HR1207 now has 271 co-sponsors, including all House Republicans and approaching half of Houes Democrats. It is only a few co-sponsors away from becoming bullet proof from being ruled out of order and other Parliamentary procedures.

The mirror bill in the Senate, S604, now has 13 co-sponsors and is gaining steam.

How scared is the Fed? For the first time ever, the Fed has hired a lobbylist to lobby Congress against the bill. Who is that lobbyist? The former head lobbyist of Enron. You can't make this **** up!

Enjoy!

I had heard that the house had already killed it. As you know I despise the Federal Reserve. Their sole purpose was to PREVENT what happened in 09/2008. George Bush should have dismantled the FED after it failure to fulfill it's charter. But his lack of resolve in the waining months of his administration was all our undoing. Too Bad.

Instead they are reaping reward in billions for failing.

I'm not as tinfoil hat about this as you guys are, but aside from the cost, and audit couldn't hurt. I do wonder though how independent and objective it would really be?

(07-16-2009 01:42 PM)Artifice Wrote:  I'm not as tinfoil hat about this as you guys are, but aside from the cost, and audit couldn't hurt. I do wonder though how independent and objective it would really be?

Not very.

the Fed already is audited every year as part of its Charter: http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/...b000-.html

Quote:§ 248b. Annual independent audits of Federal reserve banks and Board

more grassroots fodder, about something virtually nobody knows anything of substance about but anyone who takes the time to google it can find lots of incorrect material with virtually no one setting the record straight.

For the sake of argument however, I will accept the notion the Fed caused all our problems(as opposed to say Individuals who lied about their Incomes, got loans they couldn't afford then walked away from then....and I do admit Greenspan screwed up but yet I don't beleive in any perfect institutions, since they are all ran by humans).

So for the sake of argument, How wise is this???? The bill calls for Congress to reject what the Founders advocated, namely taking monetary policy out of the hands of Politicians and Political debate and placing those powers right back into the Hands of Politicians.

and who are those Politicians??? Why it would be Obama, Pelosi and Reid at that point setting Monetary Policy. Brilliant, if I was wanting to completely destroy the country I'd do the same thing.

Saying that the current "audit" is a full audit of the Fed is equivalent saying your car passing an emissions test is a bumper to bumper inspection.

Current audits do not include the Fed's books, balance sheets, collateral, funds, ... pretty much anything of importance. If the Fed was already being audited ohhhh so very well, explain why the need for the bill in the first place.

(07-16-2009 02:33 PM)GGniner Wrote:  So for the sake of argument, How wise is this???? The bill calls for Congress to reject what the Founders advocated, namely taking monetary policy out of the hands of Politicians and Political debate and placing those powers right back into the Hands of Politicians.

WINNER: Ballsiest and most blatent lie, Spin Room, 2009.

Go read the Constitution. Who has the authority to manage monetary policy? Is there a Constitutional Ammendment changing that? It would require one to do something else...

At least Congress is ELECTED. If they do an ass job you can vote to throw them out. When was the last time you voted on anything related to the Fed? Oh yea, NEVER. GENIUS! You filthy fascist.

LOL. GTS called GGNiner a liar and a facist. In other news, water is wet.

.

I will put in a Bid to Audit the FED for $36 Mil .... I mean an Independent Audit of the FED has to be worth at least TWICE the price of 'Revamping a Government Web Site'.

RIGHT ?????

Paul, Steve, SUM, you guys need a career change ???

.

I'm Game.... But only 36 million when we are risking our lives.... Trip, you got security.

(07-16-2009 03:48 PM)Tripster Wrote:  .

I will put in a Bid to Audit the FED for $36 Mil .... I mean an Independent Audit of the FED has to be worth at least TWICE the price of 'Revamping a Government Web Site'.

RIGHT ?????

Paul, Steve, SUM, you guys need a career change ???

.

can i have a job? we can loose some of that money ya know.

Tulsaman and I could take the same jet. We'd be saving the planet too! Ah hell, 36 mill. Lets charter two jets. F the world.

(07-16-2009 03:29 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(07-16-2009 02:33 PM)GGniner Wrote:  So for the sake of argument, How wise is this???? The bill calls for Congress to reject what the Founders advocated, namely taking monetary policy out of the hands of Politicians and Political debate and placing those powers right back into the Hands of Politicians.

WINNER: Ballsiest and most blatent lie, Spin Room, 2009.

Go read the Constitution. Who has the authority to manage monetary policy? Is there a Constitutional Ammendment changing that? It would require one to do something else...

Implied Powers doctrine

Developed by Founder Alexander Hamilton and adopted by President George Washington. Hamilton was of course the very first, Treasury Secretary....this whole issue was never, ever, set in stone by the Founders. They didn't agree on alot of things, thinks in large part to regional interest and ideals that conflicted with each other. Anyone who understands the difference between Constitutional Originalism vs. 21st century Literalism knows this. There was a big dispute on this issue(and others) between them. The Federalist won out on this, National Bank was formed(a later version was adopted by President Madison) and eventually it lead to the Federal Reserve system.

So unless you want to claim that it was understood by over half the founders who ratified the Constitution and then followed along with Hamilton and Washington, were then knowingly doing something "unconstitutional" when they ratified the First National Bank...or the Second for that matter rattified under Madison(opponent of this first time around).


Why?

Because of what Hamilton stated at the start: “To attach full confidence to an institution of this nature, it appears to be an essential ingredient in its structure that it shall be under a private not a public direction, under the guidance of individual interest, not of public policy.”5

http://www.minneapolisfed.org/publicatio...fm?id=1141

that has echoed ever since, from the First National Bank, to the formation of the Second National Bank created under Madison to eventually the Federal Reserve System.

Hamilton also worried about such a system giving too much power in the hands of few. Which is why its setup the way it is, admittedly not perfect.

Quote:At least Congress is ELECTED. If they do an ass job you can vote to throw them out. When was the last time you voted on anything related to the Fed? Oh yea, NEVER. GENIUS! You filthy fascist.

actually every time I vote for President, since the President appoints the Board of Governors and Fed Chair. Its not perfect, I agree with Milton Friedman on this and a Computer should probably run it instead of humans. To avoid mistakes like Greenspan made.

The idea of placing full monetary control in the hands of congress and by extension political campaigns and populist rage is a dangerous thing. Milton Friedman was much more on the side of Hamilton on this issue.

You are basically advocating for replacing Bernanke and the Fed Board Governors with Nancy Pelosi, Barney Frank, Harry Reid and Barack Obama and by extension their political campaigns and special interest groups. I'll take my chances with the Fed, this system and its ancestors has just produced the most amount of wealth and prosperity that history has ever seen.

http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Sen...erty3.html

(07-16-2009 07:36 PM)GGniner Wrote:  
Implied Powers doctrine

Developed by Founder Alexander Hamilton and adopted by President George Washington. Hamilton was of course the very first, Treasury Secretary....this whole issue was never, ever, set in stone by the Founders. They didn't agree on alot of things, thinks in large part to regional interest and ideals that conflicted with each other. Anyone who understands the difference between Constitutional Originalism vs. 21st century Literalism knows this. There was a big dispute on this issue(and others) between them. The Federalist won out on this, National Bank was formed(a later version was adopted by President Madison) and eventually it lead to the Federal Reserve system.

So unless you want to claim that it was understood by over half the founders who ratified the Constitution and then followed along with Hamilton and Washington, were then knowingly doing something "unconstitutional" when they ratified the First National Bank...or the Second for that matter rattified under Madison(opponent of this first time around).

That's exactly what I'm saying. It's not like they didn't screw up when legislating. Alien and Sedition Acts, anyone? Note that Thomas Jefferson quickly dispensed with the National Bank. Furthermore -- you're using the same liberal interpretation tactics that a liberal would use to justify, say, nationalized healthcare. Typical neocon ... it's wrong... unless I do it. The Constitution is a valid contract between government and the governed. Contracts are not subject to liberal interpretation ... they are to be taken literally at face value.

Quote:Because of what Hamilton stated at the start: “To attach full confidence to an institution of this nature, it appears to be an essential ingredient in its structure that it shall be under a private not a public direction, under the guidance of individual interest, not of public policy.”5

http://www.minneapolisfed.org/publicatio...fm?id=1141

that has echoed ever since, from the First National Bank, to the formation of the Second National Bank created under Madison to eventually the Federal Reserve System.

Hamilton also worried about such a system giving too much power in the hands of few. Which is why its setup the way it is, admittedly not perfect.

And that is why the Fed is known as "Hamilton's Curse." It serves the interests of the global banking elite, and to that end it has plundered the United States for every dime she's worth via inflation and massive debt. Note that the previous two times the Fed was done away with, it was found to be mostly controlled by foreign megabankers.

Quote:actually every time I vote for President, since the President appoints the Board of Governors and Fed Chair. Its not perfect, I agree with Milton Friedman on this and a Computer should probably run it instead of humans. To avoid mistakes like Greenspan made.

The idea of placing full monetary control in the hands of congress and by extension political campaigns and populist rage is a dangerous thing. Milton Friedman was much more on the side of Hamilton on this issue.

You are basically advocating for replacing Bernanke and the Fed Board Governors with Nancy Pelosi, Barney Frank, Harry Reid and Barack Obama and by extension their political campaigns and special interest groups. I'll take my chances with the Fed, this system and its ancestors has just produced the most amount of wealth and prosperity that history has ever seen.

http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Sen...erty3.html

Computers are subject to the people who set them up. You're just adding another layer of obfuscation without adding any real accountability or responsibility. And the Pres only appoints the top few. The core is always the same people ... forever unelected and unappointed. And it's not like our Presidents have chosen wisely for those appointments either. Noooooo predictably they dip from the pre-existing core. To quote, of all people, Dennis Kucinich ....

"Is this the United States Congress, or the Board of Directors of Goldman Sachs?!"