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.


An Email On Ron Paul vs. Herman Cain In The Bloomberg Debate

page: 1

log in


posted on Oct, 12 2011 @ 08:56 PM
["Hi Dad..

I thought I'd insert a little feedback into your dislike of Herman Cain's remarks concerning Alan Greenspan during last night's debate. I know that during our conversation tonight, I mentioned recalling the thought that Greenspan "killed" the Glass-Steagall Act, enacted during the great depression to "limit the conflicts of interest created when commercial banks are permitted to underwrite stocks or bonds", due to the reason that "individual investors were seriously hurt by banks whose overriding interest was promoting stocks of interest and benefit to the banks, rather than to individual investors"..

In fact I was wrong. The correct terminology was "reinterpret"..

This link from the essentially CFR-owned PBS explains the following:

1986-87 Fed begins reinterpreting Glass-Steagall; Greenspan becomes Fed chairman

In December 1986, the Federal Reserve Board, which has regulatory jurisdiction over banking, reinterprets Section 20 of the Glass-Steagall Act, which bars commercial banks from being "engaged principally" in securities business, deciding that banks can have up to 5 percent of gross revenues from investment banking business. The Fed Board then permits Bankers Trust, a commercial bank, to engage in certain commercial paper (unsecured, short-term credit) transactions. In the Bankers Trust decision, the Board concludes that the phrase "engaged principally" in Section 20 allows banks to do a small amount of underwriting, so long as it does not become a large portion of revenue. This is the first time the Fed reinterprets Section 20 to allow some previously prohibited activities.

In the spring of 1987, the Federal Reserve Board votes 3-2 in favor of easing regulations under Glass-Steagall Act, overriding the opposition of Chairman Paul Volcker. The vote comes after the Fed Board hears proposals from Citicorp, J.P. Morgan and Bankers Trust advocating the loosening of Glass-Steagall restrictions to allow banks to handle several underwriting businesses, including commercial paper, municipal revenue bonds, and -backed securities. Thomas Theobald, then vice chairman of Citicorp, argues that three "outside checks" on corporate misbehavior had emerged since 1933: "a very effective" SEC; knowledgeable investors, and "very sophisticated" rating agencies. Volcker is unconvinced, and expresses his fear that lenders will recklessly lower loan standards in pursuit of lucrative securities offerings and market bad loans to the public. For many critics, it boiled down to the issue of two different cultures - a culture of risk which was the securities business, and a culture of protection of deposits which was the culture of banking.

In March 1987, the Fed approves an application by Chase Manhattan to engage in underwriting commercial paper, applying the same reasoning as in the 1986 Bankers Trust decision, and in April it issues an order outlining its rationale. While the Board remains sensitive to concerns about mixing commercial banking and underwriting, it states its belief that the original Congressional intent of "principally engaged" allowed for some securities activities. The Fed also indicates that it will raise the limit from 5 percent to 10 percent of gross revenues at some point in the future. The Board believes the new reading of Section 20 will increase competition and lead to greater convenience and increased efficiency.

In August 1987, Alan Greenspan -- formerly a director of J.P. Morgan and a proponent of banking deregulation -- becomes chairman of the Federal Reserve Board. One reason Greenspan favors greater deregulation is to help U.S. banks compete with big foreign institutions.

Now in my mind, the last two sentences of that excerpt seals the deal, especially his monster J.P. Morgan position..

Regarding Herman Cain, I'm not trying to oust this man's accomplishments or even candidacy for office, I just feel that certain information should be known the voting public before casting their vote..

Here's the conflict from last night's , while the end of the clip has a recording from Cain's AM750 broadcast in December 2010:

Ron Paul To Herman Cain FED Questions @ Bloomberg Debate

"I tell folks, you know we've got 12 federal reserve banks, find out which district you're in, Call Them Up and go from there".

That's one of Ron Paul's quotes from last night.

Cain responded to Ron Paul's question by claiming he never dismissed Ron Paul or his supporters as “ignorant” for asking about the Federal Reserve, and that the error was down to Paul believing what he read on the Internet.

Technically Cain is correct, because he didn’t call Ron Paul supporters “ignorant”. Cain simply ignored the rest of Paul's claims in his own question. However, even worse , in his own book Cain dismissed them as “stupid” and ludicrously suggested that the Paul campaign was deliberately sending out supporters to harass Cain with questions about the Federal Reserve.

Herman Cain's book quote - exact page via google

I don't think you're going to find anything to audit on the Federal Reserve. But they want you to believe that Hermain Cain doesn't want the Federal Reserve to be audited.

I get the same Stupid question at almost every one of these events. I know it's a deliberate stratedgy. How can a person randomly show up at a hundred events and ask the same Stupid question to try and nail me on the Federal Reserve? It's really becoming annoying more than anything else.

But I've got news for those Paulites. It's not going to work, because the American people are a lot smarter than they are.

That's what I'm seeing round the country. But there are Stupid people out there-the people who are ruining this country, and I'm worried about them".

So it would seem as if those who support Ron Paul and/or question Cain's Federal Reserve background or its policies in general are stupid people. Most of all, in my opinion, during last night's debate, Herman Cain loosely lied in the most political way possible. Granted the quote from Ron Paul wasn't exact, and in most part a paraphrase, but Cain ran on that and ended with a distractingly powerful re-deliverance of his 999 plan.

Anyways, Dad.. Just my two cents. I don't intend to relay all the information I've dug up on the Federal Reserve and it's ideologically corrupt contemplation over the past 100 years, but I just wanted to express this." ]
edit on 12-10-2011 by rstregooski because: beer

edit on 12-10-2011 by rstregooski because: more beer

edit on 12-10-2011 by rstregooski because: (no reason given)

edit on 12-10-2011 by rstregooski because: (no reason given)

edit on 12-10-2011 by rstregooski because: title

edit on 12-10-2011 by rstregooski because: more beer

edit on 12-10-2011 by rstregooski because: blaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

posted on Oct, 12 2011 @ 09:08 PM
I didn't really hear too many people talking about Herman Cain lying last night. Very dishonest, and his FR relationship needs to be further exposed.


log in