• 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!

Sanders to vote for Paul's 'Audit the Fed' bill

Harry Guerrilla said:
Plenty of people have compelling reasons for many things.
For this, the most compelling of them all, is not to have political machines manage the monetary system.

To me, it's suicidal.
Click to expand...

I believe you misread me...........I was referring to the issue as reported in the citation provided..... the management of monetary policy is an entirely different subject........of which I share your discomfort it being "managed" in a political environment by Congress and/or President
 
Sanders Supports Audit the Fed Bill - Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) issued the following statement after voting in favor of legislation to audit the Federal Reserve: “Too much of the Fed’s business is conducted in secret, known only to the bankers on its various boards and committees. In 2010, I inserted an amendment in Dodd-Frank to audit the emergency lending by the Federal Reserve during the financial crisis. As a result of this audit, we learned that an institution that was created to serve all Americans had been hijacked by the very bankers it regulates. We must expand on that first review of the Fed’s activities. Requiring the Government Accountability Office to conduct a full and independent audit of the Fed each and every year, would be an important step towards making the Federal Reserve a more democratic institution that is responsive to the needs of ordinary Americans rather than the billionaires on Wall Street.”
Click to expand...
 


:twocents:
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Plenty of people have compelling reasons for many things.
For this, the most compelling of them all, is not to have political machines manage the monetary system.

To me, it's suicidal.
Click to expand...

According to the constitution it is congresses duty because managing the monetary system is being in charge of the purse.
 
poweRob said:
According to the constitution it is congresses duty because managing the monetary system is being in charge of the purse.
Click to expand...

I don't care about any of that.
Congress is filled to the gills with selfish idiots that would short change the long term prosperity of this country, for short term political gain.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
I don't care about any of that.
Congress is filled to the gills with selfish idiots that would short change the long term prosperity of this country, for short term political gain.
Click to expand...

Putting it in the purview of the congress at leasts puts light on it if by the very least FOIA lawsuits. Right now you pretty much just have to take the Feds' word that they are on the up and up.
 
I don't have a problem with auditing the fed.... there's no good reason not to.

auditing the fed does not give license for "congressional meddling", to any extent greater than they already have.... so that particular objection rings very hollow to me.
 
Thrilla said:
I don't have a problem with auditing the fed.... there's no good reason not to.

auditing the fed does not give license for "congressional meddling", to any extent greater than they already have.... so that particular objection rings very hollow to me.
Click to expand...

I know right?

"Can we take a look at the books of the Peoples' money?"

"NO!"​

doesn't make sense.
 
Thrilla said:
I don't have a problem with auditing the fed.... there's no good reason not to.

auditing the fed does not give license for "congressional meddling", to any extent greater than they already have.... so that particular objection rings very hollow to me.
Click to expand...

I can't help but get the feeling that what's going to happen is one day is we will get an audit of the fed approved. And just after it is approved there will be this REAAAALLLY big pre-explanation/excuse of... "OK... We just feel like we should explain to the public how the fed actually works so you all understand what you are looking at" before one book is even cracked open. Just to try and preemptively mitigate the backlash at the coming investigative results.
 
poweRob said:
I can't help but get the feeling that what's going to happen is one day is we will get an audit of the fed approved. And just after it is approved there will be this REAAAALLLY big pre-explanation/excuse of... "OK... We just feel like we should explain to the public how the fed actually works so you all understand what you are looking at" before one book is even cracked open. Just to try and preemptively mitigate the backlash at the coming investigative results.
Click to expand...

I think you're right....

no matter how I internally reconcile auditing the fed, I always end up in a good place...... or at least in a place that has no harm attached to it.

it's really odd to me that so many pretend to be against the so-called " too big to fail" banks... then immediately defend the secrecy of the one bank that is actually too big to fail.

anyways, maybe auditing them will be a reason to educate more people on how they operate and what they actually do.... which can only be a good thing.
 
OrphanSlug said:
Probably because this effort is really more about auditing and policing monetary policy than some accounting style audit of Fed holdings (i.e. Debt held by the Fed.)

"Audit the Fed" is becoming a political ploy perpetuated by those who want the end of the Fed, without thinking through the bomb that would drop on our monetary system and various economic structures.

Besides, the last thing we need is Congress controlling spending and monetary policy... all subject to political whim.
Click to expand...

Then that should be done by Constitutional amendment. As it stands, the Fed is unconstitutional. Article I, sec. 8 of the Constitution explicitly lays the responsibility of coining money on the Congress.
 
The fed makes it's money through four processes:

1.) Providing loans for banks at interest.
2.) Providing certain services for banks.
3.) Buying Treasuries, or other words, government debt.
4.) Using all of that interest, they invest in foreign exchange markets.

The Fed also recently, or is going to, receive large amounts of interest of loans it dished out in 2008 during the financial crisis. The total amount of bailouts was about 17 trillion dollars worldwide, and they do that through credit creation. I am unsure people realize how asanine the mount of money The Fed owns. The exchange markets work off of ratios, and I'm sure they have the money to hire some mathematician to lay out equations to maximize profit. I mean, mathematicians have quantum mechanics, I'm sure they can optimize ratios. Program it, put it in a datacenter, and you have a computer program continually maximizing interest.

The four responsibilities of the Fed are as stated in The Federal Reserve Act:

1.) Conducting the nation's monetary policy by influencing money and credit conditions in the economy in pursuit of full employment and stable prices.
2.) Supervising and regulating banks and other important financial institutions to ensure the safety and soundness of the nation's banking and financial system and to protect the credit rights of consumers.
3.) Maintaining the stability of the financial system and containing systemic risk that may arise in financial markets.
4.) Providing certain financial services to the U.S. government, U.S. financial institutions, and foreign official institutions, and playing a major role in operating and overseeing the nation's payments systems.
Click to expand...

www.federalreserve.gov

Do I need to put 2 and 2 together, considering Bernie's stance on policy? Here's the kicker, a lot of people say The Fed is a private institution, and that is half fair. The President has no power, but we all know currently people disregard the constitution, over The Fed and its practices. However, the US Congress has the authority over The Fed.

Considering Bernie, and the possibility, not saying likely, that Democrats overtake the senate, we could tap into the wealth of The Fed for the betterment of the people.
 
sookster said:
How would it debase our currency?
Click to expand...

Tapping into the wealth of the fed.......
Their job isn't to do that and considering the populist goody bag of promises Bernie Sanders has made, it would be a lot of money.
Thus debasing the currency.

Actions calling for a "fed audit" deeper than what is already done are just political power grabs, that sate the general ignorance of society.
Not a position I would want to stand on, although I wish I could step out of reality, let you guys do whatever you wanted, then point and say I told you so.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Tapping into the wealth of the fed.......
Their job isn't to do that and considering the populist goody bag of promises Bernie Sanders has made, it would be a lot of money.
Thus debasing the currency.

Actions calling for a "fed audit" deeper than what is already done are just political power grabs, that sate the general ignorance of society.
Not a position I would want to stand on, although I wish I could step out of reality, let you guys do whatever you wanted, then point and say I told you so.
Click to expand...

So according to your logic, the influx of money would drive the money supply up, causing inflation. A common stance among many people.

First, in the 1970's inflation before the money supply, and the money supply expanded to combat the inflation.

Second, not all the money would be spent at once, and it would be spent at a certain rate. Which is totally sustainable. Also, if the country, which they will do, invest in more production, then more money can be created.

See, if you can print in accordance to the production of the overall economy, you don't really get any inflation. Everyone doesn't have the exact measurements, plus there is lag to obtain them, and then there are also other factors like bubbles and oil. The point? Spend at a certain speed, invest in production, so you can spend at a faster speed. Plus you could have The Fed raise interest to slow the inflation if it becomes too fast.
 
sookster said:
So according to your logic, the influx of money would drive the money supply up, causing inflation. A common stance among many people.

First, in the 1970's inflation before the money supply, and the money supply expanded to combat the inflation.

Second, not all the money would be spent at once, and it would be spent at a certain rate. Which is totally sustainable. Also, if the country, which they will do, invest in more production, then more money can be created.

See, if you can print in accordance to the production of the overall economy, you don't really get any inflation. Everyone doesn't have the exact measurements, plus there is lag to obtain them, and then there are also other factors like bubbles and oil. The point? Spend at a certain speed, invest in production, so you can spend at a faster speed. Plus you could have The Fed raise interest to slow the inflation if it becomes too fast.
Click to expand...

Guarantee that, you can't.
The whole point of a semi autonomous Fed reserve is that it couldn't be guaranteed that this wouldn't happen otherwise.
 
sookster said:
The fed makes it's money through four processes:

1.) Providing loans for banks at interest.
2.) Providing certain services for banks.
3.) Buying Treasuries, or other words, government debt.
4.) Using all of that interest, they invest in foreign exchange markets.

The Fed also recently, or is going to, receive large amounts of interest of loans it dished out in 2008 during the financial crisis. The total amount of bailouts was about 17 trillion dollars worldwide, and they do that through credit creation. I am unsure people realize how asanine the mount of money The Fed owns. The exchange markets work off of ratios, and I'm sure they have the money to hire some mathematician to lay out equations to maximize profit. I mean, mathematicians have quantum mechanics, I'm sure they can optimize ratios. Program it, put it in a datacenter, and you have a computer program continually maximizing interest.

The four responsibilities of the Fed are as stated in The Federal Reserve Act:



www.federalreserve.gov

Do I need to put 2 and 2 together, considering Bernie's stance on policy? Here's the kicker, a lot of people say The Fed is a private institution, and that is half fair. The President has no power, but we all know currently people disregard the constitution, over The Fed and its practices. However, the US Congress has the authority over The Fed.

Considering Bernie, and the possibility, not saying likely, that Democrats overtake the senate, we could tap into the wealth of The Fed for the betterment of the people.
Click to expand...

You pretty much took the text right out of my keyboard.
 
sookster said:
Why do you say that?
Click to expand...

Historical congressional fights over monetary policy.
Free silver movement as an example, they lobbied an inflationary monetary policy.

It will happen and you can't guarantee Congress will act in good faith and in the bounds of sound fiscal policy.
Knowing that the Michelle Bachmanns and Bernie Sanders of our government would have control over monetary policy should frighten anyone.
 
OrphanSlug said:
I am not commenting on how well or not the Fed is doing, there is too much economics involved making that its own discussion. But I am saying that shifting monetary policy to the very aspect of government that also engages in legislation, budgeting, and economic spending policy is a monumentally bad idea.

"Auditing the Fed" only means at a minimum more Congressional oversight of Fed action, but in reality we are talking about shifting more decision power to Congress. It is a power grab and a dangerous one at that.
Click to expand...

Greetings, OrphanSlug. :2wave:

:agree: I haven't heard the reasons why some want to audit the Fed now. They've been around since 1913, and their duty was to ensure the stability of the entire banking system and the money supply in our economy, if I'm remembering my classes in American history. Is there a suspicion that they are doing something unethical or illegal now, and someone should check on them? Suppose they are audited, and some "wrong-doing" is found, although I don't know what it might be, since they operate under strict rules. Who has the authority to decide such a thing?
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Historical congressional fights over monetary policy.
Free silver movement as an example, they lobbied an inflationary monetary policy.

It will happen and you can't guarantee Congress will act in good faith and in the bounds of sound fiscal policy.
Knowing that the Michelle Bachmanns and Bernie Sanders of our government would have control over monetary policy should frighten anyone.
Click to expand...

I'll give you that, the whole congress dictating monetary policy. That isn't ideal. However, with increased taxes, increased deficit spending, as well as money from The Fed, the potential is outrageous.
 
polgara said:
Greetings, OrphanSlug. :2wave:

:agree: I haven't heard the reasons why some want to audit the Fed now. They've been around since 1913, and their duty was to ensure the stability of the entire banking system and the money supply in our economy, if I'm remembering my classes in American history. Is there a suspicion that they are doing something unethical or illegal now, and someone should check on them? Suppose they are audited, and some "wrong-doing" is found, although I don't know what it might be, since they operate under strict rules. Who has the authority to decide such a thing?
Click to expand...

Follow if you will please.

If you go slightly further back than 1913, and you will find all the history surrounding the "Banks of the United States." There were two. The First Bank of the United States (roughly 1791 to 1811) was chartered by Alexander Hamilton, with the Second Bank of the United States (roughly 1816 to 1836) being chartered by James Madison. These were the de facto central banks of the time and in each case the model for the Fed as we know it was born. Core to both of those banks was the ability to "Establish a national bank and to create common currency" for the express purpose of "establish financial order, clarity and precedence."

Why am I bringing all this up?

Mainly because the only time the idea of a Fed being challenged in Federal Court was during the period of the Second Bank of the United States. 1819, the McCulloch v. Maryland decision did something that forever changed how Constitutional Powers are defined. Specifically it referenced the Necessary and Proper Clause (s.8 c.18) in saying that Congress has the power to pass laws not explicitly provided for in the list of express powers. The qualifier used in that decision born to us the whole idea of implied powers. The effect was that Congress did have the power to create a Bank. Once the Fed was created in 1913 (our third iteration of a Central Bank) no one challenged the authority of Congress to create that, nor did they challenge the ability of the Fed to create common currency and/or engage in monetary policy of that currency (in the form of actual notes or reserves.)

The Fed may not really be Constitutional in express terms, but in implied powers it will take a new challenge to undo what the McCulloch v. Maryland decision gave to Congress. Libertarians and Constitutionalists hate this ****, but it is what it is now based on the longevity of our Central Banks and the lack of successful challenge of them.

"Audit the Fed" was birthed by people who want to end the Fed, even if the lot of currency supporters still wants the Fed around in some regard. The language of the bill in question is just a continuation of Congress since 2008 giving more power to the GAO to "investigate" the Fed. The Fed is already audited in their holdings, they are also audited in most of their activities already. All but their monetary policy decisions and meetings on that subject. This "Audit the Bill" puts the GAO into those meetings and decisions, and by effect politicizes monetary policy handing that to Congress. Prior to these acts the GAO was kept in the dark, but since 2008 their powers have increased... right into the hands of Congress.

It is window dressing to call this effort keeping the Fed in check, or looking for "wrong-doing." This is about one thing and one thing only... moving to Congress the ability to influence, if not outright control, monetary policy. Constitutional or not is up for debate, disastrous for our currency is the likely conclusion of Congress controlling both the ability to spend and the ability to create more money to spend.
 
Last edited:
polgara said:
Greetings, OrphanSlug. :2wave:

:agree: I haven't heard the reasons why some want to audit the Fed now. They've been around since 1913, and their duty was to ensure the stability of the entire banking system and the money supply in our economy, if I'm remembering my classes in American history. Is there a suspicion that they are doing something unethical or illegal now, and someone should check on them? Suppose they are audited, and some "wrong-doing" is found, although I don't know what it might be, since they operate under strict rules. Who has the authority to decide such a thing?
Click to expand...

Howdy Polgara! Audit the Fed's is not a new concept, I've heard about it throughout my life. It's just that not many have been willing to get near that, so it's never gained steam. Hopefully it will happen though. Do you really think that people controlling the money without any oversight are squeaky clean. The idea that an organization such as this, that has never had an audit of its work hasn't been made top priority by the American people is odd to me. The framers said we wouldn't even need a bill of rights if men were angels!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom