Disaster is About to Strike By Ron Paul

User Forum Topic
Submitted by hipmatt on September 29, 2008 - 8:06am


Dear Friend;

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

Submitted by stockstradr on September 29, 2008 - 10:50am.

Ron Paul is a true American hero. He has the courage to speak truth in a time when politicians mostly enrich themselves by telling lies and are generally punished for speaking the truth.

Submitted by Veritas on September 29, 2008 - 12:06pm.

He is a hero indeed in a world of cowards, fast talkers and opportunists. He stands out.

Submitted by Enorah on September 29, 2008 - 12:08pm.


did you see who he backed in the election?

chuck baldwin

Submitted by urbanrealtor on September 29, 2008 - 12:34pm.

He may be a hero.
He talks his beliefs when they are not popular.
However, despite his belief of what is and what should be, economic management is a big part of the job of policy-makers.
We'll see what happens.

Historically, when people get run over by the market, they tend to react politically.

How many times was FDR re-elected?

Submitted by greekfire on September 29, 2008 - 1:37pm.

urbanrealtor wrote:
However, despite his belief of what is and what should be, economic management is a big part of the job of policy-makers.

That's the polar opposite of what Ron Paul and the Austrian School economists have been railing against for decades. Government bureaucrats and central economic planners aren't smart enough to manage the economy and fix prices. Free markets are much more efficient at determining prices.

Submitted by underdose on September 29, 2008 - 4:04pm.

I suspect urbanrealtor wasn't endorsing economic management, merely acknowledging that most policy-makers, people who run for government posts, really want that power. It takes a rare breed to want to be in government so he can say, "I don't want any power."

So Ron Paul endorsed Chuck Baldwin. I hadn't heard of him, so I looked him up. Hmm, constitutionalist... and Baptist preacher. What a combo!

Can someone answer this for me? It has puzzled me for years. Most athiests denounce faith in a supernatural being, stand for civil liberties, equal rights and protection under the law for gay people, minorities and women; but are usually socialists, endorsing faith in a state-run economy and willing to abdicate monetary freedoms. Most libertarians denounce faith in an all powerful government, stand for economic freedoms for all; but are usually religious zealots, endorsing faith in a human heirarchy that claims to speak for the will of a fictitious being and willing to abdicate their sense of right from wrong to the whims of this heirarchy. How come you almost never hear of a prominent constitution-defending athiest? Shouldn't libertarians like the first amendment as much as the rest of the constitution? Shouldn't the type of analytical reasoning that convinces athiests that a god is implausible also convince them that a competent, non-corrupt economic overlord is also implausible? Does anyone know why this disconnect is so common?

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.