Difference between revisions of "Talk:Federal Reserve System"

From Conservapedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Blanked the page)
Line 1: Line 1:
−
Hmmm...wonder why people are so quick to mention that the past fed chairmen were Jewish? Anti-semitism by any other name....[[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 15:00, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
 
  
−
: I thought this was Conservapedia, not Politically Correctpedia. The religious views of prominent people are important to mention because only Christians are capable of faithfully leading this country, its scientific endeavors, and its economy in ways that please the Lord. If you don't think so, feel free to make changes here and at [[Albert Einstein]], [[Max Born]], [[John von Neumann]], [[Existentialism]], etc. All of these articles (and many more) point out the religious affiliations of people. Besides, why only highlight the mention of Jews? I also mentioned Ayn Rand's atheism, but that didn't seem to bother you. [[User:SRogers|SRogers]] 17:13, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
−
Exactly.  It's common to list someone's religion in their biography page, not on a government agency page.  You wouldn't say 'The Theory of Relativity was developed by the Jew, Albert Einstein,' or 'the movie 'Die Hard' starred Bruce Willis, a reform Jew.'  So only Christians are capable of leading this country, its science and economy?  Hmmm...maybe we need a series of laws, preventing Jews from holding public office, attending university, or owning businesses...sound familiar? [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 17:44, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
−
: If you want to edit the article to make it biased against [[Christianity]], go ahead. But that would totally violate the spirit of this encyclopedia. Just look at the [[Wikipedia Bias|Examples of Bias in Wikipedia]] and you will see why this is true. The article on the [[Renaissance]] makes no mention of Christianity. Therefore, it is biased against Christianity. By the same token, not mentioning the religions of major public figures involved in a controversial quasi-governmental agency would make the article biased '''towards''' their religious views. Any article that does not favor Christianity is clearly biased against Christianity. Another example: The [[Great Flood]] should be presented as fact because 60% of Americans think that it is a fact. Likewise, an even greater majority of Americans are Christians, so Christianity is clearly a fact. Therefore, anyone who believes otherwise has an incorrect philosophical grounding upon which to base decisions about government or economics. To deny this is to exhibit blatant anti-Christian bias. [[User:SRogers|SRogers]] 18:35, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
−
Does simply believing something make it true?  Does not explicitly supporting something make you against it?  If I, for example, went into the articles about The St. Valentines murders, the Mai Lai (sp?) Massacre, and Watergate and stated that everyone involved was a Christian, would you think I was trying to make things biased against Christians?
 
−
 
−
You say since a majority of Americans are Christians, so Christianity is clearly a fact.  Since a majority of Iranians are Muslim, does that make Islam a fact in Iran?  Buddhism a fact in Japan?  Atheism a fact in Cuba?  If 60% of Americans did NOT believe in Noah's flood, would you agree that it didn't happen?
 
−
 
−
But we're off topic.  My point is, this is an encyclopedia.  Unless you have evidence that those involved with the Fed are part of some Jewish conspiracy, I don't think their religion has anything to do with the article.  [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 18:50, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
−
== AFD ==
 
−
 
−
This article needs AFD or major rewrite.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]]<sup>[[User_talk:palmd001|talk]]</sup> 10:47, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
−
:Rewrite.  It's a real organization, and belongs in an encyclopedia.  --[[User:Gulik2|Gulik2]] 07:18, 6 May 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
−
== Implied Antisemitism ==
 
−
 
−
Could someone think of a way to rewrite this without the implied antisemitism????[[User:MoshiachNow|MoshiachNow]] 16:55, 6 May 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
−
Where is there anti-Semitism implied here? [[User:DanH|DanH]] 16:56, 6 May 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
−
:This article was targeted early on by provacteurs. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Federal_Reserve_System&diff=next&oldid=93525] User:SRogers was banned for it, User:Jaques reverted his edits.  [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:15, 6 May 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
−
The provacatory material, regarding the ''Money Trust'' which was inserted by the creator of this article has been removed.  The cited entry, according to WP, is some conspiratorial anti-Semitic trash, and WP even has a see also link to Eustice Mullins, with this statement, "Mullins has been accused of antisemitism by groups such as the Anti-Defamation League." [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eustace_Mullins#Antisemitism:_Evidence_and_Allegations]  We can anticipate provacations of this nature to continue.  [[User:RobS|RobS]] 20:36, 6 May 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
−
==Is it part of the government, or what?==
 
−
 
−
Cut from intro:
 
−
 
−
*Although it acts with the authority of the [[government]], the Federal Reserve is not an official government agency.
 
−
 
−
What's this supposed to mean? Milton Friedman said the Federal Reserve caused the Great Depression - in other words, '''the government''' did it to us.
 
−
 
−
So who's right? Friedman, or the statement I cut? Is the Fed part of the government, or is it independent, or what? Does the government control it? If so, what branch(es)? The president, the Congress, or the Supreme Court? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 17:53, 31 January 2011 (EST)
 
−
:The Federal Reserve System is definitely part of the government. It was created by the Federal Reserve Act. In practice it's essentially a separate branch of government since the president has no say in monetary policy and only Congress can theoretically change the Fed's practices, and even then only by changing federal law. So it controls itself is what it does. [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 18:36, 31 January 2011 (EST)
 
−
 
−
::Perhaps the US president does not set monetary policy directly, but are you saying he has no influence over the board at all?
 
−
::*The Federal Reserve System is controlled ... by the Board of Governors (the Board) and the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC).  The Board is a seven-member panel appointed by the President and approved by the Senate. [http://www.publiceye.org/conspire/flaherty/flaherty5.html]
 
−
::The quote cited above would seem to indicate that the president and the Senate jointly control the Fed, via their power to appoint its Board of Governors. Right or wrong? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 15:19, 1 February 2011 (EST)
 
−
 
−
:::According to the Fed's website it is "an independent entity within the government, having both public purposes and private aspects" [http://www.federalreserve.gov/generalinfo/faq/faqfrs.htm#5], and it would be extremely misleading, if not factually incorrect, to say the President and the Senate jointly control the Fed. Supreme Court Justices are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate, but you wouldn't reasonably argue that the Supreme Court is jointly controlled by the President and the Senate. The terms of 4 years for the Fed Chairman and 14 years for a member of the Board of Governors are supposed to insulate them from politics while still giving them accountability. By the way, that was an interesting choice of website for your reference above. --[[User:Toadaron|Toadaron]] 13:42, 10 February 2011 (EST)
 

Revision as of 18:33, November 16, 2017

Retrieved from "https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Federal_Reserve_System&oldid=1387205"