Ron Paul Refuses to Endorse Romney

[eyer]

“No,” the iconoclastic Libertarian bluntly told CNBC’s “Futures Now,” when asked about whether he was prepared to endorse Romney. He said the former Massachusetts governor and the president are both captives of similar interests.

“Both within the establishment where they need the Federal Reserve as lender of last resort to make sure that you take all the risk in the world,” Paul said. He linked the Fed — his favorite foil — and the Washington political establishment together as part of a “one party system” that refuses to make necessary but difficult choices to cut spending.

http://ankeny.patch.com/articles/ron-paul-speaks-no-on-romney

The answer is not to keep asking government to do more. The answer is to extricate our economy and ourselves from the grasp of Washington DC as much as possible now, before our dependency becomes our downfall.

Government Dependency Will End in Chaos

The media insists on characterizing statements about dependency on government handouts as controversial, but in truth such statements are absolutely correct. It's not that nearly half of Americans are dependent on government; it's actually more than half. If one includes not just people on food stamps and welfare, but also seniors on Medicare, Social Security and people employed by the government directly, the number is more like 165 million out of 308 million, which is 53%.

Some argue that Social Security and Medicare benefits are a right because people pay into these programs their whole lives, or that we need a government safety net in place for people who fall on hard times. However, this all becomes a moot point when the funds people depend on become worthless due to government default or rampant inflation.

This is less an issue of dignity or dependence on government, and more about the deceitfulness of government promises.

The Fed recently announced that it plans to keep interest rates near zero and keep buying near worthless assets from banks indefinitely. This enables Congress to spend without having to take deficits or the debt seriously and there is every indication they intend to spend with impunity until the system collapses. There are no brakes on the runaway train. The federal debt ceiling law does nothing to limit spending. The ceiling will have to be raised yet again perhaps before the year is out. What is happening in Greece with austerity measures and riots in the street will happen here within a decade according to some realistic estimates if we do not find some way to fiscally restrain our government.

There is little point in a debate about being entitled to healthcare or food or shelter from fellow taxpayers if the whole system has collapsed. And, with the way our politicians have taken over and mismanaged vast amounts of resources, collapse seems almost unavoidable. Yet the number of Americans who have significant dependency on government is dangerously high, and I honestly fear for them.

Worse, corporate welfare is also at an all time high with no signs of diminishing. Though it is hard to quantify, Tad Dehaven at Cato has estimated that the government spends nearly twice as much on corporate welfare than on social welfare. Both parties are equally guilty. More and more, the business sector is learning to rely on taxpayer largesse in one form or another. They used to be solely concerned with providing a better product to the consumer at a better price. Now, success on Wall Street depends entirely too much on having the best lobbyists on K Street. If one includes the employees of "private" businesses who depend on government contracts, grants or bailouts, there are even more people dependent on government in some way.

Government does not create resources when it taxes people and prints money; it merely redistributes the wealth, while supporting a massive, wasteful bureaucracy along the way. Government is a giant, blood-sucking parasite on our otherwise healthy economy. For too long we have entrusted too much economic power and influence to irresponsible politicians in Washington. It's the chaos that ensues after they run the system into the ground that will be so painful for so many people. But realigning our economy with the free market and away from government mandates and handouts must happen in order for it to thrive again.

The answer is not to keep asking government to do more. The answer is to extricate our economy and ourselves from the grasp of Washington DC as much as possible now, before our dependency becomes our downfall.

http://paul.house.gov/index.php?opt...s&catid=64:2012-texas-straight-talk&Itemid=69

 

[unregistered]

 

[blobfish]

Damn right. Why endorse Romney, AKA Obama Lite?

 

[unregistered]

 

[blobfish]

Because he's not going to socialize the country like Obama wants to. Obama is a demonstrable failure, Romney isn't. Simple.

Romney is a big government guy, and Obama can only socialize the country as much as congress allows.

 

[eyer]

To Ron Paul it's either his anarchy, or Obama's collectivism, no in between.

Paul and "anarchy"?

Do you have any objective basis for that, or...

...is that just your Party hacktivism sticking up for the guy you wouldn't say a positive thing about during the primaries?

 

[Sean]

To Ron Paul it's either his anarchy, or Obama's collectivism, no in between. Like I said before the man is a waste of time.

Any examples of "Obama's collectivism"?

 

[JohnnySavage]

What a RINO!

 

[blobfish]

What a RINO!

Actually, Ron Paul is a "RINO", and that's what I like about him. He's libertarian on almost every issue.

 

[BotanyBoy]

To Ron Paul it's either his anarchy, or Obama's collectivism, no in between. Like I said before the man is a waste of time.

What he meant to say was....

"Look I know I'm endorsing a fuckin' Liberal....and that makes me a liberal, but I'm going to call the only conservative in that even attempted running for this presidential election under the GOP banner a wing nut just so I can justify voting for a liberal and thus making me a liberal not look quite so hypocritical. "


The ONE actual conservative running you call an anarchist nutter, and support the guy who want's to blow billions more on bullshit we don't need, the same shit you have spent 3 years and some change damning obama for....LMFAO christ if you were any more of a blatant R following hack...lol you would spin and justify Marx himself if FOX endorsed him!!!!

While condeming Obama for doing the same shit your guys does!!

Just admit it man...you are a welfare for the elite loving, statist liberal, vote Romney!

He's going to fix america's economy by slashing taxes and spending more than ever!! LMFAO!!! Dumb mother fuckers ...god I hope he wins now just so I can laugh as hard at you "conservatives" as I did when bush was in office.

Because he's not going to socialize the country like Obama wants to. Obama is a demonstrable failure, Romney isn't. Simple.

^What he meant to say was...

" I haven't actually researched my candidate of choices record, if I did I would see he is every ounce the gun grabbing, huge government, massive spending, massive welfare liberal Obama is. Actually his record as governor is left of Obama's as POTUS. I just listen to the talking heads and regurgitate their bullshit."

 

[phrodeau]

Because he's not going to socialize the country like Obama wants to. Obama is a demonstrable failure, Romney isn't. Simple.

Please demonstrate why Obama is a failure.

 

[BoyNextDoor]

I am throwing up in my mouth for agreeing with Eyer in any way - but there is a "one party system".

This is statement I agree with: "The answer is not to keep asking government to do more. The answer is to extricate our economy and ourselves from the grasp of Washington DC as much as possible now, before our dependency becomes our downfall."

I am voting for Gary Johnson and the myth of the so called two-party system is a big part of the reason why.

 

[unregistered]

 

[richard_daily]

I am throwing up in my mouth for agreeing with Eyer in any way - but there is a "one party system".

This is statement I agree with: "The answer is not to keep asking government to do more. The answer is to extricate our economy and ourselves from the grasp of Washington DC as much as possible now, before our dependency becomes our downfall."

I am voting for Gary Johnson and the myth of the so called two-party system is a big part of the reason why.

A broken clock is right twice a day.

 

[aye_H8_ewe]

A broken clock is right twice a day.

Unless you're in Australia.

 

[eyer]

He trashed Reagan and the Republican party and ran as a Libertarian, he's spent most of his career trashing conservatism as he did in the Republican primaries this time around. He trashed ever single Republican conservative except Romney. During the primaries there did seem to be a Paul/Romney coordination between the most establishment oriented of the candidates and the most anarchistic...so who benefited, Romney did...until now. Why is that? Who benefits now? Barack Obama of course. But why? What purpose does the Paul refusal serve now?

Omitting the word "anarchistic" you just happened to throw in there for whatever irrelevant reason...

...you didn't back-up your subjective contention about Paul and "anarchy".

Surely you don't associate anti-Republican Partyism with anarchy...

...or is that what you tried to do above?

Fuck that son of a bitch, his leftist foreign policy, and all of the dumb fucks who continue to support him.

Interesting...

...instead of profanely frothing, it seems you'd be quite glad that "that son of a bitch" doesn't endorse your candidate.

How much do you really miss the ultra-regimentated, totally authoritarian-controlled military life, vette?

 

[Ham Murabi]

Any examples of "Obama's collectivism"?

GIBSON: All right. You have, however, said you would favor an increase in the capital gains tax. As a matter of fact, you said on CNBC, and I quote, "I certainly would not go above what existed under Bill Clinton," which was 28 percent. It's now 15 percent. That's almost a doubling, if you went to 28 percent.

But actually, Bill Clinton, in 1997, signed legislation that dropped the capital gains tax to 20 percent.

OBAMA: Right.

GIBSON: And George Bush has taken it down to 15 percent.

OBAMA: Right.

GIBSON: And in each instance, when the rate dropped, revenues from the tax increased; the government took in more money. And in the 1980s, when the tax was increased to 28 percent, the revenues went down.

So why raise it at all, especially given the fact that 100 million people in this country own stock and would be affected?

OBAMA: Well, Charlie, what I've said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness.

We saw an article today which showed that the top 50 hedge fund managers made $29 billion last year -- $29 billion for 50 individuals. And part of what has happened is that those who are able to work the stock market and amass huge fortunes on capital gains are paying a lower tax rate than their secretaries. That's not fair.

And what I want is not oppressive taxation. I want businesses to thrive, and I want people to be rewarded for their success. But what I also want to make sure is that our tax system is fair and that we are able to finance health care for Americans who currently don't have it and that we're able to invest in our infrastructure and invest in our schools.

And you can't do that for free.

 

[BotanyBoy]

He trashed Reagan and the Republican party and ran as a Libertarian, he's spent most of his career trashing conservatism as he did in the Republican primaries this time around. He trashed ever single Republican conservative except Romney.

How did he trash conservatism? That's an outright lie. He trashed the GOP and their NEOCON fascist bullshit. That is what he trashed and rightfully so as the neocon's are just as far from conservatism as Obama.

During the primaries there did seem to be a Paul/Romney coordination between the most establishment oriented of the candidates and the most anarchistic...so who benefited, Romney did...until now. Why is that? Who benefits now? Barack Obama of course. But why? What purpose does the Paul refusal serve now?

It shows he isn't 1/2 the partisan hack you are vette...he belives in conservatism and the constitution, unlike Romney. As such it's no surprise Paul would refuse to endorse a liberal sell out bitch like Romney.

Stupid International, otherwise known as LewRockwell.com promotes Paul and his idiotic policies, foreign and domestic.

What exactly is so stupid about not spending money we don't have vette? I thought you were a fucking conservative eh? NAHHHH BLOW MONEY!!! SPEND SPEND SPEND!! WE NEED BASES TO PROTECT US FROM THE EMINENT SOVIET THREAT!!!! RAWWWW TERRORISSMMMMMMMAHHHHBOOGIEMAN!~!!!

What idiotic domestic policies? The ones where he get's the government out of peoples bedrooms and bodies? I THOUGHT YOU WERE A CONSERVATIVE VETTE??

LIMITED GOVERNMENT!!! THE GOV SHOULD NOT BE IN PEOPLES BEDROOMS OR BODIES, but i wouldn't expect a liberal statist like you to understand.

All we have to remember about Paul is his statement that the Bush administration was gleeful after the 9-11 attacks and that we were at fault.

Paul was right, the Bush and his boys were about to make hundreds of billions and they knew it the second they herd the news of 9/11....I would be gleeful if I had just won a few hundred billion dollar contract too.

Fuck that son of a bitch, his leftist foreign policy, and all of the dumb fucks who continue to support him.

^^^ oh his leftist foreign policy....you mean not playing world police and handing out welfare we can't afford to hand out? Anti welfare.....Wow that's super lefty!!

Unlike Mittens socialized HC, he's the icon of conservatism...LMFAO

 

[ChinaBandit]

Ron Paul is absolutely Mr. Irrelevant at this point.

His endorsement is of no value.

Having Senator Rand Paul (Kentucky) speak on behalf of Romney in Southern Ohio is of far greater help.

 

[hogjack]

Please demonstrate why Obama is a failure.

The US remains a non-member of the EU.

 

[Balcor44]

.....

 

[Sean]

GIBSON: All right. You have, however, said you would favor an increase in the capital gains tax. As a matter of fact, you said on CNBC, and I quote, "I certainly would not go above what existed under Bill Clinton," which was 28 percent. It's now 15 percent. That's almost a doubling, if you went to 28 percent.

But actually, Bill Clinton, in 1997, signed legislation that dropped the capital gains tax to 20 percent.

OBAMA: Right.

GIBSON: And George Bush has taken it down to 15 percent.

OBAMA: Right.

GIBSON: And in each instance, when the rate dropped, revenues from the tax increased; the government took in more money. And in the 1980s, when the tax was increased to 28 percent, the revenues went down.

So why raise it at all, especially given the fact that 100 million people in this country own stock and would be affected?

OBAMA: Well, Charlie, what I've said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness.

We saw an article today which showed that the top 50 hedge fund managers made $29 billion last year -- $29 billion for 50 individuals. And part of what has happened is that those who are able to work the stock market and amass huge fortunes on capital gains are paying a lower tax rate than their secretaries. That's not fair.

And what I want is not oppressive taxation. I want businesses to thrive, and I want people to be rewarded for their success. But what I also want to make sure is that our tax system is fair and that we are able to finance health care for Americans who currently don't have it and that we're able to invest in our infrastructure and invest in our schools.

And you can't do that for free.

You don't know what collectivism is, do you?