think to be the truth of the matter. I find this very troubling as I've never yet met an academic type that didn't want to lecture whenever presented the chance. What makes you so different?

[wiegie]

Then what are you saying? I mean, you tiptoe into these topics, carefully saying you're wrong to half a dozen people, but never come right out and say what you think to be the truth of the matter. I find this very troubling as I've never yet met an academic type that didn't want to lecture whenever presented the chance. What makes you so different?

To be honest, I'm sort of sick of talking about it. Last week I had a five-page thread on this stuff in which I answered questions about the crisis at some length (the thread has subsequently been deleted) and I have also posted quite a bit in the bailout thread--so I'm not sure why you think I am tiptoeing around anything.

 

Additionally, I think it was pretty clear what I was saying when I implied that the policies that Ron Paul advocates seem to pretty much be the policies that that were followed from 1929-1932. Please correct me if I am wrong.

 

Also, Ron Paul's key idea that eliminating the Fed and going back on the gold standard would fix our problems or prevent financial crisis from happening is just plain wrong (as the panics of 1819, 1837, 1857, 1873, 1893, & 1907 clearly indicate).

 

Finally, I am currently working on other research that I have to get sent in to a journal soon, so when I spend time typing stuff up here it takes away from my time to do other work (while at the same time, feeling a lot like work).

Edited October 4, 2008 by wiegie

[jetsfan]

To be honest, I'm sort of sick of talking about it. Last week I had a five-page thread on this stuff in which I answered questions about the crisis at some length (the thread has subsequently been deleted) and I have also posted quite a bit in the bailout thread--so I'm not sure why you think I am tiptoeing around anything.

 

Additionally, I think it was pretty clear what I was saying when I implied that the policies that Ron Paul advocates seem to pretty much be the policies that that were followed from 1929-1932. Please correct me if I am wrong.

 

Also, Ron Paul's key idea that eliminating the Fed and going back on the gold standard would fix our problems or prevent financial crisis from happening is just plain wrong (as the panics of 1819, 1837, 1857, 1873, 1893, & 1907 clearly indicate).

 

Finally, I am currently working on other research that I have to get sent in to a journal soon, so when I spend time typing stuff up here it takes away from my time to do other work (while at the same time, feeling a lot like work).

 

I do not think you will find many agreeing with going back to the gold standard.

 

HOWEVER, Ron Paul does promote minimalist govt., reigning in the abusive power of the federal judiciary system, and individual rights. He has brought forward legislation on all those topics this year.

[SheikYerbuti]

HOWEVER, Ron Paul does promote minimalist govt., reigning in the abusive power of the federal judiciary system, and individual rights. He has brought forward legislation on all those topics this year.

 

I'd be interested in tracking how much of that legislation gets passed into law, and how.

[jetsfan]

I'd be interested in tracking how much of that legislation gets passed into law, and how.

 

 

On the right you can find his sponsored and co-sponsored legislation.

 

I am curious to see what happens to this one:

H.R.3835

Title: To restore the Constitution's checks and balances and protections against government abuses as envisioned by the Founding Fathers.

Sponsor: Rep Paul, Ron [TX-14] (introduced 10/15/2007) Cosponsors (2)

Latest Major Action: 11/2/2007 Referred to House subcommittee. Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties.

SUMMARY AS OF:

10/15/2007--Introduced.

 

American Freedom Agenda Act of 2007 - Repeals the Military Commissions Act of 2006.

 

Authorizes the President to establish military commissions for the trial of war crimes only in places of active hostilities against the United States where an immediate trial is necessary to preserve fresh evidence or to prevent local anarchy.

 

Prohibits the President from detaining any individual indefinitely as an unlawful enemy combatant absent proof by substantial evidence that the individual has directly engaged in active hostilities against the United States. Prohibits the detention of any U.S. citizen as an unlawful enemy combatant.

 

Entitles any individual detained as an enemy combatant by the United States to petition for a writ of habeas corpus.

 

Prohibits any civilian or military tribunal of the United States from admitting as evidence statements extracted from the defendant by torture or coercion.

 

Prohibits any federal agency from gathering foreign intelligence in contravention of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Subordinates the President's constitutional power to gather foreign intelligence to such prohibition.

 

Gives the House of Representatives and Senate standing to file a declatory judgment action in an appropriate federal district court to challenge the constitutionality of a presidential signing statement that declares the president's intent to disregard provisions of a bill he has signed into law because he believes they are unconstitutional.

 

Prohibits any U.S. officer or agent from kidnapping, imprisoning, or torturing any person abroad based soley on the president's belief that the subject of the action is a criminal or enemy combatant. Allows kidnapping if undertaken with the intent of bringing the kidnapped person for prosecution or interrogation to gather intelligence before a tribunal that meets international standards of fairness and due process.

 

Provides that nothing in the Espionage Act of 1917 shall prohibit a journalist from publishing information received from the executive branch or Congress unless the publication would cause direct, immediate, and irreparable harm to U.S. national security.

 

Prohibits the use of secret evidence by the President or any other member of the executive branch to designate an individual or organization with a U.S. presence as a foreign terrorist or foreign terrorist organization for purposes of the criminal law or civil sanctions.