Constitutional Tender Act

[Centinel]

I am not sure how much gold currently exists- But it would all have to be held by specific entities in order to have guarantees and it would have to be enough to run current economies.

There are roughly 16 trillion grams of gold in the world. There is vastly more silver. Dollars could be converted to grams of silver fairly straightforwardly.

Why would any of the gold or silver have to be held by any specific entities, other than their owners or those to whom their owners entrust it for safekeeping?

I did not articulate my argument well, regarding implied credit. Congress having the power to regulate value and set trade policy can extend credit and have credit, extended to them, via the Federal Reserve. I understand that this has created bottomless pit of potentially valueless debt and no security for savings... But I see no way to return to a gold standard with a 14 trillion dollar economy?

What do you mean when you say "Congress having the power to regulate value..."? Regulate the value of what? Congress only has the power to regulate the quantity of precious metal in the coins they produce. They don't have a blanket power to regulate all values.

Also, there is no constitutional power to extend credit or for the creation of the federal reserve. Congress was granted the power to make mint money into coin form for use in trade. That is congress only power regarding money and banking.

Actually, congress is also allowed to borrow money on the credit of the US. Wouldn't it be a strange thing for the states to delegate congress the power to borrow the money that it itself creates? The absurdity of such an arrangement is further proof that congress' only monetary power is to mint money into coin form for use in trade.

 

[apple0154]

But your proclamation doesn't seem to be shared by everyone in Kanada, so why is that; or do you find it OK that homes have to be sold, or that the solution seems to be to throw more money at it?

There are always people who complain. For example, a few ago there was guy who had cancer and the small village he lived near didn't have a machine for radiation therapy so he had to drive 1/2 an hour to the next town. He decided to sue the government for the cost of gas saying the government is supposed to supply medical care.

Needless to say his case was thrown out after the local TV station showed what a fool he was. He asserted that if medical was private there would have been a machine there, however, a quick survey showed the number of potential patients (customers) wouldn't have covered the cost of a machine so no entrepreneur would have set up business there anyway.

There will always be those who think they're special.

As for throwing more money at it Canadian medical costs just over 50% the cost of the American system, per capita. I'm sure if funds were increased to the American level, almost a doubling of the funds, people would have live-in doctors. :lol:

 

[USFREEDOM911]

There are always people who complain. For example, a few ago there was guy who had cancer and the small village he lived near didn't have a machine for radiation therapy so he had to drive 1/2 an hour to the next town. He decided to sue the government for the cost of gas saying the government is supposed to supply medical care.

Needless to say his case was thrown out after the local TV station showed what a fool he was. He asserted that if medical was private there would have been a machine there, however, a quick survey showed the number of potential patients (customers) wouldn't have covered the cost of a machine so no entrepreneur would have set up business there anyway.

There will always be those who think they're special.

As for throwing more money at it Canadian medical costs just over 50% the cost of the American system, per capita. I'm sure if funds were increased to the American level, almost a doubling of the funds, people would have live-in doctors. :lol:

But if the system is so great, why would it need more money to fix it??
There are always people who will support the Government nanny state, no matter what proof is supplied that it's a failure to have such.

 

[apple0154]

But if the system is so great, why would it need more money to fix it??
There are always people who will support the Government nanny state, no matter what proof is supplied that it's a failure to have such.

It needs more money to keep up with advancements in medical care and the older population.

Check out a table on government expenses regarding medical care. The contribution of governments varies considerably, yet, almost every government complains about costs.

It's like public transit. An area develops but the government complains about supplying more buses. Obviously more buses are needed just like more medical services are required. As for a lack of money that argument is almost always bogus.

For many years the government said it couldn't raise welfare payments or afford to build homes for the homeless. During the 90s when economies were thriving what contribution did governments make to welfare and homeless shelters? Even Rummy said war was an option the government could afford.

The government could afford a war but couldn't afford to supply some folks with a bed for the night? The government could afford to blow up a country and rebuild the infrastructure but couldn't afford to supply life-saving medication for needy citizens?

The lies has been exposed. All the lies about governments not having money to look after the ill and poor are obvious. That's why people are protesting, be it about medical care or Wall Street.

The money didn't disappear off the face of the earth. Besides, government medical is less expensive. If money is a problem then it makes all the more sense to institute government medical.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

It needs more money to keep up with advancements in medical care and the older population.

Check out a table on government expenses regarding medical care. The contribution of governments varies considerably, yet, almost every government complains about costs.

It's like public transit. An area develops but the government complains about supplying more buses. Obviously more buses are needed just like more medical services are required. As for a lack of money that argument is almost always bogus.

For many years the government said it couldn't raise welfare payments or afford to build homes for the homeless. During the 90s when economies were thriving what contribution did governments make to welfare and homeless shelters? Even Rummy said war was an option the government could afford.

The government could afford a war but couldn't afford to supply some folks with a bed for the night? The government could afford to blow up a country and rebuild the infrastructure but couldn't afford to supply life-saving medication for needy citizens?

The lies has been exposed. All the lies about governments not having money to look after the ill and poor are obvious. That's why people are protesting, be it about medical care or Wall Street.

The money didn't disappear off the face of the earth. Besides, government medical is less expensive. If money is a problem then it makes all the more sense to institute government medical.

Thanks for admitting that the Kanadian services are failing and that you feel the only way to fix it, is to just keep throwing money at it.

 

[apple0154]

Thanks for admitting that the Kanadian services are failing and that you feel the only way to fix it, is to just keep throwing money at it.

It requires more money to keep up with population growth and age and new treatments. That's not a fail. That's just logical.

When the post war baby boom arrived new schools were built. More teachers were hired. Was that considered a fail?

Salaries increase. The price of goods increase. Why would medical care stay the same?

 

[USFREEDOM911]

It requires more money to keep up with population growth and age and new treatments. That's not a fail. That's just logical.

When the post war baby boom arrived new schools were built. More teachers were hired. Was that considered a fail?

Salaries increase. The price of goods increase. Why would medical care stay the same?

But isn't that the Liberal way of solving everything; just throw more money at it.

 

[apple0154]

But isn't that the Liberal way of solving everything; just throw more money at it.

The problem is most governments like to implement new programs and purchase new things rather than look after what is already here.