Please list all the things Ron Paul stood on the Senate Floor begging them to listen like well all the way back to the Patriot act to in 2006 about the Budget and where t5his country was heading if they did not act now.

Ron Paul has been a steady voice of reason...

But his delivery fell on deaf ears because he was bucking the system.

However he will never be more than a 'nut case' as far as mainstream politics is concerned.

because he is a bit extreme in the rest of his views.

Maybe. But how much better would this country be in if Congress would of taken action in 2006 when he begged them to listen about what was happening to our country?

(Best Syndication News) The U.S. House of Representatives passed the American Recover and Reinvestment Act on Friday and the Senate will likely pass it later Friday night. The vote in the House went down party lines (246 yea to 183 nays) with no Republicans voting in favor and only seven Democrats voting against it.

Unlike the banking bailout which many Republicans supported, this stimulus package is expected to create between 3 and 4 million jobs. At a press conference after the vote House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) told reporters “We've done something today that's transformational for the nation."





Many Republicans wanted to spend more on infrastructure and provide a bigger tax cut. While the Republicans controlled both houses of congress for most of the past eight years, President Bush was able to push through appropriations bills which doubled the national debt.

“House Republicans have offered an economic recovery plan that will create twice the jobs at half the cost for hard working Americans,” the GOP Whip Eric Cantor said in a statement. It is uncertain whether Republicans will support the new rescue plan for the banks now that President Obama is in office.

One Republican who voted against the Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP), Ron Paul, said this new package “will not stimulate anything except for the growth of big government” (see video below).

“The Republicans have stuck together and given some good speeches” Paul added. “To me it’s just a shame they didn’t start talking like this and voting like this eight years ago. We would be a lot better off.”

is he a doctor or an accountant,,,,just curious?

He's an MD, but I'm not sure what specialty. I had the impression that he may be a General Practitioner.

ok, so he is probably smart but not necessarily a fiscal expert,,

Oh, he's smart. Very smart. He is just a true believer in the Libertarian ideology. He has some very erudite opinions about the Federal Reserve. He also hates Corporatism.

one of Ron Pauls Radical Views...

Deception at the Fed

by Ron Paul

For the past three decades, the Federal Reserve has been given a dual mandate: keeping prices stable and maximizing employment. This policy relies not only on the fatal conceit of believing in the wisdom of supposed experts, but also on numerical chicanery.

Rather than understanding inflation in the classical sense as a monetary phenomenon– an increase in the money supply- it has been redefined as an increase in the Consumer Price Index (CPI). The CPI is calculated based on a weighted basket of goods which is constantly fluctuating, allowing for manipulation of the index to keep inflation expectations low. Employment figures are much the same, relying on survey data, seasonal adjustments, and birth/death models, while the major focus remains on the unemployment rate. Of course, the unemployment rate can fall as discouraged workers drop out of the labor market altogether, leading to the phenomenon of a falling unemployment rate with no job growth.

In terms of keeping stable prices, the Fed has failed miserably. According to the government’s own CPI calculators, it takes $2.65 today to purchase what cost one dollar in 1980. And since its creation in 1913, the Federal Reserve has presided over a 98% decline in the dollar’s purchasing power. The average American family sees the price of milk, eggs, and meat increasing, while packaged household goods decrease in size rather than price.

Loose fiscal policy has failed to create jobs also. Consider that we had a $700 billion TARP program, nearly $1 trillion in stimulus spending, a government takeover of General Motors, and hundreds of billions of dollars of guarantees to Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, HUD, FDIC, etc. On top of those programs the Federal Reserve has provided over $4 trillion worth of assistance over the past few years through its credit facilities, purchases of mortgage-backed securities, and now its second round of quantitative easing. Yet even after all these trillions of dollars of spending and bailouts, total nonfarm payroll employment is still seven million jobs lower than it was before this crisis began.

In this same period of time, the total U.S. population has increased by nine million people. We would expect that roughly four million of these people should have been employed, so we are really dealing with eleven million fewer employed people than would otherwise be expected.

It should not be surprising that monetary policy is ineffective at creating actual jobs. It is the effects of monetary policy itself that cause the boom and bust of the business cycle that leads to swings in the unemployment rate. By lowering interest rates through its loose monetary policy, the Fed spurs investment in long-term projects that would not be profitable at market-determined interest rates. Everything seems to go well for awhile until businesses realize that they cannot sell their newly-built houses, their inventories of iron ore, or their new cars. Until these resources are redirected, often with great economic pain for all involved, true economic recovery cannot begin.

Over $4 trillion in bailout facilities and outright debt monetization, combined with interest rates near zero for over two years, have not and will not contribute to increased employment. What is needed is liquidation of debt and malinvested resources. Pumping money into the same sectors that have just crashed merely prolongs the crisis. Until we learn the lesson that jobs are produced through real savings and investment and not through the creation of new money, we are doomed to repeat this boom and bust cycle.

I believe he is a gynecologist.

I kinda liked a lot of what he had to say.

But the way I remember it, during the election, the Republican Party really treated him like shiit.

So did FOX.

He's an OBGYN, and has delivered 10,000+ babies.

Actually, he is a fiscal expert. He's written several books on economics and is chair of the committee overseeing the Federal Reserve. You can see (and/or buy) his books here-http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul-books.html

P.S. read any of Dr Paul's numerous articles in his archive here-http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/#art2

Ah, good 'ole Dr. No. Patron saint of C.A.N.E. (Citizens Against Nearly Everything).

Even though he's IN the government, he'll veto anything that asks the government to have a hand in... anything. One can note that in the article posted above--all his 'solutions' begin with the theory that anytime the government gets involved in something, it turns out bad. Better to let everything come tumbling down and let anarchy and the "Free" market. sort it out later.

Never mind that it was rigged 'Free' Markets that got us here-- according to Dr. Paul, we should just go back to the good ole days where monopolists were given free rein to put corners on the market.

I'm sorry-- Just Say No may work for some endeavors, but as policy it has a lot to be desired. And casting the Federal Reserve as the ultimate Ayn Rand villain may be poetic-- it's just not very productive.

BTW, the government didn't 'take over' General Motors--- it picked up was demonstrably left over after the 'Free' Market exploded it and wished it a fond 'Rest in Pieces'.


-Kerry O.

I was very disappointed when I finally heard him go in depth on his ideals. I liked them in the "shallow superficial" form. He is not as nutty as his son but almost.

Ron has never advocated the quasi-free (fascist) market system. He has talked about sound money, but he has also said that free market monetary systems are superior. A truly free market develops spontaneously as voluntary interactions between market actors.

"just say no" (your words-a more proper, accurate term is "laissez-faire") is in fact the best system. Numerous economists, historians, and praxaeologists have demonstrated this.

If you really believe that the "free market" exploded GM, you don't know your history. The failure of GM was a massive, disgusting display of corporatism (so far removed from capitalism it's not even funny). (See DeCoster/Englund's analysis here-http://www.lewrockwell.com/decoster/decoster133.html, North's here-http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north370.html, and Reisman's here-http://blog.mises.org/10066/general-motors-rip/ )

The FED is in fact a "Randian villain" (as you put it). The criminal dealings that brought it about are detailed in Griffin's "The Creature From Jeckyll Island" and Rothbard's "The Case Against The Fed" (the latter can be read free here-http://mises.org/daily/3480). Also see Rothbard's "The Origins of The Federal Reserve" here-http://mises.org/daily/3823

Now, get busy reading, and when you're done you'll see where you went so terribly wrong.

He's the first attempt by the Koch brothers to dismantle the government so corporations could take the power away from the people.

All he ever does is ask questions, and never allows anyone to answer.

Watch one of his senseless ramblings on the senate floor sometime.
He's a puppet.

lol! Yes, a Constitutionalist wants to "dismantle the government so corporations could take the power away from the people". Have you even read what Ron has written on this subject? You are so wrong it's almost not funny.

What makes you think "All he ever does is ask questions, and never allows anyone to answer"? I've watched numerous floor speeches and inquiries of various figures, and you're not even close to correct in your characterization.

A "puppet"? Puhleeaze! The guy has been around delivering the same message for decades-even before it was cool to be libertarian.

I've watched him plenty.
My observations of his speeches are in line with 98% of American voters. He has never received more than 2 % of any vote.
Why?
His views are way too radical.
His philosophies and ties fit with the Koch brothers, and his migration to the Republican Party coincides with the founding of the Tea Party, and their (the Koch Brothers) migration to the Republican Party.

LMAO
It has never been cool to be Libertarian.

As I said before, who said being factually and/or ethically correct is up to a majority vote? His views may not be trendy, but he is absolutely correct from the traditional American perspective.

Ron's been with the republican party for decades now(10+ terms)-long before the Tea Party came to be.

The Kochtopus (Koch Bros) aren't in line with RP's views at all, that I'm aware of. They are more likely to be funding projects like the Cato Institute and the Libertarian Party (which is quite ironically named, for the most part :P ).

Whoever is feeding you your information is a terrible source. Next time find a more credible one.