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

originally posted by: xuenchen
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.

Let us know when she does.

We'll be waiting ... and by waiting I mean going on with our lives and ignoring the silliness of a post which continues to ignore clearly available facts expressed in the OP.

OK, after some research the fed is even more messed up than I originally thought.

Talking of GAO audits, they are a joke.

In 1978, Congress gave the Government Accountability Office greater access to federal bank regulatory agencies. However, the legislation carved out an exemption for the Fed, precluding the watchdog agency for Congress from auditing activities related to the Fed’s monetary policy, transactions with foreign central banks and Federal Open Market Committee operations.

In 1993, the GAO estimated that 90% of the Fed’s $368 billion balance sheet was not subject to GAO audits.

The central bank’s balance sheet, post-crisis, has ballooned to over $4.5 trillion.

www.marketwatch.com... it-the-fed-battle-2015-02-11

The Fed has launched an all-out campaign against the measure, perhaps trying to kill it in its infancy.

Hmmmm....I wonder why?
Maybe because of what previous LIMITED audits have revealed?

"As a result of this audit, we now know that the Federal Reserve provided more than $16 trillion in total financial assistance to some of the largest financial institutions and corporations in the United States and throughout the world," said Sanders. "This is a clear case of socialism for the rich and rugged, you're-on-your-own individualism for everyone else."

You read that correctly, $16 trillion loaned to financial institutions that congress did NOT know about.

Among the investigation's key findings is that the Fed unilaterally provided trillions of dollars in financial assistance to foreign banks and corporations from South Korea to Scotland, according to the GAO report. "No agency of the United States government should be allowed to bailout a foreign bank or corporation without the direct approval of Congress and the president," Sanders said.

But we are better off to trust the fed? It might be to dangerous? Yeah, lets kick this nightmare down the road to our kids and grandkids. It might inconvenience us too much.
It gets better. So we can trust the fed to do whats best for us? The LIMITED audit found this little gem.

The non-partisan, investigative arm of Congress also determined that the Fed lacks a comprehensive system to deal with conflicts of interest, despite the serious potential for abuse. In fact, according to the report, the Fed provided conflict of interest waivers to employees and private contractors so they could keep investments in the same financial institutions and corporations that were given emergency loans.

For example, the CEO of JP Morgan Chase served on the New York Fed's board of directors at the same time that his bank received more than $390 billion in financial assistance from the Fed. Moreover, JP Morgan Chase served as one of the clearing banks for the Fed's emergency lending programs.

In another disturbing finding, the GAO said that on Sept. 19, 2008, William Dudley, who is now the New York Fed president, was granted a waiver to let him keep investments in AIG and General Electric at the same time AIG and GE were given bailout funds. One reason the Fed did not make Dudley sell his holdings, according to the audit, was that it might have created the appearance of a conflict of interest.

"might have created the appearance of a conflict of interest" Ya think?? I mean WTF people? No conflict of interest there.
These people are hit with common sense every once in a while like this rational tidbit.

To Sanders, the conclusion is simple. "No one who works for a firm receiving direct financial assistance from the Fed should be allowed to sit on the Fed's board of directors or be employed by the Fed," he said.

I can see why Liz wouldn't want any DANGEROUS intervention preventing things like this from happening, the horror.
Why should the fed have to have common sense rules that actually PROTECT us worthless eaters.
This next quote explicitly shows who they think needs their help, THEMSELVES.

The Fed outsourced virtually all of the operations of their emergency lending programs to private contractors like JP Morgan Chase, Morgan Stanley, and Wells Fargo. The same firms also received trillions of dollars in Fed loans at near-zero interest rates. Altogether some two-thirds of the contracts that the Fed awarded to manage its emergency lending programs were no-bid contracts. Morgan Stanley was given the largest no-bid contract worth $108.4 million to help manage the Fed bailout of AIG.

www.sanders.senate.gov...
I could keep going but if people don't see how INTENTIONALY screwed we are from this they never will.
I love the links people use FROM THE FED to tell us that the fed doesn't need more supervision.
This is just the screwing that has been found in the LIMITED audits, can you imagine how they are REALLY screwing us?
But lets not attempt to fix this truly evil entity that intentionally steals every dime it can from us.
It might be to painful for us, better to let our descendants suffer for our mistakes.

This took about 20 min of searching, the truth is out there folks.
How can anyone defend these criminals?

a reply to: Gryphon66

As you continue to fail in citing the parts in the bill that flip Liz's trigger.

How hard can it be?



180.flipit.scamper

a reply to: stosh64

good post.

thanks for the input and analysis.

a reply to: xuenchen

Thank you, thanks for bringing this to my attention with this thread.

It made me research and learn a little more about these criminals.

My pleasure. Waiting for the fed defenders, or the ones that at least think it would be 'dangerous' to look into the fed cartel more to defend that.

This is a list of the institutions that received the most of the $16 trillion giveaway from the Federal Reserve according to the GAO audit.
Remember, this was done because the fed wanted to do it, it never required any authorization and had no governmental oversight.

Citigroup: $2.5 trillion ($2,500,000,000,000)
Morgan Stanley: $2.04 trillion ($2,040,000,000,000)
Merrill Lynch: $1.949 trillion ($1,949,000,000,000)
Bank of America: $1.344 trillion ($1,344,000,000,000)
Barclays PLC (United Kingdom): $868 billion ($868,000,000,000)
Bear Sterns: $853 billion ($853,000,000,000)
Goldman Sachs: $814 billion ($814,000,000,000)
Royal Bank of Scotland (UK): $541 billion ($541,000,000,000)
JP Morgan Chase: $391 billion ($391,000,000,000)
Deutsche Bank (Germany): $354 billion ($354,000,000,000)
UBS (Switzerland): $287 billion ($287,000,000,000)
Credit Suisse (Switzerland): $262 billion ($262,000,000,000)
Lehman Brothers: $183 billion ($183,000,000,000)
Bank of Scotland (United Kingdom): $181 billion ($181,000,000,000)
BNP Paribas (France): $175 billion ($175,000,000,000)
and many many more including banks in Belgium of all places

www.scribd.com...

a reply to: MOMof3

Please read my previous posts and then explain to me why these criminals shouldn't be dealt with now.

Do you really want to pass this immoral corrupt nightmare onto our kids, grandkids and maybe great grandkids?

You see someone who wants to deal with this nightmare now and not pass it on as spoiled?

*****ATTENTION ALL MEMBERS*****

We would like to remind you that we expect civility and decorum in all forums, topics, and discussions. Continuing to post in a manner not in accordance with the T&C's can and will result in post removals and/or posting bans. Please continue your discussions with an eye on the topic and not your fellow members. Please also remember to stay on topic and cease any and all attempts to derail the thread/discussion before you.

Thank you.

You Are Responsible For Your Own posts.

We Expect Civility & Decorum In All Topics.

*** Do Not Reply To This Post ***

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: neo96
It's no secret why Warren opposes auditing the fed.

Her villain is Wall Streets, and the Bankers.

Not the thing that prints fiat money, and controls every financial instrument in this country.

Warren is as transparent as they come.

The Federal Reserve system is and has been audited. It is a non-issue.

If this is what you call an audit, and this is acceptable to you then we have very differing opinions on what an audit is.


In 1978, Congress gave the Government Accountability Office greater access to federal bank regulatory agencies. However, the legislation carved out an exemption for the Fed, precluding the watchdog agency for Congress from auditing activities related to the Fed’s monetary policy, transactions with foreign central banks and Federal Open Market Committee operations.
In 1993, the GAO estimated that 90% of the Fed’s $368 billion balance sheet was not subject to GAO audits. 
The central bank’s balance sheet, post-crisis, has ballooned to over $4.5 trillion.

If you want links and a little more info on these 'audits' please refer back to my previous sourced post.

If you find the information disclosed in this VERY LIMITED audit acceptable behavior requiring no further investigation then I see no point in debating this further.

a reply to: stosh64

It doesn't matter what you call an audit, or what I call an audit. Financial audits are and have been happening.

The current "audit" bills in Congress merely allow several levels of partisan or political maneuvering to be inserted into many of the processes of the Federal Reserve which were intended to be free of same.

For example, Section 3 of Senator Paul's current bill directs a new analysis of retributive actions taken by the Fed against member banks during the Housing Crisis of 2008-2010.

The "audits" being called for bring no new level of financial analysis to the table. They are, as Senator Warren has stated, merely meddling by the Congress, and given the recent reckless brinkmanship which members have shown for the economy not only of this country but the world for mere political points, it is completely reasonable to warn against the dire circumstances that would result from Congress being given even more power to meddle.

a reply to: xuenchen

Again, I am not a mind-reader, and I would not pretend to speak to Senator Warren's inner motivations.

Again, the Senator was more than clear about her concerns.

If the parts in the bill that "flip Liz's trigger" are so clear to you, why don't you reveal them to us?

a reply to: stosh64

The GAO report lists these as loans in times of financial exigency; why do you list them as "giveaways"?

If you recall, there was a global financial crash in 2008-2009. The Federal Reserve exists to help manage financial markets.

Why suddenly aren't you quoting from the GAO report?

EDIT: PS your link from "marketwatch" above, from which you are apparently quoting much of your first post, doesn't seem to be working.

Stosh64:

As to your quotes from Senator Sanders website, the post there is actually referring to "the first top-to-bottom audit of the Federal Reserve" so if you're going to use that as an authority, I think you're going to have to admit that audits have been conducted on the activities of the Federal Reserve ... aren't you?

... or is that audit not an audit, either???

Let's continue the quote from Senator Sanders' site. This top-to-bottom audit "uncovered eye-popping new details about how the U.S. provided a whopping $16 trillion in secret loans to bail out American and foreign banks and businesses during the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression."

The audit was performed in 2011. Four years ago. Senator Sanders' comments (or whoever wrote the piece) were posted at the same time.

As opposed to how some are trying to portray my comments, I am not advocating for or against the Federal Reserve.

Let's not pretend that the recent actions of the Fed are out of the scope of it's original creation, however:

[T]he Federal Reserve System was created by the Federal Reserve Act of December 23, 1913, establishing a new central bank intended to serve as a formal "lender of last resort" to banks in times of liquidity crisis—panics where depositors tried to withdraw their money faster than a normal fractional-reserve-based bank could pay it out.

Source

I am against using the People's money (illusory though that may be) to bail out big banks, but that is what the Federal Reserve system was created to do.

I am also against giving Congress even greater power to meddle in and/or derail the economy for mere partisan reasons. If our Congress were composed of true Statesmen (and Stateswomen) who had demonstrated their concerns for the country and our people, my perception might be different.

Was the Fed a good idea? No, I don't think so. Do I agree, personally, with everything that has been done? No, I certainly do not.

Do I think we should give Senators or Representatives who have proven that their only motivations are their own political careers even MORE CONTROL over our national economy, and that of the world because of our influence?

Why isn't Senator Paul calling for real changes to the internal structure of the Fed in 2015 as Senator Sanders was in 2011?

Could it be that the interests of the Republican Party are served by the actions of the Fed as well and could these calls for "audits" (which have been performed before and are performed on a regular basis) merely be a smokescreen to allow greater partisan control (and uncertainty) of the overall economy? Or worse, could they be a political stunt to improve Senator Paul's flagging notoriety and link him more closely with his father's admirers in view of his Presidential run?

Isn't this whole thing merely "more politics as usual"?

Cui bono? Who benefits?

That's the question we need to be answering, not trying to mind-read our political opponents. IMHO.

Thanks for the conversation all.

a reply to: Gryphon66

The comment about government jobs was sarcasm...and I thought it was a pretty obvious jab at the current administration who thinks that it's their job to create jobs (which they can't do unless they expand government, which is moving the country in the wrong direction).

As for the auditing of the federal reserve right now, IMO, independent auditors should not be doing the work that the federal government should be doing, and the GAO has only been able to audit the Fed's...well, here it is in their own words from their website:

In July 2010 Congress passed the Dodd Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. Section 1102 of the act provided GAO with the authority to audit the Federal Reserve Board or Banks' operations and procedures with respect to a credit facility or certain open market transactions...

So, basically for the past four years, the GAO has had expanded access to what they can audit, but it still isn't a full audit of the entire FRS.

Then you get this from Rand Paul on Tuesday:

by Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) 10 Feb 2015

If the Federal Reserve was a real bank, without extraordinary powers, it would be insolvent.

The Fed has $4.5 trillion in liabilities and only 57 billion dollars in equity. It is leveraged at 80:1, nearly three times greater than Lehman Brothers when it failed.

Nearly 40 percent of the Fed’s liabilities are said to be mortgage-backed securities – the question needs to be: How many are distressed home loans?

What does that mean? It means the dollar that was once as good as gold ultimately became backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. government. And since the panic of 2008, your dollar is now backed by bad home loans, bad car loans, and derivatives.

Is anyone comforted?

Over the past one hundred years the dollar has lost 96 percent of its value.

If the Fed were forced to do, what every ordinary bank must do—take its “assets” and mark them to their current market value—many believe the Fed would be insolvent.

So, after the banking crisis of 2008, we got alarmed and we passed regulations. The only problem is, we passed regulations on the banks that weren’t involved and gave more power to the bank that was involved—the Fed.

No bank in Kentucky failed during this crisis, yet Dodd-Frank pummeled our small community banks with crippling regulations.

What we really needed was more oversight of the Fed, not small community banks.

If the Fed has purchased more than $2 trillion dollars of “distressed” assets, don’t taxpayers deserve to know what they bought?

Did they buy the assets of friends and acquaintances?

Did they buy any liabilities from companies they used to work for?

Maybe someone should ask about the revolving door from Wall Street to the Treasury to the Fed and back again. Are there any conflicts of interests?

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and I don’t agree on much, but I thought he did a great job of describing the Fed and the bank bailouts as: “A clear case of socialism for the rich and rugged, you’re on your own individualism for everyone else.”

Some say the Fed is already audited.

Well, when the auditor came to Congress, she was asked the identity of the debt bought by the Fed. She didn’t know.

When pressed on the case she responded, “We do not have the jurisdiction to directly go and audit reserve bank activities.”

Some worry about Fed independence.

I do too. I worry about the Fed’s independence from the Executive branch. The Fed is supposed to be overseen by Congress. Congress created the Fed. The Fed is now in every nook and cranny of banking regulation since Dodd-Frank and it is a necessity that we not let the Executive branch gain unlimited power.

With Dodd-Frank, we created the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, an agency with unprecedented regulatory powers and no Congressional oversight.

Any audit of the Fed should attempt to bring regulatory power back under the control of Congress.

Some worry that an audit would reveal which banks are shaky and lead to a panic.

The audit doesn’t occur until a year after the bill passes. When the 2011 audit occurred, no bank-runs ensued.

It is alarming that the Federal Reserve, which was granted Monopoly money-making power, is now specifically trying to stop my legislation. The Fed, with unlimited ability to print money, now prints that money to lobby against Congressional oversight. It is a disgrace and every citizen in the land should rise up and say: We the people are in charge and we demand an audit!

Peter Bernholz writes that public deficits have frequently been the reason for hyperinflations. The fight is twofold.

Audit the Fed is about transparency, but the fight is also about restoring fiscal sanity to our nation’s checkbook.

The GAO and independent auditors that you cite are doing nothing to fix the problem--we need full auditory and regulatory power of FRS back in the hands of Congress.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

Well, someone has to create jobs. The Republicans certainly aren't doing anything about it. Is this week 6 or 7 of the new Congress? Where are the jobs bills that Harry Reid was holding up?

So, now we've gone from the Fed hasn't been audited to the audits aren't good enough to let's put the Congress in day-to-day control of the Federal Reserve.

Well, at least you're being honest. This isn't about audits or good practices, this isn't about Congressional oversight, it's about Congressional CONTROL.

And that's exactly what Senator Warren warned about in the quote from the OP.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Let's not pretend that the recent actions of the Fed are out of the scope of it's original creation, however:

[T]he Federal Reserve System was created by the Federal Reserve Act of December 23, 1913, establishing a new central bank intended to serve as a formal "lender of last resort" to banks in times of liquidity crisis—panics where depositors tried to withdraw their money faster than a normal fractional-reserve-based bank could pay it out.

Source

I am against using the People's money (illusory though that may be) to bail out big banks, but that is what the Federal Reserve system was created to do.

Hmmm...I'm going to have to call you out on that interpretation. It specifically states that it is a "lender of last resort" for things like the scene in "It's A Wonderful Life," when a bank doesn't have enough liquid cash to cover a massive inundation of customer withdrawals. Your Wikipedia quote certainly does NOT imply that it is there to bail out banks who have pissed away their assets due to poor decisions on either their part or terrible mandates and regulations placed on them by the federal government.

Do I think we should give Senators or Representatives who have proven that their only motivations are their own political careers even MORE CONTROL over our national economy, and that of the world because of our influence?

Does this enumerated power given to congress by the Constitution of the United States of America mean nothing?

The Congress shall have the power ... to coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures

Congress shall have the control over our nation's money, not a semi-government entity like the federal reserve that undergoes spotty audits at best. I'm glad to see that you think the creation of the FRS was a mistake, but you can't use your disdain for Congress as a means to argue against them regaining the power that the constitution allots them. IMO, people like Sen. Paul and Congressman Massie are the types of people that should be in congress (Massie more than Paul, but Paul is at least trying to do some good things).

The FRS already functions on political biases and back-room dealings and secretive loans--at least in Congress, we could vote out the people doing this crap.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: SlapMonkey
Well, someone has to create jobs. The Republicans certainly aren't doing anything about it. Is this week 6 or 7 of the new Congress? Where are the jobs bills that Harry Reid was holding up?

The federal government doesn't create jobs...they can make it easier or harder for the private economy to get moving again (harder has been the norm for the past half-decade), but they don't create the jobs. But if you're being completely honest, you know Obama would veto everything sent up to him by Republicans anyhow, even if it would ease restrictions on private businesses enough to create a million jobs in a weak--there's too big of an ideological disconnect between parties right now concerning economic theory to really get anything done (which, honestly, is better for the country right now...we need stability, even if the stability in causing a slower-than-necessary economic recovery).

BTW, I'm not pretending that I have all the answers as to how this recovery could have been better, I'm just smart enough to know when I'm watching something swim as hard as it can against the current when its destination lies downstream.

So, now we've gone from the Fed hasn't been audited to the audits aren't good enough to let's put the Congress in day-to-day control of the Federal Reserve.


Well, at least you're being honest. This isn't about audits or good practices, this isn't about Congressional oversight, it's about Congressional CONTROL.

First, I'm always honest--maybe not correct all the time, but honest.

This is about the constitutional control that they were given when our consitution was ratified; it is about them regaining the control that they should have never given up--and given up against the edict of the constitution, IMO.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

What other entity would have loaned those amounts to those banks? Name it.

Your interpretation is fine and I don't disagree with it personally. However, apparently, the Bush Administration, Ben Bernake and Henry Paulson did.

Nope, the Constitution means what it says, and I support it. Nothing in the Federal Reserve Act takes away from coining money, regulating the value of money both domestic and foreign, or fixing the values of weights and measures.

My disdain for Congress? Ah. You must be part of the 7-11% that thinks they're doing a good job? Whatever.

The audits (that we've all accepted now are already happening?) are what has been mandated in American law.

Let's back up for a minute: what created the Federal Reserve System in the first place? Would that be Congress?

What body has established every regulation, every control in place on the Federal Reserve system? Congress again.

To what body does the Federal Reserve Chairman make regular reports? Is it Congress?

You seem to be a believer in and supporter of Congress. I do not share your opinion. "Political biases and back-room dealings" are all that the Congress does, and as to the American public voting in or out, the last election was the LOWEST voter participation since WW2.

I'm not a fan of the Federal Reserve System, but I'm less of a fan of the Congress.

As usual in America, we have to choose our own poison, I guess.

a reply to: stosh64

Wouldn't you like the opportunity to run for office instead of just griping? But you and I can't, well, I can't, because I would have to sell my soul to finance it. We need to fix campaigning so that it does not take a billion dollars. Next, voters need to stop voting strictly party lines and delve into who they are voting for. For example, I am a democrat, but I would never have voted for that governor in Oregon because of his history. It starts with us, til WE demand better we gotta live with the crooks.