Would YOU vote for RON PAUL

Maybe no changes were necessary. That was a pretty bad prediction. In 2000, the debt was 5 trillion and going down, thanks to the Clinton Administration successfully balancing the budget and actually running a surplus. If only Gore had won the election, we wouldn't have had Bush and the unpaid-for wars and the fiscal meltdown.

 

They warned of a $13 trillion debt. That sounds awful familiar.

This is a rather easy question to which no one is giving me an answer: Why let bankers print interest-bearing paper money when it could be printed without interest attached to it? Just give me an answer if you have one.

 

Government Accounting


* Some federal programs (such as Social Security) have "trust funds" that are legally separated from the rest of the federal government.[84]

* When these programs spend less than the federal government allocates to them, their surpluses are loaned to the federal government. This creates a legal obligation for the federal government to pay money and interest to these programs, thus adding to the national debt.[85] [86] [87] [88] [89]

* The federal government divides the national debt into two main categories[90] [91]:

1) money that it owes to federal entities such as the Social Security program; and
2) money that it owes to non-federal entities such as individuals, corporations, local governments, and foreign governments.[92] Also, money owed to the Federal Reserve is classified under this category, even though the Federal Reserve is a federal entity.[93] [94]

NOTE: Just Facts has identified numerous instances in which politicians and journalists have used terms that technically refer to the overall national debt, when in fact, they are only referring to a portion of it. In order to clear up some of the confusion this has created, below are common terms for the national debt categorized by their proper meanings:

(a) Overall national debt: gross debt, federal debt, public debt[95]
(b) Portion of the national debt owed to federal entities: debt held by government accounts, government-held debt, intragovernmental holdings[96] [97] [98]
(c) Portion of the national debt owed to non-federal entities: debt held by the public, publicly held debt[99] [100]

* On December 31, 2010, the national debt consisted of:

$4.6 trillion owed to federal entities
$9.4 trillion owed to non-federal entities
$14.0 trillion owed in total
[101]

* The federal law that governs the repayment of the national debt draws no distinction between the debt owed to federal and non-federal entities. Both must be repaid with interest.[102]

* The White House Office,[103] [104] Congressional Budget Office,[105] and other federal agencies[106] sometimes exclude the debt owed to federal entities in their reckonings of the national debt because this portion of the debt "represents internal transactions of the government and thus has no effect on credit markets."

http://www.justfacts.com/nationaldebt.asp

 

Ron Paul is the ONLY electable GOP candidate!

 

NOT true. The co-called balanced budget and "surplus" was the result of changes in accounting methods -- the debt actually INCREASED every year of the Clinton Administration.

 

"hell to the naw"

 

storch

But why the deficit?

The Grace Commission as I understand it was focused on ‘waste and inefficiency in the US Federal government’ (wiki)

Now that’s fine to me an element of good governance involves constantly looking at ways to improve things by making efficiencies and savings. However too often such drives are driven and directed by ideology that doesn’t care about making efficiencies and savings and only in an ideological agenda. Like pushing for privatisation for privatisations sake rather than examining if privatisation is in the public interest.

*

Anyway to me the problems are deeper and more holistic (and this is only a brief overview).

The anti-communist and hegemonic views that had dominated US administrations thinking from the late 1940’s were exacerbated when neoliberal ideas became dominate about thirty years or so ago. The other thing is that the world changed and many Americans didn’t notice, the US became less self sufficient while other countries recovering from the effects of WWII, began to snap at the US’s trading and manufacturing heals.

This meant that while much money was spent (in my view wasted) pursuing military supremacy and dominance in the world the ability of successive US administrations and the economy to pay for that was been undermined.

After WWII the US’s national debt was up to around 117% of GDP it was brought down in just 36 years less than one generation (by 1981 it was down to 32.5%). It would probably have faired a lot better if it had not been for the problems mentioned.

At the Bretton Wood meetings the US rejected the ideas of Keynes and went for a system that the US believed would give it dominance. Instead it was flawed and caused many economic problems for it later on (Nixon shock 71).

The desire for global hegemony (that was meant to counter ‘communism’) meant a build up of the military and the beginnings of the military/industrial complex. It also meant the US became involved in often expensive actions such as the Vietnam War (55-75).

Once the US had been virtually self sufficient in oil but slowly imports had grown and it became venerable to foreign prices fluctuations such as the oil crisis’ of 73 and 79. Rather than learning from this it allowed oil prices to fall whereas in many European countries prices were kept high to encourage efficiency.

Now things could have been done to improve the situation but at this point neoliberal ideas started to became dominant and that made things worse.

Reagan brought in tax cuts that mainly favoured wealth (and tax rise that mainly hit the middle classes), deregulation and hugely increasing military spending.

Trickle down economics didn’t seem to work but kept been promoted by wealth backed lobbying groups, deregulation stored up trouble for the future economy like the S&L crisis, the D.com bubble and the eventual crash of 08, and while "military Keynesianism” boasted the economy in the short term but damaged it long term, it made the US a manufacturer of cutting edge military equipment but did little for normal manufacturing which was coming under attack from foreign exporters and neoliberal thinkers that though in terms of a service economy, leading to the dominance of the financial services sector. The same neoliberalism promoted the con game of ‘globalisation’ that lead to middle class and especially blue collar workers seeing their jobs ‘outsourced’ abroad.

The last hurrah of neoliberalism and the dream of hegemony should have been the reign of the last Bush Admin. But while the neo-con dream of another ‘American Century’ seems to have waned (although still there) the cancer of neoliberalism seems to have held on.

Fall in top rate tax
1945 - 94%
1970 – 70%
1982 - 50%
1990 - 28%
2010 – 33%
The neo-liberal ‘trickle down’ ideas that counselled low taxation of the rich took hold in the Reagan era and have remained throughout the steeper period of decline.

Rise in top levels of pay
In the 1950’s CEO pay was 25-50 times that of an average worker that has risen to 300-500 times by 2007.
A bigger gap than any other developed nation.

Trade deficit
1960 – Trade surplus of 3.5 billion
2008 – Trade deficit of 690 billion
(The last time the US posted a trade surplus was in 1975)

Decline in manufacturing
1965 - Manufacturing accounted for 53% of the US’s economy.
2004 – It accounted for 9%
The Economist (10/1/2005) stated: “For the first time since the industrial revolution, fewer than 10% of American workers are now employed in manufacturing.”

 

Balbus,

No more smoke and mirrors. Everyone knows that the economy is tanking! My question to you, if you will recall, was:

What do you like most about the Federal Rreserve system? And what do like least about it?

We don't want to skip over anything at this point.

 

Here is an example of more smoke and mirrors having to do with Social Security being used to obscure the facts concerning the debt:


http://www.craigsteiner.us/articles/16

 

I have much work to catch up on, but will definitely be available later to discuss your answers concerning the Federal Reserve . . .

 

storch

I’m broadly in favour of a Central Banking System; I think the only real opposition to them comes from the loons of the Austrian School.

I think virtually every country in the world has some form of central banking system. Other than the FED, here are just some of the most important -

European Central Bank (ECB)
Bank of England (BoE)
Bank of Japan (BoJ)
Swiss National Bank (SNB)
Bank of Canada (BoC)
Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA)
People’s Bank of China (PBC)

Full list on wiki - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_central_banks

They are responsible for overseeing the monetary system for a nation (or group of nations) through active duties such as managing interest rates. They normally have a set mandate to bring about such things as currency stability, low inflation and/or full employment. Central banks usually also have supervisory powers, intended to prevent commercial banks and other financial institutions from reckless or fraudulent behaviour. Central banks also generally issue currency, function as the bank of the government, regulate the credit system, manage exchange reserves and also act as a lender of last resort during times of bank insolvency or financial crisis.

To me the problem comes with who sets the mandate and the regulations. As I’ve said before a lot of the problems that places like the US and UK are facing at the moment are due to neoliberal ideas becoming dominant. This I’m afraid extended to some of the central banks one of the worst neoliberal influences (in my opinion) was that of the right wing libertarian and friend of Ayn Rand - Alan Greenspan - who in my opinion should be up on charges of crimes against humanity.

 

I noticed I didn’t explain the ‘Austrian School’ and some might not know what it is - here is a description I rather like –

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-ausmain.htm

Here are some more articles on the subject http://world.std.com/~mhuben/austrian.html

 

So, I can put you down as one who believes that interest-bearing money is preferable to interest-free money. I don't believe you understand the implications of your beliefs, or how it makes you appear unwilling to see clearly. Nor do I believe you understand that the Constitution authorizes Congress to coin money, and not a private corporation. The constitutional authorization to print money is not the authorization to incur unconstitutional debt. What causes you to believe otherwise??

_______________________________________________________

The following is a conversation with Mr. Ron Supinski of the Public Information Department of the San Francisco Federal Reserve Bank. This is an account of that conversation:

CALLER - Mr. Supinski, does my country own the Federal Reserve System?

MR. SUPINSKI - We are an agency of the government.

CALLER - That's not my question. Is it owned by my country?

MR. SUPINSKI - It is an agency of the government created by congress.

CALLER - Is the Federal Reserve a Corporation?

MR. SUPINSKI - Yes

CALLER - Does my government own any of the stock in the Federal Reserve?

MR. SUPINSKI - No, it is owned by the member banks.

CALLER - Are the member banks private corporations?

MR. SUPINSKI - Yes

CALLER - Are Federal Reserve Notes backed by anything?

MR. SUPINSKI-Yes, by the assets of the Federal Reserve but, primarily by the power of congress to lay tax on the people.

CALLER - Did you say, by the power to collect taxes is what backs Federal Reserve Notes?

MR. SUPINSKI - Yes

CALLER - What are the total assets of the Federal Reserve?

MR. SUPINSKI - The San Francisco Bank has $36 Billion in assets.

CALLER - What are these assets composed of?

MR. SUPINSKI - Gold, the Federal Reserve Bank itself and government securities.

CALLER - What value does the Federal Reserve Bank carry gold per oz. on their books?

MR. SUPINSKI - I don't have that information but the San Francisco Bank has $1.6 billion in gold.

CALLER - Are you saying the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco has $1.6 billion in gold, the bank itself and the balance of the assets is government securities?

MR. SUPINSKI - Yes.

CALLER - Where does the Federal Reserve get Federal Reserve Notes from?

MR. SUPINSKI - They are authorized by the Treasury.

CALLER - How much does the Federal Reserve pay for a $10 Federal Reserve Note?

MR. SUPINSKI - Fifty to seventy cents.

CALLER - How much do they pay for a $100.00 Federal Reserve Note?

MR. SUPINSKI - The same fifty to seventy cents.

CALLER - To pay only fifty cents for a $100.00 is a tremendous gain, isn't it?

MR. SUPINSKI - Yes

CALLER - According to the US Treasury, the Federal Reserve pays $20.60 per 1,000 denomination or a little over two cents for a $100.00 bill, is that correct?

MR. SUPINSKI - That is probably close.

CALLER - Doesn't the Federal Reserve use the Federal Reserve Notes that cost about two cents each to purchase US Bonds from the government?

MR. SUPINSKI - Yes, but there is more to it than that.

CALLER - Basically, that is what happens?

MR. SUPINSKI - Yes, basically you are correct.

CALLER - How many Federal Reserve Notes are in circulation?

MR. SUPINSKI - $263 billion and we can only account for a small percentage.

CALLER - Where did they go?

MR. SUPINSKI - Peoples mattress, buried in their back yards and illegal drug money.

CALLER - Since the debt is payable in Federal Reserve Notes, how can the $4 trillion national debt be paid-off with the total Federal Reserve Notes in circulation?

MR. SUPINSKI - I don't know.

CALLER - If the Federal Government would collect every Federal Reserve Note in circulation would it be mathematically possible to pay the $4 trillion national debt?

MR. SUPINSKI - No

CALLER - Am I correct when I say, $1 deposited in a member bank $8 can be lent out through Fractional Reserve Policy?

MR. SUPINSKI - About $7.

CALLER - Correct me if I am wrong but, $7 of additional Federal Reserve Notes were never put in circulation. But, for lack of better words were "created out of thin air " in the form of credits and the two cents per denomination were not paid either. In other words, the Federal Reserve Notes were not physically printed but, in reality were created by a journal entry and lent at interest. Is that correct?

MR. SUPINSKI - Yes

CALLER - Is that the reason there are only $263 billion Federal Reserve Notes in circulation?

MR. SUPINSKI - That is part of the reason.

CALLER - Am I mistaking that when the Federal Reserve Act was passed (on Christmas Eve) in 1913, it transferred the power to coin and issue our nation's money and to regulate the value thereof from Congress to a Private corporation. And my country now borrows what should be our own money from the Federal Reserve (a private corporation) plus interest. Is that correct and the debt can never be paid off under the current money system of country?

MR. SUPINSKI - Basically, yes.

CALLER - I smell a rat, do you?

MR. SUPINSKI - I am sorry, I can't answer that, I work here.

CALLER - Has the Federal Reserve ever been independently audited?

MR. SUPINSKI - We are audited.

CALLER - Why is there a current House Resolution 1486 calling for a complete audit of the Federal Reserve by the GAO and why is the Federal Reserve resisting?

MR. SUPINSKI - I don't know.

CALLER - Does the Federal Reserve regulate the value of Federal Reserve Notes and interest rates?

MR. SUPINSKI - Yes

CALLER - Explain how the Federal Reserve System can be Constitutional if, only the Congress of the US, which comprises of the Senate and the House of representatives has the power to coin and issue our money supply and regulate the value thereof? [Article 1 Section 1 and Section 8] Nowhere, in the Constitution does it give Congress the power or authority to transfer any powers granted under the Constitution to a private corporation or, does it?

MR. SUPINSKI - I am not an expert on constitutional law. I can refer you to our legal department.

CALLER - I can tell you I have read the Constitution. It does NOT provide that any power granted can be transferred to a private corporation. Doesn't it specifically state, all other powers not granted are reserved to the States and to the citizens? Does that mean to a private corporation?

MR. SUPINSKI - I don't think so, but we were created by Congress.

CALLER - Would you agree it is our country and it should be our money as provided by our Constitution?

MR. SUPINSKI - I understand what you are saying.

CALLER - Why should we borrow our own money from a private consortium of bankers? Isn't this why we had a revolution, created a separate sovereign nation and a Bill of Rights?

MR. SUPINSKI - (Declined to answer).

CALLER - Has the Federal Reserve ever been declared constitutional by the Supreme Court?

MR. SUPINSKI - I believe there has been court cases on the matter.

CALLER - Have there been Supreme Court Cases?

MR. SUPINSKI - I think so, but I am not sure.

CALLER - Didn't the Supreme Court declare unanimously in A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corp. vs. US and Carter vs. Carter Coal Co. the corporative-state arrangement an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power? ["The power conferred is the power to regulate. This is legislative delegation in its most obnoxious form; for it is not even delegation to an official or an official body, presumptively disinterested, but to private persons." Carter vs. Carter Coal Co...]

MR. SUPINSKI - I don't know, I can refer you to our legal department.

CALLER - Isn't the current money system a house of cards that must fall because, the debt can mathematically never be paid-off?

MR. SUPINSKI - It appears that way. I can tell you have been looking into this matter and are very knowledgeable. However, we do have a solution.

CALLER - What is the solution?

MR. SUPINSKI - The Debit Card.

CALLER - Do you mean under the EFT Act (Electronic Funds Transfer)? Isn't that very frightening, when one considers the capabilities of computers? It would provide the government and all it's agencies, including the Federal Reserve such information as: You went to the gas station @ 2:30 and bought $10.00 of unleaded gas @ $1.41 per gallon and then you went to the grocery store @ 2:58 and bought bread, lunch meat and milk for $12.32 and then went to the drug store @ 3:30 and bought cold medicine for $5.62. In other words, they would know where we go, when we went, how much we paid, how much the merchant paid and how much profit he made. Under the EFT they will literally know everything about us. Isn't that kind of scary?

MR. SUPINSKI - Yes, it makes you wonder.

CALLER - I smell a GIANT RAT that has overthrown my constitution. Aren't we paying tribute in the form of income taxes to a consortium of private bankers?

MR. SUPINSKI - I can't call it tribute, it is interest.

CALLER - Haven't all elected officials taken an oath of office to preserve and defend the Constitution from enemies both foreign and domestic? Isn't the Federal Reserve a domestic enemy?

MR. SUPINSKI - I can't say that.

CALLER - Our elected officials and members of the Federal Reserve are guilty of aiding and abetting the overthrowing of my Constitution and that is treason. Isn't the punishment of treason death?

MR. SUPINSKI - I believe so.

CALLER - Thank you for your time and information and if I may say so, I think you should take the necessary steps to protect you and your family and withdraw your money from the banks before the collapse, I am.

MR. SUPINSKI - It doesn't look good.

 

storch


As far as I can tell – you’re not against having a central banking system just not the one the US has at the moment.

Fine.

But that doesn’t address any of the criticisms still outstanding against right wing libertarian ideas.

Can you address them?

 

Right wing libertarian ideas?

First of all, I'm not for any political party. I'm not any of the names that you apply to differing views. I just know a ripoff when I see one, and I'm asking you why you refuse to see or acknowledge the fleecing of the american people.

I'm addressing the illegal and unratified income tax and the unconstitutional Federal Reserve system. You haven't addressed either of these issues, and I'm wondering why.

 

And you forgot tell me if I can put you down as one who believes that interest-bearing money is better than interest-free money. It's really a no-brainer . . .

 

Later, then.

 

You sound like a mirror image of individual.

You talk about ideal situations, and your enemies are vague ideas and "sides".

I don't give a flyin' fuck if a central bank COULD be run well, if ours is a giant sham and is taking my whole country for a ride. I don't care who is or is not for the IDEA of a central bank, that has nothing to do with this particular one, which is wildly out of control and blatantly illegal.

 

Roo

I don’t think the perfect is possible because we live in an imperfect world, I’d hope people would strive for perfection but I think it’s a Holy Grail sort but never found (or only in the movies). I mean I don’t think anyone would say that any of the other central banks I’ve mentioned above were models of perfection.

Now you and many others seem to want to remove the existing central banking system of the US and I say fine, but what would you have in its place.

Some I’ve talked seem to want to replace it with a theory, and let us be blunt here a fantasy, of the ‘free market’ when there never has been and never will be a ‘free market’. Under such a system all that would happen is wealth would have even greater powers than now and an even greater ability to control things in its interests to the detriment of others. It should also be remembered that in many nations it was the instability of financial systems that caused the emergence central bank in the first place.

The other suggestion I’ve seen is that Congress would have direct control, that it would in effect become the central bank. With the prospect that every decision taken normally by a central bank would be voted on. I’m sorry but given the political system in the US and the dysfunctionality that it has lead to in Congress I find that idea rather perplexing.

My problem with the right wing libertarian argument about the FED is that they seem to want to take a hammer to the system without having a viable alternative and what’s worse they don’t seem to care that they don’t have a viable alternative it seems like another case of ideological beliefs outweighing rational thought.

 

Forget it, RooRshack. Balbus has been both shown and told about the illegality of the income tax, and the unconstitutionally created Federal Reserve system that serves the purpose of charging interest on money it prints up for nothing which benefits no one but the banksters. If you will note, as everyone else does, he is continuing to pretend that he doesn't hear the facts put in front of him, and is refusing to address them.

He's now trying to inject the idea that congress can't be trusted with creating money. He doesn't hear himself. Or, more to the point, he hears nothing but himself! The converstion between Mr. Supinski and an inquiring mind makes the ripoff clear as can be.

An interesting dynamic which occurs in families with abusive parents is the children's defense of the abuser. Something to do with the issue of a perverted sense of security. Everyone is afraid of change to some extent--some more than others.

Fortunately, this thread is not for him. It never was.