Predict the Democratic nominee for President

[DennisTate]

Being serious about absurd notions does not make them any less absurd.

True....... but I began to study a fascinating subject back in 1994 when a friend gave me an article that asserted that President Lincoln's Greenback Monetary Policy Experiment had saved USA taxpayers four billion dollars in interest payments. Would you say that this assertion is true...... or false?

I will also begin this as a poll to see what the membership thinks of this and I will poke it into the Conspiracy Theories section although.......... that might be somewhat like the admonition of Messiah to take the lowest seat when invited to a wedding or other event.

In 1972, the United States Treasury Department was asked to compute the amount of interest that would have been paid if that 400 million dollars would have been borrowed at interest instead of being issued by Abraham Lincoln. They did some computations, and a few weeks later, the United States Treasury Department said the United States Government saved 4 billion dollars in interest because Lincoln had created his own money. So you can about imagine how much the Government has paid and how much we owe solely on the basis of interest." (Melvin Sickler, Lincoln Kennedy)

Update... here is the topic and poll that you may find helpful:

Did President Lincoln's Greenback Monetary Policy save four billion dollars?

in interest payments as asserted in this article?




Abraham Lincoln and John F. Kennedy



What happens when you take your most productive workers off the farms and ranches and out of whatever factories exist at the time in history when you do this and you pay them to shoot cannons, rifles and muzzle loaders at their neighbours........????

You decrease the supply of consumer goods... .at the same time as you increase the supply of money..... and voila..... you have a formula for hyper-inflation!

 

[Desk trauma]

True....... but I began to study a fascinating subject back in 1994 when a friend gave me an article that asserted that President Lincoln's Greenback Monetary Policy Experiment had saved USA taxpayers four billion dollars in interest payments. Would you say that this assertion is true...... or false?

I will also begin this as a poll to see what the membership thinks of this and I will poke it into the Conspiracy Theories section although.......... that might be somewhat like the admonition of Messiah to take the lowest seat when invited to a wedding or other event.



Update... here is the topic and poll that you may find helpful:

Did President Lincoln's Greenback Monetary Policy save four billion dollars?

Wholly irrelevant batman!

 

[hislegacy]

I voted other - it completely depends on what the DNC Leadership wants - the voters are just second thoughts

 

[DennisTate]

Wholly irrelevant batman!

A theory that could well put an extra five hundred or a thousand dollars per month into the pockets of all American citizens........ is not at all irrelevant....... because that is how this can work out. Have you ever heard of the prophecy of The Great Wealth Transfer from the Wicked to the Righteous? It is coming... and the gifts of the Egyptians to Israelites is a typical fulfillment of it.......

 

[Desk trauma]

A theory that could well put an extra five hundred or a thousand dollars per month into the pockets of all American citizens........ is not at all irrelevant.......

It’s completely irrelevant to the topic of this thread.

Have you ever heard of the prophecy of The Great Wealth Transfer from the Wicked to the Righteous?

No.

It is coming... and the gifts of the Egyptians to Israelites is a typical fulfillment of it.......

Sure it is.

 

[bhsmte]

Hard to predict. This thing could go in a few different directions.

 

[GodLovesCats]

I voted other - it completely depends on what the DNC Leadership wants - the voters are just second thoughts

Impossible. The DNC would just cancel all 56 elections if there was any truth to it.

 

[DennisTate]

It’s completely irrelevant to the topic of this thread.



No.


Sure it is.

If..... one of the Democratic nominees came up with a plan that would greatly increase the probability of President Trump coopting some aspects of the Andrew Yang platform........ then that Democratic nominee might just become much more popular than than other aspiring Democratic Party nominees who take the traditional political tactic of win vs lose.

Win - win - win - win - win is theoretically possible..... not easy..... but possible.

 

[DennisTate]

I voted other - it completely depends on what the DNC Leadership wants - the voters are just second thoughts

Or.... could it be possible that the DNC leadership might just have learned something from their errors back in 2015??????????

 

[mark46]

Or.... could it be possible that the DNC leadership might just have learned something from their errors back in 2015??????????

Yes, this time the candidate will be campaigning in the Rust Belt the week and night before the election. There will be hundreds of millions spent on the Rust Belt. Last time, the candidate took a victory trip to AZ the week before the election, didn't campaign in WI at all, almost lost MN, and then celebrated the night before by throwing a Beyonce concert in Philadelphia.

 

[mark46]

The gifted Kat Kerr does a great job of describing what Elvis is doing in heaven so....... sure...... Hillary could get in contact with Kat Kerr....... go Pentecostal / Deplorable............ treat Bernie and his supporters with respect this time around and try to make sure that the devilment of 2015 isn't repeated.......... That could be quite interesting..........

The new and improved Hillary might even be able to convince President TRump to coopt some aspects of the Andrew Yang platform?????
Could a Basic Minimum Income for all Americans decrease abortions?

OK, which party do you think will be harmed if Trump supported $1000 a month for all, and the VAT that pays for it? IMO, this is much, much, much better than lots of ideas I have heard from the left.

 

[hislegacy]

OK, which party do you think will be harmed if Trump supported $1000 a month for all

Where exactly do you believe the 1,000 a month would come from? Remember Goverment funded means taxpayer funded.

 

[DennisTate]

OK, which party do you think will be harmed if Trump supported $1000 a month for all, and the VAT that pays for it? IMO, this is much, much, much better than lots of ideas I have heard from the left.

I personally am advocating five hundred dollars per month up here in Canada where our currency is actually worth significantly less than the USA dollar. I thought that Andrew Yang's idea of one thousand dollars per month was a bit high but............

I am advocating five hundred dollars per Canadian citizen and legal resident regardless of their income. High income Canadians will gain a lot less because they will be hit with about fifty percent income tax on it..... but Canadians earning less than about twenty thousand dollars per year would receive it virtually tax free. I am suggesting linking it to the pro-life question in order to attempt to gain bi-partisan or even tri-partisan support.

Could a Basic Minimum Income for all Americans decrease abortions?


Five hundred dollars per Canadian per month, can this work?

I am advocating the usage of the Bank of Canada that is owned by all Canadians to finance giving five hundred dollars per month to all thirty seven million Canadians.

It will of course mean much more to poorer Canadians than to millionaires........
but it could be surprising how many stay at home wives with cheap and stingy millionaire husbands who control the purse strings of the home may find this extra five hundred very helpful indeed.

I suspect that well over eighty percent of of Canadians will spend this money reasonably well and:
1. enrol their kids in more after school programs.....
2. begin to purchase a higher percentage of organic produce vs the cheap GMO stuff
3. purchase a newer car, SUV or half ton truck
4. do renovations to their homes
5. hire landscapers to do certain projects on their properties
6. pay down their debt loads, especially the higher interest ones
7. buy a new home rather than renting
8. buy a cottage outside the city so that they can get away for weekends
9. many will choose to move to rural Canada in order to escape relatively hectic city life
10. eat at nice restaurants more often

11. I also believe that a significant percentage of Canadian women who would have chosen to have an abortion under the present economic situation will CHOOSE to keep their babies as opposed to having an abortion!

I suspect that less than ten percent of Canadians will attempt to live off this five hundred dollars / month and simply use it to drink or smoke more.
To whatever degree this happens the worst cases where these Canadians put themselves and others in danger this can be dealt with by issuing food stamps vs a monthly check.

 

[DennisTate]

Where exactly do you believe the 1,000 a month would come from? Remember Goverment funded means taxpayer funded.

Not necessarily if you will take a look at what we Canadians did from 1938 to 1974.

Betty Krawczyk:
The Bank of Canada was first established by Prime Minister Richard Bennet in 1935 as a private central bank, but was then nationalized by William Lyon Mackenzie King in 1938. By nationalizing the bank, Mackenzie King meant for it to belong to the people so the Canadian government could borrow funds with little or no interest for capital expenditures. The mandate of the newly nationalized Bank of Canada was to act as the banker to the government and to manage the public debt. As Mackenzie King famously said: “Once a nation parts with the control of their currency and credit, it matters not who makes that nation’s laws. Usury, once in control, will wreck any nation. Until the control of the issue of currency and credit is restored to government and recognized as its most sacred responsibility, all talk of sovereignty of parliament and of democracy is idle and futile.”

So the Bank of Canada was nationalized in 1938 and the government could now borrow money with little or no interest. And it worked. The Canadian government built freeways, public transportation systems, subway line, airports, the St. Lawrence Seaway and funded a national health care system and the Canada Pension Plan. But then Trudeau, under the influence of the international financial group called Basel’s
Committee’s Recommendations (The Basel Committee on Banking Supervision) made the decision to halt the borrowing of money from the Bank of Canada, and instead, chose to borrow from the private banks who instead of lending to the government at no interest, or low interest, introduced higher interest rates along with compound interest.

All banks know very well the magic of compound interest. And Pierre Trudeau must have known that the mounting compounded national debt would lead to Canadians eventually owing a dollar fifty for every dollar of their disposable incomes. After all, he studied economics at the London School of Economics. Surely the professors there knew about compound interest.
BETTY'S EARLY EDITION: HOW PIERRE TRUDEAU TURNED US INTO DEBT SLAVES

You are of course partly correct but there is more to the subject as I attempted to explain in three of my four previous campaigns:


My 2006, my 2008 and my 2004 campaign writings by DennisTate.

 

[DennisTate]

OK, which party do you think will be harmed if Trump supported $1000 a month for all, and the VAT that pays for it? IMO, this is much, much, much better than lots of ideas I have heard from the left.

I am advocating admitting that the students of Thomas Malthus convinced our political leaders to make our economies look........ on paper..... like we were bankrupt and I suspect that the three economists who wrote the following book have a brilliant theory as to why they did this:

Yes... there are some differences between the Canadian and USA model of central banking....... but a powerful case can be presented that P. M. Pierre E. Trudeau was pressured in 1974 into making what could be argued was the most colossal error made by a sitting Prime Minister in this last century................ because they knew that what they wanted to do with the USA economy could not be done several hundred miles south of an Ottawa that was on a relatively brilliant central banking policy.

The Bank of Canada Must Finance our Country, Debt-Free Say Three Economists

“It is ludicrous for the government to put billions of dollars into circulation by borrowing from the private banks, when it can create the extra money it needs, virtually free.”

Trust me.... you will want to see these graphs up close:

Could a Basic Minimum Income for all Americans decrease abortions?

I could be wrong... .I often am but I do suspect at least some connection between Roe vs Wade happening in 1973 and then one year later Prime Minister Pierre E. Trudeau is somehow talked into making what I believe may be the most serious error by a sitting Canadian Prime Minister in the last six decades.

It would have been impossible to arrange the following surge in the national debt of the USA:

The Public-Debt Problem
Written by Alain Pilote on Monday, 30 June 1986. Posted in In This Age of Plenty (book)

If Canada had continued with the rather brilliant central banking policies that we had had from 1939 - 1974.

OPEC oil prices were one factor in this......
but so perhaps were the ideas of Thomas Robert Malthus :



Here are the statistics for deaths among African Americans since 1973:




The Bank of Canada Must Finance our Country, Debt-Free
on Wednesday, 01 March 1995. Posted in In This Age of Plenty (book)

 

[mark46]

Where exactly do you believe the 1,000 a month would come from? Remember Goverment funded means taxpayer funded.

As Yang has indicated, as I indicated in my post, the $1000 a month would be funded by a value added tax (VAT), a tax BTW that every other developed country uses. My choice would be a reduction in tax benefits of capital gains compared to income.

If this were a Republican proposal, it would be funded by the growth that the additional $1000 a person would produce. However, being Democrats, we require funding. How life has changed.

 

[cow451]

Wholly irrelevant batman!

Not so fast, Boy Wonder. The Riddler and Joker would be just devious enough to pull off such a Hoax.... Quick! To the Bat Room! No time to waste!

 

[GodLovesCats]

Yes, this time the candidate will be campaigning in the Rust Belt the week and night before the election. There will be hundreds of millions spent on the Rust Belt. Last time, the candidate took a victory trip to AZ the week before the election, didn't campaign in WI at all, almost lost MN, and then celebrated the night before by throwing a Beyonce concert in Philadelphia.

In this thread only what the Democrats are doing until June 6 matters, so none of that is relevant.

 

[GodLovesCats]

OK, which party do you think will be harmed if Trump supported $1000 a month for all, and the VAT that pays for it? IMO, this is much, much, much better than lots of ideas I have heard from the left.

Trump has nothing to do with the Democratic nomination process. Neither does any Republican-proposed tax plan. You can start your own thread about that.

 

[mark46]

Trump has nothing to do with the Democratic nomination process. Neither does any Republican-proposed tax plan. You can start your own thread about that.

???
I just watched the YANG plan being discussed by Yang on CNN.