Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX) sometimes seems like an island of sanity crying out in the middle of an ocean of lunacy. That's what I thought when I heard Paul talking about the current financial crisis and the bailout plan. Paul says the bailout amounts to nothing but propping up the same failed policies and systems that brought us to where we are today. It's hard not to agree with him:
WOLF BLITZER ("Late Edition" host): What do you say to the president who wants you and your fellow Republicans and Democrats to quickly pass this $700 billion bailout package?
PAUL: Well, I think that's a mistake because we don't have the money. But that doesn't mean you have to do nothing. I mean, we could reform the system. We could return to sound money. We could balance our budget. We could change our foreign policy. We could take care of our people at home. We could lower taxes.
There's a lot of things that we can do. But the worst thing that we can do is perpetuate the bad policies that gave us this trouble in the first place, and that is that we no longer, over the last quite a few decades, believed in free-market capitalism. Capital is supposed to come from savings. We're supposed to work hard and save.
As a matter of fact, the Chinese work hard, right now, and they save, and they're buying up the world. But we borrow and spend and consume, and now it's caught up to us and it's undermining our whole system. … So this $700 billion is not going to do it.
And:
"This is Wall Street in big trouble and sucking in Main Street, now, and dumping all the bills on Main Street. … And you can't solve the problem of inflation, which is the creation of money and credit out of thin air, by more money and credit out of thin air, and not changing policy. We have to change basic policy.
"Yes, it would be painful, but it wouldn't last so long. What they're doing now, they're propping up a failed system so the agony lasts longer. They're doing exactly what we did in the Depression."
"So, yes, there are going to be losses, but everybody lived beyond their means when the prices of houses were going up. Nobody cared about it. They kept borrowing against it. Oh, yes, that was fine and dandy. Everybody was making money, and the owner of the home kept borrowing and living beyond their means. Now they have to live beneath their means.
"What the government is doing now — and this new program is trying to prop up prices. You want the price structure to adjust. You want the price of houses to go down. You don't want to fix the price of housing. You can't price-fix. We've had too much of that.
"We need a market economy. We need to believe in ourselves. We need to believe and understand how the economy got us — how the government got us into this mess. And believe me, it wouldn't be that tough. It would be a bad year. But, this way, it's going to be a bad decade."
Paul is exactly right. His recommendations, while painful, are sound. But our current government is all about pain avoidance, not sound policy. It's about getting elected, not sound policy. It's about special interests, not sound policy.
Paul also says neither John McCain nor Barack Obama have any answers for the financial crisis. I can't argue with that either.
{ 16 comments… read them below or add one }
The man makes too much sense to be taken seriously.
I wondered what happened to Ron Paul's supporters.
Paul, ridiculed and mocked by John McCain during the primary debates, now, according to Republican voters like King and larry, has the correct answers to our economic quagmire.
Can a Ron Paul write-in campaign be far behind.
In King's defense, Rev, he has also thought Paul was better than McCain, but Paul is unelectable. King, while supporting McCain, has admitted when I pressed him on this very issue that McCain was well down his list of candidates and that he only supports McCain over Obama. So I will say that while at times he sounds like a McCain dittohead, he is not. Whether any of us like it or not, there is no room for a legit 3rd party in American politics at this time. The Ds and the Rs like things exactly the way they are. Maybe if we start now, we can have Paul ready for 2012.
I don't know the answers to this problem, but Paul's ideas are clearly better than any coming out of Washington. I agree with the Rs that people who overextended should not be bailed out and I agree with the Ds that corps that did the same thing should not be bailed out.
"I agree with the Rs that people who overextended should not be bailed out and I agree with the Ds that corps that did the same thing should not be bailed out."
AMEN!
Kucinich was just on FNC and also sounded reasonable.
da truth,
Thanks for the defense. You saved me the trouble. What it comes down to is, I favor McCain over Obama. Nothing much more than that.
Ben,
Kucinich sounded reasonable ?!?!
Good lord, armaggedon is upon us.
Let's be honest here. King couldn't be further apart from Ron Paul's thinking regarding neo-conservatives and their religious belief in American empire and wars of choice.
King believes, and has fully advocated for, the Bush Doctrine of pre-emptive military adventurism, as has McCain. King and McCain agree on this MAJOR policy. King disagrees with Paul on this specific policy.
King agrees with the Libertarian Paul's words on the bailout because King says he's for fiscal conservancy, like Paul.
So what we have here is a bit of cafeteria conservatism masquerading as deeply held principles.
The bailout stunt is just that….a stunt. A political stunt initiated by the same Republicans whose economic policies created the mess in the first place. Voters know this and are threatening to kick the GOP to the curb…permanently, come November.
Thus the charade we've been watching the last 2 days.
For everyone who is so anxious to stereotype: I'm an anti-war, pro-choice, spiritual but not religious, gun-rights supporter who has never owned a gun and a long-time registered Democrat.
Begrudgingly, I will once again vote Republican in November. The media and other stereotypers need to learn that voters can't be typecast. When they are at a loss to explain why someone would choose the "less liberal" candidate, they come up with an almost laughable reason: racism.
At heart, I'm really a Liberatarian and have been a Ron Paul supporter since he once ran for president as a Liberatarian. He has never stood a snowball's chance of being elected to the presidency, nor will Libertarianism ever be adopted as our official philosophy, because too many people have been conditioned to believe that big government is there for them.
I favor McCain over Obama because Obama is too liberal and thinks bigger government is the answer to everything. McCain is no great shakes, but he's the more conservative of the two. Period. Unfortunately, both are politicians and thus suspect.
If this country continues to march toward socialism with its liberal pc ways, I believe it is headed for failure. Take a look around the world. Socialism and its more intense cousin, communism, ultimately do not work, mostly because they tread against human nature by taking away the incentive to better oneself.
Honestly, you beleive that the markets will right themselves. That if nothing is done the middle class will only have a bad year. The most important portion of the world economy is the credit markets, for every one, including the Chinese. I really can't beleive that you are advocating that the US economy should be allowed to go into a Great Depression. And it will if confidence is not restored in the American banking institutions. That is why FDR put into place the regulations to curb the greediness of men with capital and most importantly the FDIC..
If the FDIC had been forced to guarantee the deposits of Washington Mutual the Fund would have been mostly depleted and if you were a smart consumer you would have removed you cash from your neighborhood bank further removing capital from the credit markets and furthering the depth of your one bad year. I know conservatives don't like to hear this but there is a need for regulation and a need for big government.
In theory Mr. Paul might be right. However in the real world with real people the markets very rarely right themselves, because in the real world people must make choices to protect themselves and their families. This means that people don't usually respond in the way that mathematical models say is the correct way.
I firmly beleive we are two major bank failures away from 1929 – 1932. If you can't remember that time fully 1/2 of americans fully unemployed the rest working part-time and more than extremely happy to have any work at all. No credit markets most businesses working at less that 25% of 1928 output. If you think of that as one bad year you have alot more money than myself and my friends
I am sure you all have heard Sarah Palins answer ..if not make sure you do . Since she one heart beat away from being President if you elect John Mccain. Remember Mccains dad died at 71
This is who will run the country …
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=txfqWzGMgmY
Rev says, "King believes, and has fully advocated for, the Bush Doctrine of pre-emptive military adventurism, as has McCain. King and McCain agree on this MAJOR policy. King disagrees with Paul on this specific policy."
Actually, Rev, I was against the Iraq war, but after we went into Iraq and removed Saddam, I thought it was essential that we succeed, so as not to destabilize the region further. Since I've mentioned this to you at least 50 times, I wonder how you can still misstate my position.
Not to mention that the subject at hand is the financial crisis, not the Iraq War.
Big Mac,
No, I'm not a rich guy. Wish I was. In fact, this financial crisis already cost me my job. I have as much stake in America's economic well-being as anyone else. Since I formerly worked in the banking industry, I know those markets need to be regulated. I have zero problem with that. It is the Constitutional duty of the government to regulate the money supply.
However, the twin GSE's, Fannie and Freddie, are the reason we have this mortgage crisis. The government used them to manipulate the housing market. They did it intentionally. They cajoled the banks and Wall Street to act exactly as they did, and now the government is advocating MORE government to cure what the government started. Color me skeptical that they will accomplish that.
Ron Paul's comments may be theoretical, but they are sane, as compared to the current state of insanity that reigns in Washington D.C.
But I do understand your concern. I'm going back and forth on this issue myself. There are no easy answers.
The second paragraph in your comment is erroneous. Bordering on tin-foil.
To suggest that the feds had to bend banks' arms to collect all those fees on trick mortgages they designed is just silly.
Deregulation, a Republican mantra, allowed those trick mortgages to be shuffled, bundled and sold without oversight or accountability…..or even proper accounting to know what they were buying and/or selling.
Thinking folks, according to you, should think that government coerced those resistant mortgage sellers into doing something they didn't want to have to do…..sell houses to minorities and the poor in some commie-socialist plot to destroy the country.
Thinking people know better.
Old Kelly says…
"I'm an anti-war, pro-choice, spiritual but not religious, gun-rights supporter who has never owned a gun and a long-time registered Democrat."
and then this…
"Begrudgingly, I will once again vote Republican in November."
How does this make any sense? McCain is a neo-conservative who believes that pre-emptive wars of choice are the way forward for America in the 21st century. Kelly, saying that she is "anti-war", will vote for McCain anyway.
Kelly says she is "pro-choice"….and yet McCain-Palin have clearly stated that they will end Roe and throw it all back to the states. Totally unreconciliable.
One size doesn't fit all when it comes to voters. That's true. However, cognitive dissonance….and obvious contradictions in basic analysis….do not demonstrate clarity of purpose….or thought.
Thank you for taking the bait, Rev. Now I know. Cognitive dissonance????? Right.