Hearing To Happen On Bill To Audit the Fed

fullmetalfan720

fullmetalfan720

CAGiversary!
Feedback
11 (100%)
H.R. 1207 which would audit the Federal Reserve is up to 224 co-sponsors and will now be debated in the House of Representatives. I'm glad that this audit might finally happen, because it's about time. The Fed is currently basically above the law, and should be audited, especially after they were given the bailout money, and since they are in charge of U.S. monetary policy.

After months of activism and lobbying by Congressman Ron Paul’s supporters, House Resolution 1207, the Federal Reserve Transparency Act, will move out of committee to be debated by the full House of Representatives.
Click to expand...
http://www.dailypaul.com/node/96142

Updated on June 12.
On record so far on www.thomas.gov.
Title: To amend title 31, United States Code, to reform the manner in which the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System is audited by the Comptroller General of the United States and the manner in which such audits are reported, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Rep Paul, Ron [TX-14] (introduced 2/26/2009) Cosponsors (224)
Latest Major Action: 2/26/2009 Referred to House committee. Status: Referred to the House Committee on Financial Services.
Click to expand...
http://www.dailypaul.com/node/90775

Update 9/16/09:
Hearing on 1207 Happening:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yt6maprKisI
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Ron Paul aligns with Dennis Kucinich.

They both tiny, and both on the respective fringes of their political parties.

I don't see this accomplishing anything. Paul's a foolish muckracker who can only produce points about what he disagrees with, and offers nothing substantive to replace it.

He should stick to the other phantoms he fights against, like the Amero.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Ron Paul aligns with Dennis Kucinich.

They both tiny, and both on the respective fringes of their political parties.

I don't see this accomplishing anything. [/QUOTE]
If it passes, and the audit happens, it will expose corruption at the Fed, and likely bring it down.
Paul's a foolish muckracker who can only produce points about what he disagrees with, and offers nothing substantive to replace it.
Click to expand...
Bullshit. On the issue of the Fed, he wants to abolish it, and go back to a silver or gold standard. He not only talks about problems but he offers solutions. See Iraq, the Patriot Act, taxes, the IRS, and countless others.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul
Research the guy before you label him with bullshit labels.
The United States ought to link its currency to gold or silver again, Paul says.
Click to expand...
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/22/m...r=1&ei=5070&en=bf8dec405a435ea7&ex=1186459200

He should stick to the other phantoms he fights against, like the Amero.
Click to expand...
Very funny:roll:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Those platforms you bring up only reinforce Paul's simplicity. He's politically attractive because he provides comfort to those numerous people who are (1) upset with the direction of government over the past 10-25 years and (2) don't care to invest more than 10 words' worth of thought into policy proposals.

He doesn't like the IRS. His solution? Abolish it. He's uninterested in paying off the 10 Trillion in debt we have right now, unless he's a Reaganomics-loving nitwit who thinks tax cuts with increase tax revenue sufficient to pay down the debt. Which is a foolish perspective to have.

He doesn't support the Patriot Act. His solution? Eliminate it. Fair enough, I'll agree with him on that one.

He doesn't like the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. His solution? End it now. He doesn't want to draw down, or make sure the nations are stable - he just wants to end it now.

Don't put words in my mouth. I never said, overtly or covertly, that Paul was a troofer. He spends a lot of time around troofers, and is idolized by troofers - but that's a spurious relationship at best. So pointing out that he's not a troofer and then telling me to "research the guy" is a retort with no antecedent. Which is a rather silly proposition, don't you think?
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Those platforms you bring up only reinforce Paul's simplicity. He's politically attractive because he provides comfort to those numerous people who are (1) upset with the direction of government over the past 10-25 years and (2) don't care to invest more than 10 words' worth of thought into policy proposals.

He doesn't like the IRS. His solution? Abolish it. He's uninterested in paying off the 10 Trillion in debt we have right now, unless he's a Reaganomics-loving nitwit who thinks tax cuts with increase tax revenue sufficient to pay down the debt. Which is a foolish perspective to have.

He doesn't support the Patriot Act. His solution? Eliminate it. Fair enough, I'll agree with him on that one.

He doesn't like the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. His solution? End it now. He doesn't want to draw down, or make sure the nations are stable - he just wants to end it now.

Don't put words in my mouth. I never said, overtly or covertly, that Paul was a troofer. He spends a lot of time around troofers, and is idolized by troofers - but that's a spurious relationship at best. So pointing out that he's not a troofer and then telling me to "research the guy" is a retort with no antecedent. Which is a rather silly proposition, don't you think?[/QUOTE]

I never insinuated that you called him a truther. I was instead refering to this:
I don't see this accomplishing anything. Paul's a foolish muckracker who can only produce points about what he disagrees with, and offers nothing substantive to replace it.
Click to expand...
However that wikipedia link did for some reason link to his comments about 9/11. That's my fault, and wasn't intended. What I meant to say was that it was bullshit that Paul offers nothing substantive to replace things he doesn't like. On issues like Iraq and Afganistan, we got in there in days, why can't we get out faster than 23 months? Why are we still there, and why are we still torturing under Obama? Why do we think the Constitution should only be followed when we want to? There aren't many terrorists out there that we haven't created. Whether it's funding the mujahideen, who later become our enemies, or invading two countries, and causing the deaths of millions of civilians there, we have created our own opposition. If the Chinese invaded the USA today, killed Obama, and our Congress, and millions of Americans and said they were spreading communism, wouldn't you join the resistance? Especially if they said they would never truly leave? Paul does frequently attack things he doesn't like, and say we should end them, but mainly because they shouldn't be there in the first place. On the issues that there are problems, and should be fixed, he offers replacements for the problems like immigration. While I don't agree with all of Ron Paul's positions, he is in my opinion the best candidate for president that would actually run in 2012, as it seems like Jesse Ventura, who I agree with more often than Ron Paul, will not run.
 
This could be a beautiful thing for the markets if some of the shit they've been pulling comes to light (chaotic, but beautiful). ;)

Fed Would Be Shut Down If It Were Audited, Expert Says

The Federal Reserve's balance sheet is so out of whack that the central bank would be shut down if subjected to a conventional audit, Jim Grant, editor of Grant's Interest Rate Observer, told CNBC.

With $45 billion in capital and $2.1 trillion in assets, the central bank would not withstand the scrutiny normally afforded other institutions, Grant said in a live interview.

"If the Fed examiners were set upon the Fed's own documents—unlabeled documents—to pass judgment on the Fed's capacity to survive the difficulties it faces in credit, it would shut this institution down," he said. "The Fed is undercapitalized in a way that Citicorp is undercapitalized." Grant said he would support legislation currently making its way through Congress calling for an audit of the Fed.
Moreover, he criticized the way the Fed has managed the financial crisis, saying the central bank's target rate should not be around zero.

"I think zero is the wrong rate for almost any economy," Grant said, adding the Fed has "embarked on a vast experiment in moral hazard. Interest rates are the traffic signals in a market economy, and everything's green. ... You have to wonder whether these interest rates are the right clearing rate or rather they are the imposition of a central bank."
______________________


And look at this...The person in charge of investigating the fed's current books has no clue of the losses they are taking from the various bailouts over the past 2 years, and doesn't want to disclose any of the recipients of **$9 TRILLION** in off-book "loans" they have made since last September..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cJqM2tFOxLQ&feature=player_embedded

I'd like to know the assets they accepted as collateral for the $9 trillion in loans..who the loans were made to..what the realistic chance is of getting paid back..how many losses taxpayers are really taking...

I'd also like to see an audit of their gold stock to verify how much they have left. They claim $250 billion but there have been rumors that most of it has been sold over the past 20 years. I've seen man on the street interviews asking people about the dollar and around half of the people asked believe it is still backed by gold. If an audit is done and we see a few headlines about the fed owning 0.04 tons of gold, that would certainly raise people's consciousness on the issue of our money and what gives it value..and if they hear specifics about the dubious companies that have received hundreds of billions of newly printed dollars from the fed, maybe they would demand the fed be a bit more hawkish when it comes to protecting the value of our currency. That could only be a good thing in the long run.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
which would audit the Federal Reserve is up to 224
signature_Sign.jpg
:)
 
Myke you are SO full of shit it amazes me. Either you're a useful idiot or you're lying and are a Disinfo Agent. If you're a Disinfo Agent you're a completely poor fucking one now. I'm going to guess you're a useful idiot along the lines of you blather on about whatever talking point the DNC has printed out for the week or eat up any of the typical beltway crap spit out.
The Amero is coming down the pipe, Vincente Fox admitted to it as much on Larry King. He didn't specifically call it that but he indicated we're getting that type of currency.
Oh and the bill hasn't done shit? REALLY?! It's got 232 sponsors now. They're trying to keep it in Committee and kill it but we'll win and it'll get kicked back out.
Myke I gotta say I am fucking ASTONISHED how you don't get some things. We won't be able to EVER pay off our debt unless we kill the Fed but auditing it's a start. You wonder why I say we have to kill the Fed? Because we're letting them make our money and charging us interest on that production. Bottom line, you take a step forward they take THREE steps forward. You can't pay off shit unless you get RID of the Fed. For good measure if we do we should summarily stop trading with other countries around the world until they kick their central banks as well and make their money through the government.
You see even if WE managed to get rid of the Fed so long as any of their organizations can exist they can bide their time, they would slowly extend their tentacles back in and... BAM! we'd have another one. It's too bad you couldn't just poison their water supply financially so to speak.
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yt6maprKisI&feature=player_embedded

It looks like as of today there will be a hearing on HR 1207. The bill is quickly gaining support. Love or hate Ron Paul, this bill needs to pass.

Although, if there were ever a good use for the term "pandora's box" it might be HR 1207.

Edit: Here is a list of the now 287 cosponsors of the bill.
HR 1207 Co-Sponsors (as of 9/16/2009)
Rep Kagen, Steve [WI-8] - 2/26/2009
Rep Bachmann, Michele [MN-6] - 2/26/2009
Rep Bartlett, Roscoe G. [MD-6] - 2/26/2009
Rep Jones, Walter B., Jr. [NC-3] - 2/26/2009
Rep Rehberg, Denny [MT] - 2/26/2009
Rep Posey, Bill [FL-15] - 2/26/2009
Rep Broun, Paul C. [GA-10] - 2/26/2009
Rep Poe, Ted [TX-2] - 2/26/2009
Rep Burton, Dan [IN-5] - 2/26/2009
Rep Abercrombie, Neil [HI-1] - 2/26/2009
Rep Woolsey, Lynn C. [CA-6] - 2/26/2009
Rep Garrett, Scott [NJ-5] - 3/5/2009
Rep Chaffetz, Jason [UT-3] - 3/6/2009
Rep Kingston, Jack [GA-1] - 3/6/2009
Rep Young, Don [AK] - 3/6/2009
Rep Rohrabacher, Dana [CA-46] - 3/6/2009
Rep Stearns, Cliff [FL-6] - 3/6/2009
Rep McClintock, Tom [CA-4] - 3/6/2009
Rep Heller, Dean [NV-2] - 3/6/2009
Rep Duncan, John J., Jr. [TN-2] - 3/6/2009
Rep Taylor, Gene [MS-4] - 3/6/2009
Rep DeFazio, Peter A. [OR-4] - 3/9/2009
Rep Alexander, Rodney [LA-5] - 3/10/2009
Rep Price, Tom [GA-6] - 3/10/2009
Rep Petri, Thomas E. [WI-6] - 3/10/2009
Rep Foxx, Virginia [NC-5] - 3/10/2009
Rep Grayson, Alan [FL-8] - 3/11/2009
Rep Marchant, Kenny [TX-24] - 3/11/2009
Rep Wamp, Zach [TN-3] - 3/16/2009
Rep Blackburn, Marsha [TN-7] - 3/16/2009
Rep Buchanan, Vern [FL-13] - 3/17/2009
Rep Castle, Michael N. [DE] - 3/17/2009
Rep Fleming, John [LA-4] - 3/18/2009
Rep Akin, W. Todd [MO-2] - 3/19/2009
Rep Platts, Todd Russell [PA-19] - 3/19/2009
Rep Peterson, Collin C. [MN-7] - 3/19/2009
Rep McCotter, Thaddeus G. [MI-11] - 3/19/2009
Rep Lummis, Cynthia M. [WY] - 3/19/2009
Rep Burgess, Michael C. [TX-26] - 3/19/2009
Rep Sessions, Pete [TX-32] - 3/23/2009
Rep Deal, Nathan [GA-9] - 3/23/2009
Rep Franks, Trent [AZ-2] - 3/23/2009
Rep Miller, Jeff [FL-1] - 3/24/2009
Rep Blunt, Roy [MO-7] - 3/24/2009
Rep Stark, Fortney Pete [CA-13] - 3/26/2009
Rep Culberson, John Abney [TX-7] - 3/26/2009
Rep Paulsen, Erik [MN-3] - 3/30/2009
Rep Gingrey, Phil [GA-11] - 3/30/2009
Rep Terry, Lee [NE-2] - 3/30/2009
Rep Carter, John R. [TX-31] - 3/31/2009
Rep Capito, Shelley Moore [WV-2] - 4/1/2009
Rep Wittman, Robert J. [VA-1] - 4/1/2009
Rep Fallin, Mary [OK-5] - 4/2/2009
Rep Smith, Lamar [TX-21] - 4/2/2009
Rep Westmoreland, Lynn A. [GA-3] - 4/2/2009
Rep Lucas, Frank D. [OK-3] - 4/21/2009
Rep Lamborn, Doug [CO-5] - 4/21/2009
Rep Ehlers, Vernon J. [MI-3] - 4/21/2009
Rep Bilbray, Brian P. [CA-50] - 4/21/2009
Rep Pence, Mike [IN-6] - 4/21/2009
Rep Manzullo, Donald A. [IL-16] - 4/21/2009
Rep McCaul, Michael T. [TX-10] - 4/21/2009
Rep Cole, Tom [OK-4] - 4/21/2009
Rep Roe, David P. [TN-1] - 4/21/2009
Rep Herger, Wally [CA-2] - 4/21/2009
Rep Bishop, Rob [UT-1] - 4/21/2009
Rep Baldwin, Tammy [WI-2] - 4/21/2009
Rep Olson, Pete [TX-22] - 4/21/2009
Rep Latham, Tom [IA-4] - 4/21/2009
Rep Luetkemeyer, Blaine [MO-9] - 4/21/2009
Rep Doggett, Lloyd [TX-25] - 4/21/2009
Rep Rooney, Thomas J. [FL-16] - 4/22/2009
Rep Massa, Eric J. J. [NY-29] - 4/22/2009
Rep Johnson, Sam [TX-3] - 4/22/2009
Rep Thompson, Glenn [PA-5] - 4/22/2009
Rep Brady, Kevin [TX-8] - 4/22/2009
Rep Smith, Adam [WA-9] - 4/22/2009
Rep Shimkus, John [IL-19] - 4/22/2009
Rep Graves, Sam [MO-6] - 4/22/2009
Rep Jenkins, Lynn [KS-2] - 4/23/2009
Rep Gohmert, Louie [TX-1] - 4/23/2009
Rep Inglis, Bob [SC-4] - 4/23/2009
Rep Kaptur, Marcy [OH-9] - 4/23/2009
Rep Johnson, Timothy V. [IL-15] - 4/23/2009
Rep Brown, Henry E., Jr. [SC-1] - 4/28/2009
Rep Biggert, Judy [IL-13] - 4/28/2009
Rep Pitts, Joseph R. [PA-16] - 4/28/2009
Rep Tiahrt, Todd [KS-4] - 4/28/2009
Rep Myrick, Sue Wilkins [NC-9] - 4/28/2009
Rep Putnam, Adam H. [FL-12] - 4/28/2009
Rep LaTourette, Steven C. [OH-14] - 4/28/2009
Rep Tiberi, Patrick J. [OH-12] - 4/28/2009
Rep Ros-Lehtinen, Ileana [FL-18] - 4/28/2009
Rep Hoekstra, Peter [MI-2] - 4/28/2009
Rep Miller, Candice S. [MI-10] - 4/28/2009
Rep Granger, Kay [TX-12] - 4/28/2009
Rep Simpson, Michael K. [ID-2] - 4/28/2009
Rep Barrett, J. Gresham [SC-3] - 4/28/2009
Rep Goodlatte, Bob [VA-6] - 4/28/2009
Rep Smith, Adrian [NE-3] - 4/28/2009
Rep Wilson, Joe [SC-2] - 4/29/2009
Rep Hall, Ralph M. [TX-4] - 4/29/2009
Rep Kline, John [MN-2] - 4/29/2009
Rep Bono Mack, Mary [CA-45] - 4/29/2009
Rep Murphy, Tim [PA-18] - 4/29/2009
Rep Calvert, Ken [CA-44] - 4/29/2009
Rep McDermott, Jim [WA-7] - 4/29/2009
Rep Upton, Fred [MI-6] - 4/29/2009
Rep Bachus, Spencer [AL-6] - 4/29/2009
Rep Buyer, Steve [IN-4] - 4/30/2009
Rep Neugebauer, Randy [TX-19] - 4/30/2009
Rep McHenry, Patrick T. [NC-10] - 4/30/2009
Rep McCarthy, Kevin [CA-22] - 5/4/2009
Rep Barton, Joe [TX-6] - 5/4/2009
Rep Hensarling, Jeb [TX-5] - 5/4/2009
Rep McMorris Rodgers, Cathy [WA-5] - 5/4/2009
Rep Bilirakis, Gus M. [FL-9] - 5/4/2009
Rep Moran, Jerry [KS-1] - 5/4/2009
Rep Cassidy, Bill [LA-6] - 5/4/2009
Rep Walden, Greg [OR-2] - 5/4/2009
Rep Crenshaw, Ander [FL-4] - 5/4/2009
Rep Campbell, John [CA-48] - 5/4/2009
Rep LoBiondo, Frank A. [NJ-2] - 5/4/2009
Rep McHugh, John M. [NY-23] - 5/4/2009
Rep Schakowsky, Janice D. [IL-9] - 5/6/2009
Rep Linder, John [GA-7] - 5/6/2009
Rep Aderholt, Robert B. [AL-4] - 5/6/2009
Rep Davis, Geoff [KY-4] - 5/6/2009
Rep Dent, Charles W. [PA-15] - 5/6/2009
Rep Radanovich, George [CA-19] - 5/6/2009
Rep Schock, Aaron [IL-18] - 5/6/2009
Rep Herseth Sandlin, Stephanie [SD] - 5/6/2009
Rep Austria, Steve [OH-7] - 5/6/2009
Rep Adler, John H. [NJ-3] - 5/6/2009
Rep Sensenbrenner, F. James, Jr. [WI-5] - 5/7/2009
Rep Lungren, Daniel E. [CA-3] - 5/7/2009
Rep Walz, Timothy J. [MN-1] - 5/7/2009
Rep Shuster, Bill [PA-9] - 5/7/2009
Rep Michaud, Michael H. [ME-2] - 5/7/2009
Rep Conaway, K. Michael [TX-11] - 5/7/2009
Rep Shadegg, John B. [AZ-3] - 5/7/2009
Rep Boozman, John [AR-3] - 5/7/2009
Rep Guthrie, Brett [KY-2] - 5/7/2009
Rep Flake, Jeff [AZ-6] - 5/11/2009
Rep Hastings, Doc [WA-4] - 5/11/2009
Rep Lance, Leonard [NJ-7] - 5/11/2009
Rep Gerlach, Jim [PA-6] - 5/11/2009
Rep Harper, Gregg [MS-3] - 5/11/2009
Rep Hare, Phil [IL-17] - 5/11/2009
Rep Royce, Edward R. [CA-40] - 5/12/2009
Rep Fortenberry, Jeff [NE-1] - 5/12/2009
Rep Mack, Connie [FL-14] - 5/12/2009
Rep Barrow, John [GA-12] - 5/12/2009
Rep Mica, John L. [FL-7] - 5/12/2009
Rep Maffei, Daniel B. [NY-25] - 5/12/2009
Rep Inslee, Jay [WA-1] - 5/12/2009
Rep Rogers, Mike D. [AL-3] - 5/13/2009
Rep Minnick, Walter [ID-1] - 5/13/2009
Rep Boustany, Charles W., Jr. [LA-7] - 5/13/2009
Rep Turner, Michael R. [OH-3] - 5/13/2009
Rep Hunter, Duncan D. [CA-52] - 5/13/2009
Rep Perriello, Thomas S.P. [VA-5] - 5/13/2009
Rep Ortiz, Solomon P. [TX-27] - 5/14/2009
Rep Ryan, Paul [WI-1] - 5/14/2009
Rep Whitfield, Ed [KY-1] - 5/14/2009
Rep Pastor, Ed [AZ-4] - 5/20/2009
Rep Brown-Waite, Ginny [FL-5] - 5/20/2009
Rep Altmire, Jason [PA-4] - 5/20/2009
Rep Latta, Robert E. [OH-5] - 5/20/2009
Rep Reichert, David G. [WA-8] - 5/20/2009
Rep Rogers, Mike J. [MI-8] - 5/20/2009
Rep Berry, Marion [AR-1] - 5/20/2009
Rep Schauer, Mark H. [MI-7] - 5/20/2009
Rep Scalise, Steve [LA-1] - 5/20/2009
Rep Forbes, J. Randy [VA-4] - 5/20/2009
Rep Ross, Mike [AR-4] - 5/21/2009
Rep Berkley, Shelley [NV-1] - 5/21/2009
Rep Welch, Peter [VT] - 5/21/2009
Rep Thornberry, Mac [TX-13] - 5/21/2009
Rep Jordan, Jim [OH-4] - 6/2/2009
Rep Hinchey, Maurice D. [NY-22] - 6/2/2009
Rep Roskam, Peter J. [IL-6] - 6/2/2009
Rep Young, C.W. Bill [FL-10] - 6/3/2009
Rep Grijalva, Raul M. [AZ-7] - 6/3/2009
Rep Frelinghuysen, Rodney P. [NJ-11] - 6/3/2009
Rep Halvorson, Deborah L. [IL-11] - 6/3/2009
Rep King, Peter T. [NY-3] - 6/4/2009
Rep Holden, Tim [PA-17] - 6/4/2009
Rep Lipinski, Daniel [IL-3] - 6/4/2009
Rep Kratovil, Frank, Jr. [MD-1] - 6/4/2009
Rep Pascrell, Bill, Jr. [NJ-8] - 6/9/2009
Rep Boswell, Leonard L. [IA-3] - 6/9/2009
Rep Bonner, Jo [AL-1] - 6/9/2009
Rep Tonko, Paul D. [NY-21] - 6/9/2009
Rep Mitchell, Harry E. [AZ-5] - 6/9/2009
Rep Johnson, Henry C. "Hank," Jr. [GA-4] - 6/9/2009
Rep Shea-Porter, Carol [NH-1] - 6/9/2009
Rep Carney, Christopher P. [PA-10] - 6/9/2009
Rep Childers, Travis [MS-1] - 6/9/2009
Rep Murphy, Patrick J. [PA-8] - 6/9/2009
Rep McGovern, James P. [MA-3] - 6/10/2009
Rep McIntyre, Mike [NC-7] - 6/10/2009
Rep Dreier, David [CA-26] - 6/10/2009
Rep Boehner, John A. [OH-8] - 6/10/2009
Rep Perlmutter, Ed [CO-7] - 6/10/2009
Rep Lee, Christopher J. [NY-26] - 6/10/2009
Rep Loebsack, David [IA-2] - 6/10/2009
Rep Miller, Gary G. [CA-42] - 6/10/2009
Rep Wolf, Frank R. [VA-10] - 6/11/2009
Rep Brown, Corrine [FL-3] - 6/11/2009
Rep Speier, Jackie [CA-12] - 6/11/2009
Rep King, Steve [IA-5] - 6/11/2009
Rep Edwards, Donna F. [MD-4] - 6/11/2009
Rep Bright, Bobby [AL-2] - 6/11/2009
Rep Cao, Anh "Joseph" [LA-2] - 6/11/2009
Rep Polis, Jared [CO-2] - 6/11/2009
Rep Kucinich, Dennis J. [OH-10] - 6/11/2009
Rep McKeon, Howard P. "Buck" [CA-25] - 6/11/2009
Rep Coble, Howard [NC-6] - 6/11/2009
Rep Braley, Bruce L. [IA-1] - 6/11/2009
Rep Schmidt, Jean [OH-2] - 6/11/2009
Rep Shuler, Heath [NC-11] - 6/12/2009
Rep Teague, Harry [NM-2] - 6/12/2009
Rep Nunes, Devin [CA-21] - 6/12/2009
Rep Smith, Christopher H. [NJ-4] - 6/15/2009
Rep Sarbanes, John P. [MD-3] - 6/15/2009
Rep Edwards, Chet [TX-17] - 6/16/2009
Rep Souder, Mark E. [IN-3] - 6/16/2009
Rep Coffman, Mike [CO-6] - 6/16/2009
Rep Giffords, Gabrielle [AZ-8] - 6/16/2009
Rep Issa, Darrell E. [CA-49] - 6/16/2009
Rep Griffith, Parker [AL-5] - 6/16/2009
Rep Kosmas, Suzanne M. [FL-24] - 6/17/2009
Rep Slaughter, Louise McIntosh [NY-28] - 6/17/2009
Rep Diaz-Balart, Mario [FL-25] - 6/18/2009
Rep Rothman, Steven R. [NJ-9] - 6/18/2009
Rep Camp, Dave [MI-4] - 6/18/2009
Rep Cantor, Eric [VA-7] - 6/23/2009
Rep Space, Zachary T. [OH-18] - 6/23/2009
Rep Conyers, John, Jr. [MI-14] - 6/23/2009
Rep Sherman, Brad [CA-27] - 6/23/2009
Rep Snyder, Vic [AR-2] - 6/23/2009
Rep Lewis, Jerry [CA-41] - 6/24/2009
Rep Markey, Betsy [CO-4] - 6/25/2009
Rep Davis, Danny K. [IL-7] - 6/26/2009
Rep Lofgren, Zoe [CA-16] - 7/7/2009
Rep Chandler, Ben [KY-6] - 7/7/2009
Rep Harman, Jane [CA-36] - 7/7/2009
Rep Murphy, Christopher S. [CT-5] - 7/7/2009
Rep Gallegly, Elton [CA-24] - 7/7/2009
Rep Sullivan, John [OK-1] - 7/8/2009
Rep Courtney, Joe [CT-2] - 7/8/2009
Rep Hirono, Mazie K. [HI-2] - 7/8/2009
Rep Farr, Sam [CA-17] - 7/8/2009
Rep Murphy, Scott [NY-20] - 7/9/2009
Rep Fudge, Marcia L. [OH-11] - 7/9/2009
Rep Melancon, Charlie [LA-3] - 7/10/2009
Rep Baird, Brian [WA-3] - 7/10/2009
Rep Bishop, Timothy H. [NY-1] - 7/10/2009
Rep Diaz-Balart, Lincoln [FL-21] - 7/10/2009
Rep Wu, David [OR-1] - 7/13/2009
Rep Yarmuth, John A. [KY-3] - 7/14/2009
Rep Titus, Dina [NV-3] - 7/14/2009
Rep Kirkpatrick, Ann [AZ-1] - 7/14/2009
Rep Schiff, Adam B. [CA-29] - 7/14/2009
Rep Rogers, Harold [KY-5] - 7/14/2009
Rep Boyd, Allen [FL-2] - 7/14/200
Rep Salazar, John T. [CO-3] - 7/15/2009
Rep Kirk, Mark Steven [IL-10] - 7/15/2009
Rep Emerson, Jo Ann [MO-8] - 7/15/2009
Rep Thompson, Bennie G. [MS-2] - 7/17/2009
Rep Visclosky, Peter J. [IN-1] - 7/20/2009
Rep Scott, David [GA-13] - 7/20/2009
Rep Tierney, John F. [MA-6] - 7/20/2009
Rep Boucher, Rick [VA-9] - 7/20/2009
Rep Dahlkemper, Kathleen A. [PA-3] - 7/22/2009
Rep Filner, Bob [CA-51] - 7/28/2009
Rep Richardson, Laura [CA-37] - 7/28/2009
Rep Boccieri, John A. [OH-16] - 7/28/2009
Rep Jackson, Jesse L., Jr. [IL-2] - 7/30/2009
Rep Payne, Donald M. [NJ-10] - 7/30/2009
Rep Oberstar, James L. [MN-8] - 7/31/2009
Rep Langevin, James R. [RI-2] - 9/8/2009
Rep Gordon, Bart [TN-6] - 9/8/2009
Rep Delahunt, Bill [MA-10] - 9/9/2009
Rep Nadler, Jerrold [NY-8] - 9/10/2009
Rep Hinojosa, Ruben [TX-15] - 9/10/2009
Rep Schrader, Kurt [OR-5] - 9/15/2009
Rep Johnson, Eddie Bernice [TX-30] - 9/15/2009
 
I love Ron Paul. I love the fact that many of his concerns with our government are the same that I have, and I love the fact that he offers solutions for these problems. He's such an unbelievable breath of fresh air. I'm thrilled his Audit the Fed measure is going to be voted on. You can choose to try and politically thumb your nose at him all you want, in terms of raising money, and getting people interested in the political process, he's a wonderful leader. The last time I was this excited about a politician, his name was Perot. I'm sick of the failing two party system.
 
[quote name='speedracer']

Perot sucks balls.[/QUOTE]

...and his left nut is worth more than your home and lifetime earnings.
 
I'm sick of Ron Paul and his crusade against the Fed. He fancies himself having a far better understanding of economics than he really does.

Anyone who gets his or her information from the Ludwig von Mises Institute or shitty documentaries like "The Money Masters" shouldn't be in a position to make or influence important economic decisions.
 
[quote name='berzirk']...and his left nut is worth more than your home and lifetime earnings.[/QUOTE]

And hence he is a better person than you speedracer, you poor schmuck.
 
[quote name='Icen']I'm sick of Ron Paul and his crusade against the Fed. He fancies himself having a far better understanding of economics than he really does.

Anyone who gets his or her information from the Ludwig von Mises Institute or shitty documentaries like "The Money Masters" shouldn't be in a position to make or influence important economic decisions.[/QUOTE]
And I suppose you are going to argue why we should have a private Fed that operates in almost complete secrecy, and is accountable to no one? I'd really like to see this. Also, please tell me the major fallacies of the Austrian economic school of thought afterwards.
 
[quote name='fullmetalfan720']And I suppose you are going to argue why we should have a private Fed that operates in almost complete secrecy, and is accountable to no one? I'd really like to see this. Also, please tell me the major fallacies of the Austrian economic school of thought afterwards.[/QUOTE]

Pretty much anyone with a decent background in Economics (read: not "self-educated" through online propaganda) can tell you why the Fed needs to operate in secrecy and why we need the Fed.

Feel free to keep on sipping the Kool-Aid and reading Hayek and Rothbard though.

You probably also think we should all pour our money into precious metals and abolish fractional reserve banking...
 
[quote name='berzirk']...and his left nut is worth more than your home and lifetime earnings.[/QUOTE]
You got a purty mouth. I like you.

Oh money. You seductive little hussy.

[quote name='Icen']Pretty much anyone with a decent background in Economics (read: not "self-educated" through online propaganda) can tell you why the Fed needs to operate in secrecy and why we need the Fed.

You probably also think we should all pour our money into precious metals and abolish fractional reserve banking...[/QUOTE]
I think precious metals are for stupid people that like shiny stuff and have no problem with fractional banking (to a point..), but why would the Fed need secrecy? I've never gotten that. I've never seen a good argument for anything anywhere that involved keeping secrets from the public. Especially actionable financial data and trends discussed by the Fed.

I just assumed it was because the Fed is secretly FoC.
 
Icen, please enlighten us on where we can find the almighty "truth" about Economics, how it really works, and how central banks aren't really running the world and we should take everything at face value. I'm excited to learn from this fountain of truth you've found.
 
Eliot Spitzer said 'the Fed is a giant ponzi scheme'. Someone please make him AG of NY again. This guy knows what he's talking about.

Say what you want about his penis and where it goes or belongs, but there is a reason why he earned the nickname 'Sheriff of Wall Street'.
 
[quote name='Icen']Pretty much anyone with a decent background in Economics (read: not "self-educated" through online propaganda) can tell you why the Fed needs to operate in secrecy and why we need the Fed.[/quote]
Oh, yeah, like those guys at Goldman, or maybe JP Morgan? I know I go to guys like Hank Paulson and Robert Rubin. They are always right.
Feel free to keep on sipping the Kool-Aid and reading Hayek and Rothbard though.
Click to expand...
And you can continue to listen to Hank Paulson and Robert Rubin. Who did they work for again? Ah, yes Goldman Sachs.
You probably also think we should all pour our money into precious metals and abolish fractional reserve banking...
Click to expand...
Ah, fractional reserve banking. The legalized pyramid scheme. Where $1,000 can be turned into $10,000 or even more depending on reserve requirements. Here's how it works. Your money is deposited into your bank. Then that money is loaned out minus a small reserve, and paid to someone who deposits it into their bank. Then that money is loaned out minus a small reserve, and paid to someone who deposits it into their bank. Then the process repeats. Again and again. Money is simply created out of thin air by fractional reserve banking. Also, on precious metals, what else has had a 6,000 year track record for keeping it's value? Not the U.S. dollar, which has lost about 1/3 of it's value in the past 9 years.
 
[quote name='fullmetalfan720']Oh, yeah, like those guys at Goldman, or maybe JP Morgan? I know I go to guys like Hank Paulson and Robert Rubin. They are always right.

And you can continue to listen to Hank Paulson and Robert Rubin. Who did they work for again? Ah, yes Goldman Sachs.

Ah, fractional reserve banking. The legalized pyramid scheme. Where $1,000 can be turned into $10,000 or even more depending on reserve requirements. Here's how it works. Your money is deposited into your bank. Then that money is loaned out minus a small reserve, and paid to someone who deposits it into their bank. Then that money is loaned out minus a small reserve, and paid to someone who deposits it into their bank. Then the process repeats. Again and again. Money is simply created out of thin air by fractional reserve banking. Also, on precious metals, what else has had a 6,000 year track record for keeping it's value? Not the U.S. dollar, which has lost about 1/3 of it's value in the past 9 years.[/QUOTE]

I have friends who work or have worked at Goldman, Citigroup, etc. and to be frank they are some of the most intelligent people I've known. If you knew the sort of minds that worked at those places you wouldn't be so quick to decry them. To label them as crooks whose only interests are self-serving is mere fallacy.

I don't give a shit that a lot of you people subscribe to Hayek and his philosophy, it's the fact that you people follow it religiously and speak as though you have a good grasp on they way things work. The truth of the matter is (I suspect) very few of you have ever taken a rigorous courseload in economics from a respected institution and probably none have ever gone on and done any sort of research or graduate work in the field. You then on to defame and belittle those who have and cling zealously to fringe sources and people who have never really contributed anything to economic theory.
 
I have friends and know people that work at Goldman and other institutions as well. They are fantastic people. But, just like the government, 99% of those employed by it can be fantastic people, it doesn't take but a few to hold the steering wheel.

Nobody is attacking employees of banks, get real.

One thing that is obvious is that most of the people saying what you are saying usually have a lot to gain by keeping things the way they are.
 
[quote name='Icen']Pretty much anyone with a decent background in Economics (read: not "self-educated" through online propaganda)

Feel free to keep on sipping the Kool-Aid and reading Hayek and Rothbard though.

You probably also think we should all pour our money into precious metals and abolish fractional reserve banking...

I don't give a shit that a lot of you people subscribe to Hayek and his philosophy, it's the fact that you people follow it religiously and speak as though you have a good grasp on they way things work. The truth of the matter is (I suspect) very few of you have ever taken a rigorous courseload in economics from a respected institution and probably none have ever gone on and done any sort of research or graduate work in the field. You then on to defame and belittle those who have and cling zealously to fringe sources and people who have never really contributed anything to economic theory.[/QUOTE]

Spot on and all but it gets to be like pissing in the wind.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
great point, which is why we shouldn't condemn the entire acorn organization because of a few bad nuts (no pun intended)
 
Alright dude, now you have to tell me why Fed secrecy is a good thing. I googled Fed secrecy and "why does the fed need secrecy" and got an avalance of END THE FED RAWR websites.

Help a brother out. I'm just tryin to understand.
 
[quote name='Icen']I have friends who work or have worked at Goldman, Citigroup, etc. and to be frank they are some of the most intelligent people I've known. If you knew the sort of minds that worked at those places you wouldn't be so quick to decry them. To label them as crooks whose only interests are self-serving is mere fallacy.[/QUOTE]
I'm talking about the people who run these companies. That's why I mentioned Hank Paulson, and co.
I don't give a shit that a lot of you people subscribe to Hayek and his philosophy, it's the fact that you people follow it religiously and speak as though you have a good grasp on they way things work. The truth of the matter is (I suspect) very few of you have ever taken a rigorous courseload in economics from a respected institution and probably none have ever gone on and done any sort of research or graduate work in the field. You then on to defame and belittle those who have and cling zealously to fringe sources and people who have never really contributed anything to economic theory.
Click to expand...
Great. Tell me why these people who you call "fringe" accurately predicted this financial crisis?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2I0QN-FYkpw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0QdLkgvJwM
I think the people who you call "economists" are idiots. They seem to always get everything wrong, yet people still listen to them. Then, you look at the track record of someone like Gerald Celente who has accurately predicted many major events of the past 20 or so years, or Peter Schiff who saw this economic crisis coming. You can say that you know so much about the economy, but all you seem to be is talk. Tell me this, what happens when you create money, without an increase in production? Why has our dollar lost around a third of it's value in the past 9 years? Why should we have a Fed that operates in secrecy? What is the really way that economics works?
 
[quote name='IRHari']Eliot Spitzer said 'the Fed is a giant ponzi scheme'. Someone please make him AG of NY again. This guy knows what he's talking about.

Say what you want about his penis and where it goes or belongs, but there is a reason why he earned the nickname 'Sheriff of Wall Street'.[/QUOTE]
I agree.
 
Funny how you say so cite people who said things over the years that Paul Krugman said even further back, yet you're unwilling to give his economic philosophy the time of day because your ideology prevents it.
 
People have refused to save money, spending all their income on game consoles, HDTVs and other such goodies, even going into debt on credit cards to buy this crap.

And suddenly it's the government's job to fix it when you don't have money saved up?

The BIG reason I don't just go ahead and buy up ever Sonic the Hedgehog game for my collection is due to the fact I like having a money reserve on hand. But forgive me, I'll be like everyone else and go spend my last cent on entertainment, then whine to the government when I'm broke.

This bill doesn't concern me in any way.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Funny how you say so cite people who said things over the years that Paul Krugman said even further back, yet you're unwilling to give his economic philosophy the time of day because your ideology prevents it.[/QUOTE]
Paul Krugman is okay, but like other Keynesians, his solutions tend to not take into effect inflation, and involve too much government spending. He's better than some of these other hacks though.
Also, I don't seem to remember him warning of the coming economic crisis, if you could please link to that, it would be appreciated.
 
[quote name='fullmetalfan720']Paul Krugman is okay, but like other Keynesians, his solutions tend to not take into effect inflation, and involve too much government spending. He's better than some of these other hacks though.
Also, I don't seem to remember him warning of the coming economic crisis, if you could please link to that, it would be appreciated.[/QUOTE]

1) "other keynesians"? Who are the other people supporting a keynesian approach to solving the economic crisis? I'd like at least one, since I've not encountered other prominent economists who support it.

2) "involve too much government spending" IS KEYNESIAN. You're not disputing anything but the method of recovery, which is not something that's been attempted until recently. If you want to dispute Keynesian thought, please do. But it's dishonest to act like government spending is self-evidently bad.
 
[quote name='Icen']
I don't give a shit that a lot of you people subscribe to Hayek and his philosophy, it's the fact that you people follow it religiously and speak as though you have a good grasp on they way things work. The truth of the matter is (I suspect) very few of you have ever taken a rigorous courseload in economics from a respected institution and probably none have ever gone on and done any sort of research or graduate work in the field. You then on to defame and belittle those who have and cling zealously to fringe sources and people who have never really contributed anything to economic theory.[/QUOTE]

No, the Austrians aren't part of the establishment massive government school of economics so they get no respect from the Keynesian crowd..but personally I'd consider that a great compliment. The "serious" econ people after all have led us to the current global shitstorm. The national debt in America has increased 1,600% since 1980 and we are currently flying down the road to socialism. The left is dominant worldwide and most governments are approaching (or exceeding) a parasitic 50% of GDP. There is no counterbalance to halt this trend. Obama's own numbers put the US debt at $22 trillion within ten years and we are also facing a shortfall of $50+ trillion in the next 40 years on social insecurity and medicare. The future looks dismal and taxes simply can not be raised enough to compensate for the coming shortfall.

Unless we have a DRAMATIC reduction in the size of government (which only the Austrian school proposes), there won't be enough wealth to siphon away from the productive sector to keep govt running. Our only option is to counterfeit (inflate) our way out of trouble. You never hear any "mainstream" economists proposing a way out of this, or even acknowledging it as a serious problem. Their answer will always be the same..more taxes, more debt, and more currency devaluation.. The current trend is unsustainable and very few people in Washington (including Ron Paul) recognize this. What has the policy of the "wise" and accredited economists done for us? Well, they created a massive bubble built on excessive debt and credit expansion, didn't see the impending collapse, and are now trying to cure the collapse with yet more debt and credit expansion..lol it's frakking genius. Gotta respect them for trying new ideas. :lol:

P.S. Fullmetal posted this video above.. Just for the lulz..

Your favorite Austrian "non-economist"..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2I0QN-FYkpw&fmt=18

vs your favorite mainsteam economist..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HQ79Pt2GNJo&fmt=18

"We will follow developments in the subprime market closely. However, fundamental factors—including solid growth in incomes and relatively low mortgage rates—should ultimately support the demand for housing, and at this point, the troubles in the subprime sector seem unlikely to seriously spill over to the broader economy or the financial system." - Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, June 5, 2007

[FONT=verdana, arial, helvetica]
smiletongue2.gif
smiletongue2.gif
smiletongue2.gif
smiletongue2.gif
smiletongue2.gif
[/FONT]
​
 
Keynesians are the establishment?

Keynesians led us to this mess?

Keynesian thought has been reviled and out of fashion since your parents were in diapers. Making statements like you do lead to the nutjob/tinfoil hat responses.
 
[quote name='mykevermin'] Keynesian thought has been reviled and out of fashion since your parents were in diapers. Making statements like you do lead to the nutjob/tinfoil hat responses.[/QUOTE]

Myke, Bush Jr passed 2 or 3 "stimulus" packages from 2001-08, and Obama is already pushing for his second. The $8000 home buyer tax credit and 'cash for clunkers' program are more examples of government expenditure to stimulate sagging sectors of the economy. The whole idea of using government spending/incentives to stimulate the economy is Keynesian by nature. I agree we haven't been practicing it in it's pure form since Keynes called for us to cut back and REDUCE spending in good times..and that has never happened. But when it comes to his idea that the government needs to spend extra to prop things up and "carry us through" bad times, both parties agree whole-heartedly. Deficit spending and expansion of the money supply are two sides of the same interventionist coin. The monetary AND fiscal stimulus of the past 2 years has been off the charts.. Our $1.9 trillion deficit for 2009 should be all the proof you need of that.
 
Alright, so the dude's not gonna answer my question. Does anyone know of a argument that supports the Fed's need for secrecy?

I heard an economist on Economist.com video comment that all economists in foxholes are Keynesians. heh.
 
[quote name='speedracer']I think precious metals are for stupid people that like shiny stuff and have no problem with fractional banking (to a point..), but why would the Fed need secrecy? I've never gotten that. I've never seen a good argument for anything anywhere that involved keeping secrets from the public. Especially actionable financial data and trends discussed by the Fed.[/QUOTE]

I'll try.

All banks are interconnected through FDIC.

If the Fed published data that certain banks were going to fail, the American public would act with that data and promptly cause run on those banks.

Those banks would fail sooner and tap into FDIC.

The FDIC has been undercapitalized for years. The stress of those banks failing would render FDIC bankrupt. With no deposit insurance, an even greater and systemic run on all banks would occur.

With few deposits left, banks would be incapable of giving out loans and the economy would shrivel up even more.

Close enough?
 
I think it's a lot more than that. I think if it were common knowledge just how much the Fed is involved with foreign entities, it would raise hundreds of questions that aren't easy for them to answer.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']I think it's a lot more than that. I think if it were common knowledge just how much the Fed is involved with foreign entities, it would raise hundreds of questions that aren't easy for them to answer.[/QUOTE]

Do you think the money trail might lead to certain CIA business fronts?
 
[quote name='speedracer']Alright, so the dude's not gonna answer my question. Does anyone know of a argument that supports the Fed's need for secrecy?

I heard an economist on Economist.com video comment that all economists in foxholes are Keynesians. heh.[/QUOTE]

If you really cared so much you wouldn't ask it on a forum (especially this one). If you actually want a balanced respected opinion email some people here:

http://economics.uchicago.edu/faculty.shtml

Edit: If you don't think they'll give you the time of day or don't respond let me know and I'll shoot them an email from my .edu account myself.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='Icen']If you really cared so much you wouldn't ask it on a forum (especially this one). If you actually want a balanced respected opinion email some people here:

http://economics.uchicago.edu/faculty.shtml[/QUOTE]
There's just not much to you but huffing and puffing huh?

I'm not a UChicago economist kinda guy. I think they can eat a bag of dicks. When the chips were down even Friedman was a goddamn Keynesian.

Personally I think you're just full of shit and got caught straight up talking bullshit. When confronted, you give emails to Chicago profs and expect someone to give a good god damn.

I'd talk more shit but you're obviously philosophically beneath us. We'd explain it to you, but I'd rather just give you Zizek's email address and pretend that dropping that name made my point cognizant.
 
[quote name='Icen']If you really cared so much you wouldn't ask it on a forum (especially this one). If you actually want a balanced respected opinion email some people here:

http://economics.uchicago.edu/faculty.shtml[/QUOTE]
I'm not a UChicago economist kinda guy. I think they can eat a bag of dicks. When the chips were down even Friedman was a goddamn Keynesian.

I figured it would be worth it to you to explain yourself if only because it's so rare for someone on the tubes to actually want to educate themselves. This seems rather trivial. Give me the short version. My business degree isn't from Chicago, but I'll try to keep up.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top