A new Political party

[BigRedBuster]

Just a side note. He wants to take the power of debt ceiling away from congress. Hmmm...doesn't sound like someone who is serious about lowering the debt.

Also . . . I just remembered who originally proposed that the president take that power away from Congress . . .

http://www.washingto...e-debt-ceiling/

That dang big spending power hungry . . . Mitch McConnell.

And that is significant? Republicans have stupid ideas too. I thought I have made that clear.

So your bolded statements were about McConnell? :lol:

Did I say it wasn't? That statement is for anyone who is for that move.

 

[Undone]

And also, so that carl doesn't accuse me of not answering the question:

What would you do to hold them accountable?

I'll again give you the answer I gave in my same answer you quoted: I'd greatly expand the list of items that the Government Accountability Office can audit. That's my response, and it's the extent of it.

Whether that was the answer you're hoping you'd get, I'm not sure. I'm guessing that it isn't.

 

[carlfense]

A straightforward question to you, Carl - Are you intent on mincing my words? What significance is there in getting to the very last detail of my opinion on how 'Audit The Fed' should be handled? I support the Audit movement. But I didn't write the bill.

You asked:

"...are you saying that the Federal Reserve should be directly controlled by Congress?"

And I said, "No, not really." I was saying no to direct control. Was that actually difficult for you to understand? I'm asking that genuinely - was it difficult?

I'm not sure I understand the hostility. In fact, I think that we're on the same page. I'm just trying to discern your opinion on what we should do.

I'm genuinely interested in how others think that we should reform the fed. Auditing seems like a fairly obvious first step. I haven't seen many opinions on what we do with the information that is uncovered.

RE: your question. No, I don't really intend to mince your words. You've repeatedly stated that you want to hold the Fed accountable. Despite my repeated inquiries you've never really explained how you mean to do that beyond saying that they should be audited. If you don't know or care what is done with any information is uncovered that's totally understandable. It's certainly not an issue that I've spent much effort investigating.

 

[carlfense]

It's his way of acting like he is winning a debate. He really doesn't have any intent on actually discussing a topic.

No offense BRB . . . but I don't think that it is possible to win a discussion on the internet.

That said, I have noticed a few posters (Undone not included) that don't like requests that they substantiate their beliefs. I think that particular reaction leads to some fairly obvious conclusions.

 

[carlfense]

Just a side note. He wants to take the power of debt ceiling away from congress. Hmmm...doesn't sound like someone who is serious about lowering the debt.

Also . . . I just remembered who originally proposed that the president take that power away from Congress . . .

http://www.washingto...e-debt-ceiling/

That dang big spending power hungry . . . Mitch McConnell.

And that is significant? Republicans have stupid ideas too. I thought I have made that clear.

So your bolded statements were about McConnell?

Did I say it wasn't? That statement is for anyone who is for that move.

Awesome. :lol:

 

[Undone]

I'm genuinely interested in how others think that we should reform the fed.

Then I offer an apology to you. I misjudged your level of genuineness in the topic. I thought I had made it clear that the audit is the primary first step that I was in favor of striving for.

To at least try to take it a step further, I would hope that if the audit were to show that any one regulated banking law was being broken, the reigns could be tightened (whether directly or indirectly by congress) and the artificial floating of the value of the dollar could be monitored by Uncle Sam in some way unbeknownst to me, or perhaps even an amendment to the constitution itself could be created that specifically defines the actions of the Fed as an official central banking unit and then make constitutional limitations to the power thereof.

 

[carlfense]

Then I offer an apology to you. I misjudged your level of genuineness in the topic. I thought I had made it clear that the audit is the primary first step that I was in favor of striving for.

No apology necessary.

To at least try to take it a step further, I would hope that if the audit were to show that any one regulated banking law was being broken, the reigns could be tightened (whether directly or indirectly by congress) and the artificial floating of the value of the dollar could be monitored by Uncle Sam in some way unbeknownst to me, or perhaps even an amendment to the constitution itself could be created that specifically defines the actions of the Fed as an official central banking unit and then make constitutional limitations to the power thereof.

Sounds reasonable. While I don't agree with all (or maybe even many) of Ron Paul's opinions he has been one of the few politicians drawing attention to this issue. It's worth more attention than it receives (I'm including myself in the group that doesn't pay too much attention).

 

[strigori]

Have you been paying any attention to what does (or mostly doesn't) happen in the House? Too much danger of pet projects, goals and just outright stupidity that runs out of the House to put something that needs to stay out of politics right into the hands of men who do nothing but run for reelection.That's the assumption you're making on my ability to understand what's happening in the house by reading through this discussion? Re-read the discussion.

You appear to not understand my point. The Fed is something that needs to remain outside of the petty political BS that rules the House. This collection of fools can't agree on anything. Putting them in charge of the Fed could have repercussions of having men afraid to do their jobs in fear of losing their jobs if it were to be against what an influential Congressman thought.

 

[Undone]

You appear to not understand my point. The Fed is something that needs to remain outside of the petty political BS that rules the House. This collection of fools can't agree on anything. Putting them in charge of the Fed could have repercussions of having men afraid to do their jobs in fear of losing their jobs if it were to be against what an influential Congressman thought.

Of course I would have no argument for your comment that in general, our congressmen are for the most part a "collection of fools." That's both salient and inarguable.

But I have a straightforward question for you: Have you followed Ron Paul's track record of consistency and motivation for the Audit movement? I'm asking you a yes or no question.

I've been speaking in specifics throughout this entire page of discourse; you're chiming in with generalized pot shots that add nothing to the conversation.

I might even insinuate from your reply that you're some kind of anarchist that favors no regulation of commerce & banking whatsoever. Is that what you're implying? Should the federal reserve literally have free reign to do whatever they wish?

 

[carlfense]

I might even insinuate from your reply that you're some kind of anarchist that favors no regulation of commerce & banking whatsoever. Is that what you're implying? Should the federal reserve literally have free reign to do whatever they wish?

I can't speak for strigori but I suspect that an anarchist would believe that the federal reserve shouldn't exist at all.

 

[Undone]

Sure.

The point was though that it's impractical to say that there'd be NO government oversight whatsoever. I doubt he believes that either. But he's pumping out the rhetoric that congress can't do anything right, so therefore any audit effort is futile. I actually think this topic is important, and I'm trying to fish out whether or not he's ever even really heard of the Audit concept or the work the Pauls have done to get it where it is now.

Because in my opinion, regardless of anyone's persuasion on the rest of their ideas, their track records are both consistent are virtually un-corrupt. So there are at least two congressmen worth a sh!t on this issue. And yes, Ron is retiring.

Moving on...

 

[strigori]

You appear to not understand my point. The Fed is something that needs to remain outside of the petty political BS that rules the House. This collection of fools can't agree on anything. Putting them in charge of the Fed could have repercussions of having men afraid to do their jobs in fear of losing their jobs if it were to be against what an influential Congressman thought.

Of course I would have no argument for your comment that in general, our congressmen are for the most part a "collection of fools." That's both salient and inarguable.

But I have a straightforward question for you: Have you followed Ron Paul's track record of consistency and motivation for the Audit movement? I'm asking you a yes or no question.

I've been speaking in specifics throughout this entire page of discourse; you're chiming in with generalized pot shots that add nothing to the conversation.

I might even insinuate from your reply that you're some kind of anarchist that favors no regulation of commerce & banking whatsoever. Is that what you're implying? Should the federal reserve literally have free reign to do whatever they wish?

You have not been around long to think I'm an anarchist or that no rules should be involved in commerce and banking. (I want the wall put back up between commercial and investment banks to start with)

Yes, I am familiar with Ron Paul's Fed arguments I am also aware he wants to abolish it and return to a metal standard (Can't remember if he's one of the gold or silver side guys) When you really want to get down to it, Ron Paul is what you accused me of. He is generally against any regulation, arguing the 'free market' will sort it all out.

 

[Undone]

strigori - I know you're a good guy...and certainly not an anarchist. I was just using a little hyperbole there.

Paul's advocacy of the gold standard is well documented. One of the specific reasons I think that's probably outlandish at this point is because, hey, there's only so much gold we can dig up out of the ground. As our population explodes, and our economy booms with it, you'd think that at some point you'd have to actually deflate the dollar to match the corresponding backed amount of gold to the dollar. But I'm not so interested in that point.

I like that you basically brought up the "deregulation" that the repeal of the Glass-Steagall act brought about (i.e., tearing down the wall between commercial and investment banking). But here's the kicker: The real takeaway is that as long as a central banking system exists, our system of fractional reserve banking will always demand that the Fed keeps pumping out more money to back deposits.

But I do agree with you about putting that wall back up. If it had remained there, we may still have gone through a financial downturn over the past decade...but it almost surely wouldn't have been as severe.

 

[strigori]

The danger of not having a governmental backing up deposits however is far too dangerous of an option As the disaster of the Great Depression fully illustrated. As the last few years have shown, there are areas where the government is more responsible than private banks.

The culture of banking has changed in the last 20 or 30 years. Bankers used to be the ones who thought long term low percentage gains were the way to go. Safe and little risk. Now they operate like most other businesses demanding high returns, and the risks be damned.

Its very interesting to note how the word 'regulation' has become a bad word, people really, really need to learn more history, then maybe the reason for rules and regulations would make more sense. Anymore too many people believe businessmen when they say "deregulation is good. Trust me" Good for whom? should be the first question they get asked.

 

[Fru]

The danger of not having a governmental backing up deposits however is far too dangerous of an option As the disaster of the Great Depression fully illustrated. As the last few years have shown, there are areas where the government is more responsible than private banks.

The culture of banking has changed in the last 20 or 30 years. Bankers used to be the ones who thought long term low percentage gains were the way to go. Safe and little risk. Now they operate like most other businesses demanding high returns, and the risks be damned.

Its very interesting to note how the word 'regulation' has become a bad word, people really, really need to learn more history, then maybe the reason for rules and regulations would make more sense. Anymore too many people believe businessmen when they say "deregulation is good. Trust me" Good for whom? should be the first question they get asked.

This