Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke is back to combating a legitimate audit of the Fed by utilizing scare tactics. The rare newspaper article by the Fed chairman in the Washington Post is reported on by Reuters:

“These measures are very much out of step with the global consensus on the appropriate role of central banks, and they would seriously impair the prospects for economic and financial stability in the United States,” Bernanke wrote in a column posted on the Washington Post’s website.


http://www.auditthefed.com/government/audit-would-hurt-economic-prospects-bernanke/


Gotta love the scare tactics by one of the biggest traitors this country has ever known.

Yeah, anyone expect him to say "Yeah, I want the Fed audited."

I was waiting on this one eers lol.
Did you read his WaPo oped? What did you think?
I for one, and down the middle. The guy knows more about economics than both you and me combined, so his view does hold some weight. But, the FED does need to be reigned in somewhat.

ptown_trojans_1 wrote: I was waiting on this one eers lol.
Did you read his WaPo oped? What did you think?
I for one, and down the middle. The guy knows more about economics than both you and me combined, so his view does hold some weight. But, the FED does need to be reigned in somewhat.

I didn't get to see that piece who was it by and maybe I can find it?

That's the funny part about this bill though. It doesn't really reign in the Fed at all. It just an audit to see where they have lent money to around the world.

Bernanke knows that if Americans knew where billions of their dollars were going it would be the end of the Fed.

eersandbeers wrote:

ptown_trojans_1 wrote: I was waiting on this one eers lol.
Did you read his WaPo oped? What did you think?
I for one, and down the middle. The guy knows more about economics than both you and me combined, so his view does hold some weight. But, the FED does need to be reigned in somewhat.

I didn't get to see that piece who was it by and maybe I can find it?

That's the funny part about this bill though. It doesn't really reign in the Fed at all. It just an audit to see where they have lent money to around the world.

Bernanke knows that if Americans knew where billions of their dollars were going it would be the end of the Fed.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/27/AR2009112702322.html

Where the money goes is not the issue. The issue would be why and for what purpose? If the money was used for a solid economic purpose then fine.

Tough cookies for Bernanke!

This needs to be done and I hope it DOES end the fed. In turn it will end alot of other nefarious activities that are going on.

Dominoe effect NOW!

eersandbeers wrote: [the world.

Bernanke knows that if Americans knew where billions of their dollars were going it would be the end of the Fed.

Exactly. That is why the fed will stay opaque and shield the masses from how it all works.

ptown_trojans_1 wrote:Where the money goes is not the issue. The issue would be why and for what purpose? If the money was used for a solid economic purpose then fine.

Elaborate on "solid economic purpose."

So sunshine and responsibility on where the people's money is going is against the so-called "global consensus"? Sounds like an authoritarian system to me. If the Fed was spending the people's money wisely and helping the system, they wouldn't mind the audit.

eersandbeers wrote: Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke
These measures are very much out of step with the global consensus on the appropriate role of central banks, and they would seriously impair the prospects for economic and financial stability in the United States,” Bernanke wrote in a column posted on the Washington Post’s website.

I wonder if individual citizens or businesses can use this when the IRS demands an audit of their finances.

They probably for one don't want many people to find out how much aid we give certain countries in return they spend 2/3 of that money buying our military defense products.

An audit would satisfy checks and balances. Every government agency should be audited. It would really bring to light the wasteful spending. Warehouses full of office furniture that isn't even used but costs thousands of dollars. Add it all up and it is millions of wasted tax dollars.

Audits damage me.

Can i tell the IRS that i would rather they don't do it?

majorspark wrote:

eersandbeers wrote: Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke
These measures are very much out of step with the global consensus on the appropriate role of central banks, and they would seriously impair the prospects for economic and financial stability in the United States,” Bernanke wrote in a column posted on the Washington Post’s website.

I wonder if individual citizens or businesses can use this when the IRS demands an audit of their finances.

Technically, there are no laws that say we have to pay taxes. It is a sham system and they imprison people for not committing a crime.

eersandbeers wrote: Technically, there are no laws that say we have to pay taxes. It is a sham system and they imprison people for not committing a crime.

http://docs.law.gwu.edu/facweb/jsiegel/Personal/taxes/JustNoLaw.htm

CharlieHog wrote:

eersandbeers wrote: Technically, there are no laws that say we have to pay taxes. It is a sham system and they imprison people for not committing a crime.

http://docs.law.gwu.edu/facweb/jsiegel/Personal/taxes/JustNoLaw.htm

Sherry Jackson, former anti-fraud IRS agent sought to answer the following two questions:

(1) Show how to file a federal income tax return without waving one's 5th amendment rights and (2) identify the section of the Internal Revenue Code that makes a typical worker liable to pay an income tax.


She was unable to do so.

http://sherrypeeljackson.com/

I agree with Bernanke that auditing the fed would damage the US, but only short term. Long term, it would provide credibility to the country for having open and honest monetary policy and make it more attractive for foreign investment. However, the system is working right now with the smoke and mirrors, so why change? There's no incentive, and you can take that to the bank.

sleeper wrote: I agree with Bernanke that auditing the fed would damage the US, but only short term. Long term, it would provide credibility to the country for having open and honest monetary policy and make it more attractive for foreign investment. However, the system is working right now with the smoke and mirrors, so why change? There's no incentive, and you can take that to the bank.

+1

Because when we ruin all our creditability and need foreign investment the most, there won't be any because we've trashed our currency and devalued trillions of dollar of foreign investment.

This system is robbing the poor and middle class especially of their money through the inflation tax and is shameful.

eersandbeers wrote: Technically, there are no laws that say we have to pay taxes. It is a sham system and they imprison people for not committing a crime.

The IRS is a federal regulatory agency and as such it's policies/mandates/whathaveyou are found in the Code of Federal Regulations.

It is law.

Fun trivia: My macroeconomics book for this semester was written by Bernanke.

I Wear Pants wrote:

eersandbeers wrote: Technically, there are no laws that say we have to pay taxes. It is a sham system and they imprison people for not committing a crime.

The IRS is a federal regulatory agency and as such it's policies/mandates/whathaveyou are found in the Code of Federal Regulations.

It is law.

Fun trivia: My macroeconomics book for this semester was written by Bernanke.

That is false. A federal regulatory agency cannot make laws. Only Congress has the ability to make laws.

As I said, read the above link from a former IRS fraud investigator. She has been unable to find a single code that shows how the income tax is mandated or legal.

A federal regulatory agency promulgates binding regulations. If by "law" you mean "statute," then sure, they can't. If by "law" you mean, "something you have to follow or you get in trouble," then they absolutely can.

The CFR is as binding on you as the US Code. This is pretty common sense.

fan_from_texas wrote: A federal regulatory agency promulgates binding regulations. If by "law" you mean "statute," then sure, they can't. If by "law" you mean, "something you have to follow or you get in trouble," then they absolutely can.

The CFR is as binding on you as the US Code. This is pretty common sense.

Can you point out which part of the Constitution grants the federal government the power to create agencies who develop de facto laws? I didn't see that part in there, but I'm not completely familiar with this.

eersandbeers wrote: Can you point out which part of the Constitution grants the federal government the power to create agencies who develop de facto laws? I didn't see that part in there, but I'm not completely familiar with this.

I'm not sure the FH is the best place for a dissertation on constitutional law, but generally, Article I permits Congress to delegate its power in clear ways. My recollection is that this first became an issue when Congress wanted to establish postal routes; it was infeasible for Congress to meet and amend the law each time a new house was built to establish the new proper route. That's why we have the idea of administrative agencies carrying out delegated powers--to deal with the ever-changing minutiae that isn't a proper use of congressional time and attention.

You can argue that Congress shouldn't delegate so much authority to agencies (and I think there's some truth to that), but I don't think there's much of a constitutional argument that Congress can't delegate som eportion of its authority to agencies.

fan_from_texas wrote:

eersandbeers wrote: Can you point out which part of the Constitution grants the federal government the power to create agencies who develop de facto laws? I didn't see that part in there, but I'm not completely familiar with this.

I'm not sure the FH is the best place for a dissertation on constitutional law, but generally, Article I permits Congress to delegate its power in clear ways. My recollection is that this first became an issue when Congress wanted to establish postal routes; it was infeasible for Congress to meet and amend the law each time a new house was built to establish the new proper route. That's why we have the idea of administrative agencies carrying out delegated powers--to deal with the ever-changing minutiae that isn't a proper use of congressional time and attention.

You can argue that Congress shouldn't delegate so much authority to agencies (and I think there's some truth to that), but I don't think there's much of a constitutional argument that Congress can't delegate som eportion of its authority to agencies.

I'd be interested in reading about some SCOTUS cases on this issue.

I don't see how federal regulatory agencies have any Constitutional authority whatsoever to make any type of law or regulation.