national debt

5 posts / 0 new
Last post
chuck's picture
chuck
Status: Member (Offline)
Joined: Nov 25 2008
Posts: 2
national debt

What do you think ?  - the goverment printing us dollars instead of fed. reserve notes, paying off all debt with these dollars(no more interest)                                                       - over a few years increasing reserve requirements at banks from 10% to 100%                                                                                                                                comments or problems

Byron Dale's picture
Byron Dale
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 31 2009
Posts: 40
Re: national debt

That is a sound idea.  That would get rid of the debt.  It would destroy the principal of all the outstanding loans the money printed to pay the interest that had accrued on those loans would go to the creditors.  In our system that means most of the interest money would in up in the hands of the bankers.  Which means that would still get very rich from creating credit money at no cost to them.  Doing this would also most people’s assets.  I don't think we would want to do that.    In our current money system without debt there is no money.  All the credit money now in circulation was created as a liability and an asset to both parties to a loan.  The government could and should issue the money into circulation by spending newly created money without debt and interest as final payment in lieu of taxes to rebuild the nations in structure.  As an asset to the people who produced the assets without a liability to no one. The U.S. constitution states that congress shall coin the nations money and it shall provide post offices and posts roads. Why don't we try it that way for awhile and see what happens.  It could be any worse that what we have now, that is for sure. 

A1B2C3D4's picture
A1B2C3D4
Status: Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 24 2009
Posts: 24
Re: national debt

We are involved in a race against time. Ron Paul created the Campaign For Liberty to continue the revolution he ignited in his run for the Republican nomination for president in 2008. He made many young people aware of certain facts by drawing their attention to the Constitution and how politicians ignore it and violate the oath of office which they take. To them the oath is a superficial, meaningless rite of passage and a ritual. No one asks them what the oath means to them. In this respect the media fail all of us. 

As a consequence of Ron Paul's efforts during the primary season more people have read the Constitution and came to realize that the Founders only granted certain powers when they created the Federal government. Those few powers are enumerated in Article 1 Section 8 but politicians have learned that they can get away with passing laws which implement powers not granted in the Constitution. 

Gungnir's picture
Gungnir
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Mar 2 2009
Posts: 643
Re: national debt
galtgulch wrote:

We are involved in a race against time. Ron Paul created the Campaign For Liberty to continue the revolution he ignited in his run for the Republican nomination for president in 2008. He made many young people aware of certain facts by drawing their attention to the Constitution and how politicians ignore it and violate the oath of office which they take. To them the oath is a superficial, meaningless rite of passage and a ritual. No one asks them what the oath means to them. In this respect the media fail all of us. 

As a consequence of Ron Paul's efforts during the primary season more people have read the Constitution and came to realize that the Founders only granted certain powers when they created the Federal government. Those few powers are enumerated in Article 1 Section 8 but politicians have learned that they can get away with passing laws which implement powers not granted in the Constitution. 

While this is political, and not really relevant to the crash course or the 3 E's here's my perspective

The media did not fail the American people, nor the government. The American people have systematically relinquished the power that was their birthright, rule by the people for the people now at the federal level is pathetically ludicrous. We have only ourselves to blame, when people need to be told to read the ultimate law of the land that they live in and they don't understand that the primary focus of the constitution is as a limitation on government then they deserve everything that they get and will receive NONE of my sympathy.

As for taking the oath of office, any president, senator, congressman, or supreme court judge who takes the oath then does not uphold the letter of the constitution is in my mind a traitor, they have betrayed the ideals and the words laid out in the constitution, however the only people who can hold them accountable are the people, who are too consumed by their pursuit of iPods, WWE, NASCAR, Baseball, Gym memberships, etc. etc. to even glance up and see that they are as much to blame as the federal government for the situation, we ceded responsibility for management of the country to the Federal Government who subsequently like a rabid dog pursued that management to its current conclusion; while infringing on many of the amendments of the bill of rights, and exceeding the restraints described in the constitution itself. For example take the ATF, is this a constitutional federal organization, not in the way that it currently operates, since Federal government has no place in state commerce specifically spelled out in the constitution, only interstate commerce, therefore there should be no reason why the ATF manage alcohol, tobacco, explosives and firearms retail sales except if you're purchasing out of state, yet it does. I can see several federal bureaus and departments that act similarly for instance the USDA should have no say in agriculture if the agriculture product is sold locally in state, yet it does, constitutionally they should have no impact on small local producers, however we have ceded that right to them and there is legal precedent that they have that right, however reading the constitution I cannot see how this is constitutionally valid.

Now we still have legislation attempting to impact the 2nd amendment from several senators, even after the DC vs. Heller decision at the supreme court that this is an individual right not a collective right, implicit ratification of the 14th amendment in the 9th circuit (including California), and the clear wording of the amendment.

Quote:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Ok so Supreme Court have judged that the introduction is a preamble so in effect the meaning of the 2nd amendment is "right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.". So here are two, if you're a convicted felon you cannot keep and bear arms, nor can you keep and bear arms if you are guilty of domestic violence or sometimes strongly suspected of domestic violence, nor can you keep and bear arms if for any reason you have been involuntarily admitted to hospital for any mental problems regardless of the subsequent diagnosis and treatment (agreed you can appeal, however, this right is removed you have to explicitly try to regain it).

While these things might seem to be sensible (I'm sure that many thought that burning witches was sensible too), however they technically an infringement of the right to keep and bear arms (which incidentally is a birthright, not a benefit of being American) "No free man shall be debarred the use of arms (within his lands and tenements)" as Thomas Jefferson said in the draft of the Virginia constitution. He also said to John Cartwright that "The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that . . . it is their right and duty to be at all times armed.". The reason I've picked the 2nd amendment is quite simple the infringements and attempts to infringe this right are very clear, it's also an area that I have a lot of background in, so I can see the way that this is being attempted in general by stealth, occasionally by act, and supporters are vilified by the press, who fail to see any advantage in having this critical amendment, once again as Jefferson said "The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it.". However this equally applies to the 1st, 4th, 5th and 6th amendments where continual attempts are made to restrict or limit these rights.

Anyway I've rambled enough.

Ken C's picture
Ken C
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Feb 13 2009
Posts: 753
Re: national debt

Gungnir,

 

I agree with you but unfortunately there is a Supreme Court ruling dating back to FDR's new deal that basically lets the FEDs use the Commerce Clause of the Constitution to say that almost everything effects interstate commerce.

The interpretation started as I understand it from a case about a farmer that was growing wheat on a few acres for his own consumption. He grew the wheat, harvested it , ground it into flour and used the flour to bake bread for his own family.  The government did not want him to do that because he was growing wheat on less than 15 acres. Apparently, the logic of the government was that even though the farmer did not sell the wheat or flour or ship anything across state lines they could not allow him to continue because if enough people did that then it would have an effect on interstate commerce by limiting the sales of wheat from the big farmers. The Supreme Court found in favor of the gov.

 

Ridiculous, isn't it. This is the same type of logic they use to allow the BATF and many (most ) other federal laws that should not apply to people indoing business in one state.

 

Ken

 

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Login or Register to post comments