UAWTalk.com - View topic - Ron Paul hope for america - The Unofficial Forum Where UAW Members Talk Online In Solidarity! - Free Message Board Hosting by FreePowerBoards.com

MISSION STATEMENT - HELP TO BUILD SOLIDARITY IN THE MEMBERSHIP WHICH IN TURN BUILDS STRENGTH AND TO INFORM THEM WITH UNION AND COMPANY NEWS IN A TIMELY MANNER USING THE POWER OF THE INTERNET.

Jobs, the Dollar, the Fed and the Next Great Depression

by Jeanne Roberts Page 1 of 1 page(s)

http://www.opednews.com

Tell A Friend

The government recently reported that January job losses topped 17,000 – the first monthly decline since August, 2003. The report was widely cited, but the figure is insignificant, representing only about .001 percent of U.S. jobs. Of greater importance is chronic unemployment, which Congress calls the most useful indication of recession. As of Jan. 2008, 18.3 percent of jobless workers had been out of work for six months or more, compared to 16.2 percent the previous year. Persistent joblessness is higher now than in March of 2002, when Congress first extended unemployment benefits to address the problem. In the last four decades, wages have also declined. In 1960, a working man could support a family. By 1980, he had to ask his wife to work to achieve that goal. During the last seven years under Bush, household debt has doubled, and manufacturing jobs have fallen below 1945 levels. The national debt has risen 300 percent. According to Paul Craig Roberts, former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy, this is the profile of a third world economy. Recent scandals and failures (Countrywide Bank, the Carlyle Group, Bear Stearns and possibly Lehman Bros.) tied to subprime mortgages and poor fiscal management point to an economy on the brink of total meltdown.

As we enter the next Great Depression, various writers have begun to assign blame. One cites free trade, beloved of economists but the bane of American workers. Economists (using Joseph Schumpeter's theory) view free trade as a leveler, removing unproductive jobs in backward industries and replacing them with better paying alternatives. Economists don't work in customer service, manufacturing or IT, which have jointly lost 2.3 million jobs since 2001 (McKinsey Consulting). This trend is accelerating, and economist Alan Blinder estimates that eventually as many as 30 percent of jobs may be outsourced to India and other cheap-labor countries. Even economists are beginning to realize that the gains from free trade go to those at the top of the economic food chain, and the "trickle-down effect" (or Reaganomics) seldom reaches workers at the bottom. The upside of this gloomy economic picture is that companies are running lean. Unfortunately, this is also the downside; there is no place for the unemployed to go.

Market forces, and the balance of trade, determine the value of the dollar. I will cite from a 2003 report by the Peterson Institute: "Two complementary steps are needed to complete the essential correction of the dollar…First, the trade-weighted average exchange rate of the dollar needs to fall by another 10-15 percent to restore a sustainable external position for the United States. Second, this upcoming "second wave" of decline should occur against a broader group of currencies and with greater corresponding appreciations in East Asia (i.e., not against the Euro)".

According to the Federal Reserve Bank, a strong dollar creates lower prices on foreign goods, but also makes it harder for U.S. firms to compete in foreign markets (or for foreigners to invest in U.S. firms). A weak dollar makes it easier for U.S. firms to sell abroad and invites foreign investing. Unfortunately, consumers face higher prices because foreign goods become more expensive. If the Peterson Institute protocol is achieved, economically stressed American consumers will be put further in the hole by greatly inflated energy and food prices, and the even more recently announced 12-percent inflation rate in China, which ups the cost of Chinese goods.

Between 2000 and 2007, the dollar lost 30 percent of its purchasing power. Some fringe economists have accused the Federal Reserve of operating the U.S. like a banana republic, running up huge overseas debt, selling capital assets to foreign interests and printing money by the truckload. One commentator calls the dollar a "Bernanke peso", another accuses the U.S. of subscribing to "Zimbabwe economic theory". China has about $120 billion in U.S. debt, and Latin American countries have begun selling off their dollar reserves after years of bolstering our economy.

The system of Federal Reserve Banks, or the Fed, is not a government agency. It is a fiscal management organization (some call it a cartel of bankers) mandated by Congress in 1914. At its inception, J. P. Morgan Co. and Kuhn, Loeb & Co., reportedly bought stock in the Fed on behalf of the Rothschild's and the Bank of England, and had their principal officers appointed to the Fed in various advisory capacities. The trend has persisted. Goldman Sachs entered the Fed arena later (former Goldman employees currently head the New York Stock Exchange, the World Bank, the U.S. Treasury Department and Treasury in the person of Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr.). One observer credits Goldman (acting in concert with the Fed) with repeal of the Public Utility Holding Company Act (PUHCA) in 2005, saying Goldman's current energy windfall profits are a result. Kevin Warsh, a current chairman of the Fed, was once director of mergers and acquisitions at J. P. Morgan (Greenspan worked there, too). Donald Kohn, vice-chairman, is also current chair of the Committee on the Global Financial System (GFS), an international money and banking system whose key players include the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the Bank for International Settlements (BIS, of which ex-chairman Greenspan was also chair from 1994 to the end of his Fed term). The BIS is comprised of financial institutions acting in the global arena. Hedge funds are part of this global operation, and have recently experienced a trading surge, sparking rumors that the Fed is short-selling. Three of the five Fed members have served as Bush advisors. Conspiracy theories are bound to propagate when the rich and powerful also hold the purse strings of the American economy.

Federal Reserve banks are privately owned corporations (Lewis vs. US, case #80-5905, 9th Circuit, June 24, 1982). As such, they are not required by the Securities and Exchange Commission to publish a list of major shareholders. Federal Reserve notes are not backed by gold, but by the assets of the Federal Reserve, namely the power of Congress to tax people. Gold represents a meager one-tenth of Fed notes. The 1914 act effectively transferred the power to coin and issue money from the government to the Federal Reserve. No Federal Reserve Bank has ever been audited. The banks are reportedly owned by: the Rothschild Bank of London; the Warburg Bank of Hamburg; the Rothschild Bank of Berlin; Lehman Brothers of New York; Lazard Brothers of Paris; the Kuhn Loeb Bank of New York; the Israel Moses Seif Banks of Italy; Goldman, Sachs of New York; Warburg Bank of Amsterdam; and the Chase Manhattan Bank of New York. In 1992, taxpayers paid the Fed banking system $286 billion in interest on national debt created by Fed policies; debt which the Fed purchased by printing money. Forty percent of all income tax goes to pay this interest, but the actual debt that can never be repaid. In fact, the Fed is rather like a high-interest credit card, and America has been behind on its payments almost since inception.

The First Great Depression was also a series of events put in motion by the Federal Reserve. In 1925, according to Ron Chernow's book, "The House of Morgan", Ben Strong, then chairman of the Fed, made a secret commitment to the governor of the Bank of England to help England reinstate the Gold Standard. With moral support from the U.S. Treasury, Strong raised the value of the British pound by depressing U.S. interest rates. The economy, already strong, soared. With investment margins at 10 percent, investors began borrowing heavily to invest in the stock market.

Strong died in Oct. 1928. His successor, George.Harrison, raised rates to cool the fever, but too late. Almost one year later, on October 28, 1929 the Dow fell 20 percent. It continued to fall, bottoming out 40 percent below its peak in two months. The Fed dumped money into the system, creating temporary recovery, but the Dow finally hit bottom at 41.22 on July 8, 1932, 10 percent of its peak three years earlier. In what the Feds called their "austerity" program, banks were not given more money, and between 1930 and 1933 a cascade failure ensued. The money supply fell 27% from 1929 to 1933. In that same period, tax revenues also fell, leaving a 900-million gap in the budget. The Revenue Act of 1932 was expected to raise $1.1 billion in new revenue from steeper income tax rates and lower exemptions, and it did, on the backs of impoverished Americans.

As soon as banks start failing again, the Fed will further consolidate its position as the only game in town by stepping back and again demanding austerity. The Fed is, traditionally, a lender of last resort. This means that when a bank is in trouble and cannot meet its depositors’ demands for cash, the Federal Reserve must provide the liquidity by buying the loans (or bonds from the banks' investment portfolio). The Federal Reserve was derelict in this responsibility during the banking crises that culminated in the Great Depression, and it will be derelict again, because consolidating power in the hands of the few is the real international monetary policy.

Ron Paul, the most vocal opponent of the Fed, says "The Fed has followed a consistent policy of flooding the economy with easy money, leading to a misallocation of resources and an artificial "boom" followed by a recession or depression when the Fed-created bubble bursts".

We don't need conspiracy theories (i.e., the Fed is short-selling the market, is involved with Enron and the Carlyle Group to bring America to its knees, bribed Democrats in S. Florida to stop a ballot count in the last election, etc.). We have the facts, and the Fed is a failure. Considering its international alliances, no one should be surprised. As Thomas Jefferson, founding father of our country, pointed out: "A merchant has no country."

If you think the Fed can, or will, act to save the American economy, read the New York Times article. Also consider the fact that the Fed has traditionally used financial failures to consolidate its shadow position as controller of the American economy. No doubt it is licking its proverbial lips as first one, and then many, financial institutions slide down the slippery slope to the North American Union, the Amero, and the New World Order.

http://quantummechanist.com/jlrhome/index.html

I'm a freelance writer, a former reporter, the mother of four amazingly compassionate and intelligent human beings but otherwise poor as the proverbial church mouse. I write about the important stuff: environment, corporate fraud, government negligence and corruption - you name it (if it makes you mad, I've probably covered it). I just finished a book on environmental initiatives for homeowners, Greening Your Home, and write for several online sites. I'm considered an environmentalist (or maybe just a left-wing nut job), but my real concern is sustainability. We all have to live on the planet together - people, birds, buffalo, flowers and zooplankton. Saving spotted owls only to dispossess people doesn't float my boat. Surely, with our technology, experience and understanding of natural systems, we can create a world where owls and loggers both get critical habitat. "Life is a journey. Don't get lost following someone else's footprints".

im voting ron paul to the end!

ron paul was the only one telling you about the banking crash before the crash took place. how come the god obama could not get it right... could it be he was paid off from the criminal bankers?

Ron Paul Sucks
Rickner, Jason
Issue date: 11/30/07 Section: Opinions
PrintEmail Article Tools Page 1 of 1 The 2008 US presidential field is pretty much filled with duds, but none get me as riled up as fringe Republican candidate Ron Paul. It's not just his asinine policies, inconsistent voting record and archaic 19th century worldview; it's also the fact that his hordes of extremist followers have been collectively crapping their pants over him for the past several months now. It's admittedly refreshing to see an anti-war Republican on the stage, but that doesn't justify the cult of personality being built around him, especially when you factor in the fact that his policy initiatives run the gamut from returning to the gold standard and phasing out public education to demolishing the FBI and privatizing the military. Just Google Ron Paul and you'll find a wealth of bizarre, Stalinist devotion, often manifested in slavish praise on Youtube comment boards.

The worst offenders of Ron Paul mania are the masses of 19-year-old, bright-eyed idealists who think that his ideas are new, revolutionary, and would work great if only someone would put them into practice. The obvious punchline is that the US was operating under Paul's libertarian paradise for basically the first half of its history. A quick look at history disproves the claims I've heard made by Ronpaulogists: food and drug companies wouldn't self-regulate if we destroyed the FDA (in fact, they were dumping snake oil and arsenic into their goods with impunity before it existed), the gold standard isn't some magical inflation-proof cure-all (in fact, gold standard currency undergoes sporadic, wild spasms of inflation and deflation), and a lack of public schools left much of the population too illiterate to perform most of today's jobs.

Actually, when I said that the 19-year-old idealists were the worst offenders, I left out the white supremacists and conspiracy theorists, who have flocked to the nutty Dr. Paul like a messiah. David Duke, a former governor of Louisiana and the nation's most prominent KKK member and neo-Nazi, is a fervent supporter of Ron Paul and his 19th century ideals, and rants on his official website about the vast Zionist media conspiracy against the man he literally calls his "king." If it was just this guy supporting Paul, I wouldn't make a big deal about it, but I've had a hard time finding a single white supremacist, 9/11 truther or any other that doesn't rally behind the only presidential candidate to claim that the 1964 Civil Rights Act "increased racial tensions while diminishing individual liberty."

So the next time someone in a sandwich board waving a bunch of pamphlets around tries to talk to you about Dr. Ron Paul, just remember that the guy is supporting a certifiable nutcase.

http://media.www.stetsonreporter.com/media/storage/paper1167/news/2007/11/30/Opinions/Ron-Paul.Sucks -3123990.shtml

Before delving into Paul's beliefs and voting record, it's important to understand the principles underlying his decisions. First and foremost, he's a strict Constitutionalist, placing the authority of the Constitution above all else. He's voted against a remarkable amount of legislation, especially that which would authorize funding for certain purposes, because he believes Congress is overstepping its constitutional bounds. Drawing from his strict adherence to the Constitution, he thinks the federal government has grown too large and powerful, and aims to pare it down by removing "unnecessary bureaucracies" such as the EPA, FDA, Department of Education, Department of Energy, and FEMA. Because of his desire to limit the power of the federal government, he's also a strong proponent of states' rights, and seeks to prevent Congress and the federal courts from encroaching upon their rights.

http://www.stumbleupon.com/toolbar/#topic=Politics&url=http%253A%252F%252Femptv.com%252Fview%252Fron -paul-doesnt-deserve-your-support

Dood wrote:

If he is a consitutionalist, he would be limited to the 10th amendment and would be forced to abide by state rule for most of the nation

Dood wrote:

So you come in here and bash Ron Paul, calling him the P word that rhymes with wussy and then back it up with a rant that looks like it was used in a middle school campaign for class president. Laughing

I'll just go with a few things here. Are you seriously defending the EPA, FDA, Department of Education, Department of Energy and FEMA. Please tell me your joking. Do you think our country would crumble to the ground if we didn't have those bureaucracies?

First off the EPA. Environmental protection agency. The same agency that told 9/11 rescue workers the air at ground zero was safe to breath and now hundreds are dying from lung disease and even more are suffering a slow and painful death all because the EPA, the same agency that was supposed to be protecting them, said the air was fine and that the clean up was safe to do.

FEMA. Can u say Katrina?

Department of Ed. Uh don't u think that No child left behind left a few kids behind.

Deparment of Energy. Do we really even need to touch this one.

Point is. Ron Paul recognizes that these agencies are first and foremost unconstitutional. If the American people want them, then fine he would say. Just amend the constitution to allow it. Most of these federal programs would do better if they were ran and funded at the local level where they can be held accountable and be monitored by the people the fund those programs. I.e. the local community.

Try reading the entire link and not just the little teaser I posted before you call it middle school dumba$$

He opposes embryonic stem cell research. At the GOP Values Voter debate, candidates were asked whether they approve of frozen embryos ("snowflake babies") being used for medical experiments. All of them, including Paul, said no. He voted against the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2005, which would have allowed federal funding of research using stem cells from discarded embryos, and also voted against the Stem Cell Therapeutic and Research Act of 2005, which allows the collection of stem cells from cord blood. He explained that he takes issue with the constitutionally unauthorized use of federal funds:

Mr. Speaker, the issue of government funding of embryonic stem cell research is one of the most divisive matters facing the country. While I sympathize with those who see embryonic stem cell research as a path to cures for dreadful diseases that have stricken so many Americans, I strongly object to forcing those Americans who believe embryonic stem cell research is immoral to subsidize such research with their tax dollars.

The question that should concern Congress today is: Does the US government have the constitutional authority to fund any form of stem cell research? The clear answer to that question is no. A proper constitutional position would reject federal funding for stem cell research, while allowing individual states and private citizens to decide whether to permit, ban, or fund this research. Therefore, I must vote against HR 810.

Unfortunately, many congressional opponents of embryonic stem cell research disregard the Constitution by supporting HR 2520, an "acceptable" alternative that funds umbilical-cord stem cell research. While this approach is much less objectionable than funding embryonic stem cell research, it is still unconstitutional. Therefore, I must also oppose HR 2520.

No Federal Funding for Stem Cell Research, 24 May 2005

GO HERE FOR THE REST
http://www.stumbleupon.com/toolbar/#topic=Politics&url=http%253A%252F%252Femptv.com%252Fview%252Fron -paul-doesnt-deserve-your-support

Quote:

dood dont you support the constitution of the united states?

Dood wrote:

I'm a dumbass but you call Ron Paul a Pu##y and back it by saying he doesn't support stem cell research, the EPA, FDA, and FEMA. Rolling Eyes

Got it.

Quote:

I'm a dumbass but you call Ron Paul a Pu##y and back it by saying he doesn't support stem cell research, the EPA, FDA, and FEMA.

Got it.

yea and that was his very first post...not much to say to doods post but lol. he post an opinion artical as if it was fact and the rest of the stuff he post makes me want to vote for ron paul even more.

Good for you, Vote for him that's great, I'm sure once he gets all two of your votes he will get the other 25 million votes somewhere. I started replying to this dead post so you guys could tell me why you support him. I expected more hits, but I guess my argument was kinda lame, I didn't read the link I just put it on here for discussion.

Here is another more interesting clip I found

The Stormfront (white supremacist, neo-Nazi leaning) website has a promotional page for Ron Paul. Paul’s campaign accepted $500 in campaign donations from Stormfront founder and known neo-Nazi Don Black, and until recently Paul refused to return the donation. While Paul’s campaign has a fascinating number of ties to Stormfront, they refused to return the calls of Daniel Siederaski of the Jewish Telegraph Agency. Siederaski wrote:

Any other candidate would unequivocally reject that money as soon as its donor’s identity was known. That Paul’s campaign needs time to think about it is shocking. Also of concern is the fact that Paul’s campaign has ignored my repeated attempts to interview the Congressman for JTA, the Jewish newswire service by which I am employed. I had intended to write a story about the Congressman, and to provide him with the opportunity to distance himself from his extremist supporters, to clarify his position on Israel, and to state his case to the Jewish community. Yet, after three weeks of repeated telephone calls, two chats with his Deputy Communications Director, and several left voicemail messages, I have yet to receive a callback to schedule an interview….

In Tennessee one of Ron Paul’s biggest internet organizers is neo-Nazi leader Will Williams, who is a southern point person for the National Alliance Party, the largest neo-Nazi organization in the US. According to Andrew Walden, author of the American Thinker piece, Williams is in part responsible for the extreme numbers of “meet-up” individuals who have registered for Paul. Some 61,000 Ron Paul supporters are registered, compared to 3,400 for Barack Obama, 1,000 for Hillary Clinton, and 1,800 for Dennis Kucinich. Williams may also be responsible for the enormous amount of spam and comments received by anyone who dares criticize Ron Paul.

Dave Neiwert, quoting Chip Berlet, wrote “Those neo-Nazis have a First Amendment right to endorse Ron Paul, but Ron Paul has a moral obligation to disavow that donation." He added: "There's two issues: Why would anyone have to ask Ron Paul to disassociate himself from the endorsement of neo-Nazis? And the second is that when they did ask him, his silence spoke volumes about his values. You know, 'I don't enjoy the endorsement of neo-Nazis' — how hard is that to say? And why hasn't he refunded it? It's not like this is a gray area."

http://blogcritics.org/archives/2007/11/27/011749.php

Dood wrote:

Yeah, I think this supposed issue was dealt with months ago. Paul is not a racist it was a smear tactic put out when the establishment deemed him a threat to the GOP favorites.

Page generation time: 0.764s (PHP: 100% - SQL: 0%) - SQL queries: 22 - - Debug on