E
eersandbeers
Posts: 1,071
Dec 1, 2009 8:14pm
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.
“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.
tk421
Posts: 8,500
Dec 1, 2009 8:25pm
Yeah, anyone expect him to say "Yeah, I want the Fed audited."
ptown_trojans_1
Posts: 7,632
Dec 1, 2009 8:30pm
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.
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.
E
eersandbeers
Posts: 1,071
Dec 1, 2009 8:31pm
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.
ptown_trojans_1
Posts: 7,632
Dec 1, 2009 8:46pm
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/27/AR2009112702322.htmleersandbeers 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.
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.
CenterBHSFan
Posts: 6,115
Dec 1, 2009 9:00pm
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!
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!
F
Footwedge
Posts: 9,265
Dec 2, 2009 1:25am
Exactly. That is why the fed will stay opaque and shield the masses from how it all works.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.
believer
Posts: 8,153
Dec 2, 2009 4:15am
Elaborate on "solid economic purpose."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.
B
bman618
Posts: 151
Dec 2, 2009 12:48pm
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.
majorspark
Posts: 5,122
Dec 2, 2009 12:58pm
I wonder if individual citizens or businesses can use this when the IRS demands an audit of their finances.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.
J
JTizzle
Posts: 366
Dec 2, 2009 11:22pm
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.
dwccrew
Posts: 7,817
Dec 3, 2009 2:06am
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.
C
cbus4life
Posts: 2,849
Dec 3, 2009 9:53am
Audits damage me.
Can i tell the IRS that i would rather they don't do it?
Can i tell the IRS that i would rather they don't do it?
E
eersandbeers
Posts: 1,071
Dec 3, 2009 5:39pm
majorspark wrote:I wonder if individual citizens or businesses can use this when the IRS demands an audit of their finances.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.
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.
C
CharlieHog
Posts: 102
Dec 4, 2009 9:13am
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
E
eersandbeers
Posts: 1,071
Dec 4, 2009 7:37pm
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/
sleeper
Posts: 27,879
Dec 6, 2009 6:41am
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.
dwccrew
Posts: 7,817
Dec 7, 2009 11:38am
+1sleeper 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.
B
bman618
Posts: 151
Dec 7, 2009 12:20pm
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.
This system is robbing the poor and middle class especially of their money through the inflation tax and is shameful.
I
I Wear Pants
Posts: 16,223
Dec 7, 2009 5:14pm
The IRS is a federal regulatory agency and as such it's policies/mandates/whathaveyou are found in the Code of Federal Regulations.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.
It is law.
Fun trivia: My macroeconomics book for this semester was written by Bernanke.
E
eersandbeers
Posts: 1,071
Dec 8, 2009 10:11pm
That is false. A federal regulatory agency cannot make laws. Only Congress has the ability to make laws.I Wear Pants wrote:The IRS is a federal regulatory agency and as such it's policies/mandates/whathaveyou are found in the Code of Federal Regulations.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.
It is law.
Fun trivia: My macroeconomics book for this semester was written by Bernanke.
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.
F
fan_from_texas
Posts: 2,693
Dec 8, 2009 11:12pm
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.
The CFR is as binding on you as the US Code. This is pretty common sense.
E
eersandbeers
Posts: 1,071
Dec 9, 2009 9:43am
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.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.
F
fan_from_texas
Posts: 2,693
Dec 9, 2009 1:14pm
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.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.
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.
E
eersandbeers
Posts: 1,071
Dec 9, 2009 9:52pm
I'd be interested in reading about some SCOTUS cases on this issue.fan_from_texas wrote: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.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.
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 don't see how federal regulatory agencies have any Constitutional authority whatsoever to make any type of law or regulation.