• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

House easily approves Paul's 'audit the Fed' bill in 327-98 vote

Chaddelamancha said:
How is it that the government can audit any company within the U.S. except the Fed?
Click to expand...

Because the FED is corrupt, and arrogantly state they are above the government's law. They are hiding something BIG.
 
American said:
Greenspan can take a lot of blame for leaving interest rates low for too long.
Click to expand...
He can take credit for almost the entire housing bubble and subsequent crash as far as I'm concerned.
 
Moot said:
He can take credit for almost the entire housing bubble and subsequent crash as far as I'm concerned.
Click to expand...

And that would be a profound misunderstanding of just what and how interest rates affect economies. Keeping interests rates low (By the way under Obama they've been the lowest in more than 70 years) does not a bubble create. Banks don't want to lend money at low rates, it makes it more difficult to sell the asset. No, what they really like is high interest rates. You can blame your government for the housing bubble mostly. The Fed had really nothing to do with it.

Tim-
 
Moot said:
He can take credit for almost the entire housing bubble and subsequent crash as far as I'm concerned.
Click to expand...

the chairman is essentially the PR arm. One man isn't to blame, it is an institutional issue.
 
24107 said:
I would love a clear explanation of who exactly are our corporate masters.:popcorn2:
Click to expand...
Our corporate masters are the big banks. Goldman Sachs, Bank of America, JPMorgan, Citigroup.....

United States' Largest Banks — Infoplease.com


I hope there is an audit of the Federal Reserve. Tim Geitner knew about the manipulation of the Lipor bank interest rates when he was head of the NY Federal Reserve and didn't say a word about it for the last four years he was Treasury Secretary. He's another one that deserves time in prison.



"Nearly two years after Wall Street Reform was signed into law, 68% of Americans support the Wall Street Reform. The poll also found that 74% of Americans, regardless of political party affiliation, support the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB)...."
United States Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs : Newsroom

After reading the entire link above I get the strong impression that the Senate Banking Committee headed by a Blue Dog Democrat, Tim Johnson are not going to audit the Federal Reserve and ignore the will of the people in favor of the big banks. I think the passing of the Ron Paul audit bill, like almost all the house bills of late was just more posturing and for show. Instead we will get a lot obfuscating lip service from both sides until after the election at which time the banks will demand from whomever is president the repeal of Dodd Frank and that will be the end of banking regulations. We the people are screwed.
 
Moot said:
Our corporate masters are the big banks. Goldman Sachs, Bank of America, JPMorgan, Citigroup.....

United States' Largest Banks — Infoplease.com


I hope there is an audit of the Federal Reserve. Tim Geitner knew about the manipulation of the Lipor bank interest rates when he was head of the NY Federal Reserve and didn't say a word about it for the last four years he was Treasury Secretary. He's another one that deserves time in prison.



"Nearly two years after Wall Street Reform was signed into law, 68% of Americans support the Wall Street Reform. The poll also found that 74% of Americans, regardless of political party affiliation, support the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB)...."
United States Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs : Newsroom

After reading the entire link above I get the strong impression that the Senate Banking Committee headed by a Blue Dog Democrat, Tim Johnson are not going to audit the Federal Reserve and ignore the will of the people in favor of the big banks. I think the passing of the Ron Paul audit bill, like almost all the house bills of late was just more posturing and for show. Instead we will get a lot obfuscating lip service from both sides until after the election at which time the banks will demand from whomever is president the repeal of Dodd Frank and that will be the end of banking regulations. We the people are screwed.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the information moot, i hope one day people realize that this serious issue hasabsolutely nothing to do with democrat's or republican's, but an ''instituition'' that openly consider's itself above government control, which is the Federal Reserve. Partisan hackery is useless when it comes to this issue.
 
Moot said:
He can take credit for almost the entire housing bubble and subsequent crash as far as I'm concerned.
Click to expand...

You are right about Greenspan but at least he admitted he was very wrong about deregulating the commercial banks. Candidate Romney has not even done that or ANY of the responsible parties in the GOP either. Not McCain, who once said he never met a regulation he didn't hate, and not Phil Gramm who wrote and introduced the bills in the House. Of course Gramm sits on the board of UBS Bank now where he is a hero I'm sure.
 
This is the fed's current chairman

 
Ron Paul nails Bernanke in a lie!

 
Thunder said:
what do you imagine they may be "hiding"?

;)
Click to expand...
Well, they were hiding the real interest rates for one. The other is where the TARP money went and what it was originally intended to do. There's probably more they're hiding but we'll never know until **** hits the fan again and then their political droogies will distract us with abortion or gun rights or whatever until the **** hits the fan again and then wash, rinse, repeat.
 
Last edited:
Hicup said:
And that would be a profound misunderstanding of just what and how interest rates affect economies. Keeping interests rates low (By the way under Obama they've been the lowest in more than 70 years) does not a bubble create. Banks don't want to lend money at low rates, it makes it more difficult to sell the asset. No, what they really like is high interest rates. You can blame your government for the housing bubble mostly. The Fed had really nothing to do with it.

Tim-
Click to expand...
You are so misinformed it's not even funny.....

Following the September 11, 2001 attacks, the Federal Open Market Committee voted to reduce the federal funds rate from 3.5% to 3.0%.[60] Then, after the accounting scandals of 2002, the Fed dropped the federal funds rate from then current 1.25% to 1.00%.[61] Greenspan stated that this drop in rates would have the effect of leading to a surge in home sales and refinancing. Besides sustaining the demand for new construction, mortgage markets have also been a powerful stabilizing force over the past two years of economic distress by facilitating the extraction of some of the equity that homeowners have built up over the years.[61]

However, according to some, Greenspan's policies of adjusting interest rates to historic lows contributed to a housing bubble in the US.[62] The Federal Reserve acknowledges the connection between lower interest rates, higher home values, and the increased liquidity the higher home values bring to the overall economy.

"Like other asset prices, house prices are influenced by interest rates, and in some countries, the housing market is a key channel of monetary policy transmission." — Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, September 2005.[63]

In a speech in February 2004,[64] Greenspan suggested that more homeowners should consider taking out Adjustable Rate Mortgages (ARMs) where the interest rate adjusts itself to the current interest in the market.[65] The fed own funds rate was at a then all-time-low of 1%.

A few months after his recommendation, Greenspan began raising interest rates, in a series of rate hikes that would bring the funds rate to 5.25% about two years later.[66] A triggering factor in the 2007 subprime mortgage financial crisis is believed to be the many subprime ARMs that reset at much higher interest rates than what the borrower paid during the first few years of the mortgage.

Alan Greenspan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

There is a two year lag between the Feds adjusting interest rates and their effect on the economy. In 2001, Greensapn started lowering interest rates. By 2003 the housing bubble had started. In 2005, after recommending people buy adjustable mortages when the interest rates were at their lowest ever, a few month later he started raising interest rates. By 2007, the housing bubble started to burst and people started losing their homes because of the ARM loans that Greenspan had recommended they buy.

Yes indeedy, Greenspan is at the very top of the list for causing the economic crisis.
 
Last edited:
Moot said:
Well, they were hiding the real interest rates for one. The other is where the TARP money went and what it was originally intended to do.....
Click to expand...

where it went?

it went to banks and companies.

the VAST majority of all loans were paid back, especially to banks.

maybe $300 billion still needs to be paid back.
 
Thunder said:
where it went?

it went to banks and companies.

the VAST majority of all loans were paid back, especially to banks.

maybe $300 billion still needs to be paid back.
Click to expand...
Yeah, it went to banks alright .....

“TARP wasn’t supposed to be just a bank bailout,” said Christy L. Romero, the special inspector general for TARP, in an interview. “It was specifically designed with the goal of helping homeowners, and our concern is that that goal may not be met.”

As of the end of 2011, the Hardest Hit Fund had spent $217.4 million out of its $7.6 billion budget, the report found. The program is intended to reach homeowners who are unemployed, or living in areas with high unemployment rates or steeply falling home values.....
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/12/b...ted-in-effort-to-relieve-homeowners.html?_r=2
Click to expand...

Banks getting government loans to pay back government loans?

"Of the 707 banks that received taxpayer money from the government's Troubled Asset Relief Program starting in 2008, also known as TARP, about half have repaid the Treasury.

However, 137 of those banks used a government-loan program to repay their taxpayer debts, according to the quarterly report to Congress of the Office of the Special Inspector General for TARP.

Of the 325 banks still propped up with taxpayer money, 203 have missed dividend or interest payments, with some missing as many as 13 payments since receiving capital injections at the height of the financial crisis, the report said.
TARP banks use fed loans to repay government - Business - US business - NBCNews.com
Click to expand...

Treasury Department buying banks troubled assets for two or three times what they are really worth?

...In a report dated February 6, 2009, the Congressional Oversight Panel concluded that the Treasury paid substantially more for the assets it purchased under the TARP than their then-current market value. The COP found the Treasury paid $254 billion, for which it received assets worth approximately $176 billion, for a shortfall of $78 billion. The COP's valuation analysis assumed that "securities similar to those issued under the TARP were trading in the capital markets at fair values" and employed multiple approaches to cross-check and validate the results. The value was estimated for each security as of the time immediately following the announcement by Treasury of its purchase. For example, the COP found that the Treasury bought $25 billion of assets from Citigroup on October 14, 2008, however, the actual value was estimated to be $15.5, creating a 38 percent (or $9.5 billion) subsidy.[19]...
Troubled Asset Relief Program - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

Treasury Department preventing regulators from doing their job....

“The suspicions that the system is rigged in favor of the largest banks and their elites, so they play by their own set of rules to the disfavor of the taxpayers who funded their bailout, are true,” Mr. Barofsky said in an interview last week. “It really happened. These suspicions are valid.” ....

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/22/b...ailout-buzz-saw-fair-game.html?pagewanted=all
Click to expand...

I don't think anyone really knows where the money is or has gone. Except maybe Geitner and the Federal Reserve. Which is why an audit would probably be a good idea and then next good idea would be to indict Geitner.
 
Moot said:
Well, they were hiding the real interest rates for one. The other is where the TARP money went and what it was originally intended to do. There's probably more they're hiding but we'll never know until **** hits the fan again and then their political droogies will distract us with abortion or gun rights or whatever until the **** hits the fan again and then wash, rinse, repeat.
Click to expand...

The really strange thing is that the almost all the major banks did not even want TARP - Paulson had to literally threaten them to get them to take it.

'Documents Reveal How Paulson Forced Banks To Take TARP Cash'

Read more: Documents Reveal How Paulson Forced Banks To Take TARP Cash - Business Insider
 
DA60 said:
The really strange thing is that the almost all the major banks did not even want TARP - Paulson had to literally threaten them to get them to take it.

'Documents Reveal How Paulson Forced Banks To Take TARP Cash'

Read more: Documents Reveal How Paulson Forced Banks To Take TARP Cash - Business Insider
Click to expand...

Check this out....



There is no way that a massive electronic run on the money markets to the tune of $550 billion in a one hour time frame was coming from the public at large. So if Paulson was threatening those nine banks, then I suspect they were likely the ones trying to collapse the economy.
 
Last edited:
The Fed is a central bank except it's a central bank with no accountability. It needs to be nationalized and put under the purview of the congress as per the constitution being that the congress has the power of the purse. Then all of it's dark hidden corners will be a matter of the public record.
 
poweRob said:
The Fed is a central bank except it's a central bank with no accountability. It needs to be nationalized and put under the purview of the congress as per the constitution being that the congress has the power of the purse. Then all of it's dark hidden corners will be a matter of the public record.
Click to expand...
Then congress would control the economy and do we really want that. :shock:
 
DaveFagan said:
That sounds like an opinion. Opinions are like buttholes, everybody's got one.
Click to expand...

Really?

July 26, 2012

Harry Reid called for audit of Federal Reserve during 2010 campaign [VIDEO]

Published: 3:00 PM 07/26/2012
By Alex Pappas

Video has emerged of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid calling for an audit of the Federal Reserve as recently as his tight 2010 re-election race in Nevada.

This will likely energize those pushing Reid to allow a vote in the Senate on Federal Reserve audit legislation, which overwhelmingly passed through the House Wednesday.

But even though the House passed legislation calling for an audit Wednesday, Reid’s office has signaled that the legislation won’t be brought to a vote in the Senate.

Harry Reid called for audit of Federal Reserve in 2010 | The Daily Caller
Click to expand...

But, but, but Harry you wanted this in 2010. Did you just say that to get re-elected at the mid-term? Maybe he's just gettin senile and can't remember what he said....we do. Watch at the 7:27 mark Harry says he's called for audits of the Federal Reserve, why would he block them now.

[video=youtube;2wgmO3RwZNA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=2wgmO3RwZNA[/video]

I simply can't think of a better reason to take Harry from Senate Majority Leader to Senate Minority salt pillar. Why is it acceptable to campaign saying one thing then when you get elected do the opposite?
 
poweRob said:
The Fed is a central bank except it's a central bank with no accountability. It needs to be nationalized and put under the purview of the congress as per the constitution being that the congress has the power of the purse. Then all of it's dark hidden corners will be a matter of the public record.
Click to expand...

Because it worked so well for Fannie and Freddie?
 
poweRob said:
The Fed is a central bank except it's a central bank with no accountability. It needs to be nationalized and put under the purview of the congress as per the constitution being that the congress has the power of the purse. Then all of it's dark hidden corners will be a matter of the public record.
Click to expand...


The FED is a private central bank, stockholder owned. Federal Reserve CORPORATION. The names of the stockholders have never been released and are a closely guarded secret. Perhaps an audit would reveal the names of those stockholders. Likely to be the very wealthy from the year 1913 and not necessarily US Americans. These are the people who got Woodrow Wilson elected and he paid them back with the Private Central Bank called the Federal Reserve Corporation. Jekyll Island. Just a note for research. BIS is the Bank of International Settlements, a.k.a. The Reserve Bank of Reserve Banks. Don't think neutrality when studying this bank, but the ability to profit from both sides of a war. Do your homework. Who owns BIS?
 
DA60 said:
'Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) won a rare legislative victory on Wednesday when the House passed his legislation allowing for a full audit of the Federal Reserve, including an audit of the Fed's monetary policy decisions.

The House approved Paul's Federal Reserve Transparency Act, H.R. 459, in a bipartisan 327-98 vote. The vote split Democrats almost evenly — 89 for and 97 against — while only one Republican, Rep. Robert Turner (R-N.Y.), voted against it.

The bill won an easy majority, given its 270 co-sponsors, and easily cleared the two-thirds majority needed for passage, which was required because it was considered under a suspension of the rules.'

House easily approves Paul's 'audit the Fed' bill in 327-98 vote - The Hill's Floor Action

Click to expand...


Hopefully it passes the Senate and Obama signs it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom