Audit The Fed, Then End It!

Discussion in 'Economy' started by Kevin_Kennedy, May 18, 2009.

  1. Kevin_Kennedy
    Offline

    Kevin_Kennedy Defend Liberty

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2008
    Messages:
    17,590
    Thanks Received:
    1,581
    Trophy Points:
    205
    Location:
    Ohio
    Ratings:
    +2,027
    Congressman Ron Paul - Audit the Fed, Then End It! - Texas Straight Talk
     
  2. sealybobo
    Offline

    sealybobo Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2008
    Messages:
    50,552
    Thanks Received:
    3,192
    Trophy Points:
    1,845
    Location:
    Michigan
    Ratings:
    +10,163
    Even though you argue with me about why we need to end the Fed, I'm glad you see that it is a good idea regardless.
     
  3. Paulie
    Offline

    Paulie Platinum Member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2007
    Messages:
    31,537
    Thanks Received:
    4,851
    Trophy Points:
    1,130
    Ratings:
    +15,376
    I'm actually pretty damn surprised that 1/5 of Congress has signed on to this.

    Now if the PEOPLE would do their part in demanding action from their reps, we could get this thing a LOT more co-sponsors.

    I'll personally wait until American Idol is over this week, though. I can't put my energy into anything else right now, I'm just so damn excited to see who wins!
     
  4. Iriemon
    Offline

    Iriemon VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2009
    Messages:
    2,745
    Thanks Received:
    99
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Miami
    Ratings:
    +99
    This Bill is a misnomer in the classic Orwellian style.

    The Fed is already audited every since year by both a Congressional agency (GAO) and a big four accounting firm.

    This bill is about forcing Fed Board deliberations on money policy to be public, which IMO is not a good idea because it chills the ability of board members to speak openly and frankly and politicizes FRB deliberations and votes.

    If you think ending the Fed and giving Congress power over the money supply would be a good idea, by all means support the bill. Its a step in that direction.
     
  5. sealybobo
    Offline

    sealybobo Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2008
    Messages:
    50,552
    Thanks Received:
    3,192
    Trophy Points:
    1,845
    Location:
    Michigan
    Ratings:
    +10,163
    Yes. And, I got an email from Democrats.com asking to BREAK UP THE BANKS.

    I think this is catching steam!!!

    But you are right. This is where the bankers call in their favors and the politicians fake like they are listening and then ultimately they don't fix the root of the problem.

    Like last year when we asked for immigration reform. They passed a bill, cost about a billion dollars, and ultimately, the borders are still open. Maybe not as open as they were, but open enough that we really aren't safe from terrorists coming in if they want.

    And certainly illegal workers are coming in still.

    I read a story last year where the mexican border is how/where chinese illegals come in too. So its not just the hispanics that are ruining this country.
     
  6. Paulie
    Offline

    Paulie Platinum Member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2007
    Messages:
    31,537
    Thanks Received:
    4,851
    Trophy Points:
    1,130
    Ratings:
    +15,376
    Just so we're clear, Paul would never advocate Congress controlling the money supply. That's Hamiltonian, and not even CLOSE to what Paul supports.

    Paul would leave that up to the market and the market ONLY. You can disagree with that all you want, but let's at least be clear about what we're talking about.

    For as much criticism of Paul as you give, you don't seem to know very much about him. Perhaps you should read up before commenting? This at least the third time I've seen you get it wrong on Paul.

    ETA: If you mean Congress coining money and regulating the value thereof, then that's different. Although, that's explicitly what the constitution states. If you mean establishing a central bank under congressional control, then that's absolutely NOT what Paul supports.
     
    Last edited: May 19, 2009
  7. Iriemon
    Offline

    Iriemon VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2009
    Messages:
    2,745
    Thanks Received:
    99
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Miami
    Ratings:
    +99
    Yeah, I read his page. I'm not sure what Paul supports, he uses "free market" terminology but doesn't explain what that means. Dollar backed gold standard? If there is no Fed how is the money supply controlled? By market money issuers? Private banks? And he's concerned about the influence the private banks have now?

    Which means what? Private banks control it?

    If the Fed is eliminated, you need some institution to be in control of it. Since Paul was criticizing the influence of private banks in the money supply, I would be surprised that he'd want them to control it. Therefore the logical deduction is that Congress has this authority. But I read that isn't what he wants either. So I guess he does want private banks controlling it.

    Maybe you can cite me to a web page that lays out in detail Paul's proposal for control of the money supply so I can be informed. Thanks.
     
  8. Iriemon
    Offline

    Iriemon VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2009
    Messages:
    2,745
    Thanks Received:
    99
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Miami
    Ratings:
    +99
    Are you in favor of the "free market" plan which give private banks complete control of the money supply instead of a government agency?
     
  9. Paulie
    Offline

    Paulie Platinum Member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2007
    Messages:
    31,537
    Thanks Received:
    4,851
    Trophy Points:
    1,130
    Ratings:
    +15,376
    Iriemon, the money supply doesn't need to be "controlled". Congress was originally supposed to coin the money and regulate the value based on weights and measures of gold. Remember when an ounce of gold was fixed at $35?

    Beyond that, the constitution doesn't go very much further in detail. So establishing a central bank of ANY type would require an amendment, because the constitution doesn't specifically state that congress has the power to establish a bank. You give me the amendment, get it passed, and I'll agree with it. Anything short is illegal as far as I'm concerned.

    And no, private banks don't need to control the money supply. We as the people control it based on our demand, and the supply of available money. We've had the discussion already about gold standards. Gold supplies increase around ~2% per year. That's PLENTY of inflation. We don't need anymore than that. Savers are getting PUNISHED for being responsible with their money, and frankly, that's fucking ridiculous.
     
  10. Kevin_Kennedy
    Offline

    Kevin_Kennedy Defend Liberty

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2008
    Messages:
    17,590
    Thanks Received:
    1,581
    Trophy Points:
    205
    Location:
    Ohio
    Ratings:
    +2,027
    It's our money they're spending and debasing, so yes I think we have a right to know what they're doing.
     

Share This Page