TruthMove Forum

TruthMove Forum » TruthMove Main Forum

Libertarian logic / Ron Paul (28 posts)

  1. truthmod

    Those Infowars libertarians sure seem to be confused sometimes.

    The most frequently cited I've seen - usually from theorists on the right who like to say left and right is a NWO hoax - has been provocation for crackdown. (Or, Look out - they're a-comin' for our guns!) In this scenario, Dennis Kucinich is one unlikely head of the Beast. "Kucinich is seemingly willing to entertain the notion that 9/11 was carried out by a ruthless gang of bloodthirsty Neo-Fascists within our own government," writes Paul Joseph Watson, "yet he thinks we should all hand in our only means of defense against such thugs when the men in black ski-masks come knocking." To some, Kucinich represents confirmation: "Conspiracy Planet's previous assertion that gun control extremists will use the latest so-called 'school shootings' to move along their anti-American agenda to disarm US 'civilians' has proven to be correct."

    Posted 10 years ago #
  2. truthmod

    Stephen Colbert gets to the bottom of Ron Paul

    Yeah, how come everyone's been giving this guy such a free ride?

    Paul explained that he is against wars because they only increase government power and he is against every form of big government. As Colbert read out a list, Paul raised his hand higher and higher to agree he would abolish the Department of Education, Department of Homeland Security, Department of Energy, the IRS, FEMA, the UN, NATO, the Interstate Commerce Commission, NAFTA, the WTO -- and even UNICEF, though not so much, "It wouldn't be one of my targets, he said.

    At The Largest Minority, Manila Ryce blogs, "Stephen gave Republican candidate Ron Paul credit where credit is due, pointing out the similarities libertarians have with liberals, in opposing the war and The Patriot Act."

    "And though Colbert was respectful, he did not let Paul get away as easily as fellow liberals Stewart and Maher have," Ryce continues. "Instead, he pointed out the differences between Paul’s far-right ideology and that held by the left. Stephen’s audience obviously wanted to cheer for Paul, but seemed thoroughly confused after they realized that the enemy of your enemy isn’t always your friend."

    Posted 10 years ago #
  3. yfhahn

    No doubt...

    There's no doubt that Ron Paul's libertarianism should be debated. Right now though, most people are generally stunned to actually see a living, breathing, principled libertarian in front of them.

    Is libertarianism really viable today when the environment/global warming/peak oil/sustainability are so pressing? Paul has actually never mentioned an environmental policy and his website doesn't address it as an issue. His voting record indicates a libertarian stance on it as well--not necessarily for wrecking the environment, but certainly not for regulating or curtailing other people's freedom to wreck it.

    I would be interested in seeing his response to some hard questioning on envi/sustainability. He is a smart man and serious thinker, and I wonder what he would say if confronted with the idea that libertarianism would lead to unsustainability and irrevocable damage to the environment and society. I imagine his response, if he really is a libertarian, would be that as an individual he has no right to impose a policy on others even when it might benefit or even be required for their survival.

    Posted 10 years ago #
  4. Victronix

    most people are generally stunned to actually see a living, breathing, principled libertarian in front of them.

    He's there because they need to round up all the voters into a corral before forcing the real candidate on them -- my bet is on Ghouliani. It's an in-your-face kind of outcome and he's the perfect one to run against Hillary. Over 70% of R's favor him. Plus it keeps things simple for the 'muricans - two people from the same state means one less factor to think about.

    A Ghouliani run will be good for 9/11 truth.

    BTW, if Ron Paul thinks it's time to get rid of the UN, he's already doing the work of Bush for him. We're kept in the dark about the UN because they aren't under the total control of US corporations and working for their profit. The rest of the world knows much more about it than our country and are often shocked at how little we know. The UN keeps the entire world functioning and it is a massive massive organization. It has great flaws, but stop for a moment to think about trying to bring reps of the entire world together to discuss things . . . it's a monumental feat. If they were all sold out to corporations -- as leaders are in the US -- then meetings and decisions are often an open and shut case since it would all be about profits. But in orgs like the UN, the focus is not profit or the bidding of the corporations but the actual functioning of the world and survival of people. How does international mail work? The UN. What happens when a country collapses and refugees are pouring out? The UN. On and on. It's stunning how much that organization does that we never even know about. The fact that Bush wants them gone is meaningful.

    Posted 10 years ago #
  5. truthmod

    Ron Paul voting records Rated 0% by NARAL, indicating a pro-life voting record. (Dec 2003) Rated 5% by the LCV, indicating anti-environment votes. (Dec 2003)

    Posted 10 years ago #
  6. truthmod

    Where did the Ron Paul hype start in the 9/11 truth movement? Alex Jones, correct? And then on to his fans--We Are Change, etc...

    Yet Ron Paul has only claimed a blowback/negligence theory concerning 9/11, so why all the fanfare? It must be his ideology/policies that these people like so much. Or maybe Alex Jones has such an impressionable audience that everyone else jumps on the bandwagon because he says Ron Paul is the man?

    Interviewed on Alex Jones:

    Ron Paul articles:

    Posted 10 years ago #
  7. imgstacke

    I support Ron Paul - not for his views on 9/11 but on his loyalty to the Constitution. It's just that simple.

    I don't agree with many of his views but I do respect them as they are based on real rationale or experience.

    He has a perceived conflict on the topic of Abortion (sorry I am not trying to bait an argument - just trying to illustrate a point). I am Pro-Choice 100%, as my fundamental philosophy is based on Free Will. But that doesn't mean I should not review why he has voted in a Pro-Life manner and why his personal views are Pro-Life. The man is an OBGYN and has witnessed a 2.5 month baby being placed into a bucket after an abortion. He views it as an act of violence against an individual. I see the merits of that argument, but I still feel the Federal government should not be involved. Seems like more conflict between my personal views and reasons verses his.
    Then after digging deeper I see that he is personally Pro-Life but agrees with me on the fundamental idea that the Federal Government should not be meddling with Individual rights and it should be left to the individual states, which tend to be more representative to people. This one of the reasons I support this guy, he has a firm basis for his positions, and that makes him easy to misunderstand. Gay Rights - same thing - boils down to individual rights, shouldn't be a Federal Issue.

    His stand on the Federal Reserve is what clues me in that he does understand what is at stake, as most would agree it changed this country into a tool for private interests.

    I would like to understand more about his issue concerning the UN - and why it is so crucial to remain in the UN? I admit I don't know much about it.

    And the alternatives are all (with one or two exceptions) no different than one another. None of them have stood up to defend the constitution, non of them have shown that they act in accordance with the Constitution.

    Posted 10 years ago #
  8. truthmod

    You make a very reasoned case for Ron Paul--not something I've seen from a lot of his supporters.

    One thing I struggle with about him and libertarianism, is the priorities--why is a free market and a stripped down federal government their main issue? Why not information integrity and equality or the fact that our government and media are run by corporations? These people rarely seem to talk about equality or justice, instead preferring ideas of "personal liberty" and "limiting government."

    And there seems to be a bit of "If you can't fend for yourself, tough shit, die." hidden underneath this ideology--that is not something I agree with.

    In the argument for states rights, do we allow/accept a state that oppresses and lies to its people? What about information--does each state get to decide what information is acceptable in its society? Who runs the media and other positions of power--people who were powerful or rich enough and used their "liberty" to take control?

    It just seems to be a philosophy of domination and selfishness rather than compassion or equality. I imagine that the argument is that true compassion cannot be enforced and must evolve through personal choice, but the question always is, where do we start? How would libertarianism actually be instituted, how would be people be educated and informed? Some people would have to be in positions of power and authority.

    I just don't hear Ron Paul and his supporters speaking the kind of language that assures me they want a just and equal society.

    Posted 10 years ago #
  9. imgstacke

    I can't speak for libertarians as I am not a card carrying member of any organization. But as far as why I think Ron Paul has gotten such a response from the entire spectrum of political enclaves is he represents someone who can protect and breath life back into the contstitution and as such restore our rights, which have been systematically been stripped for the last 10-15 years, and it is accelerating. People are very threatened by this, and do not trust the front runners of either party. The idea of "politics as usual" is over, we as a People are threatened.

    I don't care about free market verse Regulation, I am not of the Elite Corporate Class. I am concerned about my future grandchildren having a verichip implanted in their bodies, their DNA reviewed by some "Human Resource" official to have gainful employment, and if they are homosexual whether they can have a family that they choose. And a myriad of other intrusions on their privacy.

    I may not agree with everything about the libertarian ideology but I do agree with the principles of Freedom and Liberty. I am a strong proponent of personal responsibility as it is only possible when rights are respected.

    If you want an idea of what I think is the most idea way for government to work, you would have to take a look at New Hampshire. Limited Government, and a great deal of personal liberty. The state level politicians are paid 200$/yr and this tends to keep away the corporate minded (sociopathic) from becoming entrenched. I discovered this gem of the US when I stumbled on the Free State Project, and its ideas interest me. The entire realm of the political spectrum is respected and encourages participation in the processes of government.

    Again I don't think the government should become some great libertarian experiment, but the US needs a massive shift from the shift it has taken - towards a Totalitarian State (Police State).

    And about states rights and the state that oppresses its people, well there are two things that make that less likely to occur. People can freely move from state to state without having to apply for citizenship or other bureaucratic red tape. If you don't like it you can move, provided you can afford it of course. Also the representation is closer to the people themselves. On the federal level the constituency is so large that that people's power is diluted and can be easily ignored. On the state level it is much easier for a grassroots organization to throw out bad politicians, much easier than on the federal level. Keeping the power closer to the people is in my opinion the way to go instead of consolidation power into the hands of the few. Should the states set the rules for the media, airports, etc. Why not? It would make it far more difficult for the corporations to buy influence as again the state level politicians are less entrenched.

    The 10th Amendment is, in my opinion the most important of all, as it limits the power of the Government. If it was followed throughout the history of the US we would not have such a large central government to begin with. One of the lines in the constitution that I found to be telling is the one about the legislature having to meet at least 2 times a year. Right then and there it lets you know, since the early days the legislature was not supposed to be doing much at all.

    And about the entire entitlement system that rose up during the "War on Poverty" - I have seen with my own eyes what it has created and still exists, especially within the black community. Many feel a sense of entitlement, that someone somewhere owes them something. This dependence has stripped them of their responsibility to take care of themselves and their families. Those that are not dependent prey on those that do, as do other cultures. It is demoralizing and very destructive. New immigrants come here and set up shops to sell expired food and cut-rate liquor in my community, they are following a system that works and has worked for a long time. These are the results of the welfare state and I don't think it is helpful in the long run. Especially not to the poorest in our society, it keeps them poor as there is no real incentive to improve ones situation.

    I could go on and on - I do think Universal Health care SHOULD be provided but regulated by the states to minimize inefficiencies inherent in centralized government.

    My vision of America is 50 strong states, not ONE strong state.

    Posted 10 years ago #
  10. imgstacke

    Oh thought I would add that Universal Health care is a function of protection of life, it should be provided to keep people healthy, which in our current system is geared to enrich the HMO's by collecting insurance premiums from employees and employers, and the pharmaceutical companies which prey on the sick. Our system should be to encourage healthy living and preventive care, not to profit from the sick.

    Posted 10 years ago #
  11. Victronix

    On Ron Paul and the UN . . .

    "Ron Paul is opposed to the United Nations. He has introduced legislation to withdraw the United States from the UN. Dr. Paul believes that the UN is rife with corruption. It serves as a forum for rampant anti-Americanism. Instead of being reformed, the UN needs to be renounced. Dr. Paul is against any kind of world government or new world order."

    "Paul's first amendment would prohibit the use of taxpayer funds for payment of UN dues, an important step toward withdrawing America from the UN altogether (Paul's popular bill, HR 1146, would not only withdraw America from the UN, but also evict the organization from its New York headquarters). The second amendment directs the administration to withdraw the United States from UNESCO (the United Nation's Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization), a virulently anti-American and anti-western UN offshoot. UNESCO is nothing more than a propaganda mouthpiece for the usual globalist causes, including international abortion and population control; politically correct UN curriculum for American schools; UN control of federal land in America; cultural relativism; and global taxation, just to name a few. President Reagan wisely withdrew the U.S. from UNESCO in 1984."

    NOTE: Calling the UN a part of a "new world order" or "world government" is a tactic of the right to try to scare people away from this important institution which stands up to the fascist policies of the Bush Administration and has repeatedly humiliated the US to the rest of the world for it's false promotions of rationales to bomb and destroy. The UN inspections of Iraq kept the US out of that country for longer than anyone else could have, and were able to expose the charade of the false basis for the war by showing that WMDs did not exist. Efforts to stop war crimes through the establishment of bodies like the World Criminal Court would not exist without the UN . . .

    "Human rights groups hail the International Criminal Court (ICC) as world justice's biggest step since an international military tribunal in Nuremberg tried Nazi leaders after World War II. Washington, fearing its troops could face politically motivated prosecutions, strongly opposes the ICC and has declined an invitation to join U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan and hundreds of other guests at the inaugural session. "We won't be attending the inaugural ceremony because we're not a party to the ICC, and that's basically it," a spokeswoman for the U.S. embassy in The Hague told Reuters."

    The general Libertarian and Ron's Paul's mistaken belief - along with Bush and Reagan - that the source of the world's problems are with the UN is in direct opposition to the many human rights groups all over the world who have real world experience with catastrophes, wars and holocausts which the US either ignores or is the cause of. The UN keeps us out of nuclear war.

    Bush, Reagan and Ron Paul agree on the need to demonize and destroy the UN.

    Does the UN need reform? Sure, as does the US government and each of it's states governments. Nothing is so simple as declaring that if we rid the world of the UN then the "globalists" can't create "One World Government."

    Posted 10 years ago #
  12. Victronix

    Ron Paul's voting record on energy & oil -

    * Voted NO on criminalizing oil cartels like OPEC. (May 2007)
    * Voted NO on removing oil & gas exploration subsidies. (Jan 2007)
    * Voted NO on keeping moratorium on drilling for oil offshore. (Jun 2006)
    * Voted YES on scheduling permitting for new oil refinieries. (Jun 2006)
    * Voted NO on passage of the Bush Administration national energy policy. (Jun 2004)
    * Voted NO on implementing Bush-Cheney national energy policy. (Nov 2003)
    * Voted NO on raising CAFE standards; incentives for alternative fuels. (Aug 2001)
    * Voted NO on prohibiting oil drilling & development in ANWR. (Aug 2001)
    * Voted NO on starting implementation of Kyoto Protocol. (Jun 2000)
    * Repeal the gas tax. (May 2001) 

    Replace coal & oil with alternatives - strongly opposes . . .

    Posted 10 years ago #
  13. imgstacke

    I noticed you added the last line "Replace coal & oil with alternatives - strongly opposes . . " Does this mean he opposes alternatives, or opposes subsidising the Oil Industry by paying/subsidising the R&D?

    When you look at legislation from he standpoint of the constitution you will start to notice a pattern in RPs voting record, As for all of the other legislation, I would have to look at the complete bill (including amendments/riders). The core of the legislation may not be what he was voting against.

    Do I think we should pull out of the UN? Well what would happen if we did? What would be the result? When a reckless President decides to go against the UN, being a member or not has little significance. If the issue is concerning the "NWO/One World Government" issue, well I think that would be a good reason, don't you think? If you reject the idea that there are plans to create a One World Government, well I can see why you would think pulling out of the UN is a bad idea. But instead of hiding his position, he clearly states it, whether you agree with the concept is another issue, of which, if you are "wrong" would show that Ron Paul is acting in the best interests of Liberty and Freedom.

    Power should be as close to the individual as possible, and quite frankly I see the world going in the opposite direction. We are being abstracted from power - under layers and layers of bureaucracy, under the supervision of a few.

    Posted 10 years ago #
  14. imgstacke

    from the first link:

    Ron Paul is a strict constitutionalist. He never votes for legislation unless the proposed measure is expressly authorized by the Constitution. He has consistently voted to lower or abolish federal taxes, spending, and regulation. Congressman Paul was recently recognized, for the tenth year in a row, as a "Taxpayer’s Friend" by the National Taxpayers Union.

    Posted 10 years ago #
  15. Victronix

    Here's the link for the oil issues -

    "Strongly Oppose means you believe: There's no such thing as global warming - it's all natural climatic variation. And if there is a problem, it won't affect us much, and we can deal with the problems as they arise."

    If you reject the idea that there are plans to create a One World Government, well I can see why you would think pulling out of the UN is a bad idea.

    It's not so much a matter of membership and dues, as it is turning the American people against the organization in general and what it does, as though it's an evil body.

    Re: OWG: First it has to be shown what the active role of the UN is in "One World Government", and what percentage of the entire UN those activities constitute. I recommend this reference in suggesting a percentage -

    The UN is huge. To try to paint it as the conveyor belt of the evil "One World Government" idea is an attempt to smear it in general and scare average people who don't have the faintest idea what the UN is about.

    OWG may be the idea of some, but not the UN in general, sorry.

    In Berkeley the UN Charter has been integrated into the city charter, and this helps protect the citizens against the human rights violations commonly taking place in the US. Ask the prisoners in the US prison system if they have fair treatment.

    It's fine to talk about the abstraction of power and individual rights, but when you take away all taxes and pull out of all memberships with international bodies, never sign treaties, etc., real world consequences happen, like people go homeless and missiles get fired because nations have no way to reach common ground, only to attack each other.

    Those who trash the UN with broad strokes are usually not interested in what the UN is actually about - i.e., the UN saves lives, for the most part, and stops wars, doesn't "run the world'. All forms of governance have pluses and minuses, but most people have no idea what the pluses are about the UN, and heaping the problems onto it is easier to do than actually learning what it is.

    Posted 10 years ago #
  16. imgstacke

    That Strongly Oppose is a aggregate summation of a view based on some score correct? Some mathematical equation. It cannot speak for Ron Paul's views with certainty

    RE: UN I believe Ron Paul is concerned with the sovereignty of the United States, he has spoken out against the SPP (the superhighway is being built in his state as we speak).

    If local governments adopt language from the UN Charter, thats fine with me, thats what its all about, but unless its expressly stated in the US Constitution, Ron Paul is going to have an issue with it. He is pretty consistent.

    Posted 10 years ago #
  17. truthmod

    Consistency can also be called stodginess or inflexibility

    unless its expressly stated in the US Constitution, Ron Paul is going to have an issue with it. He is pretty consistent.

    I don't think it's always such a great thing to praise about Ron Paul that he consistently goes by the Constitution. The Constitution cannot hold answers to all questions and the people who wrote it were not infallible.

    And following a document/law/scripture always involves INTERPRETATION. Some read the Bible and see justification for killing homosexuals or dropping nukes on the middle east, others see arguments for peace, understanding, and truth. The same can and has been done with the Constitution.

    Posted 10 years ago #
  18. imgstacke

    Thats the beauty of the document - if it doesn't hold the answer then its a state issue (10th amendment). If it of National importance, it can be amended to the constitution. The US was not supposed to be the Military superpower that it is today. Under the Powers of Congress it states Armies are not to be funded for more than 2 years, and the entire issue of standing armies is a big one amongst the colonists during the earliest days of the US.

    WW II changed all of that and here we are - An Empire. The founding fathers would be disgusted with what we have done.

    Posted 10 years ago #
  19. imgstacke

    The individual states have been depreciated by not adhering to the constitution at the federal level. And a Central Government has no real aim other than to accumulate more power at the expense of the states. Recently the Executive has been acquiring more power at the expense of the Judicial and Legislative, destroying the principle of "Separation of Powers". At the same time our individual rights are being destroyed as enumerated by the Bill of Rights, all in 6 years!

    If you think the Constitution is outdated and antiquated, fine, but as far as I know, it should be regarded as the supreme law of the land and should not be ignored. If we ignore the supreme law of the land then we as a nation have no ethical center to which rely. This is what I believe is going on, and for the most part it is working.

    Posted 10 years ago #
  20. Victronix

    Has anyone on here read the UN Charter? Can anyone, off the top of their heads, name any of the treaties the US has signed? Just wondering. Treaties are also considered the Supreme Law of the Land, btw.

    I'm also interested to know what aspects of the UN people see as "one world government" or world leadership, or whatever. Even very well educated people in the US don't understand the UN at all.

    Posted 10 years ago #
  21. truthmover


    If you think the Constitution is outdated and antiquated, fine, but as far as I know, it should be regarded as the supreme law of the land and should not be ignored. If we ignore the supreme law of the land then we as a nation have no ethical center to which rely. This is what I believe is going on, and for the most part it is working.

    As Truthmod points out, our laws are meant to be interpreted and are interpretive. Reasonable doubt. Probable cause. Judges and juries try to strike a balance between the word of the law and its intent. That means that much of our justice system comes down to a person's gut feeling about what a law is meant to accomplish. There's nothing absolute in any of that.

    The Constitution is a very general set of guidelines around which many of our specific laws have been founded. And these laws have not been fairly enforced throughout our history. The Constitution has been amended as a result. The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment is a good example. Saying you care about the Constitution has to have something to do with how it has been applied and amended throughout our history. Once again, not very absolute.

    I recommend finding out something more about Constitutional law and its history. I'm no expert, but I think you will discover that cooking is not always following the recipe word for word.

    Posted 10 years ago #
  22. imgstacke

    I recommend finding out something more about Constitutional law and its history. I'm no expert, but I think you will discover that cooking is not always following the recipe word for word.

    I acknowledge I don't have the lexicon to make references, looking for Black's Law Dictionary currently - will share my digital exploits when I am done :

    Description: Black’s Law Dictionary Digital provides law students and other users with access from their computers to the 43,000 legal definitions found in the Standard 8th Edition of Black’s Law Dictionary. Students can instantly find definitions for legal terms from search toolbars that integrate with Microsoft Word, Internet Explorer, and Mozilla Firefox. Black’s Law Dictionary Digital also incorporates the correct spellings for all defined terms into the spell-check function of Word, ensuring accurate spelling for all legal documents created. Students can even listen to audio pronunciations for thousands of words and phrases, ensuring they never mispronounce another legal term. Best of all, with Black’s Law Dictionary Digital students have access to the same wonderful content found in the print edition of Black’s Law Dictionary, including citations to the legal encyclopedia Corpus Juris Secundum and to the West Key Number System®, which make Black’s Law Dictionary a powerful research tool; alternative spellings or equivalent terms and expressions for more than 5,300 terms and senses, which serve a thesaurus-like function; an extensive appendix on legal abbreviations; and nearly 3,000 quotations. (Note: Package contains no CD-ROM. Instead you will find an installation code which will allow you to download the software.)

    Posted 10 years ago #
  23. imgstacke

    Seems the 1st and 2nd edition are in the public domain, but cannot find a copy of it anywhere....

    Posted 10 years ago #
  24. His stand on the Federal Reserve is what clues me in that he does understand what is at stake, as most would agree it changed this country into a tool for private interests.

    That's a popular legend among conservatives that has no basis in reality. First of all, the US economy has always been predicated upon private interests. While there was still room for settler expansion in the West the social tensions of capitalism had a release valve. If you didn't like your boss in the east you went out west and took a calculated business risk, hoping that you wouldn't be scalped by an Indian before the build-up of new settler populations in the west caused tensions to explode in a new war which resulted in US expansion and new opportunties for economic development.

    During this time-period the concept of a money system was in a total flux. Every new state that was occupied opened up territory where traditional banks were reluctant to enter initially. The result was that people would open up banks in the West using reserves that amounted to 1 in 20,000 or so of what they were asserting as credit. During this time the US Congress pretty much did nothing. A myth has evolved which portrays the US Congress as somehow supervising the money process up until 1913. If anything the reverse comes closer to the truth.

    The establishment of the Federal Reserve set up a monetary system controlled by the Board of Governors which is appointed and approved by the President and the Senate. Whatever the flaws in the current system, it has much more the makings of a finance system subject to official overview than what was practiced in the Free Banking Era.

    The myth of the Federal Reserve as a "private bank" stems from the varying usages of the term "shareholder." In conventional usage, "shares" refer to something which can be freely sold at anytime on the stock market. If a company whose shares are bought and sold freely on the stock exchange commits the error of upsetting one of its major shareholders then that shareholder can sell their own privately held shares on the stock exchange. When this occurs it may be taken as a signal by people watching the stock exchange that the company is going under and this can set off a chain of sellouts among all shareholders and thereby drive the company into bankruptcy. Under such circumstances the management of the company needs to make certain that none of its large shareholders becomes so upset as to do this.

    None of that has any relation to the occasional misusage of the term "shareholder" as it is sometimes applied to the Federal Reserve. This term seems to be used on occasion in reference to the member banks (which by law includes all national banks) in any of the different Federal Reserve banks. No one from any of these member banks has any regulatory authority over the Board of Governors which the President and Senate appoint and approve. Even if a regional bank which was not required by law to belong to one of the Federal Reserve banks decided that it wished to withdraw from the Federal Reserve System, they do not possess any option of "selling private shares on the stock exchange" or anything else that is implied by the term "shareholder."

    People who know nothing about Federal Reserve auditings might benefit from reviewing the auditing report of 2006 at:

    People may also find it useful to review some of the statistics for 2006.

    In particular, one should note that $29,051,678 were rebated to the US Treasury by the Federal Reserve. You'll notice that the initial income for 2006 of the Federal Reserve was at $38,410,427. Then we have:

    Net Expenses: $3,263,844

    Net Deductions: $158,846

    Board Expenditures: $301,014

    Costs of Currency: $491,962

    This leaves us then with a net income of about $34,194,761 of which about 85% was rebated to the Treasury. Now maybe one can charge that the costs should have been further reduced so as to return a higher percentage to the Treasury. Fine. But this is not the principal cause of the US national debt. Anyone who tries telling you that it is playing a hoax.

    The roaring national debt of the United States which took off to the sky with Ronald Reagan is not a consequence of the Federal Reserve charging anyone any interest. It is a consequence of the US Government going off on mad spending sprees for the Pentagon and similar agencies while the productive activity in the US economy slides and taxation on the wealthy is cut. This can only be done by taking out loans, though not in general from the Federal Reserve, and no doubt such loans do include interest charges as well. But the Federal Reserve System is not the cause of those rising debts and any other system would have to generate huge debts for a government which behaves as the US Government has for these last several decades.

    The US debt has almost nothing to do with the Federal Reserve. The major portion of Federal Reserve earnings are restored to the US Treasury. The US debt has mushroomed simply because the US economy has steadily turned away from productive activity, taxes on the rich have been steadily cut, and all of this has gone on while the US Government has rung up huge expenditures on foreign intervention over several decades. Nothing can change the fact that such policies do run up enormous debt. The Federal Reserve can't change that.

    The Federal Reserve System already does give back most of its interest profits to the US Treasury. It's been that way from the beginning when the Federal Reserve was first founded. It's a hokey myth which denies the fact that the Federal Reserve has always operated according to the pattern of deducting a certain portion of operating costs and then returning its major portion of profit to the public treasury. The national debt does not come from Federal Reserve interest collections, that's a fact. The wasteful expenses run up by US interventionism also have nothing to do with the Federal Reserve or any interest which it makes off of its bonds. Those expenses come from the fact that US interventionism has been carried out to protect capitalist interests based in the USA just as the arms race was also used as a way of generating business for the airplane industry. Very little of this has much bearing on banks per se and almost none of it has anything to do with the Federal Reserve.

    Posted 10 years ago #
  25. truthmod

    "Republic" Magazine: Ron Paul + We Are Change


    Posted 10 years ago #

Reply »

You must log in to post.