Posted on 12/11/2008 6:17:52 PM PST by rabscuttle385
U.S. Representative and former presidential candidate Ron Paul tells Newsmax that bailouts of U.S. corporations are “bad morally” — and says current federal economic policies “will literally destroy the dollar.”
He also insists that the use of “counterfeit” paper money instead of a gold-backed currency is “insane,” and declares it is “foolhardy” for Barack Obama to propose national health care under the present economic conditions.
The Texas legislator ran for president as the Libertarian candidate in 1988, and sought the Republican presidential nomination beginning in March 2007. He withdrew this past June and did not endorse GOP candidate John McCain.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsmax.com ...
In my opinion, it is much like an incident reported to have taken place during the 2004 Tsunami.
Roughly ten minutes before the Tsunami touched down, the waters of the beach had receded, and many tourists ran down to the now shell laden sands, to collect seashells. One child, who had been learning about Tsunamis the previous day, urged his parents to higher ground.
If you don't listen to me, listen to Jim Rogers, a billionaire investor. Here.
Yep. I've never been a Ron Paul follower, but I completely agree with him on the bailout issue.
We went off the gold standard well before Nixon. He may have been responsible for taking us off the silver standard, but the gold standard was dust in our history by the time Nixon was Prez.
Believe what you want.
You’re principled IMO. I just wanted to throw that out because I remember seeing you on some of the earlier Ron Paul threads with not much love for the Congressman, but I appreciate the ‘give credit where credit is due’ stance.
Embrace the anarchy!
And then stockpile!
I believe the dollar’s fate will be determined by how much banks decide to lend. Right now they have tons of reserves pumped in by the fed, but they are contracting their loans which has a net deflationary effect on the money supply. But since they have so many reserves now, if they decide to fully loan up again there will be rampant inflation.
The other thing that will be interesting to see is what foreign countries will do with their excess dollars and dollar denominated assets.
As it is, the guy is Right, but completely ineffectual.
I'm amazed at the number of FReepers that really believe that the government has control of currency, and the overall economy.
Low demand for petroleum right now.
I believe in the long and even medium term the dollar is done for. What I fear is another experiment in paper money with a global reserve currency not tied to any country... which will lead to even more control by the IMF and UN.
***I’m amazed at the number of FReepers that really believe that the government has control of currency, and the overall economy.***
The government has control in so much as they control the fed, and the fed controls certain aspects of the currency. As for the economy, people want to believe that the president is a dictator of sorts that can solve all the nation’s woes by implementing various policies. It’s a sad state when we put so much trust in one person. It certainly is NOT the role the executive was supposed to play and I believe the Founders would be abhorred at the federal government’s power. But people get the government they deserve I guess.
No, it’s just the calm before the storm, I think . . .
Nixon ordered the stop of international settlement of $ debt in gold. France was calling our bluff. Before that, other nations could redeem their $ holdings for gold at $35 (I think) per ounce. US persons could not legally own gold bullion since FDR prohibited it.
Quite true. However, BEFORE Nixon stopped paying international debts with gold, US paper currency was a "Silver Certificate". It was printed right on the top of paper currency on the front. That meant that anyone (alledgedly) could redeem paper US currency for the equivalent amount in silver. In the 60s, probably under Johnson, the US went off of the silver standard and the currency value was based solely on GNP (or whatever Congress thought the value of a dollar was!)
Bookmark
Why was he not nominated?
Because too many conservatives think he's a "fringe kook" when it comes to the U.S. and its schizophrenic, imperialist foreign policy. They voted for McCain even though Paul is more conservative than McCain!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.