It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Elizabeth Warren Won't Back Rand Paul's Audit the Fed Bill

page: 4
15
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 12 2015 @ 12:26 PM
link   
a reply to: GogoVicMorrow

Not that I place any more trust in polls than they deserve, but every poll I read has Paul behind not only Bush but also (either chillingly or excitingly, I can't decide yet) Scott Walker ... and also 8-23 points behind Hillary.

The Libertarian Presidential candidate received less than 1% in the last election.

How do you see a Rand Paul Libertarian Presidential bid as a threat?
edit on 12Thu, 12 Feb 2015 12:34:32 -060015p122015266 by Gryphon66 because: Correction stats




posted on Feb, 12 2015 @ 12:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
The Federal Reserve is already audited by the General Accounting Office as well as independent auditors. (Source)

This is merely a political stunt by Paul.

Why would Senator Warren support a political stunt by a fringe Presidential candidate?



But Lizabeth didn't say that.

What is it she is so afraid of?



posted on Feb, 12 2015 @ 01:47 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

I just gotta point this out. It is only republicans who are surprised when politicians act like lying politicians. We all just pick the best lies that fit our fantasies. That is why I consider politics a game and hobby.



posted on Feb, 12 2015 @ 02:01 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

The official libertarian candidate (Johnson), sure, but the other libertarian candidate (Ron Paul) running on the GOP ticket was winning states (and getting screwed over and ripped off in the media and by the GOP itself).

I would very much doubt Paul is behind Walker. He is inheriting a whole grassroots movement (sure some will have splintered off). I wouldn't trust the media on this. No one is talking about Walker, but there are already active attempts to turn voters against Paul.

I am very confident he will be the only real opposition to Jeb and Hillary.

He will be running GOP, not Libertarian. So he will be a threat. Then if he doesn't get the nod he can decide whether or not to continue. If he does keep going he will have a large portion of GOP voters, the libertarian voters, and a lot of disenfranchised dems. Any route of escape from another Clinton/Bush presidency will be thoroughly explored.
edit on 12-2-2015 by GogoVicMorrow because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 12 2015 @ 02:07 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Feb, 12 2015 @ 02:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66




You stated that Senator Warren was "completely on board" with Big Pharma which is patently untrue.


Only because you failed to read what I actually said. I said she is "totally on board" with "them and their vaccines."

Case in point, see her questioning of the head of immunizations at the CDC this week.



posted on Feb, 12 2015 @ 02:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: MOMof3
a reply to: rockintitz

You are a spoiled generation. You can make statements like that because you believe that you will be one of the lucky ones who won't suffer.



Spoiled? You don't know anything about me.

But whatever, keep up with the status quo, let the bubble burst after you're long gone right?

That sounds pretty spoiled to me.



posted on Feb, 12 2015 @ 02:27 PM
link   
a reply to: NOTurTypical

I QUOTED your comment in my response to you. You can't make the argument that I am not referring to what you actually said.

If in your mind the words "completely" and "totally" are distinctively different in meaning, I would suggest that you're merely being specious in this response. See your quote. Period at the end of the sentence.

Case in point? I can't help you with your beliefs, and further you are welcome to them.

Here's what Senator Warren asked of Dr. Anne Schuchat:



WARREN: Is there any scientific evidence that vaccines cause autism?

SCHUCHAT: No.

WARREN: Is there any scientific evidence that vaccines cause profound mental disorders?

SCHUCHAT: No, but some of the diseases we vaccinate against can.

WARREN: The diseases can, but not the vaccines. Is there any scientific evidence that vaccines have contributed to the rise in allergies or autoimmune disorders among kids?

SCHUCHAT: No.

WARREN: Are there additives or preservatives in vaccines that can be toxic to kids?

SCHUCHAT: Not in the amounts that they’re in in vaccines.

WARREN: Is there any scientific evidence that giving kids their vaccines further apart or spacing them differently is healthier for kids?

SCHUCHAT: No, it actually increases the risk period for children.

WARREN: So it adds to the danger?

SCHUCHAT: Right.

WARREN: Is there any scientific evidence that kids can develop immunity to these diseases on their own, simply by eating nutritious foods or being active?

SCHUCHAT: No.

WARREN: How do the risks of a child responding negatively to a vaccination compare with the risks of skipping vaccinations and risking exposure to a deadly disease?

SCHUCHAT: Vaccines are safe and highly effective, and it’s important for parents to know that they’re the best way to protect their kids.

WARREN: So I think every parent wants to protect their children, and parents should know that all of the credible scientific evidence suggests that modern vaccines are safe, modern vaccines are effective, and modern vaccines are our best chance of protecting our children from diseases that can kill them. Is that right?

SCHUCHAT: That’s right.

WARREN: Thank you.


Read more at wonkette.com...


You can choose to disbelieve experts, scientific fact, or what for many is just common sense based on generations of successes.

Absolutely nothing you have said suggests that Senator Warren is duplicitous in her dealings with Big Pharma.



posted on Feb, 12 2015 @ 02:28 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

What did Senator Warren say?

Can you quote anything she said?

Have you missed page after page that refutes the idea completely that the Federal Reserve is not already being audited?

A better and more reasonable question might be ... why are you so afraid of Senator Elizabeth Warren?



posted on Feb, 12 2015 @ 02:35 PM
link   
a reply to: GogoVicMorrow

Perhaps all the true Libertarians need to seriously break with the GOP clearly and cleanly?

I understand problems with the media, with statistics, and with opinion polls, but there must be some point at which we can parse through that data, yes? How else will we know what's going on? Independent news sources always want to grow, and growth requires attracting the attention of the larger media groups which ... seems like a vicious cycle to me.

I'm not a fan of Hillary, and certainly not of Bush, but there are worse options than either of them.

Much worse.



posted on Feb, 12 2015 @ 02:46 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

You have failed to show us the part of the legislation that Lizabeth is worried about.

Your off topic tangents are not helping the people who feel jilted enough to actually start supporting the Federal Reserve.



Liz has broken some hearts I understand.



posted on Feb, 12 2015 @ 03:27 PM
link   
Adding this for reference.

If anyone needs an audit, it’s the Federal Reserve



First of all, yes the Fed is currently subject to a financial audit. But that’s not what this is about. In this context, audit means program evaluation. There are four short provisions under current law that restrict the Government Accountability Office (GAO) from auditing anything related to monetary policy at the Federal Reserve. That includes the deliberations of the Fed’s monetary policy-setting body, the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC), the communications of the FOMC to enact the policy decided upon, and the actual transactions conducted by the New York Fed to carry out the policy.

The two “Audit the Fed” bills repeal those four restrictions and ask GAO to complete what is more a programmatic audit than a financial audit and report to Congress on what they find.

When the restrictions were originally added in the 1970s, GAO testified before Congress saying, with regard to the provisions, “[w]e do not see how we can satisfactorily audit the Federal Reserve System without authority to examine the largest single category of financial transactions and assets that it has.”




posted on Feb, 12 2015 @ 04:41 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

I haven't claimed that Senator Warren is worried about any part of the legislation. That's your claim.

My comments are anything but off-topic, as I have shown the facts about the audits of the Federal Reserve, which Senator Paul claims aren't happening. I have addressed the reasoning why Senator Warren wouldn' support the bill (It's a political stunt.) I have addressed other spurious claims about Senator Warren by quoting recorded material.

I have said nothing about supporting the Federal Reserve, and in fact, have briefly stated my concerns.

So, strictly speaking, you're the only one off-topic here, in your statements critiquing my postings that are simply not true and have nothing to do with the matter at hand.

Your snide attempts to use diminutive versions of Senator Warren's name just make you look ... small. /shrug



posted on Feb, 12 2015 @ 04:49 PM
link   
Given recent investigative efforts by the Republicans in Congress, one wonders how many committees and how many independent investigations will have to be formed when GAO actually does perform whatever kind of "review" of the Federal Reserve will please Republicans. Of course, whatever the results, they won't be accepted, that is, if current "investigations" conducted by the Republicans in Congress are any indication.

How many millions will be spent trying to find the answers they want to find? We all know that the intent, whether short-term or long-term, is to blame Obama and the Democrats, so can't they just make the accusations now based on nothing (as usual) and save the People some cash?

Here's the core of the article linked above:



As someone who previously staffed the Senate Banking Committee, let me say there are few areas less understood by Congress than monetary policy and macroeconomics. Hence there are few areas more in need of a GAO audit than the Fed.


So, the People need to spend millions or billions on a snipe hunt because Congress doesn't understand monetary policy or macroeconomics?

Wouldn't it be cheaper just to teach them some classes? ECON 101? That seems more cost-effective.

Wait a minute ... before we spend all this money, what does Mr. Calabria do for a living exactly?

Mark A. Calabria, Ph.D. is Director of Financial Regulation Studies at the Cato Institute. (Wiki).

And who did he work for in the Senate again? Was it Republican Senator Phil Gramm?

What's the Cato Institute again? The "think tank" dedicated to Republican/Libertarian values?

Sure, let's spend millions or billions because Congress doesn't understand basic economics.

Sounds "fiscally responsible" to me.


edit on 17Thu, 12 Feb 2015 17:00:19 -060015p052015266 by Gryphon66 because: Noted



posted on Feb, 12 2015 @ 04:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Now you are at the 180 degree level.

You still can't address Liz's objections.

DaHaHa




I haven't claimed that Senator Warren is worried about any part of the legislation. That's your claim.
No, that's Her claim.



Fail

I think She's just jealous and in a hilty-jilty mood.



posted on Feb, 12 2015 @ 05:07 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

Am I a mind reader? You're asking me to explain Senator Warren's concerns and fears to you, beyond her own comments?

You quoted her comments in your OP. Her comments are crystal clear. You are the one that is claiming that she's afraid of something or worried about something. That's YOUR claim, can't YOU back it up?

You're just making personal comments about the Senator when you have no basis to do so aside from your own well-known political agenda.

You're not even pretending to address the issues that you're bringing up.

Senator Warren was very clear; it is you who are desperately trying to muddy the water.

EDIT: Have you actually READ the Senate or House versions of the bill? Perhaps you could find more grist for your mill in that direction,
Instead of inane, silly little comments about what you think her "mood" is.

Have you read the proposed legislation you're touting here?
edit on 17Thu, 12 Feb 2015 17:10:15 -060015p052015266 by Gryphon66 because: Noted



posted on Feb, 12 2015 @ 05:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

I posted the bill proposal.

What in it is she so scared of?



You have to read it to see it.

-Love, Liz


(post by Onslaught2996 removed for a manners violation)

posted on Feb, 12 2015 @ 05:29 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

Here, allow me to quote you quoting your article quoting Dr. Warren:


originally posted by: xuenchen
Then she turns around and says:
“I strongly support and continue to press for greater congressional oversight of the Fed’s regulatory and supervisory responsibilities, and I believe the Fed’s balance sheet should be regularly audited – which the law already requires,” Ms. Warren said in an emailed statement. “But I oppose the current version of this bill because it promotes congressional meddling in the Fed’s monetary policy decisions, which risks politicizing those decisions and may have dangerous implications for financial stability and the health of the global economy.”




So, since you can't seem to read your own quote of the Senator's words:

"I strongly support and continue to press for greater congressional oversight of the Fed’s regulatory and supervisory responsibilities"

"I believe the Fed’s balance sheet should be regularly audited – which the law already requires"

" I oppose the current version of this bill because it promotes congressional meddling in the Fed’s monetary policy decisions ..."

" ... which risks politicizing those decisions and may have dangerous implications for financial stability and the health of the global economy."

It can't be made more plain than that, in Senator Warren's own words.

edit on 17Thu, 12 Feb 2015 17:30:12 -060015p052015266 by Gryphon66 because: (no reason given)

edit on 17Thu, 12 Feb 2015 17:30:53 -060015p052015266 by Gryphon66 because: FOrmatting



posted on Feb, 12 2015 @ 05:32 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

But where in the bill does it indicate all that?

She won't tell me any specifics and negatives.

Liz hasn't answered my email yet.





top topics



 
15
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join