Ron Paul: We’ve Spent Way Beyond Our Means


This is a rush transcript. If you notice any errors please report them using the “Help improve this post” link at the bottom of this post.

Mika Brzezinski: Joining the table is Republican president candidate and Texas Congressman, Ron Paul. It’s good to have you on the show, sir. And Pulitzer Prize winning associate editor at the Washington Post, Bob Woodward, it’s good to see you. We were at Chris Matthew’s party last night, and Bob gave us the topics.

Joe Scarborough: He gave us the topics. He said, “You know, it’s the opposite. Usually the shows call you up and say these are the things you want to be talking about, three minutes here”.

Mika Brzezinski: Exactly, there’s a little framework of questions put together by a 23 year old producer.

Joe Scarborough: We just sort of wake up and look at the papers and say, … but Bob, last night, was ready with a laser focus on the super committee, so it’s a perfect matchup here because we’ve got Ron Paul.

Mika Brzezinski: We brought him here for you.

Joe Scarborough: A guy who has been warning about the debt, and Ron, let’s start. Before we talk about America’s debt, let’s start with Greece’s debt. It looks like a deal was made, now the Greeks seem to be rebelling against it, once again proving they don’t want to live within their means. What does it mean for the rest of us?

Ron Paul: We all face the same problem, nobody wants to admit the truth. The world is bankrupt, the system is bankrupt, it’s not viable, and we’re facing the same consequences because we spend way beyond our means and nobody wants to cut a nickel. I mean, all this talk is just talk, there aren’t any cuts. Even the proposed cuts are cuts in the future, 5 or 10 years out. So I think that if you live beyond your means, you have to live within your means, and that means you have to cut back and that’s not acceptable because too many people have become too dependent. And they’ve been taught for many, many decades that deficits really don’t matter, and this Keynesian idea that it’s always the consumer who drives the economy, which I don’t buy into. Which means that the demand is that the consumer spends more money to stimulate the economy. Well, they’re broke and they don’t have jobs and they have too many credit cards, so that can’t be the solution.

Joe Scarborough: You know, Bob, the problem is this: even if the super-committee were to succeed by the low standards that we all have set for it (cutting 4 trillion dollars) now, a decade ago 4 trillion dollars would have been significant. Now, 4 trillion dollars doesn’t even pay for what we’ve spent over the last 4 years.

Bob Woodward: And they’re not even going to go there.

Joe Scarborough: And they’re not even going to go there.

Bob Woodward: They’re talking about 1.2 trillion dollars, as the Congressman points out, over 10 years. So that’s, maybe a 100 billion dollars a year. And if you get into the weeds on some of this, which I’m trying to do to answer the question, ‘How is the economy being managed and what is the nature of the jeopardy we’re in?’ Take something, you remember this from your days in Congress; farm subsidies. Okay, they talked and they said, “We can cut 29 billion dollars in farm subsidies”, and the Republicans say, “Okay, that’s a great idea, let’s do it”. And then the White House comes in and says, “No, let’s only cut farm subsidies 2% of that for rich farmers”. And so you’re talking night and day, and they’re not together on this, and you go through item after item and it gets blown up and they don’t agree on even a small bite.

Joe Scarborough: You know, one and a half trillion dollars, if that’s what they’re talking about cutting, Ron, over a decade, is such a joke, considering that last Christmas the President and the Republican Congress agreed to a plan that raised the deficit immediately, or the national debt, by an additional trillion dollars. Nobody is serious on Capitol Hill, what’s happened?

Ron Paul: Well, I don’t think you can accuse me of not being serious.

Joe Scarborough: Well, when I say nobody is serious…

Ron Paul: I think it’s so dangerous and so bad, and we’re facing something the world has never faced before, that my token effort to start off with, would be to cut a trillion dollars of real cuts in 1 year, and I think it would be helpful. And I argue this because of what we did after World War II. We cut spending by 60% and we cut taxes by 30% and we sent 10 million people into the workforce, and guess what, it finally ended the depression. People went back to work again because the changes occurred, the debt had been liquidated and we were ready to go back to work again. So you just can’t solve the problem of spending and debt with more spending and debt and the printing of money, it’s absurd and they are not changing their mind.

Bob Woodward: And the word that’s not being used here, which is the word in Greece, “Austerity”. And here everyone is talking about, “Oh, this is manageable”. It’s like when they talk about Iraq of Afghanistan and say, “Hard, but not hopeless”. But again, when you go into the numbers, time and time again, there is no agreement on the smallest things. Now, I think the campaign next year is going to get down to presidential leadership; can you manage the economy, does somebody have their hands on the steering wheel? And I think the sense people have now is, “There are no hands, or 20 hands, on the steering wheel”. And somebody has got to come up and say, “This is the plan, let’s face it”. And the public voters are not going to like the word “Austerity” but that’s where we’re headed.

Mika Brzezinski: I don’t disagree with you at all. Sam Stein, I wonder though, if that person, whoever that person is who has to say that, has to also say, “We are not going to get back to where we were”, that this is going to be a long process and unemployment is probably going to last for this-long or this-long and this is what we’re going to have to do to reboot? Who has the guts to say that, that there’s not a lot of hope in our current situation, of rectifying it to back before the bubble bursts?

Sam Stein: I would argue that, and to a certain extent he’s being criticized for it, President Obama has gone on and said this is going to be a long slog and that the economy that we once had, which was manufacturing-based, largely, was not going to be the economy that we have in the future. Let me just add a few data points to this because I think it’s worthwhile to note that, in addition to the 1.2 trillion dollars that the super-committee wants to cut, they did achieve about a 900 to a trillion dollars in cuts as part of the debt-ceiling deal in August. And, in addition to that, there is supposed to be – now we have to wait and see for this – another 1 trillion dollars in savings from drawing down the war. Those still don’t get to the crux of the matter, which is that we have a huge rising healthcare costs problem in this country. But one of the ways to solve it is not simply just to cut, which is valid, but to get people back to work so that we can actually increase the tax base in this country. And one of the questions is how do you get people back to work, and does government people a role in that? Now I know where you stand on that, government probably should not play a role. But I’m wondering, in the interim, for you, would there be anything that you would be proud of supporting the government actually doing to stimulate some job growth to actually expand the tax base?

Ron Paul: The government does have a role, they ought to give us sound money, they ought to give us market interest rates, and they ought to let us spend the money. I don’t talk in terms of austerity and sacrifice because I tell the people I was with that it’s not a sacrifice for you to get your freedom back and get the market back and get you to keep your money and get you to spend your money. The people who have to sacrifice and give up are the people who have been living off the government and living off the tax payers, they don’t need any more bailouts. So it’s not a sacrifice.

Sam Stein: What can the government do, between now and let’s say 3 months, to maybe get some jobs back, is there anything that the government can do?

Ron Paul: The only thing you can do is to show the people that you’re going to change the direction of the country. But it’s not a budgetary problem, it is a philosophy problem. You can’t cut nickels and dimes from the militarism and the military budget unless you change the foreign policy. You can’t cut entitlements unless you give up on the principle of entitlement. So we have to decide whether we want to live within the confines of the constitution, or we want to continue to do what we’ve been doing, which means that the pie is shrinking and the demands are growing and the anger is increasing.

Bob Woodward: But no one really wants to bite the bullet on this. I mean, you’re talking numbers of 900 billion dollars or 1 trillion dollars cut here and so forth. If you really follow the numbers and get beyond the smoke and mirrors, a lot of those numbers are rounding errors. I mean, we now have an annual deficit of 1.6 trillion dollars, that’s in 1 year. And if you go out and say, “Well, let’s cut a little less than that in 10 years”, ….

Joe Scarborough: Those were budget caps that were set. So, Ron, it seems to be that this is your time, this should be your time as a presidential candidate. I’ve been talking about deficits and the debt since 1994 and I’ve been talking about it non-stop. But you were talking about it before I came to Congress, you’ve been talking about it after I left Congress, you’ve been talking about this for 20, 25 years. I always go back to your quote, it was actually in September of 2003, when you predicted – it’s frightening, Bob – exactly what was going to happen with Fannie and Freddy and the banks. He said this is going to create a housing bubble, it’s going to be a housing bubble that’s going to spread a virus in the entire economy, across the entire world, and when it pops, we’re in big trouble. So you’ve been predicting this coming debt crisis, why do people not come out on the campaign trail?

Ron Paul: Oh, people I talk to. The other day I had 1,200 people come out at the University of Iowa and they were enthusiastic about it. So I just think that the time has changed. You say, “Well, if this is true and they’re coming my way, why am I not at the top?” I’ll tell you what, we have a solid base, the country has changed, it’s dramatically different compared to 4 years ago. Right, just think of the success with the Federal Reserve. Bernanke has to come before the people at press conferences, they’re on the defensive now. 65% of American people say we need to know how they’re passing out this credit, 15 trillion dollars worth of credit they deal out, they’re bigger than the Congress. 5 trillion dollars went to foreigners.

Joe Scarborough: Bob, you know about transparency, you know Ron has obviously been focused on the Fed for a very long time. It is extraordinary the power the Fed chairmen have behind closed doors. How did we get to a position where one of the most powerful people in the world is able act, I won’t say with impunity, but certainly without the most basic democratic checks?

Bob Woodward: Well, it’s all about money and following that money.

Joe Scarborough: By the way, does that arrangement that the Fed chief has so much power and they want to work in secret bother you?

Bob Woodward: Certainly, but there’s more and more transparency, as we know, and right now there’s not much they can do because we effectively have 0% interest rates. So their lever is gone, as you well know. So, in a sense, they’re reduced to pronouncements and press conferences and quantitative easing and so forth, which is something that is not the old interest rate- lever which really has an impact or can have an impact on the economy.

Mika Brzezinski: So Congressman, why is Herman Cain at the top of the polls?

Ron Paul: I think he’s gotten some very big show. The week where is really soared, he won a straw vote in Florida and he was on the news constantly and people felt, “Oh wow, look at that”. That same week I won a straw vote in California, and I got zero coverage.

Joe Scarborough: Why is that?

Ron Paul: I think I’m attacking the status quo like never before, I mean, the whole entitlement system. And I think there’s a lot more support out there for what I’m talking about than they realized, and they’re not going to give me a boost because I’m challenging the whole banking system, the military-industrial complex, the welfare state, our foreign policy. I want to go back to following strictly the constitution. It’s not in the cards right now, except the growing number of people is very significant. So the movement is in our direction because of this failure. You talk about the failure of the Fed, this is significant, they don’t have any cards left to play, this whole economy has no cards left to play. So this is going to be reversed, this economy is going to go to the dogs.

Bob Woodward: So are you the candidate of austerity, are you going out and saying …

Ron Paul: Well, I never said that, I’m the candidate of liberty where people have energy and incentives.

Bob Woodward: But to get there, we’re going to have a real long drought of austerity, aren’t we?

Ron Paul: No, no. The records show that when you do it, it only takes about a year. You should look at the 1921 depression, as well as what my example was of World War II. We cut it, and in a year everybody is back to work; 10 million people; 60% cut in the deficit.

Bob Woodward: You don’t want to have the campaign slogan, “Midnight in America”, you want to talk about what?

Ron Paul: The people that come to my rallies are enthusiastic, they say, “This is the most positive thing we’ve ever heard”. You know why? Because we are admitting the truth and saying there’s something seriously wrong, we have to make a difference. Because if you’re in total denial and we continue to lie to ourselves, there’s no hope. It’s sort of like getting better from cancer not admitting you have it and taking a medication. But the medication isn’t nearly as bad as they’d like to paint it to be. So it’s not a sacrifice, liberty is not a sacrifice.

Joe Scarborough: Let’s go from budget to Afghanistan, something we talk about around this table all the time. Bob, you’ve talked about it a good bit. Congressman, obviously you’ve been very concerned for a very long time with America’s ever-expanding the military state. The White House is now talking about looking into possibly drawing down in Afghanistan quicker. Can you explain why we are still in Afghanistan after a decade?

Ron Paul: There’s no sane reason for us to be there. And this drawing down in Iraq is a complete farce, they’re not drawing down. We have an embassy there that is the biggest I the world, it’s a fort for 17,000 people to be, they’re going to be contractors. We may take a few troops out and spread them around, they are going to put more troops in Kuwait, we are not vacating anything. So as long as we’re there, believe me, there is going to be incentive to kill us.

Sam Stein: Can I ask you something on that, because I’ve been to a bunch of these speeches on the trail, and usually when you get to the foreign policy section of your speech you’ll see half the crowd cheer you wildly, they go nuts. And then you see the other half of the crowd star booing. And I’m wondering if you could talk a little bit about Republican politics, with respect to foreign policy specifically, and look at the past 10 years starting with the rise of the neo-conservative link and where the Republican Party stands now, as a unit, with respect to foreign policy?

Ron Paul: I think what you’re saying is a strictly Republican meeting.

Sam Stein: Yea.

Ron Paul: See, but if I go to a campus, it’s 95%. These young people who bearing the burden and inheriting the debt, have to fight these wars. And the military, guess what, I get more money from active military duty personal, twice as much as all the other candidates, they’re sick and tired of it.

Joe Scarborough: Did you want to know, Bob, in the 2008 campaign, while you have neo-cons trashing Ron Paul because he said bring the troops home, in the last campaign and in this campaign, military members and their families gave, easily, more to Ron than anybody else because they understand the strain better than some politician or somebody in the think-tank in Washington DC. But this is a readiness issue, we’re stretching and it is expanding, ever expanding.

Bob Woodward: But at the same time, I think you have to give credit to President Obama on this, he is drawing down. Now, the question is, and lots of other Republicans say he may be doing that too fast in Iraq, that he needs some troops there as an insurance policy, and there’s a certain rational there. But the White House is on the Pentagon on spending, on getting troops out of Afghanistan and Iraq. But you’re right, Joe, we’re not taking the flag down, and no President wants to.

Joe Scarborough: We are spending 2 million dollars a week in Afghanistan. And you’re talking about college campuses, I have yet to find people outside of Washington DC, Ron, that think it makes sense for us to spend 2 billion dollars a week in Afghanistan a decade later.

Ron Paul: No, it absolutely makes no sense, and there’s no money, we’re in this huge deficit. And if we can’t cut the occupation of these countries, there’s no hope for us, let me tell you that, there’s just no hope for us. We better be willing to do it, we have to change the policy. If the design is to police the world and nation-build and solidify everybody’s borderlines, believe me, we’re doomed because we’re doing exactly what the Soviets did. We need to change our attitude, take care of our people at home. How do you get medical care at home if you’re spending all this money bombing people and then rebuilding their countries, it’s insane.

Bob Woodward: The rationale for staying in Afghanistan is to keep Al-Qaida from coming back into Afghanistan, and, as we know, Al-Qaida is has had a bad couple of years and they are going back into Afghanistan.

Ron Paul: They’re in Iraq now, they weren’t there when we went to war. So we’re only giving incentive to the Al-Qaida.

Bob Woodward: And they’re in Pakistan, you’re right.

Mika Brzezinski: Congressman Ron Paul, it was very good to have you on the set, please come back.

Joe Scarborough: Thank you, Ron, great to see you. Good luck.

  • Wear as little jewelry as possible on the day of the test because you will have to remove that jewelry before you go
    under the MRI machine. I was then immediately referred to a cancer specialist to see if the tumor was
    benign or malignant. Even at the bottom of the totem pole, it still allows someone to make a decent living.

  • rose macaskie

    Ron Paul you are talking about Neoliberal policies and Keynes when what drove the fall of the big banks had not the government payed them out, was the creation of CDOs Colateralized Debt Obligation in 1987. That such a way of handling debt backed assets should have beeen designed was something that was fortuitouse and had nothing to do with academic theories Liberal or of Keynes on how to run economies so your talking as if it were Keynes theories that created the over lending is misleading. the public is meant to be full of delusional people who imagine they will go further than they really are likely to go, it is the over lending that broke the economy not the over spending, it is the lendrs who are meant to know when to say no.

    The existents of CDO’s snowballed into a totally new type of banking and started such a greed for debt among financiers, debt that is called debt for the person who takes out a loan but called an asset for the creditiors who recieve the interest the debtor pays and who will in the end get their money back.

    The creation of CDOs started such a greed for more debt the that creditors could sell to others as an asset, at a profit or receiving a good comission for their services, that they lost all prudence and morality and started to loan to people, governments, businesses, and even other banks, anyone they could persuade to take out a loan, persuade or trick, into taking out a loan without being in the least worried about whether these loans could be honored by those who took them out, so ruining the people they persuaded to take out more money than they could in all probablity pay back and ruining those that they sold debt backed assets too, as debt is called when it is sold on to other people.

    The arguements of neo libralism about reducing the rules that held financiers in cheque made the moral break down, the total loss of job responsability of bankers and financers and those who worked on the markets easier, it made it easier for them to ask for ever more freedoms from government control, made it easier for them to think that it was alright to take decisions that filled their pockets as it was the market that should right all ills not the restraint of men, so they filled their pockets while they put at risk those they lent money to and those they sold bonds to and there own businesses, which no longer mattered to them much because their bonuses had allowed them to feather their own nests so well that the collapse of their work places would hardly effect many of them.

    I begin to wonder whether the honesty some of your actions seem to attest as being part of your character is real or is just assumed when it seems not to get in the way of your other goals.rose macaskie madrid


  • holocaust

    Ok things are much more fucked up then most people can handle. The entie world economy is baaed on CFR stupid crap.

  • holocaust

    The Constitutional process of issuing new currency into circulation is the subject that we need to understand. This is the process that we must take back over through our Constitutional Representatives. This process will naturally allowed the economy to expand without inflation or deflation because their will always bee the constitutional presents of representation. Please see now this is the time to see now and you must because all the ludicrous examples are before you now and you must see them now.

    • Libertarian777

      will you Ellen Brown supporters / Mathematically Perfect money / real bill / whatever else you call yourself please EDUCATE yourself.

      Your proposed solution for a Federal Reserve, centrally controlled fiat currency replacement, is to have a US Treasury issued centrally controlled fiat currency.

      What you need is COMPETING currencies. Gold and silver are BUT TWO of the options allowed. Competing currencies will allow you to have your ‘real bills’ and whatever else you want to call your fiat.

      THE FREE MARKET gets to decide which of the currencies in circulation they wish to use. NO CENTRAL PLANNER GETS TO DECIDE.

      GET IT YET?

  • holocaust

    The cycle of banking systems has overlapped and we are riding on speculation. The only way we can stop the collapse of the economy is by a unilateral bill that allows the US Congress to issue new currency to US citizens that are in a position to create new jobs and expand the economy in a way that will not inflate it.

    Why is this so hard for everyone to understand? Simple, because the peoples who control it do not want you to understand it. If you did understand the system it would be impossible for them to control and manipulate you. See now! Do you want to vote for me now!! Yea, Ron Paul is on the right track just be patient and all things will get back to normal. But if the controlled media keeps shutting him out them what?

  • SovereignGlobalist

    I still see on blogs every day about people who support socialized health care. The percentage of Americans who believe a bureaucracy based in some faraway place called Washington D.C. can do the decision making better than themselves. At the same time I see support for Ron Paul growing. Something does not compute. You cannot have both a trust of socialism and a disdain for socialism. I have seen occasional posts in blogs here on from people who very much say similar things: They gush support for Ron Paul but they also have their favorite socialist program they support. The battle for bringing back the American philosophy of self reliance has years to go. We must continue to agitate for ending this insane idea of sending our money off to Washington and expecting it to come back to our states with well-thought-out spending programs. It cannot ever happen. Impossible since you have to pay for the bureaucrats in Washington and pay the kickbacks politicians get from corporations profiting from those programs.

    • Citizen


      Socialism is a slow “progressive” process where every program is another cut of thousands that eventually kill the host country.

      The US has now spent “other peoples (borrowed) money” and no one has anymore money to lend us. So now our government has no other recourse but to Print More.

      We’ve run out of money and Paul is correct, we’ve far exceeded our means. The debt will sink US

      As for the “kickbacks”, I would wager that the Solyndra documents are being scrubbed by the Whitehouse staff as we blog to cover the kickback trail.

      • SovereignGlobalist

        @Citizen Exactly right my friend. We freedom lovers will continue to agitate. In our own personal lives we are prepared to adapt to the society of personal responsibility which will have to come to the US. Politically, it will look pre-1913, but with the high tech of modern times. I am positive this must happen because only a fool will deny that we can afford to have this big government forever.

        • Citizen


          Mr T… “I pity the fool” and

          America now has 42% of our population who are wholly dependent on Government subsidies.

          “The Fool” Obama want’s to make that 60%…

      • rose macaskie

        Socialism is a term that in the hands of many people covers a lot of things, from communism to capitalism with a well fare state, so you need to define what you mean by such a word to have a proper conversation about it..

        Socialism as it is practisted in Europe or was practiced in North America meant the safe guarding of the poor from a too total explotation. The rich tend to earn money for themselves or their projects and give wages to the poor that are just big enough to nearly get by on. Often, in the past before socialism, for half their children to starve to death on. I think that the rich just dont give much time and energy to workers wellfare unless they are being pressed to do so. The money they earn and their creativity tends to go in other directions, conquering the world for example, speculating on the asian markets rather than into looking after workers.

        Our modern world is so full of cars for everyone, with houses for the poor with sofas and enough beds and televisions in them. In the old days people had a hard chair or two, a bed or two and little else, one peice of china maybe, our modern society in which the poor are a bit less miserabley poor came about because the poor asked and pushed for more and the countries that looked after their poor did well and now they have turned back to old ideas that defended extreme differences they are doing worse. Historically things like the well fare state brought in their wake greater riches for thier countries and no one seems to remember that, they should go to Dolly Partons recreation of the village she lived in as a child to remember what things were like before the government educated people and such.

        When the rich can do whatever they want they cant be bothered to educate the poor so they create an under race of brutally undereducated people, to over worked to better themselves or think, who no one listens to, which is cruel, exclusion is cruel, so economies in which the rich get it all their own way tend to be cruel and also are impractical now that a lot of jobs require computer archiving and other technical skills that you only get after years of ecducation. The rich have power, they hold the purse strings the poor need some counter weights or they will get stepped on. rose macaskie madrid.

  • dawid
    • SovereignGlobalist

      @dawid I am a long time libertarian. I went to that link. It’s based in Illinois and it’s only for people who LIVE IN Illinois. I hope people living outside Illinois stay honest and do not vote in that poll. Don’t artificially inflate the numbers.

      • dawid

        This is just a regular online poll for ANYONE. The one you are talking about is Illinois Republican Pre-Presidential Straw Poll and they obviously check for address and ip (online) if you vote there. BTW Ron Paul won that straw poll with 51%.

  • Liberty

    Well as of today our debt is at 100% of GDP. If we don’t reduce our deficit, we are following in the steps of Greece. There are mass protests in the streets because, they don’t like the osterity measures placed upon them. But, without the EU, IMF, or World Bank Bailouts their monetary system will collapse. America has the Fed for our bailouts.

    No other candidate other than Ron Paul has pointed out what the U.S.debt can do to it’s sovereignty. His message has been consistent for years. The other candidates just talk about their tax plans. Taxes are only part of solutions for recovery.


    • SovereignGlobalist

      @Liberty Whether or not Dr. Ron Paul wins in 2012, he is doing a valuable service to our country by communicating. For instance, many of us already know (thanks to Youtube) that Dr. Paul predicted the outcome of the war boondoggle back in 2002 and the outcome of the Fannie Mae / Freddie Mac boondoggle in 2003. He now predicts the US government presence won’t vacate Iraq.

      The positive news is that someone (Ron Paul or not) will be elected President in 5 or 9 years to implement what Ron Paul has long suggested. Like I say, Hopefully Dr. Paul wins in 2012!

      Truth will out. That is a saying which means reality always wins. Reality is basically sound money and free enterprise and individual liberty.

  • silentv113

    I’m not going to say Americans are dumb, but a lot of people will not vote for him because they rather live in a dream than wake up and face the truth.

    • Citizen


      Americans have been “dumbed down” so that they don’t know what’s going on. Few understand the Constitution and have been raised on the Socialist Kool Aid… they don’t know any better

      • Libertarian777


        don’t worry, if we maintain the status quo we’ll have a currency crises in 3-5 years time and EVERYONE will be awake then.

  • SovereignGlobalist

    Great video except that it is obvious he has a cold. He should have waited for the camera to be away from his face so that he could use a handkerchief when he’s not on video.

    But this is not what I wanted to comment on. I want to say that Dr. Paul never comes across as nutty to me. I understand what he says. I have to sometimes play back the video to hear it again because I’m thinking of the great thing he said in a couple of sentences but miss the other things he says later. The people who say he’s nutty and does not make sense are the people who are too dumb to understand he does make sense. He knows economics backward and forward. He knows the psychology of modern American social democracy. So he can talk fast. Also many people want to appear stylish, so they chant the slogans they hear from their socialist friends. Slogan being “Ron Paul is nutty.”

    It was also stylish to be for big government in the 1970s.

    Ron Paul should keep on talking, keep on pressing, keep on raising funds and airing commercials. Because whether or not he wins, his predictions come true. More of the people are aware that Ron has predicted the real estate crash and the banking crisis and exploding debt back in 2002 and 2003. He’s predicting we will have a presence in Iraq for years.

    As for Bob Woodward, I agree, we are going to have to have austerity eventually. Dr. Paul does say that in the past when spending was cut 60% and taxes 40%, economic booms occurred, so he would not call it “austerity.” OK. instead of “austerity” I will say we will have to have significant spending cuts in the military, foreign aid, and entitlements and also significant cuts in taxes to get the economy back on track., There is no other cure.

  • Toetothemas

    Seriously, Ron Paul makes SO MUCH SENSE. Why do people think he’s so nutty?

    I like the looks of the anchor at 17:13…. The guy KNOWS Ron’s right. He just HATES it.

    • rose macaskie

      He is nutty because sometimes he makes sense and sometimes he does not, it is not as if he did not understand anything and you could say he was stupid, so all that is left is to call him nutty for those things on which he suddenly seems to have got totally stupid.

      Unless things are well organised and not even the religiouse have ever organised things as well as modern governments have the poor always end up badly. the poor at the monment dream they will gt rich and they are to mean to defend the people who will be poor in the future so they are votign for the right.

      Those who pretend they are going to give jobs but whose first priority is there business and themselves, give the themes of poverty and how to reduce it only a lick and a promise, things dont trickle down. That has been the case for so many thousands of years that to deny it is nutty. The religions give the unfortunate a sandwhich when the rich stop paying the poor a minimum because it is a bad year or bad season to employ people but the poor to do well for themselves need an education and rules that stop people from employing them for too many hours and for too little pay or they get exploited. Those that dont know that, are living in nutty land were everyone is very nice and looks after the unfortunate even though there are not laws that oblige them too.

      The way to have willing workers is to undereducate a great quantity of the population and starve them and over work them so they will be to exhausted hungry and ignorant to complain and then nit pick their faults to reduce their credit. Who can be good parents if they are working all day? The poor are full of nits for the rich to pick and so pretend it is the fault of the abused that they are abused. Ron Paul is corrupt, he seems clever enough to know better but he is defending the interests of the strong who are strong so they dont really need defenders. rose macaskie madrid.

  • McKGraKucPauNad

    Damn good interview.

    • Libertarian777


      fkn amazing we have the left wing media listening to RON PAUL!

      At least the right wing (Fox) have finally stopped trying to make fun of him.

      He’s on the cusp of going MAINSTREAM!