Ron Paul to Eliminate Income Tax

[Nikki]

We haven't been on a gold standard for over 40 years.

So doesn't that mean that the money printed is essentially backed by nothing, has no real value, and is in a sense printed out of thin air?

If it has no value, why are people willing to accept it in compensation for their goods and services?

Also, why doesn't a single country, anywhere in the world, back their money with precious metal?

[RobbZer0]

If it has no value, why are people willing to accept it in compensation for their goods and services?

Also, why doesn't a single country, anywhere in the world, back their money with precious metal?

Well the 82% rule might apply here whereas most people are unaware of the fact that our money isn't backed by anything of value. We've simply gotten used to the idea that a paper is worth something.

What about what these men said about this kind of thing. They know what they're talking about. They're definitely in the 5% who truly know what's going on.

“Wake up, you idiots! Whatever made you think paper was so valuable?”
~Kurt Vonnegut
Galapagos

“Paper is poverty… it is only the ghost of money, and not the money
itself”
~Thomas Jefferson

“If the American people ever allow the banks to control the issuance of
their currency… the banks and corporations that will grow up around
them will deprive the people of all property, until their children wake
up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered”
~Thomas Jefferson

“I sincerely believe the banking institutions having the issuing power
of money are more dangerous to liberty than standing armies”
~Thomas Jefferson

[SteveSy]

RP has absolutely no clue about money.

If he did, he's realize that there's very little relationship between how much chuuency the Fed releases and how much money there is in existence.

I assume "chuuency" was meant to mean currency. I will also assume currency means hard and soft. With that said the Fed is very much in control of how much money there is in existence.

To make the claim there is little relationship means you in fact know hardly anything about how money is created.

Monetary Policy and the Economy

Controlling the money supply to help the economy grow steadily without inflation is the Federal Reserve's job. Called setting monetary policy, the Fed does this primarily by buying and selling Treasury securities on the open market. Buying securities on the open market can make it easier for banks to loan money and can give the economy a boost, while selling securities can restrict lending and can help cool down an overheated economy. When the Fed buys securities, the Fed pays for them by crediting the reserve accounts of the sellers' banks. With more money in their reserves, banks can lend more. By contrast, when the Fed sells securities, the Fed collects for the sale by debiting the reserve accounts of the buyers' banks. With less money in their reserves, banks can't lend as much.

Conducting monetary policy is a tremendous responsibility, for the nation's economic health is at stake. You can see why politicians might want to control the money supply for short-term interests. For that reason, the Fed, by law, is not government controlled or funded by Congress. While it is a centralized banking system comprised of 12 regional banks, it is independent in operation.

Besides conducting monetary policy, the Fed also acts as the bankers' bank. As people withdraw more currency to buy things when the economy is booming, the banks in turn pull additional currency from their own reserve accounts with the Fed. When the economy slows down and people increase their savings, banks return the surplus to their reserve accounts. The Fed handles check processing for banks as well, to make sure the billions and billions of dollars in checks written each year move smoothly from one bank to another.

The Fed has other functions also. It helps regulate and supervise banks to keep them financially sound, and it serves as the government's banker by maintaining the U.S. Treasury's "checking account."

- http://www.dallasfed.org/educate/everyday/ev9.html

This is a very simplistic explanation of how it works. I thought you might need 1,000,000 foot level explanation first.

[rachel]

If it has no value, why are people willing to accept it in compensation for their goods and services?

Also, why doesn't a single country, anywhere in the world, back their money with precious metal?

Well the 82% rule might apply here whereas most people are unaware of the fact that our money isn't backed by anything of value. We've simply gotten used to the idea that a paper is worth something.

What about what these men said about this kind of thing. They know what they're talking about. They're definitely in the 5% who truly know what's going on.

“Wake up, you idiots! Whatever made you think paper was so valuable?”
~Kurt Vonnegut
Galapagos

“Paper is poverty… it is only the ghost of money, and not the money
itself”
~Thomas Jefferson

“If the American people ever allow the banks to control the issuance of
their currency… the banks and corporations that will grow up around
them will deprive the people of all property, until their children wake
up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered”
~Thomas Jefferson

“I sincerely believe the banking institutions having the issuing power
of money are more dangerous to liberty than standing armies”
~Thomas Jefferson

The money isnt backed by gold is because it's now backed by the credit the U.S. citizens.
BTW, Ron Paul is just another politician.
One of his key campaign selling points is making citizenship national. Nothing new under the sun of politician lies as national citizenship is no different than what it is today. And by that the irs isnt going anywhere because 26CFR1.1-1 says all "U.S. citizens" are taxed.
26CFR1.1-1(c) "U.S. citizen" is nothing more than a 14th amendment national citizen. The wording is the same!

Ron Paul wont make a difference until he recognizes that each state of the union hasnt been a republic since 1868 when most states adopted 14th amendment constitutions with civil codes defining themselves being included in status as DC and the federal territories. Check your state civil codes for the definition of "state"!
Until Americans pull themselves out of the civil law form as statutory defined "U.S. citizen" of Congress's juristiction to legislate and back into the common law form as "People of the Several States" of self government. Congress will keep the april 15 deadline to file 1040 taxes.

[SteveSy]

btw, I would like to add to my previous post that the Fed buys the Treasury securities with nothing more than a credit to the government's account. It doesn't actually use anything tangible like hard currency, precious metals or anything else. They simply, out of no where, credit the account and by that money is created from nothing by the Fed.

[Quixote]

If it has no value, why are people willing to accept it in compensation for their goods and services?

Also, why doesn't a single country, anywhere in the world, back their money with precious metal?

Well the 82% rule might apply here whereas most people are unaware of the fact that our money isn't backed by anything of value. We've simply gotten used to the idea that a paper is worth something.

What about what these men said about this kind of thing. They know what they're talking about. They're definitely in the 5% who truly know what's going on.

“Wake up, you idiots! Whatever made you think paper was so valuable?”
~Kurt Vonnegut
Galapagos

“Paper is poverty… it is only the ghost of money, and not the money
itself”
~Thomas Jefferson

“If the American people ever allow the banks to control the issuance of
their currency… the banks and corporations that will grow up around
them will deprive the people of all property, until their children wake
up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered”
~Thomas Jefferson

“I sincerely believe the banking institutions having the issuing power
of money are more dangerous to liberty than standing armies”
~Thomas Jefferson

Kurt Vonnegut did not say that. It was said by a character in his novel Galapagos. You might as well quote Charles Dickins as saying "...every idiot who goes about with 'Merry Christmas' on his lips, should be boiled with his own pudding, and buried with a stake of holly through his heart."

Thomas Jefferson was real, but I have my doubts about those quotes. That last one has clearly lost a comma. Not knowing its source, I can only guess as to what else is missing. All three are on the web, sometimes with additional sentences that refute the idea that Jefferson opposed paper money, per se.

[Nikki]

We haven't been on a gold standard for over 40 years.

So doesn't that mean that the money printed is essentially backed by nothing, has no real value, and is in a sense printed out of thin air?

If it has no value, why are people willing to accept it in compensation for their goods and services?

Also, why doesn't a single country, anywhere in the world, back their money with precious metal?

Would IQZer0 care to actually answer the question or is he just another cut-and-paste troll?

[iamfreeru2]

If it has no value, why are people willing to accept it in compensation for their goods and services?

Also, why doesn't a single country, anywhere in the world, back their money with precious metal?

I'll take a stab at the questions. Gee, could it be that people have been forced to accept FRNs as if it were money and not the "obligations" (evidence of debt)they are under statute? Try using any other means to pay your public debts and see what happens. If people really knew the truth the Fed would be gone tomorrow. Unfortunately most have their head up their arse when it comes the money issue. Heck, many do not even know the Fed is private. It is called the dumbing down of America.

In answer to the second part of your question, I'll ask you this. Could it possibly be that the IMF (International Monetary Fund) and the World Bank control the money supply of just about every country in existence?

Let me ask another question. Under Public Policy can one be required to enter a contract where there is a requirement to "pay" obligations in any particular THING or is it against Public Policy to be so required? If there is no requirement for the people to "pay" an obligation in any THING then who is required? Could it be Constitutors of government? Please see Black's law for the definition of Constitutor. Also see HJR-192 regarding the requirement to pay any obligation and if you say HJR-192 has been repealed perhaps you would like to explain 31 USC 5118. To my knowledge Public Policy is alive and well and in full force and effect in this country today.

[rachel]

If it has no value, why are people willing to accept it in compensation for their goods and services?

Also, why doesn't a single country, anywhere in the world, back their money with precious metal?

I'll take a stab at the questions. Gee, could it be that people have been forced to accept FRNs as if it were money and not the "obligations" (evidence of debt)they are under statute? Try using any other means to pay your public debts and see what happens. If people really knew the truth the Fed would be gone tomorrow. Unfortunately most have their head up their arse when it comes the money issue. Heck, many do not even know the Fed is private. It is called the dumbing down of America.

In answer to the second part of your question, I'll ask you this. Could it possibly be that the IMF (International Monetary Fund) and the World Bank control the money supply of just about every country in existence?

Let me ask another question. Under Public Policy can one be required to enter a contract where there is a requirement to "pay" obligations in any particular THING or is it against Public Policy to be so required? If there is no requirement for the people to "pay" an obligation in any THING then who is required? Could it be Constitutors of government? Please see Black's law for the definition of Constitutor. Also see HJR-192 regarding the requirement to pay any obligation and if you say HJR-192 has been repealed perhaps you would like to explain 31 USC 5118. To my knowledge Public Policy is alive and well and in full force and effect in this country today.

Public policy is of the civil law form and not the common law form.
The civil law form is not recognized by the common law U.S. Constitution.

[iamfreeru2]

Tell me, is the organic Constitution in effect or is Public Policy? If it is organic Constitution then why do "lawmakers" continually refer to Public Policy and the SCOTUS continually uphold Public Policy? Are we under the common law (organic Constitution) or civil law (Public Policy)?

[Famspear]

RobbZer0 wrote:

So doesn't that mean that the money printed is essentially backed by nothing, has no real value, and is in a sense printed out of thin air?

Yes, it may well be that money is backed by "nothing," and is printed "out of thin air."

Value, however, is a separate issue. On the "value" question, I would reiterate something I wrote in another forum a long time ago:

Anyone who really believes his or her Federal Reserve notes are "valueless" is invited to mail any and all such notes to me personally as a "valueless" gift to me -- and I will be happy to keep and spend those "valueless" notes on such valuable things as music CDs, movie tickets, lunches with friends, and anything else of value I can find to spend them on. It is incorrect [ . . . ] to say that Federal Reserve notes have no "redeemable value." Obviously, if you turn in two fifty dollar bills and receive, in return, a single one-hundred dollar bill, that $100 bill has value. You can still take that one-hundred dollar bill to a restaurant or store and obtain products or services that most people would think are worth - oh, about a hundred bucks. The mere fact that what you receive when you redeem a Federal Reserve note is another Federal Reserve note does not change the fact that all such notes have VALUE IN EXCHANGE FOR VALUABLE PRODUCTS AND SERVICES.

Maybe it's just me, but I don't try to tie the value of my dollars to some sort of nebulous "backing." I don't care about "backing." Indeed, nothing that I own is valuable to me because of some sort of "backing." My TV set is valuable to me because of its intrinsic value - I can turn it on and use it to obtain information and entertainment. My TV set is not "backed" by gold or silver or anything else. My couch is valuable to me because I can sit on it. My couch is not "backed" by gold or silver. The real estate I own is not "backed" by anything. The merchandise inventory held by a merchant for sale to customers is not "backed" by anything. The inventory is valuable to the merchant because the merchant can exchange that inventory for MONEY, which money can THEN be used to acquire whatever else is desired by the merchant.

Money is valuable to me because it is (1) a store of value, (2) a measure of value, and (3) a medium of exchange. All I really need is for someone else to accept my money when I want to obtain food, or gasoline, or a haircut, or electricity, or whatever.

Money increases and decreases in value for a variety of reasons, regardless of whether money is "backed" by "something else" or not.

Just as an aside: The primary value of money is derived not from its intrinsic value (the value of the paper and ink) and not from its "backing" (if any) by gold or silver. Money is instead valuable primarily with respect to the benefit I can receive when I exchange money.

Further, even if my money were "backed" by gold or silver -- even if its official value were ostensibly or "officially" pegged to the value of some quantity of gold or silver, that would not change the fact that the real value of money would fluctuate.

First, the exchange values of gold and silver fluctuate.

Second, the quantity of available goods and services within any economy is continuously in flux. The ongoing change in the quantity (and therefore the value) of non-monetary assets (i.e., goods and services) is, by definition, a change in the value of money, unless the money supply can somehow be constantly and precisely adjusted (without regard to its "backing" by gold or silver) to reflect the exact change in the quantity (and therefore the value) of all non-monetary assets. Such precision is unlikely to be achieved.

Third, the subjective wants and desires of all persons who participate in the economy are in a constant state of flux - so that even if the quantity of money AND the quantity of non-monetary assets (goods and services) were to remain exactly constant, there would still be a continuous fluctuation in the real value of money.

The effect, if any, on the value of money that is related to its not being backed by gold, or by silver, or by hoola hoops is a separate issue.

[rachel]

Tell me, is the organic Constitution in effect or is Public Policy? If it is organic Constitution then why do "lawmakers" continually refer to Public Policy and the SCOTUS continually uphold Public Policy? Are we under the common law (organic Constitution) or civil law (Public Policy)?

As statutory defined "U.S. citizens" you are under the civil law public policy where the feds adopted the U.S. Constitution in 1871 in an act of Congress for the 14th amendment citizen and codified it in the civil law form.
The organic Constitution belongs only to those common law state citizens of the sovern Several States republics.

[iamfreeru2]

Now you are making assumptions and presumptions. Where did I state I was a "US citizen?" When I deal in the public realm I use Public Policy, under which I cannot be required to "pay" an obligation in any particular THING. When I deal in the private I use the organic Constitution and pay all of my debts with substance. My reference to Public Policy was only in regard to the public. I am not now nor have I ever been a "US citizen" under the 14th Amendment.

BTW, are you trying to keep my questions from being answered? I would like someone to address the questions I previously posted in this thread

[Nikki]

Hot damn Dueling dipshits.

Life doesn't get any better.

[rachel]

Now you are making assumptions and presumptions. Where did I state I was a "US citizen?" When I deal in the public realm I use Public Policy, under which I cannot be required to "pay" an obligation in any particular THING. When I deal in the private I use the organic Constitution and pay all of my debts with substance. My reference to Public Policy was only in regard to the public. I am not now nor have I ever been a "US citizen" under the 14th Amendment.

BTW, are you trying to keep my questions from being answered? I would like someone to address the questions I previously posted in this thread

If you deal in the realm of public policy you are in the civil law form.
Only U.S. citizens are within Congress's civil law form to legislate.
Have you ever seen Congress enact an enactment that changes or altors the organic U.S. Constitution in any way?
Nope!
You are playing hippacrit!
I'm not trying to keep your question from being answered.
You just dont know how to ask an question

[rachel]

Hot damn Dueling dipshits.

Life doesn't get any better.

Hot damn another idiot that doesnt know the difference between judicial law forms.

[rachel]

Hot damn Dueling dipshits.

Life doesn't get any better.

Hot damn another idiot that doesnt know the difference between judicial law forms.

I highly speculate you dont know the difference between enactments of Congress and ratifications by the People.

[iamfreeru2]

Now you are making assumptions and presumptions. Where did I state I was a "US citizen?" When I deal in the public realm I use Public Policy, under which I cannot be required to "pay" an obligation in any particular THING. When I deal in the private I use the organic Constitution and pay all of my debts with substance. My reference to Public Policy was only in regard to the public. I am not now nor have I ever been a "US citizen" under the 14th Amendment.

BTW, are you trying to keep my questions from being answered? I would like someone to address the questions I previously posted in this thread

If you deal in the realm of public policy you are in the civil law form.
Only U.S. citizens are within Congress's civil law form to legislate.
Have you ever seen Congress enact an enactment that changes or altors the organic U.S. Constitution in any way?
Nope!
You are playing hippacrit!
I'm not trying to keep your question from being answered.
You just dont know how to ask an question

Obviously you do not know me or what I am talking about. I will not play this game of yours and will not argue with you. I will just accept your offer for value. Have a nice Thanksgiving.

I will await to see if anyone wants to answer my questions. I don't think I will hold my breath though.

[rachel]

Now you are making assumptions and presumptions. Where did I state I was a "US citizen?" When I deal in the public realm I use Public Policy, under which I cannot be required to "pay" an obligation in any particular THING. When I deal in the private I use the organic Constitution and pay all of my debts with substance. My reference to Public Policy was only in regard to the public. I am not now nor have I ever been a "US citizen" under the 14th Amendment.

BTW, are you trying to keep my questions from being answered? I would like someone to address the questions I previously posted in this thread

If you deal in the realm of public policy you are in the civil law form.
Only U.S. citizens are within Congress's civil law form to legislate.
Have you ever seen Congress enact an enactment that changes or altors the organic U.S. Constitution in any way?
Nope!
You are playing hippacrit!
I'm not trying to keep your question from being answered.
You just dont know how to ask an question

Obviously you do not know me or what I am talking about. I will not play this game of yours and will not argue with you. I will just accept your offer for value. Have a nice Thanksgiving.

I will await to see if anyone wants to answer my questions. I don't think I will hold my breath though.

I'll take a stab at the questions. Gee, could it be that people have been forced to accept FRNs as if it were money and not the "obligations" (evidence of debt)they are under statute? Try using any other means to pay your public debts and see what happens. If people really knew the truth the Fed would be gone tomorrow. Unfortunately most have their head up their arse when it comes the money issue. Heck, many do not even know the Fed is private. It is called the dumbing down of America.

U.S. citizens are forced to use frn to pay public debts. Common law citizens of the Several States are not within the public debt.
Citizens of the Several States debts are private, so if you have a ssn you are within the public debt from being a U.S. citizen.
Dont hold your breath because what you are asking is a civil law question, but looking for a common law answer.
You wont get an answer.
I speculate Pete Hendrickson is where you get your ill information.

[LPC]

Tell me, is the organic Constitution in effect or is Public Policy? If it is organic Constitution then why do "lawmakers" continually refer to Public Policy and the SCOTUS continually uphold Public Policy? Are we under the common law (organic Constitution) or civil law (Public Policy)?

Your questions are gibberish.

The Constitution is sometimes described as "organic law" because it forms the basis for all other federal law. The phrase "organic Constitution" is therefore redundant.

"Public policy" is a term used to describe the ideas or principles that underlie laws. So, for example, the progressive income tax (which is a statute) represents a public policy (an idea) that taxes should fall more heavily on those better able to pay.

Asking for a choice between the two is like asking whether we have a system of laws or a system of arithmetic.

And most of the states of the United States adopted the English common law tradition, which allows judges to create law to address changing circumstances, without legislation. The exception is Louisiana, which adopted the French civil law system, under which all laws must originate from the legislature.

Public policy can be represented by both common law and civil law, and both common law and civil law can exist under our federal Constitution.