Cutesy lil liberal with a mind like a sewer.
Posted on 03/25/2019 8:24:45 PM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum
if WaPo hates his guts, you know he’s the perfect guy for the job ... actually, i knew that without WaPo hating him, i’ve followed Stephen Moore for decades and he’s the perfect choice ...
Strange that Trump would nominate a guy who fears inflation.
Just a month ago, Trump was criticizing the Fed for quarter point interest rate hikes.
In any event, Stephen Moore is basically an Open Borders immigration dove.
I don’t want him to have ANY government power at all.
Bwahahahaha
The Compist is having some tough times
And exactly how much immigration policy does the Federal Reserve participate in?
We have chosen the form of the destroyer in President Trump. Now let’s watch as the destruction of the deep state and the leftist media happens.
Never forget though, it is your leftist neighbor who votes for democrats and buys the washington compost. They are to blame.
JoMa
He is one of seven members of the Board of Governors, and one of 12 members of the Fed Open Market Committee. His influence will be very limited.
What improvements would that be?
Moore’s likely not there to influence.
What's he there for?
This is a great endorsement from the post.
Cutesy lil liberal with a mind like a sewer.
Sorry WP, the next words I’ll read from you are in the form of major apologies to President Trump and his supporters for all the lies and hate you have printed. Nothing else you print has merit.
Put a plan in place to shutdown the non governmental “Federal Reserve”?
I always liked Stephen Moore.
That would take Congress, not one board member.
How has everyone forgotten Moore’s history???
His history is full of open border and bad trade like Nafta.... I hope Trump is aware. I do NOT trust Moore.
{snip}Moore has written articles in favor of increased immigration to the U.S., and has debated against immigration restrictionists. In one article, Moore favorably cited a speech at Cato by Rep. Dick Armey, R-TX, who said he believes the U.S. “should be thinking about increasing legal immigration.” Moore worked on studies for the wing immigration advocacy group, the National Immigration Forum, which favors amnesty for illegal aliens.
In 1996, Moore along with Grover Norquist helped defeat any measures aimed at enforcement in an immigration reform bill.
Marcus Stern describes Moores involvement in an award winning article.
The coalition was a juggernaut that fought virtually any verification initiative. Because Republicans control Congress, conservative lobbyists were especially influential. The fact that some limited, voluntary verification projects stayed in the bill at all outraged some conservatives.
“I view it as the camel’s nose under the tent for a national ID card,” said Stephen Moore, an economist with the Cato Institute who lobbied against the bill. “The theme we played to Republicans was that if you’re trying to roll back big government, you shouldn’t be instituting this new police-state power.”
Social conservatives like Norquist and libertarians like Moore don’t see illegal immigration as a major problem.
“Illegal immigration is part of the price we pay for being both a prosperous and a free country, and I’m not willing to sacrifice some of our freedoms to try to keep out immigrants, especially when I don’t think it’s going to work very well,” said Moore.
He added that spending $3 billion-plus a year to fund the Immigration and Naturalization Service “probably is a waste of money. But this is a political issue. And the way you deal with illegal immigration is you increase the INS budget. It doesn’t do a lot, but at least politicians on both sides can go home and say, `Well, how can you say I’m not doing anything about immigration? I increased the INS budget.’ “
What you don’t do, he said, is involve employers in enforcement.
“Sometimes in politics you pass feel-good measures,” Moore said. “And that’s not necessarily a bad thing. Passing a bill that’s mostly window dressing is a way of defusing public alarm about something. And in states like California, illegal immigration is perceived as a big problem.”
Working closely with Stephen Moore of the Cato Institute, Cesar Conda (former domestic advisor to Dick Cheney) circulated a statement against Prop. 187 of California in the nineties.
And what have Moore and his associate Grover Norquist been up to lately? More of the same.
Last fall the Club for Growth worked against conservative republican candidate Robert Vasquez, an ardent illegal alien opponent by funding his opposition.
Moore, along with Norquist, Newt Gingrich, Tamar Jacoby and other amnesty advocates penned a letter to the Wall St Journal proclaiming Bush’s guest worker plan as “a humane, orderly, and economically sensible approach to migration.”
On September 19, 2005, the Federal Election Commission filed suit against the Club for Growth for violations of the Federal Election Campaign Act for failing to register as a political action committee in the 2000, 2002, and 2004 congressional elections.
https://towncriernews.blogspot.com/search?q=Stephen+Moore
It’s not hard to understand—they’ll have the immeasurable advantage of finally having access to an honest system.
A system where everyone involved is accountable.
Accountable. Get it?
What I get is that you didn’t address the question that I asked:
If the Fed is dismantled, who is going to take over as Lender of Last Resort?
I’m pretty sure that you don’t know why that is an important question, even though filling that role is a major reason that the Fed was created in the first place.
Abolishing the Fed will require someone else to take over that responsibility again. Who do you propose will do it?
I was making the point that details don’t matter when the system is corrupt from top to bottom. Once the foundation is laid, details are very easy.
Lying is the most basic form of corruption, and it characterizes the Federal Reserve. It’s not possible to have a good system if you don’t establish it as morally accountable from the beginning.
Good banking is impossible without honesty on both sides. This is why the Federal Reserve system is broken.
I don’t mean to upset you or to make this an argument between us. As two Americans, we’re on the same side.
“I was making the point that details don’t matter when the system is corrupt from top to bottom. “
You want the Fed abolished, you have to come up with the answer to what will take its place as lender of last resort.
Otherwise you’re just blathering nonsense that would leave every bank vulnerable to collapse during a panic.
Plus your accusations of the Fed lying, having a lack of honesty, corruption, never goes further than name calling. Provide an example of what you mean. The financial markets don’t seem to share your opinion that the Fed is doing anything of the sort.
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.