Kucinich Raises the Issue of the Constitutional Authority to Generate Credit

[-C-]

Most here will disagree with everything he says before and beyond what is quoted, but at least someone is saying something sane to the democrats.

Interviewed by MSNBC's Ed Schultz on Wednesday, Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio), a cosponsor of Glass-Steagall legislation presently before the House of Representatives, raised the issue of the Constitutional authority and responsibility of the United States as a sovereign nation to issue credit to invest in its own people:

"I carry the Constitution with me. I want to tell you something. We shouldn't have to get to that [using the 14th Amendment to lift the debt ceiling]. But Congress ought to familiarize itself with Article One, Section Eight, which says the Congress has the power to borrow money, sure, but it also has the power to coin money, to make money.

"We gave that power over to the Federal Reserve back in 1913. It's time that we understood we don't have to go to banks to get money. The United States is a sovereign government. According to our Constitution, we should be able to invest in our own people, create the jobs.

"We shouldn't have to rely on banks. We cannot be at the mercy of banks in this country. That's not a democracy. I think that it's time the Congress studied that provision of the Constitution as well."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PQR3tprq9i0

[nobody's_hero]

Only mildly preferable to the current system of going to the Federal reserve to make money. I could see two reasons for doing this, even if we did not go back to a gold-standard:

One, we wouldn't owe anyone. Our current system is overtly rediculous in that it means the government borrows money from the Federal Reserve and pays interest on it (albeit almost no interest), and we know that the federal reserve prints it out of thin air. We could cut out an unnecessary middleman in the process, if the U.S. government simply printed the money out of thin air directly (it has done so in the past). Don't get me wrong; the end result is the same (inflation), but we could conceivably cut down on the number of corrupt bankers who benefit from the U.S. treasury department doing business with the Federal Reserve Bank.

Two, accountability would rest solely with the U.S. Congress, as well as the blame. Rather than a shady 'private' entity being able to shy away from any questioning of its behavior, we would be stuck with the U.S. Congress. It doesn't take much to see that the American people typically do not hold politicians accountable, but at least the people would be able to ask questions. Asking the Federal Reserve questions is essentially not even allowed at the moment.

Ultimately, Congress would have to go back to basing our currency on something of real value for this to have any significant changes, but I would support this measure, even knowing that it does not address the root of the issue, which is dishonest, easily-manipulated money.

[Fox McCloud]

As much as it pains me to say it, I think I'd rather have the Fed managing our money supply than Congress x.x;

[muzzled dogg]

General welfare

[LibertyEagle]

As much as it pains me to say it, I think I'd rather have the Fed managing our money supply than Congress x.x;

I dunno. If they had to use gold and silver to coin that money, seems to me that it would be much preferable to what we have now.

[RabbitMan]

I dunno. If they had to use gold and silver to coin that money, seems to me that it would be much preferable to what we have now.

But they wouldn't. So...I kind of agree with Fox in this case. I could be dissuaded though.

[Koz]

I dunno. If they had to use gold and silver to coin that money, seems to me that it would be much preferable to what we have now.

Pretty sure that's not what Kucinich is talking about. He's talking about Congress turning on the printing presses instead of the fed. Why not just liquidate the feds bonds then like Dr. Paul suggests.

[sailingaway]

Most here will disagree with everything he says before and beyond what is quoted, but at least someone is saying something sane to the democrats.

Interviewed by MSNBC's Ed Schultz on Wednesday, Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio), a cosponsor of Glass-Steagall legislation presently before the House of Representatives, raised the issue of the Constitutional authority and responsibility of the United States as a sovereign nation to issue credit to invest in its own people:

"I carry the Constitution with me. I want to tell you something. We shouldn't have to get to that [using the 14th Amendment to lift the debt ceiling]. But Congress ought to familiarize itself with Article One, Section Eight, which says the Congress has the power to borrow money, sure, but it also has the power to coin money, to make money.

"We gave that power over to the Federal Reserve back in 1913. It's time that we understood we don't have to go to banks to get money. The United States is a sovereign government. According to our Constitution, we should be able to invest in our own people, create the jobs.

"We shouldn't have to rely on banks. We cannot be at the mercy of banks in this country. That's not a democracy. I think that it's time the Congress studied that provision of the Constitution as well."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PQR3tprq9i0

He's a greenbacker. With the constant raising of the debt ceiling which has been done by CONGRESS every time, he pretends congress would show restraint in making money without binding it to any commodity. I think he is wrong. Mind you they might not have done the $16 T in bailouts. It is better than what we have now, but is essentially communism with the congress being empowered to drain all value of the people's money based on what it prints/coins.

And 'coin' and 'print' are not actually interchangable because coining at least requires metal which has greater value than paper. And the Constitution mentions gold and silver as legal tender.

So he is suggesting better than we have now, but no solution to Congress being spendthrift.

Kucinich really lost a lot of my respect when he got on airforce one and sold out his universal health care plan. As with Sanders and the Fed audit bill, he was the one progressives were rallying around and he left them no one. Ron has never done something like that. It left me wondering if Kucinich would actually stand up to the pressure if he were in the White House, or would cave.

[Koz]

He's a greenbacker. With the constant raising of the debt ceiling which has been done by CONGRESS every time, he pretends congress would show restraint in making money without binding it to any commodity. I think he is wrong. Mind you they might not have done the $16 T in bailouts. It is better than what we have now, but is essentially communism with the congress being empowered to drain all value of the people's money based on what it prints/coins.

And 'coin' and 'print' are not actually interchangable because coining at least requires metal which has greater value than paper. And the Constitution mentions gold and silver as legal tender.

So he is suggesting better than we have now, but no solution to Congress being spendthrift.

Kucinich really lost a lot of my respect when he got on airforce one and sold out his universal health care plan. As with Sanders and the Fed audit bill, he was the one progressives were rallying around and he left them no one. Ron has never done something like that. It left me wondering if Kucinich would actually stand up to the pressure if he were in the White House, or would cave.

Clearly Kucinich has demonstrated that he would cave. He has no principles, what's worse is he is an idiot who thinks he knows something. Not a good combination.

[tekkierich]

Kucinich cave? never? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/15/obama-brings-dennis-kucin_n_499313.html

[Jace]

..

[sailingaway]

You took out that after the civil war the government RETIRED the greenbacks and the gold price went back down to $24 an oz.

[Microsecessionist]

I also would choose the Fed over greenbackers if those were the only two options, largely because a system under private banks has at least some incentive not to screw up.

I've long worried that if the Fed ever is abolished, it will be replaced with greenback policies (due to the lies spread by that retard Ellen Brown) rather than free banking + the government collecting all taxes in gold. Creating money, whether it's printing money or coining money isn't a core function of government.

[Aratus]

^important point. tariffs, reconstruction and the first 50 years of the Republican Party more than hint at this!^

[nobody's_hero]

I also would choose the Fed over greenbackers if those were the only two options, largely because a system under private banks has at least some incentive not to screw up.

I've long worried that if the Fed ever is abolished, it will be replaced with greenback policies (due to the lies spread by that retard Ellen Brown) rather than free banking + the government collecting all taxes in gold. Creating money, whether it's printing money or coining money isn't a core function of government.

When it collapses, though, who do you blame? The Fed is an entity controlled by shadow-figures who don't own answering machines. At least I know where my Congressman's office is.

There are more people out there who have never heard of the Federal Reserve, than there are people who at least know what the United States Congress is.

Everyone here is right in that this doesn't solve the core issue, but it will at least put a 'face' on the troublemakers.

(Kucinich probably doesn't even know what he's getting himself into, he needs to ask whether or not he is willing to be the one seen holding the axe, as most of Congress will if they were to just print the money into oblivion)

[Jace]

..

[Paul Or Nothing II]

Kucinich is the best of the Democrats. That being said, I would never trust a Democrat. His Obamacare cave in to the corporatists proves he is not the Democratic version of Ron Paul.

Kucinich is alluding to the Greenback here. During the Civil War, Lincoln ran out of money and knew he couldn't raise taxes without starting a second rebellion, so he went to the banks to borrow money to pay the Army and keep it supplied. But the bankers knew they had him in a corner so they turned the screws and charged high interest rates that would have put the nation into heavy debt for generations.

Lincoln said screw the bankers and he printed out debt-free Greenbacks that he used to pay for the war. The Greenbacks lost value but they did pay for the war without burying the Union in debt. This did not make the bankers happy.

The Greenback regained value after the war and continued on as a currency in various forms alongside gold until 1913. The government kept the supply of Greenbacks relatively stable and people gained confidence in it as a currency. Farmers created the Greenback Party in the hopes of increasing the supply of Greenbacks. The farmers blamed gold-backed currency for their problems, believing that the limited supply of gold and a shortage of credit made it expensive for them to borrow the money they needed to purchase land, seed and machinery.

Our Federal Reserve Note today is a fake Greenback. The whole point of the Greenback was that it was not based on debt. The Federal Reserve kept the green of the Greenback to trick Americans who loved the Greenback and hated gold. Meanwhile, the Fed used its green, debt-backed Federal Reserve Notes to bury us in debt.

When the government needs money today, it sells bonds to the banks in return for Federal Reserve Notes. The bonds must be paid back at interest. The Federal Reserve Notes are printed by the Treasury but go to the Fed, which lends the money to its member banks, which turn around and buy the government bonds at interest, knowing that the bonds are backed by the labor of the taxpayer. It's a racket.

What Kucinich wants is that instead of banks purchasing government bonds so that the government can have cash to pay its bills, the government should cut out the middlemen and use the cash from the Treasury's printing press to pay its bills directly, and not have to borrow it from private banks.

Right now we have the worst of both worlds. The printing presses are running non-stop, printing fiat currency that must be paid back at interest through taxation. We have the inflation and the income taxes and a debt that grows as the interest compounds. Whereas, with the Greenback we would have inflation when the printing presses were running, but without the taxes and without the interest payments.

With both a Greenback or a Federal Reserve Note, smart people defend themselves from inflation by buying gold, land or other hard assets. With the Greenback, inflation is the concern. With the Federal Reserve Note, inflation is also a concern but you have the added worry of the government coming after your income to pay the interest payments on its debt that is perpetually growing year after year. Your taxes are used to pay interest to the banks who own the bonds. Government bonds are what the rich call "a safe haven" and a "store of value." They buy bonds to preserve their principal and earn a little interest that is paid with tax revenue from the wage slaves. That's the whole purpose of the Federal Reserve System.

This debt ceiling debate has got them worked up into a lather. They demand their pound of flesh and they will crash the economy if they don't get it.

Some people believe that Lincoln's issuing of the Greenback is what earned him a bullet in the back of the head.

Obviously, you get most of your "facts" from "Bill Socialist Still" that speaks highly of Lincoln & his greencraps :rolleyes:

Lincoln was a life-long supporter strong federal government instead of states rights, he was supporter of tariffs at the expense of the American people & using that tariff-money for corporate-welfare & a supporter centralized-banking; all the things he accomplished by force & by deceit during his presidency.

When he first introduced his greencraps, people didn't trust them, they were deemed unConstitutional as the government could only COIN money, NOT issue IOUs but convinced people to take his "first greencraps" which bore a promise to redeem them for gold on demand, they are known as Demand Notes but once people started accepting paper, he issued "second greencraps" known as "United States Notes", these were pretty identical to the earlier ones BUT they did NOT bore the promise to redeem them in gold on demand &, voila, first government toilet-paper-money was born & then raped the purchasing-power of the American people to fund his unConstitutional war. He not only raised tariffs massively but also established the National Banking Act & cartelized the banking industry in the United States which was the precursor to Federal Reserve half a century later.

He devalued the paper-money so much that people were exchanging several dollars worth of "paper-dollars" for $1 gold-coin & people weren't happy with the greencraps so Congress embarked on a course to withdraw them in order to restore their value so that they could keep federal toilet-paper going & get people used to it & after it took a decade or so for them to regain their value again but they were just waiting & getting people used to paper, setting a trap which they eventually succeeded in.

Seriously, you need to get your facts from sources other than Bill Socialist Still or the mainstream history.

[eworthington]

I would take the greenback over the Federal Reserve any day. The Fed is able to charge interest to the government for printing money, it is able to devalue it, and it can print when it wants to. I would say getting rid of paying interest on notes is a good first step. Also, how many Ron and Rand Paul's are there on the Open Markets Committee? At least elections offer a chance to elect decent people to Congress; we never get that opportunity with cartel banking.

Also if the government isn't paying interest on the debt, then we can get back to the real discussion: how much inflation should we allow, and how much should the government spend? The current debate is just a distraction; everybody is getting all worked up over whether or not we should possible cut 1 or 2 trillion dollars from potential future spending in order for the government to continue paying interest on their bonds.

[Paul Or Nothing II]

I would take the greenback over the Federal Reserve any day. The Fed is able to charge interest to the government for printing money, it is able to devalue it, and it can print when it wants to. I would say getting rid of paying interest on notes is a good first step. Also, how many Ron and Rand Paul's are there on the Open Markets Committee? At least elections offer a chance to elect decent people to Congress; we never get that opportunity with cartel banking.

Also if the government isn't paying interest on the debt, then we can get back to the real discussion: how much inflation should we allow, and how much should the government spend? The current debate is just a distraction; everybody is getting all worked up over whether or not we should possible cut 1 or 2 trillion dollars from potential future spending in order for the government to continue paying interest on their bonds.

So where are all these "decent people" in Congress that you want to elect? Look, the basic fact is that government & politicians (like 99%+) are ALWAYS corrupt that's the whole reason of having small government so that their corruption hurts us less so there's no question of "electing decent people into Congress", of course, we should try for that BUT it's not going to work for the most part. Look at the democratic governments around the world, nearly all of the politicians have been corrupt, people always seem to elect the most corrupt ones so we don't need government-issued money, it was tried in many countries & because governments & politicians are so stupid, they very quickly hyperinflated it & destroyed countries & their people, at least bankers do it with some restraint because they know that hyperinflation will expose their scam.

So the whole question is pointless, we don't need the money to be controlled by either the government NOR the bankers, it's like choosing between Republicans & Democrats, it's not a choice at all; we need a free market in money & allow people to choose what they want to deal in for their private transactions by repealing the legal tender laws & capital gains tax, we can't settle for anything less, just as we can't settle for anything less than Ron Paul. :)

[Fox McCloud]

I dunno. If they had to use gold and silver to coin that money, seems to me that it would be much preferable to what we have now.

They did though, at one point in time....and yet we're still here today wishing that they did, in fact, use gold.

Also, do you really think the current Congress would take away the power of the Fed, give it to themselves and instantly realize "hey, gold/silver probably is the best way to go!"? Congress has demonstrated it absolutely loves to spend money--giving them the printing press would only give them yet another tool to finance their spending sprees, without restriction.

[Jace]

..

[Paul Or Nothing II]

Lincoln used the Greenback to pay for the war through inflation, rather than through debt to bankers. He won the war doing this without taking on debt.

Firstly, he need NOT have fought the war, it was unnecessary. If people don't like their government then they've a right to overthrow or otherwise set up their own as they see fit; I'm NOT justifying the reasons that they left but the fact that there was nothing wrong with them leaving. He didn't care much about slavery, that was just the plank issue to centralize power in the federal government. He could've just as easily, put up some of the money that he was STEALING & using it to subsidize his corporatist buddies & used some of that to buy out the slaves & release them into Free States but as I've said, it was just a plank issue.


The people who had gold coins were protected against the devaluation of the Greenback.

Wow! You wouldn't be bad spokesman for Fed! Are you? Just because there's gold doesn't mean shit. So just because there's gold, is Fed not doing anything wrong in devaluing the paper-money? Sounds like you're defending the Fed, well, Lincoln was a life-long supporter of central-banking & you're his fan so no surprise that you approve of what Fed is doing :rolleyes:


But if Lincoln had borrowed gold from the bankers, the government would have paid the bankers back by collecting taxes in gold.

Inflation IS a tax but DECEITFUL one, it's CHEATING the PEOPLE and as I've said, he didn't need to borrow or go to war, it was unnecessary & imperialist.


So if you were a gold holder, the Greenback worked out to your advantage, just like today how holders of gold are protected from the inflation caused by the Fed. However, today we have the income tax and the capital gains tax so they will come after your gold. Back then it was the tariff.

You should realize that AMERICAN PEOPLE were using his greencraps so he was STEALING from AMERICAN PEOPLE & with DECEIT. He issued first notes which bore a promise to redeem them in goldAs soon as he started flooding the market with paper, Gresham's Law (look it up) took place & all the proliferation of paper meant the market equilibrium took over & people stopped treating $1 gold-coin as $1.

Further, you've some gold, right? So is it ok if the Fed continues to devalue the currency & thereby you receive all of your current & future salaries in Fed's confetti?

As has been explained many a times that tariff IS a tax & inflation-tax is hardly any different from income-tax or capital-gains tax; the way Lincoln issued paper-money, it was equivalent to paying those taxes anyway PLUS he did have an income-tax too. Not to mention, he enacted National Banking Acts which were precursors to Fed so with your support for Fed & everything, I can understand why you like Lincoln so much :rolleyes:


Some people think that Lincoln's refusal to pay for the war with debt is why he was assassinated.

Some people even think Fed is an "essential" entity to the well-being of United States :rolleyes:

I think he was just killed for being the scumbag corporatist dictator that he was.


(I don't know what "Bill Socialist Still" is. Is that a personal attack of some kind?)

Google Communist Manifesto & read the 5th plank - "Centralisation of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly."

That's what Bill Shill wants to do.

[Jace]

..

[Travlyr]

As much as it pains me to say it, I think I'd rather have the Fed managing our money supply than Congress x.x;

Why present an either or argument when liberty demands no counterfeiter be allowed to reign?

[Paul Or Nothing II]

I agree with you. Ron Paul said the Civil War was completely unnecessary. Brazil was much more of slave economy than we ever were and they managed to abolish slavery without killing off half a million of their populace in a destructive war.

Then why do you worship Lincoln so much? You lecture other people so much about how the mainstream is about brainwashing & yet you don't realize that all the Lincoln-worship that goes on the in the mainstream & in the public schools & all is essentially government-worship & worship of the belief that government have a right to FORCE people against their wishes in order to "help people".


I hate the Fed so we are in agreement about that. My point was that Lincoln used inflation rather than debt and direct taxes to pay for the war. I'm not saying that is right or wrong, just that's what he did. Today, the Fed is using inflation AND taxes AND debt to pay for wars AND for a bloated socialistic government. The situation today is dire. The banksters are in control and they are looting us. They put their 5th Plank in a long time ago.

I would rather have Congress print the money than the Fed. That way their actions would be transparent and accountable to the public unlike the situation now where the money supply is created in secret and doled out to a banking cartel, and to who knows who else? We're not allowed to know. They say this is for our own good.

IN ESSENCE, there is no difference between inflation-tax & any other tax, whether you pay 40% in direct/indirect tax & lose 10% of currency's value or ONLY lose 50% of your currency's value, it's pretty much the same thing. And there'd be EVEN MORE socialism under a government-controlled money because there'd no restriction on it; with the current system at least people know that they're IN DEBT & they're paying interest on it which gets people to take notice but if government controls money then they'll just blame inflation on other factors.

And what makes you think that a government controlling money-supply won't tax people, it's a totally ridiculous belief, of course, they will, Lincoln did too & the only reason Americans resisted because they ALREADY believed in limited government & when America started turning socialist, it was NOT necessarily because Fed was there but BECAUSE American people had LOST THEIR WAYS which is what happens when people become prosperous & lazy; if that hadn't happened then whether Fed was there or not, we'd NOT have moved towards socialism. Just because Fed is bad doesn't mean we can impute everything on it :rolleyes:

The Fed prints the money and doles it out to its member banks who then lend it at interest to the government, and we pay back the interest on government debt with our income taxes. We are a dumb herd being fleeced. Goldman Sachs borrows billions from the Fed at 1 percent and then buys government bonds at 3 percent. So the taxpayer is paying the vampires at Goldman Sachs the interest that funds their huge bonuses. It's a racket. Those vampires produce nothing of value in our economy, but they live like kings and Roman emperors.

The thing about Fed is that the people running it are at least smarter than most of Congress (What? You need proof of that?:D) which means they loot but they do so with some care & don't hyperinflate the currency & destroy the whole nation completely; as stupid as Congress is they'd looting us more than the bankers do & it's little harder under the current system because debt & interest on debt gets in the way to a degree as it has now. Had Congress been running money-supply instead of Fed for the past 100 years then we'd've had more hyperinflations than growth :rolleyes:


I'm not saying that Congress retaking control of the money supply is the best solution, but it's better than what we have today. My problem with gold is that central banks are the largest holders of it, so if we go back to gold-backed money, we would still have to borrow from the banks in order to have access to currency. That being said, the government shouldn't tax people for holding gold to protect their savings from inflation.

This is where learning SOUND ECONOMICS would actually come in handy, instead of watching socialist/communist videos like "Money Masters" or "Zeitgeist" or whatever that give people 95% truth about Fed & nature of money & then try to direct them to socialism/communism through rest of the 5%. The fact is that we DON'T NEED TO BORROW, people CAN live WITHOUT borrowing, they can EARN FIRST & THEN SPEND, believe that :rolleyes: I know it might be a little hard to believe that after watching so much communist/socialist propaganda that you may've watched on your way to discovering Fed & its nature.

Moreover, there's NOTHING wrong with some people having more money (or gold) so long as government is small enough for people to hold it accountable to a large degree. The point is that "bankers" WON'T be able to create gold like they create paper under a gold-standard WITHOUT fractional-reserve-banking which means they'll EARN only to the extent they're providing goods/services which mean that they'll NOT be able to retain their wealth forever & as I've been constantly saying in the other goods/services are the REAL WEALTH, NOT "money", be it gold, silver, paper or whatever, "money" just a tool for facilitating trade of goods/services & to save one's purchasing-power for future consumption.


I'm intrigued by the competing currencies Ron Paul talks about, but I've yet to read a good explanation of how they would work.

That's the beauty of the market, it finds its own ways. Although I do believe that currencies tend to converge & hence we'll not be having many of them eventually but still competing currencies is about FREEDOM, about people deciding what they want to buy & sell, just like businesses, over the years, accommodated for credit-cards & everything, they'll accommodate for taking many popular currencies, if they want to maximize their profits.


I'm not too intrigued by the notion of my employer deciding to print up his own competing currency to pay me with.

Well, here's the thing, you don't have to work for such an exmployer :rolleyes: You can always choose an employer who agrees on paying in whatever currency you want to be paid in; EVERY free worker has that much bargaining power.


Why present an either or argument when liberty demands no counterfeiter be allowed to reign?

+1

EXACTLY.

We don't need to choose between Obama & Romney (that's a false choice as it is in the case of Fed & Congress:() when we can choose Ron Paul :D

[jmdrake]

As much as it pains me to say it, I think I'd rather have the Fed managing our money supply than Congress x.x;

I wouldn't. With congress at least we have a chance to kick them out. There's no chance with the fed. Part of the excuse for why we don't have an audit is the "Do you want to trust congress with monetary policy" straw man argument.

[Rothbardian Girl]

I would think congressional control would be preferable to the Federal Reserve because of the "accountability factor", but neither scenario is a good one.