.
Posted on 08/25/2015 6:46:47 PM PDT by dontreadthis
It never died...And it grew into the silent majority...
Valjar’s disguise isn’t very good. ;)
Trade isn’t why we have a jobs problem, it’s immigration. We haven’t lost jobs, we’ve added them. But they’ve all gone to immigrants.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jun/27/job-gains-equal-number-immigrants/?page=all
If we could shut down immigration and remove welfare/entitlements so that Americans will take the jobs they think they’re too “good for,” we’d be in great shape. We’d have employed Americans and still be able to benefit from cheap imports.
To the best of my recollection, none of those are treaties; they are "trade agreements," and therefore effectively unconstitutional because there is no way they would have acquired supermajority support in the Senate.
That's right...Like signing up for welfare...
And all the steel mill guys and the guys that built cars and the IT guys can mow lawns and make beds and pick lettuce and be happy and forget buying new homes, etc.?
We could all be laboring on farms churning our own butter too if we never allowed anything to happen that might make a job “go away.”
Investing in a job skill is no different than investing in a stock. You take a risk that there will still be a demand for it years down the road. If you lose money on a stock, you don’t beg the government to prop up that industry artificially to keep your stock price high.
There are countless people who have shifted from one industry into another when the job market changed. We’ve had booms in oil and fracking that have employed a lot of people.
But it’s not the government’s job to “protect” people from ever losing money on any investment or ever experiencing a change in the job market. Economic progress isn’t made by keeping everything static and making sure nothing ever changes. Our economy has changed drastically. We work to create goods and services to fill our needs. Both technology and outsourcing can help us meet those needs more efficiently and that’s a good thing. When you can suddenly buy butter at the store, you no longer need to churn it yourself and can instead spend your time making something else that you’ll now have in addition to the butter.
You're joking, right? "They" want him to take his ball(s) and go home.
I would hope that in all of Trumps intentions there is a prime intention of making ordinary US citizens owners of the US.
.
The Federal reserve notes initially said "This note is legal tender for all debts, public and private, and may be exchanged for lawful money at the United States Treasury or any Federal Reserve Bank."
After 1965, Silver Certificates and United States Notes disappeared from circulation, along with the vast majority of 90% silver coins and 40% silver halves (from 1965-1970), leaving FRNs and copper clad coins.
Val Jar has a definite lizard look.
Past tense.
Now what?
Rig count in the Williston Basin is down by 2/3 (The Bakken/Three Forks), the boom is busting. Not just here but elsewhere as well, with oil down around $40. There are a lot of rigs in the weeds.
We did our job, we developed new technology and techniques, and here's your pink slip, thankyouverymuch.
Don't expect people to put in 12 hour high intensity days back to back for small wages--flipping burgers is $14 an hour or more, and you're home every night, sleeping next to the Mrs., without driving a mile on a rig road.
The oil boom was a great thing, but the US only needs so much light sweet crude, and unlike cars, widgets, or weapons, you can't just export the surplus supply.
You can't outsource it to China, but you can't sell them the extra, either.
When we started the whole "service economy" thing, a friend and I looked at each other and basically figured no one was going to get rich scrubbing each others' toilets.
You make wealth by adding value. Plant seed on your land, harvest a corp--wealth created. Dig up iron ore, smelt it, make steel, and you've added wealth--but wait! there' more!!--make something of the steel--bridges, buildings, cars, trucks, ships, and you have added a lot more value.
But not so much in America, where our EPA has stacked the deck against making everything from metals out of ore dug from a patch of blessed dirt and rock to making electricity out of our own coal and oil and natural gas.
You can't disturb that patch of dirt for a bridge abutment because it might disturb the mating habits of the three-titted tuftmouse.
It isn't a level playing field, and the ones who have tilted it against Americans are Americans.
There's no damned excuse for that.
We can't compete on the world stage because our own government won't allow us to.
That rock in the economic pond creates a tsunami by the time the ripple reaches the shore, and a lot of people are getting wiped out.
We're the best, damnit, but no racehorse can win, place, or show wearing hobbles.
Funny me . . . I thought it was Occupy Wall Street for a second.
There were a few iterations:
1914
This note is receivable by all national and member banks and Federal Reserve Banks and for all taxes, customs and other public dues. It is redeemable in gold on demand at the Treasury Department of the United States in the city of Washington, District of Columbia or in gold or lawful money at any Federal Reserve Bank.
Redeemable in gold on demand at the United States Treasury, or in gold or lawful money at any Federal Reserve Bank.
The version you noted, which referred to "lawful money" (whatever that is) but not to gold, appeared in 1934. That phrase was replaced in 1963 with the words we see today, "This note is legal tender for all debts, public and private."
Article 1, Section 10. (US Constitution) No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; grant letters of marque and reprisal; coin money; emit bills of credit; make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts;...
I reckon that would sum up "lawful money".
While Federal Reserve Notes early on were redeemable in gold there were also Gold Certificates, which stated on the note that "This certifies that there have been deposited in the Treasury of the United States of America (denomination) in gold coin payable to the bearer on demand." It also said "This certificate is a legal tender in the amount thereof in the payment of all debts and dues public and private"
After the 1928 series and after the confiscation of 1933, there was another series of Gold Certificates in 1934 used in transactions between the US Treasury and the Federal Reserve Bank, which said "This is to certify that there is on deposit in the treasury of The United States of America (amount) in gold payable to the bearer on demand as authorized by law. 1934 $100 Gold Certificate
So, yes, it is complicated.
The 1914 Federal Reserve Note merely said that the note was "Authorized by the Federal Reserve Act of December 23, 1913" image of $10 FRN and elsewhere on the note said that the "United States of America will pay to the bearer on demand (amount of denomination)". This was, in essence a promissory note: an IOU.
Your post of the Federal Reserve note of 1928A is correct, and the simultaneously issued United States Note had the message: "This note is legal tender at its face value for all debts public and private except duties on imports and interest on the public debt". 1928 United States Note $1, but it also said the United States of America would pay to the bearer on demand one dollar.
That all of these notes, in one form or another mentioned redemption in "lawful money", Gold, or silver, or noted payment would be made upon demand of the face value amount implies that they are mere promissory notes to pay in the Constitutionally lawful coin of gold or silver.
At least that's what it looks like from the cheap seats. (YMMV)
The "redeemable in gold" language is on the back of that note.
One reason the "lawful money" definition eludes me is that these notes were redeemable for gold or lawful money. The notes appear to be in the nature of some sort of deposit certificate, making them useful to conduct transactions without actually handling whatever it was that was on deposit at the bank.
The constitutional limitation you point out runs to the states, and aimed to prevent paper monetization of debt by the states, which, although I'm not studied on the history, I think had occurred prior to the constitution being adopted.
Money is a strange and powerful thing. A convenience over barter, a tool to facilitate commerce large and small. It should be created in proportion to agricultural and industrial production (which isn't always production, people are paid to demolish things, too), and destroyed after it has served its purpose.
Just thinking out loud, maybe “lawful money” is some form of intermediate note, redeemable in gold at the US Treasury. The early FRN’s were redeemable in gold at the US Treasury, or gold or lawful money at a Federal Reserve bank. The note couldn’t be redeemed for “lawful money” at the US Treasury.
Totally agree with you. “They” will attempt to remove Trump, one way or another. He needs to beef up security and make sure his planes are inspected. I can’t shake this really bad feeling I have been having re his safety.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
