Would YOU vote for RON PAUL

Balbie:

You seem to imply socialism as the 'only' answer to the problems created by the Federal government. As I've said before I have nothing against socialism as long as is accepted by all those ruled under it, and they are free to go elsewhere where government is more suitable to their desires.
Most of the programs that are bankrupting the country are based upon socialism, and unsustainable.

Can you put forth some 'good' left wing ideas that would appeal to a vast majority of the population?

Considering that the Left has been quite effective in moving our government to the Left for about a century now, yes, most every change needed to repair the damage and debt does seem to appear quite radical and extreme, but none the less necessary.

A free market that applies to all equally, not just large corporations, is the best model in a free society, and that does not mean eliminating ALL regulations.

 

Balbus,

What do you like most about the Federal Reserve system? And what do you like least about it?

 

I mean, just off the top of your head.

 

Indie

Where? I have said several times that many right wing libertarians seem to think that anything to the left of their extreme views are ‘socialist’.

Has any system been acceptable to all those under its rule? And as I’ve said before why shouldn’t people be allowed to try and improve the system rather than you telling them they should leave?

What is unsustainable is a system where in an up period the rewards go to a few and in the down period the losses are paid for by everyone else.

Try reading – Utopia, no just Keynes
http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showthread.php?t=328353

Again try reading - Utopia, no just Keynes
http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showthread.php?t=328353

But I’ve written a number of things about regulating markets so they work for all of society, having a system that tries to improve the quality of life of everyone, investing in people and communities so that they are more likely to fulfil their potential.

What ‘leftwing’ things are you talking about and would remove? And you don’t seem to have any rational or reasonable counter argument to the debt problem being down to neoliberalist ideas.

The problem is that there never has been a ‘free market’

Try reading - Free market = Plutocratic Tyranny
http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showthread.php?t=353336&f=36

 

Balbie:

If not socialist, what would you call them?

Why should the people be given a single choice, like it or not?

In up periods government tries to spend more, assuming that the debt incurred will eventually be offset by the growth of the economy, and in bad periods government just spends more which keeps the GDP growing without need for increased production.

Primarily those problems created by the Fed, the 16th and 17th amendments.

And there never will be as long as government continues to try and micro-manage everything. Get the Central government out of the picture and many things would improve, as the people could then begin to hold their State and local governments feet to the fire.

 

I don't recall asking anyone to perform a disappearing act . . .

 

Ron is the only candidate with an ounce of old fashioned Common Sense not willing to sell out to everybody and every country but the Americans themselves.
He won't win tho unfortunately for the USA as Americans for for the Purdy Boy,not one with brains.
They also don't vote for intelligence.
Its Americas last chance,we're bankrupt and soon to be if not already a third world country with a destroyed middle class,so I too will vote again for Obama.
Like a horse with a broken leg'America its all over for you,we might as well finish you off,end your pain and start over as a country like us that gets billions from communist China in loans like a jerk going to a Payday Loan then gives Communist China a yearly package of Foreign Aid,deserves nothing better,bye!

 

I think it's impossible for him to win at this point. Here is a Ron Paul chocolate bar I would like as a conversation piece, but I'd just end up eating it.

http://www.ronpaulbar.com/?utm_source=adroll&utm_medium=banner&utm_campaign=adroll1

 

They also sell Ron Paul figures.

 

Okay, I wonder if they made him anatomically correct. Either answer would be slightly disturbing.

 

Excerpt from the findings of the Grace Commission appointed by Reagan:

With two-thirds of everyone's personal income taxes wasted or not collected, 100 percent of what is collected is absorbed solely by interest on the Federal debt and by Federal Government contributions to transfer payments. In other words, all individual income tax revenues are gone before one nickel is spent on the services which taxpayers expect from their Government.

http://thetruthnews.info/GraceCommissionReport.pdf

You will note that, in the Commission's warning to Reagan, they tell him that:

If fundamental changes are not made in federal spending, as compared with the fiscal 1983 deficit of $195 billion, a deficit of over ten times that amount, $2 trillion, is projected for the year 2000, only 17 years from now. In that year, the Federal debt would be $13.0 trillion ($160,000 per current taxpayer) and the interest alone on the debt would be $1.5 trillion per year ($18,500 per year per current taxpayer).

Apparently, no fundmental changes were made.

 

Concerning the non-ratification of the 16th amendment, not to mention its illegality.

http://www.apfn.net/Doc-100_bankruptcy20.htm

EXCERPT:

However, Bill Benson's research shows, conclusively, that the 16th (income tax) amendment is a FRAUD.-it was fraudulently ratified.
When Mr Benson took his charge of FRAUD to federal court, the court
declared that it was a political question for Congress to decide, (Editor's
note: since when is fraud a political question?)

 

And lest we forget what was posted on this subject, and subsequently ignored by some, here is an excerpt from the link below:

WHEREAS, The Federal Reserve System created a 3,000% increase in the money supply (properly known as inflation) over the years 1959 to
2006 which led to an 89% loss in the purchasing power of our "Federal
Reserve Note" paper dollars (the classic effect of inflation) during
the same time period; and
WHEREAS, The Federal Reserve . . .

http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/Billinfo/...morials/4010-Inflation by federal reserve.pdf

 

With the exception of coins, all of our "money" is really debt acting as a substitute for
real, Constitutional money. Real money would be created and spent into circulation
by the government, tax free and interest free. Instead we continue to let private
corporations use the government's own power to create money and loan that money
to us and charge us interest for the use of our own money.
**See “Modern Money Mechanics” published
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Inflation Correctly Defined:
Recall that as the debt grows exponentially due to the
accumulating interest, more and more money must be created
just to pay the interest for the debt - which is expanding
exponentially.

This process sets up a chronic and ever-worsening shortage of
money relative to debt, as the DUM equation shows.
Over time, wages and prices must rise just to pay the interest
costs, never mind the ACTUAL cost of goods and services.
Therefore inflation in a debt dominant money system, such
as the Fed, is correctly defined as "debt-induced currency devaluation.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
By the mid 1700’s England was in a lot of debt and looked to the colonies for
revenue. Because the colonies were prospering so nicely during this period,
Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790) was called before the British Parliament
during one of his visits to London in 1757 and asked how he could account
for the new found prosperity in the colonies.
Franklin replied:

"That is simple. In the colonies we issue our own money. It is called Colonial
Scrip. We issue it in proper proportion to the demands of trade and
industry to make the products pass easily from the producers to the
consumers. In this manner, creating for ourselves our own paper money, we
control its purchasing power, and we have no interest to pay to any one."

All of the above, and a complete explanation of the money system, can be found here:

http://www.thetwofacesofmoney.com/files/money.pdf

 

Libertarians always like to spout this fact while ignoring up until the 80's real wages actually adjusted for inflation grew faster, and even now the average person makes on average near 8x the average wage in the 1950's. They also really love to never tell you about the disasters of inflation or how on the full gold standard pre federal reserve market swings were just as if not more common. That the panics of 1890, 1893, 1896, 1901, 1907 and 1910 as well as the effects of deflation during the Long Depression in the later part of the 19th century is what finally made America become one of the last nations to adopt a central bank.

 

So, you believe that perpetual and exponentially increasing debt is a good thing? You like paying interest on money that never existed--Interest that will never be paid? Don't you know a scam when you see one?

If you want to work out the cause of the crash of 1907, checking who benefited is where you might like to look first. With the stock market slump causing most of the over extended banks to falter, in steps J.P. Morgan offering to save the day. People will do strange things when in a panic, and this might explain why Morgan was authorised to print $200 million from nothing, which he then used to prop things up. Some of the troubled banks with less than 1% in reserve had no choice. It was accept this solution or go under. Even if they had worked out that their problems had been caused by the same people now offering the solution, there is not a lot they could have done about it. J.P.Morgan was hailed a hero. "All this trouble could be averted if we appointed a committee of six or seven men like J.P.Morgan to handle the affairs of our country."

http://www.xat.org/xat/usury.html

You know this. Right?

First, explain to me how hiring a central foreign bank to print up money at interest that can never be paid is better than congress printing up interest free money. Then explain to me how perpetual and exponentially increasing debt is a good thing in your mind. Don't you recognize a scam when you see one? Kind of unbelievable, if you know what I mean.

Did you not understand this: If fundamental changes are not made in federal spending, as compared with the fiscal 1983 deficit of $195 billion, a deficit of over ten times that amount, $2 trillion, is projected for the year 2000, only 17 years from now. In that year, the Federal debt would be $13.0 trillion ($160,000 per current taxpayer) and the interest alone on the debt would be $1.5 trillion per year ($18,500 per year per current taxpayer).

 

First, your "no comment" stance on the issue of the illegality of the income tax is noted. And your avoidance of this:

http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/Billinfo/2...%20reserve.pdf

is also noted.

And your avoidance of this:

http://thetruthnews.info/GraceCommissionReport.pdf

is noted, too.

Are you beginning to see a pattern here? Boy, I sure am!

_________________________________________________


By the early 20th century the U.S. had already implemented and removed a few central banking systems which were swindled into place by ruthless banking interests. At this time, the dominant families in the banking and business world were the Rockefellers, the Morgans, the Warburgs and the Rothchilds and in the early 1900's they sought to push once again legislation to create another central bank . . . however they knew the government and public were very weary of such an institution . . . so they needed to create an incident to affect public opinion. And for this reason was hatched the idea to deliberately orchestrate what history refers to as "the panic of 1907". This was accomplished by JP Morgan exploiting his mass influence and publishing rumors that a prominent bank in NY was insolvent or bankrupt. Morgan knew this would cause mass hysteria which would affect other banks as well. And it did . . . the public in fear of losing their deposits immediately began mass withdraws. Consequently, the banks were forced to call in their loans, causing recipients to sell their properties and thus a spiral of bankruptcy, repossessions and turmoil emerged.

And I'm betting you didn't know that, either. Or maybe you did; I might be jumping the gun here.
_______________________________________________

Nobel Prize-winning economist Milton Friedman:

The recession was an ordinary business cycle. We had repeated recessions over hundreds of years, but what converted [this one] into a major depression was bad monetary policy.

The Federal Reserve System had been established to prevent what actually happened. It was set up to avoid a situation in which you would have to close down banks, in which you would have a banking crisis. And yet, under the Federal Reserve System, you had the worst banking crisis in the history of the United States. There’s no other example I can think of, of a government measure which produced so clearly the opposite of the results that were intended.

And what happened is that [the Federal Reserve] followed policies which led to a decline in the quantity of money by a third. For every $100 in paper money, in deposits, in cash, in currency, in existence in 1929, by the time you got to 1933 there was only about $65, $66 left. And that extraordinary collapse in the banking system, with about a third of the banks failing from beginning to end, with millions of people having their savings essentially washed out, that decline was utterly unnecessary.

At all times, the Federal Reserve had the power and the knowledge to have stopped that. And there were people at the time who were all the time urging them to do that. So it was, in my opinion, clearly a mistake of policy that led to the Great Depression.

______________________________________________

Although economists have pontificated over the decades about this or that cause of the Great Depression, even the current Fed chairman Ben S. Bernanke, agrees with Friedman’s assessment that the Fed caused the Great Depression.

Were you aware of this?

 

The gold standard again, LOL.



http://www.irs.gov/taxpros/article/0,,id=159932,00.html#_Toc316940500

 

A government website? LOL!

You were just shown evidence that the 16th amendment was not ratified. When it was challenged in federal court, a federal court decided that it was a matter for politicians to decide whether it was or wasn't. The court did not refute Bill Benson's evidence--and you and I both know that they would have if they could have. Instead, they erroneously declared the matter a political issue. They basically turned the the issue of political fraud over to the ones complicit in the crime.

So, why don't you post the law that tells you that you must pay income tax? I'd really like to see that.
________________________________________________________________________________
A Shreveport attorney who has challenged the government for years on the legality of filing federal income taxes has been acquitted on charges he failed to file returns.
A federal jury unanimously found Tommy Cryer not guilty this week on two misdemeanor counts of failure to file.
And according to Cryer, the prosecution dismissed two felony charges of tax evasion prior to trial.
Attempts by The Times on Thursday to reach U.S. Attorney Donald Washington or Bill Flanagan, first assistant U.S. attorney, were not successful. Calls made to the two were not immediately returned.
"The court could not find a law that makes me liable or makes my revenues taxable," Cryer said. "The Supreme Court has ruled that the government cannot impose an income tax on anything but the profits and gains. When you work for someone you give your service and labor in exchange for money, so everything you make is not profit or gain. You put something into it."
Cryer was indicted last year on two counts of tax evasion. The indictment alleged he evaded payment of $73,000 in income tax to the Internal Revenue Service during 2000 and 2001.
Cryer created a trust listing himself as the trustee, and received payments of dividends, interest and stock income to that trust, according to the indictment. He also was accused of concealing his receipt of the sources of income from the IRS by failing to file a tax return on behalf of that trust.
"I determined that my personal earnings were not 100 percent profits, some were income," Cryer said. "I refuse to file, I refuse to pay unless they can show me I have a lawful reason to pay."
"What I earned was my own personal labor. I am giving something in exchange. I'm giving my property and I don't belong to anyone else."
Cryer says he stopped filing returns more than 10 years ago after he investigated claims that income tax was a sham. He contends the law doesn't actually tax personal earning.

And this is not the only case where the fake law was exposed. In one case, the jury asked the judge to provide them with a copy of the law that indicates the defendant's legal obligation to pay. The judge couldn't produce that, and so the jury acquitted him.

Never trust the word of people who stand to gain from one particular answer to a question.

 

You never did say what you thought of this:

With two-thirds of everyone's personal income taxes wasted or not collected, 100 percent of what is collected is absorbed solely by interest on the Federal debt and by Federal Government contributions to transfer payments. In other words, all individual income tax revenues are gone before one nickel is spent on the services which taxpayers expect from their Government.

_____________________________________________

Forget about the gold standard. The issue is one of control of the gold and monetary system. It's not an either/or proposition.

But even when paper currency was supposedly convertible to gold, or even gold and silver, the metallic standard always was a fiction. There never was and never could be enough for banks to hand over the requisite quantity to the “bearer on demand” if more than a fraction of the currency in circulation was presented for redemption at the same time.
In fact, during the state banking era prior to the Civil War, banks would destroy their rivals by showing up on their doorstep with quantities of the paper notes of the bank under attack and asking with a smirk for metallic reimbursement. The same thing happened during runs on the banks, resulting in frequent financial panics and bankruptcies.
Actually, those who favor a return to the gold standard tend to confuse the shaky redemption policy with the days when a miner or broker could walk into a U.S. Mint and have the government stamp his gold or silver into coins free of charge. Those really were the “good old days,” but that time is gone forever.

Should we return to the time of a banker-controlled gold standard? Probably not. What should really control the monetary supply is the sovereign power of representative government which must be equipped with the knowledge and authority to balance purchasing power with economic production.
This could be done by a National Dividend system combined with reduced taxation and direct government spending of money into the economy. The system would be overseen by a Monetary Control Board as advocated by the American Monetary Institute in its draft monetary reform legislation. The author describes such a system in his recent article, “Monetary Reform and How A Nation’s Monetary System Should Work.”

At the same time, lending for speculation should be outlawed, as should fractional reserve banking. There would then be no reason why money could not be paper, coinage, or electronic ledger entries. The monetary supply could expand or contract according to the real needs of the producing economy, not a more or less accidental quantity of precious metal.
For this to work, control of money must be removed entirely from the banks and restored to the people, acting through Congress as the U.S. Constitution requires. And under such a system where the money supply served real human needs instead of bank profiteering, promise of gold redemption would be unnecessary.

Having said all this, the author certainly has no objection to the buying and selling of gold as a commodity. Under certain conditions it might serve as a store of value and a hedge against inflation. But you can’t wear it, eat it, or live in it. What gives value to an economy is its ability to produce goods and services. That ability derives from the skills, education, and spirit of a nation’s population. In the end, money really derives its value from the character of the people and the honesty of government. That is why we should not even try to go back to an era where the monetary system failed in large part because of the gold standard.

And let's not forget this:

By the mid 1700’s England was in a lot of debt and looked to the colonies for
revenue. Because the colonies were prospering so nicely during this period,
Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790) was called before the British Parliament
during one of his visits to London in 1757 and asked how he could account
for the new found prosperity in the colonies.
Franklin replied:
"That is simple. In the colonies we issue our own money. It is called Colonial
Scrip. We issue it in proper proportion to the demands of trade and
industry to make the products pass easily from the producers to the
consumers. In this manner, creating for ourselves our own paper money, we
control its purchasing power, and we have no interest to pay to any one."