The case against Dr. Paul

[JEROME DA GNOME]

No, it's not. The problem was values fell below what was owed on the property.

That only matters if you are trying to sell.

This has nothing to do with the payments going up beyond the means of the borrower to pay.

 

[dash]

That executive order does no such thing. You might want to actually read it some day!

You might want to actually read it some day yourself. "That executive order does no such thing". Ok, specifically what are you claiming? What is "no such thing" referring to?

Here's a restatement of what has transpired:

ME: Also regarding the Kennedy currency issue question, read this link:
YOU: That executive order does no such thing.
ME: Eh?

-Dave

 

[WildCat]

That only matters if you are trying to sell.

This has nothing to do with the payments going up beyond the means of the borrower to pay.

If the borrower has equity he can either re-finance or sell, and then use the equity to buy a more affordable home.

When more is owed than the house is worth because the value went down he cannot refinance nor sell for enough to pay his loan, and the bank loses money when the house is foreclosed and sold again.

The former is an inconvenience, the latter is the crisis.

 

[WildCat]

You might want to actually read it some day yourself. "That executive order does no such thing". Ok, specifically what are you claiming? What is "no such thing" referring to?

Your link claims:

On June 4, 1963, a virtually unknown Presidential decree, Executive Order 11110, was signed with the authority to basically strip the Federal Reserve Bank of its power to loan money to the United States Federal Government at interest. With the stroke of a pen, President Kennedy declared that the privately owned Federal Reserve Bank would soon be out of business.

That executive order does no such thing. I don't know why you think it does.

 

[TriskettheKid]

You sure you read EO 11110?

It was to phase out silver currency, not print more of it.

Would you like to read it for yourself?

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=59049&st=&st1=

 

[WildCat]

Yeah.....

Can you figure out what the hell that guy is saying? Because to me, it seems like he wants to replace our current fiat money with another fiat money, while at the same time upping the inflation rate to ungodly large levels.

Something like that... it's moonbattery on top of moonbattery. And he's a Ron Paul supporter eh? Not really surprising!

Quarters will become dollars...

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

If the borrower has equity he can either re-finance or sell, and then use the equity to buy a more affordable home.

Or he can keep making the payment and live there.



You are completely misunderstanding the problem.


Do you sell your car when the debt is more than the property is currently worth or do you drive it and keep making your payments?

 

[dash]

Your link claims:
[cut]
That executive order does no such thing. I don't know why you think it does.

Ok, I got it now. Well you've got to keep reading the quote I included. It describes how the government itself can issue a new currency backed by the government's own stockpile of silver. With a debt free government currency, the Fed's monopoly on debt-ridden Federal Reserve Notes becomes null and void. The government's own money gets adopted in favor of FR Notes.

The quote you object to is the author's own personal spin on the story. Not to be taken literally. He's interpreting the effect of Kennedy's action, and makes the supposition that this was Kennedy's intent.

-Dave

 

[WildCat]

You sure you read EO 11110?

It was to phase out silver currency, not print more of it.

Would you like to read it for yourself?

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=59049&st=&st1=

It's mind-boggling how the tin hatters Ronulans can misinterpret that to claim Kennedy was getting rid of the Federal Reserve.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

It's mind-boggling how the tin hatters Ronulans can misinterpret that to claim Kennedy was getting rid of the Federal Reserve.

What was Kennedy attempting to do with that particular executive order?

 

[WildCat]

Or he can keep making the payment and live there.



You are completely misunderstanding the problem.


Do you sell your car when the debt is more than the property is currently worth or do you drive it and keep making your payments?

As I understood it, we were assuming the borrower could no longer afford to pay the mortgage post-adjustment. If you're assuming he can still make the payments there's really nothing to discuss.

 

[TriskettheKid]

What was Kennedy attempting to do with that particular executive order?

Phase out the silver certificate.

Try reading EO 11110.

 

[Suddenly]

They offend my value systems. If that means I have a thin skin, I can live with it. This heckling Wildcat is doing is pretty offensive as well. Exactly what is the purpose of making snide remarks about a person in a discussion? Where is common courtesy? Would they do these things if we were speaking face to face?

Be sure if I were speaking with him face to face... I'd probably be worse. I am on my best behaviour here. If he thinks this is mean, give him the url to SC...

I've been internet savvy since the 80's. There were ethics in those days. Politeness was one. I posted a lot in usenet. The offensive behaviours present in these forums would never be tolerated back then.

Geez... better not tell him about the "civility" rules here...

Let's review what it means to be polite: from post #1:

This is my first post in this forum. I've done a bit of reading here. I see there is a strong affinity for knee-jerk skepticism. That means people read posts with the automatic agenda of debunking whatever claims are made.

#2

Crap I wrote for the wrong audience. Short attention span and all, can't read anything of any length.

He came to flame...

I'm not interested in debating the "ignore list" issue with you or anyone. If you wish to discuss economics I'll be happy to. Ditto with wildcat, but I suggest he/she learn a little bit of manners. It doesn't appear there is any limit to the names the JREF forum can store in an individual's ignore list.

Oooooo... a threat. Seriously, I really want to know what he means by "constitutional government."

If you can formulate specific stopping points or objections to what I'm saying I will try to assist in understanding.

-Dave

Seriously... what is the deal with the "constitutional government?"

 

[dash]

You sure you read EO 11110?

It was to phase out silver currency, not print more of it.

Would you like to read it for yourself?

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=59049&st=&st1=

I don't interpret it the way you suggest.

Executive order 11110 adds item 1j to E.O. 10289.

The ammended text of executive order 10289 would read:

1. The Secretary of the Treasury is hereby designated and empowered to perform the following-described functions of the President without the approval, ratification, or other action of the President:
...a-i skipped
(j) The authority vested in the President by paragraph (b) of section 43 of the Act of May 12, 1933, as amended (31 U.S.C. 821 (b)), to issue silver certificates against any silver bullion, silver, or standard silver dollars in the Treasury not then held for redemption of any outstanding silver certificates, to prescribe the denominations of such silver certificates, and to coin standard silver dollars and subsidiary silver currency for their redemption,

This means The Secretary of the Treasure can issue silver certifcates against any silver bullion, silver, or standard silver dollars in the Treasury...

That means they can issue currency. Silver certificates = currency. Folding money.

The current text of executive order 10289 doesn't have the 1j in it. I can only assume after Kennedy was assasinated, a new order was enacted that rescinded 1j and then they pulled the existing certificates out of circulation. Maybe LBJ got an offer he couldn't refuse.

Please acknowledge this response, don't just fade away. Have the decency to either
1) Admit, "Yes, Dave, you're correct in your interpretion"
or
2) Explain where my mistake is.

-Dave

 

[WildCat]

Ok, I got it now. Well you've got to keep reading the quote I included. It describes how the government itself can issue a new currency backed by the government's own stockpile of silver.

No, it didn't. It only relieved the POTUS of having to issue an order for it to do so. With that order, the Treasury Secretary could issue new Silver Certificates himself.

In fact, it was issued in conjunction with Public Law 88-36 which allowed small denomination Federal Reserve Notes as part of the phase-out of Silver Certificates.

This increased the use of Federal Reserve Notes, not the other way around!

 

[dash]

No, it didn't. It only relieved the POTUS of having to issue an order for it to do so. With that order, the Treasury Secretary could issue new Silver Certificates himself.

In fact, it was issued in conjunction with Public Law 88-36 which allowed small denomination Federal Reserve Notes as part of the phase-out of Silver Certificates.

This increased the use of Federal Reserve Notes, not the other way around!

Where are you getting your interpretations of this?

Your own link (Law 88-36) describes how there are no taxes on transfers of silver bullion. This is what you'd do if silver was money. You don't pay taxes when you change 2 five's for a ten. It also describes how holders of silver certificates can exchange them for silver. This is because the silver certificates are backed by silver. That means there must be a mechanism for a person holding such a certificate to go get silver -- if he wants to. The article also says the Secretary of the Treasury must make sure there is enough silver held to back all outstanding silver certificates. This is also a healthy requirement for silver as money. It says excess silver may be sold or coined or whatever, if so desired.

Nowhere does it intimate that the silver certificates should be phased out, as you claim.

Ditto my request to the other guy. Can you
1) Admit I'm correct, or
2) Explain the mistake I'm making.
Don't just fade away. Then later call me a loon.

-Dave

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Where are you getting your interpretations of this?

Your own link (Law 88-36) describes how there are no taxes on transfers of silver bullion. This is what you'd do if silver was money. You don't pay taxes when you change 2 five's for a ten. It also describes how holders of silver certificates can exchange them for silver. This is because the silver certificates are backed by silver. That means there must be a mechanism for a person holding such a certificate to go get silver -- if he wants to. The article also says the Secretary of the Treasury must make sure there is enough silver held to back all outstanding silver certificates. This is also a healthy requirement for silver as money. It says excess silver may be sold or coined or whatever, if so desired.

Nowhere does it intimate that the silver certificates should be phased out, as you claim.

Ditto my request to the other guy. Can you
1) Admit I'm correct, or
2) Explain the mistake I'm making.
Don't just fade away. Then later call me a loon.

-Dave

Yea, but...Kennedy was a good president and was assassinated by a lone LOON...he could not possibly have LOONY ideas like Ron Paul in wanting a currency backed by a commodity.

Facts do not matter...FEELINGS do!

 

[dash]

Yea, but...Kennedy was a good president and was assassinated by a lone LOON...he could not possibly have LOONY ideas like Ron Paul in wanting a currency backed by a commodity.

Facts do not matter...FEELINGS do!

Yes, very good point.

-Dave

 

[WildCat]

Where are you getting your interpretations of this?Nowhere does it intimate that the silver certificates should be phased out, as you claim.

It specifically authorizes the issuing of $1 and $2 Federal Reserve Notes, because at the time silver dollars (which were exchangeable for Silver Certificates) contained more than $1 worth of silver. The result was people were turning in $1 in Silver Certificates for $1 coins - depleting the silver supply needed to make new coins. Prior to that law, the Treasury could only issue $1 and $2 notes in Silver Certificates. So by authorizing the $1 and $2 Federal Reserve Notes it relieved the Treasury of having to keep silver coin on hand to back them.

I cannot fathom how you think a law allowing more federal Reserve Notes instead of Silver Certificates is somehow decreasing the power of the Federal Reserve banks and encouraging silver-backed notes.

2) Explain the mistake I'm making.

I just did!

 

[dash]

It specifically authorizes the issuing of $1 and $2 Federal Reserve Notes, because at the time silver dollars (which were exchangeable for Silver Certificates) contained more than $1 worth of silver. The result was people were turning in $1 in Silver Certificates for $1 coins - depleting the silver supply needed to make new coins. Prior to that law, the Treasury could only issue $1 and $2 notes in Silver Certificates. So by authorizing the $1 and $2 Federal Reserve Notes it relieved the Treasury of having to keep silver coin on hand to back them.

I cannot fathom how you think a law allowing more federal Reserve Notes instead of Silver Certificates is somehow decreasing the power of the Federal Reserve banks and encouraging silver-backed notes.

Wildcat are you really believing what you're writing, or are you deliberately trying to obfuscate the issue? Which document are you basing your statement on this time?

Executive Order 11110 speaks of the US Treasury issuing silver certificates. This is not "Federal Reserve Notes". The article I linked to

http://www.john-f-kennedy.net/thefederalreserve.htm

claims that $4 billion in United States Notes (NOT Federal Reserve Notes) were brought into circulation in $2 and $5 denominations. $10 and $20 US Notes were never circulated but were being printed by the Treasury Department when Kennedy was assassinated.

The wide circulation of US Notes backed by silver would very quickly drive out Federal Reserve Notes and the Federal Reserve would cease to be a facter in economics (according to this whole article).

Please respond:
1) Admit I'm correct
or
2) Where is my error?

-Dave