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

a reply to: SlapMonkey

Of course the Federal government can create jobs, as can the State and local governments.

That is merely a Republican talking point.

The last half decade? What did the previous decade bring us?

Deregulation, tax cuts and the worst financial crisis in 60 years. Perhaps that has had something to do with it?

No, I don't know what Obama would do, and neither do you. He's bent over backwards to work with the Republicans to the detriment of the country.

Easing restrictions on business and giving more money to the wealthy has never created jobs. Have billion dollar profits in the oil industry created jobs? No? Did Big Oil, at the same time it was posting those unearthly profits, cut jobs? Why yes it did.

I really can't believe you're promoting that supply-side garbage. It's a failed policy. GHW Bush was absolutely right when he called it voodoo.

But, your opinions, you're welcome to them. I disagree.

I'm a strong believer in the US Constitution. However, this is not 1791. The Framers had no conception of modern financial markets. They did, however, believe that their descendants would create laws in accordance with the Constitution to change with changing times. They even believed (in fact, counted on) their descendants adding to and taking away from the Constitution as changing times required it.

The Federal Reserve needs to be audited, and regulated, and overseen ... and it is and has been. Bernie Sanders says we need to seriously restructure the Fed, and perhaps we do.

We do NOT need the FED to become the economic plaything of the party in power in Congress, whether R or D.

Think about that.

No one knows who she is when I mention her name. What is her problem, is she just trying to show difference ? Im not a HUGE Rand fan but look at all the others, they make him look really good sitting in office, although he will get his dads treatment eventually, the media will say he doesn't have a chance, over and over and over, just like Fox news says "Hiliary machine" about 160 times a day and they aren't even supposed to be supporting a democrat.

originally posted by: Foderalover
No one knows who she is when I mention her name. What is her problem, is she just trying to show difference ? Im not a HUGE Rand fan but look at all the others, they make him look really good sitting in office, although he will get his dads treatment eventually, the media will say he doesn't have a chance, over and over and over, just like Fox news says "Hiliary machine" about 160 times a day and they aren't even supposed to be supporting a democrat.

LOL. Thank you for being one of the few folks on here to acknowledge that Fox News is the propaganda outlet for the Republican party.

I'm not sure what circles you travel in ... but, uh, whatever your opinion of her, Senator Elizabeth Warren is extremely well-known on the national scene.

I had a tiny bit of respect for the elder Paul when he truly stuck to a Libertarian agenda, but I've none for the son.

a reply to: Gryphon66
Right Rand really buys into the "Audit the Fed" because he wants to politicize it. From Today's Krugman:

Right now, the most obvious manifestation of money madness is Senator Rand Paul’s “Audit the Fed” campaign. Mr. Paul likes to warn that the Fed’s efforts to bolster the economy may lead to hyperinflation; he loves talking about the wheelbarrows of cash that people carted around in Weimar Germany. But he’s been saying that since 2009, and it keeps not happening. So now he has a new line: The Fed is an overleveraged bank, just as Lehman Brothers was, and could experience a disastrous collapse of confidence any day now.

This story is wrong on so many levels that reporters are having a hard time keeping up, but let’s simply note that the Fed’s “liabilities” consist of cash, and those who hold that cash have the option of converting it into, well, cash. No, the Fed can’t fall victim to a bank run. But is Mr. Paul being ostracized for his views? Not at all.

Money Makes Crazy

That is the problem I have with this. There has been a prediction of hyperinflation any day now and it has never materialized. Now we all make mistakes and our models can be wrong, but at some point we should fess up and admit that our model is wrong and adjust our world view.

a reply to: blargo

Just think of how much better the economy will be with the Senate Banking Committee in complete control!

Congress is a deliberative and legislative body (at best) not administrative.

I guess we'll see how it plays out. /shrug

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: SlapMonkey
What other entity would have loaned those amounts to those banks? Name it.

There is a very valid argument that they didn't need the bailout to begin with. If your default is that they needed it or the world would have imploded, I have to question your ideology on this subject.

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.

Prior to 1913, panics were common occurrences, as investors were unsure about the safety of their deposits. The Federal Reserve Act gave the 12 Federal Reserve banks the ability to print money in order to ensure economic stability. In addition to this task, the Fed had the power to adjust the discount rate/the fed funds rate and buy & sell U.S. treasuries.

source

Both italicised portions are direct contradictions to Congress' obligation to coin money and to regulate the value of our currency.

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

No, and speculating on what I think about Congress doesn't even matter in this discussion, but I at least have to ease your mind. Again, no, I do not think that Congress as a whole is really adding any value to our country at the moment.

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.

Again, your assumption about me is incorrect, I'm just calling it like it is. I don't care if Congress (of 102 years ago) created the FRS or not, the point is that our congressional body has repeatedly passed laws that go against the constitution in the past, and will continue to do so. Just because it was never ruled to be unconstitutional as a whole does not mean that certain aspects of it are not, such as allowing the FRS to print our nation's money, or to manipulate interest rates.

I've already established that the audits that you so proudly proclaim are in existence are woefully inadequate and incomplete in their allowed access to the FRS. But I think we've exhausted our stances on this issue, because we're stuck in a proverbial pickle, and nothing is going to come from entertaining this discussion any further.

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

Nah, there are other options, just most voters are too cowardly to research, consider, or vote them into office.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: SlapMonkey
No, I don't know what Obama would do, and neither do you. He's bent over backwards to work with the Republicans to the detriment of the country.

He has repeatedly trumpeted that he will veto Republican bills that he disagrees with. When he says something like that, I don't need to speculate, and neither do you. But be careful...your political ideology is starting to show. "He's bent over backwards..."

Statements like that ruin people's credibility in a heartbeat.

I'm a strong believer in the US Constitution. However, this is not 1791. The Framers had no conception of modern financial markets. They did, however, believe that their descendants would create laws in accordance with the Constitution to change with changing times. They even believed (in fact, counted on) their descendants adding to and taking away from the Constitution as changing times required it.

I don't disagree, but there are things that are technically constitutional, and there are things that are technically constitutional, but are against the spirit upon which this country was founded and the Constitution ratified. If you think that the FRS is within the spirit of the founding of this nation, so be it. Like you said...opinions...disagreements.

We do NOT need the FED to become the economic plaything of the party in power in Congress, whether R or D.

Think about that.

You could have stopped at "We do NOT need the FED," but you had to keep going...alright, now I'm done with this proverbial pickle.

Best Regards, and regardless of the disagreement, thanks for the discussion.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

I have made no comment about the banks' need. I stated/asked what entity would have the kind of funding to make those loans if not something on the order of the Fed. What is the "very valid argument" though, just out of interest? What does "ideology" of whatever sort have to do with anything in this topic? Does an ideology change facts?

Again, what created the Federal Reserve? Was it an Act of Congress? Are you making some claim that the only thing the Constitution allows would require coin stamping machinery in the Capitol itself? Absurd.

"Speculating on what you think" is out of order, and yet, you can tell me what I think, and predict what the President will do. /sigh

Yes, you're just "calling it like it is" which is another way of saying you think only your opinion is correct. The "congressional body" has repeatedly passed laws which are unconstitutional (in your opinion) yet, this is the body you want in complete control of our economy? There's a logical disconnect there, do you really not see it?

You've stated your opinion that legally-specified (again, by Congress) audits are "woefully inadequate." Are you a macro-economist? Have you ever managed a national economy? What is your area of expertise?

Or should we just take your word for it?

Do we trust Congress, or not? That's the basic question.

No reason to discuss? What a disappointing conclusion.

Fair enough. Best to you.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

Oh wait, you're still talking. What makes you the arbiter of credibility again?

My ideology is showing? Back at you, Mr. Kettle.

You made the statement earlier that Obama would veto anything that might help the economy, and now it's that he will veto anything he disagrees with? Okay, well, the latter is a fair statement of his job that he was voted in to perform (by a much larger percentage than your current Congress, was, by the by.).

As you're basically spinning whatever you need out of the conversation ... how do you think your "credibility" is faring?

My ideology is not in question. I am a registered Democrat, stated many times before. So what?

You're done with the conversation? Oookay, we'll see. Best to you as well.

Coinage Clause

a reply to: Gryphon66

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.

No, you are being deceptive. The only thing I said she was totally on board with as far as Big Pharma is concerned is "their vaccines". You edited that caveat of my statement out ("their vaccines") and tried to make it appear I said something in a totally different context.