Comments on: Ron Paul: We don’t need 51% for a revolution

By: Ann Raabe

Ann Raabe — Mon, 06 Apr 2009 15:15:53 +0000

Congressional spending was never intended by the Constitution to be “carte blanche” for every one who needs money. The Constitution allowed for taxes to be laid by the states in order to raise the money needed for the Federal Government to operate. For instance, if we needed to bail out big auto, big oil, big banking, then Congress would pass a bill, appropriating the money. Then each state would receive a bill, according to enumeration, and the state would have to tax in order to raise the money. This kept things a little more controllable. For instance, if my Congressman and Senator pass a bill, they would have to understand that their state would get this bill, directly, and the taxes would be raised to the people. Then our Congressmen would think twice about running up the credit card bill, just like your wife would if she knew that you would get the bill for her spending spree and eventually there would be consequences. I don’t think Congress has a full grasp of this concept, even though the Constitution is widely available for reading. Let us all keep turning back to the Constitution for our strength and enforce it for the people and by the people.

Like or Dislike: 0 0

By: EDWARD NUTTALL

EDWARD NUTTALL — Sat, 04 Apr 2009 23:26:10 +0000

-A CAREER CONGRESS BUYS VOTES BY GIVING AWAY TAX DOLLARS TO CHARITY “ENTITLEMENTS” AND SPECIAL INTERESTS. WE MUST MANDATE THAT THE CONGRESS MAY ONLY SPEND MONEY ON GOODS AND SERVICES TO BE RECEIVED. CHARITABLE AND SPECIAL INTEREST GIVING SHOULD BE SOLELY OF THE PRIVATE SECTOR AND VOLUNTARY.

WE NEED TO REFORM THE SYSTEM IN ORDER TO MAKE LASTING IMPROVEMENTS! THE PROBLEM IS THAT THE PRIMARY ALLEGIANCE OF CAREER POLITIANS IS NOT TO THE CITIZENS, BUT IS TO THEIR POLITICAL CAREERS. ELECTED OFFICE SHOULD NOT BE FOR A LIFE-TIME. STRICT CONGRESSIONAL TERM LIMITS WILL SOLVE THE PROBLEM.

Like or Dislike: 0 0

By: Stewart

Stewart — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 15:46:08 +0000

On NPR.org, Ron Paul is winning the polling against ALL Republican contenders for the White House!
Check it out, and vote for our man!

Like or Dislike: 0 0

By: Dfens

Dfens — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 13:07:12 +0000

“We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

I’m telling you there’s another option. A constitutional option. The choices are not empire or weakness. We also have the choice of getting more bang for the buck. That’s what I’m advocating. Reduce defense spending. It should be reduced. We are not in a Cold War and we should not be in the hot wars we are in, but there’s more to it than that. We have to be able to defend ourselves. It will take more than just a gun in every home to do that. We also need aircraft, ships, and missiles. Let’s fix the system by which we buy those things. I’m telling you how to do it.

Like or Dislike: 0 0

By: Nate Y

Nate Y — Tue, 31 Mar 2009 23:34:20 +0000

It is true that there is no objective reason why government issued paper currency couldn’t function as a proper medium of exchange. However central bank/government issued paper fiat currency has proven to be unreliable. Why? Well, being imperfect and fallible humans, the people in government and central banks quickly discover that debasing the currency (inflation/printing money) is advantageous for certain groups (among them government and central banks) for a short period of time. But this is not a good thing. Some groups are supported at the expense of other groups. It is noteworthy that unbacked paper money has never naturally emerged as the preferred medium of exchange on the free market. It always comes to be as a result of government decree (fiat).

Your contention that “printing money couldn’t possibly cause things to have higher prices” is exactly wrong and it only takes a little common sense to realize why more money eventually leads to higher prices. I’m confident you will discover it.

You say “It is not the medium that is a problem it is only the people.” Well, it is much easier to change the medium (or at least the rules which lead to the emergence of the medium) than it is to change people. I see no reason to think we mere mortals will soon transcend our humanity and become divine. In the absense of this impossible miracle. I think it best to let the market (people) decide what to use as the medium of exchange. It’s the best way to promote honest trade.

Like or Dislike: 0 0

By: Raven

Raven — Tue, 31 Mar 2009 22:54:08 +0000

Looking up trade values and economy strengths doesn’t tell you anything about what SHOULD be done, it only tells you what HAS been done. Somewhere in this speech Ron Paul says, “Currencies can’t be created out of thin air ” And yet, they have to be, because that is the very nature of currency itself. Paper money does not have value because WE SAY it has no value. Because a HUMAN somewhere, or a group of humans, DECIDED that this has lost it’s value. Gold also has no value, unless WE SAY it has value. There is NO SUCH THING as a currency that DOES have value, when currency is only there as a medium of exchange. As a matter of fact it makes far more sense to use a paper as a currency, because gold can be mixed with other metals and used to help create something that’s actually useful, such as a clock or a car, or even a wedding band. It is not the medium that is a problem it is only the people. So far in not a single speech, video, post, book, etc., has anyone been able to show a reason why paper currency is bad all by itself. Instead you only hear about the Federal Reserve Bank and how CURRENTLY we do not HAVE any money. This is true, if the paper we used for exchange WAS money, and if banks DIDN’T charge interest, there wouldn’t be such a problem. Also, printing money couldn’t possibly cause things to have higher prices – the fact that more money exists in the hands of the rich doesn’t mean that everyone has to give up more of it to buy things. The value of the FRN compared to the currency of other countries is set by the United Nations, but America could easily choose to keep it’s own money at it’s same value. The reason the money value goes down is because the bankers SAY it does. The United Nations could decide to make our FRN go below the value of a Mexican peso, but we as Americans could choose to continue pricing a 20 oz. Pepsi at $1.39 regardless of what we’d be using in Mexico. After all just because I have $10,000,000,000 doesn’t mean that anybody has to create anything and price it at $10,000,000,000.

Like or Dislike: 0 0

By: Nate Y

Nate Y — Tue, 31 Mar 2009 22:36:11 +0000

That’s why gold/sliver wouldn’t be priced based on face value (the “$200 coins instead of $1 coins”) but rather as a unit of weight. This is why there is a call for standard weights/measures in the Constitution.

Also, it is infinitely easier to create paper bills than it is to mine gold. You say “it doesn’t need to be duplicated in order to make it’s value go up”. This makes no sense. If the supply goes up (duplicated) the value of the item (gold in this case) would trend down.

I think you should just read a bit on the emergence of market/exchange economies from simple barter economies. You quickly come to realize why gold/silver are so often selected by the market as the preferred monies. Books/articles are much better at that kind of thing (education) than internet forums.

Like or Dislike: 0 0

By: Dave Fernandez

Dave Fernandez — Tue, 31 Mar 2009 21:39:13 +0000

I have a friend who argues the reason why we “police the world” is because with great power comes great responsibility. I told him that we’re only as big as we are because we borrow so much money and it never was intended for America to be an all powerful empire. If it was then our founders wasted their time and died for nothing to free us from Britan. The America that we have today is not what our founding fathers wanted for us. They knew America best because they invented the construct of Amercia, a model of government with limited authority, run by the people, that protects our rights to persue happiness, not guarentee our security if we passivly submit.

Like or Dislike: 0 0

By: Dfens

Dfens — Tue, 31 Mar 2009 20:24:42 +0000

You make an excellent point. We should have learned from previous wars that our economy is our best weapon. Instead we let the “free traitors” sell us out piece by piece while we all slept. The bottom line is that gold works as a currency as long as there is peace. When it all goes to hell the only legitimate currency is weapons.

We can’t just throw our military under the bus and hope peace prevails. We also can’t afford to continue the current corporate welfare scheme that is the industrial defense complex. We need a legitimate 3rd option. I’ve been in the industry for a quarter century now, and I’m telling you that things were not always this messed up. We used to do business with the government in a way that made sense. Let’s go back to that business model and keep our country safe for our businesses to thrive.

Like or Dislike: 0 0

By: Ross

Ross — Tue, 31 Mar 2009 20:01:22 +0000

Dfens,China is presently buying Australia.Do they have to bother invading us?Our Govt is selling us down the tube because they are getting into so much debt.We are borrowing from China and selling them our resource companies.We are getting into more debt and selling off income earning assets to create pretend consumption for pretend jobs.

Like or Dislike: 0 0