Political And Socioeconomic Inequality In The U.s.: Who Governs?

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Okiefreak, Dec 14, 2016.

  1. storch

    storch Senior Member

    You said: "In some ways it's easier than facing the daunting task of trying to work with the system we have using what power we do have . . ."

    I've asked you to describe that power that you said we do have. You have yet to answer. All you've done so far is avoid the question, and instead, voice your disapproval of any one who describes the problem.

    So, back to the issue. It is true that Congress can delegate one of its duties to another body. But where in the Constitution can we find that Congress can turn over its duty to create currency to another body who is going to charge interest on the money it creates? The US dollar is a product of the American government. How is it that that the creation of that product (money) has been given over to an institution that will charge us interest for the use of our own money?

    There is about 1.5 trillion dollars in circulation today. Since the debt is payable in Federal Reserve Notes, how can the $19 trillion national debt be paid-off with the total Federal Reserve Notes in circulation? This is a perpetual debt that can never be paid off, but only increased. Am I mistaken when I say that when the Federal Reserve Act was passed in 1913, the power to coin and issue our nation's money and to regulate the value thereof was transferred from Congress to a Private corporation, and that this country now borrows what should be our own money from the Federal Reserve (a private corporation) plus interest, and that the debt can never be paid off under the current money system of this country?

    Now, if you care to offer a solution by way of telling us about the power that we do have, then go ahead.
     
  2. neonspectraltoast

    neonspectraltoast Senior Member

    The people who see the problem and have given up mostly never cared to begin with. I don't see a lot of people who are genuinely brow-beaten into submission in this country. The US isn't like North Korea. I don't think it's possible for it to become like NK either. Look at how they have to try and suppress information on the internet...by calling it "fake news," and then admitting flat out that there's nothing they can do about it. They'd like a way to censor the internet, I'm sure, and keep people from mobilizing on a massive scale, but there's just no way to go about it in this country without massive backlash.

    The founding fathers started a revolution that can't exactly be stopped. The powers that be can try to be as nefarious as possible, just like powerful people throughout history have always been, but the fact is that history has changed, and the genie can never be put back in the bottle.

    You're right, the people do have all the power -- in America as much as anywhere else. Any time we want we can put an end to anything we want. And the status quo has to pussyfoot around taking our power away, because they know we can stop it. And it's completely futile for them to try and take our power away, though I don't expect them to stop trying, being the morons that they are.

    Their vision, as it seems to have been implied, for the future of this country is basically unfeasible. So I'm not worried. We'll win, and we'll win handily. It may not seem like it right now -- all of their little victories seem to add up -- but objectively we are kicking their asses. We are a juggernaut that has to deal with a trifling nuisance, in reality. They'll buy candidates that support them, and the candidates will basically have to skirt around all of the issues to keep the mighty masses placated. I guess they're hoping that in a thousand years we'll become mindless wealth producing drones...pretty goddamned stupid when you think about it.

    I'm not even worried about the next four years. Truth be told, Donald Trump can't do dick. He's not going to be the leader of some fascist uprising in the USA. We'll put an end to any of that kind of bullshit ASAP. A few things might go wrong as far as the country's policy goes, but it won't be anything that backs the people of the US into a corner we can't escape from. A thousand years of Trump won't be able to do that.

    All that we really have to decide is how much we want progress. Because we can have it all anytime we want. I'd like it now. So I hope the Democrats aren't total pussies the next four years, and I hope they wake up and realize that progressives own this country. It's our way or the highway.
     
    1 person likes this.
  3. Jafian

    Jafian Active Member

    The power we do have is looking at things objectively. Realizing that the picture is never all black or all white..that there are also colors and every shade of grey. In other words, refusing to be blinded by denial at one extreme and defeatism on the other.

    The power we do have is hope even if hope seems unwarranted. If Ghandi had allowed himself to become pessimistic to the point of believing there was nothing that could be done, India would still be under British rule. If MLK had become pessimistic to the point of believing nothing could be done we probably would never have had a black president.

    That's not to say that you can fly by thinking happy thoughts. But there is ALWAYS a way to make a difference as those people have demonstrated. They looked at the problem objectively and by doing so, they saw opportunities that the pessimists were too pessimistic to see. They didn't have the Internet but they still were able to organize large scale resistance.

    Whether you believe the ruling class is a monolith of one mind or not, it still depends heavily on the cooperation of those it oppresses which it only gets by convincing them that they have no choice...by convincing them all that the picture is completely black for them and that there is no light of hope because they cannot possibly stand against a force that can buy elections or print money.
     
  4. storch

    storch Senior Member

    Okay, so your idea of solution lies in hope. I see. That's nice. It really is.

    Anyway, my solution to any problem is to first acknowledge the problem. A good way to have the problem acknowledged is to provide information concerning the problem. You seem to be of the mind that if people are told objectively exactly what the problem is, it might cause them to feel despair and to lose hope. So, in your estimation, what is the exercise of hope going to do about financial fraud that some, if not most, are unaware of? I'm spelling out the problem. Why don't you go ahead and balance that out with the solution to the problem.

    Anyway, back to the issue at hand. It is true that Congress can delegate one of its duties to another body. But where in the Constitution can we find that Congress can turn over its duty to create currency to another body who is going to charge interest on the money it creates? The US dollar is a product of the American government. How is it that that the creation of that product (money) has been given over to an institution that will charge us interest for the use of our own money?

    There is about 1.5 trillion dollars in circulation today. Since the debt is payable in Federal Reserve Notes, how can the $19 trillion national debt be paid-off with the total Federal Reserve Notes in circulation? This is a perpetual debt that can never be paid off, but only increased. Am I mistaken when I say that when the Federal Reserve Act was passed in 1913, the power to coin and issue our nation's money and to regulate the value thereof was transferred from Congress to a Private corporation, and that this country now borrows what should be our own money from the Federal Reserve (a private corporation) plus interest, and that the debt can never be paid off under the current money system of this country?

    Now if you have no problem with that information, then please stop crying about what it might do to the hope of people. People don't need to be treated like infants.
     
  5. Jafian

    Jafian Active Member

    I'm not going to argue about the federal reserve nor am I crying about what your analysis of the problem might do to the hope of the people.

    The reason I bring up objectivity is that as I read you arguing with okiefreak who's picture of things seemed to have the kind of balance of colors that usually offer a truer representation of reality, your picture of reality seemed consistently black..that is, a vision of reality in which the power of evil is absolute.

    It reminds me of the way I see things when I'm heavily depressed...all black. Because I suffer from major depression, I'm familiar with how that state of mind affects my objectivity. So I am not accusing you of any lack of objectivity that I myself don't experience. But all black pictures of reality do make the painters objectivity suspect in my mind.

    So I answered your question, now suppose you tell me what power we do have that we can find hope in. If you can do that, I will leave you alone about your objectivity. Otherwise I will probably conclude that you are a good person who has fallen victim to the same lack of objectivity that I myself often fall victim to.
     
  6. storch

    storch Senior Member

    To your first point, you are correct. You are not going to argue about the Federal Reserve.

    To your second point, I would say that you contradict yourself. In a previous post, speaking to what you described as an attitude of a dark, defeatist state of mind, you said: "You don't have to go out and wave signs or write letters or sign petitions or even vote. You just put on your shades, sit back and talk about how naive people are who do such things." Now you are saying that my version of waving a sign doesn't pass your sincerity test. This is me waving a sign or writing a letter. And on top of that, you also attempt to use my sign-waving as occasion to psychoanalyze me, calling me depressed. My guess is that being majorly depressed, as you say you are, has caused you to see everything and everyone through the filter of your dark perspective.

    To your third point, you did not answer my question. I told you that I'm spelling out the problem, and then asked you to go ahead and balance that out with the solution to the problem.
     
  7. Okiefreak

    Okiefreak Senior Member

    Good job not taking the bait. If you've followed the previous discussion, I've pointed out that a justice of the peace didn't have the authority to declare state and federal law unconstitutional and make to binding rulings on the status of our money and the federal banking system. The contention that he did is absurd. But I went on to provide citations to the state appellate decisions stating that, declaring the j.p.'s decision null and void, and a federal court's warning to other parties not to cite it as authority. That should be enough for any normal person to understand. But no. I was told that somehow my inability to come up with proof that the bank actually received its money meant that there could be some truth to the assertion that a justice of the peace has the authority to make a definitive ruling on the matter in question. That is obviously nonsense, and that's not just my opinion. It's a basic fact about the judicial system of the United States and that justices of the peace are courts of limited jurisdiction authorized to decide small claims and petty offenses. To argue otherwise is tantamount to arguing that black is white, or that Congress has the power to abolish the Supreme Court. I've explained that there is simply no general reporting system by which people can check up on whether or not a plaintiff was paid damages awarded to him. State district court decisions are typically not included in state or regional reporters, so that one would have to write directly to the court in question to get the information. And it would be irrelevant, because the appellate cases I cited make clear that the justice of the peace and the lawyer in question were flagrantly out of bounds. It's not just my opinion. That's what the cases say, and anyone who doubts that can look them up. It takes a special kind of obdurate fanatic to continue to cling to the opposite opinion in the face of these facts. To use an expression of the Catholic church, it's an example of "invincible ignorance." He'll believe what he wants to believe, so don't confuse him with the facts. And this has been the pattern on other threads, as well. To continue to engage in discussion on these terms is, in my opinion, an exercise in futility. But if you have the patience, have at it. More power to you.
     
  8. storch

    storch Senior Member

    You said in an earlier post that the decision in that case was overturned. I asked you to prove that claim. You produced nothing but your suspicion that Mr. Morgan did get what he sued for. So your claim that the case was overturned was based on what?

    You said that justices of the peace are courts of limited jurisdiction authorized to decide small claims and petty offenses. How is it that the plaintiff (a banker) and his legal counsel (someone who understands the law) were unaware of this? I'm not saying that it isn't possible that the case was overturned and that Morgan got his money, but you've provided nothing to support that claim.
    _________________________________________________________________________________

    And back to the issue at hand:

    It is true that Congress can delegate one of its duties to another body. But where in the Constitution can we find that Congress can turn over its duty to create currency to another body who is going to charge interest on the money it creates? The US dollar is a product of the American government. How is it that that the creation of that product (money) has been given over to an institution that will charge us interest for the use of our own money?

    There is about 1.5 trillion dollars in circulation today. Since the debt is payable in Federal Reserve Notes, how can the $19 trillion national debt be paid-off with the total Federal Reserve Notes in circulation? This is a perpetual debt that can never be paid off, but only increased. Am I mistaken when I say that when the Federal Reserve Act was passed in 1913, the power to coin and issue our nation's money and to regulate the value thereof was transferred from Congress to a Private corporation, and that this country now borrows what should be our own money from the Federal Reserve (a private corporation) plus interest, and that the debt can never be paid off under the current money system of this country?
     
  9. Okiefreak

    Okiefreak Senior Member

    A justice of the peace court is a court of original but limited jurisdiction. It functions as a small claims court and a criminal trial court for petty offenses, mainly traffic cases. It is not a court of record, meaning that any appeal to a higher court is de novo, as though the trial below never happened. Nothing in the Constitution of the United States says anything about them, because they are state courts. They occupy the lowest rung of the state judiciary in states that still have them. Minnesota has since abolished the office except for marriage officiation, but at the time the case was decided (1968) the Minnesota Legislative Manual stated:“Justices of the peace have jurisdiction over actions arising within a county when the amount involved does not exceed $100 for civil cases, and when the punishment or fine does not exceed $100 or three months' imprisonment in criminal cases." They could also handle larger civil actions where the parties consent, just like Judge Judy on TV. The J.P.’s are not required to have law degrees, nor much in the way of formal education. Judge Martin Mahoney was not a lawyer but a farmer before being elected to his position. From these facts, it is obvious that such an official has no jurisdiction to interpret the United States constitution or to declare state or federal laws unconstitutional.

    But that is exactly what he tried to do. He acknowledged in his opinion that his decision may have run afoul of Minnesota law and the state constitution, but went on to say that if so, the Minnesota state law and constitution were unconstitutional under the U.S. Constitution. No amount of fulmination and table pounding can obscure that fact that Mahoney had exceeded his authority under Minnesota law. That is simply obvious, and it is absurd to try to argue otherwise.And that’s exactly what subsequent courts found. The Minnesota Supreme Court declared the proceedings in the justice court in the underlying matter null and void in Zurn v. Northwestern National Bank. 284 Minn. 573, 170 N.W.2d 600 (Minn.1969). Another case brought by Mr. Daly involving the same legal argument, Daly V. Savage State Bank , 285 Minn. 503, 171 N.W.2d 218 (1969) led to the same result. Citing these cases, a federal court admonished a plaintiff not to cite any decision under Judge Mahoney questioning the validity of federal currency or the Constitutionality of the Federal Reserve Act, “nor may she cite any opinion or decision as authoritative which no longer has authoritative status. “Sneed v. Chase Home Fin. LLC, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 46536, 2007 WL 1851674 (S.D. Cal. June 26, 2007).

    Mr. Daly was apparently a real sleaze ball, even by lawyerly standards. He borrowed money from a bank to buy lakeside property, and then tried to prevent repayment of the debt and block the bank's repossession after mortgage foreclosure by arguing that the bank's extension of credit was unlawful, thereby relieving him of his obligation to repay the debt or return the property. Can you imagine what would have happened his argument was accepted and it did become authority for other cases? He tried a similar argument with the IRS and the state tax commission, and was subsequently convicted of tax evasion. In rejecting his appeal, the Eighth Circuit remarked that Daly’s “apparent thesis is that the only 'Legal Tender Dollars' are those which contain a mixture of gold and silver and that only those dollars may be constitutionally taxed…is clearly frivolous”. He was also convicted of conspiracy to defraud the United States under 18 U.S.C. section 371, fifteen counts of willfully aiding and assisting in the preparation of false individual income tax returns under Internal Revenue Code section 7206(2), and one count of aiding and abetting the making of a false statement to the United States government under 18 U.S.C. sections 2 and 1001. In a state action in which he was disbarred from legal practice, In re Jerome Daly, 291 Minn. 488, 189 N.W.2d 176 (1971) the court said that Daly’s “persistent and continuing attacks on our national monetary system can hardly be regarded as zealous advocacy or a good-faith effort to test the validity of repeated decisions of courts of record. For, as found by the referee, up to the time of his findings and recommendations respondent had avoided payment of any Federal income tax for 1965 and subsequent years on the asserted ground that he has not received gold and silver coin and, therefore, had no earnings that were taxable” Judge Mahoney also faced disciplinary action for contempt for ignoring the jurisdiction of a higher court , but he died in a boating accident, suicide, or murder before the case came up for hearing That should settle it!

    I realize this case is a cause célèbre for the AltRight, the so-called patriot movement, tax resisters, Posse Comitatus, and other assorted elements of the lunatic fringe, in whose ranks the late Mr. Daly and Judge Mahoney seem to fit. But the argument is stupider than Pizzagate, and demonstrates an abysmal ignorance of the law and our judicial institutions.
     
  10. storch

    storch Senior Member

    Daly's claim concerning the bank not really lending real money in the first place was based on fact. This is what is being argued here. Morgan even admitted in court that the money lent did not exist. So the bank was receiving compensation for, and interest on, money it didn't have, and would collect interest on the money that it simply created. Morgan admitted that the money was not constitutional; he just wasn't aware of it.

    This goes to my point which neither you nor anyone else has refuted; namely that nowhere in the Constitution can we find that Congress can turn over its power to create currency to another body who is going to charge interest on the money it creates? The US dollar is a product of the American government. How is it that that the creation of that product (money) has been given over to an institution (banks) that will charge us interest for the use of our own money? This is a no-brainer.

    Here is a good explanation of how the scam works:

    1. The creation of credit/money via T-securities in the amount of the principal of the security, with a promise to repay the principal PLUS the interest, is impossible. The interest has never been created; the debt is perpetual and must continually be increased or it will collapse. Any contract based upon an impossibility is an act of fraud and is void from its inception. The operation is, as is any Ponzi scheme, predestined by design for inherent national bankruptcy due to the compounding (exponential) interest.

    2. The operation by the Fed and Congress transfers wealth from the people to financiers. The five-year example reveals how all funds (created via the printing press as fiat money) become the property of the receivers of the T-securities. Not only do they receive the interest, but also the value of the security upon maturity (or by sale)—with no risk/consideration from the financiers. Congress has temporary access to the fiat money (until maturity).

    The Federal Reserve uses euphemistic smoke and mirrors to obscure their scam. With full knowledge the following is not the way the Fed/government describes the system, allow me to offer a different analysis of their mathematical operation.

    Congress can pay for federal expenses with funds collected from taxes, but Congress is never satisfied with this amount. The desire to buy votes/campaign contributions from special interest groups induces congress-critters to spend more, and this is identified as deficit spending. To create this make-believe money requires the assistance of the Federal Reserve.

    Congress will give the Fed a T-security (bill, bond, or note) and the Fed will accept the document as an asset of one of the twelve FR Banks. The Fed will then establish a line of credit for the U.S. government in the same amount and list the liability as Federal Reserve Notes. Voila !! Fiat money has just been created for Congress to spend.

    The debt created by usury based sovereign debt is perpetual; it can never be paid off. The contract cannot be culminated. Any contract that cannot be culminated is an act of fraud. A contract based upon fraud is invalid from its inception. It would appear the national debt is not legally enforceable. (A debt incurred by a state or municipality is not a sovereign debt as used in this analysis. Such a debt is akin to a commercial loan and is completely repayable.)

    http://thedebtweowe.com/rip-off-by-the-federal-reserve
    ______________________________________________________________________________________

    This appears to be a case where you understand that the creation of money at interest by an outside institution is not constitutional, but you will make your appeal to authority to prove your assumption. The fact is that while Congress has the constitutional right to delegate authority, it does not have the right to outsource its duty to create and regulate currency to a group who will charge interest on money that is ours to begin with. This is like when you hear the State Department Inspector General say that a Secretary of State allowed classified information to pass through their private email server which the FBI assesses hostile actors gained access to (which is in your face gross negligence), but because an authority figure tells you she was not negligent, you latch onto what you need to believe in the moment.
     
  11. Jafian

    Jafian Active Member

    Yes you are waving a sign. It says that the fed has absolute power and we are all fucked. Thank you for sharing. As I said I would, I will now conclude that you are a good person who has lost objectivity. Nice chatting w you.
     
  12. storch

    storch Senior Member

    So now, stating an objective fact is a sign of a loss of objectivity. That's an interesting proposition.
     
  13. Jafian

    Jafian Active Member

    Nah. It's hopeless. :)
     
  14. storch

    storch Senior Member

    You're right. Denying facts is hopeless. Good luck anyway.
     
  15. Okiefreak

    Okiefreak Senior Member

    A recent study by Oxfam, an international charitable organization dedicated to combating world poverty reported that the wealth of just eight individuals equals that of about half the world's population. https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2017/jan/16/worlds-eight-richest-people-have-same-wealth-as-poorest-50 The eight are, in order of their wealth, Bill Gates; Spanish fashion house mogul Amancio Ortega, Warren Buffett, Mexican business magnate Carlos Slim Helu, Amazon boss Jeff Bezos, Facebook creator Mark Zuckerberg, Oracle's Larry Ellison and Michael Bloomberg, the former mayor of New York. Buffett has willed his fortune to the Gates Foundation, which is dedicated to worthy causes.
     
  16. Okiefreak

    Okiefreak Senior Member

    Maybe this dog still has some life in it after all. There seems to be a conspiracy theory revival going on another thread.
     

Share This Page