Forum Post: RonPaul on regulation:
Posted 13 years ago on Nov. 8, 2011, 10:11 p.m. EST by sm707
(40)
from Englewood, NJ
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
I see a lot of people hating on RonPaul and the "Free Market" as if it would just be completely unregulated. Couldn't be more wrong.
In 1999, RonPaul opposed the GRAMM-LEACH-BLILEY ACT which repealed the Glass–Steagall Act. Glass-Steagall was a law that established the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) in the United States and introduced banking reforms, some of which were designed to control speculation.
He is also credited in the congressional record as saying this about government regulations: "The better alternative is to repeal privacy-busting government regulations."
While he is all for deregulating government, it's more on the individual scale. He is not for abolishing the important regulations that hold a society together.
Lawn Roll 2102!
RonPaul's 2010 U.S. House financial disclosure form http://pfds.opensecrets.org/N00005906_2010.pdf
All years ronPaul disclosures http://www.opensecrets.org/pfds/candlook.php?CID=n00005906
Please do not spam us with spin and lies. lawn rolls positions on regulation clearly make him an enemy of the people on this issue.
http://occupythiswiki.org/wiki/Direct_Democracy;_Intellectual_and_Social_Tools_For_High_Order_Problems.#Mission_Statement
Contents [hide]
[Removed]
I for one, would like to see all income tax - gone -
Pay your local flat tax, and voluntarily give more if a plead from your local government.
Own your home - presently all property is leased. If you fail to pay your property tax -- you lose your home. (where I live)
I'm sorry Mr tax consultant/accountants ... we do not need you anymore.
END the FED! then you would have enough money left over to make your neighbor rich!
[Removed]
I agree, but this forum is filled with anti- Ron PauI Trolls, most likely Koch Brother supported like an0n and gawoftruth. Ron PauI could actually solve the problems this movement has just woken up to because he warned of them for the last 30 years and knows why and how we ended up with this situation
Regarding regulation:
RP is the best anti-fed, anti-bank person running for election, hands down. Obama is a lost cause in this regard.
But most people here oppose RP because he wouldn't support things such as tariffs on imports.
I want a public audit of the Fed, and if it shows significant dishonesty and irresponsibility I would be open to nationalizing it and handing its functions over to the US Treasury Department. As far as tariffs on imports go, that's the only way I can think of to begin the process of bringing jobs back to America and raising the wage of the average worker. If he's not going to work to address one of the major causes of long-term unemployment and wage losses then I fail to see how it's a good idea to vote for him.
I'd also like to see a great deal more clarification from Mr. Paul on which sets of regulations he considers "on the individual scale" and which ones he considers vital reforms that need to stay in place. Honestly, given his rhetoric on the matter I don't know what to believe and I don't want to believe he's one thing only to find out the hard way that he's another. I want the Patriot Act gone and the TSA dismantled, and I think he and I can agree on that. The Gramm-Leach-Bliley vote is a good sign but until I can square that with his rhetoric and get an actual platform from the man I'm not going to consider voting for him.
On top of that his talk of flat taxes and imposition of the gold standard makes me profoundly uncomfortable. A flat tax is by its very nature a regressive tax, and in order to bring in the same revenue as the current system it would have to take the difference out of the hides of the people who can afford it the least. He also wants to tax capital gains (essentially money created without any actual work being done to earn it) at a lower rate than regular income, which is just plain incentivization of laziness on the top end. As far as the gold standard is concerned, the first thing you learn in economics 101 is that credit needs to be relaxed rather than tightened to deal with a recession, and moving to a gold standard would pretty much strangle credit at the time when that would hurt us the most. Once again, bad policy.
Besides, the man's apparently a young-earth creationist. That pretty much tears it for me. I don't care what else he is, if he deliberately shuts his eyes to basic science (whether it's to pander to the religious right or, even worse, if that's an accurate reflection of where he stands) there's no way in hell I'm going to trust him with the country. If the man decides that continually verified truth doesn't matter because it conflicts with his beliefs then on some level something has gone very wrong.
So far, I see a man who's gotten one, maybe two things right (his no vote on Gramm-Leach-Bliley and his desire to put the Fed under a microscope). However, those two things are pretty small when you consider the number of things he seems to be promising to get wrong as president.
the alternative to RP is that you get nothing that you want. At least you will get something that you want with him. And you know he will deliver on what he has said.
If my choice were gaining no ground relative to current policy (Obama) or gaining some ground (what you believe Mr. Paul offers) then it's pretty clear which way I'd vote. However, several of the policies he proposes are far more harmful (see above for why) than dealing with the Fed is helpful. As things stand right now, voting for Mr. Paul represents a net loss relative to current policy and thus I don't plan on voting for him.
the current system is not neutral. you are losing right now. we all are. If economics 101 is taught by today's academia, i don't buy it.
[Removed]
I kind of agree I read two of his books and I am not sure what regulations he supports. I think that he would be regulations that protect individual consumers more. I think that he has high hopes to abolish the Federal Reserve which is notorious for socializing the risks of major corporations and banks. The federal reserve is standing in the way of true capitalism where banks that make risky loans would just go the way of Lehman Brothers. I think that we need these banks to take a hit so that the market can correct itself in positive and ethical ways. I agree with RonPaul one hundred percent on this issue.
I agree with Mr. Paul that America most likely needs a different vehicle for implementing monetary policy than the current Federal Reserve, and I do believe that an audit of the Fed is in order so that we can see once and for all where things stand. My problem is that he's declared himself opposed to all regulation even if his voting record doesn't completely reflect that, and the future of this country means enough to me that I want to make the decision between candidates based on a clearly articulated platform rather than guesswork. If Mr. Paul can't provide that, then I'm sorry but I'm not voting for him.
[Removed]
I think if we audit the Fed we would have to have EMT on hand in case some of us have heart attacks at the real numbers I don't think that the Federal Reserve is what it seems, I put them on par with the drug cartels of Mexico. What the fuck was President Widdrow Willson thinking, I don't care how many booms and busts happened before 1916 the whole concept of the Federal Reserve is just wrong and unconstitutional.
Fair enough, but before we go about disbanding or taking apart or nationalizing anything I want the public to see the books. If the Fed's books are as much of a mess as people are saying they are, then by all means dismantle it and nationalize the pieces (with appropriate rules for the ethical and constitutional use of those pieces). The problem is that right now we don't know any of this; we're just guessing based on the behavior of the Fed under Greenspan and Bernanke. Right now all we really have are suppositions and hunches, and I want those hunches proven or disproven for all to see before we do anything.
Keep holding your breath about that one.
Here's the thing, though; a full and rational audit of the Fed is at least as likely as its abolition. Quite honestly, I would hope that the government would do that and display it to the public as a show of good faith to put everyone's fears to rest (or not). Honestly, all I know about the Fed I learned in AP Macroeconomics, and what I learned there didn't sound too threatening. That said, while I don't want my opinion of the status of the Fed to be based only on what I hear on the Internet enough people are complaining that it's definitely worth looking into, and then worth publicly rectifying any wrongs and debunking any conspiracy theories once and for all.
The FED does not want a full audit because it would fully disclose the identity of the owners and the shareholders as well as officially bring to light money that has been printed out of thin air, money that disappeared from the balance sheet, and all the bailouts and loans that many of the large companies have gotten through out the years.. If the people find out how the Fed bails out shareholders and friends i think people would want it shut down, because the FEDs real job its to print money control inflation and interest, keep up appearances and prop up the phony fiat currency we have. One day that currency will die probably sooner that you think probably as a result of too much money in the system. I think that they would have to have an alternative form of money more fiat crap. it all comes down to one thing the FED has way too much secret power in this country and around the world.
Here's the thing; the Fed operates with far less oversight than I or many others are comfortable with. A floating "fiat" currency is not necessarily evil simply because it's not tied to precious metals; if it's mismanaged then you're at risk for inflation and serious economic problems but it doesn't have to hurt the country. Ideally, though, a currency such as this needs to be monitored very closely and managed quite carefully. This means that the selection of managers needs to be completely transparent and based solely on qualifications rather than politics. If that's not possible then nationalizing the Fed should definitely be placed on the table.
Your rational is refreshing. My biggest reason for thinking the problem is worse than the gov't lets on is that their auditing would bring confidence back. Why are they so secret? Unless they fear the news would shatter confidence even more. Also it could be this: I read the age of Turbulence, by Greenspan, and it seemed he fretted more about seeming independent from the political process than he cared about regulating the flow of money. My point being, that the FED could, have a napoleon complex, so that would be the only reason they wont allow an audit. They lose their perceived independence.
I do perceive that the FED wants to keep their dealing secret because of confidence levels on the market, and they don't want to cause a panic so that is why they want to remain independent. However I think that they are way too independent too the point that it is very shady. Now more information is coming out exposing the some of the dealings of the FED, I think that peoples interests are peaked there is no going back from here. I think that you can cry all you want for a full audit but it is not going to happen until after a historically major crisis such as the dollar collapsing. I know everyone says that it is impossible but I already see several angles where it can become reality right now or in the next five years. This is not doomsayer stuff this is reality everyone needs to protect their ass right now.
You are speaking to the choir. I see how vohimethly our government goes after any nation that questions are preeminent, sovereign currency. in their minds, in my opinion, they believe the nation's interest would be compromised too much to allow the dollar's preeminence to ever waiver. And the fed had a hand to play in this conundrum.
You make a pretty good point. I wouldn't use the phrase "Napoleon complex" but the fact remains that at the end of the day the Fed is running with our money and needs to be held accountable to us the people on a fairly regular basis. While overtly politicizing it is a very bad idea the Fed should have to open its books to both the government and the people on a regular basis and be held accountable for poor lending decisions and/or poor monetary policy.
Yeah, I learned rhetoric well from my right leaning brethren. But i do agree with every word you wrote.
[Removed]
I agree the flat tax is a very bad idea. And glass steagall is a very good idea.
Regarding gold, I think gold is a bad choice because the supply is small. The silver standard seems like a good idea though. I think you'll find many agree with this. Regarding your economics class, I disagree that money should be added and taken away from the supply. That power can be abused, and IS abused. (BTW, have you watched "the money masters"? It's a pretty informative documentary.)
And yeah, his creationism stance is BS. That's his main negative in my book.
I understand your nervousness about allowing institutions to mess with the money supply; however our money supply currently expands and contracts all on its own and pegging our money to a metal standard right now would cause a nasty contraction while at the same time spectacularly enriching those who are already in the precious metals market (mostly the very wealthy) at the expense of all of us. Talk to me about pegging our currency during boom times in order to avoid runaway credit, and I'll agree with you. Doing it now, however, would amount to kicking the economy in the balls when it's down.
[Removed]
Wow that is a lame reason. It sounds like the Banksters will inject anything to turn people off to him. Besides it isn't really the President's call on that, it is the congress where that debate would fall.
Yeah, I'm just pointing out the reasons. I am probably voting for RP anyhow because, as you said, many of these debated issues are beyond his control.
The fact that he will attack the Fed is a +50 for him. His anti drug/foreign war stance is another +50. The rest of the issues just don't seem relevant to me.
[Removed]
lawl voted against the repeal of GS act?
[Removed]
The fact that Ron P.aul is honest, humble and wont be bought by the banks or the lobbyists, that he will end the wars and promote fiscal and personal responsibility - immediately disqualifies him from being the President of the USA.
Americans vote for smooth talking, bank owned, globalist liars that say one thing to get elected and do whatever they please once in power. Americans have forgotten the power of the Constitution because it has been abused and manipulated by power hungry criminals. Americans like celebrity leaders who create lots of pointless photo opportunities who go on talk shows and promote meaningless dribble, whilst they continue the polices they said would repeal.
Paul could NEVER pass the legislation everyone here is soooo worried about - but what he could achieve means he outranks every other contender.
Americans are so used to the status quo that they would re-elect criminals bought and owned by Wall St rather than support P.aul.
There's lots of anti-libertarian discussion on this forum. But I don't care for labels. P.aul is the missed opportunity America will despair over when the dollar crashes and people can't feed their families.
I believe he would work with and NOT against the interests of the American people and that does not suit the elites and international banksters.
If anyone does read the history on this they'll be saying,"damn, RonPaul was right there telling us the whole time what was going on and what to do about it and we didn't listen because there was a rumor that he was crazy!"
We could have prevented the Great Depression II
And WW3.
It's good that Americans support perpetual wars because that's what they'll be getting without him.
Drones and good news stories by the corporate controlled media have made wars palatable to the general public. Whilst they pay for it everyday with the complete destruction of the dollar.
isn't that true. it's amazing how the people with the herd mentality screw themselves over and over.
What's wrong with an unregulated market?
Free market is used to mean competition. But the ultimate goal of a free market is to eliminate competition.
Because its a pipedream, there has to be some regulation, at least until we get stuff stabilized. For instance laws against minors buying tobacco and alcohol are technically regulation. The Glass-Steagall Act I mentioned makes it so banks can't create derivatives, give out loans to buy the property they own, and other things. And while the elite have ALL the money, if we just made everything legal they would just flood the bomb market and blow us all to hell!