For example:

http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog.php?view=520

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=94926280

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4jMRt1AwBDk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kbyMrTc7acg&feature=related


Lets say that Ron Paul was the GOP nominee, and then this issue hit. Ron Paul would have kept saying exactly what he has been saying above, offering a SHARP contrast to Mr.Obama.

McCain fucked himself by voting for the bailout.

Dr.Paul knows that the bailout does nothing to solve the crisis. The problem is the insane unregulated interconnection of the markets by these fancy new derivatives nobody knew enough about to use properly. The market was all standing on one leg, the mortgage leg, and when that was broken by lenders lending to people who had no business getting that sort of money in the first place, the whole market fell apart.

So, when this hit, Paul would have surged in the polls because he would have looked like an American hero, fighting for the common man against the evils of wall street. BOTH McCain and Obama bailed out their rich friends, nothing else. It did not solve anything as you can see by the 7 day market loss.

Fuck both of them. They don't know what they are talking about. Ask Dr.Paul if you want some real discussion on our problems.

Imagine if Santa Claus had been the GOP nominee! A merry time would be had by all.

Imagine if Santa Claus had been the GOP nominee! A merry time would be had by all.

Its fuckers like you that ruin it for everybody.

Fuck Ron Paul, and fuck his fan boys like you.

If Ron Paul were debating Obama right now, Obama would surge. Idiots never like hearing the truth. They liked to be lied to. It helps them get by. People like Paul confuse them. He just preaches it like it is. People don't like that. They like it when candidates tell them they will be straight with them followed by sugar coated lies. They don't want a candidate that will be straight with them and tell them the harsh reality of the matter.

All that aside, whether you support Paul's message or not, he would have been the best person for the position to balance out the upcoming Democratic majority in Congress. They have a majority in the House, but they really don't have one in the Senate. Possibly, starting next year, they will have a clear majority in both. We just need to pray that the angry liberals in San Francisco are angry enough to boot Nancy Pelosi out. I hope Harry Reid gets the boot too, but Pelosi more.

If Ron Paul were debating Obama right now, Obama would surge. Idiots never like hearing the truth. They liked to be lied to. It helps them get by. People like Paul confuse them. He just preaches it like it is. People don't like that. They like it when candidates tell them they will be straight with them followed by sugar coated lies. They don't want a candidate that will be straight with them and tell them the harsh reality of the matter.

All that aside, whether you support Paul's message or not, he would have been the best person for the position to balance out the upcoming Democratic majority in Congress. They have a majority in the House, but they really don't have one in the Senate. Possibly, starting next year, they will have a clear majority in both. We just need to pray that the angry liberals in San Francisco are angry enough to boot Nancy Pelosi out. I hope Harry Reid gets the boot too, but Pelosi more.

lulwut, do you actually know what Ron Paul stands for, or are you just blindly following the other morons?

lulwut, do you actually know what Ron Paul stands for, or are you just blindly following the other morons?

Tell me Azure, what of Ron Paul's policies don't you like?

Tell me Azure, what of Ron Paul's policies don't you like?

Let's see here;

Off the top of my head, he wishes to abolish the Government, correct? Well, yeah, I suppose that WOULD work. Surely we could count on corporations to regulate themselves and not fuck us over in many countless ways, right? This economic crisis HAS proven that deregulation IS the way to go, amirite?

Department of Education? Who needs that shit? Uneducated kids will just join the army, oh wait, no; you won't have any armed forces because the Government is the root of all evil.

Department of energy? BAHHHH, we'll just let the market decide policy, surely the market is calm enough to let it go off on it's own and run itself, right?

Don't get me started on his intent to abolish the Federal Reserve. Surely he's aware that "the Federal Reserve exists primarily because hard currency fails when you have an economy that moves based on insubstantial things more than actual products." He IS a Doctor?

Who needs a National Central Government anyway? That's too Communist, amirite? I mean, it's not like there's any actual piece of documentation limiting the power of individual states, correct?

On second thought, I DO like Ron Paul.

lulwut, do you actually know what Ron Paul stands for, or are you just blindly following the other morons?

I'm sorry did you not even read my post. I'm not calling for Ron Paul to have complete power of the government. You do remember that there is also a Congress and Supreme Court right? You do know that its not really the President that dictates policy coming from the executive, but rather his cabinet, right? Or do you assume once a person become President they become the supreme dictator of the Free world and whatever they say goes. I'm sorry if taking all things into consideration is too complex for "ZOMG, U KENT VOTE 4 HIM!!! HILL LET TEH KORPORASHUNZ TAKE OVR!!!"

Lets say that Ron Paul was the GOP nominee, and then this issue hit. Ron Paul would have kept saying exactly what he has been saying above, offering a SHARP contrast to Mr.Obama.

What would have happened is that the Ron Paul's integrity and Republican willingness to back him would have been put to the test, probably breaking one or both of them, and forcing Paul to rely on that "common man" appeal, rather than the full partisan support he needed to compete against Obama.

After all, you have to realize a fundamental truth here - being nominated by the Republican Party doesn't mean they all support you, as McCain has already proven. If Paul's really as honest as people claim him to be, I suspect the ultimate result would have been him forcing the issue into the spotlight and wrecking the shit out of the Republican party in the process, destroying his chances of being elected. Because it doesn't say a whole lot for your ability to run a country when you can't even get your own party behind you. Sure, it might have ended up in a watered down version of the bailout, but I don't think he would have had a chance in hell of stopping it.

I'm sorry did you not even read my post. I'm not calling for Ron Paul to have complete power of the government. You do remember that there is also a Congress and Supreme Court right? You do know that its not really the President that dictates policy coming from the executive, but rather his cabinet, right? Or do you assume once a person become President they become the supreme dictator of the Free world and whatever they say goes. I'm sorry if taking all things into consideration is too complex for "ZOMG, U KENT VOTE 4 HIM!!! HILL LET TEH KORPORASHUNZ TAKE OVR!!!"

What's to stop him from using the tools the Bush Administration has so ignorantly put in place? Does he have policy statements indicating a willingness to ignore, or even better, remove them?

What's to stop him from using the tools the Bush Administration has so ignorantly put in place? Does he have policy statements indicating a willingness to ignore, or even better, remove them?

Well he has been one of the few outspoken Congressmen about how government has been overstepping its powers. Also, for his running mate he said he would have picked the Constitutional Law guy that Olbermann parades around on his show. If anyone has been pointing out the abuses of power from the Bush Administration, it would be that guy. At most, with the Democrats controlling both House and Senate, the government would just be gridlocked.

Let's see here;

Off the top of my head, he wishes to abolish the Government, correct? Well, yeah, I suppose that WOULD work. Surely we could count on corporations to regulate themselves and not fuck us over in many countless ways, right? This economic crisis HAS proven that deregulation IS the way to go, amirite?

Department of Education? Who needs that shit? Uneducated kids will just join the army, oh wait, no; you won't have any armed forces because the Government is the root of all evil.

Department of energy? BAHHHH, we'll just let the market decide policy, surely the market is calm enough to let it go off on it's own and run itself, right?

Don't get me started on his intent to abolish the Federal Reserve. Surely he's aware that "the Federal Reserve exists primarily because hard currency fails when you have an economy that moves based on insubstantial things more than actual products." He IS a Doctor?

Who needs a National Central Government anyway? That's too Communist, amirite? I mean, it's not like there's any actual piece of documentation limiting the power of individual states, correct?

On second thought, I DO like Ron Paul.

you idiot, he wants to give those things back to the states, so people(might i add idiots) like you can actually affect them. Hes against the federal government having all of that power so our voices can never be heard.

he doesnt want to abolish the federal government, he wants it to be limited, just like the constitution wanted it to be(in order to garantee maximum liberties for all citizens) the government from a constitutionalist point of view, should protect the people's liberties and what the constitution designates it should do, i could tell you but i rather you read it, since it sounds like you never have.

Well he has been one of the few outspoken Congressmen about how government has been overstepping its powers. Also, for his running mate he said he would have picked the Constitutional Law guy that Olbermann parades around on his show. If anyone has been pointing out the abuses of power from the Bush Administration, it would be that guy. At most, with the Democrats controlling both House and Senate, the government would just be gridlocked.

Is a gridlock so bad though? going nowhere would be better then the current direction :P

Is a gridlock so bad though? going nowhere would be better then the current direction :P

Exactly. The guy that used to be the General Comptroller, David M Walker, for the GOA was on TV last night saying this country's government has been taking this country into the wrong direction for quite some time now. He also noted that the US national debt is advertised as being a little over 10 trillion dollars, but the real debt is at almost 58 trillion when SS, Medicare, and Medicaid are also accounted for. I did not know that. He has actually been making it his mission to get this word out since the turn of the century and he has gotten barely any media coverage until know when this government could not hide it from the people anymore.

With neither McCain or Obama actually telling us what the real situation is, having Ron Paul gridlock this government is the least we can do until we can find someone smart enough to figure how each household in this country can afford to pay $480,000 with an average income of less than $50,000. Well the guy is about to come out with a movie much like Al Gore's global warming movie. Lets hope it has the same effect. At first it shocks people. The people that hate the inconvenience of the information will deny it. Then it becomes a serious issue for all political parties and the people who deny it will call it something else to make it more acceptable for themselves. Then everyone will recognize its a problem.

Exactly. He also noted that the US national debt is advertised as being a little over 10 trillion dollars, but the real debt is at almost 58 trillion when SS, Medicare, and Medicaid are also accounted for.

To be fair, it isn't exactly standard practice for governments anywhere to use accrual accounting (where you actually count incurred liabilities like that).

Not to mention that with cash accounting alone do quaint little things like pretending social security is income in the same way that tax revenue is.

Edit: when I say it isn't standard practice, that doesn't mean it shouldn't be. Businesses that don't plan how they're going to meet future liabilities and realistically assess their position generally don't do so well.

To be fair, it isn't exactly standard practice for governments anywhere to use accrual accounting (where you actually count incurred liabilities like that).

Not to mention that with cash accounting alone do quaint little things like pretending social security is income in the same way that tax revenue is.

Edit: when I say it isn't standard practice, that doesn't mean it shouldn't be. Businesses that don't plan how they're going to meet future liabilities and realistically assess their position generally don't do so well.

While I agree that it, theoretically shouldn't be included, but Social Security isn't ran the way it was suppose to be ran in theory.

Each week, through FICA contributions from their paychecks, millions of Americans contribute to the Social Security trust funds, the federal 'nest egg' that provides for their future benefits.
Under the budget proposed by the Bush Administration, the government is expected to borrow over $2 trillion from these Social Security trust funds to pay for government spending over the next ten years. Moreover, Administration officials and Republican congressional leaders have called the trust funds"a mere accounting device" from which employees will get "nothing in return" - indicating that the federal government does not plan to honor its commitment to paying back what it has borrowed from Social Security.Its probably best to ignore the whole pointing the finger at just the Administration and Republicans, which is clearly partisan. I mean, it isn't happening without the support of the Democrats. There is no possible way it could.

So with the government spending it like revenue, we really have to take it into consideration as such. At my pay rate, I currently contribute around $8,000 of my annual pay this year alone to Social Security. Because of government spending, about $2,500 of that money is going to the deficit. If I get the minimum 3% each year from my job, I will probably be contributing over $100,000 in the next decade. Just the deficit as it is today will take around $32,600 of that. That is just as it is today!! Unless we get someone like Ron Paul to gridlock the government and stop its spending momentum, by the time I retire (with all things constant currently of course, which it will not be... and for the worse) I will not be returned enough money to have bought a new house in the upper class suburbs of California (really expensive real estate).

This is, seriously, the government just stealing money from its people by force. I can see why people are against social programs due to exact examples like this. In theory they work, but with no accountability its just plain theft.

you idiot, he wants to give those things back to the states, so people(might i add idiots) like you can actually affect them. Hes against the federal government having all of that power so our voices can never be heard.

he doesnt want to abolish the federal government, he wants it to be limited, just like the constitution wanted it to be(in order to garantee maximum liberties for all citizens) the government from a constitutionalist point of view, should protect the people's liberties and what the constitution designates it should do, i could tell you but i rather you read it, since it sounds like you never have.

That's exactly my point, glad to see you can follow so clearly. :rolleyes:

I suggest YOU read the Constitution, Ron Paul is by no means a "Constitutionalist", he's a moron- and by effect you are as well.

Article I Section X

Just to start you off. In case you're too stupid to read the numerals, that's Article One, Section 10.

I'm sorry did you not even read my post. I'm not calling for Ron Paul to have complete power of the government. You do remember that there is also a Congress and Supreme Court right? You do know that its not really the President that dictates policy coming from the executive, but rather his cabinet, right? Or do you assume once a person become President they become the supreme dictator of the Free world and whatever they say goes. I'm sorry if taking all things into consideration is too complex for "ZOMG, U KENT VOTE 4 HIM!!! HILL LET TEH KORPORASHUNZ TAKE OVR!!!"

Fair point I suppose, but I guess that defeats any purpose of actually voting for him in the first place, correct? Surely the good people of the United States of America would be saved from his idiotic policies due to the President not having any power or influence. :rolleyes:

That is, if he ever gains enough support to become a Republican nominee, much less a Presidential hopeful, the thought of which causes me to barrel over in laughter.

That's exactly my point, glad to see you can follow so clearly. :rolleyes:

I suggest YOU read the Constitution, Ron Paul is by no means a "Constitutionalist", he's a moron- and by effect you are as well.

Article I Section X

Just to start you off. In case you're too stupid to read the numerals, that's Article One, Section 10.





Lol, have YOU read article 10? It says that states may not coin money, tax interstate trade, or enter into treaty or alliance. I fail to see how this relates to any of the examples you gave, except for maybe the Federal Reserve, but only because it has to do with money. See, here's where you're a retard: its the department of the treasury, not the Fed, thats responsible for coining money. It does not say anything about education, or energy, and anyone with an IQ higher than my dick is long would understand that Ron Paul is in no way moving to "do away" with the federal government.

Its interesting you bring up the constitution, which strictly prohibits the insane multitude of government agencies we have today.

Lol, have YOU read article 10? It says that states may not coin money, tax interstate trade, or enter into treaty or alliance. I fail to see how this relates to any of the examples you gave, except for maybe the Federal Reserve, but only because it has to do with money. See, here's where you're a retard: its the department of the treasury, not the Fed, thats responsible for coining money. It does not say anything about education, or energy, and anyone with an IQ higher than my dick is long would understand that Ron Paul is in no way moving to "do away" with the federal government.

Its interesting you bring up the constitution, which strictly prohibits the insane multitude of government agencies we have today.

Those were just several examples, I could have went on if you wished, Dept Of Justice, etc, I kept it short.

Yes, I'm aware the Treasury prints the money, but who tells them how much to print/sets other monetary policy? Yes, The FR. It's interesting you bring that up though, since good ole' Paul did ask in a speech "how great would our country be if the Federal Reserve didn't print money", or something to that effect. The words are probably slightly off, but that's the gist of what he said.

O RLY? He's not looking to do away with it and transfer unreasonable power to individual states? I guess you should tell him that, since he seems to be wishing to get rid of Departments left and right.

Excerpt from an interview of his:

"So keep us safe, enforce contracts, run the courts, pollution rules and otherwise butt out? Leave us alone?

Basically that, which would mean if I'm elected, I should immediately take a pay cut. You know, because I wouldn't have so much to do. ".

Of course I didn't intend he meant to get rid of ALL Central Government immediately, the first phase has already been outlined in his policy already.

It's interesting you bring up the constitution restricting interstate commerce, since he wishes to do away with Federal control of Commerce and Trade. :rolleyes:

I never stated that the Constitution limited the power of states to control education or energy, merely he also wishes to do away with those departments, among many, many others. How he wishes the states to fund these ventures is beyond me, I guess they could always ask the FedGov for money they've earned from income taxes, right?

Oh...wait.

Those were just several examples, I could have went on if you wished, Dept Of Justice, etc, I kept it short.

Yes, I'm aware the Treasury prints the money, but who tells them how much to print/sets other monetary policy? Yes, The FR. It's interesting you bring that up though, since good ole' Paul did ask in a speech "how great would our country be if the Federal Reserve didn't print money", or something to that effect. The words are probably slightly off, but that's the gist of what he said.


The treasury already dictates a lot of our monetary policy. The dept of treasury could easily dictate how much money to coin, and did for a long time before the Fed even existed.


O RLY? He's not looking to do away with it and transfer unreasonable power to individual states? I guess you should tell him that, since he seems to be wishing to get rid of Departments left and right.

Excerpt from an interview of his:

"So keep us safe, enforce contracts, run the courts, pollution rules and otherwise butt out? Leave us alone?

Basically that, which would mean if I'm elected, I should immediately take a pay cut. You know, because I wouldn't have so much to do. ".

Of course I didn't intend he meant to get rid of ALL Central Government immediately, the first phase has already been outlined in his policy already.


Transfer unreasonable power to the state?? Are you saying this?? No, it is the federal government which currently has the unreasonable, constitutionally illegal power. Your "unreasonable" is in fact, "constitutional".



It's interesting you bring up the constitution restricting interstate commerce, since he wishes to do away with Federal control of Commerce and Trade. :rolleyes:


Jesus christ you're a fucking tool. Ron Paul wants to do away with the redundant and illegal government organization, the department of commerce. He doesn't wish to do away with federal control of commerce. Commerce and trade has been historically assigned to the treasury, and there's no reason it still shouldn't be.


I never stated that the Constitution limited the power of states to control education or energy, merely he also wishes to do away with those departments, among many, many others. How he wishes the states to fund these ventures is beyond me, I guess they could always ask the FedGov for money they've earned from income taxes, right?

Oh...wait.

You're not really asking this are you? Have you even thought this out? You're asking how he will finance getting rid of government agencies? I'm just going to assume your grammar sucks. You meant to say how will these programs get funded if they're not under the jurisdiction of the federal goverment. Well it obviously isn't with federal government money. So what does that leave us with? Oh yeah the STATES. Was that really too much of a mental stretch for you?

And here's the best part, now that all those federal organizations are gone, we don't need federal income tax (or we need much much less of it anyway).

The treasury already dictates a lot of our monetary policy. The dept of treasury could easily dictate how much money to coin, and did for a long time before the Fed even existed.

Yes, and the Government also existed for over 100 years without the use of the Internet, should we abolish that as well? The Federal Reserve plays a key role in making sure banks don't over leverage their lending. It's a safeguard. Like I said earlier, deregulation of the banking sector as Ron Paul advocates leads to meltdowns such as this.

It's mere speculation to think of what type of situation would be posed if the Government gave up control of it, but it certainly wouldn't be a positive situation.

Transfer unreasonable power to the state?? Are you saying this?? No, it is the federal government which currently has the unreasonable, constitutionally illegal power. Your "unreasonable" is in fact, "constitutional".

Interesting, I thought this battle was fought, and lost by Jefferson over 200 years ago. Nor do I see any mention in the Constitution of how specifically large the Government should be.

Jesus christ you're a fucking tool. Ron Paul wants to do away with the redundant and illegal government organization, the department of commerce. He doesn't wish to do away with federal control of commerce. Commerce and trade has been historically assigned to the treasury, and there's no reason it still shouldn't be.

That's fine and dandy, now if only Mr Paul didn't also wish to partially eliminate the Treasury. If only..

"Historically"? You mean, when people didn't drive cars and such?

You're not really asking this are you? Have you even thought this out? You're asking how he will finance getting rid of government agencies?

No, that's not what I said at all. The burden will be transferred to the individual state, creating an un-centralized mess. Rather than the one big mess that currently exists, if you wish to call it as such.

So what does that leave us with? Oh yeah the STATES. Was that really too much of a mental stretch for you?

And the states have enough money individually to support all these new measures and programs? :rolleyes:

No, they'll turn to other forms of making money, for instance property taxes. Interestingly enough, in Texas(RP's home state), there is no income tax. Yet property taxes are through the roof in comparison to other states.

And here's the best part, now that all those federal organizations are gone, we don't need federal income tax (or we need much much less of it anyway).

You mean organizations like the Federal Reserve that actually turn a profit?

What about the burden of all those lost jobs? Where do you suspect that will fall? And I'm not merely talking about the loss of all those jobs in the Government offices he plans on cutting, more the half million soldiers that he wishes to axe.

Yes, and the Government also existed for over 100 years without the use of the Internet, should we abolish that as well? The Federal Reserve plays a key role in making sure banks don't over leverage their lending. It's a safeguard. Like I said earlier, deregulation of the banking sector as Ron Paul advocates leads to meltdowns such as this.

It's mere speculation to think of what type of situation would be posed if the Government gave up control of it, but it certainly wouldn't be a positive situation.



So i herd u like decades of artificially low interest rates (dictated by the fed).



Interesting, I thought this battle was fought, and lost by Jefferson over 200 years ago. Nor do I see any mention in the Constitution of how specifically large the Government should be.



tenth amendment.



That's fine and dandy, now if only Mr Paul didn't also wish to partially eliminate the Treasury. If only..

"Historically"? You mean, when people didn't drive cars and such?



I can't find anything to suggest that ron paul wants to partially eliminate the treasury, but it does make sense, the treasury has been engaging in some sketchy practices. And anyway, with less programs to fund, the treasury can become much smaller than it is.

red herring



No, that's not what I said at all. The burden will be transferred to the individual state, creating an un-centralized mess. Rather than the one big mess that currently exists, if you wish to call it as such.



And the states have enough money individually to support all these new measures and programs? :rolleyes:

No, they'll turn to other forms of making money, for instance property taxes. Interestingly enough, in Texas(RP's home state), there is no income tax. Yet property taxes are through the roof in comparison to other states.


Where do you think the federal government gets its money? Through taxes. There's no reason why the states can't do the same, though with the power belonging to the states, the citizens have much more power decide how they want their money spent.



You mean organizations like the Federal Reserve that actually turn a profit?

What about the burden of all those lost jobs? Where do you suspect that will fall? And I'm not merely talking about the loss of all those jobs in the Government offices he plans on cutting, more the half million soldiers that he wishes to axe.

And where do you think that surplus money comes from?

A lot of them will probably go to the states, as thats where the power that isn't being abolished completely is being transferred.

So i herd u like decades of artificially low interest rates (dictated by the fed).

I also enjoy stability, as shown the last few decades.

tenth amendment.

Good point. Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 is relevant here, is it not? To save your time, it limits the control of commerce to the Federal Government, more specifically the Congress.

I can't find anything to suggest that ron paul wants to partially eliminate the treasury, but it does make sense, the treasury has been engaging in some sketchy practices. And anyway, with less programs to fund, the treasury can become much smaller than it is. [\QUOTE]

I'm sure every Government office has some dark secrets, given the nature of elitism lol. My notion that he wishes to abolish part of the Treasury stems from his avocation for getting rid of the IRS, and several other parts of it.

[QUOTE]Where do you think the federal government gets its money? Through taxes. There's no reason why the states can't do the same, though with the power belonging to the states, the citizens have much more power decide how they want their money spent.

What about the poorer states such as Mississippi? Ron Paul wants to completely eliminate Federal funding, in essence creating 50 different education systems, with no equalization. This just adds to the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer. The better educated people from richer states will be quick to get jobs, etc, leading to more development in certain areas of the country, while other deteriorate.

While I agree that it, theoretically shouldn't be included, but Social Security isn't ran the way it was suppose to be ran in theory.

Its probably best to ignore the whole pointing the finger at just the Administration and Republicans, which is clearly partisan. I mean, it isn't happening without the support of the Democrats. There is no possible way it could.

So with the government spending it like revenue, we really have to take it into consideration as such. At my pay rate, I currently contribute around $8,000 of my annual pay this year alone to Social Security. Because of government spending, about $2,500 of that money is going to the deficit. If I get the minimum 3% each year from my job, I will probably be contributing over $100,000 in the next decade. Just the deficit as it is today will take around $32,600 of that. That is just as it is today!! Unless we get someone like Ron Paul to gridlock the government and stop its spending momentum, by the time I retire (with all things constant currently of course, which it will not be... and for the worse) I will not be returned enough money to have bought a new house in the upper class suburbs of California (really expensive real estate).

This is, seriously, the government just stealing money from its people by force. I can see why people are against social programs due to exact examples like this. In theory they work, but with no accountability its just plain theft.

American social security basically forces people to buy government bonds which are a horrendous investment.

(of course, for comparison, Australian social security basically forces investment into managed funds which generally contain a substantial proportion of equity.
It's been a pretty good system... until this year.
At least it's way out of reach of the government, but in a westminster system that isn't such a problem)

Yes, and the Government also existed for over 100 years without the use of the Internet, should we abolish that as well? The Federal Reserve plays a key role in making sure banks don't over leverage their lending. It's a safeguard. Like I said earlier, deregulation of the banking sector as Ron Paul advocates leads to meltdowns such as this.

It's mere speculation to think of what type of situation would be posed if the Government gave up control of it, but it certainly wouldn't be a positive situation.




Well the Federal Reserve is not government. They are a private business essentially, setup by the banks themselves. So they have always regulated themselves

Look at what happened with Howard Dean and the DNC.. Americans are afraid of someone who deviates too far from the conventional "norm". Both the parties, the media, and your average electorate.

As much as I support Paul, I could've never seen the GOP going for him.. their loss.

At least he planted a few seeds in the population...

Maybe one day they'll start to grow?