InstantForum.NET v4.1.4My.Pantagraph.com Forumshttp://my.pantagraph.com/forums/forums@instantasp.co.ukMon, 22 Mar 2010 07:22:32 GMT20http://my.pantagraph.com/forums/Topic4254441-2289-1.aspx[quote][b]tLIB (1/9/2010)[/b][hr][quote][b]mrlobo69 (1/8/2010)[/b][hr][quote][b]tLIB (1/8/2010)[/b][hr] Gold and silver would be a free market. Eliminate all money and just use that would be the freest I guess. [/quote]We need an elastic money supply. What would you do if demand for credit increased? Can't mine more gold or silver. Guess farmers would just have to not get loans to plant thier fields.[/quote]Remember, I am against backing money by gold. As per your question - what would you do - just print more money? If a farmer wants some money, just print it? In a way we do that now but there is debt associated with every dollar printed. My recommendation is control inflation by printing X many dollars more this year than last. They do that now, but there is debt associated with it AND they favor certain companies over others. That is a major problem with the Fed and one reason why I recommend eliminating it. Get rid of taxes and debt and let people trade in gold, silver, barter, or currency printed by the government, not the Fed. Plus there are wild swings in the economy due to the over-correction by the Fed. Set the inflation rate and eliminate the booms and busts. Inflation would be set by X.[/quote]You previously acknowledged a willingness to just print more money and let inflation be our income tax. I didn't agree with that, then, because you cannot control inflation by printing more money. The greater the supply of something, the lesser its value: Flood "...X many more dollars more this year than last" and you exacerbate inflation, you don't control it. Further, trying it in the reverse (remove X dollars from circulation) doesn't look like it will work, either, because there is no practical way to remove a dollar from circulating unless you are going to replace it with a new dollar because a retailer is NOT going to willingly surrender a dollar he's made.Mon, 11 Jan 2010 08:17:37 GMTGOODavehttp://my.pantagraph.com/forums/Topic4254441-2289-1.aspx[quote][b]mrlobo69 (1/8/2010)[/b][hr][quote][b]tLIB (1/8/2010)[/b][hr] Gold and silver would be a free market. Eliminate all money and just use that would be the freest I guess. [/quote]We need an elastic money supply. What would you do if demand for credit increased? Can't mine more gold or silver. Guess farmers would just have to not get loans to plant thier fields.[/quote]Remember, I am against backing money by gold. As per your question - what would you do - just print more money? If a farmer wants some money, just print it? In a way we do that now but there is debt associated with every dollar printed. My recommendation is control inflation by printing X many dollars more this year than last. They do that now, but there is debt associated with it AND they favor certain companies over others. That is a major problem with the Fed and one reason why I recommend eliminating it. Get rid of taxes and debt and let people trade in gold, silver, barter, or currency printed by the government, not the Fed. Plus there are wild swings in the economy due to the over-correction by the Fed. Set the inflation rate and eliminate the booms and busts. Inflation would be set by X.Sat, 09 Jan 2010 01:51:57 GMTtLIBhttp://my.pantagraph.com/forums/Topic4254441-2289-1.aspx[quote][b]tLIB (1/8/2010)[/b][hr] Gold and silver would be a free market. Eliminate all money and just use that would be the freest I guess. [/quote]We need an elastic money supply. What would you do if demand for credit increased? Can't mine more gold or silver. Guess farmers would just have to not get loans to plant thier fields.Fri, 08 Jan 2010 08:21:49 GMTmrlobo69http://my.pantagraph.com/forums/Topic4254441-2289-1.aspx[quote][b]tLIB (1/8/2010)[/b][hr][quote]Perhaps a #4 would be to keep the current system, but let the free market type of arrangement drive it. [/quote]The reason I said it looked like #2 (not poo, but the number two) is because you said keep the current system. The current system has the Federal Reserve. I am not sure what you mean by let the free market drive it. Gold and silver would be a free market. Eliminate all money and just use that would be the freest I guess. No system is perfect I guess.[/quote]No, you misread my comment.What I said was:[quote]keep the current system, but let the free market [b]type of arrangement [/b]drive it.[/quote]I am well aware that we can't put a free market system in place, but we CAN allow demand to drive services provided us by the federal government (just as one example). We CAN allow the public to actually influence expenditures (probably dysfunctional to require a nationwide vote on a budget, but it wouldn't hurt to get public input BEFORE creating a budget). That sort of thing is what I was talking about. Fri, 08 Jan 2010 07:39:06 GMTGOODavehttp://my.pantagraph.com/forums/Topic4254441-2289-1.aspx[quote]Perhaps a #4 would be to keep the current system, but let the free market type of arrangement drive it. [/quote]The reason I said it looked like #2 (not poo, but the number two) is because you said keep the current system. The current system has the Federal Reserve. I am not sure what you mean by let the free market drive it. Gold and silver would be a free market. Eliminate all money and just use that would be the freest I guess. No system is perfect I guess.Fri, 08 Jan 2010 04:12:34 GMTtLIBhttp://my.pantagraph.com/forums/Topic4254441-2289-1.aspx[quote][b]tLIB (1/7/2010)[/b][hr]Basically, you advocate #2:[quote]2) Have a central bank like the Federal Reserve and print money and run the debt up.[/quote]BUT with a limited government. Hey, I am all for a limited government. But with number 2 you will always have a debt. There is no way around it. When I complained about Reagan proposing the first trillion dollar budget; IMO, he had little choice. You can never pay back more money than was created in the first place. Right now the treasury receives about $35 billion a year from the Fed, after the profit is taken out and given to the banks. That is a drop in the bucket. It doesn't begin to pay the interest on the debt, which can only grow every year. Also, you would still need to tax right? Even if all your taxes paid for was war, you would still need to collect quite a bit of money - especially if you wanted to try to balance a budget. I think #4 is better than what we had before - when every dollar was backed by gold and silver. Thanks for your input on this - I would still rather deal with inflation with a debt though. [/quote]No, I'm specifically not for #2: I don't like a debt. All the stuff I mentioned was aimed at reducing and/or eventually eradicating the debt. But, like you say, we're going to have to get creative with how we do that if the current income won't even cover the interest (and isn't it only a matter of time before nations like China figure out we can't cover their bet?).Like you, I'm not sold on the need for a federal reserve. But first things first: Let's FIRST trim back our expenditures (including TARP and Healthcare) and once we get it down to a manageable level ... but headed in the RIGHT direction (down) ... THEN let's talk about how to avoid it going back up.Thu, 07 Jan 2010 13:24:21 GMTGOODavehttp://my.pantagraph.com/forums/Topic4254441-2289-1.aspxBasically, you advocate #2:[quote]2) Have a central bank like the Federal Reserve and print money and run the debt up.[/quote]BUT with a limited government. Hey, I am all for a limited government. But with number 2 you will always have a debt. There is no way around it. When I complained about Reagan proposing the first trillion dollar budget; IMO, he had little choice. You can never pay back more money than was created in the first place. Right now the treasury receives about $35 billion a year from the Fed, after the profit is taken out and given to the banks. That is a drop in the bucket. It doesn't begin to pay the interest on the debt, which can only grow every year. Also, you would still need to tax right? Even if all your taxes paid for was war, you would still need to collect quite a bit of money - especially if you wanted to try to balance a budget. I think #4 is better than what we had before - when every dollar was backed by gold and silver. Thanks for your input on this - I would still rather deal with inflation with a debt though. Thu, 07 Jan 2010 03:24:12 GMTtLIBhttp://my.pantagraph.com/forums/Topic4254441-2289-1.aspx[quote][b]tLIB (1/6/2010)[/b][hr]Oh, BTW, does someone have a number 4??? I would like to hear it.[/quote]Perhaps a #4 would be to keep the current system, but let the free market type of arrangement drive it. For example, in a free market system, DEMAND drives production. MAYBE those who use the roads should be allowed to decide whether this road needs to be resurfaced OR that electrical substation needs to be built. "O.K., [town/city], you've got $XXXX dollars, and no more: What is the more important project?"Reduce the Federal Government to the bare-bones necessity: Volunteer legislators, limited staffs (wouldn't THAT be nice? Legislators that had to do their own research and writing!!! TALK about paperwork reduction!), oversight of ONLY efforts with nationwide implications. No czars, very few cabinet secretaries ("Education, gone...Human Services, gone...Labor, gone...etc.): Strictly an Article 1, Section 8 kind of Federal government.Put the states in charge of almost everything (other than the stuff a federal government SHOULD oversee) but limit them in how much they can collect in taxes. REQUIRE state and federal budgets that are both balanced and MANDATED (in other words, they can't spend more money than they say they'll spend OR than they collect).IF the insurance industry, as an example, wants a NATIONAL licensure instead of having to be licensed in each state, that's something they can go to the Fed with but they have to bring the states in on it since it will impact them too. Simplify the tax code and remove almost all exemptions and almost all exclusions. Keep the business expense deductions for all VERIFIED business expenses (down to dollar one), but basically a flat rate tax form consisting of "how much did you make this year?" ___________ (attach evidence), "Attach check for XX%"Kind of a lengthy #4, but I think it could work.Wed, 06 Jan 2010 08:22:07 GMTGOODavehttp://my.pantagraph.com/forums/Topic4254441-2289-1.aspxOh, BTW, does someone have a number 4??? I would like to hear it.Wed, 06 Jan 2010 03:40:42 GMTtLIBhttp://my.pantagraph.com/forums/Topic4254441-2289-1.aspxHoover was very conservative. He didn't spend much money and even cut spending when the Depression hit. He didn't want to run the debt up because taxes dropped because of the economic times. The Depression worsened sadly. 1933 was the worst year. Then Roosevelt came along and spent money. I consider FDR fiscally liberal.Carter kept the debt relatively low. He reminded me of Hoover. The economy was going down the tubes and he continued to be tight with the money. Then Reagan was elected and turned that around. The debt skyrocketed. Reagan was a fiscal liberal, but like Roosevelt the economy improved under his "liberalness". Perhaps, in the world of the Federal Reserve and "free money", there is a need for these liberals, especially with these wild swings in the economy. Before the Federal Reserve money was backed by gold and silver. Was that good?? Some people think so. I used to. But after reading about the panics, I am not sure. JP Morgan bailed out the Federal Government once when they fell short of funds. After all, the government couldn't print money back then. So IMO we have three choices:1) Back the money by gold and tax people to build roads etc.2) Have a central bank like the Federal Reserve and print money and run the debt up.3) Get rid of the central bank and have the government print the money and have zero debt and zero taxes. Before someone says "we need taxes", let me remind you that our taxes don't even cover the interest on the debt. It is foolishness to run up a debt. In choice 2 and 3 we have to deal with inflation. Only in choice 3 do we not have to have taxes and debt.Ouch.... Hey why did you kick that soap box out from under me... :PWed, 06 Jan 2010 03:39:47 GMTtLIBhttp://my.pantagraph.com/forums/Topic4254441-2289-1.aspx[quote][b]tLIB (1/4/2010)[/b][hr][quote]Most liberal zealots confuse "conservatives" with "the Republican party."[/quote]And there are Republicans out there who think Reagan and Bush were conservative.[/quote]There are also neo-conservative libertarian wannabes who think Reagan was a liberal (not biting the bait about Bush: My arguments with him are well documented). :PTue, 05 Jan 2010 15:15:56 GMTGOODavehttp://my.pantagraph.com/forums/Topic4254441-2289-1.aspx[quote]Most liberal zealots confuse "conservatives" with "the Republican party."[/quote]And there are Republicans out there who think Reagan and Bush were conservative.Mon, 04 Jan 2010 23:39:54 GMTtLIBhttp://my.pantagraph.com/forums/Topic4254441-2289-1.aspx[quote][b]MPH (12/29/2009)[/b][hr][quote][b]Fight for Justice (12/28/2009)[/b][hr]Here's what two recent national polls say about the health of the GOP:* In the latest Wall Street Journal-NBC News poll, only 17 percent of Americans identify themselves as Republicans (as opposed to 30 percent for the Democrats, and 44 for independents). Source: NBC News/Wall Street Journal national poll taken in late Oct. 2009* CNN Poll: GOP favorable rating lowest in a decade Posted: October 23rd, 2009 11:54 AM ETWASHINGTON (CNN) – The Republican Party's favorable rating among Americans is at lowest level in at least a decade, according to a new national poll. Thirty-six percent of people questioned in a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey released Friday say they have a favorable opinion of the Republican Party, with 54 percent viewing the GOP negatively.[/quote]Do the same search for CONSERVATIVES vs. LIBERALS and see what you come up with.;)[/quote]Yeppers!Most liberal zealots confuse "conservatives" with "the Republican party." Few seem to have understood the [i]neo-[/i]conservative movement of the early 2000's. That seperated more than a few true conservatives from the GOP ideology ... but [i]s-h-h-h-h-h-h-h-h-h[/i]: Don't let 'em in on the secret. :hehe:Mon, 04 Jan 2010 08:07:14 GMTGOODavehttp://my.pantagraph.com/forums/Topic4254441-2289-1.aspx[quote][b]Fight for Justice (12/28/2009)[/b][hr]Here's what two recent national polls say about the health of the GOP:* In the latest Wall Street Journal-NBC News poll, only 17 percent of Americans identify themselves as Republicans (as opposed to 30 percent for the Democrats, and 44 for independents). Source: NBC News/Wall Street Journal national poll taken in late Oct. 2009* CNN Poll: GOP favorable rating lowest in a decade Posted: October 23rd, 2009 11:54 AM ETWASHINGTON (CNN) – The Republican Party's favorable rating among Americans is at lowest level in at least a decade, according to a new national poll. Thirty-six percent of people questioned in a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey released Friday say they have a favorable opinion of the Republican Party, with 54 percent viewing the GOP negatively.[/quote]Do the same search for CONSERVATIVES vs. LIBERALS and see what you come up with.;)Tue, 29 Dec 2009 09:30:40 GMTMPHhttp://my.pantagraph.com/forums/Topic4254441-2289-1.aspx[quote][b]Fight for Justice (12/28/2009)[/b][hr]Here's what two recent national polls say about the health of the GOP:* In the latest Wall Street Journal-NBC News poll, only 17 percent of Americans identify themselves as Republicans (as opposed to 30 percent for the Democrats, and 44 for independents). Source: NBC News/Wall Street Journal national poll taken in late Oct. 2009* CNN Poll: GOP favorable rating lowest in a decade Posted: October 23rd, 2009 11:54 AM ETWASHINGTON (CNN) – The Republican Party's favorable rating among Americans is at lowest level in at least a decade, according to a new national poll. Thirty-six percent of people questioned in a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey released Friday say they have a favorable opinion of the Republican Party, with 54 percent viewing the GOP negatively.[/quote]O.K., then according to you, we no longer have to worry about the GOP.By my tally, that's one down, one to go.Tue, 29 Dec 2009 07:35:22 GMTGOODavehttp://my.pantagraph.com/forums/Topic4254441-2289-1.aspxHere's what two recent national polls say about the health of the GOP:* In the latest Wall Street Journal-NBC News poll, only 17 percent of Americans identify themselves as Republicans (as opposed to 30 percent for the Democrats, and 44 for independents). Source: NBC News/Wall Street Journal national poll taken in late Oct. 2009* CNN Poll: GOP favorable rating lowest in a decade Posted: October 23rd, 2009 11:54 AM ETWASHINGTON (CNN) – The Republican Party's favorable rating among Americans is at lowest level in at least a decade, according to a new national poll. Thirty-six percent of people questioned in a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey released Friday say they have a favorable opinion of the Republican Party, with 54 percent viewing the GOP negatively.Mon, 28 Dec 2009 12:14:46 GMTFight for Justicehttp://my.pantagraph.com/forums/Topic4254441-2289-1.aspx[quote][b]ILVet (11/6/2009)[/b][hr][quote][b]GOODave (11/6/2009)[/b][hr]Instead of giving her a "pass," I took it upon myself to look into it and understand the issues at stake... and I STILL cannot call her a "liberal."[/quote]I agree with you that Palin cannot be called a liberal, but primarily because she just isn't smart enough to be a liberal.[/quote]O.K., now THAT was original AND clever.Fri, 06 Nov 2009 10:06:12 GMTGOODavehttp://my.pantagraph.com/forums/Topic4254441-2289-1.aspx[quote][b]GOODave (11/6/2009)[/b][hr]Instead of giving her a "pass," I took it upon myself to look into it and understand the issues at stake... and I STILL cannot call her a "liberal."[/quote]I agree with you that Palin cannot be called a liberal, but primarily because she just isn't smart enough to be a liberal.Fri, 06 Nov 2009 08:53:14 GMTILVethttp://my.pantagraph.com/forums/Topic4254441-2289-1.aspx[quote][b]tLIB (11/6/2009)[/b][hr]It is laughable that you and others would give her a pass on it.[/quote]Who gave her a pass?I believe the people of a given state should be allowed to profit from the use or taking of their resources. Prior to Sarah Palin's governorship, the legislative bodies up there were rife with corruptions and payola from those same big oil organizations. Palin came in and stood up to the big oil companies AND HER OWN PARTY, in some cases. She not only shut it down but she insisted they give that payola to the people instead of to the legislators.Sure, from a higher perspective, you can complain she increased taxes on business (a practice I generally discourage) ... but you have to look at the circumstances. EVEN a libertarian will eventually allow SOME regulation.Instead of giving her a "pass," I took it upon myself to look into it and understand the issues at stake... and I STILL cannot call her a "liberal."Fri, 06 Nov 2009 08:00:07 GMTGOODavehttp://my.pantagraph.com/forums/Topic4254441-2289-1.aspxIt is laughable that you and others would give her a pass on it.Fri, 06 Nov 2009 02:47:10 GMTtLIBhttp://my.pantagraph.com/forums/Topic4254441-2289-1.aspx[quote][b]tLIB (11/5/2009)[/b][hr]Sure. If a Democrat would have called for a windfall profits tax, the Republicans would support it. ;) Palin is as liberal as they come. I have another comment 4tunate. If you quit voting for the "big tent" party, and vote for true conservatives, you will never get anyone elected. I like your idea, but good luck. The Republicans will continue to vote for big-deficit spenders like Reagan and Bush. Look at the last slate of liberals the Republicans put forth - except for Ron Paul. And then McCain picked the ultra-liberal Palin for his running mate. [/quote]We all agree McCain was the wrong choice. But calling Palin "liberal" because she initiated a tax on big oil is laughable.Thu, 05 Nov 2009 08:18:22 GMTGOODavehttp://my.pantagraph.com/forums/Topic4254441-2289-1.aspxSure. If a Democrat would have called for a windfall profits tax, the Republicans would support it. ;) Palin is as liberal as they come. I have another comment 4tunate. If you quit voting for the "big tent" party, and vote for true conservatives, you will never get anyone elected. I like your idea, but good luck. The Republicans will continue to vote for big-deficit spenders like Reagan and Bush. Look at the last slate of liberals the Republicans put forth - except for Ron Paul. And then McCain picked the ultra-liberal Palin for his running mate. Thu, 05 Nov 2009 01:59:02 GMTtLIBhttp://my.pantagraph.com/forums/Topic4254441-2289-1.aspx[quote][b]tLIB (11/4/2009)[/b][hr][quote][b]4tunate1 (11/3/2009)[/b][hr] Grass roots republicans are trying to steer the party back to a conservative viewpoint. [/quote]I don't think that is the case. Look at all the people who supported Palin. Her special taxes put her in the far-left column with me. And then she bragged that each resident could get thousands of dollars because of that tax?? Now if the party endorses Ron Paul, I will go along with that.[/quote]But weren't her "special taxes" more of a windfall tax on big oil? That isn't "far left" to my way of thinking. She separated herself from big business and fought for returning money to the little guy: Quintessential true conservative if you ask me.Wed, 04 Nov 2009 07:52:59 GMTGOODavehttp://my.pantagraph.com/forums/Topic4254441-2289-1.aspx[quote][b]4tunate1 (11/3/2009)[/b][hr] Grass roots republicans are trying to steer the party back to a conservative viewpoint. [/quote]I don't think that is the case. Look at all the people who supported Palin. Her special taxes put her in the far-left column with me. And then she bragged that each resident could get thousands of dollars because of that tax?? Now if the party endorses Ron Paul, I will go along with that.Wed, 04 Nov 2009 05:08:36 GMTtLIBhttp://my.pantagraph.com/forums/Topic4254441-2289-1.aspxAnytime a sitting president fails to deliver the white house (and/or the congress in this case) to their party when he leaves office, the wonks start flapping their gums about the party in disarray (and etc.). You would have heard the same stuff about Clinton not being able to deliver the white house to Gore, but that race was so tight the Gore-sponsored innuendo that Bush was stealing the white house pushed it off the minds of most.All Bush did, as '1 states above, is force the party to reassess and realign. I think the emergence of someone like Sarah Palin, out there stumping in a quase-official capacity for true conservatives against the background of a more moderate party leadership like Rudy Giuliani and, apparently, Michael Steele (et al) shows the GOP [u]can[/u] include a broad range of ideologies but now has the job of figuring out just how. TO do that, they will have to figure out what are the base values of the party. Do they stick to pro-life but give on gay marriage? Do they soften on gun control and small government but stick to their guns on tax-and-spend?There's a line somewhere ... but I don't think they know where, yet.Tue, 03 Nov 2009 08:37:01 GMTGOODavehttp://my.pantagraph.com/forums/Topic4254441-2289-1.aspxThe Republican party was not "destroyed" by Bush, any more than the Democratic party was "destroyed" by Carter in the late 1970's. These parties continually realign to what they perceive to be their majority. This so-called republican candidate in NY-23, Scozzafalva seems to have been ideologically to the left of the democrat, and appears to have so little support that her endorsement of Owens does not appear to have increased his support that much. We don't really know though, until the votes are counted tonight.I think what we are seeing is an electorate alarmed by the irresponsibility of both parties that threatens to destroy the country economically. Party labels are becoming less relevant, and that is a good thing, in my view. Grass roots republicans are trying to steer the party back to a conservative viewpoint. If they fail, they will bolt the party, and form a new one. Similarly, many democrats are questioning the leftist bent of their party, and may bolt as well.The only question in my mind is, is it too late? Can this nation halt the decline? In the end, the answer is up to us.Tue, 03 Nov 2009 05:57:57 GMT4tunate1http://my.pantagraph.com/forums/Topic4254441-2289-1.aspxLike I said before, I blame Bush and his supporters for the destruction of the Republican party. I am not sure if it is getting better or worse for the party. In upstate New York a moderate Republicandropped out of the race for Congress and endorsed the Democrat over the Conservative challenger.Nightline had a segment on the elections today. My take on it is that there are many splinters in the party. The biggest splinter is more conservative. But will the splinter group be able to beat the Democrats?Tue, 03 Nov 2009 03:28:14 GMTtLIB