Why do those who create the money itself, also take the money as tax? And why do those who earn their money through hard work, share their hard earned dollar with those who create the money itself? Why would you take anyway, something you already have?
The idea is you are paying your government a chunk of your wealth to allow it to run and provide you defense, services, etc. It's gotten out of control though. Rather than examine what programs work in our government, what doesn't work, and the cost of everything we already have, we just invent new programs and throw more taxes onto individuals. We have a bloated government which doesn't examine what things they are creating, they just tack it onto the budget and squeeze a bit more money out of us every year. Ron Paul would take control of our government, and have us take the time to see what areas are just absolute wastes, and eliminate them, and in turn cut our taxes tremendously. Not a tax break here or there; he's pushing for things like eliminating the income tax. The only way something like that would be possible is to cut a lot of fat off our system, and I think he's got the economic mind to get something like that accomplished.
Why is the only money the government wants, the one coming out of your salary? Your salary itself came from the money they created themselves. For some reason they didn’t want any percentage of that money, until they gave it to you. Why?
That isn't the only money the government wants. They tax property, businesses, any number of things, income is only one part of the equation.
We are the government. We work for the government, just as the government works for us. The government’s role is to satisfy the needs of the people, including their own. The government creates the work or jobs that satisfy our needs as a society. And the people do those jobs to satisfy each other’s needs. And so that we all benefit from the goods and services we provide through our jobs, the government had to create, something we call money. And it is through this money that we all achieve the different goods and services, we provide through our jobs. So which part of this system makes the money the government takes as tax necessary? And who does it go to? No matter what the job they are doing is, nobody is working for free.
Great post. To answer your very first question in this thread, the reason why we are taxed, as people have been taxed for centuries, is to pay the interest on the money created and loaned by the money changers. The idea by Madison and the other Founders, when they framed the Constitution, was that only the government should be able to create money. Unfortunately, in 1913, the money changers, after having been shut down several times in early American history finally got the Federal Reserve Act passed. The Federal Reserve Bank is not owned or controlled by the government. There is nothing Federal about it. It is rumored to have similar ownership structure to the Bank of England. Rothchilds and Rockefellers. When the government wants to spend more money than it collects in taxes (deficit), it borrows the money through the Federal Reserve, which creates new money and increases the money supply. That money is loaned to the government with interest. Traditionally, governments have been attractive customers for National Banks, because they can secure their loans by the taxation on the people. In fact, much of the income tax raised each year only pays for the financing on the debt, not for additional services or for war. War is financed by debt spending, the interests payments are again, serviced by income taxes. The year the Federal Reserve came into existence was 1913. The year the income tax came into existence was... you guessed it, 1913. The Founders advised us very strongly against allowing the money changers to establish a National Bank. We didn't take their advice, and have been tax slaves to create their profits for generations now. The only time Jesus was aggressive in his time on earth, was when he found the money changers in the temple, conducting business for profit upon the faithful. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_and_the_Money_Changers In Islam, the charging of interest on loans is haraam (sin). http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/...h-Ask_Scholar/FatwaE/FatwaE&cid=1119503543118 Amshall Rothschild pronounced from his Central Bank in Frankfurt Germany,
What does exactly, the Federal Reserve Act that was passed in 1913 that allowed the money changers to be the only people with the knowledge and means to create money for the taxpaying nations or America, say?
Most people either don't care (apathy) or they will try to rationalize it. But the good news is that things like the Ron Paul campaign are serving to educate people on this issue, which is the greatest threat to freedom and liberty because the power to print the money, manipulate the economy and allow the government to grow and grow touches the liberties of every single American. The young people today don't trust government automatically, and they are beginning to remind their parents that American history didn't start on 9/11.
You are completely wrong about the Fed again. The Fed owns less than 10% of the government debt. Most of it is borrowed from the rest of the public sector, the private sector, and foreigners. Refer to the Current issue of the Treasury Bulletin. In fact, the Fed doesn't buy the securities to fund the government, but to continue its operation in the open market. This is evident due to the nature of the open market operation which is conducted in the secondary market. There's obviously more than something Federal about the Federal Reserve since the Federal Reserve Board is a Federal Government Agency. The 7 members of this board, including the chairman, cannot have any banking interest by law (Title 12, Section 244 of the United States Code). Therefore, these individuals do not have any personal affiliation with any banks or depository institutions. Since the Fed is a non-profit organization, they are required to rebate all excess interest back to the Treasury. In 2006, the Fed returned $29.05 billion to the Treasury. Go ask Ron Paul; he will not deny this fact. Sources: Federal Reserve Act, Federal US Laws (the United States Code), 93rd Federal Reserve Annual Report audited by the Government Accountability Office under the Federal Banking Agency Audit Act. Other auditors include: FRB's Office of Inspector General, PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, and KPMG LLP.
I've seen bits and pieces of this debunked, but I've never seen the whole of the "Federal Reserve Conspiracy" debunked in one place. Has anyone seen such a resource? [Edit] Here are a couple of efforts: http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Embassy/1154/flaherty.html http://famguardian.org/Subjects/MoneyBanking/FederalReserve/FRconspire/FRconspire.htm
Whoa.... I seem to recall crushing my enemies, seeing them driven before me, and hearing the lamentations of their women. You use a lot of doublespeak to avoid dealing with the topic at hand. The Fed, via fractional reserve banking allows the creation of new money, and with this new money, released to the marketplace via the Member banks, allows for the creation of new credit in the system. Fractional reserve banking has been made the world standard by the Rothchilds. It's always existed, but the Rothchilds have made it institutional in every country with a Central Bank (which is most countries in the world). The US Constitution specifically states that only Congress should control the issuance of money. We've had numerous central banks in the past, and each time they were abolished, and we returned to sound money. Public awareness is growing, and the days of the Fed are numbered. It's a parasite on the system, and serves no purpose but to manipulate the market, which is interventionism. The Fed is owned by it's member banks. Those member banks in turn are owned by private banks. It doesn't take much more of a breadcrumb trail to understand the paper trail to ownership. And this means what? They do not have direct banking interests, but they work for the system. It's like arguing that I don't have shares of McDonalds but I work there. Who do I take my marching orders from? Most of your arguments have revolved around the Fed while excluding the share holding member banks. They are the real problem, the Federal Reserve is just a front for the Member Banks. They are the ones who earn 6%, they are the ones owned by private companies, and they are the ones who get to used the newly created money as loans for income under the idea of fractional reserve banking. There is a reason why we had the American Revolution. The King wanted to tax us to pay the debt to the Bank of England, and the colonies were operating under Colonial Scrip, their own money, which was issued by the Colonial government. People forget that the American Revolution was not about freedom of speech or the right to be Christians. It was for economic liberty from the British Monarch. The right for us to keep the fruits of our labors, without taxation ("no taxation without representation"). Our history is thick with men who argued against Central Banking, that it is inflationary (today's dollar is worth 2 cents pre-Fed) and that it facilitates the transfer of wealth from the poor and middle class, to the rich. Barry Goldwater, James Madison, Ben Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, Milton Friedman, Andrew Jackson, JFK (assassinated), Abraham Lincoln (assassinated), James Garfield (assassinated), Woodrow Wilson, Ronald Reagan and many others.
This has nothing to do with what you've quoted me for. Typical red herring. Yes, I know how the fractional banking system works, and I know how the money multiplier works. Congress delegated the authority to issue money to the Fed. At the same time, they retained the power to take the Fed out of existence. There are around 3,000 member banks, and they are private banks. You've added another layer that doesn't even exist. Federal Reserve stocks are not equity stocks; they are membership stocks. There's a big difference between a certificate that represents ownership and a certificate that represents membership. The Fed stocks are actually a lousy investment since it would take you over 16 years to reach the nominal break even point (100/6). Fallacy of the undistributed middle. In any event, times have changed and it will continue to change. We can't stick to one idea and just go for it. Adam Smith had great ideas, but laissez-faire capitalism wasn't practical. The system has to change from time to time. Fallacy of appealing to authority. I could name a bunch of economists and presidents who are for a fiat currency system, but that would not substantiate my argument.
Can you name any airplanes that have lasted more that 200 years? Does that mean that airplanes are bad? No, it means that airplanes are new.
Modern US fiat currency system is a relatively new system, so the answer is no. I'm not sure how that's germane to the subject. Any currency system will fail under poor political governance, even your precious gold standard (which has been wiped off).
AFAIK, the Chinese were the first to use fiat money. It failed. Eventually, fiat money collapses and gives way to a commodity based system. Until the bankers are able to sway political opinion, and get back into the banking and fiat money game. Without it, they can't run the fractional reserve system without risking a total systems collapse. Hmmm, that's almost the best reason to do it right there! See my comment re: China. What layer did I add? They are not a lousy investment when you can appoint 2/3 of the Member Banks Board of Directors, and those 12 boards directly influence Fed policy. A one time investment for the power of a country's money, that's a damn good investment. The Fed came into existence in 1913. We had 5 Central Banks in American history before that. You are right that times change, and one day, the Central Bank will be eliminated for the exact reasons I keep posting. It's a leech on the system, it transfers wealth from the low and middle classes to the rich, it encourages foreign investment over domestic investment and it allows the government to pretend it owns an empire by printing (figurative) an endless supply of money.
" * 3.3.1 Abandoning the standard to fund the war" "The interaction between central banking and currency basis formed the primary source of monetary instability during this period." ~~~~ Can you document the Gold Standard or Silver Standard failing? The links you provided seem to support Dr. Ron Paul's positions.
That's a very interesting read of the data! I can't possibly imagine how you would come up with it...
It does not make my point moot. Gold and Silver have only failed when the reserves were depleted. They have not failed when they were kept as a government reserve behind bank notes. This is basically how a working system would function. Dollars are matched to gold. Dollars cannot be printed to exceed the value of the gold, without revising the amount of gold each dollar is worth (depreciating the currency when the supply inflates, logical). The government stops taxation, except in the instance of war. Government now cannot spend or create more money in the system to stretch services or programs (restraint). The people have the untaxed income to participate in the free market and negotiate for the best prices and services. In the event of a war, a direct tax is levied on the people. This provides restraint to the government, and an impetus for the public to make sure the wars do not prolong.