Ron Paul: What Are They So Afraid Of?
The Fed is afraid that an audit of the Fed would reduce confidence in the dollar... Is it because maybe they know we'll find something that will reduce confidence in the dollar? If we don't find anything wrong at the Fed, wouldn't that increase confidence of the dollar? See for yourself
Kucinich: the Federal Reserve is paying banks NOT to make loans to struggling Americans!
The government got the money for the bailout from the Federal Reserve. We gave it to the banks... The banks put a good chunk of the money into reserves at the Federal Reserve!!! Now they have more to loan to us... thanks fractional reserve system.
Ron Paul on Federal Reserve
Strong Democracy is not Socialism
Having a strong limited government is possible if we can get the corporations' and banks' hands off our government.
I was thinking it would be possible to lead into a more democratic society not by embracing regulation to spur innovation but by funding education, individuals, and small and medium companies to develop big ideas.
This is a total brain storm so hang with me.
Maybe the government could put more money towards education, science, technology, and commercialization of great ideas, green ideas. Maybe the government could make technology grants to small and medium businesses for advancement. If the government really wanted to "create jobs" they'd be giving the money to individuals, and small and medium sized businesses. I purposefully exclude big business because... they have enough money to be able to do real R & D. They are controlled by the bottom line so it doesn't happen (unless they had competition).
Does this happen? Please comment your thoughts, questions, or findings.
If we can restore real competition in the market place, which is bogged down in oligopolis, there could be real job growth. We have forgotten just how important competition is to capitalism and democracy.
Thomas Jefferson: “banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies”
I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around [the banks] will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs.
Thomas Jefferson (1743 - 1826), (Attributed)
He may be long gone but is he not right on the money?
from Thomas Jefferson @ Wikipedia
Corporations
Jefferson in 1816 wrote to George Logan,
“ In this respect England exhibits the most remarkable phenomenon in the universe in the contrast between the profligacy of it's government and the probity of it's citizens. And accordingly it is now exhibiting an example of the truth of the maxim that virtue & interest are inseparable. It ends, as might have been expected, in the ruin of it's people, but this ruin will fall heaviest, as it ought to fall on that hereditary aristocracy which has for generations been preparing the catastrophe. I hope we shall take warning from the example and crush in it's birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country.
I think we know who lost that challenge of strength. How about we turn the tables now? How about we finally stand up to corporations and banks?
Op-Ed: Reject Corporate Personhood
Reject Corporate Personhood from Populist
New Justice Sonia Sotomayor proved herself to be a good hire in her first appearance with the Supreme Court when she challenged the idea that corporations have broad First Amendment rights that the court should expand. She suggested that the court should instead reconsider the 19th-century usurpation of constitutional rights on behalf of corporations.
The Supreme Court is considering overturning not only the recent restrictions on electioneering by corporations and labor unions within 60 days of an election, but also restrictions that go back a century to prohibit corporations from contributing to federal political campaigns.
The case involves Citizens United, a non-profit corporation that sought to air a movie attacking Hillary Clinton during the Democratic primary season last year. Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission was originally argued before the Supreme Court in March, but the court ordered a new hearing for constitutional arguments for Sept. 9. The court seemed to be poised for a sweeping affirmation of corporate “personhood,” or the right of corporations to equal protection of the laws.
As John Nichols writes on page 20, Chief Justice John Roberts promised during his confirmation hearings in 2005 to respect judicial precedent — but that was before the balance of power shifted right with the retirement of Sandra Day O’Connor. Now, with Sam Alito on board, he has pressed for a review of campaign finance laws that were upheld by the court as recently as six years ago.
Many court observers think Roberts has the votes of Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Alito and Anthony Kennedy to overturn at least large sections of the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, a.k.a. McCain-Feingold. They also might overrule previous court decisions that upheld the constitutionality of restrictions on corporate money in politics.
Such a decision would tear away the veneer of citizen control over government and return us to the days of the Robber Barons in the 19th century. The Tillman Act, pushed by Teddy Roosevelt in 1907, banned corporate contributions to federal candidates. Many states have similar laws for state races.
We shall see what happens. It should be in the US Constitution that corporations are not people. "Proposed Constitutional Amendments to revoke corporate constitutional "rights," reverse Buckley v. Valeo, and establish a right to vote." If this were to happen, the courts wouldn't be able to perpetuate corporate control.
Just a funny line from the article...
The court also should be required to explain how a person, under the 14th Amendment, can be owned, as a corporation is.
All we can hope for is that they see how sinister corporations have become. We also will see who is really for the people... Who we can count on to help drive this essential change. We should only vote in pro-democracy, pro-people politicians. Most Republicrats are pro-corporation.
If you were a strict constructionist (like some members of the court) they would read the constitution as the framers had intended. The framers gave _people_ rights... not corporations. The question is, will they vote that way?
Understanding Exponential Function
BTW, when they say "stable growth" they mean unsustainable in the long run.
This explains it quite well:
Al Gore’s new thinking on the climate crisis
Yeah, yeah, this is a few years old but it has only become more relevant.