Ron Paul poised to take on the Fed at head of financial subcommittee

[Ryft]

Schroeder, P. (26 Nov 2010). "Paul poised to take on 'atrocious' Fed at head of Financial subcommittee." On the Money, The Hill.
Retrieved from http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money

Representative Ron Paul has called the Federal Reserve an "atrocious organization" and written a best-selling book that argues it should be abolished. Now, thanks to the GOP's commanding victory in the midterm elections, Paul may finally have the chance to take on the central bank from the dais of a congressional hearing room. Paul is poised to take over the Financial Services subcommittee that oversees the Federal Reserve in the next Congress. With the power of that pulpit, Paul said he hopes to shine a light on the Fed's policies, which he has long criticized as opaque and secretive, and make the case that the bank's monetary policies harm the U.S. economy.

... While some GOP members have couched their Fed criticism with the caveat that they are not challenging the Fed's independence, Paul is not worried about the impact his increased scrutiny would bring. Independence does not equate to secrecy, he argues. Paul also emphasizes that the Fed is not authorized in the Constitution, and says it is Congress' responsibility to maintain a sound currency.

... Regardless of what happens legislatively, it's a safe bet that there will be more activity on the subcommittee is Paul is at the helm. The subcommittee hasn't held a hearing since July, according to the panel's website, when Chairman Representative Mel Watt sought testimony on U.S. currency and coins.

Read the full article ...

[Minimalist]

In the version of the constitution that Paul prefers slavery IS authorized.

He's just another right-wing nut.

[lilyannerose]

Ron Paul is certainly an interesting individual my concern about him heading this subcommittee is that Paul is a true believer and he is fundamental about those beliefs. These individuals who want this strict interpretation of the Constitution always seem to forget that the preamble of the Constitution states:

Preamble

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

especially that part about promoting the general welfare. I'm all for getting some answers from the Fed regarding the meltdown and this $600 Billion they are printing up and exactly where that money will be going, (the banks to prop them back up???) but I'd rather someone with a less fundamentalist attitude take charge. I know Paul wrote a book about his economic theories, however, where in his education to become a doc did he study economics and that book was written quite early in his career.

[Minimalist]

I'd love to see Paul and his corporate owners choke on this.

http://www.truth-out.org/tax-rich-a-defi...eople65449

Here is MY deficit-reduction plan. This plan does not reflect the views of anyone but myself -- and maybe half the population. Unlike deficit plans from the "serious people" in DC, this one doesn't annihilate the poor and gut Social Security and the middle class while passing even more of the benefits of our society up to a few at the top.

[Tiberius]

Yeah, let's take the people who contribute the most to the country and tax them more. I'm sure they won't get annoyed at that and leave.

</sarcasm>

[Minimalist]

They didn't leave before Reagan gave them the biggest giveaway in the history of the world.

Fuck 'em.


BTW, ( and this should be interesting) what exactly do they "contribute?"

[Tiberius]

BTW, ( and this should be interesting) what exactly do they "contribute?"

Erm...jobs? The richest people in the country are the ones who pay the rest of us, and the ones who create the jobs when the economy expands.

That isn't the main reason I oppose tiered taxes though. The main reason is that it is inherently unequal and unfair. Treating people differently because of how much they earn seems to be looked down on when what they earn is very little, but is celebrated when what they earn is a lot. If people actually want equality, they need to realise that it has to be everywhere. What you earn shouldn't be a cause for being treated differently; some people will always earn more than other people, it is a fact of economics.

[lilyannerose]

Yeah, let's take the people who contribute the most to the country and tax them more. I'm sure they won't get annoyed at that and leave.

</sarcasm>

You think they are not going to leave with or without tax cuts? Their new markets will be China and India they will want to be close to where they play the beat and cheat game. I say good riddance and hope that the door does hit them in the ass on their way to the international concourse. I can't think of anything more useless than the rich.

[Tiberius]

I can't think of anything more useless than the rich.

I'm willing to bet you've used services provided by "the rich" many many times in your life. So unless you are some kind of hermit, I suggest you actually think about what you say before you type it.

[lilyannerose]

I can't think of anything more useless than the rich.

I'm willing to bet you've used services provided by "the rich" many many times in your life. So unless you are some kind of hermit, I suggest you actually think about what you say before you type it.

Of course I have as have others, however, it doesn't mean that the only one capable of providing "services" are rich people. As to jobs small businesses provide a good percentage of the jobs in the US. The rich are unnecessary and a parasite upon peoples of the world. If there was redistribution of the wealth think of all of the human misery that would abate.