The questioning of Kashkari on Friday was a start, but it was only that. Kucinich and Issa didn't go far enough--even they appear to assume that the system is good for the most part and needs rescuing.
However, as I've shown below, our system is based on fake money that creates only profit for banks and only debt for the public. Indeed, as we've seen, even the Federal Reserve admits that for a profit, banks lend money that they do not have on hand. You and I can't do that. And that's why we stay perpetually behind and they stay perpetually ahead.
But even if one accepts that this actual fake money is real, there was one burning question that none of the Congressmen asked, at least not that I saw. And that burning question is this: Why should taxpayers be forced to give a gift of money to banks that banks will then use to create only profit for themselves and only debt for the people who gave them the money to begin with?
This may seem like a silly question, but only if one accepts that Kashkari's precious system helps the public. However, we have seen quite clearly that the system does no such thing. Kashkari is pleading for the system to be maintained--that banks be given money by the taxpayers to issue credit in order to make a profit off of those taxpayers.
Kashkari makes the faulty assumption that helping needy people and businesses "directly" won't work. But that begs another unasked question that is related to the first unasked burning question mentioned above: Why not just give the taxpayer money to the taxpayers directly instead of giving it to a middleman (i.e., the banks) to dole out to us in order to make a profit for the middleman? In other words, instead of giving banks $750 billion (and really much more than that), why don't we just give it to ourselves?
The only answer to those questions is that the system must be preserved, which appears to be the assumption of all the Congressmen I saw questioning Kashkari. But as we've seen, the best way to really help the people instead of the banks is to dismantle the fraudulent, predatory system.
And dismantling the system would not be hard to do. It would be very, very easy, except for the fact that the public has been brainwashed a million times over into thinking that bankers have the divine right of money creation and that credit is necessary for life and the country to continue. Kashkari's comments indicate that credit is the answer to our problems when in fact credit is the problem.
Credit is the problem, not the solution
I'll say it again--credit is the problem, not the solution. If people had good jobs at good wages, they wouldn't need credit. If inflation wasn't through the roof, people wouldn't need credit. BUT, if no one needed credit, then the bankers would be out of work.
And the bankers don't want to be out of work. That's completely understandable because as we've seen, banks are allowed to create money without producing anything but debt, while the rest of us have to perform labor to have access to money. And in fact, it is only our labor that gives bankers their money. We are quite literally "working for the bank."
So the banks have an excellent scam going--they do and produce nothing while getting rich off of those of us who are performing labor.
Labor vs. capital
So that brings up the age-old fight between labor and capital. As we've seen, labor is the only thing that makes capital possible, yet in our system, labor is subservient to capital. This in inexplicably called "free market capitalism" and is extolled a billion times a day by presidents and pundits alike.
But if we were to put capital in its rightful place, i.e., subservient to labor, that would be and is called "godless communism" and is disparaged a billion times a day by presidents and pundits alike.
So we've been conditioned, brainwashed, taught--pick your term--to think that capital, i.e., the financiers/bankers/middlemen are what allow us to exist when in fact THE COMPLETE OPPOSITE IS TRUE. It was Abraham Lincoln who said
"Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration."
So call it communism, socialism, redistribution of wealth--again, pick your term--but the fact remains that labor is and therefore should be treated as the master of capital, not the other way around as is currently the case.
And that's why the questions posed to Kashkari and Paulson and Bernanke about the bailout and "the system" should proceed from a different assumption than they currently do. The questions should proceed from the assumption that the current system is rapacious, fraudulent, predatory, and contrary to common sense, not from the assumption that the current system should be preserved at all costs.