PDA

View Full Version : Restoring Liberty With Three Short Laws



OrthodoxPresbyterian
07-07-2011, 01:43 AM
Restoring Liberty With Three Short Laws

by Gary North

Let us assume that at some point in the future, Congress will pass and the President will sign three bills. These three laws would strip power from the United States government on a scale inconceivable even to the Tea Party's hard core members. They would be very short laws.

The United States Government hereby abolishes the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 and all subsequent laws relating to that Act.

The deadline for filing all Federal income taxes will shift in the next fiscal year from April 15 to the second Monday of November.

Withholding for all Federal taxes is hereby abolished.

Think of what this would mean. First, the central bank of the United States would become just one more over-leveraged bank – the most over-leveraged bank in the country. It would no longer possess a grant of privilege from the United States government. Members of the Board of Governors would no longer be paid by the U.S. government, nor would any other employees of the Board. The Board would have to abandon its Web address: www.federalreserve.gov. No more ".gov."

Second, the voters would be reminded in every Congressional election year just how much money the government is costing them. They would no longer have from mid-April to early November to forget.

If all Federal income taxes were due on the same day, this day would become the most feared and hated day of the year, assuming that it isn't already. I ask: Why not have this day fall on the day before Federal elections?

Personal income tax forms must be mailed by April 15. Think about this date. Before they vote in November, taxpayers have almost seven months to forget about tax misery day the previous April, and their next form-filing day will not come for almost six months. Out of sight, out of mind.

I say, let every citizen recall his previous day's tax filing and check-writing experience when he steps into the polling booth to cast his vote. Let democracy speak!

Third, taxpayers would have to adopt a program of personal voluntary thrift in order to set aside the money they owe to the government. Every payday, they would have to take steps to prepare for the Day of Reckoning. No longer would the government get the use of the public's money interest-free for a year. No longer would the government be able to position itself as a provider of nice refunds: "free money!" No longer would the government force people to reveal their whereabouts in order to get their refunds.

WITHHOLDING TAXES

The withholding tax program makes it easier for governments to collect taxes. The system was invented by Rockefeller agent Beardsley Ruml. When, in 1942, he came up with a plan to sell Congress on the idea of income tax withholding, he understood exactly what this would do for revenues actually collected: multiply them.

Here was the government's problem in 1942: only about five million out of the 34 million Americans subject to the income tax were saving to pay it on March 15, 1943. This presented a big problem for tax collectors, now that wartime taxes had been hiked dramatically. Ruml, formerly the director of the Laura Spelman Rockefeller Foundation, in 1942 was chairman of the New York Federal Reserve Bank. He was also the treasurer of R. H. Macy & Co., the department store. As Macy's treasurer, he well understood that most people resist saving for known expenditures. He asked: Why not get employers to deduct their employees' income tax liabilities? He recommended this to Congress in 1942, and Congress in 1943 passed a tax collection bill that included Ruml's withholding provision: the Current Tax Payment Act.

The Treasury Department went to work defending this program. It used staff economist Milton Friedman to do much of the research.

Did the scheme work? Beyond the politicians' wildest expectations. In 1942, the U.S. government collected $3.2 billion from income taxes. It 1943, before the law was fully operational, it collected $6.5 billion from income taxes. In 1944, it collected $20 billion. ("Historical Statistics of the United States," Pt. 2 [1975], p. 1105.)

The withholding tax was passed as a wartime measure. Naturally, it was not repealed in 1945.

The withholding tax system is popular with the Federal government for four reasons. First, the government deliberately over-withholds. This forces taxpayers to file their forms to get their refunds. They must identify where they live. Second, it creates a "free money from the government" emotional response when the refund check arrives. Third, the government gets to use this money, interest-free, during the taxable year. Fourth, it makes income taxes and Social Security taxes less painful and therefore more acceptable.

If withholding were abolished, the decline in revenues would be both immediate, permanent, and spectacular. Then, on the second Monday of November, there would be desperation across the land. Hardly anyone would have saved all of the money owed during the year. Where would they get the money to pay? They wouldn't. So, many would not file. There would be no way that the Internal Revenue Service could follow up on all the non-filing residents.

As soon as the taxpayers realized that there are too many people to convict, they would understand the enormous power they possess. Congress could do nothing. It would have to cut taxes to such a degree that people will set aside money to pay. It would have to issue high-interest tax prepayment bonds.

The government would have to default on its other debts.

I mention this just as a reminder: the entire system of Federal power rests on three laws, two of which are essentially technical, namely, the date for tax filing and tax withholding. These two technical laws are the foundation of the modern welfare-warfare-nanny state. Remove these two pillars, and the whole Federal system will come down.

WHY DEFAULT IS INEVITABLE

There is no school of academic opinion except for Austrian School economics that seriously suggests that the Federal debt should ever return to zero, as it was for just one year: 1836. The idea of debt-free civil government is universally regarded as utopian.

Some members of the Tea Party say that the government's debt is too large, but no one will gather Tea Party votes by calling for permanent budget surpluses sufficient to reduce the debt to zero over the next 20 or 30 years. That would require spending cuts that voters today will not tolerate: Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.

All three of these programs will eventually be cut, either by piecemeal cuts, or by hyperinflation, or by an outright default by the government. But today's politicians deny this, so most voters imagine that, somehow, these promises will not be broken by long-term fiscal crises in the future. It is not that a sucker is born every minute. On the contrary, voters who will someday demand that Congress default are born every minute. In contrast, suckers retire every minute. They are the sure losers.

"We owe it to ourselves" is a popular slogan of the defenders of the Federal debt. It has been ever since the New Deal of the 1930s. It is a nutty idea. Specific borrowers owe specific amounts to specific creditors for a specific time period. Nobody assumes that, under private debt, we owe it to ourselves, yet the idea is taken seriously by a large percentage of the voting the public when they think of government debt.

As the debt builds up relentlessly, and because nothing is done to stop this, the statistical probability of default increases. A statistician can see what is coming. A politician can too, but he is not going to admit this in public. An older voter should see it, but he has a built-in preference for not seeing it. He thinks, "I have paid so much money into the system. I deserve to be repaid." This is the "just deserts" theory of politics. It leads to ever-greater Federal debt based on ever-more preposterous denials.

It is not a question of default vs. no default. It is a question of which kind of default and when. It is a question of whose ox will get gored.

CONCLUSION

Liberty is possible. I do not think it is likely in the near future. It will take three laws: (1) the abolition of central banking; (2) the temporal connection between tax day and voting day; (3) the abolition of withholding taxes. If and when we get all three, the government will shrink back below the definition of tyranny provided in the Bible governments that tax at 10% or higher (I Samuel 8:14, 17)

Alvin Rabushka, the pre-eminent student of taxation in colonial America, has pointed to the history of American taxation after the Federal Reserve but before the New Deal and withholding taxes. Most people are unaware of this.

Nevertheless, reflecting its colonial antecedents, the scope of the federal government remained small, consuming only 3 percent of the national income as recently as 1929. The states remained the principal source of taxing and spending, consuming 7 percent of national income in 1929. It took the legislative measures enacted during the Great Depression to change the compact between the American people and their government, raising the share of taxes levied at all levels of government from a tenth to a third of the national income in peacetime, higher during wartime. The colonial roots of American taxation were lost in the transformation that took place in the twentieth century.

I would settle for going back to 1912. Wouldn't you?

July 7, 2011

Gary North [send him mail] is the author of Mises on Money. Visit http://www.garynorth.com. He is also the author of a free 20-volume series, An Economic Commentary on the Bible.

Copyright © 2011 Gary North

(Full Article HERE (http://lewrockwell.com/north/north1004.html))

fettpett
07-07-2011, 08:37 AM
every time we've gotten rid of the Central bank, the Country went into a depression. Reform it sure, get rid of income taxes and go to the fair tax yes, the tax collection day moved, hell i'd go for that. but we can't get rid of the bank.

Gingersnap
07-07-2011, 09:45 AM
Oh, heck - let's try it. It's not like we could make things any worse. :p

Rockntractor
07-07-2011, 10:17 AM
every time we've gotten rid of the Central bank, the Country went into a depression. Reform it sure, get rid of income taxes and go to the fair tax yes, the tax collection day moved, hell i'd go for that. but we can't get rid of the bank.

Um we are in a depression metal muffin.:rolleyes:

djones520
07-07-2011, 10:27 AM
Um we are in a depression metal muffin.:rolleyes:

He didn't say we only go in depressions when we get rid of it.

But if getting rid of it does hurt the economy, it certainly wouldn't make sense to do it when we are in one now would it?

Gingersnap
07-07-2011, 10:37 AM
He didn't say we only go in depressions when we get rid of it.

But if getting rid of it does hurt the economy, it certainly wouldn't make sense to do it when we are in one now would it?

Propping up an out-of-touch system and babying it along because it's what we're used to is not the answer either. Persistence is an admirable quality until it becomes a stubborn refusal to let go of damaging behaviors.

Articulate_Ape
07-07-2011, 11:55 AM
every time we've gotten rid of the Central bank, the Country went into a depression.

Say what? How the hell did you arrive at that conclusion?

Articulate_Ape
07-07-2011, 12:00 PM
According to Ben Bernanke, the current Chairman of the Federal Reserve, the stock market crash and the subsequent Depression were actually caused by tight monetary policies that the Federal Reserve instituted at that time.
Bernanke highlighted several key Fed mistakes:

The Fed began raising the Fed Funds rate in the spring of 1928, and kept raising it through a recession that began in August 1929. This led to the stock market crash in October 1929.

When the stock market crashed, investors turned to the currency markets. At that time, dollars were backed by gold held by the U.S. Government. Speculators began selling dollars for gold in September 1931, which caused a run on the dollar.

The Fed raised interest rates again to preserve the value of the dollar. This further restricted the availability of money for businesses, causing more bankruptcies.

The Fed did not increase the supply of money to combat deflation.
As investors withdrew all their dollars from banks, the banks failed, causing more panic. The Fed ignored the banks' plight, thus destroying any remaining consumers’ confidence in banks. Most people withdrew their cash and put it under the mattress, which further decreased the money supply.

Bottom line...thanks to the Fed, there was just not enough money in circulation to get the economy going again. Instead of pumping money into the economy, and increasing the money supply, the Fed allowed the money supply to fall 30%

From here. (http://useconomy.about.com/od/grossdomesticproduct/p/1929_Depression.htm)


Just to set the record straight.

djones520
07-07-2011, 12:03 PM
Say what? How the hell did you arrive at that conclusion?

He's probably referring to the depression of 1837.

http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/dep1837.htm

There was these as well that occured at another time with a quasi-central bank authority.

http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/dep1873.htm

http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/dep1893.htm

fettpett
07-07-2011, 01:12 PM
The Second Bank of the US, when Jackson got rid of it it put this Country into not just ONE Depression, but TWO.

fettpett
07-07-2011, 01:17 PM
I'm not saying the Federal Reserve doesn't need reform, but getting rid of it entirely is just stupid and would cause HUGE financial problems all over the world not just here

OrthodoxPresbyterian
07-07-2011, 03:50 PM
I'm not saying the Federal Reserve doesn't need reform, but getting rid of it entirely is just stupid and would cause HUGE financial problems all over the world not just here

I disagree. During the period between the dismantling of the Second Bank of the United States, and the opening of the Federal Reserve system, overall US real economic growth was substantially higher (about 4 - 4.5% per year) and the value of the US Dollar substantially better-maintained (approximately a 100% increase in purchasing power during the Gold-Standard 19th Century, vs a 97% decrease in purchasing power during the Central-Banking 20th Century), than under the subsequent Federal Reserve System.

In other words, the country as a whole was getting richer, faster, AND all the Dollars in everyone's Savings Accounts were gaining value (very, very, slowly, but that's better than the constant Inflation we have today).

Now, I am not going to argue with you as to whether or not the dissolution of the Federal Reserve would cause a short-term Depression. Not because I think you are wrong (the truth is, neither one of us has a perfectly-clear economic Crystal Ball; but, in the short term, I think it's possible that you're correct), but rather because I think you're arguing for a bad long-term trade-off. For me, the question is, "Would I be willing to suffer a short-term Depression in order to return to 100 years of higher economic growth and greater purchasing power?" For me, the answer to that question is (perhaps painfully, at first) "Yes. Yes indeed".

That being said, I would agree with you that for immediate POLITICAL effect (i.e., getting voters to realize the True Cost of Government, and Vote on it), North's ideas about ending withholding and moving Tax Day to early November are probably more immediately powerful.

fettpett
07-07-2011, 04:49 PM
I disagree. During the period between the dismantling of the Second Bank of the United States, and the opening of the Federal Reserve system, overall US real economic growth was substantially higher (about 4 - 4.5% per year) and the value of the US Dollar substantially better-maintained (approximately a 100% increase in purchasing power during the Gold-Standard 19th Century, vs a 97% decrease in purchasing power during the Central-Banking 20th Century), than under the subsequent Federal Reserve System.

In other words, the country as a whole was getting richer, faster, AND all the Dollars in everyone's Savings Accounts were gaining value (very, very, slowly, but that's better than the constant Inflation we have today).

Now, I am not going to argue with you as to whether or not the dissolution of the Federal Reserve would cause a short-term Depression. Not because I think you are wrong (the truth is, neither one of us has a perfectly-clear economic Crystal Ball; but, in the short term, I think it's possible that you're correct), but rather because I think you're arguing for a bad long-term trade-off. For me, the question is, "Would I be willing to suffer a short-term Depression in order to return to 100 years of higher economic growth and greater purchasing power?" For me, the answer to that question is (perhaps painfully, at first) "Yes. Yes indeed".

That being said, I would agree with you that for immediate POLITICAL effect (i.e., getting voters to realize the True Cost of Government, and Vote on it), North's ideas about ending withholding and moving Tax Day to early November are probably more immediately powerful.

We've gone on about how the Gold Standard (which we know you are an advocate for) will not work anymore. I have to leave for school right now, but I'll get a little more on it later

Articulate_Ape
07-07-2011, 04:55 PM
I'm not saying the Federal Reserve doesn't need reform, but getting rid of it entirely is just stupid and would cause HUGE financial problems all over the world not just here

Yeah, we sure don't have those with it, do we? :rolleyes:

OrthodoxPresbyterian
07-07-2011, 05:00 PM
We've gone on about how the Gold Standard (which we know you are an advocate for) will not work anymore. I have to leave for school right now, but I'll get a little more on it later

Incidentally, I am not an advocate of the Gold Standard, or of any Government-imposed "standard", but rather of Free Market Money (i.e., whatever the Free Market decides is "money": historically, consumers have preferred Gold or Silver, and sometimes Copper, but I'm not married to any of them -- it's whatever the Free Market decides, for me).

However, I do believe that the Gold Standard, if not "the best" monetary system, is certainly preferable to Fiat Money (which is the truly "unworkable" Monetary System, as demonstrated by the fact that EVERY SINGLE Fiat Money ever issued, save for those presently in operation, have always gone to Zero Value -- and at the rate that our world's current Fiat Monies are declining in value, we may reasonably expect them to go to Zero within our lifetimes, also. Gold and Silver, you may be certain, will still retain substantial value).

Rockntractor
07-07-2011, 07:16 PM
I'll go with what ever the Antichrist decides.:confused:

Articulate_Ape
07-07-2011, 07:43 PM
Incidentally, I am not an advocate of the Gold Standard, or of any Government-imposed "standard", but rather of Free Market Money (i.e., whatever the Free Market decides is "money": historically, consumers have preferred Gold or Silver, and sometimes Copper, but I'm not married to any of them -- it's whatever the Free Market decides, for me).

However, I do believe that the Gold Standard, if not "the best" monetary system, is certainly preferable to Fiat Money (which is the truly "unworkable" Monetary System, as demonstrated by the fact that EVERY SINGLE Fiat Money ever issued, save for those presently in operation, have always gone to Zero Value -- and at the rate that our world's current Fiat Monies are declining in value, we may reasonably expect them to go to Zero within our lifetimes, also. Gold and Silver, you may be certain, will still retain substantial value).

I agree with you to a certain point, but it could be argued that any currency that you cannot eat or use in a practical manner to survive is a fiat currency at the end of the day. I have no doubt that many people have traded a fortune in gold for a crust of bread.

OrthodoxPresbyterian
07-07-2011, 09:02 PM
I agree with you to a certain point, but it could be argued that any currency that you cannot eat or use in a practical manner to survive is a fiat currency at the end of the day. I have no doubt that many people have traded a fortune in gold for a crust of bread.

It's possible; but what's far more statistically probable, throughout history, is that even in a condition of MASS, ABJECT STARVATION (as in present-day Zimbabwe), people are willing to trade bushels of Bread for a few grams of Gold (as in present-day Zimbabwe). See HERE (http://armannd.com/zimbabwe-gold-for-bread.html/).

The reason, of course, being that while an excess of Bread may well spoil on the morrow, an excess of Gold can be traded as easily for Bread tomorrow, as it can today. Sometimes Durability of Value has a Value all its own, even if it's an "intangible" value. (And "Durability of Value" is one virtue in which the Fiat Dollar is lacking -- amongst many other economic virtues in which Fiat Money is intrinsically lacking).

OrthodoxPresbyterian
07-07-2011, 09:04 PM
I'll go with what ever the Antichrist decides.:confused:

Great. Now I'm going to have to present an essay on Caesar Nero's monetary policy. Thanks a lot, RockN!!! :mad:

txradioguy
07-09-2011, 04:07 AM
(Full Article HERE)

What our local cultist is scared to post is the actual link to this silly article which is at...*gasp* www.lewrockwell.com

txradioguy
07-09-2011, 04:11 AM
*sigh* one more time for the slow learners:


What Are the Disadvantages of the Gold Standard?:

One disadvantage of a gold standard that the size and health of a country's economy is dependent upon its supply of gold, not the resourcefulness of its people and businesses. Countries without any gold are at a competitive disadvantage.

However, this is an advantage to the U.S., which is the world's second largest gold mining country behind South Africa. Most U.S. gold mining occurs on federally owned lands in twelve western states, with Nevada being the primary source. Australia, Canada and many developing countries also are major gold producers. (Source: National Mining Association)

The gold standard causes countries to become obsessed with keeping their gold, rather than improving the business climate. For example, during the Great Depression, the Federal Reserve raised interest rates to make dollars more valuable and prevent people from demanding gold. However, the Fed should have been lowering rates to stimulate the economy. (Source: Econlib, The Great Depression)

Government actions to protect their gold reserves caused large fluctuations in the economy. In fact, between 1890 and 1905, when the U.S. was on the gold standard, the economy suffered five major recessions for this reason. (Source: Federal Reserve, Remarks by Governor Edward M. Gramlich,, 24th Annual Conference of the Eastern Economic Association, February 27, 1998)

How Would a Return to the Gold Standard Affect the U.S. Economy?:

How a return to the gold standard would affect the U.S. economy depends on which gold standard method is proposed, and how it is implemented. For a detailed description of some of these methods, see The Cato Institute, The Gold Standard: An Analysis of some Recent Proposals.)

Returning to a gold standard, however it is done, would constrict the government's ability to manage the economy. The Fed would not longer be able to reduce the money supply by raising interest rates in times of inflation, or increase money supply by lower them in times of recession. In other words, the money supply would have to remain constant. In fact, this is why many advocate a return to the gold standard. It would enforce fiscal discipline, a balanced budget, and limit government intervention.

However, a fixed money supply, dependent on gold reserves, would limit economic growth. Many businesses would not get funded for lack of capital.

The U.S. could not unilaterally convert to a gold standard if the rest of the world didn't. If it did, everyone in the world could demand that the U.S. replace their dollars with gold.

The U.S. does not even have enough gold, at current rates, to pay off the portion of its debt owed to foreign investors. For example, China, Japan and other countries own $3.2 trillion in U.S. Treasury debt - but there is only $223 billion (at $914 per ounce) total in gold reserves at Fort Knox. (Source: U.S. Treasury Major Foreign Holdings of U.S. Debt; Office of Inspector General, Audit Report, November 2007)

Today, the U.S. economy is an important partner in an integrated global economy. Central banks work closely together throughout the world to manage monetary policy. The U.S. could not unilaterally adopt an isolationist economic stance, and abandon its ability to manage its economy using monetary policy, by returning to a gold standard.

http://useconomy.about.com/od/monetarypolicy/p/gold_standard.htm

OrthodoxPresbyterian
07-09-2011, 06:44 AM
*sigh* one more time for the slow learners:What Are the Disadvantages of the Gold Standard?:

And, yet again, Captain Irrelevant manages to cut-and-paste a great deal of Economic verbiage which he 1.) Doesn't actually understand; and 2.) Couldn't effectively defend, if his bluff were called.

Which it's unnecessary to do, since THIS ARTICLE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE GOLD STANDARD, which neither Dr. North, nor I, support anyway.

Dr. North is a supporter of Free Market Money, not the Gold Standard.
I am likewise a supporter of Free Market Money, not the Gold Standard.
And abolishing the Federal Reserve would NOT return us to the Gold Standard, but rather return us to Free Market Money.

You did not understand this, because you do not understand Economics.

In fact, if you actually thought that this Article had ANYTHING to do with the Gold Standard, to the point of posting an entire screed on the subject, then it's patently obvious that you know ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about Economics, at all.

Laughable.

fettpett
07-09-2011, 08:34 AM
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/90456.html

OrthodoxPresbyterian
07-09-2011, 08:57 AM
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/90456.html

I'm entirely apathetic on Bitcoin. If it works to facilitate ease and privacy of transactions for those using it, Great; I have no personal objection to any particular form of Free Market Money. This particular type of private currency is just one for which I have no personal interest, myself. To each his own.

txradioguy
07-09-2011, 09:23 AM
And, yet again, Captain Irrelevant manages to cut-and-paste a great deal of Economic verbiage which he 1.) Doesn't actually understand; and 2.) Couldn't effectively defend, if his bluff were called.

I understand it. MOre than you do it seems. If you DID understand it and understand what Dr. Nutz has advocated as "fiscal policy" you'd understand why I continue to post it for you cult followers to read.


Which it's unnecessary to do, since THIS ARTICLE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE GOLD STANDARD, which neither Dr. North, nor I, support anyway.

You said:


However, I do believe that the Gold Standard, if not "the best" monetary system, is certainly preferable to Fiat Money (which is the truly "unworkable" Monetary System, as demonstrated by the fact that EVERY SINGLE Fiat Money ever issued, save for those presently in operation, have always gone to Zero Value -- and at the rate that our world's current Fiat Monies are declining in value, we may reasonably expect them to go to Zero within our lifetimes, also. Gold and Silver, you may be certain, will still retain substantial value).

And I simply showed you where you were...yet again...completely wrong. And you answered with a bunch of name calling and shit talking as is your wont when you are shown to be wrong on the facts.



You did not understand this, because you do not understand Economics.

And you know this how exactly? I mean you prove it every time with the crap you post. You call the Gold Standard "if not "the best" monetary system, is certainly preferable to Fiat Money" and then try to lecture me on my lack of economic knowledge?

:rolleyes:



In fact, if you actually thought that this Article had ANYTHING to do with the Gold Standard, to the point of posting an entire screed on the subject, then it's patently obvious that you know ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about Economics, at all.

I could care less about your Ronulan Propaganda. I'm more interested in 21st century reality and the real world. Not pretend world conducted in a vacuum like you Ronulans pretend we live in.

I took one point you brought up and showed you where you were wrong.

Period.


Laughable.

Yes...yes you are.

fettpett
07-09-2011, 09:53 AM
I really don't understand what this "Fiat Money" has to do with anything. Every monetary system (outside of straight barter systems) are fiat as the Government sets the price of what the money is worth, whether it's a metal coin, or paper money. The only difference between our current system and the Gold standard (or Sliver or w/e you want) is that there is no physical metal that backs it.

txradioguy
07-09-2011, 10:01 AM
I really don't understand what this "Fiat Money" has to do with anything.

I hear that term and I think of this:

http://rcd.typepad.com/personal/39_2Dfiat_2Dx19.jpg

Not sure if it's worth any money or how well it works as currency though.

OrthodoxPresbyterian
07-09-2011, 10:04 AM
I understand it. MOre than you do it seems. If you DID understand it and understand what Dr. Nutz has advocated as "fiscal policy" you'd understand why I continue to post it for you cult followers to read.

Wait a minute -- you actually think that The Gold Standard has anything whatsoever to do with "Fiscal Policy"? Intrinsically?
:p Oh, that's rich. You really don't know your economics, not one little bit.

Please, explain precisely what The Gold Standard has to do with FISCAL policy. In your own words, please, no cut-and-paste.


And I simply showed you where you were...yet again...completely wrong. And you answered with a bunch of name calling and shit talking as is your wont when you are shown to be wrong on the facts. And you know this how exactly? I mean you prove it every time with the crap you post. You call the Gold Standard "if not "the best" monetary system, is certainly preferable to Fiat Money" and then try to lecture me on my lack of economic knowledge?

Yes. Because you do not even know the difference between The Gold Standard, and Free Market Money.

That is, in and of itself, a laughable deficiency of economic knowledge.

lacarnut
07-09-2011, 10:11 AM
I really don't understand what this "Fiat Money" has to do with anything. Every monetary system (outside of straight barter systems) are fiat as the Government sets the price of what the money is worth, whether it's a metal coin, or paper money. The only difference between our current system and the Gold standard (or Sliver or w/e you want) is that there is no physical metal that backs it.

The difference is you can print money out of thin air while the same can not be said of gold. There is just so much gold or silver that can be mined while the US printing press has no such limitations. Buy gold and silver. It will be worth more in a few years than the funny money Uncle Ben and tiny Tim keep printing. In the last 10 years, no asset class has come close to the appreciation of gold and silver.

OrthodoxPresbyterian
07-09-2011, 10:12 AM
I really don't understand what this "Fiat Money" has to do with anything. Every monetary system (outside of straight barter systems) are fiat as the Government sets the price of what the money is worth, whether it's a metal coin, or paper money.

No, it doesn't. Actually, the practice of the Government setting the price of what the "money" is worth in units of metallic commodities, is a relatively recent economic phenomenon. Money was exchanged for thousands of years without official Government price-fixing of the value thereof. At best, the Governments of ancient and medieval civilizations could attempt to mandate consumer prices in relation to their own devaluation of Money, but were largely unable to affect the Trade Value of the devalued Monies.


The only difference between our current system and the Gold standard (or Sliver or w/e you want) is that there is no physical metal that backs it.

True, but that's not at all the same thing as Free Market Money. The truth is, no "Gold Standard" or any other Government-imposed standard is necessary for Money to have value as a medium of exchange. In fact, as Von Mises correctly defined, "Money" is simply the most-broadly exchangeable commodity in whatever economy is under consideration, whether or not its value is set by the government, or Government-mandated to be exchangeable for a fixed amount of precious metal, or not.

txradioguy
07-09-2011, 10:40 AM
Wait a minute -- you actually think that The Gold Standard has anything whatsoever to do with "Fiscal Policy"? Intrinsically?
:p Oh, that's rich. You really don't know your economics, not one little bit.

Yes for a long time in this country it did.


Please, explain precisely what The Gold Standard has to do with FISCAL policy. In your own words, please, no cut-and-paste.

I'll keep it simple so you can understand. We could only spend nationally (i.e. Federal budget) the equivalent of what we had in Gold Reserves. Since mining of new gold stores was relatively small each year it kept the Federal government from expanding the budget beyond what our gold reserves were for any given year.

Hence the reason our money used to say below the dollar amount of the paper certificate "In Gold Coin To The Bearer On Demand".



Yes. Because you do not even know the difference between The Gold Standard, and Free Market Money.

Other than your c/p ronpaulforums.com lewrockwell.com bullshit you haven't shown that you have a clue.


That is, in and of itself, a laughable deficiency of economic knowledge.

You claim to have this vast superior knowledge of all things governmental over us stupid people...when are you gonna put it on display?

OrthodoxPresbyterian
07-09-2011, 10:49 AM
Yes for a long time in this country it did.



I'll keep it simple so you can understand. We could only spend nationally (i.e. Federal budget) the equivalent of what we had in Gold Reserves. Since mining of new gold stores was relatively small each year it kept the Federal government from expanding the budget beyond what our gold reserves were for any given year.

No, that's completely incorrect. The Gold Reserve functioned as Backing for the Outstanding Currency, not "The Budget". The only way your statement could possibly be correct is if the Federal Budget consisted of 100% of the Outstanding Currency -- Are you actually claiming that the Federal Government Taxed 100% of the Outstanding Currency in each year, and then spent that sum as "The Budget"? ROTFLMAO!! :D

Your statement is, as I expected, completely and utterly WRONG. You clearly have no idea whatsoever how The Gold Standard relates to "Fiscal Policy".


Hence the reason our money used to say below the dollar amount of the paper certificate "In Gold Coin To The Bearer On Demand".

Even your own quotation here should have alerted you to the fact that The Gold Reserve had intrinsically NOTHING to do with "the Budget".

As I said: You have ZERO understanding of Economics. None whatsoever.

fettpett
07-09-2011, 11:20 AM
No, it doesn't. Actually, the practice of the Government setting the price of what the "money" is worth in units of metallic commodities, is a relatively recent economic phenomenon. Money was exchanged for thousands of years without official Government price-fixing of the value thereof. At best, the Governments of ancient and medieval civilizations could attempt to mandate consumer prices in relation to their own devaluation of Money, but were largely unable to affect the Trade Value of the devalued Monies.



True, but that's not at all the same thing as Free Market Money. The truth is, no "Gold Standard" or any other Government-imposed standard is necessary for Money to have value as a medium of exchange. In fact, as Von Mises correctly defined, "Money" is simply the most-broadly exchangeable commodity in whatever economy is under consideration, whether or not its value is set by the government, or Government-mandated to be exchangeable for a fixed amount of precious metal, or not.

dude, Governments minted money, whether it was made out of metal or printed on paper, why do you think we dig up coins with Ceaser's face on them? or Spanish Galleon's with Spanish Monarchs faces on them, etc.

It's true that money in of it's self has value because we deem it does, Government's sets the standard of what it actual value is worth

OrthodoxPresbyterian
07-09-2011, 11:49 AM
dude, Governments minted money, whether it was made out of metal or printed on paper, why do you think we dig up coins with Ceaser's face on them? or Spanish Galleon's with Spanish Monarchs faces on them, etc.

Governments minted the coins, but remember: a one-Ounce Coin of Gold minted by ANY OTHER GOVERNMENT, was worth as much in trade as a one-Ounce Coin of Gold minted by the domestic Government.

For that matter, an Un-Minted Lump of one Ounce of raw Gold was worth roughly as much in the marketplace as the Government's one-Ounce Minted Coin! (More, if the Government's mint was suspected of devaluation)

In other words, it wasn't the Government's minting which set the value in people's minds, but rather the quantity of Gold in the coin.


It's true that money in of it's self has value because we deem it does, Government's sets the standard of what it actual value is worth

The Government does "set the standard of what its actual value is worth", in Fiat Money systems.

The Government does not, in Free Market Money systems.

The "Gold Standard" system is, incidentally, kindofa half-way bastard system between the two.

txradioguy
07-09-2011, 02:02 PM
Governments minted the coins, but remember: a one-Ounce Coin of Gold minted by ANY OTHER GOVERNMENT, was worth as much in trade as a one-Ounce Coin of Gold minted by the domestic Government.

Only if the countries were in agreement on the value.




The "Gold Standard" system is, incidentally, kindofa half-way bastard system between the two.

Not in it's first iteration. In the second go around under the Bretton Woods system was it turned into a hybrid system.

txradioguy
07-09-2011, 02:09 PM
No, that's completely incorrect. The Gold Reserve functioned as Backing for the Outstanding Currency, not "The Budget". The only way your statement could possibly be correct is if the Federal Budget consisted of 100% of the Outstanding Currency -- Are you actually claiming that the Federal Government Taxed 100% of the Outstanding Currency in each year, and then spent that sum as "The Budget"? ROTFLMAO!! :D

Your statement is, as I expected, completely and utterly WRONG. You clearly have no idea whatsoever how The Gold Standard relates to "Fiscal Policy".

Oh really? You sure about that?


Under the gold standard all financial instruments — including dollar notes and government securities — must ultimately be backed by existing physical metal. At today’s prices, America’s national debt would roughly translate into double all the gold ever mined. This should give a good idea of the excessiveness involved here. In any case, the gold standard would have made it impossible for the fiscal fix we are now in to come about.

http://www.goldstandardinstitute.net/2011/05/back-to-the-gold-standard/

That sounds pretty much like what I said in my own words earlier.


Even your own quotation here should have alerted you to the fact that The Gold Reserve had intrinsically NOTHING to do with "the Budget".

I'm beginning to think that no matter what proof is put before you...the only "truth" you're going to believe is your own ego inflated bullshit.


As I said: You have ZERO understanding of Economics. None whatsoever.

And yet you've failed continually to show anything to prove me wrong other than your own bluster and ego inspired drivel.

And you wonder why we call you idiots "Cultists".

So do you have anything other than your own unsubstantiated hype to back up your alleged knowledge in this area?

Cause I keep providing stuff to back up what I'm talking about and you continue to provide...your own bluster.

Kinda tells anyone following this thread who knows what the hell they're talking about and who doesn't.

OrthodoxPresbyterian
07-09-2011, 05:54 PM
Oh really? You sure about that? ~~ Under the gold standard all financial instruments — including dollar notes and government securities — must ultimately be backed by existing physical metal. At today’s prices, America’s national debt would roughly translate into double all the gold ever mined. This should give a good idea of the excessiveness involved here. In any case, the gold standard would have made it impossible for the fiscal fix we are now in to come about. http://www.goldstandardinstitute.net/2011/05/back-to-the-gold-standard/ That sounds pretty much like what I said in my own words earlier.

Not even remotely. What you said was,

"We could only spend nationally (i.e. Federal budget) the equivalent of what we had in Gold Reserves. Since mining of new gold stores was relatively small each year it kept the Federal government from expanding the budget beyond what our gold reserves were for any given year."

Your cut-n-pasted quotation ABOVE, on the other hand, had to do with the accumulation of National DEBT, which is not a function of the size of the Budget -- but rather, of the difference between Revenues and Expenditures. A Nation with Tax Revenues of $300 Billion and Expenditures of $300 Billion will inevitably have a lower Debt, than a Nation with Tax Revenues of $100 Billion and Expenditures of $200 Billion -- even though the latter Nation has a smaller total Budget. If you were capable of understanding your own cut-n-pasted citation, and the distinction between Budgets and Debts, you would already have known that. But of course you can't, so you didn't.

So, again, regarding your statement that:
"We could only spend nationally (i.e. Federal budget) the equivalent of what we had in Gold Reserves. Since mining of new gold stores was relatively small each year it kept the Federal government from expanding the budget beyond what our gold reserves were for any given year."

That's a COMPLETELY incorrect understanding. While it is true that the Gold Standard operates as a restraint upon the accumulation of Government Debt, it is most certainly NOT because "We could only spend nationally (i.e. Federal budget) the equivalent of what we had in Gold Reserves." That is an absolutely IDIOTIC statement -- and No, mining has NOTHING to do with it, either, unless the Government itself owns the mines or has a claim upon mining production. (It's entirely possible for a Government to maintain a Gold Standard, and to engage in policies of Fiscal Deficits or Surpluses, with no domestic gold mining capacity whatsoever. DUH!) As I have already pointed out to you (and as your own citations prove, if you had enough economic knowledge to even read them), the Gold Reserve functioned as Backing for the Outstanding Currency, not "The Budget". The only way your statement could possibly be correct is if the Federal Budget consisted of 100% of the Outstanding Currency -- Are you actually claiming that the Federal Government Taxed 100% of the Outstanding Currency in each year, and then spent that sum as "The Budget"? ROTFLMAO!!

Now, IF you had read further in your own posted citation, you would understand WHY the Gold Standard tends to restrain the accumulation of Government Debt (and NOT, as you incorrectly stated, determine the amount of "The Budget", which does not actually impact the amount of Government Debt, at all, if matched 1-for-1 by Tax Revenues):


Since gold cannot be manufactured at will in some government facility, there is obviously only one place where it can come from: From the population, through taxation.

When deficits balloon under the gold standard, people are acutely conscious of the fact that it is with their own gold — real and precious — that budget shortfalls will have to be paid for.

Thus under the gold standard, the reality of debt is driven home in a hard and immediate way. With an electorate so sensitized, debt-addicted politicians tend to quickly suffer the consequences of their profligate ways. It is, therefore, no surprise that governments whose currencies are pegged to gold almost always behave in fiscally responsible fashion.

Under a fiat money regime such as we have now, the situation is altogether different. Debt can be run up easily, because politicians are not tied to anything real that would put a check on how much of it can be issued. Even when the bonds themselves come due, government can simply create more money to pay off creditors.
(http://www.goldstandardinstitute.net/2011/05/back-to-the-gold-standard/)

Here's some advice for you -- since you do not actually understand Economics, it would be wise for you to READ your own citations until you achieve a greater understanding. Then you will not have to face the embarassment of having it pointed out to you: "If you'd just read your own citations, you'd understand your own economic errors".

Glad to help.

Ultimately though, of course, the Gold Standard is NOT "the best" Monetary System (even if preferable to Fiat Money), but rather a Free Market Monetary system. I doubt you understand the difference, but perhaps as you come to understand how The Gold Standard operates, you'll eventually be able to understand the difference between a Government-imposed Gold Standard, and Free Market Money. Right now, we're obviously going to have to take your education one VERY small step at a time.

OrthodoxPresbyterian
07-09-2011, 06:11 PM
Only if the countries were in agreement on the value.

Incorrect. As the Biblical records show, Gold and Silver have always retained Market Value even in areas with ZERO National Government (see the travels of Abraham) and NO Government Mint (see Biblical Israel under the Judges).

Gold has value because THE FREE MARKET says it has value -- not because the Government does.


The "Gold Standard" system is, incidentally, kindofa half-way bastard system between the two. ~~
Not in it's first iteration. In the second go around under the Bretton Woods system was it turned into a hybrid system.

No, even in its first iteration, the Gold Standard was a half-way bastard system between Free Market Money and Fiat Money. If you don't understand that, it's because you don't understand what Free Market Money IS. As I said, we're going to have to take your education one VERY small step at a time.

Molon Labe
07-09-2011, 06:57 PM
yeah....a dollar currency backed by nothing has been doing us all real good for the past 40 years since we came completely off a standard of value.

:rolleyes:

Rockntractor
07-09-2011, 07:04 PM
Invest in heavy equipment, in two years you won't be able to buy it.

Molon Labe
07-09-2011, 08:39 PM
Invest in heavy equipment, in two years you won't be able to buy it.

also food. A can of soup in 2009 was still around 99 cents. Now...about 1.30. The inflation index doesn't take into account real items that effect people on fixed incomes.

Rockntractor
07-09-2011, 08:43 PM
also food. A can of soup in 2009 was still around 99 cents. Now...about 1.30. The inflation index doesn't take into account real items that effect people on fixed incomes.

Between the increase in the cost of steel and the impossible new regulations placed on new diesel engines my equipment will go up like gold.

OrthodoxPresbyterian
07-09-2011, 08:53 PM
also food. A can of soup in 2009 was still around 99 cents. Now...about 1.30. The inflation index doesn't take into account real items that effect people on fixed incomes.

Sure it does -- somewhat. They've just managed to fake the numbers by including Housing as about 40% of the Inflation Index -- despite the fact that, even if the price of your home goes down, your mortgage payment stays just as high.

So, while the 60% of the Inflation Index, comprised of Consumer Goods which people actually buy and use on a day-to-day basis, is going UP, UP, UP... the Housing Crash (which the Federal Reserve largely CREATED, with a little help from Obama's 1990s-era Sub-Prime Mortgage advocacy) is still driving Housing prices Down, Down, Down.

So, ya take the 60% of your Bills which are going UP, and subtract the 40% of your Housing Wealth which is going DOWN, and Presto, Change-O -- only about 20% of actual Consumer Inflation gets reported as the "Average" Inflation Rate by the Government Index!

Neat trick, eh? (This is admittedly a rough summation, but you get the point).

Rockntractor
07-09-2011, 08:56 PM
(This is admittedly a rough summation, but you get the point).
Yeah, we get the point, no free dinner, no lube.:mad:

txradioguy
07-10-2011, 04:08 AM
Not even remotely. What you said was,


Your cut-n-pasted quotation ABOVE, on the other hand, had to do with the accumulation of National DEBT, which is not a function of the size of the Budget -- but rather, of the difference between Revenues and Expenditures. A Nation with Tax Revenues of $300 Billion and Expenditures of $300 Billion will inevitably have a lower Debt, than a Nation with Tax Revenues of $100 Billion and Expenditures of $200 Billion -- even though the latter Nation has a smaller total Budget. If you were capable of understanding your own cut-n-pasted citation, and the distinction between Budgets and Debts, you would already have known that. But of course you can't, so you didn't.

So, again, regarding your statement that:

That's a COMPLETELY incorrect understanding. While it is true that the Gold Standard operates as a restraint upon the accumulation of Government Debt, it is most certainly NOT because "We could only spend nationally (i.e. Federal budget) the equivalent of what we had in Gold Reserves." That is an absolutely IDIOTIC statement -- and No, mining has NOTHING to do with it, either, unless the Government itself owns the mines or has a claim upon mining production. (It's entirely possible for a Government to maintain a Gold Standard, and to engage in policies of Fiscal Deficits or Surpluses, with no domestic gold mining capacity whatsoever. DUH!) As I have already pointed out to you (and as your own citations prove, if you had enough economic knowledge to even read them), the Gold Reserve functioned as Backing for the Outstanding Currency, not "The Budget". The only way your statement could possibly be correct is if the Federal Budget consisted of 100% of the Outstanding Currency -- Are you actually claiming that the Federal Government Taxed 100% of the Outstanding Currency in each year, and then spent that sum as "The Budget"? ROTFLMAO!!

Now, IF you had read further in your own posted citation, you would understand WHY the Gold Standard tends to restrain the accumulation of Government Debt (and NOT, as you incorrectly stated, determine the amount of "The Budget", which does not actually impact the amount of Government Debt, at all, if matched 1-for-1 by Tax Revenues):



Here's some advice for you -- since you do not actually understand Economics, it would be wise for you to READ your own citations until you achieve a greater understanding. Then you will not have to face the embarassment of having it pointed out to you: "If you'd just read your own citations, you'd understand your own economic errors".

Glad to help.

Ultimately though, of course, the Gold Standard is NOT "the best" Monetary System (even if preferable to Fiat Money), but rather a Free Market Monetary system. I doubt you understand the difference, but perhaps as you come to understand how The Gold Standard operates, you'll eventually be able to understand the difference between a Government-imposed Gold Standard, and Free Market Money. Right now, we're obviously going to have to take your education one VERY small step at a time.

You continue to regurgitate what sounds like liberal-DU word-herding and your arguments are full of holes. As I have shown repeatedly.

Can't you do any better than that?

This thread is filling up with re-runs.

txradioguy
07-10-2011, 04:17 AM
This is getting hilarious. He continues to post the same ultra-format paragraphs instead of responding to challenges. That's a leftist tactic. And the fact that most of the blogs linked to on the site he references (lewrockwell.com) are no better than DailyKos and Democratic Underground, it makes me highly suspicious of who he is and just what his agenda is.

txradioguy
07-10-2011, 04:32 AM
Sure it does -- somewhat. They've just managed to fake the numbers by including Housing as about 40% of the Inflation Index -- despite the fact that, even if the price of your home goes down, your mortgage payment stays just as high.

So, while the 60% of the Inflation Index, comprised of Consumer Goods which people actually buy and use on a day-to-day basis, is going UP, UP, UP... the Housing Crash (which the Federal Reserve largely CREATED, with a little help from Obama's 1990s-era Sub-Prime Mortgage advocacy) is still driving Housing prices Down, Down, Down.

So, ya take the 60% of your Bills which are going UP, and subtract the 40% of your Housing Wealth which is going DOWN, and Presto, Change-O -- only about 20% of actual Consumer Inflation gets reported as the "Average" Inflation Rate by the Government Index!

Neat trick, eh? (This is admittedly a rough summation, but you get the point).

Are you on Paul's election staff again this cycle? Isn't that some kind of conflict?

OrthodoxPresbyterian
07-10-2011, 08:51 AM
You continue to regurgitate what sounds like liberal-DU word-herding and your arguments are full of holes. As I have shown repeatedly.

Can't you do any better than that?

This thread is filling up with re-runs.

Bald-faced false assertions, without a single posted Fact in evidence. Typical of your posts.

txradioguy
07-10-2011, 01:14 PM
Bald-faced false assertions, without a single posted Fact in evidence. Typical of your posts.

I have continually and repeatedly posted links to credible sources to back up what I say.

WHich is met by nothing but bluster and shit talking on your part.

Eat a dick champ.

txradioguy
07-10-2011, 01:15 PM
Bald-faced false assertions, without a single posted Fact in evidence. Typical of your posts.

Are you on Paul's election staff again this cycle?

OrthodoxPresbyterian
07-10-2011, 01:24 PM
Are you on Paul's election staff again this cycle?

No, but I do expect to run again (and win again) for local GOP Precinct Chairman, so that I can use the resources of the Local Republican Party specifically and exclusively to support Ron Paul.

txradioguy
07-10-2011, 01:28 PM
No, but I do expect to run again (and win again) for local GOP Precinct Chairman, so that I can use the resources of the Local Republican Party specifically and exclusively to support Ron Paul.

So you'rea as big a liar about your political convictions as Dr. Nutz is?

Figures. :rolleyes:

And you want us to take anything you have to say seriously?

If you're such a believer in the Libertarian way why not run for the Libertarian Party Precinct Chairman?

If you don't have the courage of YOUR convictions...why should anyone here believe what you tell us about your Cult Leader and HIS convictions and what HE stands for?

OrthodoxPresbyterian
07-10-2011, 01:30 PM
So you'rea as big a liar about your political convictions as Dr. Nutz is?

Figures. :rolleyes:

And you want us to take anything you have to say seriously?

If you're such a believer in the Libertarian way why not run for the Libertarian Party Precinct Chairman?

If you don't have the courage of YOUR convictions...why should anyone here believe what you tell us about your Cult Leader and HIS convictions and what HE stands for?

I'm not a believer exclusively in "The Libertarian Way". While I will often vote for a Pro-Life Libertarian when they run one, the Libertarian Party platform itself is not Pro-Life.

The Republican Party is Pro-Life.

The Pro-Life issue is very important to me. So, I'm a registered Republican. (And generally vote about 90-95% Republican).

Molon Labe
07-10-2011, 01:43 PM
Reagan always said that libertarianism was the heart and soul of conservatism. If you disagree with it in principle, then doesn't that make YOU out of touch with conservatism.


If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals–if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is - Ronald Reagan

not sure all the vitriol over this.

Conservatism isn't the Brand that the Bush family was selling.

txradioguy
07-10-2011, 02:39 PM
I'm not a believer exclusively in "The Libertarian Way". While I will often vote for a Pro-Life Libertarian when they run one, the Libertarian Party platform itself is not Pro-Life.

Yet you come in here trying to sell us Libertarianism like religion. You shove your Ron Paul propaganda down our throats till it's coming out our ass.

Only when it's pointed out what a hypocrite you are that you begin to backpedal and attempt to spin yourself out of the hole you've dug.


The Republican Party is Pro-Life.

Tell me something any member of the Young Republicans at Ardmore High School doesn't already know.

:rolleyes:



The Pro-Life issue is very important to me. So, I'm a registered Republican. (And generally vote about 90-95% Republican).

IF they are so important to you...you shouldn't be supporting a charlatan like Ron Paul.

OrthodoxPresbyterian
07-10-2011, 02:45 PM
Yet you come in here trying to sell us Libertarianism like religion. You shove your Ron Paul propaganda down our throats till it's coming out our ass. Only when it's pointed out what a hypocrite you are that you begin to backpedal and attempt to spin yourself out of the hole you've dug. Tell me something any member of the Young Republicans at Ardmore High School doesn't already know. :rolleyes: IF they are so important to you...you shouldn't be supporting a charlatan like Ron Paul.

Ahem: You're still running away from THE THUNDERDOME!! (echo... echo... echo...)
See, the match is over HERE: Txradioguy is a proven Liar. Is he also a Coward? (http://www.conservativeunderground.com/forum505/showthread.php?t=42062)

txradioguy
07-10-2011, 02:48 PM
Ahem: You're still running away from THE THUNDERDOME!! (echo... echo... echo...)
See, the match is over HERE: Txradioguy is a proven Liar. Is he also a Coward? (http://www.conservativeunderground.com/forum505/showthread.php?t=42062)

I've made several posts in that thread you jackass.

I run from no one. Especially wild eyed hypocritical cultists.

OrthodoxPresbyterian
07-10-2011, 03:00 PM
I've made several posts in that thread you jackass.

I run from no one. Especially wild eyed hypocritical cultists.

Just didn't want you to miss out. :D

txradioguy
07-10-2011, 05:00 PM
Just didn't want you to miss out. :D

I never miss out on laying the smackdown on tools like you.

OrthodoxPresbyterian
07-10-2011, 05:25 PM
I never miss out on laying the smackdown on tools like you.

Yes, indeed -- After I pointed out the fact that you were trying to run away from the ThunderDome Thread (http://www.conservativeunderground.com/forum505/showthread.php?t=42062), you were good enough to slink back to it in order to receive more rightful beatings. (Anyone who wants to, can check the posting times).

txradioguy
07-10-2011, 05:51 PM
Yes, indeed -- After I pointed out the fact that you were trying to run away from the ThunderDome Thread (http://www.conservativeunderground.com/forum505/showthread.php?t=42062), you were good enough to slink back to it in order to receive more rightful beatings. (Anyone who wants to, can check the posting times).

*yawn*