Posted on 11/30/2008 11:16:35 AM PST by rabscuttle385
I didn't vote for Ron Paul in the Republican primary (I was a Mike Huckabee man), nor did I write him in on Election Day (I penciled in farmer-poet Wendell Berry). But no Texan this year did more good for conservatism and his country than the congressman from the coast.
Lord knows there was no Republican in the 2008 campaign who talked straighter.
Dr. Paul – he's a physician – never had a chance, of course. He is too peculiar in his opinions and doesn't know how to spin like a TV slick. What he had was ideas, integrity and authenticity. On the most critical challenges facing America, Dr. Paul was more right than the well-funded GOP regulars who bigfooted the campaign trail.
(Excerpt) Read more at dallasnews.com ...
Well, all of the executive powers that “conservatives” cheered when they were granted to the president is about to come back and bite us all in the ass.
Economic necessity produced fractional reserve banking. It became obvious that it was a source of great wealth both for individuals and society as a whole. Removing and storing gold decreases the money supply so drastically that economic growth becomes dependent upon random events.
When and where banking was introduced it created economic and financial powerhouses. To claim otherwise is just a misreading of history.
Removing this ability is impossible today because it would create and sustain a world wide depression that no democratic society could survive.
The key is maintaining confidence in the money and tie the growth rate of the money supply to reasonable targets.
Hmmm ..?? is that why “moderate” repubs continually try to tell conservatives that we must include the dems or we’re not a nice person ..??
Sorry .. I don’t want to include people in my political party who’s sole purpose for living is to bad-mouth America and do anything and everything to tear this country apart.
If that’s the definition of insanity .. then that’s why I didn’t support McCain .. but I did support Sarah Palin.
Yep, just like the people who cheered when the PATRIOT Act gave Bush the “necessary” tools to fight the war on terror, and who now fear that legislation in the hands of Obama.
Then there are those of us who have opposed it from the beginning recognizing that even if Bush was completely benign, the next president might not be.
I don’t know it seems quite a few around here wouldn’t mind a totalitarian regime to dictate morality on us all.
I have no idea what “classical liberalism” is nor do I care. I don’t see anywhere in history that liberalism did anything good for America .. but instead it only lives to serve itself.
“, ... if it doesn’t affect your life, rights or property, you ought to have a limited interest in it.”
That statement is truly amazing. I cannot believe anybody who claims to be a liberterian would ever make such a totally ignorant statement. Like I said, liberalism has only one goal - itself - therefore the interests of anyone else is of no value to a liberal - so after they take your neighbors property will you finally wake up and realize - YOU’RE NEXT!
Good grief!
Your post contains many errors of fact, typical claims bandied about but false none the less.
The Constitution was written to restrain the STATES and increase federal power. This is indisputable.
The Tenth amendment says only that powers not delegated are retain but says nothing about the means used to implement the expressed powers.
The Founders deliberately rejected the argument that the Constitution was confined to expressed powers. Not even Jefferson consistently claimed that though he was not a Founder per se. They accepted the fact that there was a need for implied powers to be utilized as long as they did not conflict with the reservations or spirit of the Constitution.
So it is easily shown to be false that the federal government was confined to expressed powers. Hamilton’s explication of what is constitutional is in his Essay on the National Bank. Its logic has never been seriously challenged. Basically it is that the sovereign power of the government allows it to create instruments with which to attain the goals of expressed powers. The National Bank was just such an instrument allowing the government to more expeditiously handle tax revenues, fund the govenment, fund National Defense and control the money supply for starters. There was no need to spell out the power to create a National Bank anymore than there was to spell out the right to control borders or create an Air Force.
The idea that a modern war can be funded without a national bank is ludcrious to anyone who has studied these issues.
That is how the president has used it.
No. It has never been a source of wealth. It has been the source of inflation and subsequent deflation and thus business cycles, and in the case of central banking, perpetual and rampant inflation.
***Removing and storing gold decreases the money supply so drastically that economic growth becomes dependent upon random events.***
Wrong. When gold gets stored, a receipt, or bank note, is printed as proof that it lies in the bank. Then the gold is taken out of circulation because it is not being used and the paper ticket is circulated in its place to be redeemed by whoever holds the note should that be their choice. If for instance there is 100 ounces of gold in circulation and 50 ounces gets put in a bank, bank notes equivalent to 50 ounces of gold will be printed. The total money supply then is 50 ounces of gold and bank notes backed by 50 ounces not currently in circulation. The total money supply is then still the same. When the paper is exchanged for gold in the bank, then the paper is destroyed and the gold goes back into circulation.
Fractional reserve banking came about when bankers realized people didn’t collect their gold in large amounts or even all at once. So they began to print bank notes for gold that didn’t exist, loaning them out, and making profit off interest. It was always a risk because if news got out the bank was unsound, a run would occur and the bank would be rightfully put out of business. Then government stepped in of course.
***When and where banking was introduced it created economic and financial powerhouses.***
Of course. The ability to channel saved funds to entrepreneurs and make profit means most probably that the you will come across a lot of money. And when most people realize they don’t NEED all their money at the current moment and that they can make a profit by allowing banks to loan their money, they will likely deposit this money in the banking system. Fractional Reserve Banking increases the “prestige” of a bank only in appearance. In actuality it’s a recipe for bankruptcy and is nothing less than fraud.
***Removing this ability is impossible today because it would create and sustain a world wide depression that no democratic society could survive.***
No it wouldn’t. It would indeed create a severe recession because then banks could no longer inflate and they would be forced to call in all their outstanding loans (deflation), but this is exactly what happens in any other depression. We survived the 30’s and then the government kept getting in the way of recovery.
***The key is maintaining confidence in the money and tie the growth rate of the money supply to reasonable targets.***
You can’t maintain confidence in a system of ever increasing prices. The free market determines confidence, not some politician trying to delude the people into believing paper money is inherently valuable.
The idea that you can tie the growth rate of the money supply to something “reasonable” is laughable. Firstly who sets this growth rate? Most probably a highly centralized organization cut off from the reality of the everyday economy. And if the government continues to use it’s manipulated CPI and GDP numbers, the target money supply growth will never be accurate. Secondly, why should the money supply grow at all? An increase in the money supply confers no social value and only serves to help those that get the new money first and hurt those who get it last. Thirdly, what is a “reasonable target”? Something that always increases prices? That leads me to believe that in the long run prices will to infinity, but like good old Keynes said, in the long term, we’re all dead. Too bad WE are Keynes’ long term.
The free market will and did determine what the growth of the money supply will be and if ever that money becomes too common or too scarce (or a better money is found), then people will shift to a different commodity.
There is no debt without credit. Debt wisely used is a valuable tool for capitalists as their balance sheets can tell you.
America did not become a creditor nation for many decades after its founding. But then the word had a meaning since gold was drained from the money supply by an import.
Today we trade pieces of paper for goods and the impact is not the same. Under a floating exchange rate regime the impacts are vastly different.
Socialist nations rarely can use debt since there is no one willing to lend if the loans can be confiscated. Only capitalist nations can obtain huge loans.
Why would anyone save if they cannot lend and make money on their money? You are not describing the real economy.
Many Democrats are covered by that description as well.
Well, that explains everything. Thanks!
Your suggestions are your own but have little to do with the fact that there is no constitionally required form for declaring a war and what has been declared suitably fulfills the point of legislative approval which is the reason the phrase is in the Constitution.
Less informed LoL. I have been as well informed about Paul as I need be for a decade.
War was declared and has been funded by legislative edict as per the Constitution. Your objection to the phrasing is irrelevant.
In the Ultimate war of all out Nuclear attack there would not even be the chance to pass any kind of declaration since instant and automatic retaliation would occur.
It is also true that not all uses of military power are Wars. There is nothing in the Constitution which requires a priori Congressional approval of every use of military force in any case.
Do you think Congress declared war on the Indians? Was there a declaration against the Confederate States of America?
I am willing to go but am incapable of doing so. If the military’s standards were low enough to accept me then we could all kiss our asses goodbye.
Paul is 100% Open Borders.
He wants to change and remove the reason they come here.
As a Californian I recall voting for that in prop 187.
Guess what the courts did?
“Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated.”
-Thomas Jefferson
“Resolved, That the General Assembly of Virginia, doth unequivocally express a firm resolution to maintain and defend the Constitution of the United States, and the Constitution of this State, against every aggression either foreign or domestic ... That this Assembly doth explicitly and peremptorily declare, that it views the powers of the federal government, as resulting from the compact, to which the states are parties; as limited by the plain sense and intention of the instrument constituting the compact; as no further valid than they are authorized by the grants enumerated in that compact; and that in case of deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of other powers, not granted by the said compact, the states who are parties thereto, have the right, and are in duty bound, to interpose for arresting the progress of the evil, and for maintaining within their respective limits, the authorities, rights and liberties appertaining to them.”
-James Madison
“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.”
-James Madison
“I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground that ‘all powers not delegated to the United States, by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states or to the people.’ To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specially drawn around the powers of Congress, is to take possession of a boundless field of power not longer susceptible of any definition.”
-Thomas Jefferson
“If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the general welfare, the government is no longer a limited one possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one subject to particular exceptions.”
-James Madison
I don’t know what to tell you.
***The Constitution was written to restrain the STATES and increase federal power. This is indisputable.***
And exactly what were the restraints on the states besides being prohibited from emitting bills of credit, not starting wars, and not conducting diplomacy on their own?
***The Tenth amendment says only that powers not delegated are retain but says nothing about the means used to implement the expressed powers.***
Oh so basically the 10th Amendment means nothing. What means do you need to go about maintaining an Army/Navy, establishing courts, making post roads, regulating commerce, coining money, etc. other than to pass a laws (which is exactly what the necessary and proper clause redundantly authorizes)?
***The Founders deliberately rejected the argument that the Constitution was confined to expressed powers. Not even Jefferson consistently claimed that though he was not a Founder per se. They accepted the fact that there was a need for implied powers to be utilized as long as they did not conflict with the reservations or spirit of the Constitution.***
Funny because I have read numerous times that whenever someone tried to bring up the idea that the federal government SHOULD have implied powers, they were struck down by the general assembly.
***Basically it is that the sovereign power of the government allows it to create instruments with which to attain the goals of expressed powers.***
The “sovereign power”? Kind of like the crap they used to legitimize the draft. Hamilton was originally in favor of a president for life who could appoint governors and senators (sounds like what we fought against).
***The National Bank was just such an instrument allowing the government to more expeditiously handle tax revenues, fund the govenment, fund National Defense and control the money supply for starters. There was no need to spell out the power to create a National Bank anymore than there was to spell out the right to control borders or create an Air Force.***
The government had the treasury to do all that there is no legitimate need to inflate the money supply unless one plans on constantly going to war. The Air Force utilizes another type of weapon. You don’t need to spell out upgrades to the military. Unlike the Air Force (and planes in general), the concept of central banking was around at the time and it was NOT included in the Constitution.
***The idea that a modern war can be funded without a national bank is ludcrious to anyone who has studied these issues.***
All that says to me is that we shouldn’t be engaged in war so often.
Classical Liberalism is what America was founded on. That was a time when being liberal WAS a good thing and there’s your example of when liberalism was good for the country. Somewhere along the way liberalism became distorted and evolved into what it is today.
No kidding. It’s a darn shame too.
Examine the history of banking and you will see that you are incorrect. It started in the Italian city states during the Renaissance and led to a great explosion of wealth so much so that Italy became prey to great European kingdoms. Any money supply tied to metals is artificially restricted and leds to a permanent underuitilization of the economic resources. Gold has had long term growth rate of LESS than 1% which would produce a similiar economic growth rate only expanded by the fortuitous discovery of more gold.
(It should be recalled that that growth rates includes the utilization of the incredible hoards from the Western Hemisphere through the Spanish Conquest. And the introduction of this money created a centuries long inflation throughout Europe.)
The liquidity of private gold notes was limited to a few financial centers and they were not used as true money by the majority of the people. In fact, the period we are speaking of was just beginning to create a money economy something which did not exist prior. Economic life was subsistence and locally limited broken by a few great town fairs during the year. We are speaking of the very beginning of Western economic life and the beginning tools of same.
Governments had nothing to do with banking for hundreds of yeaer after its creation. It was the creation of the Bank of England which led to its great growth as a world economic and political power. Gold has gradually been reduced to being a mere commodity as it should and there will never be a return to it as a money. There simply is not enough of it to go around if each person is to be able to take part in the economy. Our Civil War showed the impossibility of funding a great war with a money supply based on gold.
We survived the Depression because FDR used policies which were designed to head off his Left wing opposition. There was great fear of a Communist Revolution occurring here and Roosevelt based his policies on heading off one. His intention was to save the Capitalist system. The same kind of demand will be made today by the masses and a great Depression will fuel another increase in central government power. You must realize the political possibilities given the beliefs of the majority of voters.
One of our greatest economic thinkers, Milton Friedman, proposed creating money at a consistent rate of 3%. If the MS does not grow at at least the rate of economic growth it will require deflation.
Any idea that cycles would be prevented does not recognize the cyclic nature of the economic process. And the idea that there were fewer or less severe ones prior to modern banking is an illusion.
I am a Free Market economist but that does not mean I do not recognize the fact that there has never been a Free Market or that one can exist without political constraints or legal limitations.
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.