Impossible! The deficit is falling as well as unemployment Obama wrecking economy

[twostrokenut]

I think that pretty much defines their jobs. cn

I know right??? lmfao

 

[tokeprep]

Hmmm dictionary definitions are silly and shouldn't matter, good comeback....sounds like something a nutty conspiracy theorist would say............

You don't get it dood, they get paid back by being able to purchase anything in the world that they want for FREE.....

a gold certificate does not represent value unless it is redeemable....the value is in what it is REDEEMABLE FOR......A silver certificate represents value to anyone that believes it can be redeemed for silver, it has no value to you or me really because we know that Legal Tender Laws have made it not redeemable in specie...that is to say the legal tender is no longer redeemable in specie lawful money.........I wouldn't buy one for silver spot, neither would you, Joe might, based on the wording of the note and thinking it is worth a silver dollar.....a gold or silver certificate can be just a fiat if there is no deposit to cover them....if you are holding a gold certificate and everyone cashes them in at once, you are playing musical chairs and some people will be fucked when the music stops.........

A note reps what is on deposit, so a fed note reps a bond.. So what's the bond rep? Money right? Does the bond rep FRN's? If it did the Treasury would simply issue FRN's on their own issuing authority...just like they do with coins.........so WHAT IS MONEY? Clearly not FRN's.

When you're interpreting legislation, they really don't. The courts have defined "lawful money" as Federal Reserve Notes, meaning that if you bring the treasury $100, they'll hand you $100 back. The note is the obligation; the provision for redemption is functionally irrelevant, even though the statute still contains it.

Your argument rests solely on the use of the word "note," which you insist must mean note as specified in the dictionary. Indeed, you said "demand note=promissory note=banknote." But if you look at demand notes actually issued in the history of the United States, you will immediately conclude that they aren't equivalent to the modern notes, because those demand notes were redeemable for something. The next set of notes--no longer called demand notes--weren't redeemable.

I'm not saying the word "note" is legally meaningless. But does the note actually represent an obligation? No. It is the obligation. Economically, the process we're talking about is equivalent to the treasury itself issuing the notes. The only reason you would insert a central bank, presumably, is if you don't want the treasury to have unlimited money printing power. This is why the Fed members have long terms, so they don't have to give a fuck at all about politics or political pressure, instead feeling free to make what they believe are the best monetary policy decisions. The Fed substantially limits the treasury's printing power. If Obama calls Bernanke and desperately pleads for him to print some more money, Bernanke can tell him to fuck off.

As to the 100 sitting in the Treasury from your earlier example that you claim has no obligation.......after your example, The Treasury deposits 100 somewhere in the real world and receives real goods or services for 100 that was created with no production associated with the 100....the 100 contributed NOTHING to the production of goods.....The Treasury is now able to engage in the act of trading nothing, for something....pulling goods and services out of the supply by 100.......AND inflating by 100...simultaneously.......less goods same money= price increase.....less goods and more money=relative price stays the same, this explains your steak....and why you think the bankers are the good guys.

You've described the situation exactly, and you just explained why the obligation disappeared. Disturbing, isn't it? But as I just said, that's actually one of the purposes of an independent central bank. The Fed doesn't buy $4 trillion in bonds from the treasury every year to fund the government; that would cause huge inflation. If the treasury had money printing power, it could print $4 trillion at its pleasure. No, the vast majority of the government's borrowing is funded by taxation of existing value. This year, only $700 billion will come from borrowing, and not all of that is coming from the Fed.

but you argue that spending nothing for something stimulates production, creating something and facilitating wealth generation where there was none before, enabling the greatest standard of living increase in world history....no harm no foul you say obviously the averages all work out and everyone wins.....but resources(goods) have been moved away from real wealth creators that use it productively (ice cream company or sirloin company).....this new demand is artificial and is the crack I mentioned earlier. It encourages risky behavior and causes misallocations of resources that real demand from real markets would not permit. It promotes speculative markets that could not exist otherwise.....

I'm not arguing that, only that it's a means of creating currency that isn't offset by debt obligations. It's not the only one. As a practical matter, if you redeemed everyone's gold certificates in their then-equivalent value in Federal Reserve Notes, you didn't destroy any value, just traded one piece of paper for another of legally equivalent value.

so this new 100 increase in the money supply(inflation) set in motion the exchange of something for nothing...the real wealth creators, ya know the little guy that worked for his notes, is able to buy less because there is 100 less goods in the pool.....and he buys less with more (inflated) money, so it seems everything is the same....real incomes of wealth generators fall not because prices rise but because the money supply increased and the Government and the Fed were able to divert goods to themselves without making any contribution to production......before prices rose due to inflation no less.....the example I gave you of the one silver dollar minimum wage demonstrates this real loss in wealth and purchasing power lol

if 100 increase in money supply happens to be in line with 100 increase in goods leaving average price the same, inflation has still occurred. Fed and Gov still increased the money pool and goods have been diverted to them and all their friends at a cost of ZERO to them. The redistribution of wealth has still occurred even if average prices remain or, indeed even if production increases and average price falls.

This ponzi-scheme rely's on continuous borrowing to remain viable.

Obviously the vast majority of government spending for the past 100 years hasn't been funded by monetization of debt, even looking at the 1980s and the 2000s. When the money comes from the Social Security Trust Fund, China, or Japan, it is indeed borrowed money. The government's hope in borrowing it is that the money will generate more economic activity than it really costs to borrow.

If the 100 increase in the money supply comes from the central bank increasing a bank's reserves so that it can lend out more money, the creation of new money would ideally be offset by the production of new goods and services. Credit causes price increases, but it also causes production increases. If you balance the things, the net result is more wealth creation than would otherwise be possible. I assert that has been the actual result.

A note represents value is your argument, na nan a boo boo stick your head in doo doo.... when it clearly does not; and in fact is even defined as the opposite to anyone who cares to look at a dictionary, even a non legal or economic language dictionary such as Webster's defines it as such...

If it clearly doesn't represent value, why are you relying on dictionary definitions? Why don't you just explain why, in reality, the note doesn't clearly represent value?

The note is universally tradeable for value throughout this country, and you can't redeem it for anything except other notes.

Remember speaking of 100 per barrel oil? Keeping in mind that peak production of oil was reached around the new millennium........ Let's see what happens when those notes used to be backed by something, I believe that low flat line on the left is only the pseudo gold standard......

Looks like 1700% price increase there even considering such a shabby, shameful thing as a CPI....

You see inflation. I see massive new demand for oil from places like China and India on the verge of the peak production you just mentioned. Then I see the 9/11 attacks, the invasion of Afghanistan, and the Iraq war as diturbances elevating price. The OPEC countries, literally raking in several times as much as they were for exactly the same barrel of oil, enjoy some spending sprees and realize how wonderful this is. Ever since the price of oil started going up, OPEC has been intent on keeping it there, especially given the Arab Spring a few years ago, which spurred huge increases in payments to citizens in some of the oil kingdom welfare states. Do you know what Saudi Arabia needs the price of oil to be in order to fund its budget? The Saudis do.

With the shale energy boom in the United States in the last few years and recovery from tar sands becoming more possible, OPEC is terrified about its regime crumbling down. They need to milk as much money out of oil and natural gas as they possibly can, lest the world start meeting more of its own needs, using less energy, and relying on things like solar power, before the oil states can diversify themselves into sustainable economies built on other things.

Now tell me, if we see huge new oil production that causes the price of oil to be $100 in 10 years, will you be hear saying that inflation must not exist? Of course not. Obviously CPI hasn't increased by 1,700%. No one spends all of their money on energy. Indeed, as a portion of a household budget, people spend little on energy. If you talk about gas prices, the average car is at least more gas efficient than it was 10 years ago, tempering some fraction of the price increase.

 

[tokeprep]

I have often wondered what an unfunded liability is...shouldn't you?

I don't think unfunded liabilities will be paid. When they actually come due, I think they'll be legislated out of being liabilities.

 

[tokeprep]

Bank notes still are redeemable.....just not for gold or silver...they are required to be by law.......if not then why leave little things like 12USC411 lying around? You can't be so arrogant as to thinking this is just on the "to do" list pending action. Like I said earlier this is still a Constitutional Republic subject to laws of the land.....incessantly repeating otherwise does not change this with out actual, lawful amendments.

See above. 12 USC 411 has been interpreted to mean that notes are redeemable, yes, but only for the equivalent value of notes. Obviously the statute doesn't mean what it used to mean--the meaning functionally changed, even though the words are exactly the same as they were. That's the point I'm trying to make to you. You want to focus on dictionary definitions when it's undoubtedly true that the effects of these statutes have changed. If your note is redeemable for gold, the redemption provision is meaningful; if your note is redeemable only for other notes, the redemption provision is meaningless.

The law is not based on dictionary definitions and statutes alone. When Congress passes other inconsistent statutes or a court weighs in on the meaning of the words, that impacts the meaning of existing statutes. Then you need to try to make everything consistent: in this case, 12 USC 411 remains operative, but the redemption is only for equivalent value in notes.

 

[tokeprep]

Lol nope! The obligation makes it a note for a dollar, a representation of a dollar......When the obligation is removed THAT is the dollar I was talking about waaaaaaay back in this thread .....I said it is defined as 1 troy oz silver and another member that actually knew what he was talking about corrected me........

Except that isn't the law, so it's not a dollar. The dollar is whatever Congress says it is, not what you're most nostalgic for.

 

[twostrokenut]

Lol the central bank exists to keep the treasury from having unlimited printing power....wow that's a nice check and balance.

You are mistaken that buying 4 trillion in bonds would cause huge inflation....buying 4 trillion in bonds and putting 4 trillion in circ is inflation.

You can redeem the notes for other notes seems pointless right? Oh yeah the redeemed notes are no longer able to be fractionally lent. FRN's are not the only legal tender notes in circulation.

from wiki:The difference between a United States Note and a Federal Reserve Note is that a United States Note represented a "bill of credit" and was inserted by the Treasury directly into circulation free of interest. Federal Reserve Notes are backed by debt purchased by the Federal Reserve, and thus generate seigniorage, or interest, for the Federal Reserve System, which serves as a lending parent to the Treasury and the public.

31USC5119 does not say FRN's aren't redeemable only that USN's are removed from circulation when FRN's are redeemed.

You have an idealistic view of what people actually do with free money and it usually in not productive as it would be had the worked hard and saved it....such as your own example of what happened to your portfolio. I assume this is why you use the word "ideally" a lot.

100 new money shifted 100 in goods and services away from the bottom "poor" and fixed income people to the top, on purpose but we can pretend it was unintentional, it really doesn't matter. The 900 that was created from this serves the same purpose, facilitating something for nothing; occasionally someone is productive with it but usually it simply facilitates a borrowed standard of living increase.


How many people spend money on energy indeed lol.

I never said there weren't other factors that change oil prices. Also that is a price chart not an inflation chart damn man seriously, dictionaries are important.

I never said CPI rose 1700% you are reaching.

Dollar is what ever congress says it is again??? Congress controls USCode dummy.

 

[cannabineer]

I don't think unfunded liabilities will be paid. When they actually come due, I think they'll be legislated out of being liabilities.

Or simply inflated into irrelevance. cn

 

[tokeprep]

Lol the central bank exists to keep the treasury from having unlimited printing power....wow that's a nice check and balance.

You are mistaken that buying 4 trillion in bonds would cause huge inflation....buying 4 trillion in bonds and putting 4 trillion in circ is inflation.

You can redeem the notes for other notes seems pointless right? Oh yeah the redeemed notes are no longer able to be fractionally lent. FRN's are not the only legal tender notes in circulation.

from wiki:The difference between a United States Note and a Federal Reserve Note is that a United States Note represented a "bill of credit" and was inserted by the Treasury directly into circulation free of interest. Federal Reserve Notes are backed by debt purchased by the Federal Reserve, and thus generate seigniorage, or interest, for the Federal Reserve System, which serves as a lending parent to the Treasury and the public.

31USC5119 does not say FRN's aren't redeemable only that USN's are removed from circulation when FRN's are redeemed.

You can't redeem your Federal Reserve Note for a United States Note. Your statute doesn't say otherwise, it just says that the treasury can redeem one kind of currency for another kind. But if United States Notes are redeemed, they're destroyed afterward.

You have an idealistic view of what people actually do with free money and it usually in not productive as it would be had the worked hard and saved it....such as your own example of what happened to your portfolio. I assume this is why you use the word "ideally" a lot.

Most people live paycheck to paycheck and have very little in assets. I'm aware of this reality, and I would say it's a consequence of bad financial management and overconsumption. For the rest: most people are morons, since inflation expectations are easy to find and investments beating inflation remain numerous. The economic activity is worth the cost of inflation, and I can't feel bad for people who choose not to protect themselves since it's really not that hard.

100 new money shifted 100 in goods and services away from the bottom "poor" and fixed income people to the top, on purpose but we can pretend it was unintentional, it really doesn't matter. The 900 that was created from this serves the same purpose, facilitating something for nothing; occasionally someone is productive with it but usually it simply facilitates a borrowed standard of living increase.

That's the point, to facilitate something from nothing. Without capital, I might not be able to farm or to produce; with capital, I'm able to engage in productive activity. Is most bank lending for personal expenses? Absolutely not! Credit is the lifeblood of commerce, which is the heart of our culture right now. Americans aren't cautious and prudent, we're capitalist pigs. We don't want stability, we want production and innovation--more wealth.

How many people spend money on energy indeed lol.

I never said there weren't other factors that change oil prices. Also that is a price chart not an inflation chart damn man seriously, dictionaries are important.

I never said CPI rose 1700% you are reaching.

Dollar is what ever congress says it is again??? Congress controls USCode dummy.

Then what point are you trying to make about oil prices?

The US Code says a dollar is silver? Nope. A dollar is a Federal Reserve Note, because that note is redeemable for lawful money, which means a Federal Reserve Note. That's that.

 

[twostrokenut]

Oh wow what shall I pick apart now.....my frequency on this thread shall decrease as this is starting to turn into an ideology discussion...

• You can't redeem your Federal Reserve Note for a United States Note. Your statute doesn't say otherwise, it just says that the treasury can redeem one kind of currency for another kind. But if United States Notes are redeemed, they're destroyed afterward.​

The statute says they may be removed from circulation not that they aren't redeemable.............please learn to read it properly I don't want to have to keep going back and bolding everything for you.....

If they're redeemed the obligation is removed, simple as that easy breezy........it does not "functionally" matter if they are redeemable for specie......the fact they are still redeemable is what progressives have figured still comply's with Constitutional Law.

I never said you could redeem FRN's directly for red inked USnotes good god man this is an economic discussion and those are highly collectable on numismatic markets............... wouldn't some saavy entrepreneur already have done that and put them on EBAY???? Like this:http://compare.ebay.com/like/320949764223?var=lv&ltyp=AllFixedPriceItemTypes&var=sbar

I said they were redeemable and you said all you get is more FRN's so that means to you they are not......but that is not to say the ones that get swapped out have not had the obligation removed and serve as legal tender just the same as a US note that is still in circulation at least according to the treasury............

Both United States Notes and Federal Reserve Notes are parts of our national currency and both are legal tender. They circulate as money in the same way. However, the issuing authority for them comes from different statutes...............

United States Notes were redeemable in gold until 1933, when the United States abandoned the gold standard. Since then, both currencies have served essentially the same purpose, and have had the same value.

United States Notes serve no function that is not already adequately served by Federal Reserve Notes

So they exchange your FRN's for FRN's and you fail to realize they are adequately serving the same function as US notes by removing the obligation.

These aren't my statutory codes.....they are all of ours because Congress made them right?
Just because they are not amended to suit your position doesn't make them irrelevant.
Just because you think they are mine doesn't mean they don't apply to you....hopefully understanding this will prompt you to make smarter decisions in the future that will lower our deficit, promote economic growth that is not limited by the amount you can borrow because true savings from true production do not really lose purchasing power........and also provide some stability in your life as it has obviously done for many of us here in these forums.............

The Secretary shall not be required to reissue United States currency notes upon redemption.(c)(1) The Secretary may determine the amount of the following United States currency that will not be presented for redemption because the currency has been destroyed or irretrievably lost:
(A) circulating notes of Federal reserve banks and national banks issued before July 1, 1929, for which the United States Government has assumed liability.
(B) outstanding currency referred to in subsection (b)(1) of this section......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

(b)(1) Except as provided in subsection (c)(1) of this section, the following are public debts bearing no interest:
(A) gold certificates issued before January 30, 1934.
(B) silver certificates.
(C) notes issued under the Act of July 14, 1890 (ch. 708, 26 Stat. 289).
(D) Federal Reserve notes for which payment was made under section 4 of the Old Series Currency Adjustment Act.
(E) United States currency notes, including those issued under section 1 of the Act of February 25, 1862 (ch. 33, 12 Stat. 345), the Act of July 11, 1862 (ch. 142, 12 Stat. 532), the resolution of January 17, 1863 (P.R. 9; 12 Stat. 822), section 2 of the Act of March 3, 1863 (ch. 73, 12 Stat. 710), or section 5115 of this title.


(2) Redemption, cancellation, and destruction of currency.-The Secretary shall-
(A) redeem any currency described in paragraph (1) from the general fund of the Treasury upon presentment to the Secretary; and
(B) cancel and destroy such currency upon redemption.

This is simply a big fancy fucking bullshit lawyer way of saying "we ain't giving you no red ink notes you can make a fortune on but we will redeem them for what is currently circulating and treat them as if they had red ink..."

Here is the redeeming authority for FRN's currently in circulation and not described in paragraph 1 of 31USC5119, in plain english........you can follow the links at the bottom of the page for this here http://uscodebeta.house.gov for all revisions and go down your own path of understanding but this is how it reads right at this moment in time in accordance with the law of retaining remedy:

§411. Issuance to reserve banks; nature of obligation; redemption

Federal reserve notes, to be issued at the discretion of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System for the purpose of making advances to Federal reserve banks through the Federal reserve agents as hereinafter set forth and for no other purpose, are authorized. The said notes shall be obligations of the United States and shall be receivable by all national and member banks and Federal reserve banks and for all taxes, customs, and other public dues. They shall be redeemed in lawful money on demand at the Treasury Department of the United States, in the city of Washington, District of Columbia, or at any Federal Reserve bank.

United states notes indeed seem to be the "bonds" the Fed buys...........http://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/154.asp

They are redeemable, just hard for you and I to do but easy for the Fed.

 

[twostrokenut]

^^^^^^^^I simply don't wish to allocate further resources to respond to the rest of your silliness in this capacity.

Shorties, one liners and quick pictures from now on.

 

[twostrokenut]

Most people live paycheck to paycheck and have very little in assets. I'm aware of this reality, and I would say it's a consequence of bad financial management and overconsumption. For the rest: most people are morons, since inflation expectations are easy to find and investments beating inflation remain numerous. The economic activity is worth the cost of inflation, and I can't feel bad for people who choose not to protect themselves since it's really not that hard.

I agree, people are worse-off and more often having less assets as a result of our current system of bad financial management that you champion because it facilitates over-consumption. I literally just explained that.

I agree most people aren't smart enough to figure this out and they end up being dicked over by so called "smart" people that gamble with their money and re-neg on debts as you surely would have done had your paper investments not paid off.......

The activity is worth the cost.........just another way to say the end justifies the means...gotta break eggs to make the omelets of progress......you have been duped if you think this has ever turned out well......

If this medicine is tasting nasty, you should still eat it because it's good for you lol.

 

[tokeprep]

If they're redeemed the obligation is removed, simple as that easy breezy........it does not "functionally" matter if they are redeemable for specie......the fact they are still redeemable is what progressives have figured still comply's with Constitutional Law.

I never said you could redeem FRN's directly for red inked USnotes good god man this is a economic discussion............... wouldn't someone entrepreneur already have done that and put them on EBAY???? Like this:http://compare.ebay.com/like/320949764223?var=lv&ltyp=AllFixedPriceItemTypes&var=sbar

I said they were redeemable and you said all you get is more FRN's......but that is not to say the ones that get swapped out have not had the obligation removed and serve as legal tender just the same as a us note that is still in circulation at least according to the treasury............

So they exchange your FRN's for FRN's and you fail to realize they are adequately serving the same function as US notes by removing the obligation.

If you redeem a note, the obligation is removed? What obligation is removed by swapping pieces of paper? I don't understand why you're trying to distinguish United States Notes when they have the same value as Federal Reserve Notes and are redeemable only for Federal Reserve Notes. There's nothing special about them, other than that they haven't been issued for 40 years.

These aren't my statutory codes.....they are all of ours because Congress made them right?
Just because they are not amended to suit your position doesn't make them irrelevant.
Just because you think they are mine doesn't mean they don't apply to you....hopefully understanding this will prompt you to make smarter decisions in the future that will lower our deficit, promote unlimited economic growth that is not limited by the amount you can borrow because true savings from true production do not really lose purchasing power........and provide stability in your life as it has obviously done for many of us here in these forums.............

Here is the redeeming authority........you can follow the links at the bottom of the page for this here http://uscodebeta.house.gov for all revisions and go down your own path of understanding but this is how it reads right at this moment in time:

The statute hasn't been amended since this country was on the gold standard. That's the point. You're trying to read words enacted when the gold standard existed as if the gold standard still exists today. Without the gold standard, the words cannot mean the same thing. The redemption statute is providing the authority to redeem old currency for new currency, not to magically erase some obligation; it makes no sense to conflate the redemption statute with one that existed before the gold standard, trying to apply it as if it has the same meaning.

United states notes indeed seem to be the "bonds" the Fed buys...........http://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/154.asp

They are redeemable, just hard for you and I to do but easy for the Fed.

United States Notes are currency that haven't been issued since 1971. The treasury destroys United States Notes that come into its possession. You're conflating a treasury note, which is an instrument to borrow money, with a currency that no longer exists.

 

[tokeprep]

^^^^^^^^I simply don't wish to allocate further resources to respond to the rest of your silliness in this capacity.

Shorties, one liners and quick pictures from now on.

I'm sorry that you don't understand how to read statutes. Having actually worked for a legislature, I understand a little something about how they work. You're misreading and conflating things in ways that make no sense to try to maintain this silly claim that every Federal Reserve Note represents a borrowed obligation that must be repaid.

 

[tokeprep]

I agree, people are worse-off and more often having less assets as a result of our current system of bad financial management that you champion because it facilitates over-consumption. I literally just explained that.

I agree most people aren't smart enough to figure this out and they end up being dicked over by so called "smart" people that gamble with their money and re-neg on debts as you surely would have done had your paper investments not paid off.......

You think it's a new phenomenon? Living paycheck to paycheck is nothing new! And there was no such thing as social security or medicare back in the golden days of precious metals--not because the savings people had were sufficient, of course, which is the Austrian myth about how much better off people were.

I think most people always get screwed over, whatever the system. If you want to kill credit you kill substantial amounts of economic activity as well. I can't fathom how that's preferable to inflation.

The activity is worth the cost.........just another way to say the end justifies the means...gotta break eggs to make the omelets of progress......you have been duped if you think this has ever turned out well......

If this medicine is tasting nasty, you should still eat it because it's good for you lol.

Only if you paint 1913 as paradise and 2013 as hell. Obviously it goes the other way. People are better off now, they weren't better off then. Our economic system has a lot to do with it.

 

[cannabineer]

Tokeprep, I am interested. You mentioned numerous investments that can outperform inflation (I presume after the taxman's mordida). Seeing as how my cost of living has absolutely run away from the CPI, and understanding inflation to mean "what things cost", can you recommend where I should look to defend my shrinking real assets? cn

 

[tokeprep]

Tokeprep, I am interested. You mentioned numerous investments that can outperform inflation (I presume after the taxman's mordida). Seeing as how my cost of living has absolutely run away from the CPI, and understanding inflation to mean "what things cost", can you recommend where I should look to defend my shrinking real assets? cn

You said you were on a fixed income, so what things cost for you isn't representative of what things cost for most people. If all of your spending is on housing, food, and energy, those price changes are all you experience. You'd have a tough time defending your purchasing power.

No such thing as social security in 1913, though. Is some purchasing power worse than stable purchasing power if that stable power would be zero?

 

[cannabineer]

You said you were on a fixed income, so what things cost for you isn't representative of what things cost for most people. If all of your spending is on housing, food, and energy, those price changes are all you experience. You'd have a tough time defending your purchasing power.

No such thing as social security in 1913, though. Is some purchasing power worse than stable purchasing power if that stable power would be zero?

1) I'm not championing the 1913 lifestyle. i like antibiotics, modern dentistry, and driving places.
2) I'm asking less about defending my paycheck but my investible savings. I played the stock mkt in the '90s, but no longer have the cojones to do that. cn

 

[twostrokenut]

I'm sorry that you don't understand how to read statutes. Having actually worked for a legislature, I understand a little something about how they work. You're misreading and conflating things in ways that make no sense to try to maintain this silly claim that every Federal Reserve Note represents a borrowed obligation that must be repaid.

I call bullshit........like it matters.....even some members of Congress think our currency is backed by gold right now...having worked for a legislature makes you no different from the common man indeed the legislature is composed of common men.

and there was no such thing as social security or medicare back in the golden days of precious metals--

Golden days of precious metals ended 1971.....Social Security passed 1935.

 

[twostrokenut]

The statute hasn't been amended since this country was on the gold standard. That's the point. You're trying to read words enacted when the gold standard existed as if the gold standard still exists today. Without the gold standard, the words cannot mean the same thing. The redemption statute is providing the authority to redeem old currency for new currency, not to magically erase some obligation; it makes no sense to conflate the redemption statute with one that existed before the gold standard, trying to apply it as if it has the same meaning.



United States Notes are currency that haven't been issued since 1971. The treasury destroys United States Notes that come into its possession. You're conflating a treasury note, which is an instrument to borrow money, with a currency that no longer exists.

As if you simply saying "without the gold standard the words cannot mean the same thing" makes it so by your decree..... this is pure speculation on your part and is prima facie evidence ignorance.

As if that can simply be amended because we are not on a gold standard it hasn't been amended because it is a fail-safe against fucktard legislators.

As if a treasury note or bond or bill do not all represent the same thing which is a security that represents actual physical labor and work and a FRN does not represent a debt derived from speculation against that real work.

I am differentiating between the two and it is YOU that is conflating them because I know how to use a dictionary and logic.....even to look up conflate lmfao get a fucking clue.

Miserable fail buddy maybe learn to grow pot here instead.

 

[twostrokenut]

The redemption statute is providing the authority to redeem old currency for new currency, not to magically erase some obligation;

All aboard the Government/Fed owned Amtrak Fail Train woooooo wooooooo..................

You are correct insofar as 31USC5119 provides redeeming old currency.......12USC411 provides redeeming the new currency to the old currency.

1) I'm not championing the 1913 lifestyle. i like antibiotics, modern dentistry, and driving places.
2) I'm asking less about defending my paycheck but my investible savings. I played the stock mkt in the '90s, but no longer have the cojones to do that. cn

Please continue and answer this mans question, it will be uninterrupted, I am butting out.