| Political Talk |
| Return to Board • Menu • Bottom | Page 1 of 2  |
| Message |
 HR 459: Audit the Fed to be voted on in JulyPosted by joshnorris14 It'll likely pass through the house, but there is no way it makes it through the Senate. Still, an improvement over 2010's version of the bill on 5/27 at 12:57 amReply • Back to Top |
| Fill me in on what this is again? Reply • Back to Top |
| hmmm, wonder why it won't clear the senate, must be something good for the country Reply • Back to Top |
It'll put the pressure on the Senate at the least; good campaign material. what with the debt limit debate being front and center. Perfect storm a comin; Dems will be in a bind.  Reply • Back to Top |
Posted by jerep on 5/28 at 12:34 pm to SundayFunday quote: It's a bill to require a complete and actual (as opposed to a very limited and choreographed) audit of the Federal reserve. You can see the information on it here: LINK It's very short and to the point. Excluding the title and other fluff, the full text is: " (a) In General- Notwithstanding section 714 of title 31, United States Code, or any other provision of law, an audit of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and the Federal reserve banks under subsection (b) of such section 714 shall be completed before the end of 2012. (b) Report- (1) IN GENERAL- A report on the audit required under subsection (a) shall be submitted by the Comptroller General to the Congress before the end of the 90-day period beginning on the date on which such audit is completed and made available to the Speaker of the House, the majority and minority leaders of the House of Representatives, the majority and minority leaders of the Senate, the Chairman and Ranking Member of the committee and each subcommittee of jurisdiction in the House of Representatives and the Senate, and any other Member of Congress who requests it. (2) CONTENTS- The report under paragraph (1) shall include a detailed description of the findings and conclusion of the Comptroller General with respect to the audit that is the subject of the report, together with such recommendations for legislative or administrative action as the Comptroller General may determine to be appropriate. (c) Repeal of Certain Limitations- Subsection (b) of section 714 of title 31, United States Code, is amended by striking all after `in writing.'. (d) Technical and Conforming Amendment- Section 714 of title 31, United States Code, is amended by striking subsection (f). " All of the Republican memebers of the LA delegation (this includes S202 in the senate for which Vitter is an original co-sponsor) have signed on as co-sponsors. The only excpeption is Rep. John Fleming who is standing with Mary Landrieu. His office says he has to "study it". He co-sponsored the identical bill in the last congress when it was clear Pelosi and Barney Frank wouldn't allow it to come to a vote. Now he has been "studying" it for over a year. Either he is stupid, a liar, or incompetent, because if he has to study it now, then why did he co-sponsor the identical bill before? It had more co-sponsors last time and many refused to vote for it as an amendment to another bill. They are trying to play their constituents and say they support it, while doing the bidding of their big wall-street contributors. Last time around, Paul was able to get a one-time, real, but very limited partial audit done which revealed that the Fed had loaned out $16 trillion to large banks in the U.S. and elsewhere at the very time when there was a big debate in congress about the $800 billion for tarp. And yes, that is trillion, it is not a typo. LINK If you really want to know why the price of things keeps going up, you have to understand what the fed is doing. Edit: Edited 2nd link This post was edited on 5/28 at 12:40 pm Reply • Back to Top |
quote: Republican obstructionism  Reply • Back to Top |
quote: Trust me, you really do not want this to happen. Reply • Back to Top |
quote: Right....... I'm sure he'll take your word for it. Reply • Back to Top |
quote: :sigh: Nope. A fallacy started by people who don't understand banking transactions and who like to lie. Reply • Back to Top |
quote: :sigh: Nope. A fallacy started by people who don't understand banking transactions and who like to lie. Reply • Back to Top |
quote: I though you cleared this up months ago. I guess some didn't listen... Reply • Back to Top |
quote: An overnight LOAN is still a loan This post was edited on 5/28 at 8:34 pm Reply • Back to Top |
 Reply • Back to Top |
| I can't read that chart on my iPad. It's too small. Link? Reply • Back to Top |
quote: Simple sayings for simple minds...  Is a loan guarantee a loan? Is a currency swap line a loan? Is a commercial paper guarantee a loan? Do you know how to read a balance sheet? Reply • Back to Top |
quote: Yes. But on to the point, are you saying the GAO's audit is incorrect when it sums the total loans distributed by the Federal Reserve to banks from 2007-2010 to be 16 trillion dollars? Because that's what my picture says. "Total Loans: ... 16.112" Reply • Back to Top |
| Dressing up an assertion in pseudo-intellectualism's and a lot of jargon does not make it true, nor does it "clear" anything up. It's not that some don't listen, it's that many actively ignore such hollow tripe and the pathetic attempts at using a feigned superiority in place of a substantial argument backed up by at least some minimal level of logic and evidence. Reply • Back to Top |
| I understand why you refused to provide a link to that chart you posted. Here is the full report: LINK Your chart is not "term adjusted." (The chart you posted is on page 131.) The text introducing your chart explains how to read the chart (which I see you conveniently left out). If someone borrowed $10 million for 30 days, your chart counts it as $300 million in loans, which is not really how much was at risk for loss. It's like you borrowing $10,000 for a year and since a year has 365 days you would claim you borrowed $3,650,000, which you didn't. You owe $10,000, not $3.65 million. The next table in the report (page 132) adjusts for the term of the loans. It shows the total amount of loans extended was NOT $16 trillion but a little over $1 trillion. So both you and Bernie Sanders either don't know how to read, don't understand finance or are liars. Reply • Back to Top |
quote: You just got your wish. See my explanation in the above post. Josh tried to lie his way through......as usual. Reply • Back to Top |
quote: It's not an error but it is not reflective of how much was loaned out to borrowers and at risk over the timeframe of the audit's scope because the amounts are not term adjusted. To arrive at the risked amount, the audit adjusts the chart on the next page to a "term adjusted" amount. If you don't understand the concept....well, I'm not surprised. Reply • Back to Top • Refresh |
| Return to Board | ||
  Page 1 of 2  | ||
on 5/27 at 1:14 am to 
on 5/28 at 8:00 pm to 
on 5/28 at 8:06 pm to 
on 5/28 at 8:09 pm to