Would YOU vote for RON PAUL

Balbus,

Still not willing to call a crime a crime, eh? Why is it that you refuse to say the words? This is becoming less and less puzzling.

First of all, the Fed system is illegal. It's unconstitutional. I haven't hinted at that. It's just a fact; one that you are incapable of disproving. You should consider your inability to prove that the Federal Reserve is not a crime as meaning something about your position. What does it mean, Balbus? Think about it, and provide an answer.

I have also provided evidence that the 16th amendment was not ratified. That makes it illegal. Tell me how it is that you can continue to speak as if you do not understand this.

Also, how is it that you are incapable of understanding that Congress is bound by the Constitution to be in charge of the printing of money? You are telling everyone that a boogey man awaits them should the Constitution be accepted above the thieving rule of international bankers. You really need to give some detail as to how not being robbed is pure insanity.

Do you honestly believe no one would ask Congress why they've attached a multi-hundred billion dollar price tag to a job that would cost no more than a million dollars? Of course they would. Of course they would! Who wouldn't? That kind of con-job would be recognized immediately . . . by everyone, though I am coming to the realiziation that there are exceptions. Why in hell would Congress charge such an exorbitant fee--called interest--to print up paper money? And who would let them? Don't you get it?

Answer me this: How is it that when our income tax is not syphoned off and going into the pockets of the for-profit international bankers, and instead is kept here at home where it belongs and can do us some good is a disastrous tragedy? If you're thinking that no one is noting your lack of response to that question, then you're not giving them much credit for their ability to think things through.

Do you remember this: A real U.S. dollar is defined as 1/20 ounce of gold, or about an ounce of silver. But starting in 1913, the U.S. Treasury and Federal Reserve began a slow process of redefining the "dollar" -- from representing a weight measurement of pure precious metals -- to representing public confidence in the U.S. government.

The result: today's "dollar" retains a mere 3 cents of its original buying power in relation to gold. Three pennies! Stated in reverse, 1/20 of an ounce of gold (at $650/oz.) will cost you $32.50 today, instead of just $1, as it did 75 years ago. Sad, but true.

"Over the last century the U.S. dollar has been transformed from an 'IOU gold' into an 'IOU Nothing,'" according to John Exter, former Fed economist. If you can remain optimistic about the dollar's future, I congratulate you. Your faith in the tinkering of men with "IOU nothing" money far surpasses mine, which is limited to faith in God up above... and faith in real money, gold and silver, here below.
____________________________________________________________________________

Your plan is to let a crime continue, and then try to remedy the effects of that crime without addressing and stopping the crime first. But then again, you won't dare even utter the words: Yes, it is a crime, and we're being robbed by international banksters. You need to take that first step.

Do you understand that exponentially increasing debt and interest on that debt is unsustainable and will cause a crash? That's not theory; that's a mathematical fact! How do you see this ending, Balbus? Do you think it's going to fix itself, or what?

Local currencies are backed by the same thing that U.S. dollars are. The principle is the same. They're backed by the belief of the people who use them. They are a unit of account. And best of all, no one is going to steal any of it! What's your problem with that?

But first, are we being robbed by international banksters? Yes or no?

 

Sorry storch but you don’t do your side any favours when you go off on one of these spittle sipping rants it just comes across as verging on the conspiracy theory weird.

*

In your opinion it is unconstitutional based on your interpretation of the US constitution (a constitution I think is in real need of a rewrite), and honestly in a discussion on what would replace it if it were removed it’s unimportant. If you want to have a discussion on whether the Fed is illegal or not start another thread and maybe you’ll attract someone that gives a damn.

*

As to the US dollar being worth only 3 cents - thing is that one pound Stirling will still only get me around $1.50, a Euro will get me something like $1.30 and an Australian dollar is worth slightly less than its US counterpart at $1.04. If you know where to buy dollars for only 3 cents you’d make a killing on the foreign exchange markets.

*

I’ve got nothing against some types of local barter systems but I don’t think they are in any way going to replace an already established national currency.

I believe there are over 3000 Counties or Independent Cities in the US. For your idea to work all of them would have to have their own currency. Just to travel across America could be extremely frustrating with constant trading of one currency for another (which always involves a fee), but imagine trying do businesses or trade under such a system? I remember the EU before the single currency and that was bad enough and there were far fewer currencies than 3000+. Even if it was limited to just state areas they’d still be 50 independent currencies, with differing values and stability levels. Then there are whole load of other considerations and difficulties.

Would there be two currencies or one, I mean if one Hour (in your example) is worth ten dollars (a tenth of a hour being one dollar) then why not just pay ten dollars, especially if when you go to the next country and find your Hour is only worth say only nine Zlots (or whatever their local currency is here). I mean differing currencies seldom keep the same value and then the field is open to speculators.

Sorry I still actually think it would be easier to either reform the Fed or replace it with a better Central Banking system.

 

Sorry, Balbus, but in your first paragraph, you failed to make a point, except the point that you are now resorting to name-calling. You can do better than that, right?

I'm also afraid I'm going to have to ask you to direct me to whatever it was that made you think that the Federal Reserve is constitutional. And it would also be interesting to have you direct everyone to whatever is was that convinced you that the income tax was legally ratified. I'm certain that I've posted evidence to the contrary. So, prove me wrong if you can.

I understand quite well that for you to come up empty-handed in your search for these things I'm asking you to produce will force you to admit that an ongoing theft is occurring. And everyone knows that, for whatever reason, you utterly refuse to say it out loud. That's ok. Your reluctance speaks louder than your silence when it comes to that!

Did you research the "petrodollar," Balbus? Or am I going to have to do that for you, too?

So, tell us all again--well, actually for the first time--why you favor interest-bearing money over interest-free money. You never did explain that. Do so now if you can. If you don't, then once again, your silence on the issue will speak louder than your . . . well, silence.

 

And I don't think you understand what a conspiracy theory is, Balbus. If you did, you would also understand that your theory that the income tax was legally ratified, when it obviously wasn't, and your theory that the Federal Reserve system is constitutional, which it obviously is not, would put you squarely in the same boat as other conspiracy theorists.

Of course you can get yourself out of that boat by simply directing everyone to evidence which would prove that it's no conspiracy you're believing in.

But in all fairness, this thread is: Would You Vote for Ron Paul. You said his ideas are all harmful. I'm saying that getting rid of the unratified income tax and the unconstitutional, interest-bearing-money supplier called the Fed--a conglomerate of international banksters--is a good idea. And now we're debating the merit of that idea.

Do you know the history of the income tax? You should research it. It just might surprise you. But one thing at a time.

 

Wtf does that have to do with anything? And who said that I want the "free market" personified by RP?

 

Vote for Ron Paul? Hell no. I wouldn't even want to enter into conversation with the man. He'd make ours a rat eat rat society and we've had enough of that already.

 

Comment by Anthony Holt on 18 July 2010: 16th Amendment changed nothing!

__________________________________________________

If you look under Article I section 9 of the Constitution, it says “No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid.” So, how did the income tax become exempt from this? Now before you claim that the 16th Amendment--which I have already proven was never ratified--offers exemption, you should be made aware of what the Supreme Court had to say about the 16th Amendment:

“The Sixteenth Amendment . . . does not extend the taxing power to new or excepted subjects."
Peck & Co. v. Lowe, 247 U.S. 165, at 172 (1918)

This means that the taxing power that Congress had before the 16th Amendment remained the same after the 16th Amendment. And of course, this is to say nothing of the fact that it wasn't properly ratified in the first place.

__________________________________________

In 1895, the Supreme Court stated that an income tax on wages was Unconstitutional. So in 1895 it was Unconstitutional to tax wages. So, the 16th Amendment--even if it were properly ratified--did not change anything. In other words, can a law declared unconstitutional in 1895 be constitutional in 1913 and beyond? What makes it Constitutional today?

___________________________________________

I also found this from the New York Times to be of some significance in any discussion of the Income Tax:

http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=F60E1EF9385911738DDDA80A94DD405B8585F0D3

 

Good point, but our constitution is ever changing and can be amended anytime like with civil rights and womens suffrage, abortion, prohibition, are these all unconstitutional/constitutional ? Times change and so do people. We can one day get out of this mess of a government we are in. Just new good human beings who aren't selfish and greedy, and scared.

 

The last change to the Constitution, the 27th amendment, happened in 1992 taking over 200 years to accomplish.

The point of the Constitution as a basis of our governments powers is that it sets forth the rules by which we are governed with our consent, and NOT by judicial reinterpretation to accomplish a political agenda as what is presented as a 'fairer' or 'more just' society by those we allow to govern us. Prohibition, the 18th amendment, brought about by the 'Progressive movement' was eventually repealed by the 21st amendment. So should be the 16th and 17th amendments, both of which diminish the powers of the people and the States to govern themselves as agreed to under the 10th amendment. I don't think the U.S. Constitution directly addresses abortion.

 

Storch

OK I’ve begun a thread on the legality or not of the Fed and income tax so you can go there and knock yourself out on the subjects as that seems to be what you want to talk about.

http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showthread.php?p=7196786#post7196786


That means you can stop banging on about it here try and find someone that gives a damn and we can get back to the viability and desirability of right wing libertarian ideas a subject I’ve noticed that you seem a lot less willing to discuss.

LOL – not name calling but what I believe is an apt description of the kind of rhetoric you produce, you seem to spit out arguments and accusations with uncalled for aggression.

Anyway you are now saying that you want to abolish income tax and the Fed (with no viable alternatives to replace them) – now can you please address the questions and criticism people have presented over those ideas that you seem to be trying to side-line.

 

letlovin

You did – Ron Pauls ideas are free market based and you said -

Ron Paul still stands as the only candidate In 2012 to offer anything other than the status quo. We have to try something new, to continue this path were on is insanity.

My own view is that I’d want to get a better system rather than what would seem to be a worse one.

 

Because I support a candidate you assume that I support every single statement he makes and all of his stances are parallel to my own? It is impossible to agree 100% with any candidate (for me anyway), so I choose the one that I think is the best option.

You make a lot of assumptions and call them facts.

 

I’ve said I’d want a better central bank that worked in the interests of the people not the banks or wealth here are a few musings on that.

It would be a publically controlled body that regulated private banking and the financial sector as a whole. Large banks would be forced to demerged, strict caps put on leveraging and investment banking would be separated from deposit banking. It approach would be Keynesian (e.g. about seeking full employment).

Quantitative easing can be a useful tool in emergencies, but the neoliberal approach of giving it to the bankers in the forlorn hope that they would work in the interest of society rather than themselves was never going to work. All they are doing is hoarding it to shore themselves up to weather any future problems. It is the same with the public money going to places like Greece, it isn’t going to the Greek people but to large European banks.

This outcome was predictable and well known in Keynesian thought, in down turns private investment dries up the drought in proportion to how deep the down turn is, that is why public investment has to take the place of private to simulate the economy.

Expanding public services and infrastructural projects is just one aspect another is investing in people through a nationalised bank that gives lower to interest free loans to established but also new businesses.

My own view is that the thrust of this public investment should go toward environmental and green projects and toward tackling global warming and its effects.

 

letlovin


LOL – this had me hooting – just how do you separate right wing libertarian ideas from free market views? Their stances on most things go back to it.

I think it disingenuous at best to claim you are not a supporter of free market ideas but would want Ron Paul to be in power.

I mean you would get a hefty dose of ‘free market’ for the other stances.

 

I'm sorry I meant abortion as a landmark supreme court case, like brown vs. the board of education. At first the segregation of schools was constitutional then unconstitutional. And the whole "separate but equal" bullshit. Illegalization of marijuana. Over time these laws are passed or abolished just to fit a politicians agenda. The people have no say. Ron Pauls agenda is a great one. Who knows if he is crooked, at least he would be making the American people happy and lead us back to dominance as the most powerful nation in the world.

 

I never said I wasn't a supporter of free market ideas either. You accuse people of thinking too much in absolutes, but you yourself seem to be only seeing in black and white. I find your posts to be very hypocritical.

 

letlovin

Let’s see you support free market ideas you promote Ron Paul much of whose ideas are based on free market ideas but you claim that you like little or nothing of Ron Pauls free market ideas?

Thing is if you don’t like Ron Paul’s free market ideas when so much of his ideas are free market based then why are you promoting Ron Paul?

 

Again Balbus, you are trying to put words in my mouth, I've never claimed that. Everything isn't always black and white, in the real world most of us live in the grey areas.

 

To be fair, it's possible.

I'm a socialist. And a libertarian. And yes, these can be mixed, but the ideas of both have been perverted by big interests. Now they might not mix on the small scale where they individually might work, but when you ramp things up to the size needed for a large country they MUST be mixed to cancel out the shortcomings of each.

But, the current government is neither, and has betrayed the people so thoroughly that it's tempting to take ANY alternative, just to "show them". But in the end, it ends up being a choice of net worse, so.... I'll vote for obama again. Hopefully in his second term, he finds his balls, not having to worry about another election.

He won't (and can't, just like RP couldn't) give what I want-Single payer health, personal freedoms, take freedoms away from business on a sliding scale representing their size (I think that a one person business with no stock should be able to act as an individual like after citizens united, but giants should have VERY strict rules controlling them), blah blah blah....

 

Letlovin

The problem is that you don’t give me much to go on – you make statements but don’t explain them – I mean even when repeatedly asked to back up some of your claims you have refused to do so.

You actively promote Ron Paul, you are a supporter of free market ideology, Ron Paul is a supporter of free market ideology – now I’m not talking specific free market based policies I’m talking ideology.

So please can you explain where your free market ideological approach differs greater from that of Ron Paul and other right wing libertarians?