George W Bush - The last Republican President.

Northern Maine wrote:

SMITTY wrote:As far as The Empire ... not sure what you mean by that ... but I assume your referring to the military being all over the world. On that I have to plead a John Kerry - that means I've been FLIP-FLOPPING on that issue. I now think we should have all our troops here at home dealing with our border and helping out during natural disasters. If someone wants to screw with us, then we unleash the fury. But until then, we stay put.

SMITTY...I TOTALLY SUPPORT THAT IDEA 100%!

So do I!

We should have never got rid of the gold standard. But now, there isn't enough physical gold to cover A TENTH of our debt .....

Sure we can, just like fixing it at $35 in the thirties, confiscate it and then raise the price. So now we now fix it at about $15,000. That is an estimated monetary M3 figure divided by about 8000 tons. Ipso facto we are on a gold standard. There are two problems, firstly we need to live within our means which is impossible at this point as we can't print money. Secondly, we must assume the gold is there at all and if it there, not leased out or substituted with gold coated tungsten bars. Has anybody noticed that in 1971 DeGaul sent a navel vessel to NY to collect Frances gold and was told he had to accept dollars instead. Now Germany wants to repatriate their gold and had been told they have to wait for years and can't even inspect that it is there. That is sure to start a run. Collapse is just around the corner.

They can have the gold as soon as FEMA gets around to pumping the water out.

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/20 ... -manhattan

Guess we're going to have to revise the brochure.

“The Bank’s security arrangements are so trusted by depositors that few have ever asked to examine their gold,” the New York Fed writes.

coalnewbie wrote:
Sure we can, just like fixing it at $35 in the thirties, confiscate it and then raise the price. So now we now fix it at about $15,000. That is an estimated monetary M3 figure divided by about 8000 tons. Ipso facto we are on a gold standard. There are two problems, firstly we need to live within our means which is impossible at this point as we can't print money.

Why should government control the money supply? They have shown they aren't responsible enough for the task.

And why can't we live within our means on a fixed money supply? I'm assuming you do it in your house. You're not doing anything illegal are you?

Sadly, no Pete nothing illegal, I guess that makes me stupid. My point is revenue from taxes will be about $2T we can discuss the variables but with or without tax hikes that's about it. Military $1T and climbing, entitlements etc. $1.5 and climbing fast, debt service $0.5T and about to climb skyward. That's b4 anything else is counted. To cut to $1T overnight would make Greece look like a village tea party. The whole planet crashes with us. The opportunity for us to change to a fixed gold standard is long since gone thx to Obummer. The stupid have won.

I think today the real culprit to our situation is our desire to try and shed consequences.

Obama said he would support his daughter having an abortion if should not have to live with a "mistake". First, I do not think he would say that if he actually held his grandson in his hands and watched it smile back, and two...what is wrong with having consequences? What is wrong with having responsibility?

If you blatantly spend more then you make you can just file for bankruptcy and have a whole clean record in 7 years! That was merely an effort to shrug the consequence of having to live with poor credit and and a lack of things for awhile. The same with fuel assistance; it is pretty well known that here in Maine, come fall you either better have a big pile of firewood and coal...or have a big wad of cash in your pocket for oil. If you do not have either, you better plan a little better the rest of the year. The housing collapse really started because institutions were loaning 120% of a homes value in part because some people did not have enough diligence to put a little money away for a down payment on a house someday. Simply put, not everyone "deserves" a house...you earn it by managing money well, and a bank deserves to go under with leadership that promotes loaning money out to people who have nothing invested into it.

I realize that we all make mistakes, and that at times we all need help, but as well meaning as government programs are...and they were all started for well meaning intents...the government does not have the ability to control them and they are soon exploited. At the very least I would like to see many of these programs reeled back to the local level where better administration and oversight can occur.

NoSmoke wrote:I think today the real culprit to our situation is our desire to try and shed consequences.

Obama said he would support his daughter having an abortion if should not have to live with a "mistake". First, I do not think he would say that if he actually held his grandson in his hands and watched it smile back, and two...what is wrong with having consequences? What is wrong with having responsibility?

If you blatantly spend more then you make you can just file for bankruptcy and have a whole clean record in 7 years! That was merely an effort to shrug the consequence of having to live with poor credit and and a lack of things for awhile. The same with fuel assistance; it is pretty well known that here in Maine, come fall you either better have a big pile of firewood and coal...or have a big wad of cash in your pocket for oil. If you do not have either, you better plan a little better the rest of the year. The housing collapse really started because institutions were loaning 120% of a homes value in part because some people did not have enough diligence to put a little money away for a down payment on a house someday. Simply put, not everyone "deserves" a house...you earn it by managing money well, and a bank deserves to go under with leadership that promotes loaning money out to people who have nothing invested into it.

I realize that we all make mistakes, and that at times we all need help, but as well meaning as government programs are...and they were all started for well meaning intents...the government does not have the ability to control them and they are soon exploited. At the very least I would like to see many of these programs reeled back to the local level where better administration and oversight can occur.

The consequence to abortion rest "solely" on the women that chooses it. Our tax dollars pay for that consequence for the most part whether abortion is chosen or not

So far as "deserving" a house or not...I think that is really a matter of need, rather than deserve and within that need comes the fact of affordability and good fiscal stewardship as you mentioned. A person "needs" an affordable home to live in within their fiscal means, however, needing/affording a $50,000 dollar home and wanting/getting a $150,000 home is the "plight" that many ended up in. Those that ended up in that situation relied on "professional's" to assist them in their need or more so want in the decision to purchase the "wanted" home versus the needed/affordable home. Managing fiscal earnings for the needed home was very realistic...but, not realistic for the wanted home and MANY were guided wrongly in that.

Agreed that many of the govt. programs need to be reeled in and managed in a more responsible manner, however, some states I think would do much worse than the fed...I would hate to see our state manage these programs under any administration that we have had over the past 12 years!

Northern Maine wrote:

NoSmoke wrote:I think today the real culprit to our situation is our desire to try and shed consequences.

Obama said he would support his daughter having an abortion if should not have to live with a "mistake". First, I do not think he would say that if he actually held his grandson in his hands and watched it smile back, and two...what is wrong with having consequences? What is wrong with having responsibility?

If you blatantly spend more then you make you can just file for bankruptcy and have a whole clean record in 7 years! That was merely an effort to shrug the consequence of having to live with poor credit and and a lack of things for awhile. The same with fuel assistance; it is pretty well known that here in Maine, come fall you either better have a big pile of firewood and coal...or have a big wad of cash in your pocket for oil. If you do not have either, you better plan a little better the rest of the year. The housing collapse really started because institutions were loaning 120% of a homes value in part because some people did not have enough diligence to put a little money away for a down payment on a house someday. Simply put, not everyone "deserves" a house...you earn it by managing money well, and a bank deserves to go under with leadership that promotes loaning money out to people who have nothing invested into it.

I realize that we all make mistakes, and that at times we all need help, but as well meaning as government programs are...and they were all started for well meaning intents...the government does not have the ability to control them and they are soon exploited. At the very least I would like to see many of these programs reeled back to the local level where better administration and oversight can occur.

The consequence to abortion rest "solely" on the women that chooses it. Our tax dollars pay for that consequence for the most part whether abortion is chosen or not

So far as "deserving" a house or not...I think that is really a matter of need, rather than deserve and within that need comes the fact of affordability and good fiscal stewardship as you mentioned. A person "needs" an affordable home to live in within their fiscal means, however, needing/affording a $50,000 dollar home and wanting/getting a $150,000 home is the "plight" that many ended up in. Those that ended up in that situation relied on "professional's" to assist them in their need or more so want in the decision to purchase the "wanted" home versus the needed/affordable home. Managing fiscal earnings for the needed home was very realistic...but, not realistic for the wanted home and MANY were guided wrongly in that.

Agreed that many of the govt. programs need to be reeled in and managed in a more responsible manner, however, some states I think would do much worse than the fed...I would hate to see our state manage these programs under any administration that we have had over the past 12 years!

Well that's mostly right Sir. The problem is when our system of capitolism and aquisition turns into blatent greed. It can be a fine line. Those people who wanted the bigger houses were granted mortgages by greedy bankers/lenders who were only concerned about the fees/commisions and knew they could fluff off the loan through packaging of finantial products than eventually end up financed by us all when they failed. Had those loans been their own (banks or mortgage company) money, I think we would have never seen such a collapse. This is what makes oversight and rules neccesary. It's a fine line not to stifle business but it's been shown time and again that regulation is needed.

That is blatantly untrue Steve!!! The Democrats FORCED the banks to loan money to people that could not afford it to buy more votes as their party platform states everyone DESERVES a home. They promised to BUY the bad or toxic loans to guarantee that the banks would not lose money. And we DID and Barney and a few others were made hugely wealthy by this. How come you can't see the governments complicity in this? Because it is such a noble thing to aspire to provide housing to the poor? The very notion of lending to unqualified people goes against the conservative model, but I am sure some Republicans profited also just so you don't change the subject and make it about politics. This has been one of the founding platforms in the Progressive party for at least 75 years, maybe longer. Free houses, free phones, free contraceptives, free education, free entry, with health insurance into the country. NOTHING is free. But it wins elections.

My brother took a Haitian woman to the emergency room because she stepped in a hole on one of his blueberry fields. He took her to Rite Aid to get a prescription and the girl working found her in the system, said she has an insurance card, and it was better insurance then she or my brother had, all free. To her, not US.
This is the problem with out system. FREE stuff.

SMITTY wrote:We should have never got rid of the gold standard. But now, there isn't enough physical gold to cover A TENTH of our debt .....

As far as The Empire ... not sure what you mean by that ... but I assume your referring to the military being all over the world. On that I have to plead a John Kerry - that means I've been FLIP-FLOPPING on that issue. I now think we should have all our troops here at home dealing with our border and helping out during natural disasters. If someone wants to screw with us, then we unleash the fury. But until then, we stay put.

Nixon took us off the gold standard to avoid bankruptcy as a result of the soaring war costs associated with Vietnam. It was that or a complete and utter economic collapse at the time.

EarthWindandFire wrote:It has become clear, after last nights election results, that the election of a Republican to the office of President of the United States of America is difficult if not impossible from this point on. Quite possibly, George W Bush was the last Republican we will see as President for the foreseeable future for the following reasons and many more that I must leave unmentioned.

I'm not sure if it was Jindal or who it was but the comment was made the Republicans have to stop being the "stupid" party, what they were referring too was the comments like the one about women having a defense mechanism against rape. If the Republican party expects to remain relevant it has to move more towards the center on the moral issues. It's not fiscal conservative message that is dragging them down.

Richard S. wrote:

EarthWindandFire wrote:It has become clear, after last nights election results, that the election of a Republican to the office of President of the United States of America is difficult if not impossible from this point on. Quite possibly, George W Bush was the last Republican we will see as President for the foreseeable future for the following reasons and many more that I must leave unmentioned.

I'm not sure if it was Jindal or who it was but the comment was made the Republicans have to stop being the "stupid" party, what they were referring too was the comments like the one about women having a defense mechanism against rape. If the Republican party expects to remain relevant it has to move more towards the center on the moral issues. It's not fiscal conservative message that is dragging them down.

Yup...though Mittens didnt exactly help that when he whined yesterday about the reasons he lost. Somehow, being a flipflopper with no real stance on anything did not come up in his speech.

Davian wrote:

SMITTY wrote:We should have never got rid of the gold standard. But now, there isn't enough physical gold to cover A TENTH of our debt .....

As far as The Empire ... not sure what you mean by that ... but I assume your referring to the military being all over the world. On that I have to plead a John Kerry - that means I've been FLIP-FLOPPING on that issue. I now think we should have all our troops here at home dealing with our border and helping out during natural disasters. If someone wants to screw with us, then we unleash the fury. But until then, we stay put.

Nixon took us off the gold standard to avoid bankruptcy as a result of the soaring war costs associated with Vietnam. It was that or a complete and utter economic collapse at the time.

Nixon taking us off the gold standard WAS bankruptcy.

We told the world to buy our dollars and we'd pay them in gold. When we realized we didn't have all the gold required to pay for the dollars we printed, we defaulted on the agreement and eventually invented the petro dollar.

Now the petro dollar is ready to go belly up and we don't have enough bullets and bombs to force the world into seeing it our way anymore.

jpete wrote:

Davian wrote:

SMITTY wrote:We should have never got rid of the gold standard. But now, there isn't enough physical gold to cover A TENTH of our debt .....

As far as The Empire ... not sure what you mean by that ... but I assume your referring to the military being all over the world. On that I have to plead a John Kerry - that means I've been FLIP-FLOPPING on that issue. I now think we should have all our troops here at home dealing with our border and helping out during natural disasters. If someone wants to screw with us, then we unleash the fury. But until then, we stay put.

Nixon took us off the gold standard to avoid bankruptcy as a result of the soaring war costs associated with Vietnam. It was that or a complete and utter economic collapse at the time.

Nixon taking us off the gold standard WAS bankruptcy.

We told the world to buy our dollars and we'd pay them in gold. When we realized we didn't have all the gold required to pay for the dollars we printed, we defaulted on the agreement and eventually invented the petro dollar.

Now the petro dollar is ready to go belly up and we don't have enough bullets and bombs to force the world into seeing it our way anymore.

I agree...but it was a very controlled bankruptcy that worked with pretty much zero immediate consequences. It was a "kick the can" moment so to speak.

Here's the upside to the current floating currency: There really is no other legitimate alternative. The Euro is far more shaky than the Dollar and that was the only real threat to emerge since Nixon pulled the trigger. As it stands, there is no real consensus from moving away from the petrodollar.

jpete wrote:

Davian wrote:

SMITTY wrote:We should have never got rid of the gold standard. But now, there isn't enough physical gold to cover A TENTH of our debt .....

As far as The Empire ... not sure what you mean by that ... but I assume your referring to the military being all over the world. On that I have to plead a John Kerry - that means I've been FLIP-FLOPPING on that issue. I now think we should have all our troops here at home dealing with our border and helping out during natural disasters. If someone wants to screw with us, then we unleash the fury. But until then, we stay put.

Nixon took us off the gold standard to avoid bankruptcy as a result of the soaring war costs associated with Vietnam. It was that or a complete and utter economic collapse at the time.

Nixon taking us off the gold standard WAS bankruptcy.

We told the world to buy our dollars and we'd pay them in gold. When we realized we didn't have all the gold required to pay for the dollars we printed, we defaulted on the agreement and eventually invented the petro dollar.

Now the petro dollar is ready to go belly up and we don't have enough bullets and bombs to force the world into seeing it our way anymore.

One thing that may save us is the domestic oil and gas industry. We have a lot of oil right here lots more than Saudi oil.