WHAT HAPPENED TO HR 5404 – AND THE GOLD BACKING OF AMERICA’S NEW CURRENCY?

Leave a comment

It’s tough being a kid growing up in these times of civil war and deprivation where censorship runs rampant and the many layers of falsehood are often confused for truth. We’ve seen up close the horrors of pain and desperation etched onto the faces of hungry American children and frail elders alike. Our food and water is poisoned, geoengineering is making us ill and destroying the environment in which we live, and fires endlessly burn us out of our homes, jobs, and air. The economy has turned many of us into financial slaves and we can feel the devastation of loved ones falling apart right before our helpless eyes.

Our children are our futures yet they suffer from the darkness of a financial insecurity of which they are yet unaware. Many families don’t have enough money to make ends meet on a monthly basis which means they don’t have the financial wherewithal to keep their families together, to fill their children’s bellies with nutritionally balanced meals, or to clothe them properly from head to toe. Choices with profound implications have to be made under every roof every day. Irreversible sacrifices are being taken. Bills are not getting paid, medicines or food or both are not being bought, and almost all of this has to do with scarcity in the name of the American Dollar

WHAT HAPPENED TO HR 5404?

One of our biggest problems is that the U.S. dollar has basically become worthless, rendering our purchasing power of goods and services in the marketplace to near nothingness. We’ve been fleeced through the last hundred or so years by the United States Federal Reserve, fiat currencies, and the Western Central Banking System. They who run finances have scraped 97% of the wealth out of the U.S. dollar which has benefited their well beings while we the average American family are left with the last three cents on the dollar which is backed by nothing but growing U.S. debt. Which is now more than $21 trillion dollars and that’s not counting the $21 trillion that has been proven missing from the HUD and the DOD. That’s at least $42 trillion right there that our children and their children and their grandchildren will never be able to account for.

Which all the more proves why it is significant that a Congressman from West Virginia has proposed a bill called HR 5404 to gold back the U.S. dollar. According to thedailycoin.org Republican Congressman Alex Mooney has proposed a bill that will “define the dollar as a fixed weight of gold.” Mooney wrote an op ed about it in the “Wall Street Journal”.

That’s right. It has been introduced into congress that America should return to a gold standard. This idea is not new though. Even President Trump told us back in 2017 that he would like to see America return to a gold standard. In a Forbes.com article entitled, “President Trump: Replace The Dollar With Gold As The Global Currency To Make America Great Again”, Ralph Benko writes that bringing back the gold standard would not be very hard to do with a president like Trump.

“Donald Trump shows a strong affinity for gold,” Benko writes. “He has also shown a keen intuitive grasp of how the gold standard was crucial to having made America great.”

So what this means is that our government is soon going to gold back the U.S. currency, right? That’s how it was supposed to be in the very beginning, before the Federal Reserve took over our country’s finances in 1913, right?

In proposing H.R. 5404 the U.S. Congressman from West Virginia criticizes U.S. monetary policy, citing the fall in the dollar’s purchasing power after the gold standard was abolished.

“The United States dollar has lost 30 percent of its purchasing power since 2000, and 96 percent of its purchasing power since the end of the gold standard in 1913,” the bill says.

The congressman goes on to describe the advantages of having a gold-backed dollar.

“The gold standard puts control of the money supply with the market instead of the Federal Reserve. The gold standard means legal tender defined by and convertible into a certain quantity of gold. Under the gold standard through 1913, the United States economy grew at an annual average of four percent, one-third larger than the growth rate since then and twice the level since 2000,” Mooney says.

This would be good for us but nobody even knows about it. Did you? Nobody owns gold, instead everybody trading in dollars that are debt backed, which is what the U.S. dollar is and what America runs on. That’s all any of us own with our present financial system, which is being run into the ground.

Congressman Mooney says that under the Federal Reserve’s 2 percent inflation objective, “the dollar loses half of its purchasing power every generation, or 35 years.” Think about that for a long moment. We own debt that backs our assets and that’s what we bought our houses with. Our families’ homes and our cars were bought with U.S. dollars backed by debt that loses half it’s value every generation.

So what does that really say about everyone’s pensions or real estate that is tied into the U.S. dollar? Is that why we’re struggling so badly to keep our families living in some semblance of the lifestyle we have become accustomed to after we divorce? Is there any such thing as the “American Dream” anymore? If so, should we consider whether this new legislation, H.R. 5404, should become law? Because our old system of monetary value has lost its “value”?

Like Congressman Mooney says, “American families need long-term price stability to meet their household spending needs, save money, and plan for retirement.”   These are the types of important issues we advise clients about to help them and their families stay ahead of the financial game and move forward in their lives. Meet spending needs, save value, and invest for ultimate retirement.

HOW MUCH GOLD DO WE AMERICANS OWN?

In an interview with the World Gold Council’s Gold Investor former Chairman of the Federal Reserve Alan Greenspan stated, “I view gold as the primary global currency.”

President Trump agrees. It’s been 34 years since U.S. lawmakers even tried to change the way America’s currency is backed, when Congressman Jack Kemp introduced the Gold Standard Act of 1984, which was cosponsored by seven others including Newt Gingrich and Connie Mack. It didn’t pass. 34 years later we have HR 5404.

Will it succeed? It has to if we as a country are going to succeed. Some believe we’ve made positive strides toward making gold backing of our currency a reality. “I think we are building a foundation of expertise — expertise that we didn’t have in 1980,” writes Nathan Lewis in Forbes in an article called, After 34 Years, We Again Have A Bill To Relink The Dollar To Gold“. “That will allow us to restore the united long tradition of gold-based money, when the political time is right.”

The question remains: when will the political time be right? And when it is right, who will be there to tell us how much gold, if any, the U.S. really owns to back the dollar?

 

Advertisements

DIVORCE THRIVES IN IMPROVING ECONOMY AND HOUSING MARKET

Leave a comment

Just when you thought you might not be able to afford to get a divorce, this just in: improving economy and housing market make getting a divorce affordable, again.  Oh, joy.  It’s time to break up the family, because, well, we can afford to.

According to the Los Angeles Times, the improving economy and booming housing market have prompted more people to get divorced.  Yay for them.  Money, or a lack thereof, no longer needs to lead to unhappiness.  Instead, couples may now divorce a little easier than before.

According to the article, the recession had caused many couples to stay together because their homes were a financial mess or one or both parties were out of work.  When the recession had hit, home prices plummeted, home equity became scarce, and couples had fewer assets to play with.  Divorcing couples faced greater financial loses.  But now, the housing market is in a rebound, and interest rates are at historical lows.  Couples are experiencing new wealth they can now use to divorce from each other.

Rising inflation and falling housing prices put pressure on marriages and help to contribute to higher divorce rates.  The same factors also apply to making divorce more complicated.  Falling property prices mean that selling the family home may not provide sufficient funds for two separate homes, especially with lenders being so much more selective in who they lend to.

GUGGENHEIM’S DODGERS ORDERED TO REVEAL SECRET $ ARRANGEMENT IN JAMIE’S DIVORCE WITH FRANK

Leave a comment

Former Los Angeles Dodgers owner Jamie McCourt wants California’s family law courts to throw out her $131-million divorce settlement.  That’s why, according to the Los Angeles Times, the new owners of the Dodgers must reveal their financial arrangements with Jamie’s ex-husband/partner, Frank McCourt.  Got that?  We’re pretty sure Frank does too.

According to the Times article earlier this month, Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Scott Gordon denied the Dodgers request to seal a summary of the team’s deal with Frank McCourt.  The judge ordered the document to be made publicly available June 17, unless Guggenheim Baseball Management succeeds in an appeal before then.

Jamie McCourt’s attorney, Bert Fields, believes the financial summary could reveal that the deal was worth more than the Dodgers publicly announced sales price of $2.15 billion.  “It shows Mr. McCourt got value way beyond $2 billion.”  And that somebody totally got ripped off in their settlement negotiations.

In her request to have Judge Gordon throw out her divorce settlement, Jamie alleged that Frank fraudulently misled her about the value of the Dodgers and their assets.  Frank denies this charge.  And he also denies extraterrestrials run the White House.

Last year, Guggenheim paid $2 billion for the Dodgers, while an affiliated entity financed the purchase of the land surrounding Dodger Stadium for $150 million.  The accompanying financial arrangements Guggenheim attempted to seal include data about how Frank and Guggenheim were to share profits from the joint investment venture, which is the crux of this whole magilla.

In court, Guggenheim argued that financial disclosure would harm the Dodgers ability to lure another sports team to the Dodger Stadium site.  (Guggenheim’s ownership has since admitted that it is indeed in talks with the NFL about building a stadium on the stated site.)

Although Staples Center owner AEG still has plans to bring the NFL to South Park, the NFL has made it abundantly clear it has its tiny, greedy, little heart set on Chavez Ravine.  As a side note, the NFL made no mention of all the profits to be made – by everyone, except I guess poor, hungry Jamie – from the Chavez Ravine site.

EX CALIFORNIA GOVERNOR SCHWARZENEGGER AND MARIA SHRIVER HOLD OFF ON DIVORCE

Leave a comment

Yes she did, no he didn’t.  It’s on again, and it’s off again.  And then it’s back on again.  And it really is hard to tell which way the former ‘gropenator’ and his distinguished wife are headed these days.

It was all the way back in 2011 when Maria Shriver fired the first shot by filing for divorce from the then California Governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger.  This, as we might remember, was due to the fact Arnie had fathered a son out of wedlock with one of his servants, and, then, of course, there were those other not-discussed-too-much indiscretions with those other women.

So, as the media has dutifully reported, the couple finalized all the terms to their highly anticipated divorce when…  What?    Nothing.  As a snag seemed to grip both parties who appear to be in no hurry to finalize the dirty deed.

Friends of Maria and Arnie have suggested the divorce has been put on hold simply because it has no immediate impact on either of their lives.  And they probably don’t believe the sun really has any impact on life on planet Earth either, but the couple continue to play out their typically egoic, change of heart, he love me, she love me not this week syndrome.

But who knows, right?  After all, this is California.  And reconciliation may yet again rear its ugly head and stand in the future for this duo.  And wasn’t it only last month that national media reportedly caught the pair kissing in Beverly Hills.  A possible preview to a settlement of differences on behalf of graduating daughter Christina.

7 DAY REQUIREMENT OF FAMILY CODE §1615(c)(2) NOT APPLICABLE TO PARTY REPRESENTED FROM OUTSET

2 Comments

An important case came down last year that helped to further define California family law regarding premarital agreements.  In the case of Marriage of Cadwell-Faso & Faso (2011) 191 CA4th 945, 119 CR3d 813, the California Courts of Appeal determined the requirement of Family Code §1615(c)(2) that a party against whom enforcement of a premarital agreement is sought have at least 7 calendar days “between the time that the party was first presented with the agreement and advised to seek independent legal counsel and the time the agreement was signed” does not apply when that party was represented by counsel from the outset of the transaction.

The facts of Cadwell-Faso were as follows:  Before their marriage, a couple entered into a premarital agreement.  Husband’s attorney prepared the initial draft of the agreement, presented it to the prospective wife and advised her to seek independent counsel.

Prospective wife hired an attorney, who, over the course of several months, prepared five draft addenda.  The 5th addendum was faxed to prospective husband, who transmitted it to his attorney 3 days later.  Three days after that the parties met with his attorney and signed the agreement, after final working changes were made.  They married two days later, separated four months after that.

In later marital dissolution proceedings, Husband moved to set aside the premarital agreement, which imposed both spousal support and property obligations.  He claimed that he signed the agreement without the benefit of the statutory time period of Family Code §1615(c)(2), which requires “seven calendar days between the time that [the] party was first presented with the agreement and advised to seek independent legal counsel and the time the agreement was signed.”