Ron Paul

71 replies [Last post]
NYCTrader's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-11-20

Has gone off the deep end.  Grilling Bernanke about the Fed's involvement in Watergate?  WTF?  

Moraen's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-01-22

Sacrilege!  Ron Paul is the man.  Just ask Saul4Paul!He just hates anything to do with the Fed. 

NYCTrader's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-11-20

Moraen wrote:Sacrilege!  Ron Paul is the man.  Just ask Saul4Paul!He just hates anything to do with the Fed. 
Did you see his testimony?  He also accused the Fed of going around
Congress to appropriate $4billion for Saddam Hussein to buy weapons
from the US military industrial complex in the 1980s.  Bernanke's
response was classic.

Moraen's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-01-22

No.  Didn't see it.  I don't watch TV during work hours, I do meaningless calculations, data mining, and try to express news and media events as mathematical formulas.  Screw it, I should just bring my Xbox in here!What did Ben say?

Shania Twain's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-09-23

Congress is very impressive.
 
 
 

Moraen's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-01-22

Shania Twain wrote:Congress is very impressive.
 
 
 

Shania Twain's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-09-23

The fed on paper makes sense. 
 
But hell, maybe paul is right.   
 
Has the economy performed any better over time with the fed tweaks?
 
Im such a champion of free markets......do you need the damn Fed?

gethardgetraw's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-10-22

We need the Fed like we need an electoral college

Wet_Blanket's picture
Offline
Joined: 2008-11-13

I agree, we do need both the Fed and Electoral colleges (honestly).
 
Ron Paul is like Kucinich(sp) to me.

gethardgetraw's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-10-22

Oh no I implied that I do not believe we need either.
Free markets will set interest rates themselves and I disagree against electing a president despite the majority of the country voting for his opponent.

Moraen's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-01-22

I think we can get rid of the fed, but keep the electoral college.  In it's way, the electoral college is more of a 'republic' than just having a popular vote. 

Wet_Blanket's picture
Offline
Joined: 2008-11-13

I see you (GetHard) are a fan of the tyranny of the majority.  As Moraen pointed out, the EC is one of the great tools from keeping us from being a Democracy - which would be an absolute mess.
 

Furthermore, if we didn't have EC, then Gore would have been a president.  I think that is enough supportive proof.
 
I strongly doubt in the free markets ability to set interest rates.  I have no doubt that the free market could not adequately control the money supply.
 
A "Free Market" is like Direct Democracy.  In theory, it sounds nice, but in practicality it is a terrible idea.
 
 

Moraen's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-01-22

Wet_Blanket wrote:I see you (GetHard) are a fan of the tyranny of the majority.  As Moraen pointed out, the EC is one of the great tools from keeping us from being a Democracy - which would be an absolute mess.
 

Furthermore, if we didn't have EC, then Gore would have been a president.  I think that is enough supportive proof.
 
I strongly doubt in the free markets ability to set interest rates.  I have no doubt that the free market could not adequately control the money supply.
 
A "Free Market" is like Direct Democracy.  In theory, it sounds nice, but in practicality it is a terrible idea.
 
 I'm not saying completely get rid of a "fed-like" institution.  But as it is, it is a complete mess.  And no, I don't have a recommendation on how to fix it.

LSUAlum's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-10-18

The FED is an excellent idea. The problem is when it gets politicized. For instance, Rep. Waters from Calif. worried that raising the discount rate would hurt mortgage rates and cause more foreclosures due to ARMS resetting? Are these people, in charge of setting policy and approving budgets, that moronic that they don't even know how interest rates work. Moreover, they grill him on things that are out of his jurisdiction. He's in charge of the money supply, credit markets, overall monetary policy NOT Budget Policy.

The fact that the FED buys the majority of our National Debt should probably raise some red flags but ulitmately it then auctions it off to investors anyway.

gethardgetraw's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-10-22

Damnit I can see both sides of the story....
I had a post typed out on capitalism and whether or not our country is 100% capitalistic then I realized it would spark an entire new debate, one that's been covered many times over.
I also wikipedia'd "capitalism." Warning: not for the faint of heart.
 
back to cold calling get money get paid

NYCTrader's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-11-20

LSUAlum wrote:The FED is an excellent idea. The problem is when it gets politicized. For instance, Rep. Waters from Calif. worried that raising the discount rate would hurt mortgage rates and cause more foreclosures due to ARMS resetting? Are these people, in charge of setting policy and approving budgets, that moronic that they don't even know how interest rates work. Moreover, they grill him on things that are out of his jurisdiction. He's in charge of the money supply, credit markets, overall monetary policy NOT Budget Policy.

The fact that the FED buys the majority of our National Debt should probably raise some red flags but ulitmately it then auctions it off to investors anyway.Michelle Bachmann asked Bernanke if there were two discount windows.

LockEDJ's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-07-06

gethardgetraw wrote:...and I disagree against electing a president despite the majority of the country voting for his opponent.
This is a republic, just as the Founding Fathers intended.

gethardgetraw's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-10-22

LockEDJ wrote:gethardgetraw wrote:...and I disagree against electing a president despite the majority of the country voting for his opponent.
This is a republic, just as the Founding Fathers intended.
 
Wow realized my original statement contains a lot of negatives...For clarification: I agree with electing a president once he has captured the majority of the citizens' vote.
 
__________
 
James Madison defined republic in terms of representative democracy
 
Representative democracy is a form of government founded on the principle of elected individuals representing the people

LSUAlum's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-10-18

NYCTrader wrote: LSUAlum wrote:The FED is an excellent idea. The problem is when it gets politicized. For instance, Rep. Waters from Calif. worried that raising the discount rate would hurt mortgage rates and cause more foreclosures due to ARMS resetting? Are these people, in charge of setting policy and approving budgets, that moronic that they don't even know how interest rates work. Moreover, they grill him on things that are out of his jurisdiction. He's in charge of the money supply, credit markets, overall monetary policy NOT Budget Policy.

The fact that the FED buys the majority of our National Debt should probably raise some red flags but ulitmately it then auctions it off to investors anyway.Michelle Bachmann asked Bernanke if there were two discount windows.

Missed that part. I wonder if he said, only during peak breakfast and lunch hours. We modeled it after the great R. Kroc's franchise.

LSUAlum's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-10-18

gethardgetraw wrote:LockEDJ wrote:gethardgetraw wrote:...and I disagree against electing a president despite the majority of the country voting for his opponent.
This is a republic, just as the Founding Fathers intended.
 
Wow realized my original statement contains a lot of negatives...For clarification: I agree with electing a president once he has captured the majority of the citizens' vote.
 
__________
 
James Madison defined republic in terms of representative democracy
 
Representative democracy is a form of government founded on the principle of elected individuals representing the people

And that is exactly what the Electoral College does. It casts it's votes based on the STATE's election of the next president.
 
Do not confuse the issue that we are a group of STATES who are UNITED together. We are a really large Eurpean Union. Each state has it's own rights. Unfortunately the Federal Government has infringed upon those rights over the years to the point where people forget that we were founded on the notion that the STATES maintained the majority the decision making within their own borders. The federal government was supposed to control the national defense and provide a unified national foreign policy so that say Louisiana wasn't negotiating with France while New York was negotiating with Spain on the same issue.

gethardgetraw's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-10-22

Yeah you're right. I'm in way over my head; this is definitely not my strong suit. I totally overlooked the fact that we're the United States with emphasis on both words.
 
Very interesting topics.

LSUAlum's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-10-18

gethardgetraw wrote:Yeah you're right. I'm in way over my head; this is definitely not my strong suit. I totally overlooked the fact that we're the United States with emphasis on both words.
 
Very interesting topics.

Well then, if you realize that we are the UNITED STATES, with emphasis on both words, then why would you not understand that the electoral college is completely necessary. It isn't one big election, it is a collection of 50 small elections. Each state's election is it's own thing. If you get the most votes in that state you win that state's election. I don't understand why people don't get this. IT HAS TO WORK THIS WAY if we are to remain States United together.

 
Without the electoral college a candidate could carry every single state except say, maybe lose one by a landslide and LOSE the election. That's rediculous.

Wet_Blanket's picture
Offline
Joined: 2008-11-13

LSUAlum wrote:gethardgetraw wrote:LockEDJ wrote:gethardgetraw wrote:...and I disagree against electing a president despite the majority of the country voting for his opponent.
This is a republic, just as the Founding Fathers intended.
 
Wow realized my original statement contains a lot of negatives...For clarification: I agree with electing a president once he has captured the majority of the citizens' vote.
 
__________
 
James Madison defined republic in terms of representative democracy
 
Representative democracy is a form of government founded on the principle of elected individuals representing the people

And that is exactly what the Electoral College does. It casts it's votes based on the STATE's election of the next president.
 
Do not confuse the issue that we are a group of STATES who are UNITED together. We are a really large Eurpean Union. Each state has it's own rights. Unfortunately the Federal Government has infringed upon those rights over the years to the point where people forget that we were founded on the notion that the STATES maintained the majority the decision making within their own borders. The federal government was supposed to control the national defense and provide a unified national foreign policy so that say Louisiana wasn't negotiating with France while New York was negotiating with Spain on the same issue.
 
Quick question LSUAlum, so that I can gage your political leanings...
 
Abe Lincoln. 
 
a) National Hero
b) Federalist Oppressor

Shania Twain's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-09-23

mlgone wrote: without the Fed, ML would have gone down in dec 08 and the world financial markets would have collapsed and many of us would be out of jobs.  The credit crises had what the depression didn't........the fed and monetary controls

without the fed.......mer would not have been in trouble with the bubble????????

electoral college is dumb.

someones vote in CA or ill or where ever is potentially "worth" more

retarded

LSUAlum's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-10-18

Wet_Blanket wrote:LSUAlum wrote:gethardgetraw wrote:LockEDJ wrote:gethardgetraw wrote:...and I disagree against electing a president despite the majority of the country voting for his opponent.
This is a republic, just as the Founding Fathers intended.
 
Wow realized my original statement contains a lot of negatives...For clarification: I agree with electing a president once he has captured the majority of the citizens' vote.
 
__________
 
James Madison defined republic in terms of representative democracy
 
Representative democracy is a form of government founded on the principle of elected individuals representing the people

And that is exactly what the Electoral College does. It casts it's votes based on the STATE's election of the next president.
 
Do not confuse the issue that we are a group of STATES who are UNITED together. We are a really large Eurpean Union. Each state has it's own rights. Unfortunately the Federal Government has infringed upon those rights over the years to the point where people forget that we were founded on the notion that the STATES maintained the majority the decision making within their own borders. The federal government was supposed to control the national defense and provide a unified national foreign policy so that say Louisiana wasn't negotiating with France while New York was negotiating with Spain on the same issue.
 
Quick question LSUAlum, so that I can gage your political leanings...
 
Abe Lincoln. 
 
a) National Hero
b) Federalist Oppressor

Depends. Do you feel the ends justify the means?
 
Do you think the Civil War was about: (P.S. I grew up hearing the Civil War referred to as the 'War of Northern Aggression' for many years)
 
a) Slavery
b) The North's realization that the South was becoming economically independent with both Agriculture and Industry and thus disliked the competitive disadvantage? That the North then used slavery as a 'populist' movement to usurp states rights for the 'good of the nation'?
 
That being said. I think Abe is a national hero for how he handled the period. I also think that Slavery is wrong. I do, however, think that the civil war history is revisionist history depending on where you live and that the north couldn't give a rat's ass about blacks at the time, they just were concerned about the economic disadvantage that cheap labor gave to the south.
 
Coincidentally, you can draw parallels to Obama and the North's complaint about cheap labor in how he favors labor unions to free market wage equilibrium.

Moraen's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-01-22

LSUAlum wrote:Wet_Blanket wrote:LSUAlum wrote:gethardgetraw wrote:LockEDJ wrote:gethardgetraw wrote:...and I disagree against electing a president despite the majority of the country voting for his opponent.
This is a republic, just as the Founding Fathers intended.
 
Wow realized my original statement contains a lot of negatives...For clarification: I agree with electing a president once he has captured the majority of the citizens' vote.
 
__________
 
James Madison defined republic in terms of representative democracy
 
Representative democracy is a form of government founded on the principle of elected individuals representing the people

And that is exactly what the Electoral College does. It casts it's votes based on the STATE's election of the next president.
 
Do not confuse the issue that we are a group of STATES who are UNITED together. We are a really large Eurpean Union. Each state has it's own rights. Unfortunately the Federal Government has infringed upon those rights over the years to the point where people forget that we were founded on the notion that the STATES maintained the majority the decision making within their own borders. The federal government was supposed to control the national defense and provide a unified national foreign policy so that say Louisiana wasn't negotiating with France while New York was negotiating with Spain on the same issue.
 
Quick question LSUAlum, so that I can gage your political leanings...
 
Abe Lincoln. 
 
a) National Hero
b) Federalist Oppressor

Depends. Do you feel the ends justify the means?
 
Do you think the Civil War was about: (P.S. I grew up hearing the Civil War referred to as the 'War of Northern Aggression' for many years)
 
a) Slavery
b) The North's realization that the South was becoming economically independent with both Agriculture and Industry and thus disliked the competitive disadvantage? That the North then used slavery as a 'populist' movement to usurp states rights for the 'good of the nation'?
 
That being said. I think Abe is a national hero for how he handled the period. I also think that Slavery is wrong. I do, however, think that the civil war history is revisionist history depending on where you live and that the north couldn't give a rat's ass about blacks at the time, they just were concerned about the economic disadvantage that cheap labor gave to the south.
 
Coincidentally, you can draw parallels to Obama and the North's complaint about cheap labor in how he favors labor unions to free market wage equilibrium. That's true.  A great book to read would be "Lies My Teacher told me".

LSUAlum's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-10-18

Moraen wrote: LSUAlum wrote:Wet_Blanket wrote:LSUAlum wrote:gethardgetraw wrote:LockEDJ wrote:gethardgetraw wrote:...and I disagree against electing a president despite the majority of the country voting for his opponent.
This is a republic, just as the Founding Fathers intended.
 
Wow realized my original statement contains a lot of negatives...For clarification: I agree with electing a president once he has captured the majority of the citizens' vote.
 
__________
 
James Madison defined republic in terms of representative democracy
 
Representative democracy is a form of government founded on the principle of elected individuals representing the people

And that is exactly what the Electoral College does. It casts it's votes based on the STATE's election of the next president.
 
Do not confuse the issue that we are a group of STATES who are UNITED together. We are a really large Eurpean Union. Each state has it's own rights. Unfortunately the Federal Government has infringed upon those rights over the years to the point where people forget that we were founded on the notion that the STATES maintained the majority the decision making within their own borders. The federal government was supposed to control the national defense and provide a unified national foreign policy so that say Louisiana wasn't negotiating with France while New York was negotiating with Spain on the same issue.
 
Quick question LSUAlum, so that I can gage your political leanings...
 
Abe Lincoln. 
 
a) National Hero
b) Federalist Oppressor

Depends. Do you feel the ends justify the means?
 
Do you think the Civil War was about: (P.S. I grew up hearing the Civil War referred to as the 'War of Northern Aggression' for many years)
 
a) Slavery
b) The North's realization that the South was becoming economically independent with both Agriculture and Industry and thus disliked the competitive disadvantage? That the North then used slavery as a 'populist' movement to usurp states rights for the 'good of the nation'?
 
That being said. I think Abe is a national hero for how he handled the period. I also think that Slavery is wrong. I do, however, think that the civil war history is revisionist history depending on where you live and that the north couldn't give a rat's ass about blacks at the time, they just were concerned about the economic disadvantage that cheap labor gave to the south.
 
Coincidentally, you can draw parallels to Obama and the North's complaint about cheap labor in how he favors labor unions to free market wage equilibrium. That's true.  A great book to read would be "Lies My Teacher told me".

I've read portions. It's on my shelf with several other half-read-I-need-to-finish-soon books. He's also very critical of Reconstruction and how it's taught as the northern whites treated the freed blacks very poorly and actually many of the Jim Crowe laws were supported by the northerners at the time.

NYCTrader's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-11-20

LSUAlum wrote:NYCTrader wrote: LSUAlum wrote:The FED is an excellent idea. The problem is when it gets politicized. For instance, Rep. Waters from Calif. worried that raising the discount rate would hurt mortgage rates and cause more foreclosures due to ARMS resetting? Are these people, in charge of setting policy and approving budgets, that moronic that they don't even know how interest rates work. Moreover, they grill him on things that are out of his jurisdiction. He's in charge of the money supply, credit markets, overall monetary policy NOT Budget Policy.

The fact that the FED buys the majority of our National Debt should probably raise some red flags but ulitmately it then auctions it off to investors anyway.Michelle Bachmann asked Bernanke if there were two discount windows.

Missed that part. I wonder if he said, only during peak breakfast and lunch hours. We modeled it after the great R. Kroc's franchise.By the way, how did we go from Ron Paul to Jim Crowe?

tdude's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-02-03

End the Fed. It is a private banking organization owned by Bank of England, Lazard Feres, Goldman Sachs, JPM and Rothschild Banking interests of Europe. They print trillions out of thin air to finance wars and own governments. Read "End the Fed" by Ron Paul or The "Creature from Jekyll Island" by G Edward Griffin. You people are so uninformed its pathetic. Ron Paul is the man...he is the only statesman left in the U S House! Two families (Rothschild and Rockefellers) control indirectly thru these banks the central banking institutions of Europe and North America. Their goal is to rule the earth. As Mayer Amschel Rothschild said back in the 1600's "Give me control of the worlds currencies and I care no who make its laws."    

Moraen's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-01-22

tdude wrote:End the Fed. It is a private banking organization owned by Bank of England, Lazard Feres, Goldman Sachs, JPM and Rothschild Banking interests of Europe. They print trillions out of thin air to finance wars and own governments. Read "End the Fed" by Ron Paul or The "Creature from Jekyll Island" by G Edward Griffin. You people are so uninformed its pathetic. Ron Paul is the man...he is the only statesman left in the U S House! Two families (Rothschild and Rockefellers) control indirectly thru these banks the central banking institutions of Europe and North America. Their goal is to rule the earth. As Mayer Amschel Rothschild said back in the 1600's "Give me control of the worlds currencies and I care no who make its laws."    Oh, because Ron Paul is the only person without an agenda?!  Griffin is a shill for Paul.  I admire Paul as much as the next guy, but don't think for one second that people are uninformed just because they don't agree with you. 

Wet_Blanket's picture
Offline
Joined: 2008-11-13

tdude wrote:End the Fed. It is a private banking organization owned by Bank of England, Lazard Feres, Goldman Sachs, JPM and Rothschild Banking interests of Europe. They print trillions out of thin air to finance wars and own governments. Read "End the Fed" by Ron Paul or The "Creature from Jekyll Island" by G Edward Griffin. You people are so uninformed its pathetic. Ron Paul is the man...he is the only statesman left in the U S House! Two families (Rothschild and Rockefellers) control indirectly thru these banks the central banking institutions of Europe and North America. Their goal is to rule the earth. As Mayer Amschel Rothschild said back in the 1600's "Give me control of the worlds currencies and I care no who make its laws."    
 
Great to have you back Mel!

tdude's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-02-03

u r quite uninformed my friend. The Fed needs to be dissolved! It is a leach on the American Republic. They have destroyed the $. The goal is world domination. To rule the earth u need a removal of borders and a one world currency step by step. The half dozen Illuminati families have already conquered Europe...loss of national currency, national soveriegnty and national borders. Laws are made in Brussells. The North American Union and African Union are next. 1st regional then world govt. Quietly orchestrated by a half dozen families behind the scenes. U need to wake up. America is the crown Jewel because its the only nation with an armed (80-90 milion homeowners) population. Swiss also are armed but they dont have the numbers....Note they still have there currency though. Once they have the USA the globe is toast! These families use the central banks for their financial power base. The folks at this forum are quite naive.      

NYCTrader's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-11-20

Wet_Blanket wrote: 

Furthermore, if we didn't have EC, then Gore would have been a president.  I think that is enough supportive proof.

 Right, because we were all so much better off having GW Bush run the country into the ground for 8 years.

NYCTrader's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-11-20

tdude wrote:u r quite uninformed my friend. The Fed needs to be dissolved! It is a leach on the American Republic. They have destroyed the $. The goal is world domination. To rule the earth u need a removal of borders and a one world currency step by step. The half dozen Illuminati families have already conquered Europe...loss of national currency, national soveriegnty and national borders. Laws are made in Brussells. The North American Union and African Union are next. 1st regional then world govt. Quietly orchestrated by a half dozen families behind the scenes. U need to wake up. America is the crown Jewel because its the only nation with an armed (80-90 milion homeowners) population. Swiss also are armed but they dont have the numbers....Note they still have there currency though. Once they have the USA the globe is toast! These families use the central banks for their financial power base. The folks at this forum are quite naive.      Ron Paul's base, right here folks. 

tdude's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-02-03

NYC TRader...The bankers own the Bushes and they own the Obama's. The presidency is middle management. David Rockefeller rules the wstrn hemisphere and Jacob Rothschild rules the eastern. They ownthe Clintons and most other politicos. Ron Paul is one of the few who cant be bought.

Moraen's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-01-22

Wow.  You are crazy.  So you are Saul4Paul!

Moraen's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-01-22

NYCTrader wrote:
Wet_Blanket wrote: 

Furthermore, if we didn't have EC, then Gore would have been a president.  I think that is enough supportive proof.

 Right, because we were all so much better off having GW Bush run the country into the ground for 8 years.Sorry NYC - Gore would have done worse.  Not to mention, how's that AGW working out?  Record snow, a decline in temperatures for 2/3's of the world the last ten years (on average) and sea levels actually falling.  Craaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaazy!And Arabic is a pretty language, but I wouldn't want to be speaking it or trying to type it on this forum (we'd all be out of business anyway).  Al Gore didn't have the balls to retaliate against al Qaeda.  Nor go into Iraq (even though Bill Clinton thought that Hussein was the biggest threat we faced).

tdude's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-02-03

Oh naive ones....here is today's news from across the pond:

Gordon Brown calls for a World Constitution

DIGG ATS

for original
content
more info

Out Of Chaos , Comes Opportunity

Using the last 2 years of Global Downturn as a backdrop , Brown uses this

an a excuse for a Global Constitution to cure the ails.

He seems to claim that the only way to progress out of this downturn, is to

use this crisis, for a radical new start.

The man loves 2 words, Global, Globalization.
YouTube Link

NYCTrader's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-11-20

Moraen wrote:
NYCTrader wrote:
Wet_Blanket wrote: 

Furthermore, if we didn't have EC, then Gore would have been a president.  I think that is enough supportive proof.

 Right, because we were all so much better off having GW Bush run the country into the ground for 8 years.Sorry NYC - Gore would have done worse.  Not to mention, how's that AGW working out?  Record snow, a decline in temperatures for 2/3's of the world the last ten years (on average) and sea levels actually falling.  Craaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaazy!And Arabic is a pretty language, but I wouldn't want to be speaking it or trying to type it on this forum (we'd all be out of business anyway).  Al Gore didn't have the balls to retaliate against al Qaeda.  Nor go into Iraq (even though Bill Clinton thought that Hussein was the biggest threat we faced).No time or energy to get into this debate.  Sorry man.

tdude's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-02-03
Moraen's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-01-22

tdude - your boy Griffin thinks that 9/11 was an inside job.  Makes him a nutjob.http://www.realityzone.com/

Shania Twain's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-09-23

What BS.   ron paul is an annoying whiney fukc.

Fed chairman Bernanke simply doesn’t know Fed history as well as Ron Paul (Or the history conveniently slipped his memory). As far as Watergate, I always thought it was pretty common knowledge that the money ended up in the burglars’ hands through some pretty fishy means. Even wikipedia has part of the story:
[Watergate burglar Bernard] Barker had attempted to disguise the origin of the funds by depositing the donors’ checks into bank accounts which (though controlled by him), were located in banks outside of the United States. What Barker, Liddy, and Sloan did not know was that the complete record of all such transactions are held, after the funds cleared, for roughly six months. Barker’s use of foreign banks to deposit checks and withdraw the funds via cashier’s checks and money orders in April and May 1972 guaranteed that the banks would keep the entire transaction record at least until October and November 1972.
Wikipedia, also states:
Investigative examination of the bank records of a Miami company run byWatergate burglar Bernard Barker revealed that an account controlled by him personally had deposited, and had transferred to it (through the Federal Reserve Check Clearing System) the funds from these financial instruments.
Clearly, there were some very, very odd transactions that went down which may, or may not, have been abnormally facilitated by the Fed. Was this a normal Fed wire, or something more convoluted? My sense has always been that there was something a bit extraordinary about the way the funds went through the Fed system. It does smell, for sure, and to ask about it is not bizarre. It should be noted that the Fed chairman at the time was Arthur Burns, who would have sold his own children to a white slave ring if Nixon had asked. (In a recent report by Micahel Labeit, here at EconominPolicyJournal.com, Labeit details the speech of former Columbia University PhD student Walter Block, who during the speech reminisced about his years studying at the school ,Block specifically recalled how Arthur Burns in his class, instead of teaching, simply told stories of his dinners with Nixon.) Note, I don’t think Nixon, himself, necessarily asked Burns to help in the transfer of the funds, but Burns would very likely have responded positively to a request from a Nixon lieutenant, given his adoration of Nixon.
Here’s the late investigative reporter Sherman Skolnick reporting on the documents the Fed blocked Congress from seeing about its possible involvement with money sent to Hussein:
….in October, 1990, at the time of the Persian Gulf conflict, there was an unpublicized case in the Chicago Federal District Court (No. 90 C 6863). The Illinois Bank Commissioner sought an injunction against the Federal Reserve Board to stop them from turning over certain bank records to the House Banking Committee. The records were those of the Chicago branch of Italy’s largest [bank], Banca Nazionale del Lavoro, owned in part by the Vatican.
Called BNL, it had records of Iraqi strongman Saddam Hussein and his secret private joint business dealings with his partner, an American. A close crony of the Federal Reserve, Chicago Federal District Judge Brian Barnett Duff, ordered the return of any records from the Banking Committee, then headed by a Democrat,Rep. Henry Gonzalez (D., Texas).
The House Banking Committee was an intervening party-litigant in the controversy. Judge Duff so opposed the House Banking Committee’s efforts to get those records, that the Judge would not listen to the Committee’s attorney; did not want the attorney in the Judge’s courtroom, the Judge calling him an 800 pound gorilla showing no respect for the court.
In May, 1991, right after the War ended in the Persian Gulf, the case ended up in the Federal Appeals Court in Chicago; a court dominated by Judges tied to the major banks and cronies of the Federal Reserve.
A D V E R T I S E M E N T

From what I understand,the Illinois Bank Commissioner filed against the Fed at the request of the Fed! What were they hiding? Ron Paul’s question wasn’t bizarre, it was Chairman Bernanke’s response that was bizarre, disrespectful and out of order. It’s time for an apology by Chairman Bernanke. And let’s see those Fed records about Hussein, the Chicago branch of BNL and the Fed!
Bernanke’s response of total ignorance reminds me of the time former Treasury Secretary for Economic Policy, Phil Swagel told me, with a straight face, he didn’t know what a gold swap was.
When it serves them, these guys have very forgetful memories. Thank the heavens there are people like Ron Paul around to remind them.
UPDATE Here’s more on possible Fed involvment in the Watergate money. From David T. Beito (Via LRC):
Well, it seems that Paul may have been onto something…or at the very least raised legitimate questions that deserve investigation. A few minutes on google news produced this 1982 story from the Milwaukee Sentinel by Richard Bradee of the paper’s Washington Bureau
“Police who searched the room the Watergate burglars used found $4,200 in $100 dollar bills, all numbered in sequence. Proxmire asked the Federal Reserve Board where the money came from. As he explained in a letter to the late Rep. Wright Patman (D-Tex.), chairman of the House Banking Committee: “I got the biggest run-around [from the Federal Reserve] in years. They ducked, misled, lied, and gave me the idiot treatment.”

Wet_Blanket's picture
Offline
Joined: 2008-11-13

I consider myself pretty pragmatic, and a fairly independent thinker...and know without a doubt that a Gore presidency would have been awful.  That's it.  This is and endless debate not worth having - but is good support for EC (kindof).

NYCTrader's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-11-20

Shania Twain wrote: mlgone wrote: without the Fed, ML would have gone down in dec 08 and the world financial markets would have collapsed and many of us would be out of jobs.  The credit crises had what the depression didn't........the fed and monetary controls

without the fed.......mer would not have been in trouble with the bubble????????

electoral college is dumb.

someones vote in CA or ill or where ever is potentially "worth" more

retarded Without the electoral college, rural areas would be completely ignored.  Candidates would focus their entire campaigning efforts in the cities since that would be the most efficient use of their time and resources (why spend an entire day trekking through the sticks to glad hand 50 dairy farmers when you can have a 2 hour televised rally in front of 20,000 at a downtown arena).  Policy platforms would be skewed to benefit urban Americans since it would be the easiest way for candidates to lock up votes.The system isn't perfect, but relying purely on the popular vote would not make things better.

Shania Twain's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-09-23

NYCTrader wrote:
Shania Twain wrote: mlgone wrote: without the Fed, ML would have gone down in dec 08 and the world financial markets would have collapsed and many of us would be out of jobs.  The credit crises had what the depression didn't........the fed and monetary controls

without the fed.......mer would not have been in trouble with the bubble????????

electoral college is dumb.

someones vote in CA or ill or where ever is potentially "worth" more

retarded Without the electoral college, rural areas would be completely ignored.  Candidates would focus their entire campaigning efforts in the cities since that would be the most efficient use of their time and resources (why spend an entire day trekking through the sticks to glad hand 50 dairy farmers when you can have a 2 hour televised rally in front of 20,000 at a downtown arena).  Policy platforms would be skewed to benefit urban Americans since it would be the easiest way for candidates to lock up votes.The system isn't perfect, but relying purely on the popular vote would not make things better.

You're right.   I did'nt think of that angle. duh

NYCTrader's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-11-20

Wet_Blanket wrote:I consider myself pretty pragmatic, and a fairly independent thinker...and know without a doubt that a Gore presidency would have been awful.  That's it.  This is and endless debate not worth having - but is good support for EC (kindof).I disagree with you re: Gore, but agree that the EC is essential.

Shania Twain's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-09-23

NYCTrader wrote:
Wet_Blanket wrote:I consider myself pretty pragmatic, and a fairly independent thinker...and know without a doubt that a Gore presidency would have been awful.  That's it.  This is and endless debate not worth having - but is good support for EC (kindof).I disagree with you re: Gore, but agree that the EC is essential.

I cant believe what I am about to say...........would Gore have been worse>?

Iraq was fukcing insane.

I was 100% behind it at the time
In hindsight it was totally wrong
waste of money and GI's

man...did i say that

NYCTrader's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-11-20

Shania Twain wrote: NYCTrader wrote:
Wet_Blanket wrote:I consider myself pretty pragmatic, and a fairly independent thinker...and know without a doubt that a Gore presidency would have been awful.  That's it.  This is and endless debate not worth having - but is good support for EC (kindof).I disagree with you re: Gore, but agree that the EC is essential.

I cant believe what I am about to say...........would Gore have been worse>?

Iraq was fukcing insane.

I was 100% behind it at the time
In hindsight it was totally wrong
waste of money and GI's

man...did i say that Wow Shania, props for thinking outside the box.  Good man. 

tdude's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-02-03

moraen...9-11 was an inside job. It was hatched by a radical element
in Paki intel using Saudi radicals. Pakistan govt caught wind of it and warned NSA. U S Govt new the location and time and Cheney ran the operation from the bunker. Goal was to allow it to happen for 3 reasons. Iraqi oil, Afghani opium and oilpipeline and to pass the Patriot bill to snoop on Americans.

Lets see....Saudis fly into buildings, USA attacts Iraq and Afghans, Starts new dept of Homeland Security (thought defense dept Army Navy etc) was for homeland security but they are empire building. Does DHS protect our borders....no they steal our toothpaste at airports and put a camera on every intersection in America....U R quite naive. Remember what Rahm said...never let a good crisis go to waste. Many naive bloggers here

:

Moraen's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-01-22

tdude wrote:moraen...9-11 was an inside job. It was hatched by a radical element
in Paki intel using Saudi radicals. Pakistan govt caught wind of it and warned NSA. U S Govt new the location and time and Cheney ran the operation from the bunker. Goal was to allow it to happen for 3 reasons. Iraqi oil, Afghani opium and oilpipeline and to pass the Patriot bill to snoop on Americans.

Lets see....Saudis fly into buildings, USA attacts Iraq and Afghans, Starts new dept of Homeland Security (thought defense dept Army Navy etc) was for homeland security but they are empire building. Does DHS protect our borders....no they steal our toothpaste at airports and put a camera on every intersection in America....U R quite naive. Remember what Rahm said...never let a good crisis go to waste. Many naive bloggers here

: You lose any credibility you may possibly have had with that statement.  Scientists from renowned institutions and laymen (the guys who actually do controlled demo for a living) have refuted every one of the "Truthers" points."But it would have worked if they were using the top secret military grade thermite!".  I never laughed so hard in my life.  An eighteen year old kid who is angry at his parents makes a film and gets experts who got their Ph.D's from the University of Phoenix Online to back him up.9/11 was an inside job!  I can make you 7000% on penny stocks too.  By the way, my Dad works for DARPA, now that he's out of the Army.  No such thing as "military grade top secret thermite".  Clowns.

Wet_Blanket's picture
Offline
Joined: 2008-11-13

Back on topic: Gore.  I will admit that he has done some good - and I admire what his Father did in the Senate.  I can see why he totally lost it after the 2000 elections.  When the Democrats were first picking candidates to go against Bush Sr., Gore was considered an "A" class pick.  However, Bush Sr's approval rating was so great that the Dems didn't want to waste any top candidates on the race - so came in "B" class Bill Clinton.  Ofcourse we all know what happened then.  So Gore had to wait 8 years for his next chance, only to come soo close to getting the presidency.  Put this defeat in context by considering what happend to his Father and you will see that this would have been "payback" for Gore (getting the presidency).
 
I would have gotten fat, grown a beard, and gone into seclusion as well.  Doesn't change the fact that I think Gore is hipocrit on other issues, but I can empathize with that.

Please or Register to post comments.

Industry Newsletters
Investment Category Sponsor Links

 

Careers Category Sponsor Links

Sponsored Introduction Continue on to (or wait seconds) ×