What the hell? Can any knowledgeable Americans explain this to me?

Remove all ads!

http://www.ronpaul.com/2010-07-01/audit-the-fed-fails-229-198/

The Federal Reserve must be one of the most crooked organisations on the planet, and an audit would do them a lot of good. As some Republicans used to say when trying to justify illegal wire taps "If you having nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear." (or something to effect). Surely then a little transparency wouldn't hurt when it comes to an institution which once forcibly dispossessed the citizenry of their gold?

I was always led to believe that it was the Republicans who fellated the large clandestine corporations and government institutions, while the Democrats launched empty fighting words at them. So what the hell happened here? Why did the Republicans vote in favour of auditing the the Federal Reserve, and why did the Democrats do a backflip?


Indeed, as an outsider looking in on America's politics, I'm a little bewildered by avid supporters of the Democrats or Republicans, because the stances they hold often contradict each other internally.

The stereotypical Democrat supporter often bangs on about how evil the government and its institutions are. They protest every little activity by the government which is perceived to violate civil liberties. But then they spin around and support legislation which *disarms* the average citizen, and push for more government legislation which regulates individual behaviour on certain aspects (eg. 'anti-discrimination' and 'equality' legislation). Democrat supporters also tend to see nothing wrong with using the government, police, and violence to *coerce* people into not expressing their opinion (witness the AFA at Neo-Nazi gatherings).

The stereotypical Republican is just as hypocritical in their views, if not worse. No Other Gods is an example of such a Republican supporter. He is an outspoken advocate of gun rights, and slavers at the thought of the government disempowered him in that manner. And undoubtably he (thinks) he believes in a small, fiscal government.

But then these same individuals are very quick to act as the apologist for pretty much every violation of human and civil rights that the government perpetrates. "The Government is forcibly taking our money in the form of taxes to bomb some people I don't know overseas? Good!"

"What's that? The narcotics squad just broke into someone's house, beat their wife, terrified their kids, and shot their dog, all because a consenting adult sold pot to another consenting adult! Oh, well, I'm sure the scumbag had it coming anyway. Free market, what's that?!"

It's really mindblowing how Democrat and Republican supporters can't see how ridiculous they are. I wish they could just dissociate themselves from themselves for a second, and see things as I do: An outsider looking in on American politics.

You guys are crazy.

Edit: Apologies to NOG for singling you out. It wasn't done out of malevolence. It's just that you are the perfect example for what I'm trying to say about the 'stereotypical' Republicans. If I'm misrepresenting you in some way, please correct me.

 

Err .... no. To the contrary, that's actually what the stereotypical Newt Gingrich and Dick Armey School of Republicans does, not to mention the Libertarians. You hear that from Democrats to a far lesser degree.

The beef the sponsors, iirc Ron Paul (R) and Alan Grayson (D), of the audit the fed bill have with the Federal reserve is unaccountability and lack of oversight, but that's an entirely different matter than ranting on how evil the government and its institutions are.

 

Here's your mistake. You were probably led to believe this because the Reps were in power for 8 years. The truth of the matter is that both organizations have their sacred cows in the form of 'large clandestine corporations and government institutions'. It's just a changing of the guard.

Again, this isn't a general response to government or institutions, just the government and institutions implimented by a Republican government. Nw that the Dems are in power, it's time for the Reps to do it. I am hoping that the Tea Party/Libertarian movement gains some real steam this time around. That way it may last into a Republican administration.

I'm... not sure what you meant by this. I'm also fairly sure it's a translation problem of some kind. Could you re-phrase it?

I believe in a properly proportioned government. Like a beautiful woman, there are parts that should be large, and parts that shouldn't. And it should live on a balanced diet, too.

For example, the military. The citizenry shouldn't be required or expected to see to their own national defense (unless it's severe enough to warrant a draft, but even then...). The government should run that. And, in the modern day, the US military is something of an all-or-nothing proposition. To maintain #1 World Power status, we need a lot of investment. On the other hand, if we don't maintain that status, I don't know that there's much purpose served by us being #2 World Power. Better to slip a ways and save the money.

I think you're making a stretch here. I support our troops in Iraq and Afghanastan, and believe the moves to oust abusive governments were good, if not internationally and politically justifiable. Furthermore, I believe our move to oust the Taliban was internationally and politically justifiable (they essentially fostered the 9/11 attack). I'm sure some sizable mistakes have been made, and I won't try to justify those. I'm also sure the US military really needs to learn to handle guerilla warfare like this better. These are the third and fourth military conflicts like this we've been engaged in sinve WWII, with the first Gulf War basically being the only 'regular' war I know of we've been in in the same period. Furthermore, looking at the future, I see no signs that the pattern is going to change any time soon.

Try again, I, for one, believe marajuana should be legalized. Regulated, but legal.

It's the appeal of power. Both groups are corrupt, but the other group criticizing them while they're in power helps keep them at least a little honest. Unfortunately, the Federal Reserve is the cash cow for both governments, so good luck getting a real audit of that. Anyone in power will oppose it.

No worries, and corrections offered.

 

Yes. If you try to understand American politics in a rational manner, Mordea, it will drive you crazy as well. You've been warned.

 

Well, a lot more interesting and fun than the dull boring common ground politics I have to suffer through here. Everyone agrees about all the big things and the "conflict" is about half a percentage there in income tax or not. It is very very practical and pragmatic but oh so bland.

 

Hope this isn't going too far off base, but I'm kind of curious to know what limitations, if any, should be placed on the (currently illegal) drug trade. I agree with legalizing drugs in theory, but do we legalize absolutely everything? Marijuana seems to be generally not very harmful to people, but not so much with cocaine, heroine, spray paint, rubbing alcohol, etc. For substances that harm people severely, or even outright kill them after prolonged (or even not so prolonged use), should a person's right to do whatever they choose with their body still be respected? And what if those actions carry over into the lives of other persons? (e.g., they create an unsafe or unstable environment, or dramatically increase the likelihood that your children will abuse dangerous drugs through the creation of cultural 'norms,' etc.)

It seems like kind of a quasi-degree question, much like the question of what types of weapons possession the 2nd Amendment in the US protects - firearms, sure ... but also intercontinental ballistic missiles?

 

Gaear - Yes. We respect that right with cigarette smoking, which does all the things you mention.

 

Maybe. But, the tobacco giants will get the call to do that. They will toss in all their additives, and that in NOT good.

 

To a large degree, central banks are supposed not to be accountable to the government, like say the court system isn't. They're set up to take unpopular decisions that wouldn't be taken by politicians (or at least those who want to be reelected). The more control the government has over them the more likely that they will seek to do what pleases the politicians instead of what they should do. The Fed is generally considered unusual in the amount of control Congress has over it. Not that it's much but it's more than normal.