Ron Paul’s Solution to the Debt Ceiling Impasse

Thumpalumpacus

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2010
Messages
76,196
Reaction score
187,658
What looks that way is what I said looks that way. Libertarians advocating anarchy while distancing themselves from anarchism. I know who I think they are, and they know who they are.

Fair enough, my reading comprehension may've glitched there.
 

SKATTERBRANE

Banned
Joined
Nov 26, 2008
Messages
21,430
Reaction score
12,390
correct me if I'm wrong, but that means as I have heard some Libertarians spout, the legalization of all narcotics.....

Which extracts a specific toll on society, specifically with violent crime.

Most of the violent crime is perpetrated by the gangs and drug lords, not so much by the users. I would think crime would go down considerably if drugs were legalized, much like it did when prohibition was ended.
 

geochem1st

V.I.P. Member
Joined
Mar 21, 2008
Messages
27,748
Reaction score
40,930
.....
Perhaps you're right. Then again, perhaps you're wrong. Of course, this paragraph here doesn't really clarify anything, being (as it is) an ad hom attack rather than a reasoned critique. If you wish to think of this as me "dabbling" so as to feel "empowered", then that's your prerogative. Just don't fool yourself into thinking you know me, or many other who share my views. You don't.

There are many cross-currents and much foment going on in libertarian circles. To dismiss them peremptorily may feel good, but it doesn't strike me as a good way to understand what's going on inside those currents.

I never said that about you specifically, but many indeed are doing that. Classify yourself as you see fit. I believe that there are many cross-currents as you said in Libertarian thought, and most of that is brought about by its anarchistic nature, which usually results in chaos. I don't need to feel empowered or superior about anything in politics, as politics is firmly in the realm of opinion, and something that I 'dabble' in, but don't take very seriously.... I mostly observe.
 

Byron999

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 4, 2008
Messages
8,182
Reaction score
8,681
I simply would like someone to explain (in laymen terms) how the government can call an IOU (bonds) assets. How is it not the same as me writing an IOU to myself, walking down to my bank, and using it as collateral to borrow money against said ‘asset’. My bank could then sell that “asset” to some speculators (ie suckers) and all is well until ……………………….you get the picture. Is that what they call funding the SSA, IOUs backing future obligations. And while were on it, who here can tell me what the UNFUNDED debt obligations are, it has got to be 5 or 6 times that 14 trillion. :hmm:

I've yet to ever see a report listing the total unfunded debt amount.
 

geochem1st

V.I.P. Member
Joined
Mar 21, 2008
Messages
27,748
Reaction score
40,930
I simply would like someone to explain (in laymen terms) how the government can call an IOU (bonds) assets. How is it not the same as me writing an IOU to myself, walking down to my bank, and using it as collateral to borrow money against said ‘asset’. My bank could then sell that “asset” to some speculators (ie suckers) and all is well until ……………………….you get the picture. Is that what they call funding the SSA, IOUs backing future obligations. And while were on it, who here can tell me what the UNFUNDED debt obligations are, it has got to be 5 or 6 times that 14 trillion. :hmm:

I've yet to ever see a report listing the total unfunded debt amount.

The key is I don't believe in you Bryon, and neither will the bank down the street, regarding your IOU. However, the power of the Federal Government backed by the US Military make a compelling argument that their IOU's are good.

As to your other question about unfunded debt, IDK the answer, but I will look into it.
 

KSG_Standard

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2009
Messages
29,803
Reaction score
43,595
I simply would like someone to explain (in laymen terms) how the government can call an IOU (bonds) assets. How is it not the same as me writing an IOU to myself, walking down to my bank, and using it as collateral to borrow money against said ‘asset’. My bank could then sell that “asset” to some speculators (ie suckers) and all is well until ……………………….you get the picture. Is that what they call funding the SSA, IOUs backing future obligations. And while were on it, who here can tell me what the UNFUNDED debt obligations are, it has got to be 5 or 6 times that 14 trillion. :hmm:

I've yet to ever see a report listing the total unfunded debt amount.

The unfunded liabilities present value is around $60 Trillion, when adjusted for inflation, the number is between $130T and $160T.

The term unfunded liabilities refers to the promises for future payments that the gov't has made, and they include things like medicare/medicaid payments, ss, gov't employees retirement benefits and other stuff.

http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/the-...bilities-are-americas-real-red-ink-challenge/
 

geochem1st

V.I.P. Member
Joined
Mar 21, 2008
Messages
27,748
Reaction score
40,930
The unfunded liabilities present value is around $60 Trillion, when adjusted for inflation, the number is between $130T and $160T.

The term unfunded liabilities refers to the promises for future payments that the gov't has made, and they include things like medicare/medicaid payments, ss, gov't employees retirement benefits and other stuff.

The National Debt Is Huge, but Unfunded Liabilities Are America’s Real Red-Ink Challenge | Cato @ Liberty

A mere drop in the bucket compared to the interest rate swap derivatives market which is a real house of cards.....
 

KSG_Standard

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2009
Messages
29,803
Reaction score
43,595
The interest rates derivative market is private capital and unless the Federal gov't decides that the companies/entities that are trading in these derivatives are "too big to fail"...I don't care about them. The unfunded liabilities of the Federal gov't are directly my concern as the gov't will likely come after my earnings to fulfill their crazy ass promises.

If Libertarians or Classical Liberals were in charge of a smaller, Constitutionally constrained Federal gov't, there would be no danger of either having to worry about bailing out the private derivatives market OR the enormous unfunded Federal liabilities.
 

Byron999

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 4, 2008
Messages
8,182
Reaction score
8,681
The key is I don't believe in you Bryon, and neither will the bank down the street, regarding your IOU. However, the power of the Federal Government backed by the US Military make a compelling argument that their IOU's are good.
QUOTE]

Succinct response and to the point. :thumb::)

Seems to me we can have either have a sound money system, or one that depends on ‘faith’ in those perpetuating the con. And when there’s faith no more, compulsion to surrender, if need be, our own generation’s savings; the con reaches fruition (for the internationalist bankers). Repeat as needed.
 

geochem1st

V.I.P. Member
Joined
Mar 21, 2008
Messages
27,748
Reaction score
40,930
The interest rates derivative market is private capital and unless the Federal gov't decides that the companies/entities that are trading in these derivatives are "too big to fail"...I don't care about them. .......
If Libertarians or Classical Liberals were in charge of a smaller, Constitutionally constrained Federal gov't, there would be no danger of either having to worry about bailing out the private derivatives market OR the enormous unfunded Federal liabilities.

When the balloon bursts for the unregulated interest rates swaps derivatives market you will have tons to worry about, as it will directly effect you as we plunge deeper into financial catastrophe.

The key is I don't believe in you Bryon, and neither will the bank down the street, regarding your IOU. However, the power of the Federal Government backed by the US Military make a compelling argument that their IOU's are good.

Succinct response and to the point. :thumb::)

Seems to me we can have either have a sound money system, or one that depends on ‘faith’ in those perpetuating the con. And when there’s faith no more, compulsion to surrender, if need be, our own generation’s savings; the con reaches fruition (for the internationalist bankers). Repeat as needed.

All money systems are built on faith. There is nothing magical about gold or any other commodity that makes them 'sound'. As often is said that no fiat monetary system has ever lasted, the exact same saying applies to commodity based monetary systems, no gold backed system has ever have lasted either.

The inherent flaw of any commodity based monetary system is that it will be undermined by the commodity itself.
 

Rock Johnson

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2007
Messages
1,217
Reaction score
676
Got a fact or two to back that up? Sounds like BS to me.

River - the FRB is the result of a compromise between conservatives and liberals back in 1913. Conservatives wanted a completely private-run reserve system, but liberals wanted a government-run central bank (obviously, this is a gross simplification, but you get the idea). The compromise was that the regional banks that make up the Federal Reserve Bank would be private, but the Board of Directors would be Presidential appointees.

In the end, though, the individual reserve banks are still privately held banks, *not* parts of the Federal government, and are *not* subject to direct executive or legislative control. This is why, unlike every other Federal agency, the FRB has never been audited.
 

H.E.L.Shane

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2009
Messages
6,518
Reaction score
6,374
You (generally speaking) have absolutely NO right to my property, and vice versa.

And THERE is the PROBLEM..

you see.... YOU do not OWN your property...

The government does...

A "deed" is simply a sadowy dopleganger of a "lease" that allows you to live on and develop said parcel of land... however.. the government is the ultimate owner of that land...

Just stop paying your taxes on that land and you'll find out very quickly who actually owns it
 

Thumpalumpacus

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2010
Messages
76,196
Reaction score
187,658
River - the FRB is the result of a compromise between conservatives and liberals back in 1913. Conservatives wanted a completely private-run reserve system, but liberals wanted a government-run central bank (obviously, this is a gross simplification, but you get the idea). The compromise was that the regional banks that make up the Federal Reserve Bank would be private, but the Board of Directors would be Presidential appointees.

In the end, though, the individual reserve banks are still privately held banks, *not* parts of the Federal government, and are *not* subject to direct executive or legislative control. This is why, unlike every other Federal agency, the FRB has never been audited.

Unless they are exempt from Federal law, they can be audited:

Institutions that have $500 million or more in total assets as of the beginning of their fiscal year are subject to the annual audit and reporting requirements of Section 36 of the FDI Act as implemented by Part 363 of the FDIC's regulations. Some of these large institutions are public companies or subsidiaries of public companies. Some institutions subject to Part 363 currently satisfy the requirements of this regulation on a holding company basis. The applicability of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act to institutions with $500 million or more in total assets is discussed in Attachment II.

FDIC: FIL-17-2003: Corporate Governance, Audits, and Reporting Requirements

Furthermore, the power to appoint and remove board members would be the power to determine the policies pursued by the Board, would it not?
 

Latest Threads



Top