Reply With QuoteYes, the best way to try to have a thoughtful discussion with someone is to start buy calling them immature.
That does not necessarily mean we must sacrifice transparency. There have been so many bills passed in Congress that are over a thousand pages long - bills that are not even read by most of Congress, yet somehow it gets greenlit through. This is a dangerous practice because many do not know what the bill is doing and the unintended consequences that might follow it.Originally Posted by Corpse Reign
This was one of the reasons why the last eight years under Bush was a travesty to the country. They claimed an emergency to fight Saddam, the Taliban and Al-Qaeda, and ballooned the budget far, far beyond its limits, with the money all going to questionable things. The Democrats thus far are doing the same practice, except they claim a domestic economic emergency to continue to balloon the budget even more beyond its limits. Government trying to claim emergency powers to address a crisis, but not letting go of that power.
It's a bill to amend the US Code of the manner of how the Government Accountability Office audits the Federal Reserve, not a Constitutional amendment.
DeMint and Bernie Sanders are not libertarians. HR1207 was cosponsored by the majority of Congress, crossing party lines.
While I agree Democrats did not specifically address the Federal Reserve, it still goes without saying that "open government" was the Democrats rallying cry in 2006 and again in 2008. So here we are, trying to keep the monetary policy side of government open and a little more honest - and the effort is being blocked.
It would be nice if our government wouldn't be so secretive about our money supply too.
Thanks Japhy. Yeah, I'm just looking for a frank and earnest discussion. Anyone who has peeked into various political threads know that often it can turn into one-liner zings and thinly veiled insults (and blatant ones), to the point where it gets a bit childish. I'm hoping to muffle that a bit, that's all.
Yes, the best way to try to have a thoughtful discussion with someone is to start buy calling them immature.
Nope, just said "set aside your immaturity." Immaturity being something someone possesses, but not a defining characteristic.
Back to the subject, what would transparency give us, as it relates The Fed?
DeMint explains it here.
Shelly Roche from BreakTheMatrix also explains more here.
The Federal Reserve board controls the money supply of the country; they are one of the most powerful organizations delegated by Congress - in fact, Obama just recently gave them more power in the wake of the government overtaking the automotive companies and certain financial firms; but yet the knowledge of their actions is still limited and their accountability is very slim.
By giving more transparency of the Federal Reserve, there is more potential to reign in on runaway money printing and lending - a practice which has systematically reduced buying power of the dollar.
I agree with you. But I do think there is a degree in the amount of that switch where the voters really do feel like they have been played for suckers.
I'm not attacking you, Brian, but it is funny to see you request for people to 'put your immaturity aside" and then call someone "Elmer Fudd".
Anyways, I am for more transparency. The the Republicans went about this the wrong way, they needed to get some Democrats on board before they offered the Bill. Politics is the art of the possible. If the issue is that important to them, they would have gotten democratic cosponsors and worked a compromise that would have ensured the amendment's passage. I suspect that that the rejection of this amendment has less to do with 'not wanting transparency', and more with, 'we hate Republicans'.
Gah! Work prohibits youtubery.
You mentioned that there were reasons behind the Dems and the president preventing the transparency, but what are those reasons? Not everyone in the White House is a moustache-twirling villain and I'm sure there's a reason for it. What's the opposition's stance? I'm no economic ace, but I've always seen that the Fed is reactionary and hasn't made any moves to be in cahoots with the banks. Doesn't the Fed just balance everything through the interest rates?
No excuses means no excuses pal.
There weren't really people who actually believed Obama and the democrats on this "transparency" thing to begin with, were there?
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks