Ron Paul: "We're on the road to Nationalization"

Originally posted by jsobecky

This is a perfect example of your ignorance, mybigunit. I don't defend Republicans, nor do I attack Democrats.

I defend conservatism and attack liberalism.

One is a political party, the other is an ideology.

I am a registered Independent.

Your boy Obama is a dyed-in-the-wool liberal. Just check my sig. And liberals deliver socialism.

However, the blame for this current mess falls disproportionately in the land of the Dem's. But I acknowledge there have been a lot of R's who went along for the ride.

Ignorance? Umm no ignorance here. Im just pointing out a lesson you really need to learn thats all. You claim to be an independent but yet in every thread you support the neo cons in every step and put everything on the dems doorstep just like you just did again. "some" if this is Republicans fault. No actually it is 50/50 BOTH of their faults. This has been building for 30 years now this who ordeal didnt happen over night and it really started getting out of hand with Reagan. They ALL are crooks but yet you still find a way to plug the Republicans like they actually stand for something. I have news for you they dont. Period. They are two faced just like the dems. They will say whatever they need to to get into office and then when they do they do the opposite. That is American Politics and that is how it is. I believe you defend your version of conservatism but you must understand 99% of the Republicans in office DO NOT represent those views although they will claim they do.

Ron Paul speaking the truth! Man, I can say that it never gets old to hear him drop a dose of reality on the clowns in Washington. Those in government supporting this bailout (just like the financial one before, and others after) are not concerned about what is right; they are concerned about the companies that paid for their election.

What I find so surprising is that no one has raised the issue of what good this will actually do? We all know they'll end up back for a handout, but the reason isn't just poor management. The main reason can be seen in the prices of the commodities that these companies depend on; they are plummeting at rates faster than the depression because no one is going to be buying their goods. If ever there was a circumstance to say no to these companies it is now; they have no hope at survival, at this point.

reply to post by spacedoubt


what i don't understand is how they think by bailing out car companies, or stock market idiots, that it will fix everything... if ford or whatever gets a bail i'm not going out and buying a new car... i don't have money for one. isn't that the point of helping people? isn't that what social security was used for in the first place? for times of trouble? we can't make money appear out of nowhere, we need to export. it's the only way to get out of debt. it costs more money to make money.

obama cannot fix what we are in. not permanently. the people that fund polotics are corrupt individuals. do you think they'd fund a politic that will # them in the ass??? no... not at all

reply to post by havanaja


Havanaja's argument is the same ill-informed argument democrats are using to do all this stuff now. Gov't is not the solution to all problems and actually caused this one. Want the proof?

Much of what is going on now started in the 1970's and has been coming for decades. Beginning with the sub-prime mess that has spread to nearly all areas of the economy. In 1977, Jimmy Carter passed the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) which had the purpose of investing in deteriorating inner cities and minority neighborhoods through forcing lower lending standards to lower income, poor credit and previously unqualified buyers. In 1989, President George H. W. Bush increased the oversight of the rating system used to rate CRA compliance and made the results public. This had the unintended consequences of creating political and community protests to many banks and therefore causing a change to the lending criteria. In 1992, President Bill Clinton signed the Federal Housing Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness Act of 1992. This required Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to devote a substantial portion of their lending to low income, poor credit and "affordable housing". Then, under Clinton in November 2000 the HUD was directed to dedicate 50% of its business to low and moderate income, and poor credit loans. This REQUIRED lending institutions to increase the amount of loans given to low income, poor credit borrowers. In 1999 Clinton signed into law the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act which removed many regulations on bank and allowed them to offer more products to a wider range of clients than before. After signing the bill, Clinton said that it, "establishes the principles that, as we expand the powers of banks, we will expand the reach of the (CRA) Act". The effect of all these acts and regulations was a slow decline in lending standards, requirements, and an increase in the number of sub-prime mortgages given out.

However, with that being said, there were those that tried to stop this. Republicans in the 1970's argued that the CRA would "distort credit markets, create unnecessary regulatory burden, lead to unsound lending, and cause the governmental agencies charged with implementing the law to allocate credit." All proved to be true. In September of 2003 President George W. Bush proposed the largest ever increase in regulations of home financing, and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac since the Saving and Loan Crisis. However, Democrats in congress stopped the legislation cold. "These two entities — Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — are not facing any kind of financial crisis," said Rep. Barney Frank, then ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. "The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing." Two years later Senator John McCain sought to revive the regulatory changes. "If Congress does not act," McCain said in 2005, "American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system and the economy as a whole." Democrats stopped him this time as well.

Zero down, subprime and Alt-A loans required by the CRA put people in ever more expensive homes they could not afford. As default soared slowly the lending spigot was turned off and the housing market ground to a halt. Slowly consumer spending decreased as people could not sell homes or take out home equity loans to pay off credits cards and pay for their lavish life styles. This spread then even to those who were making their payments and handled credit responsibly.

This is a simple version of what I could write a book on. But I hope people can see, it WAS gov't intervention that caused this. And the same people are saying they are going to fix it now. Thats insanity.

reply to post by johnny2127


Nicely said! However you missed on element that was prevalent and contributory to the entire affair.

The insertion of commercial interests into positions of governmental authority forever changed the ability of the government to respond according to its mandate. By attrition and clever marketeering (lobbying), the corporate interests infiltrated the political machinery and became more relevant than those of us footing the bill with taxes.

The international bank cartel which remains metastasized within our government is bleeding us dry. Every misstep the government made was capitalized upon, every decision skewed by influence and profit-taking. They have been doing it in every nation they get into, they seem to believe it is their right to do so now; as our representatives kowtow to them and give them bailouts - making us the guarantors of their shenanigans. The Republican/Democratic party system has become PART of the problem. It is a lie that even they have a hard time facing. The differences between the two? Really? None.

reply to post by Maxmars


Very true. There was only so much space. There is a great deal more to it. But the reason I bring up parties is because it is democrats in power now, and it was their legislation that caused this. Of course Republicans take some blame as well for not standing up enough for what the party is supposed to believe in. But thats another topic for another day.

Point is, the people that caused this are still in power and they are the ones saying they'll fix it. Problem is, gov't can put a bandaid on this, but they cannot fix it.

reply to post by johnny2127


You know what? I don't even trust them with a band aid!

Originally posted by Blueracer
God bless Ron Paul. I do not understand why this man has not gotten better support from the American people.

Most people don't like his actual "policies" .. he speaks the truth, and many people like what he says.. but when it comes down to what would be taken away ...

Most people write him off as a nut.

Essentially, hes to conservative for conservatives.

The reason people don't listen to Ron Paul is because for everything he says that makes sense, he says something else that is completely insane. For example, withdrawing form the UN and his pathological isolationism. The guy is seriously way out on his own on those issues.

Has anyone else been looking and paying attention to what's coming? You have had the bank bailouts, mortgages being bailed out, now the auto loans being bailed out possibly. Has anyone noticed who else is in "dire" need of bailouts? The states. There are many states that are about to go bankrupt. So the Federal government will be in charge of the banks, mortgages, auto industry, and the state governments. Hmmm I see really bad things happening soon.

reply to post by BornPatriot


???????????Sooooo cheap. I mean, come on.......

reply to post by spacedoubt


I'm not sure if people are looking at the future. We have bailed out the Fed, the Banks, the Mortgages, the auto industries, and guess who's next! The State Governments. They have already moved in and have been asking for money too. Not just one or two states, but many.
I agree that if we keep printing more money to bail these people out, then they pay us back we have a lot of bogus money floating around to drive the dollar down again.

reply to post by rapinbatsisaltherage


I stopped give a f*ck long ago because it's too late to give a f*ck now. They still vote for the same 2 parties. The same democrat, the same exact republican. I live is a state of freakin career politicians. Same two jackass f*ckin Senators for eons. No wonder nothing changes. Gee imagine that? If you start speaking like Ron Paul, everyone throws sh*t at you. Kook Conspiracy theorist, and blah blah blah blah. Who the f*ck cares. Let all these yuppies go f*ck themselves when there are no jobs. Still looking for that perfect f*ckin stock like it's f*ckin 1999. I now don't say sh*t nowadays and I'm lot happier. I have a cig and watch this world burn. I still get prepared in my own way though and don't tell anyone. I watch all these dumb asses stress out about stupid iPhone or new Lexus. How they think they can change the world by going green or driving their stupid ass electric vehicle. Go f*ck yourself. Capitalism failed people. Get prepared for harder times thanks to people not giving a f*ck when it really mattered.

reply to post by mybigunit


I certainly don't have to defend myself to you.

Go troll somewhere else.

Here's Ron Paul in 1988 trying to argue with a bunck of wacko's.

www.disclose.tv...

reply to post by jsobecky

Originally posted by Esoterica
The reason people don't listen to Ron Paul is because for everything he says that makes sense, he says something else that is completely insane. For example, withdrawing form the UN and his pathological isolationism. The guy is seriously way out on his own on those issues.

SURPRISE!

He's a Libertarian!

mybigunit

Don't argue with the Party .. I mean .. 2 party supporters.

Originally posted by Rockpuck

mybigunit

Don't argue with the Party .. I mean .. 2 party supporters.

lol my bad what can I say I get annoyed at neo con apologists.

reply to post by mybigunit


But they ARE Conservative, they really really are, their pastors tell em so!

When dems are defeated in the Senate, and the dems have to turn to the Republican administration .. lol .. well ..

Something like "red flag" comes to mind.

Ahem. He's still a conservative, for what ever that's even supposed to mean anymore.

Originally posted by nyk537
Whoopee…hooray for Ron Paul.

There were many Conservatives, including many on this very site who said the exact same thing the second the original bailout was suggested. I don't seem to remember anybody putting much stock into it then.

I did, I made it a point to see who was for and who was against the original bailout. I voted accordingly, if they were on my ballot.

There is another difference, and that's Ron Paul was running for Presidential office this year. So, I think many of us who support him don't want his message of consistency to be lost.