I like how the first comment is an obvious paid-for Fed spokesperson.
Remember, Ben Bernanke has an ulterior motive, too.
And considering that the CONSTITUTION says that the CONGRESS is SUPPOSED TO REGULATE MONETARY POLICY, who has the more just motive?
vb - 14 years ago
from wapo "could make future central bank policymakers reluctant to take unpopular steps to prevent inflation..."
This is the most absurd statement anyone could make, or even quote.
Isn't inflation a goal of the Federal Reserve??
Jim - 14 years ago
If you support the audit send an email to your represenatives in support of HR1207.
Nathan - 14 years ago
Of course we need to audit the Fed! They've been stealing from the American people for years through fractional reserve banking, and their complete unaccountability has allowed them to cover it up! The American people need to see for themselves where their money has gone!
SethK - 14 years ago
RagingDebate and thousands of other sites that conduct polls are able to successfully track who has and hasn't already voted. So, what is the point of closing a poll after only a few hundred have voted? Because you don't like the results? CNN polls typically includes the votes of 10's of thousands. At the minimum, I'd think you'd be glad for the attention that interactivity encourages.
Steven Ramsey - 14 years ago
Information wants to be free.
There are significant time delays built into the Fed audit process so that current sensitive negotiations will not be messed up.
The issue is to find out how the Fed is pouring money into the 5 biggest banks in the country. They are from the outside insolvent and need to stop being black holes. Currently Bernanke believes he can feed these black holes.
Because he apparently believes they are too big to fail. The problem is that 6 months ago the big banks had $180 trillion in derivatives on their books. Instead of winding down, they have doubled down and now have 50% more derivatives on their books or $270 trillion. Why not, they are too big to fail and can take INCREDIBLE risks with zero percent money they can borrow from the Fed. They just might be able to spend and gamble their way out of the black hole of debt. I doubt it but who knows, if you print enough for them, then they might get lucky. THEY HAVE NOTHING TO LOSE. THEY ARE ALREADY broke!
It sure is nice being a big bank in America when the Fed just prints ALL the money you need and gives you a zero percent loan, that never needs repaying, AND if you get hold of some bad loans, then the Fed just swaps you dollar for dollar, non-mark to market junk loans for good T bills to keep on your books so the FDIC thinks you are OK.
At least they are still pretending they have to play by the rules. We have no way of knowing if they really are because there are NO REAL audits.
I personally think a little sunshine would help and heck it might even help prevent the Fed and the Treasury and the US Congress from spending us into oblivion.
Audit the Fed and I can sleep easier at night if things are OK, AND if they are not then at least we can define the real problem. The solution if needed is going to hurt like he11.
Holley - 14 years ago
How can anyone defend opacity in the Fed's dealings? This is our money and our economy they're playing with. Would you invest your savings with someone who refused to tell you what he plans to do with it? Then ask no questions when he tells you he lost all your money? Audit the Fed. "The truth can never hurt you."
bytejockey - 14 years ago
The only thing better than a Federal Reserve audit would be a Federal Reserve autopsy.
"One can say without exaggeration that inflation is an indispensable means of militarism. Without it, the repercussions of war on welfare become obvious much more quickly and penetratingly; war weariness would set in much earlier." -Ludvig von Mises
"It is no coincidence that the century of total war coincided with the century of central banking. When governments had to fund their own wars without a paper money machine to rely on, they economized on resources. They found diplomatic solutions to prevent war, and after they started a war they ended it as soon as possible." -Ron Paul
War and Inflation
by Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.
This talk was delivered at the Future of Freedom Foundation’s conference on "Restoring the Republic: Foreign Policy and Civil Liberties," on June 6, 2008, in Reston, Virginia.
The U.S. central bank, called the Federal Reserve, was created in 1913. No one promoted this institution with the slogan that it would make wars more likely and guarantee that nearly half a million Americans would die in battle in foreign lands, along with millions of foreign soldiers and civilians. No one pointed out that this institution would permit Americans to fund, without taxes, the destruction of cities abroad and overthrow governments at will. No one said that the central bank would make it possible for the U.S. to be at large-scale war in one of every four years for a full century. It was never pointed out that this institution would make it possible for the U.S. government to establish a global empire that would make Imperial Rome and Britain look benign by comparison.
You can line up 100 professional war historians and political scientists and talk about the twentieth century, and not one is likely to mention the role of the Fed in funding U.S. militarism. And yet it is true: the Fed is the institution that has created the money to fund the wars. In this role, it has solved a major problem that the state has confronted for all of human history. A state without money or a state that must tax its citizens to raise money for its wars is necessarily limited in its imperial ambitions. Keep in mind that this is only a problem for the state. It is not a problem for the people. The inability of the state to fund its unlimited ambitions is worth more for the people than every kind of legal check and balance. It is more valuable than all the constitutions ever devised.
The state has no wealth that is its own. It is not a profitable enterprise. Everything it possesses it must take from society in a zero-sum game. That usually means taxes, but taxes annoy people. They can destabilize the state and threaten its legitimacy. They inspire anger, revolt, and even revolution. Rather than risk that result, the state from the Middle Ages to the dawn of the central banking age was somewhat cautious in its global ambitions simply because it was cautious in its need to steal openly and directly from the people in order to pay its bills.
To read this great speech: http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/war-and-inflation.html
" If there is complete transparency then they are more open to political pressure."
A privately owned instituition like the Fed should not be open to political pressure.
LOL!! It should be subject to Congressional oversight and that's what this is all about. Ron Paul has been preaching the same message for 20 years - if we had listened to him we wouldn't have to pay for the "bailout".
bruze - 14 years ago
Not only is the Federal Reserve Bank a private corporation, majority owned by elitist FOREIGN banks, it is not even incorporated in the United States. Why would anyone believe, in particular our elected representatives, that foreigners would want to control our financial system for the benefit of the American people. The Federal Reserve Bank and the IRS are bleeding resources from this country to support their agenda of a New World Order. They are using our military to fight foreign wars for this same agenda. We are losing our best and brightest on their behalf. It is NOT to secure our freedom. In the long run it will assure OUR ENSLAVEMENT.
bruze - 14 years ago
Not only is the Federal Reserve Bank a private corporation, majority owned by elitist FOREIGN banks, it is not even incorporated in the United States. Why would anyone believe, in particular our elected representatives, that foreigners would want to control our financial system for the benefit of the American people. The Federal Reserve Bank and the IRS are bleeding resources from this country to support their agenda of a New World Order. They are using our military to fight foreign wars for this same agenda. We are losing our best and brightest on their behalf. It is NOT to secure our freedom. In the long run it will assure OUR ENSLAVEMENT.
Gregory Johnson - 14 years ago
Although I voted yes after listening to Ron Paul, I am not sure what good it would do. I don't think many people in Government, except maybe the GAO, understand economics and by the time they look at these reports and react it will be too late.
Erin - 14 years ago
Private bankers controlling our money is a huge mistake. Look around. It ain't working. Take the country back before it's too late.
Servius - 14 years ago
I have to say I did not vote in the question. There should be no central bank. The central bank exists as a "lender of last resort" in a fractional reserve banking system in order to prevent runs on the banks when they overextend. Without fractional reserve banking banks can't overextend.
It is also this overextension by the banks that causes the expansion and contraction cycle in our economy. Banks issue easy credit to enterprises that would not be viable otherwise. This credit is new money driving an unsustainable boom.
When the enterprises fail because the banks are overextended and cannot extend any more credit the assets of the bank dry up and the bank fails. This contraction, many enterprises propped up by easy credit, we call a recession.
Nick - 14 years ago
What exactly would his ulterior motive be? The well being of our country?
Julian Gonzalez - 14 years ago
The Fed is the reason our currency is in the mire of international finance. It needs to be prevented from controlling the value of our money. The Fed is not
a branch of the federal government. It is a private enterprise, such as Sears,
J. C. Penny, Coca Cola, and others. This is the reason Presidents Lincoln and
Kennedy were assissinated-they were planning on separating the fed from
controlling our money with international monies.
Mark - 14 years ago
The Fed already releases a good deal of its information. If there is complete transparency then they are more open to political pressure. Remember, that is why congress establishes so many commissions to do their dirty work, ie. Base Closure and social security. Having some insulation from politcs, especially from congress is a good thing and allows more freedom to act.
Also remember, Ron Paul hates the Fed and has been trying to get rid of it for years; he knows openess will make the fed even more unpopular and easier to eliminate in the long run. He does not care about openess, he has an ulterior motice.
I like how the first comment is an obvious paid-for Fed spokesperson.
Remember, Ben Bernanke has an ulterior motive, too.
And considering that the CONSTITUTION says that the CONGRESS is SUPPOSED TO REGULATE MONETARY POLICY, who has the more just motive?
from wapo "could make future central bank policymakers reluctant to take unpopular steps to prevent inflation..."
This is the most absurd statement anyone could make, or even quote.
Isn't inflation a goal of the Federal Reserve??
If you support the audit send an email to your represenatives in support of HR1207.
Of course we need to audit the Fed! They've been stealing from the American people for years through fractional reserve banking, and their complete unaccountability has allowed them to cover it up! The American people need to see for themselves where their money has gone!
RagingDebate and thousands of other sites that conduct polls are able to successfully track who has and hasn't already voted. So, what is the point of closing a poll after only a few hundred have voted? Because you don't like the results? CNN polls typically includes the votes of 10's of thousands. At the minimum, I'd think you'd be glad for the attention that interactivity encourages.
Information wants to be free.
There are significant time delays built into the Fed audit process so that current sensitive negotiations will not be messed up.
The issue is to find out how the Fed is pouring money into the 5 biggest banks in the country. They are from the outside insolvent and need to stop being black holes. Currently Bernanke believes he can feed these black holes.
Because he apparently believes they are too big to fail. The problem is that 6 months ago the big banks had $180 trillion in derivatives on their books. Instead of winding down, they have doubled down and now have 50% more derivatives on their books or $270 trillion. Why not, they are too big to fail and can take INCREDIBLE risks with zero percent money they can borrow from the Fed. They just might be able to spend and gamble their way out of the black hole of debt. I doubt it but who knows, if you print enough for them, then they might get lucky. THEY HAVE NOTHING TO LOSE. THEY ARE ALREADY broke!
It sure is nice being a big bank in America when the Fed just prints ALL the money you need and gives you a zero percent loan, that never needs repaying, AND if you get hold of some bad loans, then the Fed just swaps you dollar for dollar, non-mark to market junk loans for good T bills to keep on your books so the FDIC thinks you are OK.
At least they are still pretending they have to play by the rules. We have no way of knowing if they really are because there are NO REAL audits.
I personally think a little sunshine would help and heck it might even help prevent the Fed and the Treasury and the US Congress from spending us into oblivion.
Audit the Fed and I can sleep easier at night if things are OK, AND if they are not then at least we can define the real problem. The solution if needed is going to hurt like he11.
How can anyone defend opacity in the Fed's dealings? This is our money and our economy they're playing with. Would you invest your savings with someone who refused to tell you what he plans to do with it? Then ask no questions when he tells you he lost all your money? Audit the Fed. "The truth can never hurt you."
The only thing better than a Federal Reserve audit would be a Federal Reserve autopsy.
"One can say without exaggeration that inflation is an indispensable means of militarism. Without it, the repercussions of war on welfare become obvious much more quickly and penetratingly; war weariness would set in much earlier." -Ludvig von Mises
"It is no coincidence that the century of total war coincided with the century of central banking. When governments had to fund their own wars without a paper money machine to rely on, they economized on resources. They found diplomatic solutions to prevent war, and after they started a war they ended it as soon as possible." -Ron Paul
War and Inflation
by Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.
This talk was delivered at the Future of Freedom Foundation’s conference on "Restoring the Republic: Foreign Policy and Civil Liberties," on June 6, 2008, in Reston, Virginia.
The U.S. central bank, called the Federal Reserve, was created in 1913. No one promoted this institution with the slogan that it would make wars more likely and guarantee that nearly half a million Americans would die in battle in foreign lands, along with millions of foreign soldiers and civilians. No one pointed out that this institution would permit Americans to fund, without taxes, the destruction of cities abroad and overthrow governments at will. No one said that the central bank would make it possible for the U.S. to be at large-scale war in one of every four years for a full century. It was never pointed out that this institution would make it possible for the U.S. government to establish a global empire that would make Imperial Rome and Britain look benign by comparison.
You can line up 100 professional war historians and political scientists and talk about the twentieth century, and not one is likely to mention the role of the Fed in funding U.S. militarism. And yet it is true: the Fed is the institution that has created the money to fund the wars. In this role, it has solved a major problem that the state has confronted for all of human history. A state without money or a state that must tax its citizens to raise money for its wars is necessarily limited in its imperial ambitions. Keep in mind that this is only a problem for the state. It is not a problem for the people. The inability of the state to fund its unlimited ambitions is worth more for the people than every kind of legal check and balance. It is more valuable than all the constitutions ever devised.
The state has no wealth that is its own. It is not a profitable enterprise. Everything it possesses it must take from society in a zero-sum game. That usually means taxes, but taxes annoy people. They can destabilize the state and threaten its legitimacy. They inspire anger, revolt, and even revolution. Rather than risk that result, the state from the Middle Ages to the dawn of the central banking age was somewhat cautious in its global ambitions simply because it was cautious in its need to steal openly and directly from the people in order to pay its bills.
To read this great speech: http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/war-and-inflation.html
Audit the FED! They need to be held accountable.
" If there is complete transparency then they are more open to political pressure."
A privately owned instituition like the Fed should not be open to political pressure.
LOL!! It should be subject to Congressional oversight and that's what this is all about. Ron Paul has been preaching the same message for 20 years - if we had listened to him we wouldn't have to pay for the "bailout".
Not only is the Federal Reserve Bank a private corporation, majority owned by elitist FOREIGN banks, it is not even incorporated in the United States. Why would anyone believe, in particular our elected representatives, that foreigners would want to control our financial system for the benefit of the American people. The Federal Reserve Bank and the IRS are bleeding resources from this country to support their agenda of a New World Order. They are using our military to fight foreign wars for this same agenda. We are losing our best and brightest on their behalf. It is NOT to secure our freedom. In the long run it will assure OUR ENSLAVEMENT.
Not only is the Federal Reserve Bank a private corporation, majority owned by elitist FOREIGN banks, it is not even incorporated in the United States. Why would anyone believe, in particular our elected representatives, that foreigners would want to control our financial system for the benefit of the American people. The Federal Reserve Bank and the IRS are bleeding resources from this country to support their agenda of a New World Order. They are using our military to fight foreign wars for this same agenda. We are losing our best and brightest on their behalf. It is NOT to secure our freedom. In the long run it will assure OUR ENSLAVEMENT.
Although I voted yes after listening to Ron Paul, I am not sure what good it would do. I don't think many people in Government, except maybe the GAO, understand economics and by the time they look at these reports and react it will be too late.
Private bankers controlling our money is a huge mistake. Look around. It ain't working. Take the country back before it's too late.
I have to say I did not vote in the question. There should be no central bank. The central bank exists as a "lender of last resort" in a fractional reserve banking system in order to prevent runs on the banks when they overextend. Without fractional reserve banking banks can't overextend.
It is also this overextension by the banks that causes the expansion and contraction cycle in our economy. Banks issue easy credit to enterprises that would not be viable otherwise. This credit is new money driving an unsustainable boom.
When the enterprises fail because the banks are overextended and cannot extend any more credit the assets of the bank dry up and the bank fails. This contraction, many enterprises propped up by easy credit, we call a recession.
What exactly would his ulterior motive be? The well being of our country?
The Fed is the reason our currency is in the mire of international finance. It needs to be prevented from controlling the value of our money. The Fed is not
a branch of the federal government. It is a private enterprise, such as Sears,
J. C. Penny, Coca Cola, and others. This is the reason Presidents Lincoln and
Kennedy were assissinated-they were planning on separating the fed from
controlling our money with international monies.
The Fed already releases a good deal of its information. If there is complete transparency then they are more open to political pressure. Remember, that is why congress establishes so many commissions to do their dirty work, ie. Base Closure and social security. Having some insulation from politcs, especially from congress is a good thing and allows more freedom to act.
Also remember, Ron Paul hates the Fed and has been trying to get rid of it for years; he knows openess will make the fed even more unpopular and easier to eliminate in the long run. He does not care about openess, he has an ulterior motice.