rhester, I want to repeat me two concerns. You really seem to be all over the map with things you are blaming on the Fed, and your arguments seem to be more about distrust of rich people than any specific economic arguments. The following is probably 'below the belt', but it is not intended that way. In Muslim countries they have very strong strictures against people who lend money. The same thing, obviously, is seen throughout the bible (moneylenders in the temple) and is in traditional Christian thought (why ' dirty Jews' were tolerated in Europe despite the animosity). In discussions of evolution I firmly believe that, despite your claims to the contrary, that your rejection is first and foremost the result of religion, and the technical points of contention have been built up after the fact. That is legitimately my belief based on the way you approach it, though of course I may be wrong and you say that I am. But I really have that sense in terms of the way that your opinions seem so congealed. So I don't believe I have enough information to come to the same conclusion here, but looking at it filtered through my “internalized ‘who is rhester?’ schema”, the obvious question really to me is whether your religious sensibilities have in any way biased your analysis here before the fact? Are you predisposed to suspicion and resentment of people who are powerful moneylenders based on religious teachings?
No. let me help with the who is rhester. I am a big Rocket fan, I work as human resource manager and I pastor a small church. For a long time I was a pastor at a large church, but I went in to the work force so I could start out from scratch and now I pastor a church of about 65 people. I don't really have time or interest to worry about the Federal Reserve or the war in Iraq, except for praying for peace and for those in harms way. As a hobby I used to read quite alot concerning so called 'conspiracy' theories etc, but in my life I don't have any interest or time to really think about that kind of thing. When I am posting about the Fed or 9-11 it is just fun time, sometimes I might think I know what I am talking about and other times I might just post something because it is debatable. I just now got internet at home for the first time. At work I love to open Clutch fans, browse the posts and post myself for the fun of it. Since my memory is not the best I may even mispost, but when it is for fun I don't worry about that. I do know Dr. Paul very well, and yes I have spent time with him many years ago discussing with him some of these issues. But pretty much rhester's life is spent with my family, my work and the church. These heavier issues will have to be handled by others. My time is given to help share God's love with others. For example, Monday night of this week I spent with three of my sons, Tuesday night I spent with a couple who are trying to reconcile through a divorce, Wed. night I spent with a a couple whose children have run away, Thursday night I was with an 18 yr old drop out who just got out of jail. Tonight I am working on a sermon for Sunday morning. My posts do not reflect real life. I apologize for coming across as if they are important issues to me, they are not. I could care less about the Federal Reserve Banks; not that I would rather see them gone; it's just that these causes are not my concern, my concern is sharing the love and grace of Jesus Christ with others. I respect Ron Paul for alot of reasons, the least of which is probably his stand on issues, I respect him most because I know his character and he is a different person that most politicians. He is principled, compassionate and honest to a fault. I don't get involved in crusades like abortion, marriage amendments, etc. I distance myself if possible from the political religious right. My heart is for Jesus Christ and His message. I have not felt compelled to express that message here. Didn't see that as its purpose, on Clutchfans I like to have fun and I like to spew out things off the top of my balding head. I really like insider info in the GARM most of all, but that has really slowed. I am not against rich bankers, nor do I see them as the conspiritory root of all evil in the world. I wish I could share the gospel message with them. I have prayed about sharing Christ's message more in D&D, but I don't think it would be the thing I should do, once the message is repeated enough people tend to tune you out. So, I really want to get into how the Fed affects the money supply, but I may not get this opportunity and that will make me look goofy, but I never mind that because I am goofy. God bless you, you have some good posts, I do really enjoy reading other's posts. That is alot of fun also.
GO RON! <object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/AeHWW5gbc0w"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/AeHWW5gbc0w" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>
Ok, propose to me how educations, tax collection, and diaster relief would work without FEMA, the IRS, and Dept of Education????
Im just guessing here, but I betcha the answer will have something to do with states responsibilities.
Why not just do it locally? Allocate all the funds presently being wasted by the Dept. of Education based on electoral counts to the 50 states. Those with more electoral votes get more funds. Second, and most important, the states would then distribute their respective funds to each of the congressional districts based on a population formula with districts with more people getting more money. Each region, each state, each county, each town in America is different and the closer we get to putting the money to work in the hands of parents and interested tax payers who best know the education needs of their local school district the better off chidren will be. If you have federal money at least give it to the local districts without the federal beauracracy. Eliminate the entire Dept. of Education and send the money where it will do good. Just allocate the money and do away with the 'Middle Man' We'll call it No Strings Attached funding.
now there's a Ron Paul girl... <embed src="http://www.metacafe.com/fplayer/827544/ron_paul_girl.swf" width="400" height="345" wmode="transparent" pluginspage="http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer" type="application/x-shockwave-flash"></embed><br/><font size="1"> <a href="http://www.metacafe.com/watch/827544/ron_paul_girl/">Ron Paul Girl - video powered by Metacafe</a></font>
The other day I had an epiphany that is probably common sense to most peopple but it made quite a few things clear to me. Essentially, a functioning federalist system with 50 seperate state entities is impossibly complex and doesn't work, which is why federalism in the USA has been turned into a fringe cook Ron Paul idea. The initial setup had 13 states. The functional Swiss system is traditionally composed of 13 independent Cantons. It is possible to function effectively with thirteen local sets of rules within the larger whole. With the size of the USA, navigating 50 individual systems is simply too complex to be functional as a whole and so is totally not workable. It either needs to work as it does with much stronger centeralization, or we need to combine evert 3 or 4 states into one. The fifty to one ratio is simply not workable.
It worked fine for the Greeks (where the idea came from), and it worked fine here until the 1930s with 48 states. Do Alaska and Hawaii need National rule that badly? Or is it because no one wants any change to their favorite entitlement program?
Gross oversimplification. Even though the Southern States had their governments installed by the National government, the States were much more independent during Reconstruction than they are now. And then when they were allowed to install their own governments, they installed reactionary ones that were even more independent.
The US is also too big for democracy to work as well. I agree that 50 would be way too high a number for federalism to be workable but I think breaking the nation into 10 or so regions could probably work decently enough. As long as each region was similar enough in shared concerns, economic base, etc., then there would be the advantage of reduced number but similar issues/governance.
I don't think so. The Civil War is when the Federal government started intruding on areas of governance reserved constitutionally for the states. It doesn't mater how independent the state governments were, the federal government overruled them. Fourteenth Amendment - 1868 Fifteenth Ammendment - 1870 Sixteenth Ammendment - 1913 Seventeenth Ammendment - 1913 Eighteenth Ammendment - 1919 Nineteenth Ammendment - 1920 Interstate Commerce Act - 1887 Sherman Anti-Trust Act - 1890 Harrison Act - 1914 Clayton Antitrust Act - 1914 National Firearms Act - 1932 All of these heavily imposed on what would have been 'states rights' before the Civil War. I'm sure that there are 1000 other's but these are the ones off the top of my head. If you want others, please let me know and I will look them up.
