Republican Primaries

[ExLibris]

On the Gold Standard:

Rothbard
mises.org/rothbard/genuine.asp

A final and vital flaw in a market-basket dollar is that Gresham’s law would result in perpetual shortages and surpluses of different commodities within the market basket. Gresham’s law states that any money overvalued by the government (in relation to its market value) will drive out of circulation money undervalued by the government. In short, control of exchange rates has consequences like any other price control: A maximum rate below the free market causes a shortage; a minimum rate set above the market will cause a surplus.

eh.net/encyclopedia/article/selgin.gresham.law

To observe that Gresham’s Law originally referred to circumstances where both good and bad coins of the same metal were awarded similar, substantial legal tender status is not to deny that the law may have other applications as well. Thus, legal tender laws may also attempt to compel people to treat coins of different metals, or coins and paper notes, as equivalents, unintentionally driving the more esteemed form of money into hiding.

Mises
mises.org/books/
(Scroll down to find goldstandard.pdf)

There are two important implications of the Keynesian perspective on the balance of payments: first, that government policies of one sort or another are necessary to prevent the development of chronic disequilibria in a nation’s external payments position; and, second, that therefore the relatively unregulated classical gold standard is an unstable and unsustainable international monetary regime.
It was in this intellectual atmosphere that Heilperin forcefully and cogently reaffirmed the doctrine of David Hume and the classical econ- omists that, under an international gold standard, there exist potent market forces which operate spontaneously to effect a speedy and precise adjustment of balance-of-payments disequilibria. Implicit in the classical doctrine is the recognition that money does indeed play an active and essential part in the balance of payments and, in particular, that people make their sale, purchase, and investment decisions with an eye to acquiring or maintaining a desired level of money balances. A most important implication of this view is that inflationary monetary policy gums up and eventually destroys the workings of the automatic balance- of-payments adjustment mechanism.

On Competing Currrencies:

Hayek
mises.org/books/
(Scroll down to find denationalization.pdf)

The competition between the issuing banks would be made very acute by the close scrutiny of their conduct by the press and at the currency exchange. For a decision so important for business as which currency to use in contracts and accounts, all possible information would be supplied daily in the financial press, and have to be provided by the issuing banks themselves for the information of the public. Indeed, a thousand hounds would be after the unfortunate banker who failed in the prompt responses required to ensure the safeguarding of the value of the currency he issues.

This is merely the highly educated opinion of a few big names in the study of Economics.

Alright, I get that. One can disagree academically. (Of course everyone here has read their Hayek, Rothbard, Friedman, and Keynes, right?)

But what does the Bible say on fiat money?

Deuteronomy 25:15-16

But use a true and just weight, and a true and just measure, that you may have a long life on the land which the Lord, your God, is giving you. Everyone who is dishonest in any of these matters is an abomination to the Lord, your God.

Pope John XXIII’s Mater et Magistra

stability of the purchasing power of money—a major consideration in the orderly development of the entire economic system.

What’s the most stable currency in the world? Gold.
kitco.com/LFgif/au883-999.gif

“Hey! That’s not that stable! Look at it go all caddywhompus at the end there!”

And what caused that instability? Government did! That was Nixon Shock from closing the gold window and terminating Bretton Woods.

Also, that instability is not gold’s instability. That’s the dollar’s.

Bringing back the Gold Standard is not simplistic or crazy.

 

[bbarrick8383]

Is that what you call the Defense of Marriage Act? Is that attacking marriage?

DOMA does nothing to defend marriage. It just tells Oklahoma that it doesn’t have to recognize a homosexual couple from NY if they approve of gay marriage here in a few minutes.

As if the feds should have the power to tell us this in the first place. Won’t be long though, NY will pass it either today or soon if not today. Then they will be attacking Oklahoma judicially till we are forced to accept it.

 

[Defender1]

I already have a moral leader. locally, his name is Paul Loverde, globally Benedict XVI. For President, I want a person who understands the proper role of government and how the Constitution works. The only one I can see who has a consistent track record of both is Ron Paul.

If you rally around Ron Paul , Obama will defeat him for sure in 2012 . He is an older man and the libs wont bend to voting for him . Kennedy beat Nixon, Clinton beat Bush , and Obama beat McCain . It is inevitable that McCain will loose . Obama is much younger a better speaker (even though he reads the teleprompter ) and libs have a track record of voting for the younger guy . I know we cannot let them dictate who we vote for however, you do want to win don you? We will have to sit another four years if we have a weak candidate . Ron is not strong enough to win over Obama . The Libs wont support him. We need to go with one for the younger candidates .

 

[ExLibris]

Taller candidates tend to do better as well, should we vote for a tall guy?

I get your point. But we shouldn’t sacrifice principle for political expediency.

 

[Cider]

Right now, Bachmann. But if Rick Perry gets in I’m interested.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

If you rally around Ron Paul , Obama will defeat him for sure in 2012 . He is an older man and the libs wont bend to voting for him . Kennedy beat Nixon, Clinton beat Bush , and Obama beat McCain . It is inevitable that McCain will loose . Obama is much younger a better speaker (even though he reads the teleprompter ) and libs have a track record of voting for the younger guy . I know we cannot let them dictate who we vote for however, you do want to win don you? We will have to sit another four years if we have a weak candidate . Ron is not strong enough to win over Obama . The Libs wont support him. We need to go with one for the younger candidates .

That’s ironic, because I have had 3 Democrats on this board tell me that Ron Paul is the only Republican they could vote for, and if he was on the GOP ticket, they would vote for him because of his pro-life position. Maybe its the hardcore neocon Republicans that cannot support Ron Paul, because he has no interesting in being the Police Chief of the World’s Keystone Cops.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

Right now, Bachmann. But if Rick Perry gets in I’m interested.

Of all the candidates besides Ron Paul, Bachmann is my next favorite. In fact, I wouldn’t mind seeing a Bachmann/Paul ticket, or, Bachmann win in 2012 and tab Paul as Secretary of Treasury.

 

[RACJ]

SARAH PALIN, period. None of the competitors come close. If I HAD to vote for one in that list, it would be Santorum. But I won’t. Rob

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

DOMA does nothing to defend marriage. It just tells Oklahoma that it doesn’t have to recognize a homosexual couple from NY if they approve of gay marriage here in a few minutes.

As if the feds should have the power to tell us this in the first place. Won’t be long though, NY will pass it either today or soon if not today. Then they will be attacking Oklahoma judicially till we are forced to accept it.

And most legal experts doubt that DOMA would stand up to a Constitutional challenge before SCOTUS.

 

[ishii]

That’s ironic, because I have had 3 Democrats on this board tell me that Ron Paul is the only Republican they could vote for, and if he was on the GOP ticket, they would vote for him because of his pro-life position. Maybe its the hardcore neocon Republicans that cannot support Ron Paul, because he has no interesting in being the Police Chief of the World’s Keystone Cops.

Are you referring to the Democrat on the forum that has stated that he hopes Palin gets the nomination so Obama will have an easier time getting re-elected and who donated $1000 to the Hillary Clinton campaign? Do you really think that Democrat will vote for Paul?

Ishii

 

[ishii]

And most legal experts doubt that DOMA would stand up to a Constitutional challenge before SCOTUS.

So you agree with Obama’s decision to abandon defense of the DOMA? And you disagree with Boener’s decision to defend it?

Ishii

 

[ishii]

DOMA does nothing to defend marriage. It just tells Oklahoma that it doesn’t have to recognize a homosexual couple from NY if they approve of gay marriage here in a few minutes.

As if the feds should have the power to tell us this in the first place. Won’t be long though, NY will pass it either today or soon if not today. Then they will be attacking Oklahoma judicially till we are forced to accept it.

bbarrick, I was responding to this post: "But the state is the one that is attacking marriage. This is where your arguement falls flat. The state isn’t preserving it, it is altering it, either legislatively or by judicial fiat."

In response, I brought up the Defense of Marriage Act which, among other things, **defines marriage as being between a man and a woman. ** This was to refute the claim that the state is “attacking marriage”. When I brought up the point, the poster, rather than speak to my point, changed the subject as usual.

Ishii

 

[bbarrick8383]

bbarrick, I was responding to this post: "But the state is the one that is attacking marriage. This is where your arguement falls flat. The state isn’t preserving it, it is altering it, either legislatively or by judicial fiat."

In response, I brought up the Defense of Marriage Act which, among other things, **defines marriage as being between a man and a woman. ** This was to refute the claim that the state is “attacking marriage”. When I brought up the point, the poster, rather than speak to my point, changed the subject as usual.

Ishii

Your not refuting anything though.

As was just proven by NY, marriage is under attack by the state. DOMA was a law passed by congress and the definition applies to Federal government and federal government agencies alone. **And even there it’s weak and under attack.

**

DOMA’s Section 3 prevents the federal government from recognizing the validity of same-sex marriages. The General Accounting Office issued a report in 1997 identifying “1,049 federal statutory provisions classified to the United States Code in which benefits, rights, and privileges are contingent on marital status or in which marital status is a factor”.[9] In updating its report in 2004, the GAO found that this number had risen to 1,138 as of December 31, 2003.[10] In the case of a bi-national same-sex couple, DOMA’s Section 3 has prevented one spouse from sponsoring the other for a Green Card.[11] Following some uncertainty after the*** Obama Administration determined that Section 3 is unconstitutional***, the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) reaffirmed its policy of denying such applications.[12] With respect to obtaining a visitor’s visa, USCIS rules treat bi-national same-sex spouses the same as bi-national unmarried partners of different sexes under the classification “cohabiting partners”

 

[ishii]

Your not refuting anything though.

As was just proven by NY, marriage is under attack by the state. DOMA was a law passed by congress and the definition applies to Federal government and federal government agencies alone. **And even there it’s weak and under attack.

**

By “the state” I took it to mean government in general - not just state governments. And the point was made that government attacks marriage - which is true, but I also pointed out that the DOMA is an example of the contrary, of the federal government recognizing that the state (government) has a stake in defending marriage. The libertarian would say that the state shouldn’t get involved at all. I disagree, and the DOMA is an example of the state getting involved in a way that I approve of. The DOMA might have its flaws, and be weak, but its certainly an example of the government defending traditional marriage.

Ishii

 

[bbarrick8383]

By “the state” I took it to mean government in general - not just state governments. And the point was made that government attacks marriage - which is true, but I also pointed out that the DOMA is an example of the contrary, of the federal government recognizing that the state (government) has a stake in defending marriage. The libertarian would say that the state shouldn’t get involved at all. I disagree, and the DOMA is an example of the state getting involved in a way that I approve of. The DOMA might have its flaws, and be weak, but its certainly an example of the government defending traditional marriage.

Ishii

This bill and the foregoing remarks of the majority remind me of an old Arabian proverb: “If the camel once gets his nose in the tent, his body will soon follow.” If adopted, the legislation will mark the inception of aid, supervision, and ultimately control of education in this country by the federal authorities.

• Barry Goldwater

When are people going to learn…

Government always gets involved because it has a stake in defending what it is getting involved in and then screws it up beyond recognition of what it was trying to defend in the first place Ishii.

 

[ExLibris]

It takes serious fortitude to get government to shrink.

Unfortunately and contrastingly, it takes only apathy for government to grow.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

Are you referring to the Democrat on the forum that has stated that he hopes Palin gets the nomination so Obama will have an easier time getting re-elected and who donated $1000 to the Hillary Clinton campaign? Do you really think that Democrat will vote for Paul?

Ishii

No, I am talking about three pro-life Democrats who have specifically told me that if Ron Paul was on the ticket, they would vote Republican rather than Obama or not at all.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

So you agree with Obama’s decision to abandon defense of the DOMA? And you disagree with Boener’s decision to defend it?

Ishii

I am not agreeing or disagreeing with any politician. I am only stating an opinion of several legal scholars who believe that DOMA, being a statute, would not prevail against the “full faith and credit” claus of the Constitution, which requires that every state in the Union give

“Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.”

That is why I want the government out of the marriage business. All someone has to do is get a binding marraige licence, which is a public record, and demand that Virginia recognize it. WHen Virginia refuses to under DOMA, they will challenge it in the local federal court and it will find its way to SCOTUS. SCOTUS will find that the full faith and credit claus supercedes DOMA, and then same sex marriage will be the law of the land.

The only way to save marriage is to get the government out of it.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

It takes serious fortitude to get government to shrink.

Unfortunately and contrastingly, it takes only apathy for government to grow.

The only President in history to ever shrink the size of government was Calvin Coolidge. Only one. Ever.

 

[Seamus_L]

I remember once being at a talk given by the late Joe Sobran (may he rest in peace) and someone in the audience asked him who the best president of the 20th century was, and he replied, “probably Calvin Coolidge”.