Posted on 06/18/2007 7:12:19 PM PDT by BlackJack
H.R. 2755: To abolish the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and the Federal reserve...
To abolish the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and the Federal reserve banks, to repeal the Federal Reserve Act, and for other purposes.
(Excerpt) Read more at govtrack.us ...
“Don’t f’ with something that ain’t broken.”
It’s broken alright. I only have to consider the IMF which loans money, and then forgives debt to nations which harbors terrorists. Then, when I think of that, I think of the appointments of managing directors of either the FRS or the IMF being casually interchanged between the two entities.
Surely personal gain does not overcome your sense of right and wrong when it comes to terrorism? Or does it?
The national debt was not caused by the Federal Reserve. It was caused by Congress. Let’s abolish Congress.
“You don’t understand the system.”
Yes I do. I have a degree in economics.
You should read "The Creature From Jekyl Island", and get back to me.
LOL!
If we had real money, it wouldn't NEED any regulating!
Who drops out, Ron Paul?
Is that so you and your fellow Kool-Aide drinkers can continue with your charade?
Apparently not. Usually way more idiots are voting "yes" to every bill. In spite of the fact that most bills before Congress are unconstitutional.
Meaning that the Fed defends the economy first and the dollar second, despite its frequent jawboning about preventing inflation.
With the economy currently in stagflation, the Fed is loathe to defend the dropping dollar for fear of a housing crisis.
But other countries do defend their currencies and are raising rates.
All of this spells doom for the 25 year old credit cycle.
BUMP
I came across this: http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/H6/hist/h6hist2.txt which shows year by year increases in M1 as reported by the Fed.
Looks like approximately $20-$30 Billion per year goes into the money supply year in year out.
At the start of Clinton's term in 1993 there was about $295Billion in currency. 8 years later, when W was taking office, there was $534Billion. There doesn't appear to be a big spike that would show the $75B but a quick graph I threw together in Excel shows a hockey-stick like curve overall.
Oh I know you were joking BlackJack because I’m not on meds, have never been on meds, and will never NEED to be on meds, my comment about ‘personal attacks’ was actually a friendly reminder for you to be careful about those kind of comments because Freepers like us (with highly developed and sophisticated sense of humor, lol) don’t let such things bother us, but other more sensitive weak sisters around here can’t handle that kind of humor.
Have a good rest o’ the week FRiend!
MKJ
Paul is many things, possibly including politically naive, but "fool" is not one of them.
Notice something about your issues with the Fed? They end in the 1970s.
Coincidentally, this is about when the last of the old-time real money people had died off, leaving nobody with any memory of real money around. Also, the new generation was almost entirely "schooled" in government schools, which taught that the Federal Reserve System was "safe-guarding" our money supply. (LOL!)
For the past 35 years, the Fed has had an excellent record of making recessions rare and mild.
Making recessions! (what you said!) Just exactly why are they making recessions anyway?
And the past 35 years have had the most consistent economic growth in US history, if not world history.
The most consistent economic growth MEASURED IN DOLLARS is the thing you left out. What is the point of measuring our economic "growth" in INFLATED dollars, if the inflation is the CAUSE OF THE GROWTH?!!!
Don’t f’ with something that ain’t broken.
You are only looking at The Thing as a given condition, and you have failed to consider it was wrong to begin with.
Oh, we certainly should endeavor to fix it, alright. Because it is simply wrong.
The inflation tax alone is reason enough to abolish the Fed.
Not funny.
Not laughing.
LOL. I love good sarcasm. Right on target.
If you really believe that this legislation is a good thing, I suggest you find a few history books on the history of banking before the Fed.
Countless banks were destroyed because someone got the (usually) mistaken impression that there was a problem with the bank, causing a run on said bank, which usually CAUSED a problem with the institution, and down goes the bank. The people who didn't participate in the run, or got in too late, usually lost whatever savings they had, and it was just too bad for them.
At least with the Federal Reserve system, there is a backup mechanism so that, in the event of a bank collapse for whatever reason, the people who trusted them will be made largely whole.
In fact, the concept of the Fed is EXACTLY what the government should do, largely allowing industry to do its thing, but with sufficient oversight to protect the general populace against disaster.
You’re either not a very accomplished reader, or you are confused.
Attacking Ron Paul when he says something that needs to be said is not going to prevent a Hitlery win; neither will attempts to ‘understand’ those so politically ignorant that they attack those that tell them the truth.
I am not a supporter of Ron Paul’s candidacy for president, because he is clueless on national security, but I recognize the tremendous good that he does in congress by constantly standing up for sound principles on domestic issues. He wouldn’t stand a snowball’s chance in a national election anyway; he would be a divider of conservative voters. Fortunately for our cause, Hitlery is the biggest divider of all, and couldn’t win a national election either. I truly hope she’s the Dem candidate; she’d be way easier to bear than Richardson or Osamaobama.
Right. And now, people don't worry about the solvency of the banks they deposit money with, because the government is looking after it for them. The result? The S&L crisis, which cost many orders of magnitude more than all of the bank runs combined. People should be concerned with the solvency of their banks.
At least with the Federal Reserve system, there is a backup mechanism so that, in the event of a bank collapse for whatever reason, the people who trusted them will be made largely whole.
Same comment as above... you have removed the depositors from caring about the solvency of the bank they do business with. The result was the S&L crisis where the S&L's bet big on commerical real estate, junk bonds, etc. Why not? Heads, they S&L wins, tails, the gov't loses. And we lost, to the tune of like $500 billion.
The fallacy in your argument is that S&Ls weren't covered by FDIC at that time (and may still not be).
FedGov exists mainly to serve and preserve and to make the world safe for the American Corporation.
It would lower that to about 25 or 30, but your general point is correct. After 50 years of mucking stuff up, the Fed has done a pretty good job. Personally, however, I don't trust the government to keep doing a good job.
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.