[jficquette]

All I mean is that if we had a balanced budget and taxes based on consumption with no income tax or some type of flat tax then we would take away the punch bowl from the politicians who spend money to get votes.

Having a balanced budget would be the same as have a gold standard in some ways because you could only expand the budget based on economic activity and not just to pander to the masses. With a balanced budget you would have no reason for the government to borrow money. Borrowing money is the transaction that prints money. You can’t create money without creating debt.

I guess I am saying its not the fiat currency system its the politicians who take advantage of it and they only take advantage of it because it works for them. There are no restraints to how much debt they can pile on because we don’t require a balanced budget.

John

[jficquette]

All I mean is that if we had a balanced budget and taxes based on consumption with no income tax or some type of flat tax then we would take away the punch bowl from the politicians who spend money to get votes.

Having a balanced budget would be the same as have a gold standard in some ways because you could only expand the budget based on economic activity and not just to pander to the masses. With a balanced budget you would have no reason for the government to borrow money. Borrowing money is the transaction that prints money. You can’t create money without creating debt.

I guess I am saying its not the fiat currency system its the politicians who take advantage of it and they only take advantage of it because it works for them. There are no restraints to how much debt they can pile on because we don’t require a balanced budget.

John

[jficquette]

All I mean is that if we had a balanced budget and taxes based on consumption with no income tax or some type of flat tax then we would take away the punch bowl from the politicians who spend money to get votes.

Having a balanced budget would be the same as have a gold standard in some ways because you could only expand the budget based on economic activity and not just to pander to the masses. With a balanced budget you would have no reason for the government to borrow money. Borrowing money is the transaction that prints money. You can’t create money without creating debt.

I guess I am saying its not the fiat currency system its the politicians who take advantage of it and they only take advantage of it because it works for them. There are no restraints to how much debt they can pile on because we don’t require a balanced budget.

John

[jficquette]

All I mean is that if we had a balanced budget and taxes based on consumption with no income tax or some type of flat tax then we would take away the punch bowl from the politicians who spend money to get votes.

Having a balanced budget would be the same as have a gold standard in some ways because you could only expand the budget based on economic activity and not just to pander to the masses. With a balanced budget you would have no reason for the government to borrow money. Borrowing money is the transaction that prints money. You can’t create money without creating debt.

I guess I am saying its not the fiat currency system its the politicians who take advantage of it and they only take advantage of it because it works for them. There are no restraints to how much debt they can pile on because we don’t require a balanced budget.

John

[jficquette]

All I mean is that if we had a balanced budget and taxes based on consumption with no income tax or some type of flat tax then we would take away the punch bowl from the politicians who spend money to get votes.

Having a balanced budget would be the same as have a gold standard in some ways because you could only expand the budget based on economic activity and not just to pander to the masses. With a balanced budget you would have no reason for the government to borrow money. Borrowing money is the transaction that prints money. You can’t create money without creating debt.

I guess I am saying its not the fiat currency system its the politicians who take advantage of it and they only take advantage of it because it works for them. There are no restraints to how much debt they can pile on because we don’t require a balanced budget.

John

[jficquette]

[quote=barnaby33]A country with a flat tax or a consumption tax and a constitutional amendment to require a balanced budget would do great with fiat money.

It would also never have a large military or be able to fight wars of any size, or build massive infrastructure. On the one hand it would dramatically shrink GDP and encourage savings, which we need. It would also help conserve the environment. On the other hand since we have such a large debt, don’t you think that shrinking GDP which as a corollary shrinks tax revenues, we’d be slitting our own throats?

I know this post is a bit derivative, maybe jficquette can open a new thread to discuss?[/quote]

What it would do is keep private money from being confiscated by the feds to waste on itself. Rather then shrink the GDP it would make it grow because the money would be used more efficently.

I guess I am a supply sider (g).

As far as a new thread, go ahead and start one if you wish. It would be a great topic.

Thanks,

John

[jficquette]

[quote=barnaby33]A country with a flat tax or a consumption tax and a constitutional amendment to require a balanced budget would do great with fiat money.

It would also never have a large military or be able to fight wars of any size, or build massive infrastructure. On the one hand it would dramatically shrink GDP and encourage savings, which we need. It would also help conserve the environment. On the other hand since we have such a large debt, don’t you think that shrinking GDP which as a corollary shrinks tax revenues, we’d be slitting our own throats?

I know this post is a bit derivative, maybe jficquette can open a new thread to discuss?[/quote]

What it would do is keep private money from being confiscated by the feds to waste on itself. Rather then shrink the GDP it would make it grow because the money would be used more efficently.

I guess I am a supply sider (g).

As far as a new thread, go ahead and start one if you wish. It would be a great topic.

Thanks,

John

[jficquette]

[quote=barnaby33]A country with a flat tax or a consumption tax and a constitutional amendment to require a balanced budget would do great with fiat money.

It would also never have a large military or be able to fight wars of any size, or build massive infrastructure. On the one hand it would dramatically shrink GDP and encourage savings, which we need. It would also help conserve the environment. On the other hand since we have such a large debt, don’t you think that shrinking GDP which as a corollary shrinks tax revenues, we’d be slitting our own throats?

I know this post is a bit derivative, maybe jficquette can open a new thread to discuss?[/quote]

What it would do is keep private money from being confiscated by the feds to waste on itself. Rather then shrink the GDP it would make it grow because the money would be used more efficently.

I guess I am a supply sider (g).

As far as a new thread, go ahead and start one if you wish. It would be a great topic.

Thanks,

John

[jficquette]

[quote=barnaby33]A country with a flat tax or a consumption tax and a constitutional amendment to require a balanced budget would do great with fiat money.

It would also never have a large military or be able to fight wars of any size, or build massive infrastructure. On the one hand it would dramatically shrink GDP and encourage savings, which we need. It would also help conserve the environment. On the other hand since we have such a large debt, don’t you think that shrinking GDP which as a corollary shrinks tax revenues, we’d be slitting our own throats?

I know this post is a bit derivative, maybe jficquette can open a new thread to discuss?[/quote]

What it would do is keep private money from being confiscated by the feds to waste on itself. Rather then shrink the GDP it would make it grow because the money would be used more efficently.

I guess I am a supply sider (g).

As far as a new thread, go ahead and start one if you wish. It would be a great topic.

Thanks,

John

[jficquette]

[quote=barnaby33]A country with a flat tax or a consumption tax and a constitutional amendment to require a balanced budget would do great with fiat money.

It would also never have a large military or be able to fight wars of any size, or build massive infrastructure. On the one hand it would dramatically shrink GDP and encourage savings, which we need. It would also help conserve the environment. On the other hand since we have such a large debt, don’t you think that shrinking GDP which as a corollary shrinks tax revenues, we’d be slitting our own throats?

I know this post is a bit derivative, maybe jficquette can open a new thread to discuss?[/quote]

What it would do is keep private money from being confiscated by the feds to waste on itself. Rather then shrink the GDP it would make it grow because the money would be used more efficently.

I guess I am a supply sider (g).

As far as a new thread, go ahead and start one if you wish. It would be a great topic.

Thanks,

John

[jficquette]

Veritas,

The main reason I don’t feel HC was qualified is that the most important qualificatons to me are character, honesty and leadership skills and she has none of those attributes. However, she is more “qualifed” then Obama and if one of those two were going to be president I would prefer HC.

Thanks

John

[jficquette]

Veritas,

The main reason I don’t feel HC was qualified is that the most important qualificatons to me are character, honesty and leadership skills and she has none of those attributes. However, she is more “qualifed” then Obama and if one of those two were going to be president I would prefer HC.

Thanks

John

[jficquette]

Veritas,

The main reason I don’t feel HC was qualified is that the most important qualificatons to me are character, honesty and leadership skills and she has none of those attributes. However, she is more “qualifed” then Obama and if one of those two were going to be president I would prefer HC.

Thanks

John

[jficquette]

Veritas,

The main reason I don’t feel HC was qualified is that the most important qualificatons to me are character, honesty and leadership skills and she has none of those attributes. However, she is more “qualifed” then Obama and if one of those two were going to be president I would prefer HC.

Thanks

John

[jficquette]

Veritas,

The main reason I don’t feel HC was qualified is that the most important qualificatons to me are character, honesty and leadership skills and she has none of those attributes. However, she is more “qualifed” then Obama and if one of those two were going to be president I would prefer HC.

Thanks

John

[Author]

Posts