Congressman Ron Paul

PolyNewbie · February 18, 2007

Statement at Hearing of the House Financial Services Committee, February 15, 2007

Transparency in monetary policy is a goal we should all support. I've often wondered why Congress so willingly has given up its prerogative over monetary policy. Astonishingly, Congress in essence has ceded total control over the value of our money to a secretive central bank.

Congress created the Federal Reserve, yet it had no constitutional authority to do so. We forget that those powers not explicitly granted to Congress by the Constitution are inherently denied to Congress – and thus the authority to establish a central bank never was given. Of course Jefferson and Hamilton had that debate early on, a debate seemingly settled in 1913.

But transparency and oversight are something else, and they're worth considering. Congress, although not by law, essentially has given up all its oversight responsibility over the Federal Reserve. There are no true audits, and Congress knows nothing of the conversations, plans, and actions taken in concert with other central banks. We get less and less information regarding the money supply each year, especially now that M3 is no longer reported.

.....

Statement at Hearing of the House Financial Services Committee, February 15, 2007

People are waking up about the banks but we need a mass awakening. Our taxes can be lower, government services could be a lot better and the USA could have a Canadian style hospitalization program and people could have more money or more free time. The media control could easily be the next target after monetary reform.

Monetary Reform could change our lives in ways that we cannot even imagine. We could have free education, free medical care, & much lower taxes. Schools could teach the truth about economics and money creation and not be dependent apon banker sponsored foundations fro research. Cancer can be cured. Rockefeller bought up all cancer clinics in the 30's and closed them. Pharmaceutical control of medacine could end.

Ron Paul is seeking the presidential nomination. He will get exactly zero attention from mainstream media. He has been re elected about four times as congressman. He speaks against the financial interest who owns the media. If you believe his message then you must help to spread it.

Charles Anthony · February 18, 2007

This guy is first introduced here.

PolyNewbie · February 18, 2007

Yes, he explains how the government can legally "dissapear" people or put masses into concentratiuon camps. They haven't lowered this cloud yet that we know of but if you see someone abducted by the government it is illegal to tell anyone.

It doesn't matter of you think its rediculous. Think with your brain because its fact.

That fact that he has been re elected several times means he has something over many others.

I can expect many folks on this forum to object to anyone that speaks against the money interest. I have no idea how the banks accomplished this.

PolyNewbie · February 18, 2007

If anyone wants to send extra money for income tax the government would just refund it but I am sure there is a way that you could send Rockefeller or Rothschild a few extra dollars if you wanted. I'm sure that it would be appreciated. Perhaps they would even fly you to the UK to get your picture taken kneeling before the Queen - if you sent them enough.

PolyNewbie · February 18, 2007

Henry Ford said: (see Why a Bankrupt America by Devvy Kidd)

"It is well enough that the people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe that there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning."

U.S. President Andrew Jackson said: (See The American Bulletin, 11/91)

"If the American people only understood the rank injustice of our money and banking system, there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning..." - Henry Ford

I don't think people are capable of understanding this today. Many posters act as if they were Rockefeller himself and are absolutely determined not to understand this.

Riverwind · February 18, 2007

I think this quote is amusing:

Change legal tender laws to allow constitutional legal tender (commodity money) to compete domestically with the dollar.

We already have a system where anyone can create legal tender that people could accept in lieu of cash. Canadian Tire Money is a Canadian example but there are no laws that prevent a US business from doing the same. Furthermore, Americans are free to do business in any foreign currency. The problem is always convincing people to accept private/foreign currencies because people simply do not trust them as much as their domestic currency.

The central bank has one duty - to ensure that people continue to have trust in the fiat currency which underpins the economy. That is why central banks must be free of direct political interference and that is why countries with independent central banks have consistently lower inflation that countries without them.

PolyNewbie · February 18, 2007

Riverwind, Canadian Tire money isn't legal tender.

Riverwind · February 18, 2007

Riverwind, Canadian Tire money isn't legal tender.

Legal tender or forced tender is payment that, by law, cannot be refused in settlement of a debt denominated in the same currency. If someone creates a debt denominated in Canadian Tire money then that debt can be settled in Canadian Tire money.

If someone wants to create a debt denominated in ounces of gold then any currency backed by ounces of gold can be used to settle that debt.

However, if someone wants to settle a debt in $US then they must provide $US. It is rediculous to suggest that entities other than the US gov't should be allowed to create $US currency.

If people want to settle their debts with gold/private currencies then they can choose to do that today - there are no laws that prevent them from doing so.

PolyNewbie · February 18, 2007

Riverwind:Legal tender or forced tender is payment that, by law, cannot be refused in settlement of a debt denominated in the same currency. If someone creates a debt denominated in Canadian Tire money then that debt can be settled in Canadian Tire money.

Not true. Where did you get that from - same rectal source as usual ? According to that reasoning used toilet paper is legal tender.

Riverwind · February 18, 2007

Riverwind:Legal tender or forced tender is payment that, by law, cannot be refused in settlement of a debt denominated in the same currency. If someone creates a debt denominated in Canadian Tire money then that debt can be settled in Canadian Tire money.
Not true. Where did you get that from ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_tender

Legal tender only applies to debts in the currency in question. If it did not then that would imply that a merchant in the US is legally obligated to accept legal tender from any other country.

Many merchants in Canada accept the $US as legal tender even though they have no legal obligation to do so. This is proof of my orginal point: people are free to conduct business in whatever currency they want and there is no need for reform.

PolyNewbie · February 18, 2007

Riverwind: It is rediculous to suggest that entities other than the US gov't should be allowed to create $US currency.

You have been argueing in the opposite way. You argue for private bankers who create currency - as much as they want and do not even have to report how much to the government.

Riverwind · February 18, 2007

Riverwind: It is rediculous to suggest that entities other than the US gov't should be allowed to create $US currency.
You have been argueing in the opposite way. You argue for private bankers who create currency - as much as they want and do not even have to report how much to the government.

Banks do not create currency. They can expand the money supply via loans but they cannot print money. There is a huge difference.

PolyNewbie · February 18, 2007

Riverwind:Banks do not create currency. They can expand the money supply via loans but they cannot print money. There is a huge difference.

You should change your diet. The Federal Reserve dollar is created currency. I don't know who actually prints it - that is irrelevant. I think its printed in Canada but lent into existence by the Federal Reserve. It may be that the US government even pays for it but it is not debt free currency as the above statement implies.

In Canada and many other countries actual currency is government created but not in USA.

Coinage is usually government created currency but the folding stuff isn't.

Riverwind · February 18, 2007

I don't know who actually prints it - that is irrelevant

The US Gov't prints its own currency:

http://www.ustreas.gov/education/faq/curre...roduction.shtml

Coinage is usually government created currency but the folding stuff isn't.

Your facts are wrong: all currency is government created currency. However, only coins are counted as a seigniorage revenue source because the government has to buy back paper money when it wears out. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seigniorage

I suspect the fact that paper money is counted as a 'interest free loan' for book keeping purposes is the source for your assertion that paper money is debt based. If so it is yet another example of how you deliberately misinterpret facts in your quest to justify your paranoid fantasies.

PolyNewbie · February 18, 2007

Riverwind:The US Gov't prints its own currency:

That may be true, Canadian tire may print it as well but its not debt free currency as that statement implies. Every dollar in circulation in the USA pays private bankers interest.

Riverwind:I suspect the fact that paper money is counted as a 'interest free loan' for book keeping purposes is the source for your assertion that paper money is debt based.

No, thats not the reason. There is no government created currency in the USA except possibly coinage. Look on a bank note from the USA. They all say "Federal Reserve Note".

You should read a whole book on this sometime. Depending on rational reasoning & government sites on banking is stupid because even JK Galbraith says they deliberately make it confusing and misleading so that people will not understand the true nature of how banking works.

Riverwind · February 19, 2007

That may be true, Canadian tire may print it as well but its not debt free currency as that statement implies. Every dollar in circulation in the USA pays private bankers interest.

The federal reserve is _not_ privately owned bank. It is the US equivalent of a crown corporation that exists because of legislation and is not owned by anyone.

http://www.federalreserve.gov/generalinfo/faq/faqfrs.htm#5

Who owns the Federal Reserve?
The Federal Reserve System is not "owned" by anyone and is not a private, profit-making institution. Instead, it is an independent entity within the government, having both public purposes and private aspects.

...

The twelve regional Federal Reserve Banks, which were established by Congress as the operating arms of the nation's central banking system, are organized much like private corporations--possibly leading to some confusion about "ownership." For example, the Reserve Banks issue shares of stock to member banks. However, owning Reserve Bank stock is quite different from owning stock in a private company. The Reserve Banks are not operated for profit, and ownership of a certain amount of stock is, by law, a condition of membership in the System. The stock may not be sold, traded, or pledged as security for a loan; dividends are, by law, 6 percent per year.

I suspect you get all twisted out of shape about the 6% dividend but if you actually look at the annual reports from the reserve banks you will see that the value of this dividend is peanuts. Here is a link to the Dallas Fed 2005 report: http://www.dallasfed.org/fed/annual/2005/ar05fin.pdf

If you look at it you will see it spent $1.14 billion of which it paid $1.13 billion to the US gov't for the privilege of issuing currency. It paid a mere $9 million to the member banks in dividends.

IOW. You take a few facts and twist them completely out of proportion to justify your bizarre theories.

PolyNewbie · February 19, 2007

Riverwind:The federal reserve is _not_ privately owned bank. It is the US equivalent of a crown corporation that exists because of legislation and is not owned by anyone.

This is why you should read books instead of surfing the web for little bits on government and banker web sites. We know this because its been on mainstream media that the central bank is no longer required to report M3. We also know that the federal reserve is not government owned from stacks of history books. John Kenneth Galbraith explains that the Fed is a privately owned bank in his book "Money". Quigley also explains it in his book "Tragedy & Hope". They both explain how tricky the banks are. They are both mainstream intellectuals that could never be wrong about something this simple.

The legal system is very complicated and they can say one thing and make it sound like something else and no one can afford to sue them. They have the courts in their pockets. We know this because of how the system works.

Larry MacDonald did a congessional study to find out who owns the Fed. The same people owned the Fed (descendents) as the people that signed it in 1913.

This part is true:

"President Woodrow Wilson. The act had been drafted as House Resolution 7837 by Representative Carter Glass (D-VA), incoming chairman of the House Banking and Currency Committee.

"

Here is what Wilson said about the banks:

"Despite these warnings, Woodrow Wilson signed the 1913 Federal Reserve Act. A few years later he wrote: I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated Governments in the civilized world no longer a Government by free opinion, no longer a Government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a Government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men. -Woodrow Wilson

"

Riverwind · February 19, 2007

We also know that the federal reserve is not government owned from stacks of history books.

Read what I wrote - the federal reserve is not owned by anybody - it is an independent non profit entity created by the government. Almost all of the income earned by the reserve banks are paid directly back to the US treasury. I suspect that Galbraith understands the distinction and is making a different argument but you are not capable of understanding that.

Woodrow Wilson complaints about an independent reserve bank are is no different from the NDP yahoos in early 90s who complained that the BOC set interest rates too high and that fighting inflation is less important than protecting jobs. Wilson and the NDP yahoos do not understand economics and seem to think it is possible to get something for nothing.

PolyNewbie · February 19, 2007

Riverwind:Read what I wrote - the federal reserve is not owned by anybody - it is an independent non profit entity created by the government. Almost all of the income earned by the reserve banks are paid directly back to the US treasury. I suspect that Galbraith understands the distinction and is making a different argument but you are not capable of understanding that.

If you want to believe the banks then go ahead. I don't care. I know from reading books about history and talking with economists myself what the Federal Reserve does and what its all about.

Riverwind:Read what I wrote - the federal reserve is not owned by anybody - it is an independent non profit entity created by the government.

Your statements do not constitute proof of anything except for the fact that you are an idiot.

Riverwind · February 19, 2007

If you want to believe the banks then go ahead. I don't care. I know from reading books about history and talking with economists myself what the Federal Reserve does and what its all about.

Well, your so-called 'knowledge' is directly contradicted by a variety of credible sources. I have given you links to some of them. That more demonstrates that you don't really understand what is in the books or the books don't have their facts straight.

Your statements do not constitute proof of anything except for the fact that you are an idiot.

ROTFL. I quoted information provided by the Federal Reserve! They most definately prove that you don't have a clue what you are talking about.

PolyNewbie · February 19, 2007

the federal reserve is not owned by anybody

Do you think it was planted there by angels or grew out of the side of a mountain ?

it is an independent non profit entity created by the government.

Then it must be owned by the American taxpayers according to that logic. Is that true ?

The bankers ahve used evry form of trickery and deceit throughout history.

PolyNewbie · February 19, 2007

The fact is that anything man made and still performing a function is owned by someone. That site looks impressive and it is a Federal Reserve site so I will figure out how they are saying what they are saying and getting away with it. Perhaps I'll have to ask one of my wack job buddies. Perhaps you could read a whole book on the subject and learn about what you speak about but I don't think thats gonna happen. Jack Bauer is on tonight isn't he ?

I know that every piece of economic literature that I have read over the years describes the Fed as privately owned and that includes Phd economist saying it to me as well as in economics books, etc.

People like Ron Paul, John Kenneth Galbraith, Carrol Quiqley, Catharine Austin Fitts and Robert Bowman are definetly not crazy and they have all said the banks are privately owned, all my books say that, and many others have said that.

I don't know how they get away with saying "not owned by anybody" because thats just plain crazy.

PolyNewbie · February 19, 2007

Riverwind:Well, your so-called 'knowledge' is directly contradicted by a variety of credible sources

So far you have only used banker sites or wikipedia, a lot of which I have already explained how and why its misleading.

When our debate started I said banks created money from nothing and you strongly dissagreed calling me a fool. Now you have admitted the banks create money from nothing but insist that all the profit goes into the right hands that know what do do with the money. I can tell you that any money is better off in my hands than it is anywhere else so they should be paying me.

You have something that looks credible on this Federal reserve link, but why is it in the yellow pages and not the government pages in the phone book if its not a private company ? How can something not be owned ?

Riverwind · February 19, 2007

So far you have only used banker sites or wikipedia, a lot of which I have already explained how and why its misleading.

You haven't explained any such thing - why should anyone believe that facts contained on these websites are wrong and the facts (as you interpret them) in your books are right? Because you said so? That is a childish argument. If someone wants to know about how the Fed works and who owns the Fed then the Fed website is the place to look.

When our debate started I said banks created money from nothing and you strongly dissagreed calling me a fool. Now you have admitted the banks create money from nothing but insist that all the profit goes into the right hands that know what do do with the money.

I have said from the beginning that banks create money but they can only make a profit on the difference between what they pay for the money they create and what they charge in loans. My position has not changed but I have presented it in different ways.

You have something that looks credible on this Federal reserve link, but why is it in the yellow pages and not the government pages in the phone book if its not a private company ? How can something not be owned ?

What is ownership? Are you owed? Is the air we breathed owned? The fed is not officially 'owned' because Americans dislike government so much that they create these government entities which are not officially owned by anything. The Fed is just one example. The Fed is owned by the US government for all pratical purposes since the US government has exclusive control over who sits on the board of directors.

Unfortnately, there are people like you who cannot understand this concept of non-ownership and blindly assume that if something is not owned by the government then it must be owned by private interests.

PolyNewbie · February 20, 2007

Riverwind:If someone wants to know about how the Fed works and who owns the Fed then the Fed website is the place to look.

So where does it explain who owns the Fed ? Who does own the Fed ?

Riverwind:I have said from the beginning that banks create money but they can only make a profit on the difference between what they pay for the money they create and what they charge in loans

Who do they pay for the money they create ?

Riverwind:What is ownership? Are you owed?

Yes. My birth certificates are used as collateral in financial transactions by people like the monarchy, International banks, etc - or so a few lawyers have said to me. I don't think about it but suspect it may be true, although with lawyers you never know.

Is the air we breathed owned?

Not here but water has been owned in other countries. The idea of the corporate state is to have everything owned by someone and thats part of the idea behind the North American Union.

The fed is not officially 'owned' because Americans dislike government so much that they create these government entities which are not officially owned by anything. The Fed is just one example.

Yes, government is so bad we do not wish to have our institututions responsible to anyone 8-). Its a manufactered belief.

Why is it then that the Fed doesn't have to report M3 to anyone?. Is the Federal Reserve like a secret government organization that doesn't answer to anyone so that it can act in the interest of the American taxpayer ?

Did you know that in the Encyclopedia Britannica of 1999 the definition of 'yellow journalism' has Hearst publishing and The Federal Reserve Act of 1913 as examples ?

The Fed is owned by the US government for all pratical purposes since the US government has exclusive control over who sits on the board of directors.

If the Federal Reserve is owned by the government then its owned by the taxpayers. Your arguement boils down to the tax payers actually owning the Federal Reserve.