"Money As Debt". Anyone care to agree or disagree with this video?

[Filthy Keynes]

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5352106773770802849#

[vacuum]

I thought it was great.

[General of Darkness]

I gotta hit the hay, and it's 45+ minutes long. I'll view it tomorrow.

[Filthy Keynes]

I gotta hit the hay, and it's 45+ minutes long. I'll view it tomorrow.


Ok you bastid. You'd better not renig on this. :) /tease

[SirCruz]

I'll view it later. At work at the moment.

[Bigjon]

More of the same old Hypertiger crap "didn't create the interest".

Read the creature from Jekyll Island It will tell you how money works.

Here is G. Edward Griffin's explanation of where the money to pay the interest comes from:
http://www.freedomforceinternational.org/freedomcontent.cfm?fuseaction=money_as_debt&refpage=issues



MONEY AS DEBT
An instructional video that gets a flunking grade
An analysis by G. Edward Griffin, 2007 June 7

Money As Debt is a well-produced instructional video explaining the inequities in the present world's banking system. In many respects it does an excellent job, but it misses the mark in several important areas. For example, it perpetuates the myth that interest can never be paid back in its entirety because banks do not create enough money to cover the principle plus the interest. I dealt with this myth on page 191 of my book, The Creature from Jekyll Island, as follows:
WHO CREATES THE MONEY TO PAY THE INTEREST?
One of the most perplexing questions associated with this process is "Where does the money come from to pay the interest?" If you borrow $10,000 from a bank at 9%, you owe $10,900. But the bank only manufactures $10,000 for the loan. It would seem, therefore, that there is no way that you - and all others with similar loans - can possibly pay off your indebtedness. The amount of money put into circulation just isn't enough to cover the total debt, including interest. This has led some to the conclusion that it is necessary for you to borrow the $900 for the interest, and that, in turn, leads to still more interest. The assumption is that, the more we borrow, the more we have to borrow, and that debt based on fiat money is a never-ending spiral leading inexorably to more and more debt.

This is a partial truth. It is true that there is not enough money created to include the interest, but it is a fallacy that the only way to pay it back is to borrow still more. The assumption fails to take into account the exchange value of labor. Let us assume that you pay back your $10,000 loan at the rate of approximately $900 per month and that about $80 of that represents interest. You realize you are hard pressed to make your payments so you decide to take on a part-time job. The bank, on the other hand, is now making $80 profit each month on your loan. Since this amount is classified as "interest," it is not extinguished as is the larger portion which is a return of the loan itself. So this remains as spendable money in the account of the bank. The decision then is made to have the bank's floors waxed once a week. You respond to the ad in the paper and are hired at $80 per month to do the job. The result is that you earn the money to pay the interest on your loan, and - this is the point -the money you receive is the same money that you previously had paid. As long as you perform labor for the bank each month, the same dollars go into the bank as interest, then out the revolving door as your wages, and then back into the bank as loan repayment.

It is not necessary that you work directly for the bank. No matter where you earn the money, its origin was a bank, and its ultimate destination is a bank. The loop through which it travels can be large or small, but the fact remains all interest is paid eventually by human effort. And the significance of that fact is even more startling than the assumption that not enough money is created to pay back the interest. It is that the total of this human effort ultimately is for the benefit of those who create fiat money. It is a form of modern serfdom in which the great mass of society works as indentured servants to a ruling class of financial nobility.


It is dissapointing that the producers of this program perpetuated the "no-interest-money" myth but it was even more dissapointing to see them jump on the fiat-money bandwagon as a so-called solution to the banking problem. Yes, they actually propose that the solution to fiat money created out of nothing by the banks is to have fiat money created out of nothing by the government, as though politicians are any more trustworthy than bankers.

One of the primary references cited for this video is another video documentary entitled The Money Masters, written and produced by Bill Still. Still has been a leading advocate of government fiat money, so it is clear where this non-solution came from. If you are interested in my in depth analysis of this concept and of Still's work in particular, see: Meet Bill Still, Fiat-Money Advocate.

[FunnyMoney]

The video is mostly correct and is a good review. The quotes provided are really good.

However, the suggestions on how to create a stable money that does not enslave are at several points off the mark. Regardless, it is a pretty good video overall.

The founding fathers understood that big money and big power must be kept far from the reach of central authority and especially private banking cartels. They believed in a very limited and very restricted form of govt. That is essential.

But if they were alive today I bet they would convert to anarchists, every last one of them. In today's modern world, the only way to restore and keep liberty and freedom from the reach of great corrupt powers would be to equate the word tax with the devil. Taxation must become hated the world over more than nearly any other earthly endeavor. This would need to include inflation and controlled money systems which are also simply a stealth form of heavy handed taxation.

Unless the people of the world realize the truths behind the quotes in this video and reject taxation and central authorities they will simply continue down the path toward 100% slavery. We are already over half way there.

[Glass]

BigJon. I think you miss a couple key aspects of the problem. Usury or rent on money (symbols)is one and the other is practice of speculation which has the effect of exponentially creating more money which incurs more rent or usury. At the pace of speculation the capacity of the population to meet the rent on the money symbols is quickly exceeded. This is the maximum potential. The mathematic reality that all future work will not be enough to meet the rent on the money symbols in existance.

The usury or rent is another issue. It impacts the maximum potential equation and because of this needs to be looked at. The fact that it exists is an issue and the way in which it is calculated and applied are also issues. Especially for things like a mortgage. I can never understand how a $500K mortgage at 6% or 75% per annum can take 25 or 30 years to pay off and cost something like $3.5mil in that time. How is that calculation done? It is not done annually it is infact calculated out fully up front and the whole of the interest over the life of the loand is calculated. Repayments are then allocated to the interest portion first instead of to the principal first, which would reduce the principle and reduce the interest over time. This is why if you pay more than the interest it comes off the principle reducing the life of the obligation. A mortgage can be paid in as little as 7 years in these circumstances and IMO this is how all mortgages should operate. Money off the principal, interest calculated on the balance of principle. Of course that is not in the interest of the "lender".

Anyway the two men on an island or some guy working for a bank are too simplistic and don't take into account speculation and compound usury.

[Bigjon]

If the money to pay the interest caused a shortage of money, the value of money would go up.

Anything that is in short supply naturally follows this basic law.

Think about it.

Does the writing of many loans cause the value of money to go up?

[Vaughn Pollux]

I thought Money As Debt was a prerequisite for signing up for this forum :)

It's always one of the first mandatory watches before embarking on this this journey.

[Carl]

If the money to pay the interest caused a shortage of money, the value of money would go up.

Anything that is in short supply naturally follows this basic law.

Think about it.

Does the writing of many loans cause the value of money to go up?
That's funny; you twisted the argument ass backwards.

The "money" is still there as debt, what is in short supply is the value added labor to pay the principle and rent on it.

.

[Ash_Williams]

Quote from: Bigjon on Yesterday at 07:10:32 AM
If the money to pay the interest caused a shortage of money, the value of money would go up.

Anything that is in short supply naturally follows this basic law.

Think about it.

Does the writing of many loans cause the value of money to go up?
That's funny; you twisted the argument ass backwards.

The "money" is still there as debt, what is in short supply is the value added labor to pay the principle and rent on it.

Actually I think he addressed on of the points that is commonly repeated: There's not enough money to pay the interest on the debt.

If that were true then we should see falling prices as dollars would be in greater demand.

Edit: another simple thing to think about. It's claimed that interest is what is causing inflation. So, if interest was 0%, we should have less inflation, right?

[Bigjon]

Quote from: Bigjon on Yesterday at 07:10:32 AM
If the money to pay the interest caused a shortage of money, the value of money would go up.

Anything that is in short supply naturally follows this basic law.

Think about it.

Does the writing of many loans cause the value of money to go up?
That's funny; you twisted the argument ass backwards.

The "money" is still there as debt, what is in short supply is the value added labor to pay the principle and rent on it.

Actually I think he addressed on of the points that is commonly repeated: There's not enough money to pay the interest on the debt.

If that were true then we should see falling prices as dollars would be in greater demand.

Edit: another simple thing to think about. It's claimed that interest is what is causing inflation. So, if interest was 0%, we should have less inflation, right?


You know that is not true, don't you?

As long as the Loan is a performing loan, which means there is some responsible person who is paying off his debt, the bank has an asset that is offset equally by the amount of money (credit) that is outstanding.

Each time the debtor pays, the banker takes his cut, the interest off of the top and uses it by spending it to pay his expenses or buy another asset. The money gets spent multiple times on each and every loan, which greatly multiplies the amount of money in circulation and causes INFLATION, driving down the value of money.

The money that pays the interest is drawn from what remains of the original loan and is recycled or re-SPENT multiple times, until the debt is extinguished.

However, there is no law that says a banker has to recycle/spend his interest money and he can withhold spending and create deflation.

[Bigjon]

If the money to pay the interest caused a shortage of money, the value of money would go up.

Anything that is in short supply naturally follows this basic law.

Think about it.

Does the writing of many loans cause the value of money to go up?
That's funny; you twisted the argument ass backwards.

The "money" is still there as debt, what is in short supply is the value added labor to pay the principle and rent on it.

.


I agree our current situation has a lack of jobs, which leads to a lack of labor, which leads to non-performing loans, but the debt that remains is offset by the credit money which is equal to the debt. That is why the banks are all mostly insolvent, they have a whole bunch of bad loans that have to be written off. These loans were the assets of the bank and now they are gone, but the liability of the credit money residing in the customer's account is still there.

Therefore we have a bunch of banks with no assets and all liabilities, which means if we had honest accounting everyone with money in a insolvent bank would lose their money too.

[FunnyMoney]

I thought Money As Debt was a prerequisite for signing up for this forum :)

It's always one of the first mandatory watches before embarking on this this journey.


A prerequisite if you want to know where this "money as debt" journey takes us, for sure. That's why so few people do sign up, for most they don't want to or can't handle knowing.

[Horn]

The pivotal change in the English-speaking world seems to have come with the permission to charge interest on lent money: particularly the 1545 act "An Acte Agaynst Usurie" (37 H.viii 9) of King Henry VIII of England (see book references).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usury

No coincidence the exploration of the New World stepped up around that same time. Even the users themselves being semi-conscious of their trespasses.



Most importantly, usury is the derivation of profit from biological time, which is linked to life, considered sacred, God-given and divine, leading to excessive worrying about money instead of God, thus subjugating a God-given sanctity of life to man-made artificial notions of material wealth.

[TheNocturnalEgyptian]

Bump, required viewing, you will be quizzed on this.

[Twisted Titan]

More of the same old Hypertiger crap "didn't create the interest".

Read the creature from Jekyll Island It will tell you how money works.

Here is G. Edward Griffin's explanation of where the money to pay the interest comes from:
http://www.freedomforceinternational.org/freedomcontent.cfm?fuseaction=money_as_debt&refpage=issues


Griffin is wrong


No matter how many people are in the dasiy chain of laborers if there is only One source where the money comes from then it is a closed system.and the 900 dollars dose not exist.

The only other option is if you have hard currency to cure the addiontal debt of 900 and that would be at the discretion of the debt holder if a unit other then dollars will satisfy them

which proves my point that the real objective of the debt holder is not about getting paid back...it is about control over you and your time.

[Bigjon]

Griffin is wrong


No matter how many people are in the dasiy chain of laborers if there is only One source where the money comes from then it is a closed system.and the 900 dollars dose not exist.

The only other option is if you have hard currency to cure the addiontal debt of 900 and that would be at the discretion of the debt holder if a unit other then dollars will satisfy them

which proves my point that the real objective of the debt holder is not about getting paid back...it is about control over you and your time.

Griffin is correct and you are wrong.

You are confusing the thing called money with an action called spending the two have never been equal.

The amount of spending has always been a multiple of the amount of money and is called the velocity of money.

More loans equals more money equals more inflation.

When you spend a dollar you pass the token to someone who has the thing you want. The dollar still exists and you can earn it with your labor to (it passes back to you) pass it off again.

[Twisted Titan]

When you spend a dollar you pass the token to someone who has the thing you want. The dollar still exists and you can earn it with your labor to (it passes back to you) pass it off again.



like I said before it dosent make a difference how many people are in the daisy chain if there is only one source that can introduce the means of exchange.

it only a matter of time before some one is stuck with a bill that is due and no means to pay it.


all the banker needs is two things

Time so that trap can snare its victim in due season

A Redemption process to collect goods (chattle) in lieu of the money that was never created in the first place

[Bigjon]

When you spend a dollar you pass the token to someone who has the thing you want. The dollar still exists and you can earn it with your labor to (it passes back to you) pass it off again.



like I said before it dosent make a difference how many people are in the daisy chain if there is only one source that can introduce the means of exchange.

it only a matter of time before some one is stuck with a bill that is due and no means to pay it.


all the banker needs is two things

Time so that trap can snare its victim in due season

A Redemption process to collect goods (chattle) in lieu of the money that was never created in the first place

The problem is the money WAS CREATED and it now resides in the accounts of the bankers customers.

The current situation has the bankers as the ones who are broke because they made loans to people who don't have jobs, because the government stuck a gun to the bankers heads and demanded that poor people deserve a home too. However the big bankers own the government and own the politicians and they get to make the rules on when the time is up.

I think that the Jews wanted to kill off the little bankers and created this scenario.

They have this abomination called the Federal Reserve which they are using to lay their debt off on the people's side of the ledger. In order to defeat them we have to make our demand for lawful money (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-9010856874304912516&hl=en#) and kill the Fed.



NO ONE is forcing you or anyone to borrow money. It is a choice you make and once you do you are honor bound to make good on your word and repay according to the terms you agreed to.

[BrewTech]

NO ONE is forcing you or anyone to borrow money. It is a choice you make and once you do you are honor bound to make good on your word and repay according to the terms you agreed to.

No one forces the .gov, in my name, to borrow money? Then where does it come from, and why am I forced to give up a good chunk of my income to pay back loans?

I don't have any personal loans outstanding, yet I am still making loan (re)payments.

[Bigjon]

No one forces the .gov, in my name, to borrow money? Then where does it come from, and why am I forced to give up a good chunk of my income to pay back loans?

I don't have any personal loans outstanding, yet I am still making loan (re)payments.

Good point, the base money in the form of gold and silver was stolen and replaced with worthless paper.

I am not defending the bankers, just pointing out fallacies many here can't seem to wrap their minds around.

I would prefer the original constitutional monetary system of both gold and silver as money.

There is a remedy that the banksters have kept hidden from us. That is to redeem lawful money in the form of non-expandable FRN's serving as US notes.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-9010856874304912516&hl=en#

http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showthread.php?148-How-to-use-this-Lesson-Plan

[madfranks]

The premise that you can't pay back a loan + interest when the money supply consists only of the amount of the loan (like the video in the OP states), is incorrect, like Griffin states in his book. Remember, the value of the loan + interest is paid off through goods or services, so even if the money supply is not enough to pay it all off at once, through the trade or offering of services in excess of the loan amount, the interest can be paid, using the same money that paid off the principal of the loan.

[Twisted Titan]

Good point, the base money in the form of gold and silver was stolen and replaced with worthless paper.

I am not defending the bankers, just pointing out fallacies many here can't seem to wrap their minds around.

I would prefer the original constitutional monetary system of both gold and silver as money.

There is a remedy that the banksters have kept hidden from us. That is to redeem lawful money in the form of non-expandable FRN's serving as US notes.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-9010856874304912516&hl=en#

http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showthread.php?148-How-to-use-this-Lesson-Plan



How many people have used the techniques described to extinguish debt?

its sounds good in theroy but a whole another animal to put into practice

plus you have to have a judge that willing to play ball and excute those documents accordingly.

good luck with that.

[Bigjon]

How many people have used the techniques described to extinguish debt?

its sounds good in theroy but a whole another animal to put into practice

plus you have to have a judge that willing to play ball and excute those documents accordingly.

good luck with that.

I don't think you need a judge to execute the documents. You just need to document your demand for lawful money.

How many people, I have no way of knowing. All I do know it is straight from our Federal Law (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode12/usc_sec_12_00000411----000-.html) book.

I have been leery of trying this myself, because our court system is much less than honest.

If we don't do it and continue to sign our names on the dotted line we are endorsing and bonding ourselves as collateral for the national debt. Our signature is proof of our acceptance of the Federal Reserve System.

[Glass]

The answer truly lies in how you act in commerce. You need to decide who you are and act accordingly. Are you a creditor or a debtor?

Under US law anyone carrying FRN's is basically a banker. Are you acting as a banker or as a borrower? Creditor vs debtor.

How many ways can you pay a bill e.g. settle a debt?

You guys are kind of onto it but are just a bit blinkered. Obviously this is the state they prefer you to be in but the answer is just on the other side of the wool covering your eyes.

So how many ways can you pay a bill e.g. settle a debt?
a) With FRN's - you got that one
b) With labour - you got that one
c) Wth equal consideration? did you get that one? Not quite but I see people who are close.

In your society, which position holds the responsibility of paying the nations debt? Where does the buck stop, in a legal sense?

In your case its the President. He's the guy whos neck is on the line. In the UK dominions it is the Queen. Their names are on the docs. They are the guarantors. They pay the debt. This concept needs more thrashing out around here.

You are in a closed system where everything you pay for is paid for with someone else's money. It isn't your money. So if you buy something with money that is not yours, then who has rightful ownership of it? The owner of the money does. In law they have an equitable claim of right to it.

Exclude the murkiness of it's not a possesory right only equitable. I'm working and paying taxes/loan payments etc argument gets you so far. The money is not yours, the item purchased is not yours but like the owner of the money, you have some kind of claim to it.

You have a usufruct claim to the item purchased. This also applies to the money which is why you pay taxes on income. It's actually tax on the volume of (their) money that passes through your hands.

You have temporary possesion of everything and you may consume/use according to usufruct but also according to usufruct you must make the true owner whole again "on demand".

This is the foundation of the system you live in. The decsion you need to make is am I going to claim ownership of this thing AND am I going to pay something for it and try and claim it is mine OR do I just get the true owner to pay for it. It's is going to be theirs anyway. Do I just accept the bill for the thing, initial it then send it up the chain to get paid by the true owner.

If I work in a receiving warehouse and I sign for some goods coming in, do I have to pay for those items or does my employer pay for them? All I have to do is check the goods are there, then endorse the invoice as valid. I accept the invoice record as correct. Then I send it on. The accounts department checks my john hancock, pricing etc and on that basis, accepts the invoice for value.

I'm going to add to this post a bit later to expand this out a bit more. Especially the equal consideration bit because not only is that at the crux of the thing but it is also biblical in that this is what we are told to do by Jesus himself. Now the bibles a rule book, a hitch hikers guide to the world of law if you like. Believers and unbelievers alike can use whats in it. I can tell you the unbelievers all ready do because we are all living in it.

[Bigjon]

The answer truly lies in how you act in commerce. You need to decide who you are and act accordingly. Are you a creditor or a debtor?

Under US law anyone carrying FRN's is basically a banker. Are you acting as a banker or as a borrower? Creditor vs debtor.

How many ways can you pay a bill e.g. settle a debt?

You guys are kind of onto it but are just a bit blinkered. Obviously this is the state they prefer you to be in but the answer is just on the other side of the wool covering your eyes.

So how many ways can you pay a bill e.g. settle a debt?
a) With FRN's - you got that one
b) With labour - you got that one
c) Wth equal consideration? did you get that one? Not quite but I see people who are close.

In your society, which position holds the responsibility of paying the nations debt? Where does the buck stop, in a legal sense?

In your case its the President. He's the guy whos neck is on the line. In the UK dominions it is the Queen. Their names are on the docs. They are the guarantors. They pay the debt. This concept needs more thrashing out around here.

You are in a closed system where everything you pay for is paid for with someone else's money. It isn't your money. So if you buy something with money that is not yours, then who has rightful ownership of it? The owner of the money does. In law they have an equitable claim of right to it.

Exclude the murkiness of it's not a possesory right only equitable. I'm working and paying taxes/loan payments etc argument gets you so far. The money is not yours, the item purchased is not yours but like the owner of the money, you have some kind of claim to it.

You have a usufruct claim to the item purchased. This also applies to the money which is why you pay taxes on income. It's actually tax on the volume of (their) money that passes through your hands.

You have temporary possesion of everything and you may consume/use according to usufruct but also according to usufruct you must make the true owner whole again "on demand".

This is the foundation of the system you live in. The decsion you need to make is am I going to claim ownership of this thing AND am I going to pay something for it and try and claim it is mine OR do I just get the true owner to pay for it. It's is going to be theirs anyway. Do I just accept the bill for the thing, initial it then send it up the chain to get paid by the true owner.

If I work in a receiving warehouse and I sign for some goods coming in, do I have to pay for those items or does my employer pay for them? All I have to do is check the goods are there, then endorse the invoice as valid. I accept the invoice record as correct. Then I send it on. The accounts department checks my john hancock, pricing etc and on that basis, accepts the invoice for value.

I'm going to add to this post a bit later to expand this out a bit more. Especially the equal consideration bit because not only is that at the crux of the thing but it is also biblical in that this is what we are told to do by Jesus himself. Now the bibles a rule book, a hitch hikers guide to the world of law if you like. Believers and unbelievers alike can use whats in it. I can tell you the unbelievers all ready do because we are all living in it.


I think you are missing a point here in that in the US we have the right to redeem lawful money in the form of US Notes. The Fed has deemed that since there is no demand for US Notes FRN's serve that purpose equally well.

When we stay away from bonding private money with our signature endorsement, we no longer enjoy the "privilege" of using expandable money and are not subject to the income tax.

We do have public money in the form of coins and US Notes.

[Glass]

I think you are missing a point here in that in the US we have the right to redeem lawful money in the form of US Notes. The Fed has deemed that since there is no demand for US Notes FRN's serve that purpose equally well.

When we stay away from bonding private money with our signature endorsement, we no longer enjoy the "privilege" of using expandable money and are not subject to the income tax.

We do have public money in the form of coins and US Notes.

You raise a pertinent point BUT no, I do get the point of that but there is more than one way to skin a cat. If I was going to purchase something and I did not want it to fall into the catergorie of title that I described in my post I would do so using lawful money. That appears to be the one unique feature of the US system. Lawful money.

To quote myself:

This is the foundation of the system you live in. The decsion you need to make is am I going to claim ownership of this thing AND am I going to pay something for it and try and claim it is mine OR do I just get the true owner to pay for it. It's is going to be theirs anyway. Do I just accept the bill for the thing, initial it then send it up the chain to get paid by the true owner.Out here in the brittish colonies we do not (as yet undiscovered) have a method of redeeming lawful money BUT we do have the other options I mentioned, which you also have because it's commerce. You just have to know how to do commerce and where you fit in the pecking order.

Imagine:
You are in charge of a boat. You have been advanced a sum of money to facilitate your voyage to uncharted lands and possible great riches. Some one backed you but the deal isn't a throw of the dice and what ever turns up, if anything its the return on the sum of money advanced to you. It's an investment by the advancor(?). You are to sail, find new lands, gather great riches and return.

During your time away you have things you need to provide the crew. You can use the sums advanced to you OR you can draw from the great riches you have found CONDITIONAL upon youre restitution of those goods either in replacement goods, like for like, or compensation in ANOTHER form.

This concept is called USUFRUCT (http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=usufruct&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CDEQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FUsufruc t&ei=dwgyT-GuI4-ciQfb8qiDBQ&usg=AFQjCNHVUBNel-s4evQoQRlGJouA_q5vDg&cad=rja) . A farmer may use a portion of the proceeds of the farm to feed themselves through the year but come the time of ACCOUNTING they must re-instate that which they have used.

If you consider what I said about who owns what and where the buck stops you could see that YOU, do not OWN anything (because you used FRN's) BUT you can POSSES things and CONSUME things so long as you give them (or replace them/compensate for them ) to the RIGHTFUL owner on demand.

This is the system as it stands. It is the Kings system and it is currently dominant over the Freeman system which is where the Lawful money redemption opportunities you talk about exist.

All of this leads to what I think is the most important point of ALL. And yes it does not include lawful money redemption which should be d) convert labour into lawful money to enable me to buy something with free and clear title.


So how many ways can you pay a bill e.g. settle a debt?
a) With FRN's - you got that one
b) With labour - you got that one
c) Wth equal consideration? did you get that one? Not quite but I see people who are close.(I think I might have bit off a lot to explain this quickly)

I like opton C for commerce purposes but what does it mean? It means what I said in my previous post. If I don't have any money (FRN's = no money) then who does? The Head of State does. The buck stops with them They HAVE TO pay all bills. That is their job. They are the guarantor for the bills coming in.

If you worked for ABC Incorporated and they had BILLS coming in. Because you work there does it mean you have to pay the bill from YOUR pocket? No! If a bill comes your way, you are probably obliged to verify the bill. You might initial it and send it to Acc Payable or some process like that. Ultimately Acc Payable sorts the bill out. They settle it or discharge it.

So if being a Citizen of DC basically makes you an employee of the Corporation of the United States, why oh why are you paying the expenses of the corporation. I can tell you if I was a boss and I could get my employees to HAPPILY pay my bills well then I think I would. So why not verify the bill as legit and send it on up the chain to the people who can settle it? Treasury.

Alternatively option C could work like this....... Remeber Jesus said RENDER unto CAESAR that which is CAESARS. Remeber the USUFRUCT.

How do you settle a bill. A bill might arise from a CONTRACT. Contracts have several elements to be valid. A couple of them are:

a) A meeting of minds
b) consideration

When taking advantage of USUFRUCT you need to pay heed to consideration. You need to replenish that which you consumed. You need to make the other party whole when the time comes. To do this you can give:
a) Like for like
b) Something of same value but disimilar (think the flip side of the lawful money redemption you speak of)

If someone sends you a BILL (a negotiable instrument) and demands something in return, under the (Very old) laws of contract, what are YOU obliged to give them? Consideration of like for like or of equal value. If they give you a negotiable instrument can you give them one in return?

What if you endorse what they send you and return it? Who backs it? What does it achieve?

The President backs it or the Queen depending on geography. What it achieve is it RENDERS unto CAESER that which IS CAESERS. It's a negotiable insturment, you accepted it for its value making it legit.

The other thing you just did is you operated as a BANKER. We all agree BANKERS make money out of thin air. How do they do this? Just as I have described.
Banker
Merchant
Merchant Banker

All the same thing. No difference. Every merchant is banker, the minute he provides credit. Every holder of FRN's is a banker.

Notice how there is a way to turn FRN's into lawful money. The FED by law must render unto caeser that which is caeser. Americans in the know are Caeser. There just isn't many of them out there right now.

Personally I would do the Lawful money thing. Not sure if it's the best bet everytime given some of the numbers on the bottom line of bills but it would be the prefered way because it does not steal from future generations.