Political Roundtable Part XIX

[dckingsfan]

Even if it were ever passed, it would eventually just be removed later whenever someone felt it was required. Invariably there would be more opportunities where the political will was there to remove it than to put it in place, so I really see it as more of a red herring, to be honest. More political involvement from those who want to see fiscally sound political programs rather than a constant dispute between those who want programs that serve their purposes only and those who want little or no government at all would be ideal, but I suppose that's arguably more of a dream than balanced budget legislation passing and sticking.

But I don't see deficits as being the real issue. I mean, yeah they are, because they're out of control on a few levels, but the issue is more that, when things go well, the added money winds up getting spent and then some through programs, tax cuts that don't actually increase revenues, etc., rather than used to shore up the financial situation through foresight and planning. Things are invariably going to go wrong at some point, and the budget won't always balance, but it's what you do when things aren't going wrong that is the issue. And whenever things are going well, invariably there are a million voices crying out for added spending from every different angle - heck, that happens when things aren't going well, but it gets stronger otherwise. Right now, I'd suggest things aren't actually going all that poorly and the spending is suddenly out of control with tax cuts right up there at the forefront.

I agree we have a taxation problem. I am in violent disagreement with you that that things aren't going that poorly on the spending side.

I'm not sure if we want to go back to 1929 spending levels

No disagreement - but this started with the new CBO report. And that has us going way past 50% of GDP. And if you add in the debt well past 75% of GDP. And that just isn't sustainable...

[Zonkerbl]

She always makes great points on the taxation side.

She always ignores the spending side...

I give her a "c".

I'm convinced that, given the revealed preferences of our Congress, there are things we want to spend money on. We have to decide to raise the revenue to pay for it. We took an excellent first step in lowering the corporate income tax. Now we need a vat.

I half agree with you. But there are programs that are doing real harm. And others that only have marginal benefit.

And their are others where the cost drivers need to be handled.

And those need to be handled first and foremost. Then layer on new programs onto existing working programs.

But that isn't the way Ms. Pelosi works - she has never seen a program she doesn't like and is loath to take on the cost drivers.

Her answer is always - we are a rich country and can afford this...

Respectfully, she (and her ilk) are a third of the problem.

Well, in her defense, we are a rich country and we can afford it. And this is a crazily oversimplified expression of her views. She's a leader of the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party spent a lot of time under Obama trying to figure out how to get government to work smarter. Just because the Dems didn't find a good solution (nobody has) does not mean she doesn't care. This whole "Demonization of our enemies" thing is precisely what's wrong with political discourse today. Pelosi isn't your enemy.

[dckingsfan]

I'm convinced that, given the revealed preferences of our Congress, there are things we want to spend money on. We have to decide to raise the revenue to pay for it. We took an excellent first step in lowering the corporate income tax. Now we need a vat.

I half agree with you. But there are programs that are doing real harm. And others that only have marginal benefit.

And their are others where the cost drivers need to be handled.

And those need to be handled first and foremost. Then layer on new programs onto existing working programs.

But that isn't the way Ms. Pelosi works - she has never seen a program she doesn't like and is loath to take on the cost drivers.

Her answer is always - we are a rich country and can afford this...

Respectfully, she (and her ilk) are a third of the problem.

Well, in her defense, we are a rich country and we can afford it. And this is a crazily oversimplified expression of her views. She's a leader of the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party spent a lot of time under Obama trying to figure out how to get government to work smarter. Just because the Dems didn't find a good solution (nobody has) does not mean she doesn't care. This whole "Demonization of our enemies" thing is precisely what's wrong with political discourse today. Pelosi isn't your enemy.

We are a rich country - but we can't afford the current programs that are in place. You of all people can understand this...

And Pelosi and the Ds didn't spend much of their time trying to figure out how to make government smarter in the first two years of Obama's administration - they were trying to figure out how to expand government services (admirable). And they succeed but it was a long-term failure.

And - I didn't say she was the enemy. I said she was part of the problem - and I stand by that.

[I_Like_Dirt]

I agree we have a taxation problem. I am in violent disagreement with you that that things aren't going that poorly on the spending side.

You keep bringing up your same points even when that isn't what I'm talking about at all. I agree about your spending, and we've had that discussion - the idea of simply cutting to stop spending, it will happen eventually but it's the wrong way to do it because smarter spending is better than slashing spending but nobody ever sees the in between because it's harder to profiteer in those circumstances, but I already know you aren't going to agree with that because you feel that it will never happen and you'd basically rather have no government at all than a government with out of control spending as no government is simply nothing and choice/the markets will take over and a government with out of control spending is evil (you've argued both) - we'd both rather have neither, but you're arguing there are no other choices and I disagree.

But beyond that, I wasn't saying that at all and reading it again I feel that I was pretty clear about that. What I meant was that there really aren't any major issues in America right now. There is no depression, no major war, no out of control inflation, nothing outrageous like that. Now is the time to get your ducks in order for the bad times. It isn't playing out like that at all as games are played all over the place. Now is the kind of time to re-evaluate and see what can be done better. Someone like Bernie asking for more spending... yeah, not a major fan overall without smarter spending being included in the process, but it's out there. And major tax cuts to make what should be a reasonably stable financial situation a massively rocky one and spiral the debt/gdp ratio out of control? A terrible idea, too. Probably a worse one, honestly.

The kinds of stuff it would be a great thing to look at right about now is minority and women's rights. In the case of minority rights, the brilliance of it is that it could theoretically drive cost savings for governments on all levels. Lawsuits against police paid for by the taxpayer, given their total lack of accountability, the industrial prison system. Get that in order and you kill two birds with one stone. Heck, you have a reasonably stable financial table historically speaking, you could use that time to tackle monopolies and increase revenues through actual competition. Instead, lower taxes as passed are going to drive monopolies further because the larger the operation the more they are able to benefit from such cuts and the less smaller business will be able to compete, and stuff like the net neutrality ruling in the face obvious monopolies is going to make things worse.

Or course, the real issue is that you have a lot of relatively unskilled labor that was formerly middle class that is now not as well off as they once were, relatively speaking, and they're mad as hell and looking for the closest facsimile of a dictator they can find - and this seems to be a worldwide phenomenon. So that makes things a bit more unstable, but in reality, there really shouldn't be any excuses at this stage. We've just let greed run unchecked for far too long.

[Zonkerbl]

I half agree with you. But there are programs that are doing real harm. And others that only have marginal benefit.

And their are others where the cost drivers need to be handled.

And those need to be handled first and foremost. Then layer on new programs onto existing working programs.

But that isn't the way Ms. Pelosi works - she has never seen a program she doesn't like and is loath to take on the cost drivers.

Her answer is always - we are a rich country and can afford this...

Respectfully, she (and her ilk) are a third of the problem.

Well, in her defense, we are a rich country and we can afford it. And this is a crazily oversimplified expression of her views. She's a leader of the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party spent a lot of time under Obama trying to figure out how to get government to work smarter. Just because the Dems didn't find a good solution (nobody has) does not mean she doesn't care. This whole "Demonization of our enemies" thing is precisely what's wrong with political discourse today. Pelosi isn't your enemy.

We are a rich country - but we can't afford the current programs that are in place. You of all people can understand this...

And Pelosi and the Ds didn't spend much of their time trying to figure out how to make government smarter in the first two years of Obama's administration - they were trying to figure out how to expand government services (admirable). And they succeed but it was a long-term failure.

And - I didn't say she was the enemy. I said she was part of the problem - and I stand by that.

I disagree. I think the wealthy in particular could contribute much more than they are. It's extremely disingenuous to look at the tax cuts over the last forty years and say "You know what the problem is? Too much spending." It's just not true.

[dckingsfan]

Well, in her defense, we are a rich country and we can afford it. And this is a crazily oversimplified expression of her views. She's a leader of the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party spent a lot of time under Obama trying to figure out how to get government to work smarter. Just because the Dems didn't find a good solution (nobody has) does not mean she doesn't care. This whole "Demonization of our enemies" thing is precisely what's wrong with political discourse today. Pelosi isn't your enemy.

We are a rich country - but we can't afford the current programs that are in place. You of all people can understand this...

And Pelosi and the Ds didn't spend much of their time trying to figure out how to make government smarter in the first two years of Obama's administration - they were trying to figure out how to expand government services (admirable). And they succeed but it was a long-term failure.

And - I didn't say she was the enemy. I said she was part of the problem - and I stand by that.

I disagree. I think the wealthy in particular could contribute much more than they are. It's extremely disingenuous to look at the tax cuts over the last forty years and say "You know what the problem is? Too much spending." It's just not true.

Both the tax cuts AND the spending are the issues. And hence why I said Pelosi and her ilk are only a 1/3 of the problem. Ill thought through tax cuts, tax carveouts and basic poor tax policy is 1/3. Ill conceived military incursions, our desire to be the world's policeman and the military industrial complex is the other 1/3. But we can't put our heads in the sand on other spending.

It just isn't fair to say that we don't have a spending problem, a containment program on cost drivers of our programs and any kind of notion of getting rid of programs that don't work. The figure below is the federal projections from the CBO. And this doesn't take into account the federally mandated programs that are (partially) driving debt on the state and local level (Medicaid). And Pelosi is most definitely complicit.

[Zonkerbl]

We are a rich country - but we can't afford the current programs that are in place. You of all people can understand this...

And Pelosi and the Ds didn't spend much of their time trying to figure out how to make government smarter in the first two years of Obama's administration - they were trying to figure out how to expand government services (admirable). And they succeed but it was a long-term failure.

And - I didn't say she was the enemy. I said she was part of the problem - and I stand by that.

I disagree. I think the wealthy in particular could contribute much more than they are. It's extremely disingenuous to look at the tax cuts over the last forty years and say "You know what the problem is? Too much spending." It's just not true.

Both the tax cuts AND the spending are the issues. And hence why I said Pelosi and her ilk are only a 1/3 of the problem. Ill thought through tax cuts, tax carveouts and basic poor tax policy is 1/3. Ill conceived military incursions, our desire to be the world's policeman and the military industrial complex is the other 1/3. But we can't put our heads in the sand on other spending.

It just isn't fair to say that we don't have a spending problem, a containment program on cost drivers of our programs and any kind of notion of getting rid of programs that don't work. The figure below is the federal projections from the CBO. And this doesn't take into account the federally mandated programs that are (partially) driving debt on the state and local level (Medicaid). And Pelosi is most definitely complicit.

Pelosi is no more complicit than literally thousands of other congresspeople who came before her, or voted for the latest GOP tax scam. What I object to is insanely singling out one person for vilification. That's NUTS. And it only works because she's female and powerful. Look at Mitch McConnell - a real dumpster fire of a human being who deserve 100 times the vitriol that Pelosi receives. Look at that recycled human turd Ted Cruz - is there an internet wide feces flinging campaign against him?

Don't participate in the Pelosi feces flinging campaign. You're better than that.

[stilldropin20]

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.

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!!!

Because it doesn't stop the spending or creation of the dollar - it just shifts it. Just rearranging the deck chairs on the titanic.

It is the balance of spending to tax receipts.

You are not dealing with the interest, man. the interest.


--if we nationalize the fed and our entire central banking system while keeping the current infrastructure in place

--it accomplishes one MAJOR THING.

---we no longer spend $310 billion per year on interest annually--a number that will be $400 billion by next year.

--we currently spend 1 of every 2 dollars of our income tax on just paying down the interest.


This IS a problem in and of itself. The interest is a HUGE problem.

There are tax model and model that show that we would need 80% flat rate income tax to pay down the debt over the next 20 years. Not pay it off in one year. Just to pay it off over the next 20 years. 80% income tax levels!!!!!!! You are never ever ever going to get americans to pay those kinds of taxes. so the idea that we can simply tax our way to paying down the debt is a pipe dream. There will be bloodshed on the streets. before that happens.

There are models that show that if we curtail spending by 30% (again a phucking pipe dream) as there is no way you can get congress to curtail spending by 30%...not happening. but if you did. then we could pay down the debt over 20 year with 60-70% income tax rates. Also a pipe dream!! and there would still be blood in the streets.

Here's the kicker: if we erased any and all interest owed on the money we borrow(ed) we could pay down the debt in 7 years at 50% income tax levels so long as we had a balanced budget each year.

In short: it is nearly impossible in our current banking models to pay down the debt. congress wont curtail spending by 30% and the american worker will not accept 70-80 % tax rates. neither is ever happening. So stop dreaming about it.

But if we could avoid the interest payments on the debt and borrow debt free or rather not borrow at all due to a balanced budget then we could reasonably escape our national debt in about 7 years at 50% income tax levels. Something American might "buy."

Again:

--the interest is currently 7.4% of the budget...and is expected to be 8.5% by next year. and around 10% the year after.

--translation: we are borrowing an additional $310 billion just to pay the interest from money already borrowed. read that sentence 10 times and let that sink in!

Nationalizing the central banking system ends interest altogether. we would never pay interest again. we would never "borrow" again.

There is no reason for the united states government to pay interest on money it creates. Our governement was lobbied by private bankers since it's inception in order to be the bank for our government. To lend it money...at interest.

we dont need this (private)apparatus from which we "borrow" and pay 5% interest. It used to NOT exist. and it can NOT exists again.

--we dont need to pay interest. "we the people of the united states" used to own our money and our banks. until 1913. before that we built sky scrapers, and homes, and funded farms, and the entire industrial revolution occurred without a private federal banking system.

--we need federal banking reform due to the national debt crisis.

1. --the biggest part of that reform would be the removal of interest. We never pay interest again.

2..--the 2nd biggest part would be the requirement of balanced annual budgets as part of the federal banking reform.

you do those 2 things and we can pay down the debt at current income rates in 30 years. because we would be paying off the debt instead of interest at $310 billion per year.

This solves all of your problems. Every. single. problem. Wiping out the interest is a huge coup for the american people. I do understand that it is no small feat to get congress to balance their budgets. But you have the best opportunity if you make it a part of the national debt crisis. making it part of Banking reform to address our debt crisis gives you the best shot to compel Congress to balance their budgets, imo.

[stilldropin20]

DCkings,

you have the entire board telling you the spending is not the only problem. I think you need to take a step back and see that there is more than one way to carve this turkey.

My views align the closest to yours. I am a fiscal hawk. But i understand that some (over) spending is necessary. impossible to avoid really.

In this current global political climate, imo, excessive military spending is necessary. Global money is at stake. and multiple nations are attempting to become nuclear powers. Its part of our current world negotiations through strength. Something I will always believe in. Never negotiate from weakness because you always lose the same way democrats are losing all the political arguments right now. they just look like babies. I dont think it serves the american people to not be the tough guy on the block. In our "protector" role around the globe, we can reap rewards on trade and tariffs as we negotiate our protection role around the globe.

[Pointgod]

I know the districts are tilted to Republicans, but I still think the Democrats have a good shot.
What do Republicans run on? Too close to Trump loses the swing voters. Too much distancing to reach the middle and the Trumpers stay home.

I suppose the Dems still have an advantage in enthusiasm. But the fascists have a very efficient propaganda machine running right now. I wouldn't put it past them to get their deplorables riled up on some stupid issue. These idiots can be stirred up over Nancy fricking Pelosi for chrissake. How dumb is that?

From what I can tell, the strategy for riling up the base is to say that if the Dems win the House, Trump will be impeached, so it's imperative they go out and vote to save their Dear Leader

Lol wouldn't this be incentive to drive Democrats to the polls and get them to register?

[dckingsfan]

I disagree. I think the wealthy in particular could contribute much more than they are. It's extremely disingenuous to look at the tax cuts over the last forty years and say "You know what the problem is? Too much spending." It's just not true.

Both the tax cuts AND the spending are the issues. And hence why I said Pelosi and her ilk are only a 1/3 of the problem. Ill thought through tax cuts, tax carveouts and basic poor tax policy is 1/3. Ill conceived military incursions, our desire to be the world's policeman and the military industrial complex is the other 1/3. But we can't put our heads in the sand on other spending.

It just isn't fair to say that we don't have a spending problem, a containment program on cost drivers of our programs and any kind of notion of getting rid of programs that don't work. The figure below is the federal projections from the CBO. And this doesn't take into account the federally mandated programs that are (partially) driving debt on the state and local level (Medicaid). And Pelosi is most definitely complicit.

Pelosi is no more complicit than literally thousands of other congresspeople who came before her, or voted for the latest GOP tax scam. What I object to is insanely singling out one person for vilification. That's NUTS. And it only works because she's female and powerful. Look at Mitch McConnell - a real dumpster fire of a human being who deserve 100 times the vitriol that Pelosi receives. Look at that recycled human turd Ted Cruz - is there an internet wide feces flinging campaign against him?

Don't participate in the Pelosi feces flinging campaign. You're better than that.

I bang on Cruz and McConnell as much as Pelosi and am actively working on unseating Cruz. Pelosi is on my list as well - but for different reasons that I have listed before. Pelosi gets targeted because like McConnell today, she pushed through bad legislation.

I don't get why she gets a pass? I don't get why those that are complicit in overspending get a pass? Quite frankly, the dumpster tax bill was supported by some of the same because they were able to push through their spending priorities.

[verbal8]

Look at Mitch McConnell - a real dumpster fire of a human being who deserve 100 times the vitriol that Pelosi receives. Look at that recycled human turd Ted Cruz - is there an internet wide feces flinging campaign against him?

There is the twitter account of Craig Mazin(Cruz's college roommate).

However I think a Beto O'Rourke victory would be far more satisfying than internet-wide insults hurled at Ted Cruz.

[Zonkerbl]

Watch this video. Very relevant to the conversations we've been having.

Watch on YouTube

[dckingsfan]

You are not dealing with the interest, man. the interest.

Of course I am.

We currently spend 1 of every 2 dollars of our income tax on just paying down the interest.

This is just factually incorrect.

The interest is currently 7.4% of the budget and is expected to be 8.5% by next year.

This is much closer to correct. It was 6% in 2016.

Nationalizing the central banking system ends interest altogether. we would never pay interest again. we would never "borrow" again.

This is factually incorrect. The Treasury would still be able to issue bonds. Unless you are saying the Treasury would issue 0% bonds and people would purchase them.

1. The biggest part of that reform would be the removal of interest. We never pay interest again.

2. The 2nd biggest part would be the requirement of balanced annual budgets as part of the federal banking reform.

This solves all of your problems.

2. Solves the problems. You can just skip 1.

[Wizardspride]

Read on Twitter

?s=20

Read on Twitter

?s=20

[stilldropin20]

You are not dealing with the interest, man. the interest.

Of course I am.

We currently spend 1 of every 2 dollars of our income tax on just paying down the interest.

This is just factually incorrect.

The interest is currently 7.4% of the budget and is expected to be 8.5% by next year.

This is much closer to correct. It was 6% in 2016.

Nationalizing the central banking system ends interest altogether. we would never pay interest again. we would never "borrow" again.

This is factually incorrect. The Treasury would still be able to issue bonds. Unless you are saying the Treasury would issue 0% bonds and people would purchase them.

1. The biggest part of that reform would be the removal of interest. We never pay interest again.

2. The 2nd biggest part would be the requirement of balanced annual budgets as part of the federal banking reform.

This solves all of your problems.

2. Solves the problems. You can just skip 1.

You have not been listening. I have been mentioning this for 12 months. The treasury would cease to issue bonds. No more bonds. And Issue notes instead. They would just print money, themselves. but in this electronic environment, they likely would not even have to incur the cost of printing. just issue the electronic funds or very large notes. AKA "legal tender."

It doesn't sound like you are aware, the the United States treasury department used to print money. And it worked. The treasury would issue and contract money from the money supply as well as determine interest rates. They used to do it all. And did so from the onset of the founding of this country 1776. for about 20 years. Then that POS, Alexander Hamilton and Biddle lobbied congress to set up the first version of a privately owned central bank. Whioch lasted 20 years. Andrew jackson Killed the banks. and killed them for nearly 100 years. The US treasury department was in control of our money supply and the issuance of our money for nearly 115 years of the first 135 years since the USA was "founded."

And we flourished!!! We did just fine. We balanced our budgets and even funded a civil war. We did not have income taxes!! Instead we had tariffs on both imports and exports. Which means "big business" paid for the costs to "run" the country.

The everyday working man and the working class slowly organized and fought for fair(er) labor laws (only 12 hours per day ,6 days per week lol) and he was rewarded with 10% income taxes(first ever) in 1913 federal reserve act. And the government eased up on tariffs in throughout the 1920's. So with the federal reserve act of 1913. Our government began to shift away from taxing corporations and instead taxing workers. You can thank woodrew wilson.

Not only did tariffs on exports and imports slowly fade until the trade wars of the 1930's but we the people also began to borrow money and pay interest.

European bankers successfully lobbied congress to allow them to institute a central bank. These same European bankers had already begun to fund both allied and axis powers in WW1. Were now already ramping up for another arms race for WW2. All at interest. For money they didn't even have.

by 1945 the industrial war complex of the world central banks had successfully funded the deaths of over 100 million people and nuclear bombs had been funded and created which created an even larger arms race than before 1938. All of it on borrowed money. All of it on money that did NOT even exist. It was created out of thin air via fractional reserve lending. All of it. Every single penny.

And what I'm trying to say is why do we need private owners of our federal bank? Why pay 5% interest???

We can still create the money out of thin air by printing "notes" instead of Bonds using the exact same techniques that the federal reserve uses. Except it would be interest free. If we own the banks that create the money, why charge ourselves interest? Or if you do pay interest, pay it to ourselves.

It would save us $310 billion per year on interest payments.

[dckingsfan]

You are not dealing with the interest, man. the interest.

Of course I am.

We currently spend 1 of every 2 dollars of our income tax on just paying down the interest.

This is just factually incorrect.

The interest is currently 7.4% of the budget and is expected to be 8.5% by next year.

This is much closer to correct. It was 6% in 2016.

Nationalizing the central banking system ends interest altogether. we would never pay interest again. we would never "borrow" again.

This is factually incorrect. The Treasury would still be able to issue bonds. Unless you are saying the Treasury would issue 0% bonds and people would purchase them.

1. The biggest part of that reform would be the removal of interest. We never pay interest again.

2. The 2nd biggest part would be the requirement of balanced annual budgets as part of the federal banking reform.

This solves all of your problems.

2. Solves the problems. You can just skip 1.

You have not been listening. I have been mentioning this for 12 months. The treasury would cease to issue bonds. No more bonds. And Issue notes instead. They would just print money, themselves. but in this electronic environment, they likely would not even have to incur the cost of printing. just issue the electronic funds or very large notes. AKA "legal tender."

It doesn't sound like you are aware, the the United States treasury department used to print money. And it worked. The treasury would issue and contract money from the money supply as well as determine interest rates. They used to do it all. And did so from the onset of the founding of this country 1776. for about 20 years. Then that POS, Alexander Hamilton and Biddle lobbied congress to set up the first version of a privately owned central bank. Whioch lasted 20 years. Andrew jackson Killed the banks. and killed them for nearly 100 years. The US treasury department was in control of our money supply and the issuance of our money for nearly 115 years of the first 135 years since the USA was "founded."

And we flourished!!! We did just fine. We balanced our budgets and even funded a civil war. We did not have income taxes!! Instead we had tariffs on both imports and exports. Which means "big business" paid for the costs to "run" the country.

The everyday working man and the working class slowly organized and fought for fair(er) labor laws (only 12 hours per day ,6 days per week lol) and he was rewarded with 10% income taxes(first ever) in 1913 federal reserve act. And the government eased up on tariffs in throughout the 1920's. So with the federal reserve act of 1913. Our government began to shift away from taxing corporations and instead taxing workers. You can thank woodrew wilson.

Not only did tariffs on exports and imports slowly fade until the trade wars of the 1930's but we the people also began to borrow money and pay interest.

European bankers successfully lobbied congress to allow them to institute a central bank. These same European bankers had already begun to fund both allied and axis powers in WW1. Were now already ramping up for another arms race for WW2. All at interest. For money they didn't even have.

by 1945 the industrial war complex of the world central banks had successfully funded the deaths of over 100 million people and nuclear bombs had been funded and created which created an even larger arms race than before 1938. All of it on borrowed money. All of it on money that did NOT even exist. It was created out of thin air via fractional reserve lending. All of it. Every single penny.

And what I'm trying to say is why do we need private owners of our federal bank? Why pay 5% interest???

We can still create the money out of thin air by printing "notes" instead of Bonds using the exact same techniques that the federal reserve uses. Except it would be interest free. If we own the banks that create the money, why charge ourselves interest? Or if you do pay interest, pay it to ourselves.

It would save us $310 billion per year on interest payments.

You know the problem with your rants - you start with something factual and the posit that something that isn't true comes out of the fact.

Flowers are beautiful. God is beautiful. Flowers are god.

You follow a line of reasoning until you posit that WWII was caused by central banks. Wow.

You could just say you want to go back to the Treasury printing money instead of the fed. Again, that doesn't really change anything if you are spending more than you are taking in - you will still depreciate your currency. 1) matters - 2) doesn't matter if you are doing 1.

The difference is - back in the "old days" they had a smaller budget and the legislature took their jobs seriously with respect to fiduciary responsibility.

BTW, why did the US implement the first income tax? To pay for the Civil War.

[TGW]

Nancy Pelosi is as terrible and corrupt as McConnell is.

[TGW]

Hey Wizardspride...you wanted to know why you should stop watching MSNBC? Because it's corporate trash and borderline fake news pushing a agenda. It's Fox News-lite for Democrats.

http://freebeacon.com/politics/ed-schultz-msnbc-fired-supporting-bernie-sanders-tank-hillary-clinton/

[gtn130]

TGW so woke