Raise Taxes and Reduce Spending

[The Thriller]

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.

 

[franklin]

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 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.

 

[Jazz Spazz]

You consider congress printing and spending money not debt but the Fed printing and giving money to congress to spend as debt?

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.

Nonsense. We elect members from academia. There isn't a multi-thousand person conspiracy of Americans perpetuating control for the Queen of England.

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.

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 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.

That's what bankers do. They charge interest.

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.

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.

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.

Good thing we control it then.

Do we? What say do you have?

I don't want the boys in the trailer park determining monetary policy.

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 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.

That's assuming you are right and that the Fed is just not another incarnation of the banking cartels.

Did he now.

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

Desperate times, desperate measures. Lincoln did what he had to do to fund a war. Good on him for doing it.

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.

Income taxes would be more necessary under a system where congress prints and spends money.

Not if the other taxes take in enough to cover things and run the country.

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.

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?

Money would have no validity without income taxes under such a system, and would quickly enter the worthlessness spiral.

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.

 

[franklin]

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.

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.

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.

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.

We get charged interest to have money in our banks

Every bank I've ever seen pays interest to hold my money.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Do we? What say do you have?

I vote. I could go into the field and attempt to influence policy if I so desired.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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?

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!

 

[Stoked]

I wanted to follow this topic but Frank and Spazz starting writing novels and my brain shut down.

 

[franklin]

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.

 

[Jazz Spazz]

I wanted to follow this topic but Frank and Spazz starting writing novels and my brain shut down.

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.

 

[Stoked]

You're right. I should have taken things one at a time and went back and forth for 17 pages like you and OB.

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.

Stupid amateurs.

 

[Stoked]

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.

I got to your posts and didn't even read it.

Ain't nobody got time for that.

 

[Jazz Spazz]

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"

 

[spycam1]

If we dump the federal reserve and print our own money we will get ourselves out of debt and be a free and unburdened country faster than anything else. The only problem is the secret people running the Federal Reserve (some think it is the royal family of England) would get angry and do whatever they could to get rid of anyone that tries it.

Andrew Jackson shut down the Second Bank of the United states, the equivalent of the Federal Reserve in those days. He was fought on this on all sides but he was able to shut it down by vetoing the recharter as it was only chartered for 20 years. (Incidentally so is the current Fed, but it seems to live on without a recharter I believe) After this he was able to completely remove the national debt, and that was the only time it has happened. He once said to Van Buren "The Bank is trying to kill me, but I will kill it" After the recharter was vetoed, there was an assassination attempt on him, but both guns misfired. Afterwards both guns were tested and they worked fine.

Lincoln went to the bank to get some money to help fund the Civil War, and the banks wanted to charge him 24-28%. He wouldn't do it, so he worked with Congress to print the Greenbacks and fund the war themselves. They didn't like that and tried to get involved and split the country. France and England tried to side with the south despite the slavery issue, but at the time the war was not a moral war, but about keeping the union intact. After Lincoln saw those controlling the banks pushing England and France to help in the war, and knowing their people would not support the war if it was about slaver, delivered the Emancipation Proclamation. He also had backing from Russia who sent some of their fleet to both the West Coast and the East coast. Some think it was a show of support to the North, but there was selfishness involved there. They were headed to war with them, and wanted their fleet free of ice in their own ports, but a unified US was a buffer from the European countries that were controlling the money through the banks. Once the US was divided up, Russia would have been the next target as they would not allow the banks to control their currency. "luckily" for the banks the whole Russian royal family was killed around WWI so they eventually got what they wanted. Strangely the communist revolution was funded with European money. Anywho, with France and England now unable to get involved on the slavery side of the now moral war on slavery, they stayed out and the North ended up winning the war and keeping the United states... united. Towards the end of the war Lincoln could not get the support of Congress for the printing of more money to finish the war, so he accepted the banks push for the National Bank Act, but planned on fighting it and repealing it after his reelection. 45 days after reelection, he was killed, and the National Bank Act lived on, and so did the Banks with funding from European puppet masters.

After the Civil War, and Lincoln's death the country went to the Gold Standard, which was easy to control because of the scarcity of Gold at the time. The banks (JP Morgan was a main one) caused depressions by removing money from circulation slowly. They created the crash in 1907 and then offered to save the day by bringing in some money that they printed.

President Garfield said in 1881 "Whosoever controls the volume of money in any country is absolute master of all industry and commerce... And when you realise that the entire system is very easily controlled, one way or another, by a few powerful men at the top, you will not have to be told how periods of inflation and depression originate." Within weeks of this statement he was assassinated.

JFK had Congress printing money and was to abolish the Federal Reserve. JFK was assassinated.



In response to Lincoln printing greenbacks:














There's a ton of info out there about the Banks and the Fed, and all that. Basically they own whoever they want to, and if they can't own them they will discredit them or kill them. They own the media, oil, railroads, and probably everything else. They use the Federal Reserve for whatever they want to. There was another quote from a senator or congressman about the Fed pumping money into Germany after WWII and that they own about everything there. One of the leaders of Russia after WWI said things about not being in charge, and not driving the car so to speak. Another US senator or congressman said things about the banks and that they had evil designs, and he died in a 747 that was "accidentally" shot down over Russia at some point.

Why do I post all of this? Freaking out about cutting spending and reducing taxes don't get to the heart of the problem. Income taxes didn't really begin in earnest until 1913, which just happens to be the same year of the Federal Reserve Act. Coincidence? The income taxes were primarily to be used to pay the interest on the debt incurred from the nation with the Federal Reserve. We would not even have to pay an income tax if we didn't have the Federal Reserve doing for us something we can constitutionally do for ourselves free of interest and burden.

Again, the heart of the issue is not spending and/or taxes. Those are distractions. Those truly in charge of all of us are the ones really in charge of both Republican and Democratic parties and are just playing games to distract us. Back to the Gary Allen Quote, both parties are really on board with the socialism agenda historically despite what is said. These puppet masters pull the strings, and they are the few with everything while everyone else is at their whim. They know people historically are not smart enough to see them for what they are and rise up as one to stop them. They just go along their merry way and endure whatever happens. They continue to make money during depressions, during good times, they crash housing markets, they crash stock markets, they do whatever they want because they are all united and they control the flow of the cash.

Blame it all on the Fed, that's who is holding Burks hostage.

FREE BURKS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1!!!!!!!!11!!!!!!!!!!!

The only part I read was "FREE BURKS!!!!!!!!", so I totes agree.

 

[franklin]

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.

Stupid amateurs.

Sir, how dare you question my intellect? I am a board certified genius. A GENIUS! You mental maggots are lucky that I ever put up with you talking at me. It makes me feel really dirty and I have to do a thorough Jack Daniels brain washing every night because of it.....it's the only way to clean the brain you know.

Ahem, the things I have to put up with to save humanity ... & to think you'll never be smart enough to respect us for it.

 

[Stoked]

Sir, how dare you question my intellect? I am a board certified genius. A GENIUS! You mental maggots are lucky that I ever put up with you talking at me. It makes me feel really dirty and I have to do a thorough Jack Daniels brain washing every night because of it.....it's the only way to clean the brain you know.

Ahem, the things I have to put up with to save humanity ... & to think you'll never be smart enough to respect us for it.

You like to feel dirty. Don't lie.

Also that be "me" instead of "us" since the rest of your post is singular. Furthermore if you were trying to save humanity you should be over on the boards of Lakers, Nuggets and Rockets fans. Trying to clean up the blight that they are to humanity.

 

[Jazz Spazz]

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.

The point was not about endorsing a gold based system, that was just part of the illustration. I don't have a problem with a fiat based system, or even a hybrid. My problem is with handing over the government's power over currency to another entity, and then having that money that should be free of debt and burden loaned to us. It is not United States notes, it is Federal Reserve notes lent to us with interest. I would rather our Country be the "company" taking the raw materials and batching it into our currency vs having the Federal Reserve take the raw materials batching it into currency, and then invoicing us for that currency for more than the value of the currency.

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.

Sure, plenty of blame to go around, but in the blame game it's easy to get distracted from the key issue or issues that are at the heart of the problems. Go ahead and take swings at the head of the Hydra, but until the body is dead the problems just get worse.

Every bank I've ever seen pays interest to hold my money.

Missing the point again. This was not about me putting money into the bank to earn some tiny amount of interest. This is about me (our country and citizens) being loaned currency that should be theirs and then having to pay interest on that money. Paying interest for the privilege of having money in circulation in our banking system.

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.

Again, you are stuck on this gold based system stuff. That is not the point, so try not to get stuck on it please.

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.

Again, missing the point. I as a citizen of this country am charged interest to have use of our currency, then if I want to borrow money for personal use I am charged interest again. I get a double dose of interest when it should only be one if I choose to get a loan. Of course Bankers want a stable system where they can make tons of money without any risk at all. That's what we all want, easy money and zero risk. Do we as citizens really want to be on the other side of that zero risk equation though?

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.

I think I still would rather having a chance that some idiot might do something right and help this country, than having a 100% sure chance that some genius will screw us over for his/her own good.

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.

Possibly, but I am undecided as of yet. I will look into it more and form my own conclusions.

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.

So... what, in your opinion would constitute a time of crisis? Are we in a time of crisis? Does it take another civil war to be in a time of crisis? Do we wait until the crisis to do something about it, or do we plan ahead to avoid a crisis?

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'll dig more into the Federal Reserve and how it works and it's history. I've looked into the Federal Reserve Bank, the Federal Reserve Act and those that wrote and adjusted it, The Second Bank of the United States, The First Bank of the United States, The Bank of North America as well as those that have been for a Central Bank as well as those that were against a Central Bank. I know they all were based very closely on how the Bank of England worked and works and that many of the people involved in pushing for this went to Europe to learn about the Bank of England and the central bank in Germany to see how things were done. Alexander Hamilton was the first Secretary of the Treasury and before that was a clerk for Robert Morris who founded the first central bank in the United States history (The Bank of North America). He continued from that time to be a strong supporter of having a central bank.

Banks always seem to be "needed" during and after wars, which is quite interesting to me. Banks make money off of wars. We seem to have a lot of "wars" lately don't we?
I can understand both sides of this topic and am planning on digging into it to find out for myself what I believe.

Someone I respect much more than anyone here has an opinion on this and has researched it extensively, which piqued my interest. I'll let you know when I have some sort of conclusions formed, not that it matters. I can see what you (franklin) thinks about it, but I don't know how much you looked into both sides of the story.

 

[franklin]

My problem is with handing over the government's power over currency to another entity, and then having that money that should be free of debt and burden loaned to us. It is not United States notes, it is Federal Reserve notes lent to us with interest. I would rather our Country be the "company" taking the raw materials and batching it into our currency vs having the Federal Reserve take the raw materials batching it into currency, and then invoicing us for that currency for more than the value of the currency.

This is fallacious, a myth, simply not true.

The vast majority of "money" is created with debt, and the US Treasury seems king of that hill. The US Treasury issues US Treasury notes, not the Federal Reserve. They don't borrow them from the Fed first.

The only money the Fed creates is a small amount of base money. All the interest paid on this base money is returned to the US Treasury.

I can see what you (franklin) thinks about it, but I don't know how much you looked into both sides of the story.

I started out with all the conspiracy stuff first. I used to be entertained by the narrative you're telling. It's interesting and easy to relate to.

 

[TheSilencer1313]

I am curious who you see as "stuck in the left/right paradigm".

Anyone who plays along with the political chess board as it is actually how the real world works. Also, anyone who continues to blame the political faces for the problems in this country. This includes puppet Obama.

 

[TheSilencer1313]

This is fallacious, a myth, simply not true.

The vast majority of "money" is created with debt, They don't borrow them from the Fed first.

Sorry Mr. Genius, but if the U.S. treasury still printed our money, there would never be debt attached. The only debt that could possibly be attached would be "inflation" due to overprinting and insufficient backing.
Of course the treasury borrows money from the Fed first..... have you never went over the Federal Reserve Act of 1913?
The bill specifically outlines the powers congress instilled in the fed.

The only money the Fed creates is a small amount of base money. All the interest paid on this base money is returned to the US Treasury.

Was this an attempt at a lame joke?

I started out with all the conspiracy stuff first. I used to be entertained by the narrative you're telling. It's interesting and easy to relate to.

Funny, because I started out with the narrative that you're telling right now.

It's very interesting to relate to the fact that a central bank instilled in any country is one of the very cornerstones of the "Communist Manifesto", and all central banks were resisted against by our first forefathers with diligence for this very reason.

 

[franklin]

But that's not what we do. We let the Fed print and issue the money, and back it with federal reserve "notes" bearing interest. They in turn "lend" it to the banks at astonishingly low interest rates you or I would never be offered.

I say this system is doing exactly what our founders feared, that we should not tolerate it, and we should repeal the amendment and other legislation that "legalizes" this sort of theft from our public, which does everything Franklin deplores in making a few people very rich.

Ah, babe, see what you've done. What you're thinking of is the emergency discount window that is meant to provide liquidity in times of crisis (something banks were shunned & charged heavily for using prior to the 2008 collapse). This is not the actual mechanism for most money creation. And, while the Fed is lending money at next to nothing it is also drawing down long term interest rates to compensate. Those of us who follow Annaly Capital Management closely aren't too fond of the Fed reducing margins on us "insiders" to incredibly low levels while simultaneously creating constant repayment risk and serious long term balance sheet threats.

Lyndon LaRouche advocates a very active and powerful role for government as the bully whip for infrastructure, technology, and every other conceivable advance of mankind. . . . by issuing government "credit" to pay for all these "good" things.

I fear that would be like the takeover of our government that followed the Civil War, as we paid for railroads, then paid to ride on them and ship goods on them, and gave incredible incentives to the builders. It would be better if, when issuing "credit" in the public name, that citizens were issued stock certificates vesting ownership in the enterprises so financed. People could invest their own money too, but the money our government just "gives" to business should result in private, individual ownership vested in the citizens who must pay for those investments through future taxes.

At any rate, what we have done is to saddle future generations with massive debts practically beyond all hope of their ability to repay, and we have impoverished our general population while we have transferred massive wealth into the hands of a very small circle of "special people" who have virtually hijacked our government.

You don't have to abolish the Federal Reserve to get what you want here. All you have to do is politely ask Ben Bernanke to print some more money, call it quantitative easing or some other euphemism, and spend it on massive infrastructure projects of the people's choosing. Americans would go back to work building useful stuff and the banks would no longer need access to the discount window that you are fearing is a wealth transfer from the poor to the rich. Best of all, Spazz gets what he wants with no interest rate attached. All it costs us is the labor of a whole bunch of unemployed but able folks.

 

[Gyp Rosetti]

Those of us who follow Annaly Capital Management closely...

*anally

 

[Jazz Spazz]

You don't have to abolish the Federal Reserve to get what you want here. All you have to do is politely ask Ben Bernanke to print some more money, call it quantitative easing or some other euphemism, and spend it on massive infrastructure projects of the people's choosing. Americans would go back to work building useful stuff and the banks would no longer need access to the discount window that you are fearing is a wealth transfer from the poor to the rich. Best of all, Spazz gets what he wants with no interest rate attached. All it costs us is the labor of a whole bunch of unemployed but able folks.

That would just delay the inevitable. Have the Fed print more money, borrow it, spend it to get people working on temporary projects, inflation, make it through your Presidency alive and get taken care of the rest of your life, let someone else after you deal with the issue you delayed. You are right, you are a genius!

--edit -- yes, I was playing around a bit on this one. It's tough to root the sarcasm out of me.