PDA

View Full Version : Dennis Kucinich: Delete The Fed



Quixote2
21st December 2010, 01:33 PM
http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=175557

I'm stunned.

Really.

Dennis Kucinich, which many people have (properly) labeled as one step removed from a communist in the past, and who has a reputation as having a hard-core left slant in his politics, has just written up and introduced a bill that will fundamentally restore the free market - for real - to banking and credit.
It will also **** a lot of people off.

His bill would end the process of money issuance by The US Federal Government as a debt instrument. It would thus restore actual "lawful money" as Ron Paul claims to want, but in a form he has never, ever elucidated. It does, however, exactly match up with the base position I have propounded upon, along with Bill Still and a few others.

Instead, Treasury would issue and spend into circulation United States Notes. The existing "FOMC" would be replicated in Treasury with a mandate identical to The Fed's, with one important addition - a requirement that their operations be neither inflationary or deflationary.

That is, the precise mandate that is required - that United States Money maintain its purchasing power.

It would bring into effective existence my One Dollar of Capital standard for bank lending, by requiring that all lending be funded by either a loan granted by Treasury (where interest would inure to the Government, not a private bank) or be funded by the issuance of private debt with no government backstop.

It would absolutely bar the use of depositor reserves for any lending purpose whatsoever - that is, if you deposited funds into a transaction account (any sort of "demand" account) the bank would have to hold the funds as an actual custodian with fiduciary requirements for performance. Other than by direct and punishable fraud, depositor losses would instantly become impossible.

Note that this bill would not bar lending at interest.

However, it would immediately end the abuse and extortion of The United States Federal Government by banks and other institutions who argue that they "cannot be allowed to fail", then using that power of extortion to extract monstrous amounts of money from the economy for their personal benefit - by some estimates, as much as 20% of GDP. It would force the government to actually borrow by specific Congressional authorization in order to spend beyond its means. Such borrowing would have to be funded in the open market as the "Primary Dealer" nonsense would instantly end, so if the Government overspent it could be immediately reined in and stopped by the open market simply by refusing to buy (or demanding a very high interest rate.)

Many people say that Democrats are the party of "overspending." Well, not any more. When one of the standard-bearers of The Left produces a work like this, and actually propounds that it be passed into law, immediately ending all of the abusive practices of the financial industry, the usual claims of the folks on the "right" side of the aisle are turned on their ear.

We're about to find out if people like Ron and Rand Paul really stand for what they claim, or if they're empty suits. If they do, then I expect to see them on the Tee Vee within hours demanding passage of this bill, and joining with Mr. Kucinich in making sure that it is immediately reintroduced in the new Congress - and passed.

If that does not happen then these two claimants of a demand for "sound money" have been immediately and permanently exposed as FRAUDS, as will any so-called "Tea Party" members of Congress.


This is a bill that must become law.


http://www.scribd.com/doc/45753797/NEED-ACT

Serpo
21st December 2010, 02:27 PM
Dosnt this mean true honest government.................isnt that a bit foriegn ..........hahaha

DMac
21st December 2010, 02:30 PM
I'm so confused. Kucinich (card carrying commie), a man instrumental in the Obamacare abomination's passing, is now pushing for legislation that killed the 2 presidents that tried it in the past?

WTF!?

Is this another brick in the wall that leads to the globo (aka phoenix, aka bancor, aka et al)

Government Chee-tos
21st December 2010, 03:06 PM
That Kucinich guy's ideas either make me burn with rage or I agree all the way. Kinda like that Glen Beck douchebag. It's hard being a primativist-anarco-libertarian capitalist. ;D

Serpo
21st December 2010, 03:39 PM
a what....hahahaha

hoarder
21st December 2010, 04:27 PM
Kuchinich is not an insider. He just is what he is. A lot of people have been suckered by communist propaganda.
So if someone is honestly mistaken and believes left wing politics favors the little guy, the working man, doesn't it stand to reason that he would oppose letting trillionaires control our monetary system for their selfish benefit?

RJB
21st December 2010, 05:46 PM
Kucinich is a socialist. He wants taxes taken and services returned.

Ron Paul is a free market capitalist who wants people to have economic free.

We have neither. We have a corporatist system. Tax money is taken and not returned in services but rather the vast majority is corporate welfare in one form or the other. Regulations are written that benifit the international corporations, but crush the American citizen with the threat of violence from an alphabet agency.

If anyone disagrees with this system they are called fascists, racists, communists and now terrorists.

I was shocked about Kucinich going with Obama care. Forcing someone to buy insurance from an approved corporation goes against what he normally stands for. A few years back his brother died a mysterious death. He didn't seem right when he voted for Obama care during a speech. Who knows what went on behind the scenes. His wife was threatened? Who knows, but a lot of true socialist were disillusioned by it. The Fed (A private cartel) would definitely be something a true socialist would be against running the country. Maybe he's trying to get his street cred back, Maybe he's pissed off at the system. Maybe things are so screwed that TPTB doesn't care anymore.

RJB
21st December 2010, 05:47 PM
double post

osoab
21st December 2010, 05:59 PM
I read the ticker earlier and some of the comments. I will have to go back and look at the comments to see he brought down the ban hammer on anyone.

I have issues with the idea that Kucinich has proposed. I will have to go read the full text of the proposed bill to see if there are any loopholes. I think the position of Kucinich as an outcast of the Minority party in Congress should be considered too.
This thing will go nowhere in the next CONgres unless they want the Fed to end.

Does anyone remember the little plane ride that Obummer took with Kucinich before the death care vote? I do.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_wft5MM5SDCM/S6NcFlJuqnI/AAAAAAAACwE/2PayvEzn9Jc/s400/Dennis-Vote-Change--69331.jpg


Will Kucinich Roll Over for Obama? (http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/will-kucinich-roll-over-obama)


Can President Obama flip Dennis Kucinich's vote on the health care bill from "no" to "yes"? Today Kucinich is flying with the president aboard Air Force One en route to the liberal Ohio congressman's district, where Obama will deliver his stump speech for the Democratic health care overhaul.
Kucinich has been steadfastly opposed to the Senate bill. He favors a single-payer plan and says the Senate bill is a giveaway to insurance companies. Other left-wingers on the national stage once shared this concern, but have turned on Kucinich in a concerted effort to give a (pyrrhic) victory to Obama even if it's also a victory for insurance companies. Keith Olbermann said he'd rather go to jail than buy mandated insurance, and Markos Moulitsas came out in favor of killing the Senate bill. But liberals are now calling Kucinich the "Ralph Nader" of health care reform, and Moulitsas is now threatening to recruit a primary challenger against Kucinich (Ohio's filing deadline has passed, so Kucinich is safe until 2012).

You'd think that Kucinich would be one of the easier votes to flip, but if you watch this video, he has longstanding, principled objections to the bill:



His bill would end the process of money issuance by The US Federal Government as a debt instrument. It would thus restore actual "lawful money" as Ron Paul claims to want, but in a form he has never, ever elucidated. It does, however, exactly match up with the base position I have propounded upon, along with Bill Still and a few others.


We're about to find out if people like Ron and Rand Paul really stand for what they claim, or if they're empty suits. If they do, then I expect to see them on the Tee Vee within hours demanding passage of this bill, and joining with Mr. Kucinich in making sure that it is immediately reintroduced in the new Congress - and passed.


What the hell is Denninger's problem with the Paul's? I think I missed his overall tone on Ron.


Instead, Treasury would issue and spend into circulation United States Notes. The existing "FOMC" would be replicated in Treasury with a mandate identical to The Fed's, with one important addition - a requirement that their operations be neither inflationary or deflationary.


The Fed's currently has a dual mandate (http://ideas.repec.org/p/bca/bocawp/06-11.html) of promoting stable inflation and maximum employment. So we want fed gov to maintain max employment? Fed jobs for everyone?
The current mandate is to promote stable inflation, but he wants to keep their operation from causing inflation and deflation? Uhhh, any operation by the fed or .gov will always have an effect on inflation.



It would bring into effective existence my One Dollar of Capital standard for bank lending, by requiring that all lending be funded by either a loan granted by Treasury (where interest would inure to the Government, not a private bank) or be funded by the issuance of private debt with no government backstop.


Why the hell is fed gov allowed to loan money? Seems like they are trying to cut out the middle men. Actually it seems that they are trying to legislate the real world actions that have already occurred in this direction. Fannie, Freddie, GM, Chrysler, GE.....
I have no issue of taking away the federal gov back stops.


It would absolutely bar the use of depositor reserves for any lending purpose whatsoever - that is, if you deposited funds into a transaction account (any sort of "demand" account) the bank would have to hold the funds as an actual custodian with fiduciary requirements for performance. Other than by direct and punishable fraud, depositor losses would instantly become impossible.


The lack of at least having a 10% reserve requirement will not go down well. Think of all that money just sitting there doing nothing. The losses due to fraud will be real too. It wouldn't be called fraud if losses were not incurred.


The thing that has always bothered me about Denninger is that he expects the same crooks that put us in this mess to get us out. I will have to go read the bill, but I think Denninger has been hitting the http://gold-silver.us/forum/gallery/307_16_12_10_6_51_43.gif again. This Ticker sucked balls. I see no panacea.

JohnQPublic
21st December 2010, 06:19 PM
...What the hell is Denninger's problem with the Paul's? I think I missed his overall tone on Ron.



The Pauls (at least Ron) want gold and silver money, which Denninger abhors.

Shami-Amourae
21st December 2010, 06:27 PM
...What the hell is Denninger's problem with the Paul's? I think I missed his overall tone on Ron.



The Pauls (at least Ron) want gold and silver money, which Denninger abhors.


You think he just wants debt-free money, like Bill Still proposes? That would be a good way for Commies to to fund the government, since there'd never be a looming national debt, and unlimited state.

JohnQPublic
21st December 2010, 06:30 PM
...What the hell is Denninger's problem with the Paul's? I think I missed his overall tone on Ron.



The Pauls (at least Ron) want gold and silver money, which Denninger abhors.


You think he just wants debt-free money, like Bill Still proposes? That would be a good way for Commies to to fund the government, since there'd never be a looming national debt, and unlimited state.


Sounds like it. I think Bill Still is open to metallic money, too, but specifically bimettalism, as he feels a straight gold standard would be manipulted by TPTB. I think there is some wisdom in this.

Book
21st December 2010, 06:31 PM
I was shocked about Kucinich going with Obama care.



He should have held out for Single Payer.

:)

JohnQPublic
21st December 2010, 06:38 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hrV84FZ_4G4&feature=player_embedded