Use access key #2 to skip to page content.

Socialists Don't Want The Federal Reserve Audited

Recs

26

May 07, 2010 – Comments (24)

The Marxist Mel Watts tried this in the House and was defeated.  The Senate is more easily bought.  More from Ron Paul

David in Qatar

24 Comments – Post Your Own

#1) On May 07, 2010 at 6:07 AM, dbjella (< 20) wrote:

Thanks David.  It never surprises me how things that are common sense are so easily cast aside by politics.  

Report this comment
#2) On May 07, 2010 at 8:55 AM, binve (< 20) wrote:

Audit the Federal Reserve! I am with you man.

Thanks David!

Report this comment
#3) On May 07, 2010 at 8:57 AM, 4everlost (29.33) wrote:

Another example of the disregard politicians have for their constituents.  If you look at the polls and believe what they say then a majority of the work our Fed Gov't does goes against the will of the people.  And that doesn't even take into account that the methodology they use to go against the will of the people is incredibly f***ed up.

I guess they sit in their glass house and think that we the people don't know what is best for us but they have it figured out and will vote it into reality despite public sentiment.  They are so much smarter and have real world experience that can't be matched by the public at large.  

Of course we can't overlook that a lot of policy is simply politically motivated and does no good for the country.  It's cronyism and sometimes pure corruption.

Audit the damn Fed; let the lies and BS come out so we can make it right. 

Report this comment
#4) On May 07, 2010 at 10:38 AM, kdakota630 (29.50) wrote:

Maybe your Ron Paul video will get 63 recs like mine did with my KDakotaFund account.  Personally, I'm a little skeptical about my 63 recs since they came with 0 comments.

Report this comment
#5) On May 07, 2010 at 6:35 PM, rfaramir (29.29) wrote:

Audit the Fed, and then when we all see what a travesty it is, End it!

Report this comment
#6) On May 10, 2010 at 12:12 PM, nzsvz9 (< 20) wrote:

End the Fed.

Pull out of the UN. Banish it from US soil.

Get out of NATO.

Pull out of every base not on US soil.

Cut the Department of Education.

End all entitlement programs on a sliding scale of 2% reduction for anyone new to get benefits from it over 50 years ... until they are zero.

What else can I submit for a Monday?!??

Known as idea-guy nzsvz9

Report this comment
#7) On May 10, 2010 at 8:38 PM, 1315623493 wrote:

It would be nice if Ron Paul concentrated on an "Audit the Government" bill and let the Federal Reserve do its job.

Report this comment
#8) On May 11, 2010 at 10:30 AM, nzsvz9 (< 20) wrote:

BetapegLLC,

The Fed is an independent business incorporated in Delaware. They should have no job with our "money". The Constitution clearly lays out that COngress has the power to coin money ... not the Fed. When the Fed practices frb they are de-facto creating money ... i.e. virtual coining.

It is fraud, not a job.

End the Fed.

BTW - I like your idea to audit the government; show every transaction payment online. Who got paid how much by the US. Every penny. Full disclosure. For campaigns too. Every penny in, and every penny out.

Known as peny-picker-upper nzsvz9

Report this comment
#9) On May 11, 2010 at 1:38 PM, 1315623493 wrote:

nzsvz9,

Congress delegated monetary policy to the Federal Reserve which is 100% constitutional and far more competant. You want to end the Fed, but then again, you would entrust Congress to conduct monetary policy? That's laughable. I would choose Bernanke 1000% over the pseudo-intellectual incompetence of Ron Paul. Though I'll admit, he does have good (albeit mis-guided) intentions.

Report this comment
#10) On May 12, 2010 at 4:33 AM, whereaminow (< 20) wrote:

I have never found a single economic historian or account from a gold standard era economist that expressed the difficulty in "managing" a gold standard.  It requires the skills of addition, subtraction, multiplication and division.  Those skills are not in short supply. 

The only difficulty Congress ever had was staying on the gold standard, as the desire to spend more than was allowed was too much to overcome.

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#11) On May 12, 2010 at 2:31 PM, 1315623493 wrote:

For all the anti-government venom you guys espouse, pretty ironic you would entrust Congress to conduct monetary policy which is far more than simple arithmetic. Fortunately, Congress knows it's wholly inadequate to do this job and has given it to the Federal Reserve. Constitutionally I might add.

Report this comment
#12) On May 12, 2010 at 2:33 PM, 1315623493 wrote:

Also funny that you say government can't do anything right, but, monetary policy...they do that! So I guess you really do think government can do some things right. 

Report this comment
#13) On May 12, 2010 at 11:00 PM, whereaminow (< 20) wrote:

It's obvious you don't know how a gold standard works.

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#14) On May 13, 2010 at 12:11 AM, 1315623493 wrote:

Good answer. There is a reason the entire world isn't on the gold standard.

I don't know how you get around the contradiction of hating the government so much but wanting that very same hated government to conduct monetary policy to which it is wholly inadequate to perform.

Report this comment
#15) On May 13, 2010 at 12:54 AM, whereaminow (< 20) wrote:

It's pretty easy.  The gold standard is a restraint on the government, which is an improvement over no restraint.  Free market currency is even better.

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#16) On May 13, 2010 at 12:19 PM, nzsvz9 (< 20) wrote:

BetapegLLC,

Thomas Jefferson warned us all about fake money:

"Specie is the most perfect medium because it will preserve its own level; because, having intrinsic and universal value, it can never die in our hands, and it is the surest resource of reliance in time of war." --Thomas Jefferson to John Wayles Eppes, 1813. ME 13:430

"Paper is poverty,... it is only the ghost of money, and not money itself." --Thomas Jefferson to Edward Carrington, 1788. ME 7:36

"Experience has proved to us that a dollar of silver disappears for every dollar of paper emitted." --Thomas Jefferson to James Monroe, 1791. ME 8:208

"It is a [disputed] question, whether the circulation of paper, rather than of specie, is a good or an evil... I believe it to be one of those cases where mercantile clamor will bear down reason, until it is corrected by ruin." --Thomas Jefferson to John W. Eppes, 1813. ME 13:409

When he says "specie" he means real money - gold and silver. Although I am not a fan of bi-metalism (it degrades values to the lesser valued metal) it is better than paper money. Mono-metalism is better since exchanges for other metals would be in the market and not distort the true currency - i.e. the medium of exchange.

Our Congress and the Fed are both guilty of theft - through frb. A return on to the gold standard would curb the designs of the nanny statists and communists among us. As David mentions - gold is a curb on government because they have to come up with it to spend it - not just "create" it.

Known as gold-toothed nzsvz9

Report this comment
#17) On May 14, 2010 at 2:08 PM, 1315623493 wrote:

Obviously, Thomas Jefferson was wrong on this one. The man had a vision of America as this underpopulated agrarian utopia when it in fact was becoming the industrialized behemoth that it is today. 

Report this comment
#18) On May 14, 2010 at 3:49 PM, 1315623493 wrote:

wheraminow

It's pretty easy.  The gold standard is a restraint on the government, which is an improvement over no restraint.  Free market currency is even better. 

It's also a restraint on the economy that no one wants either. All the currencies are free market currency. You can buy euros, yen, etc. any time you want at the going market rate. If you love so gold so much, you're free to buy gold. If you don't like the dollar, don't use it. You still have your "freedom".

Report this comment
#19) On May 14, 2010 at 3:59 PM, whereaminow (< 20) wrote:

Interesting fallback position. 

A free market currency would not be one issued by the government.

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#20) On May 14, 2010 at 6:21 PM, 1315623493 wrote:

Nothing would be more damaging to the stability of the economy than to have America institute a second "Free Banking Era". We have a standardized currency for that very reason. Don't like the dollar? Again, buy gold, buy yen, you can buy whatever you want. The government isn't "oppressing" you. Think inflation is going to rise, then buy gold, or stocks, you have total freedom and knowledge to allocate your portfolio to any market condition. Dismantling the economic framework to fit one extremely narrow ideological stance isn't going to solve anything. Contrary to your prophecies of an American communist dictatorship being just around the corner, I still have the freedom to spend my money however I like and markets are still greatly biased towards free enterprise. If Obama can be called a communist or even a socialist, then Europe, by comparison should be the worse than North Korea. But it isn't. There's one gigantic example of big government that doesn't result in state terrorism or lack of basic human rights and freedoms. It's not so black and white. There is a huge gray area that must be understood.

Report this comment
#21) On May 14, 2010 at 6:52 PM, whereaminow (< 20) wrote:

Bizarre rant and a continued fallback.   

I don't hear anybody talking about dismantling the economic framework.  The framework is private property, free exchange, and contractual agreements.  That's good.  That framework should be applied to money as well.

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#22) On May 14, 2010 at 7:12 PM, 1315623493 wrote:

Bizarre rant and a continued fallback. 

A rant doesn't say anything. I have said plenty. Pathetic response on your part here... 

I don't hear anybody talking about dismantling the economic framework.  The framework is private property, free exchange, and contractual agreements.  That's good.  That framework should be applied to money as well. 

Yea...right! All these "End the Fed" slogans aren't about dismantling the economic framework! Please...

Money was private. Proved too chaotic to have, for example 20 different currencies competing in one domestic market. Money is exchanged free on foreign exchange markets. Contractual agreements are enforced. You really don't have much to complain about here other than you want monetary policy to be privatized, yet, you don't like that the Federal Reserve is so-called "privately owned". Another irony. 

Report this comment
#23) On May 14, 2010 at 7:36 PM, whereaminow (< 20) wrote:

That's an original interpretation of history.  No one I have ever studied claimed that private money was chaotic.

Our problem with the Fed isn't that it is "private" or "quasi private" or "government" or "independent."  The problem is that it is a monopoly on legal tender.

And yes, you have fallen back.  First you claimed that the Fed was audited.  After you were shown wrong, you claimed that it was better to not have the Fed audited.  Then you claimed that Congress was too stupid to manage the money supply.  After we showed that the gold standard isn't something "managed," you claimed that we can use gold all we want.  Now you claim that private money is chaotic.  

It's just freaking sad.  Go ahead and get the last word.  I have to move on.

David in Liberty

Report this comment
#24) On May 14, 2010 at 7:59 PM, 1315623493 wrote:

That's an original interpretation of history.  No one I have ever studied claimed that private money was chaotic.

Well of course you're not going to hear from Ron Paul or the Mises Institute. A freshman in college could understand why having 20 different currencies in a single domestic market does make for huge inefficiencies. 

Our problem with the Fed isn't that it is "private" or "quasi private" or "government" or "independent."  The problem is that it is a monopoly on legal tender.

Which is logical because the government needs to collect taxes in only one currency. Not 2 or 3 or 20. Buyers and sellers need to deal in just one currency also. The monopolization of our domestic currency is best done by the Federal Reserve in the interest of maintaining stable financial markets. It shouldn't be left to a profit-generating corporation whose sole purpose isn't stable markets, but, returning profits to shareholders. 

And yes, you have fallen back. 

Sure whatever you say champ. 

First you claimed that the Fed was audited.

They are. 

After you were shown wrong, you claimed that it was better to not have the Fed audited. 

Never claimed the Fed shouldn't be audited Mr. Strawman. Love the unilateral declaration of victory there. You sure got me there! 

Then you claimed that Congress was too stupid to manage the money supply. 

They are. You hate government, but want government to conduct monetary policy. The key word here is, "contradiction". 

After we showed that the gold standard isn't something "managed," you claimed that we can use gold all we want.

I never said the gold standard was managed as fiat currency is. It's just one strawman argument after another. Ego booster huh? Nice tactic to end the debate with a gross distortion of my arguments.

Now you claim that private money is chaotic. 

We standardized a national currency 100 years ago for that very reason. 

Report this comment

Featured Broker Partners


Advertisement