A NEED FOR CHANGE
That there is a need for change there is no doubt.
Now I am not talking about a change in economic policy from one political party to the other, but one of real economic
and political change! Economic and political changes that will create new policies that are based on logic, reason
and common sense. Economic and political policies for us to use that take advantage of our human resources, natural
resources, and our technology too. New policies that don't divide us but unite us. After all are we the Divided
States of America or the United States of America? Offered for your examination and approval this new Eco-Political
philosophy called Optinomics outlines how to produce new and viable solutions to the important issues facing us
These issues include:
How to end hunger
How to end the problems of the homeless
How to diminish and even eliminate poverty altogether
How to reduce crime
How to solve the problems of foreclosure
How to provide research money for cancer and all diseases
How to eliminate taxes on the rich, poor and the forgotten middle class
How to eliminate the national debt
How to eliminate our immigration problems
How to control inflation
How to provide social security to the sick and the elderly
How to guarantee job assurance for all Americans
How to provide whatever is needed for our self defense
How to end our reasons for going to war.
How to provide FREE and universal healthcare for all Americans
How to provide FREE and universal education for all Americans
How to insure freedoms guaranteed in the Constitution
How to recreate a government of, by and for the people
How to create an even higher standard of living for all Americans? One that will be higher than the one we have
today. How wonderful would that be? However before we can achieve these goals we need to create both Economic,
and Political Reform.
TAKING THE BULL
BY THE HORNS
BY THE HORNS
WHAT IS ECONOMICS?
According to Wikopedia Economics is the social
science that describes the factors that determine the production, distribution and consumption of goods and services.
The term economics comes from the Ancient Greek (oikos, "house") and (nomos, "custom" or "law").
Economics may also be broken down into two divisions called microeconomics and macroeconomics. Microeconomics examines
the behavior of basic elements in the economy, including individual agents, (for example, households, firms, buyers,
and sellers) the marketplace, their interactions, and the outcomes of their interactions.
Macroeconomics analyzes the entire economy (meaning
aggregated production, consumption, savings, and investment) and issues affecting it, including unemployment, resources,
inflation, economic growth, monetary, and fiscal, policies in business, finance, government and policies that address
these issues. Economic analyses may also be applied to such diverse subjects as crime, education, the family, law,
politics, religion, social institutions, war, science, and the environment.
Then there are special issues like Health Care
and Education, for example, requires time, effort, and expenses, whose losses can be weighted against future benefits
they bring not only to the individual but also to the economy as a whole.
Besides the traditional concern in production,
distribution, and consumption in an economy, the ultimate goal of economics is to improve the living conditions
of people in their everyday life. To do this we must also examine the cause and effect of policies that concerns
both micro and macro economics. Other broad distinctions within economics include those between Posinomics, describing
"what is positive and good for society, Neganomics, that which is negative and bad for society and Optinomics
which advocates "what ought to be.
Today Americans seem to be split on what ought
to be. On one hand, we are a nation of socialistic people with compassion and a sincere desire to offer hope and
help to the less fortunate. On the other hand, we are a nation of capitalistic people that resents being told what
to do with our money and the fruits of our hard work and sacrifice. The real question is this... Must we choose
between the two? The simple answer to this question is ... NO ... we do not.
Like good parents who do not provide for the needs of only some their children but instead provides for the needs
of all their children. A good government will not provide for the needs of only some of the people, a good government
will provide for the needs of ALL the people. The most important thing for us to do today is choose to bring our
politics and economics into the 21st century. Even though things have changed greatly in the past 300 years, we
still use the same politics and economics created by and for people who lived 300 years ago.
Since things have changed greatly in the past 300 years doesn't logic, reason, and common sense dictate we should
make some changes to our present day politics and economics too? Economists have been concerning themselves with
the laws of supply and demand while for the most part ignoring the cause and effect they create. In a nutshell
here is how our present system works. To provide for the needs of the people, our government must either tax us,
or borrow from banks at interest, or as it usually does, it will do both. Of course when it borrows from the bank
it must raise taxes. It must do this because this is how it gets the money to pay back the bank for its loan. This
rise in taxes both diminishes the money supply and increases the cost of goods and services and creates inflation.
This inflation creates the need for additional taxes or more borrowing, which again causes more inflation. We are
thus caught in an unending vicious cycle.
Of course there is an alternative to borrowing
and increasing taxes and that is to cut back on needed services. If our government does this, it not only stops
providing for the needs of all the people, it also creates demand to rise, which also creates inflation. Is this
what a good government should do? Since doing this effects the laws of supply and demand to the detriment of an
economy, it should be abundantly clear that if we are ever to achieve the real peace and prosperity we all desire
and get off this vicious cycle, the very first thing we must do is to stop such Neganomic processes.
VERSUS UNLIMITED SUPPLY ECONOMICS TOC
Since to continue to do things the same way as
in the past, and expect the results to be different is the definition of insanity. Is it not then insane for us
to expect the future to change for the better without changing what has not worked in the past? Of course it is.
It is very foolish too, and yet, we keep doing it over, and over, and over again! Why?
Given the technology of today and that of which
is right around the corner. We cannot only provide for the necessities of life, we can provide for most, and perhaps
even all of our material desires as well. The only thing stopping us from changing for the better is our own self-imposed
limitation. Changing for the better is as simple as doing it. Once this is realized, the next step is a rather
simple one. That step is for us to simply prioritize and determine, what we should change, why we should change
it and how we should do it?
Since logic dictates that if we are ever to allow
all the people to prosper and not only allow some to prosper by causing others to go without, what needs to be
absolutely clear is that we must eliminate limited money supply economics. Using limited money supply economics
we create a fixed wealth by fixing the amount of money in circulation. This is done to stimulate competition and
curb inflation. While stimulating competition has been a very effective way of producing goods and services and
cubing inflation is admirable. Doing so by limiting the distribution of money has proven to be a very costly one,
too costly. This is because of the results it achieves. Results like hunger amidst an abundance of food.
Why is this so? It is because of the Neganomic
policies of limited money supply economics by which the food must be obtained. Any economic policy that intentionally
limits the obtaining of food, as people go hungry and even literally starve to their death, in a just society should
be considered a crime against humanity. The problem obviously is not with the ability to produce food, nor is it
with the ability to create money. We can and have been creating money out of nothing for hundreds of years, so
we obviously should not have someone be hungry due to a lack of money.
Contrary to popular belief creating money out of
nothing is not a bad thing when it is created and distributed in a way that allows all to achieve the necessities
of life. This fact is very important, and just can't be repeated enough. It also must really be understood, if
anything else that follows is to make sense. It is our adherence to limited money supply economics that is the
reason why we still have a problem with hunger today. In America there is an over abundance of food and yet our
seniors must choose between eating and their medications and other Americans are actually dying from malnutrition
and its children are going to bed hungry.
Since money is what we use to both produce and
buy all of our goods and services, whenever we limit our money supply, we purposely only allow some of the people
to have access to the money they may need by making it impossible for others to do so. To end hunger we must create
a Posinomic policy that not only creates a money supply that is sufficient to allow all the people the ability
to obtain their needs and wants, but it must also insure that all those people who need money will have access
to it too. Unlimited money supply economics is the only way we can ever have all the money needed to achieve meeting
the needs and desires of all the people. Using limited money supply economics by its very nature could never do
this. That's what limiting means
In order to achieve the real economic prosperity,
we desire, as a nation, we must pursue a new course. We must find Posinomic policies that do not limit. Policies
that do not leave someone out, prevent the rich from getting richer, nor anyone from obtaining the necessities
of life or achieving the American Dream.
IS THE GLASS
HALF EMPTY OR HALF FULL? TOC
If America is ever to be all that it can be, we
the people must make a choice of perception. ... Is our glass half empty, or is it half full?
America, it is the best of times for some, and
the worst of times for others. Excepting perhaps for the great depression. Never before in the history of our nation
have things been so good, and so bad, for so many. America today secures its freedom through a military strength
unlike anything ever seen. It is a country capable of discovering the cure for polio, splitting the atom, and conquering
the depths of space. Today's American enjoys the most luxurious conveniences that technology has to offer. These
conveniences include heat to keep us warm, AC to keep us cool, plasma TV's, wireless phones, personal computers,
exquisite cars, miraculous healthcare, world travel and more. Just about anything that is desired is available
for the taking. That is of course if you have the money.
But there is also this other America. A country losing its people to war and disease, a nation with hunger and
homeless, a nation riddled with crime and poverty. The same country that houses the most self-made millionaires
is also the home for the most who abuse drugs. How is it possible that the same nation can inspire some people
to achieve so much, and others to achieve so little? For those in this country who "have", the answer
is simple. The "have-nots" are lazy, addicted, or dysfunctional. The reason for their poverty is of their
own choosing. Those who are "have-nots" may claim bad luck, discrimination, or depravity as the reasons
behind their failure.
Although America was founded on offering hope and not despair, we are a nation that is fast becoming increasingly
more pessimistic. On one hand we are a nation of people with a sincere desire to offer hope and help to the less
fortunate. On the other hand, we are a nation of people that fears that change may come at the expense of what
we have gained. So whether you are blue or red, conservative, extreme or something in between, doesn't really matter.
What does matter is what we choose? Do we continue to bear the results and havoc of failure proven Neganomic laws
and formulas that do not use logic, reason and common sense, or do we sweep the floor clean and create new Posinomic
laws and formulas based upon Optinomic principles that do?
VERSUS PESINOMICS! TOC
Generally speaking, people fall into two categories.
They are either optimistic or Optinomic and see things as they ought to be, or pessimistic (Pesinomic) and lost
in the past. The Pesinomic holds onto such old school thinking like war is good for the economy, money needs to
be backed by gold and silver and that our demand is greater than our ability to supply it. Hey if war is so good
for the economy why not have New York declare war on California. With 50 states we can create 25 wars?
I call this new economics Optinomics because I
am an Optimist who believes there is a solution to any problem. We just need to find it. I also call it Optinomics
to get away from all the pre-conceived notions and immediate emotionality caused by all the isms of today. The
problems we have are not sent down from the heaven but are man made and be it Capitalism or Socialism neither are
entirely right. It is our mission to look at these isms and see what Neganomic results they create and eliminate
them. Neganomic policies that are the results of bad decisions that perhaps were not bad decisions for the era
in which they were created, but are so for today. Policies that need to be re-examined today using our logic, reason
and common sense and examining their cause and effects on the people today . Most of us know in our hearts that
the problems that exist in America today should not exist. If you agree, you are Optinomic too!
Who can find the logic in justifying hunger in
America when we have such an abundance of food? Who can reason a need for a homeless problem as they see building
after building being vacated? Where is the common sense for going to war, when we have our people hungry, homeless
and denying health care to our fellow Americans because we place the importance of money over the loss of lives?
Is war really good for the economy. Is this a good way to solve an unemployment problem? That is to have people
die. Is this a good way to stimulate jobs and economic growth by destroying the homes we already have, so we can
create new jobs by rebuilding what we have destroyed?
What we need to make perfectly clear is that these
problems are the results of our insistence upon motivating people to be productive based upon limiting supply.
The real problem is that the solution we use to cure our ills is also the cause of them. This is we why can't find
lasting solutions. How can we find lasting solutions if we keep using economic policies that cause them.
What we must all realize (or at least the majority
of us must for things to change) is that we cannot solve an addition problem by applying the laws of subtraction.
You cannot create more by producing less. When it comes to the necessities of life we can produce more than we
will ever need or hope to use. Our hunger problem, as we all know, is not due to a lack of food. We have even instituted
economic policies that pay farmers not to grow food. Are such policies Neganomic or Posinomic?
Our homeless problem as we know it, has nothing
to do with an inability to build homes. Any contractor will build you anything you want. All you need is the money.
Money that is not there because it is diverted to destroying homes with bombs. This pretty much defies logic, reason
and common sense. We all know this is true, and if we can't blame the politicians because after all who is it that
elects them? Then just what is it that's wrong?
What is wrong? In this opinionated world of ours,
probably the only thing we all agree on is that something is wrong. The question is not one of what, but why? The
answer to this question lies within the economic policies we use today. Economic policies that are Neganomic in
While it may be true that in the past, these laws
of limited supply were once necessary, because of our advancements in technology, they have now reached the point
of diminishing return and should no longer be used. The reason why we should no longer use them should be abundantly
clear. It is because they are not the cure for the problems we have today, but the cause of them!
So I will say it again. Any economic policy that
intentionally limits the obtaining of food, as people go hungry and even literally starve to their death, in a
just society should be considered a crime against humanity. What do you believe? Is an ability to feed people,
but not doing it right or wrong! It is wrong according to the sermon on the mount, very wrong. But this ability
to do what is right but then not doing it is also not just with food. Do you believe we lack the resources to provide
adequate housing for all Americans? Perhaps you believe we lack the resources to build and repair our needed roads
and highways, or to manufacture adequate clothing or create needed jobs. Just what is it that you believe we cannot
So why do we still use Neganomic policies such
as limited supply economics? It is because at one time things were much more limited than today, so a policy of
limited supply economics made sense. However to continue to adhere to limited money supply economics when that
supply need no longer be limited is illogical. Personally I cannot justify continuing to do so, can you?
THE CURE IS
THE CAUSE! TOC
This is the problem. The same laws of economics
that helped produce all the great wonders of this world now prevent the majority of us from obtaining them. So,
while it is true that in America, any individual or group can become richer. What is also true is that this cannot
be done without another group or individual becoming poorer.
To better illustrate this point, let's take a look
at the game called musical chairs. For simplicity lets use a fixed number of 100 people 99 chairs. Music is played
and when the music stops each player attempts to sit down. The one player who cannot sit down because there is
no chair to sit on is out. Another chair is removed and the music starts, when the music stops, the player who
cannot sit down because there is no chair to sit on is out. This continues until only two players are left and
one chair to sit down upon. In this game you have 1 winner and 99 losers. Every time you play the game you will
always have the same results, 1 winner and 99 losers. The only way for someone to win is for others to be losers,
so while the winner might not always be the same, there will always be only one winner.
Now lets imagine the same scenario with 100 people
and 99 chairs each with a dollar on it and a dollar was added to the chairs each time the music played. As you
circled the chairs when the music stopped if you could sit on a chair you could keep the dollar. Now let's imagine
the chairs to be the necessities of life and the dollars to be its luxuries. As long as you could circle the chairs
you could accumulate more dollars. However if you could not sit down you had to give your dollars to the player
on the right. The end results will be that 1 person will get all the money or 1% of the people will have money
and 99% won't. Again that 1% could be different but the percentage will always be the same. To add to our dilemma
what if the 1% is in charge of selecting what game will be played and how it will be played. What do you think
the results will be? As before if those are the rules of the game, the outcome of the game will always be the same.
1% of the players will always win and 99% are destined to lose. In order to change the results you either need
to get the 1% to change the rules or get the players to play a new game. Before achieving either of these we must
first determine what the new rules of the game will be!
Some think one rule should be a simple matter of
limiting the amount a person may obtain, but to what degree? How do we achieve this without stopping one's creativity.
Whether it is natural or nurtured, some people are just smarter and stronger than others. This is a simple fact
of life. Because of this, we should not put a limit on productive people who can run a business better, or invent
new products, or find cures for disease. It is not in our best interest to do this. We must never take away a person's
motivation and desire to be productive or curtail their creativity. Since it is also a proven fact that incentive
for profit motivates people to be productive, to bring out the best in all of us, we should not only allow people
the freedom to pursue and achieve as much wealth as they so desire. We should also encourage it as well.
Others think we should take away more chairs or
what in the real world is known as attrition. You can't have everyone obtain the necessities of life by taking
them away. In order for everyone to be able to sit down the solution is as simple as adding one more chair. But
if everyone can sit down, where is the incentive to play the game? So to give people incentive to play the game,
what if instead of having to give our dollars to the person on our right, we were allowed keep them?
In this scenario when you are out of the game (retired)
you are guaranteed the necessities of life for having played the game. After all had you not played the game, how
could their be a winner? If you save some of your dollars earned while playing the game, in retirement you would
have some luxuries too.
WHAT IS MONEY?
When talking about wealth created by money, it
would be prudent that we all understand exactly what money is, and what it does? Money is nothing more than a convenient
tool invented by man to facilitate the exchange of good and services. Generally speaking you can't wear money,
you can't eat it and you can't use for shelter. Money has absolutely no value until it is spent. If you were on
a desert island with millions of dollars and there were no food for you to buy to eat, you would starve to death.
It also wouldn't matter if that money was silver, gold or paper. Money only becomes valuable when you can exchange
it for desired goods and services. .
If we think about what it is that makes gold and
silver, or anything valuable. We will find that people buy gold and silver for one reason and one reason alone
and that is to exchange it for money. You certainly would not use Gold and Silver to buy Gold Silver. That just
doesn't make any sense. So then what is it that gives Gold and Silver its value? It is the exact same thing that
gives anything its value, the laws of supply and demand. The truth of the matter is that compared to the increase
in population the quantity of limited precious metals has not equally increased. So according to the laws of supply
and demand, when ever the demand supersedes the supply there will be a price increase. This is also one of the
main reasons that we need a medium of exchange that must be unlimited and one that can grow and decline as needed.
So it's simply the laws of supply and demand that
cause the price of gold to rise. If Gold and Silver could not be exchanged for money, nobody, other than perhaps
jewelers would desire them, and the only reason why they would want Gold and Silver is to produce jewelry, can
you guess why? Right, because they can sell that jewelry for money. What never has made sense to me was if Gold
and Silver are so precious why would anyone want to sell them in the first place. This fact is very important,
and cannot be repeated enough, if anything else that follows is to make sense. It is our adherence to limited money
supply economics that is the sole reason why we still have most, if not all of the economic problems we suffer
Let me ask you this. Do you believe given the preservation,
cloning technology, the hydro farming, crop rotation, soil preservation and other food producing abilities of today,
that we can provide a sufficient amount of food to feed all Americans and even the world, or do you believe as
the Neganomics do, that some must go hungry so that others may eat? Maybe you believe people must go hungry because
we cannot create enough money to buy the needed food, but since we can literally create money out of nothing, it
is neither an inability to feed the hungry, nor is it an inability to create the money to buy the food, that is
the problem. The problem is we still use Neganomic laws of limited money supply economics to obtain the food one
needs. We don't limit the supply of food, we limit the means to obtain it, and this is something we no longer need
to do, nor should continue to do. So I will say it again, any system that limits the obtaining of available food
as people die of starvation or from malnutrition, or causes children to go to bed hungry. or our seniors to choose
eating or taking their medication is a crime against humanity.
LEMON-THE FEDERAL RESERVE! TOC
Regarding the explanation of the how the Federal
Reserve works and how we create money the video above was almost correct 100%. What prevents it from being 100%
correct is in the thinking that the more money in circulation the less the value of the dollar. Truth be told it
is just the opposite, the more people who have the dollar the more valuable it is. Think about it. If everyone
has US dollars, so that everywhere you go the dollar is accepted. Is it more or less valuable than a dollar that
is not accepted everywhere? This idea of less is more is one of those Neganomic ideas that are the reason for many
of the economic woes experienced by this and other countries. Also if having too much money is a bad thing why
does the average person want to become a millionaire and millionaires want to become billionaires and billionaires
trillionairs. While an over abundance of money may cause inflation, I don't buy into the theory that because one
has more they are willing to pay more. They may be forced to pay more by an increase in prices, but I have yet
to meet the buyer who says how much is that item, $10, here's $15. Also having money to buy a needed item regardless
of the cost is always better than not having the money to buy that needed item. The major reason for the present
value of the US dollar is simply because so many people have it and not because they don't. The logical conclusion
about the value of any monetary system is solely the willingness of the people to accept it.
As evidenced by his later remarks President Woodrow
Wilson when signing the Federal Reserve Act into law had no idea of how the Federal Reserve system would truly
work, or the harm it could cause. It's also a shame that he did not realize this until after it was too late. Be
that as it may as long as we continue to allow a banking cartel to be in charge of the control of the supply of
our money, and not the government nor the people, it is the bankers who will determine who gets the money they
need and who doesn't.
Just like returning to a gold standard is not in
our best interest and is one of those economic tools that has proven not to be a solution for the poverty, shortage
of jobs and other ills of our society. So too, the Federal Reserve has also proven itself to be one of those Neganomic
tools that we use today to solve our problems that not only does not provide the solution that we seek, but is
also one of the underlying causes of the problems we have today.
The Fed does not control inflation nor does it
guarantee the security of a monetary system as intended. Instead it actually creates inflation because of the interest
it charges the government. This causes more taxes to be needed and this in turn causes the cost of goods and services
to rise. Plus if our interest payments to the banks were eliminated, out debt could be easily eliminated. Also
without accountability as to what the Fed can or cannot do, it can't guarantee that our money supply will be stabile.
This is because in the present Federal Reserve system one person or at the very best a small group of people get
to determine what is best for our country. If that is not in line with what is best for them, you can be sure that
without any accountability, they will choose what is best for them over what's best for the country every time.
So then what should we do with the Federal Reserve?
While we and the rest of the would must prevent our governments from borrowing money at interest or even at all,
must be changed, not everything about the Federal Reserves is bad. Since Federal Reserve Notes are presently the
most accepted form of money, we should leave it alone. Since it is also not a part of our government dissolving
it does not seem our right or even in our best interest or that of the world. The Fed system in place for record
keeping, making public loans, moving money from place to place and performing electronic transfers does not need
What is needed is for each country to issue their
own credits for the betterment of their people and then use the FED as the exchange bank for international trade.
In other words each country will exchange its currency for Federal Reserve Notes for traveling abroad or for Government
trading. The best solution for the US would be for the Federal Government and the states to issue uniform credits
with charters created by both the federal and state governments. While I believe that we definitely need to change
those things within an economic formula that are Neganomic and need to be changed. I also believe we should not
fix Posinomic solutions that are not broken. Don't you agree?
After seeing the Fed in actual operation for nearly
100 years, it should be easy for us to observe the results it produces. Using your logic, reason and common sense,
what is your observation? Is the present Federal Reserve Act a Posinomic solution to our problems, or a Neganomic
cause of them?
What I find illogical is why we allow the banks
to be the wealth and money creators in the first place. Just what is it that gives these Federal Reserve notes
that our banks issue their value? Oddly enough, it's our government's approving them as legal tender. As you can
see, these Federal Reserve notes are not backed up by anything of value other than the government's stamp of approval.
Since this is so. Why can't can't our government put a stamp of approval on its own money? Also if this is new
money printed by the US mint and does not come from money banks already have on hand, What is it that we are borrowing?
If this is our own money, then there is no loan. If there is no loan to repay because it is our own money that
we are borrowing, why are we paying for a loan not given and paying interest?
This is one way the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 defies logic, reason and common sense. There is also a second way
that banks do this called fractional reserves. Fractional reserves allow the banks to grant loans equaling up to
ten times or more than they actually have in their vault! Here's the problem with this. If debt is created without
creating the money to repay it, how can that debt be paid? In other words if a bank only has $100 in it's vault
and someone borrows $1000. Where will the missing $900 come from in order to repay that $1000 loan? How can $1000
be repaid without an additional $900 being created? It can't and so default is eminent, or we must again borrow
from the bank! Good for banks, but not for people! However if countries separate their money from the FED, new
money can be legitimately created to do this.
Since most money is transferred electronically,
what if both federal and state governments were given the authority by the people to make a direct deposit of whatever
amount was needed to promote the general welfare of the people. Wouldn't that make more sense, be more logical,
and be the more reasonable thing to do? Under this system, we would never have to repay the Federal Reserve back
at interest on money it never had, nor would we have any deficit to pass onto future generations. We also would
not have to worry about the government shutting down or not being able to pay its debt, because there would be
no debt. Since the government can now simply deposit the credits it needs into the treasury, there also would be
no need to tax the people to raise the funds the government needed to provide for the common defense and promote
the general welfare. This system will also allow a better separation of state and federal government responsibilities.
What we need are Posinomic legislation that includes
the following provisions:
1. Disallow Government borrowing.
2. Allow all Sovereign States to create money in
the form of uniform credits to provide for the needs of its people.
3. Declare the 16th Amendment to be Unconstitutional.
4. Create Inflationary Tax Laws to control and
distribute the money supply.
5. Create citizen personal wealth cards (debit
cards) as legal tender.
FRANKLIN AND PAPER MONEY TOC
Upon reading the Constitution, which is the law
of the land, we find it gives the authorization, power, and an implied obligation for Congress to coin money and
regulate the amount of that money! Now here is where many become confused. The language coin money does not mean
to make money out of coins. It means to create money like to coin a phrase. The reason for adding that the states
shall only use Gold and Silver was to prevent numerous different forms of paper currency. It is very hard to control
different forms of currency.
Paper currency was used by the Continental Congress
and Colonial scrip was very successful. Ben Franklin begins his pamphlet "A Modest Inquiry into the Nature
and Necessity of a Paper Currency” by noting that a lack of money to transact trade within the province carries
a heavy cost. With regards to paper money Franklin is clear throughout his career. It is not legal tender laws
or fixed exchange rates between paper money and gold and silver coins but the quantity of paper money relative
to the volume of internal trade within the colony that governs the value of paper money. An excess of paper money
relative to the volume of internal trade causes it to lose value (depreciate). Money scarcity causes high interest
rates, which reduces investment and slows development. The proper amount of paper money will solve these problems.
But what gives paper money its value? Franklin
points out that gold and silver are of no permanent value and so paper moneys linked to or backed by gold and silver,
as with bank paper money in Europe, are of no permanent value. The spot value of gold and silver could fluctuate
just like that of any other commodity and could be acutely affected by unexpected trade disruptions. Franklin observes
in 1729 that “we [Pennsylvanians] have already parted with our silver and gold” in trade with England, and the
difference between the value of paper money and that of silver is due to “the scarcity of the latter.”
Before the war, the colonies sent Benjamin Franklin to England to represent their interests. Franklin was greatly
surprised by the amount of poverty and high unemployment. It just didn't make sense, England was the richest country
in the world but the working class was impoverished, he wrote “The streets are covered with beggars and tramps.”
“We have no poor houses in the Colonies; and if we had some, there would be nobody to put in them, since there
is, in the Colonies, not a single unemployed person, neither beggars nor tramps.” Franklin when asked why the working
class in the colonies were so prosperous, replied. “That is simple. In the Colonies, we issue our own paper money.
It is called ‘Colonial Scrip.’ We issue it in proper proportion to make the goods and pass easily from the producers
to the consumers. In this manner, creating ourselves our own paper money, we control its purchasing power and we
have no interest to pay to no one.”
English historian, John Twells, wrote about the
money of the colonies, the colonial Scrip: “It was the monetary system under which America's Colonies flourished
to such an extent that Edmund Burke was able to write about them: ‘Nothing in the history of the world resembles
their progress. It was a sound and beneficial system, and its effects led to the happiness of the people.
It is said that Franklin when asking his friends
in England how poverty could be so rampant in the richest country in the world? They replied that they had too
many workers. This lead many to believe that wars and plague were necessary to rid the country from man-power surpluses
and a necessity and good for the economy. This war is good for the economy theory still exists today and the reason
why we have never been able to have a lasting peace. Remove this Neganomic belief and you will remove the main
cause of wars.
So when did things change? The English bankers
unhappy with not controlling the wealth of the colonies demanded that the King and Parliament pass a law that prohibited
the colonies from using their scrip money. In a bad hour, the British Parliament took away from America its representative
money, forbade any further issue of bills of credit, these bills ceasing to be legal tender, and ordered that all
taxes should be paid in coins. Consider now the consequences: this restriction of the medium of exchange paralyzed
all the industrial energies of the people. Ruin took place in these once flourishing Colonies as only gold and
silver could be used and of course it could only be provided by the English bankers.
Thus began the plague of debt based money in the
colonies that had cursed the English working class. The first law was passed in 1751, and then a harsher law was
passed in 1763. Franklin claimed that within one year, the colonies were filled with unemployment and beggars,
just like in England, because there was not enough money to pay for the goods and work. The money supply had now
been limited to about half of what it was. We most always remember when you limit anything to less than is needed,
you force some in need to be left out. And to repeat that is what limiting means.
Franklin, who was one of the chief architects of the American independence, wrote: “The Colonies would gladly have
borne the little tax on tea and other matters had it not been the poverty caused by the bad influence of the English
bankers on the Parliament, which has caused in the Colonies hatred of England and the Revolutionary War.” This
opinion was confirmed by great statesmen of his era:
"I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. Already they
have raised up a monied aristocracy that has set the government at defiance. The issuing power (of money) should
be taken away from the banks and restored to the people to whom it properly belongs." - Thomas Jefferson
History records that the money changers have used every form of abuse, intrigue, deceit, and violent means possible
to maintain their control over governments by controlling the money and its issuance. - James Madison
“Banks have done more injury to the religion, morality, tranquility, prosperity, and even wealth of the nation
than they can have done or ever will do good.” - John Adams
Peter Cooper, industrialist and statesman wrote:
“After Franklin gave explanations on the true cause of the prosperity of the Colonies, the Parliament exacted laws
forbidding the use of this money in the payment of taxes. This decision brought so many drawbacks and so much poverty
to the people that it was the main cause of the Revolution. The suppression of the Colonial money was a much more
important reason for the general uprising than the Tea and Stamp Act.” Our Founding Fathers knew that without financial
independence and sovereignty there could be no other lasting freedoms. Our freedoms and national sovereignty are
being lost because most people do not understand our money system.
Since the Constitution gives Congress the power to create wealth (money) and regulate the amount of it, why does
our governmental leaders choose to let the banks do this, and then borrow it from them at interest? Is that logical
to you? To whom does it seem logical or reasonable to keep trying the failure proven methods of the past to solve
our problems? Especially when those methods didn't work then, and are not working now. Nor is it logical for anyone
with common sense to reason that they will somehow work in the future. Instead of continuing to use Neganomics
that do not work, shouldn't logic, reason, and common sense tell us to search for something new, or at the very
least return to Posinomic solutions that did work? If a lie is repeated consistently enough, from people in authority
using the right amount of emotionality and rhetoric. The people will begin to have faith in those lies. Faith is
a belief that something is true, when logic, reason and common sense tell you it's not. Such is the case with the
playing up of the Republic and down playing of Democracy.
ROLE OF GOVERNMENT TOC
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all
men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these
are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among
Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes
destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government,
laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely
to effect their Safety and Happiness.
The above can be found in the US Declaration of
Independence and it is a summation of what I believe is the legitimate role of our government and what it means
to be an American. Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed
to secure the rights of Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. What is the legitimate object of government
anyway? Is it to decide that due to a lack of money it will provide for the needs of just some of the people, or
is it to insure that it provides for the needs of all of the people? Since our Government not only creates political
laws, but also creates the economic laws for the people to follow, under an equality of law, shouldn't the government
insure that all its people have equal opportunity to have their needs met? Shouldn't these economic laws include
an ability to afford food, clothing, shelter, healthcare, education and all the rest of their needs? The rest of
their needs ... not their desires. One's desires should be obtained by proper contribution to the laws of supply
and demand in a FREE economy. Also when this is not so, is it then not only the right but the obligation of the
people to alter or abolish it? Do you agree?
THE PING PONG
we are ever to truly be a government of the people, by the people and for the people, we must evolve from a Representative
Republic to a Democratic Republic. For those who may be doubtful as to whether or not this is wise, all you need
to do to dispel those doubts is to use your logic, reason and common senses. The answer will come to you by asking
yourself one simple question. That question is who is the best person to vote on the laws that effect you? Is it
some dictator or king, a small group of people, or you?
it seems to me that one man's logic is another man's insanity. Is it your logic to allow people to go hungry in
a country abundant with food? Does allowing health care and education to be priced out of the range of the average
American seem logical to you? Is it logical to you to allow the things that we can produce to not be produced because
of some arbitrary non-working philosophies? Are these things logical to you? If they are not, my question to you
is this. What are you going to do about it? Are you going to remain content and continue to do nothing about it?
Will you continue to have faith in a system that rejects logic, reason and common sense, or will you join with
me in achieving my incredible dream? That dream is to unite Americans to give up the labels that divide us, to
stop the insanity, and to join together to make the logical changes to obtain the things we need and want and know
we can achieve.
the founding of America, two major political philosophies have been ping-ponging power back and forth without any
major problems being solved. We still struggle with escalating crime, unemployment, high taxes, poverty, the homeless,
hunger, and the devastation of war. We even have some things our founding fathers did not have, such as an economic
debt in the trillions of dollars. Is it possible for us to use our God given gifts of logic, reason and common
sense to create a new set of economic laws to follow, or are we somehow mysteriously bound to using outdated methods
and economic policies that defy logic, reason, and common sense?
Should we blindly continue to follow an economic
formula developed in the 18th century? A century without the radio, the TV, the computer, the phone, the Internet
and all the other technological marvels of today. Personally, I don't think so. I think we should objectively analyze
the effects of those economic policies as they impact us today? Don't you agree? If so, then just what is it that
stops us from starting anew, and bringing our economic policy in line with our technological advances?
If surveyed it is my belief that the majority of
the American people hold that as good as we have it here in this country, things can and should be much better.
What would you say? There is, or there is not any room for improvement? If you say there is room for improvement!
The next question is this. How do we make these improvements? For some reason we have been unable to create real
significant change. We still have poverty, crime, burdensome taxes, increasing inflation, a national debt, unemployment
and go to war. With the exception of technological advances that have made everyone's life better, there has been
no real significant and lasting changes in our economics or politics.
It also hasn't mattered who's in charge. We have
had the Liberals, Republicans, Democrats, and Conservatives in charge, and it seems that neither the party nor
the philosophy seems to matter. We still get the rich getting richer, the poor increasing in numbers and the middle
class bearing the tax burden. Could that be because they all follow the same economic formulas that have not worked
in the past over and over and over again? Economic policies that are designed at best to only provide a temporary
shift in benefits from one segment of the country to the other, but never lasting significant benefits to all.
Since this is true, and undeniably so. How does it make any sense to continue to do things the same way in the
future, if they have not worked in the past, regardless of what political party or philosophy is in charge?
OR DEMOCRACY TOC
You will hear those who claim that the reason for
the US being a Republic and not being a Democracy is because the founding fathers thought ill of Democracy, and
to some degree this is true. Times in the 1700's were not the same as they are today. Back then if you were black,
a woman, or even someone who was not a land owner, you were denied the right to vote. So to foster Democracy was
not a viable option to propose if you wanted to unite the colonies. Then there was the communication technology
of the times. Without the radio, TV or Internet it was virtually impossible for the people to get to know the candidates
for federal office. So it was reasoned a Republican form of government that placed its faith in local electors
was the prudent thing to create, and it was for 1776, but not so for today. Our founding fathers did not create
a document that was set it stone, instead they created a living breathing document that was subject to change with
the times. So to insist things remain the same does not honor our fore-fathers it betrays them. desires.
Americans truly love Democracy, which undoubtedly they do, then why do we fear becoming a nation that is truly
Democratic? Why? It is because those
few who are in power do not want to be subjected to the will of the people. Those against Democracy compare a Constitutional
Republic to an impure Democracy. What should be compared are apples to apples. The opponents of Democracy have
distorted the tenants of Democracy to explain it to their own gain. They will tell you that Democracy is bad because
it is mob rule and that the majority will always take from the minority, but of course this is not the case for
a Constitutional Democracy. Incidentally a tenant of Democracy guarantees not only the rights of the majority but
it also guarantees those of the minority as well. It even allows for the minority to become the majority by lawful
Those against Democracy argue that a good speaker
may sway the people. Their logic is that some 350,000,000 plus Americans can be fooled easier than 535 people.
The Representatives and Senators that make up our Congress, Representatives and Senators who more often than not
show their allegiance, not to the people that elected them, but to the corporations and the party that supports
them. Also since a simple majority of the Congress in most cases is all that is needed to pass and enact laws,
the real number of people ruling this country is less than 300, 350 if you want to override a presidential veto.
How in the world does someone argue that it easier to sway 350,000,000 plus Americans than it is to sway 350 people?
Are we really that stupid? I don't think so. All that becoming a Democratic Republic does is give all the people
the right and opportunity to vote on all the issues that affect them. So the question is this. Which do you prefer?
A Representative Republican form of government where a small number of people who can and are being influenced
and bought to decide what's best for you, or a Democratic Republic which allows you to decide what's best for you?
The real wisdom of the founding fathers and true beauty of the Constitution is that it allows itself to be amended
and Amend it we must.
When comparing a Republic to Democracy, we need
to either compare a Representative Republic which is an Oligarchy (rule by the few) to a Democratic Republic (rule
by the many) or we must compare a Constitutional Republic to a Constitutional Democracy. You see it is the Constitution
which is rule by law that is the important part. In a Republic only a few people get to vote on the laws to be
enacted. The people do get to vote, but not for or against a law, instead they get to vote for a person who will
vote on the laws and maybe, or maybe not, as they promised.
In a Democracy the people get to actually vote
for or against the laws. In the United States laws like the Patriot Act, and allowing the ruling few to shut down
the government, if they so desire, were never debated and brought to the people. Laws like taking away precious
freedoms guaranteed in the Constitution. Laws like the Federal Reserve Act and Income Tax Amendment and police
action like the wars in the Middle East. Laws that would have never been passed in a Democracy. With the technology
of today and that which is right around the corner, we can easily institute a true Constitutional Democracy. We
have had rule, as a Republic for many years, how is that working out? How well do you feel represented? If the
people are to ever have the power to rule and to achieve the economic and political goals that we truly desire,
we must first achieve a Constitutional Democracy and the sooner we do it the better. This truth is self-evident.
IDOES YOUR VOTE REALLY COUNT? TOC
There were many reasons for the American Revolution.
We all are aware of the Colonist fight against taxes. With slogans such as "taxation without representation
is tyranny", the birth of a new nation began. What then could be said of those political leaders who get themselves
elected with the promise of lower taxes or even no new taxes?
Since taxes virtually always increase, are these
politicians simply guilty of lying or are they guilty of tyranny? How can we have a representative government if
the representatives refuse to represent? This for me is the major flaw of our Republic today and the main reason
for the brainwashing of Americans to believe it is good. How do we practice being represented without giving to
each of us not only a vote, but also a vote that counts?
We are all taught in school about the Boston Tea party, however, how many of us know what Benjamin Franklin cited
as the prime cause of the Revolution? According to Benjamin Franklin, "The refusal of King George to allow
the colonies to operate an honest monetary system, which freed the common man from the clutches of the money manipulators
was probably the prime cause of the Revolution." Isn't it curious that this is not taught in our schools,
can you wonder why?
Democracy, what a novel idea! An idea based on the premise, that all men are created equal and therefore are entitled
to an equal say in the decisions that affect them. Democracy, a belief in majority rule with guaranteed rights
to the minority, an ideal that applauds the fundamental dignity and worth of each individual. Democracy that always
alluded to but never truly practiced philosophy.
To create a government based upon democratic principles, our forefathers risked their fortunes, and their lives.
They challenged and defeated the greatest power of their day. They literally changed the world. Once again in the
course of human events, we find ourselves in a revolting situation. However, what we need to do today is not revolt,
but EVOLVE. If we look at early America, we will find that Democracy was much closer to being practiced than the
so-called Democracy practiced in America today.
||It should be easy to understand that we can never
be truly represented on all matters that concern us by using limited representation. How long do we need to be
trapped in the 18th century? How have the problems of poverty, unemployment, taxes, and crime improved since then?
How well do you feel represented? All that becoming a Democracy does is insure that our representatives must vote
as per the wishes of their constituents and not a political party, lobbyists or their own desires. In early America
problems and answers were brought to town meetings where the people made their wishes known and then their elected representative then went to Washington and literally voted as per the wishes
of the town. In effect, each person's wishes or vote was counted. Democracy flourished. Now we can do it via the Internet, radio or TV to discover the people's
real feelings on each matter and then have our representatives officially vote the will of their constituents. Today we
elect officials based upon their promise to do something, which more often than not this promise is not upheld.
We also vote not to re-elect a representative based upon how they voted in the past. To me this seems like closing
the barn after all the animals have run away. To continue to do this does not honor our forefathers it mocks them.
To truly honor our forefathers, we must finish the work they had begun. What was that? To create a government that
held the rights of the individual to be self-evident and one which derived its just powers from the governed.
Today our Congress seems more concerned with spending money and putting Americans lives at stake in some foreign
country, than they are interested in putting money into healthcare and education here at home. Do you believe the
majority of Americans agrees with spending money abroad over spending money at home, or giving FREE healthcare
and other services to illegal aliens or that they would vote for such a thing! So then what is the logical conclusion.
It's all about the money! Who benefits the most from remaining a Republic even though we can be a Democracy and
have majority rule? I believe its the very rich and the bankers, but what about you. Who do you think? Is it the
people? Today we can practice true Democracy, and only a true Democracy can be of, by, and for the people. Of this
you can be certain, when the few make the laws. They will not care about what will benefit the minority, or about
what benefits the majority of the people. They will only care about what benefits them.
The real problem of a representative government is that no one but you can truly represent you on all the issues.
Only you can do that. To clarify, let us assume the following
Candidate A Is For
Candidate B Is For
The People Are For
95% No taxes
No Free Healthcare
90% Free Healthcare
Given the issues are of equal importance Candidate B is most likely to be elected, but when it comes to voting
on the issue of FREE Healthcare he is going to vote not only against your wishes but also against the wishes of
90% of the people. Do you see the problem? We have had rule, as a Republic for many years, how is that working
out? How can the people have a meaningful say or a vote that counts, when those who get elected are no longer subjected
to the will of the people, nor vote how they said they would vote.
So I repeat, who is the best person to vote on the laws that effect you? Some dictator or king, a small group of
people, or you? Using the communication technology that we have today, it is now possible for all Americans to
be informed of the issues, debate the issues and vote on the issues faster than it took our founding fore-fathers
to get from where they lived to Washington
THE ILLOGICAL! TOC
When creating the laws of economics that we the
people must follow should they be illogical, unreasonable and defy common sense or should they be logical, reasonable
and make common sense? It never has ceased to amaze me that as smart and educated are the leaders of this country,
when it comes to the laws that they have create regarding our economic and politics, that logic, reason and common
sense seems to be something that is purposely avoided. To illustrate this point, here's what we say to our business
people with regards to creating goods and services in America today.
"Mr. Businessman to be successful in America,
you need to adhere to the following 5 Rules:
Rule# 1. Use the cheapest products that you can
to produce your goods and services.
Rule# 2. Employ the least amount of people that you can to do this.
Rule# 3. Pay those employed people the least that you can.
Rule# 4. Sell your goods and services for the most that you can and
Rule# 5. Hide as much of the profits that you can from the government.
Unfortunately like or not, these are the axioms
of the capitalist free market economy as developed in the 18th century. Is there any wonder why people dislike
Capitalism? Do you really believe that this is the best way to produce goods and services for the betterment of
all the people. Here is my dilemma. Are doing things that are illogical, defy reason and common sense "A Better
Way? Now don't get me wrong, I am not against the fundamentals of for profit motivation and a free economy, just
the contrary. What I believe we need is a new and improved system of economics, one that is in line with 21st century
issues and technology and one that finds solutions using logic, reason and common sense. With that in mind, I submit
Concerning Rule #1, if it is preferable for companies
to create quality products, how can the use of an economic formula that motivates them to create the cheapest product
possible be logical?
As for Rule #2, if full employment is our goal,
how can this be achieved by economic laws that motivate us to use the fewest amount of people possible.
Now as for Rule# 3. If we desire for the people
to achieve wealth and to have higher standard of living, how can this be achieved by economic laws that motivate
a businessman to pay his employees the least that he can? Also if people have more money to buy goods and services,
would that also not stimulate the businessman to create more goods and services?
As for Rule# 4, if we desire to make quality products
affordable to all, how do we logically conclude it is better to use economic rules that motivate companies to make
more by selling to the public for the most they can as opposed to making it more profitable for companies to sell
their goods and services for the least that they can? Can we do that? Of course we can! We now have the technology
to make it easy to do. Technology not available to Adam Smith and Marx when they were developing their writings.
As for Rule# 5, how do we argue that it is logical
to include an income or sales tax when creating economic rules for creating profit and wealth? Taxes limit or burden.
That is what they are by definition
Let's pretend for a moment that on the ballot are
submitted for your approval the 2 sets of rules below. Which seems more logical to you?
Present Set of
Rule# 1 Continue to use Neganomic
policies that motivate a business to create the cheapest products they can.
Rule# 2 Continue to use Neganomic
policies that motivate a business to hire the fewest people that they can.
Rule# 3 Continue to use Neganomic
policies that motivate a business to pay employees the least that they can.
Rule# 4 Continue to use Neganomic
policies that motivate a business to sell at highest price that they can and
Rule# 5 Continue to use Neganomic
policies that motivate businesses to show the least they can, if they don't the government will take away as much
as it can.
Optinomic Set of
Rule# 1 Create Posinomic policies
that motivate a business to create the best products that they can.
Rule# 2 Create Posinomic policies
that motivate a business to hire the most people that they can.
Rule# 3 Create Posinomic policies
that motivate a business to pay employees the most that they can.
Rule# 4 Create Posinomic policies
that motivate a business to sell at lowest price that they can and
Rule# 5 Create Posinomic policies
that motivate our businessmen to show as much business as they can because the government will reward them as much
as it can.
Can we really motivate business in this manner? Yes we can and as we continue we will discuss in length new programs
we can quickly create and implement to achieve the Optinomic Set of Rules outlined above.
We all know our policies are not working or at the very least are not working for all. However, before we attempt
to fix something, we should understand how it works and why it is broken.
To do this, we must understand certain principles such as cause, effect and motivation. It is also important to
use our powers of observation. Once it is understood that the cure is the cause, and that the economic laws that
we use today to solve our problems are also what causes them. It then becomes very easy to understand why we have
the illogical problems that face us today.
It is this new understanding that brings us to our first decision? Should we remain a nation that insists we continue
to follow failure proven Neganomic (negative resulting for the majority) policies of the past, or do we develop
new Posinomic (positive resulting for all) policies for the future? What do you think? Should we? I think we should.
This takes us to this next question. Is it really possible to create such Posinomic policies, or are they beyond
our capability too difficult to achieve? When compared to the rest of the technology we have created, this should
be a simple task. All we need to do to create them is to use our logic, reason and common sense.
Economic policies are not God given. They are created and followed by man. As such they can be voted in, they can
be voted out, and they can produce any number of results. To better understand the results we are getting. We must
first let us look at the choices we are making.
One of our choices has been to produce nothing, as is the case with our present unemployment and most of our public
assistance programs. If the main law of our economic formula is to create a supply to be greater than the demand!
Logic dictates we need all who can be productive to be productive.
Another policy we could choose to follow is one that creates an inadequate supply. Such a policy would create for
example, 50 cars for 100 people. It should be easy to see that no matter how hard we try all 100 people cannot
have one car each. If the example was 50 meals, or 50 jobs for 100 people, a policy of inadequate supply is easily
seen as undesirable and something that we must change, right?
THE LEMONS! TOC
O.K I think by now you get it. The Cure is the
Cause we need to do things differently, but where do we begin? Are there some elements in our formula that are
undesirable? Are there certain economic principles that have been going on for thousands of years or more? The
same certain principles we still use today? Some common denominators that may be responsible for the economic woes
we face. Yes there are, however this now leaves us with some good news and some bad news. The bad new is mankind
is a creature of habit and usually resists or is slow to change. The good news is mankind is also a being endowed
with logic, reason and common sense.
Using our logic, reason, common sense and powers
of observation, are there some historical references to things from which we can draw some conclusions? My observation
goes as far back as the history of Rome? We know that there were coins with Caesar's inscription (limited currency).
We also know that Joseph and Mary went to Bethlehem to pay their taxes. This leaves two distinct common economic
denominators that have existed for at least 2,000 years and one very big one that is only about 400 years old ...
the national bank and fractional reserves. Can you add to this list? If so please email email@example.com
Let us now examine the effects of these common denominators, or what I like to call the lemons in the cherry pie
of prosperity. For this it seems is the problem. We keep trying to produce a cherry pie of prosperity by using
not cherries, but lemons as our main ingredient. Obviously as long as we continue to use lemons as our main ingredient,
the best we can hope to bake is a lemon pie with some cherry flavoring, but never a real cherry pie.
If the simple limiting of money in circulation
is all that is needed, we can simply and easily pass a law that will do that, but it's not. That's not what we
need. What we need to do is to control the quantity of money in circulation and to insure we distribute it to those
in need, and this is something we can never know, as long as our money supply is limited to individuals who are
determined to be credit worthy by the bank. Those people who do not meet bank standards will not only be denied
their desires, they could also be denied the necessities of life as well. Necessities such as food, clothing and
shelter. Ponder this, during the panic of 1907 and the great depression were we on the gold standard? Was there
ever a time that we were on the gold standard that we did not have a substantial amount of the population in poverty,
inflation and high taxes?
Obviously the gold standard has nothing to due
with these things as far as being a cure for their cause. Since by its very nature there is not enough gold to
go around to meet the needs of all the people, we should stop wasting our time on re-trying something that did
not work in the past. Instead we should begin to look for a new and real solution to the monetary system that would
best serve the needs of all the people. Also, when referring to good times when we were on the gold standard. No
one ever seems to take into account any other factors. Factors like the Gold Rush, the industrial revolution and
the increase in immigration providing for cheap labor. A factor that causes the lose of American jobs. Does being
on a gold standard prevent this?
Economics needs to be thought about using our logic,
reason and common sense. Since things are not working, logic dictates that if not all, that at the very least some
of our economic formulas and ideas we accept today as right, must be wrong. What we need is a monetary formula
that allows for us to control the quantity of money in circulation and to whom it will be distributed as this will
allow not just some us, but for all of us, to have as much money as we need or even just desire. Any money supply
such as one that is backed by gold or anything else that will limit it, will by its very nature prevent the people
who need money the most an ability to get it. If something was used in the past and it did not work. Is it logical
to return to it? Of course not. So is it logical to return to a limiting gold standard? I think not, what do you
AND THE SECOND LEMON ... TAXES TOC
When talking about economic formula used to produce
goods and service, we must always consider the effects of inflation. To understand the effects of anything we must
always look to what causes it. There are only two real causes for inflation. They are increased demand and limited
Since money is presently being used as the motivating
factor for the production of goods and services, the use of a limited money supply can only result in limiting
the production of goods and services. When this is done we cause the demand to become higher than the supply and
inflation is created. This also allows only some of the people to obtain the produced product or service by making
it impossible for others to obtain them. Again with old world economics this is purposely done to drive the price
up to make it more profitable so that the goods or service provider has motivation to create them.
There also appears to some to be two types of inflation.
The first type of inflation is caused by a lack of money and there-fore prevents the supply from being created
to meet the needs of the people. Another reason some believe is that inflation is caused when too much money is
in supply. Let me ask you this. Who is that would want you to believe that too much money and not a lack of money
is a bad thing? Who benefits from a shortage of money? Bankers benefit from a shortage of money because they are
the ones who get to produce the new money needed out of thin air and then to also collect interest? Also if there
is too much money in circulation will there be a more or less likely a need for people to borrow in the first place.
Personally I don't buy into the theory that just
because people have money they are willing to pay more. I believe they are more willing to buy more. Also in a
competitive fair market economy, if a merchant is inflating their prices, if there is sufficient money in the economy,
competition will be created and the price of an item will come down. Also inflation of this type caused by too
much money in circulation really doesn't matter, because having sufficient money to buy the things you need or
want at a higher price is better than not having money to buy items you can't at a lower price.
While there may be several reasons for an increase
in demand such as an increase in population or a rise in the general population's income, the most recurring cause
of inflation is increased costs. If the government in need of money to provide for the common good decides to raise
that money by means of taxation. Upon paying that tax, you must some how now replace that money, if you are to
maintain your own standard of living. You have three ways to do this:
One: You could personally work harder and longer
or you can have your family join the job market. That's what's happening today. However in a limited job market,
when families are forced to work harder. Other families are denied an ability to work at all. While it may be easy
to blame people, rather than blame our economics for this. In a limited supply economy where jobs are limited.
Whenever he is given a choice, an employer won't always choose the better worker. He will more likely than not
choose the cheaper worker. Unfortunately, because we are human beings who are not all created physically and mentally
equal. Human beings, who get sick, grow older and weaker, whether we choose to or not. There is no way we can forever
be that best worker, nor keep that competitive edge. Add to this the fact that an older worker is more likely than
not to also have more expenses like children, a mortgage, and healthcare then a younger person might have. He simply
cannot work for the same wages that the younger person can.
||Unfortunately people, who cannot work are still part
of the demand side of the equation. Through no fault of their own, they are not part of the supply side. You may
delude yourself into thinking that those who are unemployed, don't want to work. This however, denies the real
problem, which is our present limited supply economics! If you are unemployed perhaps you once thought this too!
Do you still feel the same?
Think about it. If everybody who supposedly doesn't want to work was to wake tomorrow and look for a job, where
are the jobs? What we are talking about here are real jobs and not minimum wage ones. Just how many of us would
be happy or even able to pay our bills on a job that paid minimum wage? Imagine if we could make it a requirement
of the Congress to live on minimum wage and without health insurance for their term of office. How fast do you
think things would change then?
Thus unable to get tax money from these unemployed people, and lacking the funds to create more jobs, coupled with
the need to take care of an ever increasing population and expenses like war and disasters, the government must
once again look to the working person for more money and institute yet another tax increase.
Two: An alternate way to replacing the needed money would be to cut back on buying certain goods and services.
Many Americans are now also forced to do this. However, this too results in putting people out of work. If a company
can't make a profit because they can't sell the products they have on the shelf, that company certainly won't employ
people to produce more goods and services they can't sell. This causes employers to cutback. Also going without
what you once could afford, immediately lowers your standard of living.
Three: The third way you could make up that missing money is to ask for a raise. We all know what happens when
this is done. That raise is passed along to the consumer and again there is inflation. Also each time there is
increased costs. Not only do we pay a higher price for goods and services, which cut into our wealth and make the
dollar less valuable. This increase in costs also causes the government, which was paying less for an item, to
now pay a higher price for it.
The government now in need, once again, of more money. Where does it go for the money? It goes back to the working
person who now must give up more of his money. How does he do that? He has three ways, he can work harder and longer
and ... do you get the picture?
As if this is not bad enough, it gets worse. Whenever there is an increase in costs, the selling price almost always
goes beyond the actual increase. For example, if it costs $1.00 to produce something, and a businessman determines
he wants a 25% return on his investment, the selling price would be $1.25.
For the purpose of simple analogy what happens
when through taxation, we add an additional dollar to that cost? Two factors come into play. First, does that businessman
keep the same markup with more capital at risk? That is highly unlikely. However, even if he does, 25% of $2.00
(the new cost to produce) is $2.50, not $2.25. Once this is understood, the choice becomes simple. We must either
amend or repeal the income tax amendment, or experience never-ending inflation.
Now let's see if you understand the problem! What
will happen if we do not amend or repeal the income tax amendment? Since what we all want is to be as wealthy as
we so desire, and for some that means unlimited wealth. Our new economic formula cannot include either an income
tax or sales tax. Wealth should never be curtailed, as this is counterproductive. If this is so, then how can wealth
be logically taxed? Taxes burden, slow down, limit. That is the nature of a tax. How can we achieve unlimited wealth,
if we use policies that limit it? We can't, because that's what taxing and limiting means!
What really boggles my mind is that even though
it is so easy to see that taxes are the cause, and not the cure of our economic woes. We insist upon not only keeping
them, but we also allow them to continually rise. Why is it that we have repealed prohibition but cannot seem to
repeal the Income Tax Amendment even though the reason for its creation is no longer an issue. What makes matter
worse is that there is now undeniable proof that the 16th Amendment was accepted as law as a result of fraud and
in direct violation of the Constitution. With that in mind one would think that the Supreme Court would strike
the law as unconstitutional! Where's our system of checks and balances?
To understand why this amendment was needed, you should first know that before 1913 there was no income tax in
America. Well that's not entirely true. President Lincoln did tax income to fund the Civil War. He also issued
more paper money for the same purpose. However generally speaking before 1913 there was no Income Tax.
This means from 1776 to 1913 the government supported itself and provided for goods and services without the help
of an income tax. That means for 137 years our nation survived without the need for the 16th Amendment. It was
also during this time that we experienced one the greatest growth and eras of prosperity in our nation's history.
This was prompted by the gold rush and industrial revolution that saw our money supply dramatically increase. That's
one and half times as long without an income tax than as with it.
However, to truly understand the reasons for creating
the income tax we must take a good look at the history of the world in 1913. What was going in 1913 was there was
a war in Europe and the world was on the Gold Standard. The allies having used their own limited supply of gold
and silver for their war effort were now in need of the gold and silver in our treasury to continue that war effort.
since being on the Gold Standard meant that all our gold was backing our paper money in circulation. There was
no gold available to give to our European allies. At this same time America was also changing from an agricultural
nation to an industrialized one. Now here is where the laws of limited supply come into play. The paper in circulation
was limited to the gold and silver on reserve. The gold and silver was limited to what could be mined or received
from another country through trade.
we know that limiting leaves out. What began to happen was the paper money previously used to buy agricultural
products was now being used to buy the products being produced by the factories. This caused a problem for the
farmer who was now receiving less of the limited monetary supply. This also caused the price of food to rise and
with it good old circular inflation. When the cost of food rises, since it is a basic need of life, everyone needs
more money to meet this need. Naturally what follows is for wages to go higher. When that happens, we see a rise
in the cost of all goods and services. At this time the farmer was still a very large and influential political
group, so the politicians of the day were very sympathetic to their problems.
What takes place next is nothing more than good old American ingenuity. In steps the Income Amendment to the rescue.
By allowing the government to tax the income of the people and thereby force them to give some of the paper in
circulation back to the government , the government was able to kill two birds with one stone.
paper in the treasury could now allow the government to use that paper money to subsidize the farmer. They could
also use the gold backing that paper to help the allies war effort, When the war ended. Though it would have been
prudent to now repeal the Income Tax Amendment as it was no longer needed. It was just too easy a way to raise
funds for whatever the politicians desired to do.
What I find very strange is that every time we
go to war our economic policies of limitation seem to go out the window. If remaining on a limited money supply
did not prevent our country from using its human and natural resources to produce the good and services needed
to win a war? Why does it always go off such policies to do so?
What I also find very strange and illogical is
any need for creating such things as war bonds or any other financial instrument to produce money. Once again why
are we borrowing? From whom are we borrowing and where is the lender getting the money to give to us?
If money is nothing more than a median of exchange
to facilitate the production of goods and services, and if what makes a nation sovereign is the ability to create
that median of exchange? Why are so many countries in debt to the detriment of their people? Also why do they keep
insisting upon continuing to produce that median of exchange through a banking system, rather than simply producing
their money on their own? If a country were to have goods and services valued by other countries, their money would
be desired. If they didn't it would not. So once again I ask the question why do sovereign nations borrow from
banks their own money and then not only give that money back to the banks but add interest to it too!
Now a logical mind that can reason and use its
common sense would have to ask itself, why do we do this? Who benefits from doing this? Certainly not the people
who must bear the increased taxes that are needed to pay not only the interest on this non-loan, they also must
pay back the loan itself. Neither does their burden stop there! They also must now deal with the inflation that
is caused by business and government's need to pay for this increase in costs caused by the increase in taxes.
Talking about insanity, what is this all about anyway?
Since it only takes about 350 people to enact the
laws that 350,000,000 plus Americans must follow, what do you think is the easier thing to do? Is it easier to
repeatedly influence 350 Congressmen and Senators with millions of dollars in campaign funds and other perks to
allow an illogical, unreasonable, non sensible procedure to continue, or is it easier to convince 350,000,000 plus
Americans that they should pay taxes so the banks can create our money and select who should get it? I think that
is not just better, but much better to produce our own money and not have a need for taxes, or be confined to not
providing the people with the goods and services that they so sorely need. Allowing our Government to create our
money is the only right and proper thing to do! Who believes that our money should be created by another and not
us? I just can't wait to hear the illogic that pops up to defend our present system.
Think about it! Because of the technology of today
and with perhaps the exception of an inflation or discourage tax, we really have no need for any taxes at all.
Instead the government could simply authorize the US treasury with sufficient money to fund all of its programs.
Money for programs such as homeland security, and national defense, including armor not for just some, but for
all of our servicemen and women. Programs such a job assurance (not unemployment insurance), Social Security, Medicare,
Medicaid, education, and all the needs of the elderly and the poor.
As stated in the Constitution the Congress has
the authority to coin money and regulate the quantity thereof. When developing new economic formulas to use, one
of the most important aspects will be how we control the quantity of money. Without controls inflation, which in
essence is just a hidden tax on our money, would put us right back where we are today! Well not exactly that far
back! It would really be hard using logic, reason and common sense to voluntarily create the system of economics
we have today.
To prevent this, an inflation tax would be a way
that the government could fight indiscriminate increases in prices by unscrupulous businesses. A discourage tax
could also achieve the same goal on an individual basis as well allow the government to discourage what the people
may hold to be unhealthy or unsafe. For example to discourage the use of alcohol and cigarettes, a tax may be imposed.
Also, if it is true that, if businesses were to
have more money that they would create more jobs. Can you image how many new jobs will be created due to the fact
that the rich will now not only not have to pay any individual taxes, but they will also not have to pay any withholding
taxes, or medical benefits too!
||It is also true that by giving money to the 99% of
the people at the bottom and thus allowing them an ability to buy the products being produced. What logically must
follow is the creation of new jobs and even more wealth to the 1% at the top as proven by the trickle up theory.
Someone could only imagine life in America with all of these jobs competing for workers. Plus not only jobs and
job security will be created but also with this new found income by all Americans, the standard of living for all
Americans is sure to increase dramatically too.
We all are familiar with the exchanging of goods and services without paper money by using debit and credit cards.
Since it is the use of paper money which limits an ability of some to have what it takes to buy the necessities
of life such as food, clothing and shelter. This inability of paper money which is unable to be had by those who
need it the most is a direct results of our present banking laws as enumerated in the Federal Reserve Act of 1913.
An act that allows bankers to create currency and credits out of thin air just typing credits into an account and
then ask the borrower which includes our government to not only pay back the loan, but to also do it with interest.
Why is that we allow the banks to do this but we do not allow the government do the same thing.?
Since bankers developed this system to facilitate trade and a median of exchange to whose benefit does your logic,
reason and common sense tell you they developed this system? Did they develop it out of the goodness of their heart
for all the people? I don't think so, do you? Of course not, they developed it for their own gain. If not why did
the top bankers of the day meet in secret and sneak the Federal Reserve Act through when most Congressman were
away on Christmas leave? Isn't also curious that the Income Tax Amendment was passed in the same year allowing
the government to raise the money to pay the interest on the money it was borrowing?
Are you really convinced that banks and not the government are somehow better able to develop a system of economics
for solutions to the problems of today? Especially when these systems were developed by people over 100 hundred
years ago lacking the education, problems, experience and technology of today. Our founding fathers didn't think
so. That is why they created a Constitution that took away that power from the banks and gave it to the government.
The history of mankind has been one of conflict between the people and the banks.
Please keep it in mind that if the government was allowed to directly deposit the credits it needs to where it
is needed, there would be no need to get money from the people in the form of taxes? Which do you believe to be
the better economic system? One that allows banks to create money out of thin air and lend it to our government
and thus have a need for taxing the people, or is it one that allows the government to create money out of thin
air and thus have no need for taxes?
So whether you believe in the trickle up theory or the trickle down theory. Because it is the right and beneficial
thing for all of us to do. We must come together and demand that our Congress must not only exercise its authority
to coin money (create wealth) and regulate the quantify thereof, but we also must remind our representatives that
in taking an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States that they have the obligation for
the benefit of all the people to do so.
REALLY ALL ABOUT? TOC
What's it really all about? It's all about solutions
to the problems of people and a representative government designed over two hundred years ago and about a system
of economics designed over 300 years ago. It is also all about a system of banking created 100 years ago.
If you really want to learn more about money, banking
and how the wealth of this nation is created and distributed, "No More National Debt" by Bill Still makes
for perfect reading. Only by educating the American voter can we ever hope to change the things that need to be
What's it really all about? It's all about people
not going hungry and living on the streets and in poverty, so that others may live in lavish luxury.
What's it really all about? It's about children
not being properly educated not because we don't have the technology and tools today to educate them better than
any era before, but because we can't due to a lack of money that we can create!
What's it really all about? It's all about whether
we have respect for the elderly and refuse to allow them to choose between their meds and food!
What's it really all about? It's all about sending
our loved ones to fight in wars abroad so that some may profit as our brave military die believing false pretense
What's it really all about? It's all about the
Constitution and American freedom that so many have made the supreme sacrifice to maintain being slowly and systematically
being taken away!
What's it really all about? It's all about a representative
government and representatives who will not, cannot and refuse to represent the people.
What's it really all about? It's all about a system
of economics that only allows some to have or have more by causing others to have less or not at all!
What's it really all about? It's all about conquering
us by dividing us into states of blue and red instead of uniting us into states of red, white and blue.
What's it all about? It's all about whether or
not we are going to do something about it, or are we going to continue on blind faith and forego using our logic,
reason, and common sense? Make no doubt about it, there is no greater threat to our security and way of life than
ignorance and tolerance.
What's it really all about? It's all about you!
Will you keep your label that divides us even though it hasn't mattered who's in charge, or will we come together
as one voice and vote for change, real change. A change from doing what's right for some to doing what's right
What's it really all about? It's all about the
16th Amendment, the Federal Reserve System, and whether or not we will ever be a government that is truly of the
people, by the people and for the people!
What do you think would happen, if we did amend
or repeal the income tax amendment? First of all the government would need to change the system that funds its
programs, and that would be a good thing. The time for change is now. We need a new way not to redistribute the
wealth but to create and distribute the wealth of America in a new way.
Here's a thought! What if instead of using a complicated
banking system to put money into circulation? What if the government simply paid the army, navy, air force, marines
all federal employees and all of its programs. What if those programs included all those in need such as the ill,
the elderly, the costs of education and the costs of health-care. The people receiving this money being in need
of goods and services would go to the merchants and make their purchases. If more money was needed in circulation,
we could increase federal payments or create new worthwhile government projects.
An alternate way of adding more money into the economy could be by way of an income bonus. This bonus could be
given to our merchants if they hired more people or lowered the price of their goods and services. If too much
money was deemed in circulation, we could institute an inflation tax.
At least then we would be using taxes in a proper
way. That is to limit. This certainly makes more sense to me than the raising and the lowering of an interest rate
by a person not even voted into office. Does any of this make sense to you? Because I am Optinomic I am convinced
that there are many different ways we could use to create and distribute the wealth of America in "A Better
However, before any economic reform can be created,
we must first proactively seek it out. If you want a real economic stimulus, a good place to start would be to
repeal the Income Tax Amendment. Practically speaking, what do you think would happen if people were to have more
money? The amount presently paid in income taxes. It would be like the gold rush and a transfusion of wealth into
There are only two things that we can do with money and they are to either spend it now, or save it and spend it
later. If we spend it now, what would happen? Money spent now would create the "trickle up" effect. When
there are no more products or services for the American businessman to sell, if he believes he will make a profit,
the American businessman will create more goods and services. He'll do this without a single tax incentive from
||I believe making a profit is the only incentive any
businessman needs. Besides, why put the money in the hands of somebody "up there" and wait for it to
trickle down here. When down here is where you really want it in the first place? It would appear that for most
people the "trickle up" effect is better than a trickle down one.
If the people were to save the money instead of spending it, the banks would then have more money to lend. Borrowed
money is seldom if ever saved. It almost always buys something, and that can create both the trickle up and the
trickle down effect. If we had no taxes at all on our dollar, we would have nothing limiting or burdening it. We
would have a true dollar.
Adam Smith in his book "Wealth of a Nation" talks about an invisible hand that will create prices based
on the laws of supply and demand. However left out and not considered by Adam Smith are the demands of the people
without the means to make needed purchases. So this makes that invisible hand assumption very flawed as it is based
on false demand and supply data. Also Adam Smith had no concerns about health issues caused by pollution or with
detriment to the environment. To allow that hand to be more accurate, it needs all the people to be part of the
equation and the consideration of the of the people toward environmental issues. Thus new 21st Capitalistic axioms
relevant to where we are today are needed.
Optinomic policy would not redistribute the wealth by stealing from those with, to give to those without. Instead
Optinomic policy would infuse the economy with needed money by laws that grant money directly to those without.
Doing this is not only good for those who don't have, it is also good for those who do have because it will not
only allow them to keep what they have, it will also allow them to earn more. However as you shall see later these
grants will not be given willy nilly but based upon one's contribution to the laws of supply and demand and by
the vote of the people.
Which is the proper recipe to bake an economic cherry pie for all? Is the proper recipe one that includes an ingredient
that only allows some to have, or have more by causing others to have less, or not at all, or should it be one
that uses an ingredient that allows some to have or have more without causing another to have less or not at all?
Should we continue to be unable to bake our cherry pie because we keep using the ingredient of taxes that limit
one's wealth and perpetuate inflation, or should we eliminate such an ingredient from our recipe? Should we continue
to be unable to bake our cherry pie because we keep using the ingredient of limited distribution that prevents
available resources from reaching the people, such as an abundance of food from being able to reach the hungry?
I don't think so, what do you think? I think we should eliminate from our recipe any ingredient that stops an abundance
of food from feeding the hungry. Don't you agree? Should we use ingredients that allows our government to provide
for needs of its people, or should we to use ingredients that prevents it from doing so?
I believe to bake a real cherry pie of prosperity we need to do three simple things. First we must eliminate the
ingredients that make it impossible to create our cherry pie. Next we must add the ingredients that will bake that
cherry pie. Finally we must bake the ingredients using the proper recipe, and the proper recipe is Constitutional
Democracy and a FREE economy. What do you believe?
IF YOU COULD? TOC
The obvious question is this, are we abundant or
limited? There is no doubt that we are blessed to live in one of the most abundant nations on Earth. It is this
abundance however, that also confuses us. How is it possible to believe or understand a hunger problem in the United
States when we see stores full of food and we pay farmers not to grow? Who would not be confused as we see such
problems here in in America, knowing we are sending our food and our dollars overseas?
Did you know that there are statistics that show
one in four children in America are going to bed hungry? For this reason it is easy to see why so many logical
thinking people actually believe "they can do something, but they don't want to"? Now, let's just follow
that logic. Who is this "they", the mayor of what city, the governor of what state? What president would
not eradicate poverty if he could? After all, if he did, it would guarantee his place in history as our greatest
Don't you believe that's what they really want?
I am convinced that they would if they could and you should be too! However, they can't do it without you. So it
is up to you to decide as to whether or not those children are fed! It is not theirs but it's your choice, as to
whether or not we end poverty in the Unites States. It is up to you to decide whether or not we end the plight
of the homeless, reduce crime, end inflation, lower or eliminate taxes, provide money for the cure of cancer, aids
and all disease and all the other things wrong with the world today.
There is also this other thing. It all boils down to this! Either you vote for new economic laws to follow or it
is you and not them who can do something about it, but doesn't want to! Do you really believe that all politicians
past and present belong to a secret organization, where after meeting in some smoke filled room, they are told
how the country's problems can be solved, but then they all swear never to reveal it?
The problem appears to be this. We keep trying to bake a cherry pie, a pie of prosperity, but we keep using lemons
to do it. For some reason, we insist upon using the same old ineffective policies of the past even though we know,
they didn't work two thousand years ago, they didn't work yesterday, and they don't work today. Nor is there any
reason to believe that they will miraculously work in the future.
The easiest way to solve a hunger problem is to create a way that allows people to eat. Some way that will allow
them access to the food that's so abundant. The quickest and easiest way to end a homeless problem is to create
a way that allows the people access to the homes already so abundant or able to be built. Almost everywhere I go,
I see vacant buildings, apartments for rent, and houses for sale. There are construction workers out of work. We
also have plumbers, electricians, and carpenters who are in need of work. We see how fast we can put up a building.
We have what we need to eliminate poverty. Then why don't we? What is the reason for this mess?
The reason for this mess should now be abundantly
clear. We need to change our economic formula from one that is dependent upon limited monetary distribution, and
rule by the minority to one that makes use of an unlimited supply of monetary distribution and rule by the people.
Armed with these new laws of unlimited supply distribution and Constitutional Democracy, finding Optinomic solutions
to the real problems we face will become much easier.
What do you think? Are the solutions to our present
and future day problems more likely and more quickly to come from someone experiencing that problem, or from someone
who has not?
By calling on the minds of all Americans, the likelihood
that someone will have an idea that will end poverty forever is increased. Somewhere in America someone holds the
key to a better voting system, while still another will discover the cure for AIDS. There are those among us with
good ideas for reducing crime, and for better ways of reducing the debt. Somewhere among us is even the solution
that could end war forever. In this world of today with all of its communication technology, the most illiterate
people of today are more informed than the most literate of people in the past.
For this reason we should not judge books by their
cover, nor should we judge the capability of a person by his education or the position he holds. To find better
solutions quicker and more accurately, our recipe must always avail itself to the ideas of the people.
Are there solutions to our problems? I honestly
believe so and I bet you do too! At some time all of us have had ideas on how things could be done differently
... but what if you do have a good idea, new idea, or a better way? Where do you go with it? Who is ready to listen
to you? Who will give your idea a try? Can you give me the name of one governmental agency or official ready, willing
and able to help or even listen to your idea?
Is it right to expect that just because we elect
some people to office, our job is now done? Is it right to sit back and wait for them alone to find solutions?
We have been waiting for quite awhile. Maybe it's time for a change? We are a government of the people are we not?
Then why do we not act like one?
Imagine an end to hunger and homeless, a reduction
in crime, money for the research and the cure of all disease, FREE health care, FREE education and no more wars.
In America whether we opt for change or to keep things as they are, is our choice.
THE NEW WORLD
The New World Order is coming, the evidence is
all around us. But the real question for concern is not when it will occur, but how will it occur! Will it be by
the lies and decline of the Constitution from an oligarchy of of non representing representatives, who themselves
are ruled by an oligarchy of bankers and corporate CEO's, or are we going to bring forth an American Optinomic
Evolution of, by and truly for the people. Will it be by keep sending our sons and daughters to foreign shores
to be maimed or killed. Will we continue to see children both here and abroad dying of starvation and continue
to allow our loved ones suffer and die from unaffordable healthcare or will we use our logic, reason and common
sense to stop these things from happening?
Let me ask you this? How many of us wish to see
never ending inflation, the proliferation of crime and the use of recreational drugs to the detriment of its user
continue. For things to change we must act and we must act quickly to insure those blessings and liberties that
we cherish most do not perish. So the question to you is this. Are you going to continue to elect representatives
who continually refuse to represent? Who show no allegiance to you and who will say and do anything to get elected.
Do you remember "Read My Lips" No New Taxes only to be followed by new taxes? Do you remember "The
American People Will Have A Chance To Review A Bill Before It Goes To Legislation" How many bills have you
had the opportunity to review? Truth be told Congress in most cases haven't had the time to review legislation.
Who among us is happy with the breakdown of the
family and the absence of a parent being home to care for their children because both parents need to work just
to merely survive. I am also quite confident that we also do not wish to see our present day freedoms and liberties
taken away from us in the name homeland security. There is a concerted effort by an oligarchy of people who believe
that they and not the people have an unalienable right to determine the course of human events. Their best weapon
is ignorance and fear and control of the money. By instituting among us a fear that big brother is coming, they
are able to create themselves as our big brother. Rather than us being afraid of big brother it is of the utmost
of importance for us to create a new world order where big brother is afraid of us.
Let's review some policies we
follow today. Are these policies
positive (Posinomic) or negative (Neganomic) influences in our lives? Should they continue or is there a need for
change? It's your choice.
|First: Should we continue to allow hunger and homeless, or poverty in general to
exist, or is there need for change?
|Second: Has the quality of life increased to the best it can be, given our technological
advances or is there need for change?
|Third: Is the political process truthful, and the best it can be or is there need
|Fourth: Should we continue to use a method of taxation that burdens wealth and perpetuates
inflation or is there need for change?
|Fifth: Should we continue to follow economic policies that allow some to have more only by causing
others to have less or is there need for change?
|Sixth: Is your present and future as financially secure as you would like it to
be, or is there need for change?
|Seventh: Have the Health-Care and Educational systems in this country improved or
declined? Are they affordable and equally available to all or is there need for change?
|Eighth: Should we continue to be subjected to the unconstitutional Federal Reserve
and 16th Amendment, or is there a need to change them?
|Ninth: And last certainly not least, do we continue to be ruled by the minority
as a Representative Republic unable to truly voice our opinion on all the issues that affect us, or is there a
need to change?
We can either use our technology to make the changes
we need and desire, or we can continue to see our Constitution and our freedoms to erode and be violated. While
instituting Optinomics in a Republic such as ours would be a good thing, it is my belief that only in a Constitutional
Democracy could these Optinomic principles flourish to the best they can be. However, at least now, we no longer
need to feel hopeless. We no longer need to feel helpless. If you agree that there is a need for change, then you
must realize that actions speak louder than words. You must also understand that in unity there is strength, united
we can succeed and divided we will fail. You must act in order for things to change. To change or not to change,
to vote or not to vote, is there really a choice? Have you any other choices you believe we should consider? If
you do, please send them to firstname.lastname@example.org.
It should be now abundantly clear that we need a new system of unlimited money creation and distribution to achieve
a Posinomic solution for all, and that to keep using the Neganomic policy of a limited paper supply to create and
distribute the wealth of this nation needs to be changed. Is there something already in place that we can immediately
use that would replace it? Yes there is. It is also something very familiar to us and something we have been successfully
using for a long time. It is called a credit card. Credit cards use digital numbers that are unlimited. What is
the last number?
Here's something else to think about. It is also something that I believe should end all fears about bank failures
and possibly losing our money on deposit in a bank. If your money in the form of credits is already there in the
bank and guaranteed by the federal government, how could there ever be any runs on the bank? If a bank was to fail,
it would not be because they have misused or lost your credits in your account. It would simply be because of their
inability to make a profit. This would also be most likely due to competition or poor management. In that case
in a FREE market society that bank should fail. However, if they did fail, your credits would not be lost, they
would just be transferred to another bank. The other good thing about numbers is that numbers are not only positive,
but numbers can also be negative.
The fact that an account can go negative is very important. It is the use of negative numbers that will finally
allow some to have or have more without causing another to have less or not at all. If our main economic concerns
are cause and effect of the laws of supply and demand, and it is the individual that does both the buying and selling
of goods and services, is it not then reasonable to conclude that an individual has a certain inherent credit and
worth? Democracy says it does. For this reason it is of a primary importance that all the people be kept healthy,
fed, clothed, housed, and educated. It is also very important that they are FREE to go wherever they may need to
go to produce those goods and services, and it is also of equal importance that people are FREE and able to express
their ideas, because this is the way both efficiency and innovation comes about.
WEALTH CARD! TOC
Since we the people may opt to make the economic
laws by which we shall abide, and the use of a digital system of debits and credits appears to be the new best
way to do this for now. What we must next decide is how do we debit and credit these accounts. During my research
I have concluded that there seems to be seven main ingredients that are necessary to bake that cherry pie of prosperity.
Seven ingredients that must be made available to all the people all of the time!
My proposal for the The American Personal Wealth
Card's features and benefits are listed below. I believe them to be a good starting place to be opened for debate.
I also believe, that we should not only call on the minds of the 535 people in Congress alone to come up with the
answers, but we
must also call upon the millions of minds in America
to create the Posinomic solutions that will end the ills of our present day society .
The First ingredient at the top of this list is
Health-Care. If an individual is not healthy will they be more or less productive? The answer to this question
makes it obvious that health-care should be universally available and affordable to all. Don't you agree?
The Second ingredient is Education. Should a person know how to do their job in the best manner possible? You bet.
Since education by its very nature always improves society and promotes the general welfare, it too must be universally
available and affordable to all. Right?
The Third ingredient is Food, The Fourth ingredient is
Clothing, and The Fifth ingredient is Shelter. If we go without either of these for any extended period of
time, it is unlikely anyone will stay healthy.
The Sixth ingredient is Transportation, and The
Seventh ingredient is Communication. Both transportation and communication are vitally important for the production
of goods and services and for the innovation of new ideas.
These are our the seven main ingredients that I
believe are essential for the making of that cherry pie of prosperity. Can you think of any others? However to
bake that cherry pie of prosperity, the ingredients alone are not enough, we must also have the proper recipe too.
Practical Application. So then how do we create these seven main ingredients? It
is as simple as Congress passing the proper legislation. Legislation that makes our present social security cards,
the new American Personal Wealth Card and declaring the credits contained therein to be legal tender for all debts
public and private. The Social Security Administration could also be put in charge with dispersing the new credit
card and insuring that every citizen receives one.
We can also charge our present social security
department with the duty of administering these new benefits. Through the use of the American Personal Wealth Card
everyone would be guaranteed FREE health-care and FREE education. Through the use of the Personal Wealth Card all
who need to eat will be fed. All who are in need of clothing will receive it. All who need to get to work will
have a way to do so. Every American's social security shall be guaranteed. This will create a stronger economy
and a higher standard of living for all of us, and for all future generations. Below is a comparison of present
day problems and their proposed solutions.
PROBLEMS AND INJUSTICES
Present Day Solution
American Wealth Card Solution
Ping Ponging Of Government Services
Ending Hunger Or
Children Being Left Alone
Declining Standard of Living
Inadequate Health Care And Education
Securing Social Security Benefits
Research Money for Disease
Money for Homeland Defense
Money For All Posinomic Desired Programs
THE AMERICAN WEALTH CARD!
Hunger Feature: Any approved business accepting the American Wealth Card for the purpose of the sale of
food or groceries shall be duly credited and, the buyer's account shall be debited.
Positive Results: Since an account
can go negative anyone who is hungry can eat, even if they lack the credits in their account. The benefit to the
business will be a credit in their account thereby allowing them to cover their costs and make a profit too.
Clothing Feature: Any approved business accepting the American Wealth Card
for the purpose of the sale of clothing shall be duly credited and, the buyer's account shall be debited.
Positive Results: Since an account
can go negative anyone in need of clothing may receive clothing. The benefit to the business will be a credit in
their account thereby allowing them to not only cover their costs, but to also make a profit too.
Housing Feature: Any approved account accepting the American Wealth Card for the purpose of the payment
of rent or for a residential mortgage, that account shall be duly credited and the user's account shall be debited.
Positive Results: Since an account
can go negative, this will insure housing for all. The benefit to all landlords will be a guarantee of their rent
to make needed repairs and insure against foreclosures.
Communication and Transportation
Features: Any approved business
accepting the American Wealth Card for the provision of transportation and or communication shall be duly credited
and, the buyer's account shall be debited.
Positive Results: Since an account
can go negative, the person in need of transportation to get medical care or to report for work will be able to
do so. The benefit to the businessman is a credit in their account. This credit will cover their costs, and insure
them a profit.
Education and Health-Care Features. Any business accepting the American Wealth Card for the
purpose of providing health-care or education shall be duly credited and, the buyer's account shall NOT be debited.
Education and Health-Care should be treated a little differently because of their importance to society. A persons
health is imperative to the production of not only the supply side of economics but also to the demand side as
well. Therefore the health of an individual is equal to any expense it may occur. For this reason no additional
debit to their account should be made. The same applies to education. A persons education is their credit to society
and so no additional debit to their account should be made.
||Positive Results: If you can now go to any doctor you desire, according to that theory of an invisible hand
as stated by Adam Smith. What do you think will happen to the medical profession?Since hospitals and doctors will
be able to charge whatever they need to do a good job. If they do this good job the people will go to them. If
they don't they won't. This will attract more and better hospital and doctors and hopefully also eliminate those
The same applies to education. Because everyone can now afford an education, schools can charge whatever they need
to attract the best teachers and to build the best facilities. Since a student can now afford to go to any school
he or she desires. A school will have to be the best it can be for it to be chosen. This will produce the competition
we desire without any limitations. Because of this a student will need better grades to get into the better school,
however a lack of funds will no longer prevent anyone from getting a top-notch education or for receiving terrific
Negative Account Remedies: We should not forget that the main goals of our economic
policies must be to address the laws of supply and demand. We must also keep in mind that this means the people
must be motivated to be productive. With this in mind I propose that a negative account should be restricted as
to what merchants will be approved. For example with regards to hunger I would propose a fast food chain may be
granted the right to allow an account to go negative but a fine steak house would not be able to do so.
Crime: How much crime is committed because of the necessity to eat, to pay one's rent, and to
clothe oneself and their families? How much crime would be prevented if there were no cash to buy stolen property,
to offer or accept a bribe, or to buy and sell illegal drugs. How many people would commit a crime, if they knew
they would be caught. If cash were not accepted as a deposit for credit to an account! How would those credits
be added without us knowing from where they were debited? How much better off would we be If every parent had their
child's credit card statement come to them for review?
Motivation and Punitive Relief:
America is a land of laws. Economics demands that we motivate the people to be productive. Any purchase we allow
to go negative in an account should be very limited. Thus the person desiring a car is kept motivated to be productive.
Also as part of the law, the people should be allowed to vote for punitive relief to discourage any abuse of the
law. For this reason we should also limit the amount of time any account may remain negative.
I believe that ninety days seems to be a reasonable amount of time for someone to straighten out their finances.
However, if someone was unable to do so in the allotted period of time, whatever the voters determined it should
be. After that, any account that remains negative should be subject to review. The holder of such a negative account
shall be made to appear before a regulatory agency. My thoughts are we should give our present social security
administration the authority to handle this task. The person being summoned will have the opportunity to explain
why their account is negative.
If a person lost a job, or has some other problem or legitimate excuse for their account being negative, the social
security administration can do whatever it takes to remedy the situation. In the case of a lost job, the government
can pay a company to hire the unemployed. This should result in a higher standard of living for that company's
workers as in order to allocate hours to the unemployed worker, each present worker will have to work less but
without any loss in pay. Given the problems and solutions listed above. A person would be foolish NOT to vote for
a change. The choice is ours. Which is "A Better Way"? Which will you choose? Also keep in mind if it
is the people who are making the laws, then it is not Big Brother watching us, but we who are watching Big Brother.
That's what government of, by and for the people means.
WE THE PEOPLE!
We the people, in order to form a more perfect
union, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and ensure the blessings of liberty, to ourselves
and our prosperity, do hereby ordain and establish this Coalition of Voting Americans.
How do we form a more perfect union without actually
doing it? What if we could create a coalition of the people, by the people, and truly for the people. A communications
network that because of the great technological advances of our day would indeed be a more perfect union. Could
you imagine what such a communicative network could achieve? Whatever your personal feelings regarding unions,
there are some undeniable facts. They are: UNITED WE STAND, DIVIDED WE FAIL AND IN UNITY THERE IS STRENGTH.
A single opinion is seldom heard, but put enough opinions together, and you can make the law. After all, what is
the law? The law is the will of the people. It is the mandate of the majority, or is it? Does the majority of the
people want the POVERTY so prevalent in the U.S. today? I don't think so! I also find it hard to believe THE HUNGER,
THE CRIME, THE DRUG ABUSE, and THE HOMELESS PROBLEM here in America today is the will of the people. Is it your
will? It is if you do noting to stop it.
How can we promote the general welfare, if we don't
unite to do so? How do we ensure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our prosperity without changing the
power of our so-called representatives?
Representatives who with just one vote, which never
is ours, can increase our taxes.
Representatives who with just one vote, which never
is ours can involve us in a police action.
Representatives who with just one vote can institute
policies of non-productivity!
Representatives who with just one vote can institute
policies that pollute our environment, and have the power to build unlimited numbers of weapons of mass destruction!
We must find a way to prevent the vote of not more than 350 people from superseding the will of the people. They
should also be denied the power to institute and perpetuate policies that create inflation.
Policies that make the average citizen unable to
provide the basic necessities of life for themselves and their family. To achieve this we must we must evolve and
amend our Constitution to be responsive to life in the 21st Century and we need to do it now. Only by creating
a Constitutional Democracy could we ever hope to achieve this or be truly represented on not just some of the issue
but all of the issues that affect us!
PLACE LIKE HOME TOC
Just like Dorothy in the Wizard of OZ. Americans
have a way home. It is called the power of the vote. Voting for change is as easy as was going home for Dorothy
by clicking her heels. It is as simple electing the right representatives. Representatives that have pledged themselves
to the people. To do this we need a voters network. A network of, by and for the people that will seek out and
find solutions to the problems we face? A network of people that worked together and not against each other. Excepting
perhaps, David slaying Goliath, no great evil has ever been overcome without the people being united.
We know that corporations are united and have their
lobbyists to achieve what they want. Labor is united to achieve what it wants. Political parties are united to
elect politicians who take our votes and our money. Politicians who then normally do just the opposite of what
they promised to do. Sure I'll vote, I'll vote when that vote really makes a difference. Isn't this the feeling
of most Americans?
We don't need to provide unemployment insurance, what we need to provide is employment assurance. We need a network
that will guarantee to promote the general welfare, the only phrase mentioned both in the Declaration of Independence
and the Constitution, by making known the social, economic, and political injustices of the day.
If you believe like me that America is more than
just a place, that it is also a state of mind, and that to be an American means to be free? Free to have your ideas
heard and to express your viewpoint without fear of ridicule. Free to judge social reform programs before, not
after they become the law. Then you should agree we need our technology to work for us, not against us.
So here is the plan in a nutshell. Before we can
bring about the economic, social, and political reform that we desire. We must first bring about a communications
network, a coalition of voters to state just what our needs, wants, desires, and fears actually are.
Could you support a network that actively worked
toward finding real solutions to real problems? What if this network could make the dream of the American Personal
Wealth Card come true? Could you add your voice to ours then? Imagine what we could accomplish if we were free
of the political mechanism of red tape and waste.
Now imagine an America united together, a truly
Democratic America united toward a common goal. Bobby Kennedy said it best when he paraphrased George Bernard Shaw
and said "Some see things that are and ask why. I dream of things then never were and ask why not?
THE CVA AND
THE VOTERY TOC
To implement the principles of Democracy and Optinomics
and to bring forth the ideas of the people and their solutions to the ills of the day, I submit for your approval
This Coalition of Voting Americans will sponsor
a series of forums here on the Internet and wherever else possible. These CVA forums shall be called "The
Votery" and will motivate people to participate through a lottery-like reward.
The CVA shall engage the participation and support
of all political parties and governments. However it is our intent to proceed with "The Votery" should
such participation or cooperation by our present day political parties and governments fail. Through the power
of the Internet, the Votery will give to all Americans the opportunity to let their solutions to our political
and economic problems be known
In order for your solution to be eligible to be
voted upon and to receive a monetary reward. Simply create a video addressing a problem and offer your solution
and upload it to our sister website http://covoters.com, and wherever else you can to get maximum exposure. Winners
will be determined by a vote of the people and in line with the importance of the issue and the number of contestants.
PROPOSED FUNDING AND DISTRIBUTION
10% of the funds raised by the Votery shall go
into the CVA treasury for administrative costs and advertising to continue its mission.
10% of the funds raised by the Votery shall go
to advertise and implement the program of the winning contestant.
10% of the funds raised by the Votery shall go
into the next level up contest to increase its treasury. The CVA goal is to sponsor not less than one contest in
each Zip Code, Area Code, State, Time Zone and Nationally.
10% of the funds raised shall go to motivate participation
in "The Votery" by rewarding the winning contestant with a cash prize.
The remaining 60% of the funds raised by the Votery
shall go to motivate the average citizen to participate by the chance of a cash reward for their participation
The CVA through "The Votery" will create
an army of contestants consisting of "Domestic Warriors" and "Planet Patriots" who will offer
their own Posinomic solutions in our battle against the forces of injustice, ignorance and poverty.
THE CVA ADVANTAGE
As we have seen through various wars a coalition
of different interests is an effective way to achieve victory. The CVA holds the Votery is logically more acceptable
than is the raising of funds by way of the people guessing some numbers or the scratching off of numbers hidden
on cards and is hopeful in achieving local, state and federal government participation.So our first attempt will
be to form a coalition of our present political parties, organizations and corporations. However, if we cannot
get our present political leaders to put their differences aside so that America can come first. The CVA will then
seek out and find candidates of its own behind whom this country can rally. The CVA endorsed Candidate will truly
represent the will of people, because to receive our endorsement a candidate must pledge and sign a legal and binding
This contract states that if they do not vote the
wishes of the people. They will resign from office. The CVA endorsed candidate shall be elected by the people with
the full knowledge that they will work toward the repeal of the income tax amendment and to abolish or dramatically
change the Federal Reserve. The contract also states that they pledge to foster and create new policy using the
principles of Optinomics and unlimited supply economics.
In addition and as part of the contract each CVA
representative agrees to also conduct town hall meetings to discuss the legislation before them with the people
who elected them. It also states that the CVA endorsed candidate will vote not their wishes or the wishes of their
party, but they will vote on the legislation before them in Congress as per the wishes of the majority of their
The job of the CVA representative shall be to explain
not their personal feeling on any matter. It is their job to explain all sides to any proposed legislation the
best they can so that the people may decide which is best for them.
Those candidates receiving CVA endorsement must
also pledge themselves to support "The Votery" so that we may draw upon the minds of all Americans and
not just those few belonging to some political party to find the solutions we seek.
Their allegiance must be to the American people,
to foster Optinomic principles, the Personal Wealth Card, to end the laws of limited supply and to finish the legitimate
reason for the birth of this nation.
When given a choice between a CVA endorsed candidate
and a candidate who will not sign this contract. I believe such a choice will motivate the present eligible voters
who do not vote to vote.
What do you believe? Do you believe we should keep
things as they are, or do you believe that given all our communication abilities that we can and should use them
to our advantage.
THE WORLD ONE VOTE AT A TIME TOC
It is up to us to elect a new Congress. A Congress
not of Liberals nor Conservatives or of Democrats or Republicans, but of Americans. With your vote that new Congress
will not pass legislation and then present it to us as the law. Instead that new Congress will present proposed
legislation for our approval before it is passed and made into law. Only then can that real silent majority of
Americans, who with your help will no longer be silent. Who cannot and must not be silent if we are to see the
change that we so need and desire.
Our political process as it stands today can never
represent the wishes of the majority of Americans. If the majority of people are not ruling this country, then
there can be no Democracy. If we truly desire to see this nation achieve its full potential. It must first be allowed
to achieve and practice Democracy. However if we cannot, we should at least return to the representative Democracy
as practiced in early America.
Now is not the time for us to continue to limit
causing some to be left out.
Now is not the time to continue to follow the failure
proven Neganomic policies of the past.
Now is not the time to follow political leaders
and parties that divide us rather than unite us.
However now is the time to institute a new economic
and political formula that can work for all.
Now is the time for us to give up the labels that
Now is the time to recognize that there is only
one race of people that counts. That race is not the white race, black race, yellow or red race. The only race
that counts is the one that holds all colors the human race.
Now is the time for the people to take back this
country and restore the democratic principles for which it stands.
Now is the time to register, to join together and
Now is the time to stop never ending inflation
and to REPEAL OR DISREGARD THE INCOME TAX AMENDMENT?
Now is the time to use the CVA advantage.
Now is also the time to call upon all Americans
for their ideas on how to improve this nation's future. This recognition of the fundamental dignity and worth of
the individual is as an important a principle of Democracy as is majority rule.
The CVA lead will also foster and create new ways
of economic competition and political cooperation. It will also lead the way in promoting caring and sharing and
eliminating apathy and greed.
At first all this may sound impossible, but then
again so did going to the moon, the automobile, TV, electricity, and the best one of all, the vaccine. Right Jonas,
you're going to prevent polio by injecting people with the disease! No thanks would have been the response by most
of the people.
What would yours have been? What about today? Amazing
how our perceptions change. There is one thing that is certain. We will never effectively change the future for
the better by continuing to do what has not worked in the past.
Who hasn't had a difficult problem or task made
easier once the proper tool was used or the "right" solution was known. Have you ever heard the expression
"as plain as the nose on your face" or "keep it simple". These simple but true expressions
seem to be something today's politicians have forgotten.
Did you know that when the game of basketball first
began, the basket had a bottom on it? For eight years, whenever a point was scored, the ball had to be removed
from the basket. It's pretty hard to believe that it took eight long years before someone thought of simply letting
the ball to fall through the basket. Can you imagine! It is also very hard to believe that we have allowed Taxes
and FED to remain for over 100 years.
An Impossible Dream
|I have this seemingly impossible dream. In my dream
|Today we had no homeless.Today all the people were
|were the front-page headlines of the newspaper I read.
|Questions were asked, starting with why wage we war?
|For peace it was answered, but when pondered, all
|that killing and fighting and causing destruction,
|to peace is nothing more than obstruction.
|Brother helped brother without regard to race, color,
|and nowhere could be found that word we call greed.
|I remember a smile on my face. Why? Can you guess?
|You would smile too if you were taxed less.
|I recall a game show, "The Votery" and "A
|and of people voting, and them having their say.
|At last real solutions to real problems or so it did
|Committed am I, never to wake up from this dream.
What do think? Will you help me achieve the seemingly
impossible? Will you join the CVA and help me make this impossible dream come true?
The Real Problem: When a great economist such as Milton Friedman doesn't know that the Federal Reserve System
is as Federal as Federal Express and that it is not part of the Government and has never been part of the the Government.
We are all in serious trouble.
So while he is right in all his explanations as
to what the Fed did wrong, he has seemed to have forgotten or has been fooled like the rest of the people into
believing that the Federal Reserve is part of the Government. The real truth of the matter is it is not, it is
big business, and neither the President nor the Congress has any power over the policies of the Federal Reserve.
It is also true that if the Government did not
step in, if FDR did not institute public works programs, recall Gold, and cause more money to be pumped into the
economy. who knows how long the Great Depression would have continued.
What most Americans do not realize is that all
the banks that constitute the Federal Reserve are privately owned. What is also true is that through their member
banks the Federal Reserve has caused, does cause and will continue to cause the booms, depressions and recessions
as they see fit. The reason why it will do this is because the business of business is business and these are the
things that allow banks to make a profit. So if you believe that these periods have anything to do with what's
best for the people, you are sadly mistaken.
Yes Dr. Friedman it is the Federal Reserve that
is solely responsible for the inflation imposed upon us. It is imposed upon us not only by the rise in the cost
of goods and services, but it also imposed upon us directly from the government needing to tax us to pay the interest
that the Federal Reserve charges us. A debt of interest that is growing from the billions of dollars a year to
the trillions of dollars a year. Yes right again Dr. Friedman, the Constitution does give the government the right
to coin money. So why doesn't it?
Remember what we have to do to get the money to
pay for things that we cannot afford. We have previously discussed 3 ways. There is of course a fourth way and
that is to borrow. However when we do this we now must pay back not only the principle due but also the added the
The truth of the matter is simply this. You cannot
borrow your way out of debt, anymore than you can drink yourself sober. So let's take the power to coin money out
of the hands of the bankers and put back in the hands of the people.
WHEN IS ENOUGH
... ENOUGH! TOC
When is enough ... enough? When we the people unite
and say so. More Americans have died from these ills of society than in all of our wars. What is impossible to
dream is the way we have allowed the family to break down, allowed our children to not be taught right from wrong
by having removed parental guidance from the home because both parents are out working, not to live, but to merely
survive. Does it really seem to anyone that this is the way it is supposed to be? There must be "A Better
Way" and there is. However if we continue to allow our representatives the power not to represent us, our
votes will never be enough. Today it is up to us to choose. Do we stay a Republic or evolve to a Constitutional
Democracy where representatives must vote the will of the people they represent and not their own, some political
party or special interest lobbyist.
Do we continue to try to create a cherry pie using
the lemons of limited currency and taxation, or do we develop new economics to coincide with the technology of
today? Should we continue to climb the ladder of success, a ladder whose crossbars are so old and rotted that they
break with each step we take, or do we reach beyond our wildest dreams and move upward with the simple press of
a button that opens the doors of an elevator?
"I have a dream" (Martin Luther King) "Some see things and ask why. I dream of things and ask why
not" (Robert F Kennedy) "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country"
(John F Kennedy) What can you do for your country? You can join and support the CVA, Democracy, Optinomics, the
American Personal Wealth card and help in the birth of "A Better Way".
You can help us win the domestic war by actively
participating in the Coalition of Voting Americans and by directing traffic to our website and getting others to
do the same. If you have a website you can help by placing a banner on it. You can help through donations and by
buying CVA advertising products. You can help by submitting your name for an endorsement in your political run
for Congress by signing the CVA candidates contract. You can help us create products to wear and display that will
help spread the word. You can wear and or display a Red, White, and Blue "V" Ribbon, Flag or Sticker.
"V" for victory, "V" for the power of the vote, Red, White and Blue for the real America, the
America we hold in our hearts.
Your country needs you. It needs you to enlist
into our Volunteer Army of Domestic Warriors. Our weapons are our ideas and our votes. Our command centers are
Internet video and voice conference rooms with text capabilities. We use these rooms as headquarters for members
to meet, exchange their ideas and to administer and foster the Votery and "A Better Way". Please visit
your local CVA website often. If there is not a CVA divisional headquarters in your election district, please contact
us at email@example.com about how to create one.
Our battle plan is simple. First we must launch an attack on our present day economic and political system by creating
a CVA chapter in each election district to promote Optinomics and Constitutional Democracy. Next we must help CVA
endorsed candidates capture the majority of seats in Congress and the Senate. Finally we must use these seats and
CVA chapters to get the people participating in the Votery and "A Better Way". When is enough ... enough?
When we the people unite and say so.
As a member of the Co-Voters
of America I pledge to do the following:
1. To foster and support the principles of Optinomics
and a Constitutional Democracy.
2. To support the Votery a lottery like TV show much like America's Got Talent where solutions are offered by ordinary
3. To support the Personal Wealth Card.
4. To attend online meetings to hear and discus both sides of an issue and to offer my input and ideas.
5. To vote on proposed legislation recognizing the importance of my vote to the principles of democracy.
6. To support to the best of my ability and vote for CVA endorsed candidates.
7. To making campaign promises binding and guilty of defrauding the people when promises are broken.
8. To remove myself from membership if I fail to
do any of the above.
For Endorsement by the members
of the CVA, I pledge to do the following:
1. To foster and support the principles of Optinomics
and a Constitutional Democracy.
2. To support the Votery a lottery like TV show where solutions are offered by ordinary citizens.
3. To support the creation of the American Wealth
4. To regularly hold online town meetings to discuss social and economic problems and their solutions.
5. To explain online the pros and cons of proposed legislation and to vote the wishes of my constituents.
6. To support to the best of my ability and to vote for other CVA endorsed candidates.
7. To making campaign promises binding and guilty of defrauding the people when promises are broken.
8. To remove myself from office if I fail to do
any of the above.
HOW TO MAKE
IT HAPPEN TOC
Until we do make the changes we so desperately
need and want, it will take your financial support to get things going and to spread the word. Think about what
is at stake!.