This was not my idea- it's quite old actually, but it will work. Atached is the solution to all of our nations financial issues. We will call them United States Notes, and we will print enough of them every year to balance the budget. Abraham Lincoln did it during the Civil War, and we continued printing them even until 1971. So this isn't some odd old idea that I pulled out of my ass.
You may ask me, 'but, Garfield, can the government do it? Is it legaly enabled to print money?' And the answer is yes, because Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution says:
"The congress shall have the power... To coin money, regulate the value thereof..."
There you have it folks, debt free paper money- print it and balance the budget.
Attachments
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
Leaving aside inflation, Didn't the United States delegate the currency printing to the Federal Reserve? Ask from my absolute ignorance about, I'm not American.
Yes, but we shouldn't have because that was unconstitutional.
No, it isn't unconstitutional. Congress dictates to the Fed what they can print and how much. If you watch the "Debt Ceiling" debate every year you would know that.
The question was with regards to the constitutionality of having a Central Bank in the first place, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and Andrew Jackson thought not- but Alexander Hamilton thought so.
There is nothing unconstitutional about the central bank. The world bank is based off of the central bank. It saved the US many times. Hamilton was a financial genius.
Jefferson disagreed, he believed that the Central Bank was unconstitutional, and he played a large role in writing the constitution, so he would know.
Jefferson played no part in writing the Constitution other than being a member of the Congress that debated and approved it. Madison and John Jay were the principle writers of the Constitution. Basically, Madison wrote it himself. He would confer with John Jay, then submit drafts to the Congress for debate and approval.
Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence.
I know he didn't literally write the constitition- he did play a part in its development. Representatives from each state played a part in developing it.
This is from Yale University, and documents that Thomas Jefferson himself saw a a national bank as unconstitutional:
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/bank-tj.asp
http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/essays/general/a-brief-history-of-central-bank...
Garfield, you keep touting these extreme conservative ideas. I am starting to wonder about you. Did you come here to talk about politics or to find like minds in atheism?
If your political bent is economic, just look at history for a moment. When Liberals have been in charge the economy has been good for both the rich and the common person. When conservatives get in power only the rich benefit.
"Garfield, you keep touting these extreme conservative ideas. I am starting to wonder about you. Did you come here to talk about politics or to find like minds in atheism?"
I came here to talk with atheists, but the first forums I found were on politics. Anyway, I don't tout conservative ideas, Abraham Lincoln and William Jennings Bryan both supported Debt Free US Notes and both were liberals.
"If your political bent is economic, just look at history for a moment. When Liberals have been in charge the economy has been good for both the rich and the common person. When conservatives get in power only the rich benefit."
Exactly, William Jennings Bryan was the Democratic Nominee 3 times, and he supported Debt Free US Notes.
A better idea would be to tax churches as they are a going for profit concern in the first place.
That's a good idea, but its not enough. Printing US Notes to balance the budget will balance it all the way.
The government doesn't print money willie-nillie. There is a price to pay. Inflation devalued currency. Less buying power. You can't just print money and not realize a consequence.
I know that. The deficit now is 455 Billon, printing that would increase the money supply by 3.4% annually, subtract an assumed economic growth rate of 2%, that's an inflation rate of 1.4%, lower than the Feds current target rate of 2%.
I understand and respect the sentiment here, but the solution of any financial trouble is not to make more money. It is to realize what it really is; an idea, nothing more. Just like religion and nationalism, the idea of ownership exists only in our minds. And like religion and nationalism, this idea is what is ruling this species.. People often blame this leader or that leader, but it's the people that follow them that are truly to blame. Ourselves ultimately. We either follow, or at the least, accept that this person is in charge. The crazy part is, these leaders themselves believe they're in charge, but as long as they believe in a religion, a country, and money, then they're not even in charge of their own thoughts, these ideas are. The same for everyone. It is our belief in these ideas that is the problem, and nothing is really going to change until we detach from them and face the reality that our incredible evolutionary intelligence has allowed us to see.
.. The next step of evolution is there waiting for us, the moment we choose to take that step. The future is now :)
Welcome back, Danny!
Thank you Cyber! Hope you're well :)
More Fed Reserve conspiracy bullshit? Sheesh.
Where's the conspiracy theory? It isn't a conspiracy theory that congress is given the power to coin money under the constitution- that's a fact.
The conspiracy theory is the Congress, having that authority and using it is unconstitutional. The conspiracy theory is that Central Banks are unconstitutional despite 200 years of the supreme court saying otherwise.
A conspiracy theory is when you claim that there was a collusion do do something illegal (conspiracy), without evidence, (thus making it a 'theory'). I am saying that congress did something illegal, not that they colluded, and there is no denying that they did in fact create the Federal Reserve. The only dispute is as to whether or not it is constitutional. I contend that the power to create a central bank is not enumerated in the constitution, but that the power to coin money is granted to congress alone under Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution. I stand with Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson on this issue, and Andrew Jackson said:
"If congress is given the power to coin money, it was conferred to be exercised by congress, not to be transferred to a corporation."
You are implying a 200 year collusion between Congress and the Supreme Court, which sounds exactly like a multi-generational conspiracy theory to me.
The Federal Reserve isn't 200 years old, and a conspiracy implies secrecy, this was a crime committed in broad daylight.
Central banks are, and so is the first (of many) Supreme Court ruling that says they are Constitutional.
The Supreme Court said so? I invite you to google the Dred Scott trial. Either way, Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson ruled that a Central Bank was unconstitutional.
Could you possibly cite the court cases in which "Justice Thomas Jefferson" and "Justice Andrew Jackson" ruled that a Central Bank was unconstitutional? But seriously; your political crack-pottery is ridiculous.
Damn, we can change the Constitution to say whatever we want it to say. It's not written in stone.
Creating the Fed is in no way a crime nor is it unconstitutional. The fact is there are many things not enumerated in the constitution. Just because there isn't a specific passage in the constitution allowing certain government activities doesn't make it unconstitutional. Just the opposite is the case. Thus the "living document." There is nothing about a HUD chairman either but there IS a HUD chairman. I am sick of the conservative bullshit of, on one hand being literal concerning the constitution, and in the very same sentence will rely on vagueries in the constitution to make the case for their issue.
I am not going to debate the second amendment, but that is the most common misinterpretation by the conservaturds. Another common mispractice is to denigrate the "Fed" and say it isn't constitutional, AND to say that the central bank is unconstitutional. The fact is that conservaturds don't want oversight and they attack any authority regarding their practice.
The Fed is legal, the Central Bank is legal, the SEC is legal, Congress regulating and issuing money is legal, that is just historical fact.
Conspiracy doesn't have to be secret. Collusion is enough to meet the definition. Conservaturds say that the Federal government is colluding to commit treason with the use of and the very existence of the Fed and the Central bank. That is their theory, so yes it IS a conspiracy theory! And it is a total lie.
Pages