ron paul=awesome/kickass?

[kwame k]

That's total fucking bullshit that you obviously made up yourself...

This nation was founded on ideals called the unalienable rights to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

"life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." are ideas jackass!

You're really not very good as the Attack Elvis

[kwame k]

The Bible?

Jesus?



God is ashamed of you, you know that, right?

You know the good parts of that Book you supposedly believe in

He didn't get it the first time around.......I just don't think he'll ever get it

[kwame k]

Because we can't afford it since we spend so much money overseas, for starters.

Bring the troops home, end the wars, scale back the military budget and I would be entirely on board with focusing the money here for the next decade. But at some point we need to remember we're the land of opportunity, not the land of entitlement.

Couldn't of said it better

There's a completely different way to look at this. People are on hard times right now because there's employment problems. Companies aren't hiring enough because people aren't buying enough because people don't have enough money because people took on too much debt.

Agreed, do something about the fact that the majority of people lack the skills to compete in a service/technology based economy and you have the start of something big.

The transition from an agrarian society to a manufacturing society had huge bumps along the way. The transfer from a manufacturing society to a consumer society is going to be just as bumpy. It's unsustainable, IMO but.........only time will tell if we stand the test of time

You could certainly go to the government and say, take money from the people making money and use it to support the people not making money. They'll buy the basics and try to survive. And largely, this seems to make sense.

I look at like this.....we all throw money in the pot [taxes] it should benefit us........we agreed to have a national defense, why can't that defense be ensuring a chance at the American Dream!

Priorities change and the times we face now are nowhere near the times of our founding fathers.

That's the beauty of the Document.....it lives and breathes. The Constitution of the 1800's is not the Constitution of the 1900's.....it changes with the times. Always has always will. So when people long for that old timey religion and a return to the Constitution.....what parts are they talking about? That's a Pandora's box that better be opened carefully!

You could take a different tract, though. Reduce (or better, eliminate) the federal income tax, shrinking the expenditures of the government to support the cut (military and overseas spending, for one). Give people back their 15 - 35% of their income. Most of these people would in turn spend their excess money in their local economies, stimulating local growth and promoting hiring as business tries to compete for the sudden infusion of cash.

Combine that with the return of hundreds of thousands of additional consumers locally would further stimulate growth.

I would personally be fine with either approach: the former for a short period of time, the latter for the longer term.

Always been a fan of that.........was back in the day and am now.

I'd couple that with a serious goal of improving our infrastructure and developing holographic porn.....hell, I'd vote for ya

[ELVIS]

only time will tell if we stand the test of time

You get the fucking uncoveted Sammy Hagar award for that piece of literary stool...

[BigBadBrian]

That's the beauty of the Document.....it lives and breathes. The Constitution of the 1800's is not the Constitution of the 1900's.....it changes with the times.

BULLSHIT!!!

That's simply a nice way of saying, "We're gonna twist this bitch to suit our purposes and not follow what it actually says and abide by it!"

[jhale667]

BULLSHIT!!!

That's simply a nice way of saying, "We're gonna twist this bitch to suit our purposes and not follow what it actually says and abide by it!"

Next thing you'll be saying we should take a tome written by nomadic sheep-herders 2000 years ago literally...

[knuckleboner]

I'm going to post this, and I wish you guys would read it because it is truly alarming. It's about how money is created in our country, and how the nuts and bolts work.

Alas, I believe most of you won't read it, because it's long, and dry. I'll highlight some of it in red. I hope you at least read those parts.

wheeew. that was a bit long. almost nodded off twice and had to take a shit break, but an interesting read. not entirely accurate, but interesting. but a couple of issues...

Cost-Benefit Analysis for Monetary Reform:

Monetary reform would nationalize the Federal Reserve (this name is deceptive so the public would perceive it as a government entity) and retain its use for bank administrative functions. Fractional reserve lending by private banks would be made illegal, with the US Treasury having sole legal authority to issue new money for the benefit of the American public rather than the benefit of the banking industry. About 40% of the national debt is intra-governmental transfers and 10% held by the Fed; this debt would be cancelled as it becomes a bookkeeping entry with nationalization. Of the publicly-held debt of various parties holding US Securities, the US Treasury would monetize (pay) the debt in proportion to fractional reserves being replaced with full reserves over a period of one to two years to monitor money supply and avoid inflation. The American Monetary Institute has a proposal called The American Monetary Act.[11] Ellen Brown has extensive articles, including how states can act now rather than waiting for federal reform.[12]

The governmental cost of this reform is negligible. The benefits are astounding: the American public would no longer pay over $400 billion every year for national debt interest payments (because 30% of the debt is intra-governmental transfers, this is a savings of ~$300 billion/year). If lending is run at a non-profit rate or at nominal interest returned to the American public (for infrastructure, schools, fire and police protection, etc.) rather than profiting the banks, the savings to the US public is conservatively $500 billion.[13] If the US Federal government increased the money supply by 3% a year to keep up with population increase and economic growth, we could spend an additional $400 billion yearly into public programs or refund it as a public dividend.[14] This savings would allow us to simplify or eliminate the income tax.[15] The estimated savings of eliminating the income tax with all its complexity, loopholes, and evasion is $250 billion/year.[16] The total benefits for monetary reform are conservatively over a trillion dollars every year to the American public. One trillion is $1,000,000,000,000. I invite professional economists and committed citizens to analyze and comment on my observation of costs and benefits.

this is only a partial understanding of how the government works. yes, it's intragovernmental transfers, so one COULD argue that it's a case of the government paying itself.

except that's not the whole story. the intragovernmental interest payments are to the social security trust fund. as has been the case for decades, social security surpluses are invested in a safe place - treasury bonds. that way, the trust fund can grow a little bit and counteract inflation. if you simply canceled intragovernmental debt, then the trust fund would deplete far more quickly. unless this proposal is coupled with serious social security reform, then it's a simply a math trick that is highly irresponsible in practice.

The statutory purposes of the Fed are stable prices, maximum employment, and moderate interest rates. For prices, consider for yourself how well they’ve done since the Fed began in 1913. Ask parents and grandparents if prices have remained stable in their lifetimes or if they’ve increased just a teensy-weensy little bit. You could, of course, also check the data and confirm that the dollar has lost over 95% of its value since the Fed went to work for stable prices.[18]

uh...they've done a solid job with inflation. the real problem with inflation is unpredictable levels. if businesses and workers know the general levels of inflation, then they can plan for it. which they do. if inflation goes up 2.5% a year, yes, the value of a dollar over 40 years is vastly degraded, but so what? incomes almost certainly have gone up. and many investments beat inflation. so what's the real problem?

For employment, consider that we have unemployed people in this country, resources to put to work, and infrastructure to improve; then judge the Fed’s effectiveness in creating money only as debt. For example, consider in California that 20,000 teachers were scheduled to be laid-off in 2008 and again in 2009 because of government budget cuts.[19] We have the need for teachers, the teachers are available, but we have unemployed teachers because the government must borrow its money to hire them rather than issue money directly. Nationally, the US had over 11 million unemployed workers at the end of 2008,[20] and perhaps up to 30 million at the end of 2009.[21] These millions of individuals are key income earners to a multiple average of 2.5 additional Americans. This unemployment rate puts these Americans livelihoods at risk. This only occurs because money is debt in our current system; we would not have this problem if government restored this Constitutional power and issued money directly. If we were serious about achieving the goal of full employment, OBVIOULSY the only way to achieve it is for government to be the employer of last resort. In market failure of what free-market capitalism cannot employ, we either put people to work on infrastructure/public service jobs or we don’t achieve our goal of full employment. Please ponder that idea to full realization. If the public jobs provided to the unemployed and funded by government-created money provide greater economic benefit than their cost, then inflation will actually decrease from creating those jobs. That is conservative definition of how inflation/deflation works.

this is a horribly misguided understanding (loosely called) of the job market. simply put, california (and every other state) laid off teachers because of a decrease in revenue, not because the U.S. dollar is based on debt. and the fact that the fed could create money was one of the biggest reasons we don't have MORE unemployed. when liquidity dried up and the availability of capital was dramatically restricted, job cuts accelerated. the fed's loose money policy did not replace that capital, but it definitely mitigated the loss.

[kwame k]

BULLSHIT!!!

That's simply a nice way of saying, "We're gonna twist this bitch to suit our purposes and not follow what it actually says and abide by it!"

Forrest, are you that fucking stupid that you believe the Constitution shouldn't change?

It was created with the express purpose of being able to be amended......you know, Forrest ......Amendments. Do you need me to sound that out for you

Please baby Jesus........don't let this idiot breed!

[Nitro Express]

Yup. You can amend the US Constitution to make alcohol illegal and after deciding that was a dumb ass idea that didn't work, amend it again and make booze legal again.

[Dr. Love]

wheeew. that was a bit long. almost nodded off twice and had to take a shit break, but an interesting read. not entirely accurate, but interesting. but a couple of issues...



this is only a partial understanding of how the government works. yes, it's intragovernmental transfers, so one COULD argue that it's a case of the government paying itself.

except that's not the whole story. the intragovernmental interest payments are to the social security trust fund. as has been the case for decades, social security surpluses are invested in a safe place - treasury bonds. that way, the trust fund can grow a little bit and counteract inflation. if you simply canceled intragovernmental debt, then the trust fund would deplete far more quickly. unless this proposal is coupled with serious social security reform, then it's a simply a math trick that is highly irresponsible in practice.



uh...they've done a solid job with inflation. the real problem with inflation is unpredictable levels. if businesses and workers know the general levels of inflation, then they can plan for it. which they do. if inflation goes up 2.5% a year, yes, the value of a dollar over 40 years is vastly degraded, but so what? incomes almost certainly have gone up. and many investments beat inflation. so what's the real problem?


this is a horribly misguided understanding (loosely called) of the job market. simply put, california (and every other state) laid off teachers because of a decrease in revenue, not because the U.S. dollar is based on debt. and the fact that the fed could create money was one of the biggest reasons we don't have MORE unemployed. when liquidity dried up and the availability of capital was dramatically restricted, job cuts accelerated. the fed's loose money policy did not replace that capital, but it definitely mitigated the loss.

KB, thanks for reading it. Yeah, it was long.

But, I think the article was well-written, non-inflammatory and backed up with plenty of citations for his facts from other sources to support his position. I'd be more than happy to read a different point of view if you find anything that is well-cited so I can research their sources and read for myself, as well.

[kwame k]

You get the fucking uncoveted Sammy Hagar award for that piece of literary stool...

In my defense, I was pretty high by that time

[kwame k]

Yup. You can amend the US Constitution to make alcohol illegal and after deciding that was a dumb ass idea that didn't work, amend it again and make booze legal again.

Thank God they came to their senses on that one.......considering the Founding Fathers were raging drunks

[Nitro Express]

Thank God they came to their senses on that one.......considering the Founding Fathers were raging drunks

Yeah I watched a program on George Washington. When he campaigned for president he bought all the drinks and the campaigning was done in pubs. At one pub Washington rolled in with nine barrels of whiskey. The Star Spangled Banner was put to a drinking song the drunks used to sing in the pubs. This country was founded on alcohol.

[Dr. Love]

Thank God they came to their senses on that one.......considering the Founding Fathers were raging drunks

I'm guessing they looked a lot better after a dozen drinks

[ELVIS]

This country was founded on alcohol.

And hemp...