Posted on 12/24/2013 1:45:23 PM PST by Errant
The Democratic Party gained prominence in the first half of the nineteenth century as being the party that opposed the Second Bank of the United States. In the process, it tapped into an anti-state sentiment that proved so strong that we wouldn't see another like it until the next century.
Its adversaries were Whig politicians who defended the bank and its ability to grow the government and their own personal fortunes at the same time. They were, in fact, quite open about these arrangements. It was considered standard-operating procedure for Whig representatives to receive monetary compensation for their support of the Bank when leaving Congress. The Whig Daniel Webster even expected annual payments while in Congress. Once he complained to the Bank of the United States President Nicholas Biddle, “I believe my retainer has not been renewed or refreshed as usual. If it be wished that my relation to the Bank should be continued, it may be well to send me my usual retainer.”
(Excerpt) Read more at marketoracle.co.uk ...
Ditto. I’m just trying to further my knowledge and figure out what is and has been going down since its inception. Not liking what I’m learning either.
Well, I guess one person's "Panic" is another person's business cycle (i.e., The Fed can't stop the business cycle and shouldn't try.)?
What exactly was found not to work?
1932, 201?
What power?
The power to influence markets, grant favors, to allow some to see information others aren't, ...
I thought you said they were bagmen for the banks?
Yup, thanks to you, I realize the Fed was really only created to act as a bagmen for both the government and the banking cartel; to act as a go between, secretly facilitating that which the other two could not be seen engaging in.
Bagman:
2: a person who on behalf of another collects or distributes illicitly gained money; broadly : an intermediary in an illicit or unethical transaction
Still waiting for you to explain the inside track as it relates to FX trades.
That's the alphabet agencies' job and Congress. Mine as a Citizen is to ask questions and speak out.
Not sure what a house owned by the National Trust proves........
If the name was changed to "Federal Trust" better help you understand, or how 'bout just "Trust"? Besides, if an enabling relationship with the local government is too hard to understand in this situation, they have plenty more billion dollar estates scattered around the world for your viewing pleasure.
You're not, but why?
Duh! Or are you just pointing at another squirrel?
Yup, we've been losing small town banks since the country was born. Not sure you can blame the Fed for that.<
I included other factors in my brief description of the cause.
The Fed can't stop the business cycle and shouldn't try. They have helped reduce the number and severity of downturns.
Oooooh, Okaaaay, Like 1932? Or like the one we're headed for now??? The Fed hasn't reduce the number or severity (once averaged) of downturns. The real reason the Fed was put in place, was to serve as a "bagman" for both the banksters and their cronies in government - that's becoming clearer and clearer as we work our way through our little discussion. Thanks for helping me to see that, btw!
What is hidden?
Ask Ron Paul, or a myriad of others seeking to expose the corruption, manipulation, and siphoning off taxpayer dollars and indebtedness.
Better yet, get us a copy of the Fed's foreign CB transactions for the last ten years!
The Founders who created a Central Bank in 1791? Signed into law by George Washington? Those Founders?
Have you ever heard of a man by the name of Thomas Jefferson?
He is quoted as saying: The central bank is an institution of the most deadly hostility existing against the Principles and form of our Constitution.
"Sometimes you eat the shark, and sometimes the shark eats you."
lol It's a "panic" if it occurs under a gold standard and it's a healthy "business cycle" if it occurs with a fiat currency system, I guess.
Damn near money laundering.
Exactly! NO double standard here... LOLOL
They say this to distract from the fact that it's really nothing more than the government's "cut" of an underhanded and hidden means of skimming even more money from "main street" on top of already excessive taxation to fuel wasteful government spending.
Exactly. And all this money they've put into the M categories lately with all this QE will generate even more of a ripoff.
Inflation is 3% a year? Who do you feel is ripping you off?
but the founding fathers can start a revolution over less monetarily
The Founders started the Revolution over monetary policy?
Just another inconsistency from you.
Just another confusing claim from you.
Do you feel they should?
No, a Panic is more than just a recession.
Bagman: 2: a person who on behalf of another collects or distributes illicitly gained money;
How are Fed earnings illicit? Who do you feel they collected on behalf of?
Still waiting for you to explain the inside track as it relates to FX trades.
That's the alphabet agencies' job and Congress. Mine as a Citizen is to ask questions and speak out.
So you just made it up.
If the name was changed to "Federal Trust" better help you understand, or how 'bout just "Trust"?
A big house given away by a rich guy was supposed to make me understand what, exactly?
Duh! Or are you just pointing at another squirrel?
You're not alone in your feeling, but why is the Fed unconstitutional?
The Fed can't stop the business cycle and shouldn't try. They have helped reduce the number and severity of downturns.
Oooooh, Okaaaay, Like 1932?
No, they screwed up in the 30s. Which is why Bernanke said we could keep printing money, to fight a deflationary depression. And that's what he did.
The Fed hasn't reduce the number or severity (once averaged) of downturns.
Sure they have. Look at the time between recessions before 1913 and since. Look at the size of the contractions, before 1913 versus after 1913.
Have you ever heard of a man by the name of Thomas Jefferson?
I have. He was a Founder who lost the argument about a national bank.
He is quoted as saying: The central bank is an institution of the most deadly hostility existing against the Principles and form of our Constitution.
There have been more than a few Presidents who didn't understand finance and banking. Obama is one, Jefferson is another.
Nope. But it is true that Panics were more frequent, and deeper, under the gold standard.
How does the Fed skim from "main street"?
That's their target.
Who do you feel is ripping you off?
Foreign banksters.
The Founders started the Revolution over monetary policy?
You've never heard of the Tea Act. That doesn't surprise me.
Just another confusing claim from you.
Confusion is a natural state for the uninformed such as yourself.
So, I can stay there this weekend? If I can’t, who can?
You do, don't you? It's OK with you that they created an agency to do their currency responsibility, why not create agencies to do all of their other responsibilities?
Like a Great Depression?
lol Yeah right. The Great Depression didn't earn its name for nothing.
Incoming.
What was '08?
How are Fed earnings illicit? Who do you feel they collected on behalf of?
It is a hidden tax on the American people. How many times do we have keep going over this?
Still waiting for you to explain the inside track as it relates to FX trades. Like I keep sayin'... What makes you think this is MY job to gather all of the evidence and present it to a Grand Jury?
Besides, You are going to have to get the law that restrict audits of some of the Fed's activities removed? Wouldn't that be the first step? You saying there's no chance of improprieties occurring during 100 years of the Fed existence?
So you just made it up.
Made what up?
A big house given away by a rich guy was supposed to make me understand what, exactly?
Is rich guy's access to the big house prohibited from?
You're not alone in your feeling, but why is the Fed unconstitutional?
Does the Constitution authorize the Fed to "coin money" and set the value thereof? Seems to me I recall that duty is assigned by the Constitution to another group of individuals, duly elected and supposedly representing the people. Are they shirking a responsibility they've sworn to uphold?
The Fed can't stop the business cycle and shouldn't try.
Yeah, we've been through that several times already. It was one of the main excuses used to force the Fed down America's throat, and now used as the reason we must keep it by some. It's kind of like lies we were told of why we must have Obama care. Seems like American people have been lied to a lot - or is that it just me?
Which is why Bernanke said we could keep printing money, to fight a deflationary depression. And that's what he did.
Yes he did, after swearing before Congress that he would never, ever, QE.
Sure they have. Look at the time between recessions before 1913 and since. Look at the size of the contractions, before 1913 versus after 1913.
Hmmm, I don't think so, if you take the severity of the "Great" Depression into consideration, the requirement to depreciate the dollar through confiscation of gold and then the subsequent increase of its value to $35. Then you have to include what's about to happen to us in the very near future - CRASH!
I have. He was a Founder who lost the argument about a national bank.
"Sometimes you eat the shark, sometimes the shark eats you."
There have been more than a few Presidents who didn't understand finance and banking. Obama is one, Jefferson is another. O is trying to abolish the Fed?
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.