Under today's monetary system (since 1913) banks create the national money supply when they make loans.
As a result, in deciding where to make these loans, the banks decide what our country does. If banks make more money funding war and a housing bubble instead of hospitals, schools, local business, and economic infrastructure, then that's what happens. As a result of this privilege -- granted to the banking system in 1913 with the creation of the Federal Reserve -- banks get very rich and they buy our politicians. In the meantime, an entirely unnecessary "national debt" is created, putting our government increasingly in debt to banks.
Dennis Kucinich's National Employment & Economic Defense Act (HR2990) will return our country to the monetary principles of the Founders (and of Abraham Lincoln's Greenback system), to create FULL EMPLOYMENT, END the national debt, and turn the direction of this country towards PROSPERITY FOR ALL.
1) Make the Federal Reserve System part of our government - what people mistakenly think it is now!
2) End the accounting privilege banks now have to create what we use for money out of debt (the loans they decide to make). HR2990 eliminates the fractional reserve banking system.
3) Take back from banks the power to create new money in their self-interest, and restore to Congress the power to spend new money into circulation for the public good, including economic infrastructure, health care, education and full employment.
For more info see:
Please bring up points that were missed, elaborate on issues not fleshed out, add ways to make the idea/bill better, suggest a companion for GREATER Raters to consider. Please check your facts, grammar, syntax, punctuation, credit sources and quotes, and keep it under 500 words unless you absolutely cannot—then never more than 700 words. Please keep your criticism constructive. We will likely not print destructive criticism although a well written partisan rant bringing up new issues in the idea/bill or previous Op-eds may be accepted if it ends on a constructive note—especially if it offers an alternative idea/bill.
Shorter "letters" are encouraged that bring a new facet to the subject. The intent of the Op-eds is to fully cover the issue for the kind reader to consider before rating, and not waste their time with redundancy or the dreaded—"people-screaming-at-one-another-while-wearing-earplugs-syndrome." Think of the idea/bill as the base with the Op-eds stacked on top to form a structurally sound argument. The goal here is to have a GREATER US for the greatest number of citizens/neighbors. We may publish your piece without notice—so please only submit completed articles. We may, also, contact you for a rewrite or edit. We might even offer suggestions. It is our intention to fairly present the views of fiscal conservatives, independents, and social liberals—to find the overlap of whole-hearted support (nonpartisan) plus the commonality of the "I-can-live-with-that" (bipartisan).