If you were a member of Congress, would you support the concept of a national bank today?

Question

In support of your choice, use an example such as the Chrysler loan to illustrate the benfits or dangers of a national bank.

Answer 1

Well, the Constitution gives Congress the direct authority to mint money, and a national bank was determined as the most effective way to handle the distribution.

It's not an issue of whether there is a national bank. It's a question of who can authorize loans like that.....

Answer 2

No, there are plenty of "national" banks already. We also have the Fed.

The "Chrysler loans" from the government were loan guarentees in case Chrylser went out of business. The gov didn't actually loan money to Chrylser. They don't do that.

If we have a national bank, doesn that mean all private banks and CU go away? No way would that fly.

the gov has no business running a retail bank or any offshoots of such a concept. The federal reserve is a different story and has more to do with currency and monetary policy than pure banking/lending etc.

Answer 3

There already IS a national bank. That is the bank that handles all of the money transactions between banks that citizens normally use, and also handles the federal governments own banking needs. It exists in the District of Columbia (DC) and is exempt from all normal banking laws since DC is not a state, nor is it even a part of the US officially.

Answer 4

I would support anything that ousted twisted Federal Reserve System. Witch is not even part of the government!