 |
PM |  | |
Quote | | |
Reply | | |
Full Topic | |
| Joined: | Mon Nov 21st, 2005 |
| Location: | California USA |
| Posts: | 6399 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |    |
I've got news for people. There hasn't been a debate between the proponents of Public money and Private money - one doesn't exist.
The closest thing to a debate on Public versus Private money are one sided reports, like the link above, whereby a proponent of one thing voices an opinion, and sometimes a voice will pretend to know the other viewpoint.
1. Public
2. Private
Anyone, please, tell me how private money can compete with public money, and if you do this, and do this accurately, reasonably, logically, and even morally, how can the subject of taxes be avoided during that expressed viewpoint?
Before I finish that report above, with that opinion, I'm already detecting the absence of reason, whereby the writer avoids any mention of the connection with money and taxes.
Wishing away taxes, as if taxes don't exist, and as if money isn't used to pay taxes, a legalized money, a specific money, that a tax payer must have to pay taxes, does not make taxes vanish into thin air.
Taxes exist.
People, real people, people with guns, will enforce the payment of taxes - and no amount of wishing will make the tax man go away. It takes a whole lot of resources, a whole lot of power, physical power from the physical world, and a whole lot of mental power from the world where thoughts exist, to manage, somehow, to avoid the payment of taxes, and therefore avoid the requirement to get legal money with which to pay those taxes.
I'll read the report and comment.
This is simply central planning.
This writer appears to be demonizing the effort by Dennis Kucinich to fight against the criminal exploitation of innocent people by the criminals running the Federal Reserve Extortion Racket.
Dennis Kucinich has a plan of attack, and the member of Congress is doing what he can do to implement that plan - true or false?
So the plan, being implemented by Dennis Kucinich, is Plan A.
The writer says that Plan A is "simply central planning".
That is "Free Market" dogma. That means nothing. It is a dogmatic cue for the proponents of legalized capitalism to reject anything done by whomever agrees with, supports, or aids in the effort to implement Plan A - because it is "simply central planning".
Plan A is being rejected because Plan A is "simply central planning".
What is the alternative to "central planning"? Is the alternative "random occurrence"?
I'll read on, and my guess is that this person has a Plan, which can be called Plan B, and in no way are we, the readers, to recognize the fact that Plan B is also "simply central planning".
Plan B is "random occurrences"?
Plan B, more than likely, is a plan to legally re-establish a Gold Standard.
When dogmatists like this guy begin to use those catch phrases, like "central planning", they are building a house of cards, a Man of Straw, and a cover-up, a cloak, smoke, mirrors, a curtain, a veil, they are creating falsehood.
A Free Market is one that is free from criminals, legal criminals, or non-legal criminals, what is the difference?
A. Crime sanctioned and subsidized by the law power
B. Crime not sanctioned and subsidized by the law power
The criminals define the crimes they commit by willfully committing those crimes, not by telling their victims that what they are doing is legal, or "for their own good".
Truth does not work that way. Falsehood works that way. Deceit is the tool used to make victims believe in the good of being victims.
If this dogmatist, writing this report, demonizing Dennis Kucinich, get's away with this crime, then it will be despite this effort to expose such a fraud, in progress.
A Free Market must have, by whatever means possible, a process by which crime is less powerful than the Free Market.
Criminals do not enforce a Free Market into existence. That is a lie. A Free Market will over power crime, or crime will over power a Free Market - in each case.
So, what is the source of power, where does the power come from, where this power overpowers the force of crime that does exist, and will continue to exist, so long as victims remain powerless?
1. Power produced by honest working people who do not plan on and then follow the plan to injure innocent victims
2. Power stolen from honest working people who do not plan on and then follow the plan to injure innocent victims.
Where does the power to defend come from, and where does the power to steal come from?
I will continue reading the report by the dogmatist who wrote this:
This is simply central planning.
That is dogma.
Instead of money being placed in the hands of multitudes of entrepreneurs via bank loans, this bill calls for loans to be made by the government.
Dennis Kucinich is not stupid. This writer appears to either be stupid or an outright liar, a fabricator of falsehoods. My guess is that Dennis Kucinich is proposing to create a nonprofit government loan fund.
Do you know what that can be?
People send money to a central collection of individual contributions and then that collection of money (money isn't money if it doesn't have the power to purchase) is loaned back to individual people. No interest. Non-profit.
Tax amount X is loaned to person A.
Loan A, by person A, is paid back into the fund in the amount of X.
How is that any different from anything done by any other group of people pooling their power to purchase, and then having a plan to re-distribute those funds by some planned calculation of some kind?
If the difference is such that people in case A are forced to add money to the fund and people in case B are not forced to add money into the fund then that is a legal battle over the concept of law and that is a legal battle over the concept of government being either a voluntary association or otherwise. That is a legal battle concerning the legality of enforcing tax payment.
If government is a voluntary association, show me this thing. If it is not one, then there will be a fund, a collection point, a place where taxes are collected, by force, or else.
Obey
What happens to people who do not pay taxes?
Those who have enough money, denominated in dollars, in the U.S.A. don't have to pay taxes. Who doesn't know this fact?
If they don't have to pay taxes, why should anyone have to pay taxes?
That is not the fight here, the fight here assumes that taxes exist and there is a tax fund from which to spend that power to purchase by some legalized method, some calculation of some kind.
The fight here isn't a fight over the legitimacy of tax enforcement. The fight here, by Dennis Kucinich is a fight over who controls the tax spending, and how tax spending is done, since a tax fund does exist, and no one I have ever talked to has ever failed to understand that this existing tax fund is enforced by real people who really will enforce it.
And everyone I know, really, knows that political power buys your ticket out of the tax paying membership.
A. Those who actually pay taxes
B. Those who do not pay taxes
C. Those who receive (and spend) tax collected purchasing power.
a. And do so by a legal prescribed method
b. And do so at will, accountable to no one, no greater power at all.
Since taxes are collected, if I have Plan A understood, and I didn't read it, then, taxes will be available to tax payers in the form of legal loans.
My guess is that Dennis Kucinich does not out-law loans by any other means, using any other form of money, whatsoever, and that appears to be what this writer is suggesting.
My guess is that Dennis Kucinich is acting in a manner that an elected representative of the people would do with the money that the people are required to send to a central tax fund, and thereby offering a competitive supply of available capital, in the form of money loans, legal money loans, to people by some process, and specifically not a case where Dennis Kucinich is planning on outlawing competitive loans made by any other producer and seller of loans.
While I think, the writer will suggest, that Plan B is going to be some form of law that makes only Gold legal money, and thereby eliminate, by law, any competitive form of money, by that legal means.
In either case, the power to eliminate competition, is the power to enforce only one money used when select people are forced to pay taxes.
If there is a Plan C, where people send portions of their earnings, in the form of purchasing power money, to a fund, an insurance fund, or lottery, a company stock, or any central collection of many individual contributions of money, and this Plan C is strictly voluntary, having nothing to do with the involuntary tax fund, then such a plan can't be denominated in dollars, since dollars are connected to the U.S.A legal tax fund intimately.
I'll read on.
The executive branch has gained and continues to gain enormous power. The executive branch now wages wars at will, this bill would give even more power to control the entire economy. "He who has the gold" or in this case, paper money, makes the rules. This is simply mind boggling. It is giving the exeecutive branch the power to declare a great economic war over its own citizens.
I do not know why Dennis Kucinich would support such a thing - either. My guess is that he is desperate and the idea is to give a president enough rope to hang himself with or enough rope to actually do something productive. I don't know.
Someone, or some group, who are not well known, and are not held accountable, and who have power, and the power commanded includes the power to increase and decrease the number of legal dollars, and this person, or this group of people, use that power to gain power at the expense of other people - this is a knowable fact.
If everyone knows that this power to increase or decrease the number of legal dollar is a power held by a president, then people will know who to blame, or who gets the credit for, what happens when dollars are increased in numbers or when dollars are decreased in numbers.
People should already be intimately familiar with the current score board on the past decisions to increase and then decrease the number of legal dollars produced by the people who have that legal power.
That score board is right here:
Dollar manipulation score board
Who is to blame for that score?
Who get's the credit for that score?
Who has to pay, and pay, and pay, for that score?
Who has the power to give themselves credit for that score?
Do you know his name?
Do you know their names?
Do you know who has the legal power?
Do you know which law authorizes that legal power?
Does your representative know?
What is the plan that your representative has for dealing with that score board?
Have you read it, and does that plan have a snow balls chance in hell of moving the power you earn from the legal criminals who take it, back to you?
I'll read-on.
Bottom line: We have an entire set of people who believe that money printing itself creates wealth. They somehow don't get that production of goods and services is the only thing that creates wealth. They want to take power away from the way Fed as it is now structured as a fractional banking system--which should be done because the Fed does print money and thus distorts the economy in favor of the banking elite. But they don't see the money printing as part of the problem, just how it is now done. For them, printing more money is going to mean, by itself, more cars,education, healthcare and homes, as starters.
I do not know enough about what the bill is to say what the bill will cause. I do now that there is a fundamental cause and effect involved in the current legal money monopoly, where a group of people called: The Fed, have the legal power to increase and then decrease the supply of legal dollars.
Fundamentally such a thing will lead to lower quality money and money that cost more to the consumers or users of money, anyone other than the producers of that money.
The producers of that money are no different than the producers of electricity, or the producers of water, or food, or gasoline, or anything powerful. If they have a monopoly on it, and it is something needed, then they will always have customers, they have a captive consumer base, and without competition they can, and they will, decrease the quality, and they will increase the price.
The monopoly, or cartel, or cabal, of producers have no force, no power, no cause, no interest, and no desire to keep quality higher than the competition, and keep prices lower than the competition - there isn't any competition, and their interest, their power, and their force is concentrated, focused, and expended toward eliminating competition.
Denis Kucinich may not be offering a much higher quality competitive plan, and the price tag may not be much lower, but as far as which plan is best, and for whom it is best, I can't say - not with any real authority.
I can say that Plan A is, obviously, intending to compete, and therefore Plan A is a force that will work to force The FED people to produce a higher quality product at the lowest price, or, The FED people will eliminate Plan A, because it is a competitor.