The Federal Reserve should be abolished
Debate Rounds (5)
I thank my opponent for this debate. Here I shall refute my opponent's arguments, but first I need to go over some definitions that are key to this debate before I get into refuting into my opponent's arguments.
The Federal Reserve System, established by the Federal Reserve Act (12 U.S.C.A. § 221), is the central Bank of the United States. The Federal Reserve is charged with making and administering policy for the nation's credit and monetaryaffairs and helps to maintain the banking industry in sound condition. 
Should- Used to express obligation or duty 
be- To exist in actuality; have life or reality 
Abolished- To do away with; put an end to; annul 
My opponent has neglected to make definitions in round 1 nor his opening arguments, as such, he has forfeited the right to create the definitions and terms of this debate. I have provided the definitions for the resolution above. This debate is arguing of a policy change. Since my opponent is arguing for the change from the status quo, the Burden of Proof lays with him. If he fails to uphold the Burden of Proof by the end of the debate, regardless the arguments on the table. The debate goes to me. Without further delay, let's get to the debate.
R1: Federal Reserve Violates the Constitution
My opponent claims that the Federal Reserve is unconstiuttional, but he has faulty reasonsing as this is completely false. He sites part of the Constitution, though we can see by the definition, it's legal. It states that Congress has the power to coin money. They do, and they passed a law to create an organization that does this. This is a law created by Congress, with a small amount of federal oversite as the Federal Reserve does the job of Congress and even loans money to the federal government when they need help paying for their programs . Much like how there are other executive agencies the Federal Reserve is very similiar.
My opponent's quote from Andrew Jackson is untopical as it's for the 2nd US bank and not the federal reserve. They are not the same, hence, there's no actual connection to this debate.
R2: Violates Sherman Anti-Trust Act
My opponent's entire argument here is irrelivant here as the Federal Reserve is a Government Granted "Monopoly" that does everything and the Chairman of the Federal Reserve is still accountable to Congress. Like the Federal Reserve, the governmern has many other monopolies like the US Postal Service, Social Security, and more. This argument has no impact on the debate and is irrelivant.
R3: Violation of the Free Market System
My opponent has no impact here. He brings up that it violates the free market system, but doesn't say why this is bad. This argument has no uniqueness. Even if there wasn't a Federal Reserve, there are still other regulations that restrict the free market. The US doesn't currently have a free market, so this argument doesn't actually hold any weight in this debate.
My opponent brings up a quote by President Garfield and says it's talking about the federal reserve, but the Reserve was way after his Presidency. This quote is irrelivant and should be thrown out of the debate.
R4: Private and works for Big Money
Here my opponent goes on a rant about nonsensical arguments and in a way concedes his own argument. He even stated that there are a 1/3 government banks and 2/3 private, and then said it's Private with government intervention. If that's the case, it really cannot be a private entity due to the government involvement, not to mention that Congress gets to pick out of the President's 7 choices for head of the Federal Reserve . No other private company would do that. This point is mute.
R5: Fed Harms Middle Class
My opponent opens with an argument that states that it's bad because of inflation's affect on social security. This argument is ludicrious as my opponent commits a False Equivlence as he does not show any corrilation between the two. We have to see that my opponent has provided no corrilation nor even attempt to justify any connection. As for inflation itself. The Federal Reserve tries to keep it bellow 5%, but this wasn't a job of the Federal Reserve until the LBJ administration. Which explains the massive devaluation of the dollar that occured in my opponent's argument as it lasted through the Nixon administration. Then Chairman of the Federal Reserve Paul Volker had to raise interest rates to nearly 20% to combat inflation and recently, the Inflation rate has been near rock bottom . The only reason that the Fed allows for inflation would be to help those who borrow help pay back their debts a whole lot faster . This would mean that doing my opponent's plan would hurt more people in the US than not.
R6: The Fed is dishonnest
The Federal Reserve made massive world wide payments to ensure there wouldn't be a collapse of the global financial system. This dwarfs TARP as the federal government should not, in any way, would have been able to bail out these key banks as they did. If they would have been let to go under the economy would have imploaded. The collapse of the Lehman Bros lost 6 million jobs causing a chain of investor doubt which led to the 10% unemployment rate . What would have occured if the Fed would have left it to the government or just let them fall in general? The answer is not very good.
R7: Board of Governors aren't elected.
My opponent argues that they are immoral simply because they aren't publically elected, but yet again, netierh are the Committees in Congress, the military officers, or any of the Government Agency heads, this point is invalid.
R8: Fed causes Turmoil
It may be true that it causes turnmoil, but the Fed has caused less incidents than the free market. The whole point that it was enacted was this. Sure there are still these issues, but we have to look at the full picture and see that there are less banking crisis and as I have brought up in a previous argument is that the Federal Reserve has saved the economy more than hurt it. In these situations, not having the Fed would have destroyed the US economy.
1. ( http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...)
5. ( http://www.investopedia.com...)
6. Meltzer, Allan H. (2003). A history of the Federal Reserve: Volume 1, 1913-1951. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
7. ( http://www.usinflationcalculator.com...)
8. ( http://www.investopedia.com...)
9. ( http://abcnews.go.com...)
My opponent and I have agreed to a premature ending of this debate. It shall be continued at another time.
I object to what my opponent is saying as this is a simple Ad Hom on me. We agreed, in a PM, to end this debate and that we would start again. He gave a passive agreement and it should be done as such. I am horrified that my opponent is attempting to go back on his agreement and then slander me in the process.
Me: "What do you mean something came up? Things come up all the time and I seem to write a response in time"
Lannan: "It's a personal matter that I don't want to go into."
Me: "Fine- but when you forfeit the voters will see that."
Am I misquoting me and you or no?
My opponent concedes to ending the debate. Please leave this as a tie.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.