Fed Rejects Geithner Request for Study of Governance

Sept. 21 (Bloomberg) -- The Federal Reserve Board has rejected a request by U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner for a public review of the central bank’s structure and governance, three people familiar with the matter said.

www.bloomberg.com...

Since when has the Feds acquired the power to reject proposals of this nature? Doesn't that belong to the org. that created the Feds?

“It is not obvious at all why that is a Treasury responsibility or even appropriate why the Treasury would undertake that kind of study,” said Robert Eisenbeis, chief monetary economist at Cumberland Advisors Inc. in Vineland, New Jersey, and a former Atlanta Fed research director. “The Fed was created by Congress and it is not part of the executive branch.”

It appears that Obama admin. is missing a few tax dollars due to the high unemployment, and the Treasury is working round the clock to fix the problem. But the Fed failed to respond to the unwinding of the financial system that led to its near meltdown, so the White House got concerned about the Fed doing its duties properly and is keen to find out why. But the word from the People has been heard: Don't worry about that, Barrack. We, the mighty taxpayers, are always ready to bail out anyone and anywhere in the free world. Long live capitalism!

Interesting this is. Especially in light of the Audit threats. An audit would reveal this same information and a whole lot more.

Interesting as well that the Fed keeps doing this "you don't need to know" thing. What, do they think they are some sort of Jedi?

HA HA, They should have just pulled a Dick Cheney and just been blunt "Go Frak yourself!".



Seriously, their statement said ALL that we need to know about who is in "control" of our money!

Originally posted by stander

Sept. 21 (Bloomberg) -- The Federal Reserve Board has rejected a request by U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner for a public review of the central bank’s structure and governance, three people familiar with the matter said.

www.bloomberg.com...

Here is the funny part: Geithner asked for a PUBLIC review. That means a CONGRESSIONAL review. That also means Geithner must have missed out on the workings of US politics, coz Obama is no longer a senator, effective January, 2009 -- unless Obama has a difficulty to make the mental switch from the Legislative to the Executive Branch.

Geithner is a naive kid who believes in the largely defunct system of checks and balances -- maybe because he can balance his check book. But that's not what the Founding Fathers meant.

reply to post by stander


Actually, Geithner asked for a review to be led by the Fed itself, with "input" from Treasury and a "wide range of experts".

I do agree that the Fed's structure needs to be reviewed:

“Allowing local bankers to play a leading role in selecting reserve bank presidents is the most worrying aspect of the current system,” Lou Crandall, chief economist at Wrightson ICAP LLC, wrote to clients in July.

District bank presidents are nominated by committees made up of people whose institutions the nominees may have supervised.

“The conflicts of interest inherent in the current system are glaring,” Crandall said.

What I do not agree with is that the Fed itself OR Treasury be involved. Treasury, being a part of the Executive branch, has a conflict of interest and the Fed, , definitely has a conflict. Why do they keep putting the wolves over watching the sheep in doing these reviews? The only reason the Treasury wants to do this review is to clean up just enough of the Fed to make Congress more apt to pass legislation to make the Fed the lead regulator - which is absolutely the worst thing that could happen.

In short, they just don't want anyone snooping around their books..

They want to be technical in this case, the Treasury has no authority over the Fed, this is actually true..

Ron Pauls audit bill is an act of Congress, for the fed to ignore it if it were to pass, would be a breach of its Charter (which congress may revoke at anytime) .. timmy thus won't get to put in place a "review" team to stave off Pauls bill .. timmy's way of offering the lesser of two evils to the Fed. IMO this means the fed is comfortable enough that they own enough senior house members to put a stop to Pauls bill.

Originally posted by Rockpuck
In short, they just don't want anyone snooping around their books..

They want to be technical in this case, the Treasury has no authority over the Fed, this is actually true..

But the Fed has a great deal of influence on the Treasury where the "printing presses" are. When the People of the mighty Legislative Branch generously extended their 700 billion inches long emergency hand to the bankers who were choking on bonuses, they needed to ask the boss of the Executive Branch named Obama to do the Heimlich maneuver -- the US Government works that way. Since Geithner understands the world of government and private finances like no one else before and after, he advises Obama due his job assignment. All the pants dropping before the astonished world didn't have to take place if the Fed . . .

But the Fed is a part of the Fourth Branch of the US Government established by Marcus Goldman, Samuel Sachs, J.P. Morgan and other wizards of the money world. And that gives the true meaning to the words "conflict of interest."

[edit on 9/21/2009 by stander]

reply to post by stander


The only reason Obama had to be convinced is because of the Veto power. Checks and ballances demands the Legislative Branch cannot act alone, the Executive must approve.. of course, Congress could block the Veto. The Executive Branch actually tried to force the Legislature to pass the bill, to the point Democrats issued a formal warning to Obama: You don't control Congress.

The Crux of the issue at hand is Power.. the Executive Branch has extended its reach to historic levels, massive power consolidation. They have done this since Bush took office..

But just because the Fed influences the Treasury and owns the President, all orders must come from Congress except for one condition; the Supreme Court declares these shady dealing unconstitutional. But we all know they are bought and paid for. If Congress really wanted to, they could end the feds life with the passage of a bill.. but like the Courts and the President, they are debtors and thus serve another master.

All in all, Pauls bill will fail. Even if it passes, I am 100% positive Obama would veto it.

Originally posted by Rockpuck


All in all, Pauls bill will fail. Even if it passes, I am 100% positive Obama would veto it.

What is bothering Ron Paul's head should appear in the first paragraph of his bill. Felling lucky . . .

Madame Speaker,

I rise to introduce the Federal Reserve Transparency Act. Throughout its nearly 100-year history, the Federal Reserve has presided over the near-complete destruction of the United States dollar. Since 1913 the dollar has lost over 95% of its purchasing power, aided and abetted by the Federal Reserve’s loose monetary policy. How long will we as a Congress stand idly by while hard-working Americans see their savings eaten away by inflation? Only big-spending politicians and politically favored bankers benefit from inflation.

Ron Paul is a Congressman from Texas, the southern state. Rockpuck, how would you feel about the Feds if your ancestors accumulated a substantial wealth due to slave labor and then passed the wealth on its progeny without having the slightest idea that something called "the Feds" and its destructive power will evaporate 95% of the loot?

There are plenty of guys in Texas and other southern states who hate the Feds. Wouldn't you?

reply to post by stander


I don't really see what your trying to say...

Originally posted by Rockpuck
reply to post by stander

 

I don't really see what your trying to say...

Ron Paul's action is not motivated by what you expect from a member of the Congress. Paul wants transparency, but in the for-my-eyes-only style. He's just one of those . . .

In similar way. I don't see any logic in Obama vetoing the bill if it happens to pass. What makes you think so?

Obama asking Tim Geitner to do a "review of the fed" is laughable. Lets ask Dick Cheney to do a review of Halliburton to see where all its money has spread to.

Seriously. The Federal Reserve System raised and groomed Timmy. He knows exactly how it works and wants to preserve the status quo.

This request was just a token so that the administration looks like they care about the Fed. I bet nothing else will be said about this. Ever.

Only RP's bill will we hear about while it is vetoed.

reply to post by stander


....you are saying Paul is racially motivated by this bill?

And why do I think Obama will veto it? ... he's surrounded by ex Goldman Sachs.. they own him. Literally. They could show you the reciept..

Originally posted by Rockpuck
reply to post by stander

 

....you are saying Paul is racially motivated by this bill?

And why do I think Obama will veto it? ... he's surrounded by ex Goldman Sachs.. they own him. Literally. They could show you the reciept..

No, he's not racially motivated. That doesn't figure in any argument.

I kinda wish that the Paul's bill would pass to see where Obama really stands. Can you imagine if he would veto the bill? But I think Paul's love affair with 18 century solutions to the 21st century problems would definitely do the USA in. I hope that Madame Speaker is aware of that -- and handles it with care: I thought I put in in my drawer. Hmm . . . LOL

[edit on 9/22/2009 by stander]

reply to post by stander


I see your meaning.... but I seriously doubt Obama would let it pass.. I doubt senior Reps/Dems will even get it past committees and such..

But yes, its true, audit the Fed and the USA goes the way the USSR went. Much akin to a ponzie scheme being revealed, its vue is nothing overnight. I despise Globism and anything to do with Globalism.. the USA economy crashing would not bother me, as it really doesn't stand for anything. Can a business be wealthy if it buys more than it sells? Of course not, so how does it work for a country? It doesn't, its a ponzie scheme of investors: it needs to die. I think Paul understands..

Let me ask you this Stander:

If auditing our central bank would crash the economy of the entire World and every financial institution .... is it worth saving?

reply to post by stander


I have to apologize. When I saw you tying slave ownership from the south to Texas and then Ron Paul, I thought you had a racial angle here too. I think I know where you are going with this now.

Originally posted by Rockpuck
Let me ask you this Stander:

If auditing our central bank would crash the economy of the entire World and every financial institution .... is it worth saving?

I don't don't think that the auditing would crash the economy. The Feds are walking a tight rope and they don't want any interference. But they are not above anything, as the crises of September 2008 showed. They can shuffle cash around the way that it could rise eyebrows in many places, but when the dam broke open, they needed to take it to the Congress. They can't pull magically $700 billion out of the hat without someone finding out even though they lock the door all the time.

What makes some people think that the Americans should have a higher standard of living then those folks living in the Republic of Ghana? Are the Americans smarter in their way of going about life?
We find out when Ron Paul becomes the prez and takes it back to the roots.