dckingsfan wrote:If you want to really bash the fed it should be the notion that they continually devalue the dollar to keep up with our spending. And that is true. But it has been mostly true because congress has spent like drunken sailors.
You are not wrong about spending. obviously. But i think you are dug in too far as "spending" is the only problem. because its making you think along the lines of "if R's could just spend less on this...and D's spend less on that" . Which they wont. They each run on some kind of campaign platform and they will spend to see their campaign promises through to fruition and want to look good so as to
not be made out to be liars. eg trump ran on the wall. and D's want to not give him the success. so he cant run on a wall success in 2020. And that's what happens to every single politician. They will fight to spend on their campaign pledges so long as the momney is there to be "borrowed." And I argue that we will never curtail spending with this approach.
"spending" is the tail of the snake.
Why not...Instead... cut off the head. The source. which is fractional reserve
"lending." And it is precisely Fractional reserve lending is what causing the dollar to devalue!!!!. because they are creating money out of thin air. Its the
"creation of money" that creates the inflation AKA devaluing of the dollar!!!
I dont think your "over spending approach to repair the debt appreciates just how damaging it is that the availability of funds induces nor the systemic pain of 5% interest on that debt??? Why are you not connecting those dots? This isn't some complex thing where money just gets magically devalued.
we know the cause. The main cause of inflation is fractional reserve lending at the federal level. Its the issuing of more bonds, which get sold, and "creates" money. Why is the US paying 5% interest to the federal reserve???
Why issue bonds instead of cutting out the middle man and just debt free notes instead??Because if you want to talk about
spending????? We spend
$310 Billion per year on just the interest. the INTEREST. Thats almost half of the omnibus spending package!! 7.4% of our annual budget goes to "spending" on just the interest.
So fractional reserve lending is creating a "spending problem" in 2 ways. 1. Making too much money available to spend. 2. the interest we pay on that money we borrow.
AND its a policy problem. We can change the policy and We can the banks themselves. We can keep the entire infrastructure of central banking system as it is
except we can nationalize it. which would allow us to print Notes(actual money) instead of bonds on the good credit of the united states government and PAY NO INTEREST on it at all because the money is simply paper that we print. Not bonds that get sold that not only must get paid back but also require interest.
Prior to 1913 The united states of America was built on a banking system that was owned by the people not a private bank. wholly. Its our effing money for christs sake!!!!
We the people should own our money!!!!!!
Anyway. back on track. Fractional reserve lending was discovered by the goldsmiths in the so-called dark ages that really weren't that dark. Most discoveries were made in the so called dark ages. Our world banking system was invented and created then. Gold smiths discovered that no one came to make claims on their gold once they deposited it. 90% was generally kept in the vaults. So they began to invest with up to 90% (of everyone else's money). The practice (fractional reserve lending) was made legal because Kings and queens saw it as a source from which to borrow. Fair enough(i guess). Its a private business. Since no one ever withdraws more than 10% of their holdings at any given moment in time unless their is a "run on the banks." So they have been allowed to lend out 10 times more than they hold on deposit. If a depositor deposits 100,000 and the bank can lend out 1,000,000. and collect interest. including most of that interest "up front" for longer term mortgages, business loans, and auto loans. great deal for them.
The most successful bankers (goldsmiths back then) realized that they could actually make more secure loans to kings and Queens instead of local merchants. And thats what they did. Enter the creation of Central banking. Pseudo-quasi government organization that can lend money to kings and queens, which eventually became republics and other "government" entities. fractional reserve lending created money. out fo thin air. which is what lead to the arms races around Europe and 500 years of various civil wars. We eventually had a civil war in america and shortly after which a rothschilds central bank was set up as our banking system. There has been civil war throughout africa and the middle east and asia over the last 100 years and every time...shortly after...a rothschild central bank appears. Follow civil wars around the globe. and you find a pattern. Rothschild central banks become the finance "center" shortly afterword. Hmmmmmmmm? Seriously, look it up. Look at all the founding years of various central banks around the globe. then look at what was going on in those regions shortly before the rothschild central banks were set up. Strife, turmoil, sanctions, wars. Then rothschild central banks to follow. North Korea will end up being one of the last place on earth to get a central bank. and we've already had the sanctions, strife, and turmoil accompanied by the arms race. Let's see how easy they go....but when they do? guaranteed. they will get a London/Washington based central bank (rothschilds supposedly "left" central banking in 2006...hmmmm...right before the almost entire banking collapse).
So i just cant follow along your narrative where "spending" is the issue. "We need responsible spending." Of course we do!! It will help. But you are too too easily and casually dismissing a far greater issue. That privately owned central banks, fractional reserve lending, and the interest paid on those loans is
root of both our
spending problems because it creates "what feels like free" money out of thin air which devalues the money (which makes us spend even larger sums...because the currency is devalued) and that "free money" (which clearly is NOT free) emboldens our politicians to overspend because the federal reserve act places no limits on spending. Per that bill: "The national debt held by the federal reserve is
backed by the collateral of the income taxes of the american income tax payer." So there is no real punishment for over spending. and no real limit to how much we spend. Politicians can AND WILL simply raise income taxes when it is absolutely necessary. Those rates are 30-40% right now. Imagine what it will be when they get serious about this?
OUr grand kids will be need to pay 70-80% income taxes. Which wont fly. they will revolt. Guaranteed revolution. Until then, over borrowing will continue to be kicked down the road due to the language of the federal reserve act itself is forced to be changed.
And that will be ugly. So i just dont see income tax as the savoir to this problem. the policy and laws of the federal reserve act will need to be changed. This is the head of the "spending problem" that you basically talk about every single day. This is where the money is created. Then borrowed. Which simultaneously devalues existing currency. here it is!!!! You should be Attacking the federal reserve act every single day in your posts.
Their isn't a wealthy ruling class that all pulls in the same direction (see all the billionaires pulling in different directions) - so that doesn't pass the logic test. The jump that if there was no Fed then we would borrow and spend less and be more responsible in our spending in and of itself. Logically it would actually lead to the opposite and you would just have a government that couldn't provide for a safe America.
disagree. when it comes to hoarding wealth. they are all pretty much all the same. They keep hoarding. some do better PR than others and every blue moon a real humanitarian comes along and gives it all away. maybe 1 in 1000 billionaires. Most cant. Its locked in trusts by founders that had no inclination to actually give anything away. When carnegie "gave it all away" 80% of that was "given away" to the carnegie trusts which his family still own and operate and is worth over $2 billion today.
~45% of tax revenues come from income taxes.
Strip that 45% and you strip all health services + the entire military. There was a reason that the income tax created.
This is why i say create a death tax. I recommend 80% or higher. Remove all loopholes. including trusts. Implement an additional federal sales tax and tariff. 10%. You will get inflation but large companies will be forced to pay more. When you tax large corporation they simply park their money oversees and pay off politicians to create loop holes. Change the entire banking system now. tweak it. Change how we think about taxes and tariffs. Find ways to "get" money from corporations. Tariffs check nearly all of those boxes. sales taxes do too. tariffs and sales tax are better options because corps cant hide from them. and poor people who dont spend as much are only hurt when they buy. Obviously home grown food raised here in the USA would be tarriff free and sales tax free to the working poor and very poor-who are subsidized anyway.
And remember the Federal Reserve doesn't just run our monetary policy. It is supposed to supervise and regulate banking institutions. It is supposed to maintains the stability of the financial system (and they did a reasonable job with their QE during the great recession - although the big losers were our grandchildren). And they provide financial services to depository institutions (this is the part that sometimes isn't fair - the who and how). They also provide financial service to the U.S. government and provide means for our banks to operate internationally.
Study after study show that banks and our banking systems are no more stable after the federal reserve act of 1913 than before. See Great depression. 2007 world banking collapse. and many recession in between. Many parts of the world the people are starving and they have central banks. Even Russia completely collapsed not that long ago.
Respectfully, taxes and the Federal Reserve aren't the problem. Congress is supposed to provide a budget and get the government to live by that budget. It wouldn't matter if we had no taxes and no Federal Reserve if they just continued to spend money. We would end up with the same problems (see the Kings of England that outspent their resources). We would still just print more money.
no disagreement. We need a balanced budget act. they just shot it down in the house last week.
Actually, the Kings of England would have survived longer with a Fed, IMO.
they did survive. they just dont have the negative press anymore of having to deal with "governing." their wealth went no where. They own the lions share of the privately held interests in: BP Amaco, and the 2nd most amount of privately held shares of the Bank of London just after the Rothschild controlling interest. BoL is large. and has large stakes in central banks throughout Europe, middle east, africa, and most of asia's central banks. Why deal with "governing" when you can just have all the same money? quietly? You think Trump is having fun? He wishes he could go back to private life right now.
like i said, its a full rebuild.
