Customer Discussions > Politics forum

Web of Debt: End income taxes AND pay off debt!


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-25 of 77 posts in this discussion
Initial post: May 1, 2012 12:25:18 PM PDT
T. Kelly says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on May 1, 2012 1:13:49 PM PDT
TK: So what's the objection to getting rid of the Fed and letting the US government issue its own currency? Easy, it cuts out the bankers and it eliminates the income tax."

TS:Tsk Tsk, Only if you want the hyperinflation similar to that of the Weimar Republic.
I'd bet you never heard of it.

TK: The banks create all of our money out of thin air, almost without constraint, all the time! Please, check it out.

TS: Please check out an economics 101 book on banking, instead of pseudoscience tritsch, ok?

In reply to an earlier post on May 1, 2012 1:28:56 PM PDT
Axiomatic!!! says:
You're clueless.

If you did your history you would know about the bankers. Just read the words of the founding fathers. We fought the revolution to get away from the bankers.

In reply to an earlier post on May 1, 2012 1:30:23 PM PDT
Axiomatic!!! says:
"They Own it All" is another good book on the subject.

Posted on May 1, 2012 3:04:22 PM PDT
Axiomatic!!! says:
"The refusal of King George III to allow the colonies to operate an honest money system, which freed the ordinary man from the clutches of the money manipulators was probably the prime cause of the revolution." - Benjamin Franklin

In reply to an earlier post on May 2, 2012 2:35:00 AM PDT
T. Kelly says:
Dear Truthseeker, you might want to check out the history of Germany's recovery from hyperinflation after WWII. Remember they were taking wheel barrels full of money to the grocery stores? The Government started printing and controlling its own money, rather than continuing to allow the banks to do it, and thereby recovered from the hyperinflation in about two years. Money printed and controlled by the government is backed by labor (as opposed to thin air) and it is called "greenbacks". President Lincoln used greenbacks to pay off the debts after the Civil War. This leads to LESS inflation than the bank's private (i.e. non-government) "fractional reserve" lending. However I must correct my statement that "the banks create all of our money". I reviewed that and in fact the banks create only 97% of our money. The remaining 3% is coinage.

In reply to an earlier post on May 2, 2012 3:08:52 AM PDT
Adios Amigos says:
T. Kelly says:The banks create all of our money out of thin air, almost without constraint, all the time! Please, check it out.
=======================

The government creates money out of thin air now. They use the federal reserve to do it.

In your tax free example, the government could print and spend $20 trillion next year. Why stop at the $3.8 T it spends now.

But hey, next year they could print and spend another $20 Trillion more.

every street, road, bridge, could be completely repaved and rebuilt.

and another and another and in 2022 there would be $200 trillion more in the economy.

And the wealthy and bankers would still have most of it. So, since it would provide the wealthy and bankers a couple hundred trillion more dollars in just 10 years, why do you think they don't do it?

In reply to an earlier post on May 2, 2012 3:11:24 AM PDT
Adios Amigos says:
Axiomatic!!! says:
You're clueless.

If you did your history you would know about the bankers.
=================
I like bankers.
I like corporations
I like big oil.

The reason i like bankers is because they have my money and if i say i don't like them, my account might be zeroed out tomorrow due to a "computer error."

I like big oil because i can drive in 30 minutes what would take me 6 hours to walk.

In reply to an earlier post on May 2, 2012 3:44:46 AM PDT
T. Kelly says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on May 2, 2012 4:57:21 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on May 2, 2012 5:15:30 AM PDT
Happy Geezer says:
I have read the book. She does realize the fed is a problem. I'll give her that. Many of her definitions are way off so her conclusions can't help but be as way off. She weaves her own web of deceit by her mis-definitions. I am glad folks are looking at this problem now. Don't fall for the John Law plan.

Her solutions will makes things so much worse. Is "public pressure" all you have to guarantee that the government won't continue advancing inflation like it has for the last 100 years.

For the politicians involved it is very wonderful, not at all self-defeating. Quite profitable for themselves and their handlers.

What Has Government Done to Our Money? will give you some balance from an economist rather than an author who looks in to economics. I've read yours. Will you read the one I suggested?

http://library.mises.org/books/Murray%20N%20Rothbard/What%20Has%20Government%20Done%20to%20Our%20Money.pdf

Do have a link for a pdf of her book?

Posted on May 2, 2012 5:24:47 AM PDT
T. Kelly says:
Happy Geezer: If you insist. But "Economics In One Lesson: The Shortest and Surest Way to Understand Basic Economics", by Henry Hazlett sounds better. Would that be satisfactory? I'm looking for the truth here and I am certainly a novice, but it sure seems clear and evident to me that austerity is NOT the solution to these problems and if I'm right, it is imperative that we bring that to peoples' attention ASAP! What is the John Law plan?

In reply to an earlier post on May 2, 2012 5:51:57 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on May 2, 2012 5:52:24 AM PDT
Happy Geezer says:
re John Law: He convinced the French that the government could print as much unbacked money as it wanted. He got very wealthy, the economy in France collapsed. The Keynes came along with a similar but not identical plan. It sounds like Ellen's plan to me. I know she says print just enough money. It has always started with "just enough" and then the government gets addicted to free money and can't stop. Remember the continental and the greenback and how many assets were lost as they devalued.

Economics in One Lesson: The Shortest and Surest Way to Understand Basic Economics is a fuller description of an economic theory than the one I suggested. Far superior. Mine is more a single topic book.

If you are reading Hazlitt, don't stop. He is an excellent author. I have read several of his books.

Ellen tends to talk about corporatism and call it capitalism. The two are different. This confuses her in many of her conclusions. I am glad she is getting the word out.

Free market is a willing exchange between two or more parties.

Corporatism is rent seeking businesses try to get special privileges from government so as to not have to compete in their market.

Rent seeking is are special interest groups (any and all kinds) getting special privileges from Government at the expense of everyone else.

In reply to an earlier post on May 2, 2012 5:54:12 AM PDT
Loon.

In reply to an earlier post on May 2, 2012 5:57:33 AM PDT
Ku says:
According to wikiquote, that Franklin quote is misattributed.

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Benjamin_Franklin

In reply to an earlier post on May 2, 2012 5:57:41 AM PDT
Happy Geezer says:
Your lack of rebuttal and use of insults tell us you know you are wrong in all your opinions.

In reply to an earlier post on May 2, 2012 6:40:52 AM PDT
No, what it tells us is that teabaggers don't follow links, don't even read, and rely on their talking heads like Limbaugh to tell them what to think.

Why waste time with someone like that?

Posted on May 2, 2012 6:48:41 AM PDT
T. Kelly says:
Happy Geezer, thank you for differentiating between capitalism and corporatism. And your point is that corporatism got us into this mess, not capitalism. That's very helpful! Now, if the government prints too much money, don't we, the people, have a little more control over that than when the banks create too much money (debt, as it were, which they call "assets")? Somehow I keep imagining that each and every member of "the government" is one of OUR EMPLOYEES! Just call me a dreamer, if you like. But, "If you don't have a dream, then how you gonna' have a dream come true?" (The movie, South Pacific, about 1956. Maybe you're too young to remember. But THAT dream, racial equality, DID COME TRUE! Almost. Anyway, a darn sight better now than it was then.) We CAN fire the politicians, but not the bankers. That is, if we could ALL just get our heads together for once.

In reply to an earlier post on May 2, 2012 6:56:23 AM PDT
T. Kelly says:
electronics guy, so who is the looney teabagger here? I don't see one and I don't get your point. And, by the way, I think teabaggers are loony too but they're still people and if we could just have a civil conversation here it MIGHT be helpful.

In reply to an earlier post on May 2, 2012 7:01:34 AM PDT
Adios Amigos says:
T. Kelly says:
Dear kbw: You're right, the government COULD print $20 trillion next year EXCEPT that would create inflation, wouldn't it? So that would probably be self-defeating, wouldn't it? So MAYBE the government could do it correctly if there were enough public pressure based on knowledge of the facts. So just READ THE BOOK, PLEASE.
-------------------------------
thanks kelly, but i don't have time to read all the books recommend here. I can only go on what you posted. You said no income taxes. That implies they would be printing $3-4 trillion each year. $40 trillion in 10 years. If the congress was directly in charge of the money what is to stop them from printing trillions for buying votes?

It is inflationary any way you look at it, be it $4 trillion or $20T.

In reply to an earlier post on May 2, 2012 7:05:56 AM PDT
Adios Amigos says:
electronics guy says:
Loon.
===============
what, are you putting it our here to see if we agree with your proposed ID change? OK, I vote for it.

In reply to an earlier post on May 2, 2012 7:07:20 AM PDT
Adios Amigos says:
electronics guy says:
No, what it tells us is that teabaggers don't follow links, don't even read, and rely on their talking heads like Limbaugh to tell them what to think.
--------------------------------
how do you know what Limbaugh says unless you're a closet listener?

I don't listed to Limbaugh. It amazes me how much the left seem to.

Posted on May 2, 2012 7:21:19 AM PDT
T. Kelly says:
kbw, my argument is that the government is more answerable to the general public than the international bankers are, who apparently control almost all banks. And the idea is that the government is responsible for controlling the money flow in such a way that progress of the common weal is promoted, so that would exclude inflation. The bank's only concern is to make a profit for it's investors. Same with health insurers. And that's fine, but we need money flow and health insurance which are NOT profit motivated. Profit absolutely governs business, but business should NOT govern every aspect of our lives.

In reply to an earlier post on May 2, 2012 7:31:39 AM PDT
Ku says:
Who are these international bankers? Got any names?

In reply to an earlier post on May 2, 2012 7:50:50 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on May 2, 2012 7:59:57 AM PDT
Adios Amigos says:
T. Kelly says:
kbw, my argument is that the government is more answerable to the general public than the international bankers are.

========================

in theory yes. In real life. it seems the public in not doing it job.

In reply to an earlier post on May 2, 2012 7:52:01 AM PDT
Happy Geezer says:
What a marvelous set of preconceived stereotypes you have enumerated. Do you approve of the use of all stereotypes or just the ones you personally like?

The bonus is that it does not make sense. Could you clarify? Which teabaggers, which links, read what, who listens to talking heads (is Rush the only one?) and why do you know what the talking heads say if you don't listen to Limbaugh? How and why do you memorize what he says?
‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Politics forum
Participants:  15
Total posts:  77
Initial post:  May 1, 2012
Latest post:  May 6, 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 3 customers

Search Customer Discussions