The Tea Party Is Officially Dead. It Was Killed By Partisan Politics.

[txradioguy]

Sorry but I'm just going to have to completely disagree with you.

Then perhaps you need to do some research on just how unstable the economy was under the Gold Standard or what it would do the world economy is we made such a foolish move.

[Bigun]

 

Tying the dollar to an arbitrary quantity of shiny metal binds policy makers’ hands, robbing them of their discretion to act:...

Precisely correct!  I'm damned sick and tired of allowing policy makers the ability to manipulate and control me!

[txradioguy]

Precisely correct!  I'm damned sick and tired of allowing policy makers the ability to manipulate and control me!

Got it.  You want to crash the economy just so you can feel morally superior and to hell with what it would do to the rest of the world.

[Bigun]

Got it.  You want to crash the economy just so you can feel morally superior and to hell with what it would do to the rest of the world.

Nope!  And all the inflammatory bs you can come up with cannot make it so.

[TomSea]

Kibbe is probably correct in talking about restraint in federal spending as with this CROMNIBUS as he mentions.  Not doing that really would be congress' fault. Not because social conservatives joined in, some bogeyman.  Congress is broken for now.

[txradioguy]

Nope!  And all the inflammatory bs you can come up with can make it so.

"Inflammatory BS" translated: I can't come up with a sound financial reason that refutes the facts you've posted so I'm just gonna starts name calling.

 

[txradioguy]

Under a gold standard, inflation, growth and the financial system are all less stable. There are more recessions, larger swings in consumer prices and more banking crises. When things go wrong in one part of the world, the distress will be transmitted more quickly and completely to others. In short, re-creating a gold standard would be a colossal mistake.

https://www.moneyandbanking.com/commentary/2016/12/14/why-a-gold-standard-is-a-very-bad-idea

[Bigun]

"Inflammatory BS" translated: I can't come up with a sound financial reason that refutes the facts you've posted so I'm just gonna starts name calling.

 

Educate youself before you further make a fool of yourself.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/nathanlewis/2012/05/10/returning-to-a-gold-standard-system-why-and-how/#23fe07d4606c

[txradioguy]

Educate youself before you further make a foolof yourself.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/nathanlewis/2012/05/10/returning-to-a-gold-standard-system-why-and-how/#23fe07d4606c

I have educated myself.  I've been dealing with this kind of foolishness since the last time Dr. Nutx (Ron Paul) tried to run for President.


Forbes also has a piece talking about why the Gold Standard is a bad idea.

Your point?

You listed an opinion piece the article I'm referencing had statistical and historical data to show why it's a bad idea.


It's a bad idea.

[Hoodat]

I'm not asking for a return to the Gold Standard.  All I want is for government to stop spending money it doesn't have.  Because the ONLY thing prompting the Fed to print up $1 trillion in new money every year is to finance government.

First, reduce spending to 19% of GDP, and then we can talk about the gold standard.  And keep in mind that we haven't had a balanced budget since 1957.

[txradioguy]

I'm not asking for a return to the Gold Standard.  All I want is for government to stop spending money it doesn't have.  Because the ONLY thing prompting the Fed to print up $1 trillion in new money every year is to finance government.

First, reduce spending to 19% of GDP, and then we can talk about the gold standard.  And keep in mind that we haven't had a balanced budget since 1957.

Works for me.

[Bigun]

I have educated myself.  I've been dealing with this kind of foolishness since the last time Dr. Nutx (Ron Paul) tried to run for President.


Forbes also has a piece talking about why the Gold Standard is a bad idea.

Your point?

You listed an opinion piece the article I'm referencing had statistical and historical data to show why it's a bad idea.


It's a bad idea.

Continue with your practice of gagging at knats while swallowing camels whole my friend.  You and several others here are really good at that.

[INVAR]

Fiat money only lasts as long as peoples and nations have confidence in the instrument's ability to make-good on payment on demand for the investment in using it as a form of exchange.

Gold and silver were the globe's standard of exchange for most of mankind's written history.

A fiat currency that ends up monetized by debt - is a currency that will collapse and take everyone holding it and using it, into oblivion into which no one escapes unharmed.

You can choose to ignore that law of economics in favor of the current debt-to-monetized fiat currency system we now operate under, but eventually - the laws are reasserted and the penally for breaking them usually breaks civilizations.

[roamer_1]

Fiat money only lasts as long as peoples and nations have confidence in the instrument's ability to make-good on payment on demand for the investment in using it as a form of exchange.

Gold and silver were the globe's standard of exchange for most of mankind's written history.

A fiat currency that ends up monetized by debt - is a currency that will collapse and take everyone holding it and using it, into oblivion into which no one escapes unharmed.

You can choose to ignore that law of economics in favor of the current debt-to-monetized fiat currency system we now operate under, but eventually - the laws are reasserted and the penally for breaking them usually breaks civilizations.

That's right. Not long ago, that was common knowledge.

[Suppressed]

It's not social conservatives fault if stay-at-home pot smoking libertarians can never muster more than 4% of the vote in national elections. Try your bitter slander elsewhere.

Might want to stay on topic.  A large part of the TEA Party protests were libertarians.  When they were shooed away with religious requirements for membership of groups, the membership plummeted.  That's all factual and well documented, regardless of how many votes Libertarian Party candidates get.  I know MANY libertarians who don't often vote Libertarian.

[Hoodat]

When they were shooed away with religious requirements for membership of groups, the membership plummeted.

Complete unadulterated BS.  Membership plummeted because the very politicians they helped get elected sold them out.

[INVAR]

Complete unadulterated BS.  Membership plummeted because the very politicians they helped get elected sold them out.

And worked to 'Crush it' from the very beginning.

[txradioguy]

Might want to stay on topic.  A large part of the TEA Party protests were libertarians.  When they were shooed away with religious requirements for membership of groups, the membership plummeted.  That's all factual and well documented, regardless of how many votes Libertarian Party candidates get.  I know MANY libertarians who don't often vote Libertarian.

There is no religious test to be in the TEA Party.

[EasyAce]

I know MANY libertarians who don't often vote Libertarian.

@Suppressed
Speaking as one such libertarian, I was a registered Libertarian once upon a time . . . until the late Harry Browne turned out to be trying to maneuver the national party to bag their presidential nomination a second time with tactics that might have made even a Chicago machine politician blush. The fact that what he was doing violated formal LP rules against allocating party resources and monies to a candidate before they received the formal party nomination actually seemed not to bother a lot of the LP leadership at the time, to the point where they actually barred Liberty, the libertarian journal, from LP functions while the magazine investigated those doings and undoings.

I changed my registration to independent right then and there. (I had no wish to return to a Republican Party that, at the time, was abetting the GWB/Republican Congress drunken-sailor binges and such floutings of the Constitution as too much of the Patriot Act, McCain-Feingold, and others.) As an economic thinker Harry Browne was gifted; as a politician, he turned out to be just another machinist, God rest his soul.

[Suppressed]

@Suppressed
Speaking as one such libertarian, I was a registered Libertarian once upon a time . . . until the late Harry Browne turned out to be trying to maneuver the national party to bag their presidential nomination a second time with tactics that might have made even a Chicago machine politician blush. The fact that what he was doing violated formal LP rules against allocating party resources and monies to a candidate before they received the formal party nomination actually seemed not to bother a lot of the LP leadership at the time, to the point where they actually barred Liberty, the libertarian journal, from LP functions while the magazine investigated those doings and undoings.

I changed my registration to independent right then and there. (I had no wish to return to a Republican Party that, at the time, was abetting the GWB/Republican Congress drunken-sailor binges and such floutings of the Constitution as too much of the Patriot Act, McCain-Feingold, and others.) As an economic thinker Harry Browne was gifted; as a politician, he turned out to be just another machinist, God rest his soul.