Ron Paul dings Gov. Perry for belonging to ‘status quo’
2012 Elections, Headlines Thursday, June 16th, 2011
By Jordan Fabian, TheHill.com
Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R) is firmly entrenched in the political status quo and could dilute the GOP establishment’s voting power in the 2012 presidential election, GOP candidate Ron Paul said Wednesday.
Paul, a congressman who hails from Perry’s state, said that the third-term governor could bring positive elements to the race by promoting Texas’s economic record. But overall, Perry won’t identify with voters who are “disenchanted with the status quo.”
“The people who are sick and tired of what they are getting in Washington, they want some significant changes,” Paul said on Fox News. “I don’t think that he is going to be that attractive to that group of people”
Paul, a libertarian Republican, has tried to distinguish himself from the rest of the presidential field by promoting his consistent, small-government voting record on fiscal and economic issues.
The congressman said last week that he is the only candidate with “credibility” on those issues, and that his vision is becoming increasingly popular in the Republican Party.
The last time Paul ran for president, in 2008, Perry endorsed former New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani (R), and not his fellow Texan.
To read more, visit: http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/166787-ron-paul-dings-gov-perry-for-belonging-to-status-quo
Short URL: https://reteaparty.com/?p=2080
Rick Perry, who attended Bilderberg 2007? Just another elitist.
You don’t willy-nilly get invited to meet with the Bilderberg Group. They already know all about you and have identified you as a friendly before you are ever invited. If you think it was just a one-time contact, think again. Perry is their shining hope for bringing America in line with the New World Order while wrapped in the tea party’s Gadsden Flag.
Perry is a Bilderberger. That’s a deal breaker. Period. End of story.
as a ten time electee form texas…ron paul knows perry very very well
Perry, the same guy who FORCED parents in TX to “vaccinate” their daughters against cervical cancer. How is that Freedom? Oh, and since, there is now plenty of evidence that this “vaccine” is harmful, and has serious side effects.
Perry was forced to back off. Perry = Elitist / Socialist
Mr. Perry is not to be trusted.
Ronald Reagan’s first-term budget director, David Stockman, admitted 30 years ago that supply-side economics was a Trojan horse for cutting the top tax rate for the rich. Well, the old empty horse is back. This time the GOP is using the deficit they created as justification to destroy the Medicare program they have always hated. Trouble is, while Republican politicians may hate Medicare, the American people love it. And just what lurks inside the Trojan horse? More tax cuts for the rich. That’s right. The Republican budget plan doesn’t even reduce the deficit in the near term because it places a higher priority on cutting taxes, especially for the rich. Even after essentially ending Medicare, such cuts produce no deficit reduction though they do reduce the top marginal income-tax rate on the rich to its lowest level in 80 years. It’s a terrible box they’re in. As Newt Gingrich has recently proved, a GOP candidate cannot dare oppose the plan to essentially end Medicare if he or she hopes to garner the support of the revolutionary right that constitutes such a powerful force in Republican presidential primaries. But embracing that same plan could very well hand the 2012 election to Barack Obama and the Democrats. Nothing would please Team Obama more than to shift the focus away from America’s anemic job growth and onto a remake of Throw Momma From the Train. The Republicans might have more luck trying to sell head lice to my fellow middle-school parents. And therein lies the conundrum for Republicans. They are working earnestly, passionately, some say fanatically to cut spending at a moment when voters say they oppose nearly all specific spending cuts and care far more intensely about jobs. It’s a cliche but true that a huge obstacle to a stronger economic recovery is the lack of confidence in a strong recovery. If consumers and businesses were more confident, they would be spending, hiring and lending more freely. Battered confidence most obviously reflects the ferocity and shock of the financial collapse and the ensuing recession, including the devastating housing collapse. But there’s another, less appreciated cause, disillusion with modern economics. Probably without realizing it, most Americans had accepted the fundamental promises of contemporary economics. These were: First, we know enough to prevent another Great Depression, second, although we can’t prevent every recession, we know enough to ensure sustained and, for the most part, strong recoveries. These propositions, endorsed by most economists, had worked themselves into society’s belief structure. Embracing them does not preclude economic disappointments, setbacks, worries or risks. But for most people most of the time, it does preclude economic calamity. People felt protected. If you stop believing them, then you act differently. You begin shielding yourself, as best you can, against circumstances and dangers that you can’t foresee but that you fear are there. You become more cautious. You hesitate more before making a big commitment buying a home or car, if you’re a consumer; hiring workers, if you’re an employer, starting a new business, if you’re an entrepreneur; or making loans, if you’re a banker. Almost everyone is hunkered down in some way. Economic models, based on past relationships and assumptions, don’t capture the shift, which embodies new assumptions and beliefs. Of course, most Americans have not consciously rejected the promises of modern economics. Neither did they consciously embrace them before. Judgments were seat-of-the-pants. People simply compared the promises against the evidence. Since the 1980s, recessions had been brief and mild; modern economics had ensured crude stability. Now, that no longer applies. Attitudes and behavior change. One disturbing fact from the McKinsey report is this: The number of new businesses, a traditional source of jobs, was down 23 percent in 2010 from 2007 the level was the lowest since 1983, when America had about 75 million fewer people. Large corporations are standoffish. They have about $2 trillion of cash and securities on their balance sheets, which could be used for hiring and investing in new products. So modern economics has been oversold, and the public is now disbelieving. The disillusion feeds stubbornly low confidence. Because psychology is so important, the good news is that if the economy surprises on the upside, the boost to confidence could accelerate the recovery. The bad news is that if the recovery continues to disappoint, the discrediting of mainstream economic thinking will grow. The resulting intellectual void will summon forth new ideas. Some may be good, but others though superficially appealing will be fringe or lunatic.