Mr.Al said:

The vast majority of Americans (75%) support an Audit of the federal reserve.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/30/fed-audit-supported-by-75_n_247765.html

They may not want to get rid of the fed just yet, but it is obvious that the American people are concerned about the fact that they and their elected officials don't know what the 'fed is doing with the money supply!
  When the Americans find out what the 'fed has been doing they will be absolutely rip-shit.

---

Quote:

Again, you can not make any rational argument against sound money.

---

Quote:

You fail for the same reason that all neo-conservatives fail.

Neoconservatives are weak when they attempt to argue against the government takeovers and expansions.

---

Quote:

They are weak because they fail to make the Constitutional arguments against said hostile (to citizen civil liberties) government acts.

---

What ever are you babbling about?  Aren't you the guy who thinks it is unConstitutional for the federal government to print money?  Yes, you are.

Quote:

You fail at arguing for restraint in government spending because neoconservatives never go to the point of really being fiscally conservative and arguing for sound money.  Neoconservatives whine about the lack of restraint in spending but will not give up the printing press.

---

Quote:

Your argument against sound money amounts to valley girl logic using a charge card which is essentially what fiat money is given that it allows government to "pay" for it's freedom destroying idiocy through massive inflation of an immoral medium of exchange. 

---

  Government could change the value of any  medium of exchange any tim it wants.  They did it when there was a gold standard. 

Quote:

You have no business complaining about the government takeovers because you fail to make the moral arguments to include sound money.

---

Quote:

Notice that neoconservatives support the use of aggressive empire building.

---

What empire? 

Quote:

Zappa, it is either incredibly naive or disingenuous of you to make the attempt at saying that the U.S. diplomatic stance of apparent neutrality preceding the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait was not a coldly calculated exchange utilized to create am excuse to invade Iraq.

---

Quote:

It is childish to the extreme to make the argument that the purported U.S. stance on Iraq/Kuwait was not cultivated with an ulterior motive.

---

How about just not getting involved for it's own sake?  Really.  That place is crazy enough.  Then there is the inevitable criticism we would have gotten if we did get involved.  Also the fact that Iraq was useful to stick it to the Iranian nutcase mullahs, who remain a problematic enemy.  Remember them?  Stepping away from interfering with Iraq/Kuwait disputes when there were clearly much bigger fish to fry was by no means ill-advised.  And staying neutral on negotitations is by no means an invitation to invade.  I ask again, if a court tells conflicting sides in a civil suit to go back to the bargaining table do you think that means the court is sanctioning a gun fight?  Because that is all that you have presented any evidence of.  You may want to have that paranoid delusion floating around in your head but I have no use for it. 

Quote:

Intelligence agents and those who work the International Relations sphere are often one and the same individuals.

That is specifically why I call bullshit on your childish (or more likely utterly disingenuous view of foreign relation).  You aren't stupid enough to buy your own shit.

---

gluke bastid said:

zappaisgod said:

You had to voluntarily grant the insurance companies access.

---

Is that any different after the passage of the bill? This is an honest question, not a rhetorical one.

---

Mr.Al said:

Constitutional money worked just fine.  The problem we have today is that the Congress has failed in it's responsibility to coin money.  Now, paper money backed by a standardized weight of precious metal serves as a stable medium of exchange and thus serves the same function as the metal (in terms of it's stability as long as it's convertibility to said metal remains unchanged).



I am concerned about a Hyperinflationary Great Depression developing in the United States.  That would force the issue of people utilizing mediums of exchange that differ from the government fiat.


I view the Constitution as being a contract between the federal government and the respective people that live in each sovereign state.  When the money supply was taken over by a central bank bent on destroying the buying power of the money that is a clear breach of contract.



The United States government would not be able to accumulate massive debt, in the form of debt instruments and intragovernmental debt, and eventually wholesale debt monetization without money that is backed by nothing.

---

Quote:

Without a viable means of increasing the money in order to fund spending that is flatly impossible to cover through overt taxation government could not spend money out of control.  Id est:  Would we be able to offer China or Japan debt instruments for sale in the form of silver & gold?  Not for very long because it would become painfully obvious very quickly that such obligations could never be covered.  Honestly think about that...  The difference between massive debt in the form of a sound medium of exchange versus fiat...  Funny money encourages the accumulation of debt because debtors gain (in the short run) by paying debts with less valuable money.  If the money gained in buying power over time this favors those who actually save.  Massive accumulation of government debt is not feasible (to the unreal extent that we see today with U.S. government) with sound money.

---

Quote:

You do not bother to think about the fundamental differences involved with debt and mediums of exchange.

---

Quote:

 


Again, we see that neocons who complain about government spending have no business doing so because they turn a blind eye to the monetary basis that enables government growth to Leviathan size.

---

Quote:

In regards to government "changing the value of the medium of exchange when there was a gold standard" present evidence and we will debate this.  Gold hovering around 1100 U.S.D. is the beginning of a market rejection of the dollar.

---

Quote:

January 31, 1934
The day after the passage of the Act, President Roosevelt fixed the weight of the Dollar at 15.715 grains of Gold "nine-tenths fine". The Dollar was thereby devalued from $20.67 to one troy ounce of Gold to $35.00 to one troy ounce of Gold - or by 69.3 percent. The Treasury, which had become the possessors of all the nation's Gold on the previous day, saw the value of their Gold holdings increase by $US 2.81 Billion. The Treasury now "owned" the Gold, and no one else inside the U.S. was allowed to own any Gold except by the express permission of the Treasury.

The new ratio of $US 35 was adopted at Bretton Woods in July 1944. The U.S. Dollar was made the world's Reserve Currency and the IMF and World Bank established in 1947. The now international ratio of 35 U.S. Dollars to one troy ounce of Gold lasted until August 15, 1971.

---

Quote:

Instead of making baseless claims we can examine the monetary situation in order to see why we have come to differing conclusions.

---

Quote:

I have told you before that individuals work in diplomacy and intelligence simultaneously.  They carefully frame their discussions with foreign dignitaries in order to control their perceptions and thus manipulate their actions.  It is morally wrong to turn a blind eye to this.  Diplomacy should be used to prevent war and U.S. discussions with Saddam prior to the Iraq invasion of Kuwait could have done just that.  U.S. intelligence agencies have been acting recklessly for decades now, and you are obviously disingenuous if you deny that fact.

---

Quote:

Regarding healthcare shenanigans, you neoconservatives do not bother to examine the school of Austrian economics in order to come up with the cogent arguments against the relentless expansion of government.

---

Quote:

I think the reason is that you are not that much differ from people like Anna (in terms of fiscal conservatism).  Both of you just argue where exactly government should grow more.

---

Quote:

That empire I was referring to is "700 bases in over 130 countries".

http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2004/041101-iraq-basing.htm

---

Quote:

Zap, you should note that empires often fail because they just cost too damn much.

---

Quote:

Remember that next time you criticize the government growth that you dislike (like the healthcare takeover) while applauding our economically unsustainable foreign policy.

---

Mr.Al said:

Government is able to spend massive amounts of money directed toward entitlement programs because of fiat money.

---

zappaisgod said:

Mr.Al said:

Government is able to spend massive amounts of money directed toward entitlement programs because of fiat money.

---

How the fuck does your brain allow you to keep writing this afactual nonsense?  My brain would explode before it would let me write something that dumb, my fingers would repel the keyboard, my anus would tighten into a knot and my eyes would get too blurry to see the monitor.  The pure unadulterated cognitive dissonance involved would be fatal.

When gold gets to $5,000 or more you will be rich, rich, rich.  Wouldn't it be in your best interest to just shut the fuck up and collect?

---

It's real simple zap.  Precious metals are in a limited quantity, actually more limited than what the market would make you think !

http://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.php/Number/10352527

This means that instead of attempting to sell debt instruments (denominated in fiat dollars) like T-bills to China the federal government would need to sell different debt instruments denominated in standardized precious metal weight. 



It would very quickly become obvious to every party concerned (including the people) that the debt could not possibly be paid back! 


In spite of the fact that my gold and silver would have unreal buying power after the dollar crisis I would prefer that people are not subjected to said dollar crisis only because I am not an asshole.


It would be preferable to shrink government (THINK PRESIDENT HARDING STYLE IN 1920) to avoid this.



My main point is that my arguments rationally support shrinking the government out of dire economic necessity.





My argument would win in a debate against government run healthcare.


Your argument has no balls because it does not go far enough in criticizing government's financial recklessness.

Icelander said:

I'll just leave a note as to where the body is and you can pry em out.

My vast fortune goes to my gf.

---

jebustrist said:

It's perennially astounding to me that the same republican crazies who now are up in arms over the supposed overreach of govt to provide GOD FORBID health care to people in this country sat down and took it as Bush & Co.(the co. here being no small minority of corporate fake Dems) systematically destroyed many of our rights after 9/11

---