It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Andrew Jackson's war on banking

page: 1
12
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 13 2018 @ 10:04 AM
link   
We need to revive and revitalize this attitude/belief/set of actions.

www.youtube.com...



Among patriot Jackson's concerns were 1) Unconstitutional bank 2) Unconstitutional taxes 3) mismanagement of the bank 4) low intelligence 5) criminal diversion of US assets 6) intentional misuse/fraud of US funds (or private funds held by the bank)

President of the United States of America, Andrew Jackson to then-VP Martin VanBuren: "The bank is trying to kill me, but I will kill it."

To be sure, Jackson's mission was a success. He decapitated the banking giant, ordering the removal of US funds from their vaults. All US funds were removed from the federal bank and placed into state banks.

We should also consider bringing back his Specie Circular - an executive order requiring land purchases to be paid in gold/silver and not paper when purchasing land from USG.

And now a favorite quote: "Try to withdraw all of your money from the bank - and be prepared to write down no less than 40 excuses why it can't be done."




posted on Sep, 13 2018 @ 11:06 AM
link   
a reply to: JBurns

I agree with Jackson's philosophy and reasoning. I do wonder about the Specie Circular executive order (I haven't heard of this before), since I am a huge history fanatic and a lover of precious metals. Why do you think this would be a good idea for the US Government in this day and age?

I know they can print as much money as they want (making it worth less and less), but why would gold and/or silver be preferable if the US has almost entirely exited the market for both of these (silver altogether now actually)? Would love to hear your thoughts, and thanks for posting this topic, I don't think it is discussed enough at all.



Cheers!



posted on Sep, 13 2018 @ 11:51 AM
link   
a reply to: FamCore

I am not an economist. I once saw somewhere that there is more paper money than gold. If that is true, wouldn't that automatically invalidate any gold standard if not all of the money can properly be backed up?



posted on Sep, 13 2018 @ 11:53 AM
link   
a reply to: JBurns


Bookmarking for future reading. Thank you.

I have to ask, though, why put this in the Mudpit? I don't really see this as a political insult type topic.



posted on Sep, 13 2018 @ 12:08 PM
link   
a reply to: FamCore


Why do you think this would be a good idea for the US Government in this day and age?


That is a great question FamCore, and I just want to say that I am no banking expert or financial guru or anything like that. But in my own opinion I think it would prevent the Federal reserve from printing money on demand, and due to the rarity of precious metals make our financial institutions and especially government more accountable


The benefit of a gold standard is that a fixed asset backs the money's value. It provides a self-regulating and stabilizing effect on the economy. The government can only print as much money as its country has in gold. That discourages inflation, which is too much money chasing too few goods. It also discourages government budget deficits and debt, which can't exceed the supply of gold.


A gold standard rewards the more productive nations. For example, they receive gold when they export. With more gold in their reserves, they can print more money. That boosts investment in their profitable export businesses.


The gold standard spurred exploration. It's why Spain and other European countries discovered the New World in the 1500s. They needed to get more gold to increase their prosperity. It also prompted the Gold Rush in California and Alaska during the 1800s.



During the Great Depression, the Federal Reserve raised interest rates. It wanted to make dollars more valuable and prevent people from demanding gold. But it should have been lowering rates to stimulate the economy.


I suppose I am just making an argument to abolish the Federal reserve bank, which has manipulated our economy, our people and our government since they first manipulated their way into power (look into their lobby efforts during that time)



posted on Sep, 13 2018 @ 12:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: VictorVonDoom
a reply to: JBurns


Bookmarking for future reading. Thank you.

I have to ask, though, why put this in the Mudpit? I don't really see this as a political insult type topic.


Thanks VVD! It was tough to pick just one place, but sometimes people like to start political arguments with replies (or sometimes I politicize things myself without really thinking about doing it). The "global meltdown" forum would have probably been a better choice though!



posted on Sep, 13 2018 @ 12:14 PM
link   
a reply to: toms54


I am not an economist.


You and I both toms54
I have a layman understanding of these topics, but am usually learning more on places like YouTube or even from ATS members with more in depth financial knowledge


I once saw somewhere that there is more paper money than gold. If that is true, wouldn't that automatically invalidate any gold standard if not all of the money can properly be backed up?


You are right, I think the point is that they would not have been able to print that much money to begin with (without having the gold reserves to pay that debt). As it stands now, our money is essentially only as good as "the full faith and credit of USG" which seems to unfortunately be a way of promising future payments through taxes collected on the backs of hard working Americans

Thanks for the reply buddy, I have been Google searching these terms all day trying to learn more



posted on Sep, 13 2018 @ 12:45 PM
link   
a reply to: JBurns

There are opponents of the precious metal backing and I kind of agree with them. If another entity or country would be able to flood our system with precious metals, they could deliberately cause harm or sway our economy.

Maybe we just need to extinguish the possibility of creating money out of thin air? Merging both paper fiat and electronic mediums so each unit of currency would have its own identification number, either embedded within the fiat or purely digital, probably both. If you could somehow ensure they couldn't expand the monetary base without a huge amount of documentation and clarity/transparency, that would probably ensure more fairness than anything we have now.

That could possible neuter the fed reserve in itself and they could just go away quietly. It would also neuter the majority of the large investment/commercial banks.

But then you would need to make the stock/bond market a zero sum game. Those investment vehicles create as much inflation as a bank loaning fiat into existence because they are not a zero sum game. Everything is pretty much a fraud anymore. They are simply trying to keep on the brakes while siphoning as much productivity out of us as they can before the system implodes.
edit on 13-9-2018 by ClovenSky because: bong=bond ... almost Friday



posted on Sep, 13 2018 @ 02:14 PM
link   
a reply to: JBurns

What I question about the fed is why would the US would place it's money supply in the hands of a private interest? The constitution places coinage squarely in the hands of the treasury. How is issuing banknotes different from coinage? Why can't the treasury perform the functions of the fed?

During the last financial collapse, the fed lent large sums to other banks then refused to tell congress who the banks where citing confidentiality rules. While this may be ethical, it illustrates a lack of transparency.

Because the fed is private, it is immune to any real oversight by the govt. It operates within an international network of banks which makes it possible for foreign interests to influence in ways that would not be possible if it were directly controlled by the US govt.



posted on Sep, 13 2018 @ 02:34 PM
link   
Andrew Jackson is my Hero.

He had a temper of fire and did not really care what people thought about that. It was his passion for completely overcoming his opponents that made him such a powerful force. a Lot of controversy, because a lot of action.

He was a true American.



posted on Sep, 13 2018 @ 03:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: SR1TX
Andrew Jackson is my Hero.

He had a temper of fire and did not really care what people thought about that. It was his passion for completely overcoming his opponents that made him such a powerful force. a Lot of controversy, because a lot of action.

He was a true American.


I agree! Jackson was a product of frontier America. His family all died in the revolution, his father died when he was young and his mother and brother died after she rescued Jackson and his brother from British captivity aboard a prison ship in Charleston harbor. His hatred of the English and their attempts to interfere in American affairs would propel him to the heights of popularity among Americans.

Jackson gets lots of grief over the Indian removal act but there were numerous examples of various tribes attacking settlers which resulted in the Creek and Seminole wars. Jackson was very much a self made man and carried a bullet lodged near his heart after a duel where he allowed his opponent to take the first shot. He lived in a very rough area of the country during a violent time in our history. Without his leadership our country would not be the same for sure.

His removal from the $20 bill seems like PC gone overboard.
Put Tubman on the $50 and get rid of Grant.
edit on 13-9-2018 by Asktheanimals because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 13 2018 @ 03:00 PM
link   
double post
edit on 13-9-2018 by Asktheanimals because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 13 2018 @ 05:37 PM
link   
he also start the Democrat party



posted on Sep, 14 2018 @ 03:34 AM
link   
WWAJD...
What
Would
Andrew
Jackson
Do???



posted on Sep, 14 2018 @ 03:48 AM
link   
Lots of AJ lovers!!!
IMO, Jackson was one of the two manliest men to ever walk the earth!!!
Being a p.o.w. at age 12, (telling a British officer to kiss his a$$ and shine his own boots in the process), throwing a 3 day rager at the white house, and inviting the locals, countless duals (mostly due to perceived insults by AJ) on the White House Lawn, Beating the hell out of a would be assassin, Whats not to love?!?!

The second manliest man would have to be Teddy Roosevelt.
Oct 14, 1912 while hes campaigning in Milwaukee (ironically where i live) he gets shot in the chest, piercing a lung, by John Schrank. After the would be assassin was subdued by Secret Service, ole Teddy went and gave his speech, then shook hands and kissed babies. All with no medical attention and the bullet still lodged in his lung.

Ultimate throwdown:
A.Jackson vs. T.Roosevelt



posted on Sep, 14 2018 @ 06:50 AM
link   
a reply to: toms54

Last I heard it was a change that was coming.
Thanks for the info.



posted on Sep, 15 2018 @ 12:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: toms54
a reply to: FamCore

I am not an economist. I once saw somewhere that there is more paper money than gold. If that is true, wouldn't that automatically invalidate any gold standard if not all of the money can properly be backed up?


I remember a religious commercial from the 70s.

Hey, I found a Youtube



Look any bill you have. It says "Federal Reserve Note" The Federal Reserve Bank issues these things, the Federal Reserve Bank is responsible for redeeming them.

If the US Government were to end the charter of the Federal Reserve Bank and go to a commodity based currency, be it gold, silver, copper, aluminum or whatever, the amount of Federal Reserve Notes in circulation wouldn't matter. As long as it is codified in law that the definition of, say, a US Dollar is equal to, for instance, one ounce of .999 Fine Copper then that is the value of a US Dollar. How many Federal Reserve Notes are worth a US Dollar is the Federal Reserve Bank's problem.

Most importantly, the US Government would no longer have to borrow money at interest from a bank that doesn't have the money in the first place. Keep in mind, every dollar you pay in taxes doesn't go roads, or infrastructure, or the military, or government. It goes to paying the Federal Reserve Bank for money that we already borrowed from them, that they didn't have. Then we have to raise the debt ceiling so we can borrow more money from them, that they don't have. Which means, more and more creative ways to tax people.

And like any Ponzi Scheme, the only way to keep this going is to bring in more and more paying people.

It's great for the banks, though. When you control the money supply, you can buy anything or anyone you want. Even government. The ones you can't buy, assassinate.

But I digress. I get like that when it comes to the FED.

The key concept here is that if an accepted monetary unit like the US Dollar, which is supposed to be a world reserve currency, is based on a fixed commodity, then bankers can't create money out of thin air. Even if you defined a US Dollar as being 1/2000th an ounce of gold, then for every $2000 you have you should be able to go to the bank and get an ounce of gold today, tomorrow, or 50 years from now.



posted on Sep, 15 2018 @ 12:27 AM
link   
a reply to: JBurns

Once again, thanks for making this thread.

When it comes to Andrew Jackson, I have mixed emotions.

On the one hand, he kicked the British arses, survived an assassination attempt by the bankers, and killed the banks. So he's like Captain America and Captain Jack Sparrow rolled into one.

On the other hand, I'm Native American. So, screw that guy.

I guess humans are complicated.



posted on Sep, 15 2018 @ 12:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: toysforadults
he also start the Democrat party


wonder what he'd say today ☣



new topics

top topics



 
12
<<   2 >>

log in

join