More power for the Federal Reserve?

[editec]

Good point dillo. We all need to get together and stop this nonsense that keeps us divided.

Ok, agreed.

But the problem is, I suspect, is that most people don't get what we are talking about when we say the Federal Reserve is the problem.

Hey, you cannot much blame then for that, can you? One has to wade into history, one has to begin to understand what money really is, and how controlling the amount of in circulation gives those people such enormous power, too.

One has to understand why GOLD is NOT the answer and one has to understand the nearly impossibly complex relationship between the FED and the private banks which own it to even get a sense of how rigged the game really is.

And then the real difficult part is believing the story given that it is so outrageous, too.

We need that many people to call their Senators and tell them to abolish the Federal Reserve.

Good luck getting those folks to do something like that. After all, the master class owns them.

As of right now, most people don't even get it that they are the problem.

Most people don't get it that many of their statesmen already sold them out.

More as more understand it now, I think. They STILL don't apparently get the connection between the declining quality of life in America and FREE TRADE though.

Problem here sealy is once you already told your congressmen/senators that whatever the issue is you are concerned about and give them the info on whatever it is and they brush you off as if to say "So what" why bother?

They dismiss you as a crank, naturally.

Or they don't dismiss you as a crank, and then you end up on some watchlist as a political instigator.

 

[RodISHI]

More like a "terrorist". My question was "Who is terrorizing who here?".

 

[sealybobo]

Hey, you cannot much blame then for that, can you? One has to wade into history, one has to begin to understand what money really is, and how controlling the amount of in circulation gives those people such enormous power, too.

One has to understand why GOLD is NOT the answer and one has to understand the nearly impossibly complex relationship between the FED and the private banks which own it to even get a sense of how rigged the game really is.

And then the real difficult part is believing the story given that it is so outrageous, too.




Good luck getting those folks to do something like that. After all, the master class owns them.

As of right now, most people don't even get it that they are the problem.

More as more understand it now, I think. They STILL don't apparently get the connection between the declining quality of life in America and FREE TRADE though.

Problem here sealy is once you already told your congressmen/senators that whatever the issue is you are concerned about and give them the info on whatever it is and they brush you off as if to say "So what" why bother?

They dismiss you as a crank, naturally.

Or they don't dismiss you as a crank, and then you end up on some watchlist as a political instigator.

If we can't get 10 people between us to give a shit, why do we expect the politicians to bring it up? They represent the people that elected them. Do those people cry about the Federal Reserve? Hell no. Some even defend it.

Ron Paul was encouraging though. He got a lot of people to listen. But then look what they did to him.

I don't like Ron Paul's Libertarian style of politics, but one thing I'll agree with him on is taking back the Federal Reserve.

Also, IMO, I hear about this topic from time to time on Air America and Nova M Radio, two liberal shows not afraid to discuss this. They don't give it the attention it deserves either, but at least they'll let a caller talk about it. Does Rush or O'Reilly ever dare talk about this? Hell no! And did you ever see the Glen Beck interview with Ron Paul? Beck made Paul look like a nut. So absolutely positively forget about the GOP ever fixing this issue.

I think if either of the two big parties were to dare do something like this, it would be the Dems, because the Dems are the grass roots party. If any politician could win with just the support of the people, it would be a Democrat. Because to get the masses you would need poor people to turn out in droves too. Sorta like how Obama won.

Anyways, I think a really bright young politician might have the balls to confront the Fed. I think Kennedy tried, and he got popped. Maybe Obama will have the courage. Maybe going that far is not an option.

And again, try getting anyone to care. And even if they care, they'll still say, "ah, there's nothing we can do about it anyways......."

The one that bothers me the most is when people say, "well we gotta pay our taxes, so how are you going to do away with the irs & fed....."

I want to kill those people!!! The point is that the richest people in the world have more control over our economy than the politicians do, and our founding fathers warned us about this. Yet it happens over and over again in history. Corporations are too powerful!!! That starts with the banks and then the oil companies and energy companies and lobbyists and special interests...... YET IT CONTINUES ON right there for everyone to see. Shameless! Nothing you can do about it!!!!

 

[indago]

The FED as currently structured is a tool of the wealthy and powerful banks to keep them that way.

Still something like a FED must exist, just not one like we have now.

Exactly. It should be socialized like it was before JP MOrgan, Rockafellor & Carnege bribed Congress in 1913 to pass the Federal Reserve Act.

Before then, our money was backed by gold. Why did the government turn over our finances to these ruthless greedy business men in 1913? And now the $ is not backed by anything. Are we stupid?

If the government owned the Federal Reserve, we wouldn't be charging ourselves interest on the debt. Hell, we probably wouldn't even have a debt. At least not like the debt we have now.

Think about this. The Federal Reserve loved it that Bush doubled the debt. Now they own us even more.

As an ANCIENT poster once wrote: "Well, you've got the easy part done: you've talked about it." People have been writing and talking about this for two hundred years, and things don't get better, they get worse.

 

[sealybobo]

The FED as currently structured is a tool of the wealthy and powerful banks to keep them that way.

Still something like a FED must exist, just not one like we have now.

Exactly. It should be socialized like it was before JP MOrgan, Rockafellor & Carnege bribed Congress in 1913 to pass the Federal Reserve Act.

Before then, our money was backed by gold. Why did the government turn over our finances to these ruthless greedy business men in 1913? And now the $ is not backed by anything. Are we stupid?

If the government owned the Federal Reserve, we wouldn't be charging ourselves interest on the debt. Hell, we probably wouldn't even have a debt. At least not like the debt we have now.

Think about this. The Federal Reserve loved it that Bush doubled the debt. Now they own us even more.

As an ANCIENT poster once wrote: "Well, you've got the easy part done: you've talked about it." People have been writing and talking about this for two hundred years, and things don't get better, they get worse.

You are right. Like I said earlier, if we can't get our fellow Americans on board with the idea that the entire system is corrupt, then what are the politicians supposed to do about it.

And even the Americans you convince only say, "yea, well what can we do about it?"

So no, I don't expect the root of our problems to be solved, especially with all the right wingers out there defending corporate America in whatever they want to do in the hunt for the all powerful PROFITS!!!

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Let's also not forget that a central bank, the Federal Reserve, is not authorized by the Constitution.

 

[Paulie]

Let's also not forget that a central bank, the Federal Reserve, is not authorized by the Constitution.

"congress shall have the power to coin money, and regulate the value thereof"

As it stands, congress doesn't even have the power to completely oversee what the Federal Reserve DOES, let ALONE have the power to coin money.

 

[sealybobo]

Let's also not forget that a central bank, the Federal Reserve, is not authorized by the Constitution.

Here's the way I see it. I argue with people who think I'm crazy when I say the income tax is unconstitutional. They say, "yes it is because of the 16th amendment".

But look at it this way. If the Founding fathers and Supreme Court of the 1700's and 1800's said income tax was/is unconstitutional, and then in the 1900's Congress passes a federal income tax, it should be reviewed once again by the Supreme Court. But they won't even acknowledge it.

And lets face it, with the last 2 bush appointees, they would say it is constitutional, because those are two corporate gop justices. Why not? Bush only appointed political right wing hacks to every position. Why would Roberts and Alito be any different?

So the Supreme Court said Income Tax was unconstitutional. If they follow starry decisis, they should reach the same conclusion again. So they're in on it too!!!!

 

[sealybobo]

Let's also not forget that a central bank, the Federal Reserve, is not authorized by the Constitution.

"congress shall have the power to coin money, and regulate the value thereof"

As it stands, congress doesn't even have the power to completely oversee what the Federal Reserve DOES, let ALONE have the power to coin money.

Our founding fathers warned us about corporations/banks becoming too powerful. It has already happened. Now it will take a revolution to make things right.

Why don't people worry when they see quotes like this?

As Mayer Amschel Rothschild is quoted to have said:

“Give me control over a nation’s currency and I don’t care who makes the laws.”

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Let's also not forget that a central bank, the Federal Reserve, is not authorized by the Constitution.

Here's the way I see it. I argue with people who think I'm crazy when I say the income tax is unconstitutional. They say, "yes it is because of the 16th amendment".

But look at it this way. If the Founding fathers and Supreme Court of the 1700's and 1800's said income tax was/is unconstitutional, and then in the 1900's Congress passes a federal income tax, it should be reviewed once again by the Supreme Court. But they won't even acknowledge it.

And lets face it, with the last 2 bush appointees, they would say it is constitutional, because those are two corporate gop justices. Why not? Bush only appointed political right wing hacks to every position. Why would Roberts and Alito be any different?

So the Supreme Court said Income Tax was unconstitutional. If they follow starry decisis, they should reach the same conclusion again. So they're in on it too!!!!

The founding fathers also didn't let black people vote under the Constitution. The amendment process is designed to update the Constitution and make what was not Constitutional at one time, Constitutional.

 

[indago]

Here's the way I see it. I argue with people who think I'm crazy when I say the income tax is unconstitutional. They say, "yes it is because of the 16th amendment".

But look at it this way. If the Founding fathers and Supreme Court of the 1700's and 1800's said income tax was/is unconstitutional, and then in the 1900's Congress passes a federal income tax, it should be reviewed once again by the Supreme Court. But they won't even acknowledge it.

The Supreme Court has reviewed the sixteenth amendment. You're just not paying attention:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/994075-post45.html

 

[indago]

Let's also not forget that a central bank, the Federal Reserve, is not authorized by the Constitution.

The establishment of a corporation by the federal government was discussed by the framers during the Convention of 1787, and the power to create a corporation was denied. And what was one of the first items on the agenda of Alexander Hamilton as Secretary of Treasury? The incorporation of the Bank of US. He bribed Congressmen, and convinced President Washington that signing the Bill would be a good thing. He did a great disservice to the country with this act.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Let's also not forget that a central bank, the Federal Reserve, is not authorized by the Constitution.

The establishment of a corporation by the federal government was discussed by the framers during the Convention of 1787, and the power to create a corporation was denied. And what was one of the first items on the agenda of Alexander Hamilton as Secretary of Treasury? The incorporation of the Bank of US. He bribed Congressmen, and convinced President Washington that signing the Bill would be a good thing. He did a great disservice to the country with this act.

Very true. Alexander Hamilton is the founding father of Crony Capitalism.

 

[indago]

Let's also not forget that a central bank, the Federal Reserve, is not authorized by the Constitution.

The establishment of a corporation by the federal government was discussed by the framers during the Convention of 1787, and the power to create a corporation was denied. And what was one of the first items on the agenda of Alexander Hamilton as Secretary of Treasury? The incorporation of the Bank of US. He bribed Congressmen, and convinced President Washington that signing the Bill would be a good thing. He did a great disservice to the country with this act.

Very true. Alexander Hamilton is the founding father of Crony Capitalism.

Historian Murry Rothbard wrote of the Bank of US in his book Panic of 1819, and noted a speech in the Congress by Senator Ninian Edwards concerning a bill proposed in the Congress for the relief of debtors: "The debtors, like the rest of the country, had been infatuated by the short-lived, 'artificial and fictitious prosperity.' They thought that the prosperity would be permanent. Lured by the cheap money of the banks, people were tempted to engage in a 'multitude of the wildest projects and most visionary speculations,' as in the case of the Mississippi and South Sea bubbles of previous centuries."

President Jackson vetoed a bill to recharter the Bank of the United States, and the veto could not be overridden in the Congress. He was convinced that the Bank bought and sold Congressmen and had more power than was good for it or the country. Professor Page Smith, in his book The Nation Comes of Age, wrote of the Bank: "The hostility of many Americans toward the Bank of the United States was based not so much on the Bank's great reputed wealth and abuse of its powers as on the fact that it was perceived as an impediment to those outside of its charmed circle in making money. Deprived of access to capital, they were deprived of their right to make money. Deprived of the right to make money, they were deprived of the opportunity to become real Americans, deprived of the power of self-definition through money."

Has anything changed? It doesn't look like it. Life goes on...

 

[Paulie]

Interesting how someone tried to kill Jackson, too.

We know how THAT turned out