It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Dennis Kucinich States His Intention To Put The Federal Reserve Under Government Control

page: 3
<< 1  2   >>

log in


posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 03:24 PM
There will be no more Personal Attacks...Period.

Post to the Topic, which is "Dennis Kucinich States His Intention To Put The Federal Reserve Under Government Control", and not the Poster.

Thank you.

posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 05:07 PM
Thank you Memoryshock. We all need a reminder now and again.

Criticisms aside, the elimination of the Fed as a failed "American" institution would not be a bad thing. Their own abuses can be said to have caused their own undoing, and we could proceed with a paradigm that does not promote wanton greed and lust for power.

posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 07:42 PM
reply to post by SpencerJ

Funny how you keep spewing assumptious crap to appear intelligent considering you're the first one to hurl insults around. Way to go.

To get back on topic: Again, good for you for believing in the inherent goodness of man and thinking that the Fed is indeed insulated from political "change".

[edit on 2/3/2009 by eldard]

posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 07:54 PM
I did some reading on this guy. He seemed smart articulate open minded and a pretty good candidate for president. As good as any of the others anyhow.

However, I think he is way off base here, anytime you get Uncle Sam involved in our money.....POOF!!! It seems to vanish without a trace. This is why those old white haired dudes that wrote that shabby ole piece of parchment tried like hell to keep government outta everything they possibly could.(They would poop in they're drawers now.)......Dennis needs to get a new hobbie, like stargazing.

posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 08:28 PM
It's amazing that Thomas Jefferson's philosophies are still relevant 200+ years later.....

His opposition to the Bank of the United States was fierce: "I sincerely believe, with you, that banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies; and that the principle of spending money to be paid by posterity, under the name of funding, is but swindling futurity on a large scale." Nevertheless Madison and Congress, seeing the financial chaos caused by the lack of a national bank in the War of 1812, disregarded his advice and created the Second Bank of the United States in 1816.

posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 08:42 PM
I love Dennis. I listen to him today on the local drive time chow in Cleveland today and he was talking about how to fix the economy and how the bail out never did what they were supposed to. His one minute speech reminds me of a former Ohio Representative from my jurisdiction, James Traficant. He made one minute speeches that made sense and you thought that everyone should listen but everyone in congress looked at him like a loon for trying to help common people. I am afraid that all Dennis did was make a good speech with an awesome idea that is going to go absolutely nowhere.

posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 04:26 AM
reply to post by eldard

Wrong. All I ever did was draw on what you have said, here, and in other threads, for that matter, and what I found was equally underwhelming. I do not try to "fake" intelligence as you put it, but if you think what you have just done is NOT an ad hominem, then it only proves you need some re-education.

You want to talk about drawing assumptions, yet AGAIN and AGAIN you assume that somehow I have some upstanding faith in the unaccountability of the Fed.

First, nowhere did I say I was pro-Fed, much less did I ever express "faith" in the actual system. I merely stated the intention of the Fed from its conception, which, though you laugh, should be pretty obvious to anyone who passed grade school economics. I'm "assuming" you did.

You spat out Wikipedia earlier, so let's put you to the good old elf-serving bias test.

From Wikipedia
The System derives its authority and public purpose from the Federal Reserve Act passed by Congress in 1913. As an independent institution, the Federal Reserve System has the authority to act on its own without prior approval from Congress or the President.[30] The members of its Board of Governors are appointed for long, staggered terms, limiting the influence of day-to-day political considerations.

There, I bolded the part that's so hard for you to understand. See it? I have sources. No assumptions there. Also, your part about me throwing insults for you believing in the NWO. Your other posts seemed to indicate that is true, so it is not an "assumption". Please, learn the difference.

Second, saying our current "status-quo" system is better than a government-run system does not equal my support for the idea itself, just in terms of relative function, the current Fed as it is would be better than your government-run central bank. Replacing it with nothing is of course, ideal, but not immediately practical. There, I said it. Please do try to grasp it this time.

For a real demonstration of giving the power of the government to spend money into circulation via a central bank DIRECTLY, look at what happened to Japan. Negative interest rates are more rosy than what we currently have, to you, I guess.

All in all, come back when you learn to debate and can make an empirically-backed argument. Please drop your double-standards, stop being a troll, and pinning your own logical fallacies on other people.

[edit on 4-2-2009 by SpencerJ]

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2   >>

log in