In statements on today’s Opinion pages, two candidates accuse Rep. Todd Tiahrt, R-Goddard, of breaking a promise to serve only 12 years in Congress. Tiahrt told The Eagle editorial board that he doesn’t think he ever made that pledge. Though he supported the GOP “Contract With America” when he was first elected in 1994, Tiahrt said that it only called for holding a vote on amending the Constitution to impose term limits, which occurred in 1995 but didn’t get the required two-thirds majority support. A Nov. 8, 1994, Eagle news article reported: “Describing himself, Tiahrt said he stood for ‘common sense’ and such Republican ideas as a line-item veto, term limits, a balanced budget amendment and requiring welfare recipients to work.”
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
- Regular on Open thread 11/22
- Regular on Open thread 11/22
- Rage on Open thread 11/22
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- Chas on Open thread 11/22
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
- Boxlock20 on Open thread 11/22
- satatom on Open thread 11/22
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/22
80 Comments
Did Tiahrt break his campaign promise? Of course. Oh, you mean his term limit pledge, I thought you were talking about his fiscal conservatism, moral values, etc. Don’t worry, district 4 will reward his dishonesty and incompetence with 2 more years in office.
He’s got a job that pays well, has some prestige and all he has to do is, nothing. Would you quit that gig?
BrownLib crying so early in the morning?
My my…
This should clear up the misleading statements on the blogs that he broke a term limit promise.
At least it will for those wanting to be truthful.
Tiahrt never broke a pledge on term limits. Never. In 1994 I was in a position to be able to help Todd with his campaign. I took many mornings off to help at his campaign headquarters on East Kellogg.
Then I did not agree with the term limits part of the ‘Contract with America’. I still don’t believe in term limits. Tiahrt pledged to support the ‘Contract with America’ and he did.
Term limits failed to pass. Through no fault of Todd Tiahrt. End of story.
And Phillip Brownlee knows better.
“Did Tiahrt break term-limit promise?”
Yes, he did.
You don’t commit to a principle or an idea and then back out of it because someone else does not go along.
It’s ok Todd. WE know who you are and who you represent; YOU and and the people with the money to keep you in your job.
Kansans will continue to vote for Tihart, Roberts, Brownback and they will continue to ship jobs overseas and to Mexico. Why change anything now?
When Peterjohn gets elected and Boeing and Spirit move elsewhere, Wichitans will finally be happy that their city is a smaller town.
Kansas?
GO on and vote for Toad Tiahrt again.
His voice will be lost in the Democratic wave that is sweeping Congress and the nation. And our voice will be lost WITH his.
bj…you persist in your lie when faced with the facts that Todd never made such a pledge? You have a problem with facts, don’t you?
“You have a problem with facts, don’t you?”
Not at all Raptor.
Tiahrt had a core conviction. Heh(choke)
But since others would not go along, he bailed on it.
It’s OK Raptor. You and people with money can KEEP Tiahrt and this forgotten bit of wasteland.
I’ll keep my ideals and dignity.
Dignity?? hahahahahahahahah!!! calling people “toad” is real dignified!
Why does Tiarht not supporting term limits bother everybody? It was not like he really meant what he said.
After all, Tiarht is still supporting McCain for president when McCain is still bragging that he stopped the Boeing tanker deal in favor of sending it overseas.
In Tiarht’s television ad he brags that he stopped the Boeing tanker deal from going overseas but still supports the man that pushed for it. Hypocrisy???
“Kansans will continue to vote for Tihart, Roberts, Brownback and they will continue to ship jobs overseas and to Mexico. Why change anything now?”
Of Course they will.
They are STILL safe from gay marriage.
Even though they are losing jobs, losing the value in their investments, maybe losing their houses, their kids are moving out of state, bin laden is still out there…
But thank GOD they are still safe from gay marriage.
Todd Tiahrt?
I KNOW some member of your campaign will read this thread.
Why doesn’t Tiahrt debate Donald Betts?
Can Tiahrt explain just how it is HE plans to be effective in a Democratic dominated Congress? NO record at bipartisanship has he. He will do nothing more in the next Congress than fill a chair that will be ignored.
Oh, and for cryin’ out loud. Do you even have to ASK if he broke his word about term limits?
Of course he did!
As Regular would say, “he was FOR term limits before he was agin’ them”
Why shouldn’t voters do what Tiahrt did?
Todd Tiahrt was “committed” to term limits.
But the crowd did not go along. SO he bailed.
Why stay committed to Tiahrt? The flow is Democratic! Go with the flow like Todd did.
I guess it all depends on what “Tiahrt said he stood for ‘common sense’ and such Republican ideas as …, term limits,” means.
I will pose a question of my own for the Eagle: Will the Eagle AGAIN endorse Tankerless Todd for re-election?” My guess is YES.
I suspect the only way Tiarht will leave his cushy job is when he finds that lucrative lobbyist job.
Oh where is Jack Abramhoff when he is needed?
“when he finds that lucrative lobbyist job.”
He can simply return to his employer – BOEING.
Todd meant he supported term limits for dems.
If the dems had followed our congressional republican reps we would be looking at Global Depression rather than Global Recession.
Throw the gutless bums out!
“Will the Eagle AGAIN endorse Tankerless Todd for re-election?”
Of course they will. That’s a given.
The only question is, what wingnutty twisted reason will they give.
Toddly’s “power” and “experience” again?
I mean, since the democrats will marginalize his pretty boy ass out into the hallway….
And one year of “experience” twelve times over does NOT equal the right kind of “experience”.
Boeing should know that better than anyone else. How’d it work on the tanker deal?
I guess mccain just had MORE of that “experience” since he so clearly outwitted and outmanuvered the Kansas delegation, and then got ‘em to support his presidential bid.
Like we always say, you just cant make this stuff up!
No tankers? No problem. Kansas is STILL safe from gay marriage…
I asked Tiahrt about his position about abolishing the Federal Reserve System and his response was that he didn’t respond.
He tried to convince us that the Federal Reserve has done a great job at curbing inflation and stopping the booms and busts of the market.
Ha! That is absurd on the face of it. Fredrick Hayek won a nobel prize for proving that the Federal Reserve System was the cause of the booms and busts of the market. Milton Friedman won a nobel prize for showing the correlation between money supply and inflation.
Look like Tiahrt should study American history a little more if he expects to lead the 4th district successfully.
I cannot say for certain that Tiahrt ever explicitly said that he wanted term limits or that he ever explicitly said he was in favor of term limits, or that he ever explicitly said he would limit himself to a certain number of terms.
However, what I can say for certain is that when Tiahrt originally ran for Congress, he lead voters to believe he was for term limits.
Did he break a ‘promise’ on term-limits? I cannot find where he promised he would limit his terms in office.
Did he mislead voters about term-limits? Yes.
It is all in the wording, one of those ‘definition of is’ things.
Tihart and the repub party will say most anything to stay in big government in spite of their own agreements. This is insincere and dishonest.
No matter how much Tihart rails against big government he is part of the problem as are those automatic $6000 annual pay increases. How about his wonderful retirement plan at taxpayer expense. Tihart is a liar… the man loves big government.
mxyzptlk
Posted October 24, 2008 at 7:33 am | Permalink
Kansans will continue to vote for Tihart, Roberts, Brownback and they will continue to ship jobs overseas and to Mexico. Why change anything now?
When Peterjohn gets elected and Boeing and Spirit move elsewhere, Wichitans will finally be happy that their city is a smaller town.
———————-
Any economist knows it will the unions that will eventually send all high paying jobs overseas. When the business atmosphere is such that you can save tons of money by mfging over seas and shipping them back to the US – well you fill in the blanks.
Neal Bortz just gave a scenario about this absurd proposal that Obama and the left have about not allowing private votes on union decisions – just get rid of your entire work force. Hire temps to do the work. No more union demands, no more matching funds for retirement funds, no more benefits, and so forth and so on. You could even get the same workers only they won’t be your responsibility anymore. When business is slow just send them back to the temp office. You save PR taxes – the whole gambit.
No I don’t advocate this but it certainly could happen if the unions get government backing to get back the membership they have lost. Look at the Boeing strike. What is it over. Job security. In this market there ain’t no such animal. Companies have to be free to make business decisions based on business not union contracts.
Tiahrt would be irresponsible if he sacrificed his senority in the congress to a newbie. Until both parties decide to term limits it is a moot point. Don’t see the dems caving on this anytime soon.
Temps can organize too.
Oops!
“Hire temps to do the work.”
And then complain about the poor quality of machining done by the guy who last week was asking “Do you want fries with that” and who next week will be selling insurance.
Oh yeah, blame the unions, grammy. Blame the unions for getting the working person a shot at a decent life, not one of serfdom and poverty. Blame the unions for making sure every working person can count on a decent salary so they can raise their families. Blame the unions…..oh why bother? You’ve made yours, now screw the rest.
Dennis, ex-union member
Haiti has the lowest wages in the western hemisphere. Is that why that country is has such a booming economy?
Actually YellowdogLiberal,
The policies of minimum wages and welfare states guaratee serfdom in the long run.
Unions fight for a stagnant or shrinking piece of the pie. They need to figure out how to increase the size of the pie and then reep the reward.
If the union negotiates a pay raise, I can guarentee you that production will not increase enough to warrant the pay raise in the first place.
You can’t have something for nothing, but that mentality is what is getting us deeper and deeper into trouble.
An interesting story:
The other day on my way to lunch I passed a homeless person with a sign that read “Vote Obama, I need the money.” Once in the restaurant I saw that my server had on an “Obama 08” tie, he had given away his political preference.
When the bill came I decided not to tip the server, explaining to him that I was exploring the Obama redistribution of wealth concept. He stood there in disbelief while I told him that I was going to redistribute his tip to someone whom I deemed more in need and pointed to the homeless person outside.
The server was angry and expressed to me that I was being unfair. I explained that I was only doing what the server supported and that was redistribution of wealth. The server angrily turned and stormed from my table.
I went outside, gave the homeless person $10 and told him to thank the server inside the restaurant as I decided he could use the money more than the server that had a job. The homeless guy was grateful.
At the end of this rather unscientific redistribution experiment I realized the homeless person was grateful for the money he did not earn, but the waiter was angry that I gave away the money he did earn even thought the actual recipient deserved the money more under Obama’s plan.
I guess redistribution of wealth is an easier thing to swallow in concept than in a practical application.
Heh, heh, heh, just to funny. ROFLMAO
okobserver
Posted October 24, 2008 at 10:36 am | Permalink
Any economist knows it will the unions that will eventually send all high paying jobs overseas. When the business atmosphere is such that you can save tons of money by mfging over seas and shipping them back to the US – well you fill in the blanks.
__
And what will these businesses do when they move their jobs overseas and then bring their crap back to the US for Americans to buy when there are no jobs left in America and no one is buying anything?
Big business has this idea that Americans cannot survive without them and their overpaid CEO’s. The truth is that big business cannot survive without the Americans to buy their foreign-made crap.
It used to be when business and labor worked together and all shared in the profits, but lately the CEO’s are being paid multi-millions to the detriment of their company.
It doesn’t take an economist to figure out that business and labor need each other to make this country once again great. Maybe both need to work towards compromising?
sunflower – a legend in their own mind.
“sunflower5
Posted October 24, 2008 at 11:10 am | Permalink
Heh, heh, heh, just to funny. ROFLMAO”
I think you forgot to login with the other nic before posting this one. oops
brian – I don’t have another nic. I just thought it was pretty funny after I had entered it and figured I would share my laughter.
Some of you are so paranoid. It is good for a daily laugh. heh,heh,heh
“If the union negotiates a pay raise, I can guarentee you that production will not increase enough to warrant the pay raise in the first place.”
Productivity HAS been increasing at a rapid pace. Wages have fallen behind that productivity increase.
Well Austrian, Europe is and has long been well unionized, and I don’t see any slide back to serfdom there. A decent pay for a decent day’s work. Why is that so hard to understand? And as Mom points out, somebody has to buy the stuff business produces.
Unions aren’t perfect, and can become political and obsessed with power. Humm, can you think of any CEOs or other business types that don’t do the same thing? The main problem with U.S. unions is that they aren’t organized enough. I’m lovin’ to see the Boeing workers telling Boeing to stick it.
Dennis
When Obama talks about “spreading the wealth around,” he isn’t talking about directly giving money to parasitical bums.
He’s talking about using tax dollars to create programs that will benefit society.
For instance, the beggar may have been begging simply because he refuses to work. Or he may be addicted to alcohol with the support of a local program to help him quit.
A tax funded program to clean this guy up and make him a productive citizen would be “spreading the wealth around” in a way in which everyone would benefit.
That’s the idea behind taxes for roads, fire and schools, including colleges. That’s “spreading the wealth around” too.
Right now, the top 400 families control more wealth in the United States than the bottom 150 million Americans.
Think about that. Our wealth inequality is as bad as Brazil’s and almost as bad as Mexico’s. This is vastly worse than the 60’s and the 70’s.
This is not simply a result of “the free market.” This is a result of government policies that have helped the rich get richer. Gains in productivity were not matched by gains in wages. In fact, wages went down in real terms?
So where did all that newly created wealth go?
It went right to the top, by design.
Obama wants to turn that around and let the people who create the wealth keep some of the wealth.
Damn right, YellowDog.
Without unions, workers are just pawns of top management who as we’ve seen will screw them mercilessly.
And yet another in the long line of GOP bashing threads by this paper. Makes me think of Thomas Jefferson’s comment about newspapers..
“Advertisements contain the only truths to be relied on in a newspaper”
“I’m lovin’ to see the Boeing workers telling Boeing to stick it. ”
I’m irked that my brother may be without a job because of the whining Boeing “slaves”. His company has already laid off 4 others in his little shop.
They get paid more than any other factory worker in Wichita and surrounding area and their benefits surpass most everyone else’s. Yet, they are still not satisfied.
What? Do they want to make as much as the execs?
Those flags, that we all wave around here, were made by some Chinese kid who may get $2 a day.
CapnAmerica
Posted October 24, 2008 at 11:43 am | Permalink
Damn right, YellowDog.
Without unions, workers are just pawns of top management who as we’ve seen will screw them mercilessly.
__________________________________________________
If an individual is willing to work under those conditions. I don’t think any law should be made preventing him from doing that.
You seem to forget about free-will here. It would seem to me that if they did not like it, they could improve their own situation.
What is your definition of “screw”? If the worker is willing to take the abuse, that is on the worker.
If a worker wants laws to do the work for him, then we will most certainly see this ideology come to a head. I guess it already has.
Businesses leave this country because the taxes and regulations are too burdensome. They can go to another country and escape the repressive taxes and regulations and make more money. This is not rocket science.
Tying all this to labor is irresponsible and is misleading the readers of this blog.
So, tell me folks… I see alot of whining and crying and complaining in here. WHICH ONE OF YOU IS GOING TO RUN FOR THE OFFICE? You sure talk the talk, but do you walk the walk? Let’s see.
It’s easy to criticize when you don’t know the facts. I’ve worked in DC. What a nest of self-serving, back-stabbing, mother robbing losers. I have worked in the legislative branch, literally right next to many of these people. The whole system is corrupt, but there are good people in the system. In order to get anything done for us, they have to play the games to an extent. Mr. Tiahrt has done alot of good for Kansas and the nation, and he has been able to do so with only a little mud on his shoes. THAT IS A FEAT! We need these good men to continue working in the corrupted Congress. We need them to multiply there until the guys who vote themselves raises to ridiculous new salary highs, and the guys who vote “Present” instead of doing something are run out of office. Our system is broken because of you, the voter. Educate youself before you cast a vote. Don’t rely on what the campaigns tell you. Go online and look at the official records. Don’t continue to be sheep.
The only thing I ever saw a union do when I was a member was to protect people who did not do their jobs.
And, those people were the ones who were the strongest defenders of unions.
What a surprise.
Don’t worry folks. Everyone of us is going to re-learn the definition of hard work very soon.
They have nationalized almost every industry we have in this country. You will be forced to work harder than you ever have in your whole life.
Good luck trying to get a union formed in a government owned corporation.
Todd Tiahrt was elected to Congress on November 8, 1994. In 1995, during the first session of the 104th Congress, Todd Tiahrt voted for H. R. Res 73, a measure initiated to limit congressional terms of office to six terms. Before the House, Todd Tiahrt proclaimed: “Term limits are extremely popular with the American people because they want a citizen legislature. They do not want the same excuse that they have heard about we already have term limits every 2 years, because they do understand the system. They know name recognition, the PAC’s, franking all work for the incumbent. The term limit vote is important. The American people want a ‘yes’ vote for term limits or your congressional seat next year.”
The issue isn’t that we do not have a law stating term limits for members of congress, rather an issue of one man’s personal integrity to be faithful to his own word and his stated convictions to limit himself to the term limits he professed to believe in. We have one party in congress – the Incumbent’s Party, and thus we do not have the citizen’s congress of which Todd Tiahrt spoke.
John Boehner signed the Contract with America, as did then congressman Pat Roberts. The Democrat’s never pushed for term limits, so they aren’t on record as being in favor of such limits. I personally believe in term limits, as I believe that our elected representatives should be men and women with personal integrity. We may lose some valuable individuals by imposing term limits, but no one is indispensable, and out of 300 plus Americans, we can certainly find equally worthy individuals who are willing and able to serve.
Damned right Austrian_E.
Things are about to get a helluva lot harder in the next couple of years.
And when the backlog of planes are finally complete in the next five years, Kansas will start to feel much like Michigan.
But as the credit, sorry liquidity, is shut off for us, know that the bank heist that Congress passed will render the bankers A-OK. Don’t worry about them.
Let the whining and gnashing of teeth begin!
Our Republicans delegates are counting on us to impose the term limits that they favor, but don’t have the intestinal fortitude to execute. In the name of God, please help them Out!
Term limits for Tiahrt again?
Talk about beating a dead horse. Might as well bring up the “Tiahrt Amendment” you EDITORS love so much too.
This thread is nothing more than chicken feed for the liberals here.
Watch them as they run around all excited gobbling up the food.
Job accomplished Phillip.
The truth is that Tiahrt never pledged to hold himself to term limits nor did he make such a promise.
Tiahrt was part of the “Contract with America” which said that they would support term limits.
The Republicans did try to enact term limits and the Democrats blocked it.
So the sad stupid irony is that here are all the liberal democrats complaining about Tiahrt not holding himself to term limits while they don’t say one thing about the democrats who blocked term limits.
It is obvious that you liberals don’t really care about term limits and that this is just some absurd thing you can continue to beat Tiahrt over the head with regardless of the truth.
The only liars here are the liberals who keep insisting that Tiahrt broke a promise or pledge to hold himself to term limits.
I think it’s very unlikely that the waitstaff of any restaurant in this town would be wearing an “Obama tie.”
I’ve seen people wearing all kinds of Obama swag, but I’ve never seen an Obama tie.
I’m sure they’re out there. I just think sunflower5 is willing to lie to make her story more compelling.
It’s what they do.
Pleefer
Posted October 24, 2008 at 12:25 pm | Permalink
Damned right Austrian_E.
Things are about to get a helluva lot harder in the next couple of years.
And when the backlog of planes are finally complete in the next five years, Kansas will start to feel much like Michigan.
But as the credit, sorry liquidity, is shut off for us, know that the bank heist that Congress passed will render the bankers A-OK. Don’t worry about them.
Let the whining and gnashing of teeth begin!
_______________________________________________
Not only that, but I’ve read articles on the government taking over Americans 401K’s. You think I’m lying? They had an “expert” come into a Senate hearing this week to show how the plan would work. This is how this garbage gets started.
I swear to God, the day they take my 401K over is the day that I get my guns out and get ready for the revolution. Every man has a breaking point and messing with my families future wealth is mine.
Below is a link to the article:
http://www.usnews.com/blogs/capital-commerce/2008/10/23/would-obama-dems-kill-401k-plans.html
My favorite part of the article:
“[...] In place of 401(k) plans, she would have workers transfer their dough into government-created “guaranteed retirement accounts” for every worker. The government would deposit $600 (inflation indexed) every year into the GRAs. Each worker would also have to save 5 percent of pay into the accounts, to which the government would pay a measly 3 percent return.” [...]
This will be the event that triggers the modern day, “Boston Tea Party”.
I thought this is what Social Security was. 4.5 Trillion dollars sits in these 401K accounts all over the country. They want their hands on it folks, and based on the last month of legislation to pass, I predict they will get it.
“Austrian” – that is simply one guys opinion of what should be done. It’s called brainstorming. Show me where the Democrats said they would enact it.
Raptor–
Bullsh! t.
You never did real work like union guys do.
Nice try though . . .
bth
Posted October 24, 2008 at 1:13 pm | Permalink
“Austrian” – that is simply one guys opinion of what should be done. It’s called brainstorming. Show me where the Democrats said they would enact it.
________________________________________________
Missing the forrest for the trees aren’t you?
The fact that this is even being brought up is appaling.
One of the comments to the article summed it up well:
Panic mongering
The committee was hearing as many views as it could find in order not to possibly miss something that might make sense before deliberating on any course of action at all.
Arbitrarily selecting only one of the persons testifying with a view and drawing all sorts of imaginary consequences as a done deal is panic mongering of the worst kind.
No austrian, I am not missing anything. You are. The Congress is casting a wide net – asking for as many ideas as possible. You, on the other hand, by saying that only ideas that agree with your narrow viewpoint should be considered, miss a lot.
I don’t think her idea has merit – however I would look at it.
bth,
Once again, the fact that this is even an idea, even if not considered, should disturb you.
The point is that the idea is out there. Someone actually thought enough of the idea to have it hit the Senate hearings. That is my point.
Whether it happens or not is not in my hands. It is best to be informed about what is going on in Washington anyway.
You know the other BS thing about sunflower5’s story?
The idea that she would ever give money to homeless guy.
Coming up with a bogus reason to not tip?
Not so much.
Any idea that redistributes wealth is wrong. Is that being narrow-minded?
Sounds like a person who respects freedom to me.
austrian – a lot of crazy ideas are out there – including yours. So what?
bth
Posted October 24, 2008 at 1:41 pm | Permalink
austrian – a lot of crazy ideas are out there – including yours. So what?
__________________________________________________
Yeah Freedom is a crazy idea. Seeing as though we’ve lived without it for so long, I’m not the least bit surprised.
You are entitled to your OPINION.
Who is the narrow-minded one now?
See you in the trenches good buddy.
Doesn’t matter he will be re-elected.
Please refresh my memory. Wasn’t it Tiahrt who criticized Dan Glickman for being too entrenched in D.C. and serving too many terms? Wouldn’t that imply a self-imposed pledge for limited terms?
In any event, we need fresh people in D.C. because all they do is run for re-election! So they’re too scared to do the work we need them to do (i.e. immigration).
Hey Austrian–
Remember when Boxlock asked you about gold and you said “go for it?”
And I said, “WAIT!”
Well, gold is down 20 percent to what it was last year at this time.
Proving exactly what I said–gold only has the value that society gives it. A prosperous society can value it more.
When the economy sinks, everything including gold sinks.
bth,
Read, “The Road to Serfdom” by F.A. Hayek
CapnAmerica
Posted October 24, 2008 at 3:16 pm | Permalink
Hey Austrian–
Remember when Boxlock asked you about gold and you said “go for it?”
And I said, “WAIT!”
Well, gold is down 20 percent to what it was last year at this time.
Proving exactly what I said–gold only has the value that society gives it. A prosperous society can value it more.
When the economy sinks, everything including gold sinks.
________________________________________________
Gold is a real tangible thing. All paper money shall return to its true value with time, zero.
In terms of paper money, gold has gone down, but you forget that Gold is real money. It derived from a free-market as something with value. When our FIAT money goes to zero, then you will not be so concerned with Golds price. in fact, you will be wishing you had some in order to obtain the things you need to survive.
Only paper money can be made into money with laws. Read a dollar bill. It says that you must except it as a means to repay debts and that it is LEGAL tender.
Why do people like Boxlock and I care what something is valued at in paper money? Paper money is worthless.
Now is a great buying opportunity for Gold. It is priced cheap in worthless FIAT. You need to quit looking at Gold like a stock. It only serves two purposes:
1. To protect the amount of paper money you have against devaluation.
2. A scarce, tangible asset that has been sought after since early civilization, which can be used to obtain things you find of value.
I don’t have to be right about finding the bottom of the market for commodities, all I need to know is that its price in debased paper currency will ALWAYS go up in the long run.
Say what you will about Gold Cap’n.
It is what this country is supposed to be using as money.
Our FIAT system was only born in 1971. It has taken previous empires a much longer time to debauch a currency. It has only taken America a little over 37 years to debauch our FIAT dollar. Just something else this country can be the best at in the annals of history, debauching currency.
I say we go back to using gold coins for currency…;)
Coins are OK too, but so is Gold backed paper. Just as long as the paper is backed by 100% reserves of Gold.
Only production creates wealth, not a printing press.
Cap – you just hate the idea that someone explained what it meant to “share the wealth”. Yes it was a simple explination but it is still the same process.
You were right about the tie. It was a tie tack. I do apologize for the missed word in the story.
Well, gee, Sunny.
I guess the tax payers should just stop paying your salary.
We just don’t need legislators anymore.
Geez . . . you can’t make this stuff up.
:roll:
Hey? What happened to the emoticons?
Assuming that gold is a finite resource, like oil, it seems a gold-based economy ultimately results in shifting gold from one person/company/country to another… a shell game that ultimately only makes sense if everyone on the planet (what Buckminster Fuller called “Spaceship Earth”) gets enough of the finite resource to survive. After all, on Spaceship earth we’re not just passengers, we’re the crew.
Golly.
Now that sounds socialist to me.
And somehow, I suspect that’s not “Austrian_Economist” has in mind.
The market has to figure in there somewhere, but the market has its share of Dutch Tulip Bulb frenzies.
Is Sylvester Stallone worth $20-million a picture on the basis of his acting? Uhm, no. Does a guy with a 95-mile-per-hour fastball “earn” $12-million a year?
Is the guy replacing your shingles in the middle of August worth only $5.75 an hour? And why is a plain hamburger at McDonald’s 85-cents and a double-cheeseburger is only a dollar?
Maybe we’ve become a society that embodies that old saying about knowing the price of everything and the value of nothing.