A Layman's Understanding of Debt
POSTED BY: AnthonyT
UPDATED: Wednesday, May 21, 2025 00:28
VIEWED: 4246
PAGE 5 of 7
And yet, you have failed to show that Congress is not allowed to determine the value of currency or to pass laws to empower bodies to carry out the task.
***************************************************************
Silence is consent.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
And yet, you have failed to show that Congress is not allowed to determine the value of currency or to pass laws to empower bodies to carry out the task.
The Highest Law is the Constitution , here in these United States .
The duties of Congress , and the Rights of the States , are enumerated therein...
The ruling of the Supreme Court which disestablished the National Recovery Act , is sufficient to alert any reasonable person that the duties of the Congress with regard to the monetary responsibilities , prescribed by the Constitution , are both specific , and limited , in scope...
Clearly then , as before , you are just not a reasonable person...
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
First of all, it's not the NRA, it's the NIRA. The NRA was the National Recovery Administration.
Second, at issue was direct effects on interstate commerce, which the court ruled was within scope of the congress, v indirect effects which the court ruled was not.
And finally, a mere two years later, the court reversed its ruling and allowed more expansive discretion to congress, a position that has been upheld since.
Ya' gotta' keep up with the times. You're 71 years behind.
***************************************************************
Silence is consent.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
First of all, it's not the NRA, it's the NIRA. The NRA was the National Recovery Administration.
Second, at issue was direct effects on interstate commerce, which the court ruled was within scope of the congress, v indirect effects which the court ruled was not.
As always ,
You strain your gnats while gulping the camel...
The National Recovery Administration was established for the purpose of administrating the National Recovery Act .
Officially , it was the National Industrial Recovery Act...
That is the way that it was originally written...
But , you are the one who is decades behind...
It was commonly known as the National Recovery Act , colloquially , and contemporaneously...
It has been known in the vernacular ever since , as the National Recovery Act...
Many references designate it that way...Most of them either call it the National Recovery Act , or the N-R-A letters are bolded , while the 'Industrial' portion is not , to reflect the way that the Act has been commonly and historically known .
Seems that you are the one decades behind .
The Act was BAD LAW...The Supreme Court found it to be so within a fairly short time after its enactment...
The Constitution allows Congress a role in regulating interstate commerce...That was not the portion of law at issue ; rather , it was the aforementioned Un-Constitutionality of having a floating value to the U.S. Dollar that the Court differed with .
http://www.civics-online.org/library/formatted/texts/recovery_act.html
http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=true&doc=66
Rue , you belong at the zoo...They'll put you in with the primates , where you may feel free to nit-pick...
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
To put the ball in your Court , where in the Constitution is there an authorization for any Branch of the Federal government to allow , authorize , or permit a Private Corporation (Federal Reserve) to " regulate the 'money' supply " ?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Here's a page that describes some of the history of Lawful Money in the United States .
Folk should look especially at the 'Note' from 1934...
Interesting , the way it reads :
"This Note Is Legal Tender For All Debts Public And Private And Is Redeemable In Lawful Money At The United States Treasury
Or At Any Federal Reserve Bank".
What is Lawful Money ?
According to the Constitution , it's Gold and Silver COIN !
There has been NO AMENDMENT to change that !
We've been swindled !
http://www.the-privateer.com/paper.html
http://www.civil-liberties.com/pages/money.html
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
http://www.halexandria.org/dward299.htm
"...Any paper Money, which is not backed by something with intrinsic value, is always subject to becoming worthless once those using it begin to lose confidence in it. This was the case in the American colonies before and immediately after the American Revolution. It is also the reason that the Constitution of the resulting nation went to significant lengths to establish a national currency which was backed by tangible assets. It is also the gist of those Jeffersonian Concerns which dealt with the dangers of a Central Bank (as in The Federal Reserve), and the incompatibility of being free and in debt.
In the united States of America, paper money is illegal and unconstitutional. Article 1, Section 10, of the Constitution for the United States of America states, in part:
“No State shall.. make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in payment of Debts.”
The United States Code, Title 12, Section 152, states: “Lawful money shall be construed to mean gold or silver coin of the United States.”
Money is in fact defined as: “Coin, stamped metal; any piece of metal usually gold, silver, or copper stamped by public authority.” Bouvier’s Law Dictionary [1870, page 192] makes the definition even simpler: “Gold and silver coins. The common medium of exchange in a civilized nation.”
A 1934 Federal Reserve Note, however, contained the following statement: “This note is ‘legal tender’ for all debts public and private and is redeemable in ‘lawful money’ at the United States Treasury or at any Federal Reserve Bank.”
It might be thought curious that the Federal Reserve Note is ‘legal tender’, but can be redeemed for ‘lawful money’. Obviously, the two are not the same. In effect, Federal Reserve Notes are a legal tender, but not of the United States. Dollars are legal tender, but not all legal tender are dollars. Federal Reserve Notes cannot be “lawful money” for the United States.
More recent Federal Reserve Notes state: “This note is legal tender for all debts, public and private” Please note that there is no period at the end of the statement, suggesting that perhaps the statement is not complete. E.g. not redeemable? There is also the aspect that the note is for all debts... not necessarily a means of accumulating wealth, but merely a means of addressing debts (and not necessarily even paying off a debt!).
Take, for example, the case where a Court orders a judgment to be paid in dollars. Because the Federal government is not currently coining any Dollars (and the States are prohibited from doing so), no person can pay any debt arising from a judgment of the Court. Since there are no Dollars available to an accused to pay the debt judgment of the Court, the Court has no capacity to enforce the judgment, and therefore lacks the ability to effect a remedy (as in Remedy and Recourse). Thus, the Court has no jurisdiction in the case, and the case should be dismissed. [But don’t assume that the above constitutes legal advice, or that the Court will buy the argument for a nano-second! Their idea of remedy might be to throw you into jail! And thus not allow you to pass go.]
The founding fathers of the country specifically forbade the use of paper money as legal tender for good reason. This has been described in some detail by Robert S. Getman (an attorney, practicing with the firm of Kelley Drye & Warren in New York City) in his article, Gold and the Founding Fathers. His thoughts (and others’) include the following:
Emperors and kings in previous centuries were not totally free to increase taxes, inasmuch as they had to consider just how much their subjects were able and willing to bear. In the cases where their subjects might have reached a breaking point, the kings often resorted to skimming off some of the precious metals of their coins (thus reducing the actual weight of the coins), or more slyly, reducing the precious metal content of the coin’s alloy.
In modern times, considerable research has gone int
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
A Liberal View of Why " We're Humped " !
Ni Hao , Y'all !
In the Obama-Nation , everyone's
Equally Screwed !
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Uncle Sam's Credit Line Running Out?
http://online.barrons.com/article/SB122633310980913759.html
--------------------------
Dr. Horrible Karaoke
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello,
I understand the idea of incurring debt as an investment.
I borrow a million dollars so that I can open 3 manufacturing plants. These plants allow me to produce 3 times the merchandise which I can sell to 3 times as many customers and earn 3 times the money.
My 'future gains' are the increased profits that result from this investment. They are used to pay off my debt.
This seems to me to be a normal debt cycle. Normal debt cycles, to me, involve an end.
However, our country does not seem to have an end to the debt cycle.
We also do not seem to be maintaining a constant level of debt.
Rather, we seem to be escalating debt indefinitely, and our 'future gains' or profits from these investments do not appear to be exceeding our debt. This is a debt cycle that can not end. We will always need to be borrowing more money - and eventually we would seem to be in the position of borrowing money merely to pay for our borrowed money.
Recent events have taught me that an economic balloon can not inflate forever. I would imagine that this applies to debt, too? If we can not maintain a stagnant amount of debt, or preferably reduce our level of debt, what will prevent the debt from eventually inflating to an unsustainable size?
--Anthony
"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner
I didn't read through all of the replies.
You are missing the changing landscape of political nature.
You are correct that the "borrowing" by our government is the "issuing" of new money in the form of U.S.Treasury bonds which helps stimulate or more accurately stabilize the national economy. In conjuction with tax cuts to spur tax revenue, this is done in the hope that the result will create more income, producing greater total income from tax revenue. Consider Reaganomics a template for this.
Unfortunately, often the political landscape changes before the full benefits are realized. Another party comes into control riding the coattails of the fiscal conservatives, proclaiming they will redistribute the "windfalls of the wealthy" to non-workers, non-earners, welfare recipients, etc. In this way the debt pay-down gets diverted to political payoffs instead of debt reduction. They get into office because the Americal electorate quickly forgets how bad the economy was under the last fiscal liberal, or the one before that. They forget or just don't see that the increase in revenue was because the wealthy switched positions and became "income earners" and generated revenue, and then under excessive tasation the wealthy return to a non-income position, ending that revenue stream.
Your personal economy has the goal of generating enough income to pay off your debts. The national economy also borrows to spur income tax revenue to pay off debts, but then different politicians get in control and spend all that hard-earned revenue frivolously on recipients of social welfare.
Does that explain the parts you didn't see before?
One summarization points out the juxtapositioning of the basis of the economic beliefs. One is that debt should be paid down in times of economic growth, the other is that debt should be grown in times of economic growth. Liberals proclaim that during economic growth the gains should be diverted to increasing social spending rather than downpaying the debt. In 1994 the newly elected fiscal House conservatives stopped the uncontrolled spending of the President, spurring unparralled growth in economy. Fiscal conservatives want to pay down the debt during economic growth. Neither inherently seems to think debt should be payed down during economic recession.
Which do you believe? Should debt be reduced during strong economic times? Or should debt be grown larger during strong economic times?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME