Audit the Fed

Forums: Philosophy, Philosophy Of Politics
Email this Topic • Print this Page

Congressman Ron Paul of Texas introduced HR 1207 to audit, for the first time in its history, the Federal Reserve. As of now, the bill has 275 cosponsors in the House. The Senate version of the bill, S 604, was introduced by Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont and currently has 17 cosponsors. If the federal reserve is audited, the full extent of its activities will be, for the first time, known to the elected officials of the American people. For anyone unfamiliar with the unsavory history of the Federal Reserve, see The Creature From Jekyll Island, on youtube or googlevideo. But how important can the Federal Reserve be? They just set interest rates, right? They're a federal organization anyhow, right? Why should they be audited?

Some thoughts from a few deceased Americans on either the Federal Reserve or earlier American central banks, which were abolished for good reason.

"I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies . . . If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around [the banks] . . . will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered . . . The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs."
-Thomas Jefferson

If Congress has the right under the Constitution to issue paper money, it was given to be used by themselves, not to be delegated to individuals or corporations.
-Andrew Jackson

The bold effort the present (central) bank had made to control the government ... are but premonitions of the fate that await the American people should they be deluded into a perpetuation of this institution or the establishment of another like it.
-Andrew Jackson

I am one of those who do not believe that a national debt is a national blessing, but rather a curse to a republic; inasmuch as it is calculated to raise around the administration a moneyed aristocracy dangerous to the liberties of the country.
-Andrew Jackson

You are a den of vipers and thieves. I intend to rout you out, and by the grace of the Eternal God, will rout you out.
-Andrew Jackson

"I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country; corporations have been enthroned, an era of corruption in High Places will follow, and the Money Power of the Country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the People, until the wealth is aggregated in a few hands, and the Republic is destroyed. I feel at this moment more anxiety for the safety of my country than ever before, even in the midst of war"
-Abraham Lincoln

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

[CENTER]Think.
Smile

[/CENTER]

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 1,830 • Replies: 33

No top replies

@BrightNoon,

[CENTER]Update:
[/CENTER]

HR 1207 now has 276 cosponsors

S 604 now has 19

We're making progress! :a-ok:

0 Replies

@BrightNoon,

I hope that the Fed ends up being audited, but I am not going to hold my breath waiting. Too many Representatives and Senators are influenced too heavily by the Fed and their buddies to do anything that may cause them to lose their precious campaign financing. The government is filled with people more concerned about winning re-election than doing what is right.

1 Reply

@Theaetetus,

I think transparency in government provides valuable information. In this case, I am not sure much will be turned up.

The Feds are monetizing debt by giving money to the big banks in order to keep the banking system from collapsing due to defaults and bankruptcy brought on my the previous decade.

The Feds are monetizing by lowering interest rates which are killing people on fixed income or anyone who has saved money.

So the people who have saved are bailing out those who spent - and the banks as the middle guys are making huge profits in order to reserve for more defaults that are coming due.

Now, the primary problem here, seems to me, to not to be the Feds but a culture and population that loves to spend money that they don't have in order to have things today. And their elected officials are more than happy to oblige.

I don't think things are going to change much by auditing the Feds. What will change this is when people can no longer borrow money, and it appears that for most people this has been happening over the last year.

Rich

1 Reply

@richrf,

While I agree with you, BrightNoon, I'm not sure quoting King Andrew and that nasty peddler of anti-Semitic literature, the intellectually retarded Mr. Ford, is the best way to drum up support. Jefferson, on the other hand, is a fine choice.

1 Reply

@Didymos Thomas,

Do you know why he was mocked as 'King Andrew?' He made very powerful enemies. After Washington and Jefferson, I'd say he's my favorite president. He knew very well what he was fighting against and subordinated everything to that fight. Had he failed, I think it's likely that this republic would already have been ended as its about to be.

Anyway, what we hope to be revealed is evidence that the Fed has been directly and indirectly manipulating the stock market, the commodities markets, and international currency markets, as they almost certainly have been doing in order to prop up the dollar and direct the broader economy. Also, it would be nice to know the full extent of the liabilities/assets controlled by the Fed. I'd bet that what we're given now as the balance sheet is a fraction of the whole.

1 Reply

@BrightNoon,

BrightNoon;79729 wrote:

Anyway, what we hope to be revealed is evidence that the Fed has been directly and indirectly manipulating the stock market, the commodities markets, and international currency markets, as they almost certainly have been doing in order to prop up the dollar and direct the broader economy.

It is already accepted that the Feds are indirectly manipulating the markets by its monetary policies of flooding the market with reserves as well as bringing rates to 0, which in effect forces money flow into riskier investments, such as stocks, commodities, and housing mortgages. It is a rule-of-thumb that when the Fed forces down interest rates with monetary policy, then that is the time to move into other markets. So, I don't think an audit is going to provide an surprises in this realm.

Rich

1 Reply

@richrf,

BrightNoon;79729 wrote:

Do you know why he was mocked as 'King Andrew?'

Hence my use of the phrase.

BrightNoon;79729 wrote:

He made very powerful enemies. After Washington and Jefferson, I'd say he's my favorite president. He knew very well what he was fighting against and subordinated everything to that fight. Had he failed, I think it's likely that this republic would already have been ended as its about to be.

What, the man who defied the Supreme Court and force the eviction of the Cherokee which resulted in the death of a quarter of those people on the Trail of Tears? Yeah, he knew what he was fighting for, and subordinated everything to his aims - including defying the Supreme Court for the sake of genocide.

0 Replies

@BrightNoon,

Andrew Jackson was easily one of the most evil presidents in U.S. history. Sure, he may have known what he was talking about in his opposition to the idea of a central bank, but he was known for saying one thing to minorities, and then doing something totally different. He signed numerous treaties with various Indian tribes, just to go against them immediately. He did much to sour relationships between groups of people, and that alone negates whatever good he may have done in other aspects of governing.

1 Reply

@Theaetetus,

Call me heartless, but the neither the Cherokee, nor any other Indian tribe, were members of the American polity: i.e. citizens. Those outside the polity can be dealt with pragmatically. I shed no tears, not one. In fact, that was the conclusion reached by the supreme court; the state of Georgia had no right to deal with the Indians independently, as the Indians were legally a foreign nation and so relations with them would be managed by the federal government.

The supreme court was never intended to be a branch of government co-equal with the president. A president defying the supreme court is not analogous to, e.g., a president defying the congress. In any case, Jackson did not defy the supreme court. Georgia did not refuse to abide by the supreme court ruling, and so the president had no reason or authority to intervene in support of that ruling. I see nothing illegal or unconstitutional on the part of Jackson. He did however, as stated previously, devote his public life to defeating the clearly unconstitutional and supremely corrupt central bank. Bravo Jackson!

0 Replies

@BrightNoon,

Technically, by your definition of the polity of the U.S. in the time of Jackson, women were not a part of it either.

The point is, Jackson signed treaties with sovereign nations, and then instantly ignored them. Treaties with sovereign nations are a part of federal law, and no president should be above the law.

The three branches were meant to balance power. Jackson ignoring the Supreme Court's rulings shifts the balance of power, and if Congress would have been doing its job properly, would have pressed for convicting Jackson of impeachment.

1 Reply

@Theaetetus,

BrightNoon;79832 wrote:

Call me heartless, but the neither the Cherokee, nor any other Indian tribe, were members of the American polity: i.e. citizens. Those outside the polity can be dealt with pragmatically. I shed no tears, not one.

You have no sympathy for the thousands of Native Americans who perished under brutal conditions at the hands of the US government? No sympathy for senseless killing?

BrightNoon;79832 wrote:

In fact, that was the conclusion reached by the supreme court; the state of Georgia had no right to deal with the Indians independently, as the Indians were legally a foreign nation and so relations with them would be managed by the federal government.

The Supreme Court ruled, in the Cherokee Nation vs. Georgia, that the Cherokee Nation was not a sovereign and independent nation. The SCOTUS ruled that the Cherokees, despite your assertion, were members of the US polity. Non-citizens (women, African Americans, immigrants from southern and eastern Europe) were part of the American polity - hell, slave owners got an extra 3/5 of a vote for each slave they owned.

In Worcester vs. Georgia, the court ruled that the Cherokees were entitled to Federal protection from the state of Georgia - and this protection is exactly what Jackson ignored by removing the Cherokees on behalf of the state of Georgia. Jackson taunted Justice Marshal by saying that the Justice had no army with which to defend his ruling.

BrightNoon;79832 wrote:

The supreme court was never intended to be a branch of government co-equal with the president. A president defying the supreme court is not analogous to, e.g., a president defying the congress. In any case, Jackson did not defy the supreme court. Georgia did not refuse to abide by the supreme court ruling, and so the president had no reason or authority to intervene in support of that ruling. I see nothing illegal or unconstitutional on the part of Jackson. He did however, as stated previously, devote his public life to defeating the clearly unconstitutional and supremely corrupt central bank. Bravo Jackson!

You may want to review your opinion in light of your erroneous beliefs regarding what the Supreme Court actually ruled with respect to the Cherokee Nation.

While "equal" may not be the proper word comparing the Supreme Court's authority with Executive authority, all three branches were intended to have checks and balances over one another to insure that each exercised it's proper authority with out undue influence from the other branches. Jackson clearly, and according to any historian you care to ask, overstepped his Executive authority in his handling of the Native American tribes east of the Mississippi.

1 Reply

@Didymos Thomas,

I'll have to look into the issue in more detail D.T. If you are quite correct and Jackson acted in defiance of the Supreme Court, I still consider him one of my favorite presidents thanks to his work against the Bank. I find it amusing how liberal minded people, not yourself neccessarily, will dwell on certain select unconstitutional acts on the part of elected officials while ignoring other, ultimately far more conequential ones. In any case, the purpose of this thread was to advertise and open for discussion the merit of HR 1207 and its senate equivelent. I challenge anyone to offer an argument against an audit. I can think of none.

Update:

HR1207 now has 282 cosponsors

S 604 now has 23

1 Reply

@BrightNoon,

BrightNoon;81503 wrote:

I'll have to look into the issue in more detail D.T. If you are quite correct and Jackson acted in defiance of the Supreme Court, I still consider him one of my favorite presidents thanks to his work against the Bank.

Which is fine - Jefferson is, by far, my favorite President, but I can certainly level heavy criticisms against some of his policy decisions.

I urge you to look into this matter. Not only did Jackson defy the Supreme Court, and taunt Marshall in the process, he defied in the Supreme Court in order to, literally, mine gold which resulted in the death of a quarter of the Cherokee population. Jackson used the US military to commit genocide for the sake of some gold flakes.

BrightNoon;81503 wrote:

I find it amusing how liberal minded people, not yourself neccessarily, will dwell on certain select unconstitutional acts on the part of elected officials while ignoring other, ultimately far more conequential ones.

Jackson's opposition of the central bank pales in comparison to his willful, heartless, and selfish pursuit of genocide against Native American populations and his brash, arrogant defiance and disrespect for the Supreme Court of the United States. His bank policy is a minor facet of Jacksonian history - his treatment of the Cherokee nation is probably his defining moment as President of the United States. He sets the tone for all later arrogant, inconsiderate, self-absorbed, narcissistic Presidents. He truly was the first of his kind.

BrightNoon;81503 wrote:

In any case, the purpose of this thread was to advertise and open for discussion the merit of HR 1207 and its senate equivelent. I challenge anyone to offer an argument against an audit. I can think of none.

Such an audit would either drive Americans into an even deeper depth of apathy, or rouse them into open revolt against the government.

I say let's audit the Fed. But it's not going to happen.

1 Reply

@Didymos Thomas,

Didymos Thomas;81506 wrote:

Jackson's opposition of the central bank pales in comparison to his willful, heartless, and selfish pursuit of genocide against Native American populations and his brash, arrogant defiance and disrespect for the Supreme Court of the United States. His bank policy is a minor facet of Jacksonian history - his treatment of the Cherokee nation is probably his defining moment as President of the United States. He sets the tone for all later arrogant, inconsiderate, self-absorbed, narcissistic Presidents. He truly was the first of his kind.

Any president who increased the power of the office has done a great disservice to this country. However, I have to disagree with you on one point. There is no single issue more important than central banking in the history of this country, with the possible exception of states rights vis a via the civil war. Even the new deal, which I feel did irreparable harm, was ultimately of less consequence than the Federal Reserve Act that had by that time been largely forgotten or accepted. Had Jackson not removed the second bank, I think the republic would have faced its demise already. Of course, as it turns out, it might be proven that we learned nothing. Perhaps Jackson only bought us some time, as central banking is back in power. Nonetheless, as cold as it may sound, I'll take a little genocide over institutionalized central banking anyday, and so I have a hard time criticizing Jackson. One-time illegal acts against unpopular minorities for the purpose of economic exploitation, and in violation of SCOTUS rulings, might undermine the laws and moral fiber of the nation, but nothing is more certain to bring the republic to its knees, sooner or later, than a permanent, financial oligarchy.

Quote:

Such an audit would either drive Americans into an even deeper depth of apathy, or rouse them into open revolt against the government.

I say let's audit the Fed. But it's not going to happen.

Even if Congress prevents a vote on the bill, or votes it down, the very fact of the government opposition will be a major blow to them. Anyone who becomes aware of this bill should be outraged if it doesn't pass. There is simply no explanation for resistance to it, except the obvious one, that there is indeed something to hide.

1 Reply

@BrightNoon,

Even if central banking is the cornerstone issue in American political history - which seems far fetched when we consider race relations, even outside of the state's right's issue, and American neo-imperialism - Jackson's role was far from productive. His policies created intense inflation, and then when he ordered that banks back their fiat money with gold, he caused their collapse - even if you oppose central banking, such a collapse of central banking must smack of economic self-destruction; ie, there are far more pragmatic ways to handle the situation. Jackson caused the panic of 1837 with his policies. Sent the nation into depression. Jackson's antics did not save the republic, his banking policies presented a grave threat to the country.

How anyone could possibly prefer genocide and grave financial crisis over moderate central banking (moderate as compared to our modern system) is beyond me. Look, I dig your philosophical perspective on the matter, and I am sympathetic to the cause, but history is not idealism. If anything, you should criticize Jackson for handling central banking like a brutal, cold-hearted tyrant who had no apparent concern for his self-caused economic disaster rather than handling the 'problem' of central banking like a level headed libertarian.

As for the audit, the bill's existence is no major blow. It will be forgotten except by us on the fringe. We are, after all, the lunatic fringe. Sure, the only reasonable argument against it is something to hide, but that is nothing new - we re-elected Nixon after the Watergate story broke. By and large, Americans don't give a ****.

1 Reply

@Didymos Thomas,

We may have to agree to disagree, we value different things differently. But I will say one more thing. There is a great deal of evidence that the banking crisis 'caused by jackson' was in fact manufactured by the banks in an effort to discredit Jackson and stall his anti-bank agenda. The same is more or less happening now. The Federal Reserve has stated, in so many words, that if it were audited the American economy would more or less collapse overnight. This begs two important questions. 1) What is on the books of the Fed that, if revealed, would cause epic catastrophe? 2) Is this statement a disinterested prediction of what will inevitably follow an audit, or a threat of what will deliberately be done in retaliation for an audit?

An interesting aside: it is now pretty generally recognized among historians that the Banking Panic of 1906 was generated intentionally by the Wall Street Banks in order to force a public reaction (which culminated with the Federal Reserve Act, written by representatives of the Wall Street Banks) and consolidate their control. It's an old game. Think Rothschild on the final day of the battle of Waterloo. Think J.P. Morgan who 'generously' invested a huge sum into the crashing stock market in 1929 to help save the nation.

A pattern emerges..:whistling:

artificial boom fed by bank credit, inevitable bust beginning with banks, consolidation for the largest banks

"If the American people ever allow private 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 their property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered."
-Thomas Jefferson

1 Reply

@BrightNoon,

I have yet to see a serious scholar argue that the Panic of 1837 was created by the banks to discredit Jackson - which is an obviously odd notion given the fact that said crisis ruined said banks. Why would the banks purposefully ruin themselves? While Jackson was willing to do such a thing based on pride, I see no reason to believe that those bankers, who were preeminently concerned with lining their pockets and cared not a wit for prideful boasting, willingly caused themselves significant financial woe. It doesn't make any sense.

What you suggest the central bank did in the 1830's is quite different from the Fed saying, today, that an audit would cause the collapse of the American economy. You say that the central bank in the 1830's caused their own demise to discredit Jackson. What the Fed is doing today is admitting that their books are so over-cooked that any light upon the truth would wreck the economy - the Fed is not trying to wreck the economy, instead, they are warning against wrecking the economy.

The difference between 1906 and 1837 is that in 1906 Wall Street benefited from the crisis. In 1837, the panic was catastrophic for the bankers, not in their best interests in any twisted sense. Those bankers profted nothing, and lost a great sum of money due to Jackson's mishandling of the matter. As a libertarian of sorts, you should recognize this. It is one thing to oppose central banking, but quite another to call for the end of central banking in such a way that wrecks the economy; I would imagine you would call for an end of central banking in such a way that causes no harm to the economy, or at least as little short term harm as possible. It is hard to imagine Jackson ending the central bank with any more harm than he caused.

We should read history without attaching our ideologies to events.

As for quoting Jefferson, this is apt to your purpose. And, as it turns out, Jefferson was quite correct on this point. Great debate rages over what must be done to correct this impending crisis, our homeless children, but there seems to be little doubt that the crisis is near and fast approaching. That should say something, when people of nearly all radically different ideologies at least agree on the nature of the crisis, ie, the soon-to-be impossible costs of living in America.

1 Reply

@Didymos Thomas,

Didymos Thomas;81666 wrote:

What you suggest the central bank did in the 1830's is quite different from the Fed saying, today, that an audit would cause the collapse of the American economy. You say that the central bank in the 1830's caused their own demise to discredit Jackson. What the Fed is doing today is admitting that their books are so over-cooked that any light upon the truth would wreck the economy - the Fed is not trying to wreck the economy, instead, they are warning against wrecking the economy.

That is an opinion, as is my opposite view. Time will tell I suppose. Once upon a time, in a land far away (last August actually in a dorm room) I thought that the Fed and the government in general were incomphensably incompetant. What morons! They've done exactly what needed to be done to cause the greatest finanicial and then economic collapse in world history! If they tried to cause disaster they couldn't do any better!

..and then, as I continued to watch events unfold, and learned of the founding of the Fed, and learned more about some of the personalities which infest our federal offices, some of those old phrases, contemptuous of the idiocy of the government, took on new meaning.

They've done exactly what needed to be done...

If they tried...

And then I thought, which is more likely: that the government has been consistantly staffed by truly inept semi-morons for decades, OR those people which appear as morons to the naive citizen have in fact suceeded admirably in their goal, which is the present cataclysm?

1 Reply

@BrightNoon,

No, bro, I'm reciting history.

As for your 'which is more likely', both options are grossly pessimistic. Neither, in all likelyhood, are the case. What is far more likely is that the government is staffed by fallible human beings, most of which intend to do what in their mind seems to be good. There does not have to be ill-will, much less systemic ill-will, involved for the outcome to be disaster. . People screw up. Especially when we are talking about tens of thousands of people with conflicting agendas.

1 Reply

Audit the Fed

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know