On the road with Ron Paul's merry band of misfits and his hooker fan club

[HeXploiT]

Thought this was very well written piece by Tucker Carlson. Enjoy.

The New Republic
Pimp My Ride by Tucker Carlson
On the road with Ron Paul's merry band of misfits and his hooker fan club.
Post Date Friday, December 21, 2007

The first thing I learned from driving around Nevada with Ron Paul for a couple of days: People really hate the Federal Reserve. This became clear midway through a speech Paul was giving to a group of Republicans at a community center in Pahrump, a dusty town about 60 miles west of Las Vegas. Pahrump is known for its legal brothels (Heidi Fleiss lives there), but most of the people in the audience looked more like ranchers than swingers. They stood five deep at the back of the room and listened politely as the candidate spoke.

Until Paul got to the part about the Fed. "We need a much better monetary system," he said, a system based on "sound money, money that's backed by something." Paul, who is small and delicate and has a high voice, spoke in a near monotone, making no effort to excite the audience. They cheered anyway. Then he said this: "The Constitution gives no authority for a central bank." The crowd went wild, or as wild as a group of sober Republicans can on a Monday night. They hooted and yelled and stomped their feet. Paul stopped speaking for a moment, his words drowned out. Then he continued on about monetary policy.

Wow, I thought. The constitutionality of a central bank is not an issue you see on many lists of voter concerns. (How many pollsters would think to ask about it? How many voters would understand the question?) Yet a room full of non-economists had just responded feverishly when Paul brought it up. Hoping for some context, I went outside and found a Paul staffer. He didn't sound surprised when I told him about the speech. "It's our biggest applause line," he said.

Our biggest applause line? There are two ways to interpret a fact like that:

Either the Ron Paul movement is more sophisticated than most journalists understand, or a lot of Paul supporters are eccentric bordering on bonkers.

One thing you can say for certain: The crowds at Ron Paul rallies aren't coming to be entertained. Stylistically, a Paul speech is about as colorful as a tax return. He is the only politician I've ever seen who doesn't draw energy from the audience; his tone is as flat at the conclusion as it was at the beginning. There are no jokes. There's no warm-up, no shout-out to local luminaries in the room, no inspiring vignettes about ordinary Americans doing their best in the face of this or that bad thing. In fact, there are virtually none of the usual political clichés in a Paul speech. Children may be our future, but Ron Paul isn't admitting it in public.

Paul is no demagogue, and probably couldn't be if he tried. He's too libertarian. He can't stand to tell other people what to do, even people who've shown up looking for instructions. On board the campaign's tiny chartered jet one night (the plane was so small my legs were intertwined with the candidate's for the entire flight), Paul and his staff engaged in an unintentionally hilarious exchange about the cabin lights. The staff wanted to know whether Paul preferred the lights on or off. Not wanting to be bossy, Paul wouldn't say. Ultimately, the staff had to guess. It was a long three minutes.

Being at the center of attention clearly bothers Paul. "I like to be unnoticed," he says, a claim not typically made by presidential candidates. "That's my personality. I see all the excitement and sometimes I say to myself, 'Why do they do that?' I don't see myself as a big deal." Ordinarily you'd have to dismiss a line like that out of hand--if he's so humble, why is he running for president?--but, in Paul's case, it might be true. In fact, it might be the key to his relative success. His fans don't read his awkwardness as a social phobia, but as a sign of authenticity. Paul never outshines his message, which is unchanging: Let adults make their own choices; liberty works. For a unified theory of everything, it's pretty simple. And Paul sincerely believes it.

Most Republicans, of course, profess to believe it too. But only Paul has introduced a bill to legalize unpasteurized milk. Give yourself five minutes and see if you can think of a more countercultural idea than that. Most people assume that the whole reason we have a government is to make sure the milk gets pasteurized. It takes some stones to argue otherwise, especially if nobody's paying you to do it. (The raw-milk lobby basically consists of about eight goat-cheese enthusiasts in Manhattan, and possibly the Amish.) Paul is pro-choice on pasteurization entirely for reasons of principle. "I support the right of people to drink whatever they want," he says. He mocks the idea that "only government can make sure we're safe, so we need the government to protect us. I don't think we'd all die of unsafe food if we didn't have the FDA. Someone else would do it." If you know Ron Paul primarily from watching the Republican debates, you probably assume he spends most of his time ranting about September 11 and the Iraq invasion. In fact, his real passion is Austrian economics. More even than the war, Paul despises paper currency, which he considers a hoax, "fiat money." He can become emotional talking about it. Caught in traffic in downtown Vegas on the way to an event, Paul looked out the window at the casinos and mused aloud: "Can you imagine when all those slot machines used real silver dollars? All that silver ... " His words trailed off, as in a pleasant daydream.

Paul trusts coins, and he has bought them all his life, first as a childhood collector, then as an investor. During the 1980s, as he ran unsuccessfully for the Senate and the White House, he became involved in a coin business, Ron Paul Coins. Numismatics, he says, is a labor of love. "You only make five or ten dollars a coin. You've got to sell a lot of coins to get rich. I was just promoting something I believe in." It's a rare person who admits something like this. Everybody knows the gold standard is for cranks. It's complicated, unwieldy, and basically incompatible with the modern world. Worse, it's boring. Paul doesn't care. "It's been over one hundred years since that issue has been talked about in a presidential election," he told me with apparent pride.

Over dinner at the coffee shop in the Saddle West Hotel, Casino, and RV Resort, Paul and his staff talked about little else. There were eight or nine of us at the table, with the 72-year-old obstetrician-congressman at the head in a gray suit, working over a chicken platter and discussing hard money. It had the feel of a familiar conversation, a dialogue that doesn't really end but that never diminishes in intensity. At one point, Paul's assistant checked his BlackBerry for the latest gold and silver prices and read them aloud to the table.

For Paul, the original sin in monetary policy took place in 1933, when FDR uncoupled the currency from gold. This removed limits from federal spending, allowing Congress an endless supply of money it could print at will, while leaving citizens vulnerable to the inflation that inevitably resulted. But, worst of all from Paul's point of view, it was compulsory. Private currencies are forbidden, so Americans had no choice but to participate. The whole system is a mandatory Ponzi scheme, built on faith in the government. Except that, now that the bottom has dropped out of the dollar, it's clear there's no reason to have faith in the government or its money.

That's Paul's essential argument. His solution: allow competing currencies.

If individuals want to circulate gold or silver coins (or scrip backed by metal reserves), let them. Give citizens the chance to decide which money they trust.

The owners of NORFED, an Indiana coin company, gave it a shot. The company minted and sold thousands of silver Ron Paul dollars, complete with the candidate's face in profile, before federal agents showed up in November and confiscated their entire remaining inventory. In its affidavit for a search warrant, the FBI accused norfed of trying to "undermine the United States government's financial systems by the issuance of a non-governmental competing currency for the purpose of repealing the Federal Reserve and Internal Revenue Code." That may be a crime, but it's also pretty close to Ron Paul's stump speech.

It's hard to think of a presidential candidate who's ever drawn a coalition as broad as Ron Paul's. At any Paul event, you're likely to run into self-described anarcho-capitalists, 9/11-deniers, antiwar lefties, objectivists, paleocons, hemp activists, and geeky high school kids, along with tax resistors, conspiracy nuts, and acolytes of Murray Rothbard. And those are just the ones it's possible to categorize. It's hard to say what they all have in common, except that every one is an ideological minority--or, as one of them put it to me, "open-minded people." To these supporters, Paul is a folk hero, the one person in national politics who doesn't judge them, who understands what it's like to be considered a freak by straight society.

Which is odd, because, in person, Paul doesn't seem like a freak. He seems like someone's grandfather. I first met up with Paul after a rally at University of Nevada, Las Vegas. He apparently hadn't known I was coming but accepted my arrival with Zen-like calm, welcoming me into the seat next to him in the minivan and offering me baked goods from a plate on his lap. We were both finishing our brownies when he mentioned they'd been baked by a supporter. I stopped chewing. Where I work, this is a major taboo (Rule One: Never eat food sent by viewers), and my concern must have shown. Paul grinned. "Maybe they're spiked with marijuana," he said.

If so, it would have been his first experience with illegal drugs. Though Paul argues passionately for liberalizing marijuana laws and is beloved by potheads (Timothy Leary once held a fund-raiser for him), he has never smoked pot himself. He sounded shocked when I asked him. "I have never seen anyone smoke marijuana," he said. "I don't think I'd be open to using it." For some people, libertarianism is the philosophical justification for a zany personal life. Paul, by contrast, describes his hobbies as gardening (roses and organic tomatoes) and "riding my bicycle." He has never had a cigarette. He doesn't swear. He limits his drinking to an occasional glass of wine and goes to church regularly. He has been married to the same woman for 50 years. Three of their five children are physicians.

Ron Paul is deeply square, and every bit as deeply committed to your right not to be. "I don't gamble, but I'm the gambler's best friend," he says, boasting of his support for online casinos. He is a Second Amendment absolutist who doesn't own a gun. "I've only fired one a couple of times in my life. I've never gotten around to killing anything." It's an impressively, charmingly principled world view, though sometimes you've got to wonder how much Paul has in common with many of the people who support him.

Before we left the speech in Pahrump and headed across the state, I'd called a friend of mine in Carson City named Dennis Hof. Dennis owns the Moonlite BunnyRanch, probably the most famous legal brothel in the country and the setting for an HBO series called "Cathouse." Dennis isn't very political, but he's smart, and I suspected he might lean libertarian. I told him Ron Paul was speaking the next morning in Reno. He said he'd drive down to see it.

I wasn't planning on showing up at Paul's press conference with a bordello owner and two hookers, but unexpected things happen on the road.

I'd arrived with the campaign at the Best Western Airport Plaza Hotel in Reno at two in the morning the night before, and, at some point while I was sleeping, the power in the hotel went out, disabling my alarm. By the time I woke up, Paul and his staff had left. So I called Dennis for a ride. He was there in ten minutes, in an enormous stretch limo with a BunnyRanch logo on the side. He'd brought two of his girls, Brooke and Air Force Amy, as well as his driver, a middle-aged man in a cowboy hat and Western wear. It was a conspicuous group.

Probably because they didn't fully understand who I was coming with, the Paul people waved the limo through a roadblock outside the auditorium and brought us in through the loading dock. A Paul aide informed us that press conferences are for press only. That's us, said the girls, and we walked right in.

The other, actual journalists looked confused. Dennis is built like a linebacker and was dressed entirely in black. Brooke and Air Force Amy looked like hookers because they are. All three slapped on Ron Paul stickers ("we could use these as pasties," Air Force Amy said, giggling) and sat near the front. Pretty soon, Paul showed up and did his 15 minutes on liberty and Austrian economics. If he noticed there were prostitutes present, he didn't show it.

The first time I heard Paul talk about monetary policy, I'd felt like a hostage, the only person in the room who didn't buy into the program. Then, slowly, like so many hostages, I started to open my mind and listen. By the time we got to Reno, unfamiliar thoughts were beginning to occur: Why shouldn't we worry about the soundness of the currency? What exactly is the dollar backed by anyway? And, if the gold standard is crazy, is it really any crazier than hedge funds? I'd become Patty Hearst, ready to take up arms for the cause, or at least call my accountant and tell him to buy Krugerrands. I looked over at Dennis and the girls. They looked like they might be having the same thoughts.

Once the press conference ended, Paul left to do interviews with local TV reporters. Dennis and the girls stood at the podium and had their pictures taken under the Ron Paul sign. Air Force Amy hammed it up. What I really want more than anything, she told me, is to get my picture taken with Dr. Paul. She meant it.

I considered trying to explain to her that I was not actually affiliated with Ron Paul, merely writing about him for a political magazine back in Washington. But I didn't. Instead, I led all three of them into the back room where Paul was doing his interviews.

Paul was talking on camera and never saw us. But his staff was on high alert. They looked more uncomfortable than I have ever seen a campaign staff look. Air Force Amy didn't appear to notice. Dressed in red, her Dolly Parton hairdo and 36DDs at full attention, she sidled up to Lew Moore, Paul's campaign manager, and made her pitch. "Hi," she said. "I'm Air Force Amy, and I'd like a picture with Ron Paul." I knew right away it wasn't going to happen. "I've got a concern, I've got to be honest," Moore said, tense but trying to be nice. "If that picture surfaces, it could be very damaging to him politically." Dennis stepped in to take up Air Force Amy's cause, but Moore wasn't budging. "The mainstream in the early primary states is not moving in that direction," he said.

I really thought Air Force Amy was going to cry. She looked crushed. Like a child of alcoholic parents, she immediately started to rationalize away the pain. "It wasn't Ron's decision," she told Moore. "It was yours. So I can't take it personally." But it was obvious that she did. It was awful. There wasn't much left to say, so Dennis and the girls and I left and went downtown to a casino for pancakes. There were no hard feelings. They wore their Ron Paul stickers all through breakfast. If I'd had one, I would have worn it too.

Source: The New Republic

 

[TheSlamma]

Unfortunently there is a certain group which takes big advantage of us having the federal reserve who has too much power to ever allow someone to get a position to shut it down.

 

[brxndxn]

It's like he's trying to express covert support of Ron Paul, but trying not to admit it to his mainstream cronies..

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: TheSlamma
Unfortunently there is a certain group which takes big advantage of us having the federal reserve who has too much power to ever allow someone to get a position to shut it down.

Fortunately the group that thinks that it should be removed is so ignorant as to not be able to drag themselves up for their pit of ignorance to shut down the Fed. If only you knew what an economy without a strong, independent, logical, federal reserve would be like in today's world you'd never think to abolish it.

I am just going to shut this one down before it gets started.


1. The Fed is *not* a private company. It operates under Congressional mandate and is owned 100% by the member banks within the system. *Every* bank that is part of the Federal Reserve system, which is more or less every bank in the country, ownes shares in that system. This includes Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase, Bank of New York Mellon, Wachovia, Washinton Mutual, LeSalle, TFC, Wells Fargo, Bank Atlantic, Commerce Bank, 5/3rd, or any other bank you can think of. Since those banks are *PUBLIC* companies, the Fed is essentially owned by *EVERYBODY* in the country.

People think that the Fed should be abolished and that Congress should take over managing the currency. Sure. Perhaps 200 years ago when we didn't vote in dipshits. However, the short-term nature of Congressional "worries" (aka, getting re-elected) and the long-term concern of managing the economy, are not congruent. Thus, the two should absolutely be delinked.

The Fed is also very secret because, if it weren't, then the markets would be extremely volatile. Looking into the Fed on a minute basis would be akin to allowing people direct access to *every* board of directors of *every* company for *every* meeting. That would introduce tremendous problems, as people tossing around ideas, problems, solutions, and long-term projections would then be prone to conjecture in the market. The financial markets would be so stutter-stopped and jagged by the news that risk would skyrocket. Asking for a lot more transparency would stifle the Fed's ability to manage thigns on a long-term basis.

The Fed pays the government more than 80bn in revenue per year. *ALL* profits go to the government. Profits are from revenues on lending money to all banks, that money is from member banks and the government. The interest charged by the Fed, from banks, is then dividended out to the member banks (they deserve return for their lending), the remainder goes to the government.

2. Get a clue about the "government". WE spend the money the way WE want it. People try to pretend that the government is not representative of us, yet we vote them in. The Fed acts in accordance with the needs of the government, which passes laws to spend. WE vote in those who pass the laws. As soon as WE learn that WE need to either cut spending or raise taxes, then WE will not have to borrow.

3. Inflation doesn't occur just because currency circulation increases. If that were the case then we'd be facing drastically increasing inflation. Money can and should grow with the economic growth of the country. The more goods, services, and wealth in the country, the more currency should be circulated. Otherwise you are in a deflationary system.

Inflation occurs for several reasons. That includes growth resulting in wage increases which then floats into the system. It's also caused by the input of foreign goods into the system, which may be increasing in price (importing inflation). There are dozens of other reasons.

4. The problem with the Fed is that it has the problem of trying to balance short-term movements with long-term projections using historical events. Anybody who is a quantitative person involved in statistics knows that history is a very imperfect predictor of the future. You are always behind the curve. When inflation finally rears it's ugly head, it's too late and you are trying to play catch-up. AFAIK the only time the Fed was able to head off inflation was the mid 90's when they did pre-emptive rate increases, which turned out to be very accurate. However, those were gut feelings, not exact data driven events.

Furthermore, economics, at it's heart, is still an art, not a science. It is impossible to gauge human psychology when it comes down to these events. Thus, managing the growth of an economy that is unpredictable and un projectionable is more or less an impossible task.

Thus, the movements of the Fed are imperfect. Additionally, they will never be popular because everybody wants growth to be predictable. However, irrational exuberance, irrational pessimism, and the bubble mindset make it impossible to predict exactly how to stimulate or reign in the economy.

Additionally, the very nature of the Fed is to try to be as hands-off as possible without letting the economy run rampant. However, the ability of the economy to go through boom and busts have led to some of the greatest inventions and times of innovation and genius this country has ever seen. This destructive creativism is essential to continuing a modern country.

Blame the Fed all you want for the problems. However, until you come up with a viable and implementable solution, then shut the fuck up. I am sure some dipshit will go on and on about gold. But guess what? Gold is a commodity that is prone to speculation worse than a currency. It's deflationary in nature. It's inflexible, as the 1930's proved since *ALL* countries still o nthe gold standard took, on average, about 5 more years to even begin to recover.

Our currency is backed by something a lot less problematic, the US economy, the US military, and US innovation. It may not be fungible like gold, but is sure as hell gives you a vested interest.



In conclusion, let me ask people this. If the Fed, with a Fiat currency, were so evil and the root of all inflation, then how was inflation caused in the 1960s and 1970s when the Fed had far less control over rates. It had far less power to put bills into the market. The government had essentially no debt and the amount of currency into circulation. How then, was the Fed able to raise rates and get inflation under control so quickly? I thought the Fed was evil and wanted inflation?

What then, about years prior to that? When inflation was unpredictable, wild, high, low, inflationary, deflationary, and the economy was much more difficult to manage? Was that such a great time then? Additionally, you are talking about 100 years ago when managing an economy 1/200th the size was relatively easy. Now, using the same system, woudl be impossible and would lead to our collapse.

You people are so f'ing ignorant of the facts of the Fed, it's purpose, economcis, and above all, HISTORY and HUMAN PSYCHOLOGY, that you are nothing more than blind fools running around the internet trying to act knowledgable as you link to ridiculous websites that have just as little knowledge as you do. It's worse than the blind leading the blind.

It's the blind, dumb, deaf, stupid, crippled, armless, legless, slugs trying to lead other slugs over a cliff.

 

[HeXploiT]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: TheSlamma
Unfortunently there is a certain group which takes big advantage of us having the federal reserve who has too much power to ever allow someone to get a position to shut it down.

Fortunately the group that thinks that it should be removed is so ignorant as to not be able to drag themselves up for their pit of ignorance to shut down the Fed. If only you knew what an economy without a strong, independent, logical, federal reserve would be like in today's world you'd never think to abolish it.

Oh bullshit. Tell me one thing the federal reserve can do that the government can't. The government can do everything the federal reserve does without paying interest on these hundreds of billions of dollars in loans.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: Perry404

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: TheSlamma
Unfortunently there is a certain group which takes big advantage of us having the federal reserve who has too much power to ever allow someone to get a position to shut it down.

Fortunately the group that thinks that it should be removed is so ignorant as to not be able to drag themselves up for their pit of ignorance to shut down the Fed. If only you knew what an economy without a strong, independent, logical, federal reserve would be like in today's world you'd never think to abolish it.

Oh bullshit. Tell me one thing the federal reserve can do that the government can't. The government can do everything the federal reserve does without paying interest on these hundreds of billions of dollars in loans.

See above.


1. You don't want politicians running a short-term goal for a long-term economy. It's stupid.

2. They don't pay interest, all of the interest, less overhead, is refunded to the government. That overhead would be incurred whether the Fed or the Government performed the functions.


Next crap argument?

 

[bamacre]

:laugh:

That was good, and hilarious as well. :thumbsup:

 

[bamacre]

LegendKiller, you make some good points, but obviously there are problems in regards to how the fed works, which you fail to address. You seem to be rather educated, more so than me, I admit, on the Fed, so would you mind addressing the negatives as well, and maybe what changes you think should be done? Maybe Congress does not provide enough oversight, or maybe the problems are due to Congress spending more than it should?

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: bamacre
LegendKiller, you make some good points, but obviously there are problems in regards to how the fed works, which you fail to address. You seem to be rather educated, more so than me, I admit, on the Fed, so would you mind addressing the negatives as well, and maybe what changes you think should be done? Maybe Congress does not provide enough oversight, or maybe the problems are due to Congress spending more than it should?

What is the Fed supposed to do about Congress? It can't control it, it can't control spending, despite several FOMC chairmen advertising distaste for the rampant debt being carried by the government.

What other negatives are there? The fact that they can never be right since they are not oracles or have any type of oracular vision? That they can only work off of after-the-fact data, which cannot be perfectly extrapolated to head-off inflation before it happens? Or the fact that they cannot react to every economic movement, else the markets would lose direction and just rely on the Fed?

You see, I recognize the problems with the Fed, but I also recognize that they are the best solution.

To warp Winston Churchill for our purposes...


"The Fed is the worst form of monetary management except for all those others that have been tried."

 

[morkinva]

Have you posted your revealed keynesian bullshit over at ronpaulforums.com yet?

Nope, didn't think so.

Coward ! :thumbsdown:

 

[ProfJohn]

I don?t get the ?kill the Fed? hysteria.

Going back to 1982 we have had the strongest economy in the industrialized world. We are talking about 25 years of economic growth with two very small recessions. Why would you want to mess with a system that had given us all this growth?

BTW if Ron Paul can get this much support, imagine what a good non-crazy libertarian could do. The majority of the country is fiscally conservative and socially liberal, if we can get a candidate who talks to this majority they could do amazingly well.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: morkinva
Have you posted your revealed keynesian bullshit over at ronpaulforums.com yet?

Nope, didn't think so.

Coward ! :thumbsdown:

I tried to register twice, the slackjawed morons over there can't figure out how to authorize people yet.

I am not spewing any Keynesian bullshit, but you're the coward for not countering anything I say. What's wrong? Not smart enough despite all of your wizened knowledge gained by being a RonPaulBot? Can't do anything but pigeonhole me as a "keynesian"?

Awe, poor baby. Not knowledgeable enough to beat little ole me. You, like most RonPaulBots don't know anything but what's been fed to you, like the rest of the lemmings you so despise and wish Ron Paul would counter. Yet, you are so much like the establishment, you are just fooling yourself into thinking the contrary.

It's quite sad actually.

 

[morkinva]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: morkinva
Have you posted your revealed keynesian bullshit over at ronpaulforums.com yet?

Nope, didn't think so.

Coward ! :thumbsdown:

I tried to register twice, the slackjawed morons over there can't figure out how to authorize people yet.

I am not spewing any Keynesian bullshit, but you're the coward for not countering anything I say. What's wrong? Not smart enough despite all of your wizened knowledge gained by being a RonPaulBot? Can't do anything but pigeonhole me as a "keynesian"?

Awe, poor baby. Not knowledgeable enough to beat little ole me. You, like most RonPaulBots don't know anything but what's been fed to you, like the rest of the lemmings you so despise and wish Ron Paul would counter. Yet, you are so much like the establishment, you are just fooling yourself into thinking the contrary.

It's quite sad actually.

Well, they have about 11,000 members that HAVE figured out how to register, all of them with weaker minds than you. Frankly, someone who isn't bright enough to figure that out MIGHT just believe the FED is a good thing.

You indicated that you have donated money to Ron Paul's campaign before, and presumably to help him win? Don't you think that correcting this mistaken belief that so many of Paul's supporters have is very important? That is why you should go into the lion's den and propose your scripture. I can't wait for you to get your ass handed to you.

But alas, you won't do it. You'll say "I cannot register, damnit!" or "Not tonight, I've got other things to do" You're a coward, plain and simple.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

1. The Fed is *not* a private company. It operates under Congressional mandate and is owned 100% by the member banks within the system.

*Every* bank that is part of the Federal Reserve system, which is more or less every bank in the country, ownes shares in that system.

This includes Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase, Bank of New York Mellon, Wachovia, Washinton Mutual, LeSalle, TFC, Wells Fargo, Bank Atlantic, Commerce Bank, 5/3rd, or any other bank you can think of.

Since those banks are *PUBLIC* companies, the Fed is essentially owned by *EVERYBODY* in the country.

People think that the Fed should be abolished and that Congress should take over managing the currency.

Sure. Perhaps 200 years ago when we didn't vote in dipshits.

All very nice except for one very important fact you left out.

They control and orchestrate every move.

This credit crunch which was wrongly intially called the "Sub Prime Crisis" was all planned to very last detail.

I told you and everyone on here this was coming all the way back to 2000/2001 when I lived in Georgia and I posted how the banks that you so lovingly love started giving out money to developers like lollipops to babies and building massive 60,000 home subdivisions all over the place. The massive eyesores of the landscape were mostly empty then and mostly empty now and those still in them are losing them like crazy.

I said we were simply creating modern day ghost towns and that is exactly what we're getting.

But of course you guys would never admit I was right and certainly never say anything against your Bank and Fed gods.

 

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
I don?t get the ?kill the Fed? hysteria.

Going back to 1982 we have had the strongest economy in the industrialized world. We are talking about 25 years of economic growth with two very small recessions. Why would you want to mess with a system that had given us all this growth?

BTW if Ron Paul can get this much support, imagine what a good non-crazy libertarian could do. The majority of the country is fiscally conservative and socially liberal, if we can get a candidate who talks to this majority they could do amazingly well.

:thumbsup:

Regardless of what your view on the Federal Reserve are, it's pretty low on the list of priorities in terms of getting an overhaul. Once we fix health care, immigration, taxes, the CIA, the FBI, the FDA, gerrymandering, electoral 'inconsistencies', presidential executive orders, the separation of church and state, education, campaign finance, etc then maybe we can start talking about the Federal Reserve.

I get the feeling abolishing the Federal Reserve is like the snake oil salesman coming to town. It's a great product with a lifetime guarantee, but when it doesn't work there salesman has skipped town.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: morkinva

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: morkinva
Have you posted your revealed keynesian bullshit over at ronpaulforums.com yet?

Nope, didn't think so.

Coward ! :thumbsdown:

I tried to register twice, the slackjawed morons over there can't figure out how to authorize people yet.

I am not spewing any Keynesian bullshit, but you're the coward for not countering anything I say. What's wrong? Not smart enough despite all of your wizened knowledge gained by being a RonPaulBot? Can't do anything but pigeonhole me as a "keynesian"?

Awe, poor baby. Not knowledgeable enough to beat little ole me. You, like most RonPaulBots don't know anything but what's been fed to you, like the rest of the lemmings you so despise and wish Ron Paul would counter. Yet, you are so much like the establishment, you are just fooling yourself into thinking the contrary.

It's quite sad actually.

Well, they have about 11,000 members that HAVE figured out how to register, all of them with weaker minds than you. Frankly, someone who isn't bright enough to figure that out MIGHT just believe the FED is a good thing.

You indicated that you have donated money to Ron Paul's campaign before, and presumably to help him win? Don't you think that correcting this mistaken belief that so many of Paul's supporters have is very important? That is why you should go into the lion's den and propose your scripture. I can't wait for you to get your ass handed to you.

But alas, you won't do it. You'll say "I cannot register, damnit!" or "Not tonight, I've got other things to do" You're a coward, plain and simple.

So, you can't fight my arguments so you fight me? Wow, that's utterly weak minded, pathetic, and shallow. Why don't you get half a brain and realize that you just can't win on this topic. Ohh noes, you try to belittle my intelligence, which your feeble mind can't even get close to matching on this topic, by trying to pick on my intarweb skills! Ohhh noes! The humanity!

I have registered 3 times, all 3 said an admin is going to email me once I get access. Somehow, those moron admins can't figure out how to grant access.

LOL, my ass handed to me? By people like you? Good luck.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

1. The Fed is *not* a private company. It operates under Congressional mandate and is owned 100% by the member banks within the system.

*Every* bank that is part of the Federal Reserve system, which is more or less every bank in the country, ownes shares in that system.

This includes Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase, Bank of New York Mellon, Wachovia, Washinton Mutual, LeSalle, TFC, Wells Fargo, Bank Atlantic, Commerce Bank, 5/3rd, or any other bank you can think of.

Since those banks are *PUBLIC* companies, the Fed is essentially owned by *EVERYBODY* in the country.

People think that the Fed should be abolished and that Congress should take over managing the currency.

Sure. Perhaps 200 years ago when we didn't vote in dipshits.

All very nice except for one very important fact you left out.

They control and orchestrate every move.

This credit crunch which was wrongly intially called the "Sub Prime Crisis" was all planned to very last detail.

I told you and everyone on here this was coming all the way back to 2000/2001 when I lived in Georgia and I posted how the banks that you so lovingly love started giving out money to developers like lollipops to babies and building massive 60,000 home subdivisions all over the place. The massive eyesores of the landscape were mostly empty then and mostly empty now and those still in them are losing them like crazy.

I said we were simply creating modern day ghost towns and that is exactly what we're getting.

But of course you guys would never admit I was right and certainly never say anything against your Bank and Fed gods.

I was going to respond to this, but then I realized that you're worth even less time than Morkvina.

Hey, where's Drive For 5? What about those massive earthquakes that were going to happen a few months ago? Yeah, your ideas are just are ridiculous as the 'Bots'

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Perry404

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: TheSlamma
Unfortunently there is a certain group which takes big advantage of us having the federal reserve who has too much power to ever allow someone to get a position to shut it down.

Fortunately the group that thinks that it should be removed is so ignorant as to not be able to drag themselves up for their pit of ignorance to shut down the Fed. If only you knew what an economy without a strong, independent, logical, federal reserve would be like in today's world you'd never think to abolish it.

Oh bullshit. Tell me one thing the federal reserve can do that the government can't. The government can do everything the federal reserve does without paying interest on these hundreds of billions of dollars in loans.

One thing the fed can do the government can't: act with less political pressure to give short-term political impact of policies too much weight at the expense of long-term benefits.

Just look at how the republicans since Reagan have paid for political needs today with money out of the pockets of Americans years down the road.

I'm not saying the Fed may not have its own agenda issues, but I'm answering your question.

 

[morkinva]

Tucker is a dubious character. He claims he supported RP's bid for prez in '88. He claims he thinks his ideas are great when he goes on shows like Real Time w/ Bill Maher. But in those same shows, he always plants a seed of resistance like "he's (Ron) too radical". And in the article from the OP, he brings bunny hookers and a brothel owner to get their pic taken with the good Dr.

This is similar to legendkiller, who donates cash to RP, but on the other hand says his monetary ideas are unsound (that's a kind way to put it). Why, oh why would you do such a thing? Are you bipolar?

Both of you guys have odd ways of supporting candidates.

I think this is an appeal to authority argument, but why haven't I heard of anyone else in the media disputing what Ron says about the FED. Bernanke, Greenspan, Kramer, Forbes... where's the refutations? Show me the links? Go to the ronpaulforums.com and set the record straight. Otherwise you are a walking contradiction. Show people how his policy is wrong in a forum that counts, not in this crappy forum.

PM me the email you're using, and I'll contact a mod there to see what they can do. I'm pretty sure it's an automated registration. Have you checked your email spam folder? Are you sure it's ronpaulforums.com and not ronpaulforum.com you're trying to register at?

 

[compuwiz1]

Mommmmmm, Perry YARPTED again! :laugh:

 

[Sinsear]

Originally posted by: morkinva

I think this is an appeal to authority argument, but why haven't I heard of anyone else in the media disputing what Ron says about the FED. Bernanke, Greenspan, Kramer, Forbes... where's the refutations? Show me the links?

I doubt they want to waste their time at this point with someone who is polling around 5%.

 

[morkinva]

Originally posted by: Sinsear

Originally posted by: morkinva

I think this is an appeal to authority argument, but why haven't I heard of anyone else in the media disputing what Ron says about the FED. Bernanke, Greenspan, Kramer, Forbes... where's the refutations? Show me the links?

I doubt they want to waste their time at this point with someone who is polling around 5%.

Come come now. Have you watched the videos of everytime he gives an interview on fox? They always try to make him slip up in one way or another. Why not go after the easiest of all things, his monetary folly?

 

[Sinsear]

Originally posted by: morkinva

Originally posted by: Sinsear

Originally posted by: morkinva

I think this is an appeal to authority argument, but why haven't I heard of anyone else in the media disputing what Ron says about the FED. Bernanke, Greenspan, Kramer, Forbes... where's the refutations? Show me the links?

I doubt they want to waste their time at this point with someone who is polling around 5%.

Come come now. Have you watched the videos of everytime he gives an interview on fox? They always try to make him slip up in one way or another. Why not go after the easiest of all things, his monetary folly?

No one needs to go after him for anything. Let us know when he starts winning primaries. Untill then he is a fringe candidate akin to Kucinich that is not really newsworthy.

 

[GrGr]

Only AIPAC approved warmongering CFR members are seen as newsworthy by the MSM.

 

[yllus]

I always wonder if I should post in threads like this, but posts from Dr. Paul's zealots always remind me that they don't care to get educated on the issue. It's much more fun for them to work towards bringing down Goliath, even (especially?) if he doesn't exist.

People, the central bank and single national currency system is used by every developed country in existence. That isn't because it's an effective means to keep the people down. It's because it's the best method of managing fiscal policy at that level out there, and success breeds imitators. Not to mention the decades of proven results, and that the false assumptions about the Federal Reserve being private have been proved incorrect time and time again. Why do you persist in this lunacy?

Okay, here's some insight on how and why other countries use a central bank.

Wikipedia: Bank of Canada

For many years, Canada did not have a central bank. Each of the nation's large banks issued its own currency and there was little government regulation of the nation's money supply. The federal finance department only issued small denomination bills. The Bank of Montreal, then the nation's largest bank, acted as the government's banker. Canada, with its extensive branch banking, had a very stable banking system. There was little need for a lender of last resort and the banking system was not hit by the same seasonal liquidity problems as banks in the US. The banking system was regulated by the Canadian Bankers Association that worked in close concert with the government.

While there were some advocates for a central bank in the early part of the twentieth century, most notably farmers, the status quo remained unaltered. This changed with the onset of Great Depression. Many in Canada blamed the policies of the Canadian banks for aggravating the Depression. The money supply was contracting and deflation was common. The farmers were joined by manufacturing interests and other groups in demanding a central bank. Another major proponent was the Royal Bank of Canada, which wanted to see the government business taken away from the rival Bank of Montreal. The government also claimed it was constrained by its inability to deal directly with its foreign debts.

Prime Minister R.B. Bennett called a Royal Commission in 1933 and it reported in favour of a central bank. The bank began operations on March 11, 1935, after the passage of the Bank of Canada Act. Initially the bank was founded as a privately owned corporation in order to ensure it was free from political influence. In 1938, under Prime Minister William Lyon Mackenzie King, it became a Crown corporation, fully owned by the government with the governor appointed by Cabinet. The responsibility for creating small bills was transferred from the finance department and the private banks were ordered to remove their currency from circulation by 1949.[1]

The bank played an important role in financing Canada's war effort during World War II. After the war, the bank's role was expanded as it was mandated to encourage economic growth in Canada. The subsidiary Industrial Development Bank was formed to stimulate investment in Canadian businesses. The monetary policy of the bank was geared towards low interest rates and full employment with little concern about inflation. When inflation began to rise in the early 1960s, the governor James Coyne ordered a reduction in the money supply. Prime Minister John Diefenbaker disagreed with this move, and ordered a return to the full-employment policies. This caused a brief crisis because the bank was supposed to be an arm's-length organization not under political control. Coyne resigned, and was replaced by Louis Rasminsky. The bank gradually moved to a more anti-inflation policy, and since the 1980s, keeping inflation low has been its main priority.

Wikipedia: Independence of central banks

Advocates of central bank independence argue that a central bank which is too susceptible to political direction or pressure may encourage economic cycles ("boom and bust"), as politicians may be tempted to boost economic activity in advance of an election, to the detriment of the long-term health of the economy and the country. In this context, independence is usually defined as the central bank?s operational and management independence from the government.

In addition, it is argued that an independent central bank can run a more credible monetary policy, making market expectations more responsive to signals from the central bank. Recently, both the Bank of England (1997) and the European Central Bank have been made independent and follow a set of published inflation targets so that markets know what to expect. Even the People's Bank of China has been accorded great latitude due to the difficulty of problems it faces, though in the People's Republic of China the official role of the bank remains that of a national bank rather than a central bank, underlined by the official refusal to "unpeg" the yuan or to revalue it "under pressure". PBoC independence can thus be read more as independence from the US which rules the financial markets, not from the Communist Party of China which rules the country. The fact that the CPoC is not elected also relieves the pressure to please people, increasing its independence.

Governments generally have some degree of influence over even "independent" central banks; the aim of independence is primarily to prevent short-term interference. For example, the chairman of the U.S. Federal Reserve Bank is appointed by the President of the U.S., and his choice must be confirmed by the Congress.

International organizations such as the World Bank, the BIS and the IMF are strong supporters of central bank independence. This results, in part, from a belief in the intrinsic merits of increased independence. The support for independence from the international organizations also derives partly from the connection between increased independence for the central bank and increased transparency in the policy-making process. The IMF?s FSAP review self-assessment, for example, includes a number of questions about central bank independence in the transparency section. An independent central bank will score higher in the review than one that is not independent.

The 13 member nations of the EU trust in the European Central Bank, are you guys so much smarter than all of these developed nations and their top people? Even freakin' China knows better than to have its politicians micromanage their fiscal policy.