Did J. F. K. learn how to save USA taxpayers INTEREST payments from President Lincoln?

To what degree was President J. F. K. motivated by the "Abraham Lincoln Greenback Monetary Policy?"

  • J. F. K. was 1- 10 percent motivated by the Lincoln Greenback Monetary Policy Experiment

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • J.F.K. was 11 - 20 percent motivated by the Lincoln Greenback Monetary Policy Experiment

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • J. F. K. was 21 to 30 percent motivated by the Lincoln Greenback Monetary Policy Experiment

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • J. F. K. was even more that 31 percent motivated by the Abraham Lincoln Greenback Policy Experiment.

    Votes: 3 75.0%
  • Other answer, please be specific in a reply

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • DennisPTate is an idiot who is advocating an INFLATIONARY response to our national debt.

    Votes: 1 25.0%

  • Total voters
    4

DennisPTate

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2025
Messages
4,515
Reaction score
1,748
Points
188
If I am incorrect about this then you have my humble apologies but it is my firm belief that
President John F. Kennedy learned something extremely important from the President Abraham Lincoln
"Greenback Monetary Policy Experiment" that he felt he had to attempt to replicate in order to benefit
all Americans from the early 1960's for the next century or more?

I believe that essentially the same group of people who own "BigOil" also own "BigMedia" and "BigGovernment Bureaucracy" and "BigPharma" and perhaps more importantly "BigBanking."

It is my firm belief that these people TEND TO FEAR PRESIDENT DONALD J. TRUMP BECAUSE THEY KNOW THAT HIS LEVEL OF COURAGE IS COMPARABLE TO THAT OF PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY!

"We residents of the USA and Canada do not fully realize the seriousness of the situations that were faced by our national leaders throughout our history.

As of this moment it is my belief that President Donald J. Trump is up against some astonishingly evil people who have only one thing in common to unite them, [ FEAR and hatred for President Donald J. Trump who they know to be the first USA President since J. F, K. who had the political courage to oppose them and their control over three hundred and thirty million Americans and ten million Israelis and forty one million Canadians and I can present a powerful case that they are powerful in Mexico and all of South America as well]!

On a scale of one to ten, with ten meaning this article is highly historically accurate, would you give the following article by Mr. Melvin Sickler?

Did President Abraham Lincoln use the "Greenback Monetary Policy Experiment" to save USA taxpayers FOUR BILLION DOLLARS IN INTEREST?"




....


....

[Melvin Sickler, Lincoln Kennedy].

Abraham Lincoln


Lincoln

During the Civil War (1861-1865), President Lincoln needed money to finance the War from the North. The Bankers were going to charge him 24% to 36% interest. Lincoln was horrified and went away greatly distressed, for he was a man of principle and would not think of plunging his beloved country into a debt that the country would find impossible to pay back.


Eventually President Lincoln was advised to get Congress to pass a law authorizing the printing of full legal tender Treasury notes to pay for the War effort. Lincoln recognized the great benefits of this issue. At one point he wrote:

"... (we) gave the people of this Republic the greatest blessing they have ever had -- their own paper money to pay their own debts..."

Lincoln printed 400 million dollars worth of Greenbacks (the exact amount being $449,338,902), money that he delegated to be created, a debt-free and interest-free money to finance the War. It served as legal tender for all debts, public and private. He printed it, paid it to the soldiers, to the U.S. Civil Service employees, and bought supplies for war.
Shortly after that happened, "The London Times" printed the following: "If that mischievous financial policy, which had its origin in the North American Republic, should become indurated down to a fixture, then that Government will furnish its own money without cost. That govern-ment must be destroyed, or it will destroy every monarchy on the globe." In retaliation

After this was published in "The London Times", the British Government, which was controlled by the London and other European Bankers, moved to support the Confederate South, hoping to defeat Lincoln and the Union, and destroy this government which they said had to be destroyed.

The Czar of Russia sent a portion of the Russian navy to the United States with orders that its admiral would operate under the command of Abraham Lincoln. These ships of the Russian navy then became a threat to the ships of the British navy which had intended to break the blockade and help the South.

The North won the War, and the Union was preserved. America remained as one nation.

Of course, the Bankers were not going to give in that easy, for they were determined to put an end to Lincoln's interest-free, debt-free Greenbacks. He was assassinated by an agent of the Bankers shortly after the War ended.

Thereafter, Congress revoked the Green-back Law and enacted, in its place, the National Banking Act. The national banks were to be privately owned and the national bank notes they issued were to be interest bearing. The Act also provided that the Greenbacks should be retired from circulation as soon as they came back to the Treasury in payment of taxes.

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.

...
...

John F. Kennedy


Kennedy

No United States president since Abraham Lincoln dared to go against the system and create his own money, as many of these so-called elected presidents were actually only instruments or puppets of the Bankers. That is until President John F. Kennedy came into office.
On June 4th, 1963, President Kennedy signed a presidential document, called Exec-utive Order 11110, which further amended Executive Order 10289 of September 19th, 1951. This gave Kennedy, as President of the United States, legal clearance to create his own money to run the country, money that would belong to the people, an Interest and debt-free money. He had printed United States Notes, completely ignoring the Federal Reserve Notes from the private banks of the Federal Reserve.

Our records show that Kennedy issued $4,292,893,825 of cash money. It was obvious that Kennedy was out to under-mine the Federal Reserve System of the United States.

But it was only a few months later, In November of 1963, that the world received the shocking news of President Kennedy's assassination. President Kennedy must have had It in mind to repeal the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, and return back to the United States Congress the power to create its own money.

It is interesting to note that, only one day after Kennedy's assassination, all the United States notes, which Kennedy had issued, were called out of circulation. Was this through an executive order of the newly installed president, Lyndon B. Johnson? Was President Johnson afraid of the Bankers? Or was he one of their instruments? At any rate, all of the money President Kennedy had created was destroyed. And not a word was said to the American people.

A lesson to learn
[Melvin Sickler, Lincoln Kennedy]
 
What are you mumbling about now?

I am kind of hoping that Canada's new National Leader of the N.D.P. may somewhat like my idea of an "Unconditional but Taxable Basic Minimum Income Supplement" as I feel was explained rather brilliantly by Economist Milton Friedman......
and further explained by Economist Harold Chorney.....
and Economist John Hotson
and Economist Mario Seccarrecia?

This will give you an idea of how much more diabolical my plans are becoming each week or month.



I am seriously suggesting that he does an Alternative Currency Note of FIVE DOLLARS..... with his dad's image and name on them in some way...........

and I believe that he should offer to pay off the National Debt of the USA in these new Alternative Currency Notes......
that I believe should also be done as a BLOCKCHAIN database.

...

" Dennis P. Tait [or Tate]
N3L0M9, Canada
April 25, 2026

Honorable Minister Mr. Avi Lewis:

I am sorry to hear that your dad has passed on into the higher invisible dimensions but the fact that he lived to see you elected as national leader of the NDP is no coincidence.

My suggestion is that you do an Alternative Currency Note with the image and name of your dad on it and that you put in an offer to President Donald J. Trump to purchase THE NATIONAL DEBT OF THE USA IN this Alternative Currency note that will be somewhat like Calgary Dollars?


My suggestion would be for you to ASK MR. WAYNE GRETZKY TO BECOME THE C. E. O. for this proposed alternative currency note that in a way could be used to Reverse Engineer something along the line of what was explained in the documentary or movie, "Banking on Bitcoin."

Obviously, you already know that I mean a BLOCKCHAIN, which is significantly different than BitCoin in some ways. One of the primary jobs that Mr. Wayne Gretzky would need to do is figure out a way to pay off the national debts of the USA.... and the national debt of Canada.... in a manner that is win, win, win, win, win, win, win for forty one million Canadians!

Shabbat Shalom.

Dennis Tait"

 
Last edited:
I am kind of hoping that Canada's new National Leader of the N.D.P. may somewhat like my idea of an "Unconditional but Taxable Basic Minimum Supplement" as I feel was explained rather brilliantly by Economist Milton Friedman......
and further explained by Economist Harold Chorney.....
and Economist John Hotson
and Economist Mario Seccarrecia?

This will give you an idea of how much more diabolical my plans are becoming each week or month.



I am seriously suggesting that he does an Alternative Currency Note of FIVE DOLLARS..... with his dad's image and name on them in some way...........

and I believe that he should offer to pay off the National Debt of the USA in these new Alternative Currency Notes......
that I believe should also be done as a BLOCKCHAIN database.

...

" Dennis P. Tait [or Tate]
N3L0M9, Canada
April 25, 2026

Honorable Minister Mr. Avi Lewis:

I am sorry to hear that your dad has passed on into the higher invisible dimensions but the fact that he lived to see you elected as national leader of the NDP is no coincidence.

My suggestion is that you do an Alternative Currency Note with the image and name of your dad on it and that you put in an offer to President Donald J. Trump to purchase THE NATIONAL DEBT OF THE USA IN this Alternative Currency note that will be somewhat like Calgary Dollars?


My suggestion would be for you to ASK MR. WAYNE GRETZKY TO BECOME THE C. E. O. for this proposed alternative currency note that in a way could be used to Reverse Engineer something along the line of what was explained in the documentary or movie, "Banking on Bitcoin."

Obviously, you already know that I mean a BLOCKCHAIN, which is significantly different than BitCoin in some ways. One of the primary jobs that Mr. Wayne Gretzky would need to do is figure out a way to pay off the national debts of the USA.... and the national debt of Canada.... in a manner that is win, win, win, win, win, win, win for forty one million Canadians!

Shabbat Shalom.

Dennis Tait"


"Unconditional but Taxable Basic Minimum Supplement" as I feel was explained rather brilliantly by Economist Milton Friedman......

Where did Friedman support a universal handout?
 
"Unconditional but Taxable Basic Minimum Supplement" as I feel was explained rather brilliantly by Economist Milton Friedman......

Where did Friedman support a universal handout?

Dr. Milton Friedman felt that BUREAUCRACIES tend to want more and more and more and more power for themselves...... and of course they wanted more money and more assistants so that the work load on them and their fellow bureaucrats would be decreased........

One of the only ways to have very few bureaucrats needed to handle some sort of Social Safety Net was to
make it UNCONDITIONAL but Taxable........
so that what was given to every citizen did not depend on their income last week.... or last month.... or even last year......

I believe that Dr. Milton Friedman gave one of the only workable alternatives to the existing Welfare State as it is happening in the USA and Canada.


x. The Distribution of IncomeFriedman examines the progressive income tax, introduced in order to redistribute income to make things more fair, and finds that, in fact, the rich take advantage of numerous loopholes, nullifying the redistributive effects. It would be far more fair just to have a uniform flat tax with no deductions, which could meet the 1962 tax revenues with a rate only slightly greater than the lowest tax bracket at that time.


xi. Social Welfare MeasuresThough well-intentioned, many social welfare measures don't help the poor as much as some think. Friedman focuses on Social Security as a particularly large and unfair system.


xii. Alleviation of PovertyFriedman regarded welfare programs as misguided and inefficient. To replace them, he advocates a negative income tax, giving everyone a guaranteed minimum income.


xiii. ConclusionThe conclusion to the book centers on how, time and time again, government intervention often has an effect opposite of that intended. Most good things in the United States and the world come from the free market, not the government, and they will continue to do so. The government, despite its good intentions, should stay out of areas where it does not need to be.

 
Dr. Milton Friedman felt that BUREAUCRACIES tend to want more and more and more and more power for themselves...... and of course they wanted more money and more assistants so that the work load on them and their fellow bureaucrats would be decreased........

One of the only ways to have very few bureaucrats needed to handle some sort of Social Safety Net was to
make it UNCONDITIONAL but Taxable........
so that what was given to every citizen did not depend on their income last week.... or last month.... or even last year......

I believe that Dr. Milton Friedman gave one of the only workable alternatives to the existing Welfare State as it is happening in the USA and Canada.

Friedman didn't support a universal handout?

Glad you can see your error now.
 
Friedman didn't support a universal handout?

Glad you can see your error now.
Here in Canada if a paltry five hundred dollars per month per citizen and legal resident would be financed in the exact same way as much of the infrastructure spending of 1938 to 1974 was done then I believe that the Canadian federal DEFICIT and soon the national debt of Canada can begin to be PAID DOWN by roughly TWENTY BILLION DOLLARS MONTHLY.

500 dollars per month x Forty One Million Canadians is a little over twenty BILLION dollars [Northern Pesos] per month and after that money turns over in the economy about three times it will be taxed back into the treasury completely, [and will thus become a TAXATION CASH COW for all three levels of government here in Canada].

This same idea can work in the USA as well but the numbers would be a lot larger.

Three hundred and thirty million American citizens and legal residents if given five hundred USA Dollars per month IF THIS ONE HUNDRED AND SIXTY FIVE BILLION DOLLARS was created in the same manner as the President Abraham Lincoln Monetary Policy Experiment then VOILA..... AS this money turns over about four to five times in the USA economy
the USA Federal Deficit and soon the national debt of the USA, will begin to be paid down by ONE HUNDRED AND SIXTY FIVE BILLION dollars each month!!!!!!


[Alain Pilote] :

Abraham Lincoln is assassinated
Lincoln.jpg
Abraham Lincoln
Abraham Lincoln was elected President of the United States in 1860, under the promise of abolishing the slavery of the blacks. Eleven southern States, favourable to the human slavery of the black race, then decided to secede from the Union, to withdraw from the United States of America: that was the beginning of the Civil War (1861–1865). Lincoln, being short of money to finance the North's war effort, went to the bankers of New York, who agreed to lend him money at interest rates varying from 24 to 36 percent. Lincoln refused, knowing perfectly well that this was usury and that it would lead the United States to ruin. But his money problem was still not settled!
His friend in Chicago, Colonel Dick Taylor, came to his rescue and put the solution to him:
“Just get Congress to pass a bill authorizing the printing of full legal tender treasury notes, and pay your soldiers with them, and go ahead and win your war with them also.”
This is what Lincoln did, and he won the war: between 1862 and 1863, in full conformity with the provisions of the U.S. Constitution, Lincoln caused $450 million of debt-free Greenbacks to be issued, to conduct the Civil War. (These Treasury notes were called “Greenbacks” by the people because they were printed with green ink on the back.)
Lincoln called these Greenbacks “the greatest blessing the American people have ever had.” A blessing for all, except for the bankers, since it was putting an end to their racket, to the stealing of the nation's credit and issuing interest-bearing money. So they did everything possible to destroy these Greenbacks and sabotage Lincoln's work. Lord Goschen, spokesman of the Financiers, wrote in the London Times (Quote taken from Who Rules America by C. K. Howe, and reproduced in Lincoln Money Martyred by Dr. R. E. Search):
“If this mischievous financial policy, which has its origin in North America, shall become indurated down to a fixture, then that Government will furnish its own money without cost. It will pay off debts and be without a debt. It will have all the money necessary to carry on its commerce. It will become prosperous without precedent in the history of the world. That Government must be destroyed, or it will destroy every monarchy on the globe.” (The monarchy of the money lenders.)
First, in order to cast discredit on the Greenbacks, the bankers persuaded Congress to vote, in February of 1862, the “Exception Clause”, which said that the Greenbacks could not be used to pay the interest on the national debt, nor to pay taxes, excises, or import duties. Then, in 1863, having financed the election of enough Senators and Representatives, the bankers got the Congress to revoke the Greenback Law in 1863, and enact in its place the National Banking Act. (Money was then to be issued interest-bearing by privately-owned banks.)
This Act also provided that the Greenbacks should be retired from circulation as soon as they came back to the Treasury in payment of taxes. Lincoln heatedly protested, but his most urgent objective was to win the war and save the Union, which obliged him to put off till after the war the veto he was planning against this Act and the action he was to take against the bankers. Lincoln nevertheless declared:
“I have two great enemies, the Southern army in front of me and the bankers in the rear. And of the two, the bankers are my greatest foe.”
Lincoln was re-elected President in 1864, and he made it quite clear that he would attack the power of the bankers, once the war was over. The war ended on April 9, 1865, but Lincoln was assassinated five days later, on April 14. A tremendous restriction of credit followed, organized by the banks: the currency in circulation in the country, which was, in 1866, $1,907 million, representing $50.46 for each American citizen, had been reduced to $605 million in 1876, representing $14.60 per capita. The result: in ten years, 56,446 business failures, representing a loss of $2 billion. And as if this was not enough, the bankers reduced the per capita currency in circulation to $6.67 in 1887!
 
I like blackberry cobbler with a scoop of ice cream.

By this comment do you mean that you would eat more of the food that you like the most if you were to receive an extra five hundred dollars per month in an Unconditional but Taxable Basic Minimum Income Supplement that was financed in the same way as the President Abraham Lincoln Greenback Monetary Policy Experiment?

Do you believe that we need to come up with a more catchy name for what we term this idea if it is implement in 2027 or 2028?

Do you believe that I am incorrect to understand the writings of three Canadian economists in this way?

by Harold Chorney, John Hotson, and Mario Seccareccia

“Governments these days find it easy to defend cuts in services and programs. All they have to do is point to their annual deficits and their total accumulated debts. (As of March, 1994, Canada's public debt was about $546 billion.) This public debt provides the politicians with a convenient excuse for cutting spending or raising taxes. Or both. «We're broke,» they tell us plaintively. «We can't afford to increase public services, or even keep them at their present level.»​

A lesson of war​

“As the deep recession dragged into 1992, Finance Minister Don Mazankowski said he couldn't do anything about it. His hands were tied, he said. The federal government was broke. The cupboard was bare. The deficit and accumulated national debt were so enormous that his first priority had to be to reduce them — even if that meant prolonging the recession and making it even worse.

“So his budget contained almost nothing to revive the sick economy. With interest payments on the debt gobbling up one-third of tax revenue, his response was to keep taxes high and axe more public services and agencies. Like Martin Luther before him, Mazankowski in effect proclaimed: «Here stand I. I cannot do otherwise.»

“But it doesn't take an economist to see that in fact he could. All you have to do is imagine what the government would do if it got involved in another Gulf War — or if that war were still raging. Would the Finance Minister have brought down the same kind of budget? Would he have said, «We'd like to keep on fighting, but we're broke, so we're calling our troops back»? Not on your life!

“Did Canada surrender half way through World War II because the national debt had grown even larger than the Gross Domestic Product (GDP)? Of course not! Somehow the extra money was found. If it wasn't by raising taxes or borrowing from the private banks, why, the Bank of Canada simply created all the money the government needed — and at near-zero interest rates, too!


“When World War II ended, the national debt relative to the national income was more than twice as large as it is now. But was the country ruined? Did we have to declare national bankruptcy? Far from it! Instead, Canada's economy boomed and the country prospered for most of the post-war period.​

The Bank of Canada has failed in its duty​

“Why isn't the same thing happening today? Why was a much larger national debt shrugged off in 1945, while today's much smaller debt (as a percentage of GDP) is being used as an excuse to let the economy stagnate?

“The answer can be found at the Bank of Canada. During the war, and for 30 years afterward, the government could borrow what it needed at low rates of interest, because the government's own bank produced up to half of all the new money. That forced the private banks to keep their interest rates low, too.


“Since the mid-1970s, however, the Bank of Canada, with government consent, has been creating less and less of the new money, while letting the private banks create more and more. Today «our» bank creates a mere 2% of each year's new money supply, while allowing the private banks to gouge the government — and of course you and me, as well — with outrageously high interest rates. And it is these extortionate interest charges that are the principal cause of the rapid escalation of the national debt. If the federal government were paying interest at the average levels that prevailed from the 1930s to the mid-1970s, it would now be running an operating surplus of about $13 billion!”

The updated version (January, 1996) of the pamphlet expresses the same ideas:

“The Bank of Canada was established in 1935 by an Act of Parliament. In its legislative mandate, it is directed to promote economic growth and employment, as well as preserving the value of the Canadian dollar.

“Shortly after the Bank opened its doors, it was faced with the bankruptcy of provincial governments due to the Depression. Interpreting its mandate widely, as it is supposed to do, it made precedent-setting loans to restore the finances of Manitoba. Generous loans to other provinces followed.

“World War II found Canada ready and determined to act in the Allied cause. The war effort of the federal government was financed through enormous deficits and very low interest rates brought about by the Bank of Canada. At war's end, the national debt stood at about 120% of Gross Domestic Product (GDP), nearly double the level of today. Yet Canada went on to enjoy the greatest period of economic growth in its history...

“(Now) the Bank of Canada has decided that any government spending not financed by taxation is inflationary, so it no longer extends credit to the government by holding bonds and Treasury bills. Its small holdings of government debt are confined to the banknotes needed by the economy for currency in circulation...” (End of 1996 updated version's excerpts.)​

Interest rates and inflation​

“Thousands of years of sad experience with the concentration of wealth and debt slavery caused all the ancient books of wisdom — including the Bible and the Koran — to condemn the charging of immoderate rates of interest.(...) The conventional wisdom, however, is that inflation is the greatest threat to the economy and must be restrained by raising interest rates. This flies in the face of the common-sense observation that rising prices (inflation) are caused by rising costs, and that interest rates are costs. So raising them will raise prices, not lower them.

“Also raised by this policy, of course, is the income of the money-lenders, which explains why they subscribe so fervently to the perverse doctrine that high interest rates are somehow anti-inflationary. Certainly the world's bankers and other money-lenders have gained much from the nonsensical notion that, while giving workers a big raise is inflationary, giving money-lenders a big raise is not.

“Many economists rail against «wage push», and it's true that wages have risen by 2,700% over the past 50 years. But in the same period government tax revenue went up by 3,400%, and net interest by 26,000%! Yet, most of the economic textbooks that deplore rising wages don't even mention the tax and interest pushes. And it is not because they are complex ideas — rather, they are simple and obvious — but because it would be so embarrassing for economists to admit they've made a boner of such magnitude: that their theory of monetary policy violates basic principles of scientific logic.​

The creation of money​

“One of the most pervasive myths about the government deficit is that governments which spend more than they receive in revenue must borrow the difference, thus increasing the public debt.

“In fact, a government can choose to create the needed additional money instead of borrowing it from the banks, the public, or foreigners.

“Business and the conservatives in politics and the media are horrified by the suggestion that the government exercise its right to create more money. They claim it would precipitate another ruinous bout of inflation.

“But money creation is money creation — whether by a private bank or the Bank of Canada. And a government in debt only to the government's own bank is not really in debt at all. If it wants to go through the rigamarole of having the Treasury «borrow» from the central bank and later pay interest, that is a minor matter of bookkeeping. As long as the central bank's profits are returned to the Treasury, the results are much the same as if the Treasury had created the money itself.

“There is no reason why the growth of Canada's money supply (averaging about $22 billion annually in recent years) could not be more substantially created by the Bank of Canada. If that policy had been followed, the federal government would not have been obliged to add to its debts to pay interest on old debts. Instead, the Bank of Canada has produced barely 2% of the money added in recent years, while the chartered banks added the rest as they made loans to households, businesses, and all levels of government. At the very least, the Bank of Canada and the chartered banks should share the privilege of creating money on a 50-50 basis.

“Those who dismiss such a proposal as «inflationary» should be required to explain why it would be more inflationary for the government's bank to create $11 billion and the private banks $11 billion, rather than the present practice of having the government's bank create $0.7 billion and the private banks $21.3 billion!

“Clearly the current problem of the Canadian government's deficit is not its absolute size, or its size relative to the GDP, but the insane way it is being financed. A return to the policies of the World War II era, when the Bank of Canada produced almost one-half of the new money at near-zero interest, would do wonders for the economy, while greatly shrinking the deficit... The first order of business for a post-Mulroney-era government must be to regain effective control of the Bank of Canada and make it the primary source of money creation.

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.

Banks create money​

“We have to keep in mind that our monetary economy only grows when the money supply grows. Under the present debt-driven system, the only way we can increase the money supply is by borrowing it into existence from the private banks, thereby increasing our indebtedness to them.

“It can't be stressed too much that the private banks, unlike non-bank lenders, create the money they lend. They do not — as is so widely imagined, even by the bankers themselves — lend their depositors' money. The amount of new money created by a bank loan, however, is only sufficient to pay back the principal. No money is created to pay the interest, except that which is paid to the holders of bank deposits. That's why debts must continually grow faster and faster in order for each layer of additional debt and interest to be paid.

“If that strikes you as a very dumb and dangerous way to operate a monetary system, you're right. Clearly it would be much safer and more sensible to have at least a large amount of the needed new money spent into circulation debt free by the federal government — or lent by it interest free to the junior levels of government which lack the power to create money. Reform of the monetary system is therefore the key to controlling the deficit and lowering the public debt.”
(End of the three economists' pamphlet.)

* * *​

Comments of the Michael Journal

We congratulate these three economists who dare to go off the beaten track. More and more people are echoing the message of the Social Crediters of the “Michael” Journal, and they urge the Federal Government to create its own money, and to put the Bank of Canada at the service of the Canadians.

The Minister of Finance and “orthodox” economists keep repeating that this solution (government-created money) is unworkable, since, according to them, it would automatically bring about runaway inflation. Yet, this policy of government-created money was actually tried out successfully in Canada during World War II (when half of the money supply was created by the Bank of Canada), and it is during those years that Canada's economy boomed the most, with near-zero inflation.

Others will say that the Bank of Canada cannot reduce its interest rates (the Bank Rate, which is set every Tuesday by the Bank of Canada), because if the rate is too low (lower than that of the United States, for example), foreign investors will flee Canada and invest their money in other countries with higher interest rates, where their investments will yield higher returns. This argument would fall by itself if the Federal Government would create its own money, instead of borrowing it. Figures made in Canada are just as good as figures made abroad to finance production made in Canada. Besides, what would Canada do if it were the only country in the world, with no foreign countries from which it could get money? Should we be condemned to starvation in front of our own goods, through lack of figures to buy them?

The three economists quoted above suggested that the Bank of Canada should create half of the money supply in our country. This suggestion is timid! What the Social Crediters of the Michael Journal propose is that the Bank of Canada should create all of the money supply for Canada, since money creation cannot be left in the hands of private interests. Make no mistake: private banks would still exist, and still lend money, but they would not have the power to create new money with their loans. When a chartered bank makes a loan to a business or individual, the bank would get the money for the loan from the Bank of Canada, interest free. The private bank would be accountable to the Bank of Canada for that money, having to return it to the central bank when the loan is paid back to the private bank. (This technique is explained in detail in the first pages of Louis Even's booklet, “A Sound and Effective Financial System”.)

The Bank of Canada has been diverted from its purpose, and instead of being the Bank of the Canadians, it has become the bankers' bank. The Chrétien Government must bring the Bank of Canada to heel, and have it finance the needs of our nation, debt free. It is the only solution to solve the problem of the deficit and the debt.

Several groups are lobbying for more spending cuts; some even say that our Finance Minister did not go far enough with spending cuts in his last budget. It only makes less money left into circulation, which makes the situation even tougher for all Canadians. As the three economists mentioned above put it in their pamphlet, “strident calls for cutbacks and belt-tightening measures are, in tough economic times, the worst possible course to follow. It is in fact a lethal prescription for recreating the widespread unemployment and suffering of the 1930s.”

Mr. Prime Minister, you don't wish such a state of affairs to occur, do you? Well, to prevent if from happening, you have no alternative but to apply the Social Credit principles of Clifford Hugh Douglas and Louis Even!

Moreover, all the premiers who complain about the reduction of transfer payments to the provinces in the federal budget, should join forces to pressure the federal government to put the Bank of Canada at the service of all the Canadians, and finance the provinces with interest-free money. But make no mistake: if our governments are not backed up by public opinion, they won't have the courage to challenge the power of the Financiers. So it is your duty, dear readers of the Michael Journal, to create this public opinion in favour of a return to an honest debt-free money system, by getting all your friends and acquaintances to subscribe to the Michael Journal. This is the prime requirement for the liberation of our country. Good luck!


 
Last edited:
By this comment do you mean that you would eat more of the food that you like the most if you were to receive an extra five hundred dollars per month in an Unconditional but Taxable Basic Minimum Income Supplement that was financed in the same way as the President Abraham Lincoln Greenback Monetary Policy Experiment?

Do you believe that we need to come up with a more catchy name for what we term this idea if it is implement in 2027 or 2028?

Do you believe that I am incorrect to understand the writings of three Canadian economists in this way?
Where's the free money coming from? I had to make that cobbler and ice cream myself.
 
Where's the free money coming from? I had to make that cobbler and ice cream myself.


A powerful case can be presented that the federal governments of Washington, D. C. and Ottawa here in Canada have a responsibility to keep putting MONEY into the economy much as a team of physicians must put blood into the bodies of many of their sick patients?

MONEY keeps an economy healthy much as the flow of BLOOD in a body keeps a body alive. When Compound Interest Over Time cause an economy to APPEAR to be bankrupt..... the certain people have the perfect excuse to set in motion another 1929 style event.

I have read a case that putting MONEY into the economy of the USA and Canada is like ONE of the two or three or four major jobs that elected officials should attempt to do but Neo-Malthusian Economic Philosophers hate any idea that will not fit with their plans to depopulate us humams due to their belief that we humans are a danger to the air, water, earth, plants, trees and other animals?

More than ninety five percent of the Money Supply here in Canada is created by PRIVATE BANKS giving loans to businesses, provinces, individuals or even to the government itself. Many of us believe that the Bank of Canada needs to be used as was done from 1938 to 1974.

Some powerful people do not want the ordinary American or ordinary Canadian to know about certain aspects of our history.

In the years after the Civil War something very much like a Deliberate Bear Market was set in motion by those with the power to do so. There are many who seem to want to do the same sort of thing from 2026 to 2030 or even to 2036?


Lincoln was re-elected President in 1864, and he made it quite clear that he would attack the power of the bankers, once the war was over. The war ended on April 9, 1865, but Lincoln was assassinated five days later, on April 14. A tremendous restriction of credit followed, organized by the banks: the currency in circulation in the country, which was, in 1866, $1,907 million, representing $50.46 for each American citizen, had been reduced to $605 million in 1876, representing $14.60 per capita. The result: in ten years, 56,446 business failures, representing a loss of $2 billion. And as if this was not enough, the bankers reduced the per capita currency in circulation to $6.67 in 1887!

 
Last edited:
A powerful case can be presented that the federal governments of Washington, D. C. and Ottawa here in Canada have a responsibility to keep putting MONEY into the economy much as a team of physicians must put blood into the bodies of many of their sick patients?

MONEY keeps an economy healthy much as the flow of BLOOD in a body keeps a body alive. When Compound Interest Over Time cause an economy to APPEAR to be bankrupt..... the certain people have the perfect excuse to set in motion another 1929 style event.

I have read a case that putting MONEY into the economy of the USA and Canada is like ONE of the two or three or four major jobs that elected officials should attempt to do but Neo-Malthusian Economic Philosophers hate any idea that will not fit with their plans to depopulate us humams due to their belief that we humans are a danger to the air, water, earth, plants, trees and other animals?

More than ninety five percent of the Money Supply here in Canada is created by PRIVATE BANKS giving loans to businesses, provinces, individuals or even to the government itself. Many of us believe that the Bank of Canada needs to be used as was done from 1938 to 1974.

Some powerful people do not want the ordinary American or ordinary Canadian to know about certain aspects of our history.

In the years after the Civil War something very much like a Deliberate Bear Market was set in motion by those with the power to do so. There are many who seem to want to do the same sort of thing from 2026 to 2030 or even to 2036?

Why would they have a responsibility to do so? All governments do now is run up debt and never pay down their debt. I don't want any of their worthless endeavors. Thats why you see people buying tangibles ie land, gold, silver, etc..........stuff that has actual value now because dollars are becoming worthless because govt wastes every penny. Govt or banks do not create wealth. People create wealth.
 
Why would they have a responsibility to do so? All governments do now is run up debt and never pay down their debt. I don't want any of their worthless endeavors. Thats why you see people buying tangibles ie land, gold, silver, etc..........stuff that has actual value now because dollars are becoming worthless because govt wastes every penny. Govt or banks do not create wealth. People create wealth.

But think for a moment about the alternative.....
Does "Dystopian Nightmare" sound like a positive future to you?

Do you have children?

Do you have grandchildren?

I do... and I am genuinely worried that they will be facing unemployment and under employment that will be higher than twenty, thirty or even forty percent over the next decade or two or three?




This is one of the reasons why I feel a responsibility to at least attempt to participate in the Canadian political scene.



 
Last edited:
Here in Canada if a paltry five hundred dollars per month per citizen and legal resident would be financed in the exact same way as much of the infrastructure spending of 1938 to 1974 was done then I believe that the Canadian federal DEFICIT and soon the national debt of Canada can begin to be PAID DOWN by roughly TWENTY BILLION DOLLARS MONTHLY.

500 dollars per month x Forty One Million Canadians is a little over twenty BILLION dollars [Northern Pesos] per month and after that money turns over in the economy about three times it will be taxed back into the treasury completely, [and will thus become a TAXATION CASH COW for all three levels of government here in Canada].

This same idea can work in the USA as well but the numbers would be a lot larger.

Three hundred and thirty million American citizens and legal residents if given five hundred USA Dollars per month IF THIS ONE HUNDRED AND SIXTY FIVE BILLION DOLLARS was created in the same manner as the President Abraham Lincoln Monetary Policy Experiment then VOILA..... AS this money turns over about four to five times in the USA economy
the USA Federal Deficit and soon the national debt of the USA, will begin to be paid down by ONE HUNDRED AND SIXTY FIVE BILLION dollars each month!!!!!!

Here in Canada if a paltry five hundred dollars per month per citizen and legal resident would be financed in the exact same way as much of the infrastructure spending of 1938 to 1974 was done then I believe that the Canadian federal DEFICIT and soon the national debt of Canada can begin to be PAID DOWN by roughly TWENTY BILLION DOLLARS MONTHLY.

Yes, a universal Canadian handout would be a really bad idea and would totally not pay for itself with increased economic growth.

IF THIS ONE HUNDRED AND SIXTY FIVE BILLION DOLLARS was created in the same manner as the President Abraham Lincoln Monetary Policy Experiment

Yeah, hyperinflation during the Civil War was awesome!
 
Here in Canada if a paltry five hundred dollars per month per citizen and legal resident would be financed in the exact same way as much of the infrastructure spending of 1938 to 1974 was done then I believe that the Canadian federal DEFICIT and soon the national debt of Canada can begin to be PAID DOWN by roughly TWENTY BILLION DOLLARS MONTHLY.

Yes, a universal Canadian handout would be a really bad idea and would totally not pay for itself with increased economic growth.

IF THIS ONE HUNDRED AND SIXTY FIVE BILLION DOLLARS was created in the same manner as the President Abraham Lincoln Monetary Policy Experiment

Yeah, hyperinflation during the Civil War was awesome!


That is an excellent point....
yes.. there was a lot of inflation during the time of the President Abraham Lincoln Greenback Monetary Policy Experiment.

What else can happen though when you take your most productive and well trained workers and give them muzzle loaders and cannons to work with but you pay them....... at the same time that consumer goods in the economy are no longer being produced at anywhere nearly the same level .... due to the guys being paid to shoot at their fellow Americans or stab them with bayonets?

If PRODUCTIVITY is decreased at the same time as the money supply is
increased then voila... you will have inflation and possibly even hyper-inflation. But.... our elected officials and our historians learned from that negative aspect of the inflation during the Lincoln Greenback Monetary Experiment so... during WWI and WWII VICTORY BONDS were marketed to Americans and Canadians.... supposedly to finance the war effort.....
but mostly the goal was to encourage SAVINGS because Savings DO NOT CAUSE INFLATION... but SPENDING does cause inflation.
 
A powerful case can be presented that the federal governments of Washington, D. C. and Ottawa here in Canada have a responsibility to keep putting MONEY into the economy much as a team of physicians must put blood into the bodies of many of their sick patients?

MONEY keeps an economy healthy much as the flow of BLOOD in a body keeps a body alive. When Compound Interest Over Time cause an economy to APPEAR to be bankrupt..... the certain people have the perfect excuse to set in motion another 1929 style event.

I have read a case that putting MONEY into the economy of the USA and Canada is like ONE of the two or three or four major jobs that elected officials should attempt to do but Neo-Malthusian Economic Philosophers hate any idea that will not fit with their plans to depopulate us humams due to their belief that we humans are a danger to the air, water, earth, plants, trees and other animals?

More than ninety five percent of the Money Supply here in Canada is created by PRIVATE BANKS giving loans to businesses, provinces, individuals or even to the government itself. Many of us believe that the Bank of Canada needs to be used as was done from 1938 to 1974.

Some powerful people do not want the ordinary American or ordinary Canadian to know about certain aspects of our history.

In the years after the Civil War something very much like a Deliberate Bear Market was set in motion by those with the power to do so. There are many who seem to want to do the same sort of thing from 2026 to 2030 or even to 2036?

Friedman never supported a universal free handout.

Many of us believe that the Bank of Canada needs to be used as was done from 1938 to 1974.

Do you have any actual backup for this claim?
Or did one or your favorite idiot economists make up the stats?

In the years after the Civil War something very much like a Deliberate Bear Market was set in motion by those with the power to do so.

After the war inflation, the decision was made to go back onto the gold standard.
That meant some deflation.
 
15th post
That is an excellent point....
yes.. there was a lot of inflation during the time of the President Abraham Lincoln Greenback Monetary Policy Experiment.

What else can happen though when you take your most productive and well trained workers and give them muzzle loaders and cannons to work with but you pay them....... at the same time that consumer goods in the economy are no longer being produced at anywhere nearly the same level .... due to the guys being paid to shoot at their fellow Americans or stab them with bayonets?

If PRODUCTIVITY is decreased at the same time as the money supply is
increased then voila... you will have inflation and possibly even hyper-inflation. But.... our elected officials and our historians learned from that negative aspect of the inflation during the Lincoln Greenback Monetary Experiment so... during WWI and WWII VICTORY BONDS were marketed to Americans and Canadians.... supposedly to finance the war effort.....
but mostly the goal was to encourage SAVINGS because Savings DO NOT CAUSE INFLATION... but SPENDING does cause inflation.

Yes, the GDP and industrial output of the Northern states increased significantly during the Civil War. Driven by massive government wartime spending, Northern factories expanded, particularly in iron, woolen textiles, and shoes, which more than offset the loss of Southern markets. This stimulated rapid industrialization and solidified the North's economic superiority.
 
Yes, the GDP and industrial output of the Northern states increased significantly during the Civil War. Driven by massive government wartime spending, Northern factories expanded, particularly in iron, woolen textiles, and shoes, which more than offset the loss of Southern markets. This stimulated rapid industrialization and solidified the North's economic superiority.


Thank you for this exceptional quotation. Did you write this or is this a quotation that you can give the author to?
 
If I am incorrect about this then you have my humble apologies but it is my firm belief that
President John F. Kennedy learned something extremely important from the President Abraham Lincoln
"Greenback Monetary Policy Experiment" that he felt he had to attempt to replicate in order to benefit
all Americans from the early 1960's for the next century or more?

I believe that essentially the same group of people who own "BigOil" also own "BigMedia" and "BigGovernment Bureaucracy" and "BigPharma" and perhaps more importantly "BigBanking."

It is my firm belief that these people TEND TO FEAR PRESIDENT DONALD J. TRUMP BECAUSE THEY KNOW THAT HIS LEVEL OF COURAGE IS COMPARABLE TO THAT OF PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY!

"We residents of the USA and Canada do not fully realize the seriousness of the situations that were faced by our national leaders throughout our history.

As of this moment it is my belief that President Donald J. Trump is up against some astonishingly evil people who have only one thing in common to unite them, [ FEAR and hatred for President Donald J. Trump who they know to be the first USA President since J. F, K. who had the political courage to oppose them and their control over three hundred and thirty million Americans and ten million Israelis and forty one million Canadians and I can present a powerful case that they are powerful in Mexico and all of South America as well]!

On a scale of one to ten, with ten meaning this article is highly historically accurate, would you give the following article by Mr. Melvin Sickler?

Did President Abraham Lincoln use the "Greenback Monetary Policy Experiment" to save USA taxpayers FOUR BILLION DOLLARS IN INTEREST?"




....


....
No you are spot on,until Kennedy came along,no president dared to defy the bankers as Lincoln did.Kennedy standing up to the bankers same as Lincoln did also paid the deadly price for it of course.

That article is spot on,the printing of the us notes stopped one day after his assassination not because LBJ was afraid of the bankers but because as it says,he was an instrument for them.they knew they could control LBJ as their puppet where kenendy was a loose cannon.LBJ also reversed kennedys policy on vietnam to start a withdrawal esculating the war. combat troops were never employed until LBJ got in office,great article that is spot on.:thup:

thanks for posting it.
 
No you are spot on,until Kennedy came along,no president dared to defy the bankers as Lincoln did.Kennedy standing up to the bankers same as Lincoln did also paid the deadly price for it of course.

That article is spot on,the printing of the us notes stopped one day after his assassination not because LBJ was afraid of the bankers but because as it says,he was an instrument for them.they knew they could control LBJ as their puppet where kenendy was a loose cannon.LBJ also reversed kennedys policy on vietnam to start a withdrawal esculating the war. combat troops were never employed until LBJ got in office,great article that is spot on.:thup:

thanks for posting it.

No you are spot on,until Kennedy came along,no president dared to defy the bankers as Lincoln did.Kennedy standing up to the bankers same as Lincoln did also paid the deadly price for it of course.

Kennedy authorized the Fed to print $2s and $1s in order to end silver certificates.

That article is spot on,the printing of the us notes stopped one day after his assassination

US notes were printed until 1966 and issued into circulation until 1971.
 
Back
Top Bottom