Fed should not be super-regulator - U.S. senator says
Posted May 20th, 2008 by Davy C Rockett
output
WASHINGTON, May 19 (Reuters) - The Federal Reserve should not be made into the United States' super-regulator under an anticipated shake-up of how the country's banks are governed, a senior Republican lawmaker said on Monday.
"I think, myself, that we should not give the Fed all the regulatory power," Sen. Richard Shelby, the top Republican on the Senate Banking Committee, told CNBC.
"They have a lot of power now. They are our central bank and they are also our biggest bank regulator and they have other powers.
Read More below
Bookmark/Search this post with:
I don't think you can say that pretty enough
to make it sound good 2012. no body here is going to feel ok with giving the fed any more power. We feel they should have zero power we feel they should not exist as in nothing nada el goneo. Interessting you have 2012 in your name what is the importance of 2012? What is the ag and au. Now see you made me have to go do more reseach.
I agree with you
that chartering this privately-owned central bank was a big mistake. It's an old debate that hearkens back to Jefferson vs. Hamilton. The only question we're debating is how best to kill it.
What's the most efficient way to kill it, in your view?
There's an old adage, "It's easier to pull a string than push a string".
Would you agree?
Would you prefer to kill this leach by begging your "representatives" in congress that the fed should be done away because it's a scourge on our nation? Or do you want to kill this leach by simply suggesting to your "representatives" that the Paulson plan is a grand idea?
There's much conjecture today about what Wilson, the President who signed it into law, meant:
http://quotes.liberty-tre...
Does that "Questionable Woodrow Wilson Quote" sound similar to what most Ron Paul supporters (including myself) voice today?
Does it sound similar to what Jefferson voiced when he said, "The central bank is an institution of the most deadly hostility existing against the Principles and form of our Constitution. I am an Enemy to all banks discounting bills or notes for anything but Coin. If the American People 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"?
The point is: Volcker and Shelby both argue that the central bank (our nation is stuck with today) is so sacrosanct to this government, that it shouldn't be overloaded with more responsibilities. Why is a former fed chairman and a bank-co-opted senior senator voicing argument against the Paulson Treasury plan? And why aren't they arguing for a re-enactment of the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956, signed into law by Pres. Eisenhower to protect this nation's citizens?
http://en.wikipedia.org/w...
The purported mission voiced by the fed has been, and continues to be, to ensure a stable economy. How well has it done since 1913? The FRN is worth near three pennies (about the price of physical copper). IN the meantime, real money is 900+ FRN's, compared to 28 FRN's in 1913.
All the fed has accomplished for nearly a hundred years is that the banksters have sacrificed our interests by renunciating the value of real money for the sake of hyperinflating their own wallets. And in the process have bankrupted our nation.
Finally, to help in your research about my monicker, simply check the Periodic Table of Elements.
Shelby the Shill and Volcker the Vamp
Both have, with differing verbal pleas, spoken the same message within a week's time.
Shelby, co-opted by the banksters, wants to protect his liege lords. Volcker, already well paid-off, wants to inure his life-long buddies for posterity. But if we read between the lines, Volcker told us, in Congressional testimony, that if we (spelled Congress) load too many responsibilities on the U.S. Central Bank, then we'll kill it quickly. Shelby speaks the same - don't give the Fed any more responsibilities, because if you do, then it won't be able to continue sucking the lifeblood off of 300 million plus U.S. citizens and their daily labor.
Both have suggested that the Goldman-Sachs-Paulson plan to load-up the Fed with overarching responsibility over the entire American economy could bankrupt the Fed should another Bear-Stearns or LTCM occur, or even worse, 100 Bear-Stearns occur at the same time. Schoon suggests that the Minsky Moment is either here, or very near. Volcker and Shelby aren't stupid men. They realize that the Minsky Moment, given an overly-encumbered Fed, could throw us back to a Jeffersonian era when bankers are, quite rightfully, broke and viewed as scourges on the planet. And you and I are free of the demonic banksters.
Write your congressman today and encourage him to implement the Goldman-Sachs-Paulson plan as soon as possible. No better way to kill the Fed in a non-revolutionary way...
The Fed amassed $800 billion on the backs of our fathers and grandfathers labor since 1913. In six short months, its burned through $400 billion of that to "save" the bankster system. Load it up with more responsibility and you could see the remaining $400 billion turn to toast in a few weeks. Worst case, maybe by its 100th anniversary (2013), we can get rid of this leach.
uh
Fortune Favors the Bold
you can't be serious
uh
About?
Im glad to see
That there is finally outspoken opposition to the executive branches decision to give near absolute power to the already strong federal reserve. 'Specially from someone with some clout in the banking and finance sector. I just hope this will lead the other people with opposing opinions to speak up.
I agree
Banks should not be regulated at all, by the Fed/Government.
The only regulator should be the market (except for laws against fraud of course).