I'll keep it short and simple (since few have the attention span or intellectual capacity for any meaningful or reasonable uptake).
Obama is a failure.
Thursday, April 30, 2009
Friday, March 6, 2009
They Don't Know!
Experts.
Economists.
These are the people who, as kids, got beat up everyday on the playground. They are the ones who had the perpetual rough imprint of a dodgeball on the sides of their faces because they didn't have the common sense to move. They stood their calculating the ratio of trajectory to velocity while the ball was in flight only to wake up ten minutes later sprawled out on a cot in the nurse's office.
They went off to college. Sure. Good for them. Now they have knowledge but still lack common sense. Do you want these people running the show? I don't.
Journalists.
These folks were the kids in school who never got involved in athletics or any clubs which required thinking. They just sat their watching others strive for excellence.
Sure. They went off to college too. They learned how to organize their writing, punctuation and grammar (amazingly enough editors are still needed to check their work). They have no particular in-depth knowledge of subject matter. Instead, they write about current events which change focus as quickly as an ADHD kid on a Skittles binge.
These people profess (op/ed'dly) to know what policies will work and which will not. Do you want these people making policy? I don't.
Community Organizers.
These people have any kind of background you can imagine, but, for the most part, they have dropped out of society because they couldn't compete. They need an organizational structure to sustain their existences. They are completely dependent upon others. In fact, they have come to embrace the "it takes a village" propaganda because without this mentality, they would be lost. If left on their own, they would crumble, wither and die.
Do you want this kind of person setting policy or running our country... oh wait...
Economists.
These are the people who, as kids, got beat up everyday on the playground. They are the ones who had the perpetual rough imprint of a dodgeball on the sides of their faces because they didn't have the common sense to move. They stood their calculating the ratio of trajectory to velocity while the ball was in flight only to wake up ten minutes later sprawled out on a cot in the nurse's office.
They went off to college. Sure. Good for them. Now they have knowledge but still lack common sense. Do you want these people running the show? I don't.
Journalists.
These folks were the kids in school who never got involved in athletics or any clubs which required thinking. They just sat their watching others strive for excellence.
Sure. They went off to college too. They learned how to organize their writing, punctuation and grammar (amazingly enough editors are still needed to check their work). They have no particular in-depth knowledge of subject matter. Instead, they write about current events which change focus as quickly as an ADHD kid on a Skittles binge.
These people profess (op/ed'dly) to know what policies will work and which will not. Do you want these people making policy? I don't.
Community Organizers.
These people have any kind of background you can imagine, but, for the most part, they have dropped out of society because they couldn't compete. They need an organizational structure to sustain their existences. They are completely dependent upon others. In fact, they have come to embrace the "it takes a village" propaganda because without this mentality, they would be lost. If left on their own, they would crumble, wither and die.
Do you want this kind of person setting policy or running our country... oh wait...
Thursday, March 5, 2009
The School Voucher Question
Before I get started on the voucher issue, I want to make it clear I support free market capitalism. It's necessary for me to say this because far too many people who say the same willing abandoned their words of support to suit their wishes. I will not.
The issue of school vouchers, to me, is a lot like abortion, gay marriage and gun control - these issues get rolled out by the parties when they want to shove other, less inflammatory, issues down our throats. The problems and divisions over school vouchers are many which suggest to me, there will only be resolution of the issue when abortion, gay marriage and gun control are also resolved.
I will press forward anyway.
The upside to the school voucher program is choice - school choice. We all love choice. We love choice so much it clouds our vision. For example, is there any other upside to the school voucher program? You could argue some nonsensical, even farcical, gibberish about bad schools being forced to excel or bad teachers being given the boot, but, in reality, those kinds of arguments are invalid.
“Good schools” would receive more funding while bad schools would continue to fail and, most likely, worsen due to lost revenues. So the children who are stuck in those schools will be deprived of a good education. As for bad teachers, well, you would be fooling yourself if you believe teacher unions won’t fight even harder to maintain their ranks... even in failing school districts.
There is more to this story. Let’s run on the assumption school vouchers are issued for each school-age child. The divide in educational opportunity will widen as very few poor school districts will be able to enact reforms. They won't have the resources to do so. Enrollment at so-called good schools will be maximized creating competition over enrollment. Competition is usually a great device for social and economic gain; however, in this case (enrollment), this is not true.
Competition over enrollment can only lead to corruption of the system. Think about it. What parent is going to pull their child out of a good school knowing the chances of getting back in are astronomical? This creates two more problems. School administrations could become lax; after all, their enrollment is maximized. What more do they need to do? Not much.
In addition, if students are permitted to re-register (grandfathering), then you would be getting into preferential treatment and bias. The only true free market solution here is to hold open enrollments (as I made clear in my previous Free Market post.) You know in many school districts this will lead to a “who you know” form of corruption. This kind of favoritism happens everyday.
I’ll add to this discussion the forgotten problem: kids who deserve better. What happens to those kids whose parents who have been fighting against poor school districts for years? Do they have any chance to get their kids into a good school through a school voucher program if preferential treatment (by any means) is given to those students already attending said school? Obviously, the answer is very little chance.
“Oh, but that would never happen.” Oh Really? A school district can and DO reorganize to make adjustments which are supposed to improve the quality of education. This includes reducing class sizes – which could be cited in any claim of bias made against a school district. I think there will be many claims of this nature made if the school voucher program is approved.
Folks, there is a better way.
The simplest solution is usually overlooked. Good schools and districts should expand to allow for greater student enrollment. By default, bad schools and districts will wither and die. THAT, my friends, is a free market.
So, in the end, if you want better schools, tell that good school which already exist to expand its educational opportunities to more students. Tell the school board to build more classrooms, hire more teachers and enact tougher curriculum. You’ll have to pay for it as anything worth having is worth paying for, but the additional students’ parents will be there paying too.
(I also recommend abolishing real estate taxes and going to a district-wide income or sales tax too. As property owners aren’t the only ones benefiting from the school districts. Younger couples who may not own property are more likely to have children in the schools, so they should pay their fair share not just the old, retired home owners. That would be unfair and probably un-Constitutional.)
Now, isn’t that a better plan than getting government involved in your schools?
The issue of school vouchers, to me, is a lot like abortion, gay marriage and gun control - these issues get rolled out by the parties when they want to shove other, less inflammatory, issues down our throats. The problems and divisions over school vouchers are many which suggest to me, there will only be resolution of the issue when abortion, gay marriage and gun control are also resolved.
I will press forward anyway.
The upside to the school voucher program is choice - school choice. We all love choice. We love choice so much it clouds our vision. For example, is there any other upside to the school voucher program? You could argue some nonsensical, even farcical, gibberish about bad schools being forced to excel or bad teachers being given the boot, but, in reality, those kinds of arguments are invalid.
“Good schools” would receive more funding while bad schools would continue to fail and, most likely, worsen due to lost revenues. So the children who are stuck in those schools will be deprived of a good education. As for bad teachers, well, you would be fooling yourself if you believe teacher unions won’t fight even harder to maintain their ranks... even in failing school districts.
There is more to this story. Let’s run on the assumption school vouchers are issued for each school-age child. The divide in educational opportunity will widen as very few poor school districts will be able to enact reforms. They won't have the resources to do so. Enrollment at so-called good schools will be maximized creating competition over enrollment. Competition is usually a great device for social and economic gain; however, in this case (enrollment), this is not true.
Competition over enrollment can only lead to corruption of the system. Think about it. What parent is going to pull their child out of a good school knowing the chances of getting back in are astronomical? This creates two more problems. School administrations could become lax; after all, their enrollment is maximized. What more do they need to do? Not much.
In addition, if students are permitted to re-register (grandfathering), then you would be getting into preferential treatment and bias. The only true free market solution here is to hold open enrollments (as I made clear in my previous Free Market post.) You know in many school districts this will lead to a “who you know” form of corruption. This kind of favoritism happens everyday.
I’ll add to this discussion the forgotten problem: kids who deserve better. What happens to those kids whose parents who have been fighting against poor school districts for years? Do they have any chance to get their kids into a good school through a school voucher program if preferential treatment (by any means) is given to those students already attending said school? Obviously, the answer is very little chance.
“Oh, but that would never happen.” Oh Really? A school district can and DO reorganize to make adjustments which are supposed to improve the quality of education. This includes reducing class sizes – which could be cited in any claim of bias made against a school district. I think there will be many claims of this nature made if the school voucher program is approved.
Folks, there is a better way.
The simplest solution is usually overlooked. Good schools and districts should expand to allow for greater student enrollment. By default, bad schools and districts will wither and die. THAT, my friends, is a free market.
So, in the end, if you want better schools, tell that good school which already exist to expand its educational opportunities to more students. Tell the school board to build more classrooms, hire more teachers and enact tougher curriculum. You’ll have to pay for it as anything worth having is worth paying for, but the additional students’ parents will be there paying too.
(I also recommend abolishing real estate taxes and going to a district-wide income or sales tax too. As property owners aren’t the only ones benefiting from the school districts. Younger couples who may not own property are more likely to have children in the schools, so they should pay their fair share not just the old, retired home owners. That would be unfair and probably un-Constitutional.)
Now, isn’t that a better plan than getting government involved in your schools?
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
CUSGE - Helping is not always helpful.
http://www.usglobalengagement.org/AbouttheCenter/tabid/678/Default.aspx
I had the pleasure of viewing a conference held by the Center for U.S. Global Engagements. The panelists were Colin Powell, Senator Bob Menendez, Representative Jim Leach, Wendy Sherman. Judy Woodruff was the moderator. The topics of discussion were mainly general issues concerning the role of the U.S. in foreign aid.
What I took away from this conference was a mix of opposing understandings - primarily between the panelists and myself. The discussion itself was more fluff than substance. After all, that is what politicians do best - bluster.
I was unable to ask questions; however, if I had been able to ask questions, I would have asked for specifics. For example:
What are the nations who receive our foreign aid doing to help themselves? Primarily, what are these countries doing to stabilize the balance between available but limited resources and overpopulation?
An example of this balance would be Mongolia versus Sudan. Mongolia does not need western intervention because their culture prevents overpopulation. In Mongolia, parental responsibility and family commitment supersede personal desires. If a family in Mongolia cannot afford to take care of a new child, they do not bring that child into a situation where it is guaranteed to suffer.
Much to the contrary, in Sudan, families multiply out of control with absolutely no consideration given to the suffering caused by their country's imbalance between population and resources. Suffering, famine, disease and death are a way of life in Sudan. Was it always this way?
No. Before western intervention, Sudan was subject to the same blights which plague it today - except the Sudanese did not populate their country beyond its means. Ergo, Sudan had a much smaller population decades ago. Then along came the well-intentioned western nations.
I submit for consideration our involvement in undeveloped regions of the world has, overall, done more harm than good. We have created a dependency cycle which now requires our involvement just to moderate our previous mistakes. In the end, what we are left with is a rising cost for foreign aid, more suffering and a disastrous situation which will only continue to worsen.
Further, I will posit it is not the obligation of develop nations to oversee and finance the development of those less fortunate, especially if those countries refuse to do their part (i.e., exploring new resources and preventing overpopulation).
The bottom line here is we must stop creating abusive cycles of dependency. We should absolutely encourage and assist in the development of resources in impoverished areas; however, our involvement should have a humanitarian price tag: out-populating resources must stop.
Living within your means is not so novel a concept.
Responsibility is the key here. Our responsibility is to assist other in developing sustainable resources while those we assist must maintain a rigid balance between available resources and population.
***
Am I the only one who finds it interesting a conference which may affect far away people and lands was held without the knowledge of those it may affect? Interesting.
I had the pleasure of viewing a conference held by the Center for U.S. Global Engagements. The panelists were Colin Powell, Senator Bob Menendez, Representative Jim Leach, Wendy Sherman. Judy Woodruff was the moderator. The topics of discussion were mainly general issues concerning the role of the U.S. in foreign aid.
What I took away from this conference was a mix of opposing understandings - primarily between the panelists and myself. The discussion itself was more fluff than substance. After all, that is what politicians do best - bluster.
I was unable to ask questions; however, if I had been able to ask questions, I would have asked for specifics. For example:
What are the nations who receive our foreign aid doing to help themselves? Primarily, what are these countries doing to stabilize the balance between available but limited resources and overpopulation?
An example of this balance would be Mongolia versus Sudan. Mongolia does not need western intervention because their culture prevents overpopulation. In Mongolia, parental responsibility and family commitment supersede personal desires. If a family in Mongolia cannot afford to take care of a new child, they do not bring that child into a situation where it is guaranteed to suffer.
Much to the contrary, in Sudan, families multiply out of control with absolutely no consideration given to the suffering caused by their country's imbalance between population and resources. Suffering, famine, disease and death are a way of life in Sudan. Was it always this way?
No. Before western intervention, Sudan was subject to the same blights which plague it today - except the Sudanese did not populate their country beyond its means. Ergo, Sudan had a much smaller population decades ago. Then along came the well-intentioned western nations.
I submit for consideration our involvement in undeveloped regions of the world has, overall, done more harm than good. We have created a dependency cycle which now requires our involvement just to moderate our previous mistakes. In the end, what we are left with is a rising cost for foreign aid, more suffering and a disastrous situation which will only continue to worsen.
Further, I will posit it is not the obligation of develop nations to oversee and finance the development of those less fortunate, especially if those countries refuse to do their part (i.e., exploring new resources and preventing overpopulation).
The bottom line here is we must stop creating abusive cycles of dependency. We should absolutely encourage and assist in the development of resources in impoverished areas; however, our involvement should have a humanitarian price tag: out-populating resources must stop.
Living within your means is not so novel a concept.
Responsibility is the key here. Our responsibility is to assist other in developing sustainable resources while those we assist must maintain a rigid balance between available resources and population.
***
Am I the only one who finds it interesting a conference which may affect far away people and lands was held without the knowledge of those it may affect? Interesting.
The Free Market
After being subjected to yet another irrational assault, I figured out that even good Republicans don't understand how a free market works.
In a TRUE free market, you don't always get what you want! Resources have restrictions, AND any attempt to skew limited resources (preferential treatment) goes contrary to a free market. In addition, free markets are not subject to government control (except for some very basic protections) or private coercion.
A free market is NOT getting what you want because you think you are owed - whether the government agrees with you or not. And, in a free market, there is a world of difference between what is earned and what is perceived to be a "right."
Are we on the same page now? Of course not. Unlike most people, I don't let emotion cloud my judgement. If anything, I am fair to a fault.
In a TRUE free market, you don't always get what you want! Resources have restrictions, AND any attempt to skew limited resources (preferential treatment) goes contrary to a free market. In addition, free markets are not subject to government control (except for some very basic protections) or private coercion.
A free market is NOT getting what you want because you think you are owed - whether the government agrees with you or not. And, in a free market, there is a world of difference between what is earned and what is perceived to be a "right."
Are we on the same page now? Of course not. Unlike most people, I don't let emotion cloud my judgement. If anything, I am fair to a fault.
Friday, February 27, 2009
Thumbs Up!
Go to the link below and push my news article "Bank of the United States" up in the ranks.
Click the "thumbs up." please.
http://www.regularfolksunited.com/index.php?tab=article_view&article_id=1105
Click the "thumbs up." please.
http://www.regularfolksunited.com/index.php?tab=article_view&article_id=1105
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Kempism For Today
Readers may use Kempisms however they like.
Today's Kempism:
"Porking expands populations not economies."
Today's Kempism:
"Porking expands populations not economies."
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Bank of the United States VS the Federal Reserve
By now, readers of my blog should know I am a proponent of re-establishing the Bank of the United States. I have laid out many reasons for my support of a central bank which is governed by “We the People” and I have advocated it should be the only source of income for the United States (i.e., no federal taxes). I have also explained why I have absolutely oppose continuing to allow the Federal Reserve to enslave not only Americans but, indeed, all of humanity.
I’m going to condense my arguments into one blog entry which I hope most people will be able to follow with little to no difficulty.
Let’s get started. For simplicity’s sake, I’m going to refer to both the Bank of the United States and the Federal Reserve as one entity called “the central bank.”
The central bank creates money by issuing loans. These loans are made to other banks, corporations (this generically refers to any business for this example) and other countries – as well as a few other entities. The central bank then profits by collecting interest on the loans it makes.
Here’s how our overall economy is affected by the actions of a central bank.
First, the loans a central bank issues are usually at a low interest rate. This allows other banks to be competitive, affords corporations the opportunity to repay their loans without causing a significant amount of inflation on the goods and/or services they produce, and allows other countries to pay back their loans without going into deeper debt. (This is part of the monetary theory anyway.)
Corporations which receive loans are able to invent, expand and/or create new jobs which may offer higher wages and more benefits. Citizens then can find better employment, more income and additional benefits.
Citizens can in turn afford to purchase more and better goods and services – which generates more revenue for producers. The cycle between producer and consumer, theoretically, can expand indefinitely. In fact, it does. The rate of growth is gradual and sustainable over long periods of time… truly to infinity.
OK, there has to be a catch. Our economy is not currently growing exponentially. Why?
The catch is our current central bank. The Federal Reserve is a private corporation (I don’t care what their website says – mafia.org says the mafia is a community organizing operation) which loans money to the United States. The borrowed money is then used to create more money through a process called “fractional reserve lending.” In essence, a reserve (or security deposit) is held, usually 10%, while the remainder of the borrowed money is re-loaned to other borrowers. All of the money in circulation is supported by a reserve of some sort – theoretically.
However, there is yet another catch here. While every dollar in circulation is supported by a reserve, the interest on each loan created is not. This means there is sufficient currency in circulation to repay every loan made in the fractional reserve lending process excluding the interest on those debts.
If every outstanding loan’s principle, the initial loan amount, were repaid, there would be no money in circulation, AND there would still be an outstanding debt equal to the total amount of accrued interest on those loans. Does that make sense? Feel free to reread that part. It’s important to fully understand the consequences of interest on our economy.
I’m going to sidetrack this discussion for a second to introduce a critical concept in monetary policy. This is something few people talk about, but I feel it too needs to be fully understood. All money flows upstream. This means wherever the money is created, it must return to that source. When you think about it, this makes perfect sense. If you repay a loan, the bank gets your money (which was really their money to begin with since the bank created it). It’s important to understand the concept of money returning to its source because that source is ultimately going to be the central bank – whichever version it may be.
Getting back to monetary theory, under the Federal Reserve system, we now understand our debt can never be satisfied because there is not enough money in circulation to repay every debt plus interest. Interest will continue to accumulate and, eventually, interest upon interest will bury us alive. This is certainly part of our current economic “crisis.” (Also, we can never truly have a balanced budget for interest must be compiled on the liability side of the balance sheet. it is perpetual debt.)
If we can never repay the interest on our debt, how are ever going to be out of debt? How will we ever truly have a surplus? Can we fix this system in some way which will allow us to somehow get out of debt? The answer is a resounding “yes!”
If we scrap the current monetary model, the Federal Reserve System, and re-establish the Bank of the United States we can not only get out of debt but we can also generate enormous revenue while not levying any federal taxes.
I can prove this very simply.
Take the example I gave using the Federal Reserve. Now, move the interest on our debt out of the liability column and place it into the income column as a credit. You see, very clearly, what we now pay in interest and debt to the Federal Reserve (their bank) would translate into interest and income on loans made by the Bank of the United States (our bank). Does that make sense? Instead of paying debt service as borrowers, we would be collecting interest and income from borrowers.
The third catch here? There exists a point of no return. If our debt payments exceed federal revenue for an extended period of time, then there is no way out of this cycle we are in. We will default on our debt as a nation, lose our credit rating and our economy would collapse when the dollar is devalued to zero and inflation skyrockets to 100%.
We are getting very close to that point. In fact, it might be too late.
To avoid defaulting on our debt and risking our economy, and our livelihoods, we must take bold action. The last thing we needed to do was to acquire monstrous amounts of new debt – ala the spending bill known as “Porkzilla.” This ridiculous bill might be the straw which breaks the camel’s back.
The action which is required by us is multi-faceted and will be difficult to manage, but I know we can make it happen. I know we can endure.
First, we need to end the partisan divide. Republicans spent like fiends when they were in charge as have Democrats. Both parties are guilty of running up deficits and interest we cannot repay. Let’s accept we are all guilty - the partisanship must end. Now more than ever, we must be Americans. We must be united in this cause.
Next, we need to demand that our government stop spending. All discretionary spending and non-essential operational spending must stop. The only exceptions to this rule are laid out in our Constitution: “…in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity..” There is no interpretation needed here.
Once spending is under control, we must do away with the Federal Reserve. It will take an act of Congress to end this tyranny. The Fed will not go quietly into the night. The international banking cartel will seek to entangle us in foreign affairs, force us to borrow even more money with incumbent debt far beyond our means to ever repay it. And, ultimately in sheer desperation, they will seek to collapse our economy... to punish us. We must persevere. We will be presented with hard times like never before. When we emerge from this turbulent time, (and I am not saying this to get you to stand up and cheer… unlike someone else) we will be a stronger nation and people - with an economy solidly in place which will be the envy of all nations combined.
Other nations won’t be envious for long though. We will spread the wealth. That’s what we do – we are Americans after all.
When the Federal Reserve is finally ousted from power, we will need to replace it with the Third Bank of the United State. We will have to plan ahead for this since we know our enemies behind the international banking cartel will fight to the bitter end to prevent this action. In fact, we could operate OUR bank in opposition to the Federal Reserve. It’s something to consider at least.
There are two important considerations here. First, the central bank cannot fall under the jurisdiction of either the Executive or Legislative branches of government. We can never allow elected officials to get their hands on our money ever again.
Second, however we choose to proceed, I recommend creating a fourth branch of government, the financial branch, by Constitutional amendment (simply called the Bank of the United States). This will give more power to We the People and allow us to control our government to a stricter degree. "The Bank's" board of governors should consist of nine members who would be appointed by the President, confirmed by the Congress and would be limited to one term of nine years with one new member being added every other year. This means a president can, at most, appoint (with confirmation) four of the nine members, preventing a single president from appointing a majority.
I will conclude by adding a warning. (I hope everyone who reads this will “get it.”) ALWAYS FOLLOW THE MONEY.
What say you?
~Kemp
Edit: I'm still editing. Hang in there.
Anonymous replies are welcome!
I’m going to condense my arguments into one blog entry which I hope most people will be able to follow with little to no difficulty.
Let’s get started. For simplicity’s sake, I’m going to refer to both the Bank of the United States and the Federal Reserve as one entity called “the central bank.”
The central bank creates money by issuing loans. These loans are made to other banks, corporations (this generically refers to any business for this example) and other countries – as well as a few other entities. The central bank then profits by collecting interest on the loans it makes.
Here’s how our overall economy is affected by the actions of a central bank.
First, the loans a central bank issues are usually at a low interest rate. This allows other banks to be competitive, affords corporations the opportunity to repay their loans without causing a significant amount of inflation on the goods and/or services they produce, and allows other countries to pay back their loans without going into deeper debt. (This is part of the monetary theory anyway.)
Corporations which receive loans are able to invent, expand and/or create new jobs which may offer higher wages and more benefits. Citizens then can find better employment, more income and additional benefits.
Citizens can in turn afford to purchase more and better goods and services – which generates more revenue for producers. The cycle between producer and consumer, theoretically, can expand indefinitely. In fact, it does. The rate of growth is gradual and sustainable over long periods of time… truly to infinity.
OK, there has to be a catch. Our economy is not currently growing exponentially. Why?
The catch is our current central bank. The Federal Reserve is a private corporation (I don’t care what their website says – mafia.org says the mafia is a community organizing operation) which loans money to the United States. The borrowed money is then used to create more money through a process called “fractional reserve lending.” In essence, a reserve (or security deposit) is held, usually 10%, while the remainder of the borrowed money is re-loaned to other borrowers. All of the money in circulation is supported by a reserve of some sort – theoretically.
However, there is yet another catch here. While every dollar in circulation is supported by a reserve, the interest on each loan created is not. This means there is sufficient currency in circulation to repay every loan made in the fractional reserve lending process excluding the interest on those debts.
If every outstanding loan’s principle, the initial loan amount, were repaid, there would be no money in circulation, AND there would still be an outstanding debt equal to the total amount of accrued interest on those loans. Does that make sense? Feel free to reread that part. It’s important to fully understand the consequences of interest on our economy.
I’m going to sidetrack this discussion for a second to introduce a critical concept in monetary policy. This is something few people talk about, but I feel it too needs to be fully understood. All money flows upstream. This means wherever the money is created, it must return to that source. When you think about it, this makes perfect sense. If you repay a loan, the bank gets your money (which was really their money to begin with since the bank created it). It’s important to understand the concept of money returning to its source because that source is ultimately going to be the central bank – whichever version it may be.
Getting back to monetary theory, under the Federal Reserve system, we now understand our debt can never be satisfied because there is not enough money in circulation to repay every debt plus interest. Interest will continue to accumulate and, eventually, interest upon interest will bury us alive. This is certainly part of our current economic “crisis.” (Also, we can never truly have a balanced budget for interest must be compiled on the liability side of the balance sheet. it is perpetual debt.)
If we can never repay the interest on our debt, how are ever going to be out of debt? How will we ever truly have a surplus? Can we fix this system in some way which will allow us to somehow get out of debt? The answer is a resounding “yes!”
If we scrap the current monetary model, the Federal Reserve System, and re-establish the Bank of the United States we can not only get out of debt but we can also generate enormous revenue while not levying any federal taxes.
I can prove this very simply.
Take the example I gave using the Federal Reserve. Now, move the interest on our debt out of the liability column and place it into the income column as a credit. You see, very clearly, what we now pay in interest and debt to the Federal Reserve (their bank) would translate into interest and income on loans made by the Bank of the United States (our bank). Does that make sense? Instead of paying debt service as borrowers, we would be collecting interest and income from borrowers.
The third catch here? There exists a point of no return. If our debt payments exceed federal revenue for an extended period of time, then there is no way out of this cycle we are in. We will default on our debt as a nation, lose our credit rating and our economy would collapse when the dollar is devalued to zero and inflation skyrockets to 100%.
We are getting very close to that point. In fact, it might be too late.
To avoid defaulting on our debt and risking our economy, and our livelihoods, we must take bold action. The last thing we needed to do was to acquire monstrous amounts of new debt – ala the spending bill known as “Porkzilla.” This ridiculous bill might be the straw which breaks the camel’s back.
The action which is required by us is multi-faceted and will be difficult to manage, but I know we can make it happen. I know we can endure.
First, we need to end the partisan divide. Republicans spent like fiends when they were in charge as have Democrats. Both parties are guilty of running up deficits and interest we cannot repay. Let’s accept we are all guilty - the partisanship must end. Now more than ever, we must be Americans. We must be united in this cause.
Next, we need to demand that our government stop spending. All discretionary spending and non-essential operational spending must stop. The only exceptions to this rule are laid out in our Constitution: “…in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity..” There is no interpretation needed here.
Once spending is under control, we must do away with the Federal Reserve. It will take an act of Congress to end this tyranny. The Fed will not go quietly into the night. The international banking cartel will seek to entangle us in foreign affairs, force us to borrow even more money with incumbent debt far beyond our means to ever repay it. And, ultimately in sheer desperation, they will seek to collapse our economy... to punish us. We must persevere. We will be presented with hard times like never before. When we emerge from this turbulent time, (and I am not saying this to get you to stand up and cheer… unlike someone else) we will be a stronger nation and people - with an economy solidly in place which will be the envy of all nations combined.
Other nations won’t be envious for long though. We will spread the wealth. That’s what we do – we are Americans after all.
When the Federal Reserve is finally ousted from power, we will need to replace it with the Third Bank of the United State. We will have to plan ahead for this since we know our enemies behind the international banking cartel will fight to the bitter end to prevent this action. In fact, we could operate OUR bank in opposition to the Federal Reserve. It’s something to consider at least.
There are two important considerations here. First, the central bank cannot fall under the jurisdiction of either the Executive or Legislative branches of government. We can never allow elected officials to get their hands on our money ever again.
Second, however we choose to proceed, I recommend creating a fourth branch of government, the financial branch, by Constitutional amendment (simply called the Bank of the United States). This will give more power to We the People and allow us to control our government to a stricter degree. "The Bank's" board of governors should consist of nine members who would be appointed by the President, confirmed by the Congress and would be limited to one term of nine years with one new member being added every other year. This means a president can, at most, appoint (with confirmation) four of the nine members, preventing a single president from appointing a majority.
I will conclude by adding a warning. (I hope everyone who reads this will “get it.”) ALWAYS FOLLOW THE MONEY.
What say you?
~Kemp
Edit: I'm still editing. Hang in there.
Anonymous replies are welcome!
I Feel Dumber Today
Reference: http://kempion.blogspot.com/2009/01/force-my-hand.html
Obama has proven he is a blathering idiot. His "state of the union address" (which it was not, you simpletons) was nothing more than barrage of cliches, finger-pointing and blatant lies. He offered no leadership and no new ideas.
He actually accused banks of "pushing bad loans." Hahahahahaa! What a babbling idiot.
Now, I'm sure the simple-minded commies out there thought Obama was being original in his comments; however, just because Obama mumbles something for the first time, that does not make it original. Everything Obama said HAS been said before. Such beliefs prove Obama supporters are void of any intellect.
Obama doesn't "get it."
Edit:
Well, I'm in good company. Limbaugh hit the same line I did. I am validated!
I'm still looking for "Air America," but they are really hard to find since nobody subscribes to that network.
Edit #2:
I finally found Air America. They gushed over Obama which was expected, but then something curious happened... they asked questions about what Obama had said. Questioning the Messiah? Isn't that blasphemy?
I sense the winds of change are about to blow.
Obama has proven he is a blathering idiot. His "state of the union address" (which it was not, you simpletons) was nothing more than barrage of cliches, finger-pointing and blatant lies. He offered no leadership and no new ideas.
He actually accused banks of "pushing bad loans." Hahahahahaa! What a babbling idiot.
Now, I'm sure the simple-minded commies out there thought Obama was being original in his comments; however, just because Obama mumbles something for the first time, that does not make it original. Everything Obama said HAS been said before. Such beliefs prove Obama supporters are void of any intellect.
Obama doesn't "get it."
Edit:
Well, I'm in good company. Limbaugh hit the same line I did. I am validated!
I'm still looking for "Air America," but they are really hard to find since nobody subscribes to that network.
Edit #2:
I finally found Air America. They gushed over Obama which was expected, but then something curious happened... they asked questions about what Obama had said. Questioning the Messiah? Isn't that blasphemy?
I sense the winds of change are about to blow.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
