PDA

View Full Version : U.S. Issues Ron Paul's letter on the bailout farce...


Taco John
09-24-2008, 05:44 PM
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

Ari Chi3fs
09-24-2008, 05:47 PM
Thanks for staying in the game when we needed you most Ron Pussy.

Cannibal
09-24-2008, 05:52 PM
I read this today. I have to say that I agree with it.

If the Republicans had been smart enough to nominate Paul, he probably would have gotten my vote.

Mr. Flopnuts
09-24-2008, 05:52 PM
Thank God someone out there is paying attention. And thank God some more that there are reasonable minded, critically thinking people who pay some ****ing attention to him. Now pray to God that there's enough of them to stop this madness. Are you willing to suffer to achieve real freedom? Your forefathers did.

This won't be easy no matter what road we travel. You really need to look no further than the millions of dollars that will continue to be paid to people that were never worth it. They justified those salaries by the amount of "profit" that was generated. Now that we know none of those profits were real, why do they still get that money? There's more but is that really not plenty enough? We're being robbed at gunpoint. Period.

Hydrae
09-24-2008, 05:55 PM
I read this today. I have to say that I agree with it.

If the Republicans had been smart enough to nominate Paul, he probably would have gotten my vote.

I have said it before and will say it again, he still has my vote. I don't care what the other two say or do, I am writing in Ron Paul for President.

Cannibal
09-24-2008, 06:03 PM
I have said it before and will say it again, he still has my vote. I don't care what the other two say or do, I am writing in Ron Paul for President.

I'm not going to go that far. I still think Obama can be a good President, especially considering the alterative. But if it had been Obama vs. Ron Paul, I would have voted Ron Paul.

Cannibal
09-24-2008, 06:05 PM
I have said it before and will say it again, he still has my vote. I don't care what the other two say or do, I am writing in Ron Paul for President.

It almost makes me think that if Ron Paul was able to run in the Democratic primary instead of the Republican primary, he would have faired better.

Nightfyre
09-24-2008, 06:07 PM
It almost makes me think that if Ron Paul was able to run in the Democratic primary instead of the Republican primary, he would have faired better.

:eek: Not a chance.

Cannibal
09-24-2008, 06:08 PM
:eek: Not a chance.

Possibly not, but my gut tells me he would have. More of my democrat coworkers seemed to like Paul than my repub coworkers and friends.

Who knows? Just an opinion.

'Hamas' Jenkins
09-24-2008, 06:10 PM
He's making the mistake of conflating Corporate Socialism with the New Deal. The New Deal was not about the transfer of wealth to the privileged classes. This is the opposite of the New Deal, it's just using government intervention a la the ND.

BucEyedPea
09-24-2008, 09:19 PM
Paul schools Bernanke!

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/dv6rQ0U01Yc&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/dv6rQ0U01Yc&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

BucEyedPea
09-24-2008, 09:20 PM
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/TlgByE1jDRA&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/TlgByE1jDRA&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

BucEyedPea
09-24-2008, 09:22 PM
He's making the mistake of conflating Corporate Socialism with the New Deal. The New Deal was not about the transfer of wealth to the privileged classes. This is the opposite of the New Deal, it's just using government intervention a la the ND.

How 'bout we call that the Lucky Deal! ROFL

banyon
09-24-2008, 09:25 PM
He's making the mistake of conflating Corporate Socialism with the New Deal. The New Deal was not about the transfer of wealth to the privileged classes. This is the opposite of the New Deal, it's just using government intervention a la the ND.

We can call this one "The Raw Deal".

CHIEF4EVER
09-24-2008, 09:35 PM
I have said it before and will say it again, he still has my vote. I don't care what the other two say or do, I am writing in Ron Paul for President.

+1 :clap:

Hydrae
09-24-2008, 09:48 PM
+1 :clap:

Voting your conscience is never a wasted vote.

KILLER_CLOWN
09-24-2008, 10:13 PM
Since i really do not see much support for Chuck Baldwyn I may end up writing in Dr. Paul as well.

BucEyedPea
09-24-2008, 10:39 PM
Barr kinda forced Paul's hand for an endorsement. So Paul promptly endorsed Chuck Baldwin. Don't know if anyone read about the terrible treatment and attacks by the Barr campaign, and his NC VP on Paul for calling that announcement on voting for any 3rd party and instead of endorsing Barr. It sure ticked off a lot of Paul supporters. Barr was an idiot using the angry white man tactics of the GOP instead of being a diplomat. What a fool.

KILLER_CLOWN
09-24-2008, 10:45 PM
Barr kinda forced Paul's hand for an endorsement. So Paul promptly endorsed Chuck Baldwin. Don't know if anyone read about the terrible treatment and attacks by the Barr campaign, and his NC VP on Paul for calling that announcement on voting for any 3rd party and instead of endorsing Barr. It sure ticked off a lot of Paul supporters. Barr was an idiot using the angry white man tactics of the GOP instead of being a diplomat. What a fool.

No i did not, can you link me to it?

Taco John
09-24-2008, 10:49 PM
No i did not, can you link me to it?

There's not a single link to go to that I know of... Check the Lew Rockwell blog for a week or two ago...

ENDelt260
09-24-2008, 10:53 PM
Voting your conscience is never a wasted vote.

In many states a write-in vote doesn't even get counted unless the candidate is registered as a write-in candidate. If Texas is one of those states, you might as well write-in Scooby Doo... it'll land in the same bucket as all the Ron Paul write-ins.

Taco John
09-25-2008, 12:11 AM
In many states a write-in vote doesn't even get counted unless the candidate is registered as a write-in candidate. If Texas is one of those states, you might as well write-in Scooby Doo... it'll land in the same bucket as all the Ron Paul write-ins.



I'd vote for Scooby Doo over either of these two...

Ari Chi3fs
09-25-2008, 02:17 AM
Scooby Doo for President!