The Blueprint for Ending the Federal Reserve

[WallyWeaver]

I don't mean to make this sound trivial but we were given the blueprint to shutting down the Federal Reserve by John F. Kennedy. Unfortunately, he was killed six months after it was signed so it was never fully enacted. But, as far as my understanding goes, JFK's Executive Order still stands. All we need is a someone to "re-enact" it....

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.

link:

http://www.john-f-kennedy.net/executiveorder11110.htm

The question is: can the person who re-enacts it stay alive long enough to see it fully implemented?

[billio0]

I don't mean to make this sound trivial but we were given the blueprint to shutting down the Federal Reserve by John F. Kennedy. Unfortunately, he was killed six months after it was signed so it was never fully enacted. But, as far as my understanding goes, JFK's Executive Order still stands. All we need is a someone to "re-enact" it....

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.

link:

http://www.john-f-kennedy.net/executiveorder11110.htm

The question is: can the person who re-enacts it stay alive long enough to see it fully implemented?

Thanks WallyWeaver for such an amazing bit of information.

I too wonder what the significance of an Executive Order such as this, signed by a sitting President of the United States of America over 50 years ago can now do for us today. If it was never implemented, and never rescinded, it would seem that it should therefore still be in effect. The ramifications would be stunning to say the least.

Obviously, neither of us is smart enough or knowledgeable enough to know the answer to that, but it certainly seems that someone would know; perhaps a good constitutional lawyer, or an honest elected official, if there is still such a thing.

Thanks again for the post!

[DiNaR DoCtOr]

That would have been a terrible idea given the recent economic downturn. If the currency is backed by a tangible and limited resource, then how would our government have an expansionary monetary policy. There is only so much silver in the world, so at some point you would have to debase the currency if you needed to have an expansionary policy, much like the Federal Reserve started with QE. QE has become a dirty word, but consider the alternatives. During the Great Depression the money supply was allowed to contract, which caused interest rates to go up. Interest rate increases hurt businesses and farmers who often work with short term loans. Ben Bernanke is very well-versed about the Great Depression, hence we have a policy that was different than that used during the Great Depression. That brings me back to silver. The amount of silver would have to be so great that we would never have to expand the amount of currency beyond, otherwise we would have debasement. This has been well know since the early 1500s, when it was labeled Gresham's Law. Although it would seem that a currency backed by something tangible makes more sense to most, it would actually limit the policy makers ability to mitigate crisis. I am not the only one who believes this. In fact, in my ever curious search for IQD and other currency knowledge I found a working paper on the Bank of International Settlements page, which compares the propagation of the 1931 and 2008 financial crisis. The paper concluded, among other things, that the higher level of gold used as a currency standard in 1931 did in fact limit the ability of policy makers to react to crisis. Silver also has real word uses, so I would rather manufacturers use the silver to its potential and not have the government hold it. Remember money truly reflects trust. I pay a contractor to build a house, but I am really exchanging paper to represent trust that the job will get done. I personally believe that trust is intangible, so why would your money represent something tangible. I guess what I am trying to say is that a silver backed piece of paper and a government backed piece of paper still have the same weight to me. Really if all currency was silver backed and there was a crisis in which everyone was rushing to demand the silver for their notes, would you really trust the government to say, "Okay here is all of our tangible resources as we go into an economic downturn"? They would most likely change the rules.

As always I am typing on a forum so I have less care for spelling or grammar.

[billio0]

Thanks for the input DinarDoctor.

What I think WallyWeaver intended with this thread was to point out the fallacy of the Federal Reserve System as it has served this nation thus far. Anyone even remotely knowledgeable would conclude that it has failed us miserably, to say the least.

Whether we go to an asset-based currency or not, the big problem is the debt; be it personal, or government debt. I for one would declare a moratorium on all debt, and prohibit anyone, or any company or institution from taking on debt of any kind. I am old enough to remember a time when my parents would not even consider making a purchase unless and until they had the funds to buy whatever it was they wanted or needed. The premise that we can just get the things we want or need immediately based on a presumption of what we shall have to pay for it in the future is absurd. When can anyone predict their future financial health anymore? I would venture to say, none of us.

If anything, I would advocate that all debt be sanctioned and approved by our government, rather than bankers. I would only allow it in extreme cases, and only for short term lending of 1 year or less. If such a policy were implemented, it would be the start of true freedom, rather than the superficial kind we have now. It amazes me that no one has thought of this before, and taken a stand to see it come to pass. But then, I am just one person, and have no ambitions aside from permanently eliminating my own debt, and that of a few others I care about.

After all, isn't this investment intended to do just that, get rid of debt? Then, why shouldn't that be the mandate for our entire population? Hopefully, we will not have to wait much longer to see it happen with the RV. Until then, I simply ask that you consider my diatribe here.

[WallyWeaver]

That would have been a terrible idea given the recent economic downturn. If the currency is backed by a tangible and limited resource, then how would our government have an expansionary monetary policy. There is only so much silver in the world, so at some point you would have to debase the currency if you needed to have an expansionary policy, much like the Federal Reserve started with QE. QE has become a dirty word, but consider the alternatives. During the Great Depression the money supply was allowed to contract, which caused interest rates to go up. Interest rate increases hurt businesses and farmers who often work with short term loans. Ben Bernanke is very well-versed about the Great Depression, hence we have a policy that was different than that used during the Great Depression.

I understand that silver is a limited resource and that was JFK's replacement for the FRN in this E.O. Silver is one idea, there are other commodities out there. But the idea here is to loosen the strangle hold the Fed has on America's capital. You do understand that the Fed is using interest charged to the US for money printed to suck this entire country of its capital until the Fed completely owns us?

Where do you think our massive debt came from? What are your thoughts on the reasons behind inflation? Do you think this train of debt and inflation is going to just keep going on?

It seems to me your argument is in defense of our central bank... the Founders(and a few others) would disagree with you.

Here are some historical quotes on the wickedness of a central bank(the Federal Reserve):

"Whoever controls the volume of money in any country is the master of all its legislation and commerce."

President James A. Garfield

"If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks...will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered... The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs."

Thomas Jefferson

"The money powers prey upon the nation in times of peace and conspire against it in times of adversity. It is more despotic than a monarchy, more insolent than autocracy, and more selfish than bureaucracy. It denounces as public enemies all who question its methods or throw light upon its crimes. I have two great enemies, the Southern Army in front of me and the bankers in the rear. Of the two, the one at my rear is my greatest foe."

Abraham Lincoln

"A private central bank issuing the public currency is a greater menace to the liberties of the people than a standing army...We must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt."

Thomas Jefferson

"Central banks were supposedly the guardians of money. Yet, they have created the biggest liquidity bubble in history."

The Economist

"Regarding the Great Depression, you’re right, we did it."

Ben Bernanke, Federal Reserve Chairman

[tyron]

Someone really clever, I forget now who, identified the real problem as fractional reserve banking. Did you know Obama's handlers are now saying that even 300x is not enough and that it should increased to limitless!

[WallyWeaver]

Someone really clever, I forget now who, identified the real problem as fractional reserve banking. Did you know Obama's handlers are now saying that even 300x is not enough and that it should increased to limitless!

I believe I read somewhere that Bernanke is behind the concept of "reserveless" banking. In other words, there would be no (0%) reserves necessary in a bank in order for it to operate.

Fractional banking would be replaced with reserveless banking. As if our "funny money" wasn't funny enough!

I will have to see if I can find that article....

[WallyWeaver]

Thanks for the input DinarDoctor.

What I think WallyWeaver intended with this thread was to point out the fallacy of the Federal Reserve System as it has served this nation thus far. Anyone even remotely knowledgeable would conclude that it has failed us miserably, to say the least.

Whether we go to an asset-based currency or not, the big problem is the debt; be it personal, or government debt. I for one would declare a moratorium on all debt, and prohibit anyone, or any company or institution from taking on debt of any kind. I am old enough to remember a time when my parents would not even consider making a purchase unless and until they had the funds to buy whatever it was they wanted or needed. The premise that we can just get the things we want or need immediately based on a presumption of what we shall have to pay for it in the future is absurd. When can anyone predict their future financial health anymore? I would venture to say, none of us.

If anything, I would advocate that all debt be sanctioned and approved by our government, rather than bankers. I would only allow it in extreme cases, and only for short term lending of 1 year or less. If such a policy were implemented, it would be the start of true freedom, rather than the superficial kind we have now. It amazes me that no one has thought of this before, and taken a stand to see it come to pass. But then, I am just one person, and have no ambitions aside from permanently eliminating my own debt, and that of a few others I care about.

After all, isn't this investment intended to do just that, get rid of debt? Then, why shouldn't that be the mandate for our entire population? Hopefully, we will not have to wait much longer to see it happen with the RV. Until then, I simply ask that you consider my diatribe here.

Great post billio0! Definite +1!

I love your points here and I have to agree. Well said, sir!!!!!!!!!!

I understand that in life there are emergencies and sometimes things happen unexpectedly and we need money. But the concept of living within our means is a concept that has been totally lost in this country... from the individual citizen all the way to the President, and everyone in between.

This is my concern with the Federal Reserve.... everytime a dollar is printed we owe the Federal Reserve interest for having that dollar printed. There has to be a way to get rid of the Fed so we can print our own money and stop paying them interest. The Federal Reserve is sinking this country...

[TNScooter]

I agree with you Wally. We are in a very unique time. Since we know that the Treasury holds appr. 27 trillion dinar, if the president would pay off the debt and invoke the JFK order with one ammendment(that is to add gold in there), then he could remove power from the FED. But of course that would be the smart thing to do.

[billio0]

I agree with you Wally. We are in a very unique time. Since we know that the Treasury holds appr. 27 trillion dinar, if the president would pay off the debt and invoke the JFK order with one ammendment(that is to add gold in there), then he could remove power from the FED. But of course that would be the smart thing to do.

Welcome aboard TNScooter.

Great comment, by the way. I would like to add a slight modification to it, though. Rather than changing the asset to gold, which is also highly speculative, I would suggest that we base it on our natural resources such as oil, natural gas, and even our crops. We certainly have plenty to back any currency with our name on it, and having to pay interest just doesn't cut it anymore, if it ever really did.

Let's all get out of debt, now and forevermore!

[WallyWeaver]

Welcome aboard TNScooter.

Great comment, by the way. I would like to add a slight modification to it, though. Rather than changing the asset to gold, which is also highly speculative, I would suggest that we base it on our natural resources such as oil, natural gas, and even our crops. We certainly have plenty to back any currency with our name on it, and having to pay interest just doesn't cut it anymore, if it ever really did.

Let's all get out of debt, now and forevermore!

It's my first time exchanging with you billio0 and I have to say.... you're a pretty sharp fella!+1

You are absolutely right, we could back our currency with any commodity; it doesn't have to be precious metals.

And thank you for your civility so far, you are a very courteous fellow!

[DiNaR DoCtOr]

Government sanctioned debt? Now that is communism. No debt, boy that would stifle innovation and risk taking. Bernanke's quote is probably in regards to the lack of action after chairmen Benjamin Strong passed away in 1928. The other quotes are all from LAWYERS, which I have an opinion of them. Our debt is from our government spending, so why would you think it would be a good idea to allow them to print the money. Can anyone say Zimbabwe?

Core inflation has remained stable over the recent past. I blame the headline inflation on oil speculators and food prices on farmers switching from corn for food to corn for fuel. Inflation over the long haul is a necessary phenomena that should be regulated by someone, and since we are talking decades and centuries, yes there is going to be inflation.

A moratorium on all debt would absolutely destroy this country. Microsoft, apple, google, etc, etc, etc these companies I am sure all started with some debt and look what has happened. We need debt, it is how we transfer money from surplus spending units to deficit spending units. AKA, debt is how we get money from old dudes into the hands of young innovative and ambitious men and women. Government sanctioned debt, even in the short term, would cause rates to skyrocket. The government process would be so muddied that it would take forever to determine who would qualify, thereby raising rates as demand would skyrocket. Also, you would have to increase the size of government workforce massively to handle all of the requests. Think about how many people are employed by banks now. If they couldn't lent the whole demand would be the government's responsibility.

I give Bernanke a big plus for stating the fed should own the great depression because they make monetary policy, but I doubt he meant that they did it maliciously. In 1928 Benjamin Strong died which left a vacuum at the fed, so in 1929 when the crash hit there was no one to step. Then there was a contractionary policy which stifled the economy resulting in massive unemployment. So yes they did it, but its not like they were trying to destroy the very country that gives them power.

I highly doubt that Bernanke would advocate a reserveless currency, unless he was talking about stimulus to the economy when rates are already so low and quantitative easing techniques have been applied.

Also, you must remember that any profits at the fed are returned to the treasury ;-)

It is not easy drawing up a defense for a quasi-public bank to loan money to our government, but it creates a sense of accountability that says, "hey government you can't just spend and spend without consequences. In reality the Fed has increased the money supply when the government needed it, hence the stimulus, so it appears to me that the government in a sense is printing their own money.

In all I am in favor of a central bank. I really do not see a better system. The alternative is to allow our government to print money with no restrictions(interest). Those guys that you listed quotes were mostly lawyers and I would argue that they have done more damage to this country than bankers (more specifically the Fed). Could you imagine what we would have for monetary policy if Obama did not have to think about the interest on dollars printed. All major developed countries have central banks, how can you say that they suck the capital out of the economy?

It is a difficult task to defend any human who lends assistance(money) to another human only to gain from it, but it is a reality and without it rich old dudes would hoard their money and the economy would falter.

PS I love you folks, don't hate me for supporting a Federal Reserve system.

I really wanted to make the point that debt is not bad. You want to end debt now and forever? Debt has a dirty name, but think about this. Our government requires lower capital levels for our banks than they have in Europe. Therefore, less capital means more money the banks can lend out aka debt. Now tell me which country over the last century has had more innovation and ingenuity. Debt is required to make ideas and start-up companies take off. No offense to our friends across the ponds. The consequence is when times get tough it has a greater effect since there is more debt, I can't deny that. I just feel that it is necessary to get money to those who are ambitious. Where would we be if Henry Ford was not allowed to fail a little before hitting the jackpot?

[billio0]

It's my first time exchanging with you billio0 and I have to say.... you're a pretty sharp fella!+1

You are absolutely right, we could back our currency with any commodity; it doesn't have to be precious metals.

And thank you for your civility so far, you are a very courteous fellow!

You are most welcome WallyWeaver.

It is most refreshing to engage in a discourse here other than the usual date & rate debate, thus I again thank you for bringing it forward.

It is my guestimate that most, if not all of the folks here at DV are NOT looking to reap massive profits from our investment, although we certainly would not object to such a notion. Instead, I suspect that we all simply want to remove the foot upon our necks called debt. We want to live out the rest of our lives without the constant worry that we won't be able to meet some obligation, or be able to pay for some medical procedure that needs done. I doubt seriously if many of us is overly anxious to buy that fancy new car, or huge mansion on a hill. Don't get me wrong; I too have looked at such things, and believe me, if we get enough from our Dinar investment to do so, I'll be right in line with the rest of us. But, first and foremost is ridding myself of the debt.

The Federal Reserve System has had since 1913 to come up with solutions to keep our economy both healthy and vibrant, and they have failed us without a doubt. It is high time to change this system to one that not only benefits us, but will also benefit our children and their children. That is what we need to be looking forward to, rather than trying to project just how instead they shall pay off the debt we make today in their names.

Again, just my 2-cents worth!

[DiNaR DoCtOr]

Welcome aboard TNScooter.

Great comment, by the way. I would like to add a slight modification to it, though. Rather than changing the asset to gold, which is also highly speculative, I would suggest that we base it on our natural resources such as oil, natural gas, and even our crops. We certainly have plenty to back any currency with our name on it, and having to pay interest just doesn't cut it anymore, if it ever really did.

Let's all get out of debt, now and forevermore!

Those items you list as potential sources to back our currency are extremely volatile. That is why they do not use them to measure core inflation. What kind of impacts would it have on our currency, and what would we decide it is worth, if oil is 140/barrel this year but 70/barrel next year. It would be hard to draw up contracts that would be over the long term. Could you imagine if some had control of oil prices (oil speculators) and the impact individuals could have on the currency? Talk about arbitrage opportunities! I often say that any currency back by something tangible (commodities) would be more vulnerable to economic warfare. What if major countries decided not to buy our corn and they were going to use rice? Essentially our currency would lose value faster than inflation would have caused because the demand would drop and subsequently prices or value would fall. Maybe corn doesn't sound that scary, but it could be other commodities. Take a look at the panic of 1873 (maybe 1893 too lazy to look it up now). The decision by individuals or small groups can have an astounding effect on prices or values of commodities.

You are most welcome WallyWeaver.

It is most refreshing to engage in a discourse here other than the usual date & rate debate, thus I again thank you for bringing it forward.

It is my guestimate that most, if not all of the folks here at DV are NOT looking to reap massive profits from our investment, although we certainly would not object to such a notion. Instead, I suspect that we all simply want to remove the foot upon our necks called debt. We want to live out the rest of our lives without the constant worry that we won't be able to meet some obligation, or be able to pay for some medical procedure that needs done. I doubt seriously if many of us is overly anxious to buy that fancy new car, or huge mansion on a hill. Don't get me wrong; I too have looked at such things, and believe me, if we get enough from our Dinar investment to do so, I'll be right in line with the rest of us. But, first and foremost is ridding myself of the debt.

The Federal Reserve System has had since 1913 to come up with solutions to keep our economy both healthy and vibrant, and they have failed us without a doubt. It is high time to change this system to one that not only benefits us, but will also benefit our children and their children. That is what we need to be looking forward to, rather than trying to project just how instead they shall pay off the debt we make today in their names.

Again, just my 2-cents worth!

You don't think we have had a healthy and vibrant economy since 1913? Crazy style! You must be a Rockefeller or something where your standard of living has not changed a whole lot. My family came to America in 1850s and started farming. Had 600 acres before depression, then lost it, then bought it back and that is what they farm today. My grandma has lived on the farm since she was a child, and I can tell you that our standard of living has increased enormously thanks to a healthy and vibrant economy. Try not to only think about the last few years when judging the economy. Or take a trip to Iraq and see what a unhealthy economy really is!

[tyron]

Thanks for the input DinarDoctor.

What I think WallyWeaver intended with this thread was to point out the fallacy of the Federal Reserve System as it has served this nation thus far. Anyone even remotely knowledgeable would conclude that it has failed us miserably, to say the least.

Whether we go to an asset-based currency or not, the big problem is the debt; be it personal, or government debt. I for one would declare a moratorium on all debt, and prohibit anyone, or any company or institution from taking on debt of any kind. I am old enough to remember a time when my parents would not even consider making a purchase unless and until they had the funds to buy whatever it was they wanted or needed. The premise that we can just get the things we want or need immediately based on a presumption of what we shall have to pay for it in the future is absurd. When can anyone predict their future financial health anymore? I would venture to say, none of us.

If anything, I would advocate that all debt be sanctioned and approved by our government, rather than bankers. I would only allow it in extreme cases, and only for short term lending of 1 year or less. If such a policy were implemented, it would be the start of true freedom, rather than the superficial kind we have now. It amazes me that no one has thought of this before, and taken a stand to see it come to pass. But then, I am just one person, and have no ambitions aside from permanently eliminating my own debt, and that of a few others I care about.

After all, isn't this investment intended to do just that, get rid of debt? Then, why shouldn't that be the mandate for our entire population? Hopefully, we will not have to wait much longer to see it happen with the RV. Until then, I simply ask that you consider my diatribe here.

The problem is without debt a country's progress is too slow. Debt has been around since the beginning of time because it is a necessary evil. And allowing Governments to decide on or approve loans is really bad news. Governments all over the world have shown their capacity to be easily corrupted by big business. The man in the street would be crushed again. But definitely your idea of eliminating all debt from your life is brilliant. Debt procured for non-investment purposes leads to long term poverty.

I believe I read somewhere that Bernanke is behind the concept of "reserveless" banking. In other words, there would be no (0%) reserves necessary in a bank in order for it to operate.

Fractional banking would be replaced with reserveless banking. As if our "funny money" wasn't funny enough!

I will have to see if I can find that article....

You don't have to find that article W, i totally believe you. That sounds like something he WOULD say.

[BlueOrchid919]

I believe I read somewhere that Bernanke is behind the concept of "reserveless" banking. In other words, there would be no (0%) reserves necessary in a bank in order for it to operate.

Fractional banking would be replaced with reserveless banking. As if our "funny money" wasn't funny enough!

I will have to see if I can find that article....

I'd give you 1000+ plussies for all your posts here WW! Great thread. (I ran out earlier today...as usual )

Re limitless fractional banking, that would violate entirely the Basel III accords. As it is, the US is barely able to comply since their derivatives and garbage assets have been considered part of the US banking reserves and Basel (plus the rest of the world) has rejected those assets as reserves. If the US has any intentions of complying with Basel III by 2016, they will have to get their tangible reserves up where they're supposed to be by end of 2012. Mid year next year Basel reviews all the member banks for compliance. BOA is having a seriously tough time getting into compliance. Especially since they've been hit with so many lawsuits, settlements, tanking of share values, etc.

Fractional banking (lending out 10x to 100x more than what is on hand) is what has killed the entire global economy and most countries are now seeing that for what it is. The US started it.... decades ago.

[WallyWeaver]

Government sanctioned debt? Now that is communism. No debt, boy that would stifle innovation and risk taking. Bernanke's quote is probably in regards to the lack of action after chairmen Benjamin Strong passed away in 1928. The other quotes are all from LAWYERS, which I have an opinion of them. Our debt is from our government spending, so why would you think it would be a good idea to allow them to print the money. Can anyone say Zimbabwe?

Core inflation has remained stable over the recent past. I blame the headline inflation on oil speculators and food prices on farmers switching from corn for food to corn for fuel. Inflation over the long haul is a necessary phenomena that should be regulated by someone, and since we are talking decades and centuries, yes there is going to be inflation.

Okay, I will do my best to stay respectful.

The interest we pay the Fed is returned to our Treasury? Then why does our national debt keep going up? I submit the findings of the Grace Commission in 1984 in regard to our national debt and the Federal Reserve:

• One-third of all their taxes is consumed by waste and inefficiency in the Federal Government as we identified in our survey.
• Another one-third of all their taxes escapes collection from others as the underground economy blossoms in direct proportion to tax increases and places even more pressure on law abiding taxpayers, promoting still more underground economy-a vicious cycle that must be broken.
• With two-thirds of everyone's personal income taxes wasted or not collected, 100 percent of what is collected is absorbed solely by interest on the Federal debt and by Federal Government contributions to transfer payments. In other words, all individual income tax revenues are gone before one nickel is spent on the services which taxpayers expect from their Government.

The fact is, all of our income taxes go toward the interest on our national debt and only toward the interest on our debt. If that money from interest was going back into the treasury couldn't we use that to pay down our debt? If the Federal Reserve wasn't making money for its owners then why do the private owners of the Fed maintain ownership?

No, the fact is the debt is at $14.6 trillion and it can never go down, it is not designed to. And the Fed is making a killing off of us and few people even realize it.

As far as inflation, do you realize that since 2008 the total money supply has DOUBLED? That's what QE2 was about, inflating the dollar by printing trillions of FRN's and sending them to the banks. I realize the normal rate of inflation is 3% and that is liveable. But the money supply has more than DOUBLED in the last three years! What do you think that is going to do to inflation?

In my estimation it means that in the next few years everything you pay for now will cost double!

Also, I am looking for that article on Bernanke supporting reserveless banking. Is it really that hard to believe, though? With the fractional banking we use now what would happen if all bank customers went to the bank to cash out? Most would be out of luck because the banks don't have the reserves in the vault. Is it that much of a stretch, then, with digital banking, for a bank to hold no reserves?

[tyron]

Government sanctioned debt? Now that is communism. No debt, boy that would stifle innovation and risk taking. Bernanke's quote is probably in regards to the lack of action after chairmen Benjamin Strong passed away in 1928. The other quotes are all from LAWYERS, which I have an opinion of them. Our debt is from our government spending, so why would you think it would be a good idea to allow them to print the money. Can anyone say Zimbabwe?

Core inflation has remained stable over the recent past. I blame the headline inflation on oil speculators and food prices on farmers switching from corn for food to corn for fuel. Inflation over the long haul is a necessary phenomena that should be regulated by someone, and since we are talking decades and centuries, yes there is going to be inflation.

A moratorium on all debt would absolutely destroy this country. Microsoft, apple, google, etc, etc, etc these companies I am sure all started with some debt and look what has happened. We need debt, it is how we transfer money from surplus spending units to deficit spending units. AKA, debt is how we get money from old dudes into the hands of young innovative and ambitious men and women. Government sanctioned debt, even in the short term, would cause rates to skyrocket. The government process would be so muddied that it would take forever to determine who would qualify, thereby raising rates as demand would skyrocket. Also, you would have to increase the size of government workforce massively to handle all of the requests. Think about how many people are employed by banks now. If they couldn't lent the whole demand would be the government's responsibility.

I give Bernanke a big plus for stating the fed should own the great depression because they make monetary policy, but I doubt he meant that they did it maliciously. In 1928 Benjamin Strong died which left a vacuum at the fed, so in 1929 when the crash hit there was no one to step. Then there was a contractionary policy which stifled the economy resulting in massive unemployment. So yes they did it, but its not like they were trying to destroy the very country that gives them power.

I highly doubt that Bernanke would advocate a reserveless currency, unless he was talking about stimulus to the economy when rates are already so low and quantitative easing techniques have been applied.

Also, you must remember that any profits at the fed are returned to the treasury ;-)

It is not easy drawing up a defense for a quasi-public bank to loan money to our government, but it creates a sense of accountability that says, "hey government you can't just spend and spend without consequences. In reality the Fed has increased the money supply when the government needed it, hence the stimulus, so it appears to me that the government in a sense is printing their own money.

In all I am in favor of a central bank. I really do not see a better system. The alternative is to allow our government to print money with no restrictions(interest). Those guys that you listed quotes were mostly lawyers and I would argue that they have done more damage to this country than bankers (more specifically the Fed). Could you imagine what we would have for monetary policy if Obama did not have to think about the interest on dollars printed. All major developed countries have central banks, how can you say that they suck the capital out of the economy?

It is a difficult task to defend any human who lends assistance(money) to another human only to gain from it, but it is a reality and without it rich old dudes would hoard their money and the economy would falter.

PS I love you folks, don't hate me for supporting a Federal Reserve system.

I really wanted to make the point that debt is not bad. You want to end debt now and forever? Debt has a dirty name, but think about this. Our government requires lower capital levels for our banks than they have in Europe. Therefore, less capital means more money the banks can lend out aka debt. Now tell me which country over the last century has had more innovation and ingenuity. Debt is required to make ideas and start-up companies take off. No offense to our friends across the ponds. The consequence is when times get tough it has a greater effect since there is more debt, I can't deny that. I just feel that it is necessary to get money to those who are ambitious. Where would we be if Henry Ford was not allowed to fail a little before hitting the jackpot?

Wow! there are so many things in your post I want to respond to, I feel almost dizzy DinarDoctor. However, I will just confine myself to the inflation issue. Inflation is neither stable nor under control. The government cheats. The basket they use does not have the most important things that people need and use on a daily basis. Even fuel is not included. Also they keep changing the items in the basket. e.g. if the price of steak went up they would substitute it for another meat product and still call it steak. The only way to check inflation is to see how much your dollar buys today compared to ten years ago or even five years ago. You will have a small shock to realise the dollar has lost 95% of its value.

As for switching from corn to food and corn to oil... well it has almost nothing to do with the issue in question and everything to do with speculators short-selling. They switched their attention and millions to agriculture products since the real estate bust.

[WallyWeaver]

You don't think we have had a healthy and vibrant economy since 1913? Crazy style! You must be a Rockefeller or something where your standard of living has not changed a whole lot. My family came to America in 1850s and started farming. Had 600 acres before depression, then lost it, then bought it back and that is what they farm today. My grandma has lived on the farm since she was a child, and I can tell you that our standard of living has increased enormously thanks to a healthy and vibrant economy. Try not to only think about the last few years when judging the economy. Or take a trip to Iraq and see what a unhealthy economy really is!

You are missing something...

Yeah, your standard of living has improved, but you are living in a dream! How much of that improved standard of living do you actually own? That is the point of this whole thread! If you are like 99.5% of Americans you don't OWN any of it. It's all a dream. Haven't you been paying attention to all of the foreclosures and bankruptcies the past few years? Those foreclosed homes were someones' dream. And I have news for you, my friend, this is only the begining.

We in America have all been living a fantasy and now the bills are due! We have been scammed by the central bankers and the interest mongers! If you think for a second that we are going to recover from the mess we are in now you are not paying attention. The American fantasy is coming to an end... I don't hate America, by the way, I love it. And I am angry at what has happened to us.

Unless we do something "radical" like get rid of the Federal Reserve and start printing our own money we are finished. I don't know how I can make that any more plain.

I'd give you 1000+ plussies for all your posts here WW! Great thread. (I ran out earlier today...as usual )

Your generous nature is shining through again, Blue! I guess I'm not as generous as you so I still was able to give you a +1!

Thanks for your excellent post! I still stand by my new nickname for you: Blue-cyclopedia!

[randalln]

The Hidden Meanings in the New $100 Bill!Bix Weir

First of all, I must admit that I am one of those "Conspiracy Nuts" who loves to read meaning into the back of the US $1 bill like I'm trying to solve a centuries old puzzle. The "All Seeing Eye", the pyramid, "One World Government", Masonic symbols, the implications of the Latin words, even the words "In God We Trust" added in 1955...all of it...I'm a big fan of secret meaning. Just Google "US Dollar Hidden Meaning" and you will find almost EVERY INTERPRETATION you can imagine. Since I don't know which is true...I tend to believe ALL OF THEM. More fun that way. If you think this is all hogwash and there is no meaning to the back of the $1 bill..."Duh, it's just a nice picture"...then this article is not for you.

So, of course, I was more than excited when the new $100 bill was FINALLY announced and IT HAD ALL THAT GOLD ON IT!

http://www.newmoney....ey/default.aspx

I admit that I am slightly biased on this. One of the central themes of my work at the Road to Roota Letters is that there is a group of people working to end the fiat money system and return the US back to the Gold Standard. For those unfamiliar with the concept read:

The Road to Roota Theory http://www.roadtoroo.../public/190.cfm

A subscriber tipped me off years ago that the new $100 bill would be "special" when it finally got released and he wasn't lying. I LOVE this bill! Check out how it turns gold in the light...

Ok. So it may be a coincidence and I may have an over active imagination but bear with me while we explore further. Take a real close look at the new bill keeping in mind that the US has a special history of hidden meaning behind their bills and there's a real possibility of a currency crash (with a return to the Gold Standard) in the very near future.

Let's start with the most glaring difference even from the other new colored bills: that huge Blue Stripe down the right center. For those not familiar with the symbolism of the American flag colors: Red symbolizes Hardiness and Valor, White symbolizes Purity and Innocence and Blue represents Vigilance, Perseverance and Justice. Is it possible that the big Blue Stripe may have more significance that you might expect?

When it comes to monetary theory there are really only two serious camps. The first believes in fiat/paper money and the second believes in a "hard money" backed by gold. Lets assume these two opposing ideologies are represented on this bill. Look closely at the left side of the Blue Stripe.

Let's say the left side represents the fiat/paper money camp. There is no new coloring at all just the same ole drab green. The same ole fiat money. It's all there...the words "Federal Reserve Note", the Official Fed Seal, Ooo..looks like the US Treasury Secretary signature has been moved from the right to the left side(come on...which camp did you think Geithner would be put in?!). And for you currency buffs, even Benjamin Franklin is positioned on the left of the Blue Stripe with that quizzical grin...why you ask?

Well, not many know it but Ben Franklin was a BIG supporter of paper money in his day. Don't get me wrong, he was a great and loyal American who was very much anti-banker but in his day the battle was reversed. It was the English bankers who were all about forcing the colonists onto a Gold/Silver standard but Franklin knew that the overseas trade would leave no physical money for the colonies to conduct domestic commerce with. It was probably the TRUE cause of the American Revolution! Here's a good representation of what happened:

http://21stcenturyci...and-prosperous/

Truthfully, it's high time we rewrite the all the US History books and tell the world the REAL STORY. The American Revolution was actually...A REBELLION AGAINST THE BANKSTERS!

Back to the "Greenback"...

So you can see that everything on the left side of the new $100 bill relates to the continuance of fiat money.

Now let's look at the right side of that Blue Stripe...the "Vigilance, Perseverance and Justice" side!

OH MY GOODNESS...GOLD GALORE!! A Gold Ink Well, Gold Liberty Bell, Gold Feather Pen, Gold "100", Gold Watermark, Gold Writing in the background, Gold "July 4, 1776"...there's even a HUGE gold "100" on the back of the right side. The right side of this bill is so full of gold it will probably droop when you hand it to the cashier!

Here's my take on all the Gold symbolism:

- The US has long prepared to return to a Gold Standard and the time has come.

- The Gold Ink Well symbolizes the power of Congress to pass laws that can dismantle the Fiat Money System with the stoke of a pen.

- The Gold Liberty Bell within the ink well symbolizes Congresses ability to write laws that destroy the banking cabal's strangle hold on the Liberty of citizens in the United States.

- Notice the words "THIS NOTE IS LEGAL TENDER FOR ALL DEBTS,PUBLIC AND PRIVATE" has also been moved from the left to the right side (or the gold standard side!)

- Notice how the color of the "100" on the bottom front changes from GREEN to GOLD...still not convinced?

- And now my favorite... look at the wording right above the "100" on the far right.

Do you see it?

"...the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute new..."

That, my friends, comes directly from our Declaration of Independence and says the following:

"That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute newGovernment, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

Has there ever been a time in the last 100 years that the people were more ready to "alter or abolish" our government?!

Can "They" make it more obvious...GET READY FOR A GOLD STANDARD!

The odd fact that the US Treasury chose to "anti-counterfeit" the $100 bill last is very telling. The US $100 is the MOST counterfeited bill in the world by far. So much so that the fake bills even have their own name...the "SUPERDOLLAR" or "SUPERNOTE".

The new $100's were going to be released on Feb 10, 2011 but the Federal Reserve announced a "delay due to production problems". Why wait so long? In this video it sure looks like they are in full production already. (what's with the "Wizard of Oz-esque" green drapes? No, I won't run with that!)

Oh, did you notice that the bill in all the sample photos was printed in "SERIES 2009"? I believe that the new $100's are ready to go and HAVE BEEN READY SINCE THE ONSET OF THE CREDIT CRISIS! They were waiting for the crash and the return to a gold standard. With this announcement they might as well say ...WE ARE READY TO COLLAPSE THE SYSTEM!!

The monetary camps split by the Blue Stripe, the Liberty Bell in the Gold Inkwell, the quotes of overthrowing the government, the delayed implementation of the $100 bill...

Get ready for a Gold Standard because we are just about there!

[estewart]

A problem with idea of having currency backed by silver or gold is that it can then be traded in for metal.

Nixon took the country off the Gold (and silver) stardard when he gained Intel that France was about to ship over a huge amount of US currency to have silver shipped back to France. What a major rip-off that was, eh? I mean, what Tricky-Dicky did.

Anyway, currency does need to be or should be backed by real wealth, but not gold or silver. Maybe solar units, some how, some way, or electrical amps or such. Prolly a basket of comodities would be best.

[WallyWeaver]

A problem with idea of having currency backed by silver or gold is that it can then be traded in for metal.

Nixon took the country off the Gold (and silver) stardard when he gained Intel that France was about to ship over a huge amount of US currency to have silver shipped back to France. What a major rip-off that was, eh? I mean, what Tricky-Dicky did.

Anyway, currency does need to be or should be backed by real wealth, but not gold or silver. Maybe solar units, some how, some way, or electrical amps or such. Prolly a basket of comodities would be best.

I think a basket of commodities would be do-able estewart.+1 and thanks for your input!

That would certainly be far better than what we have now!

I have to give you credit on the grace commission... I think I first read about it on one of your posts awhile back and began looking into it. I constantly use it now in my arguments against the Fed.

So, thank you! I have to give credit where credit is due.

[DiNaR DoCtOr]

First - why do you have to try and be respectful, its not that hard to debate without getting fired up isn't it?

Second - When I commented on the Fed returning profits you must not have noticed the ;-), which was meant to say it was tongue in cheek

I have a hard time believing everything will be priced double in a short amount of time, but that is my opinion. Our government debt has gone up because of government spending. Also, do you think there would not have been foreclosures without a fed. You do realize there were economic crisis when the treasury had money printing ability.

[billio0]

Those items you list as potential sources to back our currency are extremely volatile. That is why they do not use them to measure core inflation. What kind of impacts would it have on our currency, and what would we decide it is worth, if oil is 140/barrel this year but 70/barrel next year. It would be hard to draw up contracts that would be over the long term. Could you imagine if some had control of oil prices (oil speculators) and the impact individuals could have on the currency? Talk about arbitrage opportunities! I often say that any currency back by something tangible (commodities) would be more vulnerable to economic warfare. What if major countries decided not to buy our corn and they were going to use rice? Essentially our currency would lose value faster than inflation would have caused because the demand would drop and subsequently prices or value would fall. Maybe corn doesn't sound that scary, but it could be other commodities. Take a look at the panic of 1873 (maybe 1893 too lazy to look it up now). The decision by individuals or small groups can have an astounding effect on prices or values of commodities.

You don't think we have had a healthy and vibrant economy since 1913? Crazy style! You must be a Rockefeller or something where your standard of living has not changed a whole lot. My family came to America in 1850s and started farming. Had 600 acres before depression, then lost it, then bought it back and that is what they farm today. My grandma has lived on the farm since she was a child, and I can tell you that our standard of living has increased enormously thanks to a healthy and vibrant economy. Try not to only think about the last few years when judging the economy. Or take a trip to Iraq and see what a unhealthy economy really is!

Thanks once again DiNaR DoCtOr or you thoughtful insights. I DO appreciate them even though I happen to disagree.

Let me first address your notion that any commodity that backs our currency is by nature a volatile resource, and thus unqualified to represent our monetary system. We do have an abundance of resources of which I only named a few. There is copper, uranium, and even our intellectual resources such as international patents on things not to otherwise be had anywhere else on Earth. In fact, it matters not what asset is used to back our currency, because in the end it is us, the citizens of this great nation that ultimately do the backing anyway.

Therefore, if a particular commodity were to tank due to market constraints, we would simply need to make the necessary adjustments by substituting another more stable asset. It is quite easy to manage when one has the fortitude and commitment inherent to such a premise. But, of course when there is the belief system that "it can't be done, for its never been done," embedded in the collective mentality of the majority, then guess what? It won't ever get tried in the first place.

Now, to the other point you proffered: No, I am not a Rockefellow-ite, or anywhere close to being one, that is unless the RV happens to come in at over $8 to 1 IQD, as some have preposterously predicted. Then I will be well on the way.

The economy you speak of, and its so-called health and vibrancy since 1913 was in large part brought on by the advent of both World Wars One and Two, which in each case jump-started declining or depressed economic conditions here and abroad. As I presume you are also aware, both wars were underwritten here by the same Federal Reserve we are referencing now, and I suppose you could make the argument that we should then be thankful to them for the wars, but I beg to differ. And, since I do not ever engage in disputes because I have an unhealthy temperment, I shall defer to you, and accept that your perspective is much more informed than mine, and thus more accurate.

Although I might appear to be advocating a no-debt policy under any and all circumstances, that is not the case at all. I suspect that you ancestors acquired and re-acquired the farm you speak of without taking on much, if any, debt to do so. If you don't already know the answer to that, I suggest that you ask them. Debt in such large doses is a recent phenomenon of the last 20-30 years brought on by the very same Federal Reserve/Central Bank policies that are drowning the entire global economies of the world as we speak. That is in fact their only product, and the thing they sell; debt. Thus, I am merely advocating that we all step back from the precipice, and take a long hard look at ourselves, and where we are and want to be.

Handing the government (at least the current ones we've had for the last 20 years) another tool/weapon to hold over our heads in the form of regulating debt is certainly NOT a good idea. What needs to occur first is to get good government again,and that requires us to leave our comfortable surroundings, and get involved in any/every way possible to bring that about. If not, then there IS no solution, and we are all doomed to mediocrity; and, sooner rather than later.

Edited August 24, 2011 by billio0

[estewart]

I think a basket of commodities would be do-able estewart.+1 and thanks for your input!

That would certainly be far better than what we have now!

I have to give you credit on the grace commission... I think I first read about it on one of your posts awhile back and began looking into it. I constantly use it now in my arguments against the Fed.

So, thank you! I have to give credit where credit is due.

You are welcome, Wally. Glad you could become aware of the Grace Commission Report. I SERIOUSLY wish everyone could. I've known about it for some years, even I think back when the IRS' slogan was how one has got to Pay One's Fair Share. They've now dropped that pitch though. These days, there's nothing but threats.

I'm so fond of the early established statement that the people have the Right to alter or to abolish (the Government), and to institute a new Government,

Read more: http://dinarvets.com/forums/index.php?/topic/81192-the-blueprint-for-ending-the-federal-reserve/#ixzz1VzSjSX9x

But unfortunately, the cards are stacked against that now. One would be immediately declared a TERRORIST and shot on sight. Everyone involved with a lawful establishment of a new government would be fast made dead. The RIGHT to do this exists. It is legally allowed. BUT the government is now a fascist institution controlled by foreign bankers and they control everything, Congress, the Executive branch, and especially the military.