Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: How to solve the banking home loan crisis!!!!!

Posted 2 years ago on May 24, 2012, 10:41 p.m. EST by MoshehThezion (98)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

There is one plan, which can solve this problem of banks robbing the people, by implementing a new nationwide program out of the Federal Reserve, after I as President have nationalized it. Basically under my plan, we nationalize the Federal Reserve, pay off all national debt, and revalue all Dollars in circulation, after which we can reverse the major aspects of the National Banking act of 1933, and re-organize the banking industry, not to put them out of business, but to limit how they can operate.

As discussed here..–> http://mosheh.org/Banks-47-Credit-Cards.html

So then, ..Now that the Federal Reserve is owned by the people, and operates for the people, it can easily provide interest free loans to all the people, so that they can immediately pay off their existing loans, and so avoid all the interest payments, and save a fortune literally.. The same applies to Student Loans, as with interest free loans they can all be paid off.

In this way, home owners and students, can be free of excess criminal usury debts, and as such, can make whatever payments they can afford to, and while in some cases it maybe 30 years, others it maybe 40 years, that is ok, because there is no interest, and as such, with real money, there is no loss for the people as a nation if they take a long time to pay it off…. because… the only reason interest payments are demanded today is because the money is not real, and is debt based…. WE CHANGE THIS. WE CREATE REAL MONEY.. A REAL MONEY SYSTEM… which does not suffer from interest, inflation or deflation of value over time….. See –> http://mosheh.org/Currency.html

This solves the major problem… and sets the people free of debt slavery tactics.

I have been expressing this for a very long time, and I hope you can wake up to the reality that this kind of program… this kind of change is what our nation needs to set itself free of banker abuse.

  • If I was elected President in 2012, I would do this within my first 10 days.

-Mosheh Eesho Muhammad Al-faraj Thezion

http://mosheh.org/Home.html

1-818-397-1352 campaign@mosheh.org

60 Comments

60 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 3 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 2 years ago

The Federal Reserve is already 'nationalized', whatever profits it makes, which it does, is given to the Treasury... our government.

[-] -2 points by MoshehThezion (98) 2 years ago

No, the Federal Reserve is a private corporation... its profits are divided into the reserve banks... and they have private for profit investors, so that even if some... is used and controlled by our government, those investors MAKE MONEY OFF OF US... And it is not nationalized... at all.... The National Banking act of 1933 gave it to private investors, who remain secret, which is why Ron Paul calls for an audit... so we can find out who owns it.

[-] 3 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 2 years ago

Where do I start? The Federal Reserve is a private corporation, but not in the sense that IBM, or Apple are. You can not buy and trade Fed Resv stock. It was created to be private to insulate the Federal Reserve from partisan politics and pressure as much as possible. Regardless, the Federal Reserve is answerable to Congress.

The stock holders of the Fed Resv own this stock as hard assets for their beginning contributions to the institution, to be redeemed upon the dissolution of the central bank. Much in the way the government owns stock in AIG as collateral for the loans given to keep AIG afloat.

The Federal Resv is a non-profit institution. Sometimes that target is hard to hit so when a profit is made it is turned over to the treasury. Last year $76.9 billion in profits were turned over to the Treasury:

The Fed made an average annual contribution to the Treasury Department of $23 billion during the five years preceding the crisis. In the years since 2007, the Fed’s average contribution has more than doubled to $54 billion.

The Fed transferred $79.3 billion in 2010. Its investment portfolio grew again in 2011, approaching $3 trillion, but profits fell modestly as the Fed reduced some more lucrative holdings, like its support for the insurance company American International Group, and expanded its holdings of low-yield government debt.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/11/business/economy/fed-returns-77-billion-in-profits-to-treasury.html

This is why its considered 'natonalized'. The profits it does generate do not go to the private sector but to the government.

The secrecy of the stock holders, their identities, is necessary to keep the public from favoring those banks or institutions that are involved with the Fed. That would give an undue advantage to those banks in the market.

As I said earlier the Fed is answerable to Congress. Audits take place, conducted by the General Accounting Office (GAO) on a regular basis. The latest audit that I know of revealed that the Fed gave out $16 Trillion dollars in TARP and emergency programs to rescue not only US banks, but foreign banks and companies as well. This was extremely embarrasing for them and I'm sure they weren't happy about this news becoming public, but there ya go... it does indeed get audited. This was a top to bottom audit of TARP, the first of its kind:

http://www.sanders.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/GAO%20Fed%20Investigation.pdf

Given the misinformation you hand out I wouldn't vote for you for dog catcher, nor Ron Paul as your running mate. He too is just a politician catering to people who buy into conspiracy theories for his own benefit. Don't drink the koolaide.

Are there problems with the Fed? Yes, absolutely. I think the biggest problem is that it's staffed with neo-liberally trained economists, monetarists, that don't understand the true workings of a fiat currency. I would restaff the entire organization.

Do you have ANY credible sources to back up the claims you make? And I don't mean YT speeches.... something that has real fact and fact checking involved?

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 2 years ago

Great post.

'it's staffed with neo-liberally trained economists' - how come nobody likes Adam Smith anymore?

[-] 1 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 2 years ago

Thank you. Adam Smith wasn't a bad guy overall. He despised the British East India company, the most powerful corporation in history... he mistrusted corporations in general period. Whats happening today is far from what he envisioned.... and ultimately, he believed in voodoo economics with his 'invisible hand' guiding and controlling the markets.

[-] 2 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 2 years ago

Though he is credited with the invisible hand line, I always liked his metaphor for the gov't as the referee. Too bad the pickers of winners and losers are not regulating capitalism but are taking part in the game. Adam Smith believed that gov't should guide peoples greed and aspirations towards the greater good of the nation, but too many politicians are also aspiring capitalists. Adam Smith was a good proponent of capitalism, but I believe if he was alive today he would believe that the East India Company has bought the American system, and he'd see Capitalism as being dead.

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 2 years ago

I agree with you Jesse. It think it's silly to talk about alternatives to capitalism. We don't have capitalism right now. We have crony capitalism, which Adam Smith would certainly not approve. But this is more a problem of government, than of capitalism.

As far as capitalism itself, we need more Adam Smith and less neo-lib policies. But like I said above, the neo-libs have turned Adam Smith into a socialist/communist.

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 2 years ago

I think the neo-libs have turned poor Adam into a socialist/communist.

His mistrust of corporations (mega/monopolies) was well founded. But it seems the neo-libs don't mind. Or don't want to interfere anyway. Monopolies trump interference?

Even with the invisible hand, he still believed in a progressive tax structure, regulations, government providing certain goods and services for the benefit of society, and social welfare.

There's 'voodoo' and then there's 'batshit crazy voodoo'. I consider discussions of alternative economic systems silly. There's no reason to abandon capitalism. Which economic theories should be applied, ie: classical v neo-lib, is more appropriate.

Re: the Fed. You say above that the stockholders own the stock as a hard asset, to be redeemed upon dissolution. They have no voting rights correct? What is the benefit to the stockholders? What is the value of their 'hard asset'? Does it appreciate/depreciate?

[-] 1 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 2 years ago

*Re: the Fed. You say above that the stockholders own the stock as a hard asset, to be redeemed upon dissolution. They have no voting rights correct? *

11. Voting Rights Stock not held by member banks shall not be entitled to voting power. [12 USC 285. Part of original Federal Reserve Act; not amended.]

What is the benefit to the stockholders? What is the value of their 'hard asset'? Does it appreciate/depreciate?

The original buy in was $4,000,000 I believe. Since then the holdings of the Federal Reserve have increased dramatically especially over the past 3 years. But they will also decrease as the recession closes. As to the value of the assets, or whether each member has the same number of holdings, I don't know.

As to benefits of members?

"Every national bank in any State shall, upon commencing business or within ninety days after admission into the Union of the State in which it is located, become a member bank of the Federal Reserve System by subscribing and paying for stock in the Federal Reserve bank of its district in accordance with the provisions of this Act and shall thereupon be an insured bank under the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, ... [Partly incorporated in 12 USC 222 and 223. As amended by acts of July 7, 1958 (72 Stat. 350); March 18, 1959 (73 Stat. 12).]

You have the implicit backing of the US Treasury and your assets are protected under the FDIC.

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 2 years ago

Who has the power to dissolve the Federal Reserve? Is it Congress or the member banks (those with voting rights)?

Do the non voting stockholders get paid dividends?

[-] 1 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 2 years ago

Do the non voting stockholders get paid dividends?

The U.S. Government receives all of the system's annual profits, after a statutory dividend of 6% on member banks' capital investment is paid,

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 2 years ago

So member banks get a dividend, but not non-voting stockholders?

[-] 1 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 2 years ago

All member banks are nonvoting stockholders.

[-] 1 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 2 years ago

Congress has the power to dissolve the Fed Resrv. I don't believe that dividends are paid at all, I'll have to look into that one.

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 2 years ago

I'm just trying to figure - what is the benefit to the non-voting stockholders. They kick in $4MM in 1910 (whatever year it was), to hold a stock for an indefinate amount of time with no voting rights. Seems oddly unselfish.

[-] 1 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 2 years ago

I guess I was too brief in my first answer to this question... in addition to what I wrote they get first call on earnings from discount loans, open market operations, and fees charged for providing clearinghouse services to member banks. Its not a bad deal.

Plus: 6% interest on their initial investment is much higher than the interest rates on bonds, treasuries, or any other low risk investment.

[-] 1 points by VQkag (930) 2 years ago

So you don't like neo liberals (what is that?)? Are you a conservative? Isn't voodoo economics the failed trickle down theory?. I don't think liberals want to end capitalism. (not most OWs marchers I've heard) they just want the wealthy to sto taking all our money through a system they rigged. we don't really have true capitalism since we bail out corps.

[-] -1 points by April (3196) 2 years ago

I absolutely don't like neo-lib policies. I'm a progressive. I believe in more classical principles, like Adam Smith.

Trickle down is more a neo-lib policy. I think trickle down or supply side stimulus can be appropriate if demand exceeds supply. And I think Keynesian policies are appropriate at this time because demand is the problem.

There are many people that think ending capitalism is the answer.

The system is allowed to be rigged because of bad government laws about campaign funding. Also, neo-lib policies contribute. And corruption makes it easier for neo-lib policies to be furthered.

What do you like about neo-lib policies? Are you a conservative??

[-] 1 points by VQkag (930) 2 years ago

Reagan and Stockman created trickle down. Bush snr called it voodoo Economics. It is NOT neo lib policy. it is solidly Reagan conservative. Supply side simply helps the 1%. We must support and help the 99% middle class demand side worker. That will forces the 1% job creators to finally create jobs as they promised/claimed when we turned over our money through loopholes, corp welfare and low 1% taxes. That is progressive. I am progressive.

[-] 0 points by April (3196) 2 years ago

I think you need to do a little more checking into neo-lib economics.
Here's a start.

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

[-] 3 points by VQkag (930) 2 years ago

Your labels are useless. The issues matter. I do not support trickle down (republican) economics.! I support the 99% Support OWS. Vote out pro trickle down politicians!

[-] 0 points by April (3196) 2 years ago

Words are used to describe things. It's much more efficient for me to use the word 'neo-liberal' to describe the economic theory that it pertains to, rather than to type hundreds of thousands of words of the study and theories that it relates to.

'The issues matter' - neo-liberal policy is an issue. An economic issue.

Policies that support it have been on a tear for 30 years, since Reagan. Reagan did not create trickle down theory. It's a byproduct of neo-lib theory that has been around since the '40's. Reagan was simply the first Pres. to begin implementing predominently neo-lib policies.

Yes, Bush Sr. called it voodoo. Another example of how today's right wing are nothing like Pres. Bush Sr, or even Pres. Reagan. As they support neo-liberal economics, and want to take it farther than even Pres. Reagan likely would have.

If you want to talk issues, you should know what you're talking about. Neo-liberalism is the central theory of right wing economic policies.

[-] 1 points by VQkag (930) 2 years ago

Ok. Trickle down is rooted in neo liberalism from the '40's. SO WHAT.? How does that discussion help change the damage it has had on the 99%. How about discussing a solution? How do we undo it. How do we get rid of the politicians who push it? who believe it.? Why do I have to discuss the roots, which decade it began in, which economist push it. Please! I can't be so pretentious. Practical discussion regarding the damage it has done. Real life action to end the domination of the wacky conservatives who still believe that non sense. Support OWS. Vote out pro trickle down politicians. Simple. No pretense. I don't have to throw around historical facts to massage my ego. Lets get down to business!

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 2 years ago

'Smarter people than me will write it' - probably.

But how will you know which Amendment to support? There are at least 10 proposed Amendments in Congress now. You going to leave it up to Congress to just hash it out? It still needs the support of the people. If you don't know, don't care, and you don't mind contradicting yourself, how do you know what you want? How will you know when you get there??

[-] 1 points by VQkag (930) 2 years ago

don't worry about me. I will figure out the best position. always the one that benefits the 99%. Whatever the issue. like energy! Support OWS. Vote out climate denying, anti alternative energy politicians. I guess you disagree?

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 2 years ago

It matters because if you want to discuss the issues you should know some background and history of the issue. I'm not trying to be pretentious. I think it's just practical, and even necessary common sense, to know what I'm talking about before talking about it.

You sound like a bumper sticker. 'Support OWS'. 'Vote out pro tickle down politicians'. 'Vote out pro Citizens United politicians'.

You want to talk about solutions. Fine. What is your solution to Citizens United? How do you think the country can change the effects of money in politics? Constitutional Amendment? How do you think this can be accomplished? By just voting in people that oppose? Even if, then what?

Let's get down to business. How do you figure such an amendment could be written without doing a certain amount of damage to the freedom of speech and expression? Do you think it's possible? Or should the amendment just be applied for purposes of limiting corporate personhood status? Would this be enough? Where does artificial personhood begin and end, what groups should it apply to? For profit and non-profit? Unions? Maybe we won't need an amendment. Perhaps it could be accomplished through another Court case. What do you think of the Montana Case and amicus brief that is being filed.

[-] 0 points by 67192206161 (-56) 2 years ago

"No meds. Just high on the truth. You have obfuscated much of what I've posted. I don't have to "know" everything. I like not knowing. I like not caring about some things. I don't mind contradicting some statements."

http://occupywallst.org/forum/the-reality-of-power-and-the-necessity-of-idealism/#comment-746558

Thanks for admitting what we all knew, VQkag. Time to go back to your room now...

[-] 0 points by VQkag (930) 2 years ago

The montana case may not resolve the issue because we still have a right wing wacko Supreme court. So that must change. Constitutional amendment is the best option. time consuming but best. Smarter people than me will write it. And all issues WILL be easier if we mandate that all people of age vote. It is what the 1% fear most. So vote out pro citizens united politicians.

[-] -2 points by 67192206161 (-56) 2 years ago

How is it that April's labels are useless, VQkag, but YOUR labels are not?

[-] 1 points by VQkag (930) 2 years ago

What are my labels.? I prefer issues. Don't you? her labels are useless to me because they distract from a discussion on issues that hurt the 99%.!

[-] -1 points by 67192206161 (-56) 2 years ago

"What are my labels.?" Do you assert then, VQkag, that "republican" is not a label you consistently apply to all that is bad in our country, knowing full well that by doing so the soft-minded will associate "democrat" with all that is good, when in fact those two "labels" are the heads and tails of the same coin?

[-] 1 points by VQkag (930) 2 years ago

I think both parties have serious problems, and corruption. I also believe we MUST try to reform the system from within by co opting one of the parties. I believe the dems can be made to serve the 99% If we maintain protest/pressure even after the election. I believe the repubs are too far gone. I urge people to vote their interests on the issues that matter to them I suggest an issue and my position on said issue. Everyone can choose. It's all good! Issues like tax reform. Support OWS Vote out pro norquist, anit buffett rule politicians

[-] 0 points by 67192206161 (-56) 2 years ago

"No meds. Just high on the truth. You have obfuscated much of what I've posted. I don't have to "know" everything. I like not knowing. I like not caring about some things. I don't mind contradicting some statements."

http://occupywallst.org/forum/the-reality-of-power-and-the-necessity-of-idealism/#comment-746558

Thanks for admitting what we all knew, VQkag. Time to go back to your room now...

[-] 0 points by April (3196) 2 years ago

Outstanding point. TY. : )

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by MoshehThezion (98) 2 years ago

YES...

from -- http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/12/501a

Should any national banking association in the United States now organized fail within one year after December 23, 1913, to become a member bank or fail to comply with any of the provisions of this chapter applicable thereto, all of the rights, privileges, and franchises of such association granted to it under the national-bank Act [12 U.S.C. 21 et seq.], or under the provisions of this chapter, shall be thereby forfeited. Any noncompliance with or violation of this chapter shall, however, be determined and adjudged by any court of the United States of competent jurisdiction in a suit brought for that purpose in the district or territory in which such bank is located, under direction of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, by the Comptroller of the Currency in his own name before the association shall be declared dissolved. In cases of such noncompliance or violation, other than the failure to become a member bank under the provisions of this chapter, every director who participated in or assented to the same shall be held liable in his personal or individual capacity for all damages which said bank, ''''''''''its shareholders, or any other person shall have sustained in consequence of such violation.'''''''' Such dissolution shall not take away or impair any remedy against such corporation, its stockholders, or officers, for any liability or penalty which shall have been previously incurred.

i.e... as you say... it is not directly owned by investors... but.. its members... as banking associations... for profit banks... who benefit from the system..... are privately owned... and there is where the profit is gained... drained from everyone... used to make loans using debt currency made out of thin air, created by the debts created by the loans, in a system rigged to provide profits to the investors in the banking system as a whole. So... as I said...
here.... http://mosheh.org/Currency.html

(Note: When I say International Bankers, and investors, I speak of the fact that the major American banks which are part of the Federal Reserve system and own the stock, and sit on the Boards of the Federal Reserve, are themselves, as private stock investor banks, owned by investors who maybe anywhere in the world. So, while it is true, international investors and Bankers, DO NOT DIRECTLY OWN the Fedeal Reserve, they do own and invest into the Institutions and banking corporations, which does own it. It is in this way, that the OWNERS, can place several layers of seperation between themselves and the Federal Reserve and the American people, so as to shield themselves from your anger. I mention this note, to clarify my meaing when I speak of the Federal Reserve being owned by foriegners, as easily as by wealthy American investors, and the fact is, the majority of the worlds wealth is in the hands of 5 international Banks, and they invest, and profit from THE DEBT CURRENCY SYSTEM.)

-Mosheh Thezion

[-] 2 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 2 years ago

i.e... as you say... it is not directly owned by investors... but.. its members... as banking associations... for profit banks... who benefit from the system..... are privately owned... and there is where the profit is gained... drained from everyone... used to make loans using debt currency made out of thin air, created by the debts created by the loans, in a system rigged to provide profits to the investors in the banking system as a whole. So... as I said...

No... you are taking this piece of code out of context and putting your own interpretation in.

It seems that what you really have a problem with is fractional reserve banking and our fiat currency. I'll agree with you on the evils of fractional reserve banking... however, the currency issue doesn't fly.

Commodity backed currency (gold, silver, salt, wampum, mustard seeds, etc.) aren't a panacea fix for monetary problems. They have an inherent flaw which is the commodity itself fluctuating in value which undermines the currency, leading to speculatory attacks against the currency.... perfect example is the attack on gold which led to the crash of the Bretton Woods system in 1971.

Fiat currency has its issues as well, but one of its main benefits is that it removes the notion that money equals wealth. Most of our problems lie with economists running our system who do not understand the rules of our fiat currency, but instead are still working within the framework and assumptions of gold backed system. They want to play football using a cricket rule book.

Before you condemn the Debt Currency as you call it, you should really read up on MMT and how it applies to our system.

[-] 0 points by MoshehThezion (98) 2 years ago

For what you say to be valid... all banks... would have to be non-profits.... is that what you are saying? or... will you admit.. all banks... are for profit... and use the Federal Reserve... as their source of capital... to make loans for profit? This is very simple.... can you say banks are non-profit? no... you cannot....

You make an argument... about commodity based money.. and it would be valid... with a gold standard.. or silver standard... true... but that is not what I propose. I propose a simple fix... a multi-metal standard.... which prevents and avoids the risks.. of commodity money which would be limited to fluctuating values.... that is the point... read again.... http://mosheh.org/Currency.html

I say it very clearly... my system... of multi-metal... solves this issue.. and prevents anyone from effecting the value over time... in fact it would not matter if gold went down to 3 cents an ounce... it would not effect the new value at all. That is the point. your love of fiat.... is either a lie.. or you are confused and misled.... I offer a solution that frees us from these issues. that is the point.

[-] 2 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 2 years ago

For what you say to be valid... all banks... would have to be non-profits.... is that what you are saying? or... will you admit.. all banks... are for profit... and use the Federal Reserve... as their source of capital... to make loans for profit? This is very simple.... can you say banks are non-profit? no... you cannot

This is capitalism, business is run for profit. Even during the days of banking regulation in 1934 the banks had fixed loan rates and interest rates on deposits (6%- 3%). Nobody was being ripped off, it was fair for all, including the business. The system worked well for over 60 years until Ronald Reagan began the deregulation attacks.

There is no advantage to your multi-metal system. In fact its not a fair system, because the amount of currency is not based on true productivity. The USGS has estimated that there is over $1 Trillion dollars of Gold, Silver, Platinum, and rare earth metals in Afghanistan.... one of the key reasons the USSR was there for 10 years and now we have been as well. Mining by US companies and obtaining those metals would throw your currency into chaos.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/14/world/asia/14minerals.html?pagewanted=all

[-] 0 points by MoshehThezion (98) 2 years ago

So you like being in eternal debt? And do you not think the afgan govt could make use of 1 trillion dollars of its own money... interest free, debt free currency to use to run its economy??? fiat debt currency.... must be serviced by interest payments.... payments to investors... who lend that money.. for gain.... Real money... does not need interest payments... and remains good over time. My proposed real money system... restores real money... which does not deflate... and is stable.. and would allow any nation to set the value of its currency...
Right now... our own nation... does not set its value, it is instead set by international players... which is in violation of constitutional law.. which requires real money, and empowers our government to set the scales... of that value.

Sovereign power... means controlling your own currency... Right now... our government does not have this power, and the only power we have with fiat.. is to print more.. and cause inflation and devalue it.. all of which serve the lender who profits off of debt. Modern capitalism... with fiat currency... is unconstitutional.

You as much as admit... banks.. are for profit... and as part of the Federal Reserve.. and they profit from the system, based on debt imposed on the people as tax payers... which is debt slavery of our entire nation to a monetary system that serves the investors who own the many banks. YOU DO NOT DENY THIS... IT IS FACT.

[-] 1 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 2 years ago

So you like being in eternal debt?

There is a big difference between personal debt and the Federal Govt being in debt. No I avoid personal debt. However, the fact is the Federal Government has been in perpetual debt since this country started... with the exception of a few months during Andrew Jackson's Presidency.... and all of this debt has happened regardless of all the different currency combinations we have had, species backed, dual species, no central bank, and with a central bank.... during times when 'real money' as per the Constitution was used.

Your currency won't prevent debt either. The claim that its a debt free currency is a farce. There is nothing magic in the coins or bills.

Debt with a commodity backed currency has a different connotation than debt with fiat currency. In a fiat currency system debt, on a federal level, is recognized as a function of currency operation. The private sector does not get cash until the federal sector deposits currency (debt). Taxes reverses that flow and removes currency from the private sector and returns to the federal ledger.... its a zero sum game with debt not being the liability it is thought to have today because its a different system. Stop evaluating this system using commodity based currency rules and understand it within its own structural framework. Ron Paul makes the same error.

Inflation is the only financial constraint to the fiat system. One can not expand the monetary system beyond the productivity and employment capacity.

You as much as admit... banks.. are for profit... and as part of the Federal Reserve.. and they profit from the system, based on debt imposed on the people as tax payers... which is debt slavery of our entire nation to a monetary system that serves the investors who own the many banks. YOU DO NOT DENY THIS... IT IS FACT.

All business is for profit however, banks have been profiting extraordinarily, not because of the relation to the Central Bank, but because of deregulation. The attack on consumer private savings and the creation of large scale personal debt came about when each individual state's usury laws were repealed... largely by Citibank and others in the banking lobby starting in the 1970's. This allowed for the use of credit cards, which were the first wide spread personal debt instrument with high usury finance charges. NOT because of the currency as you claim... but because of changes in regulations and laws.

[-] 1 points by MoshehThezion (98) 2 years ago

you are making a lot of arguments... but seem to be admitting I am still correct... 1) The Federal Reserve .. profits private interests. 2) the use of fiat currency... creates a never ending debt. 3) the people... are then forced to pay this debt.. forever. 4) This debt... is basically debt slavery of the nation. 5) my currency proposal would give our government sovereign control over money production without the need to pay private lenders interest on it. 6) my currency proposal would allow our nation almost unlimited credit to lend to ourselves.... making it possible to NEVER NEED A LOAN FROM PRIVATE BANKERS AGAIN.. ever.

7) your understanding of fiat and the modern system is clear... so clear that you have learned it so well, you cannot seem to see the forest because of all the trees... you have been taught to think of all the good, and never taught to see the bad.

8) I offer a fix... a new way of money, and a new way of banking, which is based on sound common sense principles instead of complex debt schemes which in the end... profits bankers like they are a monarchy for the world. Your love of debt.. is like a love of having a master to control you... it does not make sense... unless you are a banker.

[-] 1 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 2 years ago

Maybe you can explain why our nation has been in debt from its inception...and all of this debt has happened regardless of all the different currency combinations we have had, species backed, dual species, no central bank, and with a central bank.... during times when 'real money' as per the Constitution was used?

[-] 1 points by MoshehThezion (98) 2 years ago

sir... i am not here to teach history... I teach a solution... so we can stop being in debt... stop needing loans.. that is my point. There is a better way to run a nation... a better way to run a planet. that is my point. argue with that better way... as it solves the problem... yet... also allows those bankers to still make money... off of business loans... and... it is assured due to major deliberate expansion projects to the stars.... there is no way to lose. I offer a better business plan.... a way to afford going to mars and beyond.... because right now... we can never get it done. why?

because right now using debt currency etc... we are limited. my proposals... eliminate the limits. And we can transform the world.

debate that.

[-] 3 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 2 years ago

I teach a solution... so we can stop being in debt... stop needing loans.. that is my point. There is a better way to run a nation... a better way to run a planet. that is my point. argue with that better way... as it solves the problem... yet... also allows those bankers to still make money... off of business loans... and... it is assured due to major deliberate expansion projects to the stars.... there is no way to lose. I offer a better business plan.... a way to afford going to mars and beyond.... because right now... we can never get it done. why? because right now using debt currency etc..

You can't offer a solution if you really don't understand the problem. Since the country's inception we have used species backed currency of different types (what you claim to be 'debt free' currency as per the Constitution), we have eliminated Central Banks and used them... yet we continuously ran a perpetual debt.

All of this evidence indicates that our debt is NOT a currency based issue as you claim. You have an issue with bankers making money off of business loans... well so do I... not so much that they are making money because every business needs to make money, but how much money they make. The caps how much interest that banks can charge on loans and give on deposits fixed that problem in 1934.... usury laws. What we have is a statutory problem, not a currency one.

When looking at the national debt as a percentage of the GDP, we can see that the times when our debt is highest is during our westward expansion, WWI, WWII,cold war activities, Reagan years, ME wars... etc.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_VO-2HbQsbSU/S9HTvLhvzHI/AAAAAAAAASA/yAlz5sqm0Qc/s1600/PubDebt1.bmp

Policy and laws determine our national debt, not currency.

[-] 1 points by MoshehThezion (98) 2 years ago

geo... for some reason I cannot respond to your last comment.. so I use this one above it... to respond. As I showed... old testiment jewish law... prevents people from robbing each other... because brothers do not do that. That.. is just good business ..... the koran says the same thing. And Jesus... said we are all brethren. This is a distinct issue... of brotherhood and lending.

PERIOD.... it does not relate to issue of stoning people. I propose to adopt... all the good advise... not to stone people. For you to suggest all the bad things must be obeyed in order to adopt the parts which are good advise is just lame. Sure... the old testiment says alot of crazy stuff sure... but...

as far as lending goes... its advise is good... we should not be robbing each other in lending... if we are brothers as jesus put forward..... in fact... in medievil europe... Christians never allowed themselves to use usury lending... because the bible clearly says not to.... its bad business.

This is about business.... not about gays... not about adultery... business... lending... alone. For you... to suggest its all bad..... shows that you have a closed mind... and your ability to point to the bad parts.. shows a bias... prepared bias... to attack religion entirely... which shows a preset bias and closed mind. good advise is good advise... and the bible does contain some good advise.. and for you to reject it... is not good business.

[-] 1 points by MoshehThezion (98) 2 years ago

Sir, i understand the history, so do you... what i discuss is a new system.... one that does not have these problems. You are correct that debt occurs.. when our government borrows, or issues promissary notes... T-bills.. bonds.. but what I am saying... is that under my plan... we would never need to do so again. You say its a statutory problem... ok... I give you statues.. statutes of god.

(Exo 22:25) If thou lend money to any of my people that is poor by thee, thou shalt not be to him as a usurer, neither shalt thou lay upon him usury.

(Lev 25:36) Take thou no usury of him, or increase: but fear thy God; that thy brother may live with thee.

(Lev 25:37) Thou shalt not give him thy money upon usury, nor lend him thy victuals for increase.

(Deu 23:19) Thou shalt not lend upon usury to thy brother; usury of money, usury of victuals, usury of any thing that is lent upon usury:

(Deu 23:20) Unto a stranger thou mayest lend upon usury; but unto thy brother thou shalt not lend upon usury: that the Lord thy God may bless thee in all that thou settest thine hand to in the land whither, thou goest to possess it.

I do not have a problem with banks.. lending to business... for interest.. thats fine... but personal loans are different. And.. what is worse... is that the very use of currency should NOT be based on usury interest.... its bad business.

I propose... a way to end usury currency system... and fix banking... to conform with gods law.

[-] 1 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 2 years ago

You had to bring Deuteronomy into an objective debate:

You write: (Deu 23:19) Thou shalt not lend upon usury to thy brother; usury of money, usury of victuals, usury of any thing that is lent upon usury:

But the very next verse is "Ok we can charge people who are not brothers"...

"23:20 Unto a stranger thou mayest lend upon usury; but unto thy brother thou shalt not lend upon usury:"

You have a pretty subjective interpretation of who qualifies as a brother and who is not. Aren't business's run by people as well? My own flesh and blood brother has a business and he should be charged interest while I don't according to your plan?

Speaking of Deuteronomy, Let's follow the statutes of GOD and start stoning, killing women who aren't virgins when they marry:

Deuteronomy 22:13-21 New International Version (NIV)

13 If a man takes a wife and, after sleeping with her , dislikes her 14 and slanders her and gives her a bad name, saying, “I married this woman, but when I approached her, I did not find proof of her virginity,” 15 then the young woman’s father and mother shall bring to the town elders at the gate proof that she was a virgin. 16 Her father will say to the elders, “I gave my daughter in marriage to this man, but he dislikes her. 17 Now he has slandered her and said, ‘I did not find your daughter to be a virgin.’ But here is the proof of my daughter’s virginity.” Then her parents shall display the cloth before the elders of the town, 18 and the elders shall take the man and punish him. 19 They shall fine him a hundred shekels[a] of silver and give them to the young woman’s father, because this man has given an Israelite virgin a bad name. She shall continue to be his wife; he must not divorce her as long as he lives.

20 If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the young woman’s virginity can be found, 21 she shall be brought to the door of her father’s house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death. She has done an outrageous thing in Israel by being promiscuous while still in her father’s house. You must purge the evil from among you."

...or start killing people of a different sexual orientation than the majority:

(Lev 20:13) If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

or put to death Adulterers.... Over 50% of marriages in the US end in Divorce, the majority of them due to Adultery... this should thin out the population a bit.

(Lev 20:10) And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.

Careful what you cherry pick and choose from religious law in how to run a country or its systems. This is why religion and the state should not mix.

[-] 1 points by vikramdas (4) from Bronx, NY 2 years ago

The Savings and Loans Crisis created the greatest banking collapse since the Great Depression of 1929.Savings and Loans were specialized banks that used low-interest, but Federally-insured, deposits in savings accounts to fund mortgages.

http://www.amirafoods.com/index/infrastructure

[-] 1 points by MoshehThezion (98) 2 years ago

THIS CRISIS.... was created by the National banking act of 1933... which made it possible... which is where the fix need be made...... end the use of debt currency... end the fiat... end the interest based robbery of the people... and low AND BEHOLD..... the economic problem ends... as we establish proper lending practices between people who should be acting as brothers who want to help each other... instead of profiting off each other. it is the proffiting off each other by loans... which is crushing our economy... it is the root cause of the problem. see---- http://mosheh.org/A-New-Deal_2012.html we can reorganize banking to serve us... as brothers... as friendly members of a co-op... instead of stranger who rob each other... that is key. its a business plan.... good business... or bad business. the bible... says... act as brothers and do good business. the evil... say reject the bible.. and rob each other. I fight for good business.

-Mosheh Eesho Muhammad Al-faraj Thezion http://mosheh.org/Home.html 1-818-397-1352 campaign@mosheh.org

[-] 1 points by monetarist (40) 2 years ago

Lol... I will vote for u dude... u can count on me... if bush could become a president, why not u. Everyone should get a chance

[-] 1 points by MoshehThezion (98) 2 years ago

I will need more help than your vote if you want to be set free.

[-] 1 points by TitusMoans (2451) from Boulder City, NV 2 years ago

Your solution creates a host of problems. Much of the national debt is what the United States owes to foreign governments. Outstanding government debts are usually held by purchsers as t notes or bonds. The t note and bond holders might have to accept a unilateral devaluation of our present currency, as you propose, but then new purchasers would want greater interest rates in an ever-increasing cycle. This is pretty much the problem many European countries are facing now.

Aside from that, domestically the devaluation of currency would eventually trigger runaway inflation. The scenario might be reminiscent of the Weimar Republic, when bankers sold Weimar marks to junk dealers by the ton. Once a government reneges on the fiat, which gives a currency its value, it has little to trade, and its citizens have even less.

To accomplish a change in currency and to establish any value of a new currency in international trading, the government itself would have to change and be prepared to pay higher interest rates for international loans.

There are many possibilities, but the most likely would involve a direct democracy and complete redistribution of wealth and property reducing the necessity for all imports but also reducing the availability of many non-essential items.

[-] 1 points by MoshehThezion (98) 2 years ago

No.. you did not read my proposal... see --> http://mosheh.org/Currency.html As i discuss... we can restore real money, which does not lose value.. or decrease in value... we can pay off all our debt, and I speak of not only the 16 trillion owed.. but I speak of the 300 trillion for every dollar in circulation, which would then be directly and immediately revalued. Everything you said... is based on the continued use of fiat debt currency, and the idea that we would ever want international loans....
I say... we take over our money... make constitutional money again, and gain the power to lend ourselves almost unlimited amounts of our own money... AND NEVER NEED A FOREIGN LOAN AGAIN.... that is the point.. to end the debt system. We do not need direct democracy or redistribution of wealth hto solve these problems... we just need a specific reversal to go back to constitutional real money, and obey common sense old world biblical laws which say... "act as brothers in lending, and do not rob each other"... and the reason we should do this, is simply because it is good business.

[-] 1 points by TitusMoans (2451) from Boulder City, NV 2 years ago

I have read your proposal, but don't see how it would solve any problems. All currencies, including precious metals and gems, only hold value by fiat agreements of one sort or another.

At one time salt was used as a currency.

Foreign vendors and governments, once the present fiat was abrogated, would want something more than monopoly money for the products we purchased from them. Paper money, which is based on precious metals, means the holder can exchange that paper for the equivalent value of precious metal at any time. The foreign vendors, if we reneged on our current system, would want precious metals on the barrelhead, not something else we could change at any time.

[-] 1 points by MoshehThezion (98) 2 years ago

if you read it... you wouldnt say that... as I propose a multi-metal system, where the value is assured over time, regardless of how the metal market varies... and the notes can be traded in... and foreign vendors would gladly accept it for value if.. if.. they had the confidence of our commitment to start this new system... which as I have said... would have to be done by the government... agreed to by congress, and made fully legal by constitutional amendment, and with the full cooperation of the IMF and World Bank.... in which case.. everyone would agree to it... as it would be done by those who are in charge today and who care the most.

[-] 2 points by TitusMoans (2451) from Boulder City, NV 2 years ago

I did read it, but if we had already nullified our previous system, why would anyone believe our new system was any more stable?

Additionally, as I pointed out earlier, even the value of precious metals and gems is by fiat, based on their supposed scarcity, but--for example--oil is far more valuable than precious metals or gems; it has real-time value to cook our food, heat our homes, power our vehicles and factories.

Everyday items in reality are more valuable than even oil or the most precious gems. Food and water give us life. All the oil, gold, and diamonds in the world won't nourish or hydrate us

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (23978) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

End the use of fossil fuel - preserve our planet protect our food chain protect our drinking water.

[-] 1 points by TitusMoans (2451) from Boulder City, NV 2 years ago

No food, no water, no life.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (23978) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Simple as that. Yes indeed.

[-] 1 points by MoshehThezion (98) 2 years ago

the key part is... real money... is something real and non-perishable... oil... can only be used once... gold last forever.. as do gems... they hold their value because they are not fake. fiat... is fake.... made up bull....
that is the difference.... which is why the constitution only allows real commodity based money, because they knew that if fiat fake money is used... it will be used to enslave us all.. and it has..... Your claim that gold and gems are fiat... is not fact. They are real things... which will always have use... gold because it is actually very useful... and gems because they are natural, they last and are very pretty..... and rair enough to hold some value... fish shells... and salt... are so abundant.. they cannot be used effectively except in places where they are scarce .... so for a global solution.. we can only use real things of long term value... copper for example... will always be useful and needed.. and as such can hold its value generally...