Just A Review

[Keith Alan]

I've been very busy for these last few months, so I haven't taken the time to do much reading. It's been good though, because I find that many of the concepts talked about here have solidified in my mind, and I think I have a better understanding of demanding lawful money and the private/public credit system.

However, I'm worried I might have understood some things incorrectly, so I want to post about my understanding of a few things, just to see if I'm understanding correctly.

First concerning deposits. My understanding is that typically, deposits are bailments, with the bank actually taking possession and title of the funds deposited. Still, the bank owes the depositor the return of funds on demand, so essentially it amounts to extending credit to the bank, correct?

Non-endorsing a deposit changes the nature of the deposit. While still a bailment, the credit being extended is not Federal Reserve credit, but rather US credit, correct?

Which brings me to my second understanding. The Fed issues private credit in the form of Federal Reserve notes, and in money of account banking credit, correct?

The United States Treasury issues US notes, which represent United States credit, correct?

So in effect, there are two species of credit contained on one Federal Reserve note, depending on how the holder wishes to use them. It is normally presumed to be private credit, but making the demand converts it to public credit, correct?

So if a depositor makes his demand, he is depositing lawful money with the bank, which cannot be used for fractional reserve lending because it is credit foreign to the bank, correct?

And since it is not private credit, it is not income. This is to say that receiving income must be defined as the receiving of private credit. Receiving public credit is not income, but rather an exchange substance.

I hope I have these right, because if I do, I believe I have a good handle on the situation. Any controversies that might arise can be resolved by my understanding the relationships I have with the Fed, the Treasury, and their negotiable instruments that I might happen to hold. Any feedback you might have is greatly appreciated, so let me extend my heartfelt gratitude in advance: Thank you!

[Keith Alan]

Okay, I guess nobody wants to help me with understanding the remedy. That's fine, but maybe someone can comment on this:

Federal reserve notes, to be issued at the discretion of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System for the purpose of making advances to Federal reserve banks through the Federal reserve agents as hereinafter set forth and for no other purpose, are authorized. The said notes shall be obligations of the United States and shall be receivable by all national and member banks and Federal reserve banks and for all taxes, customs, and other public dues. They shall be redeemed in lawful money on demand at the Treasury Department of the United States, in the city of Washington, District of Columbia, or at any Federal Reserve bank.

If FRNs are advancements (ie credit) issued at the discretion of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, then it is an agency of the US that is extending credit to banks through its agents.

This has led me to conclude that the Fed Reserve System is a business entity operated by Congress for the purpose of extending credit in hopes of realizing a gain.

Therefore, national and member banks are participating in the enterprise, re-lending US obligations on ventures of their own, hence income tax reporting requirements and taxes on corporate profit and/or losses.

Since only private credit is changing hands, and persons participating in these transactions are national and member banks, then redeeming the notes would result in no net gain since there is no interest charged or collected on receiving lawful money.

Does this sound like a reasonable conclusion?

[allodial]

I suspect the one redeeming the bill for value is removing the bill from being Private Federal Clearinghouse Credit to United States Public/Social Credit. Feel free to search books.google.com for information about clearinghouse certificates. Some of the pre-1913 clearinghouse certificates looked an awful lot like Federal Reserve Notes look today.

Its important to study the fundamentals. The central banks are clearing houses or 'clearing corporations'. AFAIK it is the Federal Reserve Board of Governors issues them *to* the banks and they do not issue Federal Reserve Notes themselves for CIRCULATION (although keep in mind that checks, money orders and the like could be construed to be a form of currency). A 'bank' is a 'store' or a 'resevoir' it is not a generator except perhaps by induction. A piggy bank doesn't generate coins, it is a place for storing them. The currency comes from the U.S. Department of the Treasury not from the Federal Reserve Bank. The Promissory Notes on mortgages are neither issued by the Federal Banks nor by the State Banks. Since banks pass checks and such between each other, they need a common place to settle accounting between each other. That is what the 12 Federal Reserve Banks facilitate. When a 'national' or state bank in Chicago needs to clear a check drawn on or payable through a bank in New York, it must AFAIK use the Federal Reserve System. If the check is local, the mail, a courier or a local (ACH) clearinghouse could be utilized.

To secure payment of ... lawful money. It was not law lawful money.

If you are a FRB member or agent, then you are member or agent of a federal clearinghouse or a federal clearing corporation. If you are dealing with an unredeemed clearinghouse certificate, you're dealing with "(FRB/Casino) House Credit" rather than public money. AFAIK, the Federal Reserve System doesn't make cars, clothes, mobile homes. The Federal Reserve System doesn't even print its own money/currency. The value doesn't come from the bank it goes into or through the bank. The banks are service providers (i.e. accounting, telegraphic, courier and legal services--that's 'bout it).

Also...




Imagine you have a wonderful, wealthy father who has hired a trustee to underwrite your endeavors and to give a guarantee to your payment obligations expressed in lawful money. However, Mr. Stranger crops up and offers you a guarantee too--at a steep price and in the terms of clearinghouse credits. The Mr. Stranger doesn't want to see you prospering and wants you to live a pitiful poor life or to die in a bad way. Naughty-naughty Mr. Stranger knows if you don't express the amount in lawful money, it never triggers the father's guarantee. He also knows and tries to keep it secret that until you redeem the clearinghouse credit for lawful money it wont trigger the father's guarantee. Mr. Stranger knows that you have choice and loves to see you exercise your free will ....


...in the stupidest way possible that helps Mr. Stranger greatly enrich himself. It might be important to note that HJR-192 mentioned dollars* not clearinghouse credits--oooooooooooooooooooooooohhhh sneeekayyyy. But aren't you glad at least someone has been paying attention?

Royal Canadian Mint does.

However, banks do print, sell or exchange: checks, money orders, deposit slips or bank drafts.

P.S. Consider that the underwriting activity that a state bank or a federal bank might engage in might only ever be with respect to repossessed assets or with respect to abandoned assets. As in if a bank or a bank holding company [two different things] ever issued its own money it would likely only be underwritten by assets that it confiscated or abandoned assets (i.e. repossession, foreclosure, abandonment, 1099-A, plunder, overpayments, etc.--double dipping might however would be more along the lines of extreme usury and plunder). Apart from services provided, banks don't tend to originate anything of value.

[allodial]

Just for further clarification...



Per Virginia Code 8.8A-102.

[Jaro]

It's real simple, FRNs represent loan/credit that Congress borrowed from FedRes. Which is why they don't pay off debts, only discharge them, and make you liable for that loan, i.e. liable for interest payments, in form of income and sales taxation. In other words, FRNs are only PROMISES to pay.

Lawful money on the other hand are real money, meaning they have an intristic value, so they PAY OFF debts, so they don't come with any liability. The 'lawful' part simply means that this money is MINTED and their weight regulated by the gov't.

The problem is that in 1933, the federal gov't went partially bankrupt by demonetizing gold, and in 1972 it went completely bankrupt by demonetizing silver, so they have no lawful money to give you. That's also why they took US Notes out of circulation, since they were LM redeemable in silver until 1972. And since they no longer are redeemable in anything of value, they're not really lawful money. Now we could pretend that they're LM, but since we can pretend that redeemd FRNs are LM, there's really no need for US Notes. They're not lawful money, and any pretending can be done with FRNs as well.

But we still can demand redemption of FRNs in LM, which makes us AS IF we had lawful money, i.e. makes us entitled to have our debts PAID OFF and not just discharged, even though no one has any real money. But as men we're entitled to real money for real work, and not settle on promises to pay, although most do settle.

[allodial]

Pretty much. However, still, in the United States of America what is lawful money is still per fiat of Congress. Even if it were defined in the Constitution it is a fiat. A limitation on the United States or on the States is not a limitation on the sovereign. They could not lawfully remove the ability to do acquire property in allodium. Plain and simply comes down to sovereign prerogative. Also, discharge and pay are rather synonymous. To discharge a duty can mean to 'carry out a duty'.

[Anthony Joseph]

I suspect the one redeeming the bill for value is removing the bill from being Private Federal Clearinghouse Credit to United States Public/Social Credit. Feel free to search books.google.com for information about clearinghouse certificates. Some of the pre-1913 clearinghouse certificates looked an awful lot like Federal Reserve Notes look today.

Its important to study the fundamentals. The central banks are clearing houses or 'clearing corporations'. AFAIK it is the Federal Reserve Board of Governors issues them *to* the banks and they do not issue Federal Reserve Notes themselves for CIRCULATION (although keep in mind that checks, money orders and the like could be construed to be a form of currency). A 'bank' is a 'store' or a 'resevoir' it is not a generator except perhaps by induction. A piggy bank doesn't generate coins, it is a place for storing them. The currency comes from the U.S. Department of the Treasury not from the Federal Reserve Bank. The Promissory Notes on mortgages are neither issued by the Federal Banks nor by the State Banks. Since banks pass checks and such between each other, they need a common place to settle accounting between each other. That is what the 12 Federal Reserve Banks facilitate. When a 'national' or state bank in Chicago needs to clear a check drawn on or payable through a bank in New York, it must AFAIK use the Federal Reserve System. If the check is local, the mail, a courier or a local (ACH) clearinghouse could be utilized.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]1461[/ATTACH]



If you are a FRB member or agent, then you are member or agent of a federal clearinghouse or a federal clearing corporation. If you are dealing with an unredeemed clearinghouse certificate, you're dealing with "(FRB/Casino) House Credit" rather than public money. AFAIK, the Federal Reserve System doesn't make cars, clothes, mobile homes. The Federal Reserve System doesn't even print its own money/currency. The value doesn't come from the bank it goes into or through the bank. The banks are service providers (i.e. accounting, telegraphic, courier and legal services--that's 'bout it).

Also...



[ATTACH=CONFIG]1463[/ATTACH]
Imagine you have a wonderful, wealthy father who has hired a trustee to underwrite your endeavors and to give a guarantee to your payment obligations expressed in lawful money. However, Mr. Stranger crops up and offers you a guarantee too--at a steep price and in the terms of clearinghouse credits. The Mr. Stranger doesn't want to see you prospering and wants you to live a pitiful poor life or to die in a bad way. Naughty-naughty Mr. Stranger knows if you don't express the amount in lawful money, it never triggers the father's guarantee. He also knows and tries to keep it secret that until you redeem the clearinghouse credit for lawful money it wont trigger the father's guarantee. Mr. Stranger knows that you have choice and loves to see you exercise your free will ....

[ATTACH=CONFIG]1465[/ATTACH]
...in the stupidest way possible that helps Mr. Stranger greatly enrich himself. It might be important to note that HJR-192 mentioned dollars* not clearinghouse credits--oooooooooooooooooooooooohhhh sneeekayyyy. But aren't you glad someone at least was paying attention?

[ATTACH=CONFIG]1464[/ATTACH]Royal Canadian Mint does.

However, banks do print, sell or exchange: checks, money orders, deposit slips or bank drafts.

P.S. Consider that the underwriting activity that a state bank or a federal bank might engage in might only ever be with respect to repossessed assets or with respect to abandoned assets. As in if a bank or a bank holding company [two different things] ever issued its ow

Excellent analogies (FRNs as Casino chips & wealthy father's trust vs. 'Mr. Stranger').

The issues with this are as follows:

FRNs are like 'double sided Casino chips' (private credit FED seal and public money 1789 U.S. Treasury seal) in that if you wish use them outside of the 'casino', the fee for use is eliminated when you present the chip 'public side up'. This means that when clearly making a 'public side presentment' (demand for lawful money), no fees (taxes) are incurred and said presentment should be valued as a non-elastic/non-reserve 'money' payment. Said payment should reflect the '30:1' ratio of $1300/oz. gold at spot vs. $42.22/oz. gold earmarked by the Treasury/IMF internationally.

In other words, the 'chips' I use and present 'public side up' outside of the casino should buy $30 of 'house credit' goods (unredeemed FRNs) for $1 (redeemed lawful money). 'Mr. Stranger' is impeding that ability for the people at large. Also, Mr. Stranger continues to extort fees (taxes) from those who clearly present the 'chips' (FRNs) 'public side up'.

Where is 'Father's trustee' and why is trustee not fulfilling the obligation of properly administering and protecting the trust, and the 'heir', when the 'heir' clearly makes his/her 'public side up' demand?

[Chex]

Excellent analogy.....

The issues with this are as follows:

FRNs are like 'double sided Casino chips' (private credit FED seal and public money 1789 U.S. Treasury seal) in that if you wish use them outside of the 'casino', the fee for use is eliminated when you present the chip 'public side up'. This means that when clearly making a 'public side presentment' (demand for lawful money), no fees (taxes) are incurred and said presentment should be valued as a non-elastic/non-reserve 'money' payment. Said payment should reflect the '30:1' ratio of $1300/oz. gold at spot vs. $42.22/oz. gold earmarked by the Treasury/IMF internationally.

In other words, the 'chips' I use and present 'public side up' outside of the casino should buy $30 of 'house credit' goods (unredeemed FRNs) for $1 (redeemed lawful money). 'Mr. Stranger' is impeding that ability for the people at large. Also, Mr. Stranger continues to extort fees (taxes) from those who clearly present the 'chips' (FRNs) 'public side up'.

Where is 'Father's trustee' and why is trustee not fulfilling the obligation of properly administering and protecting the trust, and the 'heir', when the 'heir' clearly makes his/her 'public side up' demand?

Every picture tells a story don't it.

[allodial]

Well they are "Federal Reserve Notes". That is the first key. Another key is that checks printed by check printers do not make reference to lawful money however the "$" is allegedly a symbol for lawful money. What may also cause problems is that clearinghouse certificates could be under the National Banking Act be 'deemed' to be lawful money under certain circumstances (for certain reserve purposes?) and it might be so today and that might give rise to a kind of double talk. And that might explain why you could give a bank a PN in lawful money and they cut you a check in clearinghouse points.

I'd tend to say that the primary lawful money in circulation today in the United States of America are negotiable promissory notes denominated in "lawful money" and corporate bonds denominated in lawful money and their electronic equivalents. If checks are lawful money then checks, money orders and the like would be such--in any case it is likely that they make up the currency.

As for "Father's trustee"... have you ever considered the role that any of the following play in the monetary system or what their duties are and how they might relate to your prosperity:
[*] Secretary of United States Department of the Treasury
[*] any municipal, circuit or district court clerk
[*] the commissioner of Social Security
[*] the secretary of state of each U.S. state, district or territory
[*] any city or county clerk (not necessarily court clerks)
[*] the chief counsel or president of any state bank or U.S. bank.

IMHO, fixation on printed notes these days is a colorful distraction. Much is done via book entry and by transfers made electronically.

[Anthony Joseph]

Well they are "Federal Reserve Notes". That is the first key. Another key is that checks printed by check printers do not make reference to lawful money however the "$" is allegedly a symbol for lawful money. What may also cause problems is that clearinghouse certificates could be under the National Banking Act be 'deemed' to be lawful money under certain circumstances (for certain reserve purposes?) and it might be so today and that might give rise to a kind of double talk. And that might explain why you could give a bank a PN in lawful money and they cut you a check in clearinghouse points.

I'd tend to say that the primary lawful money in circulation today in the United States of America are negotiable promissory notes denominated in "lawful money" and corporate bonds denominated in lawful money and their electronic equivalents. If checks are lawful money then checks, money orders and the like would be such--in any case it is likely that they make up the currency.

As for "Father's trustee"... have you ever considered the role that any of the following play in the monetary system or what their duties are and how they might relate to your prosperity:[*] Secretary of United States Department of the Treasury[*] any municipal, circuit or district court clerk[*] the commissioner of Social Security[*] the secretary of state of each U.S. state, district or territory[*] any city or county clerk (not necessarily court clerks)[*] the chief counsel or president of any state bank or U.S. bank.

IMHO, fixation on printed notes these days is a colorful distraction. Much is done via book entry and by transfers made electronically.

Again, I agree.

The main distinction is whether the "lawful money' is elastic or inelastic. I add that distinction in my correspondences to your above list of potential "Father's trustees". However, said 'trustees' remain silent and continuously ignore the clear intents and requirements of the 'heir'; the man alive, who learned to stay away from the offer of "Mr. Stranger" and wishes to operate by the just and proper balances guaranteed by "Father's trust".

The men and women, who also act in public trust capacity, contacted by this 'heir':

Jacob J. LEW - U.S. Treasurer
Rosa G. RIOS - Treasurer of the United States of America
Thomas J. CURRY - U.S. Comptroller of the Currency
John F. KERRY - U.S. Secretary of State
Ken DETZNER - Florida Secretary of State
Jeff ATWATER - Florida Chief Financial Officer
Karen E. RUSHING - local court clerk

All of "Father's trustees" remain silent and in voluntary ignorance.

This is probably due to the fact that each of these men and women 'moonlight' for "Mr. Stranger" and prefer said 'moonlighting' over their 'day job'.

[allodial]

The main distinction is whether the "lawful money' is elastic or inelastic....

I suppose most any currency has some elasticity to it. Even gold coin could be more valuable one day than the next due to fluctuations in demand for gold. However, it might still serve to be a just weight and balance and inelastic in the sense that flucations would tend to be 'universal' (i.e. effecting all within the context) in scope.

... This is probably due to the fact that each of these men and women 'moonlight' for "Mr. Stranger" and prefer said 'moonlighting' over their 'day job'.

Well you might have hit the nail on the head or pretty close. Or it might be something to do with...

"State Secrets" an attorney and his underlings not being able to reveal their clients' secrets. As in, they might want to help but cannot due to some oath taken. Or perhaps they are partners with Mr. Stranger selling out their own brethren for a mess of pottage? Or perhaps Congress might be chiefly complicity? Or perhaps Congress and the FRB are merely sideshows or "stunt doubles" for others? Since the US Code is made openly available for most all to read, perhaps then there is another perspective...

It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter. (Proverbs 25:2)

Somehow an above post got truncated so I retype:

P.S. Consider that the underwriting activity that a state bank or a federal bank might engage in might only ever be with respect to repossessed assets or with respect to abandoned assets. As in if a bank or a bank holding company [two different things] ever issued its own money it would likely only be underwritten by assets that it confiscated or abandoned assets (i.e. repossession, foreclosure, abandonment, 1099-A, plunder, overpayments, etc.--double dipping might however would be more along the lines of extreme usury and plunder). Apart from services provided, banks don't tend to originate anything of value.

That a bank stands to gain heavily through ignorance or lack of knowledge is telling. Consider that Governments have tended to make substantial gains similarly: through forfeiture, asset seizure, tax foreclosures, escheats and abandonment. That they are so interested in your stuff is perhaps revealing something: they don't have much of anything of value without you. This might be shocking but banks and credit card companies are at least in part in the business of turning accounting entries into tangible assets: they want you to fail to pay so they can repossess tangible items. Perhaps they are supposed to (primarily) be in the business of providing telegraphic, accounting and legal services or perhaps that is what they pretend. Consider that new car loans are secured by the cars purchased (proof would be in repossession)--therefore, a bank isn't risking anything except a bet as to whether you will pay the repayment amount on time or at all. If the reader doesn't believe that a bank would repossess a $50K car and still require the 'borrower' to repay the remainder of the loan, I have something for you:

.

[Anthony Joseph]

I suppose most any currency has some elasticity to it. Even gold coin could be more valuable one day than the next due to fluctuations in demand for gold. However, it might still serve to be a just weight and balance and inelastic in the sense that flucations would tend to be 'universal' (i.e. effecting all within the context) in scope.



Well you might have hit the nail on the head or pretty close. Or it might be something to do with "State Secrets" an attorney and his underlings not being able to reveal their clients' secrets. As in, they might want to help but cannot due to some oath taken. Or perhaps they are partners with Mr. Stranger selling out their own brethren for a mess of pottage? Or perhaps Congress might be chiefly complicity? Or perhaps Congress and the FRB are merely sideshows or "stunt doubles" for others? Since the US Code is made openly available for most all to read, perhaps then there is another perspective...



Somehow an above post got truncated so I retype:



That a bank stands to gain heavily through ignorance or lack of knowledge is telling. Consider that Governments have tended to make substantial gains similarly: through forfeiture, asset seizure, tax foreclosures, escheats and abandonment. That they are so interested in your stuff is perhaps revealing something: they don't have much of anything of value without you. This might be shocking but banks and credit card companies are in the business of turning accounting entries into tangible assets: they want you to fail to pay so they can repossess tangible items. Perhaps they are supposed to be in the business of providing telegraphic, accounting and legal services or perhaps that is what they pretend. Consider that new car loans are secured by the cars purchased (proof would be in repossession)--therefore, a bank isn't risking anything except a bet as to whether you will pay the repayment amount on time or at all.

While I am all for being charitable, I point out Communism for what it is (so that folks can steer the Ship clear of the rocks and shoals): it is the wet dream of plunderers and asset seizure, Communism is usury, asset forfeiture, asset seizure, taxation, repossession on steroids for those who just cant get enough. AFAIK, Communism is not biblical. For those who don't get it: we already hold roads, streets, bridges and public property in common. Voluntary fraternal or sororial communalism isn't the same as communism which is where the Caesar levies 100%+ tax instead of just getting what Caesar might be due.

If you consider why it might be difficult for Bob to get a loan from a bank for his new gas station, consider that if the bank is running ten repossessed gas stations in the same town, the bank might have a conflict of interest. The bank becomes an intelligence agency spying on potential competition. It might also make sense why the FRB pulls currency from areas that need it: the harder it is for businesses and others to repay their loans THE MORE ASSETS MEMBER BANKS STAND TO REPOSSESS OR FORECLOSE ON. This is really rather obvious stuff. Communism: is municipal trading, asset forfeiture, monopoly and more combined. The point is: a free market works in the hand of honest folks. When a free market system (and I don't mean "capitalism") is in the hand of Communists or extreme Socialists who pretend to be for the free market it can give rise to false appearances. The system works because they use it to enrich themselves! So I allude to you* knowing how to make it work for yourselves and others.

Also, once a threat is exposed, then there is clearly something to pray about. I have often drawn a parallel between calling air strikes and prayer. There is more than enough hope.

One of the duties of a public trustee is to fully acquit and discharge debt obligations, or other securities, of the United States unless... a man or woman accommodates or undertakes for the obligation. The FIRST MIDDLE LAST may be my property (right-of-use proper to me and exclusive of all others), but title is held by another. Titleholder is legal owner and the liable party obligated and responsible for the 'thing' titled.

U.C.C.



Volunteer public trust officials are oath-bound to fulfill said duty and obligations. People are the substance behind all value. The living men and women are the creditors, freely giving the labor and energy produced by their bodies for the benefit of all living people. The United States benefits from the labor and energy of the living people as evidenced by the notes and credit issued and circulating in the public realm. The substance of the living people is the value behind the credit and currency of the United States. The United States is the debtor. The United States is operating in bankruptcy.

When the non-accommodating and non-undertaking people require of public servants/officials/trustees to discharge debt against a vested interest of the United States (FIRST MIDDLE LAST) per their own obligatory law, performance should and must be executed else there is dereliction of duty and violation of office. If an agreement/contract is claimed as authority over a man or woman, then let the living man or woman (who also acts as public servant/official/trustee) making said claim VERIFY on and for the record, under oath or affirmation, that another living man or woman owes a debt or obligation.

Compelling performance of a public servant/officer/trustee 'on the offense' proves more difficult than 'on the defense'.

[allodial]

... When the non-accommodating and non-undertaking people require of public servants/officials/trustees to discharge debt against a vested interest of the United States (FIRST MIDDLE LAST) per their own obligatory law, performance should and must be executed else there is dereliction of duty and violation of office. If an agreement/contract is claimed as authority over a man or woman, then let the living man or woman (who also acts as public servant/official/trustee) making said claim VERIFY on and for the record, under oath or affirmation, that another living man or woman owes a debt or obligation.

Compelling performance of a public servant/officer/trustee 'on the offense' proves more difficult than 'on the defense'.

Writ of mandamus; acceptance of oath of office. The more one knows about the underlying law, the more effectively or concise one can be with respect to mandamus or the like.

P.S. it might help if you have someone available to act if the person fails to comply with the mandate --you know kinda like what they do if someone doesn't pay a fine. Shouldn't take too much thought on what government officials could be useful to back you up.

Related: http://freedom-school.com/acceptance/.

[allodial]

..........

[allodial]

PBS aired a piece called Secret History of the Credit Card. Of course, any most any high-level industry insider knows that turning paper into cars is "the best bizness in town".

"Deadbeat:" Although "deadbeat" normally means "one who does not pay one's debts," [Source: URL http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=deadbeat], the word has taken on a new meaning for credit card companies. For them, "deadbeat" means someone who avoids interest and fees by paying her/his account balance in full each month rather than paying the minimum amount and carrying a balance. Credit card companies do not earn much from these cardholders. About 55 million Americans pay their bills in full each month.

If you are limiting them to their 'pretend' primary business of providing services from which they collect more-than-reasonable fees, then they might refer to you as a 'deadbeat'.