PDA

View Full Version : Why should I sell my bullion and by coins?



Katwoman
7th April 2009, 09:07
This article does a nice job of explaining the risks associated with holding bullion versus coins.

YOU,yes you should take this very seriously as the situation we now face could lead to confiscation and don't say it can't happen here because it already has and it most likely will again very very soon.

http://www.reformation.org/roosevelt_confiscates_gold.html

ruggerbugger
7th April 2009, 10:29
"Today there are some 49 countries which forbid ownership of gold by their citizens, but do allow holding gold coins for numismatic purposes. Even the Soviet Union and Eastern countries legally tolerate the acquisition of numismatic gold coins. For these are the only gold holdings that could be kept in your safe deposit box without any fear of confiscation."[/url]


I wonder who the 49 countries are?

pmstacker
7th April 2009, 10:59
Imo its just another reason why not to trust a bank with your holdings. Buy a safe and spare no expense when doing so.

Yabezlas
7th April 2009, 11:23
There is no doubt in my mind that this administration has the mindset for confiscation. With the recent financial hole they have dug for themselves, it has been greatly reinforced.... in my mind?

Steadfast
7th April 2009, 12:09
I also have no doubt about that...

goldminer
7th April 2009, 12:37
"...the situation we now face could lead to confiscation..."

What makes you think that government won't take gold &silver coins also...especially modern bullion and the millions upon millions upon millions of common date old gold coins that are out there...and while their at it, not 90%silver coins too?

After all, 90% silver coins are by defination, only 99 one hundreds short of "fine"/bullion silver. 99/100 is "close enough for government work" ALWAYS = take 'em!

When something is in the interest of government PTB and/or interests that support politicians staying in office, the government will take it - period.

harley1
7th April 2009, 12:40
dont say that kat,i love my 10 oz engelhard,and wall street bars

CrazyFoool
7th April 2009, 14:20
when was this article written?

ruggerbugger
7th April 2009, 15:19
Did anyone ind any info on the 49 countries?
I was also wondering if this has ever happened in the past in Canada.

akak
7th April 2009, 15:32
I have worried about this confiscation scenario for years, but to be honest, I do not worry about it as much anymore.

For one thing, I rather doubt that ANY government is going to literally "confiscate" the average person's gold and silver. Yes, they may call it in, as they did in 1933/34, but they did not go door-to-door searching homes for gold and silver --- such a program would have been massively invasive, impractical and opposed. Hell, they don't do that even today with drugs unless they have a strong reason, and even then it is mostly against only the dealers. Almost anyone could easily hide their stash even if this did transpire --- bury it in the garden if nothing else.

For another thing, if our growingly totalitarian government ever DOES try to confiscate gold and silver, it will just be a sign of their desperation and downfall. Sure, they might try it in extremis, but I think if they ever do, it will just be their deathknell, in more ways than one. We could just wait out the period of illegality.

All that being said, I put absolutely nothing past the psychopathic monsters in power in Washington today, and do believe we need to keep our heads up on this matter. As with guns today, the first sign of an impending outlawing of gold and silver ownership will be public attacks against "unamerican hoarders" and "economic terrorists" such as us.

Steadfast
7th April 2009, 15:38
All that being said, I put absolutely nothing past the psychopathic monsters in power in Washington today, and do believe we need to get our heads up on this matter. As with guns today, the first sign of an impending outlawing of gold and silver ownership will be public attacks against "unamerican hoarders" and "economic terrorists" such as us.
Friend! Didn't you know?

We are all equal...
It's just that some are MORE equal then others!

that's all... :rolleyes:

Psalm 12:6
7th April 2009, 17:24
First thing, how would they know you have it?
If they don't know they won't take.

Second thing, obummer is reistating the death tax at 40% of the estate value that includes bank accounts and all!
Except precious metals they no nothing about!
There at this time in my biased not so humble opinion is NO better investment than PM's.

Argyria
7th April 2009, 22:39
Confiscation seems unlikely to me today. As I mentioned in a previous thread, the internet would spread information about this coming down the pipe far and wide, and opposition would be great. The total value of all the gold+silver out there wouldn't even make a scratch in our national debt. So I fail to see how it would benefit the government or their pets to do so. The only exception is I see a very unlikely, outside chance of calling in silver to use for 'humanitarian reasons' because of its antimicrobial properties, which are second to none for treating burn victims. It would surely be easy to demonize those who would refuse such a request for 'the good of the nation'. The point of such a recall being to get much needed silver back into the hands of industrial and medical users, not for purely economic reasons.

CrazyFoool
7th April 2009, 23:42
First thing, how would they know you have it?
If they don't know they won't take.

Second thing, obummer is reistating the death tax at 40% of the estate value that includes bank accounts and all!
Except precious metals they no nothing about!
There at this time in my biased not so humble opinion is NO better investment than PM's.

lol...maybe if you're the most conservative investor, sure.

are you going to suggest to all your relatives to trade in all their assets for PM beforer they die? hahaha...i tihnk i'd get slap for that, or maybe a thank you, but the gold won't go to me after the death.

silverheartbone
8th April 2009, 09:26
This article does a nice job of explaining the risks associated with holding bullion versus coins.

YOU,yes you should take this very seriously as the situation we now face could lead to confiscation and don't say it can't happen here because it already has and it most likely will again very very soon.

http://www.reformation.org/roosevelt_confiscates_gold.html

After reading that link Katwoman, you have me rethinking my position.

With such a corrupted Federal government, perhaps bullion is too risky after all.
I'd hate to be literally *ewed out of my savings.

I wonder if ASEs are considered bullion?
90% looks better and better.

Katwoman
8th April 2009, 09:46
After reading that link Katwoman, you have me rethinking my position.

With such a corrupted Federal government, perhaps bullion is too risky after all.
I'd hate to be literally *ewed out of my savings.

I wonder if ASEs are considered bullion?
90% looks better and better.

Just remember you pay a premium for the ASE but since these are also legal tender I would think they are safe from confiscation......but I certainly would not leave them in a bank safe deposit box or list them in an IRA. My best guess is that they will freeze electronic gold and close the banks and seize any gold in IRAs since this is almost all bullion. I seriously doubt they will come to your house. BTW, if this happens again it could ignite a revolution so as someone else said they may not be brave enough to try it. But then again I would bet you my entire stack that most Americans said it could never happen here before the first time it happened too. Thus since based on historical fact we have to reject the null hypothesis my gut says to plan for the worst possible scenario.

silverheartbone
8th April 2009, 09:49
From the EO: "Therefore, pursuant to the above authority, I hereby proclaim that such gold and silver holdings are prohibited, and that all such coin, bullion or other possessions of gold and silver be tendered within fourteen days to agents of the Government of the United States for compensation at the official price, in the legal tender of the Government. All safe deposit boxes in banks or financial institutions have been sealed, pending action in the due course of the law. All sales or purchases or movements of such gold and silver within the borders of the United States and its territories, and all foreign exchange transactions or movements of such metals across the border are hereby prohibited.

Obviously 90% coins were not a part of this 1933 decree.

The big problem will be is that if you keep your stash after a Federal government cutoff,
then you won't be able to sell it when you need to.
Unless the Federal government goes away.

BTW, if the Federal government takes the confiscation route again,
that action would be illegal (UNCONSTITUTIONAL)
and the unlawful mandate should be IGNORED
and the STATES with real leaders should protect their citizens from the Federal gang of thieves and their thugs.

argentos
8th April 2009, 10:15
Did the govt take gold jewellery as well?

If not we could always beat our gold into jewellery after we beat our ploughshares into swords*.


* Joel 3:10

fullsafe
8th April 2009, 10:27
With all due respect to everyone , the chance that the feds would confiscate gold , and much less silver , is about the same as my chances of contracting herpes from one of my cats!

When FDR in 33 and the feds in 65 with silver there was a clear motivation----devaluing the currency. No such monetary link exists today and any attempt today would be an obvious example of blatant theft. The feds could just as well attempt to take the citizen's real estate ,automobiles, livestock , foodstuffs or anything else that has perceived "value". It would be a public relations nightmare that could very well motivate an otherwise apathetic citizenry to action and the feds would never risk it.


An action like confiscation would clearly be unconstitutional since the monetary link has been removed and agreeably should be resisted with force if needed. The fed is aware of this just as they are with firearms. The threat to all holders of PMs is not confiscation but special taxation!

Katwoman
8th April 2009, 10:32
The feds could just as well attempt to take the citizen's real estate ,automobiles, livestock , foodstuffs or anything else that has perceived "value". It would be a public relations nightmare that could very well motivate an otherwise apathetic citizenry to action and the feds would never risk it.

They may not risk it and were I would strongly agree but they will and have recently seized property under eminent domain and sadly the people have not fought back.

fullsafe
8th April 2009, 10:55
They may not risk it and were I would strongly agree but they will and have recently seized property under eminent domain and sadly the people have not fought back.

I know but only in specific small local instances. That was Bush's 'conservative' court ruling if you recall. The threat of confiscation is dead----the writer if this article was trying to sell Double Eagles during the Bush Admin. that's all. Don't get me wrong , they have their inherent value and allure also. I know as I happen to have a number of them that were selling for 1400 to 1500 just last week!

SilverHog
8th April 2009, 11:12
An action like confiscation would clearly be unconstitutional since the monetary link has been removed and agreeably should be resisted with force if needed. The fed is aware of this just as they are with firearms. The threat to all holders of PMs is not confiscation but special taxation!

You are absolutely correct!
It will not be confiscation, but a punitive tax.

The precedent has been set already by Congress with the 90% special tax on the AIG bonuses. These were legal contracts that could not be broken, so they went around the law by demonizing the evil recipients and voting for the special tax.

It will be laughably easy to demonize the evil profiteers from others misery (precious metal holders in a severe depression) and tax all of their profit. And don't worry about a backlash from this. The >51% of the population that is rapidly turning into parasites on the other <49% will applaud the move and reelect the caring and concerned politicians that vote for it.

Barter will be a dangerous option because of the reward that will be offered for reporting the evil profiteer tax evaders trying to get out of paying their fair share. The informer will get the reward and get to keep what he was selling. You will receive a warrant to have your home and land turned inside out by agents with metal detectors, and all of your bullion will be confiscated, and you will serve a little jail time as an example to other evil profiteers from the misery of the poor and less fortunate.


Have a nice day! :)

Katwoman
8th April 2009, 11:26
You are absolutely correct!
It will not be confiscation, but a punitive tax.

The precedent has been set already by Congress with the 90% special tax on the AIG bonuses. These were legal contracts that could not be broken, so they went around the law by demonizing the evil recipients and voting for the special tax.

It will be laughably easy to demonize the evil profiteers from others misery (precious metal holders in a severe depression) and tax all of their profit. And don't worry about a backlash from this. The >51% of the population that is rapidly turning into parasites on the other <49% will applaud the move and reelect the caring and concerned politicians that vote for it.

Barter will be a dangerous option because of the reward that will be offered for reporting the evil profiteer tax evaders trying to get out of paying their fair share. The informer will get the reward and get to keep what he was selling. You will receive a warrant to have your home and land turned inside out by agents with metal detectors, and all of your bullion will be confiscated, and you will serve a little jail time as an example to other evil profiteers from the misery of the poor and less fortunate.


Have a nice day! :)
Aahh the allure of real "Democracy" in action. The 51% majority will force the 49% minority into submission.

So much for the nation being a constitutional representative "Republic".......i guess when most people today do not even understand that we are not a democracy you cannot blame them for wanting to behave like we are!!

silverheartbone
8th April 2009, 13:12
With all due respect to everyone , the chance that the feds would confiscate gold , and much less silver , is about the same as (snip) and any attempt today would be an obvious example of blatant theft. The feds could just as well attempt to take the citizen's real estate ,automobiles, livestock , foodstuffs or anything else that has perceived "value". It would be a public relations nightmare that could very well motivate an otherwise apathetic citizenry to action and the feds would never risk it.


An action like confiscation would clearly be unconstitutional since the monetary link has been removed and agreeably should be resisted with force if needed. The fed is aware of this just as they are with firearms. The threat to all holders of PMs is not confiscation but special taxation!

My bet is on the corporate media + fluoride + psychotropic prescriptions + snitches + (foreign) men in uniforms with large weapons countering any grassroots resistance.

A tax would have a strange effect on PM transactions.
fullsafe, would you envision bullion swaps to be affected?

fullsafe
8th April 2009, 15:15
My bet is on the corporate media + fluoride + psychotropic prescriptions + snitches + (foreign) men in uniforms with large weapons countering any grassroots resistance.

A tax would have a strange effect on PM transactions.
fullsafe, would you envision bullion swaps to be affected?

Quite seriously , I can envision just about anything , even worm holes , but since I have no idea what ' bullion swaps' are , I'm afraid I can't answer that question. Please educate me!

Yabezlas
8th April 2009, 16:21
Rest assured they will only try this after all have been disarmed.

My Pants Are Cold
8th April 2009, 18:03
Since I own no PMs to be confiscated, I'm not concerned.;)

other1z
8th April 2009, 18:08
This article does a nice job of explaining the risks associated with holding bullion versus coins.

YOU,yes you should take this very seriously as the situation we now face could lead to confiscation and don't say it can't happen here because it already has and it most likely will again very very soon.

http://www.reformation.org/roosevelt_confiscates_gold.html

Won't happen. The America of 2009 is much different than the America of the early 20th century, as are the investment groups of today, as well as gumption of today's person. I do not think it will happen, but IF it did, the difference is that people won't turn it in. In the 30's, people didn't know better. Now...it's a whole 'nother ballgame.

auptag
8th April 2009, 21:25
Since I own no PMs to be confiscated, I'm not concerned.;)

EXACTLY! This whole conversation is moot since I don't think anyone here actually owns PMS...but it was a nice thought exercise.

silverheartbone
8th April 2009, 22:19
Quite seriously , I can envision just about anything , even worm holes , but since I have no idea what ' bullion swaps' are , I'm afraid I can't answer that question. Please educate me!
You have one ounce of gold and you want to trade it with a dealer for 72 ounces of silver.
Or you have 720 pieces of silver and you swap it for 10 ounces of gold from your dealer.

That is a bullion swap.

If I actually had some silver,
I'd expect to swap it for gold at some point
after the S/G goes back to what the physical market fundamentals indicate.

chux03
8th April 2009, 22:21
Let's see....I opened a www.GoldMoney.com account about a year ago buying nothing but silver. Confiscation?? The word isn't even spoken where that silver is stacked. Since about November my bullion has gained in value a little bit (from around $9 to the $12+ spot we enjoy today...what a JOKE!!!). So what did I do? I DUMPED EVERY LAST OUNCE OF SILVER IN MY GOLDMONEY HOLDING, all $34k worth (this is legal money that was taxed upon my receiving it when I retired last fall).

Well.....that's not entirely correct (though not the part about being legal. It's COMPLETELY legal & taxed) though technically I DID TRADE OFF MY SILVER. Where has gold been this past....week?? BELOW $880 when I happened to look at this on the GoldMoney website. So....I took appreciated silver and traded it for SUB $880 gold....EVERY LAST OUNCE (that was in my GM holding) and I'm now the proud owner of about 38 ounces of gold. And if it keeps going down in price, I'M GOING TO KEEP ON BUYING, ALL THE WAY DOWN* to wherever it lands. AND I WOULD RECOMMEND YOU DO THE SAME EVEN IF IT'S WITH YOUR SILVER!!!! That's in addition to my closely held 600+ ounces of silver here at the ranch.

My plans? Wait till that gold shoots up in value and then I'll turn around and buy cheap silver....again. And we'll play the whole game all over....again. And maybe we'll have even more ounces next time....but that GoldMoney holding SURE IS NICE and it SURE IS SAFE....safely out of the reach of government bandits that would love to get their grubby hands on MY PRIVATE PROPERTY, no matter what they'd call it this week.

* I recently subscribed to a new newsletter (for me) and as a retired Merrill-Lynch trader he teaches YOU how to trade PM's like the banks do (AND IT AIN'T GOT ONE THING TO DO WITH BUY & HOLD EITHER. He shows you how to buy pm's (showing weakness) on the way down and selling into strength when they're on the way up) AND MAKE MONEY too. Interested?? Check out www.GracelandUpdates.com

maplesilverbug
8th April 2009, 22:44
But....isn't one supposed to trade gold for silver when the ratio is high, and NOT the other way around?

hiyosilver
8th April 2009, 23:14
But....isn't one supposed to trade gold for silver when the ratio is high, and NOT the other way around?


I have to agree with this guy chux...you got the thing backwards IMO....high silver to gold ratio is where you trade gold for silver...then when the ratio is approaching 30:1 you start considering the reverse...In other words, right now at 70:1 your gold will buy more silver...later at 30:1, your silver will buy more gold....

silverheartbone
9th April 2009, 01:58
I have to agree with this guy chux...you got the thing backwards IMO....high silver to gold ratio is where you trade gold for silver...then when the ratio is approaching 30:1 you start considering the reverse...In other words, right now at 70:1 your gold will buy more silver...later at 30:1, your silver will buy more gold....

And at 10:1 you will get even more gold.
Personally I await 2:1.

hiyosilver
9th April 2009, 02:42
And at 10:1 you will get even more gold.
Personally I await 2:1.


My personal thoughts on this: I believe when the ratio approaches 20:1, the powers that be will seek complete control of all precious metals. I think that at that point anyone possessing amounts of PM will basically become not only enemies of the state, but of the general public for their lack of it. With that being said, the holdings of the common investor will become basically worthless because they will not have any liquidation outlet. Even attempts to barter with it will get them reported to the state and not only will their PM be confiscated, if possible, they will be imprisoned for terroristic threat to the "balance" of the government system.... I don't mean to piss in your Cheerios, but that's the way I see it....sorry.

mountainmurph
9th April 2009, 05:29
My personal thoughts on this: I believe when the ratio approaches 20:1, the powers that be will seek complete control of all precious metals. I think that at that point anyone possessing amounts of PM will basically become not only enemies of the state, but of the general public for their lack of it. With that being said, the holdings of the common investor will become basically worthless because they will not have any liquidation outlet. Even attempts to barter with it will get them reported to the state and not only will their PM be confiscated, if possible, they will be imprisoned for terroristic threat to the "balance" of the government system.... I don't mean to piss in your Cheerios, but that's the way I see it....sorry.

I think this is possible , but , don't you think there would be a black market where you could liquidate your assets ? For a small [?] fee of course.

fullsafe
9th April 2009, 06:36
You have one ounce of gold and you want to trade it with a dealer for 72 ounces of silver.
Or you have 720 pieces of silver and you swap it for 10 ounces of gold from your dealer.

That is a bullion swap.

If I actually had some silver,
I'd expect to swap it for gold at some point
after the S/G goes back to what the physical market fundamentals indicate.

I was over complicating things. I thought 'swap' was an acronym for some nefariuos Geithnerish evil empire derivatives trade that I had never heard of before. If the feds installed a special tax for all of you PM holders , I suppose you could do alot of swapping to avoid it as there would be no realised gains until you converted to FRNs. However , once you accept the funny money your on the hook and the feds would attack every mom and pop coin shop in the country. On-line selling would be the same or worse because all of the on-line purchases that have been made leave a paper trail the feds would love to follow.

Another interesting angle with onerous taxation is what it would do to the paper traders in PMs. Would the feds exempt them to keep the profits of shorting PMs? It's telling that the feds are now re-installing the up tick rule but I've heard nothing about it applying to commodities!

Gen Ripper
9th April 2009, 10:27
My bet is on the corporate media + fluoride + psychotropic prescriptions + snitches + (foreign) men in uniforms with large weapons countering any grassroots resistance.


Did you know there are even plans to put fluoride into ice cream? Childrens' ice cream? That is why I only drink spring water and pure grain alcohol.

What is Truth?
9th April 2009, 11:31
My personal thoughts on this: I believe when the ratio approaches 20:1, the powers that be will seek complete control of all precious metals. I think that at that point anyone possessing amounts of PM will basically become not only enemies of the state, but of the general public for their lack of it. With that being said, the holdings of the common investor will become basically worthless because they will not have any liquidation outlet. Even attempts to barter with it will get them reported to the state and not only will their PM be confiscated, if possible, they will be imprisoned for terroristic threat to the "balance" of the government system.... I don't mean to piss in your Cheerios, but that's the way I see it....sorry.

Why wouldn't they just tax any PM transactions to death? The black market would always be there. There is a black market for drugs in countries where you get beheaded for having them. You are welcome to your opinion, but posts like yours are extreame even among the precious metals doom and gloom gang around here.

hiyosilver
10th April 2009, 00:28
Why wouldn't they just tax any PM transactions to death? The black market would always be there. There is a black market for drugs in countries where you get beheaded for having them. You are welcome to your opinion, but posts like yours are extreame even among the precious metals doom and gloom gang around here.


Would you go to a country like Indonesia and take the chance of using drugs? If you did keep your head, you might never see the light of day again....

You want truth? ok, here it is:

Revelation 13:
16And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads: 17And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.


Ezekiel 7:
19They shall cast their silver in the streets, and their gold shall be removed: their silver and their gold shall not be able to deliver them in the day of the wrath of the LORD: they shall not satisfy their souls, neither fill their bowels: because it is the stumblingblock of their iniquity.

valerb
10th April 2009, 01:01
Most people never heard of Silver being confiscated in 1934 and there is a reason for that. For the most part, it never really happened!

Here is a link to the actual Silver confiscation that took place in 1934. Thanks go to Ira Iker for this link.

http://www.silver-investor.com/charlessavoie/hoardersofsilver.pdf

The most important thing to note is, they only went after holders of 3 or more Silver contracts or 50,000 ounces or more of physical silver. There were only 12 individuals or companies that had 50,000 or more and did not also hold Silver contracts. If I understood it correctly, they also went after your physical silver under 50,000 ounces if you also had 3 or more Silver contracts. They knew exactly who owned what, and how much silver was stored in every vault in the country.

So it is correct, they never confiscated 90% coins, but they also didn't confiscate everyone's silver bullion either.

I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm safely under the 50,000 ounce limit.

It appears they were more interested in shutting down their version of COMEX than actually confiscating Silver. Looks like a model to repeat when the shorts are really in a bind. Make all contracts worth some set dollar amount and that's it, regardless of what silver is selling for around the world. Better yet, just make all contracts settle at their original buy/sell price.

Argyria
10th April 2009, 03:50
Difference is, back then there were hundreds of millions of ounces of silver above ground (or more). Now consumption exceeds mining.

Katwoman
10th April 2009, 07:13
If you have not yet made plans to you should seriously consider taking part in one of the upcoming Tea Parties and End the Fed rallies. Your future and the future of our country depend on grass roots efforts to restore sound money. If you oppose these things you will soon find yourself considered a shill for the government or the banks and may even find friends and family hating you. Join a movement today and become a part of American history.

valerb
10th April 2009, 17:33
Difference is, back then there were hundreds of millions of ounces of silver above ground (or more). Now consumption exceeds mining.

The point I was making is, they only seemed interested in shutting down the futures market. I wouldn't be at all surprised if the same kind of short situation existed back then and this was a way out.

There is over 700 million ounces in short contracts on the comex, with only a total of 115 million ounces in the COMEX inventories. A repeat of 1934 would be a way out for the shorts and the government would control how that end would come about.

I'm not saying they would not go after our silver if they ever did it again, it's just that it has not happened in the past. Using the so called Silver confiscation to scare people into selling their bullion and purchasing silver coins is a bit radical, not to mention very costly. I don't know about the rest of you, but the concept of selling silver that I paid premiums of zero to $1.10 per ounce and selling it for spot or less so I can pay another $2.50 or more per ounce to own 90% is not on my schedule. Can you image the premiums that would exist on 90% if everyone tried to trade their .999 silver for it? I think .999 would be selling at some very attractive prices in that kind of market.

Keep in mind that the individuals arguing for Silver coins vs. Silver bullion, are only showing you the Gold and Silver confiscation order and not what really took place. They probably never saw the above order from the Secretary of the Treasury. So why worry about something that never really happened in the past? If they truly want all of our Silver, they will also go after the 90% as well. There are hundreds of millions of them out there, with the same kinds of computer records showing who bought which bags and when. So those of you with large amounts of Silver coins should not feel any safer than the rest of us!!

valerb
10th April 2009, 17:55
Your future and the future of our country depend on grass roots efforts to restore sound money. If you oppose these things you will soon find yourself considered a shill for the government or the banks and may even find friends and family hating you. Join a movement today and become a part of American history.

Please show us one piece of information of how the government could actually return to a PM backed monetary system. It's a noble cause, but no one ever provides actual numbers to make it work. There isn't enough gold and silver in the world to back the US dollar at the existing prices for PM's. If it's going to be a sound monetary system, it must be 100% backed by something of value. The rest of the world would also have to go on the same kind of system or we will be shipping our precious metals to other countries all over again.

I'm not opposed to the concept, but I'd just like to see some numbers and not sound bits!! All I ever hear is Sound monetary system, over and over again. Where's the Beef?

Birdman.84
10th April 2009, 23:55
And at 10:1 you will get even more gold.
Personally I await 2:1.I traded my gold for silver when it was around 90 to 1 when it gets back around 20-1 I will trade again but for gold this time.

auptag
11th April 2009, 02:14
I traded my gold for silver when it was around 90 to 1 when it gets back around 20-1 I will trade again but for gold this time.

Pardon the stupid question, but I did a search and didn't turn up any usable info. How do you know what the ratio is? Does it change daily, monthly, yearly?

Thanks.

argentos
11th April 2009, 07:41
It's easy to calculate for yourself, but you can always find some online charts by searching gold/silver price ratio chart

For example, here's the first one I found just now: http://www.gold-eagle.com/charts/gegsr.html

The ratio changes every time the money price of either metal changes. But it gets worse. Gold and silver do not always move identically in different currencies as you'd expect.

The good news is that for most practical purposes an average weekly or monthly-type figure will do.

valerb
11th April 2009, 12:34
Pardon the stupid question, but I did a search and didn't turn up any usable info. How do you know what the ratio is? Does it change daily, monthly, yearly?

Thanks.Go to this web page on Kitco. http://www.kitco.com/market/

It shows you the current spot price for all precious metals and also the currencies and indicators. The Gold to silver ratio is listed at the bottom of the Chart heading XAU and GOLD Ratios. This page is updated every few seconds, 24 hours a day.

You can also click on any of the metals that show a wavy line to the left of it's name and it will show you the chart for that metal.

If you do not already have the Silver spot price added to your task bar and want it, here is the program to add any of the precious metals you deal in. You can play with the option to see just how you want it to appear. As long as your system is attached with DSL or CABLE, it will go online and retrieve the updated information 24 hours a day every few seconds. This is all done in background and you do not have to be online for it to work. You don't have to worry about it being safe, millions around the world use this program. They also are the primary source that the dealers use to post the spot price on the web pages.

http://kcast.kitco.com/

ricm123
11th April 2009, 15:20
Did you know there are even plans to put fluoride into ice cream? Childrens' ice cream? That is why I only drink spring water and pure grain alcohol.

What in the hell does this have to do with Silver?

Please except my apology in advance, but my patience with having to weed through off topic posts, biblical quotes, Duneyman slams, and over-sized avatars is wearing thin!

There should be plenty of other forums for this non-sense ....

Am I alone on this??

argentos
11th April 2009, 16:34
... off topic posts, biblical quotes, Duneyman slams, and over-sized avatars is wearing thin!



There are quite few deviated preverts on here. :rolleyes:

Katwoman
11th April 2009, 20:12
Please show us one piece of information of how the government could actually return to a PM backed monetary system. It's a noble cause, but no one ever provides actual numbers to make it work. There isn't enough gold and silver in the world to back the US dollar at the existing prices for PM's. If it's going to be a sound monetary system, it must be 100% backed by something of value. The rest of the world would also have to go on the same kind of system or we will be shipping our precious metals to other countries all over again.

I'm not opposed to the concept, but I'd just like to see some numbers and not sound bits!! All I ever hear is Sound monetary system, over and over again. Where's the Beef?

Many nations have gone on and off of gold standards though out history and in fact the US has done it before.

It never ceases to amaze me when people throw around the statement that there is not enough gold and silver in the world. Of course this assume that prices are are a true reflection of value rathet than a function of money supply and thus to the inherent value of what you are buying relative to the inherent value to what you are exchanging for it.

The truth is that PMs have a deflationary effect on price but have no impact on value.

That said, the only things standing in the way of the US returning to the gold standard is desire to do so.

What would a silver dollar be worth if a dollar were made of silver? And more importantly how could the price of silver fluctuate in "intrinsic value" if the two were one in the same? And if the intrinsic value of silver really went up how would this influence the purchasing power of a silver dollar? And, how would this influence prices? Based on the net effect an increase in the intrinsic value of silver would have on prices how can there not be enough silver in the world to use it as money?

You see the deflationary effects of silver mean that less not more of it is need when there is less of it to go around. In other words at some point do to scarcity a gram of silver will be sufficient to by you flat screen TV.

IN fact right now you could trade an ounce of gold for flat screen TV all day long so price and thus number dollars that equate to the GDP is just a function of fiat currency but not of actual value.

As another example do you think and hour of labor is more valuable today than it was 200 years ago? Of course not what has change is price not value and price my friend is arbitrary.

valerb
12th April 2009, 03:41
Many nations have gone on and off of gold standards though out history and in fact the US has done it before.

It never ceases to amaze me when people throw around the statement that there is not enough gold and silver in the world. Of course this assume that prices are are a true reflection of value rathet than a function of money supply and thus to the inherent value of what you are buying relative to the inherent value to what you are exchanging for it.

The truth is that PMs have a deflationary effect on price but have no impact on value.

That said, the only things standing in the way of the US returning to the gold standard is desire to do so.

What would a silver dollar be worth if a dollar were made of silver? And more importantly how could the price of silver fluctuate in "intrinsic value" if the two were one in the same? And if the intrinsic value of silver really went up how would this influence the purchasing power of a silver dollar? And, how would this influence prices? Based on the net effect an increase in the intrinsic value of silver would have on prices how can there not be enough silver in the world to use it as money?

You see the deflationary effects of silver mean that less not more of it is need when there is less of it to go around. In other words at some point do to scarcity a gram of silver will be sufficient to by you flat screen TV.

IN fact right now you could trade an ounce of gold for flat screen TV all day long so price and thus number dollars that equate to the GDP is just a function of fiat currency but not of actual value.

As another example do you think and hour of labor is more valuable today than it was 200 years ago? Of course not what has change is price not value and price my friend is arbitrary.

I'm sorry Kat, but that is just more conceptual gobble-de-goo. I want someone to actually show us how a Gold backed monetary system will tie in with today's currency. You can't just say, here is the new Gold backed currency. We have dollars and they have to be exchanged for something. Our friends in the middle and far east want something in exchange for our dollars as well and I'm sure they would be more than willing to exchange them for physical gold.

We can't arbitrarily claim the dollar is backed by gold and gold is now worth $100,000 an ounce or whatever the number would need to be. Well we could, but the dollar would be devalued around the world by a factor of 100 on the same day. Lichtenstein or San Marino might be able to pull something like this off, since they have no currency of their own. Wouldn't we all be better off allowing the dollar to destroy itself over time than by doing it ourselves, trying to back our currency with gold?

Again, I'm not looking for more conceptual jargon, I would like to see some actual numbers from anyone.

The answer is YES, an hour of labor today is worth far more than it was 200 years ago. It's still 60 minutes of labor, but it's the amount of productivity in those 60 minutes that makes it more valuable today. It was Henry Ford that made this point loud and clear to manufactures around the world with the assemble line. He paid his employees more than other manufacturers, because of the increased productivity. If your old enough to remember manual typewriters, then you might very well remember having to use copy paper between sheets to make multiple copies. If you required more than 6 copies than you had to either type the document multiple times or type the information on a stencil and make copies on a duplicating machine, if you could afford one. Either way, you had better not make any mistakes. There were no spell checking devices, no backup and type it again. No moving a sentence or paragraph around. Print 25 copies was not an option. E-mail a copy, no way. Type an envelope add a stamp and enclose a hard copy. There was no web, no PCs and not many companies even had computers. So you don't have to go back 200 years to see a massive increase in productivity, 50 years is good enough to see us come out of, what now appears to have been the dark ages.

Katwoman
12th April 2009, 07:23
The answer is YES, an hour of labor today is worth far more than it was 200 years ago. It's still 60 minutes of labor, but it's the amount of productivity in those 60 minutes that makes it more valuable today. It was Henry Ford that made this point loud and clear to manufactures around the world with the assemble line.

While this is true for those jobs in which technology has increased productivity it is not true for many other jobs such as turning a screw driver or banging a hammer which have literally remained the same. Ironically the increase in productivity you speak of should be driving the cost of products down. So how than do explain the fact that American made products continue to cost more years over year? The answer as you know is inflation of the money supply.

So while technology may permit more to produced per unit time in some industries an hour of human work has the same value today as it did 100 years ago. And the reason for this is that it is fixed if the task is the same. You cannot ignore this in any serious discussion of economics.

Katwoman
12th April 2009, 08:02
With regard to returning to the gold standard the best example of what no to do is derived from Britain. The last time they tried to return to it they made the mistake of refixing their dollar to the price of gold before they went off it. This in turn caused their markets to crash.

So all you need to do is fix the dollar to the inflation adjusted spot price of gold

http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2008/12/how_to_return_to_a_gold_standa.html


BTW, my own best calculations are somewhat different than those of this author and are based on world GDP 70 trillion and total tonnes of gold 145,000 to yield a target spot price at the time of refixing of about $7500.

Irrespective of this number, since gold can be transfered electronically as well as held as bullion or coins it would work fine in our modern electronic era. You could simply have a credit card tied to the amount of gold in your accounts and you would never even have to hold physical should you not desire to.

In fact given the current inflated price of gold necessitating very small amounts to equal a dollar our modern system has actually created the perfect opportunity to do this.

silverheartbone
12th April 2009, 10:42
- Rod Serling (Spoken as part of the lead-in to the Twilight Zone episode: The Obsolete Man)

Katwoman,

Your thinking is very sound.
It will not be popular or well understood by very many.

Thanks for the effort.

Katwoman
12th April 2009, 10:53
For 5000+ years gold has been money and every fiat currency has failed. Since this is true and the null hypothesis which states that fiat currencies do not have too collapse and the dollar is "different" must therefore be rejected since we have frank historical evidence that they do collapse logic and statistical odds thereby favor the prediction that the USD will collapse too. The questions that remain are when and what impact this will have on America and the world?

Pasquinel
12th April 2009, 14:14
Val,
Thanks for the links. Used the custom install to add silver. Works nice.
PQ.
Go to this web page on Kitco. http://www.kitco.com/market/

It shows you the current spot price for all precious metals and also the currencies and indicators. The Gold to silver ratio is listed at the bottom of the Chart heading XAU and GOLD Ratios. This page is updated every few seconds, 24 hours a day.

You can also click on any of the metals that show a wavy line to the left of it's name and it will show you the chart for that metal.

If you do not already have the Silver spot price added to your task bar and want it, here is the program to add any of the precious metals you deal in. You can play with the option to see just how you want it to appear. As long as your system is attached with DSL or CABLE, it will go online and retrieve the updated information 24 hours a day every few seconds. This is all done in background and you do not have to be online for it to work. You don't have to worry about it being safe, millions around the world use this program. They also are the primary source that the dealers use to post the spot price on the web pages.

http://kcast.kitco.com/

AgCarp
12th April 2009, 18:57
Lately, I've been rethinking my entire position. I believe confiscation is a real threat. Governments have been recently pushing for a one world currency that is backed by something tangible (gold, silver, oil, food, etc.). Everyone is starting to see the true value of a worthless fiat currency.
Government confiscation from its citizens will happen if the one world currency takes place. The governments will need whatever asset that currency is backed by to retain power. The easiest way to get that asset is make it illegal for the citizens to hold and have them turn it in. I would not be holding gold right now, as that would be the most likely asset for the currency. Several governments have had very large purchase orders for gold, which makes me wonder if they know something we don't.

I invested in silver for WEALTH preservation (hedge against inflation and the falling dollar), but the more things unfold, the more I am leaning towards SELF preservation. Rioting and economic collapse are a real threat. Not only that, but if someone infiltrated our power or water grid, food and water would become scarce, and fast. If the SHTF, silver would most likely be useless until some form of society was rebuilt. So I've been going off the deep end and storing food, water, guns, and ammo. I hope I'm wrong and end up having to make a large donation to a food pantry, but I felt I needed to create a backup plan. Don't worry, I'm not selling my PM's.

Does any one else feel this way? Maybe we should start a new thread on this topic in the "other" section.

valerb
13th April 2009, 00:29
While this is true for those jobs in which technology has increased productivity it is not true for many other jobs such as turning a screw driver or banging a hammer which have literally remained the same. Ironically the increase in productivity you speak of should be driving the cost of products down. So how than do explain the fact that American made products continue to cost more years over year? The answer as you know is inflation of the money supply.

So while technology may permit more to produced per unit time in some industries an hour of human work has the same value today as it did 100 years ago. And the reason for this is that it is fixed if the task is the same. You cannot ignore this in any serious discussion of economics.

Kat, there are thousands of different types of jobs in this country. If what your are saying is correct, then most of these jobs would still be done in the same manor as 100 years ago. That just isn't the case. Try and find any jobs that have not been simplified or replaced by automation, let alone even a tenth or 1% of them. Just think about all the people you know and try and find one of them that does their job the same way it was done 100 years ago. Sure, you can find individuals that still make things by hand, but that is more of a novelty than reality. Just because someone still makes clay pots on a foot driven wheel, does not mean that is the way the rest of the world makes them. Someone that used a screwdriver back then, now uses a battery operated drill driver today. If they had to use a hammer all day, they use a nail gun today.

If you really want to try and throw in the economics theory, take a look around yourself and all of the things you have. Assuming your not dirt poor and living in a tiny shack, you have so much more than your grandparents and probably more than your parents. in 1909, the average family was living in an apartment or tiny house. Today, people living in public housing have more space. You had to be very wealthy to afford a 3,000 sq ft home in 1909, today, people in the middle class are doing it. Even a 1,500 sq ft home today is by far, much larger than the average American could afford back then. They only had to worry about buying the house and not all of the stuff we put in them today. Only 50 years ago, a single color TV was considered more of a luxury item. Today we have flat panel TV's all over our houses. The average family owned "one" car if they could afford one, today, they own two or more. All I can say is, unless your living in a commune somewhere or very young, all you have to do is open your eyes or rent a few old movies to see the differences.

Before you start with the, we buy everything with credit today, we also bought most everything with credit back then also. House loans, car loans and credit cards are not a new fangled invention. Check cashing cards is new, but that only automated the check writing process.

valerb
13th April 2009, 02:00
With regard to returning to the gold standard the best example of what no to do is derived from Britain. The last time they tried to return to it they made the mistake of refixing their dollar to the price of gold before they went off it. This in turn caused their markets to crash.

So all you need to do is fix the dollar to the inflation adjusted spot price of gold

http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2008/12/how_to_return_to_a_gold_standa.html


BTW, my own best calculations are somewhat different than those of this author and are based on world GDP 70 trillion and total tonnes of gold 145,000 to yield a target spot price at the time of refixing of about $7500.

Irrespective of this number, since gold can be transfered electronically as well as held as bullion or coins it would work fine in our modern electronic era. You could simply have a credit card tied to the amount of gold in your accounts and you would never even have to hold physical should you not desire to.

In fact given the current inflated price of gold necessitating very small amounts to equal a dollar our modern system has actually created the perfect opportunity to do this.

Using your calculations, I believe the figure should be $15,000, not $7,500.

In the first place, the figure of 145,000 tons it a best guess estimate of how much gold was ever mined, not how much gold is actually available. Using your methodology, the US has, supposedly 8,133 tons in it's reserves, which is valued around $235 billion dollars. Let's assume our GDP is only $10 trillion dollars a year and the value of gold is at $15,000 an ounce. We would only have enough gold in our reserves to back $4 trillion dollars, so the actual value for "us" would have to be set at $37,500 an ounce. That really won't work all that well for us, if the rest of the world is valuing gold at $15,000 or especially $7,500 an ounce.

Getting back to the real world, we still have how many hundreds of billions of US dollars all around the world. These people are going to want gold in exchange for their dollars. We could just tell them the dollar is backed by gold, but you really can't have any and that puts us right back where we are today. No matter how much gold we can come up with as a nation, the dollar will continuously be devalued as long as we continue to import more than we export. We are printing paper in exchange for hard assets, why would our country want to stop that process? Right or wrong, it's the way the world works and no one is going to change it until it stops working! We may be closer than ever to that eventful day, but we will keep running full steam ahead until we run into that light at the other end of the tunnel! When you hear that loud crashing sound, you'll be glad you have all those guns, food and silver.

Katwoman
13th April 2009, 06:40
Well according the DHS having a brain and looking out for yourself and your family especially if you are veteran just made you look like a potential right wing extremist!!

Here's the actual report:

http://images.logicsix.com/DHS_RWE.pdf

Worldnet Daily article:


Quote:
Homeland Security on guard for 'right-wing extremists'
Returning U.S. military veterans singled out as particular threats
Posted: April 12, 2009
9:40 pm Eastern

© 2009 WorldNetDaily

WASHINGTON – A newly unclassified Department of Homeland Security report warns against the possibility of violence by unnamed "right-wing extremists" concerned about illegal immigration, increasing federal power, restrictions on firearms, abortion and the loss of U.S. sovereignty and singles out returning war veterans as particular threats.

The report, titled "Right-wing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment," dated April 7, states that "threats from white supremacist and violent anti-government groups during 2009 have been largely rhetorical and have not indicated plans to carry out violent acts."

However, the report goes on to suggest worsening economic woes, potential new legislative restrictions on firearms and "the return of military veterans facing significant challenges reintegrating into their communities could lead to the potential emergence of terrorist groups or lone wolf extremists capable of carrying out violent attacks."

The report from DHS' Office of Intelligence and Analysis defines right-wing extremism in the U.S. as "divided into those groups, movements and adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups) and those that are mainly anti-government, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration."

"[T]he consequences of a prolonged economic downturn – including real estate foreclosures, unemployment and an inability to obtain credit – could create a fertile recruiting environment for right-wing extremists and even result in confrontations between such groups and government authorities similar to those in the past," the report says.

It adds that "growth in these groups subsided in reaction to increased government scrutiny as a result of the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing and disrupted plots, improvements in the economy and the continued U.S. standing as the pre-eminent world power."

"Proposed imposition of firearms restrictions and weapons bans likely would attract new members into the ranks of right-wing extremist groups as well as potentially spur some of them to begin planning and training for violence against the government," the report continues. "The high volume of purchases and stockpiling of weapons and ammunition by right-wing extremists in anticipation of restrictions and bans in some parts of the country continue to be a primary concern to law enforcement."

Most notable is the report's focus on the impact of returning war veterans.

"Returning veterans possess combat skills and experience that are attractive to right-wing extremists," it says. "DHS/I&A is concerned that right-wing extremists will attempt to recruit and radicalize veterans in order to boost their violent capacities."

The report cites the April 4 shooting deaths of three police officers in Pittsburgh as an example of what may be coming, claiming the alleged gunman holds a racist ideology and believes in anti-government conspiracy theories about gun confiscations, citizen detention camps and "a Jewish-controlled 'one-world government.'"

It also suggests the election of an African-American president and the prospect of his policy changes "are proving to be a driving force for right-wing extremist recruitment and radicalization."

The report also mentions "'end times' prophecies could motivate extremist individuals and groups to stockpile food, ammunition and weapons. These teachings also have been linked with the radicalization of domestic extremist individuals and groups in the past, such as the violent Christian Identity organizations and extremist members of the militia movement."

"DHS/I&A assesses that right-wing extremist groups' frustration over a perceived lack of government action on illegal immigration has the potential to incite individuals or small groups toward violence," the report continues.

The report states the DHS will be working with state and local partners over the next several months to determine the levels of right-wing extremist activity in the U.S.

Last month, the chief of the Missouri highway patrol blasted a report issued by the Missouri Information Analysis Center that linked conservative groups to domestic terrorism, assuring that such reports no longer will be issued. The report had been compiled with the assistance of DHS.

The report warned law enforcement agencies to watch for suspicious individuals who may have bumper stickers for third-party political candidates such as Ron Paul, Bob Barr and Chuck Baldwin.

It further warned law enforcement to watch out for individuals with "radical" ideologies based on Christian views, such as opposing illegal immigration, abortion and federal taxes.

Chief James Keathley of the Missouri State Patrol issued a statement that the release of the report, which outraged conservatives nationwide, prompted him to "take a hard look" at the procedures through which the report was released by the MIAC.

"My review of the procedures used by the MIAC in the three years since its inception indicates that the mechanism in place for oversight of reports needs improvement," he wrote. "Until two weeks ago, the process for release of reports from the MIAC to law enforcement officers around the state required no review by leaders of the Missouri State Highway Patrol or the Department of Public Safety."

"For that reason, I have ordered the MIAC to permanently cease distribution of the militia report," he said. "Further, I am creating a new process for oversight of reports drafted by the MIAC that will require leaders of the Missouri State Highway Patrol and the Department of Public Safety to review the content of these reports before they are shared with law enforcement. My office will also undertake a review of the origin of the report by MIAC."

valerb
13th April 2009, 14:33
Well according the DHS having a brain and looking out for yourself and your family especially if you are veteran just made you look like a potential right wing extremist!!

Here's the actual report:

http://images.logicsix.com/DHS_RWE.pdf

Worldnet Daily article:


Quote:
Homeland Security on guard for 'right-wing extremists'
Returning U.S. military veterans singled out as particular threats
Posted: April 12, 2009
9:40 pm Eastern

© 2009 WorldNetDaily

WASHINGTON – A newly unclassified Department of Homeland Security report warns against the possibility of violence by unnamed "right-wing extremists" concerned about illegal immigration, increasing federal power, restrictions on firearms, abortion and the loss of U.S. sovereignty and singles out returning war veterans as particular threats.

The report, titled "Right-wing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment," dated April 7, states that "threats from white supremacist and violent anti-government groups during 2009 have been largely rhetorical and have not indicated plans to carry out violent acts."

However, the report goes on to suggest worsening economic woes, potential new legislative restrictions on firearms and "the return of military veterans facing significant challenges reintegrating into their communities could lead to the potential emergence of terrorist groups or lone wolf extremists capable of carrying out violent attacks."

The report from DHS' Office of Intelligence and Analysis defines right-wing extremism in the U.S. as "divided into those groups, movements and adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups) and those that are mainly anti-government, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration."

"[T]he consequences of a prolonged economic downturn – including real estate foreclosures, unemployment and an inability to obtain credit – could create a fertile recruiting environment for right-wing extremists and even result in confrontations between such groups and government authorities similar to those in the past," the report says.

It adds that "growth in these groups subsided in reaction to increased government scrutiny as a result of the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing and disrupted plots, improvements in the economy and the continued U.S. standing as the pre-eminent world power."

"Proposed imposition of firearms restrictions and weapons bans likely would attract new members into the ranks of right-wing extremist groups as well as potentially spur some of them to begin planning and training for violence against the government," the report continues. "The high volume of purchases and stockpiling of weapons and ammunition by right-wing extremists in anticipation of restrictions and bans in some parts of the country continue to be a primary concern to law enforcement."

Most notable is the report's focus on the impact of returning war veterans.

"Returning veterans possess combat skills and experience that are attractive to right-wing extremists," it says. "DHS/I&A is concerned that right-wing extremists will attempt to recruit and radicalize veterans in order to boost their violent capacities."

The report cites the April 4 shooting deaths of three police officers in Pittsburgh as an example of what may be coming, claiming the alleged gunman holds a racist ideology and believes in anti-government conspiracy theories about gun confiscations, citizen detention camps and "a Jewish-controlled 'one-world government.'"

It also suggests the election of an African-American president and the prospect of his policy changes "are proving to be a driving force for right-wing extremist recruitment and radicalization."

The report also mentions "'end times' prophecies could motivate extremist individuals and groups to stockpile food, ammunition and weapons. These teachings also have been linked with the radicalization of domestic extremist individuals and groups in the past, such as the violent Christian Identity organizations and extremist members of the militia movement."

"DHS/I&A assesses that right-wing extremist groups' frustration over a perceived lack of government action on illegal immigration has the potential to incite individuals or small groups toward violence," the report continues.

The report states the DHS will be working with state and local partners over the next several months to determine the levels of right-wing extremist activity in the U.S.

Last month, the chief of the Missouri highway patrol blasted a report issued by the Missouri Information Analysis Center that linked conservative groups to domestic terrorism, assuring that such reports no longer will be issued. The report had been compiled with the assistance of DHS.

The report warned law enforcement agencies to watch for suspicious individuals who may have bumper stickers for third-party political candidates such as Ron Paul, Bob Barr and Chuck Baldwin.

It further warned law enforcement to watch out for individuals with "radical" ideologies based on Christian views, such as opposing illegal immigration, abortion and federal taxes.

Chief James Keathley of the Missouri State Patrol issued a statement that the release of the report, which outraged conservatives nationwide, prompted him to "take a hard look" at the procedures through which the report was released by the MIAC.

"My review of the procedures used by the MIAC in the three years since its inception indicates that the mechanism in place for oversight of reports needs improvement," he wrote. "Until two weeks ago, the process for release of reports from the MIAC to law enforcement officers around the state required no review by leaders of the Missouri State Highway Patrol or the Department of Public Safety."

"For that reason, I have ordered the MIAC to permanently cease distribution of the militia report," he said. "Further, I am creating a new process for oversight of reports drafted by the MIAC that will require leaders of the Missouri State Highway Patrol and the Department of Public Safety to review the content of these reports before they are shared with law enforcement. My office will also undertake a review of the origin of the report by MIAC."

I'm personally a Vietnam era veteran and there are far more veterans from that era that have actually seen combat and killed other soldiers, than coming out of Iraq. Iraq is nothing compared to Vietnam and Vietnam was nothing compared to World War II or even the Korean war. Our entire society from every age group has military experience. The older the age group, the greater percentage of combat veterans and other military experience. It's also the older veterans that are probably better armed than the younger age groups. The report is probably right about the recruitment process of the retuning vets, but if and when the government ever tries to do any of the things you believe will take place, I'm betting on the older vets to pick-up the ball and run with it, right along side of the radical right winged women like yourself.

hiyosilver
13th April 2009, 20:15
I'm betting on the older vets to pick-up the ball and run with it, right along side of the radical right winged women like yourself.


The trouble is, there's not a large quantity of those left.....agent orange has seemed to insure that....

valerb
13th April 2009, 23:49
The trouble is, there's not a large quantity of those left.....agent orange has seemed to insure that....

We had 2.6 million over there and over 1 million were involved in combat. Agent Orange did it's damage, but not in those kind of numbers. Besides the 2.6 million actually in Vietnam, there were another 6.5 million in the service at the that time period. Many more millions have served since that war. It's like riding a bicycle, once your trained to shoot a rifle, it takes no time at all to pick one up and start shooting again. You'd be surprised at how many in their 40's, 50's and 60's are still actively shooting one kind of weapon or another.

You can't beat youth and combat experience, but the greatest number of trained military personnel and combat vets comes from the older generations. The 1970's saw the end of large US military forces, with those numbers declining ever since. The generation before mine saw far more veterans than Vietnam could ever think of providing. The current wars should also be providing one hell of a lot more veterans than it is, but the military is so small today, they have to keep rotating so many of those same military people over and over again. Our military trained population has been on a constant decline since the end of WW II.

Katwoman
14th April 2009, 05:26
I'm betting on the older vets to pick-up the ball and run with it, right along side of the radical right winged women like yourself.

I am not a radical or a right winger, I am simply an American woman who is smart enough to read the writing on the wall. Like the proverbial canary in the coal mine I am alerting you to what I sense coming. You can do with this information what you chose. I just hope to God that enough people wake up simultaneously and in one loud clear voice demand that the federal government cease and desist from carrying out any action the violates the constitution and that enough states will too declare sovereignty before it is too late for liberty to prevail over the despotism our congress is leading us to.

That said I am pleased to know that there are those among our veterans who have not lost sight of the fact that liberty is the most important thing a man can possess.

maplesilverbug
14th April 2009, 08:44
...I just hope to God that enough people wake up simultaneously...before it is too late...

That's won't happen any time soon. America was raised on a diet of 'ME' mentality (vs. 'US') so 1) the chances of people actually rallying together and/or establishing a majority consciousness of truth is highly unlikely, and 2) these same masses you are hoping to God for still believe in and buy into things like Citi and G-S "profits"! The people are still very deeply brain-washed/dead, caring only about feeding their own greed, even after everything that has happened in the last 8 months.

You can lead a horse to water...unfortunately we are dealing with sheep and monkeys.

As a reply to the thread, "Why should I sell..." -- I say you shouldn't. There is a limit on how much manipulation the gov'ts can do to the economy to try and keep the dream of the last 25 years alive. I have no idea when they will run out of tricks and slick moves but when they do...you'll be glad you held.

Keep physical for insurance; trade paper for profits.

Katwoman
14th April 2009, 11:08
That's won't happen any time soon. America was raised on a diet of 'ME' mentality (vs. 'US') so 1) the chances of people actually rallying together and/or establishing a majority consciousness of truth is highly unlikely, and 2) these same masses you are hoping to God for still believe in and buy into things like Citi and G-S "profits"! The people are still very deeply brain-washed/dead, caring only about feeding their own greed, even after everything that has happened in the last 8 months.

You can lead a horse to water...unfortunately we are dealing with sheep and monkeys.

As a reply to the thread, "Why should I sell..." -- I say you shouldn't. There is a limit on how much manipulation the gov'ts can do to the economy to try and keep the dream of the last 25 years alive. I have no idea when they will run out of tricks and slick moves but when they do...you'll be glad you held.

Keep physical for insurance; trade paper for profits.
Remember I am not saying to sell physical just not to hold bullion as they may come after what they call the "hoarders" as they have done in the past. As you know those who do not learn from history are destined to repeat it and I would hate to learn of anyone here having their stack confiscated.

valerb
14th April 2009, 15:09
I am not a radical or a right winger, I am simply an American woman who is smart enough to read the writing on the wall. Like the proverbial canary in the coal mine I am alerting you to what I sense coming. You can do with this information what you chose. I just hope to God that enough people wake up simultaneously and in one loud clear voice demand that the federal government cease and desist from carrying out any action the violates the constitution and that enough states will too declare sovereignty before it is too late for liberty to prevail over the despotism our congress is leading us to.

That said I am pleased to know that there are those among our veterans who have not lost sight of the fact that liberty is the most important thing a man can possess.

Kat with your views on things, you would be considered a radical left wing if they were opposite of you views today. Why then would you not be considered a radical right winger and what's wrong with that? Everything you talk about is right of conservatives, so does that not constitute being radical. I'm not talking about a specific type of conservative, but conservatives in general.

Katwoman
14th April 2009, 17:41
The modern conservative is more like a centrist which is why real conservatism now appears to be so radical. After 25+ years of liberal brainwashing via the MSM even I am at times inclined to lose sight of center. It is only by "actually reading" the documents written by the founding fathers that I am able to again ground myself in reality.

Since most of what I espouse is taken directly from the founding documents or from statements made by one of the founding fathers of this great nation I fail to see how I can be deemed a right winger. When you consider this in context the absurdity of the thought becomes readily apparent and more importantly sad. It is in fact sad to think that many Americans today would deem the founding fathers to be radical right wingers. I am sure they would roll over in their graves at the mere thought that their ideals of putting the rights of the individual above the state and the federal government and state sovereignty above the federal government are no longer considered mainstream but rather radical. This simple fact reveals that sad truth about what a pathetic state this nation is in today.

Perhaps they were right when they said:

"All experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed."

Like the proverbial frog in the pot even as our liberties are gradually stripped away by an increasingly intrusive and overbearing federal government we lay quietly with our learned tolerance as the effort needed to right ourselves becomes increasingly great until which point that we succumb to our own apathy.

Be that as it may, at some point as it was on the day this great nation was founded, there will be a few among us who will in their frustration refuse to tolerate the continued abuses of power. And those few will surely stand tall and with Gods Speed prevail in their efforts to restore respect for the constitution. But sadly they too may be awakened from their graves 200 years from now only to learn that their efforts were also in vain since as history has shown, mankind is indeed more inclined to suffer in silence, so long as the breaches of their rights and freedoms are tolerable, than to right themselves by rising up to voice their opposition to those who would abuse the power they have been entrusted with.

Perhaps history indeed needs to repeat itself periodically for it to be taken seriously and its lessons heeded.

Remember this; the more things change the more they stay the same for at the route of all that we know and believe lies that common denominator called human nature.

mountainmurph
14th April 2009, 18:01
At Katwoman's request I am reposting this from another thread.




Quote:
Originally Posted by akak
No, that is not true. NO (or very, very few) safe deposit boxes were opened or raided in this way. For a while, some had to be opened in the presence of a federal agent, but that was only for a limited time, maybe the first year, and not for every box --- I am not sure on how it was decided just who had to, and who did not. But I know several people who kept gold coins (under or at the permissible $100 face value limit) in their safe deposit boxes for decades from that time, and none had them suddently disappear.

O.K. I did some homework on this. On April 5th 1933 executive order 6102 went into effect. Americans had 25 days to turn in their gold in all forms or face up to 10 years in prison or up to $10,000 in fines or both. Like you said ,exempted were dentists , jewelers, mining co.s etc,,, in reasonable amounts for their profession. Every individual could legally have up to $100 in gold coins. Everything else was to be turned into the government. Americans turned in 500 tonnes of gold [ at todays price over $30 million a tonne ] for $20.67 an ounce. The Gold Reserve Act enacted January 30th 1934 , devalued the dollar by 69% making gold now worth $35.00 an ounce. You're good AK, there were very few forced entries into safe deposit boxes. However, if and when a bank failed [ over 3000 in the 1930's ] any and all possesions were remanded to the custody of the Treasury and had to be claimed by the owner to get them back. So, with the penalty being what it was, apparently a couple of thousand people never claimed their boxes, and maybe even said thats not mine. America went off the gold standard August 15th 1971. Americans were still not allowed to own gold until December 31st ,1974. And it is still illegal to have a contract which promises payment in gold. Gold can be traded as a commodity but, not used monetarily. Sorry about the misinformation earlier , I should know better.

valerb
14th April 2009, 18:24
At Katwoman's request I am reposting this from another thread.




Quote:
Originally Posted by akak
No, that is not true. NO (or very, very few) safe deposit boxes were opened or raided in this way. For a while, some had to be opened in the presence of a federal agent, but that was only for a limited time, maybe the first year, and not for every box --- I am not sure on how it was decided just who had to, and who did not. But I know several people who kept gold coins (under or at the permissible $100 face value limit) in their safe deposit boxes for decades from that time, and none had them suddently disappear.

O.K. I did some homework on this. On April 5th 1933 executive order 6102 went into effect. Americans had 25 days to turn in their gold in all forms or face up to 10 years in prison or up to $10,000 in fines or both. Like you said ,exempted were dentists , jewelers, mining co.s etc,,, in reasonable amounts for their profession. Every individual could legally have up to $100 in gold coins. Everything else was to be turned into the government. Americans turned in 500 tonnes of gold [ at todays price over $30 million a tonne ] for $20.67 an ounce. The Gold Reserve Act enacted January 30th 1934 , devalued the dollar by 69% making gold now worth $35.00 an ounce. You're good AK, there were very few forced entries into safe deposit boxes. However, if and when a bank failed [ over 3000 in the 1930's ] any and all possesions were remanded to the custody of the Treasury and had to be claimed by the owner to get them back. So, with the penalty being what it was, apparently a couple of thousand people never claimed their boxes, and maybe even said thats not mine. America went off the gold standard August 15th 1971. Americans were still not allowed to own gold until December 31st ,1974. And it is still illegal to have a contract which promises payment in gold. Gold can be traded as a commodity but, not used monetarily. Sorry about the misinformation earlier , I should know better.

I can't think of a better reason to own Silver instead of Gold!!!

valerb
14th April 2009, 19:29
Kat with your views on things, you would be considered a radical left wing if they were opposite of you views today. Why then would you not be considered a radical right winger and what's wrong with that? Everything you talk about is right of conservatives, so does that not constitute being radical. I'm not talking about a specific type of conservative, but conservatives in general.

Kat, wait until they open the first FEMA camp in your area and see if your not on the first page for pickups!!

duneyman
14th April 2009, 19:49
This article does a nice job of explaining the risks associated with holding bullion versus coins.

YOU,yes you should take this very seriously as the situation we now face could lead to confiscation and don't say it can't happen here because it already has and it most likely will again very very soon.

http://www.reformation.org/roosevelt_confiscates_gold.html

Here you go again with the big bad government stealing our silver . Get real !

Katwoman
14th April 2009, 20:03
Here you go again with the big bad government stealing our silver . Get real !

So now you are denying that the government previously confiscated our gold and silver even though I and others here have provided evidence of this historical fact? This response from you is precisely why no one here takes you seriously.

Katwoman
14th April 2009, 20:25
Kat, wait until they open the first FEMA camp in your area and see if your not on the first page for pickups!!

Believe me I am the last person they would want in a position from which she could espouse the merits of the founding fathers and the US constitution to a group of angry innocent Americans who just had their civil liberties violated. On the contrary I suspect they would prefer to marginalize people like me by scaring the sheople into believing that respect for the constitution is unpatriotic and that people like me are right wing nuts.

It is too bad when the federal government has to resort to issuing reports about watching people who believe in sound money because they may be "extremists". Obviously this is an overt effort to scare people from uniting in favor of sound money. This absurd report should be admonished by every freedom loving American for exactly what it is and the authors of it called onto the carpet and reminded just who they work for.

Thats said, I was glad to hear Rush take the subject up today on his talk show as but for him America as we know would truly cease to exist.

Katwoman
14th April 2009, 20:59
It sounds like they may need to lock up the Governor of Texas with me:


AUSTIN – Gov. Rick Perry today joined state Rep. Brandon Creighton and sponsors of House Concurrent Resolution (HCR) 50 in support of states’ rights under the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

“I believe that our federal government has become oppressive in its size, its intrusion into the lives of our citizens, and its interference with the affairs of our state,” Gov. Perry said. “That is why I am here today to express my unwavering support for efforts all across our country to reaffirm the states’ rights affirmed by the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. I believe that returning to the letter and spirit of the U.S. Constitution and its essential 10th Amendment will free our state from undue regulations, and ultimately strengthen our Union.”

A number of recent federal proposals are not within the scope of the federal government’s constitutionally designated powers and impede the states’ right to govern themselves. HCR 50 affirms that Texas claims sovereignty under the 10th Amendment over all powers not otherwise granted to the federal government.

It also designates that all compulsory federal legislation that requires states to comply under threat of civil or criminal penalties, or that requires states to pass legislation or lose federal funding, be prohibited or repealed.

HCR 50 is authored by Representatives Brandon Creighton, Leo Berman, Bryan Hughes, Dan Gattis and Ryan Guillen.

SeekrBrnEvryMin
14th April 2009, 21:49
Thats said, I was glad to hear Rush take the subject up today on his talk show as but for him America as we know would truly cease to exist.

I did a full career in the US military. I like to think that Rush is a part of the America I fought for, and so is Bill O'Reilly.

And Sean Hannity is a redundant, bullet-headed pot-stirrer.

Ahh, now I feel better, thanks!

fullsafe
15th April 2009, 07:27
And what does that make Beck----Katwoman's twin brother?