Talk:Executive Order 11110/Archive 1

Criticism
A horrible article. Why is the executive order itself not here. Wikipedia can do things a paper encyclopedia can not and includin short key documents would seem to be one of them.

Even if it is only going to be described this description is terrible and unclear. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.20.177.193 (talk) 19:21, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Not Revoked or amended by EO 12608
You can check out what was revoked and amended by EO 12608 at EO 11110 is not mentioned I'm therefore removing this line from the article.

Arch NME 18:56, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind found my own mistake, EO 12608 amends EO 10289 as does EO 11110. Will revert.

Arch NME 19:09, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Silver Standard!?!
The article says, "This order was issued as part of a series of actions that were intended to lessen the strain of the US Treasury’s need of silver and gradually move the US off of the silver standard."

I don't believe this is true. The US stopped using silver and gold money by the 1920's. This order was exactly the opposite. It was an attempt to move the US away from the Federal Reserve Bank, and to give the US the power to issue its own money.Slipgrid 03:23, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree as well. If you look at the actual wording of the EO, then you notice he is putting the president in control of printing money on a silver standard. Grizzedram

Incorrect. If you look at Executive Order 10289here, which is the order that 11110 amended, you can see that 11110 actually grants power to the Sec. of the Treasury. The paragraph j added by 11110 is preceded by this language in 10289: "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:"

Sorry. Not sure how to sign. My name's Steve, though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.151.73.206 (talk) 11:53, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

All are basically right. The order was for the Treasury to issue silver certificates against all silver held by the government which did not already have certificates against it. The goal was to take away some of the ability of the fed to collect interest (paid by income tax collected) on the cash flow of the country. . It gained this control in 1928 when it became the primary provider of "currency" in the states as at that time the Treasury stopped  creating  silver and gold certificates as well as i believe  U.S. Notes.

I don't think the above is true.

The order was not for the Treasury to issue certificates but to delegate to the Treasury to do so if it pleased and be able to better manage the problem of fluctuating silver prices and a diminishing supply. The end result was that silver was eliminated as a backing for coins and bills.

The "ability of the Fed to collect interest" is just silly. The Fed gets interest from T-Bills it purchased on the open market. At the end of the year, it returns the income after expenses. Usually 90%+ of the interest earned goes back to the treasury.

"(paid by Income tax collected)" is silly and misleading. Interest on T-bills is paid from the general revenue fund of which income taxes represent <20%. I believe this contention is from conspiracy theory web sites that contend that all income taxes goes to the FRS. This is easily repudied by looking at Fed income statements and tax revenues.

The statement "It gained control in 1928" would be better stated as "was granted authority to". In 1928, the federal Reserve and Treasury were joined at the hip. The Secretary of Treasury was the de facto chairman of the Federal Reserve Board. The Federal Reserve moved toward more independence with the Bank Act of 1935 and the 1948 Treasury Accord.

SomethingWikiThisWayComes

''Thomas Jefferson also believed that the issuing power of money should rest with the US Treasury, and not the private banks. He wrote "the issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people to whom it properly belongs."'' 69.245.136.69 23:16, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

increase or decrease in money supply?
I am not familiar with this subject but I would appreciate a bit of pedestrian economics for this page. the kennedy assasination links here so I'm sure some people would like to know how this order affected joe q public etc. thanx66.220.110.83 (talk) 22:42, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

There is a simple explanation for this...
Much has been made of Executive Order 11110. Some theorize that the purpose of this Order was to strip the FED of its power and that it got President Kennedy killed. Looking at the facts objectively, however, there was a much more practical need for this Order. On June 4, 1963 the government had no $1 Federal Reserve Notes in stock (as they had not been authorized until that date) and would not be ready to make any for several months. It did, however, have a stockpile of $1 Silver Certificates that could not be issued according to the Act of June 4, 1963. Thus, Executive Order 11110 would have been necessary, if for no other reason, to keep the country from running out of dollar bills. Sherminator505 (talk) 15:37, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Unsourced conjecture
The following material was removed:


 * Presidential Executive Order 11110 is quite infamous among those who believe Kennedy was killed by the men who have control over the Federal Reserve Board. Jim Marrs, author of Crossfire: The Plot that Killed Kennedy, writes that the order instructs the Treasury secretary to issue about $4.2 billion in silver certificates as a form of currency in place of Federal Reserve Notes. Written by John F. Kennedy, this order was part of a larger plan by Kennedy to reduce the influence of the Federal Reserve by giving the Treasury more power to issue currency. The order was signed June 4, 1963. A few months later, of course, Kennedy was killed, and there are many that believe there is a link between the murder and E.O. 11110. They argue that the few, powerful men in control of Federal Reserve constructed the assassination to protect its power over monetary policy.

It may well be correct that EO 1110 is "quite infamous among those who believe..." etc. If so, we should be able to find a reliable third party published source that SAYS that 1110 is infamous, etc. The reference to the Jim Marrs article does not seem to say that. Similarly, the phrase "there are many that believe" is classic weasel wording. If there are "many that believe," then we should find a reference that says that. Similarly, the phrase "they argue" is weasel wording. WHO argues? Cite the source. Famspear (talk) 11:45, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


 * There is already a See Also link to the Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories page. I think that's sufficient mention here for this idea.  The conspiracy theory page has similar information to what was added, with a link or two.  Ravensfire2002 (talk) 15:20, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

The material comes a reliable source, which is an essay by Edward Flaherty, Ph.D. Department of Economics College of Charleston, S.C., entitled ''[http://www.publiceye.org/conspire/flaherty/flaherty9.html Myth #9: President Kennedy was assassinated because he tried to usurp the Federal Reserve's power. Executive Order 11,110 proves it.]'' It should therefore be restored. --Loremaster (talk) 00:00, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Probably need to change that material to mention Crossfire directly, rather than the large, massive quote that's currently in there. Quotes should really be for highlights, not the entire section.  Ravensfire (talk) 02:54, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll work on that. --Loremaster (talk) 17:28, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I looked at it some last night, and couldn't come up with something I liked that didn't push the boundaries of copyright infringement.  Flaherty's comment is a summation of what's in the Crossfire book, which is what I was suggesting be included here.  There's already a section on this in the John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories article, so we probably could go with a small mention here.  There's already a See Also link to the conspiracy article, so that might be enough.  Ravensfire (talk) 17:37, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I took care of it. --Loremaster (talk) 17:38, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Looks pretty good. I'm going to look at and probably tweak a few parts.  Given some of the questions/discussions here, I think a "disposition" section to clearly note what became of the EO will be helpful.  Didn't know about about the 1982 law - nice find on this!  Ravensfire (talk) 15:59, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Changes made. Parts of the (new) background section read like a lecture ("..we must first understand...") and look like they are straight from .  It needs to get rewritten - it's a definition WP:COPYVIO as it stands.  Let me ponder a bit on that.  I'm leery of the last phrase in the conspiracy theory section.  The source goes through some of the errors, but I think for NPOV reasons we should just leave that phrase out.  Honestly, calling it a conspiracy theory tells most folks everything they need to know about it!  Overall - nice job on the rewrite! Ravensfire (talk) 17:08, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Great work! :) --Loremaster (talk) 18:58, 10 December 2009 (UTC)