01/05/2008 03:30:07 AM EST

Conservatives! Justify the existence of the Fed!

posted by jarett

So I was reading Digg...

Email Print
Google Technorati del.icio.us digg reddit Facebook
http://www.populistamerica. com/subprime_crashes_into_c riminal_monetary_system

Okay.  Why is this wrong?

Some important stuff:

The "letter" of Constitutional law is violated by the Fed's conflict with Article 1, Section 8, Paragraph 6 -- "The Congress shall have the power ... To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures".

The "spirit" of Constitutional law is violated by the Fed's conflict with the 1935 SCOTUS decision in Schechter Poultry, 295 US 495, which barred Congress from delegating any of the core powers assigned to it in the Constitution.

So?

< Please interview this guy | Wyoming sucks >
 Display:
Conservatives! Justify the existence of the Fed! | 11 comments (11 topical, 0 hidden)
The Cross of Gold (none / 0)

Geez Jarett you not falling for that stuff are you?

Populists have been grousing about a Central Bank since the Jackson Administration. In the same vein:

  • Why does the Treasury Department coin and print money?
  • Why does the  Commerce Department set standards for weighs and measures?
  • Why is there air and how much would you pay for it

Of course in the perfect Conservative world the Federal Government , our laws and Constitution would be rolled back to the time of the Jackson Administration. You know, goats grazing on the South Lawn, women in the home ,slaves in the field...all that stuff.

I think that's why they love big SUVs and gated communities so much...they are taking personal responsibility for not funding roads and the homeless problem.

 

by MRFred on 01/05/2008 09:07:17 AM EST

You Can Get with This (none / 0)
Or you can get with that. But you should get with this, cause this is where it's at.

Are we getting rid of the S.E.C. too? Wall Street was just a barren flooded wasteland where Bluebeard hid his gold when the country was founded; we didn't have hedge funds and computer viruses and coke head day traders making insider deals. So because the Founding Fathers, in all their glorious wisdom, didn't presage the rise of investment trading groups, series seven exams and we need to get rid of the Security and Exchange Commission too?

I couldn't agree with Ron Paul more, we're in Iraq for oil and for money and the nations of the middle east resent us for it. There is a direct connection between our supporting, training and funding Saddam and Osama in the 80's and the later conflicts. So let's get out of Iraq, and get rid of the fed so we can stop supporting a welfare state? So it is a choice between putting in more troops or getting rid of social security, what kind of choice is that? It is starting to sound more and more like the quips that blowhards made in the 80's about the former Soviet Union, ya-you get choice americansky two tv channel, but they both play same thing. Choice equals no choice, just more double speak.

I just wish when Ron Paul talked about solving the multiple crises we're facing by printing more money, the traditional republican way of handling things and how it is absurd, he would mention a third alternative of perhaps raising instead of lowering rates. Is it either we get rid of the fed or they print more money? Couldn't they raise rates and thus in effect print less money?

But of course. We need to "grow our way" out of recession, by doing more of what got us into the mess in the first place. Everyone agrees we might be facing a slowdown or a correction or a recession and it is due to the subprime mortgage crisis, and the resulting trouble with the equity markets. And all this was caused by cheap money easily borrowed by the fed lowering rates. So now we need to do the same thing to solve the problem?

In 2000 I told all my friends heavily invested in tech stocks to take their money out of the market and put it into oil and gold. They've made 10 times their money. But all it is now is speculation, if it wasn't all along. Do we really need to mine for more gold? Is that going to solve anything? Because that is the bottom line, mining companies ruining the drinking supply in Ecuador; don't really see how that helps solve our dependence on foreign energy, the military industrial complex's hold on the pentagon and congress and Washington, or help better prepare our young for the future.

It is like you've got all these lemurs going over the White Cliffs of Dover and Ron Paul comes along and says, hey, wait a minute, maybe this isn't such a good idea, why don't we stop and think about it for a minute. And then he gets together all the kings men and they decide to build a bridge. But there is nothing on the other side. Great, he has recognized the problem but his solution is just as bad.

Whatever you do, don't click this link (studies show you're more likely if you shouldn't)

by tiggerporn on 01/05/2008 08:22:29 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Keynesian (none / 0)

Well I buy into the idea of using influxes of money to shift the aggregate demand curve right when there is a shock.

 But the problem is all the problems that are associated with the Federal Reserve namely the massive debt we owe these private banks.

 They print money and pay the overhead for printing it, and in return, the tax payers owe the a debt..for the amount of money they printed and gave\loaned the government. Not only that...but then they charge the tax payer interest.

You'd think it would be more complicated then that...but for the life of me I can't find any counter arguement. 

 

by acroso on 01/05/2008 09:17:02 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Not an ad (none / 0)

Interesting article in the business section of the NY Times Sunday edition this week that relates to this topic, a book review of Stephan Mihm's "Nation of Counterfeiters" about the antibellum United States with no federal dollar. (Full disclosure: I've worked at three different B and N superstores.)

Well I buy into the idea of using influxes of money to shift the aggregate demand curve right when there is a shock. In other words, you want to "grow us out" of a recession. Isn't "using influxes of money" just a different way of saying "Fed printing too much money" and causing inflation and cutting the value of the dollar in half?

I realize there are no easy answers and you might simply be throwing something back at me I wrote on a much earlier post. 

Whatever you do, don't click this link (studies show you're more likely if you shouldn't)

by tiggerporn on 01/06/2008 03:14:01 PM EST

[ Parent ]
gold (none / 0)

You don't have to return to the gold standard just because you want to get rid of the fed...

 

I've heard people advocating that they remve the right to print money from private banks and return that responsibility to the government itself. You would still have inflation, but you wouldn't have all the other problems associated with the current system.

 

But inflation is essentially a flat tax anyway...which liberals say is regressive. You would think liberals would hate that. 

by acroso on 01/05/2008 09:18:59 AM EST

DMR (none / 0)

The DMR polled Paul just about the highest and they had him at 9%. In the next day he momentumed upward to 10% so maybe Iowa didn't turn out that badly.

 

Rasmussen has Paul in third today at 14% in NH, and who the hell knows how Wyoming will go but they have more delegates tha NH anyway.

 

We'll find out at 3 PM this afternoon. Romney may have that state bought though. 

by acroso on 01/05/2008 11:15:37 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Murdoch (none / 0)

Murdoch is 100% behind McCain with Mr. 9/11 as backup. Republicans can't choose a chickenhawk for this election like multi-millionaire Mitt Romney and his 6 sons who want nothing to do with Iraq.

 That's why the answer is the 500 pound gorilla John McCain who wants a 100 year war in Iraq.

I've always maintained that Paul's 20 million he has to spend on advertising and his blimps and his air force and helicopters and his internet spammers etc are no match for this....

 

24 hour free advertising by News Corp. 

 

 

 

 

fox 

 

 new corp

 

by acroso on 01/05/2008 12:40:30 PM EST

err (none / 0)
errr sory i forgot to resize those...

by acroso on 01/05/2008 12:40:55 PM EST

[ Parent ]
breaking news-woot (none / 0)

link- NH GOP pulls out and cancels support for what is becoming known as the "going out of business network according to Kieth Olberman yesterday.

 

 

 

"

New Hampshire GOP Pulls Support For FOX Debate

Story Created: Jan 5, 2008

Story Updated: Jan 5, 2008
The New Hampshire Republican Party announced Saturday that it will no longer support a Republican candidate’s forum scheduled for Sunday on FOX.

Party officials decided to withdraw as co-sponsers after candidates California Rep. Duncan Hunter and Texas Rep. Ron Paulwere left uninvited.

Hunter posted only tiny percentage in Iowa disqualifying him under the criteria set by FOX, but remains in the race.

Having never received an initial invitation, Paul’s capture of 10% in Iowa Thursday, still did not convince organizers to allow his participation.

After strong media attention focusing on the forums exclusivity and internal discussion, New Hampshire Republican Party Cha¬irman Fergus Cullen releases a statement Saturday making the separation official.

“The first-in-the-nation New Hampshire primary serves a national purpose by giving all candidates an equal opportunity on a level playing field. Only in New Hampshire do lesser known, lesser funded underdogs have a fighting chance to establish themselves as national figures. Consistent with that tradition, we believe all recognized major candidates should have an equal opportunity to participate in pre-primary debates and forums,” wrote Cullen.

“This principle applies to tonight’s debates on ABC as well as Sunday’s planned forum on FOX. The New Hampshire Republican Party believes Congressmen Ron Paul and Duncan Hunter should be included in the FOX forum on Sunday evening. Our mutual efforts to resolve this difference have failed,” he continued.

“While we understand that FOX News continues to move forward it is with regret, the New Hampshire Republican Party hereby withdraws as a partner in this forum.”

 

by acroso on 01/05/2008 12:53:30 PM EST

It seems your thread has been hijacked by the (none / 0)
village idiot. Im not sure what any of the garbage above this has to do with your question. The real suprise is that he/she wonders why he/she called a troll.

by MRFred on 01/05/2008 01:34:48 PM EST

Most likely... (none / 0)
...forgot which thread he was in when posting.

As far as the original question - I think most REAL conservatives would be all for closing the Fed. Freedom begins again when we tell the Rothchilds and the Bilderberg Group to go fly a kite.

One thing to notice - the people who rail loudest about people taking "responsibility" are the same ones who support corporate personhood, the Fed, etc., etc., and expect all kinds of special priveleges.

Funny that, eh?

by MedfordTim on 01/05/2008 02:45:10 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Conservatives! Justify the existence of the Fed! | 11 comments (11 topical, 0 hidden)
 Display: