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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Never go in against a Sicilian when death is on the line!
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.