Liberal Forum

Dantev2 » 22 Jan 2018 1:50 am » wrote:
Bank credit card charge offs rose a whopping 20% in 4Q 2017.

https://www.ft.com/content/bafdd504-fd2 ... 9be7f3120a

The Fed is set to hike rates again soon. Clam told you the economy is fine without the toddler training wheels (QE).

indago » 21 Jan 2018 10:20 pm » wrote:

Sgt Bilko » 21 Jan 2018 3:00 pm » wrote:

indago » 19 Jan 2018 11:12 pm » wrote:
"The scotus has never ruled on states' authority to compel payment in fed notes - no case on that issue has ever been heard."

Let it suffice to be noted that a paper medium of exchange in this country was denied the government, by not granting this power, in favor of gold and silver coin. Those who issue money into the marketplace were disappointed with this result, and since that time had continually sought to subvert the monetary system of this country, and replace it with a paper medium of exchange, and keep the gold and silver that was displaced by it. Although use of a paper medium of exchange was never granted the federal government, nor the State governments, a paper medium was continually in use, regardless of the denial. Many cases had been brought to the courts by those who were tendered depreciated banknotes marked "dollar" instead of the real silver dollar. More often than not, the gold and silver coin was upheld as the monetary standard in this country; until the civil war. The north was desperate for money to prosecute the war, and it was decided that, because of the exigency, and the desperate times, a United States Note could be issued into the marketplace which would serve, temporarily, as money until the exigency was over, when the notes would be retired, and the country would be returned to its original monetary standard. The notes were printed, and issued into the marketplace, and were termed "greenbacks". They depreciated, their lowest point reaching nearly a 70% depreciation as against the gold and silver coins of the country. History has shown that the Grant administration was extraordinarily corrupt. It was decided that the notes would be re-issued back into the marketplace instead of retiring them. Some who were tendered these notes, in payment of a debt, refused them, and a case was brought before the courts where argument was heard all over again concerning the constitutionality of paper money. Gold and silver coin was continually upheld as the exchange medium of the country until the President of the United States, Ulysses S. Grant, reconstituted the Supreme Court of the United States, and the case of Juilliard v Greenman was argued before the Court in 1884. It was noted in the statement of facts:

"Juilliard, a citizen of New York, brought an action against Greenman, a citizen of Connecticut, in the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York, alleging that the plaintiff sold and delivered to the defendant, at his special instance and request, one hundred bales of cotton, of the value and for the agreed price of $5,122.90; and that the defendant agreed to pay that sum in cash on the delivery of the cotton, and had not paid the same or any part thereof, except that he had paid the sum of $22.90 on account, and was now justly indebted to the plaintiff therefor in the sum of $5,100; and demanding judgment for this sum with interest and costs. The defendant in his answer admitted the citizenship of the parties, the purchase and delivery of the cotton, and the agreement to pay therefor, as alleged; and averred that after the delivery of the cotton, he offered and tendered to the plaintiff, in full payment, $22.50 in gold coin of the United States, forty cents in silver coin of the United States, and two United States notes, one of the denomination of $5,000, and the other of the denomination of $100, of the description known as United States legal tender notes, purporting by recital thereon to be legal tender, at their respective face values, for all debts, public and private..."

Mr. Juilliard refused to accept the notes, and he, therefore, sued for full payment in money.

The Court, viewing government as a sovereign, with some of its powers limited by a constitution, rather than as a corporation with some powers granted by the States, declared that the constitution did not say that they could not use a paper money medium of exchange. The "necessary and proper" clause was trotted out again, and it was declared that the paper money was "necessary and proper" as an overall means toward encouraging commerce in this country. It was also declared that, through the power to borrow money, the government was qualified to issue its notes of security, regardless of their size, $2; $5; $10; $100, into the marketplace to be used as "legal tender" for the payment of all debts, public and private. Justice Gray, in delivering the opinion of the Court, also declared:

"So, under the power to coin money and to regulate its value, Congress may (as it did with regard to gold by the act of June 28th, 1834, ch. 95, and with regard to silver by the act of February 28th, 1878, ch. 20) issue coins of the same denomination as those already current by law, but of less intrinsic value than those, by reason of containing a less weight of the precious metals, and thereby enable debtors to discharge their debts by the payment of coins of the less real value."

Where do you come up with this ****?

Point out the "****".

Cannonpointer » 22 Jan 2018 1:34 am » wrote:

indago » 20 Jan 2018 5:23 am » wrote:
Not really! As noted in the opinion of the Court, it is stated on the Greenback notes: "This note is legal tender for all debts public and private". California and Oregon refused to recognize this, declaring that it violated their State Constitutions.

I happen to agree with oregon and cali - but it's still irrelevant.

The issue I raised was whether the court had declared fed notes legal - not greenbacks.

It hasn't.

That's why you hadda cite an irrelevant case - no relevant case exists.

Sgt Bilko » 22 Jan 2018 3:26 am » wrote:

indago » 21 Jan 2018 10:20 pm » wrote:

Sgt Bilko » 21 Jan 2018 3:00 pm » wrote: Where do you come up with this ****?

Point out the "****".

The whole long diatribe!!

indago » 22 Jan 2018 7:39 am » wrote: Ah yes, I see! The Fed hadn't been created yet.

indago » 22 Jan 2018 7:42 am » wrote:

Sgt Bilko » 22 Jan 2018 3:26 am » wrote:

indago » 21 Jan 2018 10:20 pm » wrote:
Point out the "****".

The whole long diatribe!!

I had queried of Ol' Bilko: "Point out the "****"". And did Ol' Bilko "Point out the "****""?

Of course not; And why am I not surprised! Just some old bluster and BS. And didn't I just know, somehow, that this is the way this would turn out. So predictable. Ol' PsychoBilko thrives on making bold and sweeping generalizations, but when called upon the carpet to examine into the ranting, the foundation crumbles, along with veracity; and, we find that the equivocations are just that; just blowing smoke.

indago » 19 Jan 2018 11:12 pm » wrote:

Cannonpointer » 19 Jan 2018 4:03 pm » wrote:

deezer shoove » 19 Jan 2018 3:59 pm » wrote:
Well, I expected you would cite precedence at the Supreme Court and their validation of the use of taxation.
Something better than a critique of the location of where I like to jig.

Supreme court said Bammycare was okie dokie. That's the keystone holding that entire charade together.
Certainly they must have mentioned taxes somewhere along the line...
I believe the concept has been around for a couple years.

So why is taxation okie dokie? And people that said "**** off" shower with their backs to the wall?

The scotus has never ruled on states' authority to compel payment in fed notes - no case on that issue has ever been heard.

But your conveyance of your opinion to nine men in dresses is duly noted.

Let's not lose focus on the fact the the supreme court never lied that peepee hates the rich - that was your shameful sellout.

"The scotus has never ruled on states' authority to compel payment in fed notes - no case on that issue has ever been heard."

Let it suffice to be noted that a paper medium of exchange in this country was denied the government, by not granting this power, in favor of gold and silver coin. Those who issue money into the marketplace were disappointed with this result, and since that time had continually sought to subvert the monetary system of this country, and replace it with a paper medium of exchange, and keep the gold and silver that was displaced by it. Although use of a paper medium of exchange was never granted the federal government, nor the State governments, a paper medium was continually in use, regardless of the denial. Many cases had been brought to the courts by those who were tendered depreciated banknotes marked "dollar" instead of the real silver dollar. More often than not, the gold and silver coin was upheld as the monetary standard in this country; until the civil war. The north was desperate for money to prosecute the war, and it was decided that, because of the exigency, and the desperate times, a United States Note could be issued into the marketplace which would serve, temporarily, as money until the exigency was over, when the notes would be retired, and the country would be returned to its original monetary standard. The notes were printed, and issued into the marketplace, and were termed "greenbacks". They depreciated, their lowest point reaching nearly a 70% depreciation as against the gold and silver coins of the country. History has shown that the Grant administration was extraordinarily corrupt. It was decided that the notes would be re-issued back into the marketplace instead of retiring them. Some who were tendered these notes, in payment of a debt, refused them, and a case was brought before the courts where argument was heard all over again concerning the constitutionality of paper money. Gold and silver coin was continually upheld as the exchange medium of the country until the President of the United States, Ulysses S. Grant, reconstituted the Supreme Court of the United States, and the case of Juilliard v Greenman was argued before the Court in 1884. It was noted in the statement of facts:

"Juilliard, a citizen of New York, brought an action against Greenman, a citizen of Connecticut, in the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York, alleging that the plaintiff sold and delivered to the defendant, at his special instance and request, one hundred bales of cotton, of the value and for the agreed price of $5,122.90; and that the defendant agreed to pay that sum in cash on the delivery of the cotton, and had not paid the same or any part thereof, except that he had paid the sum of $22.90 on account, and was now justly indebted to the plaintiff therefor in the sum of $5,100; and demanding judgment for this sum with interest and costs. The defendant in his answer admitted the citizenship of the parties, the purchase and delivery of the cotton, and the agreement to pay therefor, as alleged; and averred that after the delivery of the cotton, he offered and tendered to the plaintiff, in full payment, $22.50 in gold coin of the United States, forty cents in silver coin of the United States, and two United States notes, one of the denomination of $5,000, and the other of the denomination of $100, of the description known as United States legal tender notes, purporting by recital thereon to be legal tender, at their respective face values, for all debts, public and private..."

Mr. Juilliard refused to accept the notes, and he, therefore, sued for full payment in money.

The Court, viewing government as a sovereign, with some of its powers limited by a constitution, rather than as a corporation with some powers granted by the States, declared that the constitution did not say that they could not use a paper money medium of exchange. The "necessary and proper" clause was trotted out again, and it was declared that the paper money was "necessary and proper" as an overall means toward encouraging commerce in this country. It was also declared that, through the power to borrow money, the government was qualified to issue its notes of security, regardless of their size, $2; $5; $10; $100, into the marketplace to be used as "legal tender" for the payment of all debts, public and private. Justice Gray, in delivering the opinion of the Court, also declared:

"So, under the power to coin money and to regulate its value, Congress may (as it did with regard to gold by the act of June 28th, 1834, ch. 95, and with regard to silver by the act of February 28th, 1878, ch. 20) issue coins of the same denomination as those already current by law, but of less intrinsic value than those, by reason of containing a less weight of the precious metals, and thereby enable debtors to discharge their debts by the payment of coins of the less real value."

Sgt Bilko » 22 Jan 2018 1:41 pm » wrote:

indago » 19 Jan 2018 11:12 pm » wrote:

Cannonpointer » 19 Jan 2018 4:03 pm » wrote: The scotus has never ruled on states' authority to compel payment in fed notes - no case on that issue has ever been heard.

But your conveyance of your opinion to nine men in dresses is duly noted.

Let's not lose focus on the fact the the supreme court never lied that peepee hates the rich - that was your shameful sellout.

"The scotus has never ruled on states' authority to compel payment in fed notes - no case on that issue has ever been heard."

Let it suffice to be noted that a paper medium of exchange in this country was denied the government, by not granting this power, in favor of gold and silver coin. Those who issue money into the marketplace were disappointed with this result, and since that time had continually sought to subvert the monetary system of this country, and replace it with a paper medium of exchange, and keep the gold and silver that was displaced by it. Although use of a paper medium of exchange was never granted the federal government, nor the State governments, a paper medium was continually in use, regardless of the denial. Many cases had been brought to the courts by those who were tendered depreciated banknotes marked "dollar" instead of the real silver dollar. More often than not, the gold and silver coin was upheld as the monetary standard in this country; until the civil war. The north was desperate for money to prosecute the war, and it was decided that, because of the exigency, and the desperate times, a United States Note could be issued into the marketplace which would serve, temporarily, as money until the exigency was over, when the notes would be retired, and the country would be returned to its original monetary standard. The notes were printed, and issued into the marketplace, and were termed "greenbacks". They depreciated, their lowest point reaching nearly a 70% depreciation as against the gold and silver coins of the country. History has shown that the Grant administration was extraordinarily corrupt. It was decided that the notes would be re-issued back into the marketplace instead of retiring them. Some who were tendered these notes, in payment of a debt, refused them, and a case was brought before the courts where argument was heard all over again concerning the constitutionality of paper money. Gold and silver coin was continually upheld as the exchange medium of the country until the President of the United States, Ulysses S. Grant, reconstituted the Supreme Court of the United States, and the case of Juilliard v Greenman was argued before the Court in 1884. It was noted in the statement of facts:

"Juilliard, a citizen of New York, brought an action against Greenman, a citizen of Connecticut, in the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York, alleging that the plaintiff sold and delivered to the defendant, at his special instance and request, one hundred bales of cotton, of the value and for the agreed price of $5,122.90; and that the defendant agreed to pay that sum in cash on the delivery of the cotton, and had not paid the same or any part thereof, except that he had paid the sum of $22.90 on account, and was now justly indebted to the plaintiff therefor in the sum of $5,100; and demanding judgment for this sum with interest and costs. The defendant in his answer admitted the citizenship of the parties, the purchase and delivery of the cotton, and the agreement to pay therefor, as alleged; and averred that after the delivery of the cotton, he offered and tendered to the plaintiff, in full payment, $22.50 in gold coin of the United States, forty cents in silver coin of the United States, and two United States notes, one of the denomination of $5,000, and the other of the denomination of $100, of the description known as United States legal tender notes, purporting by recital thereon to be legal tender, at their respective face values, for all debts, public and private..."

Mr. Juilliard refused to accept the notes, and he, therefore, sued for full payment in money.

The Court, viewing government as a sovereign, with some of its powers limited by a constitution, rather than as a corporation with some powers granted by the States, declared that the constitution did not say that they could not use a paper money medium of exchange. The "necessary and proper" clause was trotted out again, and it was declared that the paper money was "necessary and proper" as an overall means toward encouraging commerce in this country. It was also declared that, through the power to borrow money, the government was qualified to issue its notes of security, regardless of their size, $2; $5; $10; $100, into the marketplace to be used as "legal tender" for the payment of all debts, public and private. Justice Gray, in delivering the opinion of the Court, also declared:

"So, under the power to coin money and to regulate its value, Congress may (as it did with regard to gold by the act of June 28th, 1834, ch. 95, and with regard to silver by the act of February 28th, 1878, ch. 20) issue coins of the same denomination as those already current by law, but of less intrinsic value than those, by reason of containing a less weight of the precious metals, and thereby enable debtors to discharge their debts by the payment of coins of the less real value."

More long winded drivel. The longer the post the fewer will bother to read it. I didn't bother. The country from the begining had paper money. It took a while for it to be accepted. Pound notes finally lost favor and the US currency took over. Still gold and silver coins were preferred for a time.

indago » 22 Jan 2018 1:51 pm » wrote:

Sgt Bilko » 22 Jan 2018 1:41 pm » wrote:

indago » 19 Jan 2018 11:12 pm » wrote:
"The scotus has never ruled on states' authority to compel payment in fed notes - no case on that issue has ever been heard."

Let it suffice to be noted that a paper medium of exchange in this country was denied the government, by not granting this power, in favor of gold and silver coin. Those who issue money into the marketplace were disappointed with this result, and since that time had continually sought to subvert the monetary system of this country, and replace it with a paper medium of exchange, and keep the gold and silver that was displaced by it. Although use of a paper medium of exchange was never granted the federal government, nor the State governments, a paper medium was continually in use, regardless of the denial. Many cases had been brought to the courts by those who were tendered depreciated banknotes marked "dollar" instead of the real silver dollar. More often than not, the gold and silver coin was upheld as the monetary standard in this country; until the civil war. The north was desperate for money to prosecute the war, and it was decided that, because of the exigency, and the desperate times, a United States Note could be issued into the marketplace which would serve, temporarily, as money until the exigency was over, when the notes would be retired, and the country would be returned to its original monetary standard. The notes were printed, and issued into the marketplace, and were termed "greenbacks". They depreciated, their lowest point reaching nearly a 70% depreciation as against the gold and silver coins of the country. History has shown that the Grant administration was extraordinarily corrupt. It was decided that the notes would be re-issued back into the marketplace instead of retiring them. Some who were tendered these notes, in payment of a debt, refused them, and a case was brought before the courts where argument was heard all over again concerning the constitutionality of paper money. Gold and silver coin was continually upheld as the exchange medium of the country until the President of the United States, Ulysses S. Grant, reconstituted the Supreme Court of the United States, and the case of Juilliard v Greenman was argued before the Court in 1884. It was noted in the statement of facts:

"Juilliard, a citizen of New York, brought an action against Greenman, a citizen of Connecticut, in the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York, alleging that the plaintiff sold and delivered to the defendant, at his special instance and request, one hundred bales of cotton, of the value and for the agreed price of $5,122.90; and that the defendant agreed to pay that sum in cash on the delivery of the cotton, and had not paid the same or any part thereof, except that he had paid the sum of $22.90 on account, and was now justly indebted to the plaintiff therefor in the sum of $5,100; and demanding judgment for this sum with interest and costs. The defendant in his answer admitted the citizenship of the parties, the purchase and delivery of the cotton, and the agreement to pay therefor, as alleged; and averred that after the delivery of the cotton, he offered and tendered to the plaintiff, in full payment, $22.50 in gold coin of the United States, forty cents in silver coin of the United States, and two United States notes, one of the denomination of $5,000, and the other of the denomination of $100, of the description known as United States legal tender notes, purporting by recital thereon to be legal tender, at their respective face values, for all debts, public and private..."

Mr. Juilliard refused to accept the notes, and he, therefore, sued for full payment in money.

The Court, viewing government as a sovereign, with some of its powers limited by a constitution, rather than as a corporation with some powers granted by the States, declared that the constitution did not say that they could not use a paper money medium of exchange. The "necessary and proper" clause was trotted out again, and it was declared that the paper money was "necessary and proper" as an overall means toward encouraging commerce in this country. It was also declared that, through the power to borrow money, the government was qualified to issue its notes of security, regardless of their size, $2; $5; $10; $100, into the marketplace to be used as "legal tender" for the payment of all debts, public and private. Justice Gray, in delivering the opinion of the Court, also declared:

"So, under the power to coin money and to regulate its value, Congress may (as it did with regard to gold by the act of June 28th, 1834, ch. 95, and with regard to silver by the act of February 28th, 1878, ch. 20) issue coins of the same denomination as those already current by law, but of less intrinsic value than those, by reason of containing a less weight of the precious metals, and thereby enable debtors to discharge their debts by the payment of coins of the less real value."

More long winded drivel. The longer the post the fewer will bother to read it. I didn't bother. The country from the begining had paper money. It took a while for it to be accepted. Pound notes finally lost favor and the US currency took over. Still gold and silver coins were preferred for a time.

No, you've already commented on this one.

Sgt Bilko » 22 Jan 2018 2:02 pm » wrote:

indago » 22 Jan 2018 1:51 pm » wrote:

Sgt Bilko » 22 Jan 2018 1:41 pm » wrote: More long winded drivel. The longer the post the fewer will bother to read it. I didn't bother. The country from the begining had paper money. It took a while for it to be accepted. Pound notes finally lost favor and the US currency took over. Still gold and silver coins were preferred for a time.

No, you've already commented on this one.

That comment on drivel goes for ALL OF YOUR POSTS!!!

indago » 22 Jan 2018 7:16 pm » wrote:
Misty was right about you:

"You are an ignorant atheist windbag spouting gibberish nonsense about everything" — Sgt Bilko

"You are a vacuous simpleton shrieking the same claptrap and rubbish over and over like some kind of a deranged parrot." — Misty

Sgt Bilko » 22 Jan 2018 7:44 pm » wrote:

indago » 22 Jan 2018 7:16 pm » wrote:

Sgt Bilko » 22 Jan 2018 2:02 pm » wrote: That comment on drivel goes for ALL OF YOUR POSTS!!!

Misty was right about you:

"You are an ignorant atheist windbag spouting gibberish nonsense about everything" — Sgt Bilko

"You are a vacuous simpleton shrieking the same claptrap and rubbish over and over like some kind of a deranged parrot." — Misty

You are a disgusting **** and are lower than whale dung!!!


:

indago » 22 Jan 2018 7:46 pm » wrote:
Just look at him there, laughing away, just as happy as if he was in his right mind.

Sgt Bilko » 22 Jan 2018 8:54 pm » wrote:

indago » 22 Jan 2018 7:46 pm » wrote:

Sgt Bilko » 22 Jan 2018 7:44 pm » wrote: You are a disgusting **** and are lower than whale dung!!!


:

Just look at him there, laughing away, just as happy as if he was in his right mind.

That's because you are such a ludicrous fool. I find you hilarious!!!


:

indago » 23 Jan 2018 6:03 am » wrote:
Talk about "fool"...

There's no fool like OL' FOOL

Sgt Bilko » 23 Jan 2018 8:23 am » wrote:

indago » 23 Jan 2018 6:03 am » wrote:

Sgt Bilko » 22 Jan 2018 8:54 pm » wrote: That's because you are such a ludicrous fool. I find you hilarious!!!


:

Talk about "fool"...

There's no fool like OL' FOOL

Just for you Mr ****!!!



:














:














:

indago » 23 Jan 2018 12:44 pm » wrote:

Sgt Bilko » 23 Jan 2018 8:23 am » wrote:

indago » 23 Jan 2018 6:03 am » wrote:
Talk about "fool"...

There's no fool like OL' FOOL

Just for you Mr ****!!!



:














:














:

Wow, a double dose of Foolery and Idiocy...

Sgt Bilko » 24 Jan 2018 8:58 am » wrote:You just demonstrated your inability to discern posts. It was a triple batch of smiley icons. Thus proving once and for all that you are an idiot and fool yourself!!!!

indago » 24 Jan 2018 9:35 am » wrote:

Sgt Bilko » 24 Jan 2018 8:58 am » wrote:You just demonstrated your inability to discern posts. It was a triple batch of smiley icons. Thus proving once and for all that you are an idiot and fool yourself!!!!

I didn't write "batch", I wrote "dose". "You just demonstrated your inability to discern posts", "Thus proving once and for all that you are an idiot and fool yourself!!!!"

Sgt Bilko » 24 Jan 2018 6:18 pm » wrote:

indago » 24 Jan 2018 9:35 am » wrote:

Sgt Bilko » 24 Jan 2018 8:58 am » wrote:You just demonstrated your inability to discern posts. It was a triple batch of smiley icons. Thus proving once and for all that you are an idiot and fool yourself!!!!

I didn't write "batch", I wrote "dose". "You just demonstrated your inability to discern posts", "Thus proving once and for all that you are an idiot and fool yourself!!!!"

You are a blithering idiot!! You wrote double dose you pathetic piece of the output from the South end of a North bound bull.