dieselman70

Kane, I agree that a primary role of government, granted in the Constitution, is to regulate interstate commerce. This is effectively done through regulatory agencies such as HUD/FHA, SEC, NASD, FAA, FCC, and so forth. We have laws on the books that are not being enforced allowing corporations and entire industries to operate "at will" with no accoutability until the shit hits the fan. Then the Politicians call for an entire industry overhaul. Example: healthcare. I sold health insurance for several years. Health insurance in AZ is very affordable through a variety of carriers. If Washington wants to overhaul the healthcare industry, start with the lawyers and tort reform limiting liable payouts from occurances that were truly accidents. Gynocologists have to join local professional OB/GYN groups in order to afford malpractice insurance. They are the most sued medical group in america. The docotor that wants nothing more than your baby to come into world healthy and well is the one who gets sued the most. The ONE doctor who acts on the spur of a moment, when you baby is ready to come into the world, is the one who has to worry if your going to take him/her for everything your ambulence chasing - John Edwards - lawyer can get. Reduce that abuse and you'll see premiums drop remarkebly.

Why did the SEC not stop Madoff 10 YEARS AGO when they were originally tipped off? Why did the SEC not investigate Credit Default Swaps and Deriviatives when notified in 2003 that they are out there unregulated and heavily traded between banks, insurance companies and uber large multi national corporations? Why did Barney Franks, Mass. Senator and Chairman of the Senate Finance and Banking Comittee, turn a blind eye to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac's terrible lending guidelines? Also, isn't he the Distinguished Congressman who took a multi million dollar home loan from Countrywide with no payback rquirements? That's like the fox gaurding the hen house.

My point is, yes we need reform in all major sectors of our economy. But, we do not need to throw the baby out the window with the water. Look at the current laws and enforcememnt of those laws. Get the agencies in order and go stop the bad guys. We do not need one of the world's largest industries taken oven by Washington in order to make it effecient.

__________________

kane

I guess I disagree. Not too long ago I read an article by a woman who is an economics professor at Harvard. She was talking about how you can go back to George Washington's presidency and see that he was the first US president to face an economic bust. We had little or no regulation then so banks went out of business, people lost everything and the economy collapsed. Then over time it rebuilt and we would have another boom period followed by another bust period. We played this game over and over again pretty much up until the 1920's when we had one of the largest boom periods ever followed by the largest bust period ever. Now we can debate how FDR's policies effected the length and depth of the depression, but something he did there was a proven winner. He decided that these boom and bust period periods are not good for the country and that some regulation was needed to help curb them. So he created the FDIC which kept people from shitting their pants every time there was a little downturn and draining all their money out of the banks (remember, before this there was no such thing so if you had a bunch of money in a bank and it went out of business, you were screwed). He also helped regulate the markets. Pretty much since then we have had a prolonged period of steady growth. Sure, we have had recession and a couple of them have been bad, but they were nothing like the bust periods of old. Just look at the markets and see how they, and the overall economy have grown since 1940 compared to all the time before that.

If you look back pre 1920 we had a pretty small middle class in this country. Part of that was simply because of the boom and bust economy. People would have a job for 4-7 years and do okay, then the bust would come and they would lose that job, lose their bank account, lose their house and have to scrape by for 4-5 years during said bust period. They eventually get a new job, but they spend at least the first few years of having that new job trying to rebuild what they lost during the bust times. They get it rebuilt, only to lose it again during the next bust. It is a vicious cycle. With this regulation we have seen a steady growth in the middle class and stability in the middle class and the economy has flourished. The middle class are the ones that buy most of the stuff. They buy houses and cars and vacations and big screen TVs etc. They do this because they know that things are pretty stable. That their retirement is reasonably safe and that they can put money in a bank savings account and not worry about it disappearing tomorrow. If people knew that they had to save every extra penny they made over the next 5 years so that they could survive the five years following that, they would pass up on many of the things they by now. They would get by, but they wouldn't thrive. If the middle class doesn't thrive, neither does the country.

Just my 2 cents. I'm not saying we have to be draconian, we just need to protect the average person from losing everything they have because a few people got greedy and fucked the markets and economy up.

kane

I agree. I won't pretend to know what laws are on the books now that are not being enforced, but if they are they, they need to be used and enforced. You make a great point about Madoff. The SEC has been told many times about him in the past and did nothing about it. They could have done their jobs and stopped him from causing a lot of problems. One of the problems with our politicians is that when something happens they refuse to go back and look at the system that is in place and see if it failed somewhere. If they did that they would often see laws in place that if they just funded/enforced them would solve the problem, but instead they want to make a bunch of noise so they start passing new laws before they consider any other path.

While I agree that tort reform should be part of health care reform I think it is just a small part of the puzzle. You have to take into effect the millions of uninsured that get care, but never pay the bill so it is passed on to those that do pay or have insurance. You have to also count the extreme costs of medicine. We here in the states often get charged 2-4 times as much for the same medicine as other countries. Like I said before, I'm not sure that government controlled health care is the answer. They seem to screw up everything they handle, but I feel like something major must be done or the middle class is going to get hammered in the next 10-15 years.

The Demon

Proven winner Kane? It took nearly 16 years of government intervention to call it a "proven winner". Free Market economies work. Economies with constant government intervention don't. Gold Standard works. In fact, the Gold Standard was in play until 1971, incidentally when our economy began a steady 30+ year decline.

Things that fail need to be allowed to fail. You know the concept of "If it ain't broke, don't fix it". There's a better chance of economic prosperity when the government doesn't involve itself in economics. All they do is run up the fiscal deficit with no real solutions.

Yes, there were a lot of greedy people in the private sector. When they fail, let them fail. But we don't need the government to step in, because I'd rather have a greedy Wall Street banker than a greedy government.

__________________
Greed is Good

smax

There was no surplus, it was a projected surplus which was from cooked books as well.

I voted for Obama because he promised change, I should have known better.

Meet the new boss same as the old boss

onwebcam

__________________
PLEASE WAIT WHILE BIDEN ADMIN UNINSTALLS ITSELF.....
██████████████████▒ 99.5% complete.

The Demon

Of course there was no surplus. It's called making up facts and hoping someone doesn't call him out on it. It's his forte.

__________________
Greed is Good

The Demon

Watch this shit.


https://youtube.com/watch?v=JPs4lfWYwT0

__________________
Greed is Good

TheDoc

Yes, I have read the theories about it not being real, they all stop in 1994/6... that's not when we had a surplus.

http://clinton3.nara.gov/WH/Work/102899.html

The Largest Surplus in History:

* The $123 billion surplus in 1999 is the largest dollar surplus in history, even after adjusting for inflation;
* The surplus, expected to be about 1.4% of GDP, is the largest surplus as a share of the economy since 1951;
* 1999 is the second year in a row of surplus, marking the first back-to-back surpluses since 1956-57;
* This is the first time in U.S. history that we've experienced seven years in a row of fiscal improvement.

__________________

The Demon

Thanks for the clinton website rofl. Also, TheDoc forgets that Clinton incidentally started the credit/subprime mortgage crisis.

__________________
Greed is Good

TheDoc

NP... facts can be checked all over..

I agree, but only after everything had been deregulated first.

__________________

kane

If you look from 1940 until now average wage has gone up, GDP has gone up, the stock market has gone up. These are all good things that sat semi-stagnant for years or that went up and down like a roller coaster. I'm not saying these only happened due to regulation, there are a million other factors that can be added it, but regulation played a roll.

I agree that that gold standard is a good thing, but I don't see this steady 30 year decline you talk about. In 1971 the average household income in the US (adjusted) was $35,400 while in 2009 it was $50,300 and had just suffered about a 10% drop in the previous year due to the recession. The Dow in 1971 was around 1,000. Today is is around 10K (depending on the day). Home prices now compared to the early 70's are through the roof. I won't argue that there have been some bad things that have happened, but there have also been a long solid period of growth.

Do me most of the downfall has come in the growth of the national debt. That has a lot more to do with politicians and their out of control spending and wasting of money than it has to do with some regulation of the financial markets.

It seems these days I hear the phrase "free market" more than I have in a long time. It is the new "It" word with the tea party and the republicans. I think a lot of people don't fully understand what a 100% free market is. A 100% free market, Capitalist society is a rabid, hungry wolf that will eat her own young and the bottom 90% of wage earners in this country are the young.

Sure, if a guy starts a business and he runs it like shit and it fails, it should be allowed to fail. If there is a market for the product or service that this business offered another business with step in and pick up the market this failed business has left behind. But there is a huge difference between a business being allowed to fail and entire industry cooking the books and playing Russian Roulette with people's 401K's, home values, college savings ect. These are people who just played by the rules and got fucked because there was nobody overseeing what was going on. Even a farmer gets a sheep dog to watch over his flock. You can still have a Capitalist society and promote Capitalist ideals, while overseeing how the game is played.

I go back to my previous point. A strong middle class is something that must be in place if you want long term economic growth and stability. If you don't have that, you will struggle. If you don't have some rules and regulations in place to help care for that middle class so that they aren't used as food and thrown out by the greedy bankers and barons, it hurts us all.

As I said, I don't think we need to get draconian and as was pointed out in another post there are plenty of rules on the books now that aren't even enforced. But I think there has to be some regulation there just to keep things in check so that average people can have a fighting chance to create a decent life for themselves and have a decent retirement when they get old.

The Demon

This is incorrect kane, if we adjust it for inflation. 2000-2010 was the worst decade for stocks since the 30s, and there was actually a negative return. Ditto for GDP, wage, and deficit.

The fiscal and monetary mismanagement began after Nixon took us off the gold standard. That's when the printing presses rolled out. That's when we started spending and stopped saving. That's when we started moving away from being a manufacturing economy, and towards a service economy. The fact that home prices are so high is the leading cause of the sub prime mortgage failure as well as inflation. You have to adjust everything for inflation dude.

It's both, but regulation of the financial markets has met with constant failure.



I disagree. Because that rabid wolf will lose strength and there will be nobody to help him as he slowly lacks the ability to hunt. As greedy as people are, it's better that there's no regulation in the private sector than mass public regulation for everything. Again, whatever fails, should stay failed.

Government oversight is unnecessary. You speak about rabid wolves, but those same rabid wolves exist in government, which is even worse than independently in the private sector. AIG should have been allowed to fail. Everything that failed should have been allowed to fail, with new shit popping up. Instead, we bailed them out. Sad.

Again, same greedy people exist in government. With oversight, they have the full government backing to do what they want. That's a hell of a lot worse than what we had happen in the past 3 years.

__________________
Greed is Good

Vendzilla

Things have gotten worse since Obama took office, but he will blame Bush
3 years of democratic lead house and senate, still Bushs fault
Obama wants to lower the debt, then why are we spending more?
Sorry, something I learned in school about math!

It's been a year of Obama in office with more power than any president in recent times, thru his bad leadership, nothing is getting done, I don't want him to fail, but seeing him do something that made sence would be a nice change!

He bitches that the GOP doesn't want to play nice
They only want 2 things added to the health care package
Tort reform and accross state insurance
But Obama isn't won't listen to that, so why would the GOP vote his way?
I feel that it's going to get worse, at least till the late year elections
Contract with America Version 2010

__________________
Carbon is not the problem, it makes up 0.041% of our atmosphere , 95% of that is from Volcanos and decomposing plants and stuff. So people in the US are responsible for 13% of the carbon in the atmosphere which 95% is not from Humans, like cars and trucks and stuff and they want to spend trillions to fix it while Solar Panel plants are powered by coal plants
think about that

The Demon

Well said bro.

__________________
Greed is Good

_Richard_

i remember when it was all clintons fault

kane

Sure, there are a lot of reasons that things have gone south as of late. Regulation has played a small roll in that, as has greed, mismanagement, ignorance, overspending, and a million other factors.

Let me just ask you this: Which would be better for the country? 1. We let companies like AIG do as they please. They play risky games and create wealth out of thin air then when it catches up to them they collapse and burn, take with them 20%+ of the nations banks and cause massive unemployment, stock market collapse and all kinds of chaos. Once the dust has settled another company steps in and takes up the slack they have left behind and starts doing the exact same thing which will be great for about 10 years then it too will crash and burn.

or 2. We put in a regulation that either oversees how some of the derivatives are handled, or maybe we completely disallow them and say to the market :" If you want to make money, you need to sell a good or a service to someone. You can't just come up with complex formulas that just create wealth out of nothing?" And AIG is left making several hundred million dollars instead of a billion dollars. They still are huge, they still have an enormous amount of wealth, but they are a little more stable.

Which do you think is best for the country as a whole?




I agree with you that if something fails, it should stay failed. To me this isn't about the bailouts, this is about preventing situations that put us in a position where people even consider bailouts. The beauty of the free market rabid wolf is that it will never go hungry or get tired. It will eat its young as it burns the forest around it, then it will crawl into its den and sleep. When the forest has regrown and the animals have returned, it returns to hunt. For a while it is fine, but then it gets greedy again and kills too much and it is back to where it started.

I understand that there are greedy politicians and I understand that they often have their own self interests at heart. My point in all of this is that I don't see the harm in setting up a group of ground rules. Of saying, "These things are just too risky and pose a threat to nation as a whole so we aren't going to participate in them." If you want to make money as a Capitalist does do what they used to do which is offer a service or product for sale to someone. Deliver that service or product and get paid for it. But we should be allowing people to just create financial devices that create wealth out of nothing. I don't see the harm in having that type of regulation.

We have to learn from history. If history shows us that certain business practices are bad for the economy, then I see no problem in overseeing them just disallowing them. I could make a bunch of money selling meth, but the government has decided that this is bad and they don't let me do it. At least if I sell meth the person that buys it knows they are fucking up their lives. With a lot of the shady shit that goes down on wall street there are plenty of people who one morning wake up and find their 401K is worth half what it was the week before and it is all due to a few people who decided to take extreme risks so they could get a bigger bonus.

The Demon

Regulation has played more than a small role. It has never truly helped.

Yes, and when those companies fail, we let them fail. AIG doesn't create wealth out of thin air kane. That would be the FED and the banks. Reserve ratio for banks, printing press for the FED. The FED has largely been responsible for every single recession since its creation in 1913. And the dollar has lost 96% of its value since that time.

A. Eventually go back on the gold standard. Right now, abolish unions, increase manufacturing, destroy the printing press, get rid of government regulation in the financial markets. I'll repeat, it's the FED and the banks who create money out of thin air.


I think your blame is misplaced. The whole crisis started in the 70s which I've already outlined. We stopped saving and started spending, we started outsourcing and not producing anything, banks ceased giving businesses loans and thereby, destroying capital investments. Banks also increased loans to individuals, who started living beyond their means. Then Clinton got rid of the cap placed on bank loans, people started buying houses, housing prices skyrocketed, people realized they couldn't pay, and then we had mass defaults. AIG and those few companies were just the tip of the iceberg.

No system is perfect, capitalism is the best though. If we would just change the mainstream economics back to Austrian, which focuses more on the supply side and marginal utility, we'd get this country back on track.

__________________
Greed is Good

kane

I guess ultimately we both agree that what this country needs most is a return to supply side economics. We have outsourced ourselves to death and with every passing year we seem to export less and less and import more and more and it is really catching up to us.

When I talk about companies like AIG creating wealth out of thin I air I mean that they heavily invested themselves into derivatives which allow them to invest 20 times the actual amount that they have in hand. So if they have a million dollars, they can control 20 million in stock then sell it and gain the rewards of a 20 million investment that they didn't make in the first place. If they lose, they cook the books, hide the loss and do it again. That shouldn't be allowed. if you want to invest, great, but you should only be allowed to control as much stock as you can actually pay for.

Yes, I understand the government has fucked a lot of things up and it is bloated and corrupt, but every time I hear about Raw Capitalism I get visions of third world countries where a small group of very wealthy control the masses of poor people and profit heavily off of the exploitation of them. When things like that happen people get scared. Fear breads fanaticism and they start to vote people into office that will head in a more socialist direction and promise them their fair share of the pie. If they had their fair share of the pie all along and weren't worried about losing it, they would be less likely to vote the people into office that will create the hurdles that block good business from being done.

Done correctly, I feel some regulation could work and has a seat at our economic table. Sadly, however, our government has yet to figure out how to do it correctly.

theking

What is this talk about going back to the gold standard. It is my understanding that the US does not have enough gold to back a gold standard and it is also my understanding that if the US owned all of the gold in the world...we would not have enough gold to back the gold standard. Where am I mistaken?

__________________
When you're running down my country hoss...you're walking on the fighting side of me!

FOR THE LYING LOWLIFE POSTING AS PATHFINDER...https://gfy.com/fucking-around-and-pr...athfinder.html

CPimp

How the FUCK would a three year freeze only save a quarter trillion dollars, but we've spent 300 Billion in just one year? Sounds like bullshit to me.

__________________
three 997 three 55 three 1 ← That's my ICQ. Contact me there. Thanks.

theking

From Wikipedia...The total amount of gold that has ever been mined has been estimated at around 142,000 metric tons.[16] Assuming a gold price of US$1,000 per ounce, or $32,500 per kilogram, the total value of all the gold ever mined would be around $4.5 trillion. This is less than the value of circulating money in the U.S. alone, where more than $8.3 trillion is in circulation or in deposit.

The US currently has a little more than 9,000 metric tons in reserve of the 142,000 metric tons that has been mined.

__________________
When you're running down my country hoss...you're walking on the fighting side of me!

FOR THE LYING LOWLIFE POSTING AS PATHFINDER...https://gfy.com/fucking-around-and-pr...athfinder.html

kane

My understanding of how it would work (and I'm no expert, I'm a smut peddler ) is that it would modify the value of the dollar to reach the gold we had to back it. For example, back in the 1950's the average income was around $3,400 per year. But a house only cost 14K and car was 1.3K. Bread was 14 cents a loaf and gas was 20 cents a gallon. We would have to return to that type of valuation system. To do that we would have to bring the world with us and that would be very hard. If the average person made 3.4K per year, but could buy a house, have a nice life and take a decent vacation with that income then it wouldn't be a huge deal to them because it is all relative. If you live the same life, who cares if you make 50K or 3.5K. But when you leave the country and everything costs 10 times what it does here, then you have issues.

The idea of returning to the gold standard is a nice one, but realistically that horse has left the barn and probably is never coming home.

theking

Exactly...the primary reason to lift the gold standard is we did not any longer have enough gold to back the gold standard.

__________________
When you're running down my country hoss...you're walking on the fighting side of me!

FOR THE LYING LOWLIFE POSTING AS PATHFINDER...https://gfy.com/fucking-around-and-pr...athfinder.html

The Demon

Gold Cover Clause ratio.

__________________
Greed is Good

The Demon

Good explanation. But it's not coming back because economics has moved away from that concept and into fiat currency bullshit.

__________________
Greed is Good

onwebcam

The reason the US doesn't have enough gold is because in 1933 Roosevelt seized everyone's gold after doing so they increased the fixed price and sold said gold to the Vatican via China. Because if you didn't already know the Pope supposedly owns the World by conquest and/or discovery. We are all just renters of his land.. Now you can understand why such a "holy" man has to ride around in a bullet proof bubble car everywhere he goes.

You are somewhat correct in that we can't just go back to a gold standard. The best thing would be money tied to a basket of commodities for international trading in addition to "credits" for one's labor. You set the credit price for your labor and or goods. In exchange you get credits to your account. More or less a form of LETS (Local Exchange Trading Systems) They are already popping up around the World. In fact Japan's government setup 8 different systems in their country.

http://www.gmlets.u-net.com/resources/sidonie/home.html

__________________
PLEASE WAIT WHILE BIDEN ADMIN UNINSTALLS ITSELF.....
██████████████████▒ 99.5% complete.

The Demon

Guys...


http://www.gold-eagle.com/editorials...air093002.html

__________________
Greed is Good

theking

The reason the US doesn't have enough gold is as I stated above...and not for the reason you have provided.

__________________
When you're running down my country hoss...you're walking on the fighting side of me!

FOR THE LYING LOWLIFE POSTING AS PATHFINDER...https://gfy.com/fucking-around-and-pr...athfinder.html

onwebcam

Nope the reason is for the reason I stated. And it didn't just happen here in America. The same things happened around the World in all Western and some Eastern countries during the great depression. Including bankrupt governments and rule by admiralty/maritime law. It was all by design to make everyone slaves to debt. This is documented history and it can't be denied.

__________________
PLEASE WAIT WHILE BIDEN ADMIN UNINSTALLS ITSELF.....
██████████████████▒ 99.5% complete.

The Demon

Once again. GOLD COVER CLAUSE RATIO

__________________
Greed is Good

onwebcam

Also didn't catch one other flaw in that. The amount of dollars in circulation is exactly the amount of national debt. Hence the term "debt note" which makes us debt slaves.

__________________
PLEASE WAIT WHILE BIDEN ADMIN UNINSTALLS ITSELF.....
██████████████████▒ 99.5% complete.

The Demon

Actually dude, that's not entirely accurate. The national debt far exceeds the amount of dollars in circulation, that is if we also count medicare/medicaid/social security, etc.. And i'm not sure that's counting the treasury securities that are held in foreign vaults.

__________________
Greed is Good

Vendzilla

Jimmy Carter did the same thing, another useless president

__________________
Carbon is not the problem, it makes up 0.041% of our atmosphere , 95% of that is from Volcanos and decomposing plants and stuff. So people in the US are responsible for 13% of the carbon in the atmosphere which 95% is not from Humans, like cars and trucks and stuff and they want to spend trillions to fix it while Solar Panel plants are powered by coal plants
think about that

onwebcam

Medicaid, etc are entitlements and debt owed by the US government. The actual dollars in circulation is directly tied to outstanding public debt (roughly $12.5 trillion) Treasury bonds are what creates those dollars.

__________________
PLEASE WAIT WHILE BIDEN ADMIN UNINSTALLS ITSELF.....
██████████████████▒ 99.5% complete.

The Demon

Yea I realize that, but our outstanding debt is more than 12.5 trillion dollars. I'm counting entitlements as well which is why I wasn't sure what you were saying.

__________________
Greed is Good

dieselman70

Kane, Demon
You're both on trac. Free Markets are free in that the barriers to enter are low and attainable and the business owner is free to manucature/sell any product he/she feels is marketable. The consumer is free to decide what products and services he/she wants to buy. Where the trouble lies is when the business owner tries to "pull one over" on the consumer. That is when free markets need a neutral third party oversight - government. To remain a free society we have to maintain laws. We are a society of laws and that includes the business sector.

Example: if you oprerate an adult paybsite, collect monthly payments from members but do not allow them access to the site, you are breaking the law by breaking your own contractual terms with the membership. Who does the member go to for rectification? Without a regulatory body keeping the website operator in check, my guess is that several website operators would do just that or something simmilar, until existing members and new members get a clue.

Closed markets are those controlled by a government or sole serving industry with substantial barriers to entry. Communist/socialist governments create substantial barriers ot entry so they can controll who, what, when, where a busines operates.

We are never going back to the gold standard. Our economy cannot reverse that course. Deal with it and thank Nixon.

__________________

BFT3K

It's going to be a long and depressing 7 years for all of you Obama haters out there.

I don't feel bad about it however, as he is the most intelligent president this country has had in a very long time.

Carry on keyboard warriors!

dieselman70

Again, government debt is the same as your household debt. If your income drops you do not have enough money to cover your obligations. Not rocket science. As a household, we decide what expenses we can cut to make our income strech. We do not increase spending in the hopes it will generate more income. A business may think this way regarding advertising their product/service. Government does not produce any products to generate income/revenue. When taxes collection drops and expenses increase you have a deficit. Not rocket science. If the spending does not create adddiotnal taxes it was money spent for no other purpose than getting votes and tell the 'sheeple' what they want to hear, that government will take care of them.

As webmasters and website operators, we should all remember the mid 90's. The age of the internet and the .com bubble. That decade produced tremendous income for the US Economy which translated into high tax revenues creating a true surplus. After the bubble burst incomes dropped along with tax revenues but spending increased. Then came along 9/11. Ouch.

It's simple economics 101. The thing is, no one what's to step up to the plate and take responsibility to tell the sheeple the truth. Times are hard. Non essential spending needs to be cut to match tax revenues. REGARDLESS of who is in the White House or controls either house of Congress. Your community support of art museums needs to be transferred to the private sector. Community support of the needy needs to shift to faith based organizations that have the resources through charitable giving. If it does not concern defense, national security, or interstate commernce, let the private sector step up and take care of the need.

__________________

kane

You said it in a much better way than I could. I am all for a free market and allowing those who want to go into business to do so with as few hurdles standing in their way as possible, but I think there needs to be some oversight to protect the consumer.

Some free market people will say that if one paysite starts screwing people over, the customers will leave it and go to another that does not and the good paysite with thrive because the market demands it. Of course that is of little consequence to those who got screwed getting some kind of recourse. When you are talking about a $30 membership fee it is one thing, but when the same idea is applied to a major purchase that costs several hundred, if not thousand, dollars it is another.

Very good post.

onwebcam

The problem with our society is that they had deceived the entire population in the belief that what they label "laws" are really laws but in reality they are "statutes." You mentioned contracts and obligations to those. Well this is were they have pulled off the scam. They have contracted with everyone and didn't tell everyone they were actually entering those contracts. This is how they jail and fine you for various "statutes" in most cases because you are in breach of contract. Your drivers license is a hidden contract obligating you to those "statutes." Social Security is another contract. Selective Service is another contract. That one is the key to most because what they are really doing in court is a military tribunal under maritime/admiralty law. Need an example? The reason illegal aliens are really allowed to drive around without licenses and aren't held to the same "laws" as you and I is because they aren't contracted.

Last but not least. A contract is null and void without full disclosure.

__________________
PLEASE WAIT WHILE BIDEN ADMIN UNINSTALLS ITSELF.....
██████████████████▒ 99.5% complete.

dieselman70

Once a person checks the box on the bottom of the webpage next to the "accept tems and conditoins" he/she has accepted full disclosure from the provider. After the terms are accpted by the payer/member, payment is offered by payer and accepted by payee, the contract is binding. It then becomes the responsibility of the member to hold the site operator true to his/hers "terms and conditions".

If you want to drive a car on a road that is onwed/operated/maintained by a municipality, you have to adhere to their rules and regulations, or "stautes". Same with use of private property. The Golden Rule: he who owns the gold makes the rules.

__________________

onwebcam

According to the Law Merchant codes the very law that this contract was made under
there are certain things that constitute a valid versus invalid contract. You must realize that no court has the authority to enforce a invalid contract and I deny the validity of a contract that Roosevelt entered into with the international bankers. He borrowed bank credit on the promise to redeem in gold coins. Creating credit out of thin air the bankers had no risk and no interest because they didn't loan anything of value and thus had no interest in the loan being paid. It was a no interest contract and thus void by the international law of the nations. Therefore America owes no legit debt. And since America only owes the debt by an invalid contract how am I as an American citizen compelled to perform under to an invalid contract under the Admiralty jurisdiction?


"The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitututionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statue leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.

Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general princples follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it ...

A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded therby.

No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it." -- Sixteenth American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Section 177

__________________
PLEASE WAIT WHILE BIDEN ADMIN UNINSTALLS ITSELF.....
██████████████████▒ 99.5% complete.

starpimps

the black dude will only get 1 term.

__________________
Teen Porn Models / Solo Girls

onwebcam

1. Yick Wo v. Hopkins, Chisholm v. Georgia, and more, opine that after July 4, 1776 when King G was "thrown out," everyone in the colonies became politically equal and all of us were born "sovereign" over our own selves.

2. Every state constitution repeats this when stating, for example, that all political power is vested and derived from the people.

3. We now KNOW that the USA and the "states" are artificial entities, or corporations, just like WalMart, GM, etc. Justice Marshall stated that they only exist IN THE MIND! Some, being governmental, are political in nature.

4. No Man or Woman has ever or can ever be born in an artificial entity.

5. Therefore, governments do not exist in nature, can have no more authority delegated to them than what their creators individually possessed.

Since no man has authority to put another man into servitude, against the man's will. The only way these POLITICAL entities can obtain POLITICAL jurisdiction / authority over a Man, the entity must get the NAME to VOLUNTEER IN!.

I never was informed of these facts when growing up. My mind was blank from birth. I was lied to and told the opposite of these truths, and the government has NO EVIDENCE that I was told the truth, and then being informed that I could volunteer to be its slave, I knowingly, willingly, and intentionally "joined up." How about you?

Until that happens, the government has no POLITICAL authority over us. Subject matter and personam jurisdiction are daughters of political jurisdiction and relate only to 'persons' who are 'members' of these corporations. (by contract)

Marbury Vs. Madison- "Any law passed that is contrary to the Constitution of the United States of America is null and void."

__________________
PLEASE WAIT WHILE BIDEN ADMIN UNINSTALLS ITSELF.....
██████████████████▒ 99.5% complete.

theking

The Supreme Court decides what is constitutional/valid law...not you...or any other entity.

__________________
When you're running down my country hoss...you're walking on the fighting side of me!

FOR THE LYING LOWLIFE POSTING AS PATHFINDER...https://gfy.com/fucking-around-and-pr...athfinder.html

onwebcam

Once again another part of the deception. Are you aware that the Supreme Court that you believe is the highest Court in the US isn't? But if you want decisions made by that court which backs up what I'm saying I'll post many. I've already posted a few.

__________________
PLEASE WAIT WHILE BIDEN ADMIN UNINSTALLS ITSELF.....
██████████████████▒ 99.5% complete.

theking

I will...foolishly bite. What is the highest Court in the US?

__________________
When you're running down my country hoss...you're walking on the fighting side of me!

FOR THE LYING LOWLIFE POSTING AS PATHFINDER...https://gfy.com/fucking-around-and-pr...athfinder.html

The Demon

Stay out of big boy threads. This topic (like most topics) above both your intelligence and paygrade.

__________________
Greed is Good

The Demon

It's wishful thinking on my part diesal. I think we CAN go back to it because it's definitely possible using the Gold Cover Clause Ratio. However, mainstream economics is flawed and simple minded.

__________________
Greed is Good