Sent to me by an ImaLibertarian Reader:
|Congressman Ron Paul is an unelectable crank because he’s obcessed with the crazy notion that increasing the national debt is tantamount to devaluing the currency. To view a larger image, click on it.|
Horror! Tremble in fear for the possibility of (another) currency default.
Cower in terror at the thought of Moody’s downgrading US currency.
What we really ought to do is reflect on past defaults and try to imagine the really horrible consequence of failing to stop this counterfeiting FED enterprise in it’s tracks right now before it’s too late to prevent our winding up like the Weimar Republic.
In it’s customary fashion, Mises.Org describes US currency default history.
They say that I missed 3 questions, but I’m going to argue with them about one answer. The other two though, I blew fair and square.
Try it yourself — American Civic Knowledge Survey
My results are below:
|I’m going to argue that I only missed TWO.
The one in RED below is NOT WRONG – dammit.
My comments are in BLUE*
I need to do some more studying. How about you?
Ron Paul Predictions
Recently a friend of mine who knows that I’m an anal libertarian sent me an email in which he was complaining about the news orgy that Sarah Palin generates no matter what she says or does. He knew I held a low opinion of the Forth Estate, and probably wanted someone to agree with his analysis of it’s paparazzi work ethic. It’s just a symptom.
It would take an astronomically modest libertarian to refrain from saying, “I’ve been complaining about politicians dishonoring their oaths to the constitution and a news media that tries to sensationalize the trivial for 30 years.” I wish I could be that modest.
The limits that the constitution imposes on the federal government still aren’t respected by the general public. Until they do, the politicians aren’t going to either. They continue to beg for “rights” bought with other peoples money, not realizing that every individual right they receive is actually putting money in the pocket of the government’s business partners – but only AFTER it’s been pulled out of theirs.
When I was just a wee lad (70 years ago), this dependency ethic was still being perfected and almost none of the above examples of that ethic were implemented. Back then about the same number of people starved in the streets, failed at business and developed newer, more efficient methods as they do now. The big difference between then and now, is that back then you couldn’t know ahead of time whether you’d succeed or fail and then learn through experience the things that went in to success and failure. Now days, you don’t have to work to get food, shelter, healthcare, or to start a business without concern for its ROI. No wonder poor people thought they could get rich by simply buying houses in every waking hour.
Only the most immodest libertarian would ever say, “I told you so.” It’s a pity, but that’s more like me.
I ask myself – “Could Palin be any worse?” I answer myself, “Only with extreme difficulty.”
|In preparation for an examination of the logic that’s resulted in what we refer to as our centrally planned monetary and central banking system, lets begin with confirming a basic theorem, to wit: The Federal Reserve creates counterfeit money.
To help define the parameters of that examination, ImALibertarian welcomes dissenting opinions.
Whenever I’ve heard political opponents debate whether the Social Security “Trust Fund” was (is) a Ponzi Scheme, I’ve always just assumed that they meant (at the worst) it couldn’t sustain it’s viability because (like any Ponzi Scheme) without a continually increasing number of donors, the income generated would never be enough to pay the promised benefits. I never assumed that the whole thing was designed from the beginning to help fund the general spending of the government.
Then I read this October 16, 1999 – Cato Institute article.
So… Based on the actual words and intentions of the Social Security Act – SS is even worse than Bernie Madoff’s Ponzi Scheme – EVEN IF the income base continually grew – coupled with budget shortfalls, dependent on deficit spending – it was designed from the get-go to depend on new taxes to pay for the benefits that were sold by telling people that FICA taxes would be the real source of funds. The whole thing is based on a lie, except for the fact that it’s all described in the law. We were (and still are) too trusting in promotional hype when it comes to buying government crap.
This quote is from a recent Ron Paul newsletter –
|“Interest payments on our federal bond debt likely will amount to about $500 billion for fiscal year 2011, an average of $41 billion per month. Federal tax revenues vary by month, but should total around $2 trillion to $2.5 trillion for FY 2011– an average of perhaps $180 billion per month. So clearly the federal government has sufficient tax revenue to make interest payments to our creditors. For now, those interest payments represent about 12% of the total federal budget. What nobody wants to admit is this: even if the federal government has only $1.5 trillion remaining to spend in 2011 after interest payments, this is PLENTY to fund the constitutional functions of government. After all, the entire federal budget in 1990 was about $1 trillion.”|
Raising the debt limit is only necessary if we borrow MORE than we have already borrowed. In other words, it’s only necessary if we don’t quit INCREASING the amount that we borrow… not increasing the amount that we spend, but what we have to borrow in order to spend.
There isn’t enough outrage to go around.