Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Ron Paul Vs. Alexander Hamilton[Bailout Constitutional?]
Forbes ^ | 03 Oct 2008 | Jerry Bowyer

Posted on 10/03/2008 1:39:48 PM PDT by BGHater

Ron Paul says that the Paulson plan is unconstitutional. So does Michele Malkin. Newt Gingrich hinted at constitutional problems but said outright that the plan was un-Republican. I heard a southern House Republican tell Larry Kudlow that the plan was unconstitutional and unprecedented.

I think they're wrong. Don't believe me? Then ask Alexander Hamilton.

You see, we've been here before. As George Washington was taking the oath of office, U.S. credit markets were in full meltdown. America faced a credit crisis in which debt obligations were being purchased by banking houses at 25 cents on the dollar. Paulson's predecessor was a guy named Hamilton, and Bush's predecessor was a guy named Washington. Hamilton wrote up a plan (called "Report on the Public Credit") in which he proposed that the Treasury department buy the troubled securities from the private sector, thus restoring the collapsing credit market.

Jefferson was opposed. He hated financial markets and manufacturing, which he thought were the industries of the past, associating them with Europe from which America had just broken away. He believed the future lay in small farming. Jefferson also believed that the Hamilton bailout plan was unconstitutional, and he talked Madison into fighting the plan in the House. Populists in the House said that since the debt was not created by the federal government, the federal government ought not to put itself on the hook.

Hamilton's case was simple. When any part of a nation participates in a massive repudiation of debt, the creditworthiness of the whole nation is damaged. Hamilton saw this as a national problem in need of a national solution. He argued that the whole nation would benefit from a return to a well-functioning credit market, with low interest rates fueling growth.

(Excerpt) Read more at forbes.com ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Editorial; Government; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: 110th; bailout; financialcrisis; ronpaul
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-44 next last
To: BGHater

Hamilton was wrong. Show me where teh Constitution permits this.


21 posted on 10/03/2008 2:44:25 PM PDT by TBP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hawthorn
History has clearly shown that Hamilton was right on this one, while Jefferson and Madison were wrong.

Quite the opposite. Where does the constitution allow this?

22 posted on 10/03/2008 2:45:38 PM PDT by TBP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: BGHater

The First Bank of the United States (1791-1811)

Alexander Hamilton, an Illuminist and agent of European bankers, had immigrated to the colonies in 1772 from the British colony of Nevis on the Leeward Islands in the British West Indies. He married the daughter of Gen. Philip Schuyler, one of the most influential families of New York. In 1789 he was appointed Secretary of the Treasury [by Washington]. Hamilton and Robert Morris successfully convinced the new Congress not to take this power literally, enabling the Bank of North America to be established in 1781 which was similar to the Bank of England. At the time, America had a foreign debt of $12,000 (in money borrowed from Spain, France, Holland, and private interests in Germany) and a domestic debt of $42,000.

In 1790, Hamilton who favored Central Banking urged the Congress to charter a privately owned company to have the sole responsibility of issuing currency in order to handle the country’s financial situation. His plan called for Congress to create a Central Banking system with a main office in Philadelphia and smaller branches located in important cities throughout the country. It would be used to deposit government funds and tax collections and to issue bank notes to increase the money supply needed to finance the country’s growth. This Bank of the United States would have a capital stock plan of $10 million, with 4/5’s (80%) to be owned by private investors and 1/5 (20%) by the U.S. Government. It would be administered by a President and a 25 member Board of Directors, with 20 to be elected by the stockholders and 5 appointed by the government.

Central banking was initiated by international banker William Paterson in 1691 when he obtained the Charter for the Bank of England which put the control of England’s money in a privately owned company which had the right to issue notes payable on demand against the security of bank loans to the crown. One of their first transactions was to loan 1.2 million pounds at 8% interest to William of Orange to help the King pay the cost of his war with Louis XIV of France. Paterson said: “The bank hath benefit of interest on all monies which it creates out of nothing.” Reginald McKenna, British Chancellor of the Exchequer (or Treasury), said 230 years later:

“The banks can and do create money ... And they who control the credit of the nation direct the policy of governments and hold in the hollow of their hands the destiny of the people.”

Hamilton’s elitist views and real purpose for wanting Central Banking came to light, when he wrote:

“All communities divide themselves into the few and the many. The first are rich and well-born, the other the mass of the people. The people are turbulent and changing; they seldom judge or determine right.”

In 1791, Thomas Jefferson said:

“To preserve our independence, we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. If we run into such debts, we (will then) be taxed in our meat and our drink, in our necessities and in our comforts, in our labor and in our amusements. If we can prevent the government from wasting the labor of the people under the pretense of caring for them, they (will) be happy.”

The Fed, Hank Paulson, Ben Bernanke or Alan Greenspan (all CFR)...where our problems originate.


23 posted on 10/03/2008 2:52:31 PM PDT by wolfcreek (I see miles and miles of Texas....let's keep it that way.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wolfcreek
Paulson said several moths ago on more than one occassion that their was no problem.

About two weeks ago he screamed that the "sky is falling" and he needed absolute power in this.

I wonder if the powers already placed in the FRS, the SEC, the Housing Department and others could have 'managed' this. Of course that assumes that competent people are in place.

Paulson's judgment is flawed, as evidenced by his uttering (stated above). I can not trust it, yet some do. Benake has't impressed me one iota.

I believe that Milton Friedman was right when he said, “If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand”.
24 posted on 10/03/2008 3:11:08 PM PDT by K-oneTexas (I'm not a judge and there ain't enough of me to be a jury. (Zell Miller, A National Party No More))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Hawthorn

History has shown him right? Hamilton was NOT among the mainstream of the founding fathers. He wanted the president to have a life term and the ability to appoint senators and governors. He favored the British system of government which didn’t have stated rights and limits on government. His views were soundly defeated at the convention.

It was commonly understood and well documented (not to mention in the 10th Amendment) that the federal government’s powers would be completely limited to that which it was given in the Constitution. Anything beyond that was the domain of the states or the people. A central bank is unconstitutional.

Plus a strong central bank was one of the primary reasons we fought the Revolutionary War. Of course that comes from some blathering idiot named Benjamin Franklin. I mean who the hell is that?


25 posted on 10/03/2008 3:27:57 PM PDT by djsherin (The federal government: Because your life isn't screwed up enough!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: TBP

It doesn’t. And anyone who says otherwise is not a true conservative.


26 posted on 10/03/2008 3:34:12 PM PDT by djsherin (The federal government: Because your life isn't screwed up enough!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Vn_survivor_67-68

It’ll get tossed, but I don’t think for exactly that reason.

Congress MAY NOT delegate “the power of the purse” to the executive.

And while the legislation is written so that “decisions of the secretary” are not reviewable, that does not mean the whole legislation itself is not reviewable.

And there’s quite a mess since the house basically passed the Senate version, that’s a no-no.


27 posted on 10/03/2008 3:59:16 PM PDT by djf (Sound of gunfire, off in the distance, I'm getting used to that now...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Tublecane
Madison was right.

But then Madison did support the second Bank of the US.

28 posted on 10/03/2008 4:33:17 PM PDT by Huck ("Lying rides upon debt's back." --Poor Richard's Almanac)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Huck

“But then Madison did support the second Bank of the US.”

Well, “then” he was wrong. Jefferson forgot all most of his fine philosopphy once he assumed office as well. I stick with their first instincts.

By the way, Madison only backtracked because he found the partly-imperialistic War of 1812 hard to finance. They said the bank was necessary to “stabilize” the currency, but actually it probably caused the Panic of 1819.


29 posted on 10/03/2008 7:32:51 PM PDT by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Huck

“But then Madison did support the second Bank of the US.”

Well, “then” he was wrong. Jefferson forgot all most of his fine philosopphy once he assumed office as well. I stick with their first instincts.

By the way, Madison only backtracked because he found the partly-imperialistic War of 1812 hard to finance. They said the bank was necessary to “stabilize” the currency, but actually it probably caused the Panic of 1819.


30 posted on 10/03/2008 7:33:33 PM PDT by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: traviskicks

I was astonished that Tancredo, one of the more conservative pro-Constitution members of Congress, voted FOR the bailout twice.


31 posted on 10/03/2008 9:40:54 PM PDT by SecAmndmt (Arm yourselves!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: wolfcreek

Thanks for the post. What is your source?


32 posted on 10/03/2008 9:44:44 PM PDT by SecAmndmt (Arm yourselves!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Tublecane
Well, “then” he was wrong.

Maybe he was. But think about what that means. If the Father of the Constitution could flip flop on the constitutionality of a central bank, then really, it shows how fragile, really how pointless it is to try to limit the gubmint. They will do what they want, and even the greatest among us succumbed, almost immediately. I remember when I read about all of this, while studying Madison. It made me ratchet down my already low expectations for constitutional gubmint. It's so hopeless it's sad. The other day I wrote America's epitaph: At least we tried.

33 posted on 10/04/2008 5:51:40 AM PDT by Huck ("Lying rides upon debt's back." --Poor Richard's Almanac)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: BGHater
Burning Down The House: What Caused Our Economic Crisis?

NO MONEY

We're sorry, this video is no longer available.

HOPE SOMEONE CAPTURED THIS!

34 posted on 10/04/2008 7:25:11 AM PDT by BellStar (Gov. Palin is a Champ!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SecAmndmt

“What is your source?”

http://www.modernhistoryproject.org/mhp/ArticleDisplay.php?Article=FinalWarn02-1

(use table of contents at bottom of pages)


35 posted on 10/04/2008 8:56:50 AM PDT by wolfcreek (I see miles and miles of Texas....let's keep it that way.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: wolfcreek

thanks


36 posted on 10/04/2008 8:59:35 AM PDT by SecAmndmt (Arm yourselves!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: K-oneTexas

Here, IMO, are the real culprits.

http://www.modernhistoryproject.org/mhp/ArticleDisplay.php?Article=FinalWarn05-3

(use table of contents at bottom of page to navigate)


37 posted on 10/04/2008 9:03:32 AM PDT by wolfcreek (I see miles and miles of Texas....let's keep it that way.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: traviskicks

He is still a kook. You can stop wondering now.


38 posted on 10/04/2008 4:09:31 PM PDT by GulfBreeze (McCain/Palin 08)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: GulfBreeze

that so:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2097454/posts


39 posted on 10/04/2008 5:47:18 PM PDT by traviskicks (http://www.neoperspectives.com/Ron_Paul_2008.htm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: traviskicks

yes


40 posted on 10/04/2008 10:31:33 PM PDT by GulfBreeze (McCain/Palin 08)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-44 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson