Liberal Forum

Cannonpointer » 18 Feb 2014 12:32 am » wrote:
That would be me, and anyone else who has read our founding documents and understands the purpose of Article 1, Sec. 10 of the U.S. Constitution. Now, before you explain how a metal based monetary system won't allow growth, let me say this: My argument is not against an elastic money supply. My argument is against a private corporation with secret ownership that never gets audited having a franchise on issuing currency. That's a RICO violation on wheels.

Your school has omitted this from your education and given you pure **** to chew You're probably under the impression that the federal reserve bank is a government agency. It isn't.

Funny you should mention that. Isn't it axiomatic that inflation, unemployment and interest rates are inter-related, and any time that any two are in double digits the other will be automatically driven into single digits? They do teach that, do they not? Yet Carter had all three in double digits, didn't he? You don't suppose an "invisible hand" might have had a finger on the scale?

One more thing I would like to ask you about. Isn't it true that, more and more as reaganomics continues, a big piece of our so-called "economy" is nothing more than two vampires trading debt instruments at great profit without a customer or a service or a product - just "making" MONEY? And when the "economy" is basically witchcraft, how the **** can we have a meaningful discussion about it? Again, I put economists with climatologists: two camps that peddle likely stories and nicely cooked narratives which are careful to protect important agendas - in the case of economists, pretending the federal reserve is not a scam on the public (As if borrowing every dollar into circulation from people who have nothing but a magical dollar-issuing franchise is somehow "good" for our country).

RichClem » 18 Feb 2014 4:06 pm » wrote:.

Well my gosh, they look really good! How many jobs were created under Reagan?

And to whom do you attribute the two recessions, if not Carter? If you blame Reagan, what specific Reagan policy caused them?

In particular the 1982 recession, worst since the Great Depression? Did Reagan cause that? If not, who or what?

Cannonpointer » 18 Feb 2014 3:35 pm » wrote:

The achievement of Reaganomics can only be fully understood by recalling the miserable state of affairs a quarter-century ago. Newsweek summarized the national mood when it wrote in 1981 that Reagan "inherits the most dangerous economic crisis since Franklin Roosevelt took office 48 years ago."

That was no exaggeration. The economy was enduring a cycle of rising inflation with growing levels of unemployment. Remember 20% mortgage interest rates? Terms like "stagflation" and "misery index" entered the popular vocabulary, and declinists of various kinds were in the saddle....

The reigning Keynesian policy consensus had no answer for this predicament, and so a new group of economic ideas came to the fore.
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB1 ... d_outlooks

AmazonTania » 18 Feb 2014 4:50 pm » wrote: Also, as far as I know, we don't have Reaganonmics. Reaganomics involved at least 4 economic pillars, one of which was actually implemented.

Cannonpointer » 18 Feb 2014 5:17 pm » wrote: What would that be - massive borrowing until an inevitable collapse?

AmazonTania » 18 Feb 2014 4:59 pm » wrote:Also, the Federal Reserve -- for all intensive purposes -- is a government agency.

AmazonTania » 18 Feb 2014 4:59 pm » wrote:It's only independent in terms of monetary policy. It works with the government and it subjective to government oversight. The Fed is merely an arm of the US Congress.

AmazonTania » 18 Feb 2014 4:59 pm » wrote:It's only referred to as 'independent' because it's monetary decisions do not require authorization from the President.

AmazonTania » 18 Feb 2014 4:59 pm » wrote:The Federal Reserve is Independent within the Government, not Independent of the Government.

* The Fed is not organized within the Executive, Legislative or Judicial branches of our government.
* Who pays the Fed’s bills and determines its budget? Not any part of our government. The Fed gets its funding from its own specially privileged operations. The Fed Board determines Fed budgets.
* Who monitors and oversees Fed activities? Again the Fed itself. While some important elements of proper auditing have taken place, there has not yet been a comprehensive independent audit, by the Government Accountability Office as proposed in a recent letter from Ralph Nader to new Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke, calling for greater monetary transparency.
* Federal Reserve Employees are not part of the US Civil Service System and are not covered by government employees’ health insurance or pension programs. Who does the hiring and firing? Except for the highly publicized Chairman and 7 member Washington Board, this is in private, unelected hands.
* Federal Reserve Banks are not listed as government organizations by the telephone companies, a small but telling fact.
Here is how the Fed describes the Control situation, in the FAQ’s on its website:
“As the nation’s central bank, the Federal Reserve derives its authority from the U.S. Congress. It is considered an independent central bank because its decisions do not have to be ratified by the President or anyone else in the executive or legislative branch of government, it does not receive funding appropriated by Congress, and the terms of the members of the Board of Governors span multiple presidential and congressional terms. However, the Federal Reserve is subject to oversight by Congress, which periodically reviews its activities and can alter its responsibilities by statute. Also, the Federal Reserve must work within the framework of the overall objectives of economic and financial policy established by the government. Therefore, the Federal Reserve can be more accurately described as “independent within the government.”
We’d suggest the phrase “independent within the government” is much too ambiguous and has the effect of conveying great power while avoiding responsibility.

golfboy » 18 Feb 2014 5:22 pm » wrote: Reagan wanted $3 in spending cuts for every $1 in new taxes but liberals, being liberals, lied.
They got their new taxes, and the new revenue from a growing economy, and spent it all plus more.

Cannonpointer » 18 Feb 2014 5:29 pm » wrote:So, he was a dottering chump, abused by the big mean libruls? An ineffectual figure head, not responsible for the drug dealing, arms to iran, violations of law that his underlings engaged in? Wanna stick with that meme? Fine. His GOOD results are not his, either. They belong to the bully dems and his crooked underlings.

RichClem » 18 Feb 2014 4:19 pm » wrote:
.

A chart is not strictly speaking "stats," but beyond that, I see a strong trend upward in job creation beginning at the time his tax cuts took full effect.

Looks to me like 16 million full time jobs were created, more if one credits Reagan for the continuing positive trend into the first year of the Bush presidency.

Is massive job creation somehow a bad thing, psycho?

golfboy » 18 Feb 2014 5:31 pm » wrote: Good luck with that.

Cannonpointer » 18 Feb 2014 5:26 pm » wrote:
What branch?

Why does the executive "appoint" it's head? What is her/his government salary?

Or from congress?

So, your position is that the federal reserve is a member of the legislative branch, that does not answer to the legislative OR executive branch, and operates independently of both?

Within the government, in which branch? It serves executive functions, so how can it be an member of the legislative branch? Aren't legislators elected?

And it does not answer to the chief executive, so it cannot be in THAT branch. Maybe it's part of the judicial branch?

OR MAYBE IT'S A PRIVATE, FOR PROFIT CORPORATION AS I SAID? http://www.monetary.org/is-the-federal- ... on/2008/02

Cannonpointer » 18 Feb 2014 5:17 pm » wrote:
What would that be - massive borrowing until an inevitable collapse?

I can tell you this - the deregulation of wall street has certainly been implemented, to the great disadvantage of the working and middle classes.

AmazonTania » 18 Feb 2014 5:46 pm » wrote:
The Board of Governors. Usually considered the fourth branch of government.

AmazonTania » 18 Feb 2014 5:46 pm » wrote:Because that is what the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 commands...

AmazonTania » 18 Feb 2014 5:46 pm » wrote:The oversight is generally from the Congress. Most specifically, the Congressional Banking Committee.

AmazonTania » 18 Feb 2014 5:46 pm » wrote:And no, my position is not that it is part of any branch of government. My position is that it the Federal Reserve is part of the government.

AmazonTania » 18 Feb 2014 5:46 pm » wrote:I never said that it does not answer to anyone. I said that it's monetary policy does not require authority from the executive branch or the legislative branch.

AmazonTania » 18 Feb 2014 5:46 pm » wrote: It's not really private, and it's far from a profit making corporations. Board of Governors is a term usually given to public entities, and non-profit making organisations. The Federal Reserve is very much in cahoots with the U.S. Government on particular aspects of the economy.

AmazonTania » 18 Feb 2014 5:46 pm » wrote:Oh, and you probably don't know, but all profits accumulated by the Federal Reserve are immediately re-admitted to the General Fund of the U.S. Treasury. That's a funny definition of private property.

AmazonTania » 18 Feb 2014 5:54 pm » wrote: You may not believe it, but Reaganomics actually involves deficit reduction, which obviously did not happen. It also involves cuts in marginal tax rates, tightened monetary policy to control inflation and reduction in regulations.

AmazonTania » 18 Feb 2014 5:54 pm » wrote:Reagan only managed to accomplish one of those goals. Reaganomics was never implemented in the United States, or anywhere for that matter.

AmazonTania » 18 Feb 2014 5:54 pm » wrote:Now that you mention it, I do work in Wall Street and as far as I can remember, the financial industry was heavily regulated. At least since the passage of the Patriot Act, which increased government intrusion in the financial sector for the purposes of catching money laundering from terrorist activity and suspect income.

AmazonTania » 18 Feb 2014 5:54 pm » wrote:Anything out of the ordinary, I am required to report it to the SEC, who in turn reports said activity to Homeland Security/IRS/CIA/FBI/ETC.

Cannonpointer » 18 Feb 2014 5:35 pm » wrote: Look at the chart, retard. Look at Carter's RED line - the FULL TIME JOB line. It shoots up like a rocket. As soon as reagan takes over, it plummets - and never matches the blue line until he's gone.

Reagan was a number manipulator. He was the first president to stop counting anyone not collecting benefits as unemployed. He was the first guy to reward folks for employing part timers, in order to manipulate the numbers. This is the guy that would pretend catsup was a vegetable - and that reveals his CHARACTER, and his relationship to manipulating results instead of PRODUCING them.

The man was a monster.

RichClem » 18 Feb 2014 5:00 pm » wrote: And the psycho is never wrong!

RichClem » 18 Feb 2014 6:04 pm » wrote: Except that as I've documented, he left the economy in chaos and on the verge of collapse.

RichClem » 18 Feb 2014 6:06 pm » wrote:The psychotic claims that Carter left Reagan a great economy.
Why no comment on this?

Cannonpointer » 18 Feb 2014 5:38 pm » wrote: You'll need it, kid - at least, in this thread. The whole purpose of this thread is to call you retards on the hypocrisy and the flimsiness of your reagan meme.

You want to have it both ways (as usual - hell, you even flee my request that you choose the for years by which we will both agree to judge Carter's performance, Private Dancer). You want to blame the congress or tricky underlings for everything that went WRONG and credit Reagan for everything that went RIGHT.

It's immature, it's shopworn, and it's not going to serve you here, kid. The bar is a little higher. Still - feel free to keep trying.