In accordance with the constitution? I don’t think so. Congress needs to look at the facts, debate it, and declare war, but they passed all this on to the President to enforce UN resolutions.
I don’t want to drag this discussion into the gutter, but…everyone knows you wear funny looking shorts.
From the Carter Doctrine, 1980:
Let our position be absolutely clear: An attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America, and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force.
–http://www.jimmycarterlibrary.org/documents/speeches/su80jec.phtml
Very telling interview of Greenspan:
I think Jon Stewart is the smarter one, pointing out that the very existence of the Fed means it’s not a free market and that the rate being changed is a transfer of wealth from the savers and workers to the investors.
We need the Fed
To expand the money supply in a limited, controlled way. Otherwise, if we were using gold, there would be constant deflation. As the population grows, and the amount of valuable goods expands, the limited supply of gold would mean every year everyone must face a pay cut. Because burying your money would be the safest investment (since it will be worth more later), people wouldn’t want to give loans. There would be no mortgages, so we would return to feudalism. There would be no way for the young to pay for their own houses. The old will not loan their money. In a way, the dark ages can be seen as one long depression, the inevitable result of a gold based economy. Money is a tool, and with a shortage of gold (money), the work of an economy stops.
The job of the Fed is to decide how much to expand the money supply. They just print more ! Ideally, you want a 2 or 3 % inflation rate. Then rich old folks will loan money to young workers so they can buy their own homes.
The cranky conspiracy buffs, who claim it is all a house of cards, and must collapse any day, because the money is not backed by gold, are free to buy gold and silver. Historically, the appreciation in metal prices has been low. But no one can claim anyone is stopping them from hoarding gold. The gold economy is limited by the supply of gold. The paper dollar economy is not, and is much superior for that reason.
Those are all myths.
The gold economy is limited by the resources available. The fiat dollar economy is limited by the resources available. The difference is the allocation of those resources.
Burying money is the safest investment because it’s a store of value for later consumption. If someone knows they need a certain amount some time in the future, then this is a logical thing to do, and is good for the economy. People would give loans in a gold economy, with an interest based on the risk of the loan, and it would likely be worth more later than saving it.
Deflation is the result of increased efficiency. As we have seen in the electronics industry, there is no problem with lower prices. Deflation is a good thing.
It was illegal to own gold from 1933 to 1974. Further, laws punish the owning of gold… capital gains tax, and legal tender laws.
The real purpose of fiat currency is legal plunder, the transfer of wealth by the government to the proponents of the welfare-warfare state. Most the welfare is corporate welfare and most the warfare is for the military industrial complex. It’s a transfer of wealth from the working class and poor to wall street.
Why a 2 or 3% inflation? Why not a 50% inflation? What’s the reasoning behind this amount versus others? BTW, right now, inflation, as measured by the increase of the money supply is 14%.
No wonder it feels like we’re at war with ourselves…
Of course, Iraq invading Kuwait was not an outside force in relation to the Persian Gulf.
Was the world wide depression of the 1930’s a myth?
Once people realized there was not enough gold to pay them their promised debts, credit collapsed. World wide enormous suffering and massive 35% unemployment world wide. This was the reason that the gold standard was abandoned as a basis for global, or national economic exchange. The expandable money supply allows the amount of money in the world to grow and match the needs of the expanding economy of a growing nation and world. We can’t go back to the gold based monetary system without suffering the same complete collapse of the economy that occurred 77 years ago.
Why not just buy gold and silver to your hearts content, and get a pathetic return on your investment. Be happy with that, and be glad that your total ignorance of economic history and theory is not so shared by others as to return the world to the sufferings of that most sad decade. The great depression has not been even remotely approached since. This fact is because the Fed can print more money. No one can make more gold. Buy gold if you wish. But I am so totally glad that it is no longer money. Gold is now what it should be. A commodity metal. Money is much more important then that. It is an indispensable economic tool. As the economy grows, we need more money. Or we won’t have enough to conduct business. People will lose their jobs, banks can not give loans, credit must dry up. There is a fixed amount of gold. An expanding economy needs more money. This lesson was learned long ago, and thankfully, the Fed is only quasi federal. Difficult for the general politician to screw up. They have done an excellent job of creating more cash at a slow rate. Yes, it is not a sin to just create cash. We must!
Ian and Gilby, I was joking!
I call everybody who challenges the status quo either “a dirty, ‘Merica hatin’ hippie” or “an evil COMMYNIST!!”
The error in your explanation is the exact opposite. What caused the great depression? In 1913, the Federal Reserve was created. This allowed the government and banking system to have a monopoly on counterfeiting – increasing the money supply. This was inflation. A transfer of wealth to the banking industry and the government. This inflation was through WWI and then the roaring 20’s. It crashed when the money supply was contracted – people trying to redeem their government issued promisory notes for gold. Since the government allowed the printing of more notes than there was gold on hand, their wasn’t enough gold to redeem the notes. The government defaulted on their obligation.
The problem was then worsened by price controls and new deal programs. What would’ve been a quick adjustment turned into a long depression.
The problem you claim is not a problem from using gold as money, but is a problem with fractional reserve banking, which the government has created an unconstitutional cartel for.
It’s not that simple. I wish I could opt out of it, but it’s forced on us. Income taxes are a requirement of the fiat currency that we have. Fiat currency can not work without it. Afterall, what’s the value of paper money? The supply of it and the demand for it. That demand is the result of the government forcing us to pay taxes with it. That demand is the result of the courts requiring all debts and contracts to paid with it.
Your confusion is that you think wealth can be created with a printing press. It cannot. It can only be transfered with one. All wealth is created by the production of useful goods and services. Goods and services can be used in exchange directly, or people can use a common medium as money, such as gold. You don’t have to save in gold. We can hold our wealth in anything we choose. If suddenly gold became in high demand because a new use for it is discovered, we would probably choose to sell our gold and then use something else of value as our common medium of exchange. If I have a contract that is specified for a certain amount of gold, but there isn’t enough gold, I really don’t have to be paid in gold, but I can be paid in anything of the same value that is easily exchangable. With the digital age, we can use a large basket of commodities as our money unit and transfer shares digitally, and if we don’t trust our bank, we can go in and withdraw whatever the non digital money is, which may be gold, silver, copper, nickel, platinum, etc.
It is a sin to create cash from nothing, because it is theft.
The status quo is progressing towards communism. Those who challenge that are the opposite of communists, they are free market individuals who want the constitution to be followed.
can you “touch” some services as you can “touch” gold?
having seen communists in action I would say that they were living proof that bunch of well wishing people could lead to catastrophic realities … and this definition also applies to lot of idealists (I am not saying that one should not have ideals, or theories about the world).
As I always say: what most resembles a communist party? a so called
“market oriented” corporation! for sure the later is not going to deport you in Siberia … though may be to hotter climates …
You’re right, services aren’t really wealth, but services are added-value in that it allows one to produce goods more efficiently. Therein lies part of the problem today in the US. We are mostly a service oriented country. Since we are set up for services instead of manufacturing, we will suffer when the dollar does collapse and we can no longer import the goods we need, which may be soon.
A counterfiter is a theif
But when the government prints more money, the profit is used to reduce the taxes that would otherwise be needed to run the gov. It is the difference between one person gaming the system to enrich themselves, and all the people(gov), expanding the money supply to cause controlled inflation, for the benefit of all. Since the wealth is used to lower the common tax burden, this cannot be seen as theft, unless you consider other forms of taxation as theft as well. It is just the gov making money one way rather then another.
Giby’s explanation that we can revert to barter to solve the money shortage a gold based system would suffer, illustrates the complete poverty of that idea better then anything I could say. Money is an indispensable tool of the modern economy. Imagine a fisherman trying to order a new computer online. In the comments section he can ask "can I have that sent second day delivery, or do I have to wait until you get the fish ? I promise big fish that smell good !
Yes, most taxation is theft. Most of what government does is unconstitutional. If it infringes on the life, liberty, or property of someone, then it is not constitutional. The sole purpose of government is to protect the life, liberty, and property of it’s citizens. Unfourtunately, the government is the very institution that has infringed on that the most.
Constitutional taxation are tarriffs, duties and excises and can only be on such things the constitution grants the government authority over, such as imports, crossing the border, and other similar privileges. The federal government has no jurisdiction over you making a living and therefore they can not tax that.
If the government followed the constitution and limited itself to what we the people granted to them, we would not need the massive taxation and ability of them to inflate.
Further, the inflation tax is a more hidden tax. People don’t understand it and what causes it. If people were directly taxed for all the government spends, then there would be less transparency in government and there would be a quick rebellion. People would see the true cost of government.
I reject the idea that central planning works. I reject communism.
You’re clearly misunderstanding what I said. Money comes about in a society based on what is easy to use as a common medium. Gold and silver have historically been the most common ones that have happened. If what is currently being used becomes in high demand from some new use, then people will likely determine that they will sell it in exchange for something else and profit from the immediate need that is in the marketplace. The item would probably still be used, but the value is just higher. If it’s hard to cut that item for smaller transactions, then some other commodity would probably be used. In the history of the US before fiat currency, we have had coins in silver, gold, copper, and nickel. If gold happened to rise in value, we would likely use more silver, or maybe introduce platinum or paladium as currency. The free market will choose a common medium that works for society.
If the computer company accept such payment, then so what? But the realistic situation is that this person will sell their fish to someone that needs it and then receive whatever is the currency to then pay for the computer. If fish is directly accepted through the market maker, then so what, the market maker will buy the fish and exchange it for whatever the computer company wants payment in. My ideal bank acount would be where I could accept anything as payment and instantly sell that for whatever I have configured my account to do, or whatever funds my bank provides. Unfourtunately, government forces their fiat currency on our bank accounts.
Have you ever been to Amsterdam?
It helps to read the constitution, when debating what it says
“The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.”- The 16 th amendment of the USA constitution.
“Constitutional taxation are tarriffs, duties and excises and can only be on such things the constitution grants the government authority over, such as imports, crossing the border, and other similar privileges. The federal government has no jurisdiction over you making a living and therefore they can not tax that.”- Gilby
I don’t disagree that the government is an intrusive pain. However, taxes are constitutional. Even if they disturb our pursuit of happiness. The supreme court has the constitutional authority to to read the document and declare it’s meaning. They strongly suggest you pay your taxes !!
Thank you.
Yes, taxes are constitutional, but the income tax as being applied today is not. Like I said before, the only lawful taxes are for privileges the constitution grants the federal government regulate. Your own living is not one of them.
Nah, they strongly suggest that taxpayers pay their taxes. The problem is that most people are nontaxpayers, though the state allows people to voluntarily be a taxpayer if they so choose.
The 16th amendment allows the taxation of income on taxable entities and activities. It was intended to tax the States and the businesses that incorporate with the state. It was never intended to tax ones own labor. The 16th amendment does not replace the 5th amendment.
Since you point out the federal court, here is their rulings:
“The individual, unlike the corporation, cannot be taxed for the mere privilege of existing. The corporation is an artificial entity which owes its existence and charter powers to the state; but the individuals’ Right to live and own property are natural rights for the enjoyment of which an excise cannot be imposed.” Corn v. Fort, 95 S.W.2d 620 (1936)
“The Treasury Department cannot, by interpretive regulations, make income out of that which is not income within the meaning of the revenue acts of Congress, nor can Congress, without apportionment, tax as income that which is not income within the meaning of the 16th Amendment.”
Helvering v. Edison Bros. Stores, 133 F.2D 575
“[Income] must be given the same meaning, in all the Income Tax Acts of Congress that it was given in the Corporate Excise Tax Act, and what that meaning is has become definitely settled by the decisions of this court”.
Merchants Loan & Trust v. Smietanka, 255 US 509 (1921)
“As has been repeatedly remarked, the corporation tax act of 1909 was not intended to be and is not, in any proper sense, an income tax law. This court had decided in the Pollock case that the income tax law of 1894 amounted in effect to a direct tax upon property, and was invalid because not apportioned according to populations, as prescribed by the Constitution. The act of 1909 avoided this difficulty by imposing not an income tax [direct], but an excise tax [indirect] upon the conduct of business in a corporate capacity, measuring however, the amount of tax by the income of the corporation”.
Stratton’s Independence, LTD. v. Howbert, 231 US 399, 414 (1913)
After talking about the incorrectly supreme court ruling in the Pollock case, President Taft said: “…I therefore recommend an amendment imposing on all corporations an excise tax measured by 2% in the net income of such corporations. This is an excise on the privilege of doing business as an artificial entity”
Congressional Record, June 16, 1909, Pg. 3344
“The revenue laws are a code or system in regulation of tax assessment and collection. They relate to taxpayers, and not to nontaxpayers. The latter are without their scope. No procedure is prescribed for nontaxpayers, and no attempt is made to annul any of their rights and remedies in due course of law. With them [nontaxpayers] Congress does not assume to deal, and they are neither of the subject nor of the object of the revenue laws”.
Economy Plumbing and Heating Co. v. United States, 470 F. 2d 585 (1972)
the case law preceding the 16th amendment is invalid
If it were not I could find 19th century rulings, and state that blacks must be counted as 3/5 th’s of a person, and woman can not vote. There have been no supreme court rulings from the period AFTER the passage of the 16th amendment, declaring individuals incomes may not be taxed. If I am wrong, please quote one.
Why do you suppose all those lawyers have paid income tax their entire lives ?Because they lack your knowledge of law ?
“The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived”, this statement is know as the income tax amendment.
Seems pretty clear to me. Maybe thats why the wealthiest and smartest lawyers in the land have been paying it for 93 years.