Here. Only Rep. Paul (R-TX) has the ideas that will do something positive about the government’s financial problems. The others are just a variation on the same bankrupt theme of devalue the currency by keeping interest rates low and having the Fed monetize the debt by buying Treasury bonds. The Fed’s actions show it is not an independent agency from the rest of the Federal Government.
I admit I do not fully understand Ron Paul and his beliefs. But I do understand when a guy gets shafted, and Ron Paul just got shafted.
. . .
And I don’t disagree that some of his beliefs — legalizing heroin, the right of states to secede — are strikingly peculiar (though he has been elected to a congressional district in Texas 12 times).
Let me help. Agreed, Paul gets shafted by the media and people in his own party. People in his own party are so used to using government for their own ends, even if they say they are for limited government, they just cannot let go of the power. Look at the reaction to Paul’s desire for the U.S. to reduce military spending. Conservatives treat military spending as sacrosanct as liberals do welfare programs. Neither party wants to let go of the power and control they can exercise through government.
Part of the problem is the wording of questions during discussions and debates. My guess is not that Paul wants to actually legalize heroin and for states to secede from the Union. Those actions are the outcome of limiting the power of politicians and regulators, letting people make more of their own decisions, and confining Federal and state government to its constitutional limits.
Timothy P. Carney ponders why no one “rid the GOP” of Rep. Paul. He has proven to be correct in his prognostications of government policy, from housing subsidies, to wars, to cutting taxes while increasing spending.
One reason the bipartisan establishment finds Paul so obnoxious is how much the past four years have proven him correct — on the housing bubble, on the economy, on our foreign misadventures, and on our national debt.
Shunning Paul would be the equivalent of silencing critics through campaign finance “reform”, ie, infringing on First Amendment rights, or relying goons as Sen. Durbin (D-IL) did when he was recently confronted by a journalist from the Washington Times about him blaming the Tea Party for S&P’s downgrade.
It has taken me some time to understand Rep. Paul’s arguments about the Federal Reserve, government spending, and military. But now I do. I recommend you take the time also because he is the only presidential candidate, including President Obama, with the ideas to fix this economy.
The Federal Reserve allows politicians to spend wildly two ways. One, by keeping interest rates low the government can sell bonds at low interest rates thereby keeping financing costs low. That encourages politicians to spend and offer tax credits because they have a cheap source of financing for economically inefficient policies. Two, the Federal Reserve can buy those bonds directly in the open market as it has done with QE1 and QE2. None of this cannot happen with a gold-based currency.