Are the Democrats back on track?

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Balbus, Jun 27, 2018.

  1. Meliai

    Meliai Senior Member

    You cant force someone to have a conversation with you. Thats what is so incredibly annoying about your debate style, you try to force someone to explain a position they havent even declared and then act like they're in the wrong or they have no point (about a point they arent even trying to make) when they dont take the bait.
     
    Balbus, Okiefreak and Tyrsonswood like this.
  2. scratcho

    scratcho Lifetime Supporter Lifetime Supporter

    'This is not 'nam, Smokey--there are rules.
     
    stormountainman, McFuddy and Meliai like this.
  3. storch

    storch The compliant

    Oh I'm sorry. The next time someone claims that their case is rested, yet can't draw the pertinent segment that they are basing their case on from their own link, I won't challenge them any further cuz that would just be mean.

    If someone doesn't want to discuss an issue, they're free to not do so. I can't force them to. I also can't stop them from continuing their effort to make their case.
     
  4. Okiefreak

    Okiefreak Senior Member

    Thank you. Well put. From past experience, I know that if I provide the information he asks he'll want more, not understand it, not be satisfied, and keep on bitching. I recall trying to convince him that a justice of the peace doesn't have the authority to make precedent-setting interpretations of the constitution--and he was never persuaded. Trying to explain something so basic to someone who is determined not to accept it is tiring.

    What Storch is asking me to do here, if I understand him correctly, is to explain "why Congress has the constitutional right to delegate its duty to coin money to those who would create it and then charge interest on money that should be ours. How is that constitutional?" That particular question is not addressed directly in the links provided, so I would have to detail how the general principles contained in those links related to the specific thing that's in his craw. This is an issue dear to libertarian critics of the Fed, like Thomas Schaup of FED-UP who seems to think that the Fed is ripping us off by charging interest on the Federal Reserve notes that the Board of Governors issues, and that this is unconstitutional, since the constitution gives Congress the power to coin money. Since Storch's concerns weren't framed that way until his most recent post, and since I'm not psychic, I did not include materials that specifically referenced that issue.

    He can find those in an article by Edward Flaherty (September 9, 2000) Debunking Federal Reserve Conspiracies Myth #7: The Federal Reserve charges interest on the currency we use. which explains that:." The Federal Reserve rebates its net earnings to the Treasury every year. Consequently, the interest the Treasury pays to the Fed is returned, so the money borrowed from the Fed has no net interest obligation for the Treasury. The government could print its own currency independent of the Fed, but there would be no effective safeguards against abuse of this power for political gain." The landmark case of McCulloch v. Maryland, which I did cite, makes clear that Congress can authorize a central bank, even though there is no express grant of power in the Constitution to do so, under the implied powers of the "necessary and proper" clause. Congress could have placed the issuance of currency directly in the U.S. Treasury, as Scauf advocates, but Congress chose to go the route of an independent regulatory agency removed from Presidential manipulation (in the era of Trump, that seems like not a bad idea, especially since he's shown an inclination to interfere. McCulloch makes clear it's up to Congress. Whitman v. American Trucking Association, written by the late very conservative Antonin Scalia makes clear that the broad discretion given to EPA to develop clean air standards reasonably necessary and appropriate to protect human health and the environment is "well within the outer limits of the Court’s nondelegation precedents". The same logic should hold for the Fed.

    The article The Nature and Scope of Permissible Delegations concludes that : "It seems therefore reasonably clear that the Court does not require much in the way of standards from Congress. The minimum upon which the Court usually insists is that Congress use a delegation that “sufficiently marks the field within which the Administrator is to act so that it may be known whether he has kept within it in compliance with the legislative will.”Yakus v. United States, 321 U.S. 414, 425 (1944). ">131 Where the congressional standards are combined with requirements of notice and hearing and statements of findings and considerations by the administrators, so that judicial review under due process standards is possible, the constitutional requirements of delegation have been fulfilled. This may not be enough to satisfy Brother Storch and the tinfoil hat contingent of conspiracy theorists, but I think is should be enough to satisfy most reasonable people.

    Back to my sock drawer! But I doubt we've heard the last of Storch on this issue.
     
    Last edited: Mar 6, 2019
    MeAgain likes this.
  5. neonspectraltoast

    neonspectraltoast Best Member

    Who decides what is implied by the Constitution? It just says things flat out and we disobey them. When do we admit that we don't follow the Constitution and don't really respect it as some kind of ultimate authority?
     
  6. storch

    storch The compliant

    Well when the Fed was audited in 2012, it was revealed that $16,000,000,000,000.00 had been secretly given out to US banks and corporations and foreign banks everywhere from France to Scotland. From the period between December 2007 and June 2010, the Federal Reserve had secretly bailed out many of the world's banks, corporations, and governments. The Federal Reserve likes to refer to these secret bailouts as an all-inclusive loan program, but virtually none of the money has been returned and it was loaned out at 0% interest. Why the Federal Reserve had never been public about this or even informed the United States Congress about the $16 trillion dollar bailout is obvious - the American public would have been outraged to find out that the Federal Reserve bailed out foreign banks while Americans were struggling to find jobs.

    And here's a video of a poor lackey taking the heat for the Federal Reserve's loss of a boatload of money:



    Even Bernie can see the theft:

    The Fed Audit
    Thursday, July 21, 2011

    The first top-to-bottom audit of the Federal Reserve uncovered eye-popping new details about how the U.S. provided a whopping $16 trillion in secret loans to bail out American and foreign banks and businesses during the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. An amendment by Sen. Bernie Sanders to the Wall Street reform law passed one year ago this week directed the Government Accountability Office to conduct the study. "As a result of this audit, we now know that the Federal Reserve provided more than $16 trillion in total financial assistance to some of the largest financial institutions and corporations in the United States and throughout the world," said Sanders. "This is a clear case of socialism for the rich and rugged, you're-on-your-own individualism for everyone else."

    Among the investigation's key findings is that the Fed unilaterally provided trillions of dollars in financial assistance to foreign banks and corporations from South Korea to Scotland, according to the GAO report. "No agency of the United States government should be allowed to bailout a foreign bank or corporation without the direct approval of Congress and the president," Sanders said.

    Anyway, the US government runs a deficit annually. To cover this, the US government issues bonds which are bought by the Fed. Since the Fed has the power to print money, it can buy any amount of the US Government bonds at no cost, except for the expense of printing money (approximately 3 cents per $100). At this point, the owners of the Fed already profit $99.97 for every 3 cents they invested to print the money. Basically, they exchange something that costs almost nothing to them with the US Government Bonds. Good work if you can get it!
     
  7. Okiefreak

    Okiefreak Senior Member

    The Supreme Court and other courts of record. We may think they're off base and aren't following the Constitution, and we have the Amendment process when that sentiment becomes strong enough and widespread enough. As in the case of Biblical interpretation, what the words say and what they mean may be two different things, and the courts are the ultimate umpire.
     
    Balbus and stormountainman like this.
  8. Okiefreak

    Okiefreak Senior Member

    "The Federal Reserve rebates its net earnings to the Treasury every year. Consequently, the interest the Treasury pays to the Fed is returned, so the money borrowed from the Fed has no net interest obligation for the Treasury."Debunking Federal Reserve Conspiracies
     
    Balbus and stormountainman like this.
  9. neonspectraltoast

    neonspectraltoast Best Member

    I just feel like it's all bullshit.
     
  10. storch

    storch The compliant

    We'll just overlook the $16,000,000,000,000.00 for now. How many billions per year does the Fed take in from the interest we pay on the money it prints up? And how much of that money does it give back to the Treasury?
     
  11. Okiefreak

    Okiefreak Senior Member

    I think I already answered that twice. For further elaboration, see Debunking Federal Reserve Conspiracies Myth #7: The Federal Reserve charges interest on the currency we use. For commentary on the alleged deficit, see Debunked: The Fed "gave away" $16 Trillion, and $2.5 Trillion to CitiGroup
    Since this is a thread on "Are Democrats Back on Track" , might we want to shift further discussion of the Fed to another thread? As I recall, there was one back around December, 2016, in which this topic was beaten to death--one on elites, I think.
     
    stormountainman and Balbus like this.
  12. stormountainman

    stormountainman Soy Un Truckero

    Thank you Okie. All week I've been listening to people on the TV criticize Ilhan Omar for being Anti-Semitic. It seems Americans cannot accept the fact that Muslims are also Semites. The entire world knows it; however, America's Bible thumpers want to re-interpret … stuff.
     
  13. stormountainman

    stormountainman Soy Un Truckero

    Democrats are getting back on track. Lots of Democrats are defending Ilhan Omar's comments about AIPAC's influence on our politicians. The old prohibition on talk about the Israel Lobby is starting to fall apart thanks to the brave Ilhan Omar.
     
    granite45 likes this.
  14. AOC, Omar and Tlaib are leading the party right off a cliff.
     
  15. neonspectraltoast

    neonspectraltoast Best Member

    Off a cliff that leads to Narnia.
     
  16. GuerrillaLorax

    GuerrillaLorax along the peripheries of civilization

  17. I can’t believe Dem candidates endorsing reparations. If you think there is a surge in “White Supremacy” now, (there isn’t) cutting checks from taxpayers to people based on skin color will supercharge racial animosity in our country. How much could the amount possibly be per person? It wouldn’t be worth it. It’s idiotic.
     
    Okiefreak likes this.
  18. GuerrillaLorax

    GuerrillaLorax along the peripheries of civilization

    Wait, there hasn't been a surge of white-supremacy? Where have you been? Even non-american countries have experienced it.
     
    Okiefreak likes this.
  19. Well, CNN and MSNBC tell me there is, but as recent events illustrate, we can’t believe a word that comes out of their mouths. Oh yes, the SPLC may say that, but they too have been discredited. It could be true elsewhere though. In countries that have bought into the whole ‘Social Justice’ fraud.
     
    onceburned likes this.
  20. Balbus

    Balbus Super Moderator Super Moderator

    nudist

    What do you mean by ‘Social Justice’?

    My dictionary definition is - justice in terms of the distribution of wealth, opportunities, and privileges within a society.

    Wiki has - a concept of fair and just relations between the individual and society.

    Are you saying that is a bad thing?
     

Share This Page