Ron Paul’s Statement on the Passage of the Bailout

[mike92104]

I was disgusted when I heard the people calling their reps were being labeled as the “vocal minority” by the media. It dawned on me that the financial hacks all over the airwaves were up to the eyeballs in the stock market and NEEDED to get this passed. They were willing to say whatever they needed to.

[Anonymous]

I tend to agree with Ron Paul on some of this, especially regarding reactive government and short termism, and the Iraq example is a useful reminder of where weak government leads. The difficulty with these issues is always credible information regarding cause and effect. I would have liked to have heard what the impact of not acting was likely to be in clear, quantifiable terms. By the same token, that should apply to the detractors arguments. The debate should be (have been) around the questions of: What would be the damage if their was no bail out? What damage will the bail out do? It’s probably going to be likely, given the nature of democracies, that short term solutions prevail over long term pragmatism. I don’t think you can always blame the politicians for this. The electorate is very fickle, and demands results often without a clear grasp of the complexities surrounding some issues.

I don’t condone or disagree with either side, but I find partisan and ideological banter boring, incompetence annoying, and deception reprehensible. I don’t know who is right in all this, and I rather fancy history holds the only key to unlocking that little secret.

[Anonymous]

I tend to agree with Ron Paul on some of this, especially regarding reactive government and short termism, and the Iraq example is a useful reminder of where weak government leads. The difficulty with these issues is always credible information regarding cause and effect. I would have liked to have heard what the impact of not acting was likely to be in clear, quantifiable terms. By the same token, that should apply to the detractors arguments. The debate should be (have been) around the questions of: What would be the damage if their was no bail out? What damage will the bail out do? It’s probably going to be likely, given the nature of democracies, that short term solutions prevail over long term pragmatism. I don’t think you can always blame the politicians for this. The electorate is very fickle, and demands results often without a clear grasp of the complexities surrounding some issues.

I don’t condone or disagree with either side, but I find partisan and ideological banter boring, incompetence annoying, and deception reprehensible. I don’t know who is right in all this, and I rather fancy history holds the only key to unlocking that little secret.

[Anonymous]

I tend to agree with Ron Paul on some of this, especially regarding reactive government and short termism, and the Iraq example is a useful reminder of where weak government leads. The difficulty with these issues is always credible information regarding cause and effect. I would have liked to have heard what the impact of not acting was likely to be in clear, quantifiable terms. By the same token, that should apply to the detractors arguments. The debate should be (have been) around the questions of: What would be the damage if their was no bail out? What damage will the bail out do? It’s probably going to be likely, given the nature of democracies, that short term solutions prevail over long term pragmatism. I don’t think you can always blame the politicians for this. The electorate is very fickle, and demands results often without a clear grasp of the complexities surrounding some issues.

I don’t condone or disagree with either side, but I find partisan and ideological banter boring, incompetence annoying, and deception reprehensible. I don’t know who is right in all this, and I rather fancy history holds the only key to unlocking that little secret.

[Anonymous]

I tend to agree with Ron Paul on some of this, especially regarding reactive government and short termism, and the Iraq example is a useful reminder of where weak government leads. The difficulty with these issues is always credible information regarding cause and effect. I would have liked to have heard what the impact of not acting was likely to be in clear, quantifiable terms. By the same token, that should apply to the detractors arguments. The debate should be (have been) around the questions of: What would be the damage if their was no bail out? What damage will the bail out do? It’s probably going to be likely, given the nature of democracies, that short term solutions prevail over long term pragmatism. I don’t think you can always blame the politicians for this. The electorate is very fickle, and demands results often without a clear grasp of the complexities surrounding some issues.

I don’t condone or disagree with either side, but I find partisan and ideological banter boring, incompetence annoying, and deception reprehensible. I don’t know who is right in all this, and I rather fancy history holds the only key to unlocking that little secret.

[Anonymous]

I tend to agree with Ron Paul on some of this, especially regarding reactive government and short termism, and the Iraq example is a useful reminder of where weak government leads. The difficulty with these issues is always credible information regarding cause and effect. I would have liked to have heard what the impact of not acting was likely to be in clear, quantifiable terms. By the same token, that should apply to the detractors arguments. The debate should be (have been) around the questions of: What would be the damage if their was no bail out? What damage will the bail out do? It’s probably going to be likely, given the nature of democracies, that short term solutions prevail over long term pragmatism. I don’t think you can always blame the politicians for this. The electorate is very fickle, and demands results often without a clear grasp of the complexities surrounding some issues.

I don’t condone or disagree with either side, but I find partisan and ideological banter boring, incompetence annoying, and deception reprehensible. I don’t know who is right in all this, and I rather fancy history holds the only key to unlocking that little secret.

[patientrenter]

I agree, President. I start deeply suspicious of any bailout, and fairly confident that a limited winding-down of insolvent institutions and bankrupt people would be a better solution in the long run. But I would have been very pleased to see a rational and open and balanced exploration of the alternatives. I could be convinced of a different conclusion than the one I hold now if it emerged after an open and fair and thorough competition of ideas.

[patientrenter]

I agree, President. I start deeply suspicious of any bailout, and fairly confident that a limited winding-down of insolvent institutions and bankrupt people would be a better solution in the long run. But I would have been very pleased to see a rational and open and balanced exploration of the alternatives. I could be convinced of a different conclusion than the one I hold now if it emerged after an open and fair and thorough competition of ideas.

[patientrenter]

I agree, President. I start deeply suspicious of any bailout, and fairly confident that a limited winding-down of insolvent institutions and bankrupt people would be a better solution in the long run. But I would have been very pleased to see a rational and open and balanced exploration of the alternatives. I could be convinced of a different conclusion than the one I hold now if it emerged after an open and fair and thorough competition of ideas.

[patientrenter]

I agree, President. I start deeply suspicious of any bailout, and fairly confident that a limited winding-down of insolvent institutions and bankrupt people would be a better solution in the long run. But I would have been very pleased to see a rational and open and balanced exploration of the alternatives. I could be convinced of a different conclusion than the one I hold now if it emerged after an open and fair and thorough competition of ideas.

[patientrenter]

I agree, President. I start deeply suspicious of any bailout, and fairly confident that a limited winding-down of insolvent institutions and bankrupt people would be a better solution in the long run. But I would have been very pleased to see a rational and open and balanced exploration of the alternatives. I could be convinced of a different conclusion than the one I hold now if it emerged after an open and fair and thorough competition of ideas.

[Author]

Posts