End The Fed

[Iriemon]

It also can't be stated enough here, due to it rarely being stated elsewhere, that the Bush administration sought VERY early in their FIRST TERM to put systems into place which would regulate Fannie, Freddy and the absurd left-think which had stubbornly rejected ANY policy which would rebuild viable, sustainable thresholds to mortgage lending.

Why can't it be stated enough?

Especially since according to the Republican sponsor of the only bill passed (in 2005) to regulate Fannie/Freddie during the 6 years the Republicans controlled the government -- a bill the Barnie Frank and Dems joined to support -- was shot down by the Bush administration.

The critics have forgotten that the House passed a GSE reform bill in 2005 that could well have prevented the current crisis, says Mr Oxley [Then Republican Chairman of the Committee on Financial Services and sponsor of the Sarbanes-Oxely Act which provided oversight of public companies to prevent fraud after Enron], now vice-chairman of Nasdaq.

He fumes about the criticism of his House colleagues. “All the handwringing and bedwetting is going on without remembering how the House stepped up on this,” he says. “What did we get from the White House? We got a one-finger salute.”

The House bill, the 2005 Federal Housing Finance Reform Act, would have created a stronger regulator with new powers to increase capital at Fannie and Freddie, to limit their portfolios and to deal with the possibility of receivership.

Mr Oxley reached out to Barney Frank, then the ranking Democrat on the committee and now its chairman, to secure support on the other side of the aisle. But after winning bipartisan support in the House, where the bill passed by 331 to 90 votes, the legislation lacked a champion in the Senate and faced hostility from the Bush administration. Adamant that the only solution to the problems posed by Fannie and Freddie was their privatisation, the White House attacked the bill. Mr Greenspan also weighed in, saying that the House legislation was worse than no bill at all.

FT.com / UK - Oxley hits back at ideologues

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Federal Reserve Board Abolition Act (Introduced in House)

HR 2755 IH

110th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. R. 2755

To abolish the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and the Federal reserve banks, to repeal the Federal Reserve Act, and for other purposes....

It is a wonderful idea...

It's not going to happen, but it is a GREAT idea, nonetheless.

If we could get a bill to end Bawney Fwank and the Caucus of Congressional Communists who just happen to be black, that would go a LONG way towards unscrewing the US economy, as it would strip the left of its means to undermine US markets through incessant left-think meddling.


There are many reasons and people who are responsible for the stupendous errors in judgment that lead to this economic catastrophe... but there are NO LESS responsible entities than the Federal Reserve, Bawney Fwank and theCaucus of Congressional Communists who just happen to be black.

Would anyone care to guess what 'reserve' was responsible for the threats to the Mortgage industry that red-lining policy which prohibited the creation of mortgages on properties which rest in areas with viturally no chance of maintaining stable market values, or producing sufficient revenues to sustain the repayment of the mortgage loan?

Here's a clue... its the reserve which rhymes with Schmederal... and would anyone care to guess what Fwank was the leading cheer-leader which advanced the most vociferous threats against the US Mortgage industry to sue them on civil rights grounds, if they did not comply with the demand of the Schmederal Reserve... It's the Fwank that rhymes with Fawney...

Of course Fawney Fwank is TODAY declaring his long time advocacy of Renting for low income people; projecting that it was CONSERVATIVES who demanded that long standing actuarial threshold of sound mirtgage lending be set aside to given poor people homes... and this because they're greedy *&($&@$... who wanted to take advantage... this despite his decades long advocacy wherein he DEMANDED that banks lend to underqualified applicants of home mortgages...



Fannie Mae's Patron Saint - WSJ.com

Frank's fingerprints are all over the financial fiasco - The Boston Globe

FRB: Community Reinvestment Act

http://www.bos.frb.org/commdev/commaff/closingt.pdf

It also can't be stated enough here, due to it rarely being stated elsewhere, that the Bush administration sought VERY early in their FIRST TERM to put systems into place which would regulate Fannie, Freddy and the absurd left-think which had stubbornly rejected ANY policy which would rebuild viable, sustainable thresholds to mortgage lending.

New Agency Proposed to Oversee Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae - The New York Times

Beyond that, the entire 'bailout' is little more than the Federal Reserve's DESPERATE ATTEMPT to conceal the failures intrinsic to their patented 'fractional banking'...

Well, I'd be interested to hear your argument as to why the Fed should be abolished, and what your would propose as an alternative for controlling the money supply.

(Hint: Barney Frank, despite his speech impediment you ridicule him for, is not with the Fed).

I redicule Bawney Fwank, for his lack of any discernable moral character and his choice to live the lifestyle of a sexual deviant, that nature sought to highlight all that by saddling him with a speech impediment just makes it hilarious...

What's more i didn't claim that Bawney Fwank was a member of the Federal reserve, I said he is a cheerleader of it's absurd policy.

And I laid it my argument for why it should be abolished and I stated that the moiney supply should be directly tied to a tangible finite value... Precious metals have always been popular.

And while such has it's own problems... and is not a perfect plan... building an economic house of cards is hardly a sustainable alternative and that is EXACTLY what we have now.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

It also can't be stated enough here, due to it rarely being stated elsewhere, that the Bush administration sought VERY early in their FIRST TERM to put systems into place which would regulate Fannie, Freddy and the absurd left-think which had stubbornly rejected ANY policy which would rebuild viable, sustainable thresholds to mortgage lending.

Why can't it be stated enough?

Especially since according to the Republican sponsor of the only bill passed (in 2005) to regulate Fannie/Freddie during the 6 years the Republicans controlled the government -- a bill the Barnie Frank and Dems joined to support -- was shot down by the Bush administration.

The critics have forgotten that the House passed a GSE reform bill in 2005 that could well have prevented the current crisis, says Mr Oxley [Then Republican Chairman of the Committee on Financial Services and sponsor of the Sarbanes-Oxely Act which provided oversight of public companies to prevent fraud after Enron], now vice-chairman of Nasdaq.

He fumes about the criticism of his House colleagues. “All the handwringing and bedwetting is going on without remembering how the House stepped up on this,” he says. “What did we get from the White House? We got a one-finger salute.”

The House bill, the 2005 Federal Housing Finance Reform Act, would have created a stronger regulator with new powers to increase capital at Fannie and Freddie, to limit their portfolios and to deal with the possibility of receivership.

Mr Oxley reached out to Barney Frank, then the ranking Democrat on the committee and now its chairman, to secure support on the other side of the aisle. But after winning bipartisan support in the House, where the bill passed by 331 to 90 votes, the legislation lacked a champion in the Senate and faced hostility from the Bush administration. Adamant that the only solution to the problems posed by Fannie and Freddie was their privatisation, the White House attacked the bill. Mr Greenspan also weighed in, saying that the House legislation was worse than no bill at all.

FT.com / UK - Oxley hits back at ideologues

Well there's a couple of glaring problems with that nonsense... first that Bawney Fwank joined the bill, is fair and reasonable evidence that it was NOT what you and OXLEY represent it to be... and second that THIS article is from 2003... Bush had been pushing for it since taking office in 2001 and the Bush administration did not shoot down ANYTHING that sought to bring Fan and Fred into compliance with sound fiscal principle.

New Agency Proposed to Oversee Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae - The New York Times

"The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.

Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that are the two largest players in the mortgage lending industry.

The new agency would have the authority, which now rests with Congress, to set one of the two capital-reserve requirements for the companies. It would exercise authority over any new lines of business. And it would determine whether the two are adequately managing the risks of their ballooning portfolios.

The plan is an acknowledgment by the administration that oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- which together have issued more than $1.5 trillion in outstanding debt -- is broken. A report by outside investigators in July concluded that Freddie Mac manipulated its accounting to mislead investors, and critics have said Fannie Mae does not adequately hedge against rising interest rates."

Would ya like to see the video where Bawney Fwank is OUTRAGED! by the attempts of the Bush administration to 'prevent the poor from enjoying home ownership?'

 

[Iriemon]

(Hint: Barney Frank, despite his speech impediment you ridicule him for, is not with the Fed).

I redicule Bawney Fwank, for his lack of any discernable moral character and his choice to live the lifestyle of a sexual deviant, that nature sought to highlight all that by saddling him with a speech impediment just makes it hilarious...

OK. It just sounds like you are ridiculing him for a speech impediment when you write thinks making fun of his speech, like "Bawney Fwank". I'm glad your not such a shallow person that you would ridicule someone because they have a speech impediment.

What's more i didn't claim that Bawney Fwank was a member of the Federal reserve, I said he is a cheerleader of it's absurd policy.

What absurd policy?

And I laid it my argument for why it should be abolished and I stated that the moiney supply should be directly tied to a tangible finite value... Precious metals have always been popular.

See below.

And while such has it's own problems... and is not a perfect plan... building an economic house of cards is hardly a sustainable alternative and that is EXACTLY what we have now.

So do you agree with the premise that the Fed should be abolished? If so why?

There are many reasons and people who are responsible for the stupendous errors in judgment that lead to this economic catastrophe... but there are NO LESS responsible entities than the Federal Reserve, Bawney Fwank and theCaucus of Congressional Communists who just happen to be black.

Would anyone care to guess what 'reserve' was responsible for the threats to the Mortgage industry that red-lining policy which prohibited the creation of mortgages on properties which rest in areas with viturally no chance of maintaining stable market values, or producing sufficient revenues to sustain the repayment of the mortgage loan?

I'll bite. What "reserve" was responsible for that. Cite to source as well, please.

Here's a clue... its the reserve which rhymes with Schmederal...

Federal Reserve was responsible for the threats to the Mortgage industry regarding the red-lining policy? I've never heard that. Source?

and would anyone care to guess what Fwank was the leading cheer-leader which advanced the most vociferous threats against the US Mortgage industry to sue them on civil rights grounds, if they did not comply with the demand of the Schmederal Reserve... It's the Fwank that rhymes with Fawney...

Can you identify one lawsuit Frank (or a committee he controlled) ever sued anyone for civil rights violations for not complying with the Fed?

If banks are discriminating against black people in giving out loans, don't you agree they should face the threaten of lawsuits for that? Or do you think its OK for banks to discriminate against blacks.

What does this have to do with the topic of this thread, ie the Fed?

 

[Iriemon]

It also can't be stated enough here, due to it rarely being stated elsewhere, that the Bush administration sought VERY early in their FIRST TERM to put systems into place which would regulate Fannie, Freddy and the absurd left-think which had stubbornly rejected ANY policy which would rebuild viable, sustainable thresholds to mortgage lending.

Why can't it be stated enough?

Especially since according to the Republican sponsor of the only bill passed (in 2005) to regulate Fannie/Freddie during the 6 years the Republicans controlled the government -- a bill the Barnie Frank and Dems joined to support -- was shot down by the Bush administration.

The critics have forgotten that the House passed a GSE reform bill in 2005 that could well have prevented the current crisis, says Mr Oxley [Then Republican Chairman of the Committee on Financial Services and sponsor of the Sarbanes-Oxely Act which provided oversight of public companies to prevent fraud after Enron], now vice-chairman of Nasdaq.

He fumes about the criticism of his House colleagues. “All the handwringing and bedwetting is going on without remembering how the House stepped up on this,” he says. “What did we get from the White House? We got a one-finger salute.”

The House bill, the 2005 Federal Housing Finance Reform Act, would have created a stronger regulator with new powers to increase capital at Fannie and Freddie, to limit their portfolios and to deal with the possibility of receivership.

Mr Oxley reached out to Barney Frank, then the ranking Democrat on the committee and now its chairman, to secure support on the other side of the aisle. But after winning bipartisan support in the House, where the bill passed by 331 to 90 votes, the legislation lacked a champion in the Senate and faced hostility from the Bush administration. Adamant that the only solution to the problems posed by Fannie and Freddie was their privatisation, the White House attacked the bill. Mr Greenspan also weighed in, saying that the House legislation was worse than no bill at all.

FT.com / UK - Oxley hits back at ideologues

Well there's a couple of glaring problems with that nonsense... first that Bawney Fwank joined the bill, is fair and reasonable evidence that it was NOT what you and OXLEY represent it to be...

Oxley was the REPUBLICAN sponsor of the bill. I could site you Democratic sources but I figure you'd say they were biased.

and second that THIS article is from 2003... Bush had been pushing for it since taking office in 2001 and the Bush administration did not shoot down ANYTHING that sought to bring Fan and Fred into compliance with sound fiscal principle.

New Agency Proposed to Oversee Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae - The New York Times

So why didn't the Republican controlled Congress and WH pass it?

Oh wait, your article gives us some info on that ...

After the hearing, Representative Michael G. Oxley, chairman of the Financial Services Committee, and Senator Richard Shelby, chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, announced their intention to draft legislation based on the administration's proposal.

Oh, there is Mr. Oxley again. The same guy who drafted a bill to regulate Fannie/Freddie, which was the same bill that less than two year later the House passed with bipartisan support of Republicans and Democrats including Barney Frank to regulate Fannie and Freddie, the say guy who says that the Bush WH gave them the "one fingered salute."

Thanks for giving us the rest of the picture.

Would ya like to see the video where Bawney Fwank is OUTRAGED! by the attempts of the Bush administration to 'prevent the poor from enjoying home ownership?'

Seen it.

Would you like to see the 2002 Bush speech where he promises to expand minority and lower income home ownership through Fannie and Freddie?

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

(Hint: Barney Frank, despite his speech impediment you ridicule him for, is not with the Fed).

I redicule Bawney Fwank, for his lack of any discernable moral character and his choice to live the lifestyle of a sexual deviant, that nature sought to highlight all that by saddling him with a speech impediment just makes it hilarious...

OK. It just sounds like you are ridiculing him for a speech impediment when you write thinks making fun of his speech, like "Bawney Fwank". I'm glad your not such a shallow person that you would ridicule someone because they have a speech impediment.

Nope... it just amplifies his faggery and there's nothing on earth worthy of more ridicule than that... except where the respective fag is a letcherous LIAR and a degenerate leftist.

So do you agree with the premise that the Fed should be abolished? If so why?

Yeah... and since I've already stated, rather unambiguously, that I do agree with and why... I'll simply refer you to the posts above where I did so.

I'll bite. What "reserve" was responsible for that. Cite to source as well, please.

http://www.bos.frb.org/commdev/commaff/closingt.pdf

Here's a clue... its the reserve which rhymes with Schmederal...

Federal Reserve was responsible for the threats to the Mortgage industry regarding the red-lining policy? I've never heard that. Source?

Yep... http://www.bos.frb.org/commdev/commaff/closingt.pdf

Racial Pattern Is Found in Boston Mortgages - The New York Times

and would anyone care to guess what Fwank was the leading cheer-leader which advanced the most vociferous threats against the US Mortgage industry to sue them on civil rights grounds, if they did not comply with the demand of the Schmederal Reserve... It's the Fwank that rhymes with Fawney...

Can you identify one lawsuit Frank (or a committee he controlled) ever sued anyone for civil rights violations for not complying with the Fed?

Well if there was ever a suit brought, we wouldn't be going through this crisis, as the notion that redlining was a civil rights violation is ABSURD; just as ANY Notion wherein long established actuarial thresholds of sustainable mortage lending are violations of civil rights... sadly the Mortgage industry folded like a two dollar tent and conceded to the demands of the left without challenge.

If banks are discriminating against black people in giving out loans, don't you agree they should face the threaten of lawsuits for that? Or do you think its OK for banks to discriminate against blacks.

IF blacks, yellows, light caramels or reds don't meet the critieria of time tested actuarial thresholds they shouldn't be considered as viable applicants and where the legislature coerces the market to do so, they undermine the viability of that market and THAT is how we got to where we are today...

What does this have to do with the topic of this thread, ie the Fed?

ROFLMNAO... Stop... that's just too embarrassing to even consider.

 

[Iriemon]

I redicule Bawney Fwank, for his lack of any discernable moral character and his choice to live the lifestyle of a sexual deviant, that nature sought to highlight all that by saddling him with a speech impediment just makes it hilarious...

OK. It just sounds like you are ridiculing him for a speech impediment when you write thinks making fun of his speech, like "Bawney Fwank". I'm glad your not such a shallow person that you would ridicule someone because they have a speech impediment.

Nope... it just amplifies his faggery and there's nothing on earth worthy of more ridicule than that... except where the respective fag is a letcherous LIAR and a degenerate leftist.







Yeah... and since I've already stated, rather unambiguously, that I do agree with and why... I'll simply refer you to the posts above where I did so.




http://www.bos.frb.org/commdev/commaff/closingt.pdf



Federal Reserve was responsible for the threats to the Mortgage industry regarding the red-lining policy? I've never heard that. Source?

Yep... http://www.bos.frb.org/commdev/commaff/closingt.pdf

Racial Pattern Is Found in Boston Mortgages - The New York Times



Well if there was ever a suit brought, we wouldn't be going through this crisis, as the notion that redlining was a civil rights violation is ABSURD; just as ANY Notion wherein long established actuarial thresholds of sustainable mortage lending are violations of civil rights... sadly the Mortgage industry folded like a two dollar tent and conceded to the demands of the left without challenge.

If banks are discriminating against black people in giving out loans, don't you agree they should face the threaten of lawsuits for that? Or do you think its OK for banks to discriminate against blacks.

IF blacks, yellows, light caramels or reds don't meet the critieria of time tested actuarial thresholds they shouldn't be considered as viable applicants and where the legislature coerces the market to do so, they undermine the viability of that market and THAT is how we got to where we are today...

What does this have to do with the topic of this thread, ie the Fed?

ROFLMNAO... Stop... that's just too embarrassing to even consider.

Sure we can stop. Most everything you posted was off topic anyway. And thanks for your opinion. Others can decide for themselves.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Why can't it be stated enough?

Especially since according to the Republican sponsor of the only bill passed (in 2005) to regulate Fannie/Freddie during the 6 years the Republicans controlled the government -- a bill the Barnie Frank and Dems joined to support -- was shot down by the Bush administration.

The critics have forgotten that the House passed a GSE reform bill in 2005 that could well have prevented the current crisis, says Mr Oxley [Then Republican Chairman of the Committee on Financial Services and sponsor of the Sarbanes-Oxely Act which provided oversight of public companies to prevent fraud after Enron], now vice-chairman of Nasdaq.

He fumes about the criticism of his House colleagues. “All the handwringing and bedwetting is going on without remembering how the House stepped up on this,” he says. “What did we get from the White House? We got a one-finger salute.”

The House bill, the 2005 Federal Housing Finance Reform Act, would have created a stronger regulator with new powers to increase capital at Fannie and Freddie, to limit their portfolios and to deal with the possibility of receivership.

Mr Oxley reached out to Barney Frank, then the ranking Democrat on the committee and now its chairman, to secure support on the other side of the aisle. But after winning bipartisan support in the House, where the bill passed by 331 to 90 votes, the legislation lacked a champion in the Senate and faced hostility from the Bush administration. Adamant that the only solution to the problems posed by Fannie and Freddie was their privatisation, the White House attacked the bill. Mr Greenspan also weighed in, saying that the House legislation was worse than no bill at all.

FT.com / UK - Oxley hits back at ideologues

Well there's a couple of glaring problems with that nonsense... first that Bawney Fwank joined the bill, is fair and reasonable evidence that it was NOT what you and OXLEY represent it to be...

Oxley was the REPUBLICAN sponsor of the bill. I could site you Democratic sources but I figure you'd say they were biased.

Did you or did you not declare that Bawney Fwank was a proponent of the bill? And given Fwanks never ending defense of the quasi-private banks, that tells me that the bill was worthless with regard to its effectivness in bringing the banks back into reasonable lending thresholds.

What does Oxley being a Republican have to do with anything? I don't know anything about the guy, but if he's in bed with Bawney Fwank, that tells me all I need to know, TO KNOW, that he isn't MUCH of a Republican.

and second that THIS article is from 2003... Bush had been pushing for it since taking office in 2001 and the Bush administration did not shoot down ANYTHING that sought to bring Fan and Fred into compliance with sound fiscal principle.

New Agency Proposed to Oversee Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae - The New York Times

So why didn't the Republican controlled Congress and WH pass it?

The republicans had sliverous majorities... at best; but without regard to that, the WH doesn't pass bills in the legislature. Ya see that's the executive branch which is eaual but SEPARATE from the legislature. Thus the reason it was defeated is that most members of the legislature voted against it.

Would ya like to see the video where Bawney Fwank is OUTRAGED! by the attempts of the Bush administration to 'prevent the poor from enjoying home ownership?'

Seen it.

Would you like to see the 2002 Bush speech where he promises to expand minority and lower income home ownership through Fannie and Freddie?

Sure... love to.

I adore seeing evidence which points those flaws in GW which lead to his 27% approval ratings. Ya see it's my observation that GW screwed himself with his many attempts to out Liberal the left.

So post it on UP! Now do ya have any video where GW went on the defense from the Abu Gharib debacle, and as a result set the liberation of Iraq back two years?

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

OK. It just sounds like you are ridiculing him for a speech impediment when you write thinks making fun of his speech, like "Bawney Fwank". I'm glad your not such a shallow person that you would ridicule someone because they have a speech impediment.

Nope... it just amplifies his faggery and there's nothing on earth worthy of more ridicule than that... except where the respective fag is a letcherous LIAR and a degenerate leftist.







Yeah... and since I've already stated, rather unambiguously, that I do agree with and why... I'll simply refer you to the posts above where I did so.




http://www.bos.frb.org/commdev/commaff/closingt.pdf



Federal Reserve was responsible for the threats to the Mortgage industry regarding the red-lining policy? I've never heard that. Source?

Yep... http://www.bos.frb.org/commdev/commaff/closingt.pdf

Racial Pattern Is Found in Boston Mortgages - The New York Times



Well if there was ever a suit brought, we wouldn't be going through this crisis, as the notion that redlining was a civil rights violation is ABSURD; just as ANY Notion wherein long established actuarial thresholds of sustainable mortage lending are violations of civil rights... sadly the Mortgage industry folded like a two dollar tent and conceded to the demands of the left without challenge.





IF blacks, yellows, light caramels or reds don't meet the critieria of time tested actuarial thresholds they shouldn't be considered as viable applicants and where the legislature coerces the market to do so, they undermine the viability of that market and THAT is how we got to where we are today...

What does this have to do with the topic of this thread, ie the Fed?

ROFLMNAO... Stop... that's just too embarrassing to even consider.

Sure we can stop. Most everything you posted was off topic anyway. And thanks for your opinion. Others can decide for themselves.

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted... it's been a yawner...

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

That is absolutely false. Where did you get such an idea? No wonder people have such a misconception about the Fed when they are provided misinformation like that.

The Fed is audited every single year by the Govt Accounting Office as well as a big four accounting firm.

Yes, they are audited, except for certain important information which the GAO is not permitted to audit them on.

(b) Under regulations of the Comptroller General, the Comptroller General shall audit an agency, but may carry out an onsite examination of an open insured bank or bank holding company only if the appropriate agency has consented in writing. Audits of the Federal Reserve Board and Federal reserve banks may not include—

(1) transactions for or with a foreign central bank, government of a foreign country, or nonprivate international financing organization;

(2) deliberations, decisions, or actions on monetary policy matters, including discount window operations, reserves of member banks, securities credit, interest on deposits, and open market operations;

(3) transactions made under the direction of the Federal Open Market Committee; or

(4) a part of a discussion or communication among or between members of the Board of Governors and officers and employees of the Federal Reserve System related to clauses (1)–(3) of this subsection.

US CODE: Title 31,714. Audit of Financial Institutions Examination Council, Federal Reserve Board, Federal reserve banks, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, and Office of Comptroller of the Currency

H.R. 1207, the Federal Reserve Transparency Act, seeks to change that law, however.

H.R. 1207: Federal Reserve Transparency Act of 2009 (GovTrack.us)

OK. We've now clarified your assertion the Fed is "never audited" is completely false. I appreciate this kind of deception is promulgated by Paulians and other anti-Federalists frequently. I will assume you are informed by them and you were just unaware of the fact that the Fed is audited by the GAO and a big 4 accouting firm every single year, and that you were not intentionally lying here.

We can see is what this bill (which is re-introduced every other year by the anit-Federalists) seeks to do is to make Fed Board deliberations open to the public.

I can see arguements to both sides that Govt ought to operate in "sunshine" so that there are no closed door deliberations. On the other hand, I can also see why it would be important for members of the FRB to be able to discuss there views of money policy frankly without fear of how it will impact the economy at large.

We know the entire financial community hangs on the statements of the chairman. If his pronunciations are even slightly negative that can spark a sell off. I could see that a board member expressing his views of problems and policy, even if wrong, setting off a panic.

I'm not convinced that these meetings should be open to the publc.

I was speaking generally, obviously I should have clarified.

 

[Ame®icano]

I visited Campaign for Liberty site and found this article. What cought my attention is this:

When the Democratic Chairman of the House Banking Committee, Henry Gonzales, introduced a modest proposal for opening the Fed up to Congressional scrutiny in 1993, President Clinton rejected Gonzales' bill. The bill merely asked for a Congressional audit of the Fed's operations, with minutes and video of policy meetings released to Congress in a timely manner. Clinton argued that Gonzalez's reforms would "run the risk of undermining market confidence in the Fed."

Then:

As Congressman Barney Frank, a co-sponsor of the Gonzales bill, put it: "If you take the principles that people are talking about nowadays," such as "reforming government and opening up government—the Fed violates it more than any other branch of government."

Barney Frank co-sponsored the bill in 1993, but when became a Chairman of House Financial Services Committee, strongly oposed it. WTF?

Congress Must Audit the Federal Reserve

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I wouldn't say Barney Frank is strongly opposing H.R. 1207, he's simply not co-sponsoring it. He's promised that it will get it's chance to be debated by the Committee, which is more than can be said of many of Ron Paul's bills.

 

[Ame®icano]

I wouldn't say Barney Frank is strongly opposing H.R. 1207, he's simply not co-sponsoring it. He's promised that it will get it's chance to be debated by the Committee, which is more than can be said of many of Ron Paul's bills.

You're right, he's not opposing the bill, he is just, as article saying, "stonewalling" it.