The Daily Paul has been archived. Please see the continuation of the Daily Paul at Popular

Thank you for a great ride, and for 8 years of support!

Comment: That's what I said...

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: Not entirely correct... (see in situ)

That's what I said...

Did you not read it? I said eliminating the Fed would not give congress the power to print money, but only to coin and regulate the value thereof. Of course they still have that power, no one is arguing that here. You said nothing different than I did. That power lies with congress, which is what I said. I was correcting him in saying congress doesn't have the power to print "money." That's all...whether the fed is eliminated or not, they don't have that power, which is his concern.

Your 4th paragraph makes no sense. Congress cannot print money...they can only coin money by taking metals and striking them accordingly. It was never a part of their job to print money of any kind...they are to only coin money with metals currently in existence to prevent a continental type inflation. The articles of confederation allowed congress to print money, but due to the disasterous continental, they took it out of constitution as we know it today.

Banks (emphasis added) previously issued silver certificates in lieu of carrying around gold and silver back in the day. These certificates were not truly money, but represented money and could be redeemed in money (gold & silver). Congress never printed certificates then until they started going crazy and gave the treasury the power to do so, and then the fed, at which point they went crazy along with govt. As proven in history, allowing congress to even print certificates is highly inflationary and will not limit them in any way to over issue certificates so they can have more money than they really do. They do not and did not originally have that power. So up vote my comment again since you downgraded me for being "wrong", even though I said what you said I didn't say, please :)