Ron Paul schools Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke once again.

[John Galt?]

I don't know that the Federal Reserve Bank can be reigned JG? - where would one start?  Most Presidents don't seem to have a clue, and Congress but for what seems to be a handful, aren't any better.

Actually, Congress has the solution but is the real problem. Congress could easily legislate that the FRB is no longer allowed to 1) own any securities in anything other than US Treasury securities. 2) will no longer be responsible for regulating any industry other than Demand-Deposit transactions 3) will return to its original mandate and nothing more.

The problems are
1) the FRB is a cash cow that gives congress a 2nd source of funds for all their favorite "hand in the pocket pet pork projects" and none in congress want to give up their pork
2) The FRB is actually more efficient and effective at most of all these add on duties and powers than any Exec Branch Agency would ever be.
3) Congress doesn't understand what is going on at the FRB nor do they want to. Heck the don't even want to read and understand their own bills.
4) Congress likes having a quasi-governmental entity that they can blame stuff on with things go wrong. 4 times a year, Congress gets to get members on TV acting like "heroes of the people" as they bash and bully the FRB Chairman for all the woes of the country, conveniently deflecting any blame from themselves (where it usually belongs) and all without any political repercussions. The FRB is Congress's perfect scapegoat.

It could be done, but Congress has ZERO incentive to do it.

First WE (the People) have to reign in Congress, or better yet replace the whole damn body, then the FRB can be reigned back.

[OneTruth]

So you dont think the Rothchild's own the word's central banks?

[kevabuc]

If I weren't such a patriotic American I'd almost like to see what our country would be like had the gov't not intervened and kept the measly $250/family tax rebate that scholar GWB provided.

I, too, am a patriotic American and I would definately like to see what our country would have looked like had the governemnt not intervened.....since 1929.

 You can, sort of.. just look at the US under the Articles of Confederation, the US between 1811 and 1816 and then again from 1837 to 1913 when there was no US Central Bank. The basis of the economy was different for much of the time frame, but it certainly wasn't pretty with a lot of down years.

 *edited to add: Thumbs up to JG's post!

And that's why I chose 1913. That's the year that the Progressive Era went to far and not because of the origination of the Fed. I agree with JG that the Fed has a legitimate purpose as originally set up. I chose 1913 because of the 16th and 17th Amendments, particularly the 17th. The 17th changed drastically the original framers intentions of a very diverse system of checks upon the power of the Federal government, a system that included an ingenious method of helping to maintain state's sovernienty and input into the Federal system. The 17th Amendment immediately changed that concept in one signature. The 16th Amendment added the fuel to the fire to feed the Federal beast.

You see, in my opinion Progressive policies just like Keynesian economic policies, never know when to take their foot off the gas.

[CBWx2]

If I weren't such a patriotic American I'd almost like to see what our country would be like had the gov't not intervened and kept the measly $250/family tax rebate that scholar GWB provided.

I, too, am a patriotic American and I would definately like to see what our country would have looked like had the governemnt not intervened.....since 1929.

 You can, sort of.. just look at the US under the Articles of Confederation, the US between 1811 and 1816 and then again from 1837 to 1913 when there was no US Central Bank. The basis of the economy was different for much of the time frame, but it certainly wasn't pretty with a lot of down years.

 *edited to add: Thumbs up to JG's post!

And that's why I chose 1913. That's the year that the Progressive Era went to far and not because of the origination of the Fed. I agree with JG that the Fed has a legitimate purpose as originally set up. I chose 1913 because of the 16th and 17th Amendments, particularly the 17th. The 17th changed drastically the original framers intentions of a very diverse system of checks upon the power of the Federal government, a system that included an ingenious method of helping to maintain state's sovernienty and input into the Federal system. The 17th Amendment immediately changed that concept in one signature. The 16th Amendment added the fuel to the fire to feed the Federal beast.

You see, in my opinion Progressive policies just like Keynesian economic policies, never know when to take their foot off the gas.

I'll give you the income tax thing, although one could argue that the 16th amendment merely solidified a movement that had been taking place since the civil war, but how exactly would continuing to allow Senators to be picked by state legislators improve matters in Washington? This assumes that the legislator process was somehow less corrupt than the direct election process. I think history disagrees with that sentiment. There also were reasons that the founders framed the process in that particular way that were far more pertinent in 1776 than they were in 1913.

[NovaBuc]

And that's why I chose 1913. That's the year that the Progressive Era went to far and not because of the origination of the Fed. I agree with JG that the Fed has a legitimate purpose as originally set up. I chose 1913 because of the 16th and 17th Amendments, particularly the 17th. The 17th changed drastically the original framers intentions of a very diverse system of checks upon the power of the Federal government, a system that included an ingenious method of helping to maintain state's sovernienty and input into the Federal system. The 17th Amendment immediately changed that concept in one signature. The 16th Amendment added the fuel to the fire to feed the Federal beast.

You see, in my opinion Progressive policies just like Keynesian economic policies, never know when to take their foot off the gas.

 I had figured you chose 1913 as that was when the Fed was enacted. You might be a bit misinformed about the 16th and 17th amendments though. The 16th wasn't a progressive cause per se, while they were one of the factions pushing for it, the amendments were proposed by two republican senators, Norris Brown of Nebraska and Nelson Aldrich of Rhode Island. While Aldrich held some progressive ideals (especially in efficency and science, you might look up the efficency movement of the early 20th century, rather interesting), Brown was considered to be a conservative. Also, the need for the amendment grew out of the financial troubles still lingering from the Civil War - both the costs of the war and the reconstruction costs after the Supreme Court Case of Pollack v Farmers' Loan and Trust stated that taxes on certain types of income (income from property chiefly) were direct taxes, and thus unconstitutional as implemented as they were not apportioned based upon state populations. Should be stated here that the income tax on wages is not considered to be part of the 16th amendment usually, but rather powers granted to Congress in Article 1, Section 8. Relevant case law would be the Supreme Court Cases of Brushaber v Union Pacific Railroad, Bowers v Kerbaugh-Empire Co and the US Tax Court case of Penn Mutual Indemnity (decision upheld in US Circuit Court, I believe the Supreme Court chose not to hear the appeal but could be wrong). What the 16th amendment does is allow the income tax to be levied uniformly rather than apportioned based upon population in a state.

 As far as the 17th Amendment goes, you might want to look into the issues the Senate was having a lot of trouble from about 1850 on with states not sending/appointing senators for numerous reasons. Some states could not achieve a majority vote within the legislatures to send a senator (the Constitution was unclear on if the vote needed to be a majority or a plurality), some states had troubles with corruption, other states had issues of the legislature deadlocking. Some states would go multiple years with no representative in the Senate due to all of this. The first attempt to fix the problem was in 1866, when Congress passed a law stating when and how the legislatures had to elect senators. While it helped in some cases, it didn't solve the worst of the problems, hence the drive to amend the Constitution. Also, it should be noted that both amendments had to be ratified by a majority of the states with the people voting on it. So, it took a bit more than just one signature.

[John Galt?]

So you dont think the Rothchild's own the word's central banks?

First I didn't know "The Word" had a central bank.

If you meant "World's" then where did ANYONE post ANYTHING about any central bank besides the FRB? This is so typical of your "logic". Someone posts "my cat can swim" and you come back with "So you think ALL cats are great swimmers"

And in response to your question, NO, I absolutely don't think the Rothschilds own "all the world's central banks" nor do I think they own even a few. Nor do I think they have significant holdings in any US Bank, let alone the FRB.

Feel free to search thru Edgars http://www.sec.gov/edgar.shtml and present any 144 Filings showing where the Rothschilds acquired more than 5% of any US Bank.

[OneTruth]

you are extremely naive or just a flat out idiot.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/slavery.htm
http://www.publiccentralbank.com/
http://www.iamthewitness.com/DarylBradfordSmith_Rothschild.htm
http://www.xat.org/xat/moneyhistory.html

J.P. Morgan was thought by many to be the richest man in the world during the second world war, but upon his death it was discovered he was merely a lieutenant within the Rothschild empire owning only 19% of the J.P. Morgan Companies.

[kevabuc]

And that's why I chose 1913. That's the year that the Progressive Era went to far and not because of the origination of the Fed. I agree with JG that the Fed has a legitimate purpose as originally set up. I chose 1913 because of the 16th and 17th Amendments, particularly the 17th. The 17th changed drastically the original framers intentions of a very diverse system of checks upon the power of the Federal government, a system that included an ingenious method of helping to maintain state's sovernienty and input into the Federal system. The 17th Amendment immediately changed that concept in one signature. The 16th Amendment added the fuel to the fire to feed the Federal beast.

You see, in my opinion Progressive policies just like Keynesian economic policies, never know when to take their foot off the gas.

 I had figured you chose 1913 as that was when the Fed was enacted. You might be a bit misinformed about the 16th and 17th amendments though. The 16th wasn't a progressive cause per se, while they were one of the factions pushing for it, the amendments were proposed by two republican senators, Norris Brown of Nebraska and Nelson Aldrich of Rhode Island. While Aldrich held some progressive ideals (especially in efficency and science, you might look up the efficency movement of the early 20th century, rather interesting), Brown was considered to be a conservative. Also, the need for the amendment grew out of the financial troubles still lingering from the Civil War - both the costs of the war and the reconstruction costs after the Supreme Court Case of Pollack v Farmers' Loan and Trust stated that taxes on certain types of income (income from property chiefly) were direct taxes, and thus unconstitutional as implemented as they were not apportioned based upon state populations. Should be stated here that the income tax on wages is not considered to be part of the 16th amendment usually, but rather powers granted to Congress in Article 1, Section 8. Relevant case law would be the Supreme Court Cases of Brushaber v Union Pacific Railroad, Bowers v Kerbaugh-Empire Co and the US Tax Court case of Penn Mutual Indemnity (decision upheld in US Circuit Court, I believe the Supreme Court chose not to hear the appeal but could be wrong). What the 16th amendment does is allow the income tax to be levied uniformly rather than apportioned based upon population in a state.

 As far as the 17th Amendment goes, you might want to look into the issues the Senate was having a lot of trouble from about 1850 on with states not sending/appointing senators for numerous reasons. Some states could not achieve a majority vote within the legislatures to send a senator (the Constitution was unclear on if the vote needed to be a majority or a plurality), some states had troubles with corruption, other states had issues of the legislature deadlocking. Some states would go multiple years with no representative in the Senate due to all of this. The first attempt to fix the problem was in 1866, when Congress passed a law stating when and how the legislatures had to elect senators. While it helped in some cases, it didn't solve the worst of the problems, hence the drive to amend the Constitution. Also, it should be noted that both amendments had to be ratified by a majority of the states with the people voting on it. So, it took a bit more than just one signature.

But it is certified to be valid and a part of the Constitution by a single signature, the Archivist for the OFR. But, I was speaking figuratively of course.

You have made valid points which I could debate at length whether they were good or bad, warrented or not. The point I was making in my post was not the merits of each, only that I would like to see what the result would have been had the intervention not taken place. In my opinion the 16th Amendment was not needed and the 17th Amendment is like saying, my stove is constantly on the fritz so I think I'll replace it with a refridgerator, but that is neither here nor there as far as my post is concerned.

[John Galt?]

you are extremely naive or just a flat out idiot.

Ad hominem argument means you have NO logical or rational basis to defend your position.

Surrender Noted.

http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/slavery.htm
http://www.publiccentralbank.com/
http://www.iamthewitness.com/DarylBradfordSmith_Rothschild.htm
http://www.xat.org/xat/moneyhistory.html

I am naive? I ask for certified Edgar filings or anything in the public record and you post a bunch of crap blogs that look like there were written in some kid's mom's basement.

Have you ever posted anything, any link that has verifiable research, footnotes, references, etc.

[dbucfan]

The is no light on John Galt?, let alone someone being home.  You time is not being spent well with Thomas.

[John Galt?]

Now THAT ^^^ is the "Truth"

[Vatican_Assassin]

Here's a quote from a dude I'm not too familiar with so I'm not sure how reliable he is. He must have had a crystal ball or something back in the day.....
 

The Central Bank is an institution of the most deadly hostility existing against the principles and form of our Constitution. . . . I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. Already they have raised up a monied aristocracy that has set the Government at defiance. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people to whom it properly belongs. If the American people ever allow the banks to control the issuance of their currency, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers occupied. – Thomas Jefferson

[acacius]

http://www.snopes.com/quotes/jefferson/banks.asp

Plus ... Alexander Hamilton.