Does anyone think we need the Fed?

[The Rabbi]

We didn't allow it to normalize. We had some downturns (market corrections) and the uninformed masses were panicked into allowing the unconstitutional formation of a central bank. Then the worst financial crisis we have ever faced in US history occurred 16 years later. In the century that followed the USD lost 96% of its value. Hmm... I don't think central banking really worked out all that well either. Do you? Tell me what's good about this picture.

The formation of a central bank is perfectly constitutional.

Wrong. Since the constitution doesn't explicitly mention it, the authority to do so is delegated to the states by the 10th amendment. Check again.

An idiot in economics and now an idiot in Constitution.
Immigration isn't explicitly mentioned either. I guess that ought to go to the states too.
Tool.

 

[The Rabbi]

Wrong. Since the constitution doesn't explicitly mention it, the authority to do so is delegated to the states by the 10th amendment. Check again.

The Constitution gives Congress the authority to coin money and also gives them the power to take reasonable steps to exercise that authority.

Article I. Section 10. does not allow the money to be anything but Gold or Silver though. Check it out. Fiat currency is unconstitutional. If you think fiat currency is reasonable, well I can't help you with that.

Also, let me add that reasonable steps to coin money do not include deferring authority to a central bank. Coining money is coining money, it is not planning an economy. You're intepretation of the constitution is abusive. I suppose "general welfare" means that the government should take over the private sector so that they can provide everything for people also right? Pshh!

Are you too fucking stupid to read your own posts? DOn't answer that as I already know.
I already explained to you why you are wrong. The section quoted refers to STATES. The Fed Gov is not a STATE.

 

[The Rabbi]

You do realize the federal government and the individual states are the not the same thing, right?

Yeah, but you're avoiding the question. How can the federal government force the states to act against the constitution? Is that in there somewhere? Maybe I missed that part of the Constitution.

Maybe you're missing part of your brain. That might account for why you cannot read and understand a simple sentence.
The COnsitution forbids states to MAKE legal tender out of anything but gold and silver. But they can USE anything deemed legal currency.

 

[editec]

I'd make the argument that something LIKE a fed is probably a good thing.

But what we have ow is NOT how I might design it.

I would NOT give the right to control the specie to PRIVATE banks.

I would grant that right ONLY to our government and I would also give the PUBLIC the right to borrow money from it directly.

It would essantially be a NATIONAL BANK... of the people, by the people and FOR the people.

That is exactly the opposite of what we currently have.

 

[The Rabbi]

I'd make the argument that something LIKE a fed is probably a good thing.

But what we have ow is NOT how I might design it.

I would NOT give the right to control the specie to PRIVATE banks.

I would grant that right ONLY to our government and I would also give the PUBLIC the right to borrow money from it directly.

It would essantially be a NATIONAL BANK... of the people, by the people and FOR the people.

That is exactly the opposite of what we currently have.

Private banks don't have the right to control specie. Specie is uncontrolled, anyone can buy or sell it.
Why should the public be able to borrow from the central bank? What does that accomplish?

 

[rubberhead]

The formation of a central bank is perfectly constitutional.

Wrong. Since the constitution doesn't explicitly mention it, the authority to do so is delegated to the states by the 10th amendment. Check again.

An idiot in economics and now an idiot in Constitution.
Immigration isn't explicitly mentioned either. I guess that ought to go to the states too.
Tool.

Immigration is mentioned actually:

Article I. Sec 8.

The Congress shall have Power ... To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization.

You lose. Again.

 

[The Rabbi]

That doesnt make you any less of a tool.

 

[rubberhead]

You do realize the federal government and the individual states are the not the same thing, right?

Yeah, but you're avoiding the question. How can the federal government force the states to act against the constitution? Is that in there somewhere? Maybe I missed that part of the Constitution.

Maybe you're missing part of your brain. That might account for why you cannot read and understand a simple sentence.
The COnsitution forbids states to MAKE legal tender out of anything but gold and silver. But they can USE anything deemed legal currency.

So the states can mint their own coins as long as their gold or silver? I don't think you understand what you are saying. I don't think MAKE means CREATE here. I think it does mean USE.

 

[rubberhead]

I'd make the argument that something LIKE a fed is probably a good thing.

But what we have ow is NOT how I might design it.

I would NOT give the right to control the specie to PRIVATE banks.

I would grant that right ONLY to our government and I would also give the PUBLIC the right to borrow money from it directly.

It would essantially be a NATIONAL BANK... of the people, by the people and FOR the people.

That is exactly the opposite of what we currently have.

No, that is not the opposite of what we have. The opposite of what we have would be hard money that can't be manipulated and that actually increases in buying power rather than loses buying power.

If we gave Congress the ability to print money directly, our government would grow so fast you wouldn't be able to keep up and we'd go to war with every nation that their corporate buddies saw profit in. I mean, just look what's happened since they've been given the ability to ask the central bank to print money and create credit! A century of war and welfare state! Do you think this happened before we had a central bank? No, because there was real risk.

 

[rubberhead]

That doesnt make you any less of a tool.

I love you too Rabbi Keynes-Hitler.

 

[The Rabbi]

Yeah, but you're avoiding the question. How can the federal government force the states to act against the constitution? Is that in there somewhere? Maybe I missed that part of the Constitution.

Maybe you're missing part of your brain. That might account for why you cannot read and understand a simple sentence.
The COnsitution forbids states to MAKE legal tender out of anything but gold and silver. But they can USE anything deemed legal currency.

So the states can mint their own coins as long as their gold or silver? I don't think you understand what you are saying. I don't think MAKE means CREATE here. I think it does mean USE.

That is exactly what it means, states can create their own coinage as long as it is gold or silver. Make means make. Use means use.
In the early years every bank would issue its own currency (bank notes). These traded around, as many of them were fraudulent. Had you taken my advice pages ago and read Gordon's Empire of Wealth you would have known this.
As it is I have to explain the meaning of simple words to you.

 

[Mike Mitrosky]

I think everybody here is getting a little heated more than we need to...

Congress is allowed to coin money but they are also however not given the power to emit bills of credit. (paper money)

The original purpose of the government as far as monetary policy was concerned was to take somebodys gold or silver and coin it. Basically put the government's "good housekeeping seal" on it, so that everybody could take your coin in full confidence that it was the correct amount of gold or silver. (This is why you'll notice the weights and measures clause right next to the coin money clause.)

to "coin money" means that.. to coin money out of specie.

Now as far as private companies, banks, individuals go.. we are all allowed to create our own money or currency out of anything we want. The federal reserve banks of course are private institutions so this in of itself is not unconstitutional. Rubberhead or rabbi can each create their own paper notes if they want and try to go spend them, however the trick is in getting people to accept their notes down at the local grocery store.

The federal reserve accomplishes this because the government accepts tax payments in the form of federal reserve notes; creating a built in demand for these notes and by legal tender laws basically gives a monopoly to them and prevents anybody else from even using sound constitutional money like silver and gold.


Argue if you want, but to me, the federal reserve system (and government) have cleverly created loopholes to sneak past the requirements in the constitution. And if nothing else, seems to go against the original intent of the constitution.

 

[The Rabbi]

We dont care about the original intent of the constitution. We care even less about your interpretation of the original intent.

 

[rubberhead]

Maybe you're missing part of your brain. That might account for why you cannot read and understand a simple sentence.
The COnsitution forbids states to MAKE legal tender out of anything but gold and silver. But they can USE anything deemed legal currency.

So the states can mint their own coins as long as their gold or silver? I don't think you understand what you are saying. I don't think MAKE means CREATE here. I think it does mean USE.

That is exactly what it means, states can create their own coinage as long as it is gold or silver. Make means make. Use means use.
In the early years every bank would issue its own currency (bank notes). These traded around, as many of them were fraudulent. Had you taken my advice pages ago and read Gordon's Empire of Wealth you would have known this.
As it is I have to explain the meaning of simple words to you.

So basically you maintain that the constitutionality of the Fed is held together by spurious loopholes in the wording of the Constitution?

Let's look again at the wording of art. I sec. 10:

No State shall ... make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts

There is no comma, period, semicolon or any other punctuation between the direct object "gold and silver Coin" and the indirect object "legal tender." So whether or not the states are allowed to mint their own currencies, that is not what this phrase is conveying. If this was referring to the coining of currency, it would say "coin" where it says "make" and there would be an "as" in between "Coin" and "Tender" and the "a" would not be there. With the wording as it is written the word "make" means "to appoint or name" rather than "to bring into existence." If you don't understand basic grammar, then how can I trust that you've understood any of the books you've recommended?

make A (dir. obj.) a B (ind. obj.) = "appoint or name" A (dir. obj.) a B (ind. obj.)

Can you use make ("to bring into existence") in a sentence please?

 

[Mike Mitrosky]

We dont care about the original intent of the constitution. We care even less about your interpretation of the original intent.

Um. Are you American? You dont care about the original intent of the constitution??

 

[The Rabbi]

Do you have any support for this current fantasy of yours? ANy court cases, legal articles, etc?
You are about 2 posts away from going on my ignore list.

 

[The Rabbi]

We dont care about the original intent of the constitution. We care even less about your interpretation of the original intent.

Um. Are you American? You dont care about the original intent of the constitution??

Um,not really. That isn't the way our government works. We don't know what the original intent of the first amendment was. Was it really meant to cover giving the finger to police officers? I doubt it. But that's how it is.
And I care even less about your interpretation of what you think it was.

 

[rubberhead]

We dont care about the original intent of the constitution. We care even less about your interpretation of the original intent.

your new pic is awesome, btw. i almost cried i laughed so hard.

i know that the Constitution has been all but thrown out. I'm just pointing it out. The Constitution had one purpose: to prevent the conditions which the founders knew would lead to tyranny. Are there conditions that they didn't know about? Sure. But it used to be common knowledge that central banks creating money and credit from nothing was not a good idea. Suddenly, it's indispensable. Where are we headed? It's not a conspiracy. The government is using the inflation tax to fund wars and entitlements the likes of which the world hasn't seen since the Roman empire.

Did you know that Rome had welfare also? The constant wars on their frontiers are well known, but they also had to feed many of the city-dwellers from the Emperor's coffers. So do you know what they did in the 3rd and 4th century when they couldn't afford the wars and entitlements anymore? They started debasing the currency. There were many factors that contributed to the fall of Rome, but the weakening economy certainly caused the internal unrest both in civilized society and the military that facilitated the eventual collapse.

 

[Neubarth]

Rabbi I like your posts, but please remove that photo of Al spitting up turds. I never voted for the man, but a former VP of the United States should be shown some respect even if you disagree totally with him. That is just too gross! It does not belong on this forum.

 

[Mike Mitrosky]

We dont care about the original intent of the constitution. We care even less about your interpretation of the original intent.

Um. Are you American? You dont care about the original intent of the constitution??

Um,not really. That isn't the way our government works. We don't know what the original intent of the first amendment was. Was it really meant to cover giving the finger to police officers? I doubt it. But that's how it is.
And I care even less about your interpretation of what you think it was.

It may not be the way the government works now, but that doesnt make it right. It makes our government fucked up.

What interpretation? The Constitution isnt written in Chinese.. Its in English. Just read it and come to your own conclusion then just like you did with the 17th amendment.