Posted on 09/17/2002 7:14:29 AM PDT by Red Jones
Bill to eliminate the Fed introduced Rep. Paul: Legislation seeks to 'restore financial stability' to U.S.
By Jon Dougherty © 2002 WorldNetDaily.com
A Republican lawmaker has introduced legislation to abolish the Federal Reserve as a way to "restore financial stability" to the country and re-establish the once-used gold standard.
"Since the creation of the Federal Reserve, middle and working-class Americans have been victimized by a boom-and-bust monetary policy," said Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, in a speech to colleagues on the House floor.
"In addition, most Americans have suffered a steadily eroding purchasing power because of the Federal Reserve's inflationary policies. This represents a real, if hidden, tax imposed on the American people," he said last week while introducing the bill.
The Texas Republican went on to blame each economic downturn from the Great Depression of the 1930s to 2001's "dot-com bubble" on Fed policies.
"The Fed has followed a consistent policy of flooding the economy with easy money, leading to a misallocation of resources and an artificial 'boom' followed by a recession or depression when the Fed-created bubble bursts," said Paul.
On the gold standard, however, which the congressman described as "stable currency," U.S. "exporters will no longer be held hostage to an erratic monetary policy.
"Stabilizing the currency will also give Americans new incentives to save as they will no longer have to fear inflation eroding their savings," he added.
"Those members concerned about increasing America's exports or the low rate of savings should be enthusiastic supporters of this legislation," he said.
Paul's office did not return phone calls before press time.
The libertarian lawmaker also introduced into the congressional record a column by Llewellyn Rockwell, a former WND columnist and current president of the Ludwig von Mises Institute, a libertarian economic policy think tank based in Auburn, Ala.
Entitled, "Why Gold?" Rockwell writes, "The Fed has been inflating the dollar as never before, driving interest rates down to absurdly low levels, even as the federal government has been pushing a mercantile trade policy, and New York City, the hub of the world economy, continues to be threatened by terrorism. ..."
"The government is failing to prevent more successful attacks by not backing down from foreign-policy disasters and by not allowing planes to arm themselves. These are all conditions that make gold particularly attractive," he said.
But, he continued, "there is no stash of gold held by the Fed or the Treasury that backs our currency system. The government owns gold, but not as a monetary asset. It owns it the same way it owns national parks and fighter planes. It's just another asset the government keeps to itself."
Rockwell said the dollar, which has not been based on gold for nearly three decades, is virtually worthless or, at most, whatever the Fed says it's worth.
"The dollar, and all our money, is nothing more and nothing less than what it looks like: a cut piece of linen paper with fancy printing on it," he wrote.
Paul said he believed the system was inherently unfair to ordinary Americans.
"Though the Federal Reserve policy harms the average American, it benefits those in a position to take advantage of the cycles in monetary policy," he said. "The main beneficiaries are those who receive access to artificially inflated money and/or credit before the inflationary effects of the policy impact the entire economy."
He also said most politicians used the Fed's "inflated currency" to hide the "true costs of the welfare state."
"It is time for Congress to put the interests of the American people ahead of the special interests and their own appetite for big government," said Paul. "Abolishing the Federal Reserve will allow Congress to reassert its constitutional authority over monetary policy."
All good things come to an end, but why accelerate the process?
A Republican representative from Texas who initially won his seat as a Libertarian. I believe he is also a physician. He is a true conservative in the strict-constructionist sense of the word but, alas, he is a voice crying in the wilderness.
Breaking news? Breaking wind more like it.
He won his seat running as a Republican. Anyway he is quite "independent"(bullheaded, IMHO) and has recently questioned the Bush administration on it's policy towards Iraq.
Yet claims to be libertarian but apparently runs as a Republican (another example of his spineless nature).
When I first heard about him I thought he sounded great because he was trying to put up bills to get rid of the UN.
But it turns out he is not a serious person. His "bills" are not serious. Nothing he does is serious.
Marxism: "It's the Economy, Stupid"
Has it escaped you somehow that economic parity lies at the heart of the successful attempt to radicalize blacks (who were encouraged not to work) and women (who were encouraged to work and therefore ratchet down a man's ability to bring home wealth such that all HAD to work?)
As for Leninism, you must not know very much about it or you'd recognize our "environmentalism" in particular for the essential Leninist objective of Deep Ecology as organizing principle.
"Conservatives" these days are primarily interested in preserving a status quo that is essentially leftist in character ... whether it be the communist subversion of our nation's founding (Christian) principles or the national socialist tenets -- such as abortion and the warping of patriotic love of country into a belligerent rabid nationalism.
I guess the 16th amendment has nothing to do with the authority to tax.
And by your reasoning, if I don't have a checking account, then the government has no authority to tax me. You are a moron.
Not the first time he won it.
Not hardly. He's a strong advocate of Freedom.
Of course that idea scares the hell out of a socialist like you so you feel you must lie about his positions every chance you get.
You are pathetic.
I'm sure there are problems with the Federal Reserve that I don't know about, but turning the $20 in my pocket into .$85 doesn't seem to be a good idea.
He is part of the blame America crowd.
Tell us what is his view on illegal immigration?
What did he say about the reasosn for 911?
Tell us what is his view on illegal immigration?
What does any of this have to do with the topic of this thread, tailhappy?
If I didn't know better, I'd think you were trying to avoid discussion of the Federal Reserve.
Do you agree with Destructor that the Fed collects the income tax? Or do you have another weird theory about its function?
Surely you don't believe the garbage about its being a "shock absorber" to keep the economy from bouncing too hight or too low?
Do I really want Hillary, Chuck Schumer, Ted Kennedy and Robert Byrd, et al in charge of monetary policy?
They could do for gold what they have done to education.
Following the September 11th disasters a militant Islamic group in Pakistan held up a sign for all the world to see. It said: AMERICANS, THINK! WHY YOU ARE HATED ALL OVER THE WORLD. We abhor the messenger, but we should not ignore the message.Here at home we are told that the only reason for the suicidal mass killing we experienced on September 11th is that we are hated because we are free and prosperous. If these two conflicting views are not reconciled we cannot wisely fight nor win the war in which we now find ourselves. We must understand why the hatred is directed toward Americans and not other western countries.
. . .
...bin Laden learned to practice terror; tragically, with money from the US taxpayers. But it wasn't until 1991 during what we refer to as the Persian Gulf War that he turned fully against the United States. It was this war, said to protect our oil that brought out the worst in him.
Of course, it isn't our oil. The oil in fact belongs to the Arabs and other Muslim nations of the Persian Gulf. Our military presence in Saudi Arabia is what most Muslims believe to be a sacred violation of holy land. The continuous bombing and embargo of Iraq, has intensified the hatred and contributed to more than over 1,000,000 deaths in Iraq. It is clear that protecting certain oil interests and our presence in the Persian Gulf help drive the holy war.
Muslims see this as an invasion and domination by a foreign enemy which inspires radicalism. This is not new. This war, from their viewpoint, has been going on since the Crusades 1000 year ago. We ignore this history at our own peril.
Try readin this.
Get your g*dd*mn facts straight before you open that cesspool of a mouth.
Heaven forfend a U.S. representative, whose duty among other things, is to declare war and fund it with our tax dollars, should ask questions.
I did.
Now respond to mine. (And do not try hijack this thread into a war vs. anti-war thread, which there are already plenty of.)
It is yet another example, this time in the economic realm, where Paul's worldview and analysis are congruent with the left.
Don't kid yourself.
I have no opinion on keeping it or doing away with it.
Needless to say, Ron Paul's bills are make believe.
The fact is, we do ignore history at our own peril and we would be MUCH better off reducing and even eliminating our dependency on Mid East Oil, or anyone else's oil for that matter. So, I can go that far down the road with Paul on this issue.
I disagree with him that this is the principle reason the radical Islamics have it in for us. They DO hate our liberty and the freedom it gives particularly to women and children. They are afraid of it, they disdain the potential for choosing vice's that free will necessarily brings along with it. They would like to destroy it from the earth so it cannot influence them.
I too dislike the vice ... but not to the point of eliminating free choice. The Islamic extremist medicine is far worse than the ill. The correct way to fight vice is through laws that protect rights so that when someone infringes those rights they are punished ... and then to have society persuade and teach better behavior and scorn/reject the vice.
So ... while I disagree with part of Paul's statements, that does not make him a leftist or a "commie" or someone against America. Any more than it makes me think you are for disagreeing with him.
As to the Federal Reserve, which this thread is about, I believe it is a good thing to propose ways to get back to what I consider much more constitutional means of dealing with our money and economics. And then to allow debate on the issue. I appluad Paul for seeking a way to do that, just as I applaud him for seeking a direct way to get us out of the UN.
In my estimation, we would be much better off as a nation if e had a lot more like him in Congress. Since we don't, he is indeed like a lone voice crying in the wilderness on these issues and unfortunately, they will probably not be debated or changed. I believe he is gathering momentum on the UN issue though.
FRegards.
Not exactly.
He suggests the Fed Open Market Committee could be replaced by a computer.
Dr. Friedman is a monetarist, not an Austrian. As much as I admire him for his excellent scholarship and the great gains he's made for the cause of personal liberty, he's just plain wrong on a couple of things.
Central banking is one.
Centralized monetary policy simply sucks. Andrew Jackson understood that; Woodrow Wilson apparently didn't.
Milton Friedman has a lot of credibility. I know he says the fed screwed up between 1930 and 1932 in allowing the money supply to decline by one third which he feels was 80-90% of the cause of that depression. But at times he has said we should keep the federal reserve. If he is today saying that we should seek an alternative, then that is real news.
Then try keeping it to yourself, as some of us here would like to discuss the fed, not the width and breadth of Dr. Paul's current and past statements.
Right you are! Government exists to preserve our God-given rights and defend us from enemies, foreign and domestic. Regulating the economy? Not a legitimate government function! They only do so because because it's another authority they've usurped from the private sector.
Our "cut pieces of linen paper with fancy printing on it" are wildly successful at injecting capital where it's needed to create real wealth. I've been thinking about this. At a macro level, wouldn't moving to the gold standard make sitting on a supply of gold as profitable as investing it? Example:
If the world was on the gold standard, all the gold in the world would represent all that exists in the world. So what would happen if you and I each have half the gold, and you invested all yours in projects to develop industries and nations? In the end you'll still have the same amount of gold and so would I, but all that it represented would be greater. So we'd both share equally in the profit from your risk. So why should I risk mine? That exemplifies the problem with gold as I understand it. It doesn't promote investment to create real wealth as well as does fiat money.
Indeed.
Return to the 2001 Congressional Record directory
Project FREEDOM
Opening Page
September 12, 2001
Yesterday, Americans were awakened to find ourselves in a war, attacked by barbarians who targeted innocent civilians. This despicable act reveals how deep-seated is the hatred that has driven this war.
Though many Americans have just become aware of how deeply we are involved in this war, it has been going on for decades. We are obviously seen by the terrorists as an enemy.
In war there is no more reprehensible act than for combatants to slaughter innocent civilian bystanders. This is what happened yesterday.
If there is such a thing, a moral war is one that is only pursued in self-defense. Those who initiate aggression against others for the purpose of occupation or merely to invoke death and destruction are unforgivable and serve only to spread wanton killing.
In our grief, we must remember our responsibilities. The Congress' foremost obligation in a constitutional republic is to preserve freedom and provide for national security. Yesterday our efforts to protect our homeland came up short. Our policies that led to that shortcoming must be reevaluated and changed if found to be deficient.
When we retaliate for this horror we have suffered, we must be certain that only the guilty be punished. More killing of innocent civilians will only serve to flame the fires of war and further jeopardize our security. Congress should consider its constitutional authority to grant letters of marque and reprisal to meet our responsibility.
Demanding domestic security in times of war invites carelessness in preserving civil liberties and the right of privacy. Frequently the people are only too anxious for their freedoms to be sacrificed on the altar of authoritarianism thought to be necessary to remain safe and secure. Nothing would please the terrorists more than if we willingly give up some of our cherished liberties while defending ourselves from their threat.
It is our job to wisely choose our policies and work hard to understand the root causes of the war in which we find ourselves.
We must all pray for peace and ask for God's guidance for our President, our congressional leaders, and all America- and for the wisdom and determination required to resolve this devastating crisis.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.