Like or Dislike: 0  0

So how could the govt have expanded the $ supply without causing inflation? Sounds like the gold standard did it’s job. The GS is hardly the only factor in the great D that caused it to last so long. Govt intervention was a big factor.

Look up ‘The Depression You Never Heard Of’ that took place in the ’20′s. That was a short lived one ended rather quickly because govt reduced spending & regulation. The free market was cut loose & citizen entrapeouners created the Roaring 20′s.

SamFox

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Here we go again with term limits! Either you are very young or you fell asleep for a long time.

One 12 year term? What if the Rep is doing a great job? With 12 yr. term limits Ron Paul would be gone. And some jerk would still be there after 4 yrs. So why did this stupid idea never get traction?

Our votes are the term limits.

Why “shut down” as you say, my personal contributions to my candidate. It is a Constitutional right to Lobby Congress. The problem is the lack of transparency and out of control spending by the Federal Govt. and the Fed Reserve printing fiat $$ to keep the bubble inflated.

Earmarks should be made more transparent. All expenditures should be earmarked. At least our tax $$ are coming back to us and we know on what it’s spent.

Get rid of the Income Tax & giving tax rebates to those who pay no income tax. This Dimocratic Party practice along with entitlements is defacto vote buying. We won’t get rid of the income tax any time soon. But we can stop this vote buying of the Dims by editing the 3 words at the end of the 24th Amendment “or other tax.” The original purpose 24th Amendment was to eliminate the Poll Tax.

Since 99.9% of what Congress does is spend our tax $$ why do those who pay no income tax get the same voting power on how it’s spent.

How about a NEW DEAL. No ante, no cards.

NO REPRESENTATION WITHOUT TAXATION

Adopting the Fair Tax would then give them their vote back. Incentive? Not! No free lunch.

Who cares what Harry Reid thinks. I guess you do! Vote the poser out. Oh wait, under your plan he might have another 8 yrs, left.

Also Martin Gough, please give us a break and read your post before pushing the Submit button. It’s a mess.

RON PAUL 2012. JB.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Are you the man ? If you thank you can make a difference , Keep Reading.

It has been my pray ,that the truth , of the depth , of corruption in our Government at all level , will be exposed. Tell the Citizen the truth.. Never forget, the citizen always has the last Vote !

With that thought in mind , it is time to revisit a idea floated about 15 years ago , but never got traction .

Start talking about term limits! The reason the Idea never got a foot holt previously was the wrong approach to it. Could not agree on the number of terms. If they get 2 or 3 ( 2 year Terms ) we get nothing.

Consider this… One 12 year term !, Stager the term so ever two years there are new members coming in. This will give the new member time to learn the job , and how it works. The big payoff to this approach is it will shut down the lobbyist and their bribes , in the form of campaign contributions.

The hope is the will enable out reprehensive to focus on the thing that really matters .

That is doing the right thing ,,, What is best for the country !

You have studied our History , you know our founders believed that we should have a citizen form of government , our elected reprehensive will serve a limited period of time , then return home ; not spend a life time there.

Ask yourself this, What will Harry Reed think about this ?

Thank You for the work you do ! Think about it ! See ,I told you I will rquire Boldness.

Martin Gough / Thornville , Ohio

Like or Dislike: 1  0

Ron Paul speaks often and loudly about monetary policy. Not quite sure how you missed that one.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Perhaps you’re forgetting provisions in spending bills that “reserve[] any unspent portion of the [already predetermined earmark money]…for projects of interest to the President.”

Even the Heritage Foundation, in an article criticizing earmarks acknowledged the truth of the point that “an earmark simply is a congressional decision to allocate part of appropriation for a particular purpose. Eliminating the allocation doesn’t reduce the appropriation, it simply leaves the allocation decision to a federal department or agency rather than to Congress.”

The recent stimulus bill has provisions which stipulate that “any unspent funds [will be] reprogrammed by disbursing agencies.”

Another reason for the congress to spend through the transparent “hard earmark” process is that it reduces the much worse “soft earmarks,” which are completely hidden, and encourage corruption, cronyism, and behind the scenes deal-making. In the end, soft earmarks only serves to strengthen the control of the national government’s agencies over the states.

Like or Dislike: 1  0

Like or Dislike: 0  0

The argument that Austrian economics cannot relate to a 21st century economy is complete nonsense. There is no such thing as a “modern economy” or a “21st century economy”. A market economy functions under the exact same principles regardless of when it exists.

Apparently you do not understand what strawman arguments are. I guess that makes sense because if you knew what they are and why they are fallacious, you wouldn’t constantly make them.

Also, it is much more accurate to say that the government abandoned sound money principles. We (the people) did not get rid of sound money. The reason why the government doesn’t like sound money is not immediately obvious. Which is exactly why I included that Mises quote in my last post. However, like reason and logic in general, it eludes you.

Nice attempt at painting me as a pompous ass who thinks he’s “smarter about money than the history of banking”. As if being smarter than history is even possible. If one cares about liberty and economic efficiency, history demonstrates that sound money is the only way to go.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

“You (and the economists/professors/writers you quote at length) are arguing aginst positions that Ron Paul and Austrian economisits do not make.”… again, who cares if austian ecomosists don’t give explanations over valid points of why we got rid of sound money.. It just shows that austrian economics cannot fully relate to a 21st century economy.. I’m not against austrian econimcs, its more of microeconomic science than anything.. I’m just saying that you can’t apply certain rules under certain circumstances.. You obviously think your smarter about money than the history of banking, so we should just rewrite a sytem 90 years in the making.

Like or Dislike: 0  0