James Stivers, Republican Candidate Running for Idaho State Senate, Proposes a State Bank

James Stivers is running as a Republican candidate for the Idaho State Senate to represent the People of Legislative District 2 on a platform that includes a proposal for a state bank. James Stivers, currently a precinct committeeman and serves as the Secretary for the District Central Committee in the Republican Party, believes “in the wisdom of the Constitution, the inalienable rights of the People, and the unique heritage of our Republic.”

James Stivers proposes a state bank to provide additional assets to the state treasury and preserve Idaho’s local economies. Mr. Stivers states:

“An important part of sovereignty is the monetary authority. Currently, banks are allowed to multiply many times over the tax receipts deposited in their institutions. This special privilege is partly responsible for the ‘sucking sound’ in our local economies, as regional banks send their assets to central banks that are playing the derivatives markets of the world.”

“A state bank would restore this privilege to the people in a public trust and would give us the opportunity to back our deposits with the wealth from our public lands.”

Read more about James Stiver’s candidacy here and the issues here.

3 Responses

  1. Press Release – – – STIVERS WINS STRAW POLL

    From the Stivers Campaign for State Senate, February 13, 2010:

    In the first indication of a political shift among grassroots Republicans, James Stivers swept a closed-ballot preference poll at the GOP District 2 Central Committee meeting in Coeur d’Alene today. In a meeting of active precinct committeemen, Stivers, a contender for Sen. Joyce Broadsword’s Senate seat, won the non-binding poll 10-0.

    “It has been clear for some time that Sen. Broadsword has drifted far afield from the grassroots of the Republican Party. This poll provides us with concrete evidence of that fact,” says Stivers, who lost in 2008 to Sen. Broadsword in a three-way race. “It is obvious that a show-down is brewing between the grassroots and Party bosses.”

    The wide margin of victory strongly suggests that a formal endorsement from the Committee will be forthcoming in the coming months leading up to the Primary on May 25th.

    – – – End of Statement – – –

  2. James Stivers,
    Congratulations!

    We really need to try to educate the Ron Paul supporters about money and banking and get them on board! As Ellen Brown explains, gold is simply not workable and ultimately benefits the bankers. If you’re not already aware, here is a good link where Ellen Brown explains that a gold standard is not a solution. I’ve copied and posted her answer here.

    http://www.thedailybell.com/496/Ellen-Brown-Web-of-Debt.html

    Daily Bell: What’s wrong with a gold or silver monetary system?

    Brown: To answer that question properly will take more than a few sentences, but I’ll try to be succinct. There are three ways a precious metal system could be set up: (1) a “gold-backed” fiat currency, of the sort we had until 1933 domestically and until 1971 internationally; (2) 100% gold coins, as Ed Griffin recommends; or (3) gold, silver and anything else trading freely with dollars, as recommended by Ron Paul.

    The first alternative failed historically and doesn’t work mathematically. Nixon had to take the dollar off the gold standard internationally after DeGaulle traded in his dollars for gold and the British then tried to trade in theirs, and the U.S. was about to run out of gold. In a “fractional reserve” system, only a fraction of the gold necessary to cash in all the dollars “backed” by gold is actually held in the banks’ vaults. When people figure that out, you get runs on the banks and the banks have to close their doors. Roosevelt was faced with the same problem. People had panicked and were trading in their dollars for gold at the banks. The dollar was then 40% backed by gold, so whenever anyone cashed in $2 in paper money, $3 in loans had to be called in. The result was a radical collapse in the money supply.

    Option #2, an all-gold currency, won’t work for a number of reasons, but I’ll just mention one: where are you going to get the gold? To be fair, the government would have to swap all the dollars in the money supply for gold. Assume a $13 trillion money supply (M3) and that there is $4 trillion worth of gold in the world (per the last report I saw). Even if you could acquire every penny’s worth of gold, you’d have to revalue the gold so that it was worth $3000/ounce. Goldbugs say that’s doable, but here’s my question: how are you going to get the gold? What are you going to buy it with? Your paper dollars are going to be worthless. What Indian woman wearing that gold around her neck is going to be foolish enough to trade it for your paper dollars?

    Ed Griffin would just divide the outstanding money supply by the gold in Fort Knox, but we don’t know if there’s any gold left in Fort Knox, and even assuming there is, the dollar value per ounce is going to be so far from anything resembling the real market value of gold that tying the dollar to gold will lose all meaning. If you want a fixed money supply, why not just have Congress order up X number of dollars, forbid any more to be issued, and make it illegal for banks to create credit on their books? Let them lend what they have and no more. Even that won’t work though; you’ll quickly degenerate into recession or depression, because there won’t be enough money for innovation, development and the like. The ability to create and extend credit is a good thing and is necessary to a thriving economy. It’s just a question of who gets to create it, private banks (which then proceed to charge interest on it that they siphon off the top as profits) or public banks, drawing on the “full faith and credit of the United States” because they are the United States and can return the profits to the United States, maintaining a mathematically sound system?

    The third idea – allowing people to trade in any currency they want – doesn’t solve anything and just creates new problems. What’s the exchange rate going to be between these various domestic currencies, and who is going to set it? Are you going to allow shortselling between currencies, derivative bets, etc.? If you have silver and gold coins trading together, what happens if gold goes up in value relative to silver? Will you have to change the face value of the coins? They could be left unstamped, but then you won’t really have coins; you’ll just have round gold bars. Then why not just keep your gold bars and sell them for paper dollars as needed? If the paper dollars lose value, as goldbugs are sure they will, the gold bars will fetch more dollars when sold, so value will have been preserved just as it would have been if the gold were actually turned into gold coins.

    • 1.If i accept five silver dollars for 100 dollar purchase how much sals tax should i collect????I would cherfully accept a pre 64 half dollat for a $4.24 bike tube that cost me 1.75….Profit or loss ///???? 2.definitions: liberal = as fast as possible move towards an utopia of equal shares of wealth 100% estate tax was one of Brits solutions. Conserative= a slower and controlled slide—- If as all 20 people i asked [over 30 yrs old} in the last two weeks they are certain that we were better off ten, twenty or forty yrs. ago and you want to recreat the American dream you are a REACTIONARY….SO AM I

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: