Posted on 07/24/2010 2:21:26 PM PDT by citizenredstater9271
Ron Paul explains why we need to put our money in gold and how we can do that as America slowly drifts towards socialism.
I'm fully aware I can't change any one's mind about Dr. Paul on FR but please listen to this video you might agree with some of what he says.
If they actually can then sign 'em up, we need more!
Sorry, pet peeve du jour, it's "pooh-pooh's" when you scoff, show disdain -- you do the other in the necessary.
I never said that. The video is very good. It's a very good piece of neo-fascist propaganda.
"but can you deny Paul is wrong about the FED and gold and inflation?"
No, I will not deny that: Paul is indeed wrong on the Fed, gold and inflation. What is worse, he cannot even speak about those intelligently.
How is he wrong? You tell me he is wrong but can’t provde any factual evidence. Dr. Paul uses facts to back up what he says. The FED has been destroying the free market since 1913. CAN YOU DENY THIS? Income tax is an assault on our personal liberty. The only function of the gov. should be what the Founding Fathers said to protect private property not to tax.
I am not 100% pro Paul but the people who hate him sound like idiots. I think they get mad that he wants to cut welfare (foreign aid) to ALL countries which I support.
Cut aid to all illegals too.
It's unclear what this even means. Should people buy gold? If so, it is a financial advise, not the one about the future of the country. Should the government buy gold? That is a difficult question. It may do better by buying oil, for instance. He understands so little of finance that he is not even wrong, just nonsensical.
"You cant deny the dollar will crash"
Nobody knows the future, which makes the statement ridiculous (no offense intended), no matter who makes it. You can argue about the probability of the event, and even that would be a subjective probability only.
The current posture does not bode well for the dollar. But if there is a considerable instability in Europe or China, the same dollar will skyrocket. It is difficult to say what will happen in the event of a world war. There are too many variables on the table.
"at any day now and America is moving towards socialism."
We are not moving towards socialism but towards fascism. This has nothing to do, however, with gold standard or the existence of the Fed.
"The red flag will be hoisted over Washington maybe tomorrow. we need to end the fed, go back to gold/silver and revive the Constitution."
Yes, we need to revive the adherence to Constitution, but neither the Fed nor gold standard have anything to do with that.
In this area, Ron Paul is noting but a boring, nonsensical conspiracy theorist.
It would be far better to produce useful items like cars, computers, pharmaceuticals - really anything, rather than throwing investment money into the pit of a neomercantilist gold mine. Gold is a pretty metal, and does have some practical engineering uses; but it's can't sustain an economy.
Sorry, it is he who makes a claim that there is a connection here, and it is therefore he who must provide the evidence.
By comparison, suppose I claim that pink things are heavier than white things. This is ridiculous, right? But you say, politely, that there is no evidence to support that claim. I counterattack: you should prove why I am wrong. Do you see how illogical this is? The burden is on the one who makes a ridiculous claim, not the one who points out that it is such.
"The FED has been destroying the free market since 1913."
This is facutally incorrect. It was FDR, not the Fed, who instituted price-fixing and other controls of the economy. It was Nixon, not the Fed, who also fixed wages and price of oil. Which is why Ron Paul is nothing but a conspiracy theorist: he and his ilk attribute to the Fed the influence it does not even have and actions it never took. This boringly old theory was originally designed to demonstrate that Jews enslave the world (don't you know about the Rothschildss? They started all wars, you know).
"Income tax is an assault on our personal liberty."
No, it is perfectly constitutional: the Constitution allowed it with a provision that it be applied uniformly, that's all. Adam Smith, the most "conservative" and "libertarian" ecoomist, even decleared that to be fair a tax should be progressive.
But suppose for a moment that you are correct, suppose that income tax is an affront on liberty. Then you and Paul must demonstrate how alternatives such as tariffs are lesser affronts on liberty. He does not even try. Nor has he ever demonstrated sufficient knowledge of economics even to discuss this matter intelligently.
"The only function of the gov. should be what the Founding Fathers said to protect private property not to tax."
Factually incorrect again: our Founders have also told us about the provision of public goods such as defense. [FYI: any provision of public goods is an assault on individual liberty: markets do not provide public goods.]
See, the truth --- whether you speak of economics or Constitution --- is more subtle. We could disagree in the area of opinions, but not facts. And every single thing you said is counter to fact. You have bought, perhaps inadvertently, into a conspiracy theory. All such things manipulate (misrepresent) facts or invent them outright.
You may want to read up more on this issue. There is a book "A Brief History of Income Taxation in the U.S." (I forgot the author). If you read this much, you'll learn that income taxation is not at all contrary to the Constitution and has been used well before 1913.
The income tax is NOT Constitutional.
Ron Paul is not alone on this. U.S. Income Tax is a FRAUD
By comparison, suppose I claim that pink things are heavier than white things. This is ridiculous, right? But you say, politely, that there is no evidence to support that claim. I counterattack: you should prove why I am wrong. Do you see how illogical this is? The burden is on the one who makes a ridiculous claim, not the one who points out that it is such.
No the burden is on YOU. You made the claim that Dr. Paul is wrong. I asked you for a reason why. You didn't provide it and instead called Dr. Paul crazy. If I say the sky is blue, and you say it isn't and I ask you to prove to me why it isn't then it's YOU who needs to argue the facts.
But suppose for a moment that you are correct, suppose that income tax is an affront on liberty. Then you and Paul must demonstrate how alternatives such as tariffs are lesser affronts on liberty. He does not even try. Nor has he ever demonstrated sufficient knowledge of economics even to discuss this matter intelligently.
How are taxes considered "liberty"? They steal the fruits of our labor. Most of the things the gov. spends MY taxes on (gov. schools, libraries, obamacare) are things I NEVER asked for so why does the gov. DEMAND me to pay for them? If liberals and socialists and RINOs want to pay more in taxes for these things then let them but don't force ME.
Nomenclature in the art of political entities purposely confuses ‘Fed’ using it interchangeably between Federal Government and Federal Reserve Bank. By the headlines, you can never be sure which one is being referred to while both are in effect taking the blame.
And TopQuark, what are you talking about? Just trying to confuse the issue? I suggest you wrap your mind around the legal definition of ‘income’ before you start in on taxation. I can see very well where, the argument that labor is worthless and compensation is a gain when applied to work ethic, in your case.
If you think that truth is determined by vote, neither I nor anybody else can help you. " If I say the sky is blue, and you say it isn't and I ask you to prove to me why it isn't then it's YOU who needs to argue the facts."
What you said here is correct but is inapplicable to the issue at hand (it is what is called a non-example). The claim "the sky is blue" has been verified numerous times by multiple methodologies (in scientific methodology the latter is called triangulation). It is, most importantly, a statement of fact.
Unlike a statement of fact, claims such as "Fed (A) brought about this or that (B)" are questions of causality. There are numerous threats to causal inferences (they have been eloquently enumerated by Cook and Campbel in 1956 and now available in any textbook on research methods under "Threats to Validity"). The person making a causal inference "A causes B" must demonstrate, in particular, that it is not some C, D, etc. that caused B instead of A.
Once again: it does not matter what A and B are; the author of assertion musd demonstrate the validity of the causal implication he proposes. It's just a matter of logic (you are welcome to verify that, too; these issues go back to the early 1800s, in particular, J.S. Mill "On science" -- you'd like him, as he is a fellow libertarian).
TQ: "But suppose for a moment that you are correct, suppose that income tax is an affront on liberty. Then you and Paul must demonstrate how alternatives such as tariffs are lesser affronts on liberty. He does not even try. Nor has he ever demonstrated sufficient knowledge of economics even to discuss this matter intelligently. C: "How are taxes considered "liberty"?
Forgive me, but this is total nonsense: where did I say that taxes are liberty. If anything, I said that (i) if he advocates abolishing income tax because it is an affront on liberty, then he must also demonstrate that other forms of taxation are not, and (ii) provision of public goods (defense, police, street lighting, etc.) is always an affront on liberty: free markets do not provide public goods (this is a fact of economics), and a coercive power of the government is needed for that.
You response to my words is not wrong: it does not make any sense.
I have mentioned that notions you operate with are well-established, well-known and available in textbooks and other sources --- on economics, research methods, and history. Trying to be of help, I have tried to summarize them briefly. If I were you, I'd simply conclude that I apparently haven't learned enough and jumped to conclusions. The choice is yours.
Thank you for the discussion.
Not at all. I am only asking for clarifications, being confused myself --- by the nonsense spewed by Ron Paul and his conspiracy ilk.
"I suggest you wrap your mind around the legal definition of ‘income’ before you start in on taxation."
It's poor manners making a suggestion such as this without giving at least the essence of the answer.
I am not aware of a universal "legal" definition of income: lawyers tend to define such things in the preamble to each document. For the purpose of the discussion at hand, the economic definition It suffices for me know that income is a change in wealth.
"I can see very well where, the argument that labor is worthless and compensation is a gain when applied to work ethic, in your case."
Sorry I could not decipher the thought you were trying to express.
How the Federal Reserve Violates the Constitution
EVERY Freeper needs to read that book.
Why are so many "conservatives" in support of a coercive income tax?
I did not say I supported it. You are putting words in my mouth once again. Since you habitually do so, I see no point in further discussion.
Gold has always been viewed as a hedge against inflation. Kinda dumb to be buying it at high prices in a deflationary spiral like we’re in now....
Look, the dollar is going to collapse ANY DAY NOw. We cant take the risk. Putting all of your money in gold will PROTECT YOU from the FED’s abuse of money.
Whatever you’re trying to do, there has to be a better way to do it than gold. The value of the stuff is based on psychology and psychiatry and not on economics or physics. There is no meaningful use for the stuff.
Goldbug ping
FWIW, here are some other articles on gold and silver from the past few days:
Bullion buyers bank on gold coins (currently “Most Read” on MarketWatch)
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/bullion-buyers-bank-on-gold-coins-2010-07-23?pagenumber=1
How Goldman and J P Morgan May Intend to Rape the Mining Industry (Again) and Take It Over ‘On the Cheap’ As Bullion Rallies
http://jessescrossroadscafe.blogspot.com/2010/07/how-goldman-may-intend-to-rape-mining.html
and a point-counterpoint for those considering taking delivery of a COMEX silver contract:
An unkind complicatedness (Scotiabank as inflexible counterparty)
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/christie-blatchford/an-unkind-complicatedness/article1643419/
Delivery of a COMEX silver contract: My experience (also via Scotia Mocatta, straightforward but still took 3 weeks and $1500 in costs)
http://goldismoney2.com/showthread.php?4856-Delivery-of-a-COMEX-silver-contract-My-experience&p=45848
Mail me to get on or off the Free Republic Goldbug Ping List.
Thank you for this. We need to convince more Americans to put their savings in gold for ultimate security esp. now that N0bama is moving us towards socialism and a dead dollar.
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.