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

Skip to comments.

Ron Paul Introduces Legislation To Get Rid Of Federal Reserve
WorldNetDaily.com ^ | September 17, 2002 | Jon Dougherty

Posted on 09/17/2002 7:14:29 AM PDT by Red Jones

Bill to eliminate the Fed introduced Rep. Paul: Legislation seeks to 'restore financial stability' to U.S.

By Jon Dougherty © 2002 WorldNetDaily.com

A Republican lawmaker has introduced legislation to abolish the Federal Reserve as a way to "restore financial stability" to the country and re-establish the once-used gold standard.

"Since the creation of the Federal Reserve, middle and working-class Americans have been victimized by a boom-and-bust monetary policy," said Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, in a speech to colleagues on the House floor.

"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," he said last week while introducing the bill.

The Texas Republican went on to blame each economic downturn from the Great Depression of the 1930s to 2001's "dot-com bubble" on Fed policies.

"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," said Paul.

On the gold standard, however, which the congressman described as "stable currency," U.S. "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," he added.

"Those members concerned about increasing America's exports or the low rate of savings should be enthusiastic supporters of this legislation," he said.

Paul's office did not return phone calls before press time.

The libertarian lawmaker also introduced into the congressional record a column by Llewellyn Rockwell, a former WND columnist and current president of the Ludwig von Mises Institute, a libertarian economic policy think tank based in Auburn, Ala.

Entitled, "Why Gold?" Rockwell writes, "The Fed has been inflating the dollar as never before, driving interest rates down to absurdly low levels, even as the federal government has been pushing a mercantile trade policy, and New York City, the hub of the world economy, continues to be threatened by terrorism. ..."

"The government is failing to prevent more successful attacks by not backing down from foreign-policy disasters and by not allowing planes to arm themselves. These are all conditions that make gold particularly attractive," he said.

But, he continued, "there is no stash of gold held by the Fed or the Treasury that backs our currency system. The government owns gold, but not as a monetary asset. It owns it the same way it owns national parks and fighter planes. It's just another asset the government keeps to itself."

Rockwell said the dollar, which has not been based on gold for nearly three decades, is virtually worthless or, at most, whatever the Fed says it's worth.

"The dollar, and all our money, is nothing more and nothing less than what it looks like: a cut piece of linen paper with fancy printing on it," he wrote.

Paul said he believed the system was inherently unfair to ordinary Americans.

"Though the Federal Reserve policy harms the average American, it benefits those in a position to take advantage of the cycles in monetary policy," he said. "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."

He also said most politicians used the Fed's "inflated currency" to hide the "true costs of the welfare state."

"It is time for Congress to put the interests of the American people ahead of the special interests and their own appetite for big government," said Paul. "Abolishing the Federal Reserve will allow Congress to reassert its constitutional authority over monetary policy."


TOPICS: Breaking News; Business/Economy; Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Government
KEYWORDS: economy; federalreserve; goldstandard
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 141-155 next last
Comment #41 Removed by Moderator

To: Tribune7
Milt Friedman blames the Fed for the Great Depression. He recommends abolishing it, too.

Milton Friedman has a lot of credibility. I know he says the fed screwed up between 1930 and 1932 in allowing the money supply to decline by one third which he feels was 80-90% of the cause of that depression. But at times he has said we should keep the federal reserve. If he is today saying that we should seek an alternative, then that is real news.

42 posted on 09/17/2002 8:10:00 AM PDT by Red Jones
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: tallhappy
I have no opinion on keeping it or doing away with it.

Then try keeping it to yourself, as some of us here would like to discuss the fed, not the width and breadth of Dr. Paul's current and past statements.

43 posted on 09/17/2002 8:10:28 AM PDT by logician2u
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

Comment #44 Removed by Moderator

Comment #45 Removed by Moderator

To: Palm_OScar
Everybody knows we had recessions, business cycles and spikes in unemployment before the fed was established. But the WSJ ran an article a few weeks ago showing that these things have been worse from a statistical point of view these things have been worse since the fed was established. So, I would have to conclude that your portrayal of the anti-fed people in a negative light as if they don't know that these things happened before the fed was established is just dealing with people in bad faith.
46 posted on 09/17/2002 8:17:38 AM PDT by Red Jones
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: All
"…abolish the Federal Reserve as a way to "restore financial stability" to the country and re-establish the once-used gold standard. "

Our "cut pieces of linen paper with fancy printing on it" are wildly successful at injecting capital where it's needed to create real wealth. I've been thinking about this. At a macro level, wouldn't moving to the gold standard make sitting on a supply of gold as profitable as investing it? Example:

If the world was on the gold standard, all the gold in the world would represent all that exists in the world. So what would happen if you and I each have half the gold, and you invested all yours in projects to develop industries and nations? In the end you'll still have the same amount of gold and so would I, but all that it represented would be greater. So we'd both share equally in the profit from your risk. So why should I risk mine? That exemplifies the problem with gold as I understand it. It doesn't promote investment to create real wealth as well as does fiat money.

47 posted on 09/17/2002 8:20:18 AM PDT by elfman2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #48 Removed by Moderator

To: E. Pluribus Unum
he is a voice crying in the wilderness

Indeed.

49 posted on 09/17/2002 8:27:23 AM PDT by Huck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: tallhappy
Oh no you don't you a$$hole. Here is RP's full statement from September 12th, 2001.

Return to the 2001 Congressional Record directory
Project FREEDOM
Opening Page
September 12, 2001
Yesterday, Americans were awakened to find ourselves in a war, attacked by barbarians who targeted innocent civilians. This despicable act reveals how deep-seated is the hatred that has driven this war.

Though many Americans have just become aware of how deeply we are involved in this war, it has been going on for decades. We are obviously seen by the terrorists as an enemy.

In war there is no more reprehensible act than for combatants to slaughter innocent civilian bystanders. This is what happened yesterday.

If there is such a thing, a moral war is one that is only pursued in self-defense. Those who initiate aggression against others for the purpose of occupation or merely to invoke death and destruction are unforgivable and serve only to spread wanton killing.

In our grief, we must remember our responsibilities. The Congress' foremost obligation in a constitutional republic is to preserve freedom and provide for national security. Yesterday our efforts to protect our homeland came up short. Our policies that led to that shortcoming must be reevaluated and changed if found to be deficient.

When we retaliate for this horror we have suffered, we must be certain that only the guilty be punished. More killing of innocent civilians will only serve to flame the fires of war and further jeopardize our security. Congress should consider its constitutional authority to grant letters of marque and reprisal to meet our responsibility.

Demanding domestic security in times of war invites carelessness in preserving civil liberties and the right of privacy. Frequently the people are only too anxious for their freedoms to be sacrificed on the altar of authoritarianism thought to be necessary to remain safe and secure. Nothing would please the terrorists more than if we willingly give up some of our cherished liberties while defending ourselves from their threat.

It is our job to wisely choose our policies and work hard to understand the root causes of the war in which we find ourselves.

We must all pray for peace and ask for God's guidance for our President, our congressional leaders, and all America- and for the wisdom and determination required to resolve this devastating crisis.

50 posted on 09/17/2002 8:27:57 AM PDT by Dead Corpse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: logician2u
so, you oppose the federal reserve, you oppose a central banking system. You are also knowledgeable about these issues. If you have time sometime to tell us what you propose replacing the federal reserve with, then please tell us. We are publik skool graduates and we are ignorant.
51 posted on 09/17/2002 8:31:36 AM PDT by Red Jones
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Chancellor Palpatine
Who is Ron Paul, and what does he stand for? He was my mom's OBGYN. Oh, and he has this little thing about LIBERTY and personal freedom.
52 posted on 09/17/2002 8:32:43 AM PDT by Texaggie79
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Dane
I don't mean to start an argument, but since when is questioning someones stance on something so monumental as invading a country and bringing forth a regime change, considered being "bullheaded". I know this is wishful thinking, but I would hope the polititians we elect to office have at least the common sense and balls to raise questions of such importance. Im hope they take EVERYTHING into consideration, before spilling the blood of our youngest and finest. Having said that, I hope they skin that sh!thead Saddam alive.
53 posted on 09/17/2002 8:53:41 AM PDT by taxed2death
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Head
Hi Jeff. I appreciate your comments.

My initial impressions of Ron Paul were quite good. In fact I thought it was great that there was a congressman actually putting forth resolutions to get rid of the UN.

But I've read his writings and speeches and he toes the leftist "blood for oil" conspiracy-like line. His views are no different than what one would read in the Nation or Guardian or that come from Chomsky. Paul comes from a different angle in presenting his views and couches them differently, but they are identical in their take home message.

His actual views as stated by him in speeches and writings are very different than hpw he presents himself and how he is presented by his supporters. It is very strange.

54 posted on 09/17/2002 9:04:54 AM PDT by tallhappy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: logician2u
Then try keeping it to yourself,

I addresed a specific post and responded to specific posts.

Also note, the title of the article is not Bill to do away with Fed Reserve it is Ron Paul introduces...

It's always about Ron Paul.

55 posted on 09/17/2002 9:08:11 AM PDT by tallhappy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Head
"They DO hate our liberty and the freedom it gives particularly to women and children. They are afraid of it, they disdain the potential for choosing vice's that free will necessarily brings along with it. They would like to destroy it from the earth so it cannot influence them."
Geez, that sounds a lot like some of the posters on this site. God save us from the left and the right.
56 posted on 09/17/2002 9:11:17 AM PDT by Scarlet Pimpernel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse
When we retaliate for this horror we have suffered, we must be certain that only the guilty be punished. More killing of innocent civilians will only serve to flame the fires of war and further jeopardize our security.

Exactly -- the mantra of the left.

Innocent civilians...

57 posted on 09/17/2002 9:12:59 AM PDT by tallhappy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Destructor
"You know the card that you signed to open your checking account? That is an agreement to abide by the rules and policies of the Federal Reserve system that gives the government the authority to tax you"

Care to back that up?

58 posted on 09/17/2002 9:15:01 AM PDT by El Sordo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: tallhappy
So in your world, civilian non-combatants are fair game? Mr Vlad Tepes on line 3 for you. Adolf is still waiting on line 2 as well.
59 posted on 09/17/2002 9:15:23 AM PDT by Dead Corpse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: isthisnickcool
You say Dr. Paul has never really changed. I agree. The problem is that the people of TX are changing and moving to the left. Look at the success thus far of liberal Ron Kirk for the U.S. Senate. Tony Sanchez could become governor on November 5 as well. Ron Paul's district has been altered by liberal judges to be much more Democrat in complexion. He could be voted out of office. Henry Bonilla is on the run in South TX from the Democrat (and former Perry appointee) Henry Cuellar. The liberal Chet Edwards (President Bush's Crawford-area congressman) is a heavy favorite for reeleciton. Those who say that TX is "conservative" just don't know where to look for all the liberals!
60 posted on 09/17/2002 9:21:30 AM PDT by Theodore R.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 141-155 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