Posted on 12/16/2010 1:30:14 PM PST by speciallybland
Rep. Ron Paul, (R-Texas), who will head a subcommittee overseeing the Federal Reserve in the new Congress, called the central bank a “cartel” and said it had “monopoly control” over the US dollar. “I think we should start ending the Fed by allowing competition. I don’t like the idea that they have monopoly control. It’s a cartel: They get to print the money,” said Paul, who wrote a book called End the Fed.
Paul said that he wanted to “legalize competition,” so that Americans can use gold and silver as legal tender.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnbc.com ...
All well and good but the Federal Reserve is a private bank with a public veneer. When cruchtime comes it does the bidding of the banksters and swaps the bansters toxic debt for nice shiny Treasury issues to make the banksters books look better. The Fed has a few trillion of toxic sludge on its books now which back up those paper FRNs in your wallet. Previously at least your FRNS were 100% backed up by US Treasuries. Still are in part but only in part. Almost forgot. The Fed now has billions in toxic Fanny/Freddy crud on its books.
The NY Fed is even more of a private bank doing the bidding of its member banks. Dittos for the other 11 Fed Reserve banks
How the Federal Reserve is Audited>>>>>>>
That links to internal audits. What the Fed needs is an above board external audit just like Ron Paul wants
Neither banks nor merchants are required to take federal reserve notes as payment.
In fact only governments are required to take legal tender as payment. Coins by the way are not legal tender so you may not be able to pay your parking tickets with pennies.
In fact only governments are required to take legal tender as payment.
All creditors must accept dollars, not just governments. Read a dollar bill.
Not true. Read the code of federal regulations.
Paul is a clown and a moron.
EVERYONE who takes even a cursory look at the Federal Reserve know what it is and how it functions.
http://www.mint.com/blog/finance-core/a-visual-guide-to-the-federal-reserve/
You mean like for instance Title 31 Subtitle IV Chapter 51 Subchapter I § 5103 which says:
United States coins and currency (including Federal reserve notes and circulating notes of Federal reserve banks and national banks) are legal tender for all debts, public charges, taxes, and dues. Foreign gold or silver coins are not legal tender for debts.
All creditors in the US, public and private, are required to accept dollars in settlement of debts. You can require some other currency or medium as long as the transaction is COD or advance pay, but there may be a tax on the transaction if you do.
Tender means offer, that is you may offer to pay your debts with federal reserve notes.
There is no law that requires you to accept payment in FRN’s if you are a private business unless you have contracted or offered to sell you products or services for dollars.
If a business prices its product in coffee beans, then they only have to accept coffee beans in payment.
By the way, I used to believe as you do until I ran across this from the Treasury Department FAQ’s:
I thought that United States currency was legal tender for all debts. Some businesses or governmental agencies say that they will only accept checks, money orders or credit cards as payment, and others will only accept currency notes in denominations of $20 or smaller. Isn’t this illegal?
The pertinent portion of law that applies to your question is the Coinage Act of 1965, specifically Section 31 U.S.C. 5103, entitled “Legal tender,” which states: “United States coins and currency (including Federal reserve notes and circulating notes of Federal reserve banks and national banks) are legal tender for all debts, public charges, taxes, and dues.”
This statute means that all United States money as identified above are a valid and legal offer of payment for debts when tendered to a creditor. There is, however, no Federal statute mandating that a private business, a person or an organization must accept currency or coins as for payment for goods and/or services. Private businesses are free to develop their own policies on whether or not to accept cash unless there is a State law which says otherwise. For example, a bus line may prohibit payment of fares in pennies or dollar bills. In addition, movie theaters, convenience stores and gas stations may refuse to accept large denomination currency (usually notes above $20) as a matter of policy.
http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/faqs/Currency/Pages/legal-tender.aspx
Yes. Think about the implications of a creditor refusing a "valid and legal offer" to settle a debt. It means the creditor is literally forgiving the debt.
There is, however, no Federal statute mandating that a private business, a person or an organization must accept currency or coins as for payment for goods and/or services. Private businesses are free to develop their own policies on whether or not to accept cash unless there is a State law which says otherwise. For example, a bus line may prohibit payment of fares in pennies or dollar bills. In addition, movie theaters, convenience stores and gas stations may refuse to accept large denomination currency (usually notes above $20) as a matter of policy.
Right, but those are not debts. The legal tender law only applies to debts. If I borrow a thousand dollars worth of gold from you on credit I am free to pay you back in dollars and you cannot refuse.
There is an hilarious passage in the memoirs of Rev. John Witherspoon (one of the DOL signers) about a legal tender statute that was passed in New Jersey. He writes:
For two or three years we were treated to the spectacle or creditors fleeing their debtors, with debtors pursuing them in triumph, and paying them without mercy.
I haven't researched this little tidbit in depth, but I thought it interesting:
The Resurrection of Gold Clauses
In 1977, Congress amended its 1933 Joint Resolution in which it declared gold clauses to be unenforceable as ”against public policy after then-president Roosevelt effectively confiscated Americans’ gold and outlawed its ownership. That 1977 amendment is currently codified under Volume 31 of the United States Code, Section 5118(d)(2), and it plainly states that the provisions of the 1933 joint resolution banning gold clauses does not apply “obligations issued” (i.e., contracts entered into) after its date of enactment in October 1977.
What this means is that, under current US law, individuals and businesses can legally enforce any contract requiring payment in gold, as long as that contract was entered into after 1977. Most people don’t know that little fact, but it is likely to become extremely important as the current debt-based fiat dollar system unravels in front of our eyes.
I don't know how true this is, but if it is that means any contract can now have a gold clause in it and I could force the repayment of a debt in gold or bags of wheat or whatever as long as it is in the contract, and refuse to accept FRN's.
That author doesn't seem to know precisely what a gold clause is. It doesn't mean there will be payment in gold. It means the amount to be paid is pegged to the price of gold in dollars. The creditor still has to accept dollars though. Gold clauses, which were used almost exclusively in contracts between banks and the government, were a market reaction to the Federal Reserve expanding the money supply. If contract prices were tied to gold the government's ability to monetize its debts would be severely limited.
Indeed it would!
As I understand it a gold clause was an option to be paid in gold or gold equivalent at the option of the lender. Some contracts specified gold and some also specified the gold equivalent as well for convenience because gold is more difficult to transfer. Until 1933 and after 1977 a contractual gold clause can take any form the parties to the contract agree to.
IIRC gold clauses were also common in international business and large business contracts within the US and had been used for a long time as a guarantee against currency fluctuations, political unrest, etc. Basically, as you say, a guarantee against inflation.
“Strip him of his chairmanship. “
When pigs fly. The fed is going down. It’s decades of high crimes and misdemeanors will soon come to an end. All their playing with our lives, our economy, and our money,is about to come to a screeching halt. I got my money on it.
For all of Paul’s misgivings, he is the right man, at the right time, to chair this committee. Anyone fearing him at this position, is totally justified. Especially if they are a central “cartel” banker. Much to fear, indeed.
“Private banks notes are legal but they are heavily taxed. That’s why no one issues them anymore. Specie based currency is not legal and the Secret Service will swoop in and shut you down if you try minting anything other than numismatic (novelty) coins containing gold or silver.”
I see. But, gold and silver coin is the ONLY legal tender that any state in the US can recognize. It is right there in the Consittution! Not paper money. Or, did I miss that Amendment? Hehehe. How have the “Courts” interpreted that clause? Or has that clause ever been taken that far?
In other words, how can the states POSSIBLY recognize paper Federal Reserve Notes as legal tender?
That is a limitation imposed on the states alone by the constitution. The Federal Government is free to make any kind of money legal tender.
FYI: Most states still designated Spanish pieces of eight as legal tender until the 1850's.
The Deloitte Touche audits are external. The reports and financial statements are posted on the web.
Well actually I believe the FED didn’t buy the toxic assets. They made loans against them. The banks retained the toxic assets and used them as collateral to obtain the loans.
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.