Constitutional Law
-
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
A dollar is worth over 95% less than what it was worth just before the federal reserve was established.
Let's see.... say modest inflation over that time. 3%. So over 95 years (reserve made in 1913 and I like rounding) it amounts to 97.85%. So yea, the dollar is worse about 95% less than it used to be. Welcome to basic math. Trying to maintain the exact same value in a monetary system is a pipe dream. Sooner or later someone figures they are worth more, get a way to get paid more and their extra money is injected into the system.
ragnaroknrol wrote:
So yea, the dollar is worse about 95% less than it used to be.
That is almost the entire US economy and other countries economies that use the dollar, stolen over the period of 100 years. What could be done with many 20 trillion of dollars (in today's value) (World Bank states there over 40 trillion dollars in all the worlds currencies (but US dollar is dominate so I estimated half)) spent over the period of 100 years? That is about 500 million dollars spent EVERY DAY for 100 YEARS! Why would you think that stealing that much money from the people is okay? What was-andis that money being spent on? How is it being used to change society? What kind of damage has been inflicted upon the world with all of this misplaced monetary power.
-
It's more than that. It's not just a mind game. Well, I guess it is a mind game, but think about it. If you're able to print money out of thin air, you have power. That's why counterfeiting is illegal. So where do "dollars" come from? They don't just exist. It comes from somewhere. And yes, it comes from a "Federal Reserve". Which is a bunch of malarkey but I won't go there. So if the bank prints dollar bills, it's adding dollars to the economy. Which means it loses value. Because it never had value to begin with; it's a damned piece of paper. Gold never loses value because nobody can screw with it. it's an element; it's not made of anything more than itself.
Actually, that's a common misconception. Correct me if I'm wrong, because I haven't researched this in a while, so my memory might be fuzzy... The truth is, the US Dollar is basically a bond. The Treasury issues these bonds, and the Federal Reserve buys them, essentially loaning money to the government, the same way it would loan you a couple hundred thousand bucks for a mortgage. The difference between the Fed lending to the government and your bank lending to you, is that though the Treasury DOES pay interest to the Fed, something like 97% of that interest is remitted back to the Treasury (The rest is operating expenses). So the government is getting a nearly-interest-free loan. So when you really think about it, the Fed is just controlling how much money it keeps under its mattress instead of circulating. The Treasury is the one adding new currency to the system.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Developer, Author (Guardians of Xen)
-
The Continental was a monetary unit that was used before the Constitution was put in place. It was made of paper; backed by nothing, just as we have it today. Now the Continental became absolutely worthless because the Continental was printed so quickly, and basically to pay off our Foreign Debt. The French helped us win the war against England; the American Revolution. We promised that we'd pay them back if they would help us win the war. So we basically paid them back. When we did so, we had to print a new currency, and unfortunately it was backed by nothing. So it lost credibility, and therefore it lost value. So the Founders were actually smart (not dumb, as many of you think) and wrote into the new Constitution the fact that Congress and the States may not make any Thing but gold and silver a legal Tender in Payments of Debt. (Article 1, Section 10). This is to force the government from printing their way out of debt. And guess what we see today... I hope this will suffice.
nah, not really. See they gave the keys to enforcing this all to a branch of government that was more concerned with feeling important and the branch that is supposed to determine if the people writing how to do all this are wrong tend to be old, put in for politics that have everything to do with how they think women should reproduce and not how the Executive branch is stomping on the Constitution matters, and are sometimes completely inept. Meanwhile the people writing the laws occasionally get things right (like the fact that having a gold standard won't work when you don't have enough gold in the world to back all your currency) and mostly get things wrong (partiot acts 1 and 2.) You can't convince me that the Fed is a bad idea. It is okay and is not as bad as pretty much everything else I have had to deal with coming from our elected officials. The current situation globally for ecomomics was nto caused by the Fed. It was caused by a corrupt system with little to no regulation being allowed to get away with screwing a lot of people and with companies that made it worse with their own decisions. A company cancelled our credit card even though we had a modest balance, paid all our bills on time and were paying above the minimum. So instead of continuing to have good customers they decided to lose us and so lost a revenue stream. Makes perfect sense, right? And they did this to a lot of folks, made a big fuss out of all this lost revenue and got handed my tax money. When calling the representative to point out how stupid this was they asked me if I was a registered Rep. I got an answering machine when I said no. The system is crap. But it is what we have, and the people in charge won't let us fix it because it means they lose. So what do you do? Elect a guy that promises change and then changes his mind. Meh. Guess you do little to nothing.
-
I'd like to mention, I'm being flippant in his direction not yours. It's just that the Fed is something I've argued out so many times I tend to get a tad terse on it. About the only thing I'm worse on is income taxes, back before I lost the forum it was on I'd just post a link to a post I made to educate the snot out of some business major who didn't understand the very basics of the system in place in the US.
-
It does not say congress cannot delegate this power to a bank.
Double negative may have tossed you for a loop. What I said was there is nothing prohibiting congress from delegating the power to a bank. Never was, like a lot of things that fall on federal shoulders, they form a department or contract a private agency to perform the associated duties. I don't see how this bit is so different from say the park service.
-
Hey, there are a lot of us that watch the Back Room, and are up for an intelligent discussion... Most of the heat CSS gets is from just repeating political rhetoric without actually understanding it, and then either cursing at us or ignoring us when he's proven wrong. A quote comes to mind: In science it often happens that scientists say, "You know that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken," and then they actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time something like that happened in politics or religion. ~Carl Sagan, 1987
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Developer, Author (Guardians of Xen)
-
There's a slight problem with this to the extent of the reserve's interest rate on it's loans to banks effectively setting a minimum rate at which banks will loan money, and greatly influencing the rates of nearly every other financial activity. That seems to be a great deal of 'regulating the value' to me.
They greatly influence the value... But they don't directly regulate it. It's a matter of semantics. They influence the value, but they're not the only factor. If they were, they wouldn't have to keep adjusting to maintain that value.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Developer, Author (Guardians of Xen)
-
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
Wiretapping
Where does the Constitution deny this power? I believe the amendment on the Bill of Rights was along the lines of "to be secure in their persons and possessions"... I don't remember there being a "Right to Privacy" in the Constitution.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
illegal search and seizures
You're partially right in this sense, as those types of incidents do take place, and are (Or should be) redressed. A lot of this, however, has to do with what it takes to get a court-issued warrant, which makes the search and seizure legal. As for things like airport searches... That's basically saying "If you want to get on this plane, you have to agree to be searched"... You always have the option to turn and leave.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
putting American people on criminal watch lists without a trial , that prevent them from flying and so on
There's no "Right to Fly" in the Constitution, and there's no law against putting people on a list. Again, I don't like the Patriot Act, and I actually agree with you that the items you listed are "bad," in some senses. But that doesn't make them unconstitutional.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Developer, Author (Guardians of Xen)
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. 'Nuff said.
-
Yeah I've noticed that... he doesn't always argue. he just randomly posts and doesn't know how to back it up. But now, you're going to get arguments lol especially, well, only when i know what i'm talking about lol good to meet you.
I welcome it :) I love a good debate, especially when I'm proven wrong.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Developer, Author (Guardians of Xen)
-
btw... any power not expressly stated in the constitution is, by definition, unconstitutional. if you can't find it in the 19 or something Powers (Art. 1 Sec. 8), it is unconstitutional.
Actually, I believe any power not specified isn't unconstitutional, but rather delegated to the states. The Constitution just determines what the FEDERAL government is allowed to do.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Developer, Author (Guardians of Xen)
-
Yeah I've noticed that... he doesn't always argue. he just randomly posts and doesn't know how to back it up. But now, you're going to get arguments lol especially, well, only when i know what i'm talking about lol good to meet you.
Well, I would rather put my efforts into programming rather than debate. I try to find a good balance between the two, and everything else I must do in life.
-
It would not lose its value if the Federal Reserve did not exist. In Rome, you could have bought a tunic, a belt and a nice pair of shoes for one ounce of gold. Today, you could buy a suit, a belt and a nice pair of shoes for one ounce of gold. Real hard money does not change, because everyone knows what gold is; it's money. It's worth something. BUT the more paper dollars you print, the more that the paper money will lose value. Basic math.
How much gold you think there is out there? Seriously? Seriously, do the math on the amount of ounces of gold required to back a few hundred billion when it costs $100/ounce. 62.5 million pounds of the stuff. If a 20 lb bar of gold is standard, you are housing 3,125,000 bars of the stuff in a single location. Transporting it, protecting it, and using it would all be pretty nuts. The federal reserve was how Congress figured out to get around what would have been a logistical nightmare nowadays. Money backed by a standard is nice until you get to the point where that standard just doesn't cut it anymore because of the amount of capital involved.
-
They greatly influence the value... But they don't directly regulate it. It's a matter of semantics. They influence the value, but they're not the only factor. If they were, they wouldn't have to keep adjusting to maintain that value.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Developer, Author (Guardians of Xen)
The very act of "balance" is totally against the ideals of a free market economy. the government should not be a part of this. the problem is, this is a bank; it is not part of the government. they're working in collusion; why hasn't HR1207 passed yet?! there are 309 cosponsors of this bill; if TPTB really wanted it to pass, it would have under suspension already. The very fact that they have not passed it for 10 months means that they are hiding something. And by "they" I mean both the FR and our federalnational government.
-
Actually, that's a common misconception. Correct me if I'm wrong, because I haven't researched this in a while, so my memory might be fuzzy... The truth is, the US Dollar is basically a bond. The Treasury issues these bonds, and the Federal Reserve buys them, essentially loaning money to the government, the same way it would loan you a couple hundred thousand bucks for a mortgage. The difference between the Fed lending to the government and your bank lending to you, is that though the Treasury DOES pay interest to the Fed, something like 97% of that interest is remitted back to the Treasury (The rest is operating expenses). So the government is getting a nearly-interest-free loan. So when you really think about it, the Fed is just controlling how much money it keeps under its mattress instead of circulating. The Treasury is the one adding new currency to the system.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Developer, Author (Guardians of Xen)
The fed also deals with private corporations and foreign entities. The Fed doesn't just give back the money it loaned to the treasury, the treasury takes out another loan to pay off the interest and it continues to grow indefinitely. Dont say they dont' becaues the treasury is in the red big time. All dollars in circulation are federal reserve notes which were loaned out to some intity with interest attached. The loan can never be paid back because to pay for interest one must take out another loan from the fed.
-
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. 'Nuff said.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Yep, that looks right. Searches and seizures are allowed with a court-issued warrant... If they have "probable cause". 1) If someone AGREES to be searched (In the case of "If you want to get on this plane, you have to consent"), then they're temporarily waiving the right to be secure. They're allowing it. 2) If they lie in order to get the warrant, they should be prosecuted for perjury. 3) If they perform the search without a warrant and without consent, they should be prosecuted for home invasion, theft, whatever the circumstances require. (Assuming you're speaking exclusively about the illegal searches and seizures, since this doesn't preclude wiretapping)
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Developer, Author (Guardians of Xen)
-
nah, not really. See they gave the keys to enforcing this all to a branch of government that was more concerned with feeling important and the branch that is supposed to determine if the people writing how to do all this are wrong tend to be old, put in for politics that have everything to do with how they think women should reproduce and not how the Executive branch is stomping on the Constitution matters, and are sometimes completely inept. Meanwhile the people writing the laws occasionally get things right (like the fact that having a gold standard won't work when you don't have enough gold in the world to back all your currency) and mostly get things wrong (partiot acts 1 and 2.) You can't convince me that the Fed is a bad idea. It is okay and is not as bad as pretty much everything else I have had to deal with coming from our elected officials. The current situation globally for ecomomics was nto caused by the Fed. It was caused by a corrupt system with little to no regulation being allowed to get away with screwing a lot of people and with companies that made it worse with their own decisions. A company cancelled our credit card even though we had a modest balance, paid all our bills on time and were paying above the minimum. So instead of continuing to have good customers they decided to lose us and so lost a revenue stream. Makes perfect sense, right? And they did this to a lot of folks, made a big fuss out of all this lost revenue and got handed my tax money. When calling the representative to point out how stupid this was they asked me if I was a registered Rep. I got an answering machine when I said no. The system is crap. But it is what we have, and the people in charge won't let us fix it because it means they lose. So what do you do? Elect a guy that promises change and then changes his mind. Meh. Guess you do little to nothing.
Ah! Quite the contrary! I'm 24 years old. I got out of school about 2 years ago. I woke up just at the time when the bailouts were about to be passed; Obama and McCain were running (and NOT the only people running!). They both said they didn't want to pass the bill, but "they had to!" No. They did not have to. And that started us on the real path toward what I perceive as fascism. They passed the bill, even though both said they wouldn't. That gave me a rude awakening. So I looked for something else... I ended up looking at the Libertarian Party. And you know what? More people my age are easing into this old/new party. Because we want to be free from all of this bull. So yes, there's something to do. Go watch my video.
-
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Yep, that looks right. Searches and seizures are allowed with a court-issued warrant... If they have "probable cause". 1) If someone AGREES to be searched (In the case of "If you want to get on this plane, you have to consent"), then they're temporarily waiving the right to be secure. They're allowing it. 2) If they lie in order to get the warrant, they should be prosecuted for perjury. 3) If they perform the search without a warrant and without consent, they should be prosecuted for home invasion, theft, whatever the circumstances require. (Assuming you're speaking exclusively about the illegal searches and seizures, since this doesn't preclude wiretapping)
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Developer, Author (Guardians of Xen)
Wiretapping is an illegal search. (Papers and effects)
-
The fed also deals with private corporations and foreign entities. The Fed doesn't just give back the money it loaned to the treasury, the treasury takes out another loan to pay off the interest and it continues to grow indefinitely. Dont say they dont' becaues the treasury is in the red big time. All dollars in circulation are federal reserve notes which were loaned out to some intity with interest attached. The loan can never be paid back because to pay for interest one must take out another loan from the fed.
Maybe you missed the part where nearly all of that interest is GIVEN back to the Treasury. In the end, the only thing the Treasury is paying for is the Fed's operating expenses, minus what they make from loaning to the private sector. Also remember that the government makes money through taxes, which it can use to pay down the debt without borrowing more money.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Developer, Author (Guardians of Xen)
-
Wiretapping is an illegal search. (Papers and effects)
-
Maybe you missed the part where nearly all of that interest is GIVEN back to the Treasury. In the end, the only thing the Treasury is paying for is the Fed's operating expenses, minus what they make from loaning to the private sector. Also remember that the government makes money through taxes, which it can use to pay down the debt without borrowing more money.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Developer, Author (Guardians of Xen)
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Maybe you missed the part where nearly all of that interest is GIVEN back to the Treasury.
After they take out another loan, yeah they get it right back and then they have to give a little bit more. Also, why would the treasury have to pay more in interest from a high amount of money if all the fed has to to is enter that number into a computer and wire the newly created "money" to the treasury? Why not a flat fee? All dollars in circulation are federal reserve notes which were loaned out to some entity with interest attached. The loan can never be paid back because to pay for interest one must take out another loan from the fed. Again, why can't congress (the government) issue its own currency like the constitution mandates? Why must a private corporation have all that unregulated power to create fiat money and loan it out to any entity (foreign or domestic)(in secrecy) and congress ask for interest loans from it?