For God's sake, make an effort, will you?
Visit: http://www.flixxy.com/gm-hy-wire-concept-car.htm
And lots of more for hours of interesting stuff.
http://www.flixxy.com
WOW ...World of Words
Friday, November 19, 2010
Tuesday, November 16, 2010
Got A Minute?
Take Time to Blow your Mind
http://www.poodwaddle.com/worldclock.swf
Of course, if TIME is all you're interested in visit:
http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/full.html?sort=1
http://www.poodwaddle.com/worldclock.swf
Of course, if TIME is all you're interested in visit:
http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/full.html?sort=1
Thursday, November 11, 2010
Tuesday, November 9, 2010
Personal Aside
We are NOT all born equal…..At best we are all born equal before the Law.
I know my Rights!....Sorry but you lose your ‘rights’ if you fail to accept your ‘responsibilities’.
Money is the root of all Evil…Wrong again. Don’t blame ‘money’. The love of money is the root of all Evil…i.e. “GREED”.
However, unfortunately, it does seem to be true that, "No good deed goes unpunished."
I know my Rights!....Sorry but you lose your ‘rights’ if you fail to accept your ‘responsibilities’.
Money is the root of all Evil…Wrong again. Don’t blame ‘money’. The love of money is the root of all Evil…i.e. “GREED”.
However, unfortunately, it does seem to be true that, "No good deed goes unpunished."
Monday, November 8, 2010
George Soros (Liberal) vs Rupert Murdoch (Conservative)
Who is Evil? Are they both Evil? Tell us what you think?
(Unless, of course, you have given up thinking.)
George:
http://selwynduke.typepad.com/selwyndukecom/george-soros-the-most-evi.html
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread501668/pg1
Rupert:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/jul/11/rupert-murdoch-guardian-paywalls
http://mediamatters.org/columns/200906020036
* Minimal Cues just points the way.
(Unless, of course, you have given up thinking.)
George:
http://selwynduke.typepad.com/selwyndukecom/george-soros-the-most-evi.html
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread501668/pg1
Rupert:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/jul/11/rupert-murdoch-guardian-paywalls
http://mediamatters.org/columns/200906020036
* Minimal Cues just points the way.
Saturday, November 6, 2010
You can spend more than you have.........but not forever.
European and American debt crises signal an era of austerity
By Michael GersonWednesday, May 19, 2010
Following decades of welfare-state comfort and years of Keynesian stimulus spending, a panicky Europe is seeing the arrival of austerity politics. Resentful debtors such as Greece, Spain and Portugal are being forced into tax increases and spending cuts that are painful, unpopular -- and just beginning. Their resentful citizens throw tantrums and sometimes rocks at police. Resentful creditors such as Germany provide bailouts while wondering why they ever shackled themselves (and the value of their currency) to such irresponsible governments.
Those not resentful are scared. Britain -- with a deficit that is higher as a percentage of its economy than Greece's -- has formed a coalition government united by little except a commitment to budget responsibility. The constitutional innovation of keeping the current Parliament for the next five years is designed to assure creditors and markets that David Cameron's government will be stable enough to make difficult fiscal choices.
Every looming budget crisis is eventually a political test -- a test of political foresight and discipline, or a test of crisis management. And America is not exempt.
In 2009, the federal government spent $1.67 for every $1 it collected in taxes. The Obama administration's budget proposals would dramatically increase publicly held debt as a percentage of the economy over the next decade, eventually slowing economic growth, fueling inflation and making America more dependent on the kindness of creditors.
How has our political system responded? Congress recently found $60 billion in savings in the federal student-loan program -- and promptly spent most of it on other education projects. President Obama's health-care reform cut more than $350 billion from Medicare spending -- and soaked up all of it and more into new health entitlements.
This can go on for only so long before a challenge more similar to Britain's becomes a fate more similar to Greece's. America is about to enter its own period of austerity, which is likely to be the dominant political reality for the next decade. The new game will have few winners and many losers.
If the federal government takes spending reductions seriously, the first wave of austerity would hit the states and public employees. An infusion of cash from last year's stimulus package temporarily masked the unsustainable fiscal condition of many states. But there will be no more stimulus packages. Some of the largest states -- California, New York -- are on the verge of default. And they will achieve major spending reductions only by cutting their pension and public employee compensation systems. This would set up a serious battle between state governments and the labor movement, since a majority of union workers are public employees. Democratic governors, elected with union support, would be in for a particularly interesting time.
In austerity politics, another group of likely losers is middle-class Americans in their 40s. There can be no serious reduction in federal spending without entitlement reform. Social Security and Medicare eventually will need to be transformed from middle-class entitlements given because of age to entitlements given to those with lower incomes. In any entitlement reform, Americans at or near retirement will probably be exempt. Young people will have decades to prepare for a new entitlement structure. Middle-aged, middle-class people may be caught, well, in the middle.
And the biggest losers may be responsible politicians who take these realities seriously. Necessary changes will not resemble the relatively painless deficit reduction deals of 1990 or 1993. This round may require not only the means testing of Social Security and Medicare but also the reduction or elimination of middle-class entitlements such as the mortgage interest deduction and the employer health-care exclusion. Some politicians may be asked to sacrifice their careers for an important cause.
Because of the difficulties, it is possible that the federal government will not be serious about spending cuts. Public employees and the middle-class elderly, after all, are powerful voting groups. The alternative is to attempt deficit reduction primarily through tax increases -- perhaps an additional consumption or value-added tax. But this approach would involve a massive shift of resources from the private sector to the public sector, making many people poorer for the benefit of favored political constituencies. To sustain expansive public commitments, Americans would be asked to accept lower economic growth and weaker job creation. And middle-class voters may not like higher taxes any more than reduced benefits.
An austerity era is a miserable, thankless time to serve in politics -- but also an important one.
mgerson@globalengage.org
By Michael GersonWednesday, May 19, 2010
Following decades of welfare-state comfort and years of Keynesian stimulus spending, a panicky Europe is seeing the arrival of austerity politics. Resentful debtors such as Greece, Spain and Portugal are being forced into tax increases and spending cuts that are painful, unpopular -- and just beginning. Their resentful citizens throw tantrums and sometimes rocks at police. Resentful creditors such as Germany provide bailouts while wondering why they ever shackled themselves (and the value of their currency) to such irresponsible governments.
Those not resentful are scared. Britain -- with a deficit that is higher as a percentage of its economy than Greece's -- has formed a coalition government united by little except a commitment to budget responsibility. The constitutional innovation of keeping the current Parliament for the next five years is designed to assure creditors and markets that David Cameron's government will be stable enough to make difficult fiscal choices.
Every looming budget crisis is eventually a political test -- a test of political foresight and discipline, or a test of crisis management. And America is not exempt.
In 2009, the federal government spent $1.67 for every $1 it collected in taxes. The Obama administration's budget proposals would dramatically increase publicly held debt as a percentage of the economy over the next decade, eventually slowing economic growth, fueling inflation and making America more dependent on the kindness of creditors.
How has our political system responded? Congress recently found $60 billion in savings in the federal student-loan program -- and promptly spent most of it on other education projects. President Obama's health-care reform cut more than $350 billion from Medicare spending -- and soaked up all of it and more into new health entitlements.
This can go on for only so long before a challenge more similar to Britain's becomes a fate more similar to Greece's. America is about to enter its own period of austerity, which is likely to be the dominant political reality for the next decade. The new game will have few winners and many losers.
If the federal government takes spending reductions seriously, the first wave of austerity would hit the states and public employees. An infusion of cash from last year's stimulus package temporarily masked the unsustainable fiscal condition of many states. But there will be no more stimulus packages. Some of the largest states -- California, New York -- are on the verge of default. And they will achieve major spending reductions only by cutting their pension and public employee compensation systems. This would set up a serious battle between state governments and the labor movement, since a majority of union workers are public employees. Democratic governors, elected with union support, would be in for a particularly interesting time.
In austerity politics, another group of likely losers is middle-class Americans in their 40s. There can be no serious reduction in federal spending without entitlement reform. Social Security and Medicare eventually will need to be transformed from middle-class entitlements given because of age to entitlements given to those with lower incomes. In any entitlement reform, Americans at or near retirement will probably be exempt. Young people will have decades to prepare for a new entitlement structure. Middle-aged, middle-class people may be caught, well, in the middle.
And the biggest losers may be responsible politicians who take these realities seriously. Necessary changes will not resemble the relatively painless deficit reduction deals of 1990 or 1993. This round may require not only the means testing of Social Security and Medicare but also the reduction or elimination of middle-class entitlements such as the mortgage interest deduction and the employer health-care exclusion. Some politicians may be asked to sacrifice their careers for an important cause.
Because of the difficulties, it is possible that the federal government will not be serious about spending cuts. Public employees and the middle-class elderly, after all, are powerful voting groups. The alternative is to attempt deficit reduction primarily through tax increases -- perhaps an additional consumption or value-added tax. But this approach would involve a massive shift of resources from the private sector to the public sector, making many people poorer for the benefit of favored political constituencies. To sustain expansive public commitments, Americans would be asked to accept lower economic growth and weaker job creation. And middle-class voters may not like higher taxes any more than reduced benefits.
An austerity era is a miserable, thankless time to serve in politics -- but also an important one.
mgerson@globalengage.org
USA: "Maker" or "Taker"
For most of the life of America, and when it grew fastest, government spent just a few hundred dollars per person. Today, the federal government alone spends $10,000. Politicians talk about cuts, but the cuts rarely happen. The political class always needs more.
I see the pressure. All day, Congress listens to people who say they need and deserve help.
The cost of any one program per taxpayer is small, but the benefits are concentrated on well-organized interest groups. It's tough for a weak politician to say no.
But maybe things are changing. Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., believes that "more and more people in America are beginning to wake up to the fact that this thing is coming unglued."
I asked Ryan why his colleagues say it's OK to spend more. Are they just stupid? Don't they care? Or are they pandering for votes?
"Pandering could be a part of it," he said. "But ... they believe that the government should be far larger." They are taught that by the progressives who rule academia, like Columbia University Professor Marc Lamont Hill.
"We have to make sure that the most vulnerable people are always protected," Hill says. Everyone benefits when we pay a little bit more to create universal health care. Everyone benefits when we pay a little more to have better public education systems."
Progressives use the word "we" too often. When I argued the that "we" and "government" are not the same, he said, "We always talk about the government like it's this monster in the hills that comes down and hands things out and takes our tax money."
Well, yes.
Those are "libertarian fairytales," Hill says. "In real life, the government is us."
Government is not "us." Well, it's us in the sense that we pay the bills. But it ain't us. It's them, the policy elite and their patrons.
What percent of the economy does Hill think government should be?
"For me, housing, health care and education, in addition to national defense, are things that the government must provide for people. So if that means 20 percent, I'm OK with it. If it means 30 percent, I'm OK with it. I don't think it'll ever get that big."
Give me a break. It's already at 40 percent!
All that spending is taken from your and my pockets -- some in taxes, much in sneakier ways like government borrowing. The national debt -- now $13 trillion -- simply represents future taxes or the erosion of the dollar.
Yet progressives want us to pay more. One woman activist told our camera, "It costs to live in a civilized society, and we all need to pay our fair share."
Our "fair share" sounds good. Progressives say taking from the rich to help the poor is simply fair.
I put that to Arthur Brooks, who heads the American Enterprise Institute.
"No, the fairest system is the one that rewards the makers in society as opposed to rewarding the takers in society."
Brooks wrote "The Battle," which argues that the fight between free enterprise and big government will shape our future.
"The way that our culture is moving now is toward more redistribution, toward more progressive taxation, exempting more people from paying anything, and loading more of the taxes onto the very top earners in our society."
But it seems "kind" to take it away from wealthier people and give it to those who need it more.
"Actually, it's not," Brooks says. "The government does not create wealth. It uses wealth that's been created by the private sector."
He warns that "Americans are in open rebellion today because the government is threatening to take us from a maker nation into taker nation status."
Americans in "open rebellion"? I'm skeptical. Handouts create fierce constituencies. The tea party movement is wonderful, but it takes strength to say no to government freebies. When I've said to tea partiers, "We should cut Medicare, eliminate agriculture subsidies, kill entire federal agencies," the enthusiasm usually fades from their eyes.
I hope that I am wrong and Brooks is right.
John Stossel
* For more: http://townhall.com/columnists/JohnStossel/2010/09/22/the_battle_for_the_future
I see the pressure. All day, Congress listens to people who say they need and deserve help.
The cost of any one program per taxpayer is small, but the benefits are concentrated on well-organized interest groups. It's tough for a weak politician to say no.
But maybe things are changing. Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., believes that "more and more people in America are beginning to wake up to the fact that this thing is coming unglued."
I asked Ryan why his colleagues say it's OK to spend more. Are they just stupid? Don't they care? Or are they pandering for votes?
"Pandering could be a part of it," he said. "But ... they believe that the government should be far larger." They are taught that by the progressives who rule academia, like Columbia University Professor Marc Lamont Hill.
"We have to make sure that the most vulnerable people are always protected," Hill says. Everyone benefits when we pay a little bit more to create universal health care. Everyone benefits when we pay a little more to have better public education systems."
Progressives use the word "we" too often. When I argued the that "we" and "government" are not the same, he said, "We always talk about the government like it's this monster in the hills that comes down and hands things out and takes our tax money."
Well, yes.
Those are "libertarian fairytales," Hill says. "In real life, the government is us."
Government is not "us." Well, it's us in the sense that we pay the bills. But it ain't us. It's them, the policy elite and their patrons.
What percent of the economy does Hill think government should be?
"For me, housing, health care and education, in addition to national defense, are things that the government must provide for people. So if that means 20 percent, I'm OK with it. If it means 30 percent, I'm OK with it. I don't think it'll ever get that big."
Give me a break. It's already at 40 percent!
All that spending is taken from your and my pockets -- some in taxes, much in sneakier ways like government borrowing. The national debt -- now $13 trillion -- simply represents future taxes or the erosion of the dollar.
Yet progressives want us to pay more. One woman activist told our camera, "It costs to live in a civilized society, and we all need to pay our fair share."
Our "fair share" sounds good. Progressives say taking from the rich to help the poor is simply fair.
I put that to Arthur Brooks, who heads the American Enterprise Institute.
"No, the fairest system is the one that rewards the makers in society as opposed to rewarding the takers in society."
Brooks wrote "The Battle," which argues that the fight between free enterprise and big government will shape our future.
"The way that our culture is moving now is toward more redistribution, toward more progressive taxation, exempting more people from paying anything, and loading more of the taxes onto the very top earners in our society."
But it seems "kind" to take it away from wealthier people and give it to those who need it more.
"Actually, it's not," Brooks says. "The government does not create wealth. It uses wealth that's been created by the private sector."
He warns that "Americans are in open rebellion today because the government is threatening to take us from a maker nation into taker nation status."
Americans in "open rebellion"? I'm skeptical. Handouts create fierce constituencies. The tea party movement is wonderful, but it takes strength to say no to government freebies. When I've said to tea partiers, "We should cut Medicare, eliminate agriculture subsidies, kill entire federal agencies," the enthusiasm usually fades from their eyes.
I hope that I am wrong and Brooks is right.
John Stossel
* For more: http://townhall.com/columnists/JohnStossel/2010/09/22/the_battle_for_the_future
Where is the USA Money Going?
The United States Federal Budget
By Chris Danello — September 17, 2010 at 4:44 pm
The U.S. federal government is by far the largest single entity in the world. As of fiscal year 2009, its expenditures of $3.6 trillion exceeded those of the second and third biggest governments combined. This largely reflects the size of the American economy, itself the largest on the planet. Federal spending has grown by about 5 percent over the past decade, significantly faster than the rate of inflation. The fiscal year 2010 deficit of $1.6 trillion was also, by far, the greatest in the world. In the years ahead, the federal budget will be strained by static revenue and exploding costs, largely, though not exclusively, as a result of ballooning spending on Medicare and Social Security. Major reforms are needed to put the budget on a sustainable path.
Revenues
Since the passage of the Sixteenth Amendment in 1913, the federal income tax has provided the greatest single source of revenue for the federal government. Over the past decade, income taxes have comprised approximately 45 percent of the government’s intake. Payroll taxes, the second largest revenue source, have raised about 36 percent. While income tax revenue is not earmarked for any specific purpose, payroll taxes finance entitlement programs, mainly Social Security and part of Medicare. The corporate tax, the estate tax, tariffs, and other revenues comprise the other 19 percent.
Revenues have declined from an all-time high of 20.6 percent of GDP in 2000 to a 50-year low of 14.8 percent in 2009. But these numbers are slightly misleading: 2000 saw the height of the Internet bubble, 2009 the bottom of the housing bust. In most years, federal revenue ranges between 17 and 19 percent of GDP, depending on the state of the economy. The income tax and the corporate tax are more prone to economic fluctuation than payroll taxes. To wit, income tax revenues brought in $1.16 trillion in 2007, and just $915 billion in the midst of the recession two years later. Payroll tax receipts, by contrast, expanded from $869 to $890 billion, unchanged as a percentage of GDP.
Demographic changes in coming decades are expected to cause major revenue challenges. The retirement of the baby boom generation will require a dramatic increase in expenditures on programs like Social Security and Medicare, but there will be proportionally fewer taxpayers to finance these programs. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that revenue will peak in 2019 before declining irrevocably. If Congress chooses to extend the Bush tax cuts, or if there is a recession between now and 2019, revenue will remain considerably lower.
Expenditures
Most analysis divides expenditure into two broad categories: discretionary and entitlement spending. Discretionary spending is set by an annual congressional budget resolution, while entitlements, which consist primarily of Social Security and Medicare, are established by a long-term legislative program and do not require renewal.
Both entitlement and discretionary spending have grown substantially over the past decade. Expenditures have risen from 18.2 percent of GDP in 2000 to an estimated 25.2 percent in 2010. Discretionary spending has grown at an annual rate of 4.5 percent from 2000 to 2009. Despite the common conception that military spending, which represents about half of discretionary spending, consumes the budget, defense expenditures represented just 18.7 percent of total spending in 2009; the military budget has increased at a pace similar to that of the rest of discretionary spending over the past decade.
While the expansion of discretionary spending is a problem, entitlement growth, which has been about 5.4 percent per year over the past decade, poses an even greater challenge. The majority of entitlement expansion has been driven by increased expenses in Medicare and other income-security programs; while Social Security outlays have increased in absolute terms, the program has decreased from 22.7 to 19.3 percent of the budget over the past decade.
If demographic projections are any indication, the bulk of entitlement growth is yet to come. The CBO estimates that in ten years entitlement spending will reach 22 percent of GDP, about as much as the federal government spends on the entire budget today. Social Security spending is expected to increase by half of one percent of GDP, and health spending up to double that. And there is no end in sight. Without changes to the current laws, mandatory spending will reach 44 percent of GDP by 2080, greater than government’s share of the economy during World War II. Such analysis assumes discretionary spending will remain relatively flat. But if it continues to grow at its current pace, government spending will reach unprecedented heights.
Deficits and Debt
The federal deficit is simply the gap between the government’s expenditures and its revenues in a given year. The government has run a deficit every year since 1969, save for a brief period between fiscal years 1997 and 2000. In 2009, the deficit stood at $1.4 trillion, the largest nominal figure in history. This represents 9.9 percent of GDP, the largest since the end of World War II in 1945. The CBO estimates that the fiscal year 2010 deficit of $1.56 trillion, 10.6 percent of GDP, will be greater still.
As of 2009, the CBO reports that total federal debt stood at $11.9 trillion, 83.4 percent of GDP. Much of this debt is held by the federal government itself, most of it in the Social Security Trust Fund. The public holds debt worth 53 percent of GDP. Foreign nations own about half of that; China ranks highest among U.S. creditors with $868 billion in American securities, followed by Japan’s $787 billion, the United Kingdom’s $350 billion, and oil exporters’ collective $235 billion.
As dismal as these figures are, one should hasten to add that the deficit varies with the state of the economy, and the tremendous deficits of 2009 and 2010 stem largely from the current recession. For most of the past decade, for example, the economy was in much better shape than it is today; deficits peaked at 3.5 percent of GDP in fiscal year 2004, before declining to just 1.4 percent in 2007.
The years ahead will likely prove more daunting. The CBO estimates that deficits will decline from their 2010 high, but remain over 3.9 percent of GDP through 2014 and 2015. The cause, simply put, is that the government is not raising enough tax revenue to pay for its spending promises. Mushrooming entitlement spending will cause deficits to rise virtually unabated, reaching catastrophic levels if health care costs are not controlled.
The unchecked growth of federal debt could have dangerous consequences. As Greece’s recent fate has demonstrated, the consequence of high debt means unwillingness of creditors to lend, and the potential onset of a crisis in which the government literally cannot fund its most basic operations. The borrowing required by such high deficits induces higher interest rates, which crowd out private sector investment, lowering growth rates and living standards.
It remains relatively unlikely that the United States could fall to Grecian levels, if for no other reason than that many of its creditor nations face the same demographic squeeze that now threatens the American budget. On the other hand America is not Greece; it is far bigger and far more central to the global economy. Even a downgrade in America’s credit rating would send shockwaves around the world, devastate those who purchase government bonds, (essentially all American investors, as well as those who receive Social Security benefits) and could trigger a global financial crisis. Recognizing this, President Obama has convened a debt commission, tasked with reigning in the nation’s debt. The solutions will almost certainly be politically unpalatable, but may still prove the best hope of averting America’s dire fiscal future.
* For more visit: http://hpronline.org/category/arusa/
By Chris Danello — September 17, 2010 at 4:44 pm
The U.S. federal government is by far the largest single entity in the world. As of fiscal year 2009, its expenditures of $3.6 trillion exceeded those of the second and third biggest governments combined. This largely reflects the size of the American economy, itself the largest on the planet. Federal spending has grown by about 5 percent over the past decade, significantly faster than the rate of inflation. The fiscal year 2010 deficit of $1.6 trillion was also, by far, the greatest in the world. In the years ahead, the federal budget will be strained by static revenue and exploding costs, largely, though not exclusively, as a result of ballooning spending on Medicare and Social Security. Major reforms are needed to put the budget on a sustainable path.
Revenues
Since the passage of the Sixteenth Amendment in 1913, the federal income tax has provided the greatest single source of revenue for the federal government. Over the past decade, income taxes have comprised approximately 45 percent of the government’s intake. Payroll taxes, the second largest revenue source, have raised about 36 percent. While income tax revenue is not earmarked for any specific purpose, payroll taxes finance entitlement programs, mainly Social Security and part of Medicare. The corporate tax, the estate tax, tariffs, and other revenues comprise the other 19 percent.
Revenues have declined from an all-time high of 20.6 percent of GDP in 2000 to a 50-year low of 14.8 percent in 2009. But these numbers are slightly misleading: 2000 saw the height of the Internet bubble, 2009 the bottom of the housing bust. In most years, federal revenue ranges between 17 and 19 percent of GDP, depending on the state of the economy. The income tax and the corporate tax are more prone to economic fluctuation than payroll taxes. To wit, income tax revenues brought in $1.16 trillion in 2007, and just $915 billion in the midst of the recession two years later. Payroll tax receipts, by contrast, expanded from $869 to $890 billion, unchanged as a percentage of GDP.
Demographic changes in coming decades are expected to cause major revenue challenges. The retirement of the baby boom generation will require a dramatic increase in expenditures on programs like Social Security and Medicare, but there will be proportionally fewer taxpayers to finance these programs. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that revenue will peak in 2019 before declining irrevocably. If Congress chooses to extend the Bush tax cuts, or if there is a recession between now and 2019, revenue will remain considerably lower.
Expenditures
Most analysis divides expenditure into two broad categories: discretionary and entitlement spending. Discretionary spending is set by an annual congressional budget resolution, while entitlements, which consist primarily of Social Security and Medicare, are established by a long-term legislative program and do not require renewal.
Both entitlement and discretionary spending have grown substantially over the past decade. Expenditures have risen from 18.2 percent of GDP in 2000 to an estimated 25.2 percent in 2010. Discretionary spending has grown at an annual rate of 4.5 percent from 2000 to 2009. Despite the common conception that military spending, which represents about half of discretionary spending, consumes the budget, defense expenditures represented just 18.7 percent of total spending in 2009; the military budget has increased at a pace similar to that of the rest of discretionary spending over the past decade.
While the expansion of discretionary spending is a problem, entitlement growth, which has been about 5.4 percent per year over the past decade, poses an even greater challenge. The majority of entitlement expansion has been driven by increased expenses in Medicare and other income-security programs; while Social Security outlays have increased in absolute terms, the program has decreased from 22.7 to 19.3 percent of the budget over the past decade.
If demographic projections are any indication, the bulk of entitlement growth is yet to come. The CBO estimates that in ten years entitlement spending will reach 22 percent of GDP, about as much as the federal government spends on the entire budget today. Social Security spending is expected to increase by half of one percent of GDP, and health spending up to double that. And there is no end in sight. Without changes to the current laws, mandatory spending will reach 44 percent of GDP by 2080, greater than government’s share of the economy during World War II. Such analysis assumes discretionary spending will remain relatively flat. But if it continues to grow at its current pace, government spending will reach unprecedented heights.
Deficits and Debt
The federal deficit is simply the gap between the government’s expenditures and its revenues in a given year. The government has run a deficit every year since 1969, save for a brief period between fiscal years 1997 and 2000. In 2009, the deficit stood at $1.4 trillion, the largest nominal figure in history. This represents 9.9 percent of GDP, the largest since the end of World War II in 1945. The CBO estimates that the fiscal year 2010 deficit of $1.56 trillion, 10.6 percent of GDP, will be greater still.
As of 2009, the CBO reports that total federal debt stood at $11.9 trillion, 83.4 percent of GDP. Much of this debt is held by the federal government itself, most of it in the Social Security Trust Fund. The public holds debt worth 53 percent of GDP. Foreign nations own about half of that; China ranks highest among U.S. creditors with $868 billion in American securities, followed by Japan’s $787 billion, the United Kingdom’s $350 billion, and oil exporters’ collective $235 billion.
As dismal as these figures are, one should hasten to add that the deficit varies with the state of the economy, and the tremendous deficits of 2009 and 2010 stem largely from the current recession. For most of the past decade, for example, the economy was in much better shape than it is today; deficits peaked at 3.5 percent of GDP in fiscal year 2004, before declining to just 1.4 percent in 2007.
The years ahead will likely prove more daunting. The CBO estimates that deficits will decline from their 2010 high, but remain over 3.9 percent of GDP through 2014 and 2015. The cause, simply put, is that the government is not raising enough tax revenue to pay for its spending promises. Mushrooming entitlement spending will cause deficits to rise virtually unabated, reaching catastrophic levels if health care costs are not controlled.
The unchecked growth of federal debt could have dangerous consequences. As Greece’s recent fate has demonstrated, the consequence of high debt means unwillingness of creditors to lend, and the potential onset of a crisis in which the government literally cannot fund its most basic operations. The borrowing required by such high deficits induces higher interest rates, which crowd out private sector investment, lowering growth rates and living standards.
It remains relatively unlikely that the United States could fall to Grecian levels, if for no other reason than that many of its creditor nations face the same demographic squeeze that now threatens the American budget. On the other hand America is not Greece; it is far bigger and far more central to the global economy. Even a downgrade in America’s credit rating would send shockwaves around the world, devastate those who purchase government bonds, (essentially all American investors, as well as those who receive Social Security benefits) and could trigger a global financial crisis. Recognizing this, President Obama has convened a debt commission, tasked with reigning in the nation’s debt. The solutions will almost certainly be politically unpalatable, but may still prove the best hope of averting America’s dire fiscal future.
* For more visit: http://hpronline.org/category/arusa/
Friday, November 5, 2010
Did Churchill see it coming?
The following short speech was delivered by Winston Churchill in 1899 when he was a young soldier and journalist. It probably sets out the current views of many today, but is expressed in the wonderful Churchillian turn of phrase and use of the English language, of which he was a past master.
"How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries, improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement, the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men. Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities, but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome.
"Sir Winston Churchill; (The River War, first edition, Vol. II, pages 248-50 London)
Monday, November 1, 2010
Kill the Fed: JFK tried with executive order 11110
Sadly you will not take the time to read this. You are much too busy with more important matters. What a pity. Remain in the dark like a mushroom and be happy to be sustained by manure.
From The Final Call, Vol. 15, No.6, On January 17, 1996
On June 4, 1963, a little known attempt was made to strip the Federal Reserve Bank of its power to loan money to the government at interest. On that day President John F. Kennedy signed Executive Order No. 11110 that returned to the U.S. government the power to issue currency, without going through the Federal Reserve. Mr. Kennedy's order gave the Treasury the power "to issue silver certificates against any silver bullion, silver, or standard silver dollars in the Treasury." This meant that for every ounce of silver in the U.S. Treasury's vault, the government could introduce new money into circulation. In all, Kennedy brought nearly $4.3 billion in U.S. notes into circulation. The ramifications of this bill are enormous.
With the stroke of a pen, Mr. Kennedy was on his way to putting the Federal Reserve Bank of New York out of business. If enough of these silver certificats were to come into circulation they would have eliminated the demand for Federal Reserve notes. This is because the silver certificates are backed by silver and the Federal Reserve notes are not backed by anything. Executive Order 11110 could have prevented the national debt from reaching its current level, because it would have given the gevernment the ability to repay its debt without going to the Federal Reserve and being charged interest in order to create the new money. Executive Order 11110 gave the U.S. the ability to create its own money backed by silver.
After Mr. Kennedy was assassinated just five months later, no more silver certificates were issued. The Final Call has learned that the Executive Order was never repealed by any U.S. President through an Executive Order and is still valid. Why then has no president utilized it? Virtually all of the nearly $6 trillion in debt has been created since 1963, and if a U.S. president had utilized Executive Order 11110 the debt would be nowhere near the current level. Perhaps the assassination of JFK was a warning to future presidents who would think to eliminate the U.S. debt by eliminating the Federal Reserve's control over the creation of money. Mr. Kennedy challenged the government of money by challenging the two most successful vehicles that have ever been used to drive up debt - war and the creation of money by a privately-owned central bank. His efforts to have all troops out of Vietnam by 1965 and Executive Order 11110 would have severely cut into the profits and control of the New York banking establishment. As America's debt reaches unbearable levels and a conflict emerges in Bosnia that will further increase America's debt, one is force to ask, will President Clinton have the courage to consider utilizing Executive Order 11110 and, ifso, is he willing to pay the ultimate price for doing so?
Executive Order 11110 AMENDMENT OF EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 10289
AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE PERFORMANCE OF CERTAIN FUNCTIONS AFFECTING THE DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
By virtue of the authority vested in me by section 301 of title 3 of the United States Code, it is ordered as follows:
Section 1. Executive Order No. 10289 of September 19, 1951, as amended, is hereby further amended-
By adding at the end of paragraph 1 thereof the following subparagraph (j):
(j) The authority vested in the President by paragraph (b) of section 43 of the Act of May 12,1933, as amended (31 U.S.C.821(b)), to issue silver certificates against any silver bullion, silver, or standard silver dollars in the Treasury not then held for redemption of any outstanding silver certificates, to prescribe the denomination of such silver certificates, and to coin standard silver dollars and subsidiary silver currency for their redemption
and --
Byrevoking subparagraphs (b) and (c) of paragraph 2 thereof.
Sec. 2. The amendments made by this Order shall not affect any act done, or any right accruing or accrued or any suit or proceeding had or commenced in any civil or criminal cause prior to the date of this Order but all such liabilities shall continue and may be enforced as if said amendments had not been made.
John F. Kennedy The White House, June 4, 1963.
Of course, the fact that both JFK and Lincoln met the the same end is a mere coincidence.
Abraham Lincoln's Monetary Policy, 1865 (Page 91 of Senate document 23.)
Money is the creature of law and the creation of the original issue of money should be maintained as the exclusive monopoly of national Government.
Money possesses no value to the State other than that given to it by circulation.
Capital has its proper place and is entitled to every protection. The wages of men should be recognised in the structure of and in the social order as more important than the wages of money.
No duty is more imperative for the Government than the duty it owes the People to furnish them with a sound and uniform currency, and of regulating the circulation of the medium of exchange so that labour will be protected from a vicious currency, and commerce will be facilitated by cheap and safe exchanges.
The available supply of Gold and Silver being wholly inadequate to permit the issuance of coins of intrinsic value or paper currency convertible into coin in the volume required to serve the needs of the People, some other basis for the issue of currency must be developed, and some means other than that of convertibility into coin must be developed to prevent undue fluctuation in the value of paper currency or any other substitute for money of intrinsic value that may come into use.
The monetary needs of increasing numbers of People advancing towards higher standards of living can and should be met by the Government. Such needs can be served by the issue of National Currency and Credit through the operation of a National Banking system .The circulation of a medium of exchange issued and backed by the Government can be properly regulated and redundancy of issue avoided by withdrawing from circulation such amounts as may be necessary by Taxation, Redeposit, and otherwise. Government has the power to regulate the currency and creditof the Nation.
Government should stand behind its currency and credit and the Bank deposits of the Nation. No individual should suffer a loss of money through depreciation or inflated currency or Bank bankruptcy.
Government possessing the power to create and issue currency and creditas money and enjoying the right to withdraw both currency and credit from circulation by Taxation and otherwise need not and should not borrow capital at interest as a means of financing Governmental work and public enterprise. The Government should create, issue, and circulate all the currency and credit needed to satisfy the spending power of the Government and the buying power of the consumers. The privilege of creating and issueing money is not only the supreme prerogative of Government, but it is the Governments greatest creative opportunity.
By the adoption of these principles the long felt want for a uniform medium will be satisfied. The taxpayers will be saved immense sums of interest, discounts, and exchanges. The financing of all public enterprise, the maintenance of stable Government and ordered progress, and the conduct of the Treasury will become matters of practical administration. The people can and will be furnished with a currency as safe as their own Government. Money will cease to be master and become the servant of humanity. Democracy will rise superior to the money power.
Some information on the Federal Reserve
The Federal Reserve is a Private Corporation. One of the most common concerns among people who engage in any effort to reduce their taxes is, "Will keeping my money hurt the government's ability to pay its bills?" As explained in the first article in this series, the modern withholding tax does not, and wasn't designed to, pay for government services. What it does do, is pay for the privately-owned Federal Reserve System.
Black's Law Dictionary defines the "Federal Reserve System" as, "Network of twelve central banks to which most national banks belong and to which state chartered banks may belong. Membership rules require investment of stock and minimum reserves."
Privately-owned banks own the stock of the Fed. This was explained in more detail in the case of Lewis v. United States, Federal Reporter, 2nd Series, Vol. 680, Pages 1239, 1241 (1982), where the court said:
Each Federal Reserve Bank is a separate corporation owned by commercial banks in its region. The stock-holding commercial banks elect two thirds of each Bank's nine member board of directors.
Similarly, the Federal Reserve Banks, though heavily regulated, are locally controlled by their member banks. Taking another look at Black's Law Dictionary, we find that these privately owned banks actually issue money:
Federal Reserve Act. Law which created Federal Reserve banks which act as agents in maintaining money reserves, issuing money in the form of bank notes, lending money to banks, and supervising banks. Administered by Federal Reserve Board (q.v.).
The FED banks, which are privately owned, actually issue, that is, create, the money we use. In 1964 the House Committee on Banking and Currency, Subcommittee on Domestic Finance, at the second session of the 88th Congress, put out a study entitled Money Facts which contains a good description of what the FED is:
The Federal Reserve is a total money-making machine.It can issue money or checks. And it never has a problem of making its checks good because it can obtain the $5 and $10 bills necessary to cover its check simply by asking the Treasury Department's Bureau of Engraving to print them.
As we all know, anyone who has a lot of money has a lot of power. Now imagine a group of people who have the power to create money. Imagine the power these people would have. This is what the Fed is.
No man did more to expose the power of the Fed than Louis T. McFadden, who was the Chairman of the House Banking Committee back in the 1930s. Constantly pointing out that monetary issues shouldn't be partisan, he criticized both the Herbert Hoover and Franklin Roosevelt administrations. In describing the Fed, he remarked in the Congressional Record, House pages 1295 and 1296 on June 10, 1932, that:
Mr. Chairman,we have in this country one of the most corrupt institutions the world has ever known. I refer to the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal reserve banks. The Federal Reserve Board, a Government Board, has cheated the Government of the United States and he people of the United States out of enoughmoney to pay the national debt. The depredations and the iniquities of the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal reserve banks acting together have cost this country enough money to pay the national debt several times over. This evil institution has impoverished and ruined the people of the UnitedStates; has bankrupted itself, and has practically bankrupted our Government. It has done this through the maladministration of that law by which the Federal Reserve Board, and through the corrupt practices of the moneyed vultures who control it.
Some people think the Federal reserve banks are United States Government institutions. They are not Government institutions. They are private credit monopolies which prey upon the people of the United States for the benefit of themselves and their foreign customers; foreign and domestic speculators and swindlers; and rich and predatory money lenders. In that dark crew of financial pirates there are those who would cut a man's throat to get a dollar out of his pocket; there are those who send money into States to buy votes to control our legislation; and there are those who maintain an international propaganda for the purpose of deceiving us and of wheedling us into the granting of new concessions which will permit them to cover up their past misdeeds and set again in motion their gigantic train of crime. Those 12 private credit monopolies were deceitfully and disloyally foisted upon this country by bankers who camehere from Europe and who repaid us for our hospitality by undermining our American institutions.
The Fed basically works like this: The government granted its power to create money to the Fed banks. They create money, then loan it back to the government charging interest. The government levies income taxes to pay the interest on the debt. On this point, it's interesting to note that the Federal Reserve act and the sixteenth amendment, which gave congress the power to collect income taxes, were both passed in 1913. The incredible power of the Fed over the economy is universally admitted. Some people, especially in the banking and academic communities, even support it. On the other hand, there are those, both in the past and in the present, that speak out against it. One of these men was President John F. Kennedy. His efforts were detailed in Jim Marrs' 1990 book, Crossfire:
Another overlooked aspect of Kennedy's attempt to reform American society involves money. Kennedy apparently reasoned that by returning to the constitution, which states that only Congress shall coin and regulate money, the soaring national debt could be reduced by not paying interest to the bankers of the Federal Reserve System, who print paper money then loan it to the government at interest. He moved in this area on June 4, 1963, by signing Executive Order 11,110 which called for the issuance of $4,292,893,815 in United States Notes through the U.S. Treasury rather than the traditional Federal Reserve System. That same day, Kennedy signed a bill changing the backing of one and two dollar bills from silver to gold, adding strength to the weakened U.S. currency.
Kennedy's comptroller of the currency, James J. Saxon, had been at odds with the powerful Federal Reserve Board for some time, encouraging broader investment and lending powers for banks that were not part of the Federal Reserve system. Saxon also had decided that non-Reserve banks could underwrite state and local general obligation bonds, again weakening the dominant Federal Reserve banks.
A number of "Kennedy bills" were indeed issued - the author has a five dollar bill in his possession with the heading "United States Note" - but were quickly withdrawn after Kennedy's death. According to information from the Library of the Comptroller of the Currency, Executive Order 11,110 remains in effect today, although successive administrations beginning with that of President Lyndon Johnson apparently have simply ignored it and instead returned to the practice of paying interest on Federal Reserve notes. Today we continue to use Federal Reserve Notes, and the deficit is at an all-time high.
The point being made is that the IRS taxes you pay aren't used for government services. It won't hurt you, or the nation, to legally reduce or eliminate your tax liability.
Related Articles:
JFK vs Federal ReserveThe JFK Mythby G. Edward
From The Final Call, Vol. 15, No.6, On January 17, 1996
On June 4, 1963, a little known attempt was made to strip the Federal Reserve Bank of its power to loan money to the government at interest. On that day President John F. Kennedy signed Executive Order No. 11110 that returned to the U.S. government the power to issue currency, without going through the Federal Reserve. Mr. Kennedy's order gave the Treasury the power "to issue silver certificates against any silver bullion, silver, or standard silver dollars in the Treasury." This meant that for every ounce of silver in the U.S. Treasury's vault, the government could introduce new money into circulation. In all, Kennedy brought nearly $4.3 billion in U.S. notes into circulation. The ramifications of this bill are enormous.
With the stroke of a pen, Mr. Kennedy was on his way to putting the Federal Reserve Bank of New York out of business. If enough of these silver certificats were to come into circulation they would have eliminated the demand for Federal Reserve notes. This is because the silver certificates are backed by silver and the Federal Reserve notes are not backed by anything. Executive Order 11110 could have prevented the national debt from reaching its current level, because it would have given the gevernment the ability to repay its debt without going to the Federal Reserve and being charged interest in order to create the new money. Executive Order 11110 gave the U.S. the ability to create its own money backed by silver.
After Mr. Kennedy was assassinated just five months later, no more silver certificates were issued. The Final Call has learned that the Executive Order was never repealed by any U.S. President through an Executive Order and is still valid. Why then has no president utilized it? Virtually all of the nearly $6 trillion in debt has been created since 1963, and if a U.S. president had utilized Executive Order 11110 the debt would be nowhere near the current level. Perhaps the assassination of JFK was a warning to future presidents who would think to eliminate the U.S. debt by eliminating the Federal Reserve's control over the creation of money. Mr. Kennedy challenged the government of money by challenging the two most successful vehicles that have ever been used to drive up debt - war and the creation of money by a privately-owned central bank. His efforts to have all troops out of Vietnam by 1965 and Executive Order 11110 would have severely cut into the profits and control of the New York banking establishment. As America's debt reaches unbearable levels and a conflict emerges in Bosnia that will further increase America's debt, one is force to ask, will President Clinton have the courage to consider utilizing Executive Order 11110 and, ifso, is he willing to pay the ultimate price for doing so?
Executive Order 11110 AMENDMENT OF EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 10289
AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE PERFORMANCE OF CERTAIN FUNCTIONS AFFECTING THE DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
By virtue of the authority vested in me by section 301 of title 3 of the United States Code, it is ordered as follows:
Section 1. Executive Order No. 10289 of September 19, 1951, as amended, is hereby further amended-
By adding at the end of paragraph 1 thereof the following subparagraph (j):
(j) The authority vested in the President by paragraph (b) of section 43 of the Act of May 12,1933, as amended (31 U.S.C.821(b)), to issue silver certificates against any silver bullion, silver, or standard silver dollars in the Treasury not then held for redemption of any outstanding silver certificates, to prescribe the denomination of such silver certificates, and to coin standard silver dollars and subsidiary silver currency for their redemption
and --
Byrevoking subparagraphs (b) and (c) of paragraph 2 thereof.
Sec. 2. The amendments made by this Order shall not affect any act done, or any right accruing or accrued or any suit or proceeding had or commenced in any civil or criminal cause prior to the date of this Order but all such liabilities shall continue and may be enforced as if said amendments had not been made.
John F. Kennedy The White House, June 4, 1963.
Of course, the fact that both JFK and Lincoln met the the same end is a mere coincidence.
Abraham Lincoln's Monetary Policy, 1865 (Page 91 of Senate document 23.)
Money is the creature of law and the creation of the original issue of money should be maintained as the exclusive monopoly of national Government.
Money possesses no value to the State other than that given to it by circulation.
Capital has its proper place and is entitled to every protection. The wages of men should be recognised in the structure of and in the social order as more important than the wages of money.
No duty is more imperative for the Government than the duty it owes the People to furnish them with a sound and uniform currency, and of regulating the circulation of the medium of exchange so that labour will be protected from a vicious currency, and commerce will be facilitated by cheap and safe exchanges.
The available supply of Gold and Silver being wholly inadequate to permit the issuance of coins of intrinsic value or paper currency convertible into coin in the volume required to serve the needs of the People, some other basis for the issue of currency must be developed, and some means other than that of convertibility into coin must be developed to prevent undue fluctuation in the value of paper currency or any other substitute for money of intrinsic value that may come into use.
The monetary needs of increasing numbers of People advancing towards higher standards of living can and should be met by the Government. Such needs can be served by the issue of National Currency and Credit through the operation of a National Banking system .The circulation of a medium of exchange issued and backed by the Government can be properly regulated and redundancy of issue avoided by withdrawing from circulation such amounts as may be necessary by Taxation, Redeposit, and otherwise. Government has the power to regulate the currency and creditof the Nation.
Government should stand behind its currency and credit and the Bank deposits of the Nation. No individual should suffer a loss of money through depreciation or inflated currency or Bank bankruptcy.
Government possessing the power to create and issue currency and creditas money and enjoying the right to withdraw both currency and credit from circulation by Taxation and otherwise need not and should not borrow capital at interest as a means of financing Governmental work and public enterprise. The Government should create, issue, and circulate all the currency and credit needed to satisfy the spending power of the Government and the buying power of the consumers. The privilege of creating and issueing money is not only the supreme prerogative of Government, but it is the Governments greatest creative opportunity.
By the adoption of these principles the long felt want for a uniform medium will be satisfied. The taxpayers will be saved immense sums of interest, discounts, and exchanges. The financing of all public enterprise, the maintenance of stable Government and ordered progress, and the conduct of the Treasury will become matters of practical administration. The people can and will be furnished with a currency as safe as their own Government. Money will cease to be master and become the servant of humanity. Democracy will rise superior to the money power.
Some information on the Federal Reserve
The Federal Reserve is a Private Corporation. One of the most common concerns among people who engage in any effort to reduce their taxes is, "Will keeping my money hurt the government's ability to pay its bills?" As explained in the first article in this series, the modern withholding tax does not, and wasn't designed to, pay for government services. What it does do, is pay for the privately-owned Federal Reserve System.
Black's Law Dictionary defines the "Federal Reserve System" as, "Network of twelve central banks to which most national banks belong and to which state chartered banks may belong. Membership rules require investment of stock and minimum reserves."
Privately-owned banks own the stock of the Fed. This was explained in more detail in the case of Lewis v. United States, Federal Reporter, 2nd Series, Vol. 680, Pages 1239, 1241 (1982), where the court said:
Each Federal Reserve Bank is a separate corporation owned by commercial banks in its region. The stock-holding commercial banks elect two thirds of each Bank's nine member board of directors.
Similarly, the Federal Reserve Banks, though heavily regulated, are locally controlled by their member banks. Taking another look at Black's Law Dictionary, we find that these privately owned banks actually issue money:
Federal Reserve Act. Law which created Federal Reserve banks which act as agents in maintaining money reserves, issuing money in the form of bank notes, lending money to banks, and supervising banks. Administered by Federal Reserve Board (q.v.).
The FED banks, which are privately owned, actually issue, that is, create, the money we use. In 1964 the House Committee on Banking and Currency, Subcommittee on Domestic Finance, at the second session of the 88th Congress, put out a study entitled Money Facts which contains a good description of what the FED is:
The Federal Reserve is a total money-making machine.It can issue money or checks. And it never has a problem of making its checks good because it can obtain the $5 and $10 bills necessary to cover its check simply by asking the Treasury Department's Bureau of Engraving to print them.
As we all know, anyone who has a lot of money has a lot of power. Now imagine a group of people who have the power to create money. Imagine the power these people would have. This is what the Fed is.
No man did more to expose the power of the Fed than Louis T. McFadden, who was the Chairman of the House Banking Committee back in the 1930s. Constantly pointing out that monetary issues shouldn't be partisan, he criticized both the Herbert Hoover and Franklin Roosevelt administrations. In describing the Fed, he remarked in the Congressional Record, House pages 1295 and 1296 on June 10, 1932, that:
Mr. Chairman,we have in this country one of the most corrupt institutions the world has ever known. I refer to the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal reserve banks. The Federal Reserve Board, a Government Board, has cheated the Government of the United States and he people of the United States out of enoughmoney to pay the national debt. The depredations and the iniquities of the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal reserve banks acting together have cost this country enough money to pay the national debt several times over. This evil institution has impoverished and ruined the people of the UnitedStates; has bankrupted itself, and has practically bankrupted our Government. It has done this through the maladministration of that law by which the Federal Reserve Board, and through the corrupt practices of the moneyed vultures who control it.
Some people think the Federal reserve banks are United States Government institutions. They are not Government institutions. They are private credit monopolies which prey upon the people of the United States for the benefit of themselves and their foreign customers; foreign and domestic speculators and swindlers; and rich and predatory money lenders. In that dark crew of financial pirates there are those who would cut a man's throat to get a dollar out of his pocket; there are those who send money into States to buy votes to control our legislation; and there are those who maintain an international propaganda for the purpose of deceiving us and of wheedling us into the granting of new concessions which will permit them to cover up their past misdeeds and set again in motion their gigantic train of crime. Those 12 private credit monopolies were deceitfully and disloyally foisted upon this country by bankers who camehere from Europe and who repaid us for our hospitality by undermining our American institutions.
The Fed basically works like this: The government granted its power to create money to the Fed banks. They create money, then loan it back to the government charging interest. The government levies income taxes to pay the interest on the debt. On this point, it's interesting to note that the Federal Reserve act and the sixteenth amendment, which gave congress the power to collect income taxes, were both passed in 1913. The incredible power of the Fed over the economy is universally admitted. Some people, especially in the banking and academic communities, even support it. On the other hand, there are those, both in the past and in the present, that speak out against it. One of these men was President John F. Kennedy. His efforts were detailed in Jim Marrs' 1990 book, Crossfire:
Another overlooked aspect of Kennedy's attempt to reform American society involves money. Kennedy apparently reasoned that by returning to the constitution, which states that only Congress shall coin and regulate money, the soaring national debt could be reduced by not paying interest to the bankers of the Federal Reserve System, who print paper money then loan it to the government at interest. He moved in this area on June 4, 1963, by signing Executive Order 11,110 which called for the issuance of $4,292,893,815 in United States Notes through the U.S. Treasury rather than the traditional Federal Reserve System. That same day, Kennedy signed a bill changing the backing of one and two dollar bills from silver to gold, adding strength to the weakened U.S. currency.
Kennedy's comptroller of the currency, James J. Saxon, had been at odds with the powerful Federal Reserve Board for some time, encouraging broader investment and lending powers for banks that were not part of the Federal Reserve system. Saxon also had decided that non-Reserve banks could underwrite state and local general obligation bonds, again weakening the dominant Federal Reserve banks.
A number of "Kennedy bills" were indeed issued - the author has a five dollar bill in his possession with the heading "United States Note" - but were quickly withdrawn after Kennedy's death. According to information from the Library of the Comptroller of the Currency, Executive Order 11,110 remains in effect today, although successive administrations beginning with that of President Lyndon Johnson apparently have simply ignored it and instead returned to the practice of paying interest on Federal Reserve notes. Today we continue to use Federal Reserve Notes, and the deficit is at an all-time high.
The point being made is that the IRS taxes you pay aren't used for government services. It won't hurt you, or the nation, to legally reduce or eliminate your tax liability.
Related Articles:
JFK vs Federal ReserveThe JFK Mythby G. Edward
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)