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.

 

House panel passes bill to AUDIT THE FED

page: 1
29
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:
+10 more 
posted on Mar, 28 2017 @ 10:05 PM
link   
If there is anything to be said, Ron Paul should be the one saying it. This is a part of his legacy and after two "deaths by Senate," hopefully this third time's a charm.


A House panel on Tuesday approved legislation that would let a government watchdog audit the Federal Reserve’s monetary policy decisions, a move bitterly opposed by the central bank.

Source

After 30 minutes of debate, the House Committee passed the controversial measure. Different versions of the bill have passed the House more than once, but then get stalled by the lack of support from Democrats in the Senate and the now defunct Obama administration.

“Analysts” say there is a better chance of this becoming law, due to the fact that Republicans control both houses of Congress and the White House. Democrats have been firmly opposed to the bill.

This is what I don’t understand…


“This bill would open the floodgates to political interference in monetary-policy making,” said Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton, a Democrat from the District of Columbia.


Rep. Carolyn Maloney, a Democrat from New York, said the measure would lead to higher interest rates because it would undermine the market’s confidence in the independence of the central bank.


Republicans said the measure was needed to rein in the Fed.

The Republicans don’t even need a reason, lol. It's simply seen as the “right thing to do.” Regardless, your political affiliation should not stop you from wanting to keep independent banks from manipulating America's currency in secret and without impunity.


edit on 30-3-2017 by eisegesis because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 28 2017 @ 10:09 PM
link   
a reply to: eisegesis

This IMO is the very first step in the right direction. This is the right thing to do if the U.S. wants to keep any measure of sovereignty.

You left out a pretty good statement!

“It is ironic that the arsonists that caused the financial collapse are now being given credit...for putting out the fire. Almost every macroeconomist concedes in retrospect that [the Fed’s] extended period of easy money led to the financial crisis,” said Rep. Thomas Massie, a Republican from Kentucky.



posted on Mar, 28 2017 @ 10:17 PM
link   
a reply to: eisegesis

This is the biggest news that has come out since Trump was elected. The only news that could be bigger is an asset backed currency.

Thank you for posting it.
edit on 28-3-2017 by seasonal because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 28 2017 @ 10:18 PM
link   
I hope to heaven . . . but is there any chance this gets through senate? I'm pessimistic. Nice post though, thanks.


+2 more 
posted on Mar, 28 2017 @ 10:34 PM
link   
Anyone who votes against this must be compromised and surely a card-carrying member of The Swamp imo. I can't see it any other way.



posted on Mar, 28 2017 @ 10:35 PM
link   
a reply to: eisegesis

A very frightening thought:
Since the inception of The Federal Reserve, never yet an audit?



posted on Mar, 28 2017 @ 10:38 PM
link   
a reply to: burntheships

The Fed was supposed to keep the economy on an even level. No crashes and no bubbles.

They suck at their job.



posted on Mar, 28 2017 @ 10:39 PM
link   
a reply to: eisegesis

I'm not holding my breath but I would like this to go through. I just hope it's not a case of "be careful what you wish for".
edit on 28-3-2017 by Wide-Eyes because: Grammar



posted on Mar, 28 2017 @ 10:43 PM
link   
a reply to: eisegesis

i think it's a fine idea... but, whose to say that the fed doesn't have two sets of books. one that balances out and one that their bosses get to see.

i mean people been bitchin about auditing them since almost from the get go, be foolish to think that they would keep only one set of books that shows the true deal of what they have going.
edit on 28-3-2017 by hounddoghowlie because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 28 2017 @ 10:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: hounddoghowlie
a reply to: eisegesis

i think it's a fine idea... but, whose to say that the fed doesn't have two sets of books. one that balances out and one that their bosses get to see.

i mean people been bitchin about auditing them since almost from the get go, be foolish to think that they would keep only one set of books that shows the true deal of they have going.


How do we trust the auditor?

Maybe it will be Nunes.



posted on Mar, 28 2017 @ 10:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Wide-Eyes

It probably is that kind of wish, but maybe it's time to to tell the globalists and financial vampires to eff off no matter what the cost.



posted on Mar, 28 2017 @ 10:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: Wide-Eyes
a reply to: eisegesis

I'm not holding my breath but I would like this to go through. I just hope it's not a case of "be careful what you wish for".


Valid point. Ripping off a bandaid does hurt but it's for the better.



posted on Mar, 28 2017 @ 11:10 PM
link   
a reply to: eisegesis

Say what you want about the last cycle. But fed and campaign reform are what we need more than anything.



posted on Mar, 28 2017 @ 11:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: hounddoghowlie
a reply to: eisegesis

i think it's a fine idea... but, whose to say that the fed doesn't have two sets of books. one that balances out and one that their bosses get to see.

i mean people been bitchin about auditing them since almost from the get go, be foolish to think that they would keep only one set of books that shows the true deal of they have going.


How do we trust the auditor?

Maybe it will be Nunes.

Seriously?


Why should we have trusted a third party to audit the Clinton's server?

Anyway, you certainly have demonstrated one thing, the bill would open the floodgates to "political interference," by people who can't seem to trust others before given a reason not to. The Federal Reserve is already corrupt, so what does America have to lose?


edit on 28-3-2017 by eisegesis because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 28 2017 @ 11:13 PM
link   
So a watchdog who works for the government is going to audit the institution that creates the money that the government uses to pay that watchdog? How exactly do we expect this will work?

I agree 100% with the premise but I seriously doubt that if this passes anything will change. The Fed basically (if not literally) owns the government so why would the Fed allow the government to keep them in check? The Fed is untouchable by the mere fact that they own and create all the money that the government uses.



posted on Mar, 28 2017 @ 11:15 PM
link   
Get real. The Fed is one of the mainstays of globalist control over the US. They do whatever they like, and there will never be oversight of them.



posted on Mar, 28 2017 @ 11:18 PM
link   
a reply to: TruMcCarthy

I agree.

If there IS any "oversight", the overseer is in the pockets of the Fed anyways because that's where their paycheck comes from.



posted on Mar, 28 2017 @ 11:26 PM
link   
a reply to: eisegesis

It is 'out' of committee, but still needs to pass both the House and the Senate. Not a time for celebration yet - write your representatives in both houses.



posted on Mar, 28 2017 @ 11:38 PM
link   
a reply to: eisegesis

This will turn out like the obamacare repeal. Looking forward to the GOP, individual republicans, and MSM spinning cycle on this one . My favorite spinning cycle to date is watching republicans,Right leaning news, and individual republicans go full commie when they decided to manipulate the market and piss over capitalism and start the private bailouts. This could top that.

When the GOP elected cronies piss over this, hopefully people will wake up to the greatest lobbyist scam of all times: the GOP and the DNC elected officials.


Having said that I'm not 100% pessimistic as some crazy Sh1t has gone down this election cycle.

I hope that those B@stards get audited despite having over a decade of getting ready for this audit.

Who would have thought that crazy old doctor turned politician might not have been crazy after all




edit on 50331America/ChicagoTue, 28 Mar 2017 23:50:02 -0500000000p3142 by interupt42 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 28 2017 @ 11:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: eisegesis

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: hounddoghowlie
a reply to: eisegesis

i think it's a fine idea... but, whose to say that the fed doesn't have two sets of books. one that balances out and one that their bosses get to see.

i mean people been bitchin about auditing them since almost from the get go, be foolish to think that they would keep only one set of books that shows the true deal of they have going.


How do we trust the auditor?

Maybe it will be Nunes.

Seriously?


Why should we have trusted a third party to audit the Clinton's server?

Anyway, you certainly have demonstrated one thing, the bill would open the floodgates to "political interference," by people who can't seem to trust others before given a reason not to. The Federal Reserve is already corrupt, so what does America have to lose?



TRUST NO ONE



new topics

top topics



 
29
<<   2 >>

log in

join