English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

A lot of the answers I read about Ron Paul, it seems that everyone has the same criticism of him : "OOh he is crazy, he is a nut, he wants to get rid of the IRS, bla bla bla" its all the same... so my question is to you who do not like Ron Paul: Have you actually done any research on the issues he believes in? Have you watched him on the debates, have you seen any of his speeches, have you looked through his website? Or are you simply mimicking what people in the media are saying about him?? Seeing one clip of him on a news program that misconstrues what he believes in, saying "oh he wants to get rid of the Federal Reserve, how will we pay for anything?" Have you researched where the Federal Reserve system came from? That is it run by private banks? Or are you listening to the news, hear something bad about him, not even critically think what it means behind what they are saying, and then come on yahoo answers and criticizes him??

2007-10-10 15:11:18 · 16 answers · asked by Cookie 3 in Politics & Government Elections

16 answers

I don't call Ron Paul a "nut". However, he seems to attract a large population of "nuts" to be his supporters. Before anybody gets mad at my answer, let my clarify. It is not that Ron Paul supporters are nuts, but that some of his supporters have formed opinions on certain things and their opinions are based upon either fundamental misunderstandings of how something works or they are based upon conspiracy theories.

Since the Federal Reserve was mentioned in the original question and has been mentioned in a few of the other answers, I'll use that as an example. First, the Federal Reserve is not run by private banks. It is run by the Board of Governors. ALL MEMBERS of the Board of Governors are appointed by a President and confirmed by the Senate. You may only hear about the Chairman, but that is only because he is the main spokesperson for the board. This fact is defined by LAW. (Title 12 U.S.C. § 241) The entire Federal Reserve is setup in accordance to law. (Title 12 U.S.C. Chapter 3) http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode12/usc_sup_01_12_10_3.html

The Federal Reserve is required to return excess income to the U.S. Treasury. In 2006, the Federal Reserve collected $36.5 billion on the $770 billion in U.S. Government debt that it held. Of that amount, $29.1 billion was returned to the U.S. Treasury. The Federal Reserve also makes ANNUAL REPORTS to Congress. The Federal Reserve is independently audited by an accounting firm every year and those audits are part of the annual reports to Congress.
Annual Reports - http://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/rptcongress/
2006 Federal Reserve Audits - http://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/rptcongress/annual06/pdf/audits.pdf

A network of 12 Federal Reserve District Banks and 25 branches make up the Federal Reserve System under the general oversight of the Board of Governors. Reserve Banks are the operating arms of the central bank.

Each of the 12 Reserve Banks serves its region of the country, and all but one have other offices within their Districts to help provide services to depository institutions and the public. The Banks are named after the locations of their headquarters-Boston, New York, Philadelphia, Cleveland, Richmond, Atlanta, Chicago, St. Louis, Minneapolis, Kansas City, Dallas, and San Francisco.

The Reserve Banks serve banks, the U.S. Treasury, and, indirectly, the public. A Reserve Bank is often called a "banker's bank," storing currency and coin, and processing checks and electronic payments. Reserve Banks also supervise commercial banks in their regions. As the bank for the U.S. government, Reserve Banks handle the Treasury's payments, sell government securities and assist with the Treasury's cash management and investment activities. Reserve Banks conduct research on regional, national, and international economic issues. Research plays a critical role in bringing broad economic perspectives to the national policymaking arena, and supports Reserve Bank presidents who all attend meetings of the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC).

Each Reserve Bank's board of directors oversees the management and activities of the District bank. Six of the nine board members of a district bank are selected by the member banks with approval of the Board of Governors. The other three board members are chosen directly by the Board of Governors. Reflecting the diverse interests of each District, these directors contribute local business experience, community involvement, and leadership. The board imparts a private-sector perspective to the Reserve Bank. Each board appoints the president and first vice president of the Reserve Bank, subject to the approval of the Board of Governors.

All member banks hold stock in Reserve Banks and receive dividends. Unlike stockholders in a public company, banks cannot sell or trade their Fed stock and THE AMOUNT OF STOCK HELD BY EACH MEMBER BANK IS SET BY LAW TO A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF THE MEMBER BANKS' CAPITAL. Currently, it is 3%. Reserve Banks interact directly with banks in their Districts through examinations and financial services and bring important regional perspectives that help the entire Federal Reserve System do its job more effectively. Additionally, by law, private individuals, non-banking corporations, and foreign corporations cannot own more than a tiny amount of Federal Reserve stock and these small owners have no say in the operation of the banks. These member banks don't really 'own' the Federal Reserve. The stock structure is setup so the Federal Reserve system can have some control over the member bank reserves and to offset the lost ability to generate revenue from the mandatory reserves. This stock also does not confer any ownership rights beyond the par value of the stock. In other words, in the event a Federal Reserve district bank was closed, member banks of that district would only get the amount of money they paid in to subscribe to the shares. All excess assets and capital would remain the property of the U.S. Government.

Approximately 38 percent of the 8,039 commercial banks in the United States are members of the Federal Reserve System. National banks must be members; state-chartered banks may join if they meet certain requirements.

While the Federal Reserve system is setup similar to a private corporation, it is not "private". It is setup to be independent in order to limit political influence.

Conspiracy theorists believe the Federal Reserve Act was passed in recess and railroaded by bankers because of the date of the passage. In reality, Congress stayed late that year and did not go into recess until Dec. 23. According to the Congressional Record, the House passed the bill by a vote of 298 to 60 on December 22, 1913. That is 358 members present out of a total of 435. That's pretty good attendance for supposedly being in recess. The Senate voted on the bill the next day. The Senate passed the bill by a vote of 43 to 25. 68 members voted out of 96. That is also good attendance for supposedly being in recess. Some of the non-present members had their votes entered into the Congressional Record anyway. 11 absent members said they would have voted for the bill and 12 absent members said they would have voted against it. Including those votes, the total would have been 54 to 37. It would have only taken 49 votes to pass the bill with complete attendance, so it would have easily passed anyway. BTW, there is no requirement in the Constitution that all Congressional members be present in order to vote on a bill. However, it does require that a majority of the members be present. President Wilson signed the Federal Reserve Act into law in an "enthusiastic" public ceremony on Dec. 23, 1913 according to the NY Times, pp. 1-2, Dec. 24, 1913.

Edit: Beesting, not saying you are one, but it is typical of conspiracy theorists to claim evidence that doesn't support their theories to be government misinformation or government conspiracies.

In either case, whatever you read about the Federal Reserve Board members being all former employees of Wall Street firms is false. Dr. Bernanke has either been a consultant to the Federal Reserve or a professor in Economics his entire career. Vice-Chairman, Dr. Donald Kohn, started his career as a Financial Economist with the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City. After that he has continuously served as a member of the staff of the Federal Reserve Board until he was appointed to the Board in 2002. Dr. Randall Kroszner has also been a professor of economics for most of his entire career and to the best of my knowledge has never worked for a banking firm or Wall Street financial house.

The section of the law that specifies the appointing of board members is still active. It would have been repealed if it wasn't. Anyway, the text of the section has the 1935 date, because it was part of the Banking Act of 1935. The dates were put in to specify how the new board would be first established and for how long the existing board would continue to serve.

BTW, are you saying that putting the ability to control interest rates and the printing of money in the hands of politicians is better than the Federal Reserve? ROFLMAO, sure that's a good idea. The Federal Reserve was setup the way it is so economic policy would be independent of political influence, at least as much as it could be. Also, Title 12 U.S.C. § 244 states, "No member of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System shall be an officer or director of any bank, banking institution, trust company, or Federal Reserve bank or hold stock in any bank, banking institution, or trust company."

2007-10-11 01:07:46 · answer #1 · answered by NGC6205 7 · 3 2

Yes i do He condemns Islmophobia as do Me, I mean He is right The Far right has gone to the Loony Bin I mean he is a Libertarian not an Ultra Conservative He has a Different Mentality then most Republicans and I think that's Refreshing Who also agrees with Ron Paul George W. Bush He has be Tolerant to Muslims heck he did business with the Saudis I think Ron Paul is the Real Rebel of the GOP and we didn't think republicans had a second opinion about this issue Think again.

2016-05-21 02:30:50 · answer #2 · answered by ? 3 · 0 0

Ron Paul needs to back off, he is actually suffering from something lately, he is too hyper to run the country in all respects and a I agree, he is ill informed on other issues too. Yet, really, he is just too old.

2007-10-11 21:26:05 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 2 1

I like Ron Paul even though I don't agree with him on everything. I can tell you that I agree with him more than I agree with Hillary or Judy.

The anti-Paul people rather talk about socialist medicines, open borders, and the other big government programs. They take for granted that liberty is here to stay and nothing will happen to it. This belief packs more fear than all of Ron Paul's ideas combine. Why?
1) Race won't be an issue if you don't have your liberty
2) Atheists won't have time to wonder
3) You won't be able to use "General Betray Us"
4) You are doomed
5) There's nothing wrong with a government that does nothing except protecting your liberty and uphold your Constitution and make sure this country lives to see another 300 years.

I was born and raised in a communist country and was lucky to come here (thanks to the Vietnam conflict). I fear that one day Americans will have to go through what I'd been through.

2007-10-10 17:13:02 · answer #4 · answered by amalone 5 · 5 5

Yep. I researched him when he was the Libertarian Party candidate for President. I've also read up on him this year, even though I'm not registered with his or any other party. He's not a nut. But, his thinking is faulty. He wants to issue letters of marque and reprisal to arm merchant ships as privateers. You can't do that anymore because we ratified an international treaty to bar the use of privateers. If he is that ill-informed on the status of treaties we are a party to I wonder about his ability to carry out the duties of the President set out in Article Two of the Constitution.
My other fear is that he has attracted too many members of the "tin-foil hat brigade" as his rank and file supporters. Unless he publicly distances himself from that very strange cadre, he will be seen as a "nut".

2007-10-10 15:24:05 · answer #5 · answered by desertviking_00 7 · 4 6

Yes I know what Ron Paul stands for.
I wonder why you repeat his lies with obviously not even the most cursory of fact checking. The Fed is not run by private banks. It operates with and through private banks but it is run by a board that is appointed by the president and responsible to congress. The Federal Reserve system comes from an act of congress, the Federal Reserve Act, passed into law in 1913. It' scope is strictly controlled by congress.

2007-10-10 15:17:35 · answer #6 · answered by Sageandscholar 7 · 4 7

The reason I cal ron Paul a nut?


Paul reported on gang crime in Los Angeles and commented, “If you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be.”

“Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the `criminal justice system,’ I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal,” Paul said.

Paul also wrote that although “we are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, it is hardly irrational. Black men commit murders, rapes, robberies, muggings and burglaries all out of proportion to their numbers.”

Stating that lobbying groups who seek special favors and handouts are evil, Paul wrote, “By far the most powerful lobby in Washington of the bad sort is the Israeli government” and that the goal of the Zionist movement is to stifle criticism.

2007-10-10 15:29:05 · answer #7 · answered by Darin D 2 · 3 4

He has a lot of good ideas. His stance on Iraq however will preclude him from any chance at the Rep nomination. That being said, no Independant has made a real run at the White House since the 19th century. You figure what that means to his Presidential ambitions.

2007-10-10 15:16:03 · answer #8 · answered by booman17 7 · 3 5

The name calling people have done their research and all they can come up with to dismiss Ron Paul is call him names. Read about what Ghandi has to say about ridiculing people.

2007-10-10 20:08:34 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1 5

Ron Paul has not done much research himself.

He calls for the issuing of letters of marque and reprisal, even though they have been banned by international agreement since 1851.

He calls the federal income tax unconstitutional, ignoring the
17th Amendment.

2007-10-10 16:47:45 · answer #10 · answered by wichitaor1 7 · 3 6

Ron Paul doesn't realize he is not running for dictator. He would accomplish nothing because he is to self righteous to compromise or listen to anyone. This is particularly disturbing since he is also of moderate intelligence. He would be either impotent or reckless as a leader.

2007-10-10 15:42:41 · answer #11 · answered by Marlin B 2 · 6 5

fedest.com, questions and answers