Comments on: Paul Ryan’s proposed federal budget twice the size of 2002, called austerity by HuffPo http://www.glennbeck.com/2013/03/12/paul-ryans-proposed-federal-budget-twice-the-size-of-2002-called-austerity-by-huffpo/ The Fusion of Entertainment and Enlightenment Wed, 19 Jun 2013 18:31:00 -0400 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: greywolfrs http://www.glennbeck.com/2013/03/12/paul-ryans-proposed-federal-budget-twice-the-size-of-2002-called-austerity-by-huffpo/#comment-229515 greywolfrs Thu, 14 Mar 2013 22:47:00 +0000 /?p=44482#comment-229515 I see what you are saying and maybe my explaination was in the simplest of terms, but changing back to a commodies based system means that the currency would no longer be based on debt. It would no longer be based on "air." Just like the gold standard, it would be based on actual items of value. We, as a people are ceing nothing to government, look up how much land the Feds already own, especially in the western part of the country. Now, think about all the "resources" contained on those lands. This is exactly what the government could base a single currency upon. Let me say this, if we have competing currencies, it would make it easier for the private issuer to manipulate those currencies. (not that the Federal Reserve isn't already doing that) One private issuer could devalue another's currency quite easily. That only hurts the consumer, more so than a single currency. The "free market" isn't only based on currency, it is based on goods and services. As for the taxation issue, the Constitution does give the government the right to collect taxes. The Constitution also grants the Feds the right to coin money. Having a single currency does not negate the barter/free market system, it simply sets a standard that private banks can not manipulate. I do not see that a single currency gives the government control of any market. Just because value is based on a single currency does allow the government to dictate the original value. I agree that, in most cases, government is the problem and has no solution, but some government is needed. Going to competing currencies means a whole new set of bureaucracy to regulate that. I am not sure that is a good thing either. I see what you are saying and maybe my explaination was in the simplest of terms, but changing back to a commodies based system means that the currency would no longer be based on debt. It would no longer be based on “air.” Just like the gold standard, it would be based on actual items of value. We, as a people are ceing nothing to government, look up how much land the Feds already own, especially in the western part of the country. Now, think about all the “resources” contained on those lands. This is exactly what the government could base a single currency upon.

Let me say this, if we have competing currencies, it would make it easier for the private issuer to manipulate those currencies. (not that the Federal Reserve isn’t already doing that) One private issuer could devalue another’s currency quite easily. That only hurts the consumer, more so than a single currency. The “free market” isn’t only based on currency, it is based on goods and services.

As for the taxation issue, the Constitution does give the government the right to collect taxes. The Constitution also grants the Feds the right to coin money. Having a single currency does not negate the barter/free market system, it simply sets a standard that private banks can not manipulate.

I do not see that a single currency gives the government control of any market. Just because value is based on a single currency does allow the government to dictate the original value.

I agree that, in most cases, government is the problem and has no solution, but some government is needed. Going to competing currencies means a whole new set of bureaucracy to regulate that. I am not sure that is a good thing either.

]]> By: Omegaomni http://www.glennbeck.com/2013/03/12/paul-ryans-proposed-federal-budget-twice-the-size-of-2002-called-austerity-by-huffpo/#comment-229315 Omegaomni Thu, 14 Mar 2013 05:04:00 +0000 /?p=44482#comment-229315 To be fair anything George Bush does makes everything else, seem like austerity and or sane. Where were the deficit (chicken) hawks when republicans had all houses of congress? where were the budget cuts then? hmmmm ?   To be fair anything George Bush does makes everything else, seem like austerity and or sane.
Where were the deficit (chicken) hawks when republicans had all houses of congress? where were the budget cuts then? hmmmm ?  

]]> By: MarsBarsTru7 http://www.glennbeck.com/2013/03/12/paul-ryans-proposed-federal-budget-twice-the-size-of-2002-called-austerity-by-huffpo/#comment-229108 MarsBarsTru7 Wed, 13 Mar 2013 20:21:00 +0000 /?p=44482#comment-229108 I disagree with you on this. Yes, competing currencies means there will be multiple currencies. Yes, it means people may carry more than one currency at a time. Yes, it may mean there are various currencies in different states... but there will likely be different currencies within a given city, let alone different states. Yes, it does complicate trade, but it also simplifies trade. Many people think of trade with the dollar now as simple. One currency. I give you a certain amount of dollars and you give me a certain amount of goods or services for that dollar. The trouble is, this simplistic way of viewing that exchange is a fallacy. The truth is, a lot is going on that isn't being acknowledged by describing the exchange in those terms. The reality is, the dollar represents debt, and the sources to which the debt is owed is both compelex and specific and ambiguous at the same time. It's an exchange of something real (goods or services) for a debt based on a complex series of lies. And, in the end, the person getting the dollar for their goods and services is accepting a level of bondage. The bondage is in both their agreement to exchange real capital for fiat currency (worth nothing in material terms), and in holding a curreny which indebts all users of that currency to ambiguous sources which collect wealth off its very use. Competing currencies, in contrast, would be relatively the same as bartering, and would just be a natural element of a free market. As it is, the law prevents us from bartering. If we were allowed to barter, any commodity would present a potential form of currency. The use of currency at all wouldn't be forced. It would simply be a more convenient and natural method of exchange in many cases, as opposed to trading commodity for commodity. Metals typically dominate free currency exchanges because metals are durable and are more difficult to obtain (precious) than pottery or glass or other various things. Metals such as gold typically rise to the top, because they are resistant to degradation... ... anyway, you likely know all this. The point is, competing currency is natural to a free market. It may seem to be an inconvenience when approaching it from a forced one-currency condition, but it's necessary to maintain a free market. The only way you can have a one-currency system is if the government enforces one - and it can only enforce one-currency if it eliminates bartering, and thus eliminating the free market. Essentially, it is impossible to have a free market if the government dictates the currency standards. And I maintain that it is morally wrong. Think: What is the trade on the market level? It's a trade of freedom for convenience. Is it not? And all it does is perpetuate government involvement in the market... because of the government is in control over the currency, then the government can manipulate the currency value through various means... and if the government has a currency based on commodities, from whence do those commodities come? Assuming that we, as The People, have a say, then what are we ceding to the government in the form of commodities? Moreover, if we allow the government to control the currency and establish a one-currency system, even if it's based on commodities, doesn't it only serve to force everyone to accumulate taxable income? I posit that the only reason the elites in this country advocate a one-currency system is because it is easier to tax and relatively justifiably taxed in comparison with free commodities exchanges. As a government you can't tax on a currency that isn't being used or one that issn't issued by you. What would be your standard for seizing wealth with varying currencies or accumulated commodities? Understand: They know that forcing people to turn over commodities with ambiguous standards as part of the taxation process would cause people to revolt against the tax system.   You see, outside of a perceived convenience issue, a forced one-currency system does nothing but perpetuate government control on the market. Aren't we agreed that govt. control in the market is a bad thing? The currency is an issue just like almost every other issue in politics - Government is the problem, not the solution. I disagree with you on this. Yes, competing currencies means there will be multiple currencies. Yes, it means people may carry more than one currency at a time. Yes, it may mean there are various currencies in different states… but there will likely be different currencies within a given city, let alone different states.

Yes, it does complicate trade, but it also simplifies trade. Many people think of trade with the dollar now as simple. One currency. I give you a certain amount of dollars and you give me a certain amount of goods or services for that dollar. The trouble is, this simplistic way of viewing that exchange is a fallacy. The truth is, a lot is going on that isn’t being acknowledged by describing the exchange in those terms. The reality is, the dollar represents debt, and the sources to which the debt is owed is both compelex and specific and ambiguous at the same time. It’s an exchange of something real (goods or services) for a debt based on a complex series of lies. And, in the end, the person getting the dollar for their goods and services is accepting a level of bondage. The bondage is in both their agreement to exchange real capital for fiat currency (worth nothing in material terms), and in holding a curreny which indebts all users of that currency to ambiguous sources which collect wealth off its very use.

Competing currencies, in contrast, would be relatively the same as bartering, and would just be a natural element of a free market. As it is, the law prevents us from bartering. If we were allowed to barter, any commodity would present a potential form of currency. The use of currency at all wouldn’t be forced. It would simply be a more convenient and natural method of exchange in many cases, as opposed to trading commodity for commodity. Metals typically dominate free currency exchanges because metals are durable and are more difficult to obtain (precious) than pottery or glass or other various things. Metals such as gold typically rise to the top, because they are resistant to degradation…
… anyway, you likely know all this. The point is, competing currency is natural to a free market. It may seem to be an inconvenience when approaching it from a forced one-currency condition, but it’s necessary to maintain a free market. The only way you can have a one-currency system is if the government enforces one – and it can only enforce one-currency if it eliminates bartering, and thus eliminating the free market.

Essentially, it is impossible to have a free market if the government dictates the currency standards. And I maintain that it is morally wrong. Think: What is the trade on the market level? It’s a trade of freedom for convenience. Is it not? And all it does is perpetuate government involvement in the market… because of the government is in control over the currency, then the government can manipulate the currency value through various means… and if the government has a currency based on commodities, from whence do those commodities come? Assuming that we, as The People, have a say, then what are we ceding to the government in the form of commodities?

Moreover, if we allow the government to control the currency and establish a one-currency system, even if it’s based on commodities, doesn’t it only serve to force everyone to accumulate taxable income? I posit that the only reason the elites in this country advocate a one-currency system is because it is easier to tax and relatively justifiably taxed in comparison with free commodities exchanges. As a government you can’t tax on a currency that isn’t being used or one that issn’t issued by you. What would be your standard for seizing wealth with varying currencies or accumulated commodities? Understand: They know that forcing people to turn over commodities with ambiguous standards as part of the taxation process would cause people to revolt against the tax system.
 
You see, outside of a perceived convenience issue, a forced one-currency system does nothing but perpetuate government control on the market. Aren’t we agreed that govt. control in the market is a bad thing?

The currency is an issue just like almost every other issue in politics – Government is the problem, not the solution.

]]> By: greywolfrs http://www.glennbeck.com/2013/03/12/paul-ryans-proposed-federal-budget-twice-the-size-of-2002-called-austerity-by-huffpo/#comment-229028 greywolfrs Wed, 13 Mar 2013 18:32:00 +0000 /?p=44482#comment-229028 Why, do you have a fetish and want to watch? It wouldn't surprise me, matt "the moron" driscoll. Why, do you have a fetish and want to watch? It wouldn’t surprise me, matt “the moron” driscoll.

]]> By: greywolfrs http://www.glennbeck.com/2013/03/12/paul-ryans-proposed-federal-budget-twice-the-size-of-2002-called-austerity-by-huffpo/#comment-229019 greywolfrs Wed, 13 Mar 2013 18:10:00 +0000 /?p=44482#comment-229019 Well, we had that in this country at one time. People will run into the same problems as they did at that time. When you have competing currencies, people will run into the problem of having to carry more than one currency. Some places will take one type of currency and not another. As with the first time, you could use a particular type of currency in one state, then need a different type once you cross a border into another state. It's like having 50 different countries at that point. We will also run into currencies that are valued different, which would make it difficult to exchange.  Another thing is people will run into problems when they do go to other countries. In the end, it seems that idea would create a bigger problem than what it solves. The Constitution grants the Feds the power coin money, we need to stop "out-sourcing" that to the Federal Reserve, which means ALL the money would have one value. Going to a commodies based currency would mean our money WAS backed by something again, like the gold standard. The gold standard also kept the government (Federal Reserve) honest, to some degree. One thing is for sure, this fiat currency isn't working, so something really needs to be done.  Well, we had that in this country at one time. People will run into the same problems as they did at that time. When you have competing currencies, people will run into the problem of having to carry more than one currency. Some places will take one type of currency and not another. As with the first time, you could use a particular type of currency in one state, then need a different type once you cross a border into another state. It’s like having 50 different countries at that point. We will also run into currencies that are valued different, which would make it difficult to exchange.  Another thing is people will run into problems when they do go to other countries. In the end, it seems that idea would create a bigger problem than what it solves.

The Constitution grants the Feds the power coin money, we need to stop “out-sourcing” that to the Federal Reserve, which means ALL the money would have one value. Going to a commodies based currency would mean our money WAS backed by something again, like the gold standard. The gold standard also kept the government (Federal Reserve) honest, to some degree. One thing is for sure, this fiat currency isn’t working, so something really needs to be done. 

]]> By: Snorri Sturluson http://www.glennbeck.com/2013/03/12/paul-ryans-proposed-federal-budget-twice-the-size-of-2002-called-austerity-by-huffpo/#comment-229015 Snorri Sturluson Wed, 13 Mar 2013 17:50:00 +0000 /?p=44482#comment-229015 How can Obama transform the U.S. into a social justice,  3rd world serf state if politicians and citizens demand fiscal responsibility and economic common sense? Damn liberals have worked so hard to bankrupt America in the name of a Fair Share for those who don't or won't work. How can Obama transform the U.S. into a social justice,  3rd world serf state if politicians and citizens demand fiscal responsibility and economic common sense? Damn liberals have worked so hard to bankrupt America in the name of a Fair Share for those who don’t or won’t work.

]]> By: Matt Driscoll http://www.glennbeck.com/2013/03/12/paul-ryans-proposed-federal-budget-twice-the-size-of-2002-called-austerity-by-huffpo/#comment-228976 Matt Driscoll Wed, 13 Mar 2013 14:14:00 +0000 /?p=44482#comment-228976 Are you two gonna 69? Are you two gonna 69?

]]> By: Anonymous http://www.glennbeck.com/2013/03/12/paul-ryans-proposed-federal-budget-twice-the-size-of-2002-called-austerity-by-huffpo/#comment-228949 Anonymous Wed, 13 Mar 2013 11:47:00 +0000 /?p=44482#comment-228949 Forgive me, but, we have had "austerity" for several years now, a la housing crisis, increasing taxes, and no work. Way to keep up with the times Huff....and way to wag the dog. :p aus·ter·i·ty  [ aw stérrətee ]    severity or plainness: severity of discipline, regime, expression, or designeconomy measure: a saving, economy, or act of self-denial, especially in respect of something regarded as a luxuryenforced thrift: thrift imposed as government policy, with restricted access to or availability of consumer goods Forgive me, but, we have had “austerity” for several years now, a la housing crisis, increasing taxes, and no work. Way to keep up with the times Huff….and way to wag the dog. :p
aus·ter·i·ty
 [ aw stérrətee ]   
severity or plainness: severity of discipline, regime, expression, or designeconomy measure: a saving, economy, or act of self-denial, especially in respect of something regarded as a luxuryenforced thrift: thrift imposed as government policy, with restricted access to or availability of consumer goods

]]> By: Anonymous http://www.glennbeck.com/2013/03/12/paul-ryans-proposed-federal-budget-twice-the-size-of-2002-called-austerity-by-huffpo/#comment-228918 Anonymous Wed, 13 Mar 2013 06:07:00 +0000 /?p=44482#comment-228918 something drastic like two wars the ever growing department of homeland security and the recession? something drastic like two wars the ever growing department of homeland security and the recession?

]]> By: MarsBarsTru7 http://www.glennbeck.com/2013/03/12/paul-ryans-proposed-federal-budget-twice-the-size-of-2002-called-austerity-by-huffpo/#comment-228866 MarsBarsTru7 Wed, 13 Mar 2013 03:04:00 +0000 /?p=44482#comment-228866 I'm not going to disagree with you before I hear your argument. I know the collectivist argument against competing currencies, but what is yours? I’m not going to disagree with you before I hear your argument. I know the collectivist argument against competing currencies, but what is yours?

]]>