Ron Paul's On the State of the Economy: "Be Prepared For The Worst"

[wilsonian]

Yeah, I dont get it. Something about anti-gov cults or something.

As for RP and the rest, they never really seem to address what would have happened if the government did exactly what they wanted it to do at the begining of the year, which is of course, nothing. They never really color in the link between doing nothing and prosperity during a financial crisis quite possibly deeper than the Great Depression. Yeah, we get it, free market and all. I just think there would be far more people pissed off and out of work right now if the government had done zippo. Call it a hunch.

Actually, they have addressed what would happen if the government did nothing.

There would be a severe, sharp recession. It would be a painful, yet necessary step to ensure long-term prosperity. Imagine a heroin addict going cold turkey. In the short run, the process is unpleasant. However, in the long run, the person is much better off. Simply shooting up with more heroin to delay the inevitable pain is dangerous, albeit pleasant in the short run.

In 1920-1921, the U.S. experienced a recession that was worse than any single year in the Great Depression. Like our current financial crisis, it was the result of a bubble created by the Federal Reserve and the banks. And yet, the government did relatively nothing. Malinvestments were liquidated, and within a year, the economy had a robust recovery. Nevertheless, people often forget this recession of 1920-21, mainly because it didn't last a long time. Compare that to the Great Depression, in which the government intervened on a massive scale. It wasn't until the end of World War II until the economy truly recovered.

Doing nothing and allowing the recession to actually happen is obviously a painful and unpopular decision, but it's the necessary one. Unfortunately, no politician is willing to make the sacrifice and endure the pain. They want everything to be great in the short run so that they can get re-elected.

Sometimes medicine tastes bad, but you've got to swallow it.

[deejaydana]

Doing nothing and allowing the recession to actually happen is obviously a painful and unpopular decision, but it's the necessary one. Unfortunately, no politician is willing to make the sacrifice and endure the pain. They want everything to be great in the short run so that they can get re-elected.

Sometimes medicine tastes bad, but you've got to swallow it.

As time goes by, and I see election cycles come and go (and get so close together that campaigning now in this country is literally a 24/7/365 proposition, I keep coming back to what you say here: politicians in this country, the majority of them (and on both sides of the aisle) care primarily and above all about their continued employment (at the greater expense and detriment) of the longer term good of the country and you and me. Don't know how we break out of this but goodness, we need to at some point.

I didn't start the thread to praise Ron Paul, I only follow him from time to time but the fact that he offers up opinions that others from both parties never would, for fear of breaking their lock-step movement, certainly is refreshing (though how much it accomplishes is up for debate). What will it take to bring forth another Perot-type candidate to challenge the system as it stands?

[GibbsFactor]

Only to you and other fanatical libertarians. The rest of us recognize that if you throw enough **** at the wall, something is bound to stick.

Every libertarian I know is delusional. Sadly, that includes a dear friend and another person who is a friend of the family who is starting to sound so bat **** crazy he's scaring me. :doh:

.

I think some of the fanatical behavior is caused by the reactions it gets by you Mad Mike!!! I for one sure do enjoy it! :evilg:

That being said, I'm glad to see you coming full circle and admitting to the fact that RP is often right.

It's simple. His philosophy, and that of some libertarians (not all by a long shot) does require a leap of faith that humanity could be responsible. I can understand how the cynic just can't reach that conclusion. It's the old adage - give a man a fish and he eats for a day, teach him to fish and he'll eat for a lifetime. I know it's easier to just give up a fish. But why not attempt to teach?

[Vicious]

The politicians would gladly make the decision to bite the bullet, but you said it yourself, it'd be a UNPOPULAR decision. Stop blaming the politicians for the selfish masses.

[deejaydana]

The politicians would gladly make the decision to bite the bullet, but you said it yourself, it'd be a UNPOPULAR decision. Stop blaming the politicians for the selfish masses.

I'm not looking for another handout at least. The Universal Healthcare Debacle, er, program is just another example of offering up 'something for nothing' and nobody loves that more than your average American imho. It's guaranteed to be a trainwreck but its saving grace is the time it will take to reveal all its warts (if that's any kind of saving grace).

[SnyderShrugged]

The politicians would gladly make the decision to bite the bullet, but you said it yourself, it'd be a UNPOPULAR decision. Stop blaming the politicians for the selfish masses.

This is a valid point

[Madison Redskin]

The politicians would gladly make the decision to bite the bullet, but you said it yourself, it'd be a UNPOPULAR decision. Stop blaming the politicians for the selfish masses.

And what, exactly, do you mean by "bite the bullet?" What would Washington do that it is not doing?

[SparkleMotion]

And what, exactly, do you mean by "bite the bullet?" What would Washington do that it is not doing?

Own up to the fact that they were a big part of the problem and not posture as the doctors here to fix up the mess that the greedy capitalists made.

[ChocolateCitySkin]

Actually, they have addressed what would happen if the government did nothing.

There would be a severe, sharp recession. It would be a painful, yet necessary step to ensure long-term prosperity. Imagine a heroin addict going cold turkey. In the short run, the process is unpleasant. However, in the long run, the person is much better off. Simply shooting up with more heroin to delay the inevitable pain is dangerous, albeit pleasant in the short run.

In 1920-1921, the U.S. experienced a recession that was worse than any single year in the Great Depression. Like our current financial crisis, it was the result of a bubble created by the Federal Reserve and the banks. And yet, the government did relatively nothing. Malinvestments were liquidated, and within a year, the economy had a robust recovery. Nevertheless, people often forget this recession of 1920-21, mainly because it didn't last a long time. Compare that to the Great Depression, in which the government intervened on a massive scale. It wasn't until the end of World War II until the economy truly recovered.

Doing nothing and allowing the recession to actually happen is obviously a painful and unpopular decision, but it's the necessary one. Unfortunately, no politician is willing to make the sacrifice and endure the pain. They want everything to be great in the short run so that they can get re-elected.

Sometimes medicine tastes bad, but you've got to swallow it.

a heroine addict can die going cold turkey

[JMS]

Ron Paul is a nut job. He's about as sophisticated as he is worldly. He's equally ignorant of both current events and history.

Government intervention cannot lead to economic growth.

Tell that to FDR who turned around the depression in his first year in office along with every economic indicator besides the DOW Jones. FDR who positioned the United States on the precipase of the greatest econmic growth spert in the history of the world.

Besides, tax revenues have fallen drastically as unemployment has risen, yet government spending continues to increase. As for Treasury debt, the Chinese and other foreign investors are more and more reluctant to buy it, denominated as it is in depreciating dollars.

Another "conservative" Republican who only preaches fiscal responsibility when the Democrats are in office. A Republican who loved Bush's tax cuts of 2002, even though every dollar Bush cut was paid for by borrowing from Red China.

Note to Ron Paul. All government spending isn't bad, just most of it. And any government spending which is actually paid for is much better than borrowing. With the trillions of dollars which went to corrupt large corporations in the last decade, I personally don't mind spending a little money on infrastructure, new ideas, and easing the sufforing of some folks who aren't worth millions.

[SnyderShrugged]

Ron Paul is a nut job. He's about as sophisticated as he is worldly. He's equally ignorant of both current events and history.

Tell that to FDR who turned around the depression in his first year in office along with every economic indicator besides the DOW Jones. FDR who positioned the United States on the precipase of the greatest econmic growth spert in the history of the world.

Another "conservative" Republican who only preaches fiscal responsibility when the Democrats are in office. A Republican who loved Bush's tax cuts of 2002, even though every dollar Bush cut was paid for by borrowing from Red China.

Note to Ron Paul. All government spending isn't bad, just most of it. And any government spending which is actually paid for is much better than borrowing. With the trillions of dollars which went to corrupt large corporations in the last decade, I personally don't mind spending a little money on infrastructure, new ideas, and easing the sufforing of some folks who aren't worth millions.

I swear you just post to post and never really know any facts.

"Another "conservative" Republican who only preaches fiscal responsibility when the Democrats are in office. "

This comment alone tells us all how very uninformed you are on his views. In fact, even the most ardent RP haters understand that what you just said is false in the extreme.

[GibbsFactor]

I'll give it to you JMS, you lead off with so many holes others must feel compelled to join in on the debate with you which will undoubtedly last for 10 pages.

[Mad Mike]

.

I think some of the fanatical behavior is caused by the reactions it gets by you Mad Mike!!! I for one sure do enjoy it! :evilg:

That being said, I'm glad to see you coming full circle and admitting to the fact that RP is often right.

It's simple. His philosophy, and that of some libertarians (not all by a long shot) does require a leap of faith that humanity could be responsible. I can understand how the cynic just can't reach that conclusion. It's the old adage - give a man a fish and he eats for a day, teach him to fish and he'll eat for a lifetime. I know it's easier to just give up a fish. But why not attempt to teach?

I never said he was "often right". Not even close. Since you are having trouble with reading comprehension, let me spell it out for you.

Ron Paul is a MORON. Just like Ayn Rand. (Rand should have stopped with the concept of objectivism, The idea that there is one reality and we should all strive to see that reality in dear to my heart. But her actual application of the concept is ridiculously flawed. She completely fails to take the absolute reality of human nature in her political opinions.)

"A leap of faith that humanity could be responsible"? Are you ******* kidding me? The same humanity that let Ford keep selling Pintos that caught fire because it was cheaper let people die and pay the law suits than recall the cars? The same one responsible for knowingly selling tainted peanut butter? The same one that produced Bernie Madof?

Oh yeah, we would all be fine if government got out of the way and let responsible big business run things.

Listen to Rand here...

She absolutely refuses to acknowledge anything that contradicts her idealized view of the world.

But hey, at least her ideas took hold in the Satanic Bible...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Satanic_Bible

The Satanic Bible was written by Anton LaVey in 1969. It is a collection of essays, observations and basic Satanic rituals, and outlines LaVey's Satanic ideology. The author claims the influence of dick and Ayn Rand[citation needed] among others.

Judge for yourself. Download it here...

http://std.kku.ac.th/4830401674/The%20Satanic%20Bible.pdf

Her entire argument for self reliance and survival of the fittest ignores the fact that inequality and perceived injustice to the poor inevitably leads to violent uprising. There will always be the poor and underachievers. Rand treats them as expendable fodder to be cast aside without consequence.

Listen to her interview. She contradicts herself completely when faced with the fact that she supported her husband. She's a hypocrite. She claims she does this because it is in her best interest. But the reality is that it is in mankind's best interest to support the tribe. Civilization is advanced by this principle. If all we cared for was ourselves, we would still be living as animals, naked and alone in the wilderness.

The woman was simply delusional. She was bat**** crazy in her adherence to her absolutes, just like the crazy uncle is today.

God save us all from Libertarian loons. :doh:

[zoony]

I swear that some of them actually want to see the economy go into the ***** just so they can say, "I told you so, we should all be libertarians." When the Dow was picking up, they said, "dead cat bounce." When the GDP showed signs of growth, they said, "the economy is still fundamentally unsound." When the unemployment rolls fall, they will surely say that we are still headed towards some calamity.

This is not hyperbole or even a stretch, its the truth.

It's a pathetic bunch.

[SnyderShrugged]

I never said he was "often right". Not even close. Since you are having trouble with reading comprehension, let me spell it out for you.

Ron Paul is a MORON. Just like Ayn Rand. (Rand should have stopped with the concept of objectivism, The idea that there is one reality and we should all strive to see that reality in dear to my heart. But her actual application of the concept is ridiculously flawed. She completely fails to take the absolute reality of human nature in her political opinions.)

"A leap of faith that humanity could be responsible"? Are you ******* kidding me? The same humanity that let Ford keep selling Pintos that caught fire because it was cheaper let people die and pay the law suits than recall the cars? The same one responsible for knowingly selling tainted peanut butter? The same one that produced Bernie Madof?

Oh yeah, we would all be fine if government got out of the way and let responsible big business run things.

Listen to Rand here...

She absolutely refuses to acknowledge anything that contradicts her idealized view of the world.

But hey, at least her ideas took hold in the Satanic Bible...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Satanic_Bible

Judge for yourself. Download it here...

http://std.kku.ac.th/4830401674/The%20Satanic%20Bible.pdf

Her entire argument for self reliance and survival of the fittest ignores the fact that inequality and perceived injustice to the poor inevitably leads to violent uprising. There will always be the poor and underachievers. Rand treats them as expendable fodder to be cast aside without consequence.

Listen to her interview. She contradicts herself completely when faced with the fact that she supported her husband. She's a hypocrite. She claims she does this because it is in her best interest. But the reality is that it is in mankind's best interest to support the tribe. Civilization is advanced by this principle. If all we cared for was ourselves, we would still be living as animals, naked and alone in the wilderness.

The woman was simply delusional. She was bat**** crazy in her adherence to her absolutes, just like the crazy uncle is today.

God save us all from Libertarian loons. :doh:

Uhhh, why have you brought Ayn Rand into the thread again? Didnt think she had been mentioned up to this point.

and sorry to break it to ya bud, but she wasnt a libertarian. Your rant is ineffectual and inaccurate in scope.

Q: What do you think of the Libertarian movement? [FHF: “The Moratorium on Brains,” 1971]

AR: All kinds of people today call themselves “libertarians,” especially something calling itself the New Right, which consists of hippies, except that they’re anarchists instead of collectivists. But of course, anarchists are collectivists. Capitalism is the one system that requires absolute objective law, yet they want to combine capitalism and anarchism. That is worse than anything the New Left has proposed. It’s a mockery of philosophy and ideology. They sling slogans and try to ride on two bandwagons. They want to be hippies, but don’t want to preach collectivism, because those jobs are already taken. But anarchism is a logical outgrowth of the anti-intellectual side of collectivism. I could deal with a Marxist with a greater chance of reaching some kind of understanding, and with much greater respect. The anarchist is the scum of the intellectual world of the left, which has given them up. So the right picks up another leftist discard. That’s the Libertarian movement.

Q: What do you think of the Libertarian Party? [FHF: “A Nation’s Unity,” 1972]

AR: I’d rather vote for Bob Hope, the Marx Brothers, or Jerry Lewis. I don’t think they’re as funny as Professor Hospers and the Libertarian Party. If, at a time like this, John Hospers takes ten votes away from Nixon (which I doubt he’ll do), it would be a moral crime. I don’t care about Nixon, and I care even less about Hospers. But this is no time to engage in publicity seeking, which all these crank political parties are doing. If you want to spread your ideas, do it through education. But don’t run for President—or even dogcatcher—if you’re going to help McGovern.

Q: What is your position on the Libertarian Party? [FHF: “Censorship: Local and Express,” 1973]

AR: I don’t want to waste too much time on it. It’s a cheap attempt at publicity, which Libertarians won’t get. Today’s events, particularly Watergate, should teach anyone with amateur political notions that they cannot rush into politics in order to get publicity. The issue is so serious today, that to form a new party based in part on half-baked ideas, and in part on borrowed ideas—I won’t say from whom—is irresponsible, and in today’s context, nearly immoral.

Q: Libertarians advocate the politics you advocate. So why are you opposed to the Libertarian Party? [FHF: “Egalitarianism and Inflation,” 1974]

AR:They are not defenders of capitalism. They’re a group of publicity seekers who rush into politics prematurely, because they allegedly want to educate people through a political campaign, which can’t be done. Further, their leadership consists of men of every of persuasion, from religious conservatives to anarchists. Moreover, most of them are my enemies: they spend their time denouncing me, while plagiarizing my ideas. Now, I think it’s a bad beginning for an allegedly pro-capitalist party to start by stealing ideas.

Q: Have you ever heard of [Libertarian presidential candidate] Roger MacBride? [FHF: “?” 1976]

AR: My answer should be, “I haven’t.” There’s nothing to hear. I have been maintaining in everything I have said and written, that the trouble in the world today is philosophical; that only the right philosophy can save us. Now here is a party that plagiarizes some of my ideas, mixes it with the exact opposite—with religionists, anarchists, and just about every intellectual misfit and scum they can find—and they call themselves Libertarians, and run for office. I dislike Reagan and Carter; I’m not too enthusiastic about the other candidates. But the worst of them are giants compared to anybody who would attempt something as un-philosophical, low, and pragmatic as the Libertarian Party. It is the last insult to ideas and philosophical consistency.

Q: Do you think Libertarians communicate the ideas of freedom and capitalism effectively? [Q&A following LP’s “Objective Communication,” Lecture 1, 1980]

AR: I don’t think plagiarists are effective. I’ve read nothing by a Libertarian (when I read them, in the early years) that wasn’t my ideas badly mishandled—i.e., had the teeth pulled out of them—with no credit given. I didn’t know whether I should be glad that no credit was given, or disgusted. I felt both. They are perhaps the worst political group today, because they can do the most harm to capitalism, by making it disreputable.

Q: Why don’t you approve of the Libertarians, thousands of whom are loyal readers of your works? [FHF: “The Age of Mediocrity,” 1981]

AR: Because Libertarians are a monstrous, disgusting bunch of people: they plagiarize my ideas when that fits their purpose, and they denounce me in a more vicious manner than any communist publication, when that fits their purpose. They are lower than any pragmatists, and what they hold against Objectivism is morality. They’d like to have an amoral political program.

Q: The Libertarians are providing intermediate steps toward your goals. Why don’t you support them? [ibid., 1981]

AR: Please don’t tell me they’re pursuing my goals. I have not asked for, nor do I accept, the help of intellectual cranks. I want philosophically educated people: those who understand ideas, care about ideas, and spread the right ideas. That’s how my philosophy will spread, just as philosophy has throughout all history: by means of people who understand and teach it to others. Further, it should be clear that I do not endorse the filthy slogan, “The end justifies the means.” That was originated by the Jesuits, and accepted enthusiastically by Communists and Nazis. The end does not justify the means; you cannot achieve anything good by evil means. Finally, the Libertarians aren’t worthy of being the means to any end, let alone the end of spreading Objectivism.

http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=education_campus_libertarians

[GibbsFactor]

I never said he was "often right". Not even close. Since you are having trouble with reading comprehension, let me spell it out for you.

Come on Mike, I was just having a little fun with ya. We've played this game to many times.

Ron Paul is a MORON. Just like Ayn Rand. (Rand should have stopped with the concept of objectivism, The idea that there is one reality and we should all strive to see that reality in dear to my heart. But her actual application of the concept is ridiculously flawed. She completely fails to take the absolute reality of human nature in her political opinions.)

Wait, when did we stop living in a world of enlightenment?

"A leap of faith that humanity could be responsible"? Are you ******* kidding me? The same humanity that let Ford keep selling Pintos that caught fire because it was cheaper let people die and pay the law suits than recall the cars? The same one responsible for knowingly selling tainted peanut butter? The same one that produced Bernie Madof?

Oh yeah, we would all be fine if government got out of the way and let responsible big business run things.

And the only way to stop this is by more laws. I understand that. But in fairness to Dr. Paul, it's hard to use those examples since they all took place in times of an ever increasingly corporatism economy caused by the very intervention you advocate. I guess I have more faith in humanity that we should continue evolving into a better society. I'm not an anarchist by any stretch of the imagination.

And only one person is bringing Rand to this thread. We get it. You only respect people that have a very open mind. Isn't that hypocrisy? Have an open mind about close minded people.

[Burgundy Burner]

A couple of nuggets to chew on...

Check the performance of the Wilshire 5000. Earnings are at about 40 times value and dividends are a little over 1%. That's not a good sign of things to come.

Watch Citi/CitiGroup. How ugly will it get? Just watch this baby for a while.

Well, well, well. Check out the news on Citi that came out at 4:55 this afternoon. Had no idea that it could happen so quickly. Oh well.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/CIT-Group-receives-1-billion-apf-2068323744.html?x=0&sec=topStories&pos=7&asset=&ccode=

I swear that some of them actually want to see the economy go into the ***** just so they can say, "I told you so, we should all be libertarians." When the Dow was picking up, they said, "dead cat bounce." When the GDP showed signs of growth, they said, "the economy is still fundamentally unsound." When the unemployment rolls fall, they will surely say that we are still headed towards some calamity.

I'd like to point you to the above link and my earlier post. Now, truth be told - this is not to brag or to do the proverbial told you so routine. It's simply based on a lot of very realistic factors. If you choose to ignore many of the warnings and put your portfolio(s) at risk, then that is your decision to make.

Personally, I would like to see everyone do well with their investments. When the markets and economy suffer major corrections, money can still made or protected. That is why I posted some links and news. I take no pleasure at the suffering of others, but I make no apologies for raising some red flags and protecting my assets.

[Willy Wonka]

Tell that to FDR who turned around the depression in his first year in office along with every economic indicator besides the DOW Jones. FDR who positioned the United States on the precipase of the greatest econmic growth spert in the history of the world.

Wow! Where to begin with this one? :doh:

[Midnight Judges]

I swear you just post to post and never really know any facts.

"Another "conservative" Republican who only preaches fiscal responsibility when the Democrats are in office. "

This comment alone tells us all how very uninformed you are on his views. In fact, even the most ardent RP haters understand that what you just said is false in the extreme.

Ron Paul's $400 million in wasteful earmarks on line 2 for you.

[Madison Redskin]

Ron Paul's $400 million in wasteful earmarks on line 2 for you.

Like every other congressman, Ron Paul hates government spending unless it's government spending in HIS district.

[SnyderShrugged]

Like every other congressman, Ron Paul hates government spending unless it's government spending in HIS district.

You can say all you want.....then check how he voted on the appropriations. Which was NO.

Admitedly, I'm not sold on his overall logic for the shrimp earmarks. But please allow me to explain before you make a judgement.

He voted against the spending via the approprations process. If the appropriations still pass, then the money is already spent. He then simply requests his districts fair share of what will be spent anyway. Again, and please let this sink in...The money is already spent when earmarking begins.

Personally, I am against both the appropriations and the earmarks, but I sort of understand where he is coming from.

Either way, he always votes against the spending.

[Thiebear]

My GED self believe in 10 years we will look back and:

One side will say that we extended this twice as long as it should be with Graphs to prove it based on all other depressions by trying to print our way out of it.

And the other side will say we didn't spend enough money and thus extended it for a longer period for not doing enough with charts to prove it.

[Ken]

Exactly why one of my favorite quotes is...

The people I distrust most are those who want to improve our lives but have only one course of action. - Frank Herbert

And another is...

Above all else, the mentat must be a generalist, not a specialist. It is wise to have decisions of great moment monitored by generalists. Experts and specialists lead you quickly into chaos. They are a source of useless nit-picking, the ferocious quibble over a comma. The mentat-generalist, on the other hand, should bring to decision-making a healthy common sense. He must not cut himself off from the broad sweep of what is happening in this universe. He must remain capable of saying: "There's no real mystery about this at the moment. This is what we want now. It may prove wrong later, but we'll correct that when we come to it." The mentat-generalist must understand that anything which we can identify as our universe is merely part of larger phenomena. But the expert looks backward; he looks into the narrow standards of his own specialty. The generalist looks outward; he looks for living principles, knowing full well that such principles change, that they develop. It is to the characteristics of change itself that the mentat-generalist must look. There can be no permanent catalogue of such change, no handbook or manual. You must look at it with as few preconceptions as possible, asking yourself: "Now what is this thing doing?"

The Mentat Handbook - Frank Herbert

While quoting a science fiction author is very powerful stuff....:doh:

I prefer a true statemen's view on topics as they pertain to this thread....

Thomas Jefferson:

"The central bank is an institution of the most deadly hostility existing against the Principles and form of our Constitution. I am an Enemy to all banks discounting bills or notes for anything but Coin. If the American People allow private banks to control the issuance of their currency, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the People of all their Property until their Children will wake up homeless on the continent their Fathers conquered. "

"If we run into such debts as that we must be taxed in our meat and in our drink, in our necessaries and our comforts, in our labors and our amusements, for our callings and our creeds, as the people of England are, our people, like them, must come to labor sixteen hours in the twenty-four, and give the earnings of fifteen of these to the government for their debts and daily expenses; And the sixteen being insufficient to afford us bread, we must live, as they do now, on oatmeal and potatoes, have no time to think, no means of calling the mismanagers to account; But be glad to obtain subsistence by hiring ourselves to rivet their chains around the necks of our fellow sufferers; And this is the tendency of all human governments. A departure from principle in one instance becomes a precedent for a second, that second for a third, and so on 'til the bulk of society is reduced to mere automatons of misery, to have no sensibilities left but for sinning and suffering...and the forehorse of this frightful team is public debt. Taxation follows that, and in its train wretchedness and oppression. "

"The system of banking [is] a blot left in all our Constitutions, which, if not covered, will end in their destruction... I sincerely believe that banking institutions are more dangerous than standing armies; and that the principle of spending money to be paid by posterity... is but swindling futurity on a large scale."

"On every question of construction [of the Constitution] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or intended against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed."

"Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper. Truth itself becomes suspicious by being put into that polluted vehicle."

"The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first."

"I, however, place economy among the first and most important republican virtues, and public debt as the greatest of the dangers to be feared."

"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them."

[JMS]

I swear you just post to post and never really know any facts.

:doh:

This comment alone tells us all how very uninformed you are on his views. In fact, even the most ardent RP haters understand that what you just said is false in the extreme.

Yeah, Fiscal Conservative Republicans and Libertarians didn't sit on their hands and support passively and actively the Bush administration at all when he raised both domestic and military spending by record levels while slashing revenue?

What was I thinking.

[JMS]

Wow! Where to begin with this one? :doh:

You name me ten Ron Paul supporters and you've just named nine or ten people who voted for George Bush twice. Start there.