http://odur.let.rug.nl/~usa/P/aj7/writings/veto.htm


Andrew Jackson
Bank Veto Message, July 10, 1832
*** Quote ***

The present corporate body, denominated the president, directors, and company of the Bank of the United States, will have existed at the time this act is intended to take effect twenty years. It enjoys an exclusive privilege of banking under the authority of the General Government, a monopoly of its favor and support, and, as a necessary consequence, almost a monopoly of the foreign and domestic exchange. The powers, privileges, and favors bestowed upon it in the original charter, by increasing the value of the stock far above its par value, operated as a gratuity of many millions to the stockholders....

The act before me proposes another gratuity to the holders of the same stock, and in many cases to the same men, of at least seven millions more....It is not our own citizens only who are to receive the bounty of our Government. More than eight millions of the stock of this bank are held by foreigners. By this act the American Republic proposes virtually to make them a present of some millions of dollars.

Every monopoly and all exclusive privileges are granted at the expense of the public, which ought to receive a fair equivalent. The many millions which this act proposes to bestow on the stockholders of the existing bank must come directly or indirectly out of the earnings of the American people....

It appears that more than a fourth part of the stock is held by foreigners and the residue is held by a few hundred of our own citizens, chiefly of the richest class.

Is there no danger to our liberty and independence in a bank that in its nature has so little to bind it to our country? The president of the bank has told us that most of the State banks exist by its forbearance. Should its influence become concentered, as it may under the operation of such an act as this, in the hands of a self-elected directory whose interests are identified with those of the foreign stockholders, will there not be cause to tremble for the purity of our elections in peace and for the independence of our country in war? Their power would be great whenever they might choose to exert it; but if this monopoly were regularly renewed every fifteen or twenty years on terms proposed by themselves, they might seldom in peace put forth their strength to influence elections or control the affairs of the nation. But if any private citizen or public functionary should interpose to curtail its powers or prevent a renewal of its privileges, it can not be doubted that he would be made to feel its influence.

It is to be regretted that the rich and powerful too often bend the acts of government to their selfish purposes. Distinctions in society will always exist under every just government. Equality of talents, of education, or of wealth can not be produced by human institutions. In the full enjoyment of the gifts of Heaven and the fruits of superior industry, economy, and virtue, every man is equally entitled to protection by law; but when the laws undertake to add to these natural and just advantages artificial distinctions, to grant titles, gratuities, and exclusive privileges, to make the rich richer and the potent more powerful, the humble members of society the farmers, mechanics, and laborers who have neither the time nor the means of securing like favors to themselves, have a right to complain of the injustice of their Government. There are no necessary evils in government. Its evils exist only in its abuses. If it would confine itself to equal protection, and, as Heaven does its rains, shower its favors alike on the high and the low, the rich and the poor, it would be an unqualified blessing. In the act before me there seems to be a wide and unnecessary departure from these just principles.

Nor is our Government to be maintained or our Union preserved by invasions of the rights and powers of the several States. In thus attempting to make our General Government strong we make it weak. Its true strength consists in leaving individuals and States as much as possible to themselves in making itself felt, not in its power, but in its beneficence; not in its control, but in its protection; not in binding the States more closely to the center, but leaving each to move unobstructed in its proper orbit.

Experience should teach us wisdom. Most of the difficulties our Government now encounters and most of the dangers which impend over our Union have sprung from an abandonment of the legitimate objects of Government by our national legislation, and the adoption of such principles as are embodied in this act. Many of our rich men have not been content with equal protection and equal benefits, but have besought us to make them richer by act of Congress. By attempting to gratify their desires we have in the results of our legislation arrayed section against section, interest against interest, and man against man, in a fearful commotion which threatens to shake the foundations of our Union. It is time to pause in our career to review our principles, and if possible revive that devoted patriotism and spirit of compromise which distinguished the sages of the Revolution and the fathers of our Union. If we can not at once, in justice to interests vested under improvident legislation, make our Government what it ought to be, we can at least take a stand against all new grants of monopolies and exclusive privileges, against any prostitution of our Government to the advancement of the few at the expense of the many, and in favor of compromise and gradual reform in our code of laws and system of political economy....

did ron paul spike your coffee this morning?

On the contrary, Jackson was very much in support of a strong central government.
He also hated the corporations and the banks!

you're right, but i hadn't heard many people other than the paulists bringing up the stupidity of the fed recently.

The reason I posted it, was the argument with the "federal" bank and corporations.
IMO, the fed -vs- states argument is seperate and wasn't what the speech was about.


Jackson isn't one of my fav presidents. Even though many of the things he supported and did was absolutely brilliant,
many of the bad things he did were about as bad as bad gets and cannot be ignored or forgiven.

i meant the "fed"eral reserve bank. You know... the "fed" that bernanke and greenspan were chairmen of?

I don't use "the fed" to label our gvt.

But when someone refers to "the Fed" they're talking about our government

I guess it's not surprising, in retrospect, that you weren't really in favor of an economics subforum...

huh?

anyone who thinks or moves within economic circles wouldn't think of "the fed" as our government.

when you watch coverage of the economy, the "fed" raising interest rates doesn't refer to the government, it refers to the bank...

The Feds = the Government.
The fed though is sometimes the federal reserve.
Even so, "THE FEDS" refers to the govermnets, quite often refering to federal law enforcement, but not always



But what does this have t9o do with my opinion of a sub forum?

why don't we find something else that's irrelivant to disagree about for a while?

If I had said "the feds," I'd agree,
I'm not trying to be disagreeable... I'm just clarifying...
The statement about the subforum was just me recognizing that you don't use the lexicon, therefore didn't find it interesting enough to keep tabs on.

I see.
So because my terminalogy doesn't align with your terminology, clearly I must be ignorant?

a bit defensive, aren't we?

I don't claim that you're ignorant, just less interested in economics than those who respond to "the fed" as the federal reserve. I wouldn't expect most to understand, which is why I clarified the response...

Really, no offense intended... most view economics as something supremely boring...
I just was forced by political trends to start paying closer attention to that world... I don't mean that to sound condescending, I just decided to focus on a different area than most. if you'd like to look at it another way, you can consider me a paranoid freak, that's decided that everything's a lot more intetwined than most believe it is.

Not quite. How else would I ask you to clarify this point?






You're making assumptions based on things you simply can't know.
It seems you're making a personal assessment based on two words. The feds -vs- the fed, and because of that one letter, its clear I don't run in economic circles, which implies that if I had, I woujld know something that at the moment I do not, because I'm ignorant. (note, ignorant and stupid are not the same thing). Because if I weren't economically ignorant I might then have seen the crying need for an economic subforum. (clarification: I don't have an issue with the economic forum. In fact I use it quite often. My point was that I thought a domestic issues forum would have been more useful and could include many other domestic issues other than economics.)


I ask you sir, is that one letter really all that important to you?
I mean c'mon. Aren't there some real issues we can have a pissing match over?

I think the nation does need at least some sort of national financial institution, for things like whats going on right now. Private banks made high risk (or high stupidity) investments with the hopes that it would pay off big, it didn't. So the reserve steps in to keep the whole banking system afloat, thus preventing a total collapse.

Agreed, and perhaps we need to go against common Reagan thinking and put some controls back into place,
and not let the market have free reigh to regulate it's self?

No kidding, when a business runs something, their primary goal is to make money, period. Many need to have an outside reason to actually care how they make the money, some companies do a fine job of regulating themselves, but others definitely need a time out.

my problem wth the fed is that they charge us interest on our own money, whose only backing is the faith of people... I'm all for a return to the gold or silver standard, and an agency to regulate the backing of the printed funds with actual treasure... I'm not ok with lining the pockets of the richest people in the world for no reason other thann they've bought out our system of government. Like Jackson wasn't ok with it.

I agree, but not in a Libertarian fashion.
The fed needs an over haul that goes way beyond the reserve. US domestic economic policy needs a big heavy hand and some serious controls put BACK into place.

In other words, in some area's, to cut the waste, (and excessive profic margins) we need MORE government.