Whoa - Ron Paul to chair subcommitte over fed?

Tsing Tao

Tsing Tao

this is potentially HUGE news!

Ron Paul is next in line, should the GOP win the house (which they are essentially certain of), of becoming the Chair of the subcommitte over the Federal Reserve?

Holy crap.

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/11/us/politics/11fed.html?_r=3&scp=2&sq=federal reserve&st=cse

Additionally, from FX Insights (subscription newsletter):


After the Republican victory things will change. The Fed will be hamstrung, as Ron Paul, a conservative standard-bearer and harsh critic of the Fed, will head the sub-committee overseeing its actions. Liquidity expansion or new programs will probably drop sharply under his watch. Paul would argue that the Fed’s unfettered ability to “debase” the currency is about to come to an end. The leading indicators call for a US recession next year – and Bernanke is acting as though he believes this – but with the
Republican dominance, fiscal and monetary support will not be quickly supplied, which implies a stronger dollar.
More...

this is potentially massive for the dollar.
 
Ron Paul is, first and foremost, a politician. The closer he comes to actually having his hands on the lever of power, the less his actions will resemble his rhetoric.

We already saw this when he refused to stop the original $700B bailout. He and Shelby were in a position to actually do something - and they backed away because they wanted to vote against something that ultimately passed rather than take responsibility for actually stopping passage.
 
Quote from Random.Capital:

Ron Paul is, first and foremost, a politician. The closer he comes to actually having his hands on the lever of power, the less his actions will resemble his rhetoric.

We already saw this when he refused to stop the original $700B bailout. He and Shelby were in a position to actually do something - and they backed away because they wanted to vote against something that ultimately passed rather than take responsibility for actually stopping passage.
More...

You clearly don't know what you are talking about. Ron Paul had no power whatsoever to "stop" the bailout. All he could do was rail against the stupidity of it and register his vote against it, both of which he did. He is the only philosophically consistent politician in Washington.
 
Meet the Press’ transcript for Dec. 23, 2007

MR. RUSSERT: When I looked at your record, you talked about big government and how opposed you are to it, but you seem to have a different attitude about your own congressional district. For example, "Congress decided to send billions of dollars to victims of Hurricane Katrina. Guess how Ron Paul voted. `Is bailing out people" that choose--"that chose to live on the coastline a proper function of the federal government?' he asks." And you said no. And yet, this: "Paul's current district, which includes Galveston and reaches into" the "Brazoria County, draws a substantial amount of federal flood insurance payments." For your own congressional district. This is the Houston Chronicle: "Representative Ron Paul has long crusaded against a big central government. But he also" "represented a congressional district that's consistently among the top in Texas in its reliance on dollars from Washington. In the first nine months of the federal government's" fiscal "2006 fiscal year," "it received more than $4 billion." And they report, The Wall Street Journal, 65 earmark-targeted projects, $400 million that you have put into congressional bills for your district, which leads us to the Congressional Quarterly. "The Earmark Dossier of `Dr. No.' There isn't much that" Ron--Dr. "Ron Paul thinks the federal government should do. Apparently, though, earmarks" for his district "are OK. Paul is the sponsor of no fewer than 10 earmarks in the water resources bill," all benefiting his district. The Gulf Intercoastal Waterway: $32 million. The sunken ship you want to be moved from Freeport Harbor. The Bayou Navigation Channel. They talk about $8 million for shrimp fishermen.

----

Yep, Ron's a consistent big spending Washington politician.
 
Quote from Covertibility:

Meet the Press’ transcript for Dec. 23, 2007

MR. RUSSERT: When I looked at your record, you talked about big government and how opposed you are to it, but you seem to have a different attitude about your own congressional district. For example, "Congress decided to send billions of dollars to victims of Hurricane Katrina. Guess how Ron Paul voted. `Is bailing out people" that choose--"that chose to live on the coastline a proper function of the federal government?' he asks." And you said no. And yet, this: "Paul's current district, which includes Galveston and reaches into" the "Brazoria County, draws a substantial amount of federal flood insurance payments." For your own congressional district. This is the Houston Chronicle: "Representative Ron Paul has long crusaded against a big central government. But he also" "represented a congressional district that's consistently among the top in Texas in its reliance on dollars from Washington. In the first nine months of the federal government's" fiscal "2006 fiscal year," "it received more than $4 billion." And they report, The Wall Street Journal, 65 earmark-targeted projects, $400 million that you have put into congressional bills for your district, which leads us to the Congressional Quarterly. "The Earmark Dossier of `Dr. No.' There isn't much that" Ron--Dr. "Ron Paul thinks the federal government should do. Apparently, though, earmarks" for his district "are OK. Paul is the sponsor of no fewer than 10 earmarks in the water resources bill," all benefiting his district. The Gulf Intercoastal Waterway: $32 million. The sunken ship you want to be moved from Freeport Harbor. The Bayou Navigation Channel. They talk about $8 million for shrimp fishermen.

----

Yep, Ron's a consistent big spending Washington politician.
More...

Oh great. Another know nothing Ron Paul basher.

If you knew anything about Congressman Paul, you would know that he readily admits to putting in earmarks to bring some of the federal spending back to his district, as is his responsibility as representative. He then always votes against the spending bill.

He unequivocally opposes (and votes against) Washington spending on things not authorized by the Constitution. But if there is going to be spending, he is duty bound to try to direct some of the spending to the citizens of his own district. Please explain how this is philosophically inconsistent, or just admit that you are a slandering idiot who spouts bullshit.
 
You can buy a dog with food, and you can buy a man with money. :)

The next day after Ron Paul chair's the subcomitte, Bernanke and his men would bring 10-20 garbage bags of money to Ron Paul's house; tells him to stfu and goes back to his printing press.

Politicians...... they're all the same. :D
 
Quote from sumfuka:

"... The next day after Ron Paul chair's the subcomitte, Bernanke and his men would bring 10-20 garbage bags of money to Ron Paul's house; tells him to stfu and goes back to his printing press.
More...

Have you looked into Ron Paul at all or are just popping off in an attempt to sound clever?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top