Christopher Jon Bjerknes
In considering why my statements were misunderstood by "Judenfrei", I believe that the word "taxpayer" caused the confusion. I had said,
"Gottfried Feder, for but one example, focused on the real economic necessities of building a viable economy, as opposed to Carmack's proposals, which appear only to profit the rich at the expense of the taxpayer. Paying off the debt to the debt holders without recouping what has been deliberately stolen denies the taxpayers loan capital and real assets with which to build and maintain the economy, and thereby comes at their expense. If the government gives Peter trillions of dollars, and leaves Paul with nothing, than Paul has been shortchanged by his government. In addition, Paul is expected to fight, or provide children to fight, to protect Peter and the land and holdings Peter has. This comes at Paul's expense."
"Judenfrei" correctly noted that the monies used to make the rich richer would not be derived through taxes, but I did not mean to imply that they would. Rather, I was stating that the use of newly created money to make the rich richer came at the expense of the taxpayers who have been paying into the system all of their lives. "Judenfrei" has agreed that Carmack's proposal does not attempt to recover anything from the Jews generally, or the Jewish financiers specifically.
The national debt (and to a large extent personal debt) exists because of the Jews. Taxpayers have been paying the debt all of their lives. The Jews should not continue to profit from the debt. The taxpayers, and by this I refer to those who are not super rich, should be the first to receive cash. However simply doling out cash without fixing the underlying problems of our economy will only generate inflation and profit our foreign competitors. I do not see Carmack's proposal fixing any of these problems, and therefore it is a program to make the rich richer at the expense of the taxpayer and it leaves the Jews in control of money as masters of the banks, loan capital and international finance.
There are many reasons why the existence and direction of loan capital are so vital to our survival. One of them is that it is largely loan capital which finances growth, keeps business running, finances housing, finances State projects, etc. If the State merely prints money and hands it out without regulating both the supply, through taxes and/or other means, and the direction, then there will be powerful inflationary pressures on the value of the currency. Cashing out the debt will not of necessity put all of that money into the banks and out of circulation, and there will be massive inflation if such a plan is implemented. Even if it did, it would be foolish to allow the bankers to continue to control our destiny through the control of our money.
My proposals, which call for Autarky, regulate both the supply and direction of money generally, and loan capital specifically. If you can read German, I suggest you read Gottfried Feder's works.
We should not be paying off the national debt. The Jews who created the national debt should be paying it off. The value of money is a factor of its supply and acceptence. There is a loss to its value when it is given to the rich and not more evenly and equitably distributed, and that price is paid by the average citizen, even if taxes are eliminated. Even if there were deflation, that cost would still be a factor in the value of the currency and it would be even "stronger", all other things being equal, if monies were not created to give to the rich.
Putting money into sustainable economic growth benefits the People, though giving it to the rich harms and disadvantages the People.