Buckley challenges Chambliss on the Fair Tax

US Senate candidate Allen Buckley has challenged Senator Saxby Chambliss to a debate over the FairTax:

Allen Buckley, who is seeking the nomination of the Libertarian Party of Georgia for the 2008 U.S. Senate seat currently held by Saxby Chambliss, has called the Fair Tax a sham, and challenged Saxby Chambliss to a debate with respect to the matter.
In 2006, Buckley wrote and self-published a book titled


  1. StevePerkins says:

    I don’t know, that’s like someone challenging Ron Paul to a debate over whether we should change our monetary policy back to the gold standard. It’s the kind of issue that doesn’t really have enough mainstream interest one way or the other to rally people to your side (has Saxby really been that big of a FairTax “champion” in the first place?)… and only pisses off the small minority that are religiously in favor of it.

    As for Boortz, I can’t remember the last time he’s actually debated anyone other than Sean Hannity (and that was more of a love-in than a debate). His show has become essentially un-listenable over the past several years.

  2. IndyInjun says:

    Bottom line politically is THIS – Calling a tax “FAIR” that gives Exxon Mobil tax forgiveness of $15 BILLION or so, while putting a 30% tax on Grandma’s nursing home care is not a potion I would want to drink.

    Since Saxby is so stupid as to get allied with Ted Kennedy, he probably is stupid enough to continue his sponsorship of the Fair???tax.

    He already has pounded enough nails in his coffin, but wrapping it in chains would be very welcomed here.

  3. Still Looking says:

    If the Boortz wasn’t shilling his magic tax potion 300 days a year on WSB, the “Fair” Tax would have died years ago. Boortz is a ratings whore and he knows a good gimmick when he sees one. Saxby is such a chicken(hawk) he is scared to challenge this phony concept.

  4. IndyInjun says:

    Thanks , JK.

    I have the unFAIR advantage on this subject on them………hahahahaha.

    Ol’ Indy went on talk radio to debate it about 3 years ago and got everyone who listened riled up. The reaction wasn’t favorable to that nutty tax scheme, either. I have since added to my ammo supply……..

    I am ready whenever they are.

  5. Doug Deal says:

    Isn’t Buckley a tax attorney? The people who worked for the mess in the first place, much to their own personal enrichment? Hardly the person I would trust to tell us what is right and wrong about taxes.

  6. Jace Walden says:


    Let me make sure I’m hearing you correctly…is it not permissible to criticize anything unless you have an alternative? Just because someone can’t provide an alternative, doesn’t make their criticism any less valid.

    For instance, I don’t have an alternative for your idiocy, but it doesn’t change the fact that it exists. 😉

  7. Carpe Forem says:


    I just posted something similar to what Joe is getting at on jasonpye.com (didn’t realize it was here too).

    Just to get the discussion started, if not a consumption tax, what does Buckley suggest as an alternative. Or is it his position that we keep things the way they are? It’s one thing to point out short comings with someone else’s ideas to fix a problem, it’s another to suggest or support a different solution or to argue for the status quo.

    Far too often us libertarians rant that everyone else’s ideas are bad… but then just as often never suggest a viable alternative (this can also be said of some of our candidate selections ). I think it would be good practice to start.

  8. IndyInjun says:

    Every time a FAIR???tax opponent takes aim at it, there is the complaint that we have no alternative.

    We do – the flat tax.

    Of course, the next line is that a flat tax “won’t work,” never mind the success several East European countries have had with it in the last decade.

    The fact of the matter is that NO tax reform will work with per capita official debt of $30,000 ($120,000 for a family of 4) and future obligations with a present value of $150,000 per capita ($600,000 for a family of four.) Every permutation of tax reform means confiscatory rates, given the level oif spending.

    Spending will be cut by national default on debt and future obligations. Then any kind of tax will work.

    How much blood will flow in the streets first?

  9. Hank Reardan says:

    The thing we need to be talking about is cutting spending to the bare minimum. All we are talking about right is shifting the burden one way or another I like the fair tax better than what we have but I rather see the IRS gone with no replacement.

  10. Jace Walden says:


    That’s great, but it still doesn’t change the fact that the criticisms were dead on. You don’t have to “provide alternatives” in order to call a spade a “spade”.

    The criticism itself is valid. Instead of killing the messenger, why not answer to the criticism?

  11. Jason Pye says:

    Based on what I’ve read and heard on the radio is that Bookman has offered to debate Boortz on different occasions but that Boortz has never responded.

  12. BubbaRich says:

    The Washington Post had an article about Boortz’ baby this week:


    The SAME EXACT issues would exist with this tax format as any other: Congress would write thousands of pages of laws to give various exceptions to various groups. Congress would also need to write thousands of pages of laws to police taxation. They would probably rename the IRS, though, if that’s what Boortz wants. And as Rabushka points out in the article above, “Only fools pay retail.” Exactly how would the government police the difference between retail and wholesale?

    We could likely simplify the income tax system as easily as we could keep the FairTax system simple. Income tax was fairly simple in Finland, I think it was a post-card type return for most middle-class professionals.

    We had some very interesting presentations on tax policy at the Treasury Dept, Cato Inst., and Brookings Inst. a few years ago, that I attended with representatives of the Finnish parliament. There were some very persuasive arguments in favor of either income tax or consumption tax, but I don’t recall which right now. It was most persuasive in that it was based on economic reality, and that it didn’t seem to depend on political background of the presenters.

  13. Bruce Barnes says:

    Reasons for a Net Worth Tax System

    America should adopt a tax system based on net worth for the following reasons.

    A tax on net worth has the largest tax base. The net worth of this country is larger than the income system, about $9 trillion, and the consumption system, less than the gross domestic product, (GDP) about $14 trillion. The individual assets of $55 trillion and business assets of about $60 trillion is over 8 times larger than the consumption system.
    Income is not a measure of being rich, net worth is. George Will has said that the wealthiest 1-percent of households have more assets than the lowest 90%, $16 trillion. Since the total individual assets are $55 trillion. The wealthiest 10% own about 73% of the net worth in the USA. The biggest 1-percent of corporations own 80 % of the business net worth.
    Taxes should be based on ones ability to pay. A tax on net worth is the fairest tax to all. Net Worth is the measure of ones ability to pay.
    Taxes on net worth have the lowest percentage. America

  14. stephaniemills21 says:

    Who would have thought that GOPeach’s most asinine comment on this blog would be her shortest.

  15. NonPartisanGA says:

    Neal Boortz debated a Yale professor of Tax Law .. a former Assistant Secretary of Treasury .. and debated him before a live audience at CUNY with media and political luminaries in the audience.

    Why would he waste time with the AJC’s Jay Bookman?

  16. btpull says:


    It is almost impossible to accurately calculate an individual’s or business’s net worth. For example, if I lease a car is that simply a liability or is that an asset and a liability? What is the value an asset that is fully depreciated (i.e. a zero book value) but still in operation for a corporation worth?

    What is the value of my house? What the county uses as a tax base? What an appraiser values it at? Remember part of the sub-prime mess is that appraisers would routinely overall value properties so a borrower could qualify for a refinancing.

    The other problem is that a person might have a gain on paper, but not the cash to pay for a tax on the gain. How many people would have to sell their house to pay for the taxes on the unrealized gain of their house?

    In my opinion a tax on net worth would discourage savings and investments, encourage the development of complex transactions that maximize paper liability and minimizes the value of assets, and would have a negative impact on the economy.

  17. NonPartisanGA says:


    Nonpartisan is defined as one who does not declare or have a formal alignment with a political party.

    It does not preclude one from having a political philosophy or supporting or opposing a candidate.

    Focus on my words not my handle and try collecting your thoughts before clicking the submit button. Five posts in a row reads like someone who is stuttering.

  18. Question for you folks who don’t like the Fair Tax: is it the Fair Tax itself you don’t like or the idea of using sales tax to fund the Federal government?

    There are arguments for and against sales tax but several States collect taxes via a sales tax with no income tax at all. It seems to work for them.

  19. NonPartisanGA says:

    The other question is if in some cases the criticism of the Fair Tax is a veiled attempt to undermine Huckabee because of the reality that only one tier two candidate is going to emerge in the Republican race and it isn’t Ron Paul. Ouch!

  20. StevePerkins says:

    That’s a good question, Buzz. Personally, I oppose the idea of a sales tax in general… I’m not opposed to just the FairTax in particular just because of personality issues with Boortz or Linder or whoever.

    If you MUST have a tax (and I’m pragmatic enough to acknowledge that you must), then I believe a progressive tax system is more fair and just than a regressive one. A consumption tax is THE most regressive form of taxation that there is… moreso even than a flat tax.

    Yes, I understand that the FairTax entails handouts and goodies for lower-income people to sweeten the deal… but you start down that path it exposes the nonsense about “eliminating the IRS”. As soon as you carve out one type of rebate, you open pandora’s box for adding on other exemptions and loopholes for other politically-connected constituencies over time. Every special interest has a reason why THEY should get a rebate or exemption, and lobbying dollars talk. I don’t see how the complexity of the tax code is really going to be permanently rolled back.

    I don’t see how the need for an IRS as an enforcement agency will be rolled back either. The reason why affluent people and small business owners seem so gung-ho for the FairTax is because they have greater ability to shelter their consumption (i.e. it’s not MY car, it’s a COMPANY car, etc). If affluent people are able to shelter their big-ticket purchases, the tax falls even more regressively on lower classes.

    Last but not least, I’m just turned off by the fact that people passionate about “tax reform” are never serious “spending reform”. Screw spending CUTS… if you enacted a spending FREEZE at current levels we could eliminate federal personal taxation in ten year’s time (if the income tax went away tomorrow, federal income would be at the same level it was in the late 90’s). If you’re serious about reducing taxes, it seems obvious that you have to start on the spending side… otherwise it’s just a game of one constituency trying to shift some its burden onto another.

  21. Jason Pye says:

    Huckabee is doing a good job of undermining himself, especially on foreign policy issues.

    He can’t run on his record while Governor of Arkansas because it only proves that his a tax-and-spend liberal. So…he panders to populist movements like the FairTax and on populist issues like trade and immigration.

  22. Bruce Barnes says:

    A reasonable fair market value would do. The IRS can tell what is reasonable and if you disagree you can go to tax court. A lease car is not an asset to you. It is to the lessor and if the owner borrowers money, the lender owns the money borrowed. For example, you lease a $25,000 car, you pay no Net Worth Tax. The lessor owns the car but owes $15,000.00. He pays taxes on $25,000 minus $15,000 = $10,000. The lender has loaned $15,000, he pays tax on $15,000. There is no value for depreciation in the real world. An item either has a real market value or it doesn’t.

    If the Net Worth Tax is progressive as suggested. Net Worth below $1 million is not taxed. Over $1 million is 0.1 % or $1,000 to $2,000. Also, remember there are no other federal taxes so everyone brings home all of their salary. When people have more money to use they will be able to pay off dept, save for a rainney day, increase their standard or living, get more education, get better health, and have a positive impact on the economy.

  23. StevePerkins says:

    As far as some states lacking an income tax, you first have to consider that these aren’t the only two forms of taxation available to states. In states that lack an income tax, how high do they set their property taxes? Without spending restraint, the particular form in which people are taxed is just a card-shuffle game.

    Also, states play with their tax systems under the full knowledge that Americans can easily migrate from state to state. Some states strive for tax systems that will attract skilled laborers. Other states make it their policy to entice retirees. Other states are just quasi-socialist and don’t really care that all their young workers are leaving for the South. At the NATIONAL level, however, migration is not such a trivial matter. I might just move to Florida or the Carolinas someday for tax reasons… I’m not likely to move to South Korea or Finland.

  24. NonPartisanGA says:

    You are absolutely correct Jason. For that matter I haven’t seen a lot of wise foreign policy experience from any of the “leading” candidates.

    You certainly don’t gain it by sharing a pillow with the President for 8 years; by that definition Laura Bush could run on her foreign policy record too…

  25. Jason Pye says:

    From Boortz.com on April 23, 2007:

    Hey … here’s an idea! I’m up for a fight right now. How about a public debate somewhere? Jay Bookman and me! Look, I’ve debated Yale tax law professors and former deputy assistant Treasury secretaries on the FairTax, I think I might be able to stand up pretty well against a deputy editorial page editor who finds it necessary to lie about an idea before he can criticize it.

    Date and time? We’ll work it out!

  26. IndyInjun says:

    Buzz- I worked in sales taxation for better than 20 years for 9 Fortune 500 companies, and the FAIR???tax bears faint resemblance to state sales taxes.

    Objection #1 – It is a CON JOB. The founders of FTorg gathered seed money to the tune of $tens of millions from Enron, Shell Oil, and other capital intensive companies. These $millions were shelled out to the “expert” economists cited ad infinitum in “the Book” as being authoritative. (They are authoritative as any other whore, I suppose, but then I digress. )The capital intensive manipulators have $hundreds of billions in deferred income tax liabilities that are FORGIVEN the moment FT passes.

    Objection #2 – The FT hawkers claim that one gets “100% of your paycheck” and that there are 22% embedded tax savings to be had by FT passage. BOTH CLAIMS include the employee’s share of SS and Medicare. Both cannot be true. Even Boortz has been forced to admit this. Besides the FT applies to EMPLOYER PAID health insurance premiums and the taxes would more than likely be payroll-deducted, leaving less than “100%” of paychecks.

    Objection #3 – While state sales/use taxes apply to business purchases, the FT has a blanket exemption for biz. The exemption of biz purchases and total taxation of individual purchases will mean unlimited opportunity for tax evasion – EVERYONE will be a ‘business.’

    Objection #4 – The rate is too high at 30%. The states would convert their income taxes to a FT and the rate would be over 40% and over 50% to fully fund the government. People will evade the tax en masse.

    Objection #5 – This nutty tax KILLS local finances. First, the 25 to 30% lower financing cost from municipal bond interest exemptions versus comparable corporates goes away with the FT. Second, the state and local governments have to PAY the FT to the feds on all purchases and payrolls not component to billed services (like police cars)to consumers/CONSTITUENTS, upon which the local/state govt. would charge the FT(like municipal water). This means ENORMOUS cost increases that will wind up in horrific property taxes. Third, the local governments in GA get huge revenues from sales tax that will be slashed once they compete with the 30% federal rate. Fourth, the states spend $100’s of billions on medicaid services that the FT will be tacked on to at 30%.(Remember there is no allowance for these taxes to go uncollected and the rate still be “revenue neutral”).

    Objection #6 – The tax applies to hyperinflating costs like medical insurance, fuel, and food costs that are going up WAY faster than pay increases. The inflation tax that Ron Paul talks about is in the Fair???tax base, so you would be paying a tax proportional and on top of government created inflation. This is some sort of big government nirvana – they can run deficits producing inflation that lowers the cost of yesterday’s promises while funding them with greater tax revenues on inflating current and future prices. V.I. Lenin would be proud. The workers are fooled that they will be getting 100% of paycheck, but they won’t be keeping it very long before it runs short of living costs.

    Objection #7 – The hawkers say one ‘decides’ when and how much tax to pay with their purchasing “decisions.” One does not “decide” when an accident happens or cancer strikes, trigerring a 30% tax on a costly tragedy.

    Objection #8 – The hawkers say that individuals no longer will be audited, but HR 25 puts liability on individuals and makes them keep receipts. The IRS is REPLACED by the existing state revenue departments who already have rights to audit every one of us for sales/use tax.

    Objection #9 – Any interest rate higher than the standard set in HR 25 is a taxable service on the excess and the lender will have to collect the FT on it. Goodbye credit card financing and many other types too – most will hurt the poor.

    Objection #10 – Boortz keeps saying that we opponents wish to interpret the FT to our liking, but he keeps repeating that the shelf price will be inclusive of the FT, when the BILL says the opposite at checkout.

    Objection # 11 – There are a whole host of excise taxes and fees – like the gas tax – that the FT does not replace.

    Objection #12 – The embedded tax savings hawked as being 22% is a fiction. 11% is more like it. (based upon actual data)

    Objection #13 – The FT will force all services that can be done via internet offshore and online. New York won’t be the center of stock brokerage, the Grand Caymans will.

    Objection #14 – In response to #13, bartering, smuggling, and conversion of biz exemptions, the REVENOOERS will start using their obnoxious powers to audit individuals. (We are nearly come full circle, no?)

    Objection #15 – The state of GEORGIA is already empowered to demand records of individual’s purchases and can ESTIMATE your sales tax liability if you cannot produce them.

    Personally, I will be A-OK if this nutty deal passes, because I tend to look ahead and not buy the first con job that rolls down the pike, meaning that there are some pretty neat chances to capitalize on the misfortunes of the dumb clucks who do fall prey.

    Follow the money.It works like a charm.

    Giving Exxon Mobil $tens of billions while taxing Grandma’s nursing home care at 30% is “fair” eh?

    This nutty deal will get anyone running on it absolutely killed.

    They will DESERVE it.

  27. BubbaRich says:


    Thanks, some of those are the issues I was trying to touch on above. Boortz keeps lying about some of them, admitting them when forced, then lying about them again.

    I wouldn’t likely move to Finland for tax reasons, Steve, but more for quality of life. Although I might combine the two if this stupid FairTax were to somehow become law. Especially after the congress got busy writing exceptions into the law every year.

  28. IndyInjun says:

    Boortz would be the first in line begging for an exemption. Anyone care to venture a guess why?

    Ah, the perils of venturing forth – even writing a BOOK – on something you are too blindly arrogant to research thoroughly……………………

  29. GOPeach says:

    At least the FAIR TAX is a PLAN!!!!

    Does anyone else have a better plan???

    Do you have a way to communicate YOUR plan to AMERICA?

    Unless there is a BETTER idea and a WAY to communicate it – then I suggest we all go with this plan for now.

    FAIR TAX is not perfect. But at least it is better than what we have now! Right?

    I find it really amazing that the Federal Reserve / IRS was basically founded in GEORGIA … at Jekyll Island –

    AND….. it is here that the FAIR TAX was birthed to OVERTHROW the IRS/ Federal Reserve…

    The IRS/ Federal Reserve is he most blatant scam of all history. It’s the cause of wars, boom-bust cycles, inflation, depression, prosperity.

    Watch the Video –

  30. IndyInjun says:


    When I have a headache, I HAVE to do something, but taking a shotgun and blowing my head off is not a solution I entertain.

    The FED we can agree on.

    Since I am approaching retirement I don’t much care to pay SS and Medicare taxes TWICE and pay them until death, which is what the Fair???tax would mean.

    Buzz – The reason that the states who have no ncome tax are successful with sales taxes is that they tax BUSINESS broadly with the sales tax, even on services. In Texas the sales tax was not enough, so they passed a gross receipts tax on business, too. Boortz cites these states as being examples of where a sales tax works to eliminate income tax, but he fails to mention the broad taxation of biz there that the FT exempts.

    Bruce Barnes – Thanks and your posting was good too on the FT. I would not favor a net worth tax, though. A broad based transactions tax at low rates would be my ideal.

    BubbaRich – Finland looks pretty good. The way things are headed in the USA, prudent people have to consider leaving to protect themselves.

    To all – $30,000 in official debt and $150,000 in long term liabilities PER CAPITA cannot be collected by ANY tax system. We will either cut government sensibly, or it will be done in a violent bankruptcy, with blood in the streets.

  31. btpull says:

    I am not a die-hard fair tax supporter, but to me it is fairly simply to calculate how a person would be better off under the plan.

    Take the combined SS and Medicare rate that is somewhere around 8% plus an affective federal income tax around 12% gives an affective overall federal tax rate of 20%.

    Under the current system for every $100 that a person earns $80 is available consumption. Under the fair tax plan for every $100 a person earns $81 is available consumption.

  32. John Konop says:


    I think a hybrid between a VAT tax and flat tax would with no write offs makes the most sense to me. But you have pointed my biggest fear. I made my money turning around troubled companies. In that exercise controlling expense against revenue is the key ie acquisition cost.

    You have highlighted my frustration in people thinking solutions like the fair tax fix out of control spending. I find much of it is a diversion from dealing with the hard choices of cutting spending. In my work this is usually the same issue of people looking for a silver bullet instead of dealing with reality.

  33. BubbaRich says:


    At least you’re starting to sound like a real FairTax advocate.

    First of all, I haven’t seen any evidence that it’s better than what we have now, and in fact most evidence that I’ve seen says that it would be worse in many areas, and at best the same in most other areas. Otherwise I’d be advocating it.

    As far as the Fed is concerned, you and IndyInjun seem to be somewhat delusional. You said (and Injun agreed):

    The IRS/ Federal Reserve is he most blatant scam of all history. It

  34. GOPeach says:


    When I said that the IRS/ Fed Res. Bank is the cause of prosperity … I did not mean PROSPERITY in a GOOD CAPITALISTIC way…

    I mean the prosperity for the SUPER RICH Rothchild’s, Aldrich’s, JP Morgan’s, etc…..

    This is NOT delusional, Sweetie –

    This is in the US HISTORY books!!!!!

    Look —

    Has it ever occurred to you that the federal government has no need of taxes for revenue?

    Are you aware that banks prefer lending to governments because governments seldom repay loans?

    Do you realize that if all debts, both public and private, were paid, there would be no money at all in circulation?

    The money manipulators, are exploiting our ignorance for the advancement of their own appalling plans!!!!!

    Let’s talk HISTORY for a minute…..

    To better understand a topic…. it is always good to go back to the ORIGINS!

    There is a 3-fold cord – History, Economics, Politics …. Ya with me????

    You must understand the NATURE of MONEY,
    the ORIGIN of BANKS, and the FRACTIONAL RESERVES ( using the same money over and over
    The Rothschild formula perfected the art of making enormous profits from loans to governments, especially for wars!!

    This led to preventing any one nation from becoming strong enough to establish peace (the famous balance of power); how those who could instigate wars or revolutions were financed (including the Bolsheviks in 1917)….

    We Americans were sucked into World War I in order to save J.P. Morgan

  35. GOPeach says:

    The Federal Reserve checks are endorsed by the ” GOVERNMENT”…… deposited in a Federal Reserve bank, and used to pay government expenses by checks which create the first wave of FIAT (unbacked paper) money that floods into the economy.

    Recipients deposit these checks into commercial banks that are part of the Fed system. Here is where the real inflationary action is. (The Federal Reserve holds

  36. GOPeach says:

    Okay… I am back…. ( Sigh)

    As long as we have the CURRENT system….

    1. Holders of Treasury bonds can be paid off only by the creation of an identical bond out of nothing.

    2. The U.S. has to be, must be, in debt.

    3. The Discount Window (Fed loans to banks) creates more phony money.

    4. The Fed causes booms and busts.

    5. Since 1913, our money has depreciated by over 1,000 %!!!!!

    6. The Fed can now monetize the debts of foreign governments!

    I believe the federal government could operate without levying any taxes whatsoever and a gold standard automatically stabilizes prices!!!

    A REALITY CHECK for ya……

    The Fed protects and enriches the banking brotherhood in the international arena. The game THE BIG BOYS are playing makes the Rothschilds look like Pee Wee Herman!!!

    Here it is in a nutshell: The game starts with a mammoth loan (created out of nothing through the magic of fractional reserves) from (Citicorp, Chase Manhattan, Bank of America, etc.) to a Third World country with scant means of servicing the debt much less ever repaying the principle.

    Are these top bankers stupid? Hardly!!!!!

    This is the kind of loan these bankers love, since they make their money from interest on the loan, not on repayment of the loan. They prefer the loan never to be repaid. They know they can

  37. GOPeach says:


    I believe the Federal Reserve can be abolished, the national debt paid, and the country returned to a sound monetary system based on silver and gold.

    All that is needed are the efforts of concerned and caring Americans.

  38. BubbaRich says:


    I took economics from a von Mises institute professor at Auburn. In case you don’t know, those are the Austrian economics guys who taught Ron Paul everything he knows about economics, they are almost Randian in their economic libertarianism.

    But not even HE presented fractional reserves as anything but the genius of modern financial institutions. I’d love to spend 5 minutes with you and show you that fractional reserves are actually not theft, whether it’s the government or a private bank doing them.

    It’s probably not worth it since you and Ron Paul seem to think “fiat money” is evil. Alan Greenspan actually did use the mechanisms of the FED to control inflation. I don’t think you can blame him for idiots buying stocks at many multiples higher than indicated by their fundamentals. Although it’s more possible you can blame that on an economy that hasn’t had time to generate new statistics that take into account all the excess capital flowing through the stock markets.

    Your understanding of economics is very superficial. I could suggest a few sources to learn more about it, but you seem to have become extremely convinced based on your simplistic understanding.

    Just a point about your confusion: most of those people you mention as examples of the IRS/Fed creating artifical super-wealth did it long before there was an IRS or a Federal Reserve, under the system you and Paul seem to think was better.

  39. BubbaRich says:

    Yes, I am going to deny that gold and silver are the best base for our monetary system.

    It’s all pretend, and even you seem to realize that sometimes. It is an artificial marker to represent the value of a good or service that you will give or receive.

    All of the disasters that you are blaming on modern currency also occurred with the various metal standard systems across history.

    And if the US had every bit of gold ever mined in its gold reserve vaults, it would require a price of around $1600/oz to cover JUST the US money. That is, of course, ludicrous, especially since we’d have to shut down a lot of our lucrative electronics industries with that sort of gold inflation.

    That, of course, is with 100% reserve, which most economists think would fail because of insufficient flexibility for currency control, forcing periodic hyperinflation, occasional starvation and war in Hungary and Canada, etc. But if you’re going to have enough imagination to allow a smaller reserve, why is that less imaginary than our current system?

    The main advantage to a gold standard is that it frees smaller economies from being completely dependent on the activities of the larger economies. It would be nice to free Sweden from depending on the American Idol nation for currency stability and a rational finance system, but there it is.

    If your last question was addressed to me, I like the current world financial system. It’s an interdependent mess, but so is the world’s economy. And despite the US occasionally throwing its weight around unattractively, the system is being tuned better all the time. It’s an amazingly intractable mathematical problem, which is probably why some smart people wish for a simpler time, but the system does pretty well balancing the wants and needs of billions of people divided into dozens of nationalities.

    And Peach, you’re not addressing any of the issues I’m raising, which at least makes you just like one of the politicians we’re discussing. And Neal Boortz.

  40. juliobarrios says:

    Buckley barely got 2% of the vote when he ran for Senate in 2004, which is basically what having your name on the ballot entitles you to. Butt-Cutt McBerry did better against Sonny.

    The state of GA has over 6 million people and Chambliss can’t take the time to debate every one of them.

  41. drjay says:

    why gold and silver–why not platinum and palladium–they are much more valuable by wt.–or maybe diamonds and pearls, or volvos and toyotas–money is basiacally a fanct form of bartering–it does not need to be “tied” to anything…

  42. GOPeach says:


    What were your question I failed to answer?

    My question to you is…. Do you have a BETTER PLAN????? It seems you think we are doing great as is. Do you have grandkids? How are THEY going to pay for this????

  43. BubbaRich says:


    Well, I think we need to return to fiscal responsibility, like we had under the last president. I would say that it was because of the last congress, too, but that was pretty much the same congress that went crazy for 2001-2007.

    So the system was working fine as recently as 2000. It seems like the debt that my grandkids would have to pay is the debt of a republican president and a republican congress. Luckily, it looks like the American people won’t be stupid enough to try that combination again, soon.

  44. btpull says:

    “So the system was working fine as recently as 2000. It seems like the debt that my grandkids would have to pay is the debt of a republican president and a republican congress. Luckily, it looks like the American people won

  45. BubbaRich says:


    First of all, that number doesn’t mean much by itself, you need to normalize it by some measure, usually the GDP, to show how big a fraction of the economy that debt is.

    Second of all, a $1.2 trillion increase in debt is one thing, and it’s debatable whether the existence of this debt is actually a good thing for the US economy, but Clinton and congress ran up the debt over the 8 years he was in office. Bush has run up nearly $3.5 trillion in 6.5 years, 6 of which there was a republican congress.

    Peach probably just blew a gasket with the suggestion that a national debt is good for the economy. But she’s probably even more sure than I am that running up half a trillion a year is excessive insanity.

  46. BubbaRich says:

    I should make clear that I’m not defending the debt increase of the 1990’s. I’m just saying that the Democratic president and the mostly Republican congress were far more reasonable than the drunken excesses of the Republican prez/Republican congress combination.

  47. IndyInjun says:

    Bruce Barnes – As a person who lived frugally for his 55 years with the aim of retiring early after a lifetime of paying taxes, investing a huge portion of the SACRIFICE, then paying capital gains upon the sale of them, I find your tax-net-worth position absolutely ruinous in terms of the irresponsible behavior it rewards and the responsible behavior it punishes.

    We agree on the FAIR????tax, but not much else.

    Actually your tax and the FAIR???tax do about the same thing to me, come to think on it.

  48. IndyInjun says:

    BubbaRich –

    I am not all that up to speed on economics, but here is why I find the FED so objectionable.

    Keynesian “pump- priming” of the economy has its merits, but at some point brash human nature inevitably took the process beyond the reasonable bounds that endured periodic recessions.

    If one looks at the M3 Chart and (shadowgovernmentstatistics)reconstituted M3 charts, money creation was on roughly a 40 degree incline until 1998 when the pace quickened. In 2001 it assumed a 70-75% ascent.
    Now with the panicked monetary creation we have seen since August, it threatens to turn vertical.

    At some point near verticality, money becomes WORTHLESS.

    By trying to avoid recessions by mad levels of debt and money creation, they have made the coming overdue adjustment monstrously worse.

    Then too, there is the matter that the US Treasury could and should be in charge of creating $US. Privatizing it was bound to produce corruption at the hands of the bankers.

    Since August, the FED has been injecting liquidity into illiquid CDO markets by taking the worthless securities as collateral. The only way to withdraw the liquidity is to demand repayment, but no repayment is possible. At some point this process becomes a BAIL OUT, one that will dwarf the S&L one, either by continuous roll-overs or forgiveness of the debt.

    There is also the matter of the Working Group on Financial Markets, of which the FED is the principle player, that meets in utter secrecy with the capability of “intervening” in markets – even to the extent of buying index funds and futures. This is CORRUPTION on a grand scale, for it punishes those wise enough to sell short or otherwise attempt to protect themselves from the consequences of the mistakes of the Wall Streeters.

    The very folks who preach to us ‘free markets’ are the biggest corruptors of all.

    Finally, last week I read that, if liquidity dries up, the FED might start lending TO ALL COMERS.

    Do you suppose I could give them an I-O-U for say, $20 million? OF course not!!!!! If they give EVERYONE money at will they prompt the monetary collapse referred to above in the very first couple of paragraphs. Instead, their bail-outs will go to those who created the fraud.

    I don’t know that much, but I DO know that the history of the entire world being totally on fiat money systems is very short indeed and that every central bank on earth is trying to ‘outprint’ the others to stave off a credit collapse.

    They prefer the Weimar ‘solution’ to the 1929 scenario.

    The latter seems to be in our near future, so from a certain POV the FED is on the right course.

    Fleeing the fire, they will plunge the $US off of a cliff.

    Ron Paul is the only candidate who has a clue on these things.

    A FAIR???tax is a government DREAM with what they are doing.

Comments are closed.