Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That's all I heard was you crying because you hate RP and obviously don't understand him.
That's just stupid. You just keep calling yourself a Paulbot. Ron Paul ran as Romney's right-wing cover to cover attacks from Santorum, Gingrich, and Perry. THe worst he ever called Romney was a flip-flopper, LOL wow like that's gonna hurt! What did Gingrich do? When Mitt Romney Came to Town. Ouch, very scathing. You've been had. I supported Paul but thankfully I refused to write him in, donate to him, or campaign for him. Ron Paul believes in this gold non-sense for starters, unbridled free trade (how's NAFTA working out?), completely open borders. I don't think you understand him
I understand him very well. Been supporting him for 5 years and have read his books.You don't understand money if you can't understand why he wants to return us to the gold standard or that you think what we have now is true free market and free trade.
That's just stupid. You just keep calling yourself a Paulbot. Ron Paul ran as Romney's right-wing cover to cover attacks from Santorum, Gingrich, and Perry. THe worst he ever called Romney was a flip-flopper, LOL wow like that's gonna hurt! What did Gingrich do? When Mitt Romney Came to Town. Ouch, very scathing. You've been had. I supported Paul but thankfully I refused to write him in, donate to him, or campaign for him. Ron Paul believes in this gold non-sense for starters, unbridled free trade (how's NAFTA working out?), completely open borders. I don't think you understand him
Well, I'm not for the gold-standard, but I am certainly not for the federal reserve. The Federal Reserve is simply corrupt, there is no one who could even argue it. The people who love the Federal Reserve, are the banks. They are the ones who created the Federal Reserve, and they are its biggest supporters... Why do you think that is? Do you think they are looking out for you?
The two parties that benefit from the Federal Reserve, are banks, and politicians. Without the Federal Reserve we couldn't be 16 trillion in debt. Without the Federal Reserve, we wouldn't be able to lower taxes as we were going off to war. The Federal Reserve is a tool to allow politicians to promise anything they want, and pay for it by destroying wealth through inflation. All while the banks and other investors rake in the money through debt from all around.
These banks can borrow unlimited money at near zero interest, and then loan it out for profit. Wouldn't it be nice if you could do that?
As for NAFTA. Find me a reputable economist that is against free trade. The people opposed to NAFTA, are the unions who are losing jobs to Mexico, because they are far too overpaid as it is. The vast majority of Americans have benefited from NAFTA. The Mexicans have benefited from NAFTA. The Canadians have benefited from NAFTA. Don't listen to Union propaganda, listen to an economist.
Well, I'm not for the gold-standard, but I am certainly not for the federal reserve. The Federal Reserve is simply corrupt, there is no one who could even argue it. The people who love the Federal Reserve, are the banks. They are the ones who created the Federal Reserve, and they are its biggest supporters... Why do you think that is? Do you think they are looking out for you?
The two parties that benefit from the Federal Reserve, are banks, and politicians. Without the Federal Reserve we couldn't be 16 trillion in debt. Without the Federal Reserve, we wouldn't be able to lower taxes as we were going off to war. The Federal Reserve is a tool to allow politicians to promise anything they want, and pay for it by destroying wealth through inflation. All while the banks and other investors rake in the money through debt from all around.
These banks can borrow unlimited money at near zero interest, and then loan it out for profit. Wouldn't it be nice if you could do that?
As for NAFTA. Find me a reputable economist that is against free trade. The people opposed to NAFTA, are the unions who are losing jobs to Mexico, because they are far too overpaid as it is. The vast majority of Americans have benefited from NAFTA. The Mexicans have benefited from NAFTA. The Canadians have benefited from NAFTA. Don't listen to Union propaganda, listen to an economist.
I understand him very well. Been supporting him for 5 years and have read his books.You don't understand money if you can't understand why he wants to return us to the gold standard or that you think what we have now is true free market and free trade.
You clearly have been had then, or you never really understood him. I don't know how you cannot see how he ran cover for Mitt Romney the entire election, covering him from right-wing attack because Romney was no right-winger. Returning to a gold standard now will cause a deflationary spiral, there is not enough gold in the world to even support 300 million people. If you want a metals backed currency, still foolish IMO, then you'll also need to throw in silver, copper, platinum, etc. to be even close to getting a $40,000 per capita amount of precious metals.
What part of I used to support Ron Paul didn't you get? I know all about how we don't have a free market. Now, free trade, that's another thing. What's the difference between real free trade vs what we have now? To me, free trade equals attacks on working people, a boon to institutional investors and multinationals.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz
Well, I'm not for the gold-standard, but I am certainly not for the federal reserve. The Federal Reserve is simply corrupt, there is no one who could even argue it. The people who love the Federal Reserve, are the banks. They are the ones who created the Federal Reserve, and they are its biggest supporters... Why do you think that is? Do you think they are looking out for you?
The two parties that benefit from the Federal Reserve, are banks, and politicians. Without the Federal Reserve we couldn't be 16 trillion in debt. Without the Federal Reserve, we wouldn't be able to lower taxes as we were going off to war. The Federal Reserve is a tool to allow politicians to promise anything they want, and pay for it by destroying wealth through inflation. All while the banks and other investors rake in the money through debt from all around.
These banks can borrow unlimited money at near zero interest, and then loan it out for profit. Wouldn't it be nice if you could do that?
As for NAFTA. Find me a reputable economist that is against free trade. The people opposed to NAFTA, are the unions who are losing jobs to Mexico, because they are far too overpaid as it is. The vast majority of Americans have benefited from NAFTA. The Mexicans have benefited from NAFTA. The Canadians have benefited from NAFTA. Don't listen to Union propaganda, listen to an economist.
It's simple. Nationalize the Federal Reserve and bring it as a bureau of the Treasury. Politicize the Fed, no need to get rid of it and its credit creating potential. It's been done before and created a boom in the economy. Think Lincoln Greenbacks.
I tend not to listen to economists. I don't care what benefits Canada or Mexico. I want those jobs back HERE, not in Canada, not in Mexico. Ross Perot's words ring true when he said that NAFTA is going to cause a giant sucking sound of jobs, and it did. How did the majority of Americans benefit from NAFTA, exactly? Maybe Americans working in the primary sector, but certainly not the workers of the Rustbelt. I live in the Rustbelt, do you?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hot_Handz
I never understood somebody who condemns the gold standard in favor of the Fed either....
It's really beyond me. Sure, the gold standard is far from ideal but a central bank + fractional reserve lending + fiat money is purely demonic.
Who said I was in favor of the Fed as it is? You guys keep putting words in my mouth
Yes, I think so too. That's why the Fed needs to be nationalized and brought into the Treasury.
You clearly have been had then, or you never really understood him. I don't know how you cannot see how he ran cover for Mitt Romney the entire election, covering him from right-wing attack because Romney was no right-winger. Returning to a gold standard now will cause a deflationary spiral, there is not enough gold in the world to even support 300 million people. If you want a metals backed currency, still foolish IMO, then you'll also need to throw in silver, copper, platinum, etc. to be even close to getting a $40,000 per capita amount of precious metals.
What part of I used to support Ron Paul didn't you get? I know all about how we don't have a free market. Now, free trade, that's another thing. What's the difference between real free trade vs what we have now? To me, free trade equals attacks on working people, a boon to institutional investors and multinationals.
It's simple. Nationalize the Federal Reserve and bring it as a bureau of the Treasury. Politicize the Fed, no need to get rid of it and its credit creating potential. It's been done before and created a boom in the economy. Think Lincoln Greenbacks.
I tend not to listen to economists. I don't care what benefits Canada or Mexico. I want those jobs back HERE, not in Canada, not in Mexico. Ross Perot's words ring true when he said that NAFTA is going to cause a giant sucking sound of jobs, and it did. How did the majority of Americans benefit from NAFTA, exactly? Maybe Americans working in the primary sector, but certainly not the workers of the Rustbelt. I live in the Rustbelt, do you?
Who said I was in favor of the Fed as it is? You guys keep putting words in my mouth
Yes, I think so too. That's why the Fed needs to be nationalized and brought into the Treasury.
Well, I can agree with you on what I've bolded. I don't know what the answer is, but something has got to be done to stop the shipping of jobs overseas.
That video was just a big straw man.
While there is nothing that says in the 10th amendment preventing a state seceding from the union, there is also nothing in the 10th that says a state is permitted to secede, either.
The 14th amendment, however, says:
"Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability."
Every elected official from a village mayor and council to the Capitol all take the same oath. All the military take the same oath. All government appointees take the same oath. All judiciary takes the same oath.
They are sworn to uphold the Constitution and sworn to never have engaged in rebellion or insurrection nor giving aid and comfort to our enemies.
Secession is a state's formal separation from the union. The first seven states of the Confederacy actually seceded peacefully, in December 1860, then screwed up by firing on Ft. Sumpter, now Federal property occupied by American citizens, by Alabmans, now citizens of a brand new foreign country.
This is exactly the same situation as when the British fired on Ft. Detroit, in an American territory, partly causing the War of 1812.
From then to the end of the Civil War, the Confederate States remained a foreign country. The 14th Amendment prohibited any officials of the United States from engaging in insurrection (violent resistance to a government) or rebellion (open and/or violent resistance to a government) again. This includes both civilian and military officials- anyone who has taken the oath to uphold and defend the Constitution.
Once the oath is taken, it remains for life. So every military veteran or past office holder still has the duty to live by the oath.
So sucession can be done by citizens who have never taken the oath, but all who have ever taken it cannot aid or provide comfort to them in any way. Other Articles prohibit any single citizen from declaring himself, or any group of citizens, to be free nations by themselves. All citizens are members of the state in which they reside first, then are members of the Union secondly.
This means that no citizen nor group can use violence in any manner to secede. No state government is permitted to aid or assist any such attempts.
This means that secession is possible, but must be accomplished entirely free of state or federal support by means of petition. Anyone who has ever taken the oath cannot sign such petitions. 3/4 of the citizenry must sign to allow proceedings to begin, and none must have ever taken the oath. It is left unclear as to whether such a band of citizens would appeal for secession first to the State or to the Federal government.
So go ahead and give it a try. Be sure to never mention violence or act violently, and make sure none of you have ever taken the only blood oath our nation has.
Even if you have the numbers to do it, a scenario so remote as to be impossible, the first time one of your hotheads punches someone out, or pulls out a gun, some pepper spray or a tazer, you have just entered into rebellion, and have no State or Federal support behind you. Such officials who are so stupid as to do so can be removed by a 2/3 majority, and are never allowed to participate in our government again.
Last edited by banjomike; 12-04-2012 at 11:56 AM..
It's simple. Nationalize the Federal Reserve and bring it as a bureau of the Treasury. Politicize the Fed, no need to get rid of it and its credit creating potential. It's been done before and created a boom in the economy. Think Lincoln Greenbacks.
Umm, Lincoln's greenbacks weren't even credit, they were money printed by the government because Lincoln wanted to pay for stuff without actually raising the taxes to pay for them.
I don't know if it can be proven that simply printing money based on nothing, somehow creates a boom in an economy. If simply "printing more greenbacks" created economic growth, we wouldn't even need the Federal Reserve. The US Mint could just sit around all day printing off new money.
My point is, the government doesn't actually need a line of credit in absolute terms, because they can just create money. The whole "line of credit" thing just makes the spending by the Federal Government look more legitimate. But ultimately, the people who are stuck with the bill is us. And the people who benefit from the Federal Reserve are a few privileged people, mostly bankers and special-interests, not you.
The Federal Reserve is not the treasury, nor is it in the mint. The Federal Reserve is a bank that lends out money at interest. And it sets those interest rates wherever it wants them to be. The reason your savings account at your bank is paying out less than 1%, is because the banks can borrow the money from the Federal Reserve at that rate, so why do they need your money? The Federal Reserve absolutely annihilates savings, and only produces debt for the banks to rake in profits.
The truth is, even if you "politicized" the fed, all it would mean is that interest rates would forever stay low, because people want low interest rates. Most people simply don't understand how the economy works, or how savings works. If interest rates are low during a period of economic growth, you'll get a huge economic bubble that will eventually burst.
I simply don't believe that we need a debt-based currency, regardless of what the banks, special interests, and politicians have to say about it. It simply doesn't benefit the vast majority of Americans.
Quote:
I tend not to listen to economists. I don't care what benefits Canada or Mexico. I want those jobs back HERE, not in Canada, not in Mexico. Ross Perot's words ring true when he said that NAFTA is going to cause a giant sucking sound of jobs, and it did. How did the majority of Americans benefit from NAFTA, exactly? Maybe Americans working in the primary sector, but certainly not the workers of the Rustbelt. I live in the Rustbelt, do you?
You totally misunderstand how free-trade works. The reality when it comes to trade is that some areas of the world can produce things more efficiently than other areas of the world.
A good example is the banana. We don't grow bananas in this country because we simply don't have the proper climate. We could build indoor farms that could stay warm all year, and we could grow our own bananas in this country. And if you put a high enough tariff on the import of bananas, it might be economically feasible for companies to grow bananas in this country. Does that mean its a good idea?
The article I linked was about sugar farmers in Florida, who won't be able to compete with cheap sugar produced in Mexico. And poor corn farmers in Mexico who won't be able to compete with massive corporate corn growers in the United States. The reason why is because their operations are inefficient.
The truth is, the number of people employed in America did not go down after NAFTA. NAFTA was passed in the early 90's. And not only did unemployment go down after NAFTA, we also saw millions of immigrants coming to America, who also gained employment. The reality of free-trade is not that anyone has a net increase or decrease in jobs. The reality of free trade is that you will see a reshuffling of jobs. In those areas where Mexico can produce things cheaper or more efficiently than Americans, those jobs will go to Mexico. In the areas where Americans can produce things cheaper or more efficiently than Mexicans, those jobs will go to the United States. And you will see investment and cooperation between the countries, until the economies become almost completely integrated, producing the highest efficiency over a much larger area of the world, and gives us access to product at prices that are more reasonable.
No reputable economist is ever going to be opposed to free trade. Because economists know that free trade is simply better over the long-term for all members. The idea is in the "Wealth of Nations" by Adam Smith, it is what America is founded on.
The people opposed to free trade, are the people in privileged positions in inefficient enterprises, who won't be able to compete. And the loudest voices comes from collections of people, who hold political influence. The Unions.
These Unions have been screaming for protections and subsidies for decades. The Unions are falling, one-by-one, and that has been for the benefit of the average American. Because the relative price of goods goes down, and/or the quality of the goods go up.
To really sum up my position, you need to watch this video.
I simply don't believe that we need a debt-based currency, regardless of what the banks, special interests, and politicians have to say about it. It simply doesn't benefit the vast majority of Americans.
That's the long and short of it...it really is....
But it falls on deaf ears because Americans do not want to hear that they will have to cut back on consumption. Unfortunately, we live in a world of instant gratification.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
