Don't Think Ron Paul Is Being CENSORED? WATCH THIS

anotherclone

Drowned Out wrote:

...not to mention how they kept showing a double shot of McCain and RP every time Paul spoke...just so we could see McCain smirking...reminded me of a fav movie line, "wipe that face off your head, bitch"....

I have to say, I'm not a RP supporter (and not McCain) and even I was getting kind of ticked off at McCains face last night. He looked really smug and arrogant when RP was talking. He looked like an ass.

DriftingByTheStorm

Number 18 wrote:

I can't even follow your arguments. First you try to bring out some point about recessions with false information. Then you say "OF COURSE the economy is fucking growing!" The very definition of a recession is a shrinking economy. Now apparently you don't see the value in adjusting for inflation when talking numbers, so fine. Let's use nominal GDP. When you use nominal GDP, we have not had a recession since 1938 - been a real rough 70 years in terms of nominal GDP - someone make it stop...

I hear you.
But now it sounds like you want to argue the semantics of the "outdated" "historical" definition of "recession" which most of (alot of) the talking heads are saying is no longer relevant.

But either way,
the real question is, who is going to take care of the mess swept under the rug?

In other words, if all of this growth that you are so hot for means that we are okay, how does that jive when juxatposed against the federal debt load.

In other words, if this whole system, being proped up by fiat money, based on t bills and debt ... if all of it is running on what amounts to cooked books ... ie. welfare is unfunded ... not to mention that if everyone tried to "withdraw", the FDIC would be BROKE in seconds ... thats why they would just rather bail out the whole system (talk again of a 500 BILLION DOLLAR bail out today!) either way they cut it, they HAVE TO INFLATE ... so they will just keep the system in tact.

But whats behind it all man?

What happens when the welfare debts become due?

What happens if one more straw gets piled on?

You don't seem to understand that fundamentaly it is ALL a house of cards ... and the cards are funny money ... and at this point all that has to happen is for china to fart out a few million Tbills in to the system and it could fall apart.

That's what i'm saying.

I'm not arguing about real growth ... real growth is based on just that ... REAL HUMAN EFFORT.

Unfortunately, the PAPER DOLLAR DOES NOT REPRESENT ANY HUMAN EFFORT. It is the fucking flip of a switch!

That is why GOLD is so important.
IT REQUIRES HUMAN EFFORT!

DriftingByTheStorm

firstquartermoon wrote:

1. But who's going to enforce this when the states decide what they're going to allow and disallow? Fine, forget slavery. Let's say state X says it's okay to execute the differently-abled (I think that the new OK term). Do we just have to go along with it?
2. I'm against private armies. Period. I don't care who pays them. To say, "Kill this person and we'll pay you." Are we going to take responsibility for the collateral damage they do? I'm against Blackwater, and I'm against this.
3. I don't know where he's going to get the money without any money being colelcted on a federal level. As far as birthright citizenship, does that mean that everyone born in this country has to apply for citizenship? And to argue that they aren't here for welfare, and in the same breath complain that they are being enticed here for welfare (with all caps again)? I don't get it. If they're not here for welfare, why bring it up?
4. Yes, let's just forget that we had slaves, and that they weren't considered people, weren't counted in a census, and were generally ignored. Let's forget all of that, and let's forget the poor people too, because we have to stop bringing that up. But on the other hand let's use studies that only sampled the upper-class.
And you really think that the upper-class was more literate than they are today?
Seems hard to believe to me.

You don't understand some of the things you are arguing.
And i have to go to work.

Birthright citizenship is an AMMENDMENT to the constitution that applies to children of NON-CITIZENS ... IE - SLAVES.
IT WAS FOR THE SLAVES!

WTF does that have to do with "everyone born in this country" ... if your parents are fucking citizens, you are a fucking citizen!



Anyhow.

Gotta go.

KNow you'll miss me.

Kel Varnsen

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

That is why GOLD is so important.
IT REQUIRES HUMAN EFFORT!

The thing I have always wondering about this theory is why GOLD? There are hundreds of other commodities that could possibly be chosen, why not iron or tungsten? Plus other than being shiny gold doesn't really do anything unless you work in electronics, why not something more useful like copper or oil?

firstquartermoon

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

... if your parents are fucking citizens, you are a fucking citizen!



Anyhow.

Gotta go.

KNow you'll miss me.

Listen, pal, I don't want to think about who my parents are fucking.

Fine Birthright citizenship only applies to non-citizens.
So do we apply that retroactively? Kick everyone out?

DriftingByTheStorm

Kel Varnsen wrote:

The thing I have always wondering about this theory is why GOLD? There are hundreds of other commodities that could possibly be chosen, why not iron or tungsten? Plus other than being shiny gold doesn't really do anything unless you work in electronics, why not something more useful like copper or oil?

It's not always about what you understand.
Just like Jlew so handily points out when i make a bad "prediction" about the stock market. Sometimes you have to just accept that OTHERS are capable of determining something ... somethings WORTH, particularly ... better than you.

If i had shorted the market today, because i thought it wasn't worth as much as the charts said ... guess what?
No one would give a fuck. I was free to have my opinion, but the market would have proved me wrong ... pretty quickly.

The worth of any item (tangible or not) is determined by the aggregate concerns of ALL participants.

Humanity has collectively agreed that gold is worth significant exchange in the marketplace.

WHY IS GOLD VALUABLE?
Well ... besides the obvious value you point out in that it is a metal that is a shiny bold "royal" color, and maluable, and therefore great for making jewlery that most any girl in the world would love (except the ones who "prefer silver", lol) ...

BESIDES THAT,
gold has value because

a. it REQUIRES EFFORT TO EXTRACT FROM THE EARTH

b. that effort can be measured against the effort to produce SOMETHING ELSE

c. gold can be exchanged for said other item

d. UNLIKE tungsten or iron, gold IS RELATIVELY LIGHT WEIGHT, and therefore not only portable, but because ...

e. IT IS RARE, a small light weight amount is valuable enough to accquire items so expensive that an exhange made with iron or tungsten would be physicaly exhausting to complete. Also, BECAUSE IT IS IN LIMITED SUPPLY, YOU CAN BE ASSURED THE GOVERNMENT CAN'T JUST SUCKER YOU BUY DOUBLING, TRIPLING, OR MULTIPLYING TWENTY FOLD, THE SUPPLY OF IT! Thus, your wealth is protected, because no one has found a way to fool a reputable buyer in to exchanging hard earned wealth for a fraudulent replica of gold. (although fiat money is FOOLS GOLD!)

and finaly

f. IT IS NON PERISHABLE. which is why people don't trade loaves of bread or cabbages.


Plenty of people have made a comment that goes something like "Gold is not the perfect money, but this is not a perfect world. Sure, the supply is potentialy subject to manipulation. But the markets have a way of adjusting to equilibrium, and prices in the market can adjust with relative ease to such swings in the price of commodity money. However, on the other hand, if there is a BETTER money than gold, MAN HAS NOT FOUND IT YET!"

So.
There is your answer.

Kel Varnsen

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

a. it REQUIRES EFFORT TO EXTRACT FROM THE EARTH

b. that effort can be measured against the effort to produce SOMETHING ELSE

c. gold can be exchanged for said other item

d. UNLIKE tungsten or iron, gold IS RELATIVELY LIGHT WEIGHT, and therefore not only portable, but because ...



Plenty of people have made a comment that goes something like "Gold is not the perfect money, but this is not a perfect world. Sure, the supply is potentialy subject to manipulation. But the markets have a way of adjusting to equilibrium, and prices in the market can adjust with relative ease to such swings in the price of commodity money. However, on the other hand, if there is a BETTER money than gold, MAN HAS NOT FOUND IT YET!"

But a, b, and c could be said about any mineral. And with respect to d gold is much heavier than iron, that is why bricks of gold are so damn heavy. And if it is not perfect, why stick yourself to one mineral? Why not make the value of the dollar tied to two things combined (the value of a brick of gold on top of a barrel of oil)?

Number 18

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

Sometimes you have to just accept that OTHERS are capable of determining something ... somethings WORTH, particularly ... better than you.

You mean like fiat money?

I completely understand the points you try to make about gold and the gold standard. I just don't think they are anymore relevant or correct than using monetary policy. Yeah, you get a long term price stability. But what do you have to sacrifice for that?

The economy would be much more susceptible to monetary shocks. If you look at when the US last used a real gold standard, pre-1913, you'll see the coefficient variant is much, much higher than when we really understood the implications of monetary policy, post-1946. Well what does that mean? It means deeper, more severe recessions and gives no one the ability to soften them with a tool like monetary policy. This naturally also means a higher rate of unemployment.

You also have to look at the cost of mining gold. Who's going to pay for that? And what about gold hoarding?

And then there is the issue of an increasing population. Gold is a limited resource and cannot expand with an expanding population (again leading to hoarding). There is an estimated 200,000 tonnes of gold on Earth.

Which brings up another interesting question. If we did switch back to the gold standard, how would we do it? So 200,000 tonnes of gold at say $900/oz sets the entire world's gold value at about $5.8 trillion. The current money supply for the United States alone is currently $10.2 trillion.

Sorry, going back to a gold standard is too much trouble. And, really, it just has different pros and different cons than the current fiat system.

DriftingByTheStorm

Number 18 wrote:

You mean like fiat money?

I completely understand the points you try to make about gold and the gold standard. I just don't think they are anymore relevant or correct than using monetary policy. Yeah, you get a long term price stability. But what do you have to sacrifice for that?

The economy would be much more susceptible to monetary shocks. If you look at when the US last used a real gold standard, pre-1913, you'll see the coefficient variant is much, much higher than when we really understood the implications of monetary policy, post-1946. Well what does that mean? It means deeper, more severe recessions and gives no one the ability to soften them with a tool like monetary policy. This naturally also means a higher rate of unemployment.

You also have to look at the cost of mining gold. Who's going to pay for that? And what about gold hoarding?

And then there is the issue of an increasing population. Gold is a limited resource and cannot expand with an expanding population (again leading to hoarding). There is an estimated 200,000 tonnes of gold on Earth.

Which brings up another interesting question. If we did switch back to the gold standard, how would we do it? So 200,000 tonnes of gold at say $900/oz sets the entire world's gold value at about $5.8 trillion. The current money supply for the United States alone is currently $10.2 trillion.

Sorry, going back to a gold standard is too much trouble. And, really, it just has different pros and different cons than the current fiat system.

Number 18.
You are missing the boat.
Here is what you fail to account for:

1. The PRIMARY reason a gold standard is desirable is IT RESTRICTS THE ABILITY OF THE GOVERNMENT TO PUT YOU IN DEBT UP TO YOUR EYE BALLS, so that the government can quietly steal your wealth and spend it at will. You CAN NOT DO THIS WITH FIAT MONEY. That gives Government absolute power to STEAL YOUR WEALTH.

2. The "business cycles" that came with a gold standard have NOTHING TO DO WITH GOLD, and EVERYTHING to do with FRACTIONAL RESERVE LENDING ... that combined with dishonest banks, or at least banks that are not operating within a safe reserve margin ... whatever that may be (because if you can't cover everyones money with real wealth, it is NEVER safe ... that is of course ... UNLESS the govenrment is willing to put EVERYONE in to more debt by BAILING OUT THOSE RISKY STUPID BANKS!) ... do you understand this? THE ONLY reason it works now, is because the GOVERNMENT STEALS YOUR WEALTH TO "INSURE" THE BANKS, who have NO reason to keep their risk low, since their premium NEVER goes up, and infact, if they fuck up bad enough, IT GOES DOWN!


3. Fractional Reserve Lending will NEVER be inherently safe, but the RISKS can be minimized IF FREE MARKETS are allowed to evaluate and INSURE the banks based on FULL DiSCLOSURE OF BALANCE SHEETS ... note this can NOT be done with FIAT money because the ENTIRE system is a recursive scam at that point (you need to understand how the "reserve" process works to get that. but a dollar becomes nine, becomes 17, becomes 25, becomes etc etc etc ... 1X9 + [(1x9)-10%]+{[1X9]-10%]-10%} ... etc etc etc ... HOW DO YOU INSURE THAT ?

You need to understand that, and you need to understand that The Federal Reserve REMOVES INSURANCE FROM THE FREE MARKET and guarantees the most protection to THE BIGGEST, RISKIEST BANKS ... ENSURING BUSTS!

4.It is FOOLISH to insinuate that the limited availability of gold makes it impractical as a money source for 3 reasons.

a. the lesser reason - SILVER. DUH!
b. IT DOESNT FUCKING MATTER HOW MUCH OF IT THERE IS! IT DOES NOT MATTER! ... if the amount of "wealth" in the world goes down in relation to the number of people ... the VALUE of that wealth just goes up ... ie ... since it is more rare, you can purchase more with it ... or conversely YOU NEED LESS OF IT PER PERSON.

c. as said before, THE LIMITED SUPPLY IS THE VERY REASON YOU WANT IT AS A CURRENCY IN THE FIRST PLACE ... and don't forget silver and copper!

What the hell is wrong with leaving the value of wealth to supply and demand, and not some fictional BS notion that the government printing press is a better determiner of how wealth should be "created".

:rolleyes:

Number 18

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

Number 18.
You are missing the boat.
Here is what you fail to account for:

1. The PRIMARY reason a gold standard is desirable is IT RESTRICTS THE ABILITY OF THE GOVERNMENT TO PUT YOU IN DEBT UP TO YOUR EYE BALLS, so that the government can quietly steal your wealth and spend it at will. You CAN NOT DO THIS WITH FIAT MONEY. That gives Government absolute power to STEAL YOUR WEALTH.

2. The "business cycles" that came with a gold standard have NOTHING TO DO WITH GOLD, and EVERYTHING to do with FRACTIONAL RESERVE LENDING ... that combined with dishonest banks, or at least banks that are not operating within a safe reserve margin ... whatever that may be (because if you can't cover everyones money with real wealth, it is NEVER safe ... that is of course ... UNLESS the govenrment is willing to put EVERYONE in to more debt by BAILING OUT THOSE RISKY STUPID BANKS!) ... do you understand this? THE ONLY reason it works now, is because the GOVERNMENT STEALS YOUR WEALTH TO "INSURE" THE BANKS, who have NO reason to keep their risk low, since their premium NEVER goes up, and infact, if they fuck up bad enough, IT GOES DOWN!


3. Fractional Reserve Lending will NEVER be inherently safe, but the RISKS can be minimized IF FREE MARKETS are allowed to evaluate and INSURE the banks based on FULL DiSCLOSURE OF BALANCE SHEETS ... note this can NOT be done with FIAT money because the ENTIRE system is a recursive scam at that point (you need to understand how the "reserve" process works to get that. but a dollar becomes nine, becomes 17, becomes 25, becomes etc etc etc ... 1X9 + [(1x9)-10%]+{[1X9]-10%]-10%} ... etc etc etc ... HOW DO YOU INSURE THAT ?

You need to understand that, and you need to understand that The Federal Reserve REMOVES INSURANCE FROM THE FREE MARKET and guarantees the most protection to THE BIGGEST, RISKIEST BANKS ... ENSURING BUSTS!

4.It is FOOLISH to insinuate that the limited availability of gold makes it impractical as a money source for 3 reasons.

a. the lesser reason - SILVER. DUH!
b. IT DOESNT FUCKING MATTER HOW MUCH OF IT THERE IS! IT DOES NOT MATTER! ... if the amount of "wealth" in the world goes down in relation to the number of people ... the VALUE of that wealth just goes up ... ie ... since it is more rare, you can purchase more with it ... or conversely YOU NEED LESS OF IT PER PERSON.

c. as said before, THE LIMITED SUPPLY IS THE VERY REASON YOU WANT IT AS A CURRENCY IN THE FIRST PLACE ... and don't forget silver and copper!

What the hell is wrong with leaving the value of wealth to supply and demand, and not some fictional BS notion that the government printing press is a better determiner of how wealth should be "created".

:rolleyes:

This is getting old.

1. I consider it my own responsibility to manage my debt, not the government's. If you are referring to the national debt, I agree that I don't agree with such a high level. But that's more attributable to an irresponsbile president's fiscal policy, not monetary policy.

2. This is my last post in this topic because you obviously take anything said completely out of context and I am tired of having to defend things I never said. I never said that business cycles have to do with gold. I said being on the gold standard lessens the ability to react to these cycles and creates deeper recessions.

3. I understand fractional reserve lending.

4. a.So you're saying that when we run out of gold, we just move to silver. Then when we run out of silver, we move to another metal. If we just keep moving from metal to metal, then who cares what backs our money? Yeah, copper. That's a precious metal.

b. You mean deflation. You should ask Japan about that.

c. Repetitive.

Finally, you don't seem to have an answer on how we would convert.

Again, there are just as many cons to the gold standard as there are to fiat. But you don't want to seem to acknowledge any of them. If the gold standard was really what you claim it to be, then why would we have ever switched? Must be a conspiracy...

Give me a break.

floyd1975

Number 18 wrote:

1. I consider it my own responsibility to manage my debt, not the government's. If you are referring to the national debt, I agree that I don't agree with such a high level. But that's more attributable to some irresponsbile presidents' and congresses' fiscal policy, not monetary policy.

I agree with it this way much more.

DriftingByTheStorm

Number 18 wrote:

This is getting old.

1. I consider it my own responsibility to manage my debt, not the government's. If you are referring to the national debt, I agree that I don't agree with such a high level. But that's more attributable to an irresponsbile president's fiscal policy, not monetary policy.

It is not I who isn't getting this, it is you, sir.

How you can sit there and say the ABILITY TO PRINT MONEY OUT OF NOTHING doesn't have MORE of an affect on the US Debt than the president's lame ass programs, is BEYOND COMPREHENSION.

1. THE NATIONAL DEBT IS MONITARY POLICY.

If you don't understand that, then you are right, you should just stop posting here.

US TREASURY BONDS ARE ISSUED BY THE FEDERAL GOVENRMENT IN EXCHANGE FOR "DOLLARS" PRINTED BY THE FEDERAL RESERVE.

It's pretty simple.
The government uses the promise that YOUR productive capital can be stolen through both inflation and income tax in order to pay interest on a NEVER ENDING DEBT in order to secure money.

Everytime the government needs money, it issues DEBT to get "MONEY" ... the debt is REAL ... YOU HAVE TO PAY FOR IT WITH WORK ... YOU ... YOU YOU YOU! But the government doesn't do fucking jack shit, and neither does the banker who is getting filthy fucking rich on it ... he just flips a switch and makes some binaries in a bank account, or ink on a piece of paper ...

BUT THE GOVERNMENT GOES IN TO DEBT.
What the fuck does YOUR "own responsibility to manage YOUR debt" have ANYthing to do with US Fiscal Policy?

WTF?

2. "I said being on the gold standard lessens the ability to react to these cycles and creates deeper recessions." ...

you mean that being required to back the ILLUSION of wealth with the actual legal responsibility to PAY SUCH WEALTH ON DEMAND lessens the ability to react to these cycles?

Well, yeah ... duh!
I'm not gonna argue, if you operate in the real world, YOU HAVE TO ACT LIKE IT.

Your silly notion that the Government can continue to put YOU and ME in to DEEPER AND DEEPER DEBT (printing MORE AND MORE "money") and NEVER PAY THE CONSEQUENCE is what is fucking absurd.

At SOME point, the house of cards MUST fall.

Again, go ask Rome, Austria, the Netherlands, Germany, England ... ASK ANY OF THEM.

And your silly argument about "ongoing prosperity being connected to fiat money" ... man that is as dumb as saying in 2000, "Look, we went 200 years without being attacked by airplanes plowing in to builidings ... your a fucking idiot if you think some terrorists could plow planes in to buildings! Look, history proves you wrong. Its never happened!" .... Pffft.

Having a gold standard REQUIRES ANY BANK TO OPERATE AS A HONEST BUSINESS ... meaning, if they issue notes (cash) ... THEY MUST HAVE SOMETHING TO BACK THAT WITH.

When you say gold lessens the ability to correct from a business cycle, what you don't follow is that

ALL YOU ARE DOING IS ALLOWING THE GOVERNMENT TO GO FURTHER IN TO DEBT IN ORDER TO BAIL OUT THE BANKS!

What is so fucking hard to understand about that?

Fractional reserve lending is fractional reserve lending, regardless of whether that fraction is 90%, 50%, 10%, or what it currently is now ... ZERO PERCENT ... there are NO RESERVES ... only MORE PAPER ... and if the banks only AT MAXIMUM have ONE piece of paper in their vaults to cover NINE depositors' dollars ... then all it will take is for TWO of them to walk in the door, and the bank is shit out of luck ... maybe you don't follow the logic, or you say i'm making it too simplistic, but that is how it works ...

At some point, if people get nervous and want their money ... you know what happens? THE GOVENRMENT EITHER HAS TO STRAIGHT BAIL OUT THE BANKS BY LETTING THE FED OUTRIGHT PRINT MORE CASH in the form of some bullshit deal ... like this (where is that $20 billion coming from? THEY JUST PRINT IT) ... or they have to either decrease the reserve ratio, or they have to decrease the Fed Funds Rate, or the Discount Window, OR THEY HAVE TO ISSUE MORE BONDS AND TAKE ON MORE DIRECT DEBT.

ANY WAY YOU SLICE IT, THE GOVERNMENT TAKES ON DEBT TO BAIL OUT THE BANK!

That is a DIRECT result of MONITARY POLICY.

It has fucking ZERO to do with the dumbass who is president at the time or some fucking budget set up in washington.

ALL MONEY IS DEBT.
IF YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT DEFLATION TRY PAYING DOWN THE NATIONAL DEBT.
If we pay down the national debt by 50%, you would LITERALY see a HUGE WAVE OF DEFLATION. Infact it is nearly IMPOSSIBLE To pay down that debt, because banks are allowed to issue loans at NINE to 1 on that debt, and therefore for EVERY dollar paid off of the debt, the banks would have to massively increase their reserves (which would NOT be possible, because by definition, you are retracting the money supply, so where are they gonna find more of it to add to their "reserves"?) , or call loans to keep their 9 to 1 ratios in line ... since they lost one of their "1" 's in the 9 to ONE ... so they would have NINE that need to get "called" as well.

DO you follow ANY of this?
Try reading some Eustice Mullins or G. Edward Griffin ... it MAY change your perspective. But honestly, you sound pretty hopelessly entrenched.
:(



[btw. if you want to talk about getting off the fed, we would have to talk about competing currencies. but to be honest, with the dollar as weak as it is, there are some significant problems their as well. Blunt analysis? There ain't no easy way out. ... its gonna be a HARD FALL, either way you take it]

DriftingByTheStorm

floyd1975 wrote:

I agree with it this way much more.

That is an ignorant analysis.

What on gods green earth does YOUR personal financial stability have to do with THE GOVERNMENT?

You understand that YOUR PERSONAL debt load, thanks to uncle sam is $400K PLUS?

ARe you prepared to submit that today and NEVER see it again?

If we want to extinguish the national debt, EVERY MAN WOMAN AND CHILD IN AMERICA would owe $400,000 ... and then ... NO ONE WOULD HAVE ANY MONEY.
Literaly.

Think about that.
Then start to cry.

OutOfBreath

If I'd have to pay off my entire mortgage tomorrow, I wouldn't have much money left either. I'd actually be havy in the negative. Does that mean I'm in big trouble?

Peace
Dan

floyd1975

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

That is an ignorant analysis.

What on gods green earth does YOUR personal financial stability have to do with THE GOVERNMENT?

You understand that YOUR PERSONAL debt load, thanks to uncle sam is $400K PLUS?

ARe you prepared to submit that today and NEVER see it again?

If we want to extinguish the national debt, EVERY MAN WOMAN AND CHILD IN AMERICA would owe $400,000 ... and then ... NO ONE WOULD HAVE ANY MONEY.
Literaly.

Think about that.
Then start to cry.

How is that ignorant? I placed the blame on irresponsible fiscal policies. Maybe you can enlighten me in non-rhetoric filled English. If possible, in this brief explanation, could you try only capitalizing the leading letters of sentences and the first letter of proper nouns as well? I find that much easier to read.

Thank you.

DriftingByTheStorm

OutOfBreath wrote:

If I'd have to pay off my entire mortgage tomorrow, I wouldn't have much money left either. I'd actually be havy in the negative. Does that mean I'm in big trouble?

Peace
Dan

You don't get it.

THE MONEY WOULD NOT EXIST.

IT WOULD BE EXTINGUISHED.

The Federal Debt is THE BACKING for our money.

Doesn't it strike you as funny that DEBT is backing a currency? Instead of GOLD, it is "DEBT"?

Huh.

Well that "debt" is YOUR HUMAN EFFORT.

So everytime the government wants more money, it offers YOUR EFFORT as backing.

Hey the sheeple are good for it, just give me the loot.

You people are hopelessly uninformed on this.

You need to stop arguing points you don't even understand on some minimal level, and start reading some books.

floyd1975

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

You don't get it.

THE MONEY WOULD NOT EXIST.

IT WOULD BE EXTINGUISHED.

The Federal Debt is THE BACKING for our money.

Doesn't it strike you as funny that DEBT is backing a currency? Instead of GOLD, it is "DEBT"?

Huh.

Well that "debt" is YOUR HUMAN EFFORT.

So everytime the government wants more money, it offers YOUR EFFORT as backing.

Hey the sheeple are good for it, just give me the loot.

You people are hopelessly uninformed on this.

You need to stop arguing points you don't even understand on some minimal level, and start reading some books.

You have reached a new plateau of condescension here. Congratulations!

DriftingByTheStorm

floyd1975 wrote:

How is that ignorant? I placed the blame on irresponsible fiscal policies. Maybe you can enlighten me in non-rhetoric filled English. If possible, in this brief explanation, could you try only capitalizing the leading letters of sentences and the first letter of proper nouns as well? I find that much easier to read.

Thank you.

What the fuck have i said that is rhetoric?
I'm giving you facts and truth!

The truth is, you can not have irresponsible fiscal policy with out irresponsible monitary policy.

This is like blaming guns for violence. It is the criminal that creates the violence, not the gun!

It is the ability to print money that enables the government to spend more than it has. Can you not see that by definition? Without fiat money, the only way for the government to get new money is to issue legitmate bonds ... bonds that are paid for by existing commodity money ... backed by human effort transformed in to gold backed currency ...

... that is how an honest government would function ... it wants to take on debt, it must extract it from the populace complicitly! ... with fiat money, that wealth is extracted through the hidden and insidious device of inflation!

Why is that so hard to comprehend?

floyd1975

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

What the fuck have i said that is rhetoric?
I'm giving you facts and truth!

The truth is, you can not have irresponsible fiscal policy with out irresponsible monitary policy.

This is like blaming guns for violence. It is the criminal that creates the violence, not the gun!

It is the ability to print money that enables the government to spend more than it has. Can you not see that by definition? Without fiat money, the only way for the government to get new money is to issue legitmate bonds ... bonds that are paid for by existing commodity money ... backed by human effort transformed in to gold backed currency ...

... that is how an honest government would function ... it wants to take on debt, it must extract it from the populace complicitly! ... with fiat money, that wealth is extracted through the hidden and insidious device of inflation!

Why is that so hard to comprehend?

It only becomes hard to comprehend because of the tone that it is written in. If you would debate without the extreme arrogance, people are, many times, more willing to accept your point even if they do not agree with it. People who happen to disagree with you are not beneath you. They just have a different take on issues whether you see them as right or wrong.

Outside of that, the Government would still be able to run a debt if we were placed back on the gold standard. They would be able to borrow just as much without the ability or intention of paying it back.

OutOfBreath

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

You don't get it.

THE MONEY WOULD NOT EXIST.

IT WOULD BE EXTINGUISHED.

The Federal Debt is THE BACKING for our money.

Doesn't it strike you as funny that DEBT is backing a currency? Instead of GOLD, it is "DEBT"?

Huh.

Well that "debt" is YOUR HUMAN EFFORT.

So everytime the government wants more money, it offers YOUR EFFORT as backing.

Hey the sheeple are good for it, just give me the loot.

You people are hopelessly uninformed on this.

You need to stop arguing points you don't even understand on some minimal level, and start reading some books.

Dude, not sharing your opinion is not the same as being stupid and uneducated. And you are very good at presenting your opinions in a way that doesnt make anyone want to stop up and listen.

My simple question was innocent enough. I have personally put myself into deep debt as I bought an apartment. How is that fundamentally different from the state owing money to external sources?

And as others have pointed out, it's not something inherent in the fiat system that you have a tremendous deficit. That's all policy from your current government.

A response without CAPS and 7 !!!!! after every sentecne would be much appreciated.

Peace
Dan