Romney: Big spending cuts would cause a Depression

[John Galt]

Agreed with one caveat--I am not inclined to think gold a good idea. On one hand it has never been worth zero, but I am concerned that its lack of direct usefulness will make it a poor form of wealth storage in an environment that likely could be precipitated by the perfect storm we have brewing since you cannot eat it, wear it, or use it for protection.

I never did get the whole "you can't eat gold" thing. How is a dollar bill directly useful? You cannot eat, wear, or use for protection a dollar bill either, but it's what the gold (and silver) will allow you to buy/barter for after people figure out that the whole "full faith and credit" of the US government ain't worth a hill of beans under the rule of a sociopathic printer.
Kinda funny how thousands of years of human history has shown that gold/silver are the default currency (along with force) after the fiat has been destroyed.

 

[John Galt]

From what I can see, the following departments do not fill a Constitutional purpose and are not necessary: Education ($71.9B), HUD ($46.3B), Energy ($35B), Agriculture ($154.5B), CIA ($52.6B), Labor (101.7B), EPA ($8.9B plus billions and billions in damage to the economy, never mind freedom), add up to $526.3B. "Other Spending" (which was not broken down) comes in at $1,270.5B. HHS ($940.9) seems like another obvious target, considering that unlike Social Security, it has no element of anyone paying in with the expectation of a specific return for having done so. The military could be significantly reduced if we were to return to our roots and not maintain such a large standing military. I certainly do not want to take all the bars off the windows, but $672.9B is a little much. SS comes in at $882.7, but I have mixed feeling here. On one hand, people had their money taken as a mandatory 'investment' for a lifetime with the expectation of a return, but then again, they were asleep at the switch when Johnson & Co. raided the trust fund for the (not so) Great Society. The $98.5B in Transportation also warrant a close look. The majority of this money should never have been removed from the states, nor should it be used to extort them into compliance. there is a Constitutional authority for a certain amount of necessary road construction, but that does NOT mean federalizing land travel. It does look like we have plenty to work with if we can put the politicians back into their cages.

Tried to rep and must spread the love a little - great post!

 

[IndyDave1776]

I never did get the whole "you can't eat gold" thing. How is a dollar bill directly useful? You cannot eat, wear, or use for protection a dollar bill either, but it's what the gold (and silver) will allow you to buy/barter for after people figure out that the whole "full faith and credit" of the US government ain't worth a hill of beans under the rule of a sociopathic printer.
Kinda funny how thousands of years of human history has shown that gold/silver are the default currency (along with force) after the fiat has been destroyed.

I agree with you in general. My position is that in an all-out SHTF, which seems to me to be the likely outcome, gold and silver will not retain this historic position. I could go religious and mention the biblical reference to people throwing both into the street, but I believe that consideration of the likely conditions will make the point staying within the natural realm and the site rules. I would say that this change relative to world history will be brought about by things which are actually necessary being sufficiently scarce that no one will be willing to trade for anything they cannot use as their immediate needs will be far from being fulfilled, bringing us back into a system of barter in which few if any will accept anything that does not fill an immediate unaddressed need.

Thanks for the kind remark in your previous post!

 

[John Galt]

I agree with you in general. My position is that in an all-out SHTF, which seems to me to be the likely outcome, gold and silver will not retain this historic position. I could go religious and mention the biblical reference to people throwing both into the street, but I believe that consideration of the likely conditions will make the point staying within the natural realm and the site rules. I would say that this change relative to world history will be brought about by things which are actually necessary being sufficiently scarce that no one will be willing to trade for anything they cannot use as their immediate needs will be far from being fulfilled, bringing us back into a system of barter in which few if any will accept anything that does not fill an immediate unaddressed need.

Thanks for the kind remark in your previous post!

"Money" is nothing more than an efficient "tool" used for trade. For thousands of years, gold and silver has fit this role very well and will continue to do so for many years on. Almost every country on earth has succumbed to the temptation of print/inflate/eventually destroy fiat currency. Notice how things started to go screwy once we abandoned the gold standard and the politicians got the "print/debt" fever?

 

[IndyDave1776]

"Money" is nothing more than an efficient "tool" used for trade. For thousands of years, gold and silver has fit this role very well and will continue to do so for many years on. Almost every country on earth has succumbed to the temptation of print/inflate/eventually destroy fiat currency. Notice how things started to go screwy once we abandoned the gold standard and the politicians got the "print/debt" fever?

Had we stayed with the gold standard and not had the situation in 1933 in which we had $11T in paper with only $4T worth of gold on the face of the planet, and a series of bad decisions following that, we would not have this problem. My concern is that in the most desperate of times, no one will accept any currency, even gold or silver of proven purity, if they are not absolutely sure that they can re-use it as currency (i.e., sure that the next guy will accept it from them). I see this as a very real concern. I am not aware of this having happened in the past, but there is a first time for everything. I am not hanging my hat on this one, but I am not tying up money in gold that I can put into more readily useful things, like lead and brass (in ready to use form).

 

[jedi]

Had we stayed with the gold standard and not had the situation in 1933 in which we had $11T in paper with only $4T worth of gold on the face of the planet, and a series of bad decisions following that, we would not have this problem. My concern is that in the most desperate of times, no one will accept any currency, even gold or silver of proven purity, if they are not absolutely sure that they can re-use it as currency (i.e., sure that the next guy will accept it from them). I see this as a very real concern. I am not aware of this having happened in the past, but there is a first time for everything. I am not hanging my hat on this one, but I am not tying up money in gold that I can put into more readily useful things, like lead and brass (in ready to use form).

Your logic is flaw in that you are only looking at the "future SHTF" but not lookin beyond that point. Mankind's history shows that after every SHTF civilization does flourish once again and sadly they go back to the fiat/paper money and repeat the lessons they SHOULD have learned. So gold (more than silver) will allow you to retain the wealth you had prior to the SHTF once the next "civilied period" starts PROVIDED you survive the SHTF.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Your logic is flaw in that you are only looking at the "future SHTF" but not lookin beyond that point. Mankind's history shows that after every SHTF civilization does flourish once again and sadly they go back to the fiat/paper money and repeat the lessons they SHOULD have learned. So gold (more than silver) will allow you to retain the wealth you had prior to the SHTF once the next "civilied period" starts PROVIDED you survive the SHTF.

I will grant you that, but as it is, I will require most of my wealth in more usable form in order to survive the 'future SHTF' which is all but assured at this point. I agree completely regarding the cycle.

 

[jedi]

I will grant you that, but as it is, I will require most of my wealth in more usable form in order to survive the 'future SHTF' which is all but assured at this point. I agree completely regarding the cycle.

agree & thus you need guns, ammo, some food, and other things to trade but most important some useful skill that you can use that others will need (medical, farming, water purifying, metal works, etc).

a doctor, for example, will be worth more than 10 armed men and a community will glad feed him provide he keeps them healthy. as with a farmer/gardener one need not be gi joe in order to survive.

 

[RockofStrength]

I'd like to have us have high rates of growth at the same time we bring down federal spending

And I'd love to have 300 acres and a fully functional farm handed to me along with a gold mine, but Mr. Romney needs to join the rest of us in reality.

I do find it hilarious that for the longest time the economy could run without an undue amount of government intervention (specifically money being spent) and yet now 5% of our gross NATIONAL product is tied directly to spending by the government. The politicians have finally created a reality in which they are indeed valuable and productive members... albeit in a system which overall is lacking value and unproductive.

 

[IndyDave1776]

agree & thus you need guns, ammo, some food, and other things to trade but most important some useful skill that you can use that others will need (medical, farming, water purifying, metal works, etc).

a doctor, for example, will be worth more than 10 armed men and a community will glad feed him provide he keeps them healthy. as with a farmer/gardener one need not be gi joe in order to survive.

You are absolutely right. Under those circumstances we will need suppliers of everything we presently need, albeit with the understanding we are talking needs and not amusements. I would speculate that the only trade from the realm of amusement which would prosper would be prostitution as it always has under calamitous circumstances. Beyond that the demand will be exclusive to the supply of food, shelter, and wellness (both defense and medical care). It will all come down to defining a community and being useful to that community.

 

[Carmelbythecorn]

Romney is a tool of the globalists, as is Obama. They'd have it no other way... They are all bought and paid for.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Romney is a tool of the globalists, as is Obama. They'd have it no other way... They are all bought and paid for.

Dead center as usual! I would go further to day that the only 'depression' spending cuts would cause would be in the clinical sense from those engaged in both great and small robberies against the productive citizens.

 

[mydoghasfleas]

i think there is "some" truth to this from the point of just cutting willy nilly would be just as bad. but geee theres plently of stuff we could cut or do that wouldnt hurt the economy....

5.
6. release the prisoners in for pot related offenses why pay for them?


jake

This move alone would bring back the strugling Hostess company!

 

[IndyDave1776]

This move alone would bring back the strugling Hostess company!

Munchies, anyone?

 

[strahd71]

This move alone would bring back the strugling Hostess company!

I miss twinkies

Jake

 

[rambone]

"I don't want to have us go into a recession in order to balance the budget," he said. "I'd like to have us have high rates of growth at the same time we bring down federal spending, on, if you will, a ramp that’s affordable, but that does not cause us to enter into a economic decline."

 

[88GT]

Just for you Rambone:

"Well because, if you take a trillion dollars for instance, out of the first year of the federal budget, that would shrink GDP over 5 percent. That is by definition throwing us into recession or depression. So I'm not going to do that, of course," Romney said in an answer picked up by former bank regulator William Black, a HuffPost blogger.

His assumption--without support--is that the GDP would remain static. It could, theoretically, grow more than 5% which makes the argument moot. It's not likely, and he's probably spot on in that the cuts would result in the reduction in GDP, but I'm not convinced that that is inherently a bad thing. It's what's related to GDP (like the debt/deficit ratio to GDP) that makes such a reduction painful.

The other flaw in his logic, or rather, plank in his eye, is the unstated verification that government spending has become so large a component of GDP that cuts of any kind will have that kind of a result.

 

[ATOMonkey]

The government, try as they might, can't avoid the laws of physics.

You can't make something from nothing. The Government can not add to the GDP, only detract from it. Sure you can try to fiddle with the numbers to make it look rosey, but for every dollar the government spends, it removes more than one dollar from the economy, through beauracracy, inflation, interest, taxes, or just flat out waste.

Also, what does the government produce? Anything that produces actual wealth?

What wealth is there inherrent in a fighter jet? Will it be used to produce goods and services? What about bombs, bullets, rifles, etc? Do they produce wealth, or do they destroy wealth?

Sure, in the proper application, such as mining, explosives can add value. I don't think the Federal Government is using 5,000 lb JDAMS to dig for gold though.

Government is, and always will be, the great destroyer of wealth.

We also need to STOP thinking of wealth in terms of dollars. The dollar is just a measuring stick that just continues to get shorter every year. Real wealth, like land, likestock, produce, skills, etc will always have value.

 

[dross]

The collapse won't just happen one day like your roof caving in. One day it's there, the next day it's not. In fact, it's already started. It started a few years ago in earnest, and it's been going downhill since.

Collapses don't last very long because everything that has value is still there. Will everyone lose their house? Of course not.

Our value is in real assets and most importantly, our ACTUAL production. Production is the key. People will still know how to grow food, people will still need to eat. As things collapse, eventually we'll take some actions to help.

This election is important because for two of the last three plus years we've had a government that was actively doing things that would make the collapse happen.

Our debt isn't so much of a problem for us as it is to whom we owe it.

Yes, some rough times are coming. But then, they always are.

 

[Fletch]

Romney is a tool of the globalists, as is Obama. They'd have it no other way... They are all bought and paid for.

So be sure to vote for one of them. It's the only way to save the country from the globalists.