Skip to comments.Rod Dreher: Ron Paul, if only we listened
Posted on 11/30/2008 11:16:35 AM PST by rabscuttle385
click here to read article
That was why Hamilton’s conception of a National Bank was to be privately owned and run.
However, a form of fractional reserve banking has been in existence since the first banks were formed.
Our Founders tried to avoid allowing too much democratic influence within the federal government in order to limit the impact of demogogues vying for the people’s vote with promises of milk and honey. Those protections have been systemically eroded.
We were to have only the House as the reflector of democratic sentiment through the popular vote. Now the Senate is elected that way as well.
Now what is possible is to clamp down on the money supply so tightly that there is little or no credit available. This, howeve, stifles economic growth and results in lower incomes all around not to mention political uproar and conflict.
I think we know that man being a fallen creature is incapable of forming on his own an honest society.
Ron Paul understands that wars are sometimes necessary, he voted in favor of Afghanistan.
His main question in Congress is to wonder what's wrong with a Constitutional declaration of war, and why is the rest of Congress so afraid of making one?
Well, fat lot of good that did...for Barabbas.
He started taking his meds agian?
Or is he just keeping his mouth shut?
Anybody that knows anything is clueless about some things. PhD’s are clueless about some things. That does not disqualify the person from commenting........
It's all good.
Frankly, I'm disturbed to learn (only today) that McCain was a tool of the KLA (and by extension, al-Qaeda).
RR said it himself. Believe it or don’t. Meanwhile, the facts are against you.
Whatever happened to all that money he took in?
Ron Paul was right about the economy and predicted the economic crisis.
Ron Paul is right about the corruption & cronyism in DC.
But some people here want Bush III, or McCain II.
"The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results."
Yet you can never successfully argue with lunatics.
No he doesn't. Of course, I never thought he did.
Oh yeah. McCain made his name nationally known by championing the Kosovo Albanians in the 1999 NATO Bombing of Yugoslavia -- and McCain wanted to go even further and invade the rest of Serbia with ground troops, but couldn't get the support for that in Congress.
Seventy-eight days of NATO Bombing of innocent Serb civilians was enough for McCain, he wanted more Christian blood (including ours) on behalf of Muslims. After all, that's what al Qaeda & the Albanian Mafia was paying him for -- to protect their drug, sex trade, terrorist and weapons trafficking routes
It's easy to talk the talk when someone else's ass is on the line.
I'd bet a cup of coffee, half these "gung ho" types never served a day in their life. Most of the vets I know are the last to start calling for war, and many combat vets just avoid the subject.
Too bad that DeMint forgot to mention McCain's implicit support of Osama bin Laden via his overt support for one of al-Qaeda's affiliates, the Kosovo Liberation Army.
Worth repeating. You have just said precisely what I have observed. All the gung-ho types are rarely ever Vets. Most Vets are much more reserved about going to war, because they know the real cost.
There are 2 kinds of credit: credit based on actual saved funds and credit created (legally) by the banking system quite literally from nothing. The latter distorts interest rates and is inherently inflationary. Banks only have to legally have 10% reserves backing their deposits which means if all their customers came in at once, they couldn’t pay. Government likes the idea of easy money because it’s alternative to taxes so the concept is legal.
Of course there’s the FDIC but that encourages banks to stay fully loaned up because it removes the fear of a bank run which will naturally keep a bank at least slightly less inflationary.
Although there’s no way the FDIC could stop a nation wide bank run. The fed would have to print the money. If we were an honest society, fractional reserve banking would never have been an issue because it would have been outlawed.
First, let me say how proud I am that so many Albanians came to support John McCain. And why is this important? Since 1998 when we had the problems with Milosevic, McCain has supported everything that we have asked him to do for the Albanian people, including to arm the KLA.
The current crisis is due to the government forcing down interest rates for so long continually trying to avoid recession. We should have had a deep recession after the tech bubble, but instead we decided to spend spend spend and blow our money on consumer goods and with legislation like the CRA, we developed the much worse housing bubble. The government is still trying to get us to spend, but what we need to do is save, and make no mistake it will be painful, but this consumption based economy can’t last forever and the longer we put it off, the worse and longer the eventual recession/depression is going to be.
A privately owned central bank is no better. It takes away all the checks and balances in free banking that keeps banks (even with fractional reserve banking) from over inflating (or inflating at all). Fractional Reserve Banking has been around since the moment bankers realized people didn’t come in to collect their gold: they issued fraudulent receipts for gold they didn’t have. The problem is government allowed this practice to continue and actively encouraged it.
The country has been under attack from the beginning. The Constitution was specifically written to RESTRAIN the federal government, essentially allowing it to maintain an Army/Navy, courts, post roads, and very little else. It was implied (and later outright stated as per the 10th Amendment) that the federal government would only have the powers EXPRESSLY granted to it and that all others were reserved to the states or the people.
Pretty much everyone in the federalist camp (who were a very broad group) made these arguments for ratification and even stated that a Bill of Rights was unnecessary because the federal government was not specifically granted the power to take any of the rights mentioned in the Bill of Rights! This was the key to many that were on the fence. The federal government was LIMITED and had only expressed powers.
Yet you had many of the same people arguing after the Constitution was ratified that the government had implied powers such as the ability to create a central bank. The more power the federal government gave itself, the less important states and localities became and the greater the government ignored or brushed aside the original intention of the Constitution.
B-b-b-but he’s a kook! /s
I’m going to be an officer in a few years and the last thing I want to do is be involved in some random war (especially if it’s a “police action”) in some random country.
I also don’t want to have to lead people that don’t want to be there i.e. draftees and I’m worried with Obama’s National Service crap, but that’s another issue.
“Friends of Truthers are enemies of the US.”
So are liars.
I did not see it that way, and I was “rooting” for Paul too.
You got that right!
As a libertarian-leaning conservative, I voted Republican quite often and contributed to both individual candidates and the RP before 2008. Though it is possible (though unlikely) that I may vote for a particular RP candidate again, I have resigned from the RP and will certainly never give the RP a nickel again.
RP loyalists can continue to advocate nation-building wars, national greatness conservatism, deficits, bailouts, pork-barrel spending, expanded entitlements, faith-based initiatives and utter incompetence. They can keep on touting how steadfast George Bush has been, and how brilliantly Karl Rove has advanced the conservative agenda. Just be prepared for the destruction of the Republic under a permanent Democratic Party majority.
Truthtellers are never popular. Those who lead on principle are never popular.
RP was far more conservative and pro-American than any of the other Republican candidates in 2008. I don’t consider it “conservative” to advocate a global war of liberation when the Republic is financed by massive foreign debt. And I don’t believe that Iraq was involved in 9/11 - or at least, I haven’t seen or read any credible proof.
Many of my Republican friends are starting to come around, but it is too late now to avoid the impending socialism.
BTW, I don’t personally know anyone - R or D, antiwar or pro-war - who doesn’t support the safety of our troops.
“The most dangerous foreign (or economic) policy is that of doing something for the sake of doing something.”
And the idea that our military is useless unless we use it is ridiculous. Our national military resources should be used sparingly, lawfully and wisely, in the same way that our personal security resources should be used sparingly, lawfully and wisely.
“Credit is an inseperable element of Capitalism.”
Do you mean “debt”?
America is no longer a creditor nation. We haven’t been for almost 30 years, I believe.
SAVINGS and INVESTMENT are inseparable elements of a free market economy. Debt is for socialists, commies and their fellow travelers at the Fed and Wall Street.
It’s the same concept behind owning a gun. You don’t expect to use it everyday and you certainly don’t go looking for an excuse to, but you must know how to operate it and fire it accurately. Only a few hundred criminals are killed by people defending themselves with guns, but there are hundreds of thousands of incidents where a gun is shown and the criminal runs.
Paul is wrong on Iraq and the threat of Islamofascism. But on the rest of foreign policy he's correct. If we had a traditional foreign policy of securing our borders and wiping out any country that attacks us, the world would be a lot safer.
Paul has never been a Truther nor has he identified with them.
No! I just prefer conservatism - and not liberal light!
Paul has been married for over 50 years to the same woman, is strongly pro-life, and is a devout Christian.
How does that not make him a conservative?
And I prefer classical liberalism to conservatism, myself. What’s the difference? Paleoconservatism has way too much populism for me. For instance, I don’t think we should legislate religious values. What do I mean my that? Simple, if it doesn’t affect your life, rights or property, you ought to have a limited interest in it. Yeah, there are some basic societal issues (for instance gay marriage [yech] we have to agree on. BUT, we need to avoid tyranny of all types - majoritarian, as well as tyranny of a minority. The way that works out in practice? Don’t like abortion? Don’t have one. Others may think differently. They are wrong by my lights, but they get to be wrong because they don’t affect my life, rights or property. YMMV.
You are absolutely correct. But you knew that, didn’t you? :^)
You are undoubtedly correct. You ARE depraved... and not very clever at the stuff you make up. Practice more. Use Obambi as your subject.
Afganistan did not stand alone. When we drove the scum out they went to Iraq for medical treatment and revival. The Northern part of the nation had its very own al Queda offshoot. If Paul does not understand this simple fact he is indeed unjustifiably ignorant.
There is no Constitutional format for a declaration of war. Congressional legislation approved the war. This is a deceptive objection. And I have heard him express other reservations most based upon an isolationist view of the world. Not a realistic one.
Some of us have listened to the man for years and know exactly where he stands on foreign policy. He stands with the RATs and adopts their Ostrich policy of sticking our heads in the sand.
Gee another RAT talking point used to support Paul. Some of us would be happy to be on the front line but are past the expiration date. So we support our sons in the military rather than RAT line spouters.
RR did not govern like a Libertarian either in California or in Washington so don’t pretend he did.