Wouldn't all Americans benefit from an audit of the Federal Reserve?

"Wouldn't all Americans benefit from an audit of the Federal Reserve?"

Then why didnt Bush and His Rubber Stamps Make it So?

I don't know. Because Bush was a failure. Any other stupid questions?

"I don't know. Because Bush was a failure. Any other stupid questions?
#3 | Posted by JOE at 2009-05-12 12:31 PM

What about all those other "republicans"?

They failed too. But now Republicans have introduced a bill for transparency and constitute 86% of the co-sponsorships. You can either deflect to what didn't happen before or face what is happening now. An audit of the federal reserve is obviously more necessary now given their recent activities.

Then why didnt Bush and His Rubber Stamps Make it So?

#2 | Posted by Redneckville

Joe, this turd won't answer any question. He will only deflect with another for partisan sake.

"But now Republicans have introduced a bill for transparency"

I know -- How Convenient!

Do you think they are Sincere, (this time) or is this just more of the "rebranding" effort?

By the Way, what ever happened to that "Contract with America"?

Anything but the present, eh RedCocoSamVille?

"Joe, this turd won't answer any question"
#6 | Posted by Scarlett

What Question --- please point it out and I will address it!

"Wouldn't all Americans benefit from an audit of the Federal Reserve?"

Then why didnt Bush and His Rubber Stamps Make it So?

#2 | Posted by Redneckville

the one you copied and pasted.

LOL

"Wouldn't all Americans benefit from an audit of the Federal Reserve?"

Duh --- that Goes Without Saying! I didn't realize I must respond to the Obvious!

However, what's not Obvious is why anyone would expect us to believe the "republicans" and their promoters now, especially after eight years of Frittering away confidence in them with events like the Shiavo incident!

Can you tell us (Scarlett) why we should believe them and what exactly makes you think they are sincere --- this time?

I don't care why they are proposing it now and why they didn't propose it before. The fact remains that an audit of the Federal Reserve would be a good thing for any taxpayer. The fact that Democrats claim to want "transparency" when their Congressmen won't support this bill is noteworthy.

Didn't Obama promise that a website would be set up where we could go and see how every dollar was being spent?

That website only lists primary and secondary recipients of money - meaning that if federal funds are given to a state and then to a city, we never get to see who the contractors are that end up getting the job.

Oh...thanks Joe

"meaning that if federal funds are given to a state and then to a city, we never get to see who the contractors are that end up getting the job."

When did things at a State Level Become the Responsabilty of the Feds?

Oh, thats right ------- when you lost the WH, thats when!

When the feds started giving our money to the states. Are you really this stupid?

Can you tell us (Scarlett) why we should believe them and what exactly makes you think they are sincere --- this time?

#11 | Posted by Redneckville

I don't. It isn't a coincidence that they are asking for this now when they could have when GWB was in office.

Are you really this stupid?

we have already established how rediamsamcocoville responds to an "obvious question"

Duh --- that Goes Without Saying! I didn't realize I must respond to the Obvious! posed by redneckiamsamcocoville

So far 20 Democrats have co-sponsored the bill and you are WHINING about Democrats...Now that's funny!!

Wouldn't all Americans benefit from an audit of the Federal Reserve?
#1 | POSTED BY JOE
------

Let me be the first to answer the question posted at the top of the thread...

Yes. All Americans would benefit from it. Now if only we could find a way to get the politicians to work for "all Americans", instead of just the ones with millions of lobbyist dollars, we might get somewhere.

It was introduced nearly 3 months ago, and has 149 total co-sponsors. Are you arguing it is insignificant that Democrats make up a tiny minority of the co-sponsors? Do you think Democrats will vote for this?

That was directed at #20.

The Federal Reserve is 80% private, but initially funded with 20% from the public treasury. You think the 80% private that got their piece of that action for nothing are going to tell Paul or you anything? fogettaboutit.

So Danni, only 20 of the 149 co-sponsors are Democrats, and you think that makes them impervious to criticism?

"Wouldn't all Americans benefit from an audit of the Federal Reserve?"

Yes.

Unfortunately, too many politicians are unable or unwilling to bite the hand that feeds - Dems, in this case - but I seem to recall Ron Paul pushing for audits of the Fed in the past and getting a similar lack of support. Doesn't matter anyway, since the politicians who are voted into office are just puppets in the first place.

It's the average citizen who suffers, while the real political hustlers run away with all the money.

"The real owners are the big wealthy business interests that control things and make all the important decisions. Forget the politicians, they're an irrelevancy. The politicians are put there to give you the idea that you have freedom of choice. You don't. You have no choice. You have owners. They own you. They own everything. They own all the important land. They own and control the corporations. They've long since bought and paid for the Senate, the Congress, the statehouses, the city halls. They've got the judges in their back pockets. And they own all the big media companies, so that they control just about all of the news and information you hear. They've got you by the balls. They spend billions of dollars every year lobbying -- lobbying to get what they want. Well, we know what they want; they want more for themselves and less for everybody else."

I'd bet few in DC/either party.... would have the stomach!

At this point I'm not sure it's a good idea. I don't like the FED any more than Ron Paul but when you think about the possibility of the FED only having 2-4 Trillion in gold, it kinda puts things in perspective. I don't think the economy could handle more bad news. If the general public truly understood how bankrupt the US is, well where do you go from there.

"When the feds started giving our money to the states. Are you really this stupid?"
#17 | Posted by JOE at 2009-05-12 02:10 PM

Hey, you Wrote it!

"meaning that if federal funds are given to a state and then to a city"
#14 | Posted by JOE at 2009-05-12 01:55 PM.

"So Danni, only 20 of the 149 co-sponsors are Democrats, and you think that makes them impervious to criticism?"

Let's wait and see who actually votes for the bill before we decide who to criticize. Co-sponsoring is no guarantee that a member will actually vote for any legislation.

If the general public truly understood how bankrupt the US is, well where do you go from there.
#28 | POSTED BY STIRSUMUP
-------

In that case, maybe we'd find a way to create an economy that can actually sustain itself.

RedCocoSamVille, you seem to be misunderstanding just about everything in here. I told Kanrei that the federal government's new "transparency" website that follow stimulus funds only follows the first two transfers - meaning that if the funds are given to one entity, then another, eventually we don't know where they wound up. This calls into question how useful the "transparency" site is but has nothing to do with the audit of the Federal Reserve. You, however, then dumbly asked, "When did things at a State Level Become the Responsabilty of the Feds?" My answer is that "things at the state level" become the responsibility of the feds when they give our money to the states. I'm sorry if this doesn't make sense to you.

Let's wait and see who actually votes for the bill before we decide who to criticize. Co-sponsoring is no guarantee that a member will actually vote for any legislation.
#30 | POSTED BY DANNI
---------

Wonderful. I'll be the one criticizing both parties... you?

I don't think the economy could handle more bad news. If the general public truly understood how bankrupt the US is, well where do you go from there.

Agreed. slipperly slope there. However, either we are for "transparancy" or we aren't.

"Let's wait and see who actually votes for the bill before we decide who to criticize. Co-sponsoring is no guarantee that a member will actually vote for any legislation."

If this bill is held in committee (which it most likely will be since it's in the House Financial Services Committee, led by Bawney Fwank), what will your response be then?

Then why didnt Bush and His Rubber Stamps Make it So?

#2 | Posted by Redneckville

For the same reason it won't happen now.

"For the same reason it won't happen now."

#36 | Posted by Sniper at 2009-05-12 03:08 PM

Finally --- a bit of Honesty from a WingDing!

Stay the Course!

Co-sponsoring is no guarantee that a member will actually vote for any legislation.

#30 | Posted by danni at 2009-05-12 02:58 PM | Reply

Didn't McCain vote against his own immigration amnesty bill?

Finally --- a bit of Honesty from a WingDing!

Stay the Course!

#37 | Posted by Redneckville

I have often stated the only difference in the two parties is the speed in which we slide into socalism.

Sniper,

But sides engage in socialism. Where the efforts are directed is the only difference.

"I have often stated the only difference in the two parties is the speed in which we slide into socalism."

#39 | Posted by Sniper at 2009-05-12 03:18 PM

YEAH!

"Often" meaning Since November of 08!

"Co-sponsoring is no guarantee that a member will actually vote for any legislation."
#30 | Posted by danni at 2009-05-12 02:58 PM | Reply

And you know, this is something that comes as no surprise to me, understanding the political system as I do. When you've worked on a bill, and it's the way you want it to be, and it does what you want it to do, you would get particularly annoyed to see what actually comes out of committee and brought to the floor. After the special interests get done shredding it, and your fellow representatives make sure their agendas are covered, the bill no longer remotely resembles what you worked on, no longer accomplishes anything you wanted to accomplish. Then you vote a resounding "NO" on your own hard work. A painful, but sometimes quite necessary, action.

Audit the federal reserve..........LOL hahahahahahaha!

Ron paul must be one stupid idiot.

Audit the federal reserve..........LOL hahahahahahaha!

Ron paul must be one stupid idiot.

If by stupid idiot you mean person who actually gives a shit, then yes, you would be correct.

#7 Redneckville> By the Way, what ever happened to that "Contract with America"?

Within 100 days of the "Republican Revolution", they passed 9 of the 10 items on the Contract with America (divided into 32 measures of which 31 passed).

Three contract proposals became law: Congressional Accountability Act of 1995, Unfunded Mandate Reform Act of 1995, Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

President Clinton later took credit for some of the Republican led budget cutting measures.

"Then you vote a resounding "NO" on your own hard work. A painful, but sometimes quite necessary, action."

Sometimes true and other times when push comes to shove it was all about political grandstanding in the first place.

YEAH!

"Often" meaning Since November of 08!

Why are you so in love with bankers Redneck? Or do you not really give a fuck what's going on as long as the guy you think represents your best interests is in there?

I love hearing Democrats talk about supporting a party that is diametrically opposed to their interests...yet here is an example where their party is doing that exact thing, yet there is no interest in accountability. I'd love to hear the dem opinion on this...and you get bonus points if you can manage to do it without attempting to accuse me of "not saying anything these past 8 years".

"Within 100 days of the "Republican Revolution", they passed 9 of the 10 items on the Contract with America "

Ahem...that was the second portion of the CWA. Of the MAIN portion, of the eight central proposals...

FIRST, require all laws that apply to the rest of the country also apply equally to the Congress;
SECOND, select a major, independent auditing firm to conduct a comprehensive audit of Congress for waste, fraud or abuse;
THIRD, cut the number of House committees, and cut committee staff by one-third;
FOURTH, limit the terms of all committee chairs;
FIFTH, ban the casting of proxy votes in committee;
SIXTH, require committee meetings to be open to the public;
SEVENTH, require a three-fifths majority vote to pass a tax increase;
EIGHTH, guarantee an honest accounting of our Federal Budget by implementing zero base-line budgeting.

...exactly ZERO became law.

Either your link was cherry-picking, or you were.

"Sometimes true and other times when push comes to shove it was all about political grandstanding in the first place."
#46 | Posted by danni at 2009-05-12 04:27 PM | Reply

Danni, such lack of faith in our government!
(sigh) wish I could argue with it.

Seems like the dems are prepared to offer superficial but watered down transparency in government (Obama's website). I wonder why so many of them won't get behind this bill.

I don't. It isn't a coincidence that they are asking for this now when they could have when GWB was in office.

#18 | Posted by eberly

Is it also a coincidence that congress was controled by the dems for Bush's last two years and nothing was done then?

Obama promised Transparency in government so this should be a no-brainer. I have no idea why the Democrats would be against letting the people know where their money is going. They talked so much shit about the need for more transparency during the Presidential campaign and then they pull this.

This is a great idea and there is no good reason to oppose it. The Dems are probably scared America will find out money is being diverted to banks that certain Democrat politicians have an ownership/significant share interest in.

If the Federal Government was a real enity it would need a huge bailout.

Then why didnt Bush and His Rubber Stamps Make it So?
#2 | POSTED BY REDNECKVILLE AT 2009-05-12 12:29 PM | REPLY | FLAG:

what the fuck does this have to do whether this is the right thing to do? you must've said "I know you are, but what am I" a lot as a kid.

Wouldn't all Americans benefit from an audit of the Federal Reserve?

#1 | Posted by JOE at 2009-05-12 12:11

no they wouldnt because whether you and I want to recognize them as such or not the dems who dont want any part of this would not be benefited and there you see why there are so few of them
BUT you can bet that if OBAMA said to support it they would vote for it EACH AND EVERY time as outlined in my MONDAY FEATURE..

"How texans voted" where you see week in and week out dems ALWAYS AND ALL vote for OBAMA.............

This ad for the retort MONDAY FEATURE is a public service announcment and there fore rcade GETS NOTHING.........lol

"Then why didnt Bush and His Rubber Stamps Make it So?" #2 | Posted by Redneckville

Did you go out of your way to find that "what about bush" statement or did it just pop into your head? Let it go man. Instead praise the pro-activeness of Obama. Rejoice at the transparency.

Fucking dems trying to cover their traitorous asses.

Who are the Dems with balls who actually support this? Fuck the rest of 'em. We need to crack down on corruption.

Who are the Dems with balls who actually support this?

#58 | Posted by Scrumplet

We can eliminate Pelosi, Feinstein, Reid, the entire cabinet, bho, barney frank (except the pair in his mouth).

good ol' Ron Paul

Why do Democrats hate transparency in government?

Posted by joe

They want their constituency poor, naked, pregnant, barefoot, and beholden to them.

Anyone who thinks Ron Paul was a friend to the Bush administration is simply ignorant. Last election the neo-cons well funded a republican to run against Paul in his district's primary. Republican leadership hated Paul during W's term. Ron Paul has been talking about this his entire career as a representative.

An audit of the Fed would reveal to all that we are basically NIGGERS WORKING THE COTTON FIELD FOR AN OLIGARCHY. Fort Knox is empty and our government is now leveraging things like Yellow Stone Park or interstates.

#48 Danforth> Either your link was cherry-picking, or you were.

Thanks for the correction, it was one of the first links I found.

I wonder if Obama will get behind this, since he promised transparency in government and all.

poor, naked, pregnant, barefoot, and beholden
#61 | Posted by Eddie | Flag: But That's Just Me

An audit of the Fed would reveal to all that we are basically NIGGERS WORKING THE COTTON FIELD FOR AN OLIGARCHY. Fort Knox is empty and our government is now leveraging things like Yellow Stone Park or interstates.

#62 | Posted by wurster

Yessa Massa!

Either your link was cherry-picking, or you were.

#48 | Posted by Danforth

So..... you are saying that not all items were passed and that made it a total failure? Who is cherry picking?

ACORN: What are we going to do about this corrupt organization?

Holy crap! Joe, I gotta hand it to you. I enjoyed the idea of this thread, the topic, your attempt to frame the debate in a simple logical question, and your attempts to keep the driving the thread back to the point. But apparently when the crazy train rolls in, nothing that makes any sense at all can stop it.

I'll say unequivocally that auditing the Fed is a great idea. What responsible media outlet wouldn't want to ask where all the democratic support is? Ah, and there's our first problem.