Ron Paul on the bailout

[luckytxn 2,263]

Wednesday, September 24, 2008

Dear Friends,

Whenever a Great Bipartisan Consensus is announced, and a compliant media assures everyone that the wondrous actions of our wise leaders are being taken for our own good, you can know with absolute certainty that disaster is about to strike.

The events of the past week are no exception.

The bailout package that is about to be rammed down Congress' throat is not just economically foolish. It is downright sinister. It makes a mockery of our Constitution, which our leaders should never again bother pretending is still in effect. It promises the American people a never-ending nightmare of ever-greater debt liabilities they will have to shoulder. Two weeks ago, financial analyst Jim Rogers said the bailout of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac made America more communist than China! "This is welfare for the rich," he said. "This is socialism for the rich. It's bailing out the financiers, the banks, the Wall Streeters."

That describes the current bailout package to a T. And we're being told it's unavoidable.

The claim that the market caused all this is so staggeringly foolish that only politicians and the media could pretend to believe it. But that has become the conventional wisdom, with the desired result that those responsible for the credit bubble and its predictable consequences - predictable, that is, to those who understand sound, Austrian economics - are being let off the hook. The Federal Reserve System is actually positioning itself as the savior, rather than the culprit, in this mess!

• The Treasury Secretary is authorized to purchase up to $700 billion in mortgage-related assets at any one time. That means $700 billion is only the very beginning of what will hit us.

• Financial institutions are "designated as financial agents of the Government." This is the New Deal to end all New Deals.

• Then there's this: "Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency." Translation: the Secretary can buy up whatever junk debt he wants to, burden the American people with it, and be subject to no one in the process.

There goes your country.

Even some so-called free-market economists are calling all this "sadly necessary." Sad, yes. Necessary? Don't make me laugh.

Our one-party system is complicit in yet another crime against the American people. The two major party candidates for president themselves initially indicated their strong support for bailouts of this kind - another example of the big choice we're supposedly presented with this November: yes or yes. Now, with a backlash brewing, they're not quite sure what their views are. A sad display, really.

Although the present bailout package is almost certainly not the end of the political atrocities we'll witness in connection with the crisis, time is short. Congress may vote as soon as tomorrow. With a Rasmussen poll finding support for the bailout at an anemic seven percent, some members of Congress are afraid to vote for it. Call them! Let them hear from you! Tell them you will never vote for anyone who supports this atrocity.

The issue boils down to this: do we care about freedom? Do we care about responsibility and accountability? Do we care that our government and media have been bought and paid for? Do we care that average Americans are about to be looted in order to subsidize the fattest of cats on Wall Street and in government? Do we care?

When the chips are down, will we stand up and fight, even if it means standing up against every stripe of fashionable opinion in politics and the media?

Times like these have a way of telling us what kind of a people we are, and what kind of country we shall be.

In liberty,

Ron Paul

[SpiritAlight 1]

Ron Paul.

He makes sense.

And truly:

"The issue boils down to this: do we care about freedom? Do we care about responsibility and accountability? Do we care that our government and media have been bought and paid for? Do we care that average Americans are about to be looted in order to subsidize the fattest of cats on Wall Street and in government? Do we care?"

It is becoming apparent to me that USians have forgotten who they are and what this country stands for.

The Founders would definitely be ashamed of how USians have let their civil liberties and choices slide to almost nothing.

It is your patriotic right to create this country how you/we the people see fit....by running things, by creating and passing laws, by protecting yourselves and eachother from authoritarian governing. You get to choose. It is your right to rebel. It is your right to be heard. Being a patriot means speaking up for what you believe in.

Call, write, email, blog, protest.

Making noise is a great start.

This is an invitation...to wake up.

[Lansbury 19]

and his answer to the current mess is what?

Not saying he is wrong but you cannot criticize the solution if you don't have one of your own. Or is his best idea to let this whole mess run its course without intervention and see what we have left at the end.

[IAMX 3,055]

Ron Paul is right, sort of. However, he will be an example of what I suggest because he has his hand in the cookie jar too (along with the rest of Congress):

http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/con...&cycle=2006

The greater point is it was Congress that got us into this mess before by deregulating this industry, against more wise advice, and now is trying to bail out their own stupid decision-making by using taxpayer money. And once again the idiots will re-elect these people back into Congress. Ron Paul is also no different than the rest of them. He's been quite inconsistent, suggesting both that the government shouldn't be regulating the economy, then criticizing the government and Congress (which he's a part of) for it's stupidity. The only thing Paul has been right about for years on the economic front was the devaluing of the dollar and how it would cut out the middle class.

[luckytxn 2,263]

Yes he is saying to do nothing. I also know him well enough that he wants no corporate welfare ever at any time.

[IAMX 3,055]

Yes he is saying to do nothing. I also know him well enough that he wants no corporate welfare ever at any time.

You might want to see who his latest top contributors are. Microsoft and Google.

Conflict of interest.

[luckytxn 2,263]

I have to agree with him too that the government should not be regulating the economy.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I think the thinking is that if AIG goes under - it will do massive damage to the world economy.

I guess sometimes you have to do unpalatable things - the trick I suppose, is not getting into the position to begin with...

[IAMX 3,055]

I have to agree with him too that the government should not be regulating the economy.

Ship is sinking, captain. This is how we got into this mess in the first place -- deregulation of the financial industry.

[luckytxn 2,263]

Don't agree. They got into this mess by very bad decisions. Now we reward them by bailing them out.

Not worried about the world economy. It may hurt us badly but we will learn a lesson.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I guess it depends if you think learning a lesson is worth the price of a recession - and the inevitable job losses that it will entail.

[IAMX 3,055]

How would those "very bad decisions" not be so "very bad"? I guess the only way is for lenders to stop hating money and borrowers to stop hating houses. Not very practical.

On the other hand, if they hadn't tossed out the oversight on their lending practices that would have certainly clamped down on some of the worst loans and financial fraud on both lender and borrower ends. However, no oversight means no reason not to go ape in lending to everyone and their mother, which means oversight is needed -- not for the first time, but once again.

So yes, looks like keeping oversight was a good idea after all. And now they're going back to it, a bit too late though.

There are plenty who knew what it would entail. However, the Congress was just interested in getting it's money from the financial industry. It's not anything new for them to be screwing the rest of us to get themselves and friends re-elected, and more money on top of it.

Edited September 24, 2008 by SRVT

[luckytxn 2,263]

I guess it depends if you think learning a lesson is worth the price of a recession - and the inevitable job losses that it will entail.

Want to take a wild guess what my reply is?

[luckytxn 2,263]

Acually there was oversight and someone saying many times many years ago that this would happen.

Greenspan.

[luckytxn 2,263]

We all love feeding at the trough until it gets empty.