English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

They had both houses and the president, Do you think they are supports of what Carter did?

2007-09-18 18:01:05 · 6 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government Politics

6 answers

Uh, gee, Binky - maybe you've not heard but the Gold Standard is dead, dead, dead! Only those marching into the future looking backwards are still talking about the Gold Standard.

You're not by chance a buddy of Steve Forbes, are you?

2007-09-18 18:06:14 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1 1

Let's see... they couldn't implement a Flat-Tax system either. Now THAT would have been a great achievement.

HEY! There's a fly on your nose!!!! Take THAT! Drat... missed.

Why would they WANT to return to the gold standard? Like our beloved tax system there are too many hands in the pie that would be cut off if we did... and those hands are on ALL sides of the political spectrum.

Ummm... sorry, but I don't get the reference to Carter. Call me stupid, and I even survived his presidency (btw... I predicted it too), but I just don't have the memory of Carter, gold and the dollar.

Have a right-wing day!

2007-09-19 02:52:41 · answer #2 · answered by wyomugs 7 · 0 0

in 1992 Democrats had both houses of Congress and the White House. Why do you suppose:

1> we did not adopt socialized medicine, and
2> Dems got destroyed in the next Congressional elections
This "standard" you talk about can only be done by a JOINT ACT OF CONGRESS; no party has a magic wand to do whatever it wants at any time. Within each party are liberals, moderates, and conservatives, some of whom will vote against their own party when the think what's being proposed is NOT RIGHT. Technically, we left the gold standard under Nixon, when he instituted wage and price controls

2007-09-19 01:08:56 · answer #3 · answered by Mike 7 · 0 1

Too many people were cashing in their dollars for gold and the Federal Reserve apparently didn't like giving up the gold. The currency didn't really need the extra support. The gold was there anyway if needed.

2007-09-19 01:06:45 · answer #4 · answered by bravozulu 7 · 0 0

Because it makes no sense to do so. The gold standard removes the flexibility the economy needs to cope with external shocks that affect aggregate demand and/or aggregate supply.

2007-09-19 01:06:35 · answer #5 · answered by Sageandscholar 7 · 0 0

They are to busy putting the gold in their pockets and really don't care what we think.

2007-09-19 01:27:28 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers