58 posts / 0 new
Last post
Harry33Truman's picture
I never said to privatize

I never said to privatize everything- but even if I did, you haven't responded to what I said. You claim you are against monopolies yet you advocate for government established and mandated monopolies.

Yes, the Central Ban did violate the Costiyitin, still does, and always will until they pass a 28th Amendment allowing it. Andrew Jackson wrote an entire veto letter about how it was unconstitutional and should be done away with:

mykcob4's picture
@Harry Truman

@Harry Truman

1) Your typos are really getting out of control. It is really getting hard to even read your posts. They don't make sense in the first place, filled with conspiracies and false narratives, but compounded with the typos they are just completely incoherent. Examples in your last post: " Central Ban", and "Costiyitin". I hazard a guess that you mean "Central Bank", and "Constitution."

2) Jackson was proven wrong and so are you. The Central Bank is not unconstitutional. It operates independently of the Executive Branch and under the oversite of Congress. Jackson was just upset that he didn't have authority over it which was his objection in the first place.

Read this lesson and you might learn something.

Peter Conti-Brown has written the history of the Constitutionality of both the Fed and the Central Bank. He is a constitutional law professor at Wharton College and is the preeminent expert on the subject.

Your idea that the Federal government establishes mandated monopolies is just ludicrous. It's just another Libertarian conspiracy theory that you have bought into.

Harry33Truman's picture
Conspiracy theory? So you're

Conspiracy theory? So you're telling me the government didn't create the Federal Reserve? That would be a conspiracy theory.

Thomas Jefferson made it very clear that a Central Bank was completely unconstitutional, and the idea of establishing one was proposed in the constitutional convention, and denied. How you can look at this document and say that a Central Bank is constitutional baffles me- it wasn't written in Hebrew or Germanic, it was written in plain English- it clearly States that Congress has the power to coin money, and just to make it extra clear, they put as the very first sentence of that article, that the powers granted under it are to be vested in the congress, not some bank. Andrew Jacksons side won- he ended the bank, and we did just fine without one for 77 years.

mykcob4's picture
Congress has the power to

Congress has the power to coin money.....guess what Harry Congress coins money through the treasury. The statement in no way shape or form says that there cannot be a Central Bank or a Fed. Did you even read the lesson I posted?
Jefferson and Jackson were both wrong about the Central Bank issue. Jackson was wrong on most issues.

Harry33Truman's picture
It doesn't say there can be

It doesn't say there can be no Federal Reserve, but it does say that congress is supposed to issue the money. The problem is we are vesting government powers, which belong to congress, into a central bank composed of private banks and ran by unelected officials.

You criticize me for wanting to privatize everything, something I never said, yet you support privatizing the issue of money. I support congress issued, United States Notes, controlled and issued by elected officials you support giving that power to private banks, supervised (not very adequately) by unelected bureaucrats

Jefferson and Jackson were right- they were right about the dangers of giving private corporations government power, and Jefferson even said that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. He was beyond right.

mykcob4's picture
Banks, the Central Bank, the

Banks, the Central Bank, the Fed cannot issue money unless approved by Congress. So I don't see what your issue is.
I am basing my criticism on Libertarians, in general, want to privatize everything.

Harry33Truman's picture
Where did you get that idea?

Where did you get that idea? The Federal Reserve is an independent Agency, it doesn't have to seek the consent of congress to do anything. Its even on the Feds website.

Libertarianism is a political philosophy advocating for a smaller government. How small differs from Libertarian, but the only group that wants to privatize everything are Anarco Capitalists, who are on the fringes of libertarianism.

mykcob4's picture
If that is true Harry I was

If that is true Harry I was unaware of that. I think that the Fed is actually under some oversight. Actually, I know that it is. Please read in detail.

As far as the different sects within Libertarianism I do not know the differences. I'm sure you are correct.
I want to make you aware that that situation actually exists in the Liberal and Progressive world as well. Why do you think Bernie Sanders was so against Hillary Clinton. Progressives regard the Clintons as the best republicans that ever held office. If you actually read what Sanders and other progressives actually propose, you'd know that they want to reduce the size of government.
So you see, we both didn't know what we were talking about but yet knew quite a bit as well.

Harry33Truman's picture
Yes, they appear at Congress

Yes, they appear at Congress every so often, but should the Federal Reserve decide to, say, raise interest rates, or order 4 Trillion from the Bureau of Engraving and Printing and use it to buy bad mortgages and bail our banks, they do not have to have the consent of congress to do so, as you claimed.

I don't think the Democrats want to reduce the size of Government- their entire platform is about expanding the scope of Government.

The Clinton's are basically Republicans Hillary Clinton even supported Barry Goldwater and was best pals with Donald Trump.

What that and our conversation show is that political differences are mostly illusions. We are often inclined to believe in the Randite dichotomy that those who disagree with you are not only wrong, but willfully evil. Ironically what made me abandon that was adopting a more cynical view of the world.

mykcob4's picture
I disagree. The Fed has to

I disagree. The Fed has to have Congressional approval. They announce ahead of time that they will raise, lower, are do nothing with interest rates. Congress can dictate what the Fed actually does.
Like I said read how Bernie and many Progressives want to reduce the government.
I am not cynical and it pains me to see cynicism.JFK wrote profiles in courage. It will change your mind about being cynical. Also, Teddy R.s biography is all about defeating cynicism.

Harry33Truman's picture
Alan Greenspan said that

Alan Greenspan said that there is no other branch of Government which can per rule an action the Fed takes, and when a bill was proposed to give congress the power to do that, Ben Bernake said that the congress shouldn't have that power. Here they are on tape:

I looked up how Bernie would reduce the size of the Government, and all that came up was how he wanted to raise taxes and double the debt.

Cynicism isn't the same as pessimism, though tee are similarities. Primarily I do not believe that people are naturally good- but rather that they are naturally inclined to serve their own self interests and pursue resources, just like every other life form.

mykcob4's picture
Bernie Sanders wants to

Bernie Sanders wants to reduce the deficit.
His two main proposals were to have a single-payer health care system that would reduce cost. His proposal to pay for education would create productivity increasing the tax base. Both make social and economic sense.
His idea to end subsidies to industries that don't need it would reduce spending by nearly 1/3.
Bernake is wrong and the Constitution dictates that he is wrong. He has had good ideas but operating the Fed with total autonomy is wrong. He believes that the Fed is and will not be corrupted. We both know that if corruption can be an option eventually it will be taken.

Harry33Truman's picture
A single payer healthcare

A single payer healthcare plan would increase costs. We spend 1.1 Trillion to get 44 million people Medicare. If we expanded that to everyone, it would cost about 8 Trillion.

If you wanted to reduce costs you would go with what I said:
1. Allow people to buy health insurance plans from other states as well as other countries.
2. Allow people to buy drugs from countries where they are cheaper.
3. Make occupational licensure requirements for doctors simpler.
4. Give everyone a voucher for 3,000$ going to their health insurance plans.

Bernie's proposal for higher education was to give colleges a blank check in exchange for giving people whatever education they wanted. The problem is most people already are going to college, and most of them are getting useless degrees.

"His idea to end subsidies to industries that don't need it would reduce spending by nearly 1/3."

Actually, our main spending programs are Social Security (1.28 Trillion), Medicare (1.1 Trillion), Military (630 Billion), veterans benefits (200 Billion), and education (110 Billion). We spend 50 bilin o farm subsidies and 30 billion on energy subsidies, and subsidies for transportation and housing, all of which should be abolished.

Yes, Ben Bernake is wrong that the Fed should be autonomous, but it is.

CyberLN's picture
You said, " The problem is

You said, " The problem is most people already are going to college, and most of them are getting useless degrees."

Please provide data that quantifies "most" and qualifies "useless".

mykcob4's picture
Well the CBO disagrees with

Well the CBO disagrees with you, Harry T.
Most people do not go to college, they can't afford it. Those that do are burdened with a student loan that is as expensive as a home loan at a higher interest rate.
I disagree wholeheartedly about abolishing entitlements. They are called entitlements because people earned them.

Harry33Truman's picture
First you say we should cut

First you say we should cut subsidies now you say industries deserve entitlements.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics says that 69.7% of high school graduates are going to college:

mykcob4's picture
I didn't say "industries"

I didn't say "industries" deserve entitlements. BTW entitlements only go to individuals. Subsidies go to industries.

Harry33Truman's picture
Well I said to abolish all

Well I said to abolish all subsidies, and cut everything else, even by slight measures. If I were president the budget would look like this:
Social Security- 1.2 Trillion
Healthcare- 960 Billion
Military- 600 Billion
Veterans- 200 Billion
Interest on the debt- 200 Billion
Education- 100 Billion
Add that up and out budget would be 3.26 Trillion

Institute a flat tax of 25% on all income above an exemption of 20,000$ per person in your household (roughly 3.4 Trillion in revenues), an excise tax of 10% (roughly 230 Billon revenue), and a tax on churches and religious institutions of 10% (I can't be sure how much churches rake in, but in 2005 they received 260 Billion in donations so I would estimate revenue to be about 30 Billion). Increase the monetary base by 5% every year by printing US notes and put that money directly into the treasury (75 Billion). Add all that up and we have a revenue of 3.735 Trillion, giving us a surplus of 475 Billion, which we can use to pay down the debt.

mykcob4's picture
Hey, Harry, we are close to

Hey, Harry, we are close to an agreement on this. I endorse a flat tax, a national sales tax, an import, and no export tax. A lock box on Social Security. I am all for a comprehensive tax on religion in the form that we tax all corporations.
My numbers and your numbers don't mess but that just leaves room for negotiation.

Harry33Truman's picture
Most progressives oppose a

Most progressives oppose a flat tax because 'muh trickle down economics!' Or something like that- either way an import tax and national sales tax would bring in enough funds whereby income taxes wouldn't have to be too high. That way we could start paying down the debt.

mykcob4's picture
Harry I know a lot of

Harry I know a lot of progressives that favor a flat tax.

Harry33Truman's picture
Well then they're not the

Well then they're not the mainstream, they generally support a heavily graduated progressive tax of 120% or something like that. My aunt Joan supports one, but that's pretty much it.

Nyarlathotep's picture
Harry Truman - they generally

Harry Truman - they generally support a heavily graduated progressive tax of 120% or something like that

And there goes the most confused statement for the day here at AR.

LostLocke's picture
Too many references to God in

Too many references to God in that article as far as I'm concerned.

Harry33Truman's picture
Sure there are- 1600s was a

Sure there are- 1600s was a highly religious era.

MCDennis's picture
harry is a troll

harry is a troll

SunDog's picture
Philosophy doesn't answer

Philosophy doesn't answer questions - it questions answers. Ad infinitum.


Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.