Comments on: Ron Paul: Why More Regulation Makes Things Worse

By: Capitalism: A Love Story | The American Book of the Dead

Capitalism: A Love Story | The American Book of the Dead — Sun, 28 Feb 2010 16:40:39 +0000

[...] administration (by Robert Rubin et al.) contributing to the financial crisis. And Ron Paul writes, Why More Regulation Makes Things Worse: The other problem is the trust that people blindly put in regulations, and the moral hazard this [...]

Like or Dislike: 0 0

By: Stay the Course… of the Titanic | Mormon Bloggers

Stay the Course… of the Titanic | Mormon Bloggers — Tue, 15 Dec 2009 07:06:46 +0000

[...] To champion regulation as the method by which we enjoy competition and innovation is to deny the moral hazard that exists as a result of such regulation, to say nothing of the oppressive burdens such [...]

Like or Dislike: 0 0

By: Stay the Course… of the Titanic | Connor's Conundrums

Stay the Course… of the Titanic | Connor's Conundrums — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 16:10:51 +0000

Like or Dislike: 0 0

By: Lindsey

Lindsey — Sat, 26 Sep 2009 16:09:52 +0000

Ivleph: Exploitation of the working class is straight out of the Communist playbook. Are you a Communist?

Like or Dislike: 0 0

By: Lindsey

Lindsey — Sat, 26 Sep 2009 16:05:39 +0000

Rachel: Libertarians are not pro-choice. Is that in their party platform? If it is let me know. Abortion is an issue that transcends party affiliation. My understanding of libertarian thinking is that as long as your actions do not interfere with the liberty of other people then those actions are OK. Abortion is obviously interfering with the actions of another person so it is not OK. Of course you have to believe that an un-born child is a person to believe that. If you believe that then it is the duty of government to outlaw it if you are a libertarian.

Like or Dislike: 0 0

By: MarkH

MarkH — Sat, 26 Sep 2009 03:36:07 +0000

Libertarians are pro choice? That is an incredibly broad brush stroke. I think you’ll find there is a very large pro-life following amongst libertarians. Your statement is like saying “republicans support spaying and neutering of pets,” or “democrats are in favor of hardwood floors as an alternative to carpet.” The fact is it is not at all part of the libertarian platform, nor do many libertarians believe it is within the scope of the definition of libertarianism. And the practical truth is that libertarians tend to be split almost directly down the middle on the issue of abortion.

While many libertarians tend to believe that the _federal_ government should have no concern one way or another, that says nothing about whether libertarians think the act of abortion is right or wrong; they simply believe the government has no place deciding that for us.

Like or Dislike: 0 0

By: Tom Sosnoski

Tom Sosnoski — Tue, 28 Apr 2009 23:05:11 +0000

Hey Jackass.
Mr Paul believes in the abolition of the federal reserve. What does this mean, you ask? Greenspan wouldnt be able to “Set Interest Rates”. Commodity-Backed monetary policy is the only way to make America worth something again. With Obama’s stimulus plan, it wont be long until our dollar is worth nothing. Goodbye America, Welcome France…

Plz save america Ron Paul…
Thank you
Tom Sosnoski

Like or Dislike: 0 0

By: rachel

rachel — Fri, 10 Apr 2009 18:05:10 +0000

Paul is a republican, not a libertarian. Libertarians are pro choice, among other things that differentiate them from republicans.

Like or Dislike: 0 0

By: Kevin Smith

Kevin Smith — Wed, 26 Nov 2008 14:56:47 +0000

Hi All:

PNC Financial Services Group, Inc. of Pennsylvania plans to buy National City Bank of Ohio. National City is one of our in “trouble” banks, and NCB could not qualify for funding under the “bailout rules”. But, PNC did qualify for funding (almost $8 billion to date) and is using just more than $5 billion of that money to acquire NCB!

PNC states (I’m paraphrasing) “the bailout funding puts the NCB acquisition on very firm footing”.

Really!? Imagine that, PNC gets “free” money to acquire a “troubled” competitor and PNC says its purchase is “on very firm footing”.

I didn’t authorize PNC to spend my (our) money in this manner, I also didn’t reject funding for NCB.

In my opinion, this is more proof of the empowered (government bureaucrats along with PNC and its directors [the "in" people]) using the disenfranchised (in this case NCB and its directors [although I believe the directors of NCB will not be hurting]) to solidify control over our government and our finances.

The bailout bill was a complete disaster, and I believe history will confirm this belief.

Now, the question is, what do we do? What is the best use of our time and efforts?

I watched the video of RP in Houston supporting the End the Fed protest. How do I best support the needed change in our government?

I have joined my local “meetup” groups and have reached out to other local groups. I plan on assisting in and on the Bill of Rights movement in December.

Can anybody provide guidance to regional/national groups, or other relevant groups/sources that may further our cause?

Thanks,

Like or Dislike: 0 0

By: Rob

Rob — Tue, 25 Nov 2008 02:15:16 +0000

How exactly is your first paragraph negating anything I said?

I agree that Bush should have removed the Fannie and Freddie mandates, but I never said anything about being a Clinton or Bush supporter.

I’m saying that simply by the government ordering loans to lower income folks (who wouldn’t or couldn’t pay it back, i.e. crap credit rating), that obviously is a not a free market.

Like or Dislike: 0 0