Now, I want you to continue to hide under your couch until you can decide whether you're going to scream or sob. You can't do both.
Posted on 02/09/2009 2:18:55 PM PST by GoreNoMore
Found here:
http://www.house.gov/apps/list/speech/tx14_paul/AbolishtheFed.shtml
=====
Madame Speaker, I rise to introduce legislation to restore financial stability to America's economy by abolishing the Federal Reserve. Since the creation of the Federal Reserve, middle and working-class Americans have been victimized by a boom-and-bust monetary policy. 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.
From the Great Depression, to the stagflation of the seventies, to the current economic crisis caused by the housing bubble, every economic downturn suffered by this country over the past century can be traced to Federal Reserve policy. 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.
The reset of the comment, well worth looking at
With a stable currency, American 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. Those members concerned about increasing America's exports or the low rate of savings should be enthusiastic supporters of this legislation.
Though the Federal Reserve policy harms the average American, it benefits those in a position to take advantage of the cycles in monetary policy. 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. Federal Reserve policies also benefit big spending politicians who use the inflated currency created by the Fed to hide the true costs of the welfare-warfare state. It is time for Congress to put the interests of the American people ahead of special interests and their own appetite for big government.
Abolishing the Federal Reserve will allow Congress to reassert its constitutional authority over monetary policy. The United States Constitution grants to Congress the authority to coin money and regulate the value of the currency. The Constitution does not give Congress the authority to delegate control over monetary policy to a central bank. Furthermore, the Constitution certainly does not empower the federal government to erode the American standard of living via an inflationary monetary policy.
In fact, Congress' constitutional mandate regarding monetary policy should only permit currency backed by stable commodities such as silver and gold to be used as legal tender. Therefore, abolishing the Federal Reserve and returning to a constitutional system will enable America to return to the type of monetary system envisioned by our nation's founders: one where the value of money is consistent because it is tied to a commodity such as gold. Such a monetary system is the basis of a true freemarket economy.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to stand up for working Americans by putting an end to the manipulation of the money supply which erodes Americans' standard of living, enlarges big government, and enriches well-connected elites, by cosponsoring my legislation to abolish the Federal Reserve.
OBAMA, we want change, cancel all Federal Reserve Banking in this country and ths IRS. Ron Paul understands and you sould have him in your cabinet instead of the LOSERS you seem to have surrounded yourself with.[/b]
Great idea but much too late for this crisis.
Ron Paul ping!
Why not just get rid of the income tax? The welfare state depends on it.
You can either get deeper or you can cut loses while you stil have a bank roll. It’s never to late, Kennedy would have done this had he lived.
well I’ll be.....I had no idea that William Jennings Bryan was still serving!
This happening at this point in time....I’ll give it a .000001% chance.
The power of money is too important to be in government hands.
Later if your deductions do not accumulate to what you thought you can always lower them. If you think your job may not make it through the year by increasing deductions you may lower the taxes withheld and still be within the law at the completion of the year.
You are responsible for your tax liabilitly and it is your responsibility to keep up with it to insure you are not liable later.
That’s what I’m screaming about.
...ok
True for now. But when the financial system collapses completely (which will happen), then the people will raise up against the government and Fed. I predict that it there will be 100% chance the Fed will be abolished within 50 years.
{WSJ} Do you still think it would be a good idea to have a computer run monetary policy?
Friedman: Yes. Of course it depends very much on how the computer is programmed. I am not saying that any computer program would do. In speaking of that, I have had in mind the idea that a computer would produce, for example, a constant rate of growth in the quantity of money as defined, let us say, by M2, something like 3% to 5% per year. There are certainly occasions in which discretionary changes in policy guided by a wise and talented manager of monetary policy would do better than the fixed rate, but they would be rare.
In any event, the computer program would certainly prevent any major disasters either way, any major inflation or any major depressions. One of the great defects of our kind of monetary system is that its performance depends so much on the quality of the people who are put in charge. We have seen that in the history of our own Federal Reserve System. Surely a computer would have produced far better results during the 1930s and during both world wars.
That raises a question about the desirability of our present monetary system. It is one in which a group of unelected people have enormous power, power which can lead to a great depression or which can lead to a great inflation. Is it wise to have that power in those hands?
An alternative would be to eliminate the Federal Reserve System; to reduce the monetary activities of the federal government to the provision of high-powered money, that is, currency and bank reserves, and to constitutionalize, as it were, what is to be done with high-powered money. My preference is simply to hold it constant and let financial developments produce the growth in the quantity of money in the form of bank deposits, a process that has been going on for many decades. But that is, of course, politically impossible.
The real issue is whether the Federal Reserve or a department in the Executive Branch, rather than the private market, regulate the money supply. The presumption is that an entity backed up by the full force of the government may make better decisions over what the market recognizes a medium of exchange than do private persons acting in their own self-interest. Neither sound economic theory nor the historical record support this presumption.
At least not on purpose.
Now, I want you to continue to hide under your couch until you can decide whether you're going to scream or sob. You can't do both.
We’ll see. Usually when a countries go bankrupt, the people move to the left.
I don’t know...I sometimes think it would require an enlightenment of the people for such to happen. We live in an entitlement country.
Personally I’m RESOLVED to let the thing die. I’m against the BAILOUT, I wnat corruption to fall on it’s face.
NO FEAR here.
Former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair as President of Europe?
The Daily mail, in an article that appears to be planted, says former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair is to become President of Europe next year.
The idea of that Satan worshipping, war-criminal, fraudster becoming the unelected President of Europe is absurd no matter how you look at it. Blair has been flying around recently in a jet owned by Evelyn De Rothschild raising suspicions that this is a Rothschild plot to retain their European dynasty.
However, let us not forget this is the same Blair who started singing like a canary after he was threatened with arrest over a bribery scandal. Clearly the article must be a trial balloon sent up by the cornered and harried Rothschilds and their gerontocratic buddies.
These are the people who are apparently blocking efforts to announce an equitable new financial system in order to retain their ancient privileges.
This sort of absurd news item appearing at this time would seem to indicate the people in the City of London are not planning to give up just yet. That means the newest deadline for a new financial system being announced (February 10th) is not likely to be met.
Would help I'm sure, because history shows greater instability with government economic intervention. However, promises of free-market "stability" are also off the mark. People need to be clear in their thinking that a free-market economy holds both benefits and risks but is still the best economic system known to man, proven both in theory and in actual practice. Read what the late Milton Friedman had to say about this (from a 1995 interview with Brian Doherty of REASON):
Milton Friedman: I wrote an article once arguing that a free society is an unstable equilibrium. Fundamentally, I'm of the opinion that it is. Though we want to try to keep that unstable equilibrium as long as we can! The United States from 1780 to 1929 is not a bad example of a limited-government libertarianism that lasted for a long time.
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.