Ron Paul Responds to Michael Moore: It’s Corporatism, Not Capitalism

Ron Paul: “I probably dislike [the current system] as much as Michael Moore does. But he’s complaining about it being part of capitalism. It has nothing to do with capitalism. This is corporatism, the corporations. I agree with him.”

Show: Larry King Live
Channel: CNN
Date: 10/29/2009

Larry King:Ron Paul, Republican of Texas. He ran for president this last election. He is here to react to what we’ve just heard. Concerning healthcare, Mr. Moore believes that universal healthcare is everyone’s right. He threatens that the Democrats will lose seats if they don’t support it. What is your stand on it, Congressman?

Ron Paul: I think it’s a fallacy to say that people have a right to somebody else’s services. Now, you have a right to your life and you have a right to your liberty and you have a right to earn a living. You ought to have a right to keep it, but you have a responsibility to take care of yourself because you don’t have a right to get something from government because government has nothing, so the government has to take it from somebody and give it to you, so it’s a failed policy. It is a form of socialism and socialism doesn’t work. It leaves to a big kind of…

Larry King: So if you have no money and you fall down on the street with a heart attack, you have no money and no one should take care of you? The government should not provide an ambulance or treat you?

Ron Paul: Well, no, but we don’t have a history in this country of that happening, even before government started managing healthcare. I practiced medicine in both circumstances in the early sixties. We didn’t have managed care and I worked in a Catholic hospital. I made $3 an hour and nobody was ever turned away and there were many, many church hospitals and you had Shriner’s Hospitals and a lot of free care was given. Today, even with managed care, they complain about, “Oh, somebody doesn’t have health insurance and somebody is going to die because they don’t have health insurance.”

But really, people don’t get turned away. I mean, accidents happen. Man is imperfect, but for the most part, anybody including anybody illegal can go to the emergency room and they always get taken care of. They just don’t get thrown out in the street.

Larry King: Are you saying you like the current system?

Ron Paul: No, I probably dislike it as much as Michael Moore does. But he’s complaining about it being part of capitalism. It has nothing to do with capitalism. This is corporatism, the corporations. I agree with him. Corporations run things; the drug companies’ lobbyists, the insurance companies’ lobbyists and the hospital managements’ lobbyists, the AMA lobbyists and that’s all managed care and we have a system where money and bigness influences the government, but that’s corporatism. That’s not capitalism. But we want our free markets…

Larry King: Okay, how do you change that?

Ron Paul: Allow free markets to work. There is an example of free markets and I might have even heard it on CNN today of the example of somebody that was going to charged $100,000 for surgery and they went to Singapore and got it for $25,000 and the main reason they gave why they could afford to do it was that they didn’t have horrendous malpractice payments to make and there was a market. There was a market necessity. Patients are leaving this country. They’re going to India, but that’s the market working. So we have put our charity hospitals out of business, at the same time, because of inflation and management and all the mischief of government, we have pushed these prices up. Pumping money into a system doesn’t improve quality. It increases prices. Look at our educational system. We pump it with money, prices go up. The quality of education goes up and the quality of medicine has not gone up by just pumping more money in.

Larry King: Lyndon Johnson once said, “The probable answer is that the government is going to have to be half-capitalistic and half-socialistic. You have to have some social security, i.e. socialism. You have to take care of those who don’t have. Pure capitalism can’t work.” Would you agree with that?

Ron Paul: No, not really. It’s sort of like I practice OB-GYN and I never could tell my patients they have a touch of pregnancy and you know, you’re either pregnant or you’re not. You either have government intervention messing up the markets or you don’t. You either believe in freedom and believe in voluntary choices. I mean, just look at this disaster with the swine flu vaccine. They take over the whole project. We pump in billions of dollars and they come up with shortages. Distribution is lousy and they’re talking about forcing people to take them in places like New York and no one has even proved that it’s necessary yet. We have still a lot of deaths from ordinary flu far surpassing swine flu, so managed central economic planning in anything fails and especially in medicine it fails.

Larry King: But Congressman, everyone in line getting it, who is getting it free is not standing there complaining about government involvement.

Ron Paul: Yeah, but I have a daughter that practices medicine and I was just talking to her about it and she says, “Oh, yeah, dad. I can give shots and it’s for free, but we don’t have anything.” So when something is free and you don’t have it, it’s irrelevant and some of the people who don’t want it are being forced to take it. We have lost our faith and confidence and understanding of how free markets work. We turned it upside down by saying anytime corporations get benefits, we call it capitalism and freedom and it is corporatism. It’s the military-industrial complex. It’s all the special interests and this is where Michael Moore gets it all wrong. He works, he believes diligently in free markets because he believes in the First Amendment, he believes in making films. He doesn’t believe in prior restraints, so why should he condemn capitalism?

Larry King: Right.

Ron Paul: Because he is condemning corporatism. I condemn it, too. Special privileges to corporation is a big problem.

Larry King: Maybe it’s semantics. More with Congressman Paul right after the break. Don’t go away.

Michael Moore: I think capitalism as it is defined now has completely failed. Yeah, it hasn’t really failed the rich. It has actually helped them, the wealthiest one percent now have more financial wealth than the bottom 95 percent combined, so it’s a really good system for a few people.

Larry King: Hi, Ron, do you disagree with that statistic that Michael Moore just pointed out?

Ron Paul: No, and I’m not complaining about as much as he does, but I think I understand it differently because when a country embarks on deficit financing and inflationism, you wipe out the middle class and wealth is transferred from the middle class and the poor to the rich and when we get into trouble, then the corporations come for their bailout and they get the benefits and the little people don’t.

So yes, there is some truth to that, but it’s the failure of the free market to exist, that is our problem. It isn’t the fact that we don’t have enough government, we have way too much government. The government created this monster. If he doesn’t like what we have, he has to look at what we’ve been doing for 30 or 40 years, it’s called interventionism. It’s called Keynesism. It’s called inflationism. It’s called Big Government. That’s the problem.

Larry King: Here’s what Michael Moore said about Afghanistan. I’ll ask Congressman Paul what he thinks about the war there. Watch.

Michael Moore: Al Qaeda has left there. They booked out of the neighborhood, Larry. They’re long gone, okay? They’re in Pakistan. They’re in parts of Africa. They’re elsewhere in the Middle East. You know, they’re here in the US. I mean there are real Internet operations now as Matthew Hull, the State Department individual who resigned last month over the Afghanistan policy. You should go online and read his letter of resignation. You’ll see he explains it very clearly that for one to deal with Al-Qaeda, the last place we need to be right now is in Afghanistan. That’s just a crazy, crazy making place. It’s unwinnable. It’s immoral. It’s illegal. It’s wrong and what is our CIA doing paying the brother of the president of Afghanistan who is involved in this opium trade that’s funding the Taliban. I mean, where… when does this stop?

Larry King: Congressman, you’re a strong critic of Iraq. Are you a critic of the Afghanistan policy as well?

Ron Paul: Yeah, I sure am. My position is we shouldn’t have gone in and we should just come home, but earlier on, Michael was saying that he was hopeful and sympathetic to what Obama was doing. I don’t think he’s quite willing to criticize Obama like Bush, but I am and yes, there have been a token effort of bringing some troops home from Iraq. Iraq is a mess, but at the same time, we’re sending in contractors to replace the troops and paying them a lot more money, subsidizing the military-industrial complex and Obama ought to be condemned for that. You can’t just pick out, so anytime you support Obama in any of those policies, they’re bombing Pakistan right now, killing civilians and we’re on the verge now of attacking or at least putting on more sanctions on Iran, which will lead to hostilities if we’re not careful because we’re talking about the Iranians just like we used to talk about the Iraqis, putting on tougher and tougher sanctions, making the people suffer, hoping the people are going to overthrow their leaders, and not realizing the tougher the sanctions you put on the people, the more you drive them into supporting their leaders.

Larry King: So you would get out of Afghanistan and Iraq posthaste?

Ron Paul: I would, and my saying during the campaign was “we just marched in, we can just march home.” Nothing good can come of it and it’s an undeclared war. It’s an immoral war. We don’t have any money. The longer we’re there, the worse it’s going to get and we just need to come home. We can’t nation-build and besides, I will win this argument because we are bankrupt and we can’t afford it, so it’s going to end badly if we don’t come to our senses and just say, “Let’s quit this militarism around the world.” I mean, we’re in 130 countries with 700 bases around the world and we cannot sustain these and it is, it’s pumped up by both the Left and the Right in the Congress, “Oh, we can’t do away with this weapon. It will be bad for jobs.” There is conservative Keynesism and Liberal Keynesism, always government management, which always fails and gives us the financial crisis that we’re in.

Larry King: Right. The always thoughtful Congressman Ron Paul of Texas. Thanks. Thanks, Ron.

Ron Paul: Thank you very much.

Larry King: Always good having you with us.

Ron Paul: Thank you.

  • porphyrogenitus

    @Sorenzeo It’s like history for him begins in 1776, ends in 1789, and resumes again in 1981, ignoring the intervening two centures.

    • Sorenzeo

      @porphyrogenitus Corporate regulation is my biggest problem with Paul, but he’s the only one talking truth on too many crucial issues.

  • porphyrogenitus

    @Sorenzeo Yes, but he literally believes in ZERO controls on the free market, as if somehow removing all corporate laws creates a utopia.

    • Sorenzeo

      @porphyrogenitus Honestly, I don’t think it could be much worse than it is now. Never should’ve repealed Glass-Steagal in the 1st place.

      • porphyrogenitus

        @Sorenzeo No, they shouldn’t have, but he doesn’t support that either! And who needs minimum wage and child labor laws anyway?

        • Sorenzeo

          @porphyrogenitus And be serious, Ron Paul’s election wouldn’t mean the repeal of child labor laws. His whole philosophy would not become law


        • Sorenzeo

          @porphyrogenitus There is a fair argument that minimum wage laws might not be for the best

        • porphyrogenitus

          @Sorenzeo If you’re going by that logic, then Congress would never allow him to overturn current drug policy, either.

        • Sorenzeo

          @porphyrogenitus they might not, beyond pot anyway. But he could certainly gut the DEA and end federal forfeitures.

        • porphyrogenitus

          @Sorenzeo Not by executive order, he couldn’t. I think you’d easily find 67 Senators to overturn a budget veto, too.

  • Thomas Hansen

    There is so much that Ron Paul agrees with Michael Moore on. Imagine if they actually worked together. I think there is an extremely broad potential consensus out there. People across the current “political spectrum” (as it is currently defined) agree that huge powerful corporations are a bad thing. But those powerful interests are defining said “political spectrum” in such a way as to divide people against each other on “smoke bomb” topics like same-sex marriage and the validity of Obama’s birth certificate. Divide and conquer! But it’s working, and everyone is falling for it.

    Michael Moore and Ron Paul are both falling for it and are fighting each other, instead of working together on those really big important things that they agree on.

    Look, if these huge, megapowerful corporations didn’t exist, the government simply wouldn’t have to be so interventionist, and the free market WOULD work much, much better than it does. As it is, with megacorp vs. the average Joe, the market is anything BUT free.

    Used to be, in the days of Ma and Pa, Inc., that companies were invested in the communities that they depended on for employees as well as customers. They would invest in the arts, in culture, to improve the quality of life, so as to improve the customer base. They would invest in the schools and colleges so they would have a better and more educated workforce.

    Heck, even the “big boys” were more community-oriented back then. Witness the following excerpt from the Wikipedia page on John D. Rockefeller:

    “”Rockefeller gave $80 million to the University of Chicago under William Rainey Harper, turning a small Baptist college into a world-class institution by 1900. He later called it “the best investment I ever made.” His General Education Board, founded in 1902, was established to promote education at all levels everywhere in the country. It was especially active in supporting black schools in the South. Its most dramatic impact came by funding the recommendations of the Flexner Report of 1910, which revolutionized the study of medicine in the United States. “”

    Today’s Megacorp cares about none of these things. These multinational monstrosities care about nothing except their short-term bottom line. They are not invested in the communities in which they operate- not even any one country anymore. Megacorp comes in and puts in a big-box store on Main Street USA, pays everyone minimum wage, and siphons off the profits to some offshore entity in Dubai. Then when the community is bankrupt, when mortgages are in default, the schools and libraries and hospitals are crumbling, the government has to step in, and so taxes go up.

    And what do people do? They fight over the taxes, or whether the government should step in or not. And they practically ignore the huge monster right under their noses, siphoning off the very lifeblood of their community, their country.

    The fact is this: the government is going trillions and trillions in debt (and this was true long before Obama took office!) while the Megacorps of this world are raking it in by the trillions! Hello! HELLO!

    So what to do about it? I don’t have any answers. But if great minds like Ron Paul and Michael Moore would f–n WAKE UP and realize that they are on the same side here, and actually pool their creative energies for a common cause, anything would be possible!


  • Blackie_Chan

    I like how the start of this argument was the Ron Paul’s view of “Free Trade” is a clear indicator of China buying him out. Meanwhile, if Dfens had actually read any position RP had ever taken on NAFTA, NATO, UN, etc. he would know RP actually wants us out of those agreements. RP does not support protectionism, which is using Tariffs to keep unsustainable US markets afloat and raise the overall prices to the consumer in the US, but he does not support no tariffs as a means of the Federal government taxing imports.

    Read first, post later.

  • Brant Curtis

    It has become clear to me that those of us (American citizens) who have become “dis-enchanted” with our system, have done so because we haven’t been truly “free” in a long time… and the confusion lies in the hypocracy of what we say we are, and what we are. Anyone who studies history and economics knows that what Ron Paul is talking about is the correct medicine for a country (that wants to be free). However, it is easy to be persuaded by [our] government who claims to have sensibility and compassion that they are fighting for our freedoms… when in reality, they are fighting for our money.

  • Dfens

    Corporatism! Yes, Ron Paul would know corporatism when he sees it. He’s all in favor of corporatism. That’s why he’s a “Free trader”. Here’s some more stuff Ron Paul doesn’t care about:

    More than 3 million manufacturing jobs have disappeared since 1998, and the Economic Policy Institute estimates 59 percent—or 1.78 million—of these jobs have been lost due to the explosion in the U.S. manufacturing trade deficit over the period.

    Goldman Sachs estimates 400,000–600,000 professional services and information sector jobs moved overseas in the past few years, accounting for about half of the total net job loss in the sector over the period. A Deloitte Research survey found one-third of all major financial institutions are already sending work offshore, with 75 percent reporting they would do so within the next 24 months. A U.C. Berkeley study found 25,000 to 30,000 new outsourcing-related jobs advertised in India by U.S. firms in just one month in 2003.

    One service sector hard hit by job losses is information technology, especially software. The pro-outsourcing consulting firm Global Insight estimates we lost 104,000 information technology jobs to offshore outsourcing between 2000 and 2003, more than a quarter of the 372,000 jobs lost in the sector overall during the period. The Economic Policy Institute found employment in U.S. software-producing industries fell by 128,000 jobs from 2000 to early 2004, while about 100,000 new jobs producing software for export to the U.S. were created in India over the same period of time.

    States are outsourcing public sector jobs as well, though most state governments do not know exactly how many. At least forty states contract out administration of electronic benefit cards for the food stamps program offshore. In one audit, the state of Washington found 36 out of 41 agencies were contracting out work overseas. A recent study by INPUT Research projects outsourcing of state and local government technology contracts will grow from $10 billion last year to $23 billion in 2008.

    From November 2002 to January 2004, the U.S. Department of Labor certified 246,398 workers who lost their jobs due to trade for Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA). This is in addition to the estimated 1,112,775 workers who were certified for TAA between 1994 and the end of 2002. These figures are very under-inclusive: they only count workers who know about the TAA program, apply for it, and qualify under the program’s strict eligibility requirements. The numbers do not include most service sector workers or workers who have lost their jobs due to shifts in production to China—neither group is eligible for TAA. Nor do they include workers erroneously denied TAA certification by the Labor Department.

    The Economic Policy Institute estimates that between 1993 and 2000, our lopsided trade policies, reflected in the explosive increase in the U.S. trade deficit, cost Americans a net 3 million jobs and job opportunities. The growth in the NAFTA trade deficit alone is associated with nearly 900,000 lost jobs and job opportunities through 2002.

    • Nate Y

      How can you just outright lie like that?

    • Dfens

      What, suddenly Ron Paul isn’t for “free trade”? Or do you maintain that the multinational corporations aren’t for “free trade”? You’re full of crap on either account.

      Never, though, should Congress raise [tariffs] or limit the ability of individual Americans to engage in honest trade with foreign manufacturers. While the market may demand – through boycotts and similar activities – that trade cease, that should be left entirely to the market, not bureaucrats in Washington.

      Free trade, not isolationism or subsidization, is the most moral of instruments between men. Engagement, not irrational fear or political paybacks, is the best force for bringing change to China and our relations with its people. – Ron Paul

      Yes, we’ve really changed China. They’ve stolen all of our industries by dumping cheap crappy products on our markets for less than their cost to manufacture them. They’ve protected their markets while destroying our industrial might. They’ve bought our politicians, including and especially Ron Paul, as a way of propogandizing the out of work US voters. All this while they steal our technology via their spy networks and kill our kids and our sick with poisoned products. That’s some great change there.

      Ron Paul says he’s all about the Constitution. Apparently the fact that the Constitution provided the federal government with tariffs as its primary means of raising revenue until the 16th amendment passed on February 3, 1913 means nothing to him. We dorked up the way the founding fathers meant for the federal government to be finanaced when we passed the 16th amendment and allowed them to tax individuals, which, I agree with Ron Paul here, was stupid. Now who do you think has more clout with our federal government, the individual US taxpayer, or foreign governmnents? They bought Ron Paul easily enough. Either that or he’s their useful idiot. Either way, he’s of no use to any REAL AMERICAN.

      • Nate Y

        Neither. I’m saying that the Free Trade agreements we have are not free trade at all. They are an example of Orwellian doublespeak.

        Anyway, it is of no use attempting to speak with you. You have no interest in honest debate, and fall victim to nearly every logical fallacy ever described. Here’s a prime example of your nonsensical thought process: “They’ve (the Chinese) stolen all of our industries by dumping cheap crappy products on our markets for less than their cost to manufacture them”

        Let’s leave aside the absurd notion that all Chinese products are cheap and crappy and focus only on the extremely embarrassing economic fallacy you state. How could the Chinese grow to an economic powerhouse if they are selling their products for “less than their cost to manufacture them”? How could they grow wealthy by operating at a constant loss?

        Now you’ll probably say that you meant it costs less to manufacture the products in China than it does to manufacture them here and you’ll ramble on about how we need to protect “american jobs” and “american workers”. Have at it.

      • Dfens

        We used to protect our industries by charging a tariff on goods manufactured overseas and shipped to this country. Now we don’t. That’s what moRon Paul wants. That’s his “free trade”. In fact, he does want to go even further. Today we have treaties with certain contries like NAFTA. In the NAFTA treaty, there is contractual language that both parties agree to that is supposed to make “free trade” more fair. Things like, if we don’t charge tariffs they aren’t supposed to charge us tariffs either. They also provide for a mutually agreed upon forum for airing trade greivances.

        MoRon doesn’t like those agreements. Apparently he believes that if we take down all our tariffs, then every other government will stop protecting their countries financial interests too. MoRon is a moron, because even with these agreements, many of the countries we don’t protect our markets from do protect their markets, the Chinese being just one example.

        If you love the Chinese so much, and you think their products are so great, the get the F out of this country! I’m sure they’d take you. There are remarkably few who try to get in to that hell hole. When you live there, you can find out about slave labor camps and how it is that Chinese factories are able to compel children to work on their crappy products. Apparently you and moRon think that is what makes for a fair and level playing field when it comes to international free trade. Personally, I like our system. I like the fact that we don’t use slave labor or force children to work in our factories. I like the fact that our laborers have the right to assemble and the right to protest poor working conditions, but then, I’m an American and you’re a traitor, so there’s a fundamental difference in perspective.

        And if you can’t figure out how the Chinese putting our tire industry out of business can lead to us not being able to manufacture tires anymore, then you need a brain, and I’m sorry, I can’t give you one of those. I’m not the Wizard of Oz.

        • Nate Y

          See this is exactly what I’m talking about. Nothing but tortured logic and personal attacks out of you. People show you the courtesy of replying to your arguments without such childish antics. You could at the very least do the same.

          No one uses slave labor or forces people to work in factories in China. No more than the people who worked in factories here during the Industrial Revolution were forced to leave their farms. People move to the factories because it provides a life of more abundance and increases their purchasing power when compared to working the family farm.

          Workers in China protest all the time btw. Go ahead and google “worker protests China” for a slew of results.

          • Matt

            “No one uses slave labor or forces people to work in factories in China.”

            Whhhaaaaatttt??? Really? No one!?!?! Why not google “Slave Labor China” after you google for your “worker protests China” Nate… Here are the first two examples I saw.

            “They were sold ‘like cabbages'”

            “The next thing they knew they were being loaded onto a minibus with several other children and taken to a factory in the next province, where they were pressed into service making bricks.”

            “People move to the factories because it provides a life of more abundance and increases their purchasing power when compared to working the family farm.”

            Again… Whaaaaattttt????!?! Are you rally saying all people have the choice of saying ‘Hmmm, i think i will give up on this farm I could own one day and go work in a factory!’

            What if they didn’t have a farm? What if they had nothing and it was the only option? Why are you positing that ‘working in a factory was always a conscious decision because they knew that it would increase their purchasing power relative to working on a farm’?

            And if the conditions that children, say, did toil in those factories during the industrial revolution were so awesome and willing, how come we NOW have child-labor laws, or hell, any labor laws at all? It sure wasn’t because the capitalists that owned the factories thought that labor laws were FANTASTIC. No, bad things did indeed happen to men, women and children in those factories. Your glaring omission of that side of history supports your slanted view.

            With respect to free trade I do agree with you, but not this romanticized, revisionist version of history and misguided China’s labor laws you seem to espouse.

          • Dfens

            Hell, Matt, at least Nate has his head up where the sun don’t shine. You know this stuff and you’re still for “free trade”? You people make me sick!

    • Dfens

      Child labour in China is hardly a new phenomenon. For years, despite official regulations banning the employment of minors (defined by Chinese law as those under sixteen years of age), teenagers and even pre-adolescents from poorer regions of China have been drawn to the rapidly developing southern and coastal areas looking for work. For this army of juvenile labourers, employment is readily available in the workshops and factories (and to a lesser extent related industries, such as food service) that are at the heart of China’s economic boom. A recent People’s Daily Report cites an investigation undertaken by the government agency in charge of monitoring labour conditions in Shandong province’s Jinan City. According to the report, the use of juvenile labour is most prevalent in the following industries: Toy production, textiles, construction, food production, and light mechanical work. Concerning the latter, the report concludes that child labour is particularly in demand because children have smaller hands and eyesight undamaged by years of labour, making them more desirable than adults for certain kinds of work.- China Labor

      The fact that you and your demigod Ron Paul are treasonous idiots is well documented. I’d only like to apologize to those who weary of my stating the obvious.

  • dan

    What’s he on about people don’t get turned away? Since when do private hospitals offer free surgery? I bet there are thousands of people who died in the States just because they couldn’t afford to pay for the surgery.
    His arguments are flawed.

  • My other ex-fellow Michiganian Romney is a SELL OUT!

  • Jones

    One can then say that there are large and powerful teams called corporations, public and private, and that in order to deal with them the government(s) has eventually settled into something like them, a government corporation.

    I believe that if pumping money into a field is no guarantee that it will yield improvements is because it is a fake action, for some unknown reason. It makes no sense; it’s like a magical trick. It creates an unreal world for real people. And it seems it’s the dangerous world we are living in now. Another issue is sabotaged investments, public or personal.

    About health and policy for immigrants: somehow money and care is invested and used, it keeps jobs and supplies running and the corresponding revenues allocated.
    Yet legals have awkward limitations and illogical problems in both aspects.
    And illegals are a constant reason to complain, make policy, make news, even movies, yielding money mostly for everyone else while taking all the blame and the consequences.

    Today there are many problems, lots of finger pointing, many distractions, and it looks like unruly power permeating everything. I can only speculate that that power is receiving benefits, otherwise the problems would be taking care of allowing a functional world.

    I say in a world like that there is no way to create or practice anything for real, for which you invested your whole self in it.

    Magic can work for magic, but for real problems magic favors the accumulation of problems.

  • Ross

    An excellent interview.You logic and common sense wins again Ron.

  • There are some things that I agree with my fellow Michiganian Michael Moore! But the word he should be referring to is Corporatism that is having a stranglehold on our freedom and economic progress!Dr. Paul You have done it again! I am deffinitely going to vote for you in the 2012 Republican Presidential Primaries! & I hope that you have a fair shot of being Republican Presidential candidate & I might vote for you! Because You speak for the people, not special interest!

  • Moogle

    Well said Dr. Paul. I am not an American citizen/resident, but I really hope Dr. Paul can bring America back to its constitution, free market and christians root. America was a great country, but thanks to the corporatism, materialism, etc it becomes like now.

    I pray he will be the president of US in 2012. Thats all I can do.

  • I aplaud you Ron Paul and other political representive Congress , Senate or other wise. Tim Geithner is just another one protecting the devil in the details. Take that little bull by the horns and you know what to do. Take back our constitution article #1 sec.#8 first amendment states: Congress shall have the right to coin , create the value of the dollar thereof; get rid of the federal reserve corp. and bring back the almost exstint department of weights and measures created from the coinage act of 1792 and manufacture our dollar and coins then distibute it interest & debt free again.