Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yes- support less government in your life lower taxes, less regulation of everything we do, less entitlements, more power to individual states, less left/right domination, less Federal reserve monopoly over our money, lowering our exploding deficit, less wars.
No- The government is doing a fine job, this is all in your head. I like all of the above and we should allow government to keep doing what it's doing.
Based on your criteria, it is not a "simple" yes / no decision.
The law on the books does not support your assumptions nor your conclusions.
The socialist entitlement system is 100% voluntary. So there's no need to legislate anything pertaining to it. Simply volunteer out.
State governments are delegated power, as is the Federal government, to do certain tasks. Pursuant to the Declaration of Independence, job #1 is to secure rights (life, liberty, etc), and job #2 is to govern those who CONSENT.
If you've given consent, you have no grounds to object. If you've withdrawn consent, you have nothing to object to. If you do not know how and when you consented, you should ask your public servant.
According to the law and the constitution, government has no power to create money. According to Article 1, Section 8, USCON, Congress can coin money (stamp bullion) or borrow money. If it had the power to create money, it wouldn't need to borrow any. What you think is money, is actually debt, functioning as a medium of exchange. But since 1933, no dollars have circulated. So it's a bit misleading to castigate the Federal Reserve corporation for control over "money" when it is not. And the only reason Federal Reserve notes (aka "dollar bills") are legal tender is that pesky voluntary compact with the government (FICA / socialist insecurity). That's how millions became "human resources" and "contributors" equally liable on the public debt. Thus each "dollar bill" becomes their own obligation.
The "deficit" is what empowers Congress to authorize more "dollar bills" (See: Title 12 USC Sec. 411). Without new debt, Congress cannot authorize more notes. And without new notes, the money supply becomes stagnant and we all know what happened the last time - an economic crunch (ex: Dot Com Bust) of 1999 - 2000.
But it gets more bizarre. The national debt, in excess of 13 trillion DOLLARS cannot be paid with "dollar bills" (debt). Pursuant to law, the debt computes to roughly 650 billion ounces of gold stamped into coin. Problem is that the estimated worldwide supply of gold is 5.5 billion ounces. (Fort Knox depository has roughly 147.4 million ounces).
Based on current mining rates, and assuming that there is gold, and that the USA can take all the gold in the world, it would only take 87,000 years to pay off the debt - if it was frozen (interest and principal) right now.
And you cannot question the validity of the public debt, pursuant to clause 4 of the 14th amendment. . . even when it is IMPOSSIBLE to repay.
And no one has asked the Federal Reserve to produce evidence that it loaned any REAL MONEY to the U.S. government to substantiate that outstanding debt.
See?
It's not that simple.
And until 51% withdraw consent, there's really nothing that can be changed. After 51% withdraw consent, there will be insufficient collateral (even if you include illegals granted amnesty) on the outstanding notes ("dollar bills") which then will cease to be fungible currency. Which, in turn, will precipitate a collapse of the government, and probably stifle world trade based on "dollar bills".
The "People" win a Pyrrhic victory.
Yes but with a big qualifier. Not if the tea party gets hijacked by the big globalist Republicans.
I like the tea party types who want to throw both parties out when those parties are just about more globalism and outsourcing of our jobs. Only if they want to hold the feet of the politicians to the fire.
I didn't know that the Tea Party was a fan of Bill Clinton
There are millions involved or support the ideas of the Tea Parties, that did vote for Bill Clinton. They grew up and got out from underneath mommas teet.
Of course it is biased. S/he might as well have chosen the title 'who else apart from me supports the tea party and how can the rest be so stupid not to do so, given it's a scientific fact that the tea party is the panacea for all of America's problems?'
they should have put in the poll "who supports the founding principals of our founding fathers" and "who supports the principals of karl marx".
Based on your criteria, it is not a "simple" yes / no decision.
The law on the books does not support your assumptions nor your conclusions.
The socialist entitlement system is 100% voluntary. So there's no need to legislate anything pertaining to it. Simply volunteer out.
State governments are delegated power, as is the Federal government, to do certain tasks. Pursuant to the Declaration of Independence, job #1 is to secure rights (life, liberty, etc), and job #2 is to govern those who CONSENT.
If you've given consent, you have no grounds to object. If you've withdrawn consent, you have nothing to object to. If you do not know how and when you consented, you should ask your public servant.
According to the law and the constitution, government has no power to create money. According to Article 1, Section 8, USCON, Congress can coin money (stamp bullion) or borrow money. If it had the power to create money, it wouldn't need to borrow any. What you think is money, is actually debt, functioning as a medium of exchange. But since 1933, no dollars have circulated. So it's a bit misleading to castigate the Federal Reserve corporation for control over "money" when it is not. And the only reason Federal Reserve notes (aka "dollar bills") are legal tender is that pesky voluntary compact with the government (FICA / socialist insecurity). That's how millions became "human resources" and "contributors" equally liable on the public debt. Thus each "dollar bill" becomes their own obligation.
The "deficit" is what empowers Congress to authorize more "dollar bills" (See: Title 12 USC Sec. 411). Without new debt, Congress cannot authorize more notes. And without new notes, the money supply becomes stagnant and we all know what happened the last time - an economic crunch (ex: Dot Com Bust) of 1999 - 2000.
But it gets more bizarre. The national debt, in excess of 13 trillion DOLLARS cannot be paid with "dollar bills" (debt). Pursuant to law, the debt computes to roughly 650 billion ounces of gold stamped into coin. Problem is that the estimated worldwide supply of gold is 5.5 billion ounces. (Fort Knox depository has roughly 147.4 million ounces).
Based on current mining rates, and assuming that there is gold, and that the USA can take all the gold in the world, it would only take 87,000 years to pay off the debt - if it was frozen (interest and principal) right now.
And you cannot question the validity of the public debt, pursuant to clause 4 of the 14th amendment. . . even when it is IMPOSSIBLE to repay.
And no one has asked the Federal Reserve to produce evidence that it loaned any REAL MONEY to the U.S. government to substantiate that outstanding debt.
See?
It's not that simple.
And until 51% withdraw consent, there's really nothing that can be changed. After 51% withdraw consent, there will be insufficient collateral (even if you include illegals granted amnesty) on the outstanding notes ("dollar bills") which then will cease to be fungible currency. Which, in turn, will precipitate a collapse of the government, and probably stifle world trade based on "dollar bills".
The "People" win a Pyrrhic victory.
D'oh...
then the proper thing to do would be to default on all national and borrowed debt.
I think the Tea Party is a good idea in theory...unfortunately it's turned into something I cannot support. They have good ideas (for the most part...) but absolutely no concrete way to accomplish their goals except to 'VOTE OUT OBAMA' and 'VOTE OUT INCUMBENTS'.
If they had some unifying goals and a good game plan I would probably be more apt to support them. Plus, a lot of them need to hit the history books and/or wikipedia to figure out the differences between socialism, communism and marxism.
Yes but with a big qualifier. Not if the tea party gets hijacked by the big globalist Republicans.
I like the tea party types who want to throw both parties out when those parties are just about more globalism and outsourcing of our jobs. Only if they want to hold the feet of the politicians to the fire.
The problem is how many democrat politicians do you hear running on smaller gov?
Yes- support less government in your life lower taxes, less regulation of everything we do, less entitlements, more power to individual states, less left/right domination, less Federal reserve monopoly over our money, lowering our exploding deficit, less wars.
No- The government is doing a fine job, this is all in your head. I like all of the above and we should allow government to keep doing what it's doing.
I'll throw in the first vote of YES.
I haven't heard those overstuffed idiots propose the abolishment of the Patriot Act.
They're just a buncha fat imbeciles.
They should go back to riding their ATV's.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
