Have you read Ron Paul's statement about the Chrysler bailout in 1979?

[galvin]

“Do we in Congress have the authority, either moral or constitutional, to cause this suffering? I can find no provision in the Constitution authorizing Congress to make loans or loan guarantees to anyone, let alone to major corporations. Nor have I yet seen a valid moral argument concluding that we, as representatives of all the people, have the right to tax the American people – most of whom receive less in wages and benefits than Chrysler workers – to support a multibillion-dollar corporation. What right have we – and I pose a serious question that deserves an answer – what right have we to force the American taxpayers to risk their money in a business venture which private investors dealing in their own funds have judged to be too risky? Chrysler paper is now classified; that means that any private investor who is handling funds for his depositors, shareholders, or clients may be judged as violating his fiduciary responsibilities should he invest in Chrysler. Don’t we have a trust equally important from the American people? Are we not betraying their trust by voting for a Chrysler bailout? I believe so.”

“Last year there were 200,000 bankruptcies in this country, according to U.S. News & World Report. Yet we have selected only the largest for our aid. This is discrimination of the crassest sort. We ignore the smaller victims of this government’s policies simply because they are small. Only the largest, those with the most clout, the most pull, get our attention. This aristocracy of pull is morally indefensible. What answer can be given to the small businessman driven into bankruptcy by government regulations when he asks: “You bailed out Chrysler, why not me?” No justification can be given for this discrimination between the powerful and the powerless, the big and the small.

It is an axiom of our legal system that all citizens are to enjoy the equal protection of the laws. That axiom is violated daily by our tax laws, and now by this proposed corporate welfare plan for Chrysler. Apparently some citizens are more equal than others. That is a notion I reject, and I hope you do, too. I urge you to reject this proposal for all the reasons I have stated.”

[delrico]

No Corporation is large enough to fail!!!! The unions have destroyed this nations workforce!

[archy]

I don't disagree with any of it the man is right.

[dasco]

Yes, I'm still waiting for his term limit pledge from 1976.

[hampton83]

I dislike Ron Paul's fiscal policies for obvious reasons but I gotta hand it to him, he is an honest man and a fighter against crony capitalism.

[larenzo]

None. Though Ron Paul can be an absolute nut bar when it comes to many of his ideas...this does make sense. Too big to fail is too big...

[wal49]

Straight talk and logic as usual from Ron Paul.

What a light he has been!

It's as though the universe insisted on having at least one thinking person in Congress, otherwise a critical mass of idiocy would be reached and a black hole would form over DC.

Okay, I like Dennis Kucinich also, although he tends to cave sometimes under democrat pressure. Ron Paul don't cave to NO body.

~

EDIT @ pony -- The public would indeed have been on the hook to pay if Chrysler had failed. The point is, the government has no power to indenture a citizen on behalf of another citizen. It's called fascism. Now, if you believe that any government has that power -- morally -- then yes you would consider individual sovereignty to be "cuckoo".

[bret11]

the part where he said that the american people would be taxed to pay for the chrysler bail-out. the "bail-out" didn't cost the taxpayers a single thin dime. all congress did do was offer loan guarantees. in other words, the government co-signed a loan. no money changed hands. chrysler borrowed the money they needed from private banks. (the military bought a bunch of dodge trucks as well, but they would have needed them anyway and had to get them from somewhere. compare the cost of an $8000 pick-up truck versus the $200,000 cost of each of the early Hum-Vees.)

UAW workers, working for chrysler at the time, took pay and benefit cuts amounting to 25%. chairman lee iococca declined any pay until chrysler turned around. everyone sacrificed, the engineers came up with a couple winners (the K-car and the Mini-van) and chrysler was saved.

the loans chrysler received under the program had a term of 7 years. mr. iococca made sure the company paid off the loans in 4. chrysler enjoyed another 15 to 20 years of prosperity and literally hundreds of thousands of high-paying american manufacturing jobs were saved.

it worked. it didn't cost any money out of my pocket (i was working and paying taxes at the time) and in so doing did the national economy a whole lot of good.


conclusion: ron paul may have some good ideas, but sometimes his extremism places him firmly into the cuckoo's nest.
.

[reuben29]

I don't disagree with any of it. I do disagree with the government still not listening almost 30 years later.