PDA

View Full Version : Head Between My Knees; Holding the Airsick Bag



prahudka
24th April 2008, 11:17
Is it turbulent in here or what?

Under $17.00?

Glad I am not holding a fortune. But, I am not selling.

FedFixNix
24th April 2008, 11:41
165.60 now for SLV. The bastards have have the discount set a over -4% today, earning if you sell, you lose that much more against the price of silver. Every time I want to sell the premium/discount is set to - 4, 6 or 3ven 7 percent, and when I want to buy it goes to + 4 to 6 percent.

I sure wish I'd have known of this manipulation before I invested.

prahudka
24th April 2008, 11:55
165.60 now for SLV. The bastards have have the discount set a over -4% today, earning if you sell, you lose that much more against the price of silver. Every time I want to sell the premium/discount is set to - 4, 6 or 3ven 7 percent, and when I want to buy it goes to + 4 to 6 percent.

I sure wish I'd have known of this manipulation before I invested.

How angry are the people in Dow Jones stocks going to be when the Plunge Protection Team runs out of options or decides to let stock prices tank?

Who really anticipated such an artificial market, if that is what it is? No one has anything helpful to say based upon the many charts, triangles, waves, etc. They are mostly all wrong. Maybe they don't know. Maybe the big money is just acing everyone.

It can't stay this low forever. The dollar cant keep afloat forever.

Kelly
24th April 2008, 12:01
I'm begining to wonder if market manipulation isn't where all the Fed bail out money they are printing up for the banks is going.

I can't believe silver has dropped this low. My life savings is wrapped up in it. And the new exchange (you can see it on the Kitco silver charts) "New York Globex" operates 24 hour hours a day out of New York and is super fast.

That one just about sunk all my hopes that the market will make a quick rebound. Who can compete with the paper traders?

mls56
24th April 2008, 12:09
Is it turbulent in here or what?

Under $17.00?

Glad I am not holding a fortune. But, I am not selling.
Hang in there, We will win, but it will take a lot of guts to just say that. Try to keep away from the bad things, look at what will be, in for all of us , when the goverment can no longer work its slime in the market we love. Just a news flash, I had to stop to get the phone, I had written Sen Corker R Tn.. He return my inquireary about the Gov's intervention in the silver and gold markets, by the SEC & all other listed people I could think of at the time I wrote him a week ago.! Sen Corker, gave me hope, he said that he will be bringing this up to all members on the Senate Banking Com, I told him he would be in a hornets nest, & he agreed, but was as concerned as I was! He ask, that I tell all to contack there home state REP's ASAP to address the mamipulation in the commodity markets, Silver & Gold as the top ones that are being surpressed.
So, get up & contact your Rep in Washington, to put pressure on the Banking oversight commity. Also I told him to read Ted's Butlers articles, to give him the true things he would face, so get your butt , up and get busy.

allquestfred
24th April 2008, 12:24
I've been in the PM market since 1996-1997. I can understand how some are feeling especially those who just got started. Knot in the stomach. But hang in there. Many people in this forum are old timer and have seen this through. All the fundamentals show Silver is the best and safest investment. If one can switch saving to PM (as money) every month, even if one started in 1980 (the worst time to invest) and do so every month, you will be very rich now through all the ups and down.

So, this too will pass away. Look back in 2 years or 3 years.... and consistently purchase each month.... see what you have saved. I believe you will not be disappointed.

ADUB
24th April 2008, 14:36
Prahudka,
Hey man, don't get sick. This is just typical silver. I thought the same thing with $4 silver, $10 silver, and especially in 2006/2007 with silver going all the way up to $15 and some change to come crashing back down in 2007. Remember why you bought, pull your head out from between your knees and be patient. You'll be writing to some dude a few years from now remembering when you bought $17 silver.

prahudka
24th April 2008, 15:37
Prahudka,
Hey man, don't get sick. This is just typical silver. I thought the same thing with $4 silver, $10 silver, and especially in 2006/2007 with silver going all the way up to $15 and some change to come crashing back down in 2007. Remember why you bought, pull your head out from between your knees and be patient. You'll be writing to some dude a few years from now remembering when you bought $17 silver.

On balance, I absolutely agree. But, we all have those thoughts .....

Let's all celebrate that we own something that JP Morgan can't buy up at $2.00 a throw in a "bailout!" :p Bailout? Bailout? I don't need no stinkin' bailout!

nuslvrkwen
24th April 2008, 16:36
I used some extra cash to buy about a month ago. I definitely agree with the "buy some regularly every month to realize true growth of wealth", advice. I can't buy this month! (upcoming dental work, boo hiss) MAN!!! Since some of you are old timers at saving this way, do YOU remember a time similar to these? When some TINY market fluctuation would affect the price of a commodity in such a volatile way? I'd expect things to 'settle and move up' after a week or two of 'wonderful financial news' but even THAT doesn't happen!

I also agree with the idea as soon as these stimulous payments are out, and the Banks have stopped shorting any PM backed instruments they are holding to get cash together for this year's liquidity - we'll see a steady rise in the price for precious metals despite what the stocks are doing. Good suggestion to contact our state representatives in Congress to get a dialog started in the house. I'm thinking after what happened with Eliot Spitzer; any body in government or near to the decision makers/implementers in the financial industry would be AFRAID to even bring up the issue! But really, maintaining this Forum and getting another media type dialog going will MAKE the public get involved at the grass roots level! Yeah, it would make for serious competition - but imagine the regular public actually TALKING in a dialog about growing wealth through an 'after tax investment vehicle' that ISN'T a ROTH anything, or an ETF! Wall Street WILL Freak Out! Who WOULDN'T want to be in on that!

cugir321
24th April 2008, 21:35
A silver round can't go out of business. I've gambled a lot in my life. If the swings are killing you....next time it goes up....dump all but what you feel comfortable losing completely. This whole thing is about security. Define it and let the definition tell you what to do....not our post's. Security is peace. I'll go one step deeper down...security is fearless.

Drumblebum
24th April 2008, 23:10
Dollar failing. Fiat currency bad. Real assets good. No amount of market manipulation can change fundamental economics. PM's are the right thing to do...

I just look at the drops as clearance sales.

Keep buying. :cool:


P.S. I should probably admit I know very little about economics. This is simply what I keep telling myself, because it makes sense, and keeps making more sense the more learned I become.

sliver
24th April 2008, 23:40
At various times of the day the settlement price of gold was determined by different exchanges, as one closed for the day another in the next time zone would be the one to set the latest prices based on market activity in that zone.
London, New York, Hong Kong and Sydney were the ones that determined the prices If I recall correctly. I read somewhere that this Globex exchange is an attempt by New York to have greater control over the world gold and silver prices worldwide . (keep it suppressed?) Because it is open almost all day.
I don't think we will have to wait 23 years again for silver prices to rebound from a new low. The 2 billion ounces that the U.S. had in reserve is gone now.
Now we are seeing butter and milk shortages in Japan. Countries all over are stopping the exporting of rice. Food costs have doubled this last year and are expected to double again this year. This is creating riots and demonstrations in poor countries all over the world. With this much political instability that is resulting is shaking the world leaders. Bush's stupid move to encourage ethanol from agriculture products is having world wide ramifications. Drought in australia, power needs in africa, are contributing. People ask me about retirement portfolio's. I recommend a good railroad that hauls wheat and coal, a good sound oil or natural gas company, a good fertilizer company, silver, and maybe some U.S. govt TIPS. With this combination I think a person would have an excellent investment portfolio if given equal weight to all of those.
Another big factor is the greatly expanding uses of silver in science, medicine and industrial applications. With Mitsui's new development substituting platinum with silver in catalytic convertors could really bust the silver market wide open.
Sliver

hiyosilver
25th April 2008, 02:41
Hey, one fiat, umm, "organization" lost only 5 billion dollars, and that was a good thing? Anyway, the dollar rallied on that news....They're gasping for air, man...

Gino
25th April 2008, 04:05
Here is some interesting charting analysis that lends some substance to the belief that the future is bright for silver.
http://www.financialsense.com/fsu/editorials/trendsman/2008/0424.html

Conclusions

Looking for Gold to bottom at $840 from late May to mid June. $790 to $800 is a realistic worst-case scenario.

Sentiment, from a contrary perspective is in better shape today than it was following the peak in May 2006.

Gold shares will bottom before the metals and lead back up

Small and Microcaps (Juniors) will lead the HUI, XAU & GDX

Silver will strongly outperform Gold

Check the trends:
http://trendsman.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/mar20silver.png

Seano
25th April 2008, 05:23
I just purchased some bullion, maples and ASEs from a few sources earlier this spring, and it has lost over $2 per ounce in the space of one month. Bought it as a hedge against inflation, but it appears to be losing it's value even more quickly than the cash I have in the bank, if that is possible. Yeah, the market is manipulated to be sure, but I'm probably just gonna cut my losses at this point and get back in when spot hits 10 or 12.

Eh, I should probably wait a few days and see just how bad this trend is, but it doesn't look good.

prahudka
25th April 2008, 07:03
Hey, one fiat, umm, "organization" lost only 5 billion dollars, and that was a good thing? Anyway, the dollar rallied on that news....They're gasping for air, man...

Right.

Where is the extra supply or reduced demand? Maybe the many experts on PM sites dont know or arent telling us.

Certainly the prospects for stocks is lots of wishful thinking of those who see only one patch of high ground as the deluge approaches.

The dollar seems a little less cancerous than previously had in comparison to the Euro (though the trend is not up). How is that a PM sell signal?

I will say that I am getting a bit tired of listening to any experts or any advice on any subject. Even Cramer said to buy gold a little while ago. Motley Fool said to buy PM several weeks ago.

The fact that none of what is being said makes any sense is to me a buy and hold signal. This is not to impugn the integrity of Ted Butler, et al. I think all it means is that you are on your own.

What does any of this mean but that the market is whacked? All markets are whacked. You might pick a great energy stock.

I think the hallmark of what is happening is uncertainty, which is another word for volatility. Frankly, I am not seeing the bank as a great alternative.

There are two alternatives: 1. the Fed rights the ship, in which case, unemployment comes back down and we all have less immediate difficulty to complain about, though maybe you have to wait for your PM to get up again. 2. things get worse, in which case your PMs serve you well and other things (like food) are a problem.

We can complain all we want about manipulated markets, but I am kind of partial to low unemployment myself. I will take the good with the bad.

Kelly
25th April 2008, 07:22
Now we are seeing butter and milk shortages in Japan. Countries all over are stopping the exporting of rice. Food costs have doubled this last year and are expected to double again this year.

I just found a great site that will help people really see what is happening in the commodities market. You can go here and look at the price of different commodities, including the metals or corn, wheat and rice, (etc.) and the charts that come up go back several years. It's a real eye opener.

http://www.mrci.com/pdf/charts.asp

As you can clearly see, corn, wheat and rice have gone sky high. I believe this is primarily caused by "market speculation" as the so called talking heads call it, but it sure looks to me like the same group that is obviously working very hard to keep PMs depressed is working just as hard to put staples, like corn, wheat and rice, right through the roof.

The other side to the food commodities story is ethanol. As you can see, corn prices have not risen nearly as fast as wheat and rice, but that is in part because acres that used to be planted in wheat and soybeans are now being planted in corn to make ethanol. But ethanol simply does not explain what has happened in the rice market, because rice typically grows in water and places where corn, wheat, and soybeans don’t grow.

There is no logical reason that I can see for rice to have risen this fast other than a behind the scenes attempt to push rice through the ceiling. This is a primary food in all Asian countries, including China, Thailand, Viet Nam, Indonesia, Japan and India. (etc.)

This is the kind of thing that makes people starve. It is not a question of a rice shortage that is causing panic in these countries. It is a question of the artificially high price of rice. Poor people simply cannot afford to eat rice at these prices. Countries that have stopped importing rice also create an artificial rice shortage, but this is due primarily because they are not exporting enough of their own commodities to pay for importing the food commodities that are going through the roof.

Aside from the ethanol problem, this really does look like the same big groups that are keeping the price of gold and silver down are taking the food commodities right to the moon. And from what I can tell, this price manipulation is coming out of the London and New York Commodities markets.

I honestly believe that unless this country and Europe puts a serious clamp down on the way commodities are traded in this much heralded "global marketplace," we are headed for another world-wide depression like we had in the thirties. I also believe what is driving these markets is the banking cartells and their hedge funds. The news stories are stressing "market speculation," but we are still dealing with a paper trading scam in the food commodities, the same way we are dealing with a paper trading scam in PMs. It defies logic to base the price of a real, tangible commodity on a paper trade when those paper traders are not necessarily ever going to take possession of the underlying asset anyway.

Rice, corn, wheat and soybeans are all products that receive farm subsidies. So when you look at the prices going through the roof for these commodities, you must also realize that the huge corporate farmers growing these products are also receiving a nice big fat check from the government who is also paying them well on top of the prices they are already receiving.

"Food is Power. You can use it to control nations." – Henry Kissinger

Gino
25th April 2008, 07:38
I don't think we need to image a rice cabal to explain the price of rice and other commodities.

"China is exchanging its depreciating reserves of US dollars for things of value, notably rice, with frightening consequences for dependent countries, and deadly consequences for American foreign policy."
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/JD22Dj01.html

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/images/spengchart2.gif

ps. If its good enough policy for China . . . I wonder at what point China will make a move on precious metals.

Kelly
25th April 2008, 07:56
I don't think we need to image a rice cabal to explain the price of rice and other commodities.

I'm not imagining anything. I've simply researched the statistics and have been doing so for years.

Today in America, only four corporations control 84% of the cereals market, 60% of the pork market, 52% of the poultry slaughter market, 80% of the beef market and 66% of the rice market. Furthermore, approximately 80% of all farm subsidies go to the nations top 5% largest land owners. When you trace the paper trails you'll find that those corporate farms are ultimately either owned or controlled by the same multi-national corporate conglomerates that already own or control the oil, the banks, the insurance industry and the pharmaceutical industry.

Right now, China probably does have the ability to outbid every other nation on earth for rice; they've got a ton of people to feed. But as China bids higher, the paper traders also go wild, and the paper traders do not intend to ever take possession of rice, they are speculating and driving the market even higher. And the government here let's them, because it only increases the profit margins of the Big Four that control the supply end of the food export chain here in America.

"Demand" is only half the story in a global supply and demand marketplace. The other side of the equation is supply.

Gino
25th April 2008, 08:18
I'm not imagining anything. I've simply researched the statistics and have been doing so for years.

Quite right, the consolidation of public interests into the hands of a few is not necessarily beneficial for the greater good. I agree.

I am saying, however, the influence of China, Thailand and others halting exports of rice (reduced supply) and then China and others buying up food reserves in the face of a falling dollar (increased demand) has an obvious impact all on its own.

Kelly
25th April 2008, 08:38
Well, I can't argue with that one, Gino. China is going to have a tremendous impact on the price of grains. But I just did some quick checking on who stands to gain the most from the supply end of the commodities market.

With the exception of rice, America exports more grains (including wheat, corn, sorghum and soybeans) than any other country in the world.

http://europe.theoildrum.com/node/3629

Thailand is the world's largest producer of rice. But America is the word's fourth largest exporter of that commodity.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/agr_gra_ric_exp-agriculture-grains-rice-exports

Trvlr45
25th April 2008, 08:54
I'm begining to wonder if market manipulation isn't where all the Fed bail out money they are printing up for the banks is going.

I can't believe silver has dropped this low. My life savings is wrapped up in it. And the new exchange (you can see it on the Kitco silver charts) "New York Globex" operates 24 hour hours a day out of New York and is super fast.

That one just about sunk all my hopes that the market will make a quick rebound. Who can compete with the paper traders?

Hi Kelly,

The money they are printing up doesn't just go to bail out the banks. They have all the various forms of welfare programs from foriegn aid to midnight basketball they funnel it into. Corporate welfare isn't the only place they send it to. Then you have all the black market drug biz and everything else.

One thing is for sure. There is A LOT of worthless paper out there floating around the globe and more and more people are looking for somewhere to put their money where they won't lose it. History always repeats itself and history says fiat currencies always fail. Gold and silver always win in the end.

The only way I can see the same scenario not playing out as it always has is if the global, central banking system finds a way to hoodwink the entire globe into going to strictly a digitized monetary system where paper doesn't exist and gold and silver are restricted as strategic metals making it illegal to use them for any type of barter or currency. If they ever did that gold and silver would go to the moon for a short while giving us time to sell it for huge profits.

They are heading us in that direction with the Real ID act and the fed has already gone digital. However it will be a long, long , long time before they get there. How are they going to take away gold and silver from 3 or 4 billion people? It will just end up causing a huge underground economy which every country already has. We law obiding citizens will just learn how to get in on that action.

They will have to rectify the food shortages so I doubt putting your money into commodities people eat is going to continue to be a good deal except for the investors sophisticated enough to know how to do that without losing their shirt, or their skirt.

I started buying silver based on a long term plan. I figured at least five years. There is nothing scientific about my decision. Charts make my eyes water. I read what the gold and silver bugs and the various economists (outside the main scream media) have to say. I know the Fed controls the entire economy by printing up worthless paper for everyone to spend. I know they can't continue doing it forever without some kind of "reset" such as a depression or at the very least a recession. I know no matter how they rig the numbers the dollar is worthless already.

Silver is used in everything and now they want to start using it as a catalyst. Look at what that did to platinum. It absolutely has to sky-rocket eventually unless somewhere on this planet there are a few billion ounces no one is talking about and I doubt that because it's impossible to keep a secret forever.

The question is, how much time do you have to wait?

Kelly
25th April 2008, 09:04
Gino, I just found this article…

"Thailand, the world's largest rice exporter, could face a shortage of rice after skyrocketing prices have encouraged traders to substantially increase their export volumes, Prasert Kosalwit, the director-general of the Rice Department, said yesterday.

Concerns over shortages could lead to the introduction of measures to control the amount of rice exported in the second half of this year if the price continues to increase. The measures have been floated by Deputy Commerce Minister Wiroon Techapaiboon.

Fears of a shortage come against a backdrop of signs of rice shortages in some countries, including the Philippines and neighbouring Cambodia.

The Cambodian government yesterday appealed for people to remain calm and not to stock up on food commodities after the government banned rice exports on Wednesday.

The Philippines rushed to sign a purchase agreement with Vietnam for 1.5 million tonnes of rice this year to alleviate an expected shortage in coming months. The agreement came one day after the government announced the country was facing a serious rice supply crisis.

India has banned the export of rice to other countries, while China and Vietnam have already reduced export volumes.

"A rice shortage in the local market is very likely," warned Mr Prasert."

http://www.thai360.com/fbb/showtopic.php?tid/526421/

With India, China, Viet Nam, Thailand and Cambodia either halting or reducing their rice exports that seems to leave America left suddenly in the lead as also the world's largest exporter of that commodity, at least for the time being, which is a very bizaar and probably quite unexpected turn of events.

This article explains that serious flooding in Asia this year has ultimately caused the rice shortage.

http://www.upiasiaonline.com/Economics/2008/04/02/why_a_rice_shortage_in_the_philippines/6495/

Trvlr45
25th April 2008, 09:04
"China is exchanging its depreciating reserves of US dollars for things of value, notably rice, with frightening consequences for dependent countries, and deadly consequences for American foreign policy."

Hi Gino,

A trucker from Arkansas called a talk radio show yesterday to explain that the rice farmers in Arkansas who grow the biggest percentage of rice here in America are draining the fields and planting corn. As I've always said, this climate change farce is bad news. Ethanol is a joke but you can bet the insiders and some savy investors are making billions right now. There were a lot of people who knew ethanol would cause all these problems and they were positioned just right. Jeb Bush has interests in ethanol down in South America somewhere. I forget which country.

prahudka
25th April 2008, 09:20
I don't think we need to image a rice cabal to explain the price of rice and other commodities.


But there is a rice cabal: government moratoriums on exports and government-imposed demand for biofuel. Its still manipulation. Its just open, as opposed to the other conspiratorial theories of equities markets and PMs.

Kelly
25th April 2008, 09:36
Hey Trvlr45! How've you been Bud? I couldn't agree with you more in your post about silver and gold.


How are they going to take away gold and silver from 3 or 4 billion people? It will just end up causing a huge underground economy which every country already has. We law obiding citizens will just learn how to get in on that action.

I don't think they can take the gold and silver away from the world's people. On another thread I posted these links…

"The Secret Gold Treaty; the truth Behind WWII Gold, Nazi Plunder and the Elite Plans to Control our Financial Future…"

http://www.deepblacklies.co.uk/goldtreaty_blurb.htm

He's got several articles on his site talking about the gold plundered from WWII that I really never knew about before. It's very interesting stuff.

http://www.deepblacklies.co.uk/the_spoils_of_war.htm

http://www.deepblacklies.co.uk/hirohitos_gold.htm

These articles made me realize how totally phony the "official" amount of gold in the world truly is. That official amount pretty much is just based on the gold that is held by the Central Banks of the world. They've never counted the gold plundered in WWII, which has gone totally black market, nor have they ever counted all the Gold in Asia, and China and India have always been gold and silver freaks.

The Fed and the Government might be able to control gold and silver here in America, but there is absolutely no way that they could control it on a world-wide scale except by the phony paper trading that goes on in the PM markets. Never-the-less, they can do that all they want and it's not going to stop the fact that the Asian countries have a ton of gold and none of it is even officially declared as even being in existence.

And you are sooooo right about ethanol. It's one of the dumbest things this country has ever done. Brazil has done the same thing only they are doing it with sugar cane rather than corn.

There are surely other answers to the energy problem, but it is not going to be taking land out of food production in order to make ethanol. We are either going to feed ourselves or feed our cars, and I really think between those two options, the logical choice should be obvious.

Eventually, unless something else comes along, I think we are all going to have to go to electric cars. They make wind turbines now that can go on top of our roofs. There are all sorts of things happening on the solar energy front too, and the options available for generating electricity from micro-hydro turbines is also great. We need to run the cars on electricity and use renewable energy to pump up the supply of electricity. Turning our land over to ethanol production only means starvation for the world, and that's getting pretty damned obvious if you ask me.

I am not big on huge alternative energy projects being done by the Utility companies because that only keeps energy centralized. But the products for turning our homes and apartments into energy producers are truly beginning to come on line now, and those products are finally becoming cheaper.

Kelly
25th April 2008, 09:59
But there is a rice cabal: government moratoriums on exports and government-imposed demand for biofuel. Its still manipulation. Its just open, as opposed to the other conspiratorial theories of equities markets and PMs.

Agreed. But I think the people who are paper trading the food commodities are utterly crimenal in their acts. Making a profit is one thing, but these people are bidding up the price of commodities as speculators, and that simply results in starvation among people who can't afford the prices.

And it's even more crimenal in food commodities, because food is always subject to natural disasters like floods, drought, pestilence and disease. So when a commodity, like rice for instance, is in short supply as it is this year due to floods, paper trading that commodity to bid the prices up is truly an act of murder when you think about it.

I've got no problem with people making a profit, but if the paper traders have to starve people to death in order to do so, then those people need to stop, think about what they are doing, and get out of that business.

The Futures' commodity game has really gone out of control. I am not merely speculating that this is going on in food commodities either. It's been all over the news programs lately. Those news broadcasts all said the same thing. Aside from ethonol production and droughts or floods, what is causing the terrible increse in food prices around the world is the people speculating in the commodities market.

Kelly
25th April 2008, 11:19
From an article on Yahoo News…

The Speculation Factor

"One of the most frequently voiced suspicions concerning commodity prices is whether they're being manipulated higher by speculators. There is no easy answer to this. Many commodity prices have risen for reasons clearly evident. Rising demand from India and China, for instance, has spurred on higher metal prices. The same can be said for oil, and a growing worldwide demand for food and for corn-based ethanol has boosted agricultural prices.

But the volatility of commodity prices leaves a deep suspicion in some corners of the financial community that it's not the traditional, commercial end-users of commodity futures contracts, options, and other derivatives that are responsible for pushing prices higher. An increasing number of hedge funds, pension funds, and other large investors are buying commodities in search of better returns than other investment vehicles -- stocks, bonds, and real estate -- are now providing. Trading volumes have increased greatly. The Futures Industry Assn. reports that 15.2 billion contracts were written in 2007, a 28% increase from the year before.

The other evidence for speculative forces is that some commodities seem priced far higher than fundamental supply and demand would indicate. We at Standard & Poor's believe, for example, that the price of oil, now north of $100 per barrel, will settle at roughly $91 by yearend. Over the longer term, we're expecting a price of $75, which is about 25% lower than it is today, as supplies remain adequate (although refining capacity remains a problem). Gold surged to more than $1,000 per ounce and then, in early March, saw the largest dollar price drop in almost 28 years on interest rate worries. Macroeconomic factors play a part, to be sure, but such volatility cannot always be attributed to big-picture economics.

To curb undue market volatility, several U.S. agricultural exchanges have already increased margin requirements (the amount of cash, as opposed to credit, required to buy a contract) on futures trading. The Chicago Board of Trade, the Kansas City Board of Trade, and the Minneapolis Grain Exchange all recently raised the minimum margins for wheat futures, while the Chicago Board of Trade has also announced higher margin requirements -- but also wider trading limits -- on corn, soybean, and soy oil futures.

It is too soon to know if asking investors to plunk down more of their own cash to execute these trades will mark an end to the unsettling price volatility in agricultural commodities. But the idea that speculators are having an unhealthy influence on the markets is widely held. Late last year, government officials in India asked U.S. and British authorities to consider a shutdown of oil trading on their commodity exchanges as a step to help curb the high price in India. That has not happened, of course, but the fact that the idea is even being broached shows how unpredictable commodity prices have become and how much governments worry that their economies will be at their mercy."

To read the rest of the article.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/bw/20080422/bs_bw/apr2008pi20080421773956

So, if they are raising the margin requirements on food commodities in order to curb speculation, this should tell us something. Wouldn't such an act ultimately drive out the day traders and small speculators, leaving only the enormous hedge fund players in a position to keep on playing the commodities speculation game? And aren't those huge hedge funds primarily operated by the largest banks?

Kelly
25th April 2008, 11:40
And another article…

"LONDON (Reuters) - Investment bankers often aspire to be gentlemen farmers, but now farming could soon become their day job.

Soaring agricultural prices, growing demand for biofuels and the growth of the Chinese and Indian economies are leading top global investment banks to buy farmland in a bid to embrace the physical commodities market.

Investment banks and hedge funds are mopping up vast tracts of agricultural land around the world, hoping to ride the so-called "commodities supercycle" that has lifted prices of everyday agricultural commodities such as wheat, rice, soybeans and corn to record highs.

U.S. investment bank Morgan Stanley (MS.N: Quote, Profile, Research) has bought several thousand hectares of land in Ukraine, Europe's grain basin.

Morgan Stanley declined to comment, but industry executives say many other big banks are looking at land.

Barclays Capital, the investment bank arm of Barclays (BARC.L: Quote, Profile, Research), is actively searching.

"We are looking at a lot of opportunities in those sort of things. We are looking across the board. We certainly wouldn't rule it out," said Roger Jones, co-head of commodities at Barclays Capital."

To read the full article…

http://uk.reuters.com/article/hedgeFundsNews/idUKNOA33740020080313

I hate to say "I told you so", but I did… :rolleyes:

On one hand we've got the huge banking hedge funds basically controlling the commodity future's market, while on the other hand those same banks are buying up the land.

It's a real bummer, huh?

If you don't call this a move to control the world's food through a banking monopoly, I don't know what else to call it...

And this article is actually a bit of a cop out, because the same big hedge funds have been buying up agricultural land all over the world for years and years now; at least twenty years that I know of.

Gino
25th April 2008, 22:19
I hate to say "I told you so", but I did… :rolleyes:


Ok, I know when I'm out referenced.

But again, it all just points to greater inflation and precious metals as a hedge against inflation is a universally understood concept and the relative value of silver still stands to increase significantly.

This dip, therefore, may prove to be a good buying opportunity on silver's way up and "dollar cost averaging" is a usefull way to claw back some of the profits lost from buying on a peak.

The question is, how many more buying opportunities will there be before the price is supported above US$20?

Looking at the graph I posted earlier, you will notice a couple of things:
1) The last 3 price peaks (including this years) all occured around April;
2) It appears to take 18 month for the price to be consistently supported above the previous peak.

So, if global economic circumstances were no worse than the last 5 years we would expect to see prices above US$20 in 18 months (around November 2009). However, economically TSHHTF this year and I think the price of silver will accelerate beyond its previous trends. These rapid increases being seen in other commodity prices are just leading indicators of what's in store for silver over the coming months, imo.

Joining the dots between run away inflation, food riots, reduced consumer spending, war and rumours of war and rising PM prices is not too difficult a concept to grasp. I get it, if you get it too, then there is a damn good chance that nearly everyone will get it pretty soon.

That's not to say the Silver Bull won't buck a few times.

Trvlr45
25th April 2008, 22:30
Hey Trvlr45! How've you been Bud? I couldn't agree with you more in your post about silver and gold.

Hi Kelly,

I'm fine. Thanks for the tip on computer operation. It is coming in quite handy. I hope I'm right about the silver and gold especially since there are a few people on this forum that have A LOT invested in it. I don't but will eventually. In a worst case scenario I'll just hop a banana boat to Belize or Panama or Costa Rica. The silver may still be worth something down there when the time comes.

averagejoe
25th April 2008, 22:37
I think people are beginning to get it Gino that's why there has been such a run on Eagles and Maples lately. Being new to this myself I was turned on to this by a friend and I've come into contact with alot of common folk who are beginning to see the big picture.:p

Kelly
25th April 2008, 23:29
Hey Trvlr45! How've you been Bud? I couldn't agree with you more in your post about silver and gold.

Hi Kelly,

I'm fine. Thanks for the tip on computer operation. It is coming in quite handy. I hope I'm right about the silver and gold especially since there are a few people on this forum that have A LOT invested in it. I don't but will eventually. In a worst case scenario I'll just hop a banana boat to Belize or Panama or Costa Rica. The silver may still be worth something down there when the time comes.

Want another computer tip? When you want to quote the whole post that somebody said (so it's posted in a blue frame) you can either hit the "quote" button on the right hand bottom of the post you want to quote, OR you can highlight the specific passage you want to quote with your mouse, press control + C to copy it, and then when you get to the posting page, just hit that 4th icon in from the right on the second bar at the top (the one that looks like a talk frame for a cartoon) and press control + V to paste it and that passage will show up as a quote. It's easy.

I'm all for the banana boat for Belize...Been dreamin' about taking off for there for years. :)

Richard
26th April 2008, 02:23
That one just about sunk all my hopes that the market will make a quick rebound. Who can compete with the paper traders?

If this has been commented on, I apologize.

But there's your hard-learned lesson. Indeed who can?

I would like for the paper "silver" holders to consider this counter-position to the "just hang in there". I'm not saying the "hangers" are wrong. It will surely rebound.

BUT...

1) You got into this in order to, presumably, protect your wealth. Okay, so if it rebounds then you only have MORE to worry about!

2) In this worried, tense state after the rebound, silver will be shorter in supply than it already is. You will only have more money to "protect" and less places to protect it.

So if you "win" and it rebounds... do you win anything better than your current loses, or something worse?

Now, I'm not a very experienced investor. I only hold some silver now after trading currencies for about a year. I was a truck driver before, but can't do that anymore. Anyway, the one thing I learned is that winning in paper is not winning at all. I didn't make millions, but I didn't lose it all... only, I DID lose quite a bit as it turned out. That's why I stopped and got into real silver.

And let me tell yall... I feel MUCH better in doing so than merely getting dollars from the fall of the dollar (which is what a rise in silver is these days, basically).

So I ask all the paper silver holders... You have your loss already at a much lower silver price... why stick around? You will lose more or... you will lose more every day you aren't in the real thing. I would get most of it out, leave SOME in case of a rebound, take the loss and try to get the real deal ASAP. Because it's not going to be increasing in supply. And you don't need much of it. SOME will do the trick when/if the time comes that currencies evaporate. THAT little bit will pay you back and then some so don't worry about saving every last dollar. The silver is WAY under-priced so you need to take that into consideration. DON'T buy it's current price and expected rise. Buy according to it's real value and just sit tight.

And if that time doesn't come in your lifetime? Well, then you only tie up a bit of your cash. You can buy some now, sit and wait patiently and live a stress-free(er) life... Why try to do more than that? Why try for more dollars that are only going to get eaten anyway?

No, you can not beat the dollar/currencies at it's game, folks. Not even the bankers can, really. It was not meant to be beaten, only to beat YOU!

Well, there it is. That's what I advise. Wait too long, the supplies dwindle and then you're really up the creek without a paddle. Get out now, you only lose what you have thus far, can get the real thing in some quantity, and let the rest eat itself away til "the day".

SilverCoins
26th April 2008, 03:14
Silver will always go up eventually as there is a limited supply

hiyosilver
26th April 2008, 06:17
This article explains that serious flooding in Asia this year has ultimately caused the rice shortage.

http://www.upiasiaonline.com/Economics/2008/04/02/why_a_rice_shortage_in_the_philippines/6495/




Serious flooding of paper dollars, more likely....shortage of silver, shortage of rice, shortage of sense and surplus of BS in government....

Richard
26th April 2008, 09:55
Silver will always go up eventually as there is a limited supply

Yes, the silver price will rise but how is that an objective view on things for those here that bought LEASES and went long?

I have read of at least three such people here on this forum and everyone's telling them to "hang in there" because of the price increase due to the shortage. And... it seems that's they way they wish to go. I can't stop you guys that are doing that, but think about it, and deeply consider what I'm saying here...

In '80, the supply was 3 times as much as it is now. The price hit 50. Today, it's 1/3 the supply and mining and recycling can't keep up. But that's good right? The price should rise! Supply short, just fell a bit from a peak... Of course it will rise. That's a given!

But they can only lease the same bar so many times so a rising price therefore means... LESS OUNCES TO LEASE, thus less longer postions can be held on the way up. Most likely YOU won't make it to 21 again because the price won't make to 21, let alone 50+ until you're shaken off given how the rules, that are legally sanctioned in these kinds of deals btw, are.

March 17th was a high that quickly dropped. The rules were tripped. Too many longs on the same bars. So they have less than before so the price is frozen and trading sideways/down, sometimes up. And that... is like blood to the sharks. Consumption demand will love these lowering prices because, lucky us, we're in a hyperinflation and a bargain's a bargain and we need the production so... More long positions will be shaken off yet, even as the price stays below 21 and continues to fall sideways-down from here....

Even as the supply dwindles! It's a battle of psychology and wit, ie, at this point. And no... you're not clever enough to emerge victorious if you don't own it! The devil and the shenanigans are in the rules of what you got into.

That means, of course, that it's THEIR game. ONE party pulls the strings and that's the conman leasing it to you. There is only enough silver for HIM, ultimately, and he thanks you for all the wonderful fees you have paid him to rip you off, in addition to donating your savings to his cause to live the high life while you foot the bill.

You've been had and I hope you also realize the position you are in now if you're hanging and hoping. Get out of that deal now while you still have something to salvage. You're hoping for a rebound that can only, ultimately, kick you out of the game with a potential loss of EVERYTHING if you hold on long enough. Real silver does not lose all, but fractions of a bar on paper surely can.

You can TRY holding on and might succeed for a while, but I guarentee you won't likely be among the last men standing to lose to the con-men. Expect to take a hammering the entire way and do much nail-biting and losing much sleep as you face the increasing possibility every day of being squeezed out by SHEER ATTRITION. Consumption demand likes those lower prices and the conmen aren't going to squeeze themselves out; afterall, that's what YOU'RE for. Mining is trickling and recyling is lethargic while demand is rising in the world. Those factors will continue to meet in the erratic "middle" with the occaisonal or perhaps many encouraging and promising spikes in price to increase your risk so long as silver is short in supply.

The danger lies in the fact that

a) You're hoping and want to profit

b) The spikes will seem encouraging, as the bottoms freighten...

The shortage will certainly work AGAINST YOU, not FOR you if you don't get out and hold in your hand the real thing. And even then... Hyper-inflation can make anyone fold. But paper longs especially are at risk of almost certain total loss at this point if they keep hanging on. Unless, of course, you're the con-man... which you aren't. And that's the whole thing. It's not YOUR silver, so...

Are you SURE you lost too much at this point and need to hang in there ALL THE WAY or just in deep for that rebound, seeing as how this is, for some of you I address, your retirement money you have on the line?

I would exit now. I understand you want to regain your losses, but there comes a time to reconsider and cutting loses must become the goal. Remember: NOT doing this is how people royaly screw up the rest of their lives. People lose everything in siutations like these. This was how the depression unfolded and what it did to people. People commited suicide over these kinds of losses.

It's not worth the risk of being certain you will regain and surge ahead, I assure you. You CAN NOT beat the dollar, folks. So do yourself a wise favor and don't try to. Let the dollar beat up the dollar. It will in it's own time and it will go away. Don't bear it's bruises and broken bones and possibily let it cost you your life.

Having said all that...

It will probably rise to the high 17's and maybe high 18's again. Don't count on more and certainly not 21 or more AND being on board. Do some analysis or consult someone who knows the technical stuff better than I and set your exit point. Bear in mind, they are mortal can be wrong so if you can't form a clear picture, then just get out and don't look back. You'll be glad you did. Then buy some real pm, what you can afford after assessing your losses and needs; tell desire to shut the hell up!

And that's it. That's what I would do if I were in that situation.

Good "luck"!

Kelly
26th April 2008, 10:37
Richard posted:


You got into this in order to, presumably, protect your wealth. Okay, so if it rebounds then you only have MORE to worry about!

Actually Richard, one of the primary reasons I bought silver is that I am a jewelry maker and as the price of silver was rising rapidly, my wholesale costs to produce a product was going through the roof. Now that I have quite a stash of the stuff, of course I want silver to rise, because as it does, so does one of the end products; silver jewelry, which is still responsible for 30% of the silver market.

I am in a different postion than a lot of folks who buy silver. Though I also have boullion stashed away, my primary investment in silver has been in the silver products necessary to build a piece of jewelry, and all those products are absolutely affected by the spot price of silver. My initial plan was to hold off selling jewelry for a while until my investment at least reached a 50% mark up and then begin selling again. So silver is not just a long term investment for me, it is also a part of my livlihood.

You might be interested in knowing that in spite of the rather siginificant drop in the spot price, the wholesale cost of premium silver beads and findings has only dropped $1.14 an ounce or 4 cents per gram weight. So, while the wholesale cost of silver jewelry findings did indeed drop, the prices certainly did not drop as low as the spot price did. Essentially, while the jewelry end of the market is certainly effected by spot price, it is not nearly as volitile. I don't really know what the parameters are for the manufacturers of these jewelry supplies for changing their prices. Most of the supplies are made in Asia; primarily Thailand and Indonesia.

From the jewelry end of the silver market, the current spot price does not necessarily radically effect the price of supplies, should the spot drop. Or at least it takes a much longer time to see spot reflected in the wholesale cost of silver supplies. However, current spot price DOES certainly reflect what the end product will sell for...

prahudka
26th April 2008, 11:34
Richard posted:



Actually Richard, one of the primary reasons I bought silver is that I am a jewelry maker and as the price of silver was rising rapidly, my wholesale costs to produce a product was going through the roof. Now that I have quite a stash of the stuff, of course I want silver to rise, because as it does, so does one of the end products; silver jewelry, which is still responsible for 30% of the silver market.

Regarding the market, have a listen to the GOldseek radio discussion of silver and PM. Walzek indicates that he still finds the greatest price rises to be the seasonal rise in the last 4 months of the year. He expects that we are in the low part of the wave and in buy opportunity for a few months.

None of the above accounts for any of the catastrophism that caused so much of the run-up this year. Economic or other catastrophe will change everything.

Lots of the current kvetching is over the fact that many people here think the economic reactor core should have melted through enough rock to be halfway to China by now. But, it hasn't. Instead, stability has been restored, but it is an inflationary stability and a managed crash of the currency.

And lets all admit it, the Feng Shui in the Titanic ballroom really is marvelous, just marvelous.

Richard
26th April 2008, 11:36
You might be interested in knowing that in spite of the rather siginificant drop in the spot price, the wholesale cost of premium silver beads and findings has only dropped $1.14 an ounce or 4 cents per gram weight. So, while the wholesale cost of silver jewelry findings did indeed drop, the prices certainly did not drop as low as the spot price did.

Yes, I am interested to know that. That confirms what I said just above your post about the leasing or whatever the paper silver scam is. I'm learning the definitions of things. But I think people holding on to those will, in the long run, be forced to lose all or pull out after realizing their costly mistake. We all learn, though. I just don't want to see/hear some of the people I've spotted around here, that got large amounts tired up to lose it all. Like I said in another post, I used to trade currencies and I know how the ol' "I'll exit when I make up my losses" goes!

And even real silver... I have my small stash and am content to wait it out. If it's really worth as much as I think it is, then I don't need alot. Less stressful that way, too. Afterall, it may not take off in our lifetime to it's real value, and I can certainly see a long rough road ahead as I can a clean, smooth one!

Kelly
26th April 2008, 12:40
Yes, I am interested to know that. That confirms what I said just above your post about the leasing or whatever the paper silver scam is.

We have discussed the inadvisablily of leasing or belonging to a silver fund that issues you a piece of paper in return for your investment about a million times on this forum, and I suspect we will continue to discuss it. Most people here are very firm believers in owning the real thing. There are just too many scamers "conspiring" to rid you of your wealth these days, and I don't believe that statement qualifies as a "theory" either; unfortunately it's an actual statement of fact.

Silver has indeed been positioned to go through the roof for a long time now. In this economy, with prices for oil, utilities and food rising rapidly, along with the value of homes tanking, silver SHOULD already be well on it's way to $25 an ounce right now, because silver has always been the common man's hedge against inflation.

Most people who have been watching the charts are convinced this is not mere "market volitility;" we can handle that. What's happening to the silver market is the result of huge, secretive, privately held hedge funds, (like the banks have) shorting the silver Future's market in order to keep the price artificially low. I think the Fed and it's cronies must be scared sh&tless of silver prices going to the moon.

Historically, any time people lose confidence in the economy, they turn to silver and gold. Both metals tanked at precisely the time the Bear Stearns take over happened, and if there was ever any signal to the people that the economy is in dire straits, Bear Stearns was it. Silver should have moved considerably higher at that point, but instead it dropped like a brick. That is totally illogical in terms of historical precedence, and IMO a sure sign that Ted Butler has been right all along.

Kelly
26th April 2008, 13:49
And lets all admit it, the Feng Shui in the Titanic ballroom really is marvelous, just marvelous.


LOL! Oh, that's good! You are really funny sometimes! Thanks for the laugh!

Nehpets
26th April 2008, 18:24
Why mess with perfection. I save my little paper dollars like a good little wage slave and when silver takes a big dip - I buy and put my little coins in my little safe and go to my little job to save up some more paper for the next big dip.
Sometimes I worry that it will never dip again and that it will take off without me having as much as possible, but luckily this has not happened yet. I do not concern myself with the highs, my job is to maximize the amount of silver held with my limited amount of paper.
If silver does not go any lower than it did this cycle I came within 5 cents of buying it at its lowest. I find that I can get a fresh dip about every three months.
I do not like it when silver is expensive, it is like I took a pay cut and do not get as much silver for a given amount of labor. I do not understand why people here want to work more and be paid less?
I had a really excellent day today, I met an old friend from high school and I showed him some silver eagles I had in my pocket. His eyes lit up, He told me where he lived and said he raises a lot of his own food. He has chickens for eggs and meat and that he has lots of gardens around his house. He says he has more food than he knows what to do with and anytime I want to come on out he will trade me food for silver. I plan on going out soon and buy some eggs and fresh vegetables just to cement the connection with him.
I hope to be able to continue to purchase food unrestricted during the upcoming food crisis and only use my stored food as a last resort.
While silver is low this time and I go to work. I am going to start my own garden in the area around my house. I think that the frustration felt by people is because they are a sort of johnny one notes, there are many things you can do to prepare for the upcoming instabilities and storing silver is only one of them. Start a garden if it is possible where you live, get out and get deals on ammunition and store food and organize your eating to keep your food as fresh and new as possible.
I am constantly amazed that people will give me silver and gold and food and ammunition for little pieces of paper with ink on them.
My plan is that as the crisis which I expect in September gets closer I may concentrate more on the food and ammunition and decide I have enough silver. I will play it by ear.
There are too many people on this planet, which creates too many intractable problems, the earth is in the process of attempting to rid itself of this parasite called mankind. Believe me when I tell you that you have a lot more things to worry about than the price of silver.

Trvlr45
26th April 2008, 19:22
Believe me when I tell you that you have a lot more things to worry about than the price of silver.

Nehpets,

I couldn't agree more. I try to stay at least 100 miles from ANY big city. Unfortunately, I was just forced to go to California and then up the Washington state but I have now escaped and am in Montana. Unfortunately, the Chicago area is the next stop.

Richard
26th April 2008, 23:40
We have discussed the inadvisablily of leasing or belonging to a silver fund that issues you a piece of paper in return for your investment about a million times on this forum, and I suspect we will continue to discuss it.

Lol... (shakes head). Yeah, I guess a bit carried away there on the subject. It's when that guy came out the other day basically crying "what should I do? I don't understand this!", and people were saying "just hang in there". That's actually why I blew my luker status and started posting.

Anyway, $25 for silver is still way too little. So far, according to my studies, 10,000 would be a rip-off. Try 80 grand, and we're getting close! And that's assuming a conservative estimate of money supply. Some say 100 trillion, others say as much as 600 trillion...

That's my bet, though... about $83,000 per oz!

Richard
26th April 2008, 23:45
Unfortunately, I was just forced to go to California and then up the Washington state but I have now escaped and am in Montana. Unfortunately, the Chicago area is the next stop.

See ya around, Trvlr45? :cool:

Richard
26th April 2008, 23:51
There are too many people on this planet, which creates too many intractable problems, the earth is in the process of attempting to rid itself of this parasite called mankind. Believe me when I tell you that you have a lot more things to worry about than the price of silver.

Oh, put a sock in it, Unabomber... We could fit all the people in the world inside the state of TX and have a population density of under 40,000. And if that's too many people, then look to the stars... Nothing BUT people everywhere out there. Um... good luck being alone!

Anyway, I do the same thing. Trade a bit at a time, no stress no fuss. Works wonders for the psyche!

buggles
27th April 2008, 19:03
no need for flames.

you are correct that the planet is not overpopulated with humans.

i would contend that the planet is indeed overpopulated with irresponsible humans. stewardship and cooperation are lost on the great majority.

Trvlr45
27th April 2008, 21:00
See ya around, Trvlr45?

It's quite possible and I can only dream that your calculation of $83,000 an ounce would ever come true.

FedFixNix
28th April 2008, 01:22
Oh, put a sock in it, Unabomber... We could fit all the people in the world inside the state of TX and have a population density of under 40,000. And if that's too many people, then look to the stars... Nothing BUT people everywhere out there. Um... good luck being alone!

Hi Richard, and welcome out of Lurkland.

I just have a question about the above.

Where are you going to find th space in Texas to bury nearly 7 Billion corpses?

If you count only the habitable land in Texas, you have to stack all the people in there almost standing up, but then you would have no room left for growing food, feeding them, transporting them, eliminating their waste, getting in enough fresh water and enough fresh air.

Your logic here is flawed, because it requires so many acres of land to support a single family, and if you expect them to have any more than the barest necessities off life, then that required (fertile) land would be mush more.

If you tried to put that many people in Texas that would surely take care of our overpopulation problem almost overnight, or at least as fast as they died off from starvation, disease from massive sanitation problems, and living under conditions worse than the Nazi concentration camps.

You'd soon be down to about 30 or 40 million people still living in squalor and inhumane conditions.

We have to learn as a species that there are land to man ratios that are optimal for the most people if wealth is reasonably distributed among them. There are also maximum man to land ratios that when exceeded result in poverty, squalor and declining standards of living for all. Overcrowding also increases crime rates of all kinds, quick tempers, and unsociable behaviors.

Our planet could support 7 Billion people, or even more, is wealth and land resources were distributed more justly, but it would mean a lower standard of living for all. Only by returning to the laws of the jungle, or survival of the fittest, could the strongest among such overcrowded people survive, but we would basically be set back thousands of years in terms of building a great and just civilization.

Overpopulation is a problem. It will be resolved voluntarily and humanely, or it will be resolved with chaos, disaster, and disorder.

Some years ago I would have concluded with "take you pick". Now it is too late for wise choices that might avert disasters.

It appears that people have made their choices, or defaulted from doing so at all.

We can still mitigate what is coming, and work to correct what needs fixing, but the old days and old ways are leaving, and will not be seen again.

The next few decades are going to be a wild ride, even for seasoned and prime time cowboys. ;)

Nice to have you on board.

Richard
28th April 2008, 01:23
i would contend that the planet is indeed overpopulated with irresponsible humans. stewardship and cooperation are lost on the great majority.

I wasn't flamming anyone. Just a little razzin'...

Now, the truly irresponsible are the ones that know what they do is wrong, but do it anyway, knowing full well the consequences of their actions. That excludes the innocent majority, becuase if it didn't then mankind would simply not exist.

Trvlr45: I'm not counting on that number to ever show on the charts. If it does, then the dollar is forever gone. Which is to say... never gonna show! Oh well, who needs those peices of force-backed paper anyhow, right? :)

Richard
28th April 2008, 01:37
Nice to have you on board.

Thanks, FFN! Now, to answer your question...

A population density of just under 40,000 per mile is not over-crowded. Iirc, when I read the article I quoted that from, that's about the population density of living in Paris. If you need more room... There's always Oklahoma to the north :)

Point is, the earth is a lot bigger than it's given credit for. Or, put another way... Our "damage" to the environment... Ugh... I feel a headache coming on so, please, let's not go there and say we did, okay? I'm tried of refuting environmentlism... :mad: ;)

As for the old ways being gone... What else is new? Ways come and go. We humans love to populate just much any life-form. Nope, can't stay settled too long on anything... If the dang rules weren't in the way, we could be much further ahead already. Heck, probably never would have fallen behind!

Anyway, I don't know what to expect from the coming fall of the dollar. I only know what will happen if sticks around. I can see botht he rough road or the smoother one... But prepare for either to the extent I can. All one can do!

Gino
28th April 2008, 15:17
Well, reading some of the recent posts I began to feel that life was not worth living. Then I had another look at the historical chart and realised that, in fact, the price is less volitile than it has been in the past and there is strong baseline support for US$20 an ounce in 12 months. That means it will certainly oscillate above & below that on the way forward, but it is going forward. And that is an expectation without any acceleration in the appreciation of the PMs, that is expected by many.

As a kicker, the A$ has lost some ground against the US$ in recent days, insulating Aussie investors a little from the changes in the international price. So, on top of an appreciating silver value against the US$ (over time), the potential for the US$ to gain ground on the A$ could see those gains amplified here. So the story is still a very positive one, imo, even with the apparent manipulation of the market.

That is, of course, all cast in the light of Silver versus paper currency, which may not be your basis for valuation. Against Gold the following chart tells another interesting story.

http://www.silver-prices.net/wp-content/img/2007/09/silver-gold-comparison-6-years-01sep07.JPG

Still, I guess if you can't rest easy in the fundamentals and aren't sleeping at night, then perhaps it just ain't worth it.

prahudka
28th April 2008, 15:26
Still, I guess if you can't rest easy in the fundamentals and aren't sleeping at night, then perhaps it just ain't worth it.

Wise guy. :) Actually, if silver doesn't do well, it means everything is wonderful and we should all be very thankful. PM is insurance, not an annuity (at least not yet).

Kelly
28th April 2008, 17:46
Actually, if silver doesn't do well, it means everything is wonderful and we should all be very thankful. PM is insurance, not an annuity (at least not yet).

Good point. I must admit that in February when silver looked like it was on the fast track for the moon, on one hand I was delighted to see my investment grow, and on the otherhand I had this godawful feeling in the pit of my guts that said, "Ohmygod! Look at this! The economy really IS tanking and it's happening NOW!" But I don't necessarily see the fact that silver took a huge dip as a sure sign that "everything is wonderful." I see it as a sign that the big eight manipulators went on overdrive. If everything was wonderful the housing market would not be tanking, oil and food commodities would not be shooting the moon, food riots would not be happening world wide, employers would not be laying off people by the thousands, and wages would be keeping pace with inflation.

Seeing turn arounds in these areas making the front page are the kind of signs that tell us we should all be very thankful. The fact that silver took a nose dive just doesn't cut it.

nuslvrkwen
28th April 2008, 18:39
Wise guy. :) Actually, if silver doesn't do well, it means everything is wonderful and we should all be very thankful. PM is insurance, not an annuity (at least not yet).

:DThanks for that statement Prahudka! I've come to terms with my silver bullion being my insurance! I've been dissappointed with silver's price performance lately, also. But that's only because it's not going in the direction I calculated it would when I first bought - in February. I got into buying and holding silver bullion because I want to use it for money when I'm retired. If it goes down to $5 spot again I'll be OK - I'm not planning to retire for another 10 years. Check out the silver market these past 60 years, especially the last 35 years - SILVER IS DUE A RISE! After reading the threads in these forums I've learned so much!

1. To buy and hold metal. Not stocks or ETFs back by metal.

2. The hide and hold thread has inspired me to NOT to keep the bullion in my bank safety deposit box. (Only ONE of my stash locations, I'm thinking I can keep my loose gemstones in it. If the bank closes I can still retreive those and papers).

3. If I was going to sell my metals. And I wasn't selling them BACK to my dealer - I'd OFFER THEM FOR SALE to the people in the thread FIRST before putting them on eBay. Why? 'Cause you'd probably get them BACK at a decent price, when you're ready to buy again.

4. Think about how much time it took to get that money together for this PM nest egg. Are you willing to put that much back into cash; or in stocks again? (My answer is NO! And I've got less than $10K invested so far).

Timing is also an issue. I don't have kids to raise now, or huge debt load. I have a day job that pays for all my expenses and allows me to have money to invest. This job pays much better than government jobs I've had; better than tech jobs too. My work history has been one where I didn't have the education to command a large salary from college! (Like engineering or being a lawyer). This has turned out to be a good thing! I'd over spend anyway. My son does - and he makes 3 - 4 times what I do. (He's a aeronautical engineer, and STILL has no PM savings!) I'm surrounded by lawyers who earn six figure salaries YET don't have any PM savings, and barely understand the overpriced mortgages they've gotten themselves into!

I've been a working jewelry artist (GIA GG). Able to show and sell in Germany and the UK. I'll be doing that again when I'm retired from the day job. And writing. I've compared what I can get after expenses building my kind of jewelry, and getting short stories published. The jewelry beats the average (9 - 14%) return on 401K investment. This economy has always been where I'm NOT. My work background has made me not count on what ever the perception is that a government should do for its' people. Perhaps this is true for the rest of you? When everyone was using credit for everything for example- I hated the thought, and didn't use credit this whole decade! I've paid off every educational loan I had except a defaulted PLUS loan that will be paid off in 3 years. I have NO credit cards, NO car loan, NO mortgage! Never have I felt SO LUCKY! All this decade I was avoiding being made into a sucker! The success of investing is figuring out how NOT to be a sucker!

I have an assistant at my day job; he's handicapped - just by watching my enthusiasm, and listening to me try to figure things out - he took his inheritance he received last Christmas time; and bought silver bullion and gold coins! I just told him the silver's spot price for today his answer? "OH, well - I'll have to get some more this weekend!"

At the beginning of this year, had I not bought silver bullion - I would have bought a diamond anniversary band to celebrate NOT driving for 14 years! OK so it's a girl thing... Had to do the math to remember the last time I drove to work! I'm not sure how much the ring would have lost value by now, but I STILL feel better having bought REAL insurance!

If you're stuck with paper backed instruments I feel for you, but get your cash back as soon as possible and buy the real deal!

Trvlr45
28th April 2008, 19:55
:DThanks for that statement Prahudka! I've come to terms with my silver bullion being my insurance! I've been dissappointed with silver's price performance lately, also. But that's only because it's not going in the direction I calculated it would when I first bought - in February. I got into buying and holding silver bullion because I want to use it for money when I'm retired. If it goes down to $5 spot again I'll be OK - I'm not planning to retire for another 10 years. Check out the silver market these past 60 years, especially the last 35 years - SILVER IS DUE A RISE! After reading the threads in these forums I've learned so much!

1. To buy and hold metal. Not stocks or ETFs back by metal.

2. The hide and hold thread has inspired me to NOT to keep the bullion in my bank safety deposit box. (Only ONE of my stash locations, I'm thinking I can keep my loose gemstones in it. If the bank closes I can still retreive those and papers).

3. If I was going to sell my metals. And I wasn't selling them BACK to my dealer - I'd OFFER THEM FOR SALE to the people in the thread FIRST before putting them on eBay. Why? 'Cause you'd probably get them BACK at a decent price, when you're ready to buy again.

4. Think about how much time it took to get that money together for this PM nest egg. Are you willing to put that much back into cash; or in stocks again? (My answer is NO! And I've got less than $10K invested so far).

Timing is also an issue. I don't have kids to raise now, or huge debt load. I have a day job that pays for all my expenses and allows me to have money to invest. This job pays much better than government jobs I've had; better than tech jobs too. My work history has been one where I didn't have the education to command a large salary from college! (Like engineering or being a lawyer). This has turned out to be a good thing! I'd over spend anyway. My son does - and he makes 3 - 4 times what I do. (He's a aeronautical engineer, and STILL has no PM savings!) I'm surrounded by lawyers who earn six figure salaries YET don't have any PM savings, and barely understand the overpriced mortgages they've gotten themselves into!

I've been a working jewelry artist (GIA GG). Able to show and sell in Germany and the UK. I'll be doing that again when I'm retired from the day job. And writing. I've compared what I can get after expenses building my kind of jewelry, and getting short stories published. The jewelry beats the average (9 - 14%) return on 401K investment. This economy has always been where I'm NOT. My work background has made me not count on what ever the perception is that a government should do for its' people. Perhaps this is true for the rest of you? When everyone was using credit for everything for example- I hated the thought, and didn't use credit this whole decade! I've paid off every educational loan I had except a defaulted PLUS loan that will be paid off in 3 years. I have NO credit cards, NO car loan, NO mortgage! Never have I felt SO LUCKY! All this decade I was avoiding being made into a sucker! The success of investing is figuring out how NOT to be a sucker!

I have an assistant at my day job; he's handicapped - just by watching my enthusiasm, and listening to me try to figure things out - he took his inheritance he received last Christmas time; and bought silver bullion and gold coins! I just told him the silver's spot price for today his answer? "OH, well - I'll have to get some more this weekend!"

At the beginning of this year, had I not bought silver bullion - I would have bought a diamond anniversary band to celebrate NOT driving for 14 years! OK so it's a girl thing... Had to do the math to remember the last time I drove to work! I'm not sure how much the ring would have lost value by now, but I STILL feel better having bought REAL insurance!

If you're stuck with paper backed instruments I feel for you, but get your cash back as soon as possible and buy the real deal!

Nuslvrkwen,

I've done just about exactly what you have done. For years now I wanted to buy a house but haven't because I didn't want all that debt hanging over my head. I heard Dave Ramsey say one time that if you owe more than you make in a year you're bankrupt and he's right. I would love to go out and buy a new car but I don't. I keep the same, reliable 35 year old relic I've had for 13 years. Except for gas it's cheap. I put a few thousand into it every 5 years or so to keep it reliable. I can buy a lot of gas for a new car payment, insurance and registration fees. That be be changing in the near future though.

I ran into an older lady in Nebraska a while back and she had a rather odd view of how to do things these days. She said, "Why own anything?" "It just gives them an excuse to tax you on it." She's right. I guess subconsciously I've been doing that for years. She went on to tell me she was going to buy a 20ft travel trailer to live in. That exact same thought had crossed my mind.
That's what I did for quite a while. However, because I'm an OTR truck driver it's a little more bearable than for someone else. I don't need what other people need.

PM's are an insurance policy for me. I've never trusted the stockmarket but never really knew why until recently. When it comes right down to it, it's better not to own anything except what no one knows you own and if they know you own it then make sure it isn't worth anything. No one wants to steal what they don't know you have.

Trvlr45
28th April 2008, 20:01
2. The hide and hold thread has inspired me to NOT to keep the bullion in my bank safety deposit box. (Only ONE of my stash locations, I'm thinking I can keep my loose gemstones in it. If the bank closes I can still retreive those and papers).

LOL! I love it! I was just thinking. I don't even know HOW much I have and I have it scattered all over the country. I couldn't get to it all without driving a couple thousand miles. I guess I should probably take an inventory, HUH?

Jerry S.
28th April 2008, 20:03
Drop the airsick bag guys, once silver reaches it's proper ratio to Gold (and it will) you will all be happy campers. The Feds can only manipulate Silver for so long, the shortage and cost to get it out of the ground alone will make market adjustments. Europe will not follow suite with our Fed guys & PM's are internationally golden (no pun intended). I just bought 500 oz's at 17.45 and do not regret it a bit. I have bought previously at 11.00, sold off in mid march and doubled my holdings. I know that the speculative reports are touting Silver to reach 40-50 by years end, I give it a max of 30...and that ain't bad.

Trvlr45
28th April 2008, 20:13
Want another computer tip? When you want to quote the whole post that somebody said (so it's posted in a blue frame) you can either hit the "quote" button on the right hand bottom of the post you want to quote, OR you can highlight the specific passage you want to quote with your mouse, press control + C to copy it, and then when you get to the posting page, just hit that 4th icon in from the right on the second bar at the top (the one that looks like a talk frame for a cartoon) and press control + V to paste it and that passage will show up as a quote. It's easy.

I'm all for the banana boat for Belize...Been dreamin' about taking off for there for years. :)

Thanx for the tip. I'll see if I can't start using that one too.

Trvlr45
28th April 2008, 20:25
Hi Richard, and welcome out of Lurkland.

I just have a question about the above.

Where are you going to find th space in Texas to bury nearly 7 Billion corpses?

If you count only the habitable land in Texas, you have to stack all the people in there almost standing up, but then you would have no room left for growing food, feeding them, transporting them, eliminating their waste, getting in enough fresh water and enough fresh air.

Your logic here is flawed, because it requires so many acres of land to support a single family, and if you expect them to have any more than the barest necessities off life, then that required (fertile) land would be mush more.

If you tried to put that many people in Texas that would surely take care of our overpopulation problem almost overnight, or at least as fast as they died off from starvation, disease from massive sanitation problems, and living under conditions worse than the Nazi concentration camps.

You'd soon be down to about 30 or 40 million people still living in squalor and inhumane conditions.

We have to learn as a species that there are land to man ratios that are optimal for the most people if wealth is reasonably distributed among them. There are also maximum man to land ratios that when exceeded result in poverty, squalor and declining standards of living for all. Overcrowding also increases crime rates of all kinds, quick tempers, and unsociable behaviors.

Our planet could support 7 Billion people, or even more, is wealth and land resources were distributed more justly, but it would mean a lower standard of living for all. Only by returning to the laws of the jungle, or survival of the fittest, could the strongest among such overcrowded people survive, but we would basically be set back thousands of years in terms of building a great and just civilization.

Overpopulation is a problem. It will be resolved voluntarily and humanely, or it will be resolved with chaos, disaster, and disorder.

Some years ago I would have concluded with "take you pick". Now it is too late for wise choices that might avert disasters.

It appears that people have made their choices, or defaulted from doing so at all.

We can still mitigate what is coming, and work to correct what needs fixing, but the old days and old ways are leaving, and will not be seen again.

The next few decades are going to be a wild ride, even for seasoned and prime time cowboys. ;)

Nice to have you on board.

Well said FFN,

I think Richard is a little off also eventhough everything else he says is pretty much spot on. I've heard that saying before, as well. It doesn't compute. This planet has already reached it's carrying cpacity and we are starting to pay the price. I've already done my part. I don't have any kids. Don't get me wrong, I love 'em but at some point the human race is going to have to stop breeding like cockroaches. The funny thing is that the people who are having smaller families are the ones being burdened the worst financially by the people who continue to breed un-contollably.

Trvlr45
28th April 2008, 20:41
Thanks, FFN! Now, to answer your question...

A population density of just under 40,000 per mile is not over-crowded. Iirc, when I read the article I quoted that from, that's about the population density of living in Paris. If you need more room... There's always Oklahoma to the north :)

Point is, the earth is a lot bigger than it's given credit for. Or, put another way... Our "damage" to the environment... Ugh... I feel a headache coming on so, please, let's not go there and say we did, okay? I'm tried of refuting environmentlism... :mad: ;)

As for the old ways being gone... What else is new? Ways come and go. We humans love to populate just much any life-form. Nope, can't stay settled too long on anything... If the dang rules weren't in the way, we could be much further ahead already. Heck, probably never would have fallen behind!

Anyway, I don't know what to expect from the coming fall of the dollar. I only know what will happen if sticks around. I can see botht he rough road or the smoother one... But prepare for either to the extent I can. All one can do!

Richard,

I've never been to Paris but I'm in Chicago right now. This place is a zoo! I've been to New York, LA and the rest just as you probably have. There are too many people in all those locations. Vegas is getting the same way. What the various states do is build a huge city center, import millions from around the world and sustain them with our tax dollars. Then they drain the wallets of everyone in the state to pay for the monster they can't feed.

Las Vegas is a perect example of a disaster for the state of Nevada. I've been a resident there for 10 years (in Reno). The cost of living is through the roof. Why? One reason is because California is over-populated, over taxed, and over regulated so all the people who could afford to moved to Nevada and drove the cost of housing through the roof.

Then you have Vegas. A huge drain on everyone's wallets and no doubt home to the biggest part of the 250,000 illegal aliens that live in Nevada. Vegas is now running out of water so they want to steal it from Utah.

It's a chain reaction. My GOD! have you been to Washington D.C in the rush hour? It's a freekin' nightmare. The people that write articles like the one you read are Globalists, Communists and Fascists. Go spend a week in Los Angeles to get a real good look at what they want Wyoming to be like in the future. And they're already working on it. You should see Cheyenne. It's booming and it won't be long before the resident's of Cody are paying for it.

Trvlr45
28th April 2008, 20:45
P.S. the only good thing about this ridiculous population explosion on this planet is that it will make the small quantity of available silver even more valuble when it finally does go where it needs to go.

Richard
29th April 2008, 00:33
"Program Smith" Trvlr45: Yes, been to those cities and "then some". ALL over north America and way into Mexico. And I live near Chicago. By Gary, to be specific. Lived here all my life. I'm a city dweller, and have no plans to change that.

Chicago's not that bad, compared to the other cities. Some say the traffic's bad, but I doubt they ever been through Atalanta's rush hour. Somehow, things in THAT city seem worse than NYC! And I was reading the other day about the Comstock mine. After a while, wagon traffic could clog the streets of Virginia City for hours on end.

Hmm... seems back then, there were "too many people" too. And of course, going back to anceint times when there were too many people at a fraction of what we have now... there were, well... too many people! People were always fighting over resource they considered about to run out, over the fact that his neighbor was too many in number. The Incan and Mayan Indian cultures... all but gone today, as they perished to drought, yet today there's more people in South and Central America as ever there have been.

Every assessment of over-populationists has proven wrong, time and again. And while the earth has it's upper limits, I don't think we've come close enough yet to create the need to wittle it down. If anything, we are just pressing the need to finally take advantage of the solar system. And give that some time... human populations will be into the quadrillions and poverty will be unheard of. Only in boring old encyclopedias of the past will we ever know of such things.

Anyway, I want you guys to consider something...

Could it be that we aren't overcrowded so much as under-developed? And that that under-development is one of (if not THE) cause of the monetary system? Afterall, the distortions that that most wonderful paper causes just "might", in all it's wonderful display of cost-effectiveness (which we all know never lies and presents all possibilities to within 1 X 10^-1000th of a penny...), make it ineffective to advance to any meaningful degree?

Oh, and I agree about the tax orgy... Heck, you don't have to tell me! I live near one of these cities and let me tall yall... it ain't cheap on us either! All manner of taxes and licenses and fees and charges and permits and... That's the list, but it goes on and on and on anyway, as far as the eye can see... So cut the crap about being the robbed country-bumpkin at the expense of us city-folk. EVERYONE is taxed unjustly. But that's the money system for ya. This money system is one of shrinkage on all things. It makes EVERYTHING look like a bad idea sooner or later. And why wouldn't bad accounting practice have that effect? It is, afterall, an instrument of deceit. Can lies, then, tell truths?

Now...

Me? A communist?! A facist?!

Come on... Do be serious!

The commies and socialists will lie/childishly beleive and say anything is possible under their anything but practicle monetary and resulting political systems. I'm saying things would be grand WITHOUT those things. But I can see this money is having the exact effect it's supposed to be having. Point fingers at the innocent, dissention within the ranks and all that...

Well, I don't blame you guys for anything. Just so you know. I'm okay, you're okay... we're all okay! Okay?! :)

So lighten up! Relax!

Put another way... I watched the movie "Wargames" the other day. Ever see that movie, any of you? I'm sure you have... it's a classic!
Anyway, just think about the end of that movie, when the big bad nuclear monster was about to explode. But... it was all an illussion.
Well, what we're experiencing here is no different. Go ahead and reach out and touch the big bad debt monster in all it's negativity... It won't bite. It CAN'T because it's not real! It's a horror story ON PAPER, an author's imgaination. So do the wise thing... don't think like the illusion on paper. There is naught but loss of your real potential and a loss of faith in one's fellow man. Lonely, and finite. That is no way to live.

From the mouth of a former "Unabomber"... I was wrong! That's the nature of counterfeit though... As I said in another post, it's like a murder weapon, weilded by the orginial crimnal but, since it gets passed about... It has everyone's fingerprints on it so we all look guilty one way or the other.

And while things seem bad now, because it hasn't blown away yet, I'm thinking it once it does things are really gonna change for the better. It's like I was trying to tell a greenie... That their philosophy was naught but the mouth peice of the green money that creates the realities they experience. All things being a bad idea under that influence, of course they were just speaking for it and not some higher environmental cause. And when one thinks about it, there is nothing clean enough for the Green Temple and it's Kyoto Dragon aside from absolute zero; and that theoretical state is just that: theoretical and has never been observed in reality. Not that Greens ever listen to a word I or reality says... they got their nightmare-staturated minds made up about everything.

But trust Richard on this... He's got it ALL right, not just some things!

I've been watching this monster for a LONG time and have only recently concluded... It's nothing. It's fake. It's un-reality. Everything around it is a distortion of what both is and isn't possible, past present and future. It's a representation of the futile, a certain defeat that can not be stopped, a certainty that life is impossible. At some point, though, one must stop and ask...

Is such a thing possible?!

But mankind will not only survive, he will FLORISH!

And if I'm wrong... But since we exist and have done so for quite some time...

I have very strong doubts that I am.

Edit: "P.S. the only good thing about this ridiculous population explosion on this planet is that it will make the small quantity of available silver even more valuble when it finally does go where it needs to go."

Trvlr: Rarities to commons... Just what I've been saying! lol

Richard
29th April 2008, 01:14
Drop the airsick bag guys, once silver reaches it's proper ratio to Gold (and it will) you will all be happy campers. The Feds can only manipulate Silver for so long, the shortage and cost to get it out of the ground alone will make market adjustments. Europe will not follow suite with our Fed guys & PM's are internationally golden (no pun intended). I just bought 500 oz's at 17.45 and do not regret it a bit. I have bought previously at 11.00, sold off in mid march and doubled my holdings. I know that the speculative reports are touting Silver to reach 40-50 by years end, I give it a max of 30...and that ain't bad.

Wow, seems there's been quite a bit of posting today/yesterday. Gosh, you guys give me so much to read! Anyway, I wanted to pick on this one because it refered to the gold/silver ratio, which is OF COURSE why I like silver so much! Fisrt, for the record, I dont think I will breech much past 35 this year. On the charts, at least. But, yeah, the charts... All messed up!

I hope this posts right... It didn't, had to recreate the table!

Rhodium: 967,000 oz
Platinum: 6,785,000 oz
Palladium: 9,000,000 oz
Silver: 1,000,000,000 oz
Gold: 5,000,000,000 oz

Iirc, those were 2007 supply estimates.

Silver/Gold: 5:1
Silver/Palladium: 111:1
Silver/Platinum: 147:1
Silver/Rhodium: 1042:1

Gold/Palladium: 556:1
Gold/Platinum 737:1
Gold/Rhodium: 5210:1

Palladium/Platimum: ~1.3:1
Palladium/Rhodium: ~9.3:1

Platinum/Rhodium: 7:1

All rounded so as to make a nice, neat little table but as you can see, it's not just gold and silver that's off. It's all mostly off! In dollar terms, that all depends on what you think the money supply is. I use 100 trillion to be conservative, which makes gold as a % of all pm, about $16,620/oz. That's where I get my 83 grand/oz silver. But like I say, that hardly matters. Still, that makes even expensive rhodium a steal. What does it cost? Something close to 10 grand per ounce? Do the math, and you'll see it's worth millions!

Trvlr45
29th April 2008, 01:37
Richard,

I don't think you're a communist or a fascist. I just think that so much of what we read is pure manipulation by people that are that it's hard to filter through it and figure out what is real. It's just my opinion that this planet has reached it's carrying capacity as ar as people go. I'm also a city dweller myself but can also say I'm getting fed up with it. I also know that you pay your share of taxes. That wasn't my point. My point was that huge cities cost a lot to run and forcing someone that doesn't live in one to pay for it just ain't right.

Richard
29th April 2008, 02:24
Richard, My point was that huge cities cost a lot to run and forcing someone that doesn't live in one to pay for it just ain't right.

Yes I know. I smoke, therefore I pay for more for the education of other people's kids. And do they every thank me? Hell no... I have to hear more and more eceryday what a barbarian I am for "drownign them in clouds of toxic smoke!" and so I have to pay MORE taxes to keep smoking!

All that on top of inflation...

But that's just it. Once the ball starts to roll, the injustices increase. People get irate, start thinking "X are a pox" and yadda yadda...

And I admit... I have my struggles in seeing past the illusion too. I look at people and what they're trapped in and what they say because of it... Gets me irate too! Every day it's hear, makes me think it will never go away and I get short with people around me.

But... it's not their fault. Most of us are good (if not knowledgeable) and aren't responsible for what's happening. But... it is everyone's responsibility to do something about it. And the beauty is...

If everyone just went out and tried to buy but ONE OUNCE of silver, it would all be revealed! And really, we have it easy, don't we? That's ALL it would take to send the dollar running away forever.

Frustrating as hell to wait out, I know! lol

Xenodias
29th April 2008, 09:12
What the hell is going on? It's highly suspected that the Fed is going to cut the interest rate down to 2% either today or tomorrow, yet silver is down over .50 right now?!?!

prahudka
29th April 2008, 09:48
What the hell is going on? It's highly suspected that the Fed is going to cut the interest rate down to 2% either today or tomorrow, yet silver is down over .50 right now?!?!

In the words of Alan Greenspan, "unwarranted euphoria." It is a fact of life. It makes fortunes and takes them away. People are loving the Dow and the dollar. That means your job might be safer than you thought (for now), but that no one wants the silver haven right now. Its all BS.

But, it is a long way from recommendations to buy with both hands or put "all in." That might have been a brilliant play and yes there was danger that the market was going to melt down and send silver to the moon. But, the reactor core has been cooled for now. The bet that was made was a bet on catastrophe happening. That is much different that really picking a good start up company with good earnings and the next big product. This is the gamble many made.

prahudka
29th April 2008, 11:43
What the hell is going on? It's highly suspected that the Fed is going to cut the interest rate down to 2% either today or tomorrow, yet silver is down over .50 right now?!?!

Here are your three other obvious problems: 1. Bad karma; 2. bad astrological chart; and 3. you are bewitched.

http://www.newsmonster.co.uk/paranormal-unexplained/britains-biggest-banks-use-astrology-to-play-the-markets.html


Christeen Skinner blinks at the screen of her computer and takes another slurp of coffee. It’s half past seven in the morning and she’s preparing for a crucial meeting with the chief executive of the High and Mighty fashion chain.

Apart from the black cat dozing on her lap, the only clue to Christeen’s occupation as a 21st century astrologer is a copy of an Ephemeris that lies open at a page marked “Mercury March 25th”.

“The financial crisis has ensured that I’m busier than ever,” says Christeen. “People in the City need to know what is just around the corner. I can help with that.”

Christeen is one of a growing, albeit secretive, network of astrologers who work for seemingly conservative British institutions such as high street banks, City investment funds and retailers. Desperate to avoid financial meltdown in the ongoing ‘credit crunch’ and to spot fashions and consumer trends before they start, these institutions have turned to the stars to divine the future.

Now it all comes together!

Eph 6:12 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high [places].

Richard
29th April 2008, 12:56
What the hell is going on? It's highly suspected that the Fed is going to cut the interest rate down to 2% either today or tomorrow, yet silver is down over .50 right now?!?!

You answered your own question: the slight down is because they think the rate will be cut, which would give the dollar a little boost.
But I'm not so sure they will cut it this time. Nothing's bleeding to death and things SEEM stable enough... Plus, the first rebates are supposed to be getting to people today or tomorrow. If there's going to be a cut, it will be an emergency one later to stop their meddled market from bleeding to death. If that starts to happen, but I just don't see that in the immediate future, so...

Sit tight, silver's not dying... Just sideways/down for a bit! :)

nuslvrkwen
29th April 2008, 14:10
Nuslvrkwen,

I ran into an older lady in Nebraska a while back and she had a rather odd view of how to do things these days. She said, "Why own anything?" "It just gives them an excuse to tax you on it." She's right. I guess subconsciously I've been doing that for years. She went on to tell me she was going to buy a 20ft travel trailer to live in. That exact same thought had crossed my mind.

PM's are an insurance policy for me. I've never trusted the stockmarket but never really knew why until recently. When it comes right down to it, it's better not to own anything except what no one knows you own and if they know you own it then make sure it isn't worth anything. No one wants to steal what they don't know you have.

Trvlr45!!! :p

Think container hotels! Aren't people selling flatbeds and trucks where you are from now? There's huge inventories of them under the bridges near the Port Of Oakland. Ever since I saw something on TV... (yeah, I know...) about turning a freight container into a room, I've been thinking about container hotels! Those containers go on trucks, trains, & cargo ships. I started wondering how many of them would be contaminated with something so they couldn't be recycled. But, if you could find enough of them per unit; they'd be cheaper than building a modular space.

They can be stacked for multistory rooms or suites, and put on stable floatation devices so they can be where tides rise and fall. And have views. So many people would be into staying at something like that for the novelty. Permanent housing is being done in Holland, I think. The containers can also be moved as a unit from one location to another! Think what could be done during big outdoor events where the hotels are miles away! There are places during the winter that elderly go, like Quartzite and Yuma Arizona. Most use an RV to get there, but during a big rockhound/gem/coin show - with the right container hotel set up - a person would make a fortune!

I really enjoy living in the city because I can do so much without having to drive. We have Commuter Check here. I can have my transportation (BART/MUNI fares) paid for with the same kind of withdrawl program for the 401K - pre tax! It lowers my taxable income. So in essence, I get a tax break for using public transportation. I've been checking out cities located in tropical places like Puerto Rico, Hawaii, Belize, and Costa Rica. Any places like that have huge rents for anyone just working there. But running something like that where surfers would go. My retirement would be set!

DaveK
29th April 2008, 16:37
I ran into an older lady in Nebraska a while back and she had a rather odd view of how to do things these days. She said, "Why own anything?" "It just gives them an excuse to tax you on it." She's right.

Fair enough, but renting things doesn't help, as the owner still pays the taxes and then passes them on to you. In this direction lies only the options of having decent stuff and hiding it, or giving up the game entirely and living a lifestyle that is fulfilling but with very little traditionally monetary value.



Hmm... seems back then, there were "too many people" too. And of course, going back to anceint times when there were too many people at a fraction of what we have now... there were, well... too many people! People were always fighting over resource they considered about to run out, over the fact that his neighbor was too many in number. The Incan and Mayan Indian cultures... all but gone today, as they perished to drought, yet today there's more people in South and Central America as ever there have been.

Every assessment of over-populationists has proven wrong, time and again. And while the earth has it's upper limits, I don't think we've come close enough yet to create the need to wittle it down.


In any ecosystem the 'limits' are very much dependent on how we use and maintain the system. For example, as you are no doubt aware, farming practices in the midwest have and continue (to a lesser extent) to deplete the soil, reducing topsoil depth. Is this soil being used beyond it's limit? No, it just is not being maintained in a way that eliminates soil loss.

Obviously we have a population that is way beyond the Earth's ability to support it without our widespread use of agriculture (which of course displaces a significant proportion of the natural enviornment, a fact which has its effect, regardless of how you value it).



If anything, we are just pressing the need to finally take advantage of the solar system. And give that some time... human populations will be into the quadrillions and poverty will be unheard of.

Human life independent of the Earth may happen someday. At this point we don't know most of the problems associated with living off the Earth. The time it will require to develop the technologies and techniques to achieve that goal may very well extend into the days of our great grand children. I doubt very much if anyone living today will survive to see the first child concieved and born off-world.

A more important goal, IMO, is to ensure that those of us who are not actively working on such things (I, for one, am neither a rocket scientist or biologist, or member of any of the other fields directly related to getting off planet, figuring out how to live off-planet, or any other such grand goals), to ensure that civilization in general remains stable. That means keeping a close eye on our government and bankers and businesses and all the other people that might, whether intentional or not, seek to destabilize the system.


Could it be that we aren't overcrowded so much as under-developed? And that that under-development is one of (if not THE) cause of the monetary system?


Depends on what you mean by 'developed'. I'm woefully underqualified, probably along with the rest of humanity, to determine if the planet is overpopulated. My feeling is that we are not, in an absolute sense, overpopulated, but that we are over-consuming the resources available to us. We are wasteful and complacent and do not plan for failure.

Rather than under-developed, I would say we are dreadfully mis-allocated. The increasing population of the ultra-rich order multi-million dollar private luxury boats (and thus pay for an entire market to support their lavish needs) while others struggle to find food. I'll stress that this is not a problem of government, but of culture. Too many people without enough compassion for others and a society that does not stigmatize people for acting without compassion. Such excessive displays of wealth should be scorned, not coveted.

This is not to say that possession of extreme wealth is bad. Extreme wealth is typically not Scrooge McDuck style vaults of gold locked away from the world, but takes the form of command of a portion of the economy, such as control over a business. Extreme wealth is simply a very large ability to do. It is what one chooses to do that causes problems, in particular, the mis-allocation of resources.



So cut the crap about being the robbed country-bumpkin at the expense of us city-folk.


In fact, it is usually the other way around. County roads and electrical systems are usually maintained by the economic power of the nearby cities. I'm not sure why people feel this is unjust, as if this infrastructure is of great utility in encouraging people to live and work in the country, where we keep our farms, which produce our food.

We could perhaps let the farmers privatize the whole of the rural electrical, road, water and telephone systems, and then work the cost for the maintainance into the food prices. But then people would bitch and moan about food prices and how the government should take over the rural infrastructure and provide it 'for free' to keep the costs low (which is of course what they do now).



EVERYONE is taxed unjustly. But that's the money system for ya.

I do not believe that taxes are unjust. I do believe that sometimes people can let their selfishness make them rather short-sighted.

I argue for a system where the federal government collects only sales tax on all end-use transactions, and where the money collected is then destroyed. It then coins new money to distribute for the construction, maintenance and quality control of infrastructure and other such commons projects. All banks are restricted to a 100% reserve rate and are, in an emergency (such as a run), allowed to, if no other buyer can be found, transfer control of assets to the federal government to raise the necessary funds.

waynetheking
29th April 2008, 17:42
but did anyone here see the tv show "the outer limits"? there was a production where these 3 guys put themselves in a glass sealed coffin like contaner in a cave.They sleept for years hoping the price of gold would up. they had hoarded all this freaking gold for tha future. two of them died due to fallen rocks on the glass coffins but the sole survivor had all the gold. he walked thru the desert, died of thristation and this body was met with a couple of "future beings"..His gold was worthless!!.. who knows what the future may hold here. i saw this show when i was about 10...i just can't seem to get it out of my head!!...lets buy and hold and not get greedy like those guys. everything will work out thru time!...just a little lite imput here folks, sometimes i think we need that!!

Trvlr45
29th April 2008, 19:16
Trvlr45!!! :p

Think container hotels! Aren't people selling flatbeds and trucks where you are from now? There's huge inventories of them under the bridges near the Port Of Oakland. Ever since I saw something on TV... (yeah, I know...) about turning a freight container into a room, I've been thinking about container hotels! Those containers go on trucks, trains, & cargo ships. I started wondering how many of them would be contaminated with something so they couldn't be recycled. But, if you could find enough of them per unit; they'd be cheaper than building a modular space.

They can be stacked for multistory rooms or suites, and put on stable floatation devices so they can be where tides rise and fall. And have views. So many people would be into staying at something like that for the novelty. Permanent housing is being done in Holland, I think. The containers can also be moved as a unit from one location to another! Think what could be done during big outdoor events where the hotels are miles away! There are places during the winter that elderly go, like Quartzite and Yuma Arizona. Most use an RV to get there, but during a big rockhound/gem/coin show - with the right container hotel set up - a person would make a fortune!

I really enjoy living in the city because I can do so much without having to drive. We have Commuter Check here. I can have my transportation (BART/MUNI fares) paid for with the same kind of withdrawl program for the 401K - pre tax! It lowers my taxable income. So in essence, I get a tax break for using public transportation. I've been checking out cities located in tropical places like Puerto Rico, Hawaii, Belize, and Costa Rica. Any places like that have huge rents for anyone just working there. But running something like that where surfers would go. My retirement would be set!

LOL!!! Haaaaa Haaaaaaa! You may be on to something! if we get in on the ground floor now those containers could make us rich! I wonder what the property taxes would be? I'm going to seriously consider that. Hell, those things would be hurricane proof, too. And virtually fire-proof. You may be on to something.

Trvlr45
29th April 2008, 19:24
but did anyone here see the tv show "the outer limits"? there was a production where these 3 guys put themselves in a glass sealed coffin like contaner in a cave.They sleept for years hoping the price of gold would up. they had hoarded all this freaking gold for tha future. two of them died due to fallen rocks on the glass coffins but the sole survivor had all the gold. he walked thru the desert, died of thristation and this body was met with a couple of "future beings"..His gold was worthless!!.. who knows what the future may hold here. i saw this show when i was about 10...i just can't seem to get it out of my head!!...lets buy and hold and not get greedy like those guys. everything will work out thru time!...just a little lite imput here folks, sometimes i think we need that!!

LOLLLL!!! Yep, you're right. We do need it. Some of these posts are halarious! Did I tell anyone about the visitation I had years ago by the Pladians? LOL!

Trvlr45
29th April 2008, 19:30
I do not believe that taxes are unjust. I do believe that sometimes people can let their selfishness make them rather short-sighted.

They are damn sure unjust when your government can't account for trillions that are missing or when Nancy Pelosi takes 25 million and spends it to refurbish the waterfront in San Fransisco so her husbands property a mile up the coast will go up in value. That is just one example of thousands of abuses, on both sides of the isle, of our tax dollars. That's why we are all buying silver to begin with. They print up money out of thin air and spend it on pet projects that put more cash in their personal portfolios leaving us to hold the bag. That is pricisely why so many people are buying silver and gold. It's a last ditch effort to keep some of what you worked for.

Trvlr45
29th April 2008, 19:45
Fair enough, but renting things doesn't help, as the owner still pays the taxes and then passes them on to you. In this direction lies only the options of having decent stuff and hiding it, or giving up the game entirely and living a lifestyle that is fulfilling but with very little traditionally monetary value.

Yes I know about renting that's why I don't do that either. When I do I'll find out the portion of my rent that is property taxes and write them off just like I'm getting ready to do with my gas bill.

Kelly
29th April 2008, 19:50
Actually, one of the first acts of President Ronald Reagan after he got elected was to form "The Grace Commision" and he asked them to find out what was really happening to our tax dollars. They determined that not one single penny of our federal tax dollars goes to pay for any services or new expenditures; our tax dollars simply goes towards paying off the interest due the Federal Reserve Bank for the money they print so they can "lend" it to the government so the government can keep on functioning.

I've often wondered what that really means for us. Does the Fed now "own" the government? It's all very convoluted and strange.

nuslvrkwen
29th April 2008, 20:12
LOL!!! Haaaaa Haaaaaaa! You may be on to something! if we get in on the ground floor now those containers could make us rich! I wonder what the property taxes would be? I'm going to seriously consider that. Hell, those things would be hurricane proof, too. And virtually fire-proof. You may be on to something.

I just typed this great response and my thumb killed where my message went! :mad::p Any way - I KNEW you'd like my suggestion! Those containers are leased aren't they? Do they ever sell at auction? I believe they should have been used to build out for the Katrina victims. Truckers and the railroad could have delivered all that was needed. Go figure why no one thought of it.

If I was going to build a permanent container hotel - I'd get easement property. You can usually find it on auction for cheap. And because its' located in an urban area anyway; the electricity & water would be underground like the properties close by. The show I was watching showed this place in Wopping Steps near the Thames River. That place has been a notorious crime/scary place to go. It got a make over because of these people who were working in the area! They got some containers, figured out the toilet issues and built this cute apartment complex made with shipping containers. They were able to lay out the containers to give the tenants a court yard! It got sun, the tenants were even growing veggies - and the way the courtyard was set up it shielded the tenants from street noise!

Now what I'd like to do is figure out how to have mobile/biodegradable toilet functionality. So you could jettison the toilet waste in a biodegradable container. Bury it where the hotel WAS. It breaks down in months/years and is fertilizer for what ever grows where the hotel was. I'd want a mobile hotel & restaurant. Build good size suites out the containers, and just like people truck equipment to big rock concerts you could take your container Hotel and Restaurant to the venue, set it up - rent out your rooms, serve your dinners, and leave when the shows done! While the event crew breaks down!

Perfect Capitalism!

Trvlr45
30th April 2008, 04:52
I just typed this great response and my thumb killed where my message went! Any way - I KNEW you'd like my suggestion! Those containers are leased aren't they? Do they ever sell at auction? I believe they should have been used to build out for the Katrina victims. Truckers and the railroad could have delivered all that was needed. Go figure why no one thought of it.

They didn't do that because no doubt there were members of congress who bought stock in the companies who supplied the travel trailers and then spent our tax dollars buying them, raising the stock price so the trailers could sit and rot in fields to this day.

Trvlr45
30th April 2008, 04:55
A lot of truckers were busy hauling ice to Virginia and other places after Katrina. Yes, you heard right. I read an article on it. They were sending ice for the Katrina victims all over the country. Everywhere except where it was supposed to be. And they want to run our health care system.

Trvlr45
30th April 2008, 05:00
Nslvrkwen,

Let's wait until we get the Amero and then we'll talk about the containers. They will go together like a hand in a glove.

Trvlr45
30th April 2008, 05:05
Actually, one of the first acts of President Ronald Reagan after he got elected was to form "The Grace Commision" and he asked them to find out what was really happening to our tax dollars. They determined that not one single penny of our federal tax dollars goes to pay for any services or new expenditures; our tax dollars simply goes towards paying off the interest due the Federal Reserve Bank for the money they print so they can "lend" it to the government so the government can keep on functioning.

I've often wondered what that really means for us. Does the Fed now "own" the government? It's all very convoluted and strange.

Hi Kelly,

You are right about the Grace Commision. Ronnie was the last great president. Even though he made some HUGE mistakes I know he meant well. I can't help but think that getting shot might have had something to do with the mistakes he made. I do know he didn't get along at all with the Fed.

It's these people we've got now that scare me. They don't need to be manipulated or threatened.

Richard
30th April 2008, 06:15
In any ecosystem the 'limits' are very much dependent on how we use and maintain the system...

Correct! And who mostly runs the show in that regard? It's not supply and demand, I can assure you of that, and so there's a hole in the boat.


Obviously we have a population that is way beyond the Earth's ability to support it without our widespread use of agriculture.

Yes, we do, and ain't it beautiful? I think it is.

And so far it's not as problematic/impossible as (it seems to me) many regard it. Of course it's an inceasiningly man-made world. Nature would not have what we have otherwise. The trouble I have with people that say "too many people" is that in the same breath, they imply that this should not be simply because nature woulnd't have it. Yet, they might fail to realize that what we have can be improved only by continuing our controll over the environment. We're dead otherwise. Either that, we just scale back to a point where... we would find ourselves in the exact same predicament. Ultimately, we either surge forward or we succumb to nature like all other life. And since that's not in our natural, God-made capacity... It's simply not an option.


Depends on what you mean by 'developed'. I'm woefully underqualified, probably along with the rest of humanity, to determine if the planet is overpopulated....

Lol... I get this picture of Billy-Bob Clinton when you say "depends on what you mean by...". And so I find it odd that you would say you aren't qualified to say we're over-populated or not but are certain we are misallocating/over-consuming our resources; there is no distinction bewteen the two, as land and land use are just another form of consumption.

Anyway, the only thing we waste is our own efforts and our own time. Resources are forever. Matter is energy and vice versa and energy can not be created or detroyed. So they aren't going away. We, on the other hand, are finite in number. This will always be so. VS the number of dead/non-sentient atoms that make up the universe, it is US who are limited. Not taking advantage of that fact as well as not assuming the full responsibility to act, is wasteful. Which brings me to... On luxury and responsibility...


It is what one chooses to do that causes problems, in particular, the mis-allocation of resources.

I think you're a bit confused on wealth and morality, but you seem to have the gist of it. But... First, it is how one chooses to ACCQUIRE that wealth that is moral or immoral. Without that realization, you're stuck in the mode that makes this world you don't much approve of possible. What one does with honest wealth is one's reward, and is therefore amoral (so long as it does not harm others). If that is not so then we live in slavery, be it to a single master or to a collective will, neither of which is more right than the other and neither of which is compassion.

My trouble with this view that many imo have? It's misdircetd. Anything thought of as "exessive" is to be scorned regardless of the facts, as if "excess" itself were the monster. Of course, it isn't. Without that "monster", as I said, be it population or luxury, we would be forced backwards and into the hand of brutish nature; one simply can not reduce their "excess" enough according to the misdirected virtue. Ie...

Therefore, no matter how many food riots break out in the world, I'm gonna smoke dammit! I know I'm not the guilty one responsible for that suffering. People like to argue with me otherwise, but it's simple: We're not using the fullest extent of our abilities, so we come up short. And in all reality, we're not even all that short on food so much as affordability. And even if we WERE running low on food, we have PLENTY of unused capacity. On that, we're ditching capacity we USED TO have before!

But it's MY fault we're running out? It's the failt of the "breeders" and boat riders? WTF?!?! And that's why I defend excess and luxury. People hate me for it, but they're wrong wrong wrong to defend otherwise.


In fact, it is usually the other way around. County roads and electrical systems are usually maintained by the economic power of the nearby cities.

Agreed. But I'm not against helping the farmer cover his/her costs to provide for me. That's a fair and just "tax", but like you said... it could work just as well through business dynamics, if not better, than through taxes.

More on this in a second...


I do not believe that taxes are unjust. I do believe that sometimes people can let their selfishness make them rather short-sighted.

This is socialism. Or at least one of it's premises. The idea that taking half, or ANY portion of a person's earnings, will somehow prevent victimization is precisely why we are where we are today. Yet, those victims would not exist if it were not for the idea of protecting them by taking things from people that they MIGHT use to harm others. It is therefore also an unjustice: If they are a means to prevent and punish beforehand, that is saying one is guilty before proven.

And that of course is circular illogic. Therefore... IF, and only IF, one violates the rights of another in their accquisition and/or expenditure of wealth should their be any penalty. That sort of justice can only make us ALL happy. :)


I argue for a system where the federal government collects only sales tax on all end-use transactions, and where the money collected is then destroyed.

With ya on the first part, not so sure about the coinage, and not with ya on the banking. A *flat consumption tax* (and now we see that luxury is helpful, not harmful...) is the best way. On the second, I'm still working that out in my mind, so I will say nothing. On the the third...

A government needs revenues in order to perform it's legitimate functions, which is summed up as protecting the rights of it's citizens from other governments, other cirizens, and ITSELF.

Having said that...

Banking is a private matter, and the government should stay out.
The idea of assurances and insurances is actually a Nanny State idea that becomes justification for government to have more money and function than it needs. That's not a good thing, no matter what the intent; what if the government doesn't bail out any banks in a long while? Well... it, as well as people, can start getting ideas as to "what it should be spent for". On the other side of the coin... what if it must bail out more banks than it can? Well, we would get taxed a bit/"bit" more and lose money anyway, and most probably to those who made unwise investments in the first place.

No, we already tried Wall Street and I'll pass, thank you very much!

People need to realize that loaning money to the bank carries it's risks as well as rewards. There are no guarentees, but I fail to see that government powers in this arena would prevent loss, as I said above. Therefore, I think that banks should limit themselves...

...according to the desires of their customers. Either pay fees to open and maintain accounts, as well as conduct transactions, and assume no risk and/or take the risk of loaning your money to the bank (or some combination of) so that it may make loans and profit from the interest. That way, however a person banks, the bank would be risking only the BANK'S money and no one else's. That would make bank runs a nonissue. I think in time, banks would also work to reduce risks as much as they could while offering more reward for it's customers. In time, but that's up to competition.

People argue this with me all the time... They say either that would discourage banking and/or stunt the economy so Ricahrd should just take a dose of "shut up and just along". But Richard realizes that such banking laws as we have now are only for the rich, really, and to an extent the poor seeking "fairness". And if they lose their money? Well, they don't NEED government protection. All they need to do is collect that money on defaulted loans through price increases. THAT will make defaulters pay their loans whether they want to/can or not. However one looks at it, justice always asserts itself and no one really gets screwed. Just gotta look at the biggest picture of principle, that's all. Governments, though, are more than happy to "help" you. Too happy. And that... Shouldn't sit well with any of us! lol. Nope. Notta. Never. Forget it!

And that's my Final Answer! :)

Kelly
30th April 2008, 09:02
You are right about the Grace Commision. Ronnie was the last great president. Even though he made some HUGE mistakes I know he meant well. I can't help but think that getting shot might have had something to do with the mistakes he made. I do know he didn't get along at all with the Fed.


I read articles, even while he was still in office, that said after he got shot Ronnie was no longer the acting president; Bush senior was. Many have wondered, including myself, if Reagan wasn't suffering from the early stages of Alzheimers at the time. If that was the case, he could have read his speeches just fine because everything he was going to say was laid out right in front of him. But thinking on his feet? The article's I read said Ron Reagan was increasingly "confused" after he got shot, and since we know what ultimately happened to him, the early stages of Alzheimers does seem like the most likely reason. It's a long, drawn out, terrible disease.

I thought Reagan meant well too. I always thought of him as sincere and basically a very honest man. I can't say that about his Vice President though...

DaveK
30th April 2008, 10:17
[Taxes] are damn sure unjust when your government can't account for trillions that are missing or when Nancy Pelosi takes 25 million and spends it to refurbish the waterfront in San Fransisco so her husbands property a mile up the coast will go up in value.


Mis-allocation of tax money or an excessive tax rate does not mean that the concept of taxation itself is unjust. Your reasons are examples of "abuses of our tax dollars" and are simply not relevant to your thesis "taxes are unjust".

You might first argue the points "abuse of tax dollars is inevitable" and "any abuse of tax dollars makes taxation unjust" and then from there reason that "taxation is unjust". You have not done this and instead leap willy-nilly from abuses to unjustness.

I consider such muddled reasoning to be part of the problem. Things are complicated enough without throwing into the mix arguments that don't make any sense.

Kelly
30th April 2008, 11:41
I agree that a certain amount of taxation is necessary. However, we have a terrific amount of mandatory taxation already built into the system. We pay taxes on gas, phone, alcohol, cigarettes, utilities and on and on and on.

Never-the-less, a national sales tax on goods would indeed, in my opinion anyway, be preferable to the nighmare we call the IRS tax code. But such a tax, to be fair, must also include corporations as "legally taxible entities".

Also, I would question the advisability of taxing people below a certain income level. I don't think taxing people who already don't make enough money to live is even remotely humane.

Richard
30th April 2008, 12:02
Also, I would question the advisability of taxing people below a certain income level. I don't think taxing people who already don't make enough money to live is even remotely humane.

I accidentally snipped the corporation tax... But I wanted to say, that that's taxing people twice for the same thing. SALES tax. That will do it. What a corporation pays to be in business. To tax corporate earnings would be over-kill, then we'd have more expensive things then sales tax would drive up, then corporations would earn less. So you'd be as even as just leaving it as a consumption tax, ultimately.

The same principle would apply for the poor. Poor people, by definition, spend less and so pay a tax in proportion to what they earn. To allow them a break would mean they spend more... Then they'd be poorer.

Flat taxes are never going to be perfect, but then again neither will their alternatives, so let's just keep it simple and as un- beuracratized (sp?) and as little paperwork and complexity as possible. Let's keep it flat and boring and out of the way! :D

Kelly
30th April 2008, 14:35
To allow them a break would mean they spend more... Then they'd be poorer.

Richard, do you have any idea at all how many baby boomers are coming into retirement age? Maybe some of them are wealthy, but the vast majority of those people will be living on fixed incomes, and for at least 50% of those people, their fixed income will be under poverty level.

You want to tax those people living on poverty level fixed incomes while you want no taxes for wealthy corporations?

Hmmmm. I suspect we have a very basic difference in philosophy here...

You might as well go out and beat up the little old lady that lives down the street, while you allow the globalist corporations to have increasingly more and more power and wealth.

Richard
30th April 2008, 14:57
Richard, do you have any idea at all how many baby boomers are coming into retirement age?

Yes, I am well aware of the boomers coming of retirement age.

To put this shortly, look at minimum wage. Has that helped poor people, despite that being the intention? I know of no poor person that thinks so. So, I say we cut back on human kindness before we hurt anyone else any more than we already have.

Drumblebum
30th April 2008, 15:34
If everything was wonderful the housing market would not be tanking, oil and food commodities would not be shooting the moon, food riots would not be happening world wide, employers would not be laying off people by the thousands, and wages would be keeping pace with inflation.




Very well said. Sums up the situation nicely.

Xenodias
30th April 2008, 15:48
To put this shortly, look at minimum wage. Has that helped poor people, despite that being the intention? I know of no poor person that thinks so. So, I say we cut back on human kindness before we hurt anyone else any more than we already have.

Without the minimum wage though, what is to stop many companies from returning to Industrial Age-levels of payscale?

Richard
30th April 2008, 19:01
Without the minimum wage though, what is to stop many companies from returning to Industrial Age-levels of payscale?

Nothing. Nothing would stop companies from doing anything, so they would be allowed free reign over all things big and small and you would be trapped and forced to slave forever. For-friggin-EVER, you understand? And hey... we can always use one half of the poor old ladies to collect flat taxes on defenseless and retired poor old ladies! And then we can stop paying THEM and let the retired old ladies beat em up in a giant rumble and the prize would be their meger life's earnings and when the last poor old lady is left standing, we give her a raise of negative-whatever-money she has to her name!

Mwuahahahaha!!!

All so that I, as CEO of Big Evil,Inc can go absolutely nowhere in my game while making the peons suffer!

Mwuaha...ha...ha...ha?

Well, it would be just as bad as saying that the earnings of Big Evil,Inc were all that mattered and all that could determine everything, wouldn't it?

Hmm... So what are we left with? What can protect all from being taken advantage of, no matter what their position in society is or isn't?

The market. The market determines what the center of attention is and where it should be at. And it would do so quietly with no bias as to anyone's opinion, desires, fears etc if we would allow it to.

That's truly not just an answer I pulled out of my hat. It's not exactly what I or anyone want to hear or expected to hear.

It is quite simply the truth, so just remember one thing before going into the brave new world: The sun may set, but that doesn't mean it's never coming back.

And for anyone concerned about taxing poor old ladies (though not, as a Godzilla named Richard that would eat every last penny of every helpless person on this world and the next, to single out anyone named Kelly like the big meanie that I am would...)

2 + x = 4

just as

x - -2 = 6 - x

just as

2x (y - 3) / 4x - y = 2y (- 2x) / 4x (- y)


What does that have to do with the price of eggs?

Algebra may seem hard at first (some say impossible forever) but once you learn it it's not as hard as it seems; and once you learn to solve one equation, the next is very similar. :)

Trvlr45
30th April 2008, 19:20
Mis-allocation of tax money or an excessive tax rate does not mean that the concept of taxation itself is unjust. Your reasons are examples of "abuses of our tax dollars" and are simply not relevant to your thesis "taxes are unjust".

You might first argue the points "abuse of tax dollars is inevitable" and "any abuse of tax dollars makes taxation unjust" and then from there reason that "taxation is unjust". You have not done this and instead leap willy-nilly from abuses to unjustness.

I consider such muddled reasoning to be part of the problem. Things are complicated enough without throwing into the mix arguments that don't make any sense.

Well then let me refrase that. Tazes aren't unjust until they start cranking them up to the point that they are stealing your right to support yourself and that is axactly what they have done. $100,000 a year is middle class now unless you don't plan on retiring and want to eat Top Ramen every day for the rest o your life.

The problem with taxation is that it always gets abused. Look at California, they had to pass Prop 13 in the eighties because they were throwing retired people out on the street due to property taxes that were criminal.

In Ny there was a guy that literally changed his name to "Kiss MY Ass" after another tax hike. The power to tax is the power to destroy and our present "progressive income tax system" is straight out of the manifesto just as the idea for a central bank is.

It never ceases to amaze me how anyone can make the feeble attempt to support the present tax system in this country when it is patently un-constitutional for a very good reason. They can't tax a right in this country and you have the RIGHT to own property. They also cannot tax your paycheck because that is your property and you have a RIGHT to trade your labor for compensation so you can support yourself.

Paychecks are NOT income under Title 26 of the tax code. Income is derived from profit which is money made from investments not the TIME you spend out of your life to earn a paycheck. The reason the founding fathers set it up that way is because time in finite. If the government can tax your TIME they can enslave you and that is precisely what they have done.

Income tax on your paycheck are not only unjust and illegal in this country they are criminal. That is not "muddled" reasoning just a fact.

DaveK
30th April 2008, 19:22
The trouble I have with people that say "too many people"

The only problem I have with "too many people" is that those who say it usually don't define very well the criteria by which they make the judgment.

We can have too many people with respect to our short-term agricultural capacity or we can have too many people with respect to someone's personal ideal of a society, or by many other measures.

I personally am a dedicated moral relativist and so the "too many people" I would consider has more to do with technical limitations than any ethical or aesthetic value.



Lol... I get this picture of Billy-Bob Clinton when you say "depends on what you mean by...".


One can certainly take definitions games to absurd lengths, but I think that it is a fair question to ask what one means by 'developed'.

A really earthy-crunchy tree-hugger might see 'developed' as being a carefully designed 20 acre permaculture site that provides almost all of the food and material needs of it's handful of inhabitants while maintaining a fairly large degree of biodiversity.

A more traditional suburbanite might see 'developed' as being a 20 acre plot with 60 stick-frame 4000 square foot, high-finish, cedar shingle homes with perfectly trimmed lawns, three shiny new cars in each garage, four lanes of new highway for quick access to the nearby city and maybe a Farmers Market within easy driving distance.

Both have merit, and a proponent of either could argue well for their preferred vision. The difference is what you mean by 'developed'.



And so I find it odd that you would say you aren't qualified to say we're over-populated or not but are certain we are misallocating/over-consuming our resources;


What part of "My feeling is that we are not, in an absolute sense, overpopulated, but that we are over-consuming the resources available to us." implies to you "certainty"?

One of the only things I'm certain of is that it is unwise to gamble with large populations, as exemplified by Mao's 'Great Leap'.



there is no distinction bewteen [misallocating/over-consuming], as land and land use are just another form of consumption.


I do not believe so. Mis-allocation does not imply over-consumption.



the only thing we waste is our own efforts and our own time. Resources are forever. Matter is energy and vice versa and energy can not be created or detroyed.


In an idealistic sense, yes. However, we're looking at a real system in which we must provide for people. If we deplete, e.g., oil resources enough to impact our ability to heat homes or distribute food, we can't all just put up solar panels. We have to produce them first, which takes time. If we're starving a greater-than-normal proportion of the population in the meantime then as a civilization we're failing. We've done more than simply wasting time and effort, we've caused great deal suffering as well as damaging our overall capacity for time and effort.



I think you're a bit confused on wealth and morality


I doubt that but please feel free to expound.


First, it is how one chooses to ACCQUIRE that wealth that is moral or immoral. Without that realization, you're stuck in the mode that makes this world you don't much approve of possible.


I agree that there are ethical implications to acquisition of wealth, because there are ethical implications to one's actions, regardless of whether they involve acquisition or disposal of wealth.

I did not say, nor does it matter, whether I approve of this world; it is what it is, and what matters to me is that I act in accordance with my well-considered ethical system.



What one does with honest wealth is one's reward, and is therefore amoral


"What one does" is only amoral because it covers the entire class of morally relevant actions.


If that is not so then we live in slavery, be it to a single master or to a collective will,

You unnecessarily extend the potential obligation to it's logical extreme.

Helping an old woman across the street is a good and moral activity, does that mean I am obligated to seek out and help all old women who wish to cross the street? Do I become a slave to the collective will of old women?



My trouble with this view that many imo have? It's misdircetd. Anything thought of as "exessive" is to be scorned regardless of the facts, as if "excess" itself were the monster.


You argue against a position that is not in question.



IF, and only IF, one violates the rights of another in their accquisition and/or expenditure of wealth should their be any penalty. That sort of justice can only make us ALL happy. :)


Too simple, by the golden rule; he who has the gold makes the rules, including what constitutes the violation of another's rights.



With ya on the first part


You agree with a flat consumption tax. Would you agree that the government should be able to vary the tax rate by region? This would allow the government to adjust the taxes in a region to, e.g., stimulate activity in an area recovering from a natural disaster.

There is potential for abuse and politicking with such an ability. The regions would have to be defined pretty broadly with restrictions on how they were defined (to avoid gerrymandering) and on how decisions about rate changes could be made. It could be a dangerous, but less dangerous than the existing tax code.



not so sure about the coinage, and not with ya on the banking. A *flat consumption tax* (and now we see that luxury is helpful, not harmful...) is the best way.

A government needs revenues in order to perform it's legitimate functions,

This is not about luxury. All end-user goods in a given region (if regional rate adjustments are allowed, as discussed above) would be taxed at the same rate, absolutely no exceptions. To compensate the poor the government might issue a rebate equal to the poverty level income multiplied by the tax rate.

The objective of the tax is not to raise money for government operations. Under this system the government does not need to raise money because it is the source of money. Tax collection would be one side of the the method by which the money supply in the country was managed (that is, by which inflation and deflation were controlled).

The other side of money management, the creation of new money, is through funding of government operations. These are funded simply by the fiat creation of new money. As we all know, this sort of creation effectively steals buying power from all people who use money through inflation of the money supply. This is exactly what the government should do, skim a little value from everyone and reallocate it to projects that benefit everyone, such as infrastructure, education and defense.

In general the money destroyed through taxation would equal that created by government operations. At times of economic growth either government spending would increase or taxes would decrease in order to increase the money supply and neutralize inflation.

If necessary the government could create inflationary conditions to address specific economic needs, perhaps this is something that would be done during times of war.



Banking is a private matter, and the government should stay out.


Agreed, for the most part. Fractional reserve banking is disallowed because it is the creation of money by non-government entities, which just won't do.

The reason it might be desirable for the banks to have recourse to sell assets to the government is because it provides last-ditch stability to people who might otherwise get screwed through no fault of their own (other than perhaps choosing, 20 years ago, a bank that would someday fail).



The idea of assurances and insurances is actually a Nanny State idea that becomes justification for government to have more money and function than it needs.


Yes it is. Any government at all is a Nanny State, that's the entire reason for the existence of government, to be a big ol' nanny.



People need to realize that loaning money to the bank carries it's risks as well as rewards.


I'm not sure where you see the loan coming in. What I'm proposing involves no loans to the bank, only a guaranteed market (presumably one that gets a heavy discount to discourage bank reliance on it).



...according to the desires of their customers. Either pay fees to open and maintain accounts, as well as conduct transactions, and assume no risk and/or take the risk of loaning your money to the bank (or some combination of) so that it may make loans and profit from the interest. That way, however a person banks, the bank would be risking only the BANK'S money and no one else's. That would make bank runs a nonissue.


Definitely, I'm just saying that there should be an undesirable (from a market perspective) fall-back solution available, designed to prevent cascading failures. The free market is a complicated, organic, chaotic system that can potentially get itself into some situations where failures ripple through and cause more damage than necessary, in particular to people who bear no blame in the cause of the failure (like the construction workers who can't get work because of the subprime mess. Sure, they are in a profession that, by its nature, can be volatile, but that doesn't mean we should not try to keep things stable.).

The banks, or businesses in question would still likely fail, as they probably should for having poor business practices. The idea is that you should encourage a system that discourages panic and impulsive decisions.

DaveK
30th April 2008, 20:26
Well then let me refrase that. Tazes aren't unjust until they start cranking them up

You are still conflating taxes and tax rates. "Taxation" is not equal to "excessive tax rates".


The problem with taxation is that it always gets abused.

That is one possible way to come at this. It goes to the larger problem of self-governance for which it seems no one has yet come up with a very widely popular solution.

I don't think that a reasonable solution to the problem of excessive taxation is to eliminate taxation entirely. At least, I don't think it is reasonable in the near future for this society. A couple hundred years ago it was a pretty reasonable solution, but a lot of things have changed.


The power to tax is the power to destroy

So is logging. Both are also the power to create.



and our present "progressive income tax system" is straight out of the manifesto just as the idea for a central bank is.


Progressive income tax is another example of how excessive rates can be unjust (I agree, progressive rates are bad mojo). That does not speak to taxes themselves being unjust or to the power to tax being consistently abused to such an egregious degree that we ought to prohibit taxation entirely.



It never ceases to amaze me how anyone can make the feeble attempt to support the present tax system in this country...


I'll stop you there. I agree, regardless of whether it is constitutional, our tax system is a joke wrapped in absurdity and soaked in tankfuls of obfuscation. It seems quite likely that under all that it's also a fraud.

But, again, that doesn't mean that the idea of taxes is unjust, just that our implementation of the idea is insane.



They can't tax a right in this country [...]
Income tax on your paycheck are not only unjust and illegal in this country they are criminal. That is not "muddled" reasoning just a fact.

I absolutely agree. Isn't there an ongoing court case about this somewhere? How did that action in Oklahoma from a few years ago turn out?

Silvercaper
30th April 2008, 20:40
Shreveport attorney, Tom Cryer, won a unanimous NOT GUILTY verdict in federal district court defeating the IRS's claim that Tom "willfully" failed to file federal income tax returns. Tom refused to file tax returns because the IRS could not show him any law making him liable for 'filing' a tax return. NOW, nothing in this Internet Video Press Release is intended to recommend that you cease to file tax returns or meet other demands of the IRS lawful or otherwise. PLEASE... PLEASE... PLEASE do nothing that will give the IRS any excuse to cut you from the herd and drag you off to its slaughterhouse! However, we do urge you to visit TruthAttack . org and fight this grand theft by deception under the protection of your FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l5Of8M1MZJQ

http://www.truthattack.org/

Silvercaper
30th April 2008, 20:45
THERE IS NO LAW

Every tax law must clearly and plainly identify three things:

1) The subject of the tax;

2) The amount of the tax; and

3)The persons or entities liable for the tax.

Even a cursory review of other tax laws, including all other federal tax laws (see list), makes it obvious that these three elements of any tax law must be present before any of us can determine that we owe a tax on what and for how much.

The income tax law, however, is the only instance where there is no clear liability provision applicable to those the IRS claims are liable for the tax. Although partners are called liable for taxes on partnerships, that “liability” is only in their “individual capacity”, and there is no provision making them liable in their “individual capacity.” The only clear liability provision is § 1461, which specifically assigns liability for the tax to those required to withhold taxes on Nonresident Aliens and Foreign Corporations! Are you required to withhold taxes on a nonresident alien? A foreign corporation?

While 26 U.S.C. § 3403, which is not part of the income tax law, does require employers to withhold income tax owed by their employees, there is no law that makes the employee liable for the tax in the first place.

Thus, THERE IS NO LAW making the typical working American liable for any income tax.

But you don’t have to take our word for it. You can check this for yourself! Search the Internal Revenue Code for “liable”, then search for “must pay”, “obligated to pay”, then search for “responsible for payment” or any other configuration of words that would designate who is liable for the income tax. You will find plenty of liability provisions for other taxes, but not for the income tax. (See compilation of liability provisions)

So, do you owe an income tax? Are you among those required by law to pay an income tax?

All tax laws must be interpreted literally, what lawyers call “strict construction”. You have a right to insist that the government obey the law and in the case of tax laws, the letter of the law. ACCORDING TO THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE unless you are withholding taxes on a nonresident alien or a foreign corporation, YOU ARE NOT LIABLE FOR AN INCOME TAX!

YOU DO NOT OWE AN INCOME TAX AND THE IRS HAS NO LAWFUL AUTHORITY FOR DEMANDING THAT YOU PAY AN INCOME TAX!!!

To learn more about this important TRUTH, read “The Memorandum”.

WHAT IS INCOME?

Contrary to what the IRS would have you believe, “income” is NOT everything that “comes in.” The Code does not define income. It defines gross income as “income” derived from whatever source, including compensation for services, but that is not the same as defining income as being 100% of all compensation for services.

The Supreme Court has held that it and it alone can define “income” because Congress may not define Constitutional terms. Otherwise, it could define “speech” as “pig-Latin” and any other speech would no longer be protected by the Constitution.

So, what is “income”? The Supreme Court has defined income as gain, profit, derived from capital, labor or both combined. It has also given us some rules for determining what is and is not income:

Rule No. 1: What comes in is NOT “income”, but “gross receipts”, and in order to determine if there is any income in what comes in we must first deduct from those gross receipts the value or cost of whatever was given in exchange for it because income is only the gain or profit from the conversion of capital.

U. S. Supreme Court in Doyle v. Mitchell Brothers Co., 247 U.S. 179, 38 S.Ct. 467 (1918)

If you receive wages or a salary or are paid fees for your personally rendered services, your labor, how much do you deduct from those earnings in order to determine whether you have any income? What was your cost? A part of your life? Your labor? Your skill? Your knowledge? You can’t say how much that is worth in dollars? Then let’s look at the next rule:

Rule No. 2: In order for there to be income it must be DERIVED from, that is SEPARABLE from, that portion of gross receipts that represents the investment or property given in exchange for those gross receipts. If it cannot be separated, distinguished, from the capital and spent or used without injuring the capital portion, then THERE IS NO INCOME.

U. S. Supreme Court in Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189, 40 S.Ct. 189 (1920)

So, can you separate the portion of your earnings that represents your labor and your time from a specific, identifiable portion that you can regard as profit? No? Then according to the Supreme Court, YOUR EARNINGS ARE NOT AND CANNOT BE REGARDED AS INCOME and should be excluded from your gross income (26 CFR § 1.861-1)!

WHAT IS EXEMPT?

The taxing authority of the federal government extends ONLY to any activity over which it has authority to exercise control, and any activity outside that authority is “exempt” from taxation by the federal government.

U S. Supreme Court in McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. 316 (1819)

The federal government is forbidden by the Constitution to regulate or abridge the exercise of a fundamental right, those rights that are included in the “right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” Among those fundamental rights are your right to freedom of speech, to worship as you choose and your right to earn a living for yourself and your family through any lawful occupation.

U. S. Supreme Court in Butchers' Union Co. v. Crescent City Co., 111 U.S. 746, 4 S.Ct. 652 (1884); Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356 (1886); Truax v. Raich, 239 U.S. 33 (1915); Coppage v. Kansas, 236 U.S. 1; Adams v. Tanner, 244 U.S. 590, 37 S.Ct. 662 (1917); Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 43 S.Ct. 625 (1923); and many other cases.

Because the power to tax is the power to destroy (Chief Justice John Marshall in McCulloch v. Maryland, above), and because the federal government does not have the right to restrict, much less destroy, your fundamental rights, the exercise of a fundamental right, such as your freedom of speech, your freedom of religion and your freedom and right to earn a living through any lawful occupation is EXEMPT from taxation by the federal government!

U. S. Supreme Court in Grosjean v. American Press Co., 297 U.S. 233 (1936); and, again, in Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 63 S.Ct. 870 (1943); and, again, in Jones v. Opelika, 316 U.S. 584, 56 S.Ct. 444 (1943); Follett v. McCormick, 321 U.S. 573 64 S.Ct. 717 (1944); and Harper v. Virginia Bd. Of Elections, 383 U.S. 663, 86 S.Ct. 1079 (1966).

The law, as it is written, instructs us to EXCLUDE EXEMPT INCOME (26 CFR § 1.861-8T), so even if part of your personal earnings can be separated as profit “derived from compensation for services”, that exempt income should be excluded from your gross income.

Copyright © 2007 TruthAttack.org All Rights Reserved.

http://www.truthattack.org/whatisincome.html

Richard
30th April 2008, 21:14
DaveK: I'm reading your last response, and will take some time to think about you're saying before responding. I'm focusing on the end part, on the coinage and dropping what seems to be the evolving petty word-game argument from the begining to that point; that way we stay nice and on-topic with the intent of the forum, which, I admit, I have been straying from.

Anyway, I WILL get back to your post as soon as I take the time to think about it and adress it.

Oh and btw... and gosh I'm breaking my promise but...your use of the word "are" denoted certainty.

"I feel that we are not overpopulated... but that we are over-consuming resources"

Sorry, but those were your words and I don't think I could study the English langage for 20 years and conclude anything else other than what I concluded. The Billy-Bob was just a joke anyway. Not sure you took that the wrong or not, but that's what it was :)

Kelly
30th April 2008, 21:46
"Isn't there an ongoing court case about this somewhere? How did that action in Oklahoma from a few years ago turn out?"

As far as I can tell, it depends entirely on where you are living and how educated the jury is about tax laws whether you will get acquitted in a failure to file case. Silvercaper is absolutely correct on the issue, but the problem is, if you don't file and get caught, you've still got to get through the lower court system. The higher courts, particularly the US Supreme Court, have basically ruled taxes on wages and labor unconstitutional and they have done so since the 16th amendment was passed.

"The provisions of the 16th Amendment conferred no new power of taxation." - Supreme Court Case, Stanton vs. Baltic Mining 1916

"In substance, the court holds that the 16th Amendment did not empower the Federal government to levy a new tax." - New York Times, January 25th, 1916

The Supreme Court has never really changed their position on this.

The IRS is basically NOT a Federal Agency; they are simply mandated by the government. Basically what they are is a collection agency for the Federal Reserve Bank, and like the Fed, the IRS is also a privately owned corporation.

Never-the-less, that doesn't end the fact that if the IRS comes after you, you can be in a serious world of hurt.

Education of the public is the key. The more people who become educated on the unconstitutionality of Federal taxation of wages and labor; the more people will get acquitted in failure to file cases. If jury's wise up and start acquitting people all across the country, this will eventually force changes in the present tax system.

Kelly
30th April 2008, 22:07
And for anyone concerned about taxing poor old ladies (though not, as a Godzilla named Richard that would eat every last penny of every helpless person on this world and the next, to single out anyone named Kelly like the big meanie that I am would...)

Oh, well hell's bells then, let's just run everybody over 65 through the good old Soylent Green factory then...

You sound like someone under 35 years of age who grew up in a broken home, lacked a significant male role model, has never been married and has no children. My guess is your attitude will change considerably as you get older.

DaveK
30th April 2008, 22:16
DaveK: I'm reading your last response, and will take some time to think about you're saying before responding. I'm focusing on the end part, on the coinage and dropping what seems to be the evolving petty word-game argument from the begining to that point; that way we stay nice and on-topic with the intent of the forum, which, I admit, I have been straying from.


Okey-dokey. You know what they say about arguing with engineers (it's like wrestling with a pig in the mud, the pig enjoys every aspect of it :) )

In advance, I appreciate your thoughts regarding my idea about the monetary system. It's not fully developed, and has an unhealthy degree of ivory tower thinking, but I don't have enough hands-on economic management experience to know better.


your use of the word "are" denoted certainty.

"I feel that we are not overpopulated... but that we are over-consuming resources"

I see now how it could be read that way. The 'my feeling' part was intended to distribute across both clauses. I had hoped that the 'that' near the beginning of the second clause would convey that.

I know it seems like a trivial thing, but I do appreciate the feedback. I expend some effort trying to choose phrasing that accurately and unambiguously communicates my meaning, so when I run into what looks like a basic misunderstand, sometimes I'll ask, for my own benefit :)

Trvlr45
1st May 2008, 01:09
Silverscraper,

I couldn't have said all that any better myself. I have heard Cryer in a few 3 hr interviews. Unfortunately, the reason so many people lose in court when it comes to the Gestapo is because, as a lot of us know, we live in a dictatorship, and the judges rig the proceedings in favor of the IRS. they withhold evidence from the jury so the conclusion they want is reached. They tried the same thing with Cryer but he was a little too smart for them.

Silvercaper
1st May 2008, 06:48
Trvlr45,

Thanks but I can't take any credit for what was written as I just selected some of the important content from Tom Cryer's website "Truth Attach" to make people aware and to get them thinking.

http://www.truthattack.org/

Richard
1st May 2008, 20:21
Okay, DaveK, I've given this all a thorough going-over and I don't see many problems with that you were saying. Provided that there is no legal tender law that says we HAVE TO accept it; that has the power to abuse the system and compromise it's intended integrity, I think. And the policy would have to also accept the competition of the free market, so that people could use all manner of things as
trade medium. Of course, pm would most likely continue to win out as that prefered medium, given all their general qualities.

On bank reserve... I'm under the impression that bank runs don't happen if banks don't loan, so if the reserve was for bank runs then that means the bank loans money. If so, that could become a means of making careless investments that innocent tax payers have to.... well, pay for! On the other hand, what if there was a bank robbery? And how would the government provide aid in times of emergency? So, I say that reserves should have only specific uses. It would be easy to police that through special stamping and markings,
audits, and making those audit publicly available. I can see that working well.

On providing infrastructure and social services... I'll have to say no to this aspect, at least in general practice because the private sector is more than capable of providing infrastructure and buildings for social institutions, as well as the services that go with them. But if disaster destroys then perhaps govrnments could step in with emergency funds if they are needed. But not for general building and provisional purposes. Leave that to the private sector and limit taxes; that would act to help solve the problem of inflation and deflation a bit (less money to issue, less to manage, ie).

Taxation... I wasn't sure if your were answering your own question, so I'm not sure which you're suggesting. Are you saying "yes, reigonal variation is good" or it's bad?

My take, if taxes are higher in other places, there would have to be justification for it. Perhaps the region in question is prone to natural disaster for example. What I mean by flat tax is that everyone in that region, however far that is defined or not, pays the same amount with no extras like, for example, "sin" taxes and "how dare you exist as a corporation" taxes.

The reason for that latter part? Aside from being an unjustified and biased double-charge, there's the reverse bias factor. How many times has a corporation not been sued because of it's useful tax revenues? Or gotten off lightly for the same reason? Same with industry. Extra tax liability can create more injustice than we perhaps realize upon first glance. I mention this because it's relevent to the topic and... in case any of those "bleeding hearts" out there insist that I'm too young, from a broken home, was beat up by my dog, and killed my no-good no-wife no-kid's role-model etc.

I'm razzin' of course Kelly... :p

Anyway, Dave, on the other subject, I think we do see eye to eye for the most part. I don't see much meaningful disagreement in your second repsonse, so... no need to debate and discuss what we already basicallt agree on! :)

Trvlr45
1st May 2008, 20:29
Hi Silverscraper,

It's nice to see there is another Truth Trooper" out there. I tell everyone I meet about that website including the lady at the Gestapo who just audited me! You have to keep in mind that the most ignorant people out there concerning taxes work at the IRS or they wouldn't last. Look what they did to Joe Banister!

Kelly
1st May 2008, 22:28
On providing infrastructure and social services... I'll have to say no to this aspect, at least in general practice because the private sector is more than capable of providing infrastructure and buildings for social institutions, as well as the services that go with them. But if disaster destroys then perhaps govrnments could step in with emergency funds if they are needed. But not for general building and provisional purposes. Leave that to the private sector and limit taxes; that would act to help solve the problem of inflation and deflation a bit (less money to issue, less to manage, ie).

No social services, huh? Leave it to the "private sector" to make sure that elders, people with disabilities and children have basic needs met?

Ultimately what you're saying is that the government should bear no responsibility at all when people fall on hard times and you seem to be expecting charitable donations from people to take care of all the problems. From what I can tell from your comments you seem to be expecting others to take care of people that you've already indicated you don't really give a crap about. Unless written into law, what makes you think anybody else should be any more responsible or charitable than you are? If your suggestions were carried out, I frankly think it'd be issuing a death warrant to millions.

Bush Sr. and David Rockefeller might love your ideas, but both of them are well known for embracing the concept of eugenics. Personally, I'd like to think this nation has enough heart and soul to avoid traversing the same path that Nazi Germany took.

Furthermore I think your "Tax the poor and make all corporations exempt from taxes" philosophy would ultimately only give the same handful of wealthy elitists that control the show now a totally free reign to do whatever they choose. And I don't think those people can be trusted. Furthermore, I can just about guarantee you that if you put that suggestion up for a vote to the people, you'd lose that election.

You know Richard, one of the primary differences between a working civilization and fascist, barbaric rule is a nation's ability to show compassion for human beings. When humanity loses its capacity to act humanely, tyranny and rule by despots is truly the only possible outcome. And this earth actually has a long and very well-documented history proving that's what happens.

I don't think we need to go on repeating the same mistakes over and over again.

Richard
1st May 2008, 23:21
No social services, huh? Leave it to the "private sector" to make sure that elders, people with disabilities and children have basic needs met?

What is wrong with making it the exeption instead of the norm?

Why are more and more people suffering and less and less able, when they shouldn't be?


When humanity loses its capacity to act humanely, tyranny and rule by despots is truly the only possible outcome. And this earth actually has a long and very well-documented history proving that's what happens. I don't think we need to go on repeating the same mistakes over and over again.

Humane is not defined soley as "helping others". It implies a responsibility so that efforts are not truly wasted. For example, Hillary and her health-care plan. Sounds nice, but lest we forget people abuse such privileges all the time. Not just on the patient level, but it is common, but within the healthcare system.

Two years ago, I had to have a CAT done. I have no insurance. Couldn't get the "compassionate" money that they state STOLE from me to cover it.

So guess what I did? I called around to price and not a single hospital had EVER had that question asked of them. Why? Because people don't care about price even when it comes to simple things like a check-up or a scan when they're not dying. Right on the insurance it goes! And every person with a damn flu is given antibiotics that only help the bacteria grow stronger... even though flus aren't bacterial...

Result? We're really going backwards. Costs rise because of that sort of cavalier attitude and quite frankly, it's bad enough insurance companies allow it. Now we need the government to blow the roof off of costs so that MAYBE... just maybe... our costs are going to be astronomical so even poorer people can afford that much less?

Oh right... the government will save us! First the funny-money, then the insurance and the cavalier attitude by hospitals and patients, and now free healthcare and when that gets too expensive... MORE government!

Sheeze, I feel so inhumane and stupid for not understanding that before Kelly! You have shown me the light.

Of course you do realize... that added "benefit" is most certainly the spoils of some other poor persons life, don't you?

So if I'm a eugen-whatever, you're a cannibal.

And THAT Kelly, brings us full circle... Indeed, what seperates the barbaric from the facist?

I wouldn't put my money on it being you, that's for sure.

Yeah...

averagejoe
1st May 2008, 23:22
I totally agree Kelly, government does have a degree of responseability to help those who fall through the cracks so to speak as well as the private sector. It is all of us collectively that have a responseabilty to help those in need. To not tax corporations in my opinion is absurd the working middle class is already taxed disporportionately. To not tax corporations would just put more money in the pockets of the fat cats that have the majority of the wealth in this country already. Just my humble back woods opinion though.8)

Trvlr45
4th May 2008, 00:16
Hello Kelly,

It seems you're quite upset about something Richard said having to do with not having social programs to help out the people who fall through the cracks.

I have to say that the social programs started by FDR and LBJ are the biggest reason the younger generations these days are so lazy as well as the reason we are buying silver. That's why I agree with Richard to some extent. Let me exlain what I mean.

Government is incompetent, inefficient and always becomes more and more tyrannical. These kids growing up today don't want social programs to help out the people that fall on bad times they want social programs to hold their hand throughout life. They want the government to give them free health care, a job where they can show up everyday, collect a paycheck and not work very hard and want the government to give them a gold plated retirement they never earned.

Look at Social Security, a govenment run social program which also happens to be illegal in this country. It's bankrupt and now they are using the number as a tracking number which is also illegal. In addition to that, GW Bush merged our social security program with Mexico so now illegals are going to be collecting benefits as well. Look at Medicaid and Medicare. They are bankrupt. Both these programs now have illegals mooching off the system while Mexico's billionaires live the high life by refusing to help their own people.

The recent cases with the polygamists are another reason social programs need to be done away with. How do you think they afforded the compounds they live in? Abuse of the un-constitutional welfare system. All the women in those compounds were collecting welfare checks.

Look at the debt the average college grad has to deal with. Govenment backed student loans. Another social program that needs to be done away with. Coming out of college in debt to the central bank is no way to start out life especially when the colleges are just raking in the bucks because they can charge ANYTHING since the student is borrowing the money. I would be interest to know just how many colleges are owned by the fed through some corporation buried deep behind layer after layer of bueracracy.

There were over 900 social programs in this country 5 years ago, there is no telling how many there are now. Our constitution was written to make sure we had LIMITED government which makes about 99.9% of the social programs in this country illegal for good reason.

Programs are always subject to abuse by the government and the people. These hundreds of programs our govenment has conspired to create over the last 80 years only lead to one thing. Complete dependence on government. Not only are there millions of lazy people in this country abusing the system but now we have other countries hopping on the bandwagon as well.

If you think social programs are a good idea keep in mind that there are 77million babyboomer coming online for their handouts. Handouts they never should have let the government get away with starting in the first place.

Those handouts as well as others have bankrupted this country and are the biggest reason the Fed is printing money up by the trillions. These baby boomers are going to be in for the shock of their lives because what they are expecting probably isn't going to materialize the way they think. Not with the programs they are counting on already bankrupt and the country in debt for trillions.

I've never collected one thin dime from a social program, I don't want to pay into social security and I'm fed up with having to pay interest only payments on the national debt we borrow from the fed to support all these social programs which include corporate bailouts. They are stealing so much of our money every year in taxtion to pay for all this garbage that most of us won't have any choice but to be on a social program eventually. The baby boomers will be the cause of the financial collapse of this country. Every program they are counting on is a Ponzi scheme that went bad 30 years ago.

Remember, "A govenment that can give you everything can also take everything away". That is the true goal of social programs. Enslavement of the masses not caring for the elderly or anyone else. Look at what California was doing in the eighties. Raising property taxes so high the elderly who had retired were being thrown out of their house because they couldn't afford the property taxes. And what do property taxes pay for? Social programs! There are still states all over the country that are doing that to this day.

Social programs are nothing more than a road to communism.

Richard
4th May 2008, 04:48
That was very well put, Trvlr!

However, to say people are lazy... Yes, that apathetic attitude is starting to manifest, but I'd say in many of the cases over the decades it's been a case of created victimization. Afterall, the more this has been done the less favorable it has become to allow someone to actually make a decent living via real production of wealth so that they can cover their expenses, which only grow and grow. It creates a monster scenario in which people are forced to drown others in order to "save" themselves.

Anyway, I'd say what we got is but surface rust, not something that is infecting the core. Yet, anyway.

I could write volumes on this subject, but instead...

In looking further and further into the value of pm, here's one thing I saw:

One ounce of pure .999 silver would probably buy a person enough gasoline for over a year (assuming they use 20 gallons a week, which is a lot of driving given today's more efficient vehicles). Like so...

Current cost of gas is about .003 gold ounce per gallon. Divide that by 5, the current ratio, and that's .0006 silver ounce, then divide that by 20, you get about 83 weeks. That's like a year and half of gasoline you could afford one that one ounce! Now that you bought that (let's say the company gave you a card or voucher for that silver ounce), that buying power is circulating in the economy.

I'm trying to figure out now what the cost of wheat is per ounce of silver. Trouble is, I don't know if the wheat production is all edible or not, like corn... But raw numbers, an ounce of silver could've bought about 80 days of worth of sustainance (assuming a 2,000 daily caloric intake and if you only ate wheat-based foods) in 2005. Not sure about other years yet, but since crude oil costs are sinking vs pm in the general trend probably getting cheaper vs wheat as well.

Conclusion: What poor people?! Whose being squeezed and squashed by the high prices and needs government help?! What does that say about wage requirement laws?

And certainly with more people freed from the debt-causing system, that would leave plenty more for charity where it is needed. And given that poverty would be less common, all the easier to solve it wherever it pops up. We can not help others when we can barely help ourselves, though. Therefore, taxing the very businesses that provide what we need... that would only hurt people that depend on cheap production. And really, that's ALL of us.

Kelly
4th May 2008, 06:11
These are the facts.

http://www.globalissues.org/Geopolitics/ArmsTrade/Spending.asp

"Current military” includes Dept. of Defense ($653 billion), the military portion from other departments ($150 billion), and an additional $162 billion to supplement the Budget’s misleading and vast underestimate of only $38 billion for the “war on terror.” “Past military” represents veterans’ benefits plus 80% of the interest on the debt.

Are you saying you would prefer to subsidize Halliburton and Blackwater than this country's citizens?

Look at this chart. It seems pretty obvious where all your tax money is going.

http://www.warresisters.org/pages/piechart.htm

Kelly
4th May 2008, 06:22
Hmmmm. While I agree that the government has done an absolutely crappy job of handling social problems, unless you want to line everybody up over the age of 65, all mothers and little children on welfare, all people with disabilities getting social securities benefits, all people on Medicare or medicade, all young people who have college loans, etc., etc. etc. AND JUST SHOOT THEM, I personally suggest you exercise some caution here.

Furthermore, a few weeks ago I attempted to introduce the PALS concept on this forum, which was an attempt to start to eliminate government social programs, would have only required a lousy $12 a month from people, and would have required all able bodied recipients to work at it if they wanted to receive any benefits, AND IT WAS PRETTY MUCH IGNORED.

I disagree with you not because I think the government should be in charge of social programs; they are in fact incompetent and criminal in the way they are handling things.

So show me an alternative program that will work, and I'll listen, but until you come up with a viable solution and implement it, we are stuck with what we've got right now. Unless YOU personally want to be the one that pulls the trigger and murders all these people, you'd better come up with that alternative solution, or you would be just as guilty of murder as the white collar criminals and the Fed is.

You could actually get rid of ALL government social programs if the people in this country would just agree to contribute a lousy $12 a month to creating a network of alternative social programs that were run by REAL PEOPLE at the local level, rather than the Federal government. I'd like to see the government left out of it too. But I am convinced that unless a mandatory $12 a month to support programs at the local level is required from all citizens, those programs are never going to get off the ground. There are 330 million people in this country. $12 lousy dollars a month means people would have $3,690,000,000 monthly or $47,520,000,000 annually to solve these problems. So if you are too damn tight to agree that spending a measly $.40 cents a day in order to CORRECT what is obviously not working, then you might as well get out your guns and start forming the firing squad. Just remember though, you're going to have to shoot little children, and I'm NOT going to go there. Period.

You know, most people do not recieve food stamps or welfare their ENTIRE lives, many of them recieve aid from those programs for just a short time. A good many of them go on to find jobs.

As for the baby boomers you are griping about, I'm one of them, so unless you want to SHOOT ME, come up with an alternative. I've been paying social security since I got my first job at the age of 16. I've paid a bundle into it and now you want to cut that program? So all the money I paid in is lost? Well, between that and the fact that the price of the silver I've invested in is being manipulated and controled, I guess I must be now relagated to the ranks of "useless eaters," now that I've reached the age that apparently some think qualifies me now as "no longer necessary." Thanks. That's just a great way to enjoy ones golden years after a lifetime of work.

Go ahead, put your ideas to a vote. There are a lot of baby boomers out there who have worked their asses off all their lives, in fact they have the majority vote right now. You'd lose. Social Security benefits were not supposed to be a "welfare program." It originated as a Trust Fund. It was supposed to be a program that returned to the worker all the money that had been deducted from their wages over the course of their lifetime, so that they had something to live on after reaching the age of 65. In fact, the Social Security program is bankrupt today because the congress has been borrowing money from the Social Security Fund for decades and decades for their damn pork barrel projects and they have never paid back a dime of it.

Kelly
4th May 2008, 06:32
I've never collected one thin dime from a social program...

It's usually the women and their children who end up on those programs. If the men who took such delight in boinking those women showed some responsibility for the children they have helped produce, those women wouldn't need to be on the welfare and food stamp rolls. I see no reason to make it even harder on those women. Women would not be in that position if men were the ones who gave birth to the babies.

This country will always have it's poor. Every nation does. I agree that government programs are not the solution, but we need to come up with a viable alternative before we wipe those programs out.

Kelly
4th May 2008, 06:58
Prahudka, I apparently need some help in posting pictures and graphs from other sites. I've done it a million times on other forums, but can't get it to work on this one. This is what I'm used to doing...

1. Right click on the picture.

2. A menu pops up, and the bottom choice is one that says, "properties." You'll want to select that.

3. In the Properties Box that pops up afterwards, in the middle of the box is an item that says Address (URL).

4. Right Click on that and another menu box pops up. Hit "select all." The URL address should now be higlighted, then hit "okay."

5. Right click yet another time and this time, choose, "copy," once again, hit "okay."

6. Next, paste the URL address in your post and highlight it. This is done by dragging your cursor across the URL address.

7. Above the smiley icons are an array of buttons. Click on the second one on the bottom row, which looks like a framed picture, in blue and green.

URL tags (IMG) should now surround the URL address.

8. Hit, "post," at the bottom of your post.


So Prahudka, how are you getting your pictures posted? What am I doing wrong?

Gino
4th May 2008, 12:13
To post a picture in the forum . . .
1) Click "Insert Image" icon on the reply toolbar.
2) Insert the URL of the image into the dialog box and click OK. Like so,
http://www.warresisters.org/pages/images/pieFY09.gif

I've long thought that the people that should be excluded from public office are those very same people that seek out public office and that leadership positions that attract power, might best be handled on a lottery basis.

So, on the one-hand I despise the government for its failure to respect my individual sovereignty and freedom, while on the other feel grateful that I can contribute to the health and well-being of those in distress and need. The problem is that while ever self-interest is the basis for power, respect for the individual will be a failure of government.

That's my 2 cents worth into the wind.

Trvlr45
4th May 2008, 19:01
These are the facts.

http://www.globalissues.org/Geopolitics/ArmsTrade/Spending.asp

"Current military” includes Dept. of Defense ($653 billion), the military portion from other departments ($150 billion), and an additional $162 billion to supplement the Budget’s misleading and vast underestimate of only $38 billion for the “war on terror.” “Past military” represents veterans’ benefits plus 80% of the interest on the debt.

Are you saying you would prefer to subsidize Halliburton and Blackwater than this country's citizens?

Look at this chart. It seems pretty obvious where all your tax money is going.

http://www.warresisters.org/pages/piechart.htm

Kelly,

OF COURSE there are huge amounts of waste on military pending! No one is denying that but you can't deny that our government has intentionally raised the cost of health care over the years so we will beg for government to pay for that, too. As far as I'm concerned it doesn't make any difference where they are wasting out money I want it to stop on all fronts.

What is the difference if they give our money to defense contractors or health car contractors it is still the government screwing us out of our money and giving it to some huge corporation members of congress and the senate all have stock in.

You're also right about Eugnics. Why do you think they want government to control health care? Our government has a duty to supply us with a military. They may take advantage of that but they have no biussiness in the health care industry.

No one is saying to shoot everyone over 65 but look at all the deadbeats that are living off of social programs that are able bodied and able minded. In California all you have to do is sign up for SSI and the government will pay for your drug habit. What about the 50 million illegals that are here. Not only are they driving wages down they are sucking the health care system dry.

All I can say is that this country has real big problems and there is no easy way out. Don't worry about any of us wanting to shoot everyone over 65 the govenment all ready has plans to take real good care of them. All they need is Hillary care to get started. Have you ever heard of Sustainable Medicine? It is another great idea from the illustrious UN.

JesterJay
4th May 2008, 19:06
How about a little thing called PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY?
Those women who got "boinked" were not without blame for their illegitimate children, were they?
The fathers, or should I say sperm donors, of these children should be responsible for their actions also.
Noooooooooooo.....
Let's make people who are already taking responsibility for themselves PAY out the ass for these ignorant morons!!! Yeah, great idea. Raise taxes too while we are at it and let the Govmnt BLOW that for useless "Hey, just go sit on your lazy ASS!" programs.
We are raising a generation of slothful slugs and gangstahs.
The Welfare state will be the downfall of this country.
Production is punished and idiots are rewarded with government "Vote Democrat" Checks.
Rediculous Bullshit Reigns,
Jay ain't Jesting



...but we need to come up with a viable alternative before we wipe those programs out.

Trvlr45
4th May 2008, 19:12
To post a picture in the forum . . .
1) Click "Insert Image" icon on the reply toolbar.
2) Insert the URL of the image into the dialog box and click OK. Like so,
http://www.warresisters.org/pages/images/pieFY09.gif

I've long thought that the people that should be excluded from public office are those very same people that seek out public office and that leadership positions that attract power, might best be handled on a lottery basis.

So, on the one-hand I despise the government for its failure to respect my individual sovereignty and freedom, while on the other feel grateful that I can contribute to the health and well-being of those in distress and need. The problem is that while ever self-interest is the basis for power, respect for the individual will be a failure of government.

That's my 2 cents worth into the wind.

I can't help but notice that the 30% for handouts is almost as large as the 36% for military. Oregon is a fine example of handouts. There are 9000 people working at Oregon's Human Resources Department giving away money they have stolen out of the pockets of families who are trying to support themselves without the handouts. That's 9000 people who have jobs that aren't necessary living off the hard work of people in the private sector and the private sector is what made this country what is was, not govenment and state employees sitting on their duffs giving other peoples money away.

Since when does govenment decide who needs what? If they stopped spending money on the military tomoorrow the last place I would want to see it spent is on social programs. It would be far better to let the people that earned it keep it so they can take care of themselves. "If you can't feed 'em, Don't breed 'em".

Drumblebum
4th May 2008, 19:17
While I generally agree with your points here JJ, and value your contributions to this forum, I highly recommend you reconsider the whole "Republican vs Democrat" paradigm. Thinking people have rejected this fake dichotomy as nonsense... 'R' & 'D' are just brand names for two wings of the same party... the pro-state, pro-government party.

Neither represent the interests of the American people.

Kelly
4th May 2008, 20:53
OF COURSE there are huge amounts of waste on military pending! No one is denying that but you can't deny that our government has intentionally raised the cost of health care over the years so we will beg for government to pay for that, too. As far as I'm concerned it doesn't make any difference where they are wasting out money I want it to stop on all fronts.

What is the difference if they give our money to defense contractors or health car contractors it is still the government screwing us out of our money and giving it to some huge corporation members of congress and the senate all have stock in.

You're also right about Eugnics. Why do you think they want government to control health care? Our government has a duty to supply us with a military. They may take advantage of that but they have no biussiness in the health care industry.

No one is saying to shoot everyone over 65 but look at all the deadbeats that are living off of social programs that are able bodied and able minded. In California all you have to do is sign up for SSI and the government will pay for your drug habit. What about the 50 million illegals that are here. Not only are they driving wages down they are sucking the health care system dry.

All I can say is that this country has real big problems and there is no easy way out. Don't worry about any of us wanting to shoot everyone over 65 the govenment all ready has plans to take real good care of them. All they need is Hillary care to get started. Have you ever heard of Sustainable Medicine? It is another great idea from the illustrious UN.


No one is saying this government does not produce the most inane, useless, bloated and unfair social programs on the face of the earth. Those programs are as unfair to the recipients as they are to the taxpayer. And no one, least of all me, believes that people who suck off the system in order to get a free ride deserve it; they don't. I emphatically believe that people do need help, but that help needs to be figured out at the local and state level, rather than the Federal level. Of the 30% of the budget dedicated to social programs, how much of that money do you actually think reaches the people? I would guess less than half of that amount; the rest of it goes to feed the huge, impossibly convoluted and expensive bureaucracies that are in place to supposedly administer those programs. An enormous amount of that money also goes to pay for the endless multi-million dollar "studies" congress seems to be addicted to.

I have an adult daughter who receives about $550 a month in SSI benefits because she has two disabling diseases; crest syndrome and she has a vein disease that that produces deep vein thrombosis (blood clots) like crazy; she'll be on heparin for the rest of her life and it's amazing she is still alive. She is freezing when it's 75 degrees. Her hands don't work, she has difficulty swallowing, and her feet look like two blue swollen footballs. She gets ulcers on them the size of a silver eagle that can turn into blood poisoning in a heart beat. She has been in the hospital so many times I can't count them. Does she need that money? Oh absolutely! She couldn't live without it. She is the divorced mother of two small children and is also going to school trying to learn something that she might be able to actually do. And that's not easy because she can't walk very far, she certainly can't stand very long, and because of crest she doesn't have enough dexterity in her hands to really meet most employers expectations at a computer. Is she "on the take?" No, she is not. She doesn't drink, smoke or do drugs; she goes to school, gets good grades and takes care of her kids. Additionally, she receives child support of $750 a month from her ex that makes about 56 K a year. She has to support three people on $1300 a month. She only qualifies for $10 a month in food stamps. I really don't know how she survives on that. Her rent is $750 a month, which is considerably over 50% of her incoming money.

Now, if you want to wipe out all government programs that help support people like her; people who honestly need the help, what do you suggest we do with her and her kids? She is good mother; her boys are really very bright and do very well in school.

I am hearing you all bitch like hell about the social programs, and I don't blame you, but not a one of you has really come up with a viable alternative yet, and that's what I'd really like to hear.

The system is not working. It's not really fair to anybody, is it? So we've got a problem that needs some good problem solving.

How do we solve the problem? What do you suggest?

Trvlr45
5th May 2008, 10:56
No one is saying this government does not produce the most inane, useless, bloated and unfair social programs on the face of the earth. Those programs are as unfair to the recipients as they are to the taxpayer. And no one, least of all me, believes that people who suck off the system in order to get a free ride deserve it; they don't. I emphatically believe that people do need help, but that help needs to be figured out at the local and state level, rather than the Federal level. Of the 30% of the budget dedicated to social programs, how much of that money do you actually think reaches the people? I would guess less than half of that amount; the rest of it goes to feed the huge, impossibly convoluted and expensive bureaucracies that are in place to supposedly administer those programs. An enormous amount of that money also goes to pay for the endless multi-million dollar "studies" congress seems to be addicted to.

I have an adult daughter who receives about $550 a month in SSI benefits because she has two disabling diseases; crest syndrome and she has a vein disease that that produces deep vein thrombosis (blood clots) like crazy; she'll be on heparin for the rest of her life and it's amazing she is still alive. She is freezing when it's 75 degrees. Her hands don't work, she has difficulty swallowing, and her feet look like two blue swollen footballs. She gets ulcers on them the size of a silver eagle that can turn into blood poisoning in a heart beat. She has been in the hospital so many times I can't count them. Does she need that money? Oh absolutely! She couldn't live without it. She is the divorced mother of two small children and is also going to school trying to learn something that she might be able to actually do. And that's not easy because she can't walk very far, she certainly can't stand very long, and because of crest she doesn't have enough dexterity in her hands to really meet most employers expectations at a computer. Is she "on the take?" No, she is not. She doesn't drink, smoke or do drugs; she goes to school, gets good grades and takes care of her kids. Additionally, she receives child support of $750 a month from her ex that makes about 56 K a year. She has to support three people on $1300 a month. She only qualifies for $10 a month in food stamps. I really don't know how she survives on that. Her rent is $750 a month, which is considerably over 50% of her incoming money.

Now, if you want to wipe out all government programs that help support people like her; people who honestly need the help, what do you suggest we do with her and her kids? She is good mother; her boys are really very bright and do very well in school.

I am hearing you all bitch like hell about the social programs, and I don't blame you, but not a one of you has really come up with a viable alternative yet, and that's what I'd really like to hear.

The system is not working. It's not really fair to anybody, is it? So we've got a problem that needs some good problem solving.

How do we solve the problem? What do you suggest?

Kelly,

In one of my posts on this subject I said, "able bodied and able minded". I have avery good friend of mine who has an auto-immune disease very similar to Lupus. No one is suggesting tossing people with mental disorders or dibilitating diseases out onto the street to fend for themselves!

Un-fortunately anytime any one says that we need to get rid of all these ridiculous social programs the first thing they are accused of is doing just that.
Just as anyone that says man-made climate change is a hoax is immediately accused of wanting dirty air and dirty water. Or if you point out that "per capita" more non whites are on welfare you are accused of racism.

The problem is, that all I ever hear is we need more programs. What we need are less programs, less federal govenment intervention and all the deadbeats thrown out into the street to fend for themselves.

As or that 30%? If 25% of that got to the people those programs are designed for I would be surprised. Look at HRD in Oregon. 9000 people collecting a paycheck and no doubt a state/govenment funded pension. How in the hell can any state justify a mess like that? When you look at the population of Oregon it is criminal that you have that many people collecting a paycheck and a pension for spending money stolen from the taxpayer. They could run HRD with 1000 employees and maybe alot less than that.

I shouldn't have said we should get rid of "ALL" social programs because there are a few legitimate ones but the vast majority need to be scrapped so people like you're daughter can get what they need instead of some illegal alien or deadbeat sucking the system dry because they are irresponsible.

I may also add that the illnesses that your daughter, my friend and many other people have probably wouldn't exist in such high numbers if the people in this country realized the corruption in the FDA, the Department of Agriculture and Big Pharma. There is no excuse to have to spend $3000 a month on drugs 25% of which are derived from plants. If they would quit boiling, cooking and processing all of the nutirents out of the food supply and stop adding poisons like aspertame and flouride among many others there wouldn't be all the health problems we have today.

But then, how do you patent a natural therapy to make huge profits? You can't so that is why the system is set up the way it is.

Trvlr45
5th May 2008, 11:21
As for the baby boomers you are griping about, I'm one of them, so unless you want to SHOOT ME, come up with an alternative. I've been paying social security since I got my first job at the age of 16. I've paid a bundle into it and now you want to cut that program? So all the money I paid in is lost? Well, between that and the fact that the price of the silver I've invested in is being manipulated and controled, I guess I must be now relagated to the ranks of "useless eaters," now that I've reached the age that apparently some think qualifies me now as "no longer necessary." Thanks. That's just a great way to enjoy ones golden years after a lifetime of work.

Kelly,

The govenment raided the Social Security Fund decades ago and spent it on who knows what. Probably foriegn aid. What I pay in social security is supporting yours. By the time I get mine I'll be lucky to afford a hamburger with the check.

It was a Ponzi scheme the people in this country never should have let the govenment get away with starting in the first place. My dad loves his SS check but he doesn't realize where it is coming from. There are far to many lazy kids growing up today don't have any work ethic so I'm the one that is going to get screwed on Social Security. Not you. My generation, for the most part still has a work ethic. The thirtysomethings behind me are Kruschevs generation. There are far less of them who believe in personal responsiblity and their kids? Well, that's going to be when things really get bad considering what they are teaching in the schools these days.

They should give people like me a choice to get out of SS since it is the worst investment on planet earth. They could easily fund your's and anyone elses if they would stop spending money around the globe and here at home like drunken sailors. A couple of years ago they spent 100 billion on illegal aliens in this country and that is just what someone was able to dig up. There is no telling what the real numbers are.

What is happening is that the wealth of America is being stolen from us by organizations like the UN and spread around the globe. That is the problem. Just wait until the carbon credits scam is in full swing and see how much anyone gets to keep out of their paycheck.

England just recently decided to start a $50 a day tax for driving an SUV, a sixteen dollar a day tax for "Road Congestion" and all kinds of other "green weenie" taxes to rape the working class out of their money. That new kind of environmental terrorism is coming here in a big way and not one dime of the money will go for your daughter or social security.

Trvlr45
5th May 2008, 11:27
While I generally agree with your points here JJ, and value your contributions to this forum, I highly recommend you reconsider the whole "Republican vs Democrat" paradigm. Thinking people have rejected this fake dichotomy as nonsense... 'R' & 'D' are just brand names for two wings of the same party... the pro-state, pro-government party.

Neither represent the interests of the American people.

I agree with everything JJ said. But you are dead on. It's the same party with two heads that's why after being a flag waving Republican for 30 years I'm not any more. I classify myself as an American now. I hate communism and fascism. All you have to do is look at what both parties are doing and it is pretty easy to figure out that our best interests are no where to be found on either side of the isle.

Trvlr45
5th May 2008, 11:40
How about a little thing called PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY?
Those women who got "boinked" were not without blame for their illegitimate children, were they?
The fathers, or should I say sperm donors, of these children should be responsible for their actions also.
Noooooooooooo.....
Let's make people who are already taking responsibility for themselves PAY out the ass for these ignorant morons!!! Yeah, great idea. Raise taxes too while we are at it and let the Govmnt BLOW that for useless "Hey, just go sit on your lazy ASS!" programs.
We are raising a generation of slothful slugs and gangstahs.
The Welfare state will be the downfall of this country.
Production is punished and idiots are rewarded with government "Vote Democrat" Checks.
Rediculous Bullshit Reigns,
Jay ain't Jesting

You're right Jester but you have to admit that George (who I voted for twice) has spent more money on the destruction of this country than Slick Willie. He's the one forming a North American Union behind our backs and funding the Mexican invasion with our tax dollars. The Republican party is no more in this country. Read the Bush Justice Department brief carefully on the DC gun ban case. Bush is as anti gun as Obama and Schumer or that brief would never have been worder the way it is.

Kelly
5th May 2008, 12:20
Kelly,

The govenment raided the Social Security Fund decades ago and spent it on who knows what. Probably foriegn aid. What I pay in social security is supporting yours. By the time I get mine I'll be lucky to afford a hamburger with the check.

It was a Ponzi scheme the people in this country never should have let the govenment get away with starting in the first place. My dad loves his SS check but he doesn't realize where it is coming from. There are far to many lazy kids growing up today don't have any work ethic so I'm the one that is going to get screwed on Social Security. Not you. My generation, for the most part still has a work ethic. The thirtysomethings behind me are Kruschevs generation. There are far less of them who believe in personal responsiblity and their kids? Well, that's going to be when things really get bad considering what they are teaching in the schools these days.

They should give people like me a choice to get out of SS since it is the worst investment on planet earth. They could easily fund your's and anyone elses if they would stop spending money around the globe and here at home like drunken sailors. A couple of years ago they spent 100 billion on illegal aliens in this country and that is just what someone was able to dig up. There is no telling what the real numbers are.

What is happening is that the wealth of America is being stolen from us by organizations like the UN and spread around the globe. That is the problem. Just wait until the carbon credits scam is in full swing and see how much anyone gets to keep out of their paycheck.

England just recently decided to start a $50 a day tax for driving an SUV, a sixteen dollar a day tax for "Road Congestion" and all kinds of other "green weenie" taxes to rape the working class out of their money. That new kind of environmental terrorism is coming here in a big way and not one dime of the money will go for your daughter or social security.

Trvlr45,

I can't argue with a thing you've said in your above post. The whole thing is a Ponzi scheme and I know it. And although I believe in protecting the environment, today I completely disagree with every thing the so called "environmental movement" is trying to push through legislation around the world. Environmentalism has got to be well-funded for that to happen and if it's got big money behind it, then it is part of the elitist agenda. "Scientific Consensus" is bought and paid for by the UN, and the governments and the NGOs that issue the grants are ultimately owned by globalist concerns.

I don't hate Mexicans, but I don't want to support them all here either. So now the government has plans to give billions to the Mexican government. Mexico has a great number of millionaires; there are some very wealthy people in that nation. The wealthy abuse the poor, just like in this nation. But why are we giving money to Mexico, when all Mexico has to do is stop the graft and that country will have the money it needs to solve its own problems? I don't have a huge problem with Mexicans that are here legally; some of them are very good people. But if they are going to be here, I want them to become citizens, learn English, pay their fair share, work and obey the laws.

And as for Medicare? When my Mom's heart started giving out, she accepted it and figured it was her time to go. But my Dad couldn't handle the thought of being alone and between him and the damn doctors they put an 80 year old woman through quadruple heart by-pass surgery she never recovered from, a hip replacement she never recovered from, she was jump started 17 different times after her heart had actually stopped and she was forced to live in abject pain and suffering for the last decade of her life. Well over half a million dollars of Medicare money was spent on her, when all she really wanted to do was be allowed to die in peace and nobody would let her. It was truly bizaar to watch what the system did to her, and terribly, terribly heartbreaking as well. No one listened to her wants and needs. My Dad ran the show and the doctors and insurance companies raked in the dough. It was just horrible. I felt so sorry for her.

I know absolutely that social security will be bankrupt by the time your generation gets older. Frankly, I doubt seriously if there is enough money in the SS fund to even get the baby boomers through. It's too late for my generation to opt out of the SS system, but it's not too late for people your age and I think you should definitely be given that option. And you should have the right to put your money into silver and gold as a long term investment. The stock market is manipulated and has been since at least the 20s. I think a whole lot of people with 401Ks are going to find that out sooner than they might think. That's not necessarily the best place to put your retirement funds.

I don't know what the answer is. The same group is manipulating the housing market, the stock market, the precious metals market and all commodities. We've got to get rid of that group, lock them up and throw away the keys, before anybody really stands a rat's chance of making it. I may have great compassion for those who are caught in this nightmare, but I have no pity what-so-ever for those who are responsible.

But until those people are locked up in jail where they can do no more harm, I honestly don't know how we are going to get anything to work for anybody.

Richard
5th May 2008, 16:52
Look at this chart. It seems pretty obvious where all your tax money is going.

As "well" it should, for this is the welfare/warfare state we live in.

Heck of an ugly reality, but even a little collective charity result in something so destructive.

EDIT: I tried to make this short, to illustrate that over-spending is inevitable but I think most readers here realize that, and since I want to save space for a change...

But I will point out that even without wasteful military spending, such programs to help the needy are quite in need of funding. Consider Europe... 10 times more socialist over there than we are here, yet doesn't devote very much if anything to military spending, no matter how justified it may be. We fight on their behalf and foot that bill. But even though they factor out such costs in their model, they a have a wonderful system of healthcare. So they say, yet a good chunk of our dollar devaluations supports their currency so that they may have all that wonderful "factored out" goodness. While it's not right that our government support another nation's ills, it does prove that military spending need not be a factor for government programs to fail.

But, as is the nature of over-spending from over-extending powers, various shortages appear and people get irate. Thus, the warfare state as both sides deny any wrong-doing in their corrputions of government function. I could write a book here on why costs get high like they do, but... trying to save room. I'll just say, even when honestly done with only good intentions, the result is bankruptcy; cutting wasteful spending to undeserving recipients won't do it.

So what can be done to help the needy without resulting in the welfare/warfare state?

I've been saying it in just about every post: the market, or, said another way... laise faire. It's a wonderful system in which corruption can not exist. But one will only see that when they forget all they "know" about it that they have been taught to think.

Kelly
5th May 2008, 18:35
the market, or, said another way... laise faire. It's a wonderful system in which corruption can not exist.

LOL! You've simply GOT to be kidding, right? There has NEVER been a stock market crash ever that was not a manipulated event. Today there is a manipulated silver and gold market, a manipulated food commodities market, a manipulated oil market, AND a manipulated stock market.

What do you mean "corruption can not exist"? Do you work for Wall Street or something? NAFTA? The World Trade Organization?

Richard, have you ever taken the time to watch the "MoneyMasters"? Go look it up on Google Video and learn something about history.

No corruption? Argue that out with Ted Butler…

In fact, the 8 largest traders in COMEX silver set a new sick record of concentration of 83% once the spreads are removed, up from 82% last week. In other words, the near-record reported net short percentage of 56.6% is understated by almost half again. Forget that no other market has, or has had, such a extreme concentration (save gold), no other market even comes close.

In terms of commodity law and common sense, there are no words that come to me that can fully describe just how extreme is the percent of short concentration in silver (and gold). Those that speak with me know I have trouble trying to describe its dimensions. I sit amazed every day that this is allowed to exist. I honestly don’t understand why the regulators and informed market observers are not making a big deal about it. Let me be clear - there is nothing more important in silver or gold.

So large is the concentrated short position in silver that I feel we have just witnessed the high-water mark, that won’t ever be exceeded. I say this for two reasons. One, the arrival of first notice day should reduce the number of shorts held by the big traders in the next COT report due to deliveries, as well should liquidation after the latest COT’s cut-off date. But the most important reason why I don’t think we will ever exceed the 83% mark of the latest report is that it is already so far above even the most extreme levels I could have ever imagined. Surely the regulators can’t be that negligent or incompetent to allow this to occur ever again.
http://news.silverseek.com/TedButler/1210018234.php

Richard
5th May 2008, 22:00
What do you mean "corruption can not exist"? Do you work for Wall Street or something? NAFTA? The World Trade Organization?

I should have been clearer... Lying about numbers is destined to screw only the liar I will show you in a moment.

No, I am none of those things. Just a disabaled trucker, but I did trade currencies for a while. I wouldn't say I was one of them, though.


Richard, have you ever taken the time to watch the "MoneyMasters"? Go look it up on Google Video and learn something about history.

I'm not sure about that one, but I have seen and read lots about money. The title certainly sounds famliar, but then again "Money" is, well, a common title when reading about money.

And... Well, prior to suffering a bit of brain damage when I had severe food posoining and massive dehydration, I used to know lots of history. Lots of math too. Still do, but recall of info is a "bit" to bit cloudy at times. Ask me anything about history, though, and allow me some time and I'll be able to recall if I know anything about it or not. I've found it more useful to not recall any one fact, but rather dicuss principles of an event, the what, why, and how etc.

What I do know is that laise faire has never been tried for any length of time, in it's fullest sense, if ever it has been practiced fully at all.


No corruption? Argue that out with Ted Butler…

I like his work. He's very detailed and, most importantly, PROVES that markets are not corruptable. How?

We know the real numbers despite the games, so we buy silver based on that honest knowledge. Therefore, a manuplation presents no real harm to investors and traders if they know it's there. And it's been visible the whole time, in the gold/silver ratio all these years.

But even if we did not know that, and went by some manipulated number, it would not work for the liar. Consider this...

Wealth is the disparity between two things in a trade, or

supply A < supply B. If A=A, as in they are the same things, there would be nothing to trade, of course. But A = B is valid, like gold and silver can be euqall in supply, for example, but are tradable for their different qualities. I know I know... DUH... but if I don't start at the begining I might miss something :)

That's what determines the price, or ratio, between A and B, the supplies relevent to each other. Where markets are immune to manipulation...

They couldn't lie and say there was more than there actaully was, because then they would be ripping themselves off and out of a profitable trade. Okay, so they would lie and say there was less, because they could gain the advantage that way, right?

Not if people traded to ratios. A low number would be relative to the would-be theif in trade but in production, it would drive people to produce more of whats short in supply, by greed, for the profit to be made. Like, say, wheat. When wheat supply runs low, or is said to be low when it isn't, we can expect it's value to increase until more is brought to market. And doing so would greatly profit the producer(s) who did so. Whoever gets it done first reaps the reward. The liar would lose out to competition, and be stuck with something in greater supply unless they dumped thier lie and got moving instead of sitting there trying to fool people.

So not even bad numbers can stop prosperity, due to the natural immunity of markets to manipulation. And that's the point Kel... WE are able to be manipulated, not the market. They lie about all things because they forces us to use the money until we don't know anything else. So really, it's not the lie so much as it is the forcing of people to use their money and all it's hidden rules.

Therefore, laise faire is a valid concept as well as a wise practice. And honesty, while preferable, is not VITAL to it's success because of how markets and psychology work. Profit motive would break a lying number. Trade would continue around it so that production keeps going. Anyway...

Laise faire means "to let do". This is not meant, though, in the context of letting anything go, in terms of how we treat each other, ie anarchy. It means to let the natural forces of the market be what they are, and to not try and controll them (which is ultimately a delusion... the natural law of the market belongs in no one's hands, as we saw above).

Lasie faire also says we're all as rich and powerful as the next person is, because like infinite points on a line segment, there are infinite profitable trades in the market at any given point in time. And, like line segments, length of the line does not mean one line has more infinite potential for points than another! Line AB may be longer than line YZ, but each has an infinite number of points on it still.

So in that regard, they are equall despite thier lengths. What that says about us and how we are to govern is contained in that principle. Ie, no one person is more important than another (in terms of legal and civil matters, but ar differing in ability or "length of line").

It also says that government policy and courts can not make the distinction between a person by wealth and status or lack thereof. So, anyone can be sued for damages that they cause a person in their actions, because all people in laise faire are equally wealthy; there is no means to show favortism or any basis by which one can rationally accept a bribe, be they judge or jury.

The popular myth is that laise faire is elitist, implies slavery and anarachy and god knows what other evils. But such is not a description of what it actually is. If one uses it in context of a person being able to do whatever, then that is anarchy. But used in terms of a non-human entity called the market, whose power is in the hands of no one, and allowing it to do what it will then it yields ultimate justice and freedom for all. Not to mention, vast wealth!

I don't know wheater or not anyone would agree with that, but that's how I see it. It becomes much easier to see when one considers that things mostly take care of themselves. What we do is act to produce and trade in order gain knowledge, and to allow for new knowledge when we come across it. And most of all, the deceit comes NOT from the market. They don't manipulate markets. They manipulate PEOPLE in seeming to manipulate markets. Big difference and quite vital to understanding why laize faire works.

As for your PAL idea... I'm sorry, I must not have been paying much attention the forum at the time and I have not been able to find it. Which topic is it in?

Trvlr45
6th May 2008, 04:27
Trvlr45,

I can't argue with a thing you've said in your above post. The whole thing is a Ponzi scheme and I know it. And although I believe in protecting the environment, today I completely disagree with every thing the so called "environmental movement" is trying to push through legislation around the world. Environmentalism has got to be well-funded for that to happen and if it's got big money behind it, then it is part of the elitist agenda. "Scientific Consensus" is bought and paid for by the UN, and the governments and the NGOs that issue the grants are ultimately owned by globalist concerns.

I don't hate Mexicans, but I don't want to support them all here either. So now the government has plans to give billions to the Mexican government. Mexico has a great number of millionaires; there are some very wealthy people in that nation. The wealthy abuse the poor, just like in this nation. But why are we giving money to Mexico, when all Mexico has to do is stop the graft and that country will have the money it needs to solve its own problems? I don't have a huge problem with Mexicans that are here legally; some of them are very good people. But if they are going to be here, I want them to become citizens, learn English, pay their fair share, work and obey the laws.

And as for Medicare? When my Mom's heart started giving out, she accepted it and figured it was her time to go. But my Dad couldn't handle the thought of being alone and between him and the damn doctors they put an 80 year old woman through quadruple heart by-pass surgery she never recovered from, a hip replacement she never recovered from, she was jump started 17 different times after her heart had actually stopped and she was forced to live in abject pain and suffering for the last decade of her life. Well over half a million dollars of Medicare money was spent on her, when all she really wanted to do was be allowed to die in peace and nobody would let her. It was truly bizaar to watch what the system did to her, and terribly, terribly heartbreaking as well. No one listened to her wants and needs. My Dad ran the show and the doctors and insurance companies raked in the dough. It was just horrible. I felt so sorry for her.

I know absolutely that social security will be bankrupt by the time your generation gets older. Frankly, I doubt seriously if there is enough money in the SS fund to even get the baby boomers through. It's too late for my generation to opt out of the SS system, but it's not too late for people your age and I think you should definitely be given that option. And you should have the right to put your money into silver and gold as a long term investment. The stock market is manipulated and has been since at least the 20s. I think a whole lot of people with 401Ks are going to find that out sooner than they might think. That's not necessarily the best place to put your retirement funds.

I don't know what the answer is. The same group is manipulating the housing market, the stock market, the precious metals market and all commodities. We've got to get rid of that group, lock them up and throw away the keys, before anybody really stands a rat's chance of making it. I may have great compassion for those who are caught in this nightmare, but I have no pity what-so-ever for those who are responsible.

But until those people are locked up in jail where they can do no more harm, I honestly don't know how we are going to get anything to work for anybody.

Hello Again Kelly,

I know you can't argue with anything I said because it is true. It is a shame your daughter isn't getting more assisatance from the govenment and she would if there weren't so many deadbeats sucking off the sytem. That is the problem with social programs and a govenment so huge no one can keep track of it all.. The founding fathers knew that and that is why they wrote the constitution to limit govenment. Thomas Payne says it all in some of his writings.

I never meant to insinunuate that your daughter shouldn't be getting assistance or that you shouldn't get your check. I apologize if I hurt your feelings. The govenment owes you that but I take issue with the fact that I am forced to pay into it when I don't want it. I just see red when I hear anyone talk about funding programs.

If the govenment hadn't stolen so much of your earnings over the years and if the average retiree didn't have the government stealing half of their children's earnings or theirs in their working years there wouldn't be as much need for govenment assistance for the elderly. Add to that the huge costs of health care thanks to the govenment and it is pretty easy to see that they want it that way.

Last but not least. Social Security is already bankrupt. It is just another tax like anything else. It goes into the general fund to be spent on who knows what and the number is nothing but an un-constitutional tracking number to follow your every move.

As far as Mexicans go I agree with everything you said on that subject. If they want to come here to assimilate, pay their way and learn english I have no problem whatsoever but the vast majority of them aren't here for that. They are here to take over by forcing their culture and language on us. Our government is letting them do it because the best way to destroy a country is to dilute the culture with immigration. The Roman empire did the same thing. As a matter of fact we are doing everything the Roman Empire did that led to it's downfall.

Kelly
6th May 2008, 09:48
Hi Trvlr,

Well, I'm not getting that SSI check yet; I'm not old enough but it's coming up fast. And don't worry about my feelings. I've got a pretty thick skin. :cool:

Again, I can't argue with a thing you've said. Except maybe... "The Roman empire did the same thing. As a matter of fact we are doing everything the Roman Empire did that led to its downfall." Rome fell, yes, but Rome was not TRYING to manufacture its own collapse. The collapse happened because they were so over bloated they lost control. Rome can be more correctly used as an analogy to describe what is happening in the Senate and to the elected government in general. But Rome does NOT qualify as a good description for what the shadow government which manipulates the elected government is doing. By that I mean the Fed, the corporate move to globalism, the military and CIA and their very real black budget scenario, the CFR, the United Nations, the World Trade Organization and that whole ball of wax. They WANT the governments to fall; they are in fact working to make it happen. Their program more appropriately qualifies as the fascism of Nazi Germany resurrected to take over the world. They have a plan for world takeover, and that plan has apparently been in operation for several hundred years.

My point is your anger and frustration is being directed at Rome (the elected, official government) but in this case, Rome is falling because the unelected Shadow Government, which answers to no one, is manipulating events behind the scenes.

You know all about the North American Union and the Amero. Those plans are not being put together (for the most part) by our elected officials and many of our senators and representatives feel just as angry and frustrated about it as you do. The fact is the Shadow Government is now in the process of taking over the elected official government. Even Bush and Cheney, as disgusting as they are, are not in charge of this thing. However, they certainly qualify as the most visible puppets of the Shadow plans for takeover. The CFR, which is the most visible tool of the Shadow Government, now has three of their primary puppets running for President of the United States today. It doesn't look good.

What is happening is like a systemic disease. It doesn't do a hell of a lot of good to apply a topical cure to a festering wound when the wound is caused by a staff infection running rampart through the entire bloodstream.

So many people are saying "Let the whole damn thing collapse then" but what will collapse is only Rome, i.e. our "officially elected government." Reality dictates the collapse is being engineered by something far more lethal and dangerous than the absurdity of all the inept programs you are so frustrated about.

The disease is systemic. And from what I can tell, that same shadow government is now operating in every country around the world. It's as evident in Europe as it is in America.

From what I can see, if we want to fix the problems, we have to first direct our energy towards getting rid of the Shadow government before we can work on the festering wounds so apparent in the elected government.

That's one of the primary reasons I want to launch an attack against the manipulation and price fixing going on in the Commodities market. That's not being operated by the official government; it's being manipulated by the Shadow Government who must bring the population to its knees by manipulating the price of food and oil, as well as our "black market money;" silver and gold. The Shadow government is not stupid. They are PURPOSEFULLY manipulating the price of basic needs to bring us all to our knees, and what they are doing is affecting every single country around the world. If we can take out the cartel manipulating the commodities market, the chances are we will be directing a very damaging blow to the central banks around the world.

And Trvlr, you already know how I feel about those banks… The people who own the central banks qualify as the primary power funding and directing the Shadow Government today. From day one, our forefathers who wrote the constitution knew that if anything was capable of destroying the United States, it would be the handful of elitists running the central banking cartel. Collapsing the dollar, the yen or the Euro will not collapse the power behind that cartel. They already have their proposed world monetary system ready to go when that happens, so what is happening on the surface of things is essentially just a ruse.

We need to put our heads together and discuss how to collapse the power structure of the banking cartel, because when we can do that, the funding source that is feeding all the other fascist programs simply dries up. Without funding, the environmental lobbyists can't lobby, the black budget projects have no operating budget, and so on and so forth.

That banking cartel is attempting to collapse the money system to gain control. Now we have to figure out how to collapse them, or we are going to lose this war.

Trvlr45
6th May 2008, 14:56
Yep, you're right.

LiliaMooley
22nd May 2010, 11:57
Something alike was discussed on the Yahoo! Answers last week, i can share a link if you want some

LiliaMooley
11th June 2010, 10:52
Something alike was discussed on the ask.com,i can give someone a link if anybody need it