It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

Who hates the constitution more? Economists or politicians?

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 24 2010 @ 12:15 PM
link   
I believe there is a two front war going on against our constitution. One is against our civil liberties. The other is a war against congressional authority to regulate the economy.

Now. You may ask- why should we let congress regulate the economy? They're a bunch of idiots. They are liars. They say one thing and do another. So why should we let them do it?

First of all, I'm sure you all know of the federal reserve. I'd much rather abolish the federal reserve and restore sound money and then amend the constitution so we could have free sound banking practices. But as the law stands- congress has the authority to regulate the monetary policy. Congress expressed authority over the money supply in the constitution.

Second of all, congress has the authority to regulate commerce. As it stands right now- the executive branch and independent agencies outside the 3 branches of government regulates commerce activities (www.usa.gov...).

First, I'd like to talk a little bit about history first. Ever since FDR- and I know many people here may love FDR for whatever reason... ever since FDR people have become more expectant of the President to spur job growth and for the President to regulate the economy and everything. I believe it was a mistake for the new deal to lend so much power to the President. I believe it was completely unconstitutional. This is some background on that.


The president as chief economist

The economy is a term that means the business and employment activity in a nation. When business activity is strong and employment rates are high, meaning most working people have a job, the economy is in an inflationary state. When business activity sags and unemployment rates rise, the economy is in a recession.

The Constitution does not mention the national economy. Congress, however, has the power to regulate things that affect the economy, such as taxes, commerce, and money. When the Constitution was written in 1787, people generally did not think the government was responsible for the health of the economy.

That thinking changed with the presidency of Franklin Roosevelt. Roosevelt became president in 1933 when the American economy was in the middle of the Great Depression (1929–41). At the worst point of the Depression, one out of every three to four working Americans did not have a job. In those desperate times, people began to look more to the federal government for help with the economy. Roosevelt responded with his famous New Deal, a set of government programs designed to pump federal money into the economy to spur job growth.

As of 2005, the president is often considered the chief economist for the nation. Presidential candidates often include their own economic plans. When the economy is doing well, people generally credit the president, and when the economy is doing poorly, people generally blame the president.

The expectation that presidents can control the economy is unrealistic. Presidents have the power to affect the economy to some extent through the policy decisions they and their advisors make. The overall health of the economy, however, is determined by many complicated factors, all of which are beyond the power of the government to control completely. Even professional economists cannot always predict what will happen to the economy from one year to the next. Still, Americans have come to expect presidents to have a plan for improving a bad economy or making a good one even better.

www.enotes.com...

liberalforum.org...

I will now proceed to break down the sections of the constitution that are directly at odds with economists view of the role the government should play in the economy.




Section 8


The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;

To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;

To establish post offices and post roads;

To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;

To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.


As you can see, articlel 1 section 8 is at direct odds with the idea many economists have that the federal reserve should be an independent agency of government.

They already have an argument as to why the federal reserve should be free from politics, and free from the government. They think that congress is too ill informed to handle such policies. So, they'd rather the federal reserve usurp their monetary authority.


The Case for Independence

The strongest argument for an independent Federal Reserve rests on the view that subjecting the Fed to more political pressures would impart an inflationary bias to monetary policy. In the view of many observers, politicians in a democratic society are shortsighted because they are driven by the need to win their next election. With this as the primary goal, they are unlikely to focus on long-run objectives, such as promoting a stable price level. Instead, they will seek short-run solutions to problems, such as high unemployment and high interest rates, even if the short-run solutions have undesirable long-run consequences. For example, we saw in Chapter 5 that high money growth might lead initially to a drop in interest rates but might cause an increase later as inflation heats up. Would a Federal Reserve under the control of Congress or the president be more likely to pursue a policy of excessive money growth when interest rates are high, even though it would eventually lead to inflation and even higher interest rates in the future? The advocates of an independent Federal Reserve say yes. They believe a politically insulated Fed is more likely to be concerned with long-run objectives and thus be a defender of a sound dollar and a stable price level.

A variation on the preceding argument is that the political process in America leads to the political business cycle, in which just before an election, expansionary policies are pursued to lower unemployment and interest rates. After the election, the effects of these policies - high inflation and high interest rates - come home to roost, requiring contractionary policies that politicians hope the public will forget before the next election. There is some evidence that such a political business cycle exists in the United States, and a Federal Reserve under the control of Congress or the president might make the cycle even more pronounced.

Putting the Fed under the control of the president (making it more subject to influence by the Treasury) is also considered dangerous because the Fed can be used to facilitate Treasury financing of large budget deficits by its purchases of Treasury bonds. Treasury pressure on the Fed to "help out" might lead to more inflation in the economy. An independent Fed is better able to resist this pressure from the Treasury.

economistsview.typepad.com...

They believe (laughably so) that if politicians are left to themselves that they'll just want inflation. Why would they want inflation? One of the roles of congress is to prevent fraud. So shouldn't they NOT want inflation?



Section 9

No tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any state.

No preference shall be given by any regulation of commerce or revenue to the ports of one state over those of another: nor shall vessels bound to, or from, one state, be obliged to enter, clear or pay duties in another.

No money shall be drawn from the treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law; and a regular statement and account of receipts and expenditures of all public money shall be published from time to time.


Article 1 section 9 has been violated in the past (law.onecle.com...). The Harbour Maintenance Tax (HMT) was ruled unconstitutional because of it. I'm sure many economists would love to tax exports so they would get more revenue.

As for #2- I'm not sure but I believe the stimulus bill played favorites with the states. I believe that Obama only let states that accepted the stimulus money receive the stimulus money. Now I'm against the stimulus money- but the executive authority was playing favorites with who accepted it and who didn't. They were showing a preference.

As for #3 it says no money shall be withdrawn from the treasury except with appropriations by law. The government gets around this. How do you ask? The federal reserve works as a front for the treasury. The treasury can only lend out money as consequences of law (by budgets, etc). The fed- however on the other hand works as a front for the treasury so they can get around it. They do everything that the treasury constitutionally and legally can't.

www.investopedia.com...

More in next post...




posted on May, 24 2010 @ 12:15 PM
link   
As you can tell- economists are involved continually in a war against congressional authority. They want the congressional authority to be in the hands of independent banking economists, or, in the hands of the executive branch. The powers of the executive are very open ended. That is true. But- they don't mention anything about regulating the economy. From an economist point of view- the constitution is defunct. Take a look at article 2 section 2- you'll see nothing in the powers of the President as to monetary authority of the executive branch.


Section 2.

The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States; he may require the opinion, in writing, of the principal officer in each of the executive departments, upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices, and he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.

He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law: but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments.

The President shall have power to fill up all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate, by granting commissions which shall expire at the end of their next session.


topics.law.cornell.edu...

I will cover the war on our civil liberties in my next post... it'll probably be a while before I make my next post. But I at least wanted to make the case first that economists hate our civil liberties just as much as politicians that want to oppress us every time a terrorist attack or a false flag happens.

So... before I make my next post I want to ask the question. Who do you think hates the constitution more? Economists or politicians?



posted on May, 24 2010 @ 12:17 PM
link   
The fight is not about which hates the Constitution more. The real fight is between those who have chosen to support and defend it, and those who merely use it or abuse it according to their own purposes!



posted on May, 24 2010 @ 01:09 PM
link   
The congress was to MINT coin, not create fiat currency. Please show me the Amendment to the Constitution that allowed the government to create a fractional reserve banking system that uses fiat currency.

Also, regulate commerce DOES NOT mean regulate in the sense of control. That is the modern day usage of the terminology. That is a LIE.

Regulate meant to make regular. And that was only between nations and intrastate, not interstate.

Our government has thrown out the Constitution and has been robbing the American citizen for over a decade (edit, I meant century) now!

Labor was NEVER meant to be taxed. The right to PROPERTY and the seizure of property by taxation was PROHIBITED by the Constitution!

Please no revisionist history or interpretation here.

The government has become the tyrants the founders had warned you about.

[edit on 5/24/2010 by endisnighe]



posted on May, 24 2010 @ 01:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by endisnighe
The congress was to MINT coin, not create fiat currency. Please show me the Amendment to the Constitution that allowed the government to create a fractional reserve banking system that uses fiat currency.


I know that. You seem to be missing the point of this thread. I'm not defending the beliefs of economists. Congress has monetary authority of the US government. People seem to think that because of this- congress can delegate it to someone else like the fed. But, it never says congress can print money. In order for the fed to be constitutional within the powers of congress (assuming we view delegating powers as constitutional) they would have to use gold and silver as the legal currency.



Also, regulate commerce DOES NOT mean regulate in the sense of control. That is the modern day usage of the terminology. That is a LIE.


I'm quite well aware of this. Regulation does not mean ban or control. It just means modify. That's just a modern philosophical belief that the government should be there to pick up where the market can't (I'm just saying what they believe).



Regulate meant to make regular. And that was only between nations and intrastate, not interstate.


I'm in disagreement with you there. Regulation also can be a modification. There is more than one meaning of the term. I'm not saying I'm for more regulation. I'm just saying that is one of congress's role.



Our government has thrown out the Constitution and has been robbing the American citizen for over a decade now!

Labor was NEVER meant to be taxed. The right to PROPERTY and the seizure of property by taxation was PROHIBITED by the Constitution!


#1- Of course. That's the case I'm making with this topic.
#2- I completely agree with you. I believe the constitution even called against direct taxes? And the 5th amendment makes it pretty clear that your property can't be seized without the due process of law. The IRS is unconstitutional and everyone whose life has been ruined by it should have had a trial first, rather, than their homes being broken in to without a trial and whatever.



Please no revisionist history or interpretation here.

The government has become the tyrants the founders had warned you about.


#1- You'll find none of that here.
#2- I agree.



posted on May, 24 2010 @ 01:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Truth1000
 


Of course not. It is my belief that we should be weary about the war against the constitution on all fronts. People are aware of the war against our civil liberties because they see it in the news all the time and they accept it. People aren't aware of the war against congressional authority and the war against monetary economics because they don't really think the constitution has provisions that guard them against such tyrannical policies. I think people should be aware of the other war being fought by many people in the establishment because they just want an economic system of their choosing, regardless of the rule of law.



posted on May, 24 2010 @ 01:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Frankidealist35
 


I was not talking to you, I was pretty much reiterating your points. Just in my own big mouth way. Sorry if you thought it was that way. That is why I did not put a reply to.

As for your question. Which economists were you referring to? The idiots that said nothing to see here, no problems on the horizon, everything is peachy?

Or the ones warning that the collapse was inevitable, or purposeful?

I am thinking Max had it right. There ought to be a lot of bankers and congressman in prison right now, if not swinging for treason.

As for the politicians, if this Cap and Tax thing goes through, I expect my 50 Republics to round everyone up in Washington and have a rope tightening party.



posted on May, 24 2010 @ 01:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by endisnighe
reply to post by Frankidealist35
 


I was not talking to you, I was pretty much reiterating your points. Just in my own big mouth way. Sorry if you thought it was that way. That is why I did not put a reply to.


I see. It was just a misunderstanding. I thought you were disagreeing with some of the things I said. That's why I responded to it.



As for your question. Which economists were you referring to? The idiots that said nothing to see here, no problems on the horizon, everything is peachy?


Oh, I'm referring to people like Paul Krugman and Ben Bernanke that think that it's the government's job to print as much money as possible and to act like everything's fine. Then, they laughed at people who thought there was going to be a recession and said that the fundamentals of the economy are strong. And then, once the recession was underway, they decided to bail out all the too big to fail firms, because they think we can't do without them.



Or the ones warning that the collapse was inevitable, or purposeful?

I am thinking Max had it right. There ought to be a lot of bankers and congressman in prison right now, if not swinging for treason.


I agree. I think the fed should be held accountable for letting them just do whatever they felt like though. The bankers shouldn't be given a free ride but a lot of people played a role in perpetuating the crisis.



As for the politicians, if this Cap and Tax thing goes through, I expect my 50 Republics to round everyone up in Washington and have a rope tightening party.


There are a lot worse things that can happen other than cap and trade. If my understanding is correct- this cap and trade bill is pretty moderate and actually is favorable to the industries. Just a word of advice- whenever you see Republicans always saying that this bill won't help the economy, it won't help people- always look for special interests. Usually Republicans are wrong- and the bill is specifically designed for corporate interests. This isn't really socialism where the government has control over the economy. It's more like fascism where everything's a private-public partnership.



posted on May, 24 2010 @ 01:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Frankidealist35
 


When Cap and Tax came out awhile back, I spent 3 days reading through it and also reading through some of the economists I trust interpretations.

Like Obama said, if it goes through, it will necessarily make energy costs skyrocket. Which in turn means everything that takes energy to create it, will necessarily skyrocket in price.

I am trying to think of something that does not take energy to either create it or ship it. Cannot think of anything. Now, my question is, will shipping from another country such as China going to get tagged with a tariff equivalent to our costs?

I would put big bucks on a bet that will not be so. This is just another nail in the coffin of the US. Destroy the US to implement global governance.

The communist/fascist empire must roll on.

Who was the Russian that predicted the breakup of the US and who was the other Russian that warned us about the communist plan using environmentalism and global warming as their vehicle to power?

As Stephen King said-Only enemies speak the truth; friends and lovers lie endlessly, caught in the web of duty.



posted on May, 24 2010 @ 02:17 PM
link   
Criminals.

Criminals hate the constitution.

Capitalist, corporate, & criminals of every type & stripe hate it, because it attempts to create a level, fair playing field even for the little &/or less powerful.

The Constitution is a LIBERAL document.

FAIRNESS, EQUALITY are LIBERAL concepts.

LIBERTY for ALL is a LIBERAL idea.

The United States at its founding was a LIBERAL, DEMOCRATIC government.

And that liberal, democratic tradition is at the basis of the globe's most powerful & wealthy nations, because they have wealth generating, moderately fair economic systems.

Rigged systems are poisonous & self destroying systems.

Gangsters & Dictators use their 'capital' of violent arms to intimidate people,
pure capitalism,
and it ALWAYS creates economic basket cases, like Zimbabwe,
that only sustain their last death throws with aggression, invasion, parasitic distractionism, until they finally fail & collapse.

Fairness is at the heart of creativity, hope, excitement,
which are the things that fuel unbelievably powerful, almost frightening economies.



new topics

top topics



 
2

log in

join