Discussion:
The South is killing me: The red states are death states for so many people. I won't be the last refugee. Nearly half the American poor live in the South. But I won't live to work towards solving these problems unless I can get health care. So I'm se
(too old to reply)
nickname unavailable
2015-07-14 22:01:06 UTC
Permalink
The South is killing me: The red states are death states for so many people. I won't be the last refugee. Nearly half the American poor live in the South. But I won't live to work towards solving these problems unless I can get health care. So I'm setting out with a suitcase towards the hope of a better future in a blue state.



http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/07/12/1401577/-Why-I-m-Leaving-the-South?detail=email
Sun Jul 12, 2015 at 12:09 PM PDT
Why I'm Leaving the South
by RationalSouthCarolinaFollow for RationalSouthCarolina
I've come to the painful decision that in order to preserve my life, I must leave the land that I love. I was born in Mississippi, grew up in Virginia, and lived most of my adult life in South Carolina; all beautiful places with amazing people, all governed by the forces of banal evil. I don't want to live in a place where the state's attitude toward the poor is "Let them die." I am a poor person; I fell through the cracks. I don't want to work at a low-wage job while struggling to survive until my early death from some easily preventable ailment. I love the South, but I give up. I'm leaving. The red states are death states for so many people. I won't be the last refugee. Nearly half the American poor live in the South. But I won't live to work towards solving these problems unless I can get health care. So I'm setting out with a suitcase towards the hope of a better future in a blue state.

I have a master's degree in counseling, and I'm particularly good with teenagers. For ten years I had a decent career, although counselors aren't paid much. Then the economy tanked and social services were cut. I lost my job. Then another job. Nobody was hiring counselors; I got an hourly wage job. Lost my health insurance, lost my car, lost everything. I went into default on my student loans.
Things began to pick up for counselors, but there was a new question on applications: are you in default on your student loans? South Carolina and a few other red states passed a law saying that such persons cannot be hired by any agency receiving state funding, which for me and my degree, is nearly all the jobs here. Getting out of default would be feasible if I had a professional job, but on $8 an hour? No way. As a single person with no family, meager survival is nearly possible on that low of a wage.
I realized I was trapped. I read a book called Scarcity: Why Having Too Little Means So Much (Mullainathan and Shafir) in which the authors explain the effects of scarcity on the brain. I understood my thought process has been impaired by my struggle to survive in poverty for so many years. There are 45 million Americans struggling to survive just like me. Being stuck in poverty isn't about morals or character. It isn't about family structure or some "culture" of poverty. And it certainly isn't about being lazy or stupid. Most poor people are smart, hard-working, decent, kind, compassionate people. They are creative and innovative in solving their problems and creating beauty and ritual in their lives. They care for their children, disabled, and seniors with tenderness and love; they play music and write poetry and make art. They put up with a lot of bullshit from the public on a daily basis at their crappy low-wage jobs, but keep on smiling and telling you to have a great day. They take a lot of Advil and supplements in order to make up for the fact that they have little to no health care. They die sooner because of their struggle; even sooner if they live under Republican rule.
I began to think that in order to preserve my health and sanity, to use my degree in community counseling and be productive, to have a better life, I might have to leave the South. Unthinkable. I don't know anyone outside the South. I lived in California and Oregon in 1997-99. I had to come home. But I loved it there.
I turned to my online community for help, writing a diary called "Advice from my elders?" and I got excellent feedback. There was definitely consensus that I should leave. There was great practical advice that got me researching and making lists, and links to resources about student loan default, which is not as bad as I had thought, and ideas about housing such as intentional communities. As I became active with a goal and a direction, my mental fog began to lift.
I especially appreciated the Kossacks who shared their personal stories of picking up and leaving with the hope of a better future. They let me know that the problem isn't in me; I'm not defective. It's not that I lack ability or intelligence or drive, it's the system here that is broken, shutting me out at every turn, keeping me down. Nobody sells all of their belongings and says good-bye to their friends and sets out for the unknown without being in a desperate situation. I am in a desperate situation, and I will not wait for it to get worse, because I know it will. Others are trapped here, but I can't help them from inside. I have to get out.
With fresh hope and determination I began to develop a plan. After many lists and searches, I settled on Eugene, Oregon. I could write for pages about how awesome Eugene is, but the relevant points are that Oregon is a deep blue state, they are nice to their poor people, it's about the right size, and the fifth-best bicycling city in the US. It looks like a good fit for me personally and I've been there before. I wanted to stay closer, but you have to go so far to get out of the South that I might as well go back to where I felt at home, where I didn't want to leave and have always wanted to go back. For sixteen years I have been dreaming about Oregon. I'm going back, and I feel so free.
I think I can fly for about $300, and I'll ship a few boxes, but I'm going to be starting over completely fresh. I'm selling my few belongings of small value to raise a little more. I will arrive in Oregon with nothing. From what I'm seeing on Craigslist, I should be able to find a cheap room and low-wage job fairly quickly. I'm sending out resumes for professional jobs, but that kind of job search takes a while, and even if I am a cashier in Oregon, I'm still better off because I can have Medicaid. It is a risk, and I am scared. Very, very scared. But I am more scared of not changing my life. I must live. The South is killing me.
If you live in Eugene, send me a message! I could use some contacts on the ground and advice on practical details. I promise I'm going to be an asset to your community in every way that I can think of.
If you'd like to help but aren't lucky enough to live in Eugene, I have a GoFundMe here: here and I have a PayPal account, email ***@live.com and select "Send to Family & Friends." Even if you only have five dollars, well, to me that is a lot of money. To many Americans, $5 is a lot of money. Every little bit really does help and will be very much appreciated!
I'm going to keep writing about my journey and my challenges and triumphs, if any, along the way. I value your advice and feedback so very much, and I am deeply grateful to be a part of the community here. There aren't enough words to say thank you, but, as always, thanks for reading!
BeamMeUpScotty
2015-07-15 00:12:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by nickname unavailable
The South is killing me: The red states are death states for so many people. I won't be the last refugee. Nearly half the American poor live in the South.
move north...

don't allow your Southern Pride stand in the way.
--
That's Karma
nickname unavailable
2015-07-15 01:15:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by BeamMeUpScotty
Post by nickname unavailable
The South is killing me: The red states are death states for so many people. I won't be the last refugee. Nearly half the American poor live in the South.
move north...
he is, and he is taking his degree with him:))))
Post by BeamMeUpScotty
don't allow your Southern Pride stand in the way.
southern pride equals stupidity, he is not willing to live near starvation, even though he is highly educated. that educations means he now thinks like a blue stater, and is determined to become a producer.
Post by BeamMeUpScotty
--
That's Karma
Bret Cahill
2015-07-19 17:44:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by nickname unavailable
Post by BeamMeUpScotty
Post by nickname unavailable
The South is killing me: The red states are death states for so many people. I won't be the last refugee. Nearly half the American poor live in the South.
move north...
he is, and he is taking his degree with him:))))
Since red states tax the poor, the poor are, once again, the ones getting ripped off.

This is another Madison/Hamilton/Lincoln/FDR/Senator Harris type argument for national government.


Bret Cahill
Topaz
2015-07-15 09:59:22 UTC
Permalink
By William L. Pierce

The economy will become worse in that the average White family will
work longer and harder for a smaller reward, for fewer of the
necessities of life, for less security, for a meaner life style than
before. The average standard of living, in other words, will continue
to decline, just as it has in during the past few years. And this is
something which absolutely did not depend on the outcome of the recent
election. Both Clinton and Bush have been supporters of globalizing
the US economy. They both have been boosters of the New World Order,
in other words. They both support the removal of trade barriers with
Mexico, for example, which will accelerate the export of American
industry and American jobs to Mexico, simply because wages are much
lower there. The effect of this, of course, will be gradually to raise
wages in Mexico, while they are pulled down in the United States. But,
then, that's the whole rationale behind the push for globalization,
the push for the New World Order, isn't it? Equalize living standards
around the world. Lift up the poor non-Whites in the Third World and
drag down the rich Whites. Give everyone a fair share of industry and
the wealth which goes with it. Break down national and racial
barriers. Homogenize the world, economically, racially, culturally.
That's the idea which has been pushed inexorably and unceasingly by
the controlled media ever since the Second World War. The controlled
media have made this idea of globalization fashionable; they've made
it a Politically Correct idea, and therefore no one in the controlled
political establishment in this country, whether Democrat or
Republican, dares oppose it.

There's no chance of either a Democrat or a Republican President
announcing that the New World Order is a scheme intended to reduce the
White American worker to the same level as the Mexican peon and the
Chinese coolie and that we'll have no part of it. And because there's
simply no chance that the controlled political establishment in this
country, Democrat or Republican, will address or even admit the
existence of the fundamental reasons for the declining living standard
of Americans, I can predict with complete confidence that the economy
will continue to decline, over the long run. There are various
paper-shuffling tricks, of course--fiddling with interest rates,
changing the tax structure, rearranging the Federal budget--which can
make temporary changes in the economy, apparent changes, but they
can't cure this country's real economic problems.

It doesn't take a genius to see what's happened to the economy of this
country since the Second World War. The experts rave about the
benefits the new World Order is bringing to us by allowing us to
increase our exports. But the cold, hard reality is that globalization
has brought us an enormous trade deficit. The fact is that it has
wiped out whole industries in this country and exported them overseas:
the consumer electronics industry, for example, or the machine tool
industry. The fact, not the theory, is that millions of Americans are
being forced to switch from high-paying jobs in manufacturing and
basic industry to low-paying service jobs. The fact is that before the
Second World War most American families needed only one wage earner to
keep them comfortable and secure; wives and mothers could stay at home
and take care of their families. Today, of course, most mothers have
to work outside the home. The fact is that our economy isn't getting
better and better; it's actually getting sicker and sicker.

The Second World War really has everything to do with it. It was,
after all, an ideological war, one could almost say a religious war, a
war between two fundamentally different world views. On one side were
the believers in quality over quantity, the elitists, the believers
that White people, Europeans, are more progressive, are better able to
maintain and advance civilization. On the other side were the
believers in quantity over quality, the egalitarians, the believers in
racial and cultural equality, the people who thought it was wicked for
the United States to remain a White country, wicked for White Britain
to have a world empire, wicked for White Germany to be allowed to
smash communism, wicked to permit nationalism to triumph over
internationalism. And the fact is that the egalitarians won the war.
After the Second World War White Americans could no more justify
keeping hordes of hungry, non-White immigrants out of their country
than Englishmen could justify hanging onto the British Empire. They
had cut the moral ground right out from under themselves.

The point is that, the reasons given to the American people for
getting into the war against Germany were all spurious. It was not a
war to keep America free. Americans weren't in the slightest danger of
losing their freedom to the Germans. It was, as I said, an ideological
war. It was a war about what kind of ideas would govern the world. It
was a war about whether we would be proud and White and strong, or
whether we would feel guilty about the fact that Mexican peons aren't
as well off as we are. And we lost the war. That was a real turning
point in the fortunes of our race and our nation. The loss of the
Second World War is the real reason for the decline of the U.S.
economy--and of our social life, our cultural life, and our spiritual
life. Before the war we had a White country, a country determined to
stay White. After the war we no longer had that determination. Instead
we had the vague feeling that it was wrong of us to want to stay
White. After the war when the controlled media began pushing for
so-called "civil rights" laws and for opening our borders to the Third
World, it was just a continuation of their push to get us into the war
on the side of the people who had made Poland a more "equal" country
by slaughtering her leaders at the killing pits in the Katyn woods. We
don't really have time today to trace the whole process of the
breakdown of America after the war, but we can look at a few examples
which more or less tell the story. We've been talking about the
economy, but it's really our whole society which has been corrupted by
the war, by the ideology for which the war was fought.

Think, for example, about what life is becoming for the millions of
White Americans who still live in our cities, especially those cities
with a large minority contingent. We are no longer the masters in our
own land, and we are paying the price for that decline in status.
Crime has soared enormously in our cities and made life a daily
nightmare for millions who cannot move away. Even for those who live
in the suburbs and only must work in the cities during the day, crime
has become an ever-present constraint, a burden, a limit to their
lives. City streets which once were safe for White women and men, by
night as well as by day, are now like minefields where we must proceed
with caution and be always on guard. We know who makes our streets
unsafe. We know against whom we are obliged to bar our windows. We
know whom we must fear if our cars run out of gas or break down at
night. And these are the same people whose welfare support imposes
such an intolerable burden on our strained economy. And it is
interesting that the government cannot solve our crime problem for
exactly the same reason that it cannot solve our economic problem: it
cannot address the causes; it cannot even admit the existence of the
causes, because those causes are Politically Incorrect.

Just as the government economists talk about interest rates and
budget adjustments but dare not speak of the effects of globalism on
our economy, the sociologists talk about "poverty" as the cause of
urban crime, but dare not mention that crime in America today is above
all else a racial problem. Or look at what our schools have become, or
look at popular entertainment. You know what the purpose of a school
should be? It should be not just to pound facts into the heads of
children so they can earn a living; it should be to mold them into
good citizens. It should be to teach them about their roots, about
their ancestors, about their race. It should be to give them a sense
of identity, a feeling of solidarity with their people, a feeling of
appreciation for the civilization which their people created. It
should be to teach them the values and customs which are peculiar to
their people. But most of the schools in America's cities cannot do
these things. They are not even permitted to try to do these things,
because these things are all profoundly racist, the controlled media
tell us. The only kind of school which can teach meaningfully about
roots and identity is a school which is racially homogeneous, but such
schools were outlawed by our government after the Second World War,
because they are contrary to the principles for which that war was
fought.

When our kids turn to drugs today, when they learn anti-White rap
lyrics from the television, when they think Magic Johnson is a hero
and say upon meeting a friend, "hey, man, gimme five," we're paying
the price of the war. I said a few minutes ago that the worst aspect
of the breakdown of America was not what's happened to our economy,
but what's happened to our spiritual life, to our morale, to our
idealism, to our character. White Americans haven't become more stupid
in the last 50 years. Most of the people listening to this program
understand exactly what I'm saying. They didn't really need me to
point it out to them. They can see it for themselves. It doesn't take
a genius to understand why our schools aren't working or why the New
World Order will hurt Americans as the price of making Mexicans and
Chinese more prosperous. But it does take just a tiny bit of courage
to stand up and say these things when we've had it drummed into our
heads that we always must be Politically Correct.

The people listening to this program have for years been watching
America being torn down. They have seen the effects of egalitarianism,
of liberalism on our society. They have seen one liberal program after
another make things worse and worse, and they have listened to the
controlled media and the controlled politicians tell them that what's
needed to fix things is more of the same. And they've thought to
themselves, this is crazy. But they've been afraid to say that out
loud. They've been afraid to say, "Hey, look, Joe, the emperor doesn't
have any clothes on." And it's my considered opinion that this
timidity, this willingness to go along with every new insanity imposed
on us by the media and the politicians, even when we know it's
unnatural and immoral and destructive of everything worthwhile--this
is a spiritual failure. This spiritual failure, this willingness to
tolerate evil, is a more serious matter, in my eyes, than our economic
decline. When we are able to heal ourselves spiritually, we'll be able
to heal ourselves economically and socially, but not before.

I think we all know who wields more control over the news and
entertainment media than any other group. It's the Jews. And, yes,
they deserve a great deal of blame. But not all the blame. Perhaps not
even most of it. After all, they're only acting in accord with their
nature. They're doing what they always do when they come into a
country. We shouldn't have let them do it. We should have stopped them
when they were taking over Hollywood 75 years ago. We should have
stopped them when they began buying up newspapers back before the
Second World War. After the war we shouldn't have let them get
anywhere near a television studio. But we didn't stop them, and the
blame for that really lies with those who have set themselves up as
our political leaders. They sold us out. They sold out America. They
sold out their race. When our kids are exposed to the godawful,
anti-White rap musicals from MTV, should we blame the Jewish owner of
MTV, Mr. Redstone, or should we blame the politicians in Washington
who let him get away with it? Personally, I'd go after the politicians
first.

More people are angry today about what their government is doing to
America than at any time since the Second World War. As time passes
their numbers and their anger will grow. That is inevitable, because
the policies of the controlled media and the government are making
America an unlivable place. The condition of the economy helps too. I
would really be worried if I thought that the politicians could patch
up the economy enough to lull people back to sleep. But I know that
they can't. I know that conditions can only become worse and worse
under the policies which come from Washington, regardless of who's in
the White House. And this is what gives me hope for the future. When
the pain becomes great enough, anger and frustration will overcome the
fear of being Politically Incorrect, even for the most timid White
American.



www.tomatobubble.com www.ihr.org http://nationalvanguard.org

http://national-socialist-worldview.blogspot.com
Topaz
2015-07-15 09:58:30 UTC
Permalink
The money system we have today is called the debt-money
system. It is corrupt and needs to be replaced. The only way money
comes into existence today is when it is borrowed. There is no freely
existing money supply, but only borrowed money that needs to be paid
back to bankers with interest. If all the money that was owed to
bankers was ever paid back there would be no money left in circulation
and this would be a great depression. What makes matters even worse is
that when money is created only the principle of the loan is created.
The money needed to pay the interest is never created. For this reason
it is impossible to pay back the principle plus the interest on all of
the loans that make up our money supply. The extra amount of money
needed to pay the interest was never created and does not exist.

The United States government borrows money from the Federal
Reserve Bank. This bank is not federal but owned by private
stockholders. It is in the business section of the phone book, not the
government section. Other banks also create the money in our money
supply. They are allowed to loan out much more money then they
actually have. Thus they create new money. No one else is allowed to
create money, only bankers have this privilege. All of our money is
debt-money and it is all owed back to bankers, plus the interest.

In the U.S.A. money is created by the Bureau of Engraving and
Printing which is a unit of the treasury, but the orders to print come
from the Federal Reserve Banks. The money is created for and owned by
the banks. And the Federal Reserve Banks are not Federal, in spite of
the name. Privately owned commercial banks own the stock of the
Federal Reserve Banks. The Federal Reserve Banks give the newly
created money to the government in exchange for government bonds. To
simplify: The United States does not make its own money. Bankers
create the money and loan it to the United States with an interest
charge.

The book War Cycles Peace Cycles puts it this way:

"If there is only $10 in existence, and you lend it to someone
under the condition that he repay $11, and if he agrees to this, he
has agreed to the impossible."

The book The Struggle for World Power put it this way:

"The Bank of England... was the first payment institution which
was legally empowered to issue state-authorized paper currency and ,
therefore, the Government itself became its debtor. Thus the State not
only renounced its monopoly on monetary emission, but also agreed to
borrow the privately-created money from the bankers...Not only the
thing being done, but even the very name was a deliberate fraud and
deception to conceal the essence of the deed. To create money out of
nothing is to make valid and effective claim on all goods and services
for no return, which is fraud and theft, made worse by the
circumstances that the money is lent out at interest...it follows that
those who have the power to 'create' out of nothing all the money in
each country and the whole world and lend it as stated, have total
power over all states, parties, firms, radio, press, individuals and
so on. Therefore the power of Parliament in general, and especially
with regard to money, is non-existent, and all the true sovereignty is
in the hands of those private individuals who issue all money"

"Give me control of a nation's money and I care not who makes it's
laws" - Mayer Amschel Bauer Rothschild


www.tomatobubble.com www.ihr.org http://nationalvanguard.org

http://national-socialist-worldview.blogspot.com
BeamMeUpScotty
2015-07-15 12:05:51 UTC
Permalink
The money system we have today is called the debt-money system.
All the more reason to avoid using/keeping U.S. Dollars and joining in
this economy... why would you want to be in debt?
--
That's Karma
BeamMeUpScotty
2015-07-15 12:08:33 UTC
Permalink
The money system we have today is called the debt-money system.
All the more reason to avoid using/keeping U.S. Dollars and joining in
this economy... why would you want to be in debt?
--
That's Karma
jim <""sjedgingN0Sp\"@">
2015-07-15 19:33:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by BeamMeUpScotty
The money system we have today is called the debt-money system.
It is the money system that we have had for centuries.
Post by BeamMeUpScotty
All the more reason to avoid using/keeping U.S. Dollars and joining in
this economy... why would you want to be in debt?
Stop Lying. No one has to be in debt to use dollars.

People use credit because they expect borrowing to
be financially beneficial. The fact is those who
owe the most are those who are making the most money.
The poor are the class that owes the least. .

Some entity does have to spend more than it takes in for
money to be created. You can't have any money created
if some entity is not putting out more money than it
takes in.
Topaz
2015-07-16 21:14:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by jim <""sjedgingN0Sp\"@">
Post by BeamMeUpScotty
The money system we have today is called the debt-money system.
It is the money system that we have had for centuries.
Post by BeamMeUpScotty
All the more reason to avoid using/keeping U.S. Dollars and joining in
this economy... why would you want to be in debt?
Stop Lying. No one has to be in debt to use dollars.
People use credit because they expect borrowing to
be financially beneficial. The fact is those who
owe the most are those who are making the most money.
The poor are the class that owes the least. .
Some entity does have to spend more than it takes in for
money to be created. You can't have any money created
if some entity is not putting out more money than it
takes in.
To get a clearer picture suppose there is an island with ten workers
on it. The workers grow food and build cars and make a lot of
things. But there is a problem because they can't exchange their goods
that well without money. So to have a money supply in circulation a
banker rows his boat to the island and loans each of the workers $100
at 5% per year. The money circulates back and forth as the workers
buy things. But at the end of the year there is a total of $1000 on
the island and $1050 is owed to the banker, that is, more than the
money that exists on the island.

And where does the banker get the money? He simply creates it out
of nothing by printing notes on his printing press. Every month the
banker goes to the island to collect his payments, to make more loans,
and to buy cars and things with his profits. If someone can't make
their payment he takes their entire farm or business.

That is how the system is now. What the workers should do is get
their own printing press and make their own money. To make the initial
supply of money they would simply print $100 for each of them. This
money is not borrowed or owed and there is no interest. But there is a
money supply on the island and they can exchange their goods. As more
cars and houses are built, from time to time more money would need to
be created, to represent the more wealth that is now on the island.
No one of the ten workers should be allowed to create money. It is and
done at a town meeting.

A country is the same as the island. And the government is the same
as the town meeting. The government should create money and not
private bankers. The government should be for the people.

Today the bankers create the money and the government serves not the
people but the bankers.





www.tomatobubble.com www.ihr.org http://nationalvanguard.org

http://national-socialist-worldview.blogspot.com
jim <""sjedgingN0Sp\"@">
2015-07-17 01:14:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Topaz
Post by jim <""sjedgingN0Sp\"@">
Post by BeamMeUpScotty
The money system we have today is called the debt-money system.
It is the money system that we have had for centuries.
Post by BeamMeUpScotty
All the more reason to avoid using/keeping U.S. Dollars and joining in
this economy... why would you want to be in debt?
Stop Lying. No one has to be in debt to use dollars.
People use credit because they expect borrowing to
be financially beneficial. The fact is those who
owe the most are those who are making the most money.
The poor are the class that owes the least. .
Some entity does have to spend more than it takes in for
money to be created. You can't have any money created
if some entity is not putting out more money than it
takes in.
To get a clearer picture suppose there is an island with ten workers
on it. The workers grow food and build cars and make a lot of
things. But there is a problem because they can't exchange their goods
that well without money. So to have a money supply in circulation a
banker rows his boat to the island and loans each of the workers $100
at 5% per year. The money circulates back and forth as the workers
buy things. But at the end of the year there is a total of $1000 on
the island and $1050 is owed to the banker, that is, more than the
money that exists on the island.
That is not a clearer picture that is a false picture.

What you are describing is a colony. That was the
way it worked in the US before 1776.
Topaz
2015-07-17 21:23:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by jim <""sjedgingN0Sp\"@">
Post by Topaz
To get a clearer picture suppose there is an island with ten workers
on it. The workers grow food and build cars and make a lot of
things. But there is a problem because they can't exchange their goods
that well without money. So to have a money supply in circulation a
banker rows his boat to the island and loans each of the workers $100
at 5% per year. The money circulates back and forth as the workers
buy things. But at the end of the year there is a total of $1000 on
the island and $1050 is owed to the banker, that is, more than the
money that exists on the island.
That is not a clearer picture that is a false picture.
What you are describing is a colony. That was the
way it worked in the US before 1776.
No it is a correct picture. Private Bankers create the money and loan
it to the United States at interest.


The Federal Reserve Banks have booklets explaining how it works. In
their own booklets they say privately owned commercial banks own the
stock of the Federal
Reserve Banks.

The Federal Reserve banks are in the business section of the phone
book, not the government section.


http://www.save-a-patriot.org/files/view/frcourt.html


Below are excerpts from a court case proving the Federal Reserve
system's status. As you will see, the court ruled that the Federal
Reserve Banks are "independent, privately owned and locally controlled
corporations", and there is not sufficient "federal government control
over 'detailed physical performance' and 'day to day operation'" of
the Federal Reserve Bank for it to be considered a federal agency:

Lewis v. United States, 680 F.2d 1239 (1982)
John L. Lewis, Plaintiff/Appellant,
v.
United States of America, Defendant/Appellee.
No. 80-5905
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 2, 1982.
Decided April 19, 1982.
As Amended June 24, 1982.

Plaintiff, who was injured by vehicle owned and operated by a federal
reserve bank, brought action alleging jurisdiction under the Federal
Tort Claims Act. The United States District Court for the Central
District of California, David W. Williams, J., dismissed holding that
federal reserve bank was not a federal agency within meaning of Act
and that the court therefore lacked subject-matter jurisdiction.
Appeal was taken. The Court of Appeals, Poole, Circuit Judge, held
that federal reserve banks are not federal instrumentalities for
purposes of the Act, but are independent, privately owned and locally
controlled corporations.

Affirmed.

1. United States

There are no sharp criteria for determining whether an entity is a
federal agency within meaning of the Federal Tort Claims Act, but
critical factor is existence of federal government control over
"detailed physical performance" and "day to day operation" of an
entity. . . .

2. United States

Federal reserve banks are not federal instrumentalities for purposes
of a Federal Tort Claims Act, but are independent, privately owned and
locally controlled corporations in light of fact that direct
supervision and control of each bank is exercised by board of
directors, federal reserve banks, though heavily regulated, are
locally controlled by their member banks, banks are listed neither as
"wholly owned" government corporations nor as "mixed ownership"
corporations; federal reserve banks receive no appropriated funds from
Congress and the banks are empowered to sue and be sued in their own
names. . . .


Each Federal Reserve Bank is a separate corporation owned by
commercial banks in its region. The stockholding commercial banks
elect two thirds of each Bank's nine member board of directors. The
remaining three directors are appointed by the Federal Reserve Board.
The Federal Reserve Board regulates the Reserve Banks, but direct
supervision and control of each Bank is exercised by its board of
directors. 12 U.S.C. Sect. 301. The directors enact by-laws regulating
the manner of conducting general Bank business, 12 U.S.C. Sect. 341,
and appoint officers to implement and supervise daily Bank activities.
These activites include collecting and clearing checks, making
advances to private and commercial entities, holding reserves for
member banks, discounting the notes of member banks, and buying and
selling securities on the open market. See 12 U.S.C. Sub-Sect.
341-361.

Each Bank is statutorily empowered to conduct these activites without
day to day direction from the federal government. Thus, for example,
the interest rates on advances to member banks, individuals,
partnerships, and corporations are set by each Reserve Bank and their
decisions regarding the purchase and sale of securities are likewise
independently made.


H.R. Report No. 69 Cong. 1st Sess. 18-19 (1913).

The fact that the Federal Reserve Board regulates the Reserve Banks
does not make them federal agencies under the Act. In United States v.
Orleans, 425 U.S. 807, 96 S.Ct. 1971, 48 L.Ed.2d 390 (1976), the
Supreme Court held that a community action agency was not a federal
agency or instrumentality for purposes of the Act, even though the
agency was organized under federal regulations and heavily funded by
the federal government. Because the agency's day to day operation was
not supervised by the federal government, but by local officials, the
Court refused to extend federal tort liability for the negligence of
the agency's employees. Similarly, the Federal Reserve Banks, though
heavily regulated, are locally controlled by their member banks.
Unlike typical federal agencies, each bank is empowered to hire and
fire employees at will. Bank employees do not participate in the Civil
Service Retirement System. They are covered by worker's compensation
insurance, purchased by the Bank, rather than the Federal Employees
Compensation Act. Employees travelling on Bank business are not
subject to federal travel regulations and do not receive government
employee discounts on lodging and services.

The Banks are listed neither as "wholly owned" government corporations
under 31 U.S.C. Sect. 846 nor as "mixed ownership" corporations under
31 U.S.C. Sect. 856, a factor considered is Pearl v. United States,
230 F.2d 243 (10th Cir. 1956), which held that the Civil Air Patrol is
not a federal agency under the Act. Closely resembling the status of
the Federal Reserve Bank, the Civil Air Patrol is a non-profit,
federally chartered corporation organized to serve the public welfare.
But because Congress' control over the Civil Air Patrol is limited and
the corporation is not designated as a wholly owned or mixed ownership
government corporation under 31 U.S.C. Sub-Sect. 846 and 856, the
court concluded that the corporation is a non-governmental,
independent entity, not covered under the Act.

Additionally, Reserve Banks, as privately owned entities, receive no
appropriated funds from Congress. . . .

Finally, the Banks are empowered to sue and be sued in their own name.
12 U.S.C. Sect. 341. They carry their own liability insurance and
typically process and handle their own claims. In the past, the Banks
have defended against tort claims directly, through private counsel,
not government attorneys . . ., and they have never been required to
settle tort claims under the administrative procedure of 28 U.S.C.
Sect. 2672. The waiver of sovereign immunity contained in the Act
would therefore appear to be inapposite to the Banks who have not
historically claimed or received general immunity from judicial
process.



It is clear from this that in some circumstances, the Federal Reserve
Bank can be considered a government "instrumentality", but cannot be
considered a "federal agency", because the term carries with it the
assumption that the federal government has direct oversight over what
the Fed does. Of course it does not, because most people who know
about this subject know that the Fed is "politically independent."





www.tomatobubble.com www.ihr.org http://nationalvanguard.org

http://national-socialist-worldview.blogspot.com
jim <""sjedgingN0Sp\"@">
2015-07-17 23:40:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Topaz
Post by jim <""sjedgingN0Sp\"@">
Post by Topaz
To get a clearer picture suppose there is an island with ten workers
on it. The workers grow food and build cars and make a lot of
things. But there is a problem because they can't exchange their goods
that well without money. So to have a money supply in circulation a
banker rows his boat to the island and loans each of the workers $100
at 5% per year. The money circulates back and forth as the workers
buy things. But at the end of the year there is a total of $1000 on
the island and $1050 is owed to the banker, that is, more than the
money that exists on the island.
That is not a clearer picture that is a false picture.
What you are describing is a colony. That was the
way it worked in the US before 1776.
No it is a correct picture. Private Bankers create the money and loan
it to the United States at interest.
That part is accurate, but your depiction that the money
paid in interest to banks disappears is false. The
money paid in interest is no different than money
paid for any service. Some of it goes to pay the banks
expenses, some of it pays for losses when loans default,
some of pays interest on deposits and whats left over is
profit for the shareholders.

The data from the federal reserve shows
that financial institutions are the ones who
owe the most money, Financial institutions
liabilities to the others is about 90 trillion
dollars.
Post by Topaz
The Federal Reserve Banks have booklets explaining how it works. In
their own booklets they say privately owned commercial banks own the
stock of the Federal
Reserve Banks.
Yes they explain and it doesn't say anything
about islands and bankers being alien entities who take
the interest away from the island.

If you don't want to do business with banks, put
your money in a credit union.
Topaz
2015-07-19 01:59:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by jim <""sjedgingN0Sp\"@">
That part is accurate, but your depiction that the money
paid in interest to banks disappears is false. The
money paid in interest is no different than money
paid for any service. Some of it goes to pay the banks
expenses, some of it pays for losses when loans default,
some of pays interest on deposits and whats left over is
profit for the shareholders.
Bankers and shareholders are worthless parasites. The interest
may not disappear but it goes into the pockets of the parasites.


The money system we have today is called the debt-money
system. It is corrupt and needs to be replaced. The only way money
comes into existence today is when it is borrowed. There is no freely
existing money supply, but only borrowed money that needs to be paid
back to bankers with interest. If all the money that was owed to
bankers was ever paid back there would be no money left in circulation
and this would be a great depression. What makes matters even worse is
that when money is created only the principle of the loan is created.
The money needed to pay the interest is never created. For this reason
it is impossible to pay back the principle plus the interest on all of
the loans that make up our money supply. The extra amount of money
needed to pay the interest was never created and does not exist.

The United States government borrows money from the Federal
Reserve Bank. This bank is not federal but owned by private
stockholders. It is in the business section of the phone book, not the
government section. Other banks also create the money in our money
supply. They are allowed to loan out much more money then they
actually have. Thus they create new money. No one else is allowed to
create money, only bankers have this privilege. All of our money is
debt-money and it is all owed back to bankers, plus the interest.

In the U.S.A. money is created by the Bureau of Engraving and
Printing which is a unit of the treasury, but the orders to print come
from the Federal Reserve Banks. The money is created for and owned by
the banks. And the Federal Reserve Banks are not Federal, in spite of
the name. Privately owned commercial banks own the stock of the
Federal Reserve Banks. The Federal Reserve Banks give the newly
created money to the government in exchange for government bonds. To
simplify: The United States does not make its own money. Bankers
create the money and loan it to the United States with an interest
charge.

The book War Cycles Peace Cycles puts it this way:

"If there is only $10 in existence, and you lend it to someone
under the condition that he repay $11, and if he agrees to this, he
has agreed to the impossible."

The book The Struggle for World Power put it this way:

"The Bank of England... was the first payment institution which
was legally empowered to issue state-authorized paper currency and ,
therefore, the Government itself became its debtor. Thus the State not
only renounced its monopoly on monetary emission, but also agreed to
borrow the privately-created money from the bankers...Not only the
thing being done, but even the very name was a deliberate fraud and
deception to conceal the essence of the deed. To create money out of
nothing is to make valid and effective claim on all goods and services
for no return, which is fraud and theft, made worse by the
circumstances that the money is lent out at interest...it follows that
those who have the power to 'create' out of nothing all the money in
each country and the whole world and lend it as stated, have total
power over all states, parties, firms, radio, press, individuals and
so on. Therefore the power of Parliament in general, and especially
with regard to money, is non-existent, and all the true sovereignty is
in the hands of those private individuals who issue all money"

"Give me control of a nation's money and I care not who makes it's
laws" - Mayer Amschel Bauer Rothschild
Post by jim <""sjedgingN0Sp\"@">
The data from the federal reserve shows
that financial institutions are the ones who
owe the most money, Financial institutions
liabilities to the others is about 90 trillion
dollars.
You think the Rothschild's and people like them are so poor and
destitute. They are pulling the wool over you eyes.
Post by jim <""sjedgingN0Sp\"@">
Yes they explain and it doesn't say anything
about islands and bankers being alien entities who take
the interest away from the island.
Money comes into being only when alien entities create it. All the
money in existence is owed back to these alien entities, plus the
interest, so much more than all the money in existence is owed to the
alien entities.
Post by jim <""sjedgingN0Sp\"@">
If you don't want to do business with banks, put
your money in a credit union.
Credit unions are also parasites. What is needed is a money supply
put into circulation be a government, without any of it owed back and
without any interest charge.


www.tomatobubble.com www.ihr.org http://nationalvanguard.org

http://national-socialist-worldview.blogspot.com
jim <""sjedgingN0Sp\"@">
2015-07-19 02:14:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Topaz
Post by jim <""sjedgingN0Sp\"@">
That part is accurate, but your depiction that the money
paid in interest to banks disappears is false. The
money paid in interest is no different than money
paid for any service. Some of it goes to pay the banks
expenses, some of it pays for losses when loans default,
some of pays interest on deposits and whats left over is
profit for the shareholders.
Bankers and shareholders are worthless parasites. The interest
may not disappear but it goes into the pockets of the parasites.
The money system we have today is called the debt-money
system. It is corrupt and needs to be replaced. The only way money
comes into existence today is when it is borrowed. There is no freely
existing money supply, but only borrowed money that needs to be paid
back to bankers with interest. If all the money that was owed to
bankers was ever paid back there would be no money left in circulation
and this would be a great depression. What makes matters even worse is
that when money is created only the principle of the loan is created.
The money needed to pay the interest is never created. For this reason
it is impossible to pay back the principle plus the interest on all of
the loans that make up our money supply. The extra amount of money
needed to pay the interest was never created and does not exist.
The United States government borrows money from the Federal
Reserve Bank. This bank is not federal but owned by private
stockholders. It is in the business section of the phone book, not the
government section. Other banks also create the money in our money
supply. They are allowed to loan out much more money then they
actually have. Thus they create new money. No one else is allowed to
create money, only bankers have this privilege. All of our money is
debt-money and it is all owed back to bankers, plus the interest.
In the U.S.A. money is created by the Bureau of Engraving and
Printing which is a unit of the treasury, but the orders to print come
from the Federal Reserve Banks. The money is created for and owned by
the banks. And the Federal Reserve Banks are not Federal, in spite of
the name. Privately owned commercial banks own the stock of the
Federal Reserve Banks. The Federal Reserve Banks give the newly
created money to the government in exchange for government bonds. To
simplify: The United States does not make its own money. Bankers
create the money and loan it to the United States with an interest
charge.
"If there is only $10 in existence, and you lend it to someone
under the condition that he repay $11, and if he agrees to this, he
has agreed to the impossible."
"The Bank of England... was the first payment institution which
was legally empowered to issue state-authorized paper currency and ,
therefore, the Government itself became its debtor. Thus the State not
only renounced its monopoly on monetary emission, but also agreed to
borrow the privately-created money from the bankers...Not only the
thing being done, but even the very name was a deliberate fraud and
deception to conceal the essence of the deed. To create money out of
nothing is to make valid and effective claim on all goods and services
for no return, which is fraud and theft, made worse by the
circumstances that the money is lent out at interest...it follows that
those who have the power to 'create' out of nothing all the money in
each country and the whole world and lend it as stated, have total
power over all states, parties, firms, radio, press, individuals and
so on. Therefore the power of Parliament in general, and especially
with regard to money, is non-existent, and all the true sovereignty is
in the hands of those private individuals who issue all money"
"Give me control of a nation's money and I care not who makes it's
laws" - Mayer Amschel Bauer Rothschild
Post by jim <""sjedgingN0Sp\"@">
The data from the federal reserve shows
that financial institutions are the ones who
owe the most money, Financial institutions
liabilities to the others is about 90 trillion
dollars.
You think the Rothschild's and people like them are so poor and
destitute. They are pulling the wool over you eyes.
Post by jim <""sjedgingN0Sp\"@">
Yes they explain and it doesn't say anything
about islands and bankers being alien entities who take
the interest away from the island.
Money comes into being only when alien entities create it. All the
money in existence is owed back to these alien entities,
Your wrong on both counts.

We all know they aren't aliens
and
All the deposits in existence are owed by bankers
to the depositors. And if all the depositors of
any bank decide to take their money out of that bank
the banker is instantly broke.
Topaz
2015-07-19 02:29:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by jim <""sjedgingN0Sp\"@">
Your wrong on both counts.
We all know they aren't aliens
International Bankers are not very interested in the country they
reside in and couldn't care less about its people.
Post by jim <""sjedgingN0Sp\"@">
and
All the deposits in existence are owed by bankers
to the depositors. And if all the depositors of
any bank decide to take their money out of that bank
the banker is instantly broke.
No, money is not created when people put it into banks. It is created
when people take out loans, or when the entire country borrows from
the federal reserve. The govenment should be making its own money
instead of letting the parasites get rich.


Marriner Eccles, then chairman of the Board of Governors
of the Federal Reserve System, in testimony before the
Banking and Currency Committee of the House of
Representatives on the Banking Act of 1935. Mr. Eccles
testified: "In purchasing offerings of Government bonds,
the banking system as a whole creates new money, or bank
deposits. When the banks buy a billion dollars of
Government bonds as they are offered -- and you have to
consider the banking system as a whole, as a unit -- the
banks credit the deposit account of the Treasury with a
billion dollars. And they debit their Government bond
account a billion dollars, or actually create, by a
bookkeeping entry, a billion dollars."




www.tomatobubble.com www.ihr.org http://nationalvanguard.org

http://national-socialist-worldview.blogspot.com
jim <""sjedgingN0Sp\"@">
2015-07-19 10:50:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Topaz
Post by jim <""sjedgingN0Sp\"@">
Your wrong on both counts.
We all know they aren't aliens
International Bankers are not very interested in the country they
reside in and couldn't care less about its people.
International bankers don't own my local
community bank. There are 1000's of small
banks in the US that are locally owned.
And if you choose to deposit your
money in a Credit Union you will be one of the
owners of your deposit institution,
Post by Topaz
Post by jim <""sjedgingN0Sp\"@">
and
All the deposits in existence are owed by bankers
to the depositors. And if all the depositors of
any bank decide to take their money out of that bank
the banker is instantly broke.
No, money is not created when people put it into banks. It is created
when people take out loans,
All the deposits in the bank system
are owed by banks to depositors. And if all the
depositors of any bank decide to take their money
out of that bank that banker goes broke.
Topaz
2015-07-20 21:46:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by jim <""sjedgingN0Sp\"@">
International bankers don't own my local
community bank. There are 1000's of small
banks in the US that are locally owned.
And if you choose to deposit your
money in a Credit Union you will be one of the
owners of your deposit institution,
Besides the Federal Reserve, the local banks also create money. They
are allowed to loan out much more money than they have. This creates
new money, money which they collect interest on. Banks can more or
less write a check for money they don't have. Anyone else would be
arrested for that, but that is banking.
Post by jim <""sjedgingN0Sp\"@">
Post by Topaz
No, money is not created when people put it into banks. It is created
when people take out loans,
All the deposits in the bank system
are owed by banks to depositors. And if all the
depositors of any bank decide to take their money
out of that bank that banker goes broke.
Joe Schmoe can loan 50 dollars to Banker Blow and then Banker Blow
owes money. But where did Joe Schmoe get the money? Where did the
money come from originally?

Money is originally created by banks. In the U.S.A. money is
created by the Bureau of Engraving and Printing which is a unit of the
treasury, but the orders to print come from the Federal Reserve Banks.

People moving money from one place to another is not the point. The
point is how money is originally created in the first place. Private
Banks create the money and loan it out. All the money in the world is
owed back to bankers, plus the interest charge, which was never
created. So all the money in the world and more than that is owed to
bankers.

"The modern banking system manufactures money out of nothing. The
process is perhaps the most astounding piece of sleight of hand that
was every invented. Banking was conceived in inequity and born in sin.
Bankers own the earth. Take it away from them but leave them the power
to create money, and with a flick of a pen, they will create enough
money to buy it back again . Take this great power away from them and
all great fortunes like mine will disappear, for then this would be a
better and happier world to live in . But if you want to continue to
be the slaves of bankers and pay the cost of your own slavery, then
let bankers continue to create money and control credit."

Sir Josiah Stamp, president of the Bank of England and the second
richest man in Britain in the 1920's, speaking at the University of
Texas in 1927

This web site explains it more:
http://www.michaeljournal.org/myth.htm


www.tomatobubble.com www.ihr.org http://nationalvanguard.org

http://national-socialist-worldview.blogspot.com
jim <""sjedgingN0Sp\"@">
2015-07-21 00:50:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Topaz
Banks create the money and loan it out. All the money in the world is
owed back to bankers,
You have your facts wrong. In the last 6 years deposits have grown
by $3 trillion more than bank loans. The bankers now owe a lot more
to the public than the public owe to banks.
Loading Image...

All the deposits in banks are owed to the public.
Any banker is at the mercy of the public. The
depositors of any bank can shut the banker down by
withdrawing their money and putting it somewhere else..
Post by Topaz
plus the interest charge, which was never
created. So all the money in the world and more than that is owed to
bankers.
You are babbling nonsense. Banks create money
when they make loans, but it is not the only way money
is created. And the interest paid to banks is not money
that disappears off to aliens.
Topaz
2015-07-21 21:24:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by jim <""sjedgingN0Sp\"@">
Post by Topaz
Banks create the money and loan it out. All the money in the world is
owed back to bankers,
You have your facts wrong. In the last 6 years deposits have grown
by $3 trillion more than bank loans. The bankers now owe a lot more
to the public than the public owe to banks.
https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/fredgraph.png?g=1tYa
All the deposits in banks are owed to the public.
Any banker is at the mercy of the public. The
depositors of any bank can shut the banker down by
withdrawing their money and putting it somewhere else..
Before people can deposit money, the money has to come from some
place. It does not grow on trees. What is needed is a debt free money
supply in circulation so people can exchange their goods. What we have
now is a money supply that is created by bankers as loans. All the
money is owed back to the bankers, plus interest. Paying off the
National Debt is not possible because:

"If there is only $10 in existence, and you lend it to someone
under the condition that he repay $11, and if he agrees to this, he
has agreed to the impossible."
Post by jim <""sjedgingN0Sp\"@">
Post by Topaz
plus the interest charge, which was never
created. So all the money in the world and more than that is owed to
bankers.
You are babbling nonsense.
"The few who understand the system will either be so interested in its
profits or be so dependent upon its favours that there will be no
opposition from that class, while on the other hand, the great body of
people, mentally incapable of comprehending the tremendous advantage
that capital derives from the system, will bear its burdens without
complaint, and perhaps without even suspecting that the system is
inimical to their interests." The Rothschild brothers of London
writing to associates in New York, 1863.

Maybe you are in the second group, or maybe the first!
Post by jim <""sjedgingN0Sp\"@">
Banks create money
when they make loans, but it is not the only way money
is created.
Now we are getting somewhere. What do you think is another way?
Post by jim <""sjedgingN0Sp\"@">
And the interest paid to banks is not money
that disappears off to aliens.
"When a government is dependent upon bankers for money, they and not
the leaders of the government control the situation, since the hand
that gives is above the hand that takes; Money has no motherland;
financiers are without patriotism and without decency; their sole
object is gain." Napoleon Bonaparte, Emperor of France, 1815


"It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our
banking and money system, for if they did, I believe there would be a
revolution before tomorrow morning." Henry Ford, founder of the Ford
Motor Company.


www.tomatobubble.com www.ihr.org http://nationalvanguard.org

http://national-socialist-worldview.blogspot.com
jim <""sjedgingN0Sp\"@">
2015-07-22 00:19:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Topaz
Post by jim <""sjedgingN0Sp\"@">
Post by Topaz
Banks create the money and loan it out. All the money in the world is
owed back to bankers,
You have your facts wrong. In the last 6 years deposits have grown
by $3 trillion more than bank loans. The bankers now owe a lot more
to the public than the public owe to banks.
https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/fredgraph.png?g=1tYa
All the deposits in banks are owed to the public.
Any banker is at the mercy of the public. The
depositors of any bank can shut the banker down by
withdrawing their money and putting it somewhere else..
Before people can deposit money, the money has to come from some
place. It does not grow on trees. What is needed is a debt free money
Why? Who would create the money and hand it out?
Do you want Obama to do that?
Post by Topaz
supply in circulation so people can exchange their goods. What we have
now is a money supply that is created by bankers as loans.
Some of the money is. And what's wrong with that?
Post by Topaz
All the
money is owed back to the bankers, plus interest.
Stop lying. That story is false. You continue
to ignore the fact that there is more money than
there are loans owed to banks. In the last 6 years
bank deposits have grown by almost 3 trillion
more than bank loans.
https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/fredgraph.png?g=1tYa



The deposits in the banking system are owed by
banks to depositors. The money in your wallet
is not owned by you. BitCoins aren't created by
bankers.
Post by Topaz
Post by jim <""sjedgingN0Sp\"@">
Banks create money
when they make loans, but it is not the only way money
is created.
Now we are getting somewhere. What do you think is another way?
Obviously there are numerous ways or there wouldn't
be a lot more money than there are loans owed to banks.
The bureau if engraving prints the money you carry
in your wallet.
Topaz
2015-07-22 10:45:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by jim <""sjedgingN0Sp\"@">
Post by Topaz
Before people can deposit money, the money has to come from some
place. It does not grow on trees. What is needed is a debt free money
Why?
So people can exchange their goods. Barter is far too slow. Money is
needed. Money is not wealth. Money is just a means to exchange wealth.
Post by jim <""sjedgingN0Sp\"@">
Who would create the money and hand it out?
Only the government of the nation. Of course created money should not
be owned by individuals, but by the entire nation.
Post by jim <""sjedgingN0Sp\"@">
Do you want Obama to do that?
We should have a good government and a good leader. We have neither
now.
Post by jim <""sjedgingN0Sp\"@">
Post by Topaz
supply in circulation so people can exchange their goods. What we have
now is a money supply that is created by bankers as loans.
Some of the money is.
All of it is.
Post by jim <""sjedgingN0Sp\"@">
And what's wrong with that?
There is no need for a country to borrow money from bankers. The
country could make it's own money. Bankers are parasites who get rich
for no reason.

"When a government is dependent upon bankers for money, they and not
the leaders of the government control the situation, since the hand
that gives is above the hand that takes; Money has no motherland;
financiers are without patriotism and without decency; their sole
object is gain." Napoleon Bonaparte, Emperor of France, 1815
Post by jim <""sjedgingN0Sp\"@">
Post by Topaz
All the
money is owed back to the bankers, plus interest.
Stop lying. That story is false.
The story is true.
Post by jim <""sjedgingN0Sp\"@">
You continue
to ignore the fact that there is more money
http://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/currency_12773.htm

There was approximately $1.37 trillion in circulation as of June 4,
2015, of which $1.32 trillion was in Federal Reserve notes.
Post by jim <""sjedgingN0Sp\"@">
than
there are loans owed to banks.
The amount owed to the Federal Reserve:

http://useconomy.about.com/od/monetarypolicy/f/Who-Owns-US-National-Debt.htm

Federal Reserve - $2.461 trillion
Post by jim <""sjedgingN0Sp\"@">
In the last 6 years
bank deposits have grown by almost 3 trillion
more than bank loans.
The amount owed to the Federal Reserve alone( $2.461 trillion) is
almost twice as much as the cash in existance ($1.37 trillion), that
is not including the other private loans owed to banks which you are
talking about.
Post by jim <""sjedgingN0Sp\"@">
The deposits in the banking system are owed by
banks to depositors. The money in your wallet
is not owned by you. BitCoins aren't created by
bankers.
Deposits in banks can't be nearly as much as the total amount of
money. The total amount of money, plus interest, is owed to the
bankers who created it and loaned it out, mostly by the Federal
Reserve.
Post by jim <""sjedgingN0Sp\"@">
Post by Topaz
Post by jim <""sjedgingN0Sp\"@">
Banks create money
when they make loans, but it is not the only way money
is created.
Now we are getting somewhere. What do you think is another way?
Obviously there are numerous ways
But you don't name one of them.
Post by jim <""sjedgingN0Sp\"@">
or there wouldn't
be a lot more money than there are loans owed to banks.
The bureau if engraving prints the money you carry
in your wallet.
There is not more money than there are loans owed to banks.

http://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/currency_12773.htm

There was approximately $1.37 trillion in circulation as of June 4,
2015, of which $1.32 trillion was in Federal Reserve notes.


The amount owed to the Federal Reserve:

http://useconomy.about.com/od/monetarypolicy/f/Who-Owns-US-National-Debt.htm

Federal Reserve - $2.461 trillion

The amount owed to the Federal Reserve alone( $2.461 trillion) is
almost twice as much as the cash in existance ($1.37 trillion), that
is not including the other private loans owed to banks which you are
talking about.


www.tomatobubble.com www.ihr.org http://nationalvanguard.org

http://national-socialist-worldview.blogspot.com
jim <""sjedgingN0Sp\"@">
2015-07-23 02:00:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Topaz
Post by jim <""sjedgingN0Sp\"@">
Post by Topaz
Before people can deposit money, the money has to come from some
place. It does not grow on trees. What is needed is a debt free money
Why?
So people can exchange their goods. Barter is far too slow. Money is
needed. Money is not wealth. Money is just a means to exchange wealth.
That doesn't explain why money should be debt free
Post by Topaz
Post by jim <""sjedgingN0Sp\"@">
Who would create the money and hand it out?
Only the government of the nation. Of course created money should not
be owned by individuals, but by the entire nation.
Post by jim <""sjedgingN0Sp\"@">
Do you want Obama to do that?
We should have a good government and a good leader. We have neither
now.
You keep shooting down your own arguments.
Topaz
2015-07-23 21:34:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by jim <""sjedgingN0Sp\"@">
That doesn't explain why money should be debt free
"The modern banking system manufactures money out of nothing. The
process is perhaps the most astounding piece of sleight of hand that
was every invented. Banking was conceived in inequity and born in sin.
Bankers own the earth. Take it away from them but leave them the power
to create money, and with a flick of a pen, they will create enough
money to buy it back again . Take this great power away from them and
all great fortunes like mine will disappear, for then this would be a
better and happier world to live in . But if you want to continue to
be the slaves of bankers and pay the cost of your own slavery, then
let bankers continue to create money and control credit."

Sir Josiah Stamp, president of the Bank of England and the second
richest man in Britain in the 1920's, speaking at the University of
Texas in 1927

This web site explains it more:
http://www.michaeljournal.org/myth.htm
Post by jim <""sjedgingN0Sp\"@">
Post by Topaz
Post by jim <""sjedgingN0Sp\"@">
Do you want Obama to do that?
We should have a good government and a good leader. We have neither
now.
You keep shooting down your own arguments.
Most people know the USA government is garbage. But one of the main
reasons that it is garbage is because it kisses up to International
Bankers instead of making it's own money.


www.tomatobubble.com www.ihr.org http://nationalvanguard.org

http://national-socialist-worldview.blogspot.com
jim <""sjedgingN0Sp\"@">
2015-07-23 23:49:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Topaz
Post by jim <""sjedgingN0Sp\"@">
That doesn't explain why money should be debt free
"The modern banking system manufactures money out of nothing. The
process is perhaps the most astounding piece of sleight of hand
Its not sleight of hand. What banks create when they
make loans are bank liabilities. Those liabilities
are called bank deposits. There is nothing sleight of
hand about it. This has been out in the open for
centuries.
Topaz
2015-07-24 21:07:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by jim <""sjedgingN0Sp\"@">
Post by Topaz
Post by jim <""sjedgingN0Sp\"@">
That doesn't explain why money should be debt free
"The modern banking system manufactures money out of nothing. The
process is perhaps the most astounding piece of sleight of hand
Its not sleight of hand. What banks create when they
make loans are bank liabilities. Those liabilities
are called bank deposits. There is nothing sleight of
hand about it. This has been out in the open for
centuries.
Money is created is when the privately owned Federal Reserve loans it
to the USA.

Marriner Eccles, then chairman of the Board of Governors
of the Federal Reserve System, in testimony before the
Banking and Currency Committee of the House of
Representatives on the Banking Act of 1935. Mr. Eccles
testified: "In purchasing offerings of Government bonds,
the banking system as a whole creates new money, or bank
deposits. When the banks buy a billion dollars of
Government bonds as they are offered -- and you have to
consider the banking system as a whole, as a unit -- the
banks credit the deposit account of the Treasury with a
billion dollars. And they debit their Government bond
account a billion dollars, or actually create, by a
bookkeeping entry, a billion dollars."

Local banks also create money. They are allowed to loan out much
more than they have. The extra money is created out of nothing.

If you take out a loan to buy a house for a 100 grand and end up
paying 300 grand with all the interest, you have been ripped off for
200 grand. The bankers didn't do anything to deserve your money. The
Federal Reserve rips off the whole country.

What is needed is a government that is for the people rather than for
the bankers and other parasites.

We need a money supply that is not owed to bankers. The government
should print the money without borrowing anything from anyone. Money
would be brought into circulation by paying policemen and other public
servants. Once there is a debt-free money supply in circulation, the
police and other things would then be paid for by taxes. New money
would still be created when needed but we would control the amount of
it so there is no inflation.

Loans for houses and cars and business should be from the
government and at zero interest. This would initially add to the money
in circulation but when the loan is repaid the money would be removed
circulation, so there is no net increase and no inflation.


www.tomatobubble.com www.ihr.org http://nationalvanguard.org

http://national-socialist-worldview.blogspot.com
Topaz
2015-07-23 21:48:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by jim <""sjedgingN0Sp\"@">
That doesn't explain why money should be debt free
There is no reason for a money supply to be expensive. A large pile
of 100 dollar bills can be printed at very small expense. There is no
reason for parasites to make billions of dollars just so we can have a
money supply.


www.tomatobubble.com www.ihr.org http://nationalvanguard.org

http://national-socialist-worldview.blogspot.com
jim <""sjedgingN0Sp\"@">
2015-07-23 23:42:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Topaz
Post by jim <""sjedgingN0Sp\"@">
That doesn't explain why money should be debt free
There is no reason for a money supply to be expensive. A large pile
of 100 dollar bills can be printed at very small expense. There is no
reason for parasites to make billions of dollars just so we can have a
money supply.
Yes 100 dollar bills don't cost very much to print.

But banks don't make a penny on hundred dollar bills
so what you claim you want is what already exists.
But most people prefer not to use cash. They prefer to
trade in their currency for bank deposits. That is why
banks exist. There is a demand for their services.

Personally I'm not opposed to the government creating a national
bank. Right now, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae are National mortgage
banks. F&F are currently financing about 80% of all US home loans
and billions in profits are going to The US Treasury. But most
voters think the govt should be in the banking business.

Most American voters are opposed to govt being the nations
banker. And the reason they are opposed is that banks owe a lot
of money and there is risk involved and most people feel the
govt would do a poor job of managing that risk.
Topaz
2015-07-24 21:35:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by jim <""sjedgingN0Sp\"@">
Yes 100 dollar bills don't cost very much to print.
But banks don't make a penny on hundred dollar bills
so what you claim you want is what already exists.
But most people prefer not to use cash. They prefer to
trade in their currency for bank deposits. That is why
banks exist. There is a demand for their services.
Banks should be nationalized. The USA could make it's own money
without having parasite bankers getting rich in the process. Local
bankers also get rich for no reason.

Loans for houses and cars and business should be from the
government and at zero interest. This would initially add to the money
in circulation but when the loan is repaid the money would be removed
circulation, so there is no net increase and no inflation.
Post by jim <""sjedgingN0Sp\"@">
Personally I'm not opposed to the government creating a national
bank. Right now, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae are National mortgage
banks. F&F are currently financing about 80% of all US home loans
and billions in profits are going to The US Treasury. But most
voters think the govt should be in the banking business.
There is no reason for the government or the bankers to make billions
in profit. Those who have the power to create money should use that
power to make things good for all the citizens, not for themselves.
Post by jim <""sjedgingN0Sp\"@">
Most American voters are opposed to govt being the nations
banker. And the reason they are opposed is that banks owe a lot
of money and there is risk involved and most people feel the
govt would do a poor job of managing that risk.
We know that the bankers are not going to give out zero interest
loans. As for the government, if their goal isn't to make life great
for the citizens, then they should removed from power and replaced by
a government that is.



www.tomatobubble.com www.ihr.org http://nationalvanguard.org

http://national-socialist-worldview.blogspot.com
jim <""sjedgingN0Sp\"@">
2015-07-25 00:23:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Topaz
Post by jim <""sjedgingN0Sp\"@">
Yes 100 dollar bills don't cost very much to print.
But banks don't make a penny on hundred dollar bills
so what you claim you want is what already exists.
But most people prefer not to use cash. They prefer to
trade in their currency for bank deposits. That is why
banks exist. There is a demand for their services.
Banks should be nationalized. The USA could make it's own money
without having parasite bankers getting rich in the process. Local
bankers also get rich for no reason.
The reason for banks is they provide services which people find
useful. And voters believe that the private sector provides those
services more efficiently and effectively than government would.
They don't want politicians deciding who gets loans and who
doesn't.

The people who have access to credit have an advantage over
people who don't have access. Don't you think they should
pay for that advantage instead of getting it free?

Why should the people who get less money (or no money) in
loans subsidize those who get more money in loans?

That is what "no interest" loans from the govt would do.
It costs money to provide the services that banks provide.
If the govt provided it for free then the people who benefit
the most would be subsidized by everyone else.
Topaz
2015-07-25 09:15:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by jim <""sjedgingN0Sp\"@">
The reason for banks is they provide services which people find
useful.
They make billions for no reason. Banks should be nationalized. Those
who let their money work for them are parasites.
Post by jim <""sjedgingN0Sp\"@">
And voters believe that the private sector provides those
services more efficiently and effectively than government would.
They don't want politicians deciding who gets loans and who
doesn't.
Loans for houses and cars and business should be from the
government and at zero interest. This would initially add to the money
in circulation but when the loan is repaid the money would be removed
circulation, so there is no net increase and no inflation.
Post by jim <""sjedgingN0Sp\"@">
The people who have access to credit have an advantage over
people who don't have access. Don't you think they should
pay for that advantage instead of getting it free?
Those who make money by giving other people credit are worthless
parasites. A government could easily give zero interest loans.
Post by jim <""sjedgingN0Sp\"@">
Why should the people who get less money (or no money) in
loans subsidize those who get more money in loans?
That is what "no interest" loans from the govt would do.
It costs money to provide the services that banks provide.
If the govt provided it for free then the people who benefit
the most would be subsidized by everyone else.
There would be employees working at the Nationalized banks. And there
would be the cost of printing the money. But that about covers it. The
people who benefit the most would be just about all the citizens.
Imagine buying a house for a 100 grand and over 30 years you pay 100
grand instead of 300 grand.


www.tomatobubble.com www.ihr.org http://nationalvanguard.org

http://national-socialist-worldview.blogspot.com
Beam Me Up Scotty
2015-07-25 03:48:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Topaz
Banks create the money and loan it out. All the money in the world is
owed back to bankers,
Then the trick is to NOT owe your ass-ets to a bank.
--
*Rumination*
#39 - Genius is finite, while stupid "is" infinite.
Bret Cahill
2015-07-25 04:09:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Beam Me Up Scotty
Post by Topaz
Banks create the money and loan it out. All the money in the world is
owed back to bankers,
Then the trick is to NOT owe your ass-ets to a bank.
How's your gold working out fer ya?
Topaz
2015-07-25 09:16:56 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 24 Jul 2015 23:48:45 -0400, Beam Me Up Scotty
Post by Beam Me Up Scotty
Post by Topaz
Banks create the money and loan it out. All the money in the world is
owed back to bankers,
Then the trick is to NOT owe your ass-ets to a bank.
To get a clearer picture suppose there is an island with ten workers
on it. The workers grow food and build cars and make a lot of
things. But there is a problem because they can't exchange their goods
that well without money. So to have a money supply in circulation a
banker rows his boat to the island and loans each of the workers $100
at 5% per year. The money circulates back and forth as the workers
buy things. But at the end of the year there is a total of $1000 on
the island and $1050 is owed to the banker, that is, more than the
money that exists on the island.

And where does the banker get the money? He simply creates it out
of nothing by printing notes on his printing press. Every month the
banker goes to the island to collect his payments, to make more loans,
and to buy cars and things with his profits. If someone can't make
their payment he takes their entire farm or business.

That is how the system is now. What the workers should do is get
their own printing press and make their own money. To make the initial
supply of money they would simply print $100 for each of them. This
money is not borrowed or owed and there is no interest. But there is a
money supply on the island and they can exchange their goods. As more
cars and houses are built, from time to time more money would need to
be created, to represent the more wealth that is now on the island.
No one of the ten workers should be allowed to create money. It is and
done at a town meeting.

A country is the same as the island. And the government is the same
as the town meeting. The government should create money and not
private bankers. The government should be for the people.

Today the bankers create the money and the government serves not the
people but the bankers.





www.tomatobubble.com www.ihr.org http://nationalvanguard.org

http://national-socialist-worldview.blogspot.com
Beam Me Up Scotty
2015-07-25 15:04:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Topaz
On Fri, 24 Jul 2015 23:48:45 -0400, Beam Me Up Scotty
Post by Beam Me Up Scotty
Post by Topaz
Banks create the money and loan it out. All the money in the world is
owed back to bankers,
Then the trick is to NOT owe your ass-ets to a bank.
To get a clearer picture suppose there is an island with ten workers
on it. The workers grow food and build cars and make a lot of
things. But there is a problem because they can't exchange their goods
that well without money. So to have a money supply in circulation a
banker rows his boat to the island and loans each of the workers $100
at 5% per year. The money circulates back and forth as the workers
buy things. But at the end of the year there is a total of $1000 on
the island and $1050 is owed to the banker, that is, more than the
money that exists on the island.
Yes and at 5% it will be 100% of the money in 20 years so there will be
zero dollars on the island and that means the island is in a collapsed
economy and they owe $1000 dollars.


We have been printing more money to push that 20 year collapse off
another 8 years. Bush did similar stuff starting in 2001.

The velocity of the money would show that money is circulating less and
less and everyone wants to know where the money went that's NO longer in
circulation due to the "shrinking economy of depression". It left the
Island called the economy and was put into assets on the main land by
those "bankers" .

https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/M2V/

Notice the velocity of money is the lowest in 55 years. It's time to
pay the Piper.

How many Amish lost their house/farms to the Bankers? Where are the
foreclosed houses in Amish neighbourhoods?
Post by Topaz
And where does the banker get the money? He simply creates it out
of nothing by printing notes on his printing press. Every month the
banker goes to the island to collect his payments, to make more loans,
and to buy cars and things with his profits. If someone can't make
their payment he takes their entire farm or business.
That is how the system is now. What the workers should do is get
their own printing press and make their own money. To make the initial
supply of money they would simply print $100 for each of them. This
money is not borrowed or owed and there is no interest. But there is a
money supply on the island and they can exchange their goods. As more
cars and houses are built, from time to time more money would need to
be created, to represent the more wealth that is now on the island.
No one of the ten workers should be allowed to create money. It is and
done at a town meeting.
A country is the same as the island. And the government is the same
as the town meeting. The government should create money and not
private bankers. The government should be for the people.
Today the bankers create the money and the government serves not the
people but the bankers.
The Government is violating the 1st amendment by giving subsidies and
those subsidies discriminate against the religions that don't take
subsidies from government so to be equal the government has to give zero
subsidies so that the Amish can compete rather than using government to
destroy their successful private religious lifestyle.

[""""""""Land goes in cycles; it's supply and demand," said Jon
Greenwood, owner of Greenwood Dairy in Canton*. Greenwood had just 70
cows when he began in 1978. He now owns 1,200, though he maintains he
refuses federal subsidies. "I'm the exception to the rule around here,"
Greenwood said, acknowledging the subsidies' depressing impact on the
Amish market. "I remember when local farmers were complaining that the
Amish were driving up land prices," added Greenwood, with a tone of irony.

In fact, Greenwood recalled how the Amish sect was initially met with
chagrin in St. Lawrence County. Locals lobbied for provisions requiring
black buggies to wear orange triangles at nighttime, and many residents
remain skeptical of the Swartzentrubers' private, patriarchal society.
While some progressive Amish groups in Pennsylvania, Indiana, and West
Virginia have accepted modest conveniences--including running water,
chainsaws, and factory jobs--the Swartzenrubers still occupy the
technological fringe.""""""""]
Post by Topaz
www.tomatobubble.com www.ihr.org http://nationalvanguard.org
http://national-socialist-worldview.blogspot.com
jim <""sjedgingN0Sp\"@">
2015-07-25 16:40:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Beam Me Up Scotty
https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/M2V/
Notice the velocity of money is the lowest in 55 years. It's time to
pay the Piper.
You will notice M2 velocity has been dropping since
1997. That is when private investors started
financing US home loans. From then until 2008,
private investors financed $6 trillion in US mortgages.
Almost all of these mortgages required housing prices
to increase or they could not be paid back.

Before 1997 and after 2008 the amount of mortgages financed by
private investors was close to zero.

The entry of private investors into the US housing market
is the single largest private market failure in the
history of mankind.
Topaz
2015-07-26 09:56:36 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 25 Jul 2015 11:04:35 -0400, Beam Me Up Scotty
Post by Beam Me Up Scotty
Post by Topaz
On Fri, 24 Jul 2015 23:48:45 -0400, Beam Me Up Scotty
Post by Beam Me Up Scotty
Post by Topaz
Banks create the money and loan it out. All the money in the world is
owed back to bankers,
Then the trick is to NOT owe your ass-ets to a bank.
To get a clearer picture suppose there is an island with ten workers
on it. The workers grow food and build cars and make a lot of
things. But there is a problem because they can't exchange their goods
that well without money. So to have a money supply in circulation a
banker rows his boat to the island and loans each of the workers $100
at 5% per year. The money circulates back and forth as the workers
buy things. But at the end of the year there is a total of $1000 on
the island and $1050 is owed to the banker, that is, more than the
money that exists on the island.
Yes and at 5% it will be 100% of the money in 20 years so there will be
zero dollars on the island and that means the island is in a collapsed
economy and they owe $1000 dollars.
We have been printing more money to push that 20 year collapse off
another 8 years. Bush did similar stuff starting in 2001.
The velocity of the money would show that money is circulating less and
less and everyone wants to know where the money went that's NO longer in
circulation due to the "shrinking economy of depression". It left the
Island called the economy and was put into assets on the main land by
those "bankers" .
https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/M2V/
Notice the velocity of money is the lowest in 55 years. It's time to
pay the Piper.
How many Amish lost their house/farms to the Bankers? Where are the
foreclosed houses in Amish neighbourhoods?
Post by Topaz
And where does the banker get the money? He simply creates it out
of nothing by printing notes on his printing press. Every month the
banker goes to the island to collect his payments, to make more loans,
and to buy cars and things with his profits. If someone can't make
their payment he takes their entire farm or business.
That is how the system is now. What the workers should do is get
their own printing press and make their own money. To make the initial
supply of money they would simply print $100 for each of them. This
money is not borrowed or owed and there is no interest. But there is a
money supply on the island and they can exchange their goods. As more
cars and houses are built, from time to time more money would need to
be created, to represent the more wealth that is now on the island.
No one of the ten workers should be allowed to create money. It is and
done at a town meeting.
A country is the same as the island. And the government is the same
as the town meeting. The government should create money and not
private bankers. The government should be for the people.
Today the bankers create the money and the government serves not the
people but the bankers.
The Government is violating the 1st amendment by giving subsidies and
those subsidies discriminate against the religions that don't take
subsidies from government so to be equal the government has to give zero
subsidies so that the Amish can compete rather than using government to
destroy their successful private religious lifestyle.
[""""""""Land goes in cycles; it's supply and demand," said Jon
Greenwood, owner of Greenwood Dairy in Canton*. Greenwood had just 70
cows when he began in 1978. He now owns 1,200, though he maintains he
refuses federal subsidies. "I'm the exception to the rule around here,"
Greenwood said, acknowledging the subsidies' depressing impact on the
Amish market. "I remember when local farmers were complaining that the
Amish were driving up land prices," added Greenwood, with a tone of irony.
In fact, Greenwood recalled how the Amish sect was initially met with
chagrin in St. Lawrence County. Locals lobbied for provisions requiring
black buggies to wear orange triangles at nighttime, and many residents
remain skeptical of the Swartzentrubers' private, patriarchal society.
While some progressive Amish groups in Pennsylvania, Indiana, and West
Virginia have accepted modest conveniences--including running water,
chainsaws, and factory jobs--the Swartzenrubers still occupy the
technological fringe.""""""""]
The Amish have many good things going for them. But their main idea,
being against technology such as computers and refrigerators and so
on, doesn't seem to make much sense. Their idea of wanting the good
old days is great though.


www.tomatobubble.com www.ihr.org http://nationalvanguard.org

http://national-socialist-worldview.blogspot.com

BeamMeUpScotty
2015-07-15 12:13:35 UTC
Permalink
The money system we have today is called the debt-money system.
All the more reason to avoid using/keeping U.S. Dollars and joining in
this economy... why would you want to be in debt?
--
That's Karma
jim <""sjedgingN0Sp\"@">
2015-07-15 19:47:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Topaz
No one else is allowed to
create money,
Nonsense. Anybody can create money. The problem is
getting others to accept your money and use it.

People trust bank money because it is more reliable
than the government printed currency. People believe
they are less likely to lose money if they keep it
in the bank as opposed to holding it in other forms.
Topaz
2015-07-16 21:23:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by jim <""sjedgingN0Sp\"@">
Post by Topaz
No one else is allowed to
create money,
Nonsense. Anybody can create money. The problem is
getting others to accept your money and use it.
People trust bank money because it is more reliable
than the government printed currency. People believe
they are less likely to lose money if they keep it
in the bank as opposed to holding it in other forms.
Bankers are worthless parasites who get rich by doing nothing but
juggle figures and paperwork. The Banks should be nationalized. All we
need is a money supply in circulation so we can exchange our goods. We
don't need any parasites getting rich over it.


www.tomatobubble.com www.ihr.org http://nationalvanguard.org

http://national-socialist-worldview.blogspot.com
jim <""sjedgingN0Sp\"@">
2015-07-17 19:10:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Topaz
Post by jim <""sjedgingN0Sp\"@">
Post by Topaz
No one else is allowed to
create money,
Nonsense. Anybody can create money. The problem is
getting others to accept your money and use it.
People trust bank money because it is more reliable
than the government printed currency. People believe
they are less likely to lose money if they keep it
in the bank as opposed to holding it in other forms.
Bankers are worthless parasites who get rich by doing nothing but
juggle figures and paperwork. The Banks should be nationalized. All we
need is a money supply in circulation so we can exchange our goods. We
don't need any parasites getting rich over it.
The issue will be are you going to force people to
deposit their money in government owned banks or are
you going to allow private banks to exist along with
government run banks? If you are going to not allow
private banks to exist then what other forms
of private enterprise will you also outlaw?

The private banks will tend to pay better interest
on deposits and people will tend to put their
money where it earns the most.
Topaz
2015-07-17 21:31:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by jim <""sjedgingN0Sp\"@">
The issue will be are you going to force people to
deposit their money in government owned banks or are
you going to allow private banks to exist along with
government run banks?
If you are going to not allow
private banks to exist then what other forms
of private enterprise will you also outlaw?
The private banks will tend to pay better interest
on deposits and people will tend to put their
money where it earns the most.
Those who let their money work for them are parasites. We should
have no interest and no inflation.

Loans for houses and cars and business should be from the
government and at zero interest. This would initially add to the money
in circulation but when the loan is repaid the money would be removed
circulation, so there is no net increase and no inflation.

There is no comparison between the pennies people make by putting
money in the bank, and the billions the bankers make when they let
their money work for them. Zero interest loans on cars, houses, and
business is the issue.




www.tomatobubble.com www.ihr.org http://nationalvanguard.org

http://national-socialist-worldview.blogspot.com
jim <""sjedgingN0Sp\"@">
2015-07-17 22:38:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Topaz
Post by jim <""sjedgingN0Sp\"@">
The issue will be are you going to force people to
deposit their money in government owned banks or are
you going to allow private banks to exist along with
government run banks?
If you are going to not allow
private banks to exist then what other forms
of private enterprise will you also outlaw?
The private banks will tend to pay better interest
on deposits and people will tend to put their
money where it earns the most.
Those who let their money work for them are parasites. We should
have no interest and no inflation.
You didn't answer the question of whether you will
outlaw private banks and private enterprise
.
Post by Topaz
Loans for houses and cars and business should be from the
government and at zero interest. This would initially add to the money
in circulation but when the loan is repaid the money would be removed
circulation, so there is no net increase and no inflation.
Why would anyone repay a loan if you can borrow as much
as they want at zero interest?
Post by Topaz
There is no comparison between the pennies people make by putting
money in the bank, and the billions the bankers make when they let
their money work for them. Zero interest loans on cars, houses, and
business is the issue.
Today, People have the option of putting their money
in a Credit Union where the depositors own the bank.
Topaz
2015-07-19 02:07:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by jim <""sjedgingN0Sp\"@">
You didn't answer the question of whether you will
outlaw private banks and private enterprise
We should outlaw and replace worthless parasites like banks and
insurance companies. They should be nationalized. Companies that
acutally create or does something worthwhile should be private
enterprise.
Post by jim <""sjedgingN0Sp\"@">
Post by Topaz
Loans for houses and cars and business should be from the
government and at zero interest. This would initially add to the money
in circulation but when the loan is repaid the money would be removed
circulation, so there is no net increase and no inflation.
Why would anyone repay a loan if you can borrow as much
as they want at zero interest?
For the same reason people repay loans today. If you don't pay back
the car loan you lose the car. But people would save big bucks by not
paying interest.
Post by jim <""sjedgingN0Sp\"@">
Today, People have the option of putting their money
in a Credit Union where the depositors own the bank.
Or they could put it under a mattress. Neither idea has anything to
do with zero interest loans. Neither idea puts a debt-free money
supply into circulation.


www.tomatobubble.com www.ihr.org http://nationalvanguard.org

http://national-socialist-worldview.blogspot.com
jim <""sjedgingN0Sp\"@">
2015-07-19 12:00:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Topaz
Post by jim <""sjedgingN0Sp\"@">
You didn't answer the question of whether you will
outlaw private banks and private enterprise
We should outlaw and replace worthless parasites like banks and
insurance companies. They should be nationalized. Companies that
acutally create or does something worthwhile should be private
enterprise.
Who decides what is "worthwhile"?
You seem to be opposed to free market
choice.
Post by Topaz
Post by jim <""sjedgingN0Sp\"@">
Today, People have the option of putting their money
in a Credit Union where the depositors own the bank.
Or they could put it under a mattress. Neither idea has anything to
do with zero interest loans. Neither idea puts a debt-free money
supply into circulation.
You don't need "debt-free money" to be free of debt.
You are always free to save your pennies and pay
for things only after you have the money accumulated.
People borrow because there can be economic advantage
in leveraging future potential earnings. it is a
choice that people make freely. We are not talking
about people being forced to borrow or starve.

The simple fact is this: whoever creates the money
supply will be outputting more money than they input.
Lots of people don't trust politicians to be the
one who outputs more money than the take in.

The nature of debt based money system is that the
growth of the money people use daily is tied to the
growth of the economy. In your system the money
supply would be tied to the whims of
politicians.

Bank loans create two liabilities. The borrower
owes a debt to the bank and the bank where the
newly created deposits land owe that amount to
depositors. You create a distorted picture of
how the accounting works by persistently
disregarding half the ledger.
Topaz
2015-07-20 22:03:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by jim <""sjedgingN0Sp\"@">
Who decides what is "worthwhile"?
I do, or any sensible person who can see that bankers get rich but
they don't actually do anything.
Post by jim <""sjedgingN0Sp\"@">
You seem to be opposed to free market
choice.
We should have free enterprise but there needs to be laws and
regulations.


"Libertarians believe that once one is burned by charlatans,
they'll simply stop doing business with the ogres who proselytize
inferior work and product. But, isn't the hue and cry for governmental
regulation the mechanism that the public demands when they've been
ripped-off by nefarious business people? In many cases, especially
with bigger ticket items, they don't have the luxury of not doing
business with a sinister plutocrat, but must buy and weep over shoddy
business practices...

"Surely, we've seen enough charlatans to
know that the market itself cannot monitor its own activities to the
good of all!"

D. Stephen Heersink
Post by jim <""sjedgingN0Sp\"@">
You don't need "debt-free money" to be free of debt.
There needs to be money is circulation for people to exchange their
goods. This money should be put into circulation debt-free, rather
than as loans owed to bankers, plus the interest.
Post by jim <""sjedgingN0Sp\"@">
You are always free to save your pennies and pay
for things only after you have the money accumulated.
People borrow because there can be economic advantage
in leveraging future potential earnings. it is a
choice that people make freely. We are not talking
about people being forced to borrow or starve.
There wouldn't be any pennies to save if no one created them. It is
good that they are created. But they should not be created as loans
from bankers, thus making all the money in existence owed back to
bankers.
Post by jim <""sjedgingN0Sp\"@">
The simple fact is this: whoever creates the money
supply will be outputting more money than they input.
Lots of people don't trust politicians to be the
one who outputs more money than the take in.
Bankers create the money and they don't just output it. They want it
back with interest. Money should be created by the government and not
as a loan to be paid back, but just as a supply of money in
circulation for people to exchange their goods with.
Post by jim <""sjedgingN0Sp\"@">
The nature of debt based money system is that the
growth of the money people use daily is tied to the
growth of the economy. In your system the money
supply would be tied to the whims of
politicians.
We should not allow inflation, but the money supply should not just
be constant. As more houses and other things are created, the money
supply should also increase.
Post by jim <""sjedgingN0Sp\"@">
Bank loans create two liabilities. The borrower
owes a debt to the bank and the bank where the
newly created deposits land owe that amount to
depositors. You create a distorted picture of
how the accounting works by persistently
disregarding half the ledger.
For one thing the banks are allowed to loan out much more money than
they have on deposit. This means they can pretty much write a check
for money they don't have. If anyone else did that they would be
arrested.


"The modern banking system manufactures money out of nothing. The
process is perhaps the most astounding piece of sleight of hand that
was every invented. Banking was conceived in inequity and born in sin.
Bankers own the earth. Take it away from them but leave them the power
to create money, and with a flick of a pen, they will create enough
money to buy it back again . Take this great power away from them and
all great fortunes like mine will disappear, for then this would be a
better and happier world to live in . But if you want to continue to
be the slaves of bankers and pay the cost of your own slavery, then
let bankers continue to create money and control credit."

Sir Josiah Stamp, president of the Bank of England and the second
richest man in Britain in the 1920's, speaking at the University of
Texas in 1927

This web site explains it more:
http://www.michaeljournal.org/myth.htm


www.tomatobubble.com www.ihr.org http://nationalvanguard.org

http://national-socialist-worldview.blogspot.com
Loading...