Hearing To Happen On Bill To Audit the Fed

[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Do you think the money trail might lead to certain CIA business fronts?[/QUOTE]

Possibly. But more than that I think transparency from the fed would reveal that the country (and worlds) economy has been working much differently than anyone thought.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']Possibly. But more than that I think transparency from the fed would reveal that the country (and worlds) economy has been working much differently than anyone thought.[/QUOTE]

Rainbows and fairy dust?
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Rainbows and fairy dust?[/QUOTE]

More like
images
 
[quote name='mykevermin']... 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.[/QUOTE]

Not to promote post necromancy, but paying down the debt was approximately 60% of everything he spoke about during his presidential campaign, and has been a major topic of almost every public speech and interview he's ever had. He's been extremely critical of Reagan, too; going so far as to call him a failure - while Reagan was president, as well as recently as late 2007 on Tim Russert's show.

Anywho, his plan is to, yes, cut taxes. But he has said that cutting taxes without cutting equal or greater levels of spending would only accelerate a number of the issues that our economy is faced with - monetizing of our nation's debt being the biggest.
 
Dodd is a criminal - I hope his stink doesn't ruin Blumenthal's chances of thrashing Rob Simmons or (jesus, she's still in this race?) Linda McMahon.

Barney Frank is the motherfuckin' dude and he doesn't get enough credit for what he does.
 
[quote name='speedracer']Barney Frank said today that Chris Dodd and Judd Gregg were the ones blocking the audit the fed amendment.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/21/dodd-and-gregg-block-audi_n_431421.html[/QUOTE]

from the article... (bold added for emphasis)

HuffPost caught up with Gregg again Thursday and asked him again what discussions he'd had with Dodd. "Well, the Fed gets audited. Let's get the nomenclature right. The Fed is subject to extensive and very thorough auditing on everything except the monetary policy and the open-market-window activity, and if this Congress gets into auditing those two activities, then the Congress is in the business of money supply. And you do not want an elected body in the business of money supply, and I will do whatever is necessary to keep that from happening, if I have the ability to do that," he said.
Click to expand...

this statement is laughable.
 
[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]

Dude, we get that you are REALLY, REALLY, REALLY left. I don't know if it's a trait of people that are that liberal, or if it's just a personal trait of yours, but I love how everyone that doesn't agree with your political stance is an idiot, nitwit, or whatever else is the derogatory word of the day.

I'm a middle of the road guy politically, and I love what Ron Paul is trying to do. His foreign policy views are brilliant in their simplicity. Why should we be pumping billions of dollars of grants, interest free loans, etc into countries like Israel and Egypt? Why should we have tropps scattered across the planet fighting is wars that wouldn't have been started in the first place if we weren't scattered across the planet? The rest of the world hates us more than they ever have, while most of our political leaders shrug their shoulders and tell us the "terrists" hate us for our freedom. Bullshit! I've traveled to several of those countries, spent a fair bit of time there. You couldn't find a neighborhood where there weren't a half dozen sattellite dishes set up so they could catch Friends and Seinfeld on TV.

I'm not smart enough to really understand the issues involved with going back to a gold standard, but on the surface it makes sense to me.

Ron Paul is for making government smaller and doing away with an inordinate amount of government waste and military spending. To that, I say, Amen.

(Oddly enough, some of Kucinich's stances I'm strongly in favor of too. Heh)
 
After 8 years of Reagan and 8 years of Bush, I think that you should be more concerned that anybody *believes* supply-side tax cuts are sound fiscal policy than with me saying a nasty word or two.

Paul's foreign policy is unique - it is not, however, brilliant. It is isolationist and its simplicity neglects responsibility for the problems caused by said simplicity.
 
[quote name='berzirk']I'm not smart enough to really understand the issues involved with going back to a gold standard, but on the surface it makes sense to me.[/QUOTE]
That's the problem. I don't mean that as a slam in any way.

It's a very simple premise with gigantic, world changing repercussions but the libertarians (anti-Bretton Woodsians? Shiny metallians?) usually can't even give a complete picture of what the scenarios would even look like if it was implemented. Just an idealized world they want that's never existed.

A reasonable person can say it sounds reasonable, but it's like seeing the ice on the surface and not realizing the iceberg under water.
 
[quote name='speedracer']That's the problem. I don't mean that as a slam in any way.

It's a very simple premise with gigantic, world changing repercussions but the libertarians (anti-Bretton Woodsians? Shiny metallians?) usually can't even give a complete picture of what the scenarios would even look like if it was implemented. Just an idealized world they want that's never existed.

A reasonable person can say it sounds reasonable, but it's like seeing the ice on the surface and not realizing the iceberg under water.[/QUOTE]

But the difference in your iceberg analogy is that we've BEEN on the gold standard before.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']After 8 years of Reagan and 8 years of Bush, I think that you should be more concerned that anybody *believes* supply-side tax cuts are sound fiscal policy than with me saying a nasty word or two.

Paul's foreign policy is unique - it is not, however, brilliant. It is isolationist and its simplicity neglects responsibility for the problems caused by said simplicity.[/QUOTE]

Isolationist is probably better than expansionist or colonialist. Costs a lot less money, and is less likely to piss off other countries. I've got quite a fair bit of experience with international affairs on a professional and personal level (far, far, far more knowledgable than I am of economics), and oftentimes I find myself stunned by how many people misdiagnose the cause of the world's aggression and disdain for not just our country, but our innocent civilians as well. It's nothing about our freedoms, democracy, or the fact that a woman can wear a bikini.

Many of the places that hate us the most are begging for isolationism, but the US isn't allowing it to happen due to natural resources, style of government, or being in bed with specific countries in the region.
 
[quote name='berzirk']But the difference in your iceberg analogy is that we've BEEN on the gold standard before.[/QUOTE]
Old Milty Friedman can bullshit all day about balance of payment not being an issue between New Jersey and New York, but when you can't respond to speculative attack on your currency, you're fucking doomed.

Period.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top