Should We Kill The Fed?

[mash107]

Well jeez, thanks for acknowledging that. I don't recall either one disbanding the congress and making himself furher for life either.

To even make a comparison of any US president to Hitler is assisine in the extreme.

I agree with that. The outcomes may have been the same loss of life and liberty, but one is deliberate and the other is not.

I could not disagree more with your assertion that "The outcomes may have been the same loss of life and liberty" between FDR or Lincoln or any other president compared to Hitler. IMO that is a ridiculous thing even to suggest.

Do you deny the loss of 620,000 men was tragic especially when it was unnecessary? I did say the comparison is ridiculous, but it is still tragic what FDR and Lincoln did.

 

[neurosport]

I agree with that. The outcomes may have been the same loss of life and liberty, but one is deliberate and the other is not.

oh please ! stop being idiots !

you should never make a distinction between harm done deliberately and "accidentally" ...

THATS THE WORST FUCKING MORAL HAZARD EVER !

thats how the government keeps fucking you in the ass year after year - " we didn't know the war in Iraq will last more than 2 weeks " or " we didn't know Bush was lying to us " or whatever.

BULLSHIT !

you fucked up ? - PRISON FOR LIFE !

if you don't think you can be right 100% of the time - don't run for high office - ITS THAT EASY !

NEVER EVER LISTEN TO EXCUSES OR RATIONALIZATIONS - EVER !

 

[Iriemon]

I agree with that. The outcomes may have been the same loss of life and liberty, but one is deliberate and the other is not.

I could not disagree more with your assertion that "The outcomes may have been the same loss of life and liberty" between FDR or Lincoln or any other president compared to Hitler. IMO that is a ridiculous thing even to suggest.

Do you deny the loss of 620,000 men was tragic especially when it was unnecessary? I did say the comparison is ridiculous, but it is still tragic what FDR and Lincoln did.

I don't find your equating men who died fighting a war with the intentional slaughter of civilians persuasive.

 

[neurosport]

I don't find your equating men who died fighting a war with the intentional slaughter of civilians persuasive.

NOBODY REPLY TO THIS !

tell me Iriemon - what is the difference ?

 

[Iriemon]

I don't find your equating men who died fighting a war with the intentional slaughter of civilians persuasive.

NOBODY REPLY TO THIS !

tell me Iriemon - what is the difference ?

Not a simple question, but basically its the difference between combatants and non-combatants. The former are trained for combat and represent the fighting force of the nation. They can avoid death by not fighting. They are equipped to defend themselves and are trying to kill the soldiers on the other side. Civilians are not, and are being killed in Hitler's case solely because of their religion, it's basically murder.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I could not disagree more with your assertion that "The outcomes may have been the same loss of life and liberty" between FDR or Lincoln or any other president compared to Hitler. IMO that is a ridiculous thing even to suggest.

Do you deny the loss of 620,000 men was tragic especially when it was unnecessary? I did say the comparison is ridiculous, but it is still tragic what FDR and Lincoln did.

I don't find your equating men who died fighting a war with the intentional slaughter of civilians persuasive.

Except that civilians were targeted and killed during the Civil War, and it was condoned by Lincoln. Lincoln gave "the thanks of the nation" to Sherman after his destructive march through the south.

 

[Iriemon]

Do you deny the loss of 620,000 men was tragic especially when it was unnecessary? I did say the comparison is ridiculous, but it is still tragic what FDR and Lincoln did.

I don't find your equating men who died fighting a war with the intentional slaughter of civilians persuasive.

Except that civilians were targeted and killed during the Civil War, and it was condoned by Lincoln. Lincoln gave "the thanks of the nation" to Sherman after his destructive march through the south.

Not to excuse the excesses, but I just don't see the comparison between Sherman's March and Hitler's genocide against the Jews.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I don't find your equating men who died fighting a war with the intentional slaughter of civilians persuasive.

Except that civilians were targeted and killed during the Civil War, and it was condoned by Lincoln. Lincoln gave "the thanks of the nation" to Sherman after his destructive march through the south.

Not to excuse the excesses, but I just don't see the comparison between Sherman's March and Hitler's genocide against the Jews.

They both killed innocent non-combatants intentionally.

But perhaps a discussion of the atrocities committed in the Civil War should be relocated to a more appropriate thread, my personal recommendation would be an older thread I started. http://www.usmessageboard.com/education-and-history/66978-lincolns-war.html

 

[editec]

Sherman intentionally killed civilians?

News to me.

 

[Iriemon]

Except that civilians were targeted and killed during the Civil War, and it was condoned by Lincoln. Lincoln gave "the thanks of the nation" to Sherman after his destructive march through the south.

Not to excuse the excesses, but I just don't see the comparison between Sherman's March and Hitler's genocide against the Jews.

They both killed innocent non-combatants intentionally.

But perhaps a discussion of the atrocities committed in the Civil War should be relocated to a more appropriate thread, my personal recommendation would be an older thread I started. http://www.usmessageboard.com/education-and-history/66978-lincolns-war.html

Thanks. But I didn't see any reliable sources in that thread that Sherman intentionally killed citizens or that Lincoln condoned it.

My response is the same as Editec's.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

The Real Lincoln by Thomas J. DiLorenzo and War Crimes Against Southern Civilians by Walter Brian Cisco go into some detail about the murder, rape, and pillaging that occurred in the south by northern troops.

Sherman’s March by Clyde Wilson

There's a nice short article on Sherman's march through the south. How didn't you guys know that Sherman was intentionally murdering civilians when he went through the south burning down cities and causing as much terror as he possibly could?

"I would make this war as severe as possible, and show no symptoms of tiring till the South begs for mercy."

"If the people raise a great howl against my barbarity and cruelty, I will answer that war is war, and not popularity seeking." (Acknowledging his barbarity and cruelty.)

"My aim then was to whip the rebels, to humble their pride, to follow them to their inmost recesses, and make them fear and dread us."

"This war differs from other wars, in this particular. We are not fighting armies but a hostile people, and must make old and young, rich and poor, feel the hard hand of war." (In other words, 'we should kill any southerner we see.')

- William T. Sherman

 

[Iriemon]

The Real Lincoln by Thomas J. DiLorenzo and War Crimes Against Southern Civilians by Walter Brian Cisco go into some detail about the murder, rape, and pillaging that occurred in the south by northern troops.

Sherman’s March by Clyde Wilson

There's a nice short article on Sherman's march through the south. How didn't you guys know that Sherman was intentionally murdering civilians when he went through the south burning down cities and causing as much terror as he possibly could?

"I would make this war as severe as possible, and show no symptoms of tiring till the South begs for mercy."

"If the people raise a great howl against my barbarity and cruelty, I will answer that war is war, and not popularity seeking." (Acknowledging his barbarity and cruelty.)

"My aim then was to whip the rebels, to humble their pride, to follow them to their inmost recesses, and make them fear and dread us."

"This war differs from other wars, in this particular. We are not fighting armies but a hostile people, and must make old and young, rich and poor, feel the hard hand of war." (In other words, 'we should kill any southerner we see.')

- William T. Sherman

Well gee whiz, you found someone making some claim on the internet. You can find all kinds of stuff on the internet. I can even show you sites that claim Iraq had WMD!

Where in your site does it say that the South carried out mass executions of innocent men, women and children in an effort to eliminate the entire race of Southerners?

This is the second cite you've given that doesn't back up your claims.

I have to say, the more I've seen you try to defend your assertion that "The outcomes may have been the same loss of life and liberty" between FDR or Lincoln or any other president compared to Hitler, the more credibility you are losing with me. Others can decide for themselves.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

The Real Lincoln by Thomas J. DiLorenzo and War Crimes Against Southern Civilians by Walter Brian Cisco go into some detail about the murder, rape, and pillaging that occurred in the south by northern troops.

Sherman’s March by Clyde Wilson

There's a nice short article on Sherman's march through the south. How didn't you guys know that Sherman was intentionally murdering civilians when he went through the south burning down cities and causing as much terror as he possibly could?

"I would make this war as severe as possible, and show no symptoms of tiring till the South begs for mercy."

"If the people raise a great howl against my barbarity and cruelty, I will answer that war is war, and not popularity seeking." (Acknowledging his barbarity and cruelty.)

"My aim then was to whip the rebels, to humble their pride, to follow them to their inmost recesses, and make them fear and dread us."

"This war differs from other wars, in this particular. We are not fighting armies but a hostile people, and must make old and young, rich and poor, feel the hard hand of war." (In other words, 'we should kill any southerner we see.')

- William T. Sherman

Well gee whiz, you found someone making some claim on the internet. You can find all kinds of stuff on the internet. I can even show you sites that claim Iraq had WMD!

Where in your site does it say that the South carried out mass executions of innocent men, women and children in an effort to eliminate the entire race of Southerners?

This is the second cite you've given that doesn't back up your claims.

I have to say, the more I've seen you try to defend your assertion that "The outcomes may have been the same loss of life and liberty" between FDR or Lincoln or any other president compared to Hitler, the more credibility you are losing with me. Others can decide for themselves.

You're once again mistaking me for somebody else. I did not claim that they tried to eliminate the entire "race" of southerners, or that there was the same loss of life between Lincoln and Hitler. I stated that Lincoln allowed for innocent non-combatants to be murdered, raped, and pillaged by his troops, which I have provided evidence for. I am, later this afternoon, going to create a new thread to go into more detail about war crimes during the Civil War. I hope to see you in that discussion as well.

However, for this thread can we return to the topic at hand, which is the Federal Reserve.

 

[editec]

The Real Lincoln by Thomas J. DiLorenzo and War Crimes Against Southern Civilians by Walter Brian Cisco go into some detail about the murder, rape, and pillaging that occurred in the south by northern troops.

Sherman’s March by Clyde Wilson

There's a nice short article on Sherman's march through the south. How didn't you guys know that Sherman was intentionally murdering civilians when he went through the south burning down cities and causing as much terror as he possibly could?

"I would make this war as severe as possible, and show no symptoms of tiring till the South begs for mercy."

"If the people raise a great howl against my barbarity and cruelty, I will answer that war is war, and not popularity seeking." (Acknowledging his barbarity and cruelty.)

"My aim then was to whip the rebels, to humble their pride, to follow them to their inmost recesses, and make them fear and dread us."

"This war differs from other wars, in this particular. We are not fighting armies but a hostile people, and must make old and young, rich and poor, feel the hard hand of war." (In other words, 'we should kill any southerner we see.')

- William T. Sherman

The extent that destroying a nation's means of continuing a war by destroying their means of production (of all sorts of things including food production) is murdering civilians I suppose I could agree with that complaint.

But given that that is the nature of modern war, and the Civil war was probably the first modern war, comparing THAT to Hitler's systematic genoicide is absurd.

The USA has not conducted a war where they didn't destroy civilian infrastructure SINCE the civil war, folks.

That's how wars are won...by detroying the enemies ABILITY to supply its troops.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

The Real Lincoln by Thomas J. DiLorenzo and War Crimes Against Southern Civilians by Walter Brian Cisco go into some detail about the murder, rape, and pillaging that occurred in the south by northern troops.

Sherman’s March by Clyde Wilson

There's a nice short article on Sherman's march through the south. How didn't you guys know that Sherman was intentionally murdering civilians when he went through the south burning down cities and causing as much terror as he possibly could?

"I would make this war as severe as possible, and show no symptoms of tiring till the South begs for mercy."

"If the people raise a great howl against my barbarity and cruelty, I will answer that war is war, and not popularity seeking." (Acknowledging his barbarity and cruelty.)

"My aim then was to whip the rebels, to humble their pride, to follow them to their inmost recesses, and make them fear and dread us."

"This war differs from other wars, in this particular. We are not fighting armies but a hostile people, and must make old and young, rich and poor, feel the hard hand of war." (In other words, 'we should kill any southerner we see.')

- William T. Sherman

The extent that destroying a nation's means of continuing a war by destroying their means of production (of all sorts of things including food production) is murdering civilians I suppose I could agree with that complaint.

But given that that is the nature of modern war, and the Civil war was probably the first modern war, comparing THAT to Hitler's systematic genoicide is absurd.

The USA has not conducted a war where they didn't destroy civilian infrastructure SINCE the civil war, folks.

That's how wars are won...by detroying the enemies ABILITY to supply its troops.

Except they did not limit themselves to destroying the means of production or civilian infrastructure. They murdered, raped, and robbed innocent civilians and slaves. To try and justify this by saying it was simply a "modern war" is absurd.

 

[editec]

The Real Lincoln by Thomas J. DiLorenzo and War Crimes Against Southern Civilians by Walter Brian Cisco go into some detail about the murder, rape, and pillaging that occurred in the south by northern troops.

Sherman’s March by Clyde Wilson

There's a nice short article on Sherman's march through the south. How didn't you guys know that Sherman was intentionally murdering civilians when he went through the south burning down cities and causing as much terror as he possibly could?

"I would make this war as severe as possible, and show no symptoms of tiring till the South begs for mercy."

"If the people raise a great howl against my barbarity and cruelty, I will answer that war is war, and not popularity seeking." (Acknowledging his barbarity and cruelty.)

"My aim then was to whip the rebels, to humble their pride, to follow them to their inmost recesses, and make them fear and dread us."

"This war differs from other wars, in this particular. We are not fighting armies but a hostile people, and must make old and young, rich and poor, feel the hard hand of war." (In other words, 'we should kill any southerner we see.')

- William T. Sherman

The extent that destroying a nation's means of continuing a war by destroying their means of production (of all sorts of things including food production) is murdering civilians I suppose I could agree with that complaint.

But given that that is the nature of modern war, and the Civil war was probably the first modern war, comparing THAT to Hitler's systematic genoicide is absurd.

The USA has not conducted a war where they didn't destroy civilian infrastructure SINCE the civil war, folks.

That's how wars are won...by detroying the enemies ABILITY to supply its troops.

Except they did not limit themselves to destroying the means of production or civilian infrastructure. They murdered, raped, and robbed innocent civilians and slaves. To try and justify this by saying it was simply a "modern war" is absurd.

Well that ceretainly would be terrible if it was the offical policy of Sherman.


I've never read any credible historian who has made that claim.

I have certainly read that scallwags followed armies (as they had since armies first marched) killing and looting under the cover of chaos that wars gives opportunists.

Can you direct me to any credible souce to enlighten me about this subject, particularly any sources who can show me that killing and raping was part of the official (or even de facto) modus operandi of the Sherman campaign?

 

[Richard-H]

The whole anti-Federal Reserve sentiment seems idiotic. The Federal Reserve is the fourth central bank of the United States. Each time they've desolved a central bank, a major financial/economic crisis has occured, and the government has had no mechanism at all to deal with it. So they create another central bank.

Desolving the Federal reserve would means giving ABSOLUTE control of the country's financial system to a tiny handful of bankers, and to date this has ALWAYS led to economic disaster. They are completely unaccountable and tyrannical. They have and would use their financial power to hold the government and people hostage.

The Federal reserve gives at least some control of the banking system to the government which, in turn, means some control by the American people thru democracy (At least that's the theory anyway).

Perhaps what we need is more of a change in the structure and charter of the Federal Reserve. More transparency, less autonomy and greater auditing powers. Remove the private bankers from the board and put in government professionals.

Bernancke needs to go. He perpetuated a fraud on congress and the American people. Congress should have done better in seeing thru his scam, but at least they did well enough to put some accountability in the TARP, and now the bankers are whining about it.

I believe that the whole anti-Federal Reserve sentiment is being sourced by the very bankers that caused this mess. It is they that would love to see the Federal reserve dissolved and themselves to have no accountability whatsoever.

Maybe we need to do the opposite. Make the Fed a true government agency, with increased powers and fully accountable to the American people.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Getting rid of the Federal Reserve would put the economy in the hands of a small group of bankers? What do you think is going on with the Federal Reserve?

 

[mash107]

The whole anti-Federal Reserve sentiment seems idiotic. The Federal Reserve is the fourth central bank of the United States. Each time they've desolved a central bank, a major financial/economic crisis has occured, and the government has had no mechanism at all to deal with it. So they create another central bank.

Desolving the Federal reserve would means giving ABSOLUTE control of the country's financial system to a tiny handful of bankers, and to date this has ALWAYS led to economic disaster. They are completely unaccountable and tyrannical. They have and would use their financial power to hold the government and people hostage.

The Federal reserve gives at least some control of the banking system to the government which, in turn, means some control by the American people thru democracy (At least that's the theory anyway).

Perhaps what we need is more of a change in the structure and charter of the Federal Reserve. More transparency, less autonomy and greater auditing powers. Remove the private bankers from the board and put in government professionals.

Bernancke needs to go. He perpetuated a fraud on congress and the American people. Congress should have done better in seeing thru his scam, but at least they did well enough to put some accountability in the TARP, and now the bankers are whining about it.

I believe that the whole anti-Federal Reserve sentiment is being sourced by the very bankers that caused this mess. It is they that would love to see the Federal reserve dissolved and themselves to have no accountability whatsoever.

Maybe we need to do the opposite. Make the Fed a true government agency, with increased powers and fully accountable to the American people.

Taking power away from the people that causes bubbles and manipulates our currency is a good thing, for sure. The bankers you talk about would like nothing more than the Federal Reserve to operate as is. If it were abolished, where would they get the easy money and bailouts when things go bad? They'd lose so much power and the purse of the taxpayers. I fail to see how cutting this link would cause those same bankers to gain power.

And, for historical accuracy, the best years of this countries economic growth were when the national bank were abolished. Panic of 1837 resulted obviously from a speculative bubble fueled by easy money coming from the Second National Bank. That panic, like all panics and depressions that government didn't intervene in, lasted one year. Ever since 1838, with a few blips caused by Congress suspending specie payments for land-- meaning, banks no longer needed to pay with gold/silver for land.. they could just print credit, or Congress to force credit to the railroad industry, or a massive, unnecessary Civil War, it was pretty smooth. Are you catching the key thing that causes booms (and, by extension, recessions)? Credit expansion. It can happen without a national bank, sadly, which is why I favor an entirely free market approach, but our overlords and bankers won't ever let that happen. They get to profit too easily off our misfortune.

 

[Iriemon]

The whole anti-Federal Reserve sentiment seems idiotic. The Federal Reserve is the fourth central bank of the United States. Each time they've desolved a central bank, a major financial/economic crisis has occured, and the government has had no mechanism at all to deal with it. So they create another central bank.

Desolving the Federal reserve would means giving ABSOLUTE control of the country's financial system to a tiny handful of bankers, and to date this has ALWAYS led to economic disaster. They are completely unaccountable and tyrannical. They have and would use their financial power to hold the government and people hostage.

The Federal reserve gives at least some control of the banking system to the government which, in turn, means some control by the American people thru democracy (At least that's the theory anyway).

Perhaps what we need is more of a change in the structure and charter of the Federal Reserve. More transparency, less autonomy and greater auditing powers. Remove the private bankers from the board and put in government professionals.

Bernancke needs to go. He perpetuated a fraud on congress and the American people. Congress should have done better in seeing thru his scam, but at least they did well enough to put some accountability in the TARP, and now the bankers are whining about it.

I believe that the whole anti-Federal Reserve sentiment is being sourced by the very bankers that caused this mess. It is they that would love to see the Federal reserve dissolved and themselves to have no accountability whatsoever.

Maybe we need to do the opposite. Make the Fed a true government agency, with increased powers and fully accountable to the American people.

Taking power away from the people that causes bubbles and manipulates our currency is a good thing, for sure. The bankers you talk about would like nothing more than the Federal Reserve to operate as is. If it were abolished, where would they get the easy money and bailouts when things go bad? They'd lose so much power and the purse of the taxpayers. I fail to see how cutting this link would cause those same bankers to gain power.

No, taking control of the currency and putting it into the "market" means that one or two huge mega banks would control the currency, giving them far more power than they have today.

The market and particularly a deregulated one wouldn't put up with scores of different currencies, that would be too unwieldy and impractical. One or maybe two mega banks would dominate the competition, and then the money supply would be under its whim.

Which for the life of me, why anyone would prefer I don't understand.

And, for historical accuracy, the best years of this countries economic growth were when the national bank were abolished. Panic of 1837 resulted obviously from a speculative bubble fueled by easy money coming from the Second National Bank. That panic, like all panics and depressions that government didn't intervene in, lasted one year. Ever since 1838, with a few blips caused by Congress suspending specie payments for land-- meaning, banks no longer needed to pay with gold/silver for land.. they could just print credit, or Congress to force credit to the railroad industry, or a massive, unnecessary Civil War, it was pretty smooth. Are you catching the key thing that causes booms (and, by extension, recessions)? Credit expansion. It can happen without a national bank, sadly, which is why I favor an entirely free market approach, but our overlords and bankers won't ever let that happen. They get to profit too easily off our misfortune.

How exactly have the banks profitted from our misfortune in the current crisis if they intentionally caused it? Other than losing hundreds of billions in assets.