The Truth About Ron Paul

NoDrama said:

Gotta tell ya, Obama can orally read WAY BETTER than Ron Paul.

Click to expand...

NoDrama said:

Gosh! Really? Because he sure didn't vote that way!!

You haven't really looked into these things have you?

Click to expand...

HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS

[Page: E2297]

Madam Speaker, today we are considering a bill aimed at modernizing the financial services industry through deregulation. It is a worthy goal which I support. However, this bill falls short of that goal. The negative aspects of this bill outweigh the benefits. Many have already argued for the need to update our financial laws. I would just add that I agree on the need for reform but oppose this approach.

With the economy more fragile than is popularly recognized, we should move cautiously as we initiate reforms. Federal Reserve Board Chairman Alan Greenspan (in a 1997 speech in Frankfurt, Germany and other times), Kurt Richebacher, Frank Veneroso and others, have questioned the statistical accuracy of the economy's vaunted productivity gains.

Federal Reserve Governor Edward Gramlich today joined many others who are concerned about the strength of the economy when he warned that the low U.S. savings rate was a cause for concern. Coupled with the likely decline in foreign investment in the United States, he said that the economy will require some potentially `painful' adjustments--some combination of higher exports, higher interest rates, lower investment, and/or lower dollar values.

Such a scenario would put added pressure on the financial bubble. The growth in money and credit has outpaced both savings and economic growth. These inflationary pressures have been concentrated in asset prices, not consumer price inflation--keeping monetary policy too easy. This increase in asset prices has fueled domestic borrowing and spending.

Government policy and the increase in securitization are largely responsible for this bubble. In addition to loose monetary policies by the Federal Reserve, government-sponsored enterprises Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have contributed to the problem. The fourfold increases in their balance sheets from 1997 to 1998 boosted new home borrowings to more than $1.5 trillion in 1998, two-thirds of which were refinances which put an extra $15,000 in the pockets of consumers on average--and reduce risk for individual institutions while increasing risk for the system as a whole.

The rapidity and severity of changes in economic conditions can affect prospects for individual institutions more greatly than that of the overall economy. The Long Term Capital Management hedge fund is a prime example. New companies start and others fail every day. What is troubling with the hedge fund bailout was the governmental response and the increase in moral hazard.

This increased indication of the government's eagerness to bail out highly-leveraged, risky and largely unregulated financial institutions bodes ill for the post S. 900 future as far as limiting taxpayer liability is concerned. LTCM isn't even registered in the United States but the Cayman Islands!

Government regulations present the greatest threat to privacy and consumers' loss of control over their own personal information. In the private sector, individuals protect their financial privacy as an integral part of the market process by providing information they regard as private only to entities they trust will maintain a degree of privacy of which they approve. Individuals avoid privacy violators by `opting out' and doing business only with such privacy-respecting companies.

The better alternative is to repeal privacy busting government regulations. The same approach applies to Glass-Steagall and S. 900. Why not just repeal the offending regulation? In the banking committee, I offered an amendment to do just that. My main reasons for voting against this bill are the expansion of the taxpayer liability and the introduction of even more regulations. The entire multi-hundred page S. 900 that reregulates rather than deregulates the financial sector could be replaced with a simple one-page bill.

Click to expand...

sync0s said:

Well, our own government sides with me. Interesting: http://www.ssa.gov/pressoffice/pr/trustee03-pr.htm

Edit: The annoying thing about SS is this: SS is supposed to be an optional thing. You are not required to join as it would be considered unconstitutional, but if I don't join I still have to pay in. Weird. Also, what would I be able to do without the SS card?

Click to expand...

sync0s said:

The considerable amount of "uhs" would probably beg to differ. Either way, their both intelligent men, no question about that.

Click to expand...

NoDrama said:

Gotta tell ya, Obama can orally read WAY BETTER than Ron Paul. RP doesn't have any feeling in his voice when he reads, its like listening to Microsoft Bob. Obama can give words the inflection they need for maximum effect. RP is way better when he is ad libbing.

Click to expand...

UncleBuck said:

the amish don't pay in.

perhaps if you lived a life where you did not depend on the government in any way, you could be exempt too.

oh, i forgot, you utilize the benefits of a government.

Click to expand...

deprave said:

two totally different things, How can you even make the connection? you can't, there isn't one.

Click to expand...

deprave said:

two totally different things, How can you even make the connection? you can't, there isn't one.

Click to expand...

Dan Kone said:

And you really didn't even bother to read what you were quoting.

I've provided you with a direct quote from Ron Paul himself saying he supported financial deregulation and repealing Glass-Steagall.

If you want to ignore that, that's up to you. Ron Paul didn't vote for Gramm-Leech-Bliley because he thought the deregulation didn't go far enough, not because he opposed repealing Glass-Steagall.

Here's proof what I'm saying is true. But go ahead and ignore it as usual.

http://www.actuarialoutpost.com/actuarial_discussion_forum/showthread.php?t=150949

Click to expand...

deprave said:

supporting deregulation does not equal supporting fraud.

Click to expand...

NoDrama said:

repeal PRIVACY BUSTING government regulations, not ALL REGULATIONS. Obviously you have read this, obviously you realize he foretells of the actual problem that just so happened to cause the big bust of 2008, but ignore that and try to make everyone think he is anti regulation on everything.

Click to expand...

sync0s said:

Government benefits? What benefits? Road construction? My local county I have to pay a wheelage tax every year that pays for it. If they do the road out front of my house I have to pay for it along with may neighbors (directly, not through taxes too). Am I benefiting from adding money being paid out on everything I buy? Police? They don't do anything I couldn't do with a gun, except imprisoning me for marijuana. Health care? Nope, haven't seen a doc in 10 years. Tell me, what am I benefiting from? Protection? Please don't say that cause I will have to use the Ben Franklin quote again, and I'm tired of saying it myself.

Click to expand...

Dan Kone said:

That's quite a technicality you found there. Once you make it legal, it ceases to be fraud. That's the only reason what you are saying is true.

When we deregulated the part of the market that dealt with these bundled mortgages, Wall St legally regulated it self and came to the conclusion that these bundled junk loans should be given an AAA rating which is only only reason people invested in them so heavily.

While technically that isn't fraud because it was not illegal, it was at best extremely misleading and almost caused another great depression.

Well congrats on being technically correct for whatever that is worth.

Click to expand...