Quote:
Originally Posted by DWB
That would be a nightmare. It's been tried before in other countries and it doesn't work.
You only need one currency, but it MUST be backed by something tangible.
We just went off the gold standard back in 1933, which is not that long ago. I don't understand why everyone is so against going back to a currency that is actually backed by something real, or by a collection of various commodities. A currency backed by gold, silver, palladium, copper, or whatever they want so long as it was real, would work.
Sure, that means the Gov can not borrow endless amounts of money and send the country into massive debt again, but that is the way it is suppose to be! The system we have now is not supposed to be this way. We are not supposed to have trillions of dollars of debt! Money is supposed to be worth something, not worthless. They create money out of thin air! How stupid is that? But the ignorance doesn't end there. They borrow more money that someone else created out of thin air in another part of the world, by selling them IOUs for our fake money, and then are in debt to them for money that doesn't even exist in the first place, all the while giving our borrowed and printed fake money by the billions to other countries who are broke! It's lunacy! But more importantly, it is unsustainable.
|
Actually one of the first things our founding fathers did was set up a treasury so they could borrow money. Gov doesnt run debt free, you are going to build a road with no debt or go to war.
Debt doesnt matter,the right is playing you. In fact Dick Cheney said it himself. Its all part of their game plan.
"The Two Santa Claus Theory
The Two Santa Claus Theory is a political theory and strategy published by Wanniski in 1976, which he promoted within the United States Republican Party.[6][7]
According to Wanniski, the theory is simple. In 1976, he wrote that the Two-Santa Claus Theory suggests that "the Republicans should concentrate on tax-rate reduction. As they succeed in expanding incentives to produce, they will move the economy back to full employment and thereby reduce social pressures for public spending. Just as an increase in Government spending inevitably means taxes must be raised, a cut in tax rates?by expanding the private sector?will diminish the relative size of the public sector".[7] Wanniski suggested this position, as Thom Hartmann has clarified, so that the Democrats would "have to be anti-Santas by raising taxes, or anti-Santas by cutting spending. Either one would lose them elections"[8].
The theory states that, in democratic elections, if one party appeals to voters by proposing more spending, then a competing party cannot gain broader appeal by proposing less spending. The first "Santa Claus" of the theory title refers to the political party that promises spending. Instead, "Two Santa Claus Theory" recommends that the competing party must assume the role of a second Santa Claus by not arguing to cut spending but rather offering the more appealing and publicly sellable option of cutting taxes.
This theory is a response to the belief of monetarists, and especially Milton Friedman[citation needed], that the government must be starved of revenue in order to control the growth of spending (since, in the view of the monetarists, spending cannot be reduced by elected bodies as the political pressure to spend is too great)[citation needed]. See also Starve the beast.
The "Two Santa Claus Theory" does not argue against this belief but holds that such arguments cannot be espoused to try to win democratic elections. In Wanniski's view, the Laffer curve and supply-side economics provide an attractive alternative rationale for revenue reduction: that under reduced taxation the economy will grow, not merely that the beast of the government will be starved of revenue, and that that growth is an attractive option to present to the voters. Wanniski argued that Republicans must become the tax-cutting Santa Claus to the Democrats' spending Santa Claus. "
Look at it everytime the right isnt in power they scream about debt. Then once they are they spend like drunken sailors. After ww2 debt was over 120 percent of gdp.