reply to post by ComeAndGetMe
You have asked some great questions, and I thank you very much for taking the time to look into the matter more. As to any implication you may have
made, perhaps it was I who inferred this. I am a huge fan of Ron Paul, and don't wish to seem as I am not. That said, I stop short of idolatry with
any person and especially politicians. Ron Paul is a very important man in today's political climate, and his efforts on behalf of all the people,
not just his own constituents, is nothing short of remarkable. Even so, I will continue to hold my high expectations of he and all of Congress for as
long as I live.
As to any appearance that I may have a decent understanding of the tax code only comes from reading it over and over and over again, attempting to
understand it. Certainly, in attempting to understanding it, I have stumbled upon case law regarding it, and have also stumbled upon much
misinformation regarding it and the 16th Amendment. Indeed, the 16th Amendment has become the greatest magic act in the history of Congress. It is
an artful piece of legislation, and I don't mean to offer that as a compliment to those brilliant magicians who have so cleverly engaged in
misdirection that they have convinced that this Amendment actually did place some form of new burden of taxation on the people.
As to the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, or more appropriately the Glass-Owens Bill, I would like to first point out that it was Senator Nelson Aldrich
who was the architect of both the Federal Reserve Act and the 16th Amendment, both of which were passed in 1913. Aldrich modeled the Federal Reserve
Act after the European Model of that time, or in 1907 after that particular bank panic. The creation of the Federal Reserve was supposed to put an
end to bank panics, or runs on banks, but as the Great Depression can attest to, the Federal Reserve did no such thing, and indeed, the Federal
Reserved, in a large part, caused that depression.
The conversion of the recession of 1929 into a major catastrophe was wholly the fault of the federal government and the Federal Reserve, only a
"quasi-public" agency run by private bankers. Recessions are ordinary business cycles, and history has shown us that the repeated cycles of
recession are a normal part of what happens in any market place. It was the bad monetary policy implemented by the Federal Reserve, and Congress that
caused this depression. In fact, there is perhaps no other piece of legislation that has acted in a way to cause the exact opposite effect of what it
was intended to prevent than the Federal Reserve Act.
The policy of the Federal Reserve at that time led to a decline in the quantity of money, (paper money), almost by a third, and it was this decline
that led directly to the destruction of many peoples savings in the banks. The Federal Reserve had the knowledge, power, and authority to prevent
this, but did not, and instead turned an ordinary business cycle into a catastrophe. It is not as if there were not members of Congress and other
officials who weren't aware of this and doing all they could to urge the Federal Reserve to act properly, there were, but the Federal Reserve acted
as it did, and the Great Depression is what followed.
While there are historians and others who will tell a different story, it is Stan Friedman who, after years of study on the situation came to the
conclusion I just digested into a few paragraphs, but what is telling are the words of Ben Bernanke, Chairman of the Federal Reserve now, at a
conference to honor Friedman in 2008:
Today I'd like to honor Milton Friedman by talking about one of his greatest contributions to economics, made in close collaboration with his
distinguished coauthor, Anna J. Schwartz. This achievement is nothing less than to provide what has become the leading and most persuasive explanation
of the worst economic disaster in American history, the onset of the Great Depression – or, as Friedman and Schwartz dubbed it, the Great
Contraction of 1929-33...
Let me end my talk by abusing slightly my status as an official representative of the Federal Reserve. I would like to say to Milton and Anna:
Regarding the Great Depression. You're right, we did it. We're very sorry. But thanks to you, we won't do it again.
Of course, the Federal Reserve has not engaged in any contractions since, but instead has engaged in the opposite, and through the creation of fiat
money, have expanded the money system, simply printing money out of thin air. It is this creation of fiat money that has largely caused much of the
problems the U.S. faces today. Where the contraction of money between 1929 and 1933 wiped out the savings of many people then, today there is no
incentive to save at all when the interest rates are suppressed while the rate of inflation continues to rise. Quite a crafty way to ensure that
peoples savings won't be wiped out if left in a bank, just do what is necessary to discourage most people from saving.
If people are not using banks to amass wealth through savings, then why are the vast majority of people using banks at all? It is, of course, to be a
part of the credit scam that has placed so many in debt, and in spite of a 13th Amendment that prohibits slavery, too many people have gone into
willing slavery by agreeing to debt they can never hope to pay off. The blame, while can be placed with the Federal Reserve, and that institution
certainly needs to go, the blame belongs squarely with the American people who have elected to vote themselves free money at the expense of republic,
and have used a credit system to collect items, rather than build wealth.
No, I do not believe Grayson is correct when he states this current Bill to audit the Fed is a step in the right direction, I believe it is a band-aid
intended to keep a severed limb attached to its body. While most people instinctively understand the Federal Reserve is bad for the American people,
they are also addicted to the consumerism and credit system that has led us to where we are.
You ask me what I would do, and in part, I am trying to do it here. We the People can not rely upon the very politicians that have created the
monster by which we have enslaved ourselves to, and as you pointed out, if they won't even audit the Fed, what makes anyone think they would abolish
them? Of course, the American People through out history have shown great defiance to abuse of power, and while perhaps one of those greatest
defiance's was the rejection of the 18th Amendment as valid and enforceable, it is also sort of tragic that the American people will gladly defy a
federal government when it comes to drinking alcohol, but won't defy them when it comes to building personal wealth.
Gold is money, and anyone purchasing gold a decade ago, has seen their wealth more than double. The dollar bill is not money any longer, it is fiat
money, and worth far less today than it was a decade ago, and a decade ago it was worth far less than it was during the Great Depression. Today, gold
is far more expensive than it was a decade ago, and if one can afford to purchase it, I believe it is still a very sound investment, however there are
other commodities that can be purchased that hold more wealth than if one were to save paper money not worth a damn.
Further, waiting around for Congress, the POTUS, or even SCOTUS, to act on our behalf is pointless. Defiance of bad policy and legislation is an
American tradition and should be embraced at every step by the American people. Many people find themselves doing business with banks simply because
of a system set in place that virtually forces them to do business with banks. But what is virtual is not reality, and people can and should refuse
to do business with, at the very least, large banking institutions. Even further, there was a time when people looking for work would walk into a
business, interview with an owner or manager, make a simple contract and begin working, often getting paid at the end of the day or week in cash.
Those days have been long over, but this is the fault of the American people who have allowed such a system to thrive.
Every person has the absolute right to contract, and a contract means all parties involved are in agreement to its terms. Of course, a contract can
not be written if it is contrary to law, and here in lies the dilemma for many people. It is the belief that they must agree, as a term of this
contract for employment, to also sign further government contracts in order to obtain employment. The tax code, and Social Security laws are used as
the reason why people "must" sign these contracts, but "shall" is not "must" and when an employer is instructed by that code to "request" such
signatures and provisions, "request" is not "demand", and of course, at no point ever has a private business owner or manager been authorized to
make any person liable for a tax, and subject to the income tax laws.
This game of extortion, where business acts on behalf of the federal and state governments to be a tax collector, insisting their employees agree to a
liability that they are in all likelihood not liable for, is a big part of the problem. Where the American people defied an Amendment and drank as
much as they pleased, they refuse to defy a tax system so abhorrent to the tenets of our Constitutional republic, that it is incomprehensible. Where
a bunch of rag tag colonists defied a tax on tea, (income tax at that time and for years to come afterward was nonexistent), today people discuss ways
in which we can keep this income tax system in place and make it "more fair", as if a perpetual income tax is fair at all. People have the right to
earn income and it is dubious that Congress has the authority to tax a right in perpetuity.