24 responses to “Ron Paul’s Audacity of Hope”

  1. Gen

    Okay…

    I need to ask a favor. Most posts on Ronpaul.com have been intellectually based and interesting. I’ve been watching this site for a while (as well as other Ron Paul sites) and only joined for discussion a couple of days ago to post. I rarely do this forum thing (for reasons you all probably know). I dropped in on a forum on Amazon (the strand was spelled incorrectly – but who cares… typos happen). It was interesting reading and opinion, and of course morphed into completely different topics than it started.

    I saw that the intellectual conversation on this thread (out of the whole forum) was stopped by someone extremely negative who had no place there. Instead of respond, people dropped out of the forum and this person managed to stop this thread for two months. Of course I think this is ridiculous, so I reply to someone in the forum ignoring this particular person. That person then places another vicious post in response to me.

    Can anyone please visit and post in this forum just to passively combat this person’s tactics?

    http://www.amazon.com/Slaery-Reparations/forum/Fx1OUR5CL0L4L8F/Tx2WHF4J3FWV1KU/1/ref=cm_cd_et_up_redir?_encoding=UTF8&asin=1596985666&cdSort=newest&newContentID=Mx1AP1KRBU9JINY#Mx2CCB2393MKKBP

    I know, a commercial site, idiots, spelling errors… who would have thought.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  2. American

    Very true Ross. I agree. It is very close in plans to make the The North American Union and the so called "Amero" a realilty but I disagree with the idea. What good will it do us if we have open borders or no borders at all with Mexico and Canada since they would be part of it. Our dear United States would never be the same in other words it's like living without a soul if it came down to that plan.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    1. Sean

      Actually, the passport laws set in 2006 say that we need passports to travel by air and by sea.. Just last month, Dec. 7th, 2008 a new law was passed which now you have to have a passport to travel by land across the border. So I don't think that they are trying to open up the borders regardles what conspiracy theories you hear. We are actually moving in the opposite direction. We also are just finishing up building a 10 ft. fence that runs along the border.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  3. Ross Johnson

    I think that there is a push on by the corporates to have the North American Union and a new currency called the Amero.The US dollar is on the brink of collapse.If the corporates get in first, they can sell their US $ before the collapse.Also the US has a trade debt to China for $2.5 trillion which is private debt.They could reduce this debt by buying Ameros and letting the dollar collapse.The US public will lose out again since they will be the last to know.
    This is just theft.If the Amero does come to fruition,the American public must not let the Federal Reserve own it or this scenario will be repeated again.A new currency must be owned by the people.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    1. Sean

      I'm pretty sure the Amero was made up by some artist who was selling it on the street as art..

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  4. Sean

    As a result to Bush destroying the steel industry with high tarrifs, the price of oil skyrocketed. Many people blamed Katrina which actually had virtually little effect on the price of gas. It was the cost for oil pipelines that raised the price for crude oil.. Alan Greenspand raised interest rates 5 times or more in 2004 and continued raising rates through 2005 before Katrina ever hit due to rising costs of fuel. So the problem with the oil industry happened before Katrina.. Ben Benarke took over after Alan Greenspand and was going to reverse the interest rates but did not because the housing industry seemed to be improving, unfortunetly it was due to subprime mortgaging and not a strengthening economy. Actuality, the economy was losing money at a rapid pace because of interests. This is the major problem that led to unemploymet. We still have this probelem because of the steel industry. They tried telling us this when asking for a trillion dollar bailout in the summer of last year and again just a couple days ago. Bush destroyed about six major steel companies. Now only two remain and cannot produce as much as we demand. That is even what they have mentioned in their plea for help. I believe we should look into this problem and not overlook its importance. We really need to fix this problem if we want limited government. There are two ways of taking over control, by force and by stealth. We can't achieve limited government by attacking the system, instead we must fix and build the system where it does not need government intervention. With more steel production we can increase supply and lower the cost for investments. We can build an economy that works on its own without the malpractice of the Federal Reserve whom raises interest rates because of our uncontrolable growth.. We need to control growth to eliminate it's needs and the needs for other government intervention.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  5. Slimeattack

    Matt - the first third of the eighties were indeed horrible - the Fed raised interest rates to curb inflation, which caused a painful recession and almost kicked Reagan out of office. Reagan did do, up to an extent, remain loyal to low taxes and small government, so the economy managed to strike back from the bottom.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  6. Sean

    If we are going to bailout anyone or spend a stimulus package on anything, it should be used to help the steel industry. All but 2 producers failed because they couldn't meet EPA standards set back in 2001 and again in 2005. The price of steel shot up so the Federal Reserve raised interest rates to slow down the demand which led to unemployment. Other foreign countries that produce a good amount of steel are growing 2-3 times as fast as us. Steel is the backbone to every building/economy.. Our population doubles every 50 years, so we should really have double the amount of mega-cities by 2060 if we want to sustain a balanced economy. We can't handle this growth with the short comming of investors due to the price of steel. It is three times more expensive here than in any country because the high demand and low production. The two remaining companies cannot withold the industry for much longer. We need to act quickly.. We also have a problem because 5 states are contributing to 40% of our growth. This is not as urgent but will really have a damaging effect to our country in the farther future. Maybe if we help contribute to overcome the problem this EPA has done to the steel industry, than our country can pick up a balanced pace and even in the states that are lacking growth the most would attract new investment. The economy would pick up on it's own and the country would start functioning without the need or help of government. This is a plan to help bring our country back to what it should be. We steered off track by destroying our steel industry and we will lose more rights and become more socialistic until we fix the track that we were on.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  7. longshotlouie

    Remember, when they talk about the crash of '29, the worst didn't hit until '35 - '36.

    Nail in the coffin :
    We no longer have a value-added economy

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  8. longshotlouie

    Renowned financial publication The Economist reports that, based on the characteristics of the current financial crisis, the U.S. is in a depression, not a recession.

    The piece also states that assurances from economists who say that a repeat of the 1930’s is impossible “because policymakers are unlikely to repeat the mistakes of the past,” are coming from the same people who confidently predicted that “a nationwide fall in American house prices was impossible and that financial innovation had made the financial system more resilient.”

    The Economist piece makes the argument that the current crisis is far closer to a depression than a recession and that the only question remaining is how deep the downturn will be.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  9. longshotlouie

    Hey Matt,

    Most of your statements are in question form.

    Got answers?

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  10. Matthew Stone

    From what I read, Ron Paul has NEVER had 'hope', instead it is just fright that leads to hope?

    Please see his paper from NINETEEN FREAKING EIGHTY ONE - yes parroting for nearly thirty years!? (google 'Gold, Peace, And Prosperity, Ron Paul)

    "Today, thanks to 67 years of bank control over the money supply, we face an economic and political crisis greater than ANY we have faced before.

    We probably will see widespread civil disorder in the 1980s as a direct result of our faltering economic system. The dollar has been damaged by decades of interventionism, and Congress has legitimized depreciation of the dollar and forced redistribution of wealth through corporate and welfare schemes."

    Wow, yeah, the eighties were horrific! Or... Not. Maybe instead of getting scared, time might be spent improving oneself?

    - Matt

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    1. Brandy

      Matt - how old are you? We did see a market collapse in the 80's. More than 1,600 U.S. banks – 9 percent – failed between 1980 and 1994, involving assets worth $200 billion, according to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. The even larger savings and loan debacle from the same period claimed more than 1,000 institutions with assets of more than $500 billion. The S&L cleanup cost more than $150 billion, most of it paid by taxpayers.
      I'm only 33, but even I remember some of this.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  11. Brandy

    Building a mega-mansion on a foundation of a house of cards is insanity, but this is exactly what the American public has done for the last 40 years. We have built our entire economy on debt, and although we keep trying to prop it up with more thin playing cards the inevitable stares us in the face. We have outsourced our manufacturing so when things do collapse we just don't have the capability of rebuilding the way we once did. We have run small farms out of business and few communities or households have the means to grow their own, leaving us vulnerable to food shortages once the big businesses that now own them collapse. The only possible way we could save ourselves would be to one by one exit the mega mansion and build on sturdy ground - but nobody wants that reality check.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    1. Matthew Stone

      So 'EVERYONE' has a 'MEGA-MANSION' built on 'A HOUSE OF CARDS THAT IS INSANITY'.

      and of course this is the obvious result?

      "We have run small farms out of business and few communities or households have the means to grow their own, leaving us vulnerable to food shortages once the big businesses that now own them collapse."

      Did you not capitalize when they were peaked? I have buddies maybe in your neighborhood that bought phat tractors and huge trucks.

      I thought commodities totally bubbled while the federal reserve dropped rates and still collapsed? That is what free market people would have done! That is what happened with housing! While the fed is making money easy doesn't the free market abuse it? And you are the victim and everyone else is the victor?

      I know peeps in CA that have seen this soooo many times (in Fresno, so no housing weirdness) And who are these 'MEGA-MANSION' people?

      Regards,

      Matt

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      1. Brandy

        Matt - you misunderstand my comment about the mega-mansion on a house of cards. It was intended as an analogy, not a literal statement. If you take the US economy as a whole to be the mega-mansion and the debt we've incurred as the house of cards, perhaps it will make sense to you.

        As to your statement about commodities, you're not looking at the source of the commidities but the actual items those farms produce. How many small farms, independently owned farms operate in America today? In 1930, family farms made up for 20% of employment. That's why 1 in 5 Americans still had a job when the economy collapsed! However, by the time the commodities market collapsed in 1980 most small farms were into very heavy debt and ended up having to sell. Large chunks of American farmland went to foreign investors. 1988's severe drout caused problems for the remainder. By the early 1990's barely 2% of the American workforce is on a farm, and there are only 1/3 the number of farms as there were in 1930 (6.3 million in 1930 vs. 2.1 million in 1990). From 1995-96, 500 farms a month were closing down. We've got fewer farms to feed more people, and fewer people trained to work on them. 63% of those farms are considered lifestyle farms where the "farmers" earn their living not by selling crops but by work they do off the farm. That leaves us a whopping 1.3 million farms to support 304 million people, and that doesn't take into account the number of those farms which are busy producing corn to be sold for biodiesel fuels.

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    2. Voodootree

      Am I the only one concerned most about the attacks upon freedom? Economies can be remade in peace with some trouble. Freedom, once lost, requires war to remake.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  12. Sean

    In 2005, congress passed lots of different types of policies and tarrifs on the domestic steel industry leading to a 5% decline in production and consumption.
    As a result, the price of steel raised 50% in the year 2007-2008. GM and Ford are the largest consumers of steel and look what it did, bankrupted them.. Steel is the only thing of real value and we are lossing all our domestic production. China has been producing the most amount of steel, so they have been growing the fastest..

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  13. Sean

    I agree with you. The prices of gas and everything else will go back up as soon the demand returns. I predict gas to get in the $3 dollar range this next summer and the price of steel will go back up as well. We are at the top of the business cycle. The economy will start getting better and better until the inflation catches up putting the Federal Reserve in a tight situation yet again to make sacrifices to our country. It should be called a vicious cycle instead of a business cycle.. We should try to prevent inflation by introducing a free market to commodities. With more competition, industries would have to compete with pricing, which would dramatically reduce inflation. There should be more than two steel producers here in the United States. We should have 5 other Exxon's producing oil in America.. The dramatic growth in developing countries are making the resources more scarce and expensive. We have to remember that we work on a world market which determines the statue of each individual countries economy. Steel consumption went from 28 million tons a year in 1900 to 780 million tons a year in 2000.. We need more investors to bring the price of new production down.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    1. Sean

      You know we used to have like six steel production companies that supplied 40% of the worlds steel. Now we only have two remaning here in America. Inflation hit the industry so hard and they had such a high demand for goods, that it costed too much to commodate for.. Now we have to buy steel from South Korea and other countries making it more expensive raising the whole cost for living. A way to tell how much the economy grows is by comparing the usage of steel.. Now that other countries are developing quicker, you can see less steel going towards growth here and more steel spreading throughout the world. The world is growing faster around us stunting the growth here at home. India, China, Brazil, and South Korea have been going through an economic boom, so they have been buying up all the steel, making it more scarce and valuable. This effects the cost-of-living index or the consumer price index which determines the Federal Reserve interest rate or rate of unemployment.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      1. Gen

        Sean,
        You've hit a one big point in this. We developed all of this technology - cars, television, phones, electricity, computers; we were the ones producing and selling for years; we respected patents. Then, one by one, every company sold. Every electronics company has been sold to other countries, even Zenith (our last one); US automotive companies build elsewhere - reducing the number of jobs, yet still selling the products to all of us at the same price.
        From my observations, the reduction in number of companies available, and the increase of foreign companies and import, all has a root cause... greed. Moves like this are made to pad the bank accounts of those on top. While I don't fault anyone for hard work or building companies from nothing... selling the technology and company names, or shipping factories elsewhere to increase their income, has caused a lot of our economic problems. They don't mind selling outside of our country, adding to our demise, because they do benefit greatly by doing so. And for some reason, people still believe what the government is doing in regulating some of these companies, collecting 50% of the profit of oil drilled here, forcing small companies to give benefits they can't afford (an entirely different rant deserved for that one)... is going to fix it all! What it does is makes running a business here a lot more difficult and costly.
        Why can't all this funding spent by the government on all of the above and bailouts, be spent on establishing loans (aka it will actually be paid back) for citizens and small companies to re-establish factories and the resource production that we once had.
        Just dream about toys that aren't filled with poison, schools that aren't based on funding for special this and that, and taxes steadily decreasing so that we may actually be able to go back to single income family units where children are not raised by TVs (again, an entirely different rant deserved for that one).

        What we need is someone who is not greedy and who also has common sense in charge.

        - Gen in Texas

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        1. Sean

          Your right.. you know we kept worrying about the national debt rising 4 trillion dollars over the past 10 years before the bailouts, but we have had a trade deficit of 3.5 trillion dollars in that same length of time.. We need a large national defcit and more money because we have such an unfair balance of trade. With a 3% GDP, that .5 trillion dollar gain we've had in the past 10 years doesn't nearly add up to the total amount of money we should be at.. If you look at the debt to gdp%, we are at the same amount of debt as we were in 1990 but we pretty much had a trade surplus so we had an abundance of money. With NAFTA and all these free trade agreements, we are giving all our money away. We have to print more and more money just to keep from being bankrupt. The problem is that other countries are getting richer by extracting our money supply.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    2. Matthew Stone

      'Costed' or 'Commodate'? Are those words? OK, to wit:

      And also to gauge "India, China, Brazil, and South Korea have been going through an economic boom"

      Really? Really? I coulda thought they were getiing HAMMERED. So are you wrong or a liar?

      - Matt

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      1. Sean

        Are you kidding??? India is building a river and a new mega-city out in the middle of nowhere. China is known to have the fasted accelerated growth. They have a 12% GDP. Brazil's GDP is around 6% and South Korea's GDP has almost reached 10%.. We have destroyed our most of our domestic steel production. That's why it is 3 times cheaper to get it in another country. We get away with the price because it's stronger and last longer. But it is so expensive, that the federal reserve raised the interest rates to reduce the demand. What the fed did was save us from hyper inflation, and the recession actually helped deflate the dollar. But this is only going to fix the problem for a short time, soon inflation is going to creep up on us because we don't have enough domestic steel production.

        Commodate- a gratuitous loan.

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

Leave a Reply