Reply With Quote
you're full of libertarian .
Liz explains explains clearly that is for Fed transparentcy, ad why she against your adored, silly Randian Paul's bill
Sen. Warren Opposes ‘Audit the Fed’ Bill
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D., Mass.), a member of the Banking Committee and an outspoken critic of the Fed’s oversight of big banks, said she does not support Mr. Paul’s proposed legislation, which she said could have “dangerous” implications for monetary policy.
MORE GRUESOME DETAILS HERE:
http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2015/...-the-fed-bill/
This is pathetic, Warren is a fraud, she cow-tows to Wall street, not Main street.
UPDATE:
Rand Paul Responds to Politico ‘Hit Piece’ Criticizing His Position on the Fed (AUDIO)
LISTEN TO AUDIO HERE:Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul (R) appeared on Glenn Beck’s radio program Thursday to respond to what Beck called a “hit piece” in Politico criticizing the senator’s push to audit the Federal Reserve.
“They bring up a lot of points that somebody like me looks at and says, ‘Well, gee, that kind of makes sense. What’s Rand talking about?’ So let’s go over these point by point,” Beck told the senator. “The article says the [Federal Reserve's] finances are already subject to an audit by the GAO, the Government Accountability Office, the Federal Inspector General and outside audit firms.”
Paul suggested Beck watch a “really great exchange” where a congressman asked the Federal Reserve auditor during a committee hearing what was purchased with around $2 trillion. The auditor said they were “not allowed” to audit Federal Reserve bank activities.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015...on-on-the-fed/
Last edited by Galileo; 02-19-2015 at 06:08 PM.
you're full of libertarian .
Liz explains explains clearly that is for Fed transparentcy, ad why she against your adored, silly Randian Paul's bill
You are full of Wall street .
“I strongly support and continue to press for greater congressional oversight of the Fed’s regulatory and supervisory responsibilities, and I believe the Fed’s balance sheet should be regularly audited – which the law already requires,” Ms. Warren said in an emailed statement. “But I oppose the current version of this bill because it promotes congressional meddling in the Fed’s monetary policy decisions, which risks politicizing those decisions and may have dangerous implications for financial stability and the health of the global economy.”
bull . Bi-partisan reform is on the table. She is using the same talking points as the Fed opinion managers.
The Fed has purchased $2 TRILLION in distressed assets, and none of this is audited. They are leveraged at 80 t0 1 (liabilities to equity ratio).
could be, what other "audit the Fed" bills are on the table?
Give the ignorance of Paul and the extremism of the Repugs, why would you want them inserting their politics into the Fed?
btw, you libertarians who want to go back to the gold standard demonstrate how fundamentally stupid you are about economics.
This IS the audit the fed bill. It has a good chance to pass because it is bi-partisan and co-sponsored by the Senate Majority Leader and has 30 sponsors overall. Auditing the Fed is not rocket science.
PS - the Fed has fiat money, auditing the Fed has nothing to do with the gold standard.
More ony why Paul's legislation is bad. Pretty much in line with Warren's objections.
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/1...dangerous-2016
Last edited by Th'Pusher; 02-11-2015 at 10:54 PM.
They just audited the Fed 5 years ago and no *danger* ensued. Take that, smarty pants.
You didn't read the article. First part says that that fed is already audited by the IG and AOG; it considers your point and dismisses with cause.
Of course you are the king of confirmation bias so it doe snot surprise me.
If the Fed is already audited, then auditing the Fed would not be dangerous, now would it Einstein?
Again, read the article and discuss what it says substantively or shut the up.
It addresses specifically what you are talking about. If you cannot find the relevant portion of the article let me know and I'll hold your hand through it.
I read the article. It claims a bunch of will happen, but none of the happened when they audited the Fed 5 years ago. They forget to mention in the article the Fed was just audited 5 years ago.
No, it points out that the audits that currently exist do not allow for recommendations while what Paul is doing does. It's one thing to audit and give factual reports of what they are doing. It's quite another to try to influence ins utional execution.
This isn't an issue of transparency. Rand knows exactly what the fed is doing and who they are talking to etc. This is an issue of power and influence. You are trying to increase the power of the legislature. Between the partisan bull that he clearly panders to and the 50x(x) lobbying groups that they are beholden to, I think I prefer my monetary policy insulated.
If he doesn't like the job that Yellen is doing then he should work to depose her. If he wants ins utional reform then they have the ability to legislate. What i don't want is more political theater from the legislature that literally 80% of the country disapproves of. You want to empower them to dally in day to day execution? that. Let Yellen do her job.
You have a poor concept of the role of the branches of government. You are a good minion though.
It's obvious Galileo is incapable of comprehending the stakes of the bill. He likes it because it was offered by Rand Paul.
You missed my point. A real audit was done 5 years ago and none of the *danger* appeared.
Senator Bernie Sanders supports the audit. He was the driving force in the senate 5 years ago when the last audit was done.
This is true tbh, and I support the audit like Sanders and Paul, but let's not forget Bernie Sanders' absolute ass-kicking of Rand Paul on healthcare a couple years back, before calling them friends.
Last edited by Blizzardwizard; 02-12-2015 at 12:21 PM.
You don't know what you are talking about. There has been no audit with policy recommendations from the Senate done on the Fed. You just completely ignore the point of separation of powers and conflate audit with executive input.
In your own words tell me why this particular power should go to the legislative branch and not the executive.
Audit of the Federal Reserve Reveals $16 Trillion in Secret Bailouts
Sat, 01 Sep 2012 01:33 CEST
http://www.sott.net/article/250592-A...ecret-BailoutsThe first ever GAO (Government Accountability Office) audit of the Federal Reserve was carried out in the past few months due to the Ron Paul, Alan Grayson Amendment to the Dodd-Frank bill, which passed last year. Jim DeMint, a Republican Senator, and Bernie Sanders, an independent Senator, led the charge for a Federal Reserve audit in the Senate, but watered down the original language of the house bill(HR1207), so that a complete audit would not be carried out.
You are a liar and Elizabeth Warren is full of .
Please underline the sentence that you think says that this former audit included policy directives. What do you think they 'watered down' before?
Either you do not understand my argument, you don't read very well, or both.
Auditing the Fed is NOT a policy directive. It is an audit of what the Fed did including how it spends its money. Not sure what you are talking about. You either are stupid or willfully ignorant.
boutons supporting BigBank
Again, the language in the bill that Rand is proposing and Warren is opposing in the Senate right now includes policy directives.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
