I am curious who you see as "stuck in the left/right paradigm".Originally Posted by TheSilencer1313
I am curious who you see as "stuck in the left/right paradigm".
You consider congress printing and spending money not debt but the Fed printing and giving money to congress to spend as debt?
Nonsense. We elect members from academia. There isn't a multi-thousand person conspiracy of Americans perpetuating control for the Queen of England.
And caused a severe depression that hurt many Americans. He starved citizens over a stupid obsession. Also, George Washington signed that bank's chartered. I don't think Washington was a puppet of the England he just defeated, nor someone Andrew Jackson needed to conquer to right the ship.
That's what bankers do. They charge interest.
I heard it was vampires.
We created the Federal Reserve to counter bankers ability to do this and destroy entire communities in the process (back then). Americans were very leery of allowing congress full power to print to their heart's content because they do what politicians do without any controls -- screw everything up! We also didn't trust dirty capitalists with full control so we created this hybrid system and it has worked quite wonderfully compared to the several archaic systems experimented with in the 17th - 19th centuries.
Good thing we control it then.
I don't want the boys in the trailer park determining monetary policy.
That was before the Fed and it looks to me like President Garfield got what he called for when the Federal Reserve was created and took that power away from the banking cartels.
Did he now.
Desperate times, desperate measures. Lincoln did what he had to do to fund a war. Good on him for doing it.
Income taxes would be more necessary under a system where congress prints and spends money.
Myth. All interest paid to the Federal Reserve is sent right back to the US Treasury every year. With the expansion of the Fed's balance sheet, payment into the Treasury went from something like $39billion to over $70 last year. The funding for Fed operations comes from universal check clearing fees.
Money would have no validity without income taxes under such a system, and would quickly enter the worthlessness spiral.
If you think you have a better system then by all means please tell us what it would look like. Everyone should be open to the newer and better. It's fun seeing the progressive side of you bucking conservative tradition.
I'm mostly ignorant on these highfalutin topics so correct me if I'm wrong, but if congress could print money uncontrolled, and they did so, wouldn't all the little people with retirement plans and savings accounts be the biggest losers as their life savings became worthless?
That is who I understand it but economics is not my strong point either.
Hasn't that been Obama's call for the past 4 years?
Raise taxes and to reduce spending?
Hasn't that been what most credible economists have been saying for years now?
It cannot all just be cut spending or raise taxes. Both will need to be done.
This isn't earth shattering unless you've been getting your news from Fair and Balanced media which has claimed that the budget could and should be balanced by making cuts only.
Corbin sucks.
That will be the case regardless of how the medium of exchange is created.
We the people do not owe anyone a guaranteed return on their money hoard. People on the right tend to not realize that they are demanding the government protect and store their wealth. The Ron Paul rant about inflation being an inherent tax is in reality bitching and moaning that the government not only provide a medium of exchange to make our everyday commerce easier, but to then take it another step further by altering the medium of exchange into a place to guarantee wealth accumulation through government dictate. That is exactly what Ron Paul is against in every other stance he takes.
Money is to assist commerce, it is not wealth and creates very bad situations when it is treated as such.
Let's take what JFK had done for instance. He had printed United States Notes backed by silver instead of using the Federal Reserve Notes which add the additional interest burden.
These notes in circulation would allow for the removal of the interest burdened Federal Reserve Notes, and no it does not add debt to the country.
If we borrow currency from anyone we now have a debt. If we create the cash ourselves there is not a debt involved. In the business world you take the raw materials and batch them into a finished product. Then you sell or lend that finished product out to make your money. This Bank does this and creates the currency then lends it out with interest and we are accepting an invoice for that loan, which is a debt. If we are the ones taking the raw materials and batching them into a finished product (currency), we do not have the need to pay anyone back for that currency. We do have to deal with the value of that money, and what that money is based on, but that is doable.
All of the original banks were based on the success and structure of the Bank of England. The controlling powers all had ties to each other and to England. Those that spearheaded the writing of the Federal Reserve Act had ties to the big Banks which had ties to England etc... I'm undecided, but think it could be possible.
That wasn't the cause. The non renewal of the Second Bank of the United States was not the issue. He enacted the Coinage Act which required all govt land to be bought with gold and silver. Most banks did not have enough gold and silver to cover the exchange of currency for them and they began to collapse. I don't know if Jackson did it on purpose in his war on banks or if he was too exuberant in his efforts to collect gold and silver to back the dollar and didn't see the collapse coming... but that was not good. It did not have to do with the central bank issue. Nice try though.
As to George Washington, the First Bank of the United States was an idea fought for and against to a standstill. Washington was hesitant to sign, but was left with the final decision and ended up listening to Hamiltons advice as he was the Secretary of the Treasury at the time. This was not the first central bank either, Hamilton pushed for the Bank of North America before that, but it's charter was changed and it stopped functioning as a central bank. Do I think Washington was a puppet? No. I do believe when certain people want something they will push, pull, persuade, pay, and do whatever it takes to get what they want. The people helping them do not always know they are helping.
Yes, and that's the problem We are getting charged interest to use money that should be our money, not their money.
There is also a difference imo with simple interest on a loan vs usury and compound interest.
We get charged interest to have money in our banks and then get charged interest again if anyone decides to borrow that money plus we pay a tax to help pay for that money.
Yes, it's what they do. We don't have to let them though.
They wanted this and were the main writers and backers of the Federal Reserve Act. They did what they could to get people to want it too.
Even many of the politicians that signed off on it said they didn't like it.
It was passed while a good portion of the House was on vacation.... interesting.
Do we? What say do you have?
I'm on the fence if I would rather have someone that didn't know what they were doing, vs someone that knew exactly what they were doing and it was all for their own selfish good and to the harm of others. I think I lean towards not knowing what you are doing as long as there are good intentions in there somewhere.
That's assuming you are right and that the Fed is just not another incarnation of the banking cartels.
Look it up. You explain Executive order 11110 for me. Also please explain why the United States Notes he printed were quietly and immediately taken out of circulation after his death.
TIA
I don't have any issues with Lincoln doing what he had to do. Why do you not have an issue with him printing greenbacks? He should have just paid the 24-28% interest to the banks right? That's what banks do.
Not if the other taxes take in enough to cover things and run the country.
I was talking the history of creation and early years of the Fed. Even if that payment was "sent right back to the US Treasury" would that only reduce the debt and the debt includes the additional interest charged?
It's possible we need some sort of income tax as backing for our fiat based money so the global value of the dollar does not plummet. I'm on the fence on this one, but an income tax to the extent we are taxed is definitely not needed.
Commodity backed currencies are a nice idea in principle but horrible in practice. They weaken sovereignty by making the system subject to external influence and manipulation. They're also prone to runs on the treasury as Americans have found out the hard way every time we've tried implementing such systems. This was the reason Benjamin Franklin was so adamantly anti-gold standard. Once the gold gets spent out of a community it falls apart as the economic system becomes destroyed. If we were to go back to such an archaic system we'd quickly collapse and be too weak to defend ourselves from countries with modern economies.
You're complaining about paying interest on the national debt & not about what the Federal Reserve does. If you were to refine this as the Federal Reserve being an enabler to congressional stupidity then that's a very valid concern. However, the problem is in congressional budgeting & blame should be placed accordingly.
Every bank I've ever seen pays interest to hold my money.
You won't be able to stop people from lending money at a profit and have a functional economy at the same time. Even worse, if you have a gold based system then you'll still have multiple claims to the same gold nugget without a release valve to let off the pressure when the inevitable deflationary collapse of such a system sets in.
Believe it or not, people in high finance prefer a stable system to one prone to systemic shock and collapse. Business people are very win-win.
I vote. I could go into the field and attempt to influence policy if I so desired.
An understandable concern. Our hubris will always get us into trouble no matter what system we implement. That's why it's important to constantly stay on top of regulations and refining according to knew knowledge learned. Letting idiots run the system instead while knowing they will shortly collapse everything is a damn good way to become China's personal bitch.
The conspiracy theorists have taken a few snippets from each message and painted a wild picture with them. Kennedy sought to move us further away from precious metals backed currency, saying silver was useless as money.
No. I have no problem with the government printing money in times of crisis (plenty of caveats on how Lincoln did it but that's not really pertinent to this discussion.). I celebrate every time a quantitative easing is announced.
There's a misconception about the US using the Federal Reserve to pay banks interest on every note ever printed. Every time I've seen this brought up it's linked to the creation of the system and how it was funded. We require member banks to put up some capital and pay them an annual 6% dividend for it. Granted that is the best investment in the world for anyone. However, if there were some conspiracy going on under bank control then the banks would have required the Fed to force them the full amount of funding when the Fed stopped at 1/2 the maximum amount allowable under The Act because they decided they had collected enough to operate safely and stay solvent.
Paying the 6% dividend doesn't amount to all that much money each year and comes from Federal Reserve operations and not the US Treasury. I just did a quick google and it was $3,752,000,000 in 2000. In addition, every single US citizen is free to take advantage of this opportunity just as every other banker. You too can get in on the cabal!
I wanted to follow this topic but Frank and Spazz starting writing novels and my brain shut down.
You're right. I should have taken things one at a time and went back and forth for 17 pages like you and OB.
Sorry we hurt your brain. I hope it's able to reboot after that blue screen.
Maybe restart from safe mode and make some adjustments in the Bios.
hahaha. Well when you have two people wanting to understand maybe you should have. It's not like you are a proffesional at this like Zulu or Gyb.You're right. I should have taken things one at a time and went back and forth for 17 pages like you and OB.
Stupid amateurs.
I got to your posts and didn't even read it.
Ain't nobody got time for that.
Says the guy with 9200 posts in less than a year. Yea, I believe you.
It's not about "time"
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote