Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 35

Thread: Speaking of Goldbugs...

  1. #1
    Founder's Club Member PrayingForWar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    The Real World.
    Posts
    1,705

    Speaking of Goldbugs...

    http://www.nysun.com/national/sellin...ext-big/87350/

    Selling Gold at Fort Knox Emerges as Next Big Question in Debate on Federal Debt Limit

    The next big question on the federal debt limit could be whether to start selling the government’s holdings of gold at Fort Knox — and at least one presidential contender, Ron Paul, has told The New York Sun he thinks it would be a good move.
    Though I hardly understand economics, we had a short back and forth on another post regarding RP, the gold standard and fractional reserve banking. I wondered what someof you guys thought of this story.

    My first reaction was "WTF??? How could that be remotely intelligent?", but to find out the obozo regime opposes the idea lends it credibilty.
    If you ladies leave my island, if you survive recruit training. You will become a minister of death, PRAYING FOR WAR...

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    New Hampshire
    Posts
    104

    It would mean an audit at the least

    To sell it off means you need to know how much you have to sell, to be able to get the best price without driving the market down. I don't know when the last audit was performed but there are some who say all the gold is no longer there. This would be the chance to prove them right or wrong, I don't have enough info to form an opinion either way.

  3. #3
    Founder's Club Member PrayingForWar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    The Real World.
    Posts
    1,705
    Quote Originally Posted by END_THE_FED View Post
    The fact that there is a limited supply of precious metals is actually a benefit for its use as money. BUT HOW?? How can a limited cash base allow for an expanding economy? Also, lets say Canada or China unearthed a missive quantity the suddenly found, like double our reserve, whouldn't that be a problem? Right now the amount of Federal Reserve Notes. (what the government want you to think is money) in circulation can change on a whim. When the amount of FRNs in circulation increases (usually done electronically) it necessarily reduces the value of the current notes in circulation.

    I can understand this concept, making money out of "thin air" is obviously detrimental.

    The amount of time and labor needed to generate a 1 FRN or 1,000 FRN and introduce it into the economy is essentially the same. You cant say the same about precious metals.
    There is real labor and energy involved in mining and coining metal.

    True money should have 3 essential qualities: It should be widely accepted, it should be portable, and should be a store of value.

    I have a dime in my wallet that was coined in 1957 and is comprised of 90% silver. In 1957 it would be perfectly reasonable for me to expect to walk into a corner store and buy a candy bar and a coke with that dime. Today the "melt value" of that coin is about $2.45 I could easily go to a store today with $2.45 and get a candy bar and a coke.

    The point is that if you took 1,000 ounces of silver and put it in a safe for 50 years you could expect it to more or less maintain its buying power. you cant say the same thing about 1,000 FRNs



    That sir, is like believing there is a way to allow people to steal from Safeway without screwing over Safeway (and its customers)



    I did like some of what Cain had to say in the debate but I don't think I trust him. He is a Federal Reserve banker and that worries me greatly.

    I didn't know Cain was a FR Banker, but that in itself doesn't make me distrust the man. I liked Alan Keyes too, and he was a UN Ambassator.

    The Dollar use to be defined as 371 1/$ grains of 90% silver then there was a fixed ratio of Dollars to gold. I would prefer returning to the silver standard with out the fixed ratio to gold ( this caused a lot of problems I will have to save for another post )

    But the main thing is to not have something that can be created so easily, and has no store of value. Somthing that represents labor and production not debt. (every FRN introduced to the economy comes from debt)

    I would encourage you to start doing a bit of research on the economic/monetary history of America. It is actually pretty interesting.

    Also learn about the Federal Reserve (that is not Federal and is not a reserve).

    The movie "Money As Debt" is a good place to start. its a little over 45 mins long. "Money Masters" is also good but it is very long. Look up Edwin Vieira Jr and read his articles and watch his videos.
    I can agree that our currency should be backed by more than "faith and credit". That's pretty simple. I think a variety of commodities and well as other tangible assests would help. However, if congress continues to deficit spend, then who gets to collect the Hope Diamond and build their house in what once was Yellow Stone Park?

    This thread I started is relevant to this issue more that the "Ron Paul calls binLaden raid "unnecessary"" so I moved it here. Why would you suppose RP calls for selling our gold, if he was also promoting the idea that we return to a "gold standard" of some manner? I can't seem to wrap my mind around that.

    Like I said though, if Obozo opposes the idea, that gives it credibility IMO.
    If you ladies leave my island, if you survive recruit training. You will become a minister of death, PRAYING FOR WAR...

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    2,546
    If you don't know economics, who are you to call Obama "obozo"?

    As for why it doesn't make sense to sell our gold: http://money.cnn.com/2011/05/11/news...dex.htm?hpt=T2
    "If we were to ever consider citizenship as the least bit matter of merit instead of birthright, imagine who should be selected as deserved representation of our democracy: someone who would risk their daily livelihood to cast an individually statistically insignificant vote, or those who wrap themselves in the flag against slightest slights." - agenthex

  5. #5
    Regular Member Washintonian_For_Liberty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Mercer Island, Washington, USA
    Posts
    922
    Quote Originally Posted by Tawnos View Post
    If you don't know economics, who are you to call Obama "obozo"?

    As for why it doesn't make sense to sell our gold: http://money.cnn.com/2011/05/11/news...dex.htm?hpt=T2
    The guys who got all predictions of recession wrong, the housing market oh so wrong... oh hell, these guys have laughed at Peter Schiff every time he tells them what is going to happen... and then when it happens almost exactly as he predicted... they ignore him or claim it was a fluke. These are the people you trust to tell you why selling the gold (which very likely isn't even there any longer) is a bad idea? Their concept of economics is so horribly wrong that they can't even understand how government interference distorts economic trends so bad that bad business practices are elevated rather than weeded out by natural economic processes like bankruptcy.

    First, our currency is not based on gold, silver or any commodity. It hasn't been since Nixon took us off the gold standard. It should be based on something tangible. Basing it on a bucket of commodities would be the best if that is the route you choose. Keeping the gold, silver, platinum, palladium and more should be left to individual banks.

    Second, currency is not gold, and gold is not needed for currency to properly operate. Two separate times in our history, we've had fiat currencies without a central bank (i.e. no Fed) and if properly managed, they hold their value quite well. All currency is, is an agreed upon medium of exchange in place of barter. This way, farmers can acquire an equivalent to their goods in the form of money, which can be carried in their pockets to be exchanged at a later date for goods of an agreed upon equivalent value. At no time did we need gold for this process. Wheat was exchanged for money, which was then in turn exchanged for milk, fish, a car or even gold if a person so wanted. In all of these exchanges, precious metals were not needed in this transaction. What this does indicate however is that if a currency is not properly managed (by our Congress, not by some private banksters), we'll have serious inflation problems which will devalue the currency in everyone's possession. Plus, our government has been convincing us for years that saving the medium of exchange was a good idea because fractional reserve banking meant that individuals would earn interest on their money. The serious flaw in this method was that the devaluation of the money was far more deleterious to the person's overall wealth than was the gain in interest on that money... so in spite of the interest, their wealth is depleted, not increased. In this scenario, had these people purchased gold at one ounce per month since 1970 when we went off the gold standard, they would have spent approximately 4200 dollars on 120 ounces of gold during the 70s, 28,200 on 120 ounces of gold in the 80s, 48,000 on 120 ounces of gold in the 90s, and approximately 125,000 dollars on 120 ounces of gold in the 2000s. Total amount spent by the individual would have been $205,000.00 US dollars in currency... and the total value of the gold they'd own in 2011 would be around $700,000.00 US dollars. What savings account could do that? But the gold in the hands of government has done nothing for the people. Not a damn thing.
    Associate with men of good quality if you esteem your own reputation; for it is better to be alone than in bad company. ~ George Washington

  6. #6
    Founder's Club Member PrayingForWar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    The Real World.
    Posts
    1,705
    I said I "hardly understand economics". That's simple humility, which the moonbat messiah lacks along with any shread of class, obviously his acolytes share the same handicap.

    I wish that along with the ignore feature, it also prevented the same idiots from posting their useless oppinions on your threads.

    Quote Originally Posted by Washintonian_For_Liberty View Post
    The guys who got all predictions of recession wrong, the housing market oh so wrong... oh hell, these guys have laughed at Peter Schiff every time he tells them what is going to happen... and then when it happens almost exactly as he predicted... they ignore him or claim it was a fluke. These are the people you trust to tell you why selling the gold (which very likely isn't even there any longer) is a bad idea? I've heard that more times than I care to count, and as much as I suspect that it is true, is it also not possible there is more in there than "they" want to admit too? Their concept of economics is so horribly wrong that they can't even understand how government interference distorts economic trends so bad that bad business practices are elevated rather than weeded out by natural economic processes like bankruptcy. I disagree when it comes to the left. I believe the leftist elite is accutely aware of how damaging their policies are, and that theirintention is to do as much damage as possible.

    First, our currency is not based on gold, silver or any commodity. It hasn't been since Nixon took us off the gold standard. It should be based on something tangible. Basing it on a bucket of commodities would be the best if that is the route you choose. Keeping the gold, silver, platinum, palladium and more should be left to individual banks.

    OK, I can agree on that premise, but what if those commodities $h!t the bed after a huge reserve of it is mined and/or sold? Then your assests are compromised.

    Second, currency is not gold, and gold is not needed for currency to properly operate. Two separate times in our history, we've had fiat currencies without a central bank (i.e. no Fed) and if properly managed, they hold their value quite well. All currency is, is an agreed upon medium of exchange in place of barter. This way, farmers can acquire an equivalent to their goods in the form of money, which can be carried in their pockets to be exchanged at a later date for goods of an agreed upon equivalent value. At no time did we need gold for this process. Wheat was exchanged for money, which was then in turn exchanged for milk, fish, a car or even gold if a person so wanted. In all of these exchanges, precious metals were not needed in this transaction. What this does indicate however is that if a currency is not properly managed (by our Congress, not by some private banksters), we'll have serious inflation problems which will devalue the currency in everyone's possession. Plus, our government has been convincing us for years that saving the medium of exchange was a good idea because fractional reserve banking meant that individuals would earn interest on their money. The serious flaw in this method was that the devaluation of the money was far more deleterious to the person's overall wealth than was the gain in interest on that money... so in spite of the interest, their wealth is depleted, not increased. In this scenario, had these people purchased gold at one ounce per month since 1970 when we went off the gold standard, they would have spent approximately 4200 dollars on 120 ounces of gold during the 70s, 28,200 on 120 ounces of gold in the 80s, 48,000 on 120 ounces of gold in the 90s, and approximately 125,000 dollars on 120 ounces of gold in the 2000s. Total amount spent by the individual would have been $205,000.00 US dollars in currency... and the total value of the gold they'd own in 2011 would be around $700,000.00 US dollars. What savings account could do that? But the gold in the hands of government has done nothing for the people. Not a damn thing.
    BINGO. As far as public record is concerned the gold at Ft Knox ammounts to $350 billion. That's a paltry sum compared to the annual budget, let alone annual GDP, which does not even take into account the massive black market for illicit commodities and services.
    If you ladies leave my island, if you survive recruit training. You will become a minister of death, PRAYING FOR WAR...

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    923
    Quote Originally Posted by PrayingForWar;1533730

    [COLOR=blue
    Why would you suppose RP calls for selling our gold, if he was also promoting the idea that we return to a "gold standard" of some manner? I can't seem to wrap my mind around that.[/COLOR]
    I think he is trying to force an audit. Or at least get people to talk about it.
    A wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government.- Thomas Jefferson March 4 1801

  8. #8
    Founder's Club Member PrayingForWar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    The Real World.
    Posts
    1,705
    Quote Originally Posted by END_THE_FED View Post
    I think he is trying to force an audit. Or at least get people to talk about it.
    As chair the House Financial Services subcommittee on monetary policy, doesn't he have the authority todo the audit? What I find troubling is that you don't know why he boths backs a gold standard, and advocates selling the reserves. I see people support RP without questioning his policies, merely because he probably actually has more moral integrity than anyone else in DC. Even if he is right, and manages to become president, then gets rid of the FED. Wouldn't the banking elites and the leftist sociopaths CRUSH the economy, and spend every bit of their collective ability to make it appear it was entirely RP's fault?

    If I recall history correctly, that's exactly what happened with Andrew Jackson.
    If you ladies leave my island, if you survive recruit training. You will become a minister of death, PRAYING FOR WAR...

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    923
    Quote Originally Posted by PrayingForWar View Post
    As chair the House Financial Services subcommittee on monetary policy, doesn't he have the authority todo the audit? What I find troubling is that you don't know why he boths backs a gold standard, and advocates selling the reserves. I see people support RP without questioning his policies, merely because he probably actually has more moral integrity than anyone else in DC. Even if he is right, and manages to become president, then gets rid of the FED. Wouldn't the banking elites and the leftist sociopaths CRUSH the economy, and spend every bit of their collective ability to make it appear it was entirely RP's fault?

    If I recall history correctly, that's exactly what happened with Andrew Jackson.

    An audit would take an act of congress,Dr. Paul couldn't order one on his own.

    I haven't read/watched the interview where he advacated selling the gold in Fort Knoxx so I dont know the context. But my guess is that he was saying it would be better than raising the debt ceiling and borrowing more money.

    As far as tanking the economy and blamimg Paul...... Yes they would probably try it. Yes thats what they did to "Old Hickory".

    The "gold standard" is something that I somewhat disagree with Ron Paul about. I prefer returning to Silver (The original "dollar" of the Republic)

    The article you linked, briefly mentioned a Dr. Edwin Vieira Jr. I highly recommend reading his articles and watching his videos. The guy holds multiple PHDs and has argued cases in front of the supreme court. When he worked as a lawyer for the Right To Work Foundation. He won a very important case named Communications Workers of America v. Beck.
    A wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government.- Thomas Jefferson March 4 1801

  10. #10
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by END_THE_FED View Post
    SNIP The "gold standard" is something that I somewhat disagree with Ron Paul about. I prefer returning to Silver (The original "dollar" of the Republic)
    Oh, oh. Here I was thinking the original dollar of the republic got that way because Jefferson merely recognized what was already in circulation. It wasn't really ours--Spanish if I recall.

    Unless you mean skip gold-based paper currency and go straight to metal coin? An idea I would find interesting.

    In fact, if I recall, Dr. Paul, has advocated cancelling the fiat nature of the Federal Reserve Notes (FRN), and allowing competing money. Which might be a gentle way of easing FRNs out of the system, or easing them down to their real value. While also defanging the Federal Reserve.

    I did read an estimate (one single estimate by someone I didn't recognize) that if dollars were right-this-instant put back on a gold standard, taking into considering the amount of gold the fedgov has, and how many dollars there are, dollars would have to be devalued to 1/50,000th of an ounce of gold aka gold would be priced at $50K per ounce.

    Get in a fight with a rich rapper and you might be able to tear off $130K worth of bling without him even noticing!

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    923
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    Oh, oh. Here I was thinking the original dollar of the republic got that way because Jefferson merely recognized what was already in circulation. It wasn't really ours--Spanish if I recall.

    Unless you mean skip gold-based paper currency and go straight to metal coin? An idea I would find interesting.

    Yes it is based off the Spanish milled dollar. (AKA pieces of eight) This is where "two-bits" comes from. the coin was divided into eight bits, each bit is 12.5 cents,, so two bits was 25 cents.

    The Spanish milled Dollar was the most popular coin being circulated at the time.

    When the Constitution was drafted the word Dollar was used twice. Everyone knew it referred to the Spanish milled Dollar.

    Before writing the first coinage act of 1792 they took several samples of Spanish milled dollars and studied them. They came to the conclusion that the coin contained an average of 371 1/4 grains of silver and was comprised of 90% silver and 10% alloy. Then there was a fixed ratio of "Dollars" (silver) to gold at 20-1.

    The dollar wasn't redeemable in silver, it was silver.

    With the word Dollar being used in the Constitution twice, once in Article 1 section 9 where it authorized a tax on the slave trade.(now repealed) and ounce in the 7th amendment guaranteeing the right to a jury trail in civil suites when the amount in question is over $20.

    Everyone understood "Dollar" to mean 371 1/4 grains of silver. "Dollar" was and is a constitutional term. Congress can not unilaterally change the definition of a constitutional term. To do so would have the effect of amending the constitution while bypassing the amendment process. They cant change the meaning of "dollar" any more than they can change the meaning of "speech" or "religion" or any other constitutional term.

    I would like the term "Dollar" to go back to its original meaning. Using the Silver Dollar as the base unit. Congress can also coin gold but it should be stamped only with a weight and fineness, not a dollar amount. (if there is a fixed ratio then it will inevitably under value one and over value the other based on market conditions).

    We can still have paper currency. We could use Silver Certificates printed by the treasury. (the treasury would need reserves for all certificates) I would also be ok with private banks printing silver receipts as long as they don't print more receipts than the silver they have. We could still have debit cards and checks.

    One fundamental difference is that, before a "dollar" could be entered into circulation, someone would have to mine the silver or take silver that was already mined to the mint to be coined.

    The federal government can raise most of its funds by taking a small tax while coining the silver. They can collect another small tax perhaps when folks trade their silver coins for paper certificates but not the other way around. ( on the notion that it is a right to use coin, but a privilege to use their certificates.)

    The Government could borrow money by taking in say, 100 silver dollars, they could then issue a receipt good for 110 silver dollars sometime in the future.

    The federal government was given the power to "coin money" not to define money or create money. What did money mean at the time of the founding? The best source I can fined right now is a law dictionary from 1856. Bouvier's law dictionary from 1856 defines money as:

    MONEY. Gold, silver, and some other less precious metals, in the progress of civilization and commerce, have become the common standards of value; in order to avoid the delay and inconvenience of regulating their weight and quality whenever passed, the governments of the civilized world have caused them to be manufactured in certain portions, and marked with a Stamp which attests their value; this is called money

    I apologize for this post, it is rather verbose.
    Last edited by END_THE_FED; 05-21-2011 at 04:43 PM.
    A wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government.- Thomas Jefferson March 4 1801

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    America
    Posts
    2,226
    Quote Originally Posted by END_THE_FED View Post
    An audit would take an act of congress,Dr. Paul couldn't order one on his own.

    I haven't read/watched the interview where he advacated selling the gold in Fort Knoxx so I dont know the context. But my guess is that he was saying it would be better than raising the debt ceiling and borrowing more money.

    As far as tanking the economy and blamimg Paul...... Yes they would probably try it. Yes thats what they did to "Old Hickory".

    The "gold standard" is something that I somewhat disagree with Ron Paul about. I prefer returning to Silver (The original "dollar" of the Republic)

    The article you linked, briefly mentioned a Dr. Edwin Vieira Jr. I highly recommend reading his articles and watching his videos. The guy holds multiple PHDs and has argued cases in front of the supreme court. When he worked as a lawyer for the Right To Work Foundation. He won a very important case named Communications Workers of America v. Beck.
    He is not a serious presidential contender. The issues he talks about he could not even start to effect as president. Yes he can set agendas and such, but he would be a complete lame duck. With him as president the best one could say is some things wouldnt get worse while he is in. After one term though I predict the constant attacks from the republican establishment and the left would cause his defeat and election of a terrible leftie. Why he makes such statements is exactly to get people thinking and talking about them I surmise. If people talk about it and he pushes from his position in congress there is more of a chance of something being done.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    923
    Quote Originally Posted by Daylen View Post
    He is not a serious presidential contender. The issues he talks about he could not even start to effect as president. Yes he can set agendas and such, but he would be a complete lame duck. With him as president the best one could say is some things wouldnt get worse while he is in................

    One of the main things he talks about is shrinking the size of the Federal government and limiting it to the strict meaning of the Constitution.

    With Dr. Paul as President he would most likely veto any and all bills that he feels don't pass constitutional muster. This would do a lot to stop the growth of the Federal Government. Stopping the rapid expansion of the Federal Government is a necessary step to scaling it back.
    A wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government.- Thomas Jefferson March 4 1801

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    America
    Posts
    2,226
    Quote Originally Posted by END_THE_FED View Post
    One of the main things he talks about is shrinking the size of the Federal government and limiting it to the strict meaning of the Constitution.

    With Dr. Paul as President he would most likely veto any and all bills that he feels don't pass constitutional muster. This would do a lot to stop the growth of the Federal Government. Stopping the rapid expansion of the Federal Government is a necessary step to scaling it back.
    Without having congress on board all he can do is say no to new things. That is only a temporary reprieve. At worst if he doesn't even sign a budget because it has unconstitutional things in it he could damage the public's view of libertarians. I think he's doing fine as it is being a congressman and using the run for president to get attention.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    923
    Quote Originally Posted by Daylen View Post
    Without having congress on board all he can do is say no to new things. That is only a temporary reprieve.............

    You say "all he can do is stop new things", as if stopping the growth of Government is a minor accomplishment. Stopping the growth of the Federal government is an essential first step in restoring the Republic.

    Would you rather have a president who stops new growth, or one who will allow it to grow exponentially?
    Last edited by END_THE_FED; 05-21-2011 at 04:44 PM.
    A wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government.- Thomas Jefferson March 4 1801

  16. #16
    Regular Member Beretta92FSLady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    In My Coffee
    Posts
    5,278
    Let's see here, China, and India are buying up gold. And the U.S. is supposed to sell our reserve? The article is interesting.

    Has anyone considered that the reason the audit is not happening is because an audit would devalue the dollar? Then what will we all do with out dollars, huh, use them as kindling for a fire?

    If RP can push an audit, then go for it. There may well be consequences by merely verify the exact amount of gold that is in the reserve. Such as economic impact, and as I stated above, devaluing of the dollar.
    I don't mind watching the OC-Community (tea party 2.0's, who have hijacked the OC-Community) cannibalize itself. I do mind watching OC dragged through the gutter. OC is an exercise of A Right. I choose to not OC; I choose to not own firearms. I choose to leave the OC-Community to it's own self-inflicted injuries, and eventual implosion. Carry on...

  17. #17
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by END_THE_FED View Post
    SNIP I apologize for this post, it is rather verbose.
    Not at all. Glad for the input.

  18. #18
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487
    Quote Originally Posted by END_THE_FED View Post
    I haven't read/watched the interview where he advacated selling the gold in Fort Knoxx so I dont know the context. But my guess is that he was saying it would be better than raising the debt ceiling and borrowing more money.
    That's exactly what he was saying. He compared it to the actions an individual would have to take, having allowed himself to slide into such dire financial straits.

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    America
    Posts
    2,226
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    Let's see here, China, and India are buying up gold. And the U.S. is supposed to sell our reserve? The article is interesting.

    Has anyone considered that the reason the audit is not happening is because an audit would devalue the dollar? Then what will we all do with out dollars, huh, use them as kindling for a fire?

    If RP can push an audit, then go for it. There may well be consequences by merely verify the exact amount of gold that is in the reserve. Such as economic impact, and as I stated above, devaluing of the dollar.
    Auditing the Federal Reserve system or the feds gold and silver stockpile?

  20. #20
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by Daylen View Post
    Auditing the Federal Reserve system or the feds gold and silver stockpile?
    Both. RP has pushed for both at different times. Both should have been done a long time ago.

  21. #21
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by Daylen View Post
    Without having congress on board all he can do is say no to new things. That is only a temporary reprieve. At worst if he doesn't even sign a budget because it has unconstitutional things in it he could damage the public's view of libertarians. I think he's doing fine as it is being a congressman and using the run for president to get attention.
    Oh no he can do a lot more than that. Presidents have taken upon themselves more and more power in the form of Czars, commissions and executive powers, (most of these unconstitutional) as president he can put an end to most that.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    America
    Posts
    2,226
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    Oh no he can do a lot more than that. Presidents have taken upon themselves more and more power in the form of Czars, commissions and executive powers, (most of these unconstitutional) as president he can put an end to most that.
    Yes, he can give up power. Without a true sea change though it would be meaningless. Ron Paul is not a sea changer. I say this with confidence because I am a libertarian and agree with the substance of much of what he says, yet I hate his guts at times because of some of what he says.

  23. #23
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by Daylen View Post
    Yes, he can give up power. Without a true sea change though it would be meaningless. Ron Paul is not a sea changer. I say this with confidence because I am a libertarian and agree with the substance of much of what he says, yet I hate his guts at times because of some of what he says.
    I never consider my self a member of any party always despised party politics, I find libertarians most appealing. And I know what you say I disagree with some things he says but compared to all the other folks running I'd rather see him setting a closer example to what a president should do, than the continuing the ever more despotic grab for power that has occurred, especially with our last president and our current one.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  24. #24
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    SNIP...the continuing the ever more despotic grab for power that has occurred, especially with our last president and our current one.
    Oh, for the days when a president wasted his power-grabbing opportunities getting oral sex in the Oval Office.

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    America
    Posts
    2,226
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    Oh, for the days when a president wasted his power-grabbing opportunities getting oral sex in the Oval Office.
    and helping china get our nuclear bomb technology...
    Last edited by Daylen; 05-22-2011 at 08:29 PM.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •