So did this man in his farewell address.
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=8y06NSBBRtY

Body Gaurd Stood Down
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=XY02Qkuc_f8&feature=related

"We have given the People of this Republic the greatest blessing they have ever had – their own currency to pay their own debts." No privately owned Federal Reserve Bank or other central bank to borrow from, at interest.
PRESIDENT ABRAHAM LINCOLN – 1867

"The high office of the President has been used to foment a plot to destroy the Americans freedom and before I leave office I must inform the Citizen of his plight."
PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY (10 days before he was murdered)

Ask yourself this question, "If you were given a monetary printing press and a legal contract to print and issue all the money you would ever need to run your household at no cost to you, would you, instead, give that printing press and contract to a banker and agree to borrow your money from him, to be repaid in full with interest?" NEVER !!!!!

"PERMIT ME TO CONTROL THE CURRENCY OF A NATION AND I CARE NOT WHO MAKES ITS LAWS!" Baron de Rothschild

"The death of Lincoln was a disaster for Christendom. There was no man in the United States great enough to wear his boots and the bankers went anew to grab the riches. I fear that foreign bankers with their craftiness and tortuous tricks will entirely control the exuberant riches of America and use it systematically to corrupt modern civilization."
Bismark, the Chancellor of Germany

"If this mischievous financial policy (of creating a debt-free currency), which has its origin in the American Republic, shall become permanent, then that government will furnish its own money without cost! It will pay off its debts and be without debt. It will have all the money to carry on its commerce. It will become prosperous without precedent in the history of the world.The brains and the wealth of all countries will go to America. That government must be destroyed or it will destroy every monarchy on the globe!"
The Times.

"The money powers prey upon the nation in times of peace and conspire against it in times of adversity. It is more despotic than a monarchy, more insolent than autocracy and more selfish that a bureaucracy. It denounces, as public enemies, all who question its methods or throw light upon its crimes. I have two great enemies, the Southern Army in front of me and the bankers in the rear. Of the two, the one at the rear is my greatest foe."
Abraham Lincoln.
http://www.elimadebts.com/FederalReserve.html

While governments tend to honour their obligations to banks, they have a poor record on honouring their obligations to the public.

This being the case, the interest that the government pay on debt is actually the price that we (the taxpayer) pay to the banks to act as 'regulators' on government borrowing!

(The print/burn scenario, relies on you being confident that the government will actually eventually burn them, and not print endlessly more. Because, to burn them they would first have to retrieve them – which means buying them back from you, and so honoring the IOU).

It worked like this:

Say your "need" was assesed at £5,000pa. You would get a personal allowance of £10,000pa, and be paid welfare at 50% of any amount of this figure that you did not earn. So, if you earned £5,000, you would receive a further £2,500 in welfare. This gave an incentive to get a job, rather than just sit at home and collect your £5k.

NI as we know it would disappear, replaced by 50/50, hypothecated payments for health insurance, income protection and pensions. However, the income protection element was limited only to that income you earned up to the £10k allowance. After that, you would be expected to pay for this yourself.

The variables were the level of personal allowance, which would be based on number of dependent children and disability only, and the rate of tax above the personal allowance. I calculated that to replace current income tax and NI income, the tax rate above £10k pa would be 26%, plus 18% for the health insurance and pension contributions, as against the then figure of 22% and 23.8% NI. So not that much difference.

Somebody earning £15,000pa would be better off by about £1k a year, somebody earning £35k would be neutral and above that, only single people would be penalised as they would not get the benefits of the additional allowance for dependent children. As now, the hypothecated health insurance and pension contributions would be limited to about £40k of eranings.

However, this assumed no dynamic effects from the simpler system, the incentives to work etc. which ought to result in efficiency savings and allow those tax rates to be reduced. I did suggest that it ought to be introduced in a "big bang" reform, but that the option existed to phase it in. Brown of course has started to align Tax and NI thresholds, but I can't see him going this far, can you?

When the Tory party still has people like Kenneth Clarke in it and the Leader of the Tory party is deliberately ambiguous of his true intentions, despite being hamstrung in his policy goals by the European Union. When the leader of the Tory party has only made one promise in relation to the EU and broken that, when one conservative has said he is in faviour of leaving the EU, and Mr Cameron takes him aside and 'has a little chat'. When we know and discuss daily that the EU is a regulatory monstrosity anti democratic to boot, knowing all those things, to come out and say 'if you are anti conservative then you clearly wish to live with ever more state intervention' leads me to think apart from it being untrue, you are actually deluded. But this is the fellow who claims to be able to effect change from within the Tory party.

By the way, I am not anti conservative, I just recognize the Tory party is not an instrument of conservative action or reaction. It is uncomfortable to have come to that conclusion, because I have deluded myself too for so long. But it is an unavoidable conclusion looking at the behavior of the Tory party 'upper ranks'.

Yes, this bonfire of regulation did indeed start under the Clingon administration, so there are probably lessons to be learned in Britain and America for BOTH sides of the political spectrum..

I mention this because it amuses me that in America the solution to their woes lies, not unreasonably, in a 'move to the left', but in Britain the call for change will result in a lurch to the right…