The Truth About Ron Paul

[NoDrama]

Gotta tell ya, Obama can orally read WAY BETTER than Ron Paul. RP doesn't have any feeling in his voice when he reads, its like listening to Microsoft Bob. Obama can give words the inflection they need for maximum effect. RP is way better when he is ad libbing.

 

[sync0s]

Gotta tell ya, Obama can orally read WAY BETTER than Ron Paul.

The considerable amount of "uhs" would probably beg to differ. Either way, their both intelligent men, no question about that.

 

[Dan Kone]

Gosh! Really? Because he sure didn't vote that way!!

You haven't really looked into these things have you?

And you really didn't even bother to read what you were quoting.

I've provided you with a direct quote from Ron Paul himself saying he supported financial deregulation and repealing Glass-Steagall.

If you want to ignore that, that's up to you. Ron Paul didn't vote for Gramm-Leech-Bliley because he thought the deregulation didn't go far enough, not because he opposed repealing Glass-Steagall.

Here's proof what I'm saying is true. But go ahead and ignore it as usual.

http://www.actuarialoutpost.com/actuarial_discussion_forum/showthread.php?t=150949

HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS

[Page: E2297]

Madam Speaker, today we are considering a bill aimed at modernizing the financial services industry through deregulation. It is a worthy goal which I support. However, this bill falls short of that goal. The negative aspects of this bill outweigh the benefits. Many have already argued for the need to update our financial laws. I would just add that I agree on the need for reform but oppose this approach.

With the economy more fragile than is popularly recognized, we should move cautiously as we initiate reforms. Federal Reserve Board Chairman Alan Greenspan (in a 1997 speech in Frankfurt, Germany and other times), Kurt Richebacher, Frank Veneroso and others, have questioned the statistical accuracy of the economy's vaunted productivity gains.

Federal Reserve Governor Edward Gramlich today joined many others who are concerned about the strength of the economy when he warned that the low U.S. savings rate was a cause for concern. Coupled with the likely decline in foreign investment in the United States, he said that the economy will require some potentially `painful' adjustments--some combination of higher exports, higher interest rates, lower investment, and/or lower dollar values.

Such a scenario would put added pressure on the financial bubble. The growth in money and credit has outpaced both savings and economic growth. These inflationary pressures have been concentrated in asset prices, not consumer price inflation--keeping monetary policy too easy. This increase in asset prices has fueled domestic borrowing and spending.

Government policy and the increase in securitization are largely responsible for this bubble. In addition to loose monetary policies by the Federal Reserve, government-sponsored enterprises Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have contributed to the problem. The fourfold increases in their balance sheets from 1997 to 1998 boosted new home borrowings to more than $1.5 trillion in 1998, two-thirds of which were refinances which put an extra $15,000 in the pockets of consumers on average--and reduce risk for individual institutions while increasing risk for the system as a whole.

The rapidity and severity of changes in economic conditions can affect prospects for individual institutions more greatly than that of the overall economy. The Long Term Capital Management hedge fund is a prime example. New companies start and others fail every day. What is troubling with the hedge fund bailout was the governmental response and the increase in moral hazard.

This increased indication of the government's eagerness to bail out highly-leveraged, risky and largely unregulated financial institutions bodes ill for the post S. 900 future as far as limiting taxpayer liability is concerned. LTCM isn't even registered in the United States but the Cayman Islands!

Government regulations present the greatest threat to privacy and consumers' loss of control over their own personal information. In the private sector, individuals protect their financial privacy as an integral part of the market process by providing information they regard as private only to entities they trust will maintain a degree of privacy of which they approve. Individuals avoid privacy violators by `opting out' and doing business only with such privacy-respecting companies.

The better alternative is to repeal privacy busting government regulations. The same approach applies to Glass-Steagall and S. 900. Why not just repeal the offending regulation? In the banking committee, I offered an amendment to do just that. My main reasons for voting against this bill are the expansion of the taxpayer liability and the introduction of even more regulations. The entire multi-hundred page S. 900 that reregulates rather than deregulates the financial sector could be replaced with a simple one-page bill.

 

[sync0s]

Switching sides temporarily... How can you say someone who is an advocate of a full free market isn't for deregulation? I'm with Dan Kone on this one.

 

[UncleBuck]

Well, our own government sides with me. Interesting: http://www.ssa.gov/pressoffice/pr/trustee03-pr.htm

Edit: The annoying thing about SS is this: SS is supposed to be an optional thing. You are not required to join as it would be considered unconstitutional, but if I don't join I still have to pay in. Weird. Also, what would I be able to do without the SS card?

the amish don't pay in.

perhaps if you lived a life where you did not depend on the government in any way, you could be exempt too.

oh, i forgot, you utilize the benefits of a government.

 

[UncleBuck]

The considerable amount of "uhs" would probably beg to differ. Either way, their both intelligent men, no question about that.

the 'uhs' seemed like a good thing in 2008. remember, he was not running against mccain back then, he was running against the cowboy.

after 8 years of 'he he he' from the cowboy, we all wanted someone who would speak in measured words.

i still do.

 

[NoDrama]

SS is not solvent, there is no actual account in which funds accrue. SS is actually broke, but survives because of a net positive flow of funds contributed by workers. Ponzi schemes work in the exact same way, ever larger amounts of newer investors paying off the old ones. The best way to ensure most people cannot collect is to ensure they die before age 65 or increase the age so that fewer can collect because they die sooner, another way would be to base benefit increases on a artificial number that you yourself get to create. You could give that number a special moniker called CPI or something and make sure it is kept low by always playing with how the numbers are computed. Since 1978 they have changed the CPI formula 28 times, its the most jacked statistic in the inventory. Then you can devalue the currency and pay all the benefits off with nary a worry.

 

[UncleBuck]

Gotta tell ya, Obama can orally read WAY BETTER than Ron Paul. RP doesn't have any feeling in his voice when he reads, its like listening to Microsoft Bob. Obama can give words the inflection they need for maximum effect. RP is way better when he is ad libbing.

[video=youtube;LMIgT_NGgek]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LMIgT_NGgek[/video]

skip to 2:05.

he makes a GREAT point, one with which i personally 100% agree, but he sounds like a jester doing so.

not presidential. unelectable. sorry to say (in some/most respects).

 

[sync0s]

the amish don't pay in.

perhaps if you lived a life where you did not depend on the government in any way, you could be exempt too.

oh, i forgot, you utilize the benefits of a government.

Government benefits? What benefits? Road construction? My local county I have to pay a wheelage tax every year that pays for it. If they do the road out front of my house I have to pay for it along with may neighbors (directly, not through taxes too). Am I benefiting from adding money being paid out on everything I buy? Police? They don't do anything I couldn't do with a gun, except imprisoning me for marijuana. Health care? Nope, haven't seen a doc in 10 years. Tell me, what am I benefiting from? Protection? Please don't say that cause I will have to use the Ben Franklin quote again, and I'm tired of saying it myself.

 

[sync0s]

two totally different things, How can you even make the connection? you can't, there isn't one.

Your ignorance has perplexed me. Kudos.

 

[Dan Kone]

two totally different things, How can you even make the connection? you can't, there isn't one.

No they really aren't. What do you think changing to a free market means?

This is why I have such a hard time with your posts. You think a candidate can be against deregulation, anti-corporation, and support free market economics all at the same time. It really amazes me.

 

[budlover13]

You guys are QUICK!

 

[deprave]

yea I misread that, deleted that post right away lol

as I said though

supporting deregulation does not equal supporting fraud. Fraud is illegal, and Ron Paul would be against fraud, Id argue he is the person who is the most against fraud of the people running.

 

[NoDrama]

And you really didn't even bother to read what you were quoting.

I've provided you with a direct quote from Ron Paul himself saying he supported financial deregulation and repealing Glass-Steagall.

If you want to ignore that, that's up to you. Ron Paul didn't vote for Gramm-Leech-Bliley because he thought the deregulation didn't go far enough, not because he opposed repealing Glass-Steagall.

Here's proof what I'm saying is true. But go ahead and ignore it as usual.

http://www.actuarialoutpost.com/actuarial_discussion_forum/showthread.php?t=150949

repeal PRIVACY BUSTING government regulations, not ALL REGULATIONS. Obviously you have read this, obviously you realize he foretells of the actual problem that just so happened to cause the big bust of 2008, but ignore that and try to make everyone think he is anti regulation on everything.

 

[sync0s]

lol. Okay that I can agree with. *edit* responding to deprave *edit again* not the point about the most against fraud, wasteful argument.

 

[Dan Kone]

supporting deregulation does not equal supporting fraud.

That's quite a technicality you found there. Once you make it legal, it ceases to be fraud. That's the only reason what you are saying is true.

When we deregulated the part of the market that dealt with these bundled mortgages, Wall St legally regulated it self and came to the conclusion that these bundled junk loans should be given an AAA rating which is only only reason people invested in them so heavily.

While technically that isn't fraud because it was not illegal, it was at best extremely misleading and almost caused another great depression.

Well congrats on being technically correct for whatever that is worth.

 

[Dan Kone]

repeal PRIVACY BUSTING government regulations, not ALL REGULATIONS. Obviously you have read this, obviously you realize he foretells of the actual problem that just so happened to cause the big bust of 2008, but ignore that and try to make everyone think he is anti regulation on everything.

did he or did he not say "Madam Speaker, today we are considering a bill aimed at modernizing the financial services industry through deregulation. It is a worthy goal which I support. "?

Seriously wtf.....

 

[UncleBuck]

Government benefits? What benefits? Road construction? My local county I have to pay a wheelage tax every year that pays for it. If they do the road out front of my house I have to pay for it along with may neighbors (directly, not through taxes too). Am I benefiting from adding money being paid out on everything I buy? Police? They don't do anything I couldn't do with a gun, except imprisoning me for marijuana. Health care? Nope, haven't seen a doc in 10 years. Tell me, what am I benefiting from? Protection? Please don't say that cause I will have to use the Ben Franklin quote again, and I'm tired of saying it myself.

you are on the internet, aren't you?

thank the government, in part, for that.

you use electric? thank the government, in art, for that.

you drink safe water? thank the government, in part, for that.

no lead pipes or lead paint in your house? thank the government, in part, for that.

will your car keep you somewhat safer in an accident? thank the government, in part, for that.

ever enjoy the pristine, preserved beauty of yellowstone or glacier national park? if not, you should. guess who to thank for that.

is grandma eating cat food or not? can she afford her medications despite not being able to work anymore?

do businesses enjoy a pool of educated, worthy candidates to draw from? do they enjoy an infrastructure secured by police on which to conduct business?

for all the faults of government, i would rather endure their pedantic bullcockery than do without the basic services they provide as well as the basic equalities and fairness they occasionally tend to.

 

[sync0s]

That's quite a technicality you found there. Once you make it legal, it ceases to be fraud. That's the only reason what you are saying is true.

When we deregulated the part of the market that dealt with these bundled mortgages, Wall St legally regulated it self and came to the conclusion that these bundled junk loans should be given an AAA rating which is only only reason people invested in them so heavily.

While technically that isn't fraud because it was not illegal, it was at best extremely misleading and almost caused another great depression.

Well congrats on being technically correct for whatever that is worth.

You are stretching just as much as he is, wow. De-regulation is not doing away with anti fraud laws

fraud/frôd/Noun

1. Wrongful or criminal deception intended to result in financial or personal gain.

 

[NoDrama]

Fraud is against the law, Ron Paul is all for the government going after and prosecuting people for fraud. Selling securities and telling customers they will make alot of money and then on the flip side making bets against those same securities you just sold because you know for a fact they are "Shit" is fraud and RP will be all about making sure they were prosecuted. The current administration doesn't think so. The last administration for the past 30 years didn't think so either.