No one is forced to do it. It's an analogy. The military as it's currently defined publicly, is here to defend our nation and our freedom. I would personally see that as meaning national defense and really not too much else. So then isn't sending the military to police and build foreign nations the same as making police officers just go fight a war on say, the Iranian government, without changing their job description or offering them any real training or many useful tools on how to do that. That's what I mean, we're sending our soldiers to do things they most likely did not sign up for. No, because police officers are civilians. Members of the military are service members and sacrifice their rights to serve as congress deems. Read the contract. Specifically the first paragraph on the second page.

Because by fucking themselves over they indirectly fuck you over. Call me crazy, but under that definition isn't any indirect harm my fault and therefore my problem? If things start destabilizing the vast majority of the populace in a real and tangible way then yeah we do probably need to evaluate specific steps and measure we can use to combat it (in line with our constitution.) That said, giving a blank check to protect us from ourselves is a downright dangerous idea, because government doesn't have any reason or need to stop when they don't have to. I'd rather the government not say, declare war on the monster under the bed and pass a law banishing beds that have empty space under them because a lot of kids are scared of the monster under the bed. hyperbole? Yes, but sometimes it's necessary to show ridiculous things that could happen if we just hand over power without logical or rational limits and government sees an opportunity to seize something.

Jackson was against pretty much any national bank. He could have attempted to regulate the bank but he didn't. As to inflation "not being that bad," try paying off college debts, rent, and utilities off 40k a year. Milk costs $5 a gallon now. Inflation helps those. Deflation would cause all of those to cost more in real world terms. The cost of milk is not entirely dependent on inflation. Gas prices play a large role. The income tax is used to pay for the interest on the bonds we have to pay back to the Fed, China, and Japan. Since he's not abolishing the Fed until the Fed reserve notes are paid off - and, by extension, the debt - then it's not an issue. He has said that he will abolish the IRS and the income tax. He plans to replace those with an national sales tax. Unless he is lying, I see no reason to disbelieve him. Inflation is a far bigger problem than you might realize. Like I said before, wall street doesn't feel it - the little person does. We spend quickly because to save is to allow the dollar to devalue in its account. We spend quickly because we want stuff. Besides, the real "little people" can't afford not to spend their money because they don't make enough money to make hoarding worthwhile. Hoarding is also bad for the economy. You still haven't answered how hard money would deal with massive deflation. At the former gold price of around USD $640 per Troy ounce, or around $20,000 per kilogram, the value of this entire planetary stock would be USD $2.5 trillion, which is less than the value of currency circulating. In the U.S. alone, more than $7.3 trillion is in circulation.

No, because police officers are civilians. Members of the military are service members and sacrifice their rights to serve as congress deems. Read the contract. Specifically the first paragraph on the second page. Okay, point conceded, it's a bad analogy. Still, wouldn't that basically mean people are being lied to about the overall goal and purpose of the military then?

Because by fucking themselves over they indirectly fuck you over. Call me crazy, but under that definition isn't any indirect harm my fault and therefore my problem? If things start destabilizing the vast majority of the populace in a real and tangible way then yeah we do probably need to evaluate specific steps and measure we can use to combat it (in line with our constitution. You indirectly fucking shit up for other people and claiming responsibility for it doesn't make their new problems go away. If you drink beer laced with PCP and crash an SUV into someone's house it is your problem, but the gaping hole doesn't just go away. And you forgot to add "Or amend the constitution as necessary." The rest of your post was crazy talk.

No, because police officers are civilians. Members of the military are service members and sacrifice their rights to serve as congress deems. Read the contract. Specifically the first paragraph on the second page. Okay, point conceded, it's a bad analogy. Still, wouldn't that basically mean people are being lied to about the overall goal and purpose of the military then? Nation building can be considered protecting the country as it removes sources of instability.

No, because police officers are civilians. Members of the military are service members and sacrifice their rights to serve as congress deems. Read the contract. Specifically the first paragraph on the second page. Okay, point conceded, it's a bad analogy. Still, wouldn't that basically mean people are being lied to about the overall goal and purpose of the military then? It's there to protect and defend American interests. American interests extend beyond America.

He has said that he will abolish the IRS and the income tax. He plans to replace those with an national sales tax. Unless he is lying, I see no reason to disbelieve him. Perhaps. Abolishing the income tax would cause revenues to fall to 1995 levels. Given how much we spend abroad on the military, I don't think the loss of revenue would offset a debt repayment plan given dual currency. Granted, I haven't checked what either figure actually is, so take this with a grain of salt.

You indirectly fucking shit up for other people and claiming responsibility for it doesn't make their new problems go away. If you drink beer laced with PCP and crash an SUV into someone's house it is your problem, but the gaping hole doesn't just go away. And you forgot to add "Or amend the constitution as necessary." The rest of your post was crazy talk. No, but that's why we have police, and courts and lawyers to make me pay for my actions. If I drink beer laced with PCP and then crash my SUV into someone's house, how can that be blamed on anyone other than me? If hundreds of people are in an SUV crashing epidemic, why not tighten penalties and dedicate more power to enforcing the existing laws? It's sort of like hate crime laws, why do we need them? If someone committs an offense, then they can already be punished. If we really think the punishment needs to be more severe, why not just give judges more leeway in deciding? We need to heavily explore existing methods for keeping society functional first before we start throwing around new laws or powers to stop these problems. I mean, look at that story that was originally supposed to tout the success of the patriot act, turns out that the whole thing got cracked by good 'ol fashioned police work. I also thought "In line with our constitution" already included the idea of ammendments.

As to inflation "not being that bad," try paying off college debts, rent, and utilities off 40k a year (my first job - but still. Jeez.). Milk costs $5 a gallon now. Inflation is a far bigger problem than you might realize. Like I said before, wall street doesn't feel it - the little person does. We spend quickly because to save is to allow the dollar to devalue in the bank account. However, in spending, there's a transfer of wealth from the poor/middle class to the wealthy who of course do not feel the effects of inflation. Also, see what I said about corporations making madd money abroad - almost 60 percent of revenue. That's why wall street thrives and the people are struggling to get by with two working parents. Not that irrational purchases don't happen - but don't downplay inflation. This is a joke. First of all, and I want to emphasize this: our current - rather modest - inflation rate is due to oil prices rising from $20 to $100. Your milk being more expensive lately? That's because the price of feed for cows has gone up because fuel is more expensive and agricultural production is being diverted to ethanol. It has nothing to do with the Federal Reserve Bank. Second, you don't seem to be aware that growth in every single income group in the United States either keeps pace with inflation or regularly surpasses it.

No, but that's why we have police, and courts and lawyers to make me pay for my actions. If I drink beer laced with PCP and then crash my SUV into someone's house, how can that be blamed on anyone other than me? Blame and problem do not mean the same thing. Try again.

WTF? Where are your figures on that?

Shinto, go to page 93 and read my post. There is simply no way that is true that "every income group" has surpassed inflation rates. That would mean every single person gets a raise every year equal to the traditional 3 percent/year inflation instituted by the Fed. And, you know, that doesn't happen. Why does it take 2 working parents to barely support a family today when 50 years ago a single income could get the job done? The Fed has instituted long-term, slow inflation that was felt over a number of years rather than immediately.

He has said that he will abolish the IRS and the income tax. He plans to replace those with an national sales tax. Unless he is lying, I see no reason to disbelieve him. Perhaps. Abolishing the income tax would cause revenues to fall to 1995 levels. You have, ironically, failed to adjust for inflation.

Nation building can be considered protecting the country as it removes sources of instability. In some cases right now that's possibly true but again we have to really look at it in a way that hasn't been looked at yet in the long term. Ideally, nation building done right, in the right place, at the right time, can stop bad things from happening to America and Americans abroad and at home, but most of our need for such actions has again come from our past interventionist actions. Do we need to fix some things globally right now? Absolutely, but we can't just sign on for more of the same, there needs to be a definite change in how and why decisions are made and with a very transparent and thorough investigation before we do such things. Like i keep saying, practicallity, doing things based on an idealogy has only hurt us in the long run. It's there to protect and defend American interests. American interests extend beyond America. At times, yes, but what defines American interests? Personally I'd say it's only when the action has been weighed, researched, debated and decided (in a transparent way) that the vast majority of this nation would benefit greatly in the long term from the action. Historically a lot of our screwups were when we thought it'd be cool and for America but it ended up backfiring in our face. That's why it's often better just to not do anything short of serious and easily identifiable direct need/want and benefit to doing so.

Gold has no more inherent value than currency does. Gold serves as a carrier medium for gold pressed latinum.

It's there to protect and defend American interests. American interests extend beyond America. At times, yes, but what defines American interests? Personally I'd say it's only when the action has been weighed, researched, debated and decided (in a transparent way) that the vast majority of this nation would benefit greatly in the long term from the action. Historically a lot of our screwups were when we thought it'd be cool and for America but it ended up backfiring in our face. That's why it's often better just to not do anything short of serious and easily identifiable direct need/want and benefit to doing so. Weighed, researched, and debated you say? If only we had a body of people to do that...

Blame and problem do not mean the same thing. Try again. Re-read what you just quoted. We already have systems in place to solve that problem as best as reasonably possible. They're called the police and the judicial system. They punish people who do bad things, they award damages to the victims so they can try and repair their lives and they also keep people beyond reform off of the streets where they could harm others. Sure there are some things money and medical care may not be able to just "bring back" but if we go into preventative law then you'd better be pretty specific about what when and how you want to prevent things and why we can't solve it adiquately with existing law. Again, blank checks to do anything are bad for government.

Again, blank checks to do anything are bad for government. Show me who said we should let the government do anything.

Weighed, researched, and debated you say? If only we had a body of people to do that... Yes, now if only we could trust them to be compotent as well. I say it like that because this is the same congress that gave up much of its power to the executive branch to do whatever it pleases in a lot of new ways. Yes that mythical body of people exists but they sure aren't doing their job right and that's why I keep saying they need more limits and checks on their power. That's what this whole argument is about, which is that government is too big and needs less power and more limits exactly because as we've seen in recent years, we are practicing stupid by the barrel full in all branches right now and it needs to be reigned in. The best way to prevent stupid from hurting us is to make it so that the biggest threat of stupid hurting us comes only from ourselves, which we tend to have direct indisputable and immediate authority over, unlike the government.

Ron wants to change this system by instituting a dual currency of non-debt/bond based government bills while slowly fazing out Federal Reserve bills. Also, by slashing spending and getting out of Iraq, we free up a shit load of money. In this manner, we can pay off the national debt. Only after that’s done would any serious discussion of returning to commodity backed currency begin. You realize that we haven't actually really been taxed on Iraq yet, right? It's like telling someone who's in massive debt that they can work out of debt, by not paying their VISA bill. http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-..._ron_paul.html Secondly, the second bank was way too powerful - even Galbraith admits this. Biddle plunged the country into depression - on purpose - by fiddling with the interest rates in order to influence public opinion. That undermines the government and, by necessity, must be checked. Wow, that's really not what he said at all.

Shinto, go to page 93 and read my post. There is simply no way that is true that "every income group" has surpassed inflation rates. That would mean every single person gets a raise every year equal to the traditional 3 percent/year inflation instituted by the Fed. And, you know, that doesn't happen. Why does it take 2 working parents to barely support a family today when 50 years ago a single income could get the job done? You really just don't understand economic growth, do you. Why does it take two working parents today to "barely" support a family? Because our standard of living has risen. Those two working parents today wouldn't be struggling if they were living at a 1950 standard. They would own one car, live in an 700 square foot house and not have any electronics besides a radio. Their healthcare would cost a lot less because medical science wouldn't be sophisticated enough to prescribe expensive medical treatment to them. There were no expensive tests to be performed with expensive machines. If you had a heart attack you either pulled through or died. They didn't have surgery that could help. Furthermore, the working dad probably worked in a low skill factory job. This job would have provided both health insurance for free and a retirement pension. Demand is high for the good he helped to produce because the other industrial areas of the world have been devastated by WWII and haven't entirely recovered yet. In time such low skill jobs will leave due to globalization. Here, let me show you something. Bottom fifth gains $2000 per capita per year. 4th gains $4000 per year. 3rd gains $6000. 2nd gains $10,000. 1st gains $50,000.

Show me who said we should let the government do anything. I thought we were arguing for and against limiting the power of government, I'm arguing why we need limits, and also why we need more limits.

Show me who said we should let the government do anything. I thought we were arguing for and against limiting the power of government, I'm arguing why we need limits, and also why we need more limits. I never even stated my thoughts on it. I've only pointed out the fallacies in yours. No one here thinks the government should do whatever it likes and you shouldn't make assumptions like that.

I never even stated my thoughts on it. I've only pointed out the fallacies in yours. No one here thinks the government should do whatever it likes and you shouldn't make assumptions like that. To be fair, I was saying more concisely that I believe giving government a blanket mandate to "do whatever is necessary to fix X or Y" was bad, not that you meant we should let them do literally anything.