Texas Republican Representative Ron Paul was the SOLE dissenting vote (405-1) today in a House vote supporting Iranian protesters. Ironically, he shares the same view as President Obama, and said as much on the floor today:Paul said in his floor speech that he was in "reluctant opposition" to the resolution -- that he of course condemns violence by governments against their citizens. On the other hand, he also doesn't think the American government should act as a judge of every country overseas, and pointed out that we don't condemn countries like Saudi Arabia or Egypt that don't even have real elections.
I feel quite the same.
"It seems our criticism is selective and applied when there are political points to be made," Paul said. "I have admired President Obama's cautious approach to the situation in Iran and I would have preferred that we in the House had acted similarly."
Head nod: Ben Smith
Like what you see? RSS FEED | TWITTER FEED | HOME
19 June 2009
Ron Paul: The Lone Ranger
This space is designed for thoughtful commentary on politics and media (and whatever else comes to mind). The Pajama Pundit welcomes people from all political stripes to voice opinions freely and without fear of mean-spirited attacks. He does however expect intelligent discussion -- and some understanding of proper grammar usage.
For a more detailed look at commenting, please review our Comment Policy.
Please refrain from personal attacks on authors or other users. Back up your argument with documentation (links to elsewhere on the web). This is a big sandbox -- so please play nicely with one another.
NOTE: For all of the HTML nerds out there (like me), anchor, strong (bold), em (italic) and blockquote tags work within the comment form.
The Pajama Pundit - Founder/Editor
21 comments:
Ron Paul can have some pretty whacked out ideas, but he is DEAD RIGHT on this one. I'm extremely disappointed in the House...its your typically political "blowin' in the wind" vote. The pols get all caught up in a given issue and don't think about what they're doing.
Stupid.
I really don't think some of his ideas are whacked out. Maybe just needing a certain type of understanding, but not whacked out.
Good job, Dr. Paul. Iran's internal affairs are NONE of the US government's business just as our elections are not the business of theirs.
Me caring about Iran's internal affairs is like you caring what your neighbor is feeding his family for dinner.
TFB, I think that IP's use of 'whacked out' to describe some of Dr. Paul's positions may be a tad extreme, but I think that there is some validity to his point.
Ron Paul has proposed some very radical changes to our current system of government (elimination of the income tax and Letters Of Marquee for example). I'm not saying that his ideas are wrong... I'm just saying that they are a big change.
The radical changes were those who implemented the income tax and the federal reserve.
And I thought we voted for change in November?
I am with you though, they are big changes to how we run our lives today, but how long are we going to have to keep up this charade before everything goes under?
It's like the analogy: You place a frog in boiling water and he'll jump right out, but if you put the same frog in warm water and slowly boil it, he'll boil to death.
Third parties simply need to pick better canidates and have bigger donnation machinery.
The ability of congress to collect taxes is in the constitution as is the ability of congress to coin money and regulate its value. The creation of the IRS and the Federal Reserve in order to fullfil those tasks were not radical changes.
It shouldn't take money to win elections. And some of the third party candidates have been just fine.
Some could argue that the Amendment to implement the IRS wasn't properly ratified. The Government shouldn't tell me what % of my income I should keep.
If the Federal Reserve wasn't such a radical change, then why did they vote for it on December 23, 1913 while everyone who opposed the Act were on holiday with their family?
And if Congress cannot coin money and regulate their value and rely on private bankers to do so, why are they deemed fit to run our country?
Also, we wouldn't need an income tax, if we didn't have a presence in over 100 countries around the world.
If we didn't have that presence the world would be a much darker place than it all ready is. Isolationism is as dangerous as unchecked intervention. Even without that foot print we would still need to maintain a military, probably even more so, which would require taxes of some sort or another. Check out this movie/documentry called The World without US, if your interested in seeing what the world might look like without that footprint.
The Federal Reserve that was enacted in 1913 was the 3rd national banking system to be put in place in our history.
Unless you force all banks to maintain a reserve fund to cover 100% of the deposits they have then you need a system in which those banks can take short term loans in order to cover transactions performed by their depositors. Wouldn't it suck ass if the check you sent to pay your doctor bill bounced not because you didn't have the cash in the account but the bank didn't? It wasn't a radical change because it's in the constitution that congress has the power to regulate currency. It doesn't say exactly how, but it does say the congress as the ability to pass laws in order to ensure that the constitution is followed, thus congress chose on 3 separate occasions to create a national banking system.
The other thing the Federal Reserve does is creates a national check cashing system. Before the creation of the reserve it was not uncommon for some banks to not honor checks drawn on accounts of other banks. Makes conducting business a tad difficult I would say. Kind of hampers that free market system we love so much.
From Wikipedia on the voting record of the 1913 Federal Reserve Act.
"After months of hearings, debates, votes and amendments, the proposed legislation, with 30 sections, was enacted as the Federal Reserve Act. The House, on December 22, 1913, agreed to the conference report on the Federal Reserve Act by a vote of 298 yeas to 60 nays with 76 not voting. The Senate, on December 23, 1913, agreed to it by a vote of 43 yeas to 25 nays with 27 not voting. The record shows that there were no Democrats voting "nay" in the Senate and only two in the House. The record also shows that almost all of those not voting on the bill had previously declared their intentions and were paired with members of opposite intentions."
So if you added those that didn't vote to the vote totals by using the pairing as described in the article, the vote would have been...
House: 336 Yes / 98 No
Senate: 53 yes / 39 No (I gave the no's the full one since you can't have half a person)
"Many prominent Americans such as Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, and Andrew Jackson have argued and fought against the central banking polices used throughout Europe.
A note issued by a central bank, such as the Federal Reserve Note, is bank currency. These notes are given to the government in exchange for an interest-bearing government bond. The primary means to pay for the interest on these bonds is to borrow more bank notes, thus beginning a vicious cycle that ultimately ends with the complete destruction of the currency and bankruptcy of the nation. History is replete with such occurrences."
I'm also not preaching isolationism.
There comes a point where we need to sit back and think, "Are we living outside of our means?"
I'm sure everyone reading this would answer, "YES".
That's like me, buying 5 houses with credit cards.
We can still be good neighbors. We can still be good humanitarians. We can still trade and assist with other countries.
We have the technology to keep our military home and be able to deploy them in a moments notice.
Some of my favorite quotes:
“That is simple. In the Colonies, we issue our own paper money. It is called ‘Colonial Scrip.’ We issue it in proper proportion to make the goods and pass easily from the producers to the consumers. In this manner, creating ourselves our own paper money, we control its purchasing power and we have no interest to pay to no one.” - Benjamin Franklin to some friends in England who were wondering why there were no poor houses, beggars and tramps in the colonies
“The Colonies would gladly have borne the little tax on tea and other matters had it not been the poverty caused by the bad influence of the English bankers on the Parliament, which has caused in the Colonies hatred of England and the Revolutionary War.” - Benjamin Franklin in response to two Acts the English Parliament passed under the suggestions of the banks
I'd definitely recommend reading this entire article.
Just because we were born with this system already in place doesn't mean it's the right system. There should be no reason that the people and even Congress shouldn't be able to control their own money.
"I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated Governments in the civilized world no longer a Government by free opinion, no longer a Government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a Government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men." -Woodrow Wilson, after signing the Federal Reserve into existence
The existence of the Federal Reserve isn't why we are in the mess we are in. The Federal Reserve provides for a consistent method in which money can be regulated and transferred from bank to bank. Without it, private banks would rule the monetary system of this country. The value of our currency would be controlled by the risks the banks take with the investments they make in the stock markets and we have seen multiple times through out history how that works out for us.
The poverty that existed in England in the 1700's had very little to do with how money was issued at the time. It had everything to do with the concentration of the nation's wealth in among the rich land owning aristocracy. If you owned land in England you weren't poor and hungry. In America in the 1700's if you were poor, you could simply go off into the wilderness and build a cabin someplace. The prosperity of the colonies wasn't due to the creation of colonial script. It was the over abundance of natural resources, something the England, was sorely lacking in those days.
The current decline of American prosperity today is more due to uncontrolled big business and governments collusion with it. We've deregulated the system so far that few people with cash run this country instead of the all of the people having an equal voice.
Our decline is becuase of our greed. The inability of Americans as a culture to not live outside of their means. We want and we want but we never give anything back, we don't think about others. We don't think about our place in the world.
Sometimes you just scream liberal. I couldn't disagree more.
Money used to be regulated based off something that was real. How is it regulated now? It's worthless. The money my kid gets from Toys R Us has about the same value. Legal Tender is garbage. Money is now loaned to us with interest which means we have to borrow more just to pay off what we've already borrowed. Hello inflation.
Hell, it costs more to make a nickel than the nickel is actually worth.
Going back to the gold or silver standard would be very limiting to the growth of the economy and frankly doesn't make sense in the electronic age.
Honestly I think we should simply do away with cash all together. Everyone gets issued a cash account along with their social secuirty card when they are born and you make your transactions through either thumbprint or retnial scan. The Technology is all ready there. Downsides of course is identity theft and electronic fraud, but we all ready have those.
You. Guys. Are. Awesome.
No, you're awesome!
Post a Comment