Who could ever doubt a paper by:
I'm not sure how accurate the below is now, since it was created in 1976, but I trust it a lot more than something put out by some "progressive" group.
Posted on 12/15/2013 6:54:08 PM PST by Errant
A week from now, the Federal Reserve System will celebrate the 100th anniversary of its founding. Resulting from secret negotiations between bankers and politicians at Jekyll Island, the Fed's creation established a banking cartel and a board of government overseers that has grown ever stronger through the years. One would think this anniversary would elicit some sort of public recognition of the Fed's growth from a quasi-agent of the Treasury Department intended to provide an elastic currency, to a de facto independent institution that has taken complete control of the economy through its central monetary planning. But just like the Fed's creation, its 100th anniversary may come and go with only a few passing mentions.
(Excerpt) Read more at marketoracle.co.uk ...
I hear you. Paul is not right about everything, by no means. But he's right about some things, some very important things. And Paul calls it exactly as he sees it. Unlike those kick-the-can bags of mush (Boehner, etc.)
“But he’s right about some things, some very important things.”
Like what?
Who could ever doubt a paper by:
I'm not sure how accurate the below is now, since it was created in 1976, but I trust it a lot more than something put out by some "progressive" group.
” Since the creation of the Federal Reserve in 1913, we have been in perpetual warfare, ... “
As opposed to what? The perpetual peace of the 19th Century?
Is history not your strong suit? Do the Napoleonic Wars and the Civil War, just to name two, not ring a bell?
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_1800%E2%80%9399 for a small and incomplete list.
Like where the nation is headed because of the mounting debt.
What the hell are you talking out of your ass for? Are you some DUmmy troll? Why does wanting to get rid of the Federal Reserve equate putting everyone into poverty? Fool.
Nutcase cr*p.
Here's one example. Some here at FR will disagree with me, but I think Paul is correct when he says that we simply cannot be the world's policeman. It is too expensive, and it allows our allies to shirk their responsibilities.
Rome tried to by the world's policeman (Pax Romana). It bankrupted them. Then Britain tried. It bankrupted them. Now it's our turn to be bankrupted.
Another way to look at it is Frederick the Great's "He who defends everything defends nothing." Ron Paul would certainly agree with that.
Hang on to that thought while we’re circling the drain in the very near future.
That chart is completely false. It’s laughable.
The Board of Governors is made up by Presidential appointees. Nobody “owns” them.
The federal reserve banks legally are owned by the banks that put capital into them. But it’s a largely symbolic ownership. They get 6% return on their capital investment each year. But the voting rights are not tied to the amount of capital they put in.
Each member bank of a district gets 1 and only 1 vote in control of that district’s Reserve bank. That vote elects directors of the Reserve banks board of Directors. However 1/3 of the board of directors are appointed by the Board of Governors (who are all presidential appointees). The other 2/3s of the board of directors are elected by the member banks of that district. But half of those directors can’t come from the banking industry. They have to represent the major banking customers in the district.
So for anyone to control or even influence even a single one of the Federal Reserve banks, they would have to own hundreds of member banks. And the member banks membership is public information. Any major stock holders of the banks are listed in the SEC filings. And when you look at them, you don’t see hardly any foreigners listed, and you don’t see the Rothchilds.
Your chart is a complete fabrication.
That's not what's bankrupting us. It's Socialism and the entitlement mentality. Half the population is on the take.
End it before it and congress end us.
Your chart is a complete fabrication.And your credibility is shot, thanks to that.
It (a military forced to be everywhere) is certainly part of the problem. But as you pointed out, it is not all of the problem. The many freeloaders in our society play a big role too.
I got this from the Chicago Fed:
“The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and the Federal Open Market Committee shall maintain long run growth of the monetary and credit aggregates commensurate with the economy’s long run potential to increase production, so as to promote effectively the goals of maximum employment, stable prices and moderate long-term interest rates.”
I see the dual mandate as regulating the long run growth rate in money supply (1) and availing banks, and thereby the public, of credit (2).
Prudent implementation of the dual mandate ideally should result in full employment, low inflation, and reasonable interest rates.
I am not looking to argue with you on what this means, just to point out what I think the dual mandate is and why. I recognize you may be correct and I may be wrong.
Here's one example. Some here at FR will disagree with me, but I think Paul is correct when he says that we simply cannot be the world's policeman. It is too expensive, and it allows our allies to shirk their responsibilities.Yes the nutjob wants to gut our military and throws out the strawman that you bought into. Sad.
Did you mean to direct that to me or Errant? You listed me first. But that 0.6% article pretty you posted pretty much supports my claim. So I think that was directed at Errant, whose name seems appropriate.
It’s not up for renewal.
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.