This was a response to a response to Max Keiser’s SILVER LIBERATION ARMY post on David DeGraw’s FASCISTBOOK page.  I was pleased with it and feel it’s wasted on FASCISTBOOK and really fits better as a full blog post on THE REVOLT.

Jill Cohn: The answer is Kucinich’s HR6550-have you read it? Gives the right to print money back to the congress & abolishes fractional lending. See http://www.theamericandreamfilm. com

My answer:

I read the bill and while it has some good provisions in it, it is not even an answer I, a non-US national, find sufficient to control the problems the USA monetary system, banking system, and CFTC rules cause the rest of the world. That’s to me. To a US resident, it’s way less of an answer. All it really would to is to harmonize the USA monetary system with that of most nations of the world in that it would have a public central bank under “ministry of finance” control. Even that is in question given the passage that refers to the purchase of equity in the constituent member banks of the Federal Reserve. The issue of fractional lending (which I consider way too polite a term and prefer “LEVERAGE FRAUD”) is not well-confronted in the bill and, moreover, no matter what the bill says about there existing no right of individuals to create money, the CFTC OTC rules make enforcement impossible without a judicial challenge to those rules and a win at the Supreme Court level. Another problem is that all of the reforms (which are good and well-meant) in the bill would require an Executive Branch decree in order to return a privilege of agency granted to Congress in the Constitution. So, it’s all really whistling in the dark and depending on the clearance of some very high material hurdles. Despite the modest improvements that would come about should all those hurdles be cleared, NONE of the problems the SLA has cited are addressed at all.

But I’m not in the SLA, so here are more of my problems with the bill many of which dovetail with the SLA’s (1) The monetary-system would remain debt-based
(2) There is no provision for the liquidation of the present debt-load, let’s call it $20 TLN, to be conservative given the present debt-load and the debt which would accumulate during the process of passing this legislation. (3) There is no provision to unwind the derivative contracts of much greater notional principal which sits atop the debt load. Let’s call that figure $2 QUADRILLION.
(4) My numbers (2) and (3) are really not correct, strictly speaking, because there is a way to do it, but to do it would create an apocalypse — DEFAULT ON THE EXTANT DEBT, FORCING THE UNWINDING OF THE DERIVATIVE CONTRACTS.
(4x) Default really is the only unilateral action because to do anything else would violate the “takings clause” for US holders of US debt and would be acts of war against foreign governmental holders of US debt
(5) There is nothing that addresses the corruption inherent in the banking-cartel/US government/Federal Reserve relationship in which all three of these entities are really the same and thus not even highly-leveraged bank speculation bears any risk at all of loss (while the counter-party to those transactions do). The banks collect from the counter-parties should they win and are given some prize by the Fed (themselves in other words) and/or the Treasury if they lose!
(6) There is nothing in the bill that addresses the problem of inability of people and businesses outside that triumvirate to do voluntary business or trade and settle voluntarily because of the militarized law-enforcement powers over individual voluntary transactions granted by the triumvirate to itself via the US government’s Executive Branch: (a) the powers assumed by USA v Union Bank Of Switzerland (NA)/Banque Union de Switerland, S.A. (b) USA PATRIOT ACTS 1,2 & 3 (c) RICO (d) UIGEA (e) ·KYC” (f) F.A.T.C.A.T. (g) all of those powers unnamed but assumed under an umbrella we’ll call the “War On Terror” which include the US Executive Branch’s various signing statements, executive orders, emergency powers, it’s interpretations of the War Powers Act and the UCOMJ
(6) there is very pleasant language in the bill with regard to unemployment and the American middle-class and so forth, but without a separate act of Congress a right or even entitlement to full employment is neither constitutional nor in any way materially feasible.

Fortunately for me, but not for your or Dennis Kucinich, UNASUR-ALBA and most of MERCOSUR see these issues the same way the SLA does, including everything I´ve written up to this point, but primarily THE NEED FOR ASSET-BASED NOT DEBT-BASED MONEY as voluntarily agreed-to media of exchange and store of value. Some of the UNASUR-ALBA nations have gone so far as to ENCOURAGE private, voluntary transactions between people and/or businesses apart from their current USD-reserve debt-based monetary systems but rather with “Trueque” (Barter), with a tax holiday kicker. Yes, HUGO CHÁVEZ=RON PAUL.

If you like what you see here at The Revolt, please subscribe via Email subscription or by the RSS Feed button found on the upper right hand corner of this page and/or hit the Share Button at the bottom of the post to share via various means.

All posts are opinions meant to foster comment, reporting, teaching & study under the “fair use doctrine” in Sec. 107 of U.S. Code Title 17. No statement of fact is made or should be implied. Ads appearing on this blog are solely the product of the advertiser and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of BuehlahMan’s Revolt or
About these ads

10 thoughts on “THE INADAQUACY OF DENNIS KUCINICH, episode #67,875

  1. I realize I still owe you a post on “Peak Oil” as one explanatory variable in the spot and forward prices of crude and refined products which obtain these days.

    This will be a very big research job if not writing job, but I haven´t forgotten. Just got a little lazy!

    RIP, Joe Bageant.

    • No problem. I am behind on reading anything and everything lately. Rehab with my leg, daughter’s softball, gardening. All are keeping me away from the PC.

      I will be interested in the peak oil deal, because as I noted on your FB page, when Obama started saying that Libya is also related to peak oil, well, I tend to believe the exact opposite of anything the man has to say.

  2. At least Kucinich is attempting to address the issue. Why criticize one of the only genuine progressives we have?

    • Andrew,

      I used to think the same of Kucinich. But, at this point, it appears to me that Dennis is as much covering his ass as anything else. The bill doesn’t go far enough, which means to me there is some capitulation on points (like his healthcare debacle).

      I am not sure there really are any real progressives in national politics. Mostly they are ass-kissers protecting their money holes.

  3. Andrew: I’m under no obligation to not criticize some politician just because you have labeled him progressive. My critique was based upon the short-comings of the bill, the many loopholes in it and all of the relevant issues that the bill should address but fails to.

    I absolutely invite you to read the bill carefully and point out where my concerns are unwarranted. If you do a good job with that, I´m sure you will find some points of mine you can either refute totally or make a case for those concerns irrelevancy.

    Then, I´d respond in a serious, respectful, way, and I promise if I think you´ve made a good point or shown where I´ve made a poor one, I’ll have no trouble owning up to that.

    The presence or absence of progressives in America are irrelevant to this issue, which is a bill to change procedural and jurisdictional aspects of American monetary policy.

    I have my doubts as whether Dennis Kucinich is a genuine progressive or just a Democrat Party careerist. Lord knows, while there is a terrible shortage of genuine progressives in American politics, there is no shortage whatsoever of careerist stooges of K-Street.

    Kucinich has never been much of a stooge of K-Street, but this bill is certainly one the “financial services industry” (read: banking-cartel/Federal Reserve/Treasury Department/Executive branch of government) can easily live with because it doesn´t change very much in the way of the monetary system, it merely re-arranges the current system into a different procedural form. That’s certainly not progressive legislation. It´s the opposite of progressive. It’s institutional pretense at progressive legislation with words and themes that sound populist decorating a calcifying bit of no-change change.

    Kucinich may be addressing the issue of American monetary reform,but he’s done a poor, mostly incomplete, job in his conception of the reform.

    You may think of him as a rare progressive in American politics, and some of his recent ideas on other issues have been a break from the toothlessness he displayed in trying to placate the White House and avoid a primary challenge. Perhaps, now that his seat has been (unfairly, I think) gerry-mandered out, he may feel more liberated and return to the progressive independent he had been BEFORE Democrat control of the Executive, or this may be an effort to placate the Executive again and an apology of sorts for harshly criticizing its imperialist foreign policy.

    I don´t want to guess at the politics because I have no firm ground to stand on. I know I don´t like the bill but I don´t want to say he wrote it this way for any nefarious reason. I don´t know. He may have just written it too quickly. He may have suffered for the lack of his on-again/off-again ally, Ron Paul, who is Congress´s expert on this subject. But this is all silly speculation, irrelevant to what I wanted to do.

    I pointed out South American monetary reform legislation which is very progressive as a contrast. Of course, no country in South America has these unique monetary pathologies such as a private central bank. Moreover, the monetary policy South America, like the rest of the world, has various versions of debt-based money — hard USD pegs, soft USD pegs, floating but with USD reserve, and free-floating — but is moving in progressive stages towards individualized, sovereign, free-floating, asset-based money, which will be called “Sucre.”

    • I’m by no means an expert on the issue, and even if I read the bill I probably wouldn’t be able to offer any meaningful feedback on your critique. I guess it’s all somewhat irrelevant anyway, because this bill, like most of Kucinich’s bills, will never pass. Which does raise the question of why he didn’t put more meaningful, comprehensive reform in the bill, if he knew it wouldn’t pass anyway.

      You say discussing his motives is useless speculation, and perhaps for the purposes of this post it is. I find it interesting because, as I noted, I have long regarded Kucinich as one of the few honest leftists in Congress. If there is any indication that he is, as both you and B’Man have suggested, protecting his own income/reputation or pandering to financial interests, then I think this information is relevant.

      What is your honest opinion here? Is Kucinich cozying up to financial interests?

      • I have a feeling that Kucinich (and Paul, for that matter) are “allowed” to feed the few real progressives (or libertarians). Bernie Sanders has been used in this fashion, as well.

        It is the illusion of a fight, while the rest make out as if K, P or S are loonies. But when you get right down to the nut-cuttin, it appears they KNOW that what they champion is a loss before even trying.

        As in Single Payer healthcare, K showed his true self by spouting all the bullshit (“I back my POTUS and don’t want to see him lose” after making his name on the point that he would fight it no matter what).

        Someone or something got to him and I can only speculate as to what it was.

        • Andrew: I pretty much agree with B’Man on your key question. I do believe that he’s a careerist Democrat Party man and knows what his function within that framework is.

          I don´t believe that he thinks he’s cozying up to big financial interests and I don´t think at rock bottom he does cozy up that often. That he did ON HIS OWN national health bill is a disgrace I´ll never forgive him for. He more than cozied up to big insurance, big pharma and big HMO industries, HE LED ON IT ONCE HE HAD MADE THE 180 DEGREE SWITCH. B’Man quoted a very key phrase from his post vote Democracy Now appearance. He admitted what he was.

          To that, I add that on the same show he and Nader had a half hour debate with Kucinich taking the Obamacare side and Nader taking the national health side.

          But that’s not the issue here exactly though it is tangential.My answer: NO he definitely doesn´t cozy up to big finance or the Fed or Treasury.

          What’s happened here is he knows the parameters of how far he can go with this and stay in his Democrat Party man role. If he were Independent, he and Ron Paul–both pretty solid monetarists–would write a much better bill together. Ron Paul does have more freedom to do his own thing within the system as a Republican because he has no role whatsoever as a Republican Party man. To be more specific, his wing of the1-party fascist system hates him even more than the other wing does.

        • Well you’ve both offered some interesting perspective on the Kucinich / Paul phenomenon. I’ll certainly take a look at the Democracy Now! appearance you mentioned.

  4. My opinion is dark and nasty. I feel the only way to end the bullshit is an apocalypse. As dark as it seems…all I see is contintuation of or expantion of this horseshit. This bill,as noted by some of you, doesnt adress the problem of the US government/federal reserve monstrosity.

    I dont see politicians solving this anymore than I see the Pentagon STOPPING wars. Why would they put themselves out of jobs.

    The solution will come from outside government.

    Just ask yourself, do wish to remain a debt slave?Your grandchildren?Their grandchildren? Its just a matter of time…time when the rest of the people catch up to and realize what we all do….then maybe…things will change. The ‘apocalypse’ will happen.

You Got Something To Say? Please keep your maw respectful and gab on topic.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s