Topic: National Debt
The Death Tax We Do Need While I am opposed to the Estate Tax, I am for a proposed "Death Tax" to be collected for your share of the Federal Deficit upon your death.by EJ Moosa
(Libertarian)
Tuesday, August 5, 2008
Your share of the Federal Debt is $31,420 and counting. No one feels that it is a pressing issue, or is willing to pressure their political leaders to address it because it is the only debt that you have that magically disappears when you die. The Federal Debt is not a major issue of either the Democrats or the Republicans in the race for the White House.
Upon your death, you are no longer responsible for the debt that has been rolled up in the United States of America on your behalf(whether or not you asked for it is not really the issue here).
Then, each year, if your share goes up, you pay more upon your death. If we get the debt under control, then your share would go down. (Think you would be motivated about eliminating bridges to nowhere then?)
The fact that you are excused for this debt upon your death is the critical flaw in our system that must be addressed for us to fix this problem. As of now, your death excuses you from be accountable for what has been spent.
I am proposing that the Federal Government collect tyour share of the federal debt from your estate and assets where possible upon your death. This is not to be confused with an estate tax, which taxes you on your assets at death because you have the assets. Rather, this is the collection of assets to pay off your outstanding bills, much as you would be required to pay off Visa, Mastercard, GMAC, or any other creditors that you owe.
Why is this the only feasible solution? Because there is simply no other way to get John Q. Public to feel as if this debt is their debt. Under our current system, once they die, it will no longer be their issue. I do not believe that anyone over the age of fifty feels that the Federal Debt will be their problem in the end. I am not even fifty, and I do not see it as being the problem in my life it will be for the kids being born today. I know many of you feel the same way.
Once the public really feels and believes that the Federal Debt is their debt, only then will we see the pressure from the public and the fortitude from politicians to live within our means, and control our spending.
The way that politician's frame their arguements about curtailing spending proves my point: "We are spending our children's future" is a common response we hear about out of control spending. We must make this issue everyone's issue, not just the younger or future Americans. We must make this an issue that you cannot die to escape. Then, and only then, will we get the willpower and the fortitude to deal with the Federal Deficit as it needs to be dealt with.
If you agree with me, then I hope that you talk about and share this idea with your friends.
If you disagree, I hope to hear why. In the end, if you disagree, you must realize that most of us will not suffer from losing this debate. The debt will continue to rise. Americans not yet born will owe much more than we owe today, and most of us will die with our debt owed to the Federal Goverment's cancelled.
Then again, that may be the most gracious thing the government has ever given me: A debt I will never be required to repay.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 3 thumbs so far
The views expressed in this
article are those of EJ Moosa only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. EJ Moosa is
solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an
employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Posted By: Jake, the champion of the constitution
Date: 2008-08-05 22:19:19
I don't agree that this is a good idea. However I do agree with a lot of your sentiments like: "Once the public really feels and believes that the Federal Debt is their debt, only then will we see the pressure from the public and the fortitude from politicians to live within our means, and control our spending."
Where your logic falls apart is here: Under our current system AND your proposed system, once an American dies, it will no longer be their issue. This is because when you die, you, at long last, have no issues because of the simple fact that you are dead. Besides I think the estate tax, which is a raid on your personal property is already what the government has in mind for a 'death tax,' After all, all your belongings belong to the government already right?
What WOULD make sense to solve your problem is for the government to 1) cut spending or 2) massive increases in taxes. However, there is no sign of #1 abating, #2 will get the representative removed from office, so we all know what has been happening and is only getting worse. The Hidden Tax or Option 3 - debase the currency by increasing the money supply, or inflation. This is the least painful way for a government to tax the populace, as many dont even realize they are being taxed!! Its perfect! The next Great Inflation is just getting started with Freddie and Fannie and Bear Stearns bailouts. This is basically the trigger for my Money Matrix series, in case you are interested [link edited for length]
Have you considered joining downsizedc.org?
Besides, how would you like it if your husband (or wife) gets in a car accident or something, and dies suddenly, and then your government swoops on in for another $31K, which for most Americans probably can't even be afforded. Fortunately, the government can still steal your property as we already have the estate tax in place.
Posted By: Danny from Illinois
Date: 2008-08-06 00:25:44
I think this sounds amazing but would work horribly, already enough stuff that is being paid when you die. I think that Jakes #1 needs to be implemented and if we did #2 they wouldnt pay off the debt they would just use it to make sure they kept their job, and then some so we would still be going into dept.
We need to stop the inflation and get #1 into place fast. And then slowly reduce the national debt. but add that to the list of automatic expenditure, have a balanced budget but 500 million has to be put to reducing the defecit + interest, then reduce the rest of the government spending to whatever you have left and continuly reducing spending and later taxes!
You write with the assumption that government will make proper use of any funds extorted from the dead, they simply won't. No precedent exists that would prove them responsible enough to act in such a manner.
There is no incentive for them to use it wisely nor punishment meted out to them if they misuse the proceeds.
Paying down the debt is a noble idea if it can be pulled off. You're just looking to the wrong group of blockheads to make it so.
Once again, I refer to a former governor of the FED who said that under a fiat monetary system there is no need for taxation for federal revenue. Income, gift and estate taxes, according to his writings have ONLY THREE PURPOSES:
1. To enforce the use of fiat money.
2. To redistribute the wealth.
3. To provide the government with social control.
Also, if you count the unfunded future obligations, plus the national debt, plus the deficit, you will find that the per cap burden upon each American is absolutely unreal.
Once again, the system built upon a fiat monetary system is absolutely a scam. Debt cannot be paid off with more debt and that is all that our money is:DEBT.
The problem is the government, if you actually think that this government, hungry for more and more money, would actually use a "death tax" to pay down the federal deficit then you are not aware of the long history of how this government reacts to "win-fall" taxes of any kind. The problem is that this government is not capable of restraint, it is not disciplined enough to contain its own metastasis. Until the government is restrained, it doesn't matter how much tax it confiscates from the people. Besides, the problem is not the federal deficit as much as it is the federal debt and unfunded future obligations.
Another thing to consider, the nature of a fiat monetary system MUST expand through deficit spending and debt creation. Read the writings of the father of American Fiat: that RED Fabian Socialist John Maynard Keynes It is impossible for a fiat system to continue without those elements and it will continue until it becomes insolvent. All fiat systems end in complete insolvency, ours will be no different!
The comments above I do appreciate. I would ask you to consider the following:
A) Knowing that upon their death, the remaining assets of an individual will be used to settle their debt to the United States as their assets will be used to pay off other debts, such as hospital bills, etc., prior to being passed on to their heirs will change behaviors. The debt will be personal and not some number in the cloud.
One of the reasons people pay life insurance is to pay off their liabilities at death.
B) Knowing you are responsible for the debt will slow the demand for more benefit programs. Now you will know you will have to pay for it at some point. Does anyone beleive that those on Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid today are even bothered that they are taking more from the system than they contributed? I will suggest that the answer is no.
C) Check the average age of your National Representation. Does anyone think they feel the imperitive to reduce spending?
D) You have an immediated scorecard to evaluate the performance of officials. Senator X, when you took office the debt per person was $28,000. Today it is $32,000. How do you defend that.
E) Just as each person receives a Social Security Benefit Analysis each year telling them what they will receive, they will also receive a US Government Debt Analysis telling them what they owe. This will keep the issue up front and current.
F) The difference between this and the Estate Tax is that the Death Tax is to pay for SERVICES AND PROGRAMS already received, not future spending. While there is no guarantee this will work, I do not believe that the American public will sit back with their personally liable debt climbs. They will participate in the system and demand the debt be reduced.
I am familiar with Downsize DC. It's a great idea and a great place to vent. But you will never downsize DC if the majority of people benefit from the spending at the expense of a minority.
If the alcohol was flowing at a bar, and your tab was free if you passed out drunk, how many drunks would you have passed out?
Maybe it is time we quit blaming the politicians completely, and begin to put the blame on the public, who is using the programs, and does not know how to say NO to a free ride.
We, the American people, in total, are the problem. Until we feel personally liable, I will wager that we will never come close to addressing the problem.
Posted By: Walt Thiessen
Date: 2008-08-06 05:57:12
There are a number of points you're overlooking EJ.
First, by insuring that the debt can be paid off via a death tax, you take the onus off Congress to deal with the debt and reward them for sending us even more into debt! Now that they have a new, additional way to finance the debt, they'll feel even more free to spend money that they don't have.
I know you're hoping that instituting a death tax will somehow "wake up" the voters, with the idea that they'll therefore force the politicians to stop the insanity. The problem with this is that there's no reason to believe it will work. It's not like voters get to vote against particular actions by the Congresscritters. Nor is your proposal likely to improve the level of competition from other candidates. Democrats will continue to put out lousy alternatives to Republican incumbents, and vice-versa. Your proposal will not change that fact.
You pointed out one reason why people buy life insurance. Your proposal helps insure that the amount of life insurance they'll have to buy will continue to go up, up, up at an even higher rate because Congress will now have the incentive to spend more (knowing that people have to buy life insurance in order to pay off the national debt), not less. It's just like what happens when Congress mandates that everyone must help pay for college tuition...it drives the cost of tuition through the roof.
You also claim that knowing you will owe a debt will curb your demands for gov't benefits. That's not true either. Who are the beneficiaries? If you're talking about social safety net programs, you're talking about people who, for the most part, don't have the money to buy much life insurance in the first place!
You mention the average age of Congresscritters...but what direct relevance does that have to your proposal? None!
It's not up to us to defend the increase per person in the national debt. It's up to Congress to defend that.
Most people don't even read their Social Security Benefit Analysis each year, and those who do read it don't understand what it's really saying because they have minds that were educated in public schools.
But most importantly of all...what about those of us who have long opposed such spending? Your approach does nothing but continue to punish us even more for what others have done to us.
I disagree that we are taking the onus off of Congress. I believe we will be giving the public the onus to hold Congress for the debt that they can now see they are individually responsible for. Today, there is absolutely no individual responsibility, and as we see the debt moves ever higher. CouldCongress have any less onus to deal with it today?
I also disagree with your second point. I have been to dinner where one person will be paying for all, and I have been to dinner where each person gets their own check. I am sure you have as well. The way people order when they know they are liable changes. "Had I known you were paying I would have had the Surf and Turf rather than the Ceasar Salad."
The amount of insurance needed to settle the debt SHOULD go up. These are dollars that were spent on their behalf by the Federal Government. If they should not be liable for it, please tell me who you would hold liable for it in their place. Today, we are holding liable the unborn generations of the future. As another has mentioned in an article on debt, this is morally corrupt. Tell me why if this is the debt of the United States, why we as citizens should not be ultimately liable.
The average age of Congresscritters is relevant. They also plan to be gone via death or retirement prior to addressing the issue.
I think people become more interested in their Social Security Benefit Analysis as they approach retirement. Ask seniors if they have reviewed it by 60 and the majority will say yes. I would wager that many of these same seniors have also already contacted Congress about their benefits at some point. Why? It affects them directly. Not some obscure unimaginable number that we cannot grasp. And the onus has certainly been on Congress to protect Social Security. Why would that be? People are individually affected.
The "punishment" for not taking action will be greater than any perceived "punishment" by addressing it now. Despite the fact that you have been opposed to such spending, we are still liable for it. Whatever system you propose for dealing for the total debt is not going to have an "opt out" option because you opposed the spending. If it is, I want to see how it will work.
Not only did the future generations not even have a chance to oppose spending, they ultimately will be 100% responsible if we do not address it. Or we could hope for the ultimate bankruptcy of the country, at which point I would say each of us will be losing much more in hard assets than the $28,000 we now owe.
We will have a price to pay without a doubt. The question you should ask yourself is "Do I want to address it when I can negotiate it, or do I address it when I will be forced to accept the demands of those that hold the IOUs?" The last option will get you pennies on the dollar for your assets. I know I cannot afford that. Can you?
My children should not be liable for my debts,including this one. It's difficult not to take the money the government hands out when everyone else is and I know the liability is shared. If I did not take it, my liability would still be about the same.
I do not want to be the generation that destroyed America. That is not a legacy I want to leave. Let's get this monkey off our backs sooner rather than later.
Once again EJ, you seem to be ignoring the obvious and that is the fact that under such a system there is a requirement for deficit spending and the expansion of debt. Until the fundamental substrate on which this system is sound, that which is built upon it will never be sound.
The tree you are barking up is the wrong tree. It is absolutely impossible for a fiat monetary system to work as an actual sound capital system since the nature of the fiat system is the expansion of credit/debt to function. In such a system the reduction of debt only contracts the circulation of currency which, in turn contracts the economy proportionally. This is why the national debt continues to grow, it is irreversible because the very system upon which it rests must expand, the debt must continually multiply and does so exponentially. Each time the government pays down a portion of the periodic interest and the periodic principle, it must do so by "re-borrowing" that amount which, is then comprised of the previous amount of periodic interest and periodic principle making a new "loan" that increases the principal to higher levels and upon which even more interest is accrued.
As I have stated before, in such a system it is impossible to pay down the debt because in order to do so more debt must be created by the very act of payment. It is impossible, under a fiat system, to pay debt because in order to do so you must created more debt to make such payment. That is very simplistic, but it gives you an idea about just what we are facing. Every system that is based upon a circular equation as is our fiat monetary system, ultimately fails. Every fiat monetary system throughout history predicts a terminal lifespan of the system itself, ours will be no different.
You will not have to wait for a death tax to pay the system down because the system recently moved from its practical lifespan to its maximum possible lifespan, in other words, we have already reached the beginning of the terminal point in the lifespan of the fiat monetary system.
I would advise you, and all of us, prepare for such eventualities. Everything we know in our economy, indeed in our society, rest upon a system that has gone terminal.
Why would it be necessary that each time the government pays down debt, it would need to issue new debt?
That scenario only exists because they are spending more than they take in. If they spend less and take in the same, the total debt will fall and no new debt must be issued. If they spend the same and take in more because the velocity of money increases, they would also not need any additional debt.
We are not required to print more money than we take in. That is a reflection of a lack of discipline with those who spend.
Our total debt relative to GDP is not at an all time high. Do you not think we would have to rise beyond the levels of debt that we have already shown we can survive?
Ken Fisher also makes this arguement in his book "The Only Three Questions that Count" that you must look at the total debt relative to the total size of the economy. Looking at just one number without it's relationship to others can lead to incorrect conclusions.
The arguement you make has been made for decades. Yet here we are, functioning as effectively as we have for decades. Quality of life is better, interest rates lower, and more hard assets in this country than ever in our history.
I must ask-if we were not under a fiat currency as so many advocate, what item would we be using as a medium of exchange? Gold? Is there enough gold in the world to supply every nation with the coinage required? Is there even enough to supply the United States? What happens when the supply of gold is exhausted and we continue to add more people?
Gold is also affected by supply and demand, and if gold rises because of demand and because of no other reason, must all of our other hard assets decline in value because of this? That seems irrational to me.
I want to see the deficit decline as I have proposed because I want the spending to be reigned in and the current system will never allow that to happen. If the deficit does declien, more money is left in our hands, and that money can be spent more effectively and more often, increasing the velocity of money.
That makes no sense at all. Current probate court cases lasts for years unresolved and now you want to add to the mess the federal government? Try collecting that so called debt from a dead person that left no assets.
Now, if I can have an option of clearing that 'debt' today for $32,000 and not pay any more taxes in my lifetime I would gladly pay it. But that is not the way it works for the stupid governement bacause they take from us over and over and over.
What makes more sense is to reduce the size of the government and the out of control spending. Your death tax will only guarantee a bigger government.
If you ever want to reduce the size of government, there will have to be pain. That $32k will go down if we as a nation demand we curtail spending. But we will not do that( at least we have not as of yet).
For how long have we been wanting Federal spending to decline and have no results to show for it? How many more administrations will we have to wait? Is there any one that really believes that the Federal Government will curtail spending on their own without the citizens in masse demanding it? Today no one feels personally liable, and so there are not enough if us that care to force it to be dealt with.
We have no pain under today's system because we are pushing that obligation off to future generations.
I agree with the option to pay it today and be done with it...as long as you also willing to pay for the future expenditures on your behalf.
A dead person that pays nothing towards the debt? That is exactly what we have today.
I believe the attitude generated by the idea of having to pay a tax at death will be what motivates you and others to force government to curtail spending. I cannot imagine that as the estates of the deceased paid this tax, and yet you still saw your share climbing because the politicians continued climbing, that the outrage would not completely envelop our political processes. We need a little outrage.
In a fiat monetary system, money is debt. Each “dollar” must be ‘borrowed” into existence, according to the Federal Reserve. Since each “dollar” must be “borrowed” into circulation and economic growth completely relies upon the expansion of credit, there is no way that debt can be paid down except through creating more debt. It is absolutely a fantasy to believe that a government built upon a fiat monetary system will restrain itself since it doesn’t have to, it simply expands its debt by the issuance of more money. In a fiat system money is debt, each “dollar” is a legal notification of a debt obligation, whether that debt obligation is a personal debt, a corporate debt, a municipal or State debt obligation or a government obligation. Each dollar that is in circulation today was placed into circulation by the creation of debt, it NOT CAPITAL The government cannot pay down the debt because in a fiat system it cannot be paid down or the economy will crash. The economy completely relies upon the expansion of this and private debt. If everyone, including the government, paid off every single debt in this country tomorrow there would not be one single penny, nickel, dime, quarter, or dollar left in circulation…that is the nature of the fiat money system. Any decrease in the level of debt will contract the circulation of the money supply proportionally, the contract in the money supply will contract the economy. That is the way this fiat economy works. If the government had the wherewithal to pay down the debt, it would be forced to avoid such a pay down for the simple reason that there would be a massive economic dislocation directed associated with such a debt reduction.
There is, of course, a major problem in such a system and that problem is that it is mathematically impossible for such a system to continue indefinitely. There will reach a point when the costs associated with servicing the debt become greater than the ability of economic growth to cope, at that point the system becomes insolvent. All commerce must be sustained by an increase in circulation and the circulation must be increased by “borrowing” or debt creation, but this very debt creation upon which the entire system rest will ultimately place a far greater demand upon the whole system than the system can sustain and collapse occurs. One of the primary signs of systemic stress on our system is the fact that the economy is no longer able to tolerate even minor interest rate increases without stumbling. There has been a narrowing of tolerance within the entire system because the burden of underlying debt is placing tremendous pressure on the system as a whole, not just parts as it once did, but the entire economic substructure.
It is not only necessary for the government to “re-borrow” in order to pay down debt, there is no other way for it to do so. Since our money is debt, what do you think they are using to pay down the debt? The creation of any money in this country is completely through the creation of debt, there is no other legal tender in existence in this country but the Fiat Federal Reserve Note. You notice that it states it is a Note, non-redeemable, non-convertible Debt Note. It is impossible to pay down such a debt because it has become irreversible due to the nature of the money we use and the fact that an interest burden is added to the principal. When our money was converted from a sound money system built upon capital and capital built upon production there would have been no problem paying down a debt, first because such a sound system would have restrained the vast growth and overspending of the government and second the government would be restrained by both budget and legislative oversight. It is interesting to view the charts, not only on inflation in relationship to monetary expansion, but also to view the rise in debt in relationship to monetary expansion and government expansion. There is a very good reason they all mirror each other and that is because they are so inexorably intertwined.
Now, it takes far less faith in sound money than it does in fiat money, of that there can be no contention. Sound money is exactly that: sound, solid value that is actually measurable whereas fiat money must be believed in and the way in which the government creates faith in fiat money is completely by decree. You must use it for all transactions, especially dealing with the government, such as taxes. Now, the Federal Reserve has already stated that under a fiat monetary system taxes ARE NOT NECESSARY FOR REVENUES. In other words, since fiat money consist completely of debt, debt can be expanded at anytime through the modulation of credit.
Once again, if you look at the charts ranging from the later part of the 1800s through the present time, you will see a very direct correlation between the Fiat Monetary System imposed upon this country and the rise in debt that poses such a danger to this country and its people. The problem is not necessary the debt, but the effects that debt will have upon our society. Since everything we now know in our society is built upon fiat money, our retirement funds, our investments, our insurance, everything will suffer the same fate as the monetary system itself…when it reaches the point of insolvency the entire system built upon it will collapse and chaos will ensue.
Now since the circulation of fiat money relies totally upon the expansion of debt and the expansion of the economy relies totally upon the expansion of credit there must be a perpetual lending facility in order to accomplish these attributes within the fiat system. However, since it the entire circulation of our fiat money, both physical and digital, relies upon the extension of credit, which creates the debt, is subject to interest, there must be a continuation of “re-borrowing” for the system to continue since all money in such a system must be loaned into circulation. In other words, our money is based solely upon an interest-bearing monetary system of “borrowing and re-borrowing” in order to keep both the circulation of the money flowing and economic growth expanding. It costs close to nothing to make our money in this country, pennies per Federal Reserve Note.
David Walker stated that it would take a cut in all government services of over 75% and a tax on every individual and corporation of over 125% of income in order to avert the economic and social disaster this country faces. Obviously, that the government is not going to implement cuts anywhere near that amount or tax the people of this country more than they actually make.
The government will not spend less because the system is based upon deficit spending, that is the Keynesian model upon which it is created. It will only continue to spend as long as the system allows it to borrow, now there will come a time when the artificial sustention of credit will no longer lend itself to the system, at that point you will notice massive disruptions in every type of government, State, local and municipal operations, as well as all business operations. As I stated, the system upon which this government depends is not, nor has it been taxation, but fiat money. Taxation is only effected because this government must maintain a degree of control over the population, it is used to institute a social order through the redistribution of wealth primarily funneling that wealth away from the people into the hands of the government, but not for revenue purposes. The other reason, as I alluded to is to enforce the use of its fiat money that we are commanded to use, but taxation has no other purpose under a fiat monetary system. Once you grasp that mind-boggling fact you will see the curtain removed from the great and powerful Oz and see it for what it really is, hopefully taking appropriate action to protect yourself and your family from the massive fraud that has been perpetrated upon this country for the last 95 years.
Once again, we must understand that nature of our money if we are to understand what is happening. Our money is debt, that is all it is, it is not a store of value, but a store of debt obligations. Taking in more revenue is not, nor has it been the issue, the issue is debt creation. Our entire system relies upon the expansion of that debt and the government is only too happy to continue its present course without abatement.
For instance, say you are about to take out a mortgage, the money for that mortgage is non-existent until the moment you close on that loan with your signature. The bank did not have the money sitting around in their bank vault, it was placed in circulation by the act of a debt creation the moment you signed the mortgage note, every dollar is created in a similar manner, although that is, I realize, a very simplistic explanation of the mechanism.
The national debt, along with future unfunded obligations, is irreversible. I know that is hard to wrap your mind around, but there is no way to pay debt off. The amount of funds necessary just to pay the periodic interest obligations is enormous. If you are familiar with the way this government operates then you will readily recognize the fact that it does not function as a business would, per say. You state that if the government would only spend less, as though that will happen, and take in the same amount of money then the velocity of monetary increase would take care of the debt, but that is not in the nature of the fiat monetary system which completely relies upon debt creation to sustain commerce for its economic health. As I said, under the Keynesian model, upon which our system is based, the government must always expand, always spend more and more in order to maintain economic growth. It is impossible for such a system, relying on debt creation through credit expansion, to stop or restrain spending since that is the life-blood of the entire system, not only economically, but governmentally.
If you look at recent events in the economy, you will see a small measure of what I am talking about. There is a “credit-liquidity” crisis brought on by several factors, one being extremely loose credit and the other being the credit-worthiness of the borrowers involved. This contraction in liquidity is nothing more than a contraction in the underlying debt upon which the system is built; as we see, it didn’t take much to cause a massive dislocation in the economy, of which we have not nearly seen the end of it all. This was completely caused by the nature of the fiat monetary system upon which the economy depends. If the government, under a fiat monetary system, cut spending the only effect would be a contraction in the economy and the government cannot afford such a dislocation, it would be politically suicidal and potentially destroy the entire society as we now know it. The problem of course, is that our society is in danger from just such a collapse because the system cannot be sustained indefinitely, it has, as every fiat system does, an inherent terminal point in its lifespan.
While we did not have a total fiat monetary system between 1913 and 1930, it was enough for there to be a massive exhaustion within the economy by 1930. At the point of collapse in 1930, our debt, in all sectors, including government, was approximately 270% of GDP, today that total debt obligation, not counting unfunded future obligations, is around 300% of GDP. You see, it is not only the government debt that should cause us concern, because that debt is just a portion of the overall debt burden weighing down upon our economic system. That was the first expansion within the system that terminated with the Great Depression, this next termination will end in a similar collapse but on a much more broader scale and depth since we have been under a total fiat monetary system since 1971. Usually the lifespan of a total fiat system last between 20 to 50 years depending on the abuses heaped upon it by the government, of course, our government has abused the system in ways no one could have dreamed of in 1913. I estimate that we have a few years, very few before the system reaches its terminal point. Most total fiat systems that are abused last about 40 years, we are now at year 37. So, at this point the debt is not the issue anymore, the issue is our survival in a society that has placed all its eggs in a fiat basket created through a fraudulent system based upon debt as the medium of value in exchange.
The economy totally depends on “printing” more and more money, it simply cannot be sustained without the expansion of the money supply, as recent events have shown. Once again, I point to the signs that we are rapidly reaching the terminal point in our monetary system. At one time, if the Federal Reserve had pumped as much money into circulation as it has recently the economy would be booming, but it continues to experience a slumbering dislocation because it can no longer tolerate the burden upon which it is created.
It seems to be easy for us to rely upon government numbers to qualify the debt situation in which we find ourselves, but the truth is that all GDP must rely upon the same creation of debt in order to maintain itself. The problem, once again, is that all money in the system is debt, it is not capital in the sense that it was when we had sound money. Take, for example, the global derivatives market, it is estimated that the market is now 5 to 6 times over global GDP, now that entire market is built upon fiat money, what happens if the derivatives market not only crashed, but collapsed? It will eventually for the simple reason that it has fiat money as its foundation and all fiat money is created the same way, by the expansion of credit, thus debt creation.
This last real estate boom relied upon easy credit, or the expansion of debt to fuel the boom, additionally, it relied upon the inflation of asset value, without which it could not have been sustained. Similarly, the same is true for the overall economy, as more of the general circulation is required to service the overwhelming debt burden, less circulation will be devoted to maintaining the general economy and a massive dislocation will ensue. There will be a short period that the system can sustain itself, but eventually the margins of profit will be exhausted in commerce as more money is taken from general circulation to service the debt. The debt, in essence, will begin to siphon off more and more economic viability within the system until it ends in insolvency. The probability of a global collapse is 100%.
Actually the argument that I am making hasn’t been make for decades, that is obvious because the vast majority of people in this country, including a vast number of economist and politicians have no idea what the nature of fiat money really is, they simply think of it as money, a medium of exchange. They don’t understand the mechanics behind the fiat monetary system or that the system must rely upon debt for its circulation. When the costs associated with servicing the massive debt becomes equal to or at the moment it exceeds the circulation then it becomes terminal. As I said, the entire global GDP is 5 to 6 times lower than just the derivatives market, much less the massive debt burden that under girds the economy itself.
Gold, as money, is of a particular interest because the money supply in a sound money system is not nearly as big of an issue as it is in a fiat monetary system. In a fiat system the money supply must constantly be expanded, but under a sound monetary system productivity creates economic expansion, not the money, the money is just a means of exchange. This will blow your mind, under a sound monetary system the supply of money is not an issue since the supply of money will always, always adjust to the demand of goods and services. It is a common fallacy to place the natural attributes of a fiat money system on the nature of a sound money system, they are not the same nor do they operate on the same monetary laws that govern economic functions.
Now, let me preface this by saying that there are no perfect economic systems since the economy is governed by human actions. However, if you can flow with the laws of economics instead of against them then you will find that it basically works pretty well, and has for thousands of years. A gold or commodity specie will not preclude economic fluctuations, those fluctuations are natural to economic cycles because economic cycles are directly effected by human actions. The point is that in free market economies, these cycles are far more shallow and short-lived than in managed economies. These cycles are actually necessary elements in the economy, both in terms of productive capital and filtering out bad business decisions or fraud. People and business and yes even banks should be allowed to fail. Failure is essential to create better people, better businesses and even better banks.
The very nature of real money is a value that is inherent in it that can be measured for exchange, at least historically that has been the case. Money always historically originated or evolved from a commodity that held value sway over the society, which, in turn gave this commodity a demand per unit of weight in exchange for either goods or services available at the time. In the early days of the American colonies, useful and scarce commodities were used as money, rice in what is now South Carolina and tobacco in what is now Virginia. Even later in Virginia, warehouse receipts circulated as money backed by tobacco as the underlying commodity. These were value-based commodity monies, particularly in the rural areas since trade in these goods were essential for exchange. Later, as the economy grew, colonists imported gold and silver coin, not only from England, but Spanish doubloons, Portuguese “joe”, French guinea and just about any coin of gold and silver was also used in circulation. In fact, it wasn’t until 1857 that Congress outlawed the use of foreign coin in this country. It was, until that point, a free-market of money and it worked pretty dog-gone well.
Let me first state that I am not opposed to Constitutional government actions, obviously. The government is limited to very specific measures economically, those of course include the regulation of interstate commerce, foreign treaties and the regulation of the weight and value of money. One of the interesting things about Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution is that according to my reading on the subject of value is that it pertained to the “fineness or purity” of the metals involved. Value is different than price, particular when you consider that the price of gold and silver during that period was not fixed. At one time in this country gold was not nationalized as it is now, it was a market commodity that bore the price demand of the supply. A commodity redeemable dollar would not be based on the market price value of the underlying commodity as much as a fixed weight of the denominated dollar whatever the underlying price of the commodity.
Because a dollar is a fixed measure, made up of fixed fractions, i.e. half-dollar, quarter, dime, nickel, penny all of which represent percentages of the dollar unit, this is the unit of measure which do not fluctuate, nor therefore can the weight, but the market-price value of the underlying commodity is not fixed. So, the fluctuations in the underlying price of the commodity with the fixed price of the unit of measure is particularly beneficial to both the consumer and the producer of products and services in terms of adjustments in the market forces throughout the economy. The main question is one of weight, what weight would a dollar be in gold? In the current distorted markets, with the fiat monetary system it would be difficult to determine such a weight.
At one time, of course, a dollar was measured as 1/20th of an ounce of gold, but that was a real 1/20th of an ounce; at this moment a fiat dollar is measured as 1/962nd of an ounce of gold in value, but that value is misleading to a degree because of the fiat nature of the dollar therefore, the actual measure is not accurate. If there was to be a return to a commodity based monetary system we would almost be forced to begin de novo. I would think however, that there are two possibilities for transforming our monetary system from Fiat to Commodity Specie. First, it would be possible, if there is enough time, to do away with the Federal Reserve System making it merely a clearing house for monetary transactions and then demanding that the Treasury would issue, at the behest of Congress, fiat money without the underlying debt that now is used to create it. In other words, there would be a direct issue instead of an indirect, this would eliminate the burden of interest upon monetary creation. It would be similar to the old Greenback Dollar. If however, as I believe, the fiat monetary system is rapidly reaching its terminal lifespan, then it would be necessary to open up competing currency, backed by commodities, to the market and let the market [people] decide which they would use.
Perhaps the main argument, that always arises when gold specie is considered, is that there would be an inadequate money supply for the expanding economy, whether that growth be purely economic or based upon population growth or a combination of both. Now, this is certain to blow you away, but in classical law economics, the money supply essentially doesn’t matter, unlike a fiat monetary system, because money performs its function solely as a medium of exchange in the economy, any change in its supply will, therefore, be adjusted by the purchasing power of the monetary unit itself. Basically what happens is pricing of goods and services accommodate the supply of money and adjust accordingly. Both the supply of goods and services and the supply of money will adjust to each other accordingly, that is in a free-market. The question is always one of price, the price of goods and services, but also the price of money. Money either has a real price set by market forces or it will have an artificial price set by the government or Central Bank. Price therefore, is nothing more than an expression of the exchange ratio.
I’m not sure if you have ever heard of David Hume, an early economist, perhaps one of the first who recognized and studied economic law, but he has some very good observations that are still as pertinent today as they were when he observed them. The reason this relevance is that he observed economic laws and such laws don’t change through history. He proposed, based upon the economic law that he observed, that if overnight the money supply doubled in all the vaults, in all the pockets, and accounts that everyone would think they were twice as rich. However, he stated that it is not the money that makes one rich but the abundance of goods, and the only thing that limits that abundance is a scarcity of land, labor or capital. He went on to say that the multiplying of money does not make such resources magically appear.
Accordingly, he states that while we may be twice as rich at the moment the money appears, it will, as it works through the economy, dilute the money supply. As all these people rush out to spend all of that new-found wealth, prices will roughly double, or will proportionally increase to the supply of money in circulation until and only until the demand is satisfied and that new circulated money no longer bids against itself for the existing goods and services. So, the supply of new money would only weaken the purchasing power of that money until it worked through the economy to the point that more goods and services were made available, at that point the economy would stabilize both in terms of the money in circulation and the goods and services available. An increase or decrease of the money supply would have correlating effects in economic terms. The great thing is that the economy, under a sound money system, will always balance itself within a relative short period of time. Unlike the managed economy, under the Federal Reserve, under a free-market economy there are abating forces that counterbalance each other. Although the money managers attempt to dictate the supply of money, the truth of the matter is that the free market will set the production of gold money in accordance to its ability to satisfy the needs of the consumers with goods and services.
Gold is produced at a particular cost of labor and capital just like iron, cooper, lead and other metals. As products therefore, of industry, they possess an intrinsic value, like all other commodities, dependent upon the cost of producing them; that is upon the amount of the rent paid to the owner of the land for the privilege of mining them, the amount paid for the wages of the laborer employed in mining and smelting the ore and in refining the metal, and the amount of the ordinary profits on capital invested in the enterprise. It would be impossible to use the metal as an efficient economic currency if its value was artificially fixed. A real "gold standard", of which I speak, the dollar would have to be tied to gold as a fixed weight, not a fixed rate. So a person wanting to redeem a dollar would receive the fixed weight in gold. So, if a dollar were, by example, 1/20th of an ounce, a person would receive that weight in gold, but the market price of gold would be based upon market forces at the time of redemption. This sounds odd and unworkable when first considering it, but since the price of goods and services fluctuate it would also be necessary to have the underlying commodity as a free-float also or you will have the same problems that were found in our economy during the period of the classic gold standard system in this country.
Unlike our current fiat dollars, gold dollars or dollars fully redeemable in gold would not merely represent wealth, but would be wealth as well as real property of the owner. Our fiat dollars are nothing more than IOUs, debt obligations and they no longer can even be considered our property since they hold no real value only units of exchange, barter notes, government issued tickets.
There is, of course, a dual problem with any Fiat or Commodity specie if it is funneled through a fractional reserve system. The key would be to demand a 100% reserve system, this would do two things. First, it would eliminate massive profits made by the banks through the use of fractional reserve. Second, it would, finally, make the banks completely responsible to their depositors. Banks would be forced to adhere to the commitments of their clients, and in doing so, safeguard them from loses. The only reason the FDIC exists in the first place is because of the dangers of the fractional reserve system to depositors money. Banks would be far more inclined to conduct good business practices if there were no privileges safeguarding them from the consequences of their actions. While this may seem radical however, it would have minimal negative effects on the economy, except in that it would decrease the huge profits that stem for the banks being able to leverage their holdings through the fractional reserve system. In other words, the market would force a bank to maintain good practices to remain competitive, liquid and honest. The fiduciary responsibility of the banks would be to the clients of the banks, not to other sources, such as the government or a central bank, banking cartels, or perhaps most importantly corporate interests.
None of this is possible, of course, in a managed economy. In such an economy, contrary to the normal business cycles of a free market, the distorted booms and bust are created by monetary polices. Now, a dollar, not only pegged to a commodity, but redeemable in that commodity is a self-regulatory agent. In a resource market, such as gold, the market will determine pricing of the underlying commodity. Now, I realize you think that the underlying commodity would simply be manipulated as anything else however, there would be a self-regulator on such manipulation that would be immediately witnessed in the market itself, since any manipulation of gold, outside the normal laws of supply and demand, would express itself to everyone using redeemable specie and would be reflected in the exchange ratio for goods and services. Unlike the hidden haunt of fiat inflation, the people of this country would immediately know that their money supply was being manipulated and in such cases, the people [the market] would react. Such a monetary system does not allow for complacency.
There is a cardinal law and that is that the truths or laws of science cannot be forced to accommodate the imperfections or interests of man. This is true of economic laws as well, no matter what governments attempt to do; the economy will operate according to economic laws, regardless of the regulations and manipulations of the government. While they may twist the economy, they will ultimately fail to accomplish their desired effects if those effects are contrary to economic law.
One thing is certain, we will eventually return to a commodity based monetary system, it is inevitable because every single fiat monetary system goes through the same stages of collapse, ours is no different.
As the operation of the market tends to determine the final state of money's purchasing power at a height at which the supply of and the demand for money coincide, there can never be an excess or deficiency of money. Each individual and all individuals together always enjoy fully the advantages which they can derive from indirect exchange and the use of money, no matter whether the total quantity of money is great, or small. . . . the services which money renders can be neither improved nor repaired by changing the supply of money. . . . The quantity of money available in the whole economy is always sufficient to secure for everybody all that money does and can do. –Ludwig von Mises, The Theory of Money and Credit.
Mises is, of course, absolutely correct about the quantity of money in a free-market commodity specie system. In such a system it is not the money or the quantity of money that matters, but the purchasing power of that money, that is, or should be, our primary concern. In a fiat monetary system there will always be a decline in the purchasing power of the money because the system relies upon an ever-expanding money supply via credit expansion to keep the economy growing. Inflation therefore, will always decrease the purchasing power of fiat money.
On the other hand, in a 100% commodity specie free market, the price of money or the exchange in goods and services will be determined by the demand of the market. If therefore, there is less money in circulation the value of exchange will be greater, it more money in circulation then the value of exchange will be less, thus there really is no such thing as too much or too little money as long as there are no intervention into the market then the value of exchange will level out as the money no longer bids against itself. To understand the supply of commodity money in fiat terms is absurd, it cannot be done nor does the “rules” that government fiat money translate into the commodity money system. Gold has, after all, stood the test of time in terms of economic markets. For thousands of years, it has proven to be, by far, the most enduring stable money, which in turn creates a far more stable economy, thus a stable society.
Now, in the present fiat system, you cannot restrain or contract the money supply because there would be a corresponding break-down in the economy since the economy relies upon the expansion of the money supply in a fiat system for its growth. Since, the fiat system and the economy it supports, depends on credit expansion, thus debt creation, it must be continually increased and cannot be reduced. On the other hand, in a sound money system, the economy is based upon capital and production, not the money supply.
In a fractional reserve fiat banking system, when a loan is paid off, the principal amount of the money simply vanishes in thin air because the money itself was created by the act of lending and is taken completely out of circulation when the debt is paid. On the other hand, in a commodity specie 100% reserve system, the money that is loaned is real money, it had to exist in order for the loan to be extended therefore when the loan is paid the money stock still exist, it remains money.
The price of gold today reflects not only its retention of value, but it also reflects the level of debasement that our fiat currency is subjected to through credit expansion and debt creation. Now, since this debasement has taken place over decades, the real value of gold, and therefore the economy, cannot be determined based upon fiat dollars since those dollars have been so drastically inflated. The economy we know today is based upon fiat value and that value is always being degraded through inflation. So, today it takes approximately $22,102.53 fiat dollars, based upon fraudulent government CPI figures, to equal $1,000.00 in1913 real gold dollars, the fiat value or purchase power in today’s fiat economy reflects a hollow value and upon that value we base our economy however, it is not realistic. Today, for instance, One Million Dollars actually equates to the real value of approximately $45,243.70 in1913 dollars and One Million Dollars in 1913 would now equate to approximately $22,102,525.25. As we can see, the purchase value under the fiat system always becomes increasingly empty.
The value of our modern economy therefore, is based upon an illusion and that illusion is based upon inflation of the fiat money supply which debases the purchasing power of the currency. The illusion of say $1 Million Dollars is a grand illusion indeed, even $10 Million Dollars today translates to the purchasing power of less than a half a Million Dollars in 1913 dollars. So, now take this one step farther and relate the real value of the economy in 1913 real money terms and you can see that the value of gold would easily sustain our economy today because we are using a very incomplete measure the actual value of the economy because we are basing it on fiat money.
Read this speech by Richard W. Fisher is president and CEO of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas. He states what is much closer to the truth about the debt of this government that it is much closer to 100 Trillion Dollars when counting unfunded obligations. I am afraid that your Death Tax would simply be a drop in the proverbial black hole.
If you took a million dollars a day and tossed it out the window and did that every day, 365 days a year, year after year it would take you about 2037 years to throw away 1 Trillion Dollars, now think about 100 Trillion.
Thank you for the information that you have posted. I disagree with one of the premises-that the economy can only grow with the issuance of more credit. This is not an absolute.
If you increase the velocity of money(the number of times that a dollar changes hands), you are also able to increase the size of the economy without the issuance of debt. And if you slow it down the velocity, you can shrink the economy.
Second, everything in our nation that has been bought and paid for, could now be considered "free" of the fiat link that so many are against. While we may still use fiat dollars to place a value on these items (because of convenience), these items can certainly be bartered outside of the fiat system. And they have not lost their real value, for they still can be utilized even if the dollar goes to 0.
I am not certain of the total value of all goods,land, and services that have been bought and paid for in full, but I imagine it is much higher than most would guess. Shouldn't the value of these items be considered relative to the value of assets financed via fiat money?
It is not a premises that a fiat economy must grow through the issuance of credit, it is a fact, that is the way this system works, don’t believe it, then see what happens to economic growth when there is a credit liquidity contraction, the economy stagnates and begins to reserve itself. Look at any down turn in modern times and you will see a similar scenario, the contraction of credit will always slow growth. The quantity theory of money is an old one, and it was formulated prior to the fiat monetary system in this country, but it seems to have been very influential and has been imposed on the fiat monetary system in same ways it was used under the sound money system. Of course, the two systems are totally different and that difference makes a huge difference.
Money renders a service and that service is not merely in the exchange or turn-over of money throughout the economy. Money is never idle, but renders some service to someone all the time, including future services. The quantity theory of money, to which the velocity of money belongs is a deficiency because it ignores human actions and the inflationary pressures that are inherent in a fiat economy. It assumes that, all things being equal, prices must change in proportion to the total supply of money available in the economy, that is not the case. It is a matter of mass demand, either for money or goods, when more money is offered for goods then there is an increase in exchange circulation. In our economy money is simply a horizontal unit of exchange throughout the economy, units of money for units of goods and services. Production, on the other hand is a very good measure of growth and the velocity of money is passive in the exchange. The velocity of money, in other words, is a result of economic growth, not a cause of that growth in a fiat monetary system. The velocity of money is never an independent factor within the economy, it always relates, especially in a fiat economy, to the supply of money in circulation.
All you are doing is increasing the exchange within the economy which is horizontal in measure but for vertical economic growth in a fiat economy you must have an expansion of credit. If that were not the case then the present credit liquidity would not be an issue in our economy, but the primary problem with this current down turn is the lack of and the confidence in credit, which is the basis of the fiat monetary system. In other words, if economic growth depended solely upon the velocity of money then it would not react to either the easing or tightening of credit, it would simply continue being exchanged throughout the economy providing for growth, but it only measures a ratio of growth opposed to GDP. This is why, in every case of fiat recession, the velocity of money reaches a peak just prior to the down turn. If the economy was based upon gold specie then you would be correct, the money within the economy would work in vertical growth however, that is not the case under the fiat economy, there must be a constant influx in credit to continue vertical growth.
Now, the current write down on loans is a perfect example of what happens when there is a contraction of credit, the massive amount of money that makes up those “bad loans” is now taken from the economic equation, tightening the money supply. The reaction to this event by the FED has been to pump more money into the credit sector, which, in the long run, is not the best thing for the overall economy.
Additionally, if you are old as dirt like myself, then you would remember various periods in our history when the economy went through differing degrees of dislocation. Only recently has the economic substrate become so weak that it cannot sustain itself under minor interest rate increases, this is a sign of rate intolerance which in turn is a sign of monetary system stress. In other words, the system, built upon debt, is demanding more from the economy than the economy can produce while remaining viable.
The entire premise of the fiat economy is based upon the ability of the Federal Reserve to balance easy credit and tight credit by the rise and lowering of the discount rate. It is the substance of the economy, its entire backbone. Once that money makes it into the economy then, and only then does the velocity begin to take effect, all transactions from a previous period of easy money is a trace effect of that easing of credit. When credit is restricted or tightened, then the velocity of money throughout the economy begins to slow down and effect the economy. There is, without the issuance of credit, a reduction in velocity, it doesn’t simply continue.
Now all assets are value-based in our fiat system only in fiat terms today. The value of a good or service can only be determined by either inherent of perceived value and the willingness of someone to offer an exchange for that good or service equal to that good or service. Money is a measure of value exchange, but when the money loses that measure of value, then the exchange is no longer possible in terms of money, but another measure must be found and agreed upon by the two parties involved in the exchange. The value of the present economy is calculated based upon fiat value, which, as we have seen, has been greatly inflated providing for a false evaluation of the asset. There is a great deal of difference between inherent value and the value placed upon an asset in a fiat monetary system that is subject to constant inflation. Besides, if the fiat monetary system collapses what will determine the value of a particular good or service, it certainly would no longer be possible to calculate that value based upon fiat money, but it would be valued based upon need, desire, supply and demand.
If you had fiat bills with a face value of $1,000.00 but a purchasing exchange value of say 0.00 cents per one thousand of fiat dollars then how would you measure the exchange? You wouldn’t, you would be forced to find some value in what you could offer in exchange for the product or good that you needed. Therefore, the relative value of a good or service would have drastically changed at the moment that hyper-inflation destroyed the fiat monetary system in our society. The problem of course, is that when such a collapse takes place there will not be many products to purchase on the shelf, or gas in tanks, electricity available or food to be found. At that point the people will realize just what their fiat money really is: paper, worthless paper. The fiat monetary system must have the confidence of the people or it is not enforceable. Today, if you placed gold and silver in competition with fiat money what do you think would happen? Of course, people would reject fiat money for gold and silver because they know that commodity specie, gold and silver, have an inherent store of value. If the economy slides into a hyper-inflationary depression in the next couple of years, as I expect it to, then you will find that gold and silver will be accepted as a measure of exchange, as will any other item of value based upon utility, whereas the fiat money will be shunned as a measure of value since it has no inherent value.
You stated that this massive debt has been on the behalf of the American People, but has it really been on our behalf? That is a very fundamental question because when you break down the debt into the various areas of spending I think you will find that the recipients of the benefits of that spending is very, very questionable. Oh, there are beneficiaries who are Americans, but the primary beneficiaries are not the American People in general.
The benefits from such spending, from the mounting debt is far from the cut and dry statements you have made in your conjecture. The vast amount of funds, borrowed, hardly reaches the common man in this country, in fact, the system itself takes far more than it gives. The fact is that the more the government expands its spending the less monetary benefit filters to the People. All government funds come from somewhere either in the present through confiscation or in the future through borrowing.
Our economy suffers from the burden of a massive government. There is a very real extraction costs associated with government spending, it is extremely costly. All the options left to our government incur costs and all have adverse consequences upon the economy and therefore on the People. The government consumes capital resources that would otherwise be used in private enterprise. Inflation destroys the purchasing power of the currency, making it increasingly difficult for the People to sustain a reasonable level of living.
There are also displacement costs associated with government spending. Every dollar the government spends, whether borrowed or confiscated, is one less in circulation in the general economy and one less that is actually productive to the American People. The vast majority of government programs, projects, Acts and Legislations have either a poor rate of return or a negative rate of return on dollars spent. Now, this also doesn't factor in negative multiplier costs associated with government spending. These negative multipliers actually have very adverse effects on the economy, regulatory agencies while having relatively low expenditures impact the economy enormously. Additionally, there are high costs associated with membership in certain international organizations such as the IMF, the UN, the OECD, etc. These multinational bureaucracies and the anti-growth policies they endorse are extremely negative since they not only involve contradictory policies toward the US, but also involve a substantial outlay in US funds.
This government also seems to have a rather nasty habit of promoting destructive choices and behaviors in numerous sectors of our society, both private and public. Look at the various programs that the government supports and you will readily see that most of those programs actually foster the very things they claim to be preventing.
Additionally, there is a huge cost to the distortion of the market, it is twisted and turned. The direct intervention of government into the market costs Trillions of dollars that would otherwise be productive and competitive. Subsidies to various sectors that artificially influence markets, undermining the extremely critical role that real competition plays in the market.
There is an unbelievable misallocation of funds within our government, waste beyond comparison, and incompetence that boggles the mind. There is a large amount of evidence that private enterprise could provide many services more efficiently and for far less costs, yet the government must control these areas because it is in the best interest of government.
The largest employer in the world, actually the largest employer in the history of the world is the United States Government. The vast amount of debt this government has accrued has not been for the benefit of the People of this country, but to benefit the government itself.
So, who owes this debt? It has certainly not been on the behalf of the American People that it has been incurred over the last 40 years, nor has it been with their permission. This government has become a power unto itself, ignoring the People and their consent to be governed in such a destructive way. This government is burying this country, destroying its Constitutional Foundation, its economic foundation and its currency.
This government is counterproductive to the interests of the People and to their future, every step this government takes toward benefiting itself and expanding its growth is a step away from any benefit the People receive from the actions of government.
So, whose burden is it? We have been shackled while we were sleeping and we will suffer untold misery because of our slumber. The American People will be punished for the actions of lunatics who pose as actual leaders in Washington and their cohorts in the banking cartel, and fascist corporate world.
I say that on that great and sad day, when the chickens come home to roost that We, the People string those criminals up on the National Mall and watch as they dance the Tiber Jig, pissing themselves for the crimes they have committed against the American People and the Treason they have perpetrated against this country and the Constitution.
Want to comment on this
article? Leave your comment here. Your email address is
required to track your comment. However, we will neither
publish your email address nor distribute it to other
organizations or persons. The only reason we might use
it would be if we needed to contact you regarding your
comment. All comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
