The more I look at this essay, the sillier it gets.

LV

Readily available credit has made America “the land of opportunity” ever since the days of the American colonists. What has transformed this credit system into a Ponzi scheme that must continually be propped up with bailout money is that the credit power has been turned over to private parties who always require more money back than they create in the first place. Benjamin Franklin reportedly explained this defect in the eighteenth century. When the directors of the Bank of England asked what was responsible for the booming economy of the young colonies, Franklin explained that the colonial governments issued their own money, which they both lent and spent into the economy:

“In the Colonies, we issue our own paper money. It is called ‘Colonial Scrip.’ We issue it in proper proportion to make the goods 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. You see, a legitimate government can both spend and lend money into circulation, while banks can only lend significant amounts of their promissory bank notes, for they can neither give away nor spend but a tiny fraction of the money the people need. Thus, when your bankers here in England place money in circulation, there is always a debt principal to be returned and usury to be paid. The result is that you have always too little credit in circulation to give the workers full employment. You do not have too many workers, you have too little money in circulation, and that which circulates, all bears the endless burden of unpayable debt and usury.”

In an article titled “A Monetary System for the New Millennium,” Canadian money reform advocate Roger Langrick explains his concept in contemporary terms. He begins by illustrating the mathematical impossibility inherent in a system of bank-created money lent at interest:

“[I]magine the first bank which prints and lends out $100. For its efforts it asks for the borrower to return $110 in one year; that is it asks for 10% interest. Unwittingly, or maybe wittingly, the bank has created a mathematically impossible situation. The only way in which the borrower can return 110 of the bank’s notes is if the bank prints, and lends, $10 more at 10% interest . . . . The result of creating 100 and demanding 110 in return, is that the collective borrowers of a nation are forever chasing a phantom which can never be caught; the mythical $10 that were never created. The debt in fact is unrepayable. Each time $100 is created for the nation, the nation’s overall indebtedness to the system is increased by $110. The only solution at present is increased borrowing to cover the principal plus the interest of what has been borrowed.”

The better solution, says Langrick, is to allow the government to issue enough new debt-free dollars to cover the interest charges not created by the banks as loans:

“Instead of taxes, government would be empowered to create money for its own expenses up to the balance of the debt shortfall. Thus, if the banking industry created $100 in a year, the government would create $10 which it would use for its own expenses. Abraham Lincoln used this successfully when he created $500 million of ‘greenbacks’ to fight the Civil War.”

National Credit from a Truly National Banking System

In Langrick’s example, a private banking industry pockets the interest, which must be replaced every year by a 10 percent issue of new Greenbacks; but there is another possibility. The loans could be advanced by the government itself. The interest would then return to the government and could be spent back into the economy in a circular flow, without the need to continually issue more money to cover the interest shortfall.

Citizenship is in fact voluntary and can be given up. A government of the people is in many ways akin to a pot luck. Americans did not stop paying taxes under Republicans they just watched an orgy of Republican spending. In the Eisenhower time and under Nixon the Rich payed 2 or 3 times more in taxes and the economy thrived. Reagan reversed it and the economy dived. Ultimately the Friedman notions have led to an international financial collapse.

Blaming Obama for the mangled mess he inherited is in my opinion intellectually dishonest in the extreme.

Are you Kevin? If so, why did you change your name?

Also, there plan feels like it is based on envy or bitterness, that the “rich” have to cough up the money they owe “us.” Obama's confiscatory and class-envy policies are destroying wealth, causing entrepreneurs to stop creating jobs for all of us, including the poor, etc. The president would do much better to cut spending and to reduce taxes, like cut the payroll taxes and the capital gains taxes to bring stability to the markets and cause investors to start creating jobs again. President Obama is beginning to look more and more like Jimmy Carter – a failed one term president who drove the economy into the ground.

LV

According to the book, you can never love your children “the same.” You must treat them differently.

You love each child based on what he/she “needs.” And, at any particular time, one child will need more than another:

Trying to treat each one “equally” does NOT mean that you are treating each one with “love” or “justice.”

That's what I think is going on here.

And when you give to each child what he/she needs, everyone benefits.

Duh