Trump proposes returning to the gold standard.

originally posted by: nwtrucker

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: nwtrucker

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: nwtrucker

People need to regain their trust in systems. We let our paranoia take the better of us more often than not these days. Things aren't perfect, but many seem to use that as an excuse to say everything is #ed and want to tear everything down.

A 20 trillion debt isn't paranoia, it's reality. Trust is earned. I cite 20 trillion reasons there is no trust. Labeling it paranoia shows me your denial.

Why is people having savings a problem? That is really all the debt is.

The only part that should cause any concern at all is the amount held overseas. Even here it would have to be at a much higher level than it is now before it would be a real issue.

At some point, those 'savings' morphs into 'ownership'. Leverage. Control. By a very select few.

You know that. Based on your posts, it's seems your not a fan of the U.S.. Do you consider yourself a 'globalist'?

Savings let you buy things at a future date. That isn't a bad thing. Ownership of treasury debt is also probably wider spread than most forms of saving.

Like the US just fine. Think it has far more good points than bad. Also like most Americans I have met. If you could just learn to speak the language correctly it would be so much better.

Doesn't mean I am not going to be critical of stupid stuff the US does. Quite happy to be critical of stupid stuff any country gets up to. Especially the Italians.

More of an internationalist than a globalist, but like so many things depends on what definition you want to use.

originally posted by: nwtrucker

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: nwtrucker

People need to regain their trust in systems. We let our paranoia take the better of us more often than not these days. Things aren't perfect, but many seem to use that as an excuse to say everything is #ed and want to tear everything down.

A 20 trillion debt isn't paranoia, it's reality. Trust is earned. I cite 20 trillion reasons there is no trust. Labeling it paranoia shows me your denial.

So what is Trumps agenda to deal with the debt? If you are really concerned perhaps you should reevaluate your support for Cadet Bonespurs.

www.washingtonpost.com... analyst-says/?utm_term=.55b61a8bab87

fortune.com...

I know that facts and logic have no relation to Trump supporters and his cultlike appeal.

No way America is returning to the gold standard. There is no gold...

a reply to: openminded2011

Have you listened to the words coming out of the leadership of the Republicans in congress? They really want to end or cut this program down, change it . If they cut the program, then they can raid the funds fully and not have to pay back the IOU's from prior raids.

And if they go to a gold standard, then they would have the just cause for such, due to the amount of gold in the reserves that the US government holds currently, and would be able to justify the cut as there would not be enough in the reserve to justify the expense.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: nwtrucker
By a very select few.

Who owns the bulk of the United States debt? Is it a few or is it many?

I answer with a question more germane. Who controls the global mechanism rather than who own's it. Owning it is rather worthless when that debt isn't backed by anything.....

originally posted by: nwtrucker
I answer with a question more germane. Who controls the global mechanism rather than who own's it. Owning it is rather worthless when that debt isn't backed by anything.....

There isn't a 'global mechanism' on who controls United States debt, we do, that's the whole point and it's backed by the full faith and credit of the United States government who hasn't defaulted on a payment ever. Other soveriegn nations purchase our debt becasue they know they will get paid.

originally posted by: olaru12

originally posted by: nwtrucker

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: nwtrucker

People need to regain their trust in systems. We let our paranoia take the better of us more often than not these days. Things aren't perfect, but many seem to use that as an excuse to say everything is #ed and want to tear everything down.

A 20 trillion debt isn't paranoia, it's reality. Trust is earned. I cite 20 trillion reasons there is no trust. Labeling it paranoia shows me your denial.

So what is Trumps agenda to deal with the debt? If you are really concerned perhaps you should reevaluate your support for Cadet Bonespurs.

www.washingtonpost.com... analyst-says/?utm_term=.55b61a8bab87

fortune.com...

I know that facts and logic have no relation to Trump supporters and his cultlike appeal.

I find your views on Trump far more 'cult-like' than those that see no viable alternative to our mess.

Off the top, the standard method is increasing the income stream. In this case, investment is needed to do so. At least in this case, the increased spending, in most areas, will result in increased returns down the road. Not the case with the last few trillions spent.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

And if we're being honest, even a balanced budget won't change anything other than to stop the national debt from increasing. We need large yearly budget surpluses to actually start paying down the national debt.

But the numbers there are daunting. We'd have to have $500 billion yearly budget surpluses in order to pay off the debt in what, 42 years? And that's assuming the surplus went entirely towards buying back govt debt. But that will never happen because they'll just see those surpluses as extra funds for wars or to fund new tax cuts.

To put it into perspective, our 2017 national budget deficit was estimated to be at least $443 billion for 2017 (according to this site, though I've seen much larger estimates elsewhere). So if we really wanted to pay down even half of the national debt within the next 21 years, we'd have to bring in at least $940 billion more dollars per year in federal revenue. Cutting taxes only increases the deficit though.

note: I said 42 years instead of 40 years because this site (HERE) shows that the national debt is about to hit $21 trillion.

originally posted by: TheConstruKctionofLight
a reply to: enlightenedservant

This would only affect the US's official price of gold while it wouldn't force other countries oe entities to adopt our rate, which is what I thought Krazy was talking about

Fair enough, thanks

No worries. As I was typing my response, I realized that you were both right in different ways.

a reply to: nwtrucker

Cool. Now let's apply your logic to govts taking away privately owned guns too. After all, citizens have alternative tools to use for hunting and for self defense. And like you said, we can't eat the stuff either. And surely there are politicians and other big wigs who would agree that federally confiscating privately owned guns would also be in the best interests of our govt.

Just as we have a 2nd Amendment right to bare arms, we also have a 4th Amendment right "to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures". But those same lawmakers that you're trusting to write the laws concerning a new gold standard can also write a constitutional amendment that repeals the 2nd Amendment, not that you seem to care about that.

I'm just glad you made your position clear since I always knew that there were "conservatives" who really were in favor of "big government" when it suited their purposes. All that talk about private property, individual rights, and government staying out of our business, yet some of you are quick to abandon those fake ideals when fantasy scenarios like returning to the gold standard are put on the table.

originally posted by: enlightenedservant
a reply to: nwtrucker

Cool. Now let's apply your logic to govts taking away privately owned guns too. After all, citizens have alternative tools to use for hunting and for self defense. And like you said, we can't eat the stuff either. And surely there are politicians and other big wigs who would agree that federally confiscating privately owned guns would also be in the best interests of our govt.

Just as we have a 2nd Amendment right to bare arms, we also have a 4th Amendment right "to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures". But those same lawmakers that you're trusting to write the laws concerning a new gold standard can also write a constitutional amendment that repeals the 2nd Amendment, not that you seem to care about that.

I'm just glad you made your position clear since I always knew that there were "conservatives" who really were in favor of "big government" when it suited their purposes. All that talk about private property, individual rights, and government staying out of our business, yet some of you are quick to abandon those fake ideals when fantasy scenarios like returning to the gold standard are put on the table.

Lord. Let me clarify my personal and evolving political views. I no longer consider myself as a conservative. I hold the view that no political dogmas are always the correct solution for any problem or issue.

We lived in days past where gold was restricted, to say the least. On an individual level it wasn't a problem then and likely wouldn't be a problem now.

If your going to cite the Constitution, then let's look at the Tenth Amendment and where our Federal gov't is now operating based on the Constitution. Not even close to the founding fathers, whatsoever. So cherry-picking ownership of gold from the Constitution doesn't move me to any degree. (The Second does, however.) So I will cherry-pick right back at you....

You are using that point as a barrier to a gold standard. Fine. I am curious as to why. Do you also consider yourself a globalist?

originally posted by: nwtrucker

Thoughts?

he'll get his brains air-conditioned like J.F. Kennedy

Trump is a loud-mouth, but I'm sure he's not stupid.

originally posted by: Realtruth
he'll get his brains air-conditioned like J.F. Kennedy
.

Why? Kennedy wasn't interested in reinstituting the gold standard.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Realtruth
he'll get his brains air-conditioned like J.F. Kennedy
.

Why? Kennedy wasn't interested in reinstituting the gold standard.

Executive Order 11110


en.wikipedia.org... Silver, but basically the same thing. And a few months later bang, bang. But it was still a gold standard amendment.

originally posted by: Realtruth
en.wikipedia.org... Silver, but basically the same thing. And a few months later bang, bang. But it was still a gold standard amendment.

Two things:

• That Executive Order gave the Federal Reserve more power by allowing them to print more Federal Reserve Notes
  
• It was signed in 1961 which is just a tad longer than a 'few months' before he was assassinated
  
  
  
  
  
  edit on 15-3-2018 by AugustusMasonicus because: networkdude has no beer
  

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Realtruth
en.wikipedia.org... Silver, but basically the same thing. And a few months later bang, bang. But it was still a gold standard amendment.

Two things:

• That Executive Order gave the Federal Reserve more power by allowing them to print more Federal Reserve Notes
  
• It was signed in 1961 which is just a tad longer than a 'few months' before he was assassinated
  
  
  
  

Executive Order 11110 was issued by U.S. President John F. Kennedy on June 4, 1963.

John F. Kennedy/Date of assassination
November 22, 1963

a reply to: Realtruth


Noted, however my first point still stands...

On November 28, 1961, President Kennedy halted sales of silver by the Treasury Department.

This was to facilitate taking silver out of the currency market so it could be used for manufacturing purposes. Kennedy had zero intention of instituting a silver standard. I would ask you for evidence of him claiming he wanted to but there isn't any.

Read the bottom of your own source.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Looks like you are correct on that one.

However his return to a note was not the federal reserve, but the US government reserve.

a reply to: Realtruth


We'll split the difference.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: Realtruth


We'll split the difference.

I think it gets blurred between him trying to give the power back to the US government reserve, and not the federal reserve ( Rothchild owned.)