Today on Blogcritics
Home » Culture and Society » Why Joe Scarborough Is a Fool for Voting for Ron Paul

Why Joe Scarborough Is a Fool for Voting for Ron Paul

Please Share...Print this pageTweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

Two weeks after Mitt Romney accumulated the 1,144 delegates required to become the Republican presidential nominee, two months after his only viable competition dropped out, and half a year after anyone with access to basic fundraising disclosures knew he would eventually win, Joe Scarborough announced to the world he voted for Ron Paul.

Scarborough’s op-ed begins by contrasting Paul with Romney, Rick Santorum, and Newt Gingrich, which, in my humble opinion, is an utterly nonsensical undertaking because Romney has already won the nomination. Elections are about choices, and the Republican nominee has already been chosen. Protest voting is the ultimate form of mental masturbation; the protester’s principled act gives him all the satisfaction of rejecting the established choice, without forcing him to bear any of the burdens of being genuinely anti-establishment. As soon as he’s done with his symbolic ritual he goes right back to defending the Republican Party nominee on his cable TV show.

Anyway, let’s get inside his thought process:

I operate on instinct. So I should not have been surprised by my own gut reaction to the absentee ballot that lay before me on the kitchen table.

I scanned the list for Republican primary candidates and let instinct take over.

Mitt Romney? Not on your life. A big government Republican who will say anything to get elected.

Rick Santorum? No way. A pro-life statist who helped George W. Bush double the national debt.

Newt Gingrich? Ideologically unmoored. A champion of liberty one day, a central planner the next.

Ron Paul? Yep. I quickly checked his name and moved on to a far more complex task: fixing my daughter a peanut butter and jelly sandwich.

After spending six months analyzing each candidate’s every move for three hours a day, five days a week, it never occurred to me that my decision to vote for the quirky congressman from Texas would happen as fast as a tornado whipping through an Amarillo parking lot.

I am truly amazed at Scarborough’s instincts. He spent “six months analyzing each candidate’s every move for three hours a day, five days a week,” and his big takeaway is that Romney’s a big government Republican? The same Mitt Romney who would rather default on our national debt than raise taxes a single penny? The same Mitt Romney who wants to give $265,000 tax breaks to the average millionaire at the same time he slashes healthcare and raises taxes on the elderly, poor, and disabled? The same Mitt Romney who wants to make life so miserable for illegal immigrants that they voluntarily “self-deport?” Mitt Romney is an unconditionally obedient, empty vessel for the most reactionary forces that have ever controlled the Republican Party. To think he will suddenly take a sharp turn to the center if elected president is to misunderstand the institutional pressures and political incentives any contemporary Republican leader faces. Romney will challenge the Tea Party to his primary reelection’s peril.

Scarborough says he voted for Paul for spending “his entire public career standing athwart history yelling “‘stop’ to an ever-expanding centralized state,” specifically citing his support for a balanced budget, opposition to government interference in the housing market, and dedication to “dismembering” the “big government beast.”

Let’s analyze each point in turn:

If Ron Paul were given complete dictatorial control over the federal government, not only would he not balance the budget, he would in all likelihood default on our debt. I know in Republicanland tax cuts for the rich are magically revenue neutral, but here in the real world if you abolish the income tax, as Paul wants to do, it would be mathematically impossible to reduce the national debt, much less balance the budget. Even if he literally destroyed the entire federal government, closing down every public school and highway, dropping every senior from the rolls of Medicare and Social Security, and disbanding the entire United States armed forces, he still wouldn’t be able to afford the salaries of the only government bureaucrats he seems to like: career politicians like himself.

Additionally, Scarborough says he likes Paul’s grand solution to preventing housing bubbles? I assume he’s referring to Paul’s policy of returning to the gold standard, an action that a poll of forty mainstream economists, liberals and conservatives alike, unanimously agreed would be bad for the average American.

Explains Paul Krugman:

The argument against it is one of pragmatism, not principle. First, a gold standard would have all the disadvantages of any system of rigidly fixed exchange rates–and even economists who are enthusiastic about a common European currency generally think that fixing the European currency to the dollar or yen would be going too far. Second, and crucially, gold is not a stable standard when measured in terms of other goods and services. On the contrary, it is a commodity whose price is constantly buffeted by shifts in supply and demand that have nothing to do with the needs of the world economy–by changes, for example, in dentistry.

The United States abandoned its policy of stabilizing gold prices back in 1971. Since then the price of gold has increased roughly tenfold, while consumer prices have increased about 250 percent. If we had tried to keep the price of gold from rising, this would have required a massive decline in the prices of practically everything else–deflation on a scale not seen since the Depression. This doesn’t sound like a particularly good idea.

And his final point, that Paul is this great anti-government crusader. I can’t really argue with him there. From wanting to end Medicare, Social Security, and Medicaid, to gutting essentially every single regulation ever created, including the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which he said undermine[d] the concept of liberty and “destroyed the principle of private property and private choices,” Paul is anything but a big government Republican. We all remember when he infamously declared the government should turn away sick people without health insurance, right? Well, in a sick twist of irony, Paul’s own uninsured former campaign manager took his freedom to the grave when he died of pneumonia at age 49, leaving his mother with $400,000 in medical bills. Surely Paul’s rank extremism is precisely why conservatives’ insistence on the evils of everything government are absurd at best and dishonest at worst. Either they don’t understand how disastrous society would be without government regulations, or they are willfully deceiving the public with their absolutist, and often demagogic, rhetoric.

I want to give Scarborough the benefit of the doubt. He’s not a crazy Paulbot. In fact, I’d be surprised if Scarborough agrees with much of anything Ron Paul stands for. So what explains his vote?

I blame the media. The same mainstream media Paul’s supporters routinely claim have conspired against his candidacy actually did him a great service by not informing the public of his actual positions. If only the public (and his own supporters) knew what he really stood for, Paul would once again be properly relegated to where he belongs: the far right lunatic fringe.


Powered by

About Andrew Casso

  • David Govre

    Ron Paul predicted the housing bubble years before it happened and explained why it would happen. I have proof,type in “Ron Paul housing bubble” and bingo you’ll find it.

  • dfgdfg

    I like how you use unrelated links to ‘support’ your misreading of Romney’s statements. He is discernable from Obama only in that he ids likes the poor while Obama hates the rich, e.g. his donors. Of course you know that the rich skew towards Obama.

  • WhenOppStrong

    All I say to this article is Ron Paul is still a force to reckon with. That’s why there are people attacking him. Something about Ron Paul’s fierce supporter base who refuse to back down makes the elite politicians uncomfortable. Romney did not have the delegate count. Whoever believes in him clenching the 1144 do not know the truth. Also there is a federal case filed on behalf of grassroots RP supporters revealing the chilling reality of voter fraud. Who knows how many Romney’s votes were flipped! Truth will be exposed.

  • john hardcock

    you americans make me sick i cant believe how you let this farce go on . nobdy wants romney he is crooked piece of crap your only hope was ron paul and istead you let satin get in i hope you get what you deserve !

  • Richard Wicks

    “Elections are about choices”

    No they aren’t.

    Romney and Obama agree on:
    * The Patriot Act
    * The wars
    * Going to war with Iran
    * Leaving Gautanamo and other facilities like them open
    * “Health Care”
    * ending 5th amendment rights with the NDAA
    * killing US citizens without charge or trial by assassinating, instead of just having a trial once the government just says “yep, that guy is a terrorist” – you can trust them after all, they wouldn’t lie us into a war would they?
    * ending 4th amendment rights with the Patriot Act
    * bailouts

    What exactly is the choice here when they agree on everything?

    Oh, I know, Romney and Obama disagree on gay marriage. That’s the BIG CHOICE we all have.

    After all, elections are about choices, not just a sham to make you think you have a choice. There isn’t any important differences between Obama and Romney. Any policy that matters, they are 100% in agreement with.

  • PaulOrNoneAtAll

    “Elections are about choices, and the Republican nominee has already been chosen.”

    Wow, couldn’t have said it better myself… and the fact that you’re OK with this makes you the true fool.

  • James

    The author names Joe Scarborough a Fool. AT the same time comment policy does not allow personal attacks. I guess Andrew Casso did not read this policy. He did not read GOP rules, federal laws, and legal precedents that clearly indicate that the delegates are unbound.

  • Cam

    Obama signed into law NDAA which includes indefinite detention of American citizens without a trial. Mitt Romney supports NDAA. Obama and Romney do not believe in due process for the American people. Ron Paul says NDAA is unconstitutional.


    Wow another spun out of control article from the MSM – wonder how many other places I will read this uninformed, MSM feed bs?? A person with half a brain + will see what a foley this article is – I am mad because I wasted my time reading it!! Shame on me!! Still holding out eternal hope that I will read something REAL…moving on…

  • Paulbot

    Romney really doesnt have 1144 delegates [personal attack deleted by comments editor]. Did you get that number from the associated press? There are more republicans that want ron paul than want mitt romney…….your vote for romney is a wasted vote.

  • Garrett Coon

    My God, this article is a perfect example of why I switched from being a Poli-Sci major to a Philosophy major, where thorough research and sound argumentation are not just encouraged, they’re mandatory.

    One need not read beyond the author’s horrible misrepresentation of Ron Paul’s response to the “should the uninsured be left to die?” question. His answer was “No,” but the author takes the response of the ridiculously ignorant audience screaming “YES!” and shoves it into Ron Paul’s mouth.

    It’s a shame that [personal attack deleted by comments editor] individuals as this “author” are those who are passed off as having “expert” opinions. Mitt Romney and Obama are going to keep billions and billions of dollars flowing into basically the same group of people’s pockets. They are going to both keep our prisons overflowing with non-violent people. They are both going to ensure that unconstitutional wars continue to be waged oversees. They are both going to keep trying to regulate the internet, our healthcare and virtually every other aspect of our lives.

    But, of course, the one man who would actually do the OPPOSITE of all of these atrocious things is to be forever banished to the “far right lunatic fringe.”

    Mr. Casso, [personal attack deleted by comments editor] rather than bashing that which you clearly do not understand, why not sit down and attempt to do some actual research (I know the word is anathema to Poli-Sci majors), into why Ron Paul was able to predict the housing collapse, or was willing to vote against the Patriot Act, or refuse his government pension, or provide free medical services his impoverished patients?

    That’s right, the answers wouldn’t fit within your shallow, status-quo-centric rhetoric.

    Whenever you decide to evolve beyond school-yard name-calling, I highly recommend starting with “Economics in One Lesson” or “The Revolution: A Manifesto.” One thing I can guarantee you: you’ll actually learn something from those books, unlike the drivel you’re apparently being spoon-fed from your professors.

  • Paulbot

    Emory is a small private college in Georgia. That is to say, it is not a MAINSTREAM university. Obviously Andrew attended Emory for reasons that drew him away from a mainstream education.

  • EmoryAlum

    [personal attack deleted by comments editor] PoliSci/Econ major, it figures. I guess that some things never change.
    In ’81, I took PoliSci 101. I recall suggesting that we had too many federal departments, and we might want to consider eliminating some. The horrified look on the prof’s face, and various encounters with PoliSci majors, convinced me to avoid that department entirely. =)
    On the bright side, Mr. Casso does list comedy as an interest, perhaps he can contribute to the Spoke, they would appreciate this article.

  • Zach

    You forget to mention that Ron Paul has already shown that he can reduce the deficit and set this nation back on track financially. He released a budget that balances unlike every other candidate at the time. Gary Johnson has also shown that libertarian governance works. He cut his state government by almost half without firing one person. He left New Mexico with a billion dollar surplus. Ron Paul doesn’t want the gold standard, he has said that. He has a responsible way to phase the government out of the marketplace and create real growth. The liberty movement is on to something.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Andrew –

    It looks like you just got introduced to what happens anytime someone says something that puts Ron Paul in a bad light…no matter how truthful it is.

    Paulbots also don’t realize that Paul has stated that he believes that the Civil Rights Act was a BAD thing, that he would have voted against it, and that businesses have a RIGHT to discriminate on basis of race, creed, color, religion, etc. And Paulbots flatly ignore the statements from his own campaign manager in the 1990’s that indicated that Paul knew very well that racist statements were being made in HIS newsletter.

    Now watch, Andrew, as the Paulbots attack these facts, too…because it doesn’t matter to them that these are factual statements.

  • Dr Dreadful

    Before this gets any further out of hand, a quick explanation of the comments policy for those who have trouble with distinctions.

    Joe Scarborough is a public figure and so is unlikely to be personally troubled by anything Mr Casso may call him. This is not what the Blogcritics comments policy’s proscription against personal attacks means.

    Mr Casso himself, on the other hand, is a private individual. You are all welcome to criticize his article and the conclusions he draws, but personal insults by Blogcritics commenters against the site’s authors or against other commenters will not be tolerated, as can be seen from the edited comments above.

    Thank you.

    Dr Dreadful
    Assistant Comments Editor

  • Andrew Casso

    Garret –

    Paul said it isn’t the *government’s* responsibility to treat sick people without health insurance – which is exactly how I characterized his comment. He answered the question “no” because in his fairy world private charities can adequately meet the health demands of society. In the real world, however, the uninsured die or go bankrupt when they can’t afford their treatments.

    Glenn and Dr. Dreadful –

    I appreciate your comments.

  • Joe McPlumber

    Dear Mr. Contrarian,

    Yes, us “Paulbots” DO know Dr. Paul’s position on the Civil Rights Act, and we agree with him. It was an outrageous stretch of the Commerce Clause and the precedent means that there are no practical limits to the federal government’s authority. Yes, that’s a bad thing, in our view. Very bad.

  • Bob Dole

    If something happened along the route and you had to leave your children with Bob Dole or Bill Clinton, I think you would probably leave them with Bob Dole.

  • Tracy Dickson

    Glenn Contrarian-
    Nice try to distorting Dr. Paul’s record by only stating part of the story to try and paint him as a racist. You are right that he would vote against the civil rights act. He would vote against it because he believes in personal rights not group rights. And of course, no slam job would be complete without bring up the newsletters. You can push whatever false message that you want. After all it is your right as an individual. But I do know one thing, you cannot find or show one video clip of Dr. Paul in his own words, over his 30 plus years in the public eye that show him not be compassionate towards all individual rights. His 30 years of votes on record also show that individual liberties are at the core of his principles. Remember the dream-“I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character”. In my individual opinion, the content of Dr. Paul’s character is what is missing in so many of the people representing us in D.C..

  • Andrew Casso

    Joe –

    Thanks for being honest. I believe if more people knew Dr. Paul would have marched on *that* side of the civil rights movement, he would have substantially fewer supporters.

  • Geeza

    For a start, Romney is a standard bearer for Plasticine politicians. The only difference between him and Obama is that Obama panders to the leftist base of his party to win the nomination and Romney panders to the right to win the nomination. Having won the nomination, they both then proceed to take a dump on their party bases in order and pander to special interest groups like Wall St and the Military Industrial Complex. The only real choice between the two is whether you want an ‘R’ president or a ‘D’ president. Independents might as well flip a coin. They both represent what is truly disgusting about politics today.

  • DUH

    Hi I’m in college, majoring in poli-sci and economics. My reading comprehension sucks. I think I’ll go play COD now.

  • KittenJuggler

    PolySci major at Emory. Of course, you want socialism so you don’t starve and die.

  • Willis


    I’d have more respect for your argument if you were majoring in something hard (and useful).

    So, to your liberal arts mind, you think it makes sense to vote for a candidate because he is the official “choice”?

    Sorry Sonny Jim, but that’s just plain dumb.

    If you want a career in politics or economics, when you grow up, lose the naivete.

  • Heywood Jablowme

    A junior college nerd video geek blogger who supports the status quo repub candidate. How refreshingful inspiring. lol Come on Andrew. As insensitive as the comments in those newsletters were, there was a lot of truth in them. And does that disqualify Dr. Paul’s candidacy.

  • Snake

    I have had the privlidge of meeting Dr. Paul as well as the dubious pleasure of meeting half a dozen other politicians and I can only say that the honesty and integrity of Dr. Paul is blatently obvious whereas the rotteness of the other politicians I have met is obvious also.

  • Igor

    Snake: did Ron Paul shake your hand? I ask because I’ve often read that Ron Paul doesn’t shake hands with strangers.

  • F22ERaptor

    Mr. Casso. I appreciate you have your own political views, but you have to be professional.
    You may disagree severly with Mr. Scarborough. If that is the case, you are entitled to debate him. That’s fine.

    However, you have no right to call him a fool on a headline. That is a personal attack. Mr. Scarborough spoke his mind and he is free to do so. He didn’t personally attack anyone, he gave view points and backed them up with facts. Just because they do not align with your own doesn’t make him a fool. He’s entitled to his opinion, and you, yours, WITHOUT personal attacks.

    As a political science major, you should know better. You should have titled this “Why I disagree with Joe” or something to that effect.

    Personal attacks have no place here.

  • Glenn Contrarian


    Personal attacks on celebrities IS allowed on BC – just not personal attacks on private citizens such as thee or me.

  • zingzing

    “As a political science major, you should know better.”

    given the state of political discourse in this nation… i think “fool” is pretty mild.

  • harrybrowne

    The only fool here is the author of this hit piece. Kudos to Joe Scarborough for recognizing a decent, principled, honest man like Ron Paul. Joe was in congress so he knows the crap that goes on there. And has the guts to admit it.

  • Andrew Casso

    Willis –

    Accepting that elections are about choices doesn’t make me naive, it makes me pragmatic. Our “winner-takes-all” political system all but guarantees that two party rule is inevitable. I’m not saying I endorse the system, just that I have enough common sense to understand it. You’re the naive one if you think continuing to carry water for Ron Paul after his own son has endorsed the GOP nominee has any consequence whatsoever. Ron Paul ran for president and he lost. Whether you accept it or not, it is the truth.

  • EmoryAlum

    Dear Dr. Dreadful,

    I noticed that you removed, in their entirety, a number of comments that cast aspersions upon both Emory and Mr. Casso, leaving no trace of them, yet left most of mine and inserted [personal attack deleted]. 

    Jeepers. You call that an attack? It’s not like I called him a dope, he’s not, and though I acknowledge PoliSci/Econ major may border on insulting in some circles, you left that part in for goodness sakes! 

    Nonetheless, in deference to your authority and wisdom as assistant comments editor, I shall grant that the source of my embarrassment could be better specified. Thus let my prior post open with:

    I was embarrassed to see this lousy article by a bright young man who attends my Alma Mater; then I saw it …

    Why is it lousy?

    Because it characterizes Mr. Scarborough as a fool for recognizing, as the author eloquently points out, that “Mitt Romney is an unconditionally obedient, empty vessel for the most reactionary forces that have ever controlled the Republican Party.”

    The fact that Scarborough was able to eliminate Romney, Santorum, and Gingrich (a fellow alumnus, bless his heart) in favor of Paul, testifies to his intelligence, not his foolishness. After studying the candidates for six months, he surprised himself, and confounded the political “scientists.” Bravo! There seems to be a lot of that going on these days.

    “We all remember when [Paul] infamously declared the government should turn away sick people without health insurance, right?”

    No. I don’t. I do find the phrasing interesting though.

    Lastly, the part that begins with “If Ron Paul were given complete dictatorial control,” is weak. I understand why Mr. Casso would assume the dictator model, given the behaviors of presidents a man of his age could personally have observed. However, Rep. Paul has argued against a dictatorial executive for some time now, in fact, since I was younger than Mr. Casso — encouraging fellow members of Congress to take responsibility for governmental powers constitutionally assigned to them. Therefore I consider the predicted calamity to be a non sequitur; perhaps Mr. Casso is invoking his comedic skills, in which case, I totally approve of his use of the literary device.

    With regard to Romney having it sewn up? Who knows? I would encourage Mr. Casso to sit tight, he may get to witness an event called a political convention, instead of a “Romney Infomercial.” Regardless of the outcome, these things are a sight to behold, and frankly, I miss them.

  • El Bicho

    Once the author of a piece uses insults he should be fair game to receive them.

  • Andrew Casso

    EmoryAlum –

    If you acknowledge that Romney is controlled by the far-right forces of the GOP, what does that make Paul? Romney is a liberal by comparison, at least on fiscal and economic issues.

    Additionally, I was very careful to characterize Paul’s response to the health insurance debate question fairly. He claimed people should have the freedom to make their own choices – to purchase health insurance or not – and suffer the consequences. Paul isn’t a cruel man, I’m sure he grieved the death of his campaign manager. But he is so stridently anti-government he genuinely believes, “the government should turn away sick people without health insurance.” If you’re rich or lucky enough to receive private charity, you will survive. Otherwise, maybe not.

    I assumed the “dictator model” because even if Paul were elected President his policies are so extreme and unpopular his presidency would be an utter failure. Basically I was creating a thought experiment where Congress is irrelevant to test what his ideas might look like.

    Finally, by continuing to argue, even at this point, that Paul can still win tells me you are so brainwashed (I hate to use this word because of its connotations but it’s the only one I can think of that applies) that even basic facts and indisputable evidence don’t persuade you. I don’t mean to sound snarky or condescending, but you should really consider investigating how your admirable and legitimate support for Paul impedes your ability to think and argue rationally.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Casso –

    I have one and only one compliment for Ron Paul – he’s not a hypocrite. He’s flat wrong on most social, fiscal, and economic issues (but has some good ideas on foreign policy), and he’s quite racist (unless you choose to ignore what he’s published in the past), but except for his politically-necessary claims that he’s not a racist, he’s not a hypocrite…

    …which is more than I can say for a lot of politicians.

  • Dave Nalle

    The author’s horrible misrepresentation of Ron Paul is matched only by his horrible misrepresentation of Mitt Romney.

    This is another example of why leftists just look foolish trying to analyze political trends within the GOP.


  • Zingzing

    Where are the tanks, Dave?

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Dave –

    You do realize, of course, that fiscally speaking, Obama’s been the most conservative president since Eisenhower.

  • EmoryAlum

    Dear Mr. Casso,

    In answer to your question, “If you acknowledge that Romney is controlled by the far-right forces of the GOP, what does that make Paul?”

    I would say, it makes him not controlled by the far-right forces of the GOP, or as Mr. Scarborough calls them big government republicans. You yourself admit,�”Paul is anything but a big government Republican,” so we agree on that. I think�Scarborough �and I might find that a tad more refreshing than you do.

    What is important is not who controls Romney, it is that he does not control himself, therefore he will be led, he will not lead.

    Regardless of anyone’s feelings about the other three republican candidates, they all exhibit a degree of confidence in their own ideas. Romney has no ideas, he is as you say, an “empty vessel.”�

    Your characterization of Paul’s position on healthcare is more fair in your response to me than in the original article. However, I never understood how a man who has spent so many years in the House of Representatives can be called “anti-government.” His colleagues in the House seem to have quite a bit of respect for him — including his former colleague Mr. Scarborough. Hell, he voted for him!

    I would say Paul is pro-limited-government, with the limits being constitutionally defined. In my opinion, a very difficult position with which to argue. His opposition knows this, which is why they avoid discussing it.

    So had you said something like: But he is so stridently limited-government he genuinely believes the Federal government should not be involved in providing healthcare. Even though I suspect that you and he would differ on this point, it is more accurate than “the government should turn away sick people without health insurance.” — especially when the statement is characterized as “infamous.”

    Your thought experiment detracts from your fool proof of Scarborough’s allegedly wasted vote. I understand that you consider his policies extreme, though they did seem to resonate with Iowa republicans this weekend, and much to my surprise, apparently with a number of Massachusetts republicans, if the number of elected delegates to the national convention is any indication.

    As for the convention, please do not deny me the audacity of hope. Nonetheless, I simply indicated my wish for you to see a real political convention rather than an infomercial, regardless of outcome. I had thought that a PoliSci major would be excited at the prospect.

    I’ll take your brainwashing comment as a compliment, just in case Dr. Dreadful (assistant comments editor) is watching. 😉

  • fritz

    IF Krugman actually said this:
    The United States abandoned its policy of stabilizing gold prices back in 1971. Since then the price of gold has increased roughly tenfold, while consumer prices have increased about 250 percent. If we had tried to keep the price of gold from rising, this would have required a massive decline in the prices of practically everything else–deflation on a scale not seen since the Depression. This doesn’t sound like a particularly good idea.

    Then he’s a dolt.
    There was virtually no inflation on a gold standard – literally for centuries. The very inflation he points to since 1971 is caused by leaving gold and going to pure fiat money.
    It’s foolish to consider the inflation of gold when it’s no longer considered a currency. banal. dis-logical. doltish.

    i’d like to see an actual quote from Krugman on that

  • Glenn Contrarian

    fritz –

    Nixon took America off the gold standard because France was buying and selling gold in such a way as to manipulate America’s economy…and that’s the point – if we’re on the gold standard, we have to follow the golden rule, namely, that he who has the gold, makes the rules.

    Now picture what China would do with all their surplus trillions.

    However our economy may have operated on the gold standard – and we were on the gold standard when the Great Depression hit, remember – being on the gold standard enables other nations to use gold inventory levels to manipulate our economy, and that’s not good.