Posted on 04/03/2009 9:20:01 PM PDT by GoldStandard
***Should We Kill the Fed?***
Yes.
A real AUDIT should do the job, nicely.
Bookmark
I can answer which part of the fed we should, but I don’t need the hassle.
As the saying goes...”It would be a good start!”
It’s not a matter of faith, it’s a matter of understanding monetary history.<<<<<<<<
BINGO!...even easy Al had a clue years ago....
http://www.321gold.com/fed/greenspan/1966.html
Henry Paulson, for one. And the rest of the Republicans in Congress who voted for TARP back in September, for other.
As for Bush himself, he’s the one who said he gave up on free market principles.
These people have sold us out for Wall Street Banking interests. Don’t try to defend the indefensible.
When Pat writes like this it is too obvious he has more sense in his thumb than the entire Obama Administration.
Do you think Pat would bow to a Saudi king? Or kiss his ring?
I thought that also .... and surprisingly little about the John Birch Society.
Wait...hehehe April 3rd...
Whew, for a second there I thought this was a trick question...
The Federal Reserve or the Federal Government?
Never mind. I vote ‘yes’.
Nice brief history of Fed and economic crashes. Anyone read Thomas Woods book "Meltdown." ?
Federal reserve ping
Buchanan has always advocated free trade. He has always been careful to point out that what we have right now, with federal reserve jiggered credit and special international deals for corporations is nothing like a free market system. Yeah its free market for the little people, after the big guys have made their own arrangments in their own sphere. The AIG - Goldman Sachs conspiracy is not just a paranoid delusion.
I wouldn't have said that last year, but the Fed's behavior over the past 12 months has signalled that perhaps it has gone over the edge.
It's one thing to make mistakes; we all do, and while I don't like the ones that the Fed has made, I don't think those errors a reason to consider its termination. Some had reasonable arguments, most had at least some discernible reason. I have full faith that the Fed will study its actions and the actions of other central banks, and it will take those lessons into account in the future.
No, the reason to consider ending the Fed has been its intransigence on the clarity of its operations. It has recently made massive moves of money to people that it won't specify. That's simply unacceptable in a free society.
Not only is it clearly laid out in the Federal Reserve Act that the Fed will report its activities to the Congress, which it has refused to do so, it also has an obligation to us to act in a manner consistent with its public trust. Giving, without explanation, vast sums of money to unnamed parties is not consistent with its charter to act in the public good. Maybe an explanation would prove the action to be a good one; maybe an explanation would show it to be a regrettable act; but with the utter lack of any explanation is inexcusable.
I regard its intransigence as behavior so inconsistent with its position of public trust that I can no longer repose confidence in its fidelity or honesty. I agree with Pat: I think the question of termination must be considered.
Not hardly! It would probably be the other way around. Yeah, I can see it now: we could refer to a President Buchanan the way we do w/ Chuck Norris jokes:
"President Pat never has to _____ because he can ______";
"When President Pat says '_________', _________ happens"....
LOL!
It's pretty easy to find a reference to Bush's speech on increasing home ownership. Since Bush did push this proposal, and it's easily found, does Pat really need to identify who helped write the speech, or voted for any supporting proposals in Congress? http://piggington.com/bush_speech_on_home_ownership_flashback
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.