Ron Paul 2012!!!

passed with 2/3

but dirtbag harry vows to thwaart the will of the people.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...or-house-vote/2012/07/24/gJQAJypU7W_blog.html

A bipartisan bill requiring broader operational audits of the U.S. Federal Reserve passed the House on Wednesday by a broad bipartisan margin.

The bill passed 327 to 98; all but one Republican and 89 Democrats voted yes. The bill will be considered under the suspension of normal House rules, meaning it required at least a two-thirds majority to pass.

The measure would permit government auditors to conduct deeper audits of the Fed’s monetary policy operations. Despite opposition from some Democrats and the Federal Reserve, the bill has at least 274 cosponsors, including more than three dozen Democrats facing difficult reelection campaigns.

Wednesday’s vote was a coup for its chief sponsor, Rep. Ron Paul (R-Tex.), a longtime nemesis of the Fed, which he has called “an enormously destructive and unaccountable force in both the U.S. economy and the greater global economy.”

Lawmakers agreed to expanded audits of the Federal Reserve during negotiations over a financial regulatory reform measure in 2010. The agreement granted the Government Accountability Office broad authority to examine the operations of the Fed and to require additional disclosures from the central bank, including examinations of the Fed’s discount window and its purchases and sales of government securities.

At the time, Democrats and Republicans alike hailed the agreement as an effort to make the nation’s monetary policymaker a more transparent organization. But in years since, Paul and members of both parties said Congress deserves an opportunity to conduct deeper investigations of the Fed to better understand policy decisions.

House Democratic leaders oppose the bill, but said they don’t plan to whip the vote — or force most members to vote the party line. House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) said Tuesday that the measure “increases the likelihood that the Fed will make decisions based on political rather than economic considerations, and that is not a recipe for sound monetary policy.”

For his part, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke didn’t express explicit opposition to the bill, but said last week that the agency “needs to be transparent and it needs to be accountable.”

“We are quite transparent and accountable on monetary policy,” Bernanke told the House Financial Services Committee last week. “Besides our statement, besides our testimonies, we issue minutes after three weeks. We have quarterly projections, I give a press conference four times a year, there’s quite a bit of information provided to help Congress evaluate monetary policy as well as the public.”

Even with broad bipartisan support in the House, aides said the bill is unlikely to be considered in the Democratic-controlled Senate.

Click to expand...

e-mail reid let him know he's not gonna pull a fast one.

http://www.examiner.com/article/har...-never-be-voted-on-the-senate?cid=db_articles

Email: http://www.reid.senate.gov/contact/index.cfm

Carson City
600 East William Street, #304
Carson City, NV 89701
Phone: 775-882-7343 / Fax: 775-883-1980

Las Vegas
Lloyd D. George Building
333 Las Vegas Boulevard South, Suite 8016
Las Vegas, NV 89101
Phone: 702-388-5020 / Fax: 702-388-5030

Reno
Bruce R. Thompson Courthouse and Federal Building
400 South Virginia Street, Suite 902
Reno, NV 89501
Phone: 775-686-5750 / Fax: 775-686-5757

Rural Nevada
If you live in Esmeralda, Lincoln, or Nye Counties:
Phone: 702-388-5020 / Fax: 702-388-5030
If you live in Churchill, Douglas, Elko, Eureka, Humboldt, Lander, Lyon, Mineral, Pershing, Storey or White Pine County:
Phone: 775-686-5750 / Fax: 775-686-5757

Washington
522 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
Phone: 202-224-3542 / Fax: 202-224-7327
Toll Free for Nevadans: 1-866-SEN-REID (736-7343) – Restricted to calls originating from area codes 775 and 702

Reid Newsroom
Sen. Reid’s Nevada Press Office 202-224-9521 (for inquiries from Nevada media)
Senate Democratic Policy and Communications Center 202-224-2939

he says we may lose the presidencey,i think he's being a realist but hey look at what we are doing now,nothing is set in stone and we are winning the war.this is awsome.

http://dougwead.wordpress.com/

" Ron Paul’s Big Win!"


(Formerly posted as Ron Paul’s last stand! Sorry, I decided to change the title.)

Today, Ron Paul, and you and I, are on the verge of a great triumph, a victory that would have been unthinkable only four years ago. No, I am not talking about the GOP presidential nomination, I am talking about the bill before congress to audit the Federal Reserve. There is widespread support in congress. It is likely to pass. Now, more than ever, we should be sticking together. This is Dr. Paul’s moment. This is our moment. Stay positive. Stay tough. Let’s finish this.

This latest bill to audit the Fed won’t mean an end to corruption. It won’t mean that “insiders” who cheat the system and have become rich off our labors will not find another way to get easy money. It won’t mean that it will make it through the Senate, where many opponents lurk, and where the corporate porkers will enlist the media to make a stand. But it does mean that the American people, thanks to Ron Paul, and many of you, are finally, fully awake to the theft and injustice of a few. The power elitists of the left and the right have been stripped bare, their robes of self-righteous and phony altruism pulled away for all to see their naked ambition and cruel greed. They have helped employ the largest transfer of wealth from the poor and middle class to the rich in all of American history. They have made a mockery of the U.S. Constitution.

Now, more than ever, those who have supported Ron Paul and the Liberty Movement should stick by him and pressure the House and then the Senate to finish this task. The crooks are on the run. Incredibly, with all of their advantages, with the national media in their pocket, they are losing this war of public opinion. 80% of the nation now wants to see a legitimate audit of the Federal Reserve. This was Ron Paul’s doing. This was the work of the Campaign for Liberty and hundreds of thousands of Americans like you. It is wonderful to see.

And yet, despite our advances the forums are still crawling with accusation and recriminations about the Ron Paul campaign. Some are in denial or anger over events. Some are making accusations of betrayal.

Was this campaign perfect? No. But I have been part of seven presidential campaigns and this was one of the best I have ever seen. There is no such thing as a perfect campaign, even winning campaigns.

Compare it to the campaign of GOP nominee Mitt Romney, a campaign that couldn’t even organize the delegates in his own home state of Massachusetts and whose national spokesperson regularly misspeaks. And who manages to offend powerful allies who only want to help, like Rupert Murdoch.

Or compare it to the Rick Santorum campaign, who couldn’t field a full delegate slate in his own state of Pennsylvania and who dropped out when he was leading in some polls.

Or compare it to the Newt Gingrich campaign, who wasn’t even on the ballot in his home state of Virginia. For all the criticism they have taken, Jesse Benton, John Tate and the campaign staff have run a very effective campaign against an entrenched system who owned the airwaves. In state after state the campaign exceeded all expectations and Dr. Paul actually won four states. In my opinion, had the process happened naturally, without manipulation, he would have easily won 1,000 delegates and alternates and won eleven states. Ron Paul supporters succeeded in taking over no less than three state Republican parties and scored hundred of victories in county and district GOP leadership.

I find it highly ironic that critics who only a year ago had no conception of a “delegate strategy” at the precinct level, now second guess the execution, legally or procedurally, of how it was done in one state or another. Don’t you realize it was Jesse Benton and John Tate who secretly laid that strategy out a year and a half ago? And now you call them traitors because you disagree over some part of a strategy that they, themselves, dreamed up and executed?

Remember Iowa? We were doing everything we could to win Iowa and came within one week of doing it. We spent every dime we had on it and almost pulled it off. We peaked in the polls only seven days too soon and the media pounced. Do you remember that week? Only days to go and we were actually leading in the polls for the Iowa Caucus and the media was frantic.

Well, from the very beginning, when Ron Paul HQ was opened, when Jesse and John laid out the strategy, they talked about Iowa and NH and the sequential power of winning the early contests but then they also talked about the backup plan, the delegate strategy, how we would be an insurgent army within the GOP at the precinct level. This was their idea, their plan, in the first place.

Some are attacking Senator Rand Paul, who has done more for our cause in the last year than any other Senator has done in a career.

Some are critical of our legal team. One ad hoc field organization of lawyers has said, “We are taking over the campaign.” But anyone who knows anything about law knows that we cannot be making headlines by announcing what we are doing. What I can say is this, the campaign has quietly but effectively taken action in Massachusetts, Louisiana, Oregon and other states where there were clear violation of rules and our people were cheated or hurt.

The campaign has not taken action in places where, regardless of how we may have been treated, we were going to lose anyway. And there are reasons for this. We also are not taking action in states where we controlled the process. If we lost in those states it was our own fault. The campaign has not wasted valuable financial or staff resources on meaningless lawsuits that have no basis in law and are destined to fail.

Some of the criticism coming from the field is legitimate. None of us are perfect. And we are learning from our mistakes. Others are only seeking attention and money, selling books and promoting websites. By attacking Dr. Paul or his campaign they know they will get more viewers. I don’t begrudge them that and I certainly cherish their opinions and ideas and warnings. They have earned a following, and I, too, like to hear what they have to say and I am learning from them. But there is a time and place for us to fight it out and a time and place for us to stick together.

We have only another few weeks until the Republican National Convention, and then a few months left in Dr. Paul’s 22 year career in congress. In those days and weeks the battle to audit the FED will be in full force. Can we stick together till then? We have all worked hard for Dr. Paul and the cause of liberty. Can we be loyal for a few more weeks, months, YEARS?

No one, especially Dr. Paul, would ask for you to blindly trust him, or any other man, but hasn’t he earned enough trust by his example to stick with him, and stick together, for a little longer?

Can we follow him to Tampa and hear what he has to say? And let him play the cards we have given him? And help him in the remaining months of his career in the U. S. Congress to walk this audit the Fed bill through the den of thieves?

Have we become so used to losing that we are paralyzed by the chance of a win? Unable to accept it? Like a jinxed football team who cannot believe we are actually leading in something and so we are still trying to find a way in the last minutes to lose the game?

The Audit the Fed is a real victory, a surprise victory that has been four years in the making and it is because of the leadership of Dr. Paul, the Campaign for Liberty and the thousands of activists around the country. And it is suddenly, amazingly, upon us at the end of a losing campaign for the presidency. Keep in mind, even if Ron Paul had won the presidency, this is one of the things he would have wanted to do and now it is happening without the White House.

We must stay the course, and get this done. And if we win in the House today, we must make the Senate feel our heat in the coming days. And we must count our blessings that Ron Paul may have lost the election but he has won the argument. And America and the world will never be the same.

dagnabit said:

passed with 2/3

but dirtbag harry vows to thwaart the will of the people.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...or-house-vote/2012/07/24/gJQAJypU7W_blog.html

Click to expand...

I think Ben mentioned to Ron that politicizing economics isn't as economical.

Why would anyone not want to audit?

Politicization would be fighting the rational corse for political reasons.


What good reason is there not to audit the fed?

dagnabit said:

Why would anyone not want to audit?

Politicization would be fighting the rational corse for political reasons.


What good reason is there not to audit the fed?

Click to expand...

I'm not a banker but I know banks operate on trust and undermining that trust might not be the most efficient use of Congress' time. I know Paul's on the banking committee and he's a fan of Austrian economics enough to delve into that sort of thing more than I.

That said, nobody practices Austrian economics as policy. Paul's arguably duplicitous nature makes more antagonism than proactive participation, i.e. his end-the-fed audit-the-fed paradox.

IMO, proactive participation fosters the kind of leadership that commands others. IMO the old adage that 'one may command respect but they can't demand it' isn't canard.

Paul's like the wild grain in hardwood that prompts the cabinetmaker to pick up another board. That's not obfuscation, it's metaphor or analogy.

Pointing the finger is belligerent theatrics, not to mention it isn't particularly apropos in governance. I realize Ron's ideologically opposed to the fed's mandate. But making it personal with Bernanke is like the Marine general who hated FDR for fighting Hitler (only after Hitler declared war) and Douglas MacArthur's flip-off of Truman. Their world view is everybody should think like they do and that's not democracy.

"It's not important I win, it's important you lose" - That's poster recalcitrance. I know Paul got mad enough at Bonzo to quit the GOP in '88. That said, I think he's down with Stockton's starve-the-beast.

Just one stoner opinion, not intended to offend. I hope the folks doing the inquiring aren't the folks giving anonyrep. That's just wrong.

So no good reason other than "banks run on trust"

It really should not take an act of congress to audit the managing firm of our whole economy...

DiscoBiscuit said:

I'm not a banker but I know banks operate on trust and undermining that trust might not be the most efficient use of Congress' time.

Click to expand...

They do operate on trust or they did operate on trust rather. That trust has been lost (as evidence of this bill passing).

Trust in the once omniscient and omnipotent FED has been lost. The emperor wears no clothes.

Trust in the corrupt and crumbling financial system has been lost.

Trust in our corrupt and crumbling political system has been lost.

There is no more trust to undermine.

I lost trust in commercial banks. We took down the firewall but left regulatory structures in place on both sides. Then we tore down those regulatory structures. Dodd Frank alone could not repair the wrecked regulatory structure so it tried to put back the firewall. That part, along with other Volker intent was lobbied out of implementation.

I understand you guys are ideologically opposed to the fed but they're following their predecessors mandate.

What we have now is commercial banks flouting the responsibility of short term lending to each other. After the Lehman and AIG debacles, nobody could trust anybody to pay em back. So they all stopped lending.

Ben's mandated as lender of last resort. He's only in this situation because everything broke in the private sector when Bush gutted our regulatory structures (so we wouldn't have another mass exodus of banksters going to prison.)

So we have impasse. We don't want the regulatory structure who's virtual demise culminated in commercial banks not trusting each other enough to do short term interbank loans. They may have stopped lending but the need for interbank loans never went away.

Enter Fedman, the lender of last resort. We're just used to decades of a libertarian Fed chief doing nothing while Rome burned. Then he retired. Hank Paulsen, another libertarian and his moral hazard dilemma over arch rival Lehman Brothers gave us the single worst loss in Dow history. Didn't help that Dick Fuld didn't exercise his advice to sell himself to another bank. Hank could have forced Fuld's hand but he wanted a bonfire to generate assurance. Instead he got chaos and like Greenspan, his own, lifelong foundations of ideology were shaken to the core.

I'm all for a restrained fed, moral hazard implementation and ideals like the market dictates supply and demand yada yada. That said, I'm not for any of it in a deregulated morass because we get 180* results.

none of that anti clinton diatribe answers the simple question...
why would we not want an audit of the fed?


*clinton signed it so i see it as an anti clinton diatribe. i know you say he was afraid of vetoing it for some silly reason but the truth is he threatened to do so if certain amendments to the CRA(which directly led to the subprime meltdown)were not added to GLB

dagnabit said:

none of that anti clinton diatribe answers the simple question...

Click to expand...

It's not anti-Clinton. Here's your clue:

That said, I'm not for any of it in a deregulated morass because we get 180* results.

Click to expand...

Besides, you failed to set parameters that would fit in your watch pocket.

why would we not want an audit of the fed?

Click to expand...

I listen to bankers but that doesn't make me one. You're a politicized canard automaton who sees himself as defender of antagonism if nothing else. It's not enough to share thoughts, they have to be beaten with your OCD club.

That I won't make context nuggetized for your scrutiny is no indication auditing is up or down. Doesn't etch any marks your fuselage.

*clinton signed it so i see it as an anti clinton diatribe.

Click to expand...

You're right. Clinton signed it. Clinton is responsible. aspect to grasp - nobody's refuting it.

i know you say he was afraid of vetoing it for some silly reason but the truth is he threatened to do so if certain amendments to the CRA(which directly led to the subprime meltdown)were not added to GLB

Click to expand...

There's no media accounts that back that baloney other than ad-sales bullshit that defends industrialized fraud. It seeks to blame government at every angle, takes no blame for itself and makes bank slinging it.

As long as you stay more focused on who to blame vs including what actually happened/happens you are what Bonzo envisioned when he waxed funding for the public schools civics initiate that taught kids civics in grade school. Reagan didn't want folks knowing the process any deeper than the first " ". If you're old enough to have taken civics in public school, you scuttled it for Rush Limbaugh.

DiscoBiscuit said:

I listen to bankers but that doesn't make me one. You're a politicized canard automaton who sees himself as defender of antagonism if nothing else. It's not enough to share thoughts, they have to be beaten with your OCD club.

Click to expand...

PROjection??

Lol, you must live in a mirror less box

Typing 3-syllable words is no demonstration you understand them.

DiscoBiscuit said:

Cops actually liked Clinton. He gave em jobs by the tens of thousands and enacted the assault-weapons ban that finished his congressional majority. (Cops don't likey assault weapons.)

Fickle electorate had just polled 78% in favor of bans on assault weapons and cop-killer bullets. Giving this electorate what they want ain't a typical exercise in reason and logic.

Click to expand...

Assault weapons go through cop kevlar like butter, This is why it is vital to NOT ban assault weapons. When the government goes full nazi I want something that can shoot through a line of them.

Yes, I understand putting more cops on the street isn't a grower value. My comment regarded cops hating Clinton. Obviously polls would better reflect reality than my virtual whitewash. Absent political consideration, there's little reason to imagine copville hating Clinton. If there is, I'd be interested to hear but otherwise it sounds a bit superfluous.

DiscoBiscuit said:

Besides, you failed to set parameters that would fit in your watch pocket.

Click to expand...

babble babble coin purse....

DiscoBiscuit said:

I listen to bankers but that doesn't make me one. You're a politicized canard automaton who sees himself as defender of antagonism if nothing else. It's not enough to share thoughts, they have to be beaten with your OCD club.

Click to expand...

is this a conversation about you and me?
i understand when your arguments fail you must revert to the tried and true but it's been trite

DiscoBiscuit said:

That I won't make context nuggetized for your scrutiny is no indication auditing is up or down.

Click to expand...

i believe the term was waste of time and the implication was loss of trust in the entire banking system.
IMO if transparency would inspire loss of trust then transparency is the only course!
if the fed were not doing VERY untrustworthy things an audit would inspire more trust.

DiscoBiscuit said:

Doesn't etch any marks your fuselage.

Click to expand...

doesn't ding any pits in your tailfin
nonsense is fun but probably not appropriate for the discussion?

DiscoBiscuit said:

You're right. Clinton signed it. Clinton is responsible. aspect to grasp - nobody's refuting it.

Click to expand...

cool

DiscoBiscuit said:

There's no media accounts that back that baloney other than ad-sales bullshit that defends industrialized fraud.

Click to expand...

just little ol me
and wikki
and the documents from the time
and history
what part do you refute?
that bill issued a veto threat?
that he acquiesced only when his demands were met?
that his own democratic congressional counterparts chastised him for the demands?
that the changes to the CRA were one of the direct causes of TBTF banks and the subprime debacle?

DiscoBiscuit said:

It seeks to blame government at every angle, takes no blame for itself and makes bank slinging it.

Click to expand...

ohhh contrair mon frer
"it" seeks to understand.
the gov. is only partially culpable.

DiscoBiscuit said:

As long as you stay more focused on who to blame vs including what actually happened/happens you are what Bonzo envisioned when he waxed funding for the public schools civics initiate that taught kids civics in grade school. Reagan didn't want folks knowing the process any deeper than the first "View Image". If you're old enough to have taken civics in public school, you scuttled it for Rush Limbaugh.

Click to expand...

ohh the irony...

says the guy who never seeks to blame LMMFAO

come down sir we need that there space to nail up the next fool!

in the same sentence he plays the you are a blame seeker and blames one man for generational ignorance which he exhibits....


for someone who likes to say "we have historical data" you sure like to choose the bits you like

DiscoBiscuit said:

Typing 3-syllable words is no demonstration you understand them.

Click to expand...

lol your funny,

i certainly know what projection bias is, and i know your a pro at it.

You're a politicized canard automaton who sees himself as defender of antagonism if nothing else. It's not enough to share thoughts, they have to be beaten with your OCD club.

Click to expand...

sure would appear to be a fair description of you.

dagnabit said:

babble babble coin purse....

is this a conversation about you and me?
i understand when your arguments fail you must revert to the tried and true but it's been trite

Click to expand...

zero rebuke to bullshit

i believe the term was waste of time and the implication was loss of trust in the entire banking system.
IMO if transparency would inspire loss of trust then transparency is the only course!

Click to expand...

Some might imagine the only course to washing the table linen is to yank from asunder, rendering outcomes they never intended to break. Not to mention those recalcitrant enough to actually want dysfunction to proceed or get worse, i.e. what major malfunction did mommy perform?

if the fed were not doing VERY untrustworthy things an audit would inspire more trust.

Click to expand...

Bernanke is no less free to exercise his mandate than any other fed chief. Your argument cruxes at 1913 and everything beyond is treason.

doesn't ding any pits in your tailfin
nonsense is fun but probably not appropriate for the discussion?

cool

just little ol me
and wikki
and the documents from the time
and history
what part do you refute?
that bill issued a veto threat?
that he acquiesced only when his demands were met?
that his own democratic congressional counterparts chastised him for the demands?
that the changes to the CRA were one of the direct causes of TBTF banks and the subprime debacle?

ohhh contrair mon frer
"it" seeks to understand.
the gov. is only partially culpable.



ohh the irony...

says the guy who never seeks to blame LMMFAO

come down sir we need that there space to nail up the next fool!

in the same sentence he plays the you are a blame seeker and blames one man for generational ignorance which he exhibits....


for someone who likes to say "we have historical data" you sure like to choose the bits you like

Click to expand...

So much for rat-a-tat baloney. Go to the penny arcade and pick up the cork shooter. Your discourse is predicated on stopping, re contextualizing or completely derailing anything relevant.

It never occurs to you I'm not an opponent of audit. I'm an opponent of dumbness rendering worse outcomes. To you, that extrapolates to "no audit". To me it extrapolates to "no dumbasses" imagining they're any part of a solution other than their whacked means-to-an-end.

wouldn't dumbness be not asking the question because the answer may cause mistrust?


the outcome of willful ignorance will always be more detrimental than the outcome of transparency.


the new centerpiece for the fed lobby?