Sick of AP storys like this one: Posted by JFeldman

Posted 01/24/10 Last updated 01/25/10

By JEANNINE AVERSA, AP Economics Writer Jeannine Aversa, Ap Economics Writer - Sun Jan 24, 6:50 pm ET

(I'm unable to find anything of susbstance on Jeannine Aversa, other than a few cases of her  contradicting herself in articles. But even though I can't find a resume, we must assume she is an unequaled expert since she writes for the AP, and yes Virginia, that is sarcasm.)

WASHINGTON - A defeat of Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke's quest for another four-year term could raise the risk of a "double dip" recession if political jousting over a successor were to drag on for months, economists warn. (Ok, so apparently all economists are warning that if Ben Bernanke isn't reinstated, then the economy will go back into recession, or maybe it's some economists, or maybe it's just two, I guess we will never know since Jeannine couldn't be bothered to either number or identify who these people are. I'm just going to assume that these economists are Ben Bernanke, and one of Bernanke's relatives since Jeannine didn't feel like doing her job.)

But Bernanke's prospects appeared to brighten Sunday, with three more senators, including Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, predicting he'll be confirmed. A vote is expected later this week. (This tends to happen when corporate intrests tell their stooges that they want something done. In case you were interested in which three senators were the most recent buy-offs of Goldman-Sachs, here they are.)

Still, the chance of Bernanke's defeat has unsettled Wall Street, contributing to last week's 4 percent loss by the Dow Jones industrial average, its worst performance in 10 months. If Bernanke were rejected, uncertainty over a successor would further roil global markets, at least in the short run. (As usual, we are being led to belive that investors are buying or selling company stock because of something that may or may not be happening. Listen to me, if by some chance, you happen to be a fund manager for my 401-K, and you are selling stock because you are unsure of Bernanke's reappointment, and not on earnings potential, asset ownership, market conditions, and future earnings potential, YOUR IN THE WRONG BUISNESS! Just once I wish someone would go down on the floor of the NYSE and just poll everyone and see if they are selling because of Bernanke's reappointment possibly being in flux, just so I never have to hear or see this stupid, moronic, feeble attempt to try to make what Jeannine is writing hear seem  valid.)

Anxiety, along with sagging investments, could cause consumers and businesses to cut spending. Joblessness, already at 10 percent, could worsen. And the recovery might fail. (It might, it might not, it could, or couldn't, good job being non-commital Jeannine. Of course since Bernanke has put the conditions in place to create this, one might wonder why his removal could possibly make things worse. Other things that could or might happen, Brad and Angelina could get surgicaly attached to each other, Micheal Jackson might come out of hiding and tell us his death was all a trick, space aliens could or might land in Kansas, and Timothy Geitner might go back to the tree in which he used to bake cookies and go postal over the fact he was laid off. Those are the things that might happen if Bernanke is reinstated, but I don't see her bringing them up in her article, even though they are just as likely as to occur as what she laid out here.)

Economists who fear a double-dip recession - in which the recovery would collapse into another recession - regard it as a worst-case scenario. But they don't rule it out, either. (Economists who don't fear a double-dip recession think that Burger King makes a better burger, but McDonalds makes better fries. I'm sorry, is this supposed to be news? Is this a reporting of facts? So unnamed economists are noncommittal about something that would be a worse case scenario, but can't be ruled out? Do I have that right? Thank you for the reporting of these facts, no strike that, opinions, no strike that, possible opinions of unnamed people Jeannine.)

Lynn Reaser, chief economist for the National Association for Business Economics, is among them. She sees the likelihood of a double-dip as less than 50 percent. (Finaly, a name, Lynn Reaser... lets see... oh, she works for Bank of America. So someone who works for a bank that recieved 142 billion dollars in bailout money is in favor of keeping the man who orchestrated and oversaw the bailouts. And since she did such a bang up job before of putting her bank in the position of needing bailout funds, who better to ask?)

"It will become more acute if there are delays in confirming a successor," she says, noting that the economic recovery remains fragile, with spending still weak, credit tight and job creation scarce.

"All the political angst over the confirmation couldn't have come at a worse time for the economy," Reaser says. (And by economy she means her bank. How can you expect people like her to make bad investments and over-lend if they can't even count of a Fed chairman to give them billions of your dollars?)

A Bernanke loss would heighten uncertainty about Fed policies on interest rates and stimulus measures. In part, that's because Bernanke devised the unconventional supports for the economy and likely knows how best to safely wind them down, notes Edward Yardeni, chief investment strategist at Yardeni Research. (Alright, we have another name! Edward Yardeni, a busy boy, it looks like he is employed currently by many of the large banks and investment firms who have profited by the Fed's illegal and immoral actions. And it turns out that he has even worked for the Fed and is on a first name basis with his good pal Ben Bernanke. Isn't that special?)

But even more worrisome for the markets and the economy would be if Bernanke's Senate foes are seen as having meddled with the Fed's independence for political reasons. (Do we care to define political reasons? You mean if they vote against him because the people who elected them and they are supposed to represent want them to? Nevermind, best not to define it, we will just try to steal the negative connotation the politics has with the average stupid person that Jeannine is forced to stoop to write to.)

The dollar would likely fall. Higher interest rates and inflation fears would follow, stoked by uncertainty and shaken confidence. And all that would probably unsettle consumers and business, making them less likely to spend, hire or invest. (Likely why? So the implication here is that Ben Bernanke being the Fed chairman is single handedly holding up the value of the dollar. Note to Jeannine if you ever get the chance to read this, THOSE THINGS ARE ALREADY HAPPENING BECAUSE HE IS THE FED CHAIR!)

Bernanke's confirmation, which had seemed assured, was suddenly thrown into doubt last week as resistance grew among some Senate Democrats. And some senators who had supported Bernanke said they were now undecided. (GOOD FOR THEM!)

The Fed chief's term expires Jan. 31. If Bernanke isn't confirmed by then, Vice Chairman Donald Kohn is expected to step in as chairman and run the central bank temporarily. (Don't worry too much, articles like this, in addition to Goldman Sachs and other powerful financials buying them off should be enough to step on the citizens and make sure the elite stay in power over the masses. Most of the Senators who went from for to unsure probaly just saw how much of a payoff someone else got, (McConnell) and are looking for some of that themselves.)

Bernanke is widely credited with helping to prevent the Great Recession from turning into a second Great Depression. But his support of Wall Street bailouts during the height of the financial crisis has angered Americans struggling with 10 percent unemployment and soaring home foreclosures. (Of course he should get credit with causing the Great Recession to begin with. It's funny how it only seems to work one way, he prevented so much damage, yet isn't responsible for anything that happened under his watch...)

Backlash from Democrats over Bernanke's role in the bailouts intensified after Democrats suffered a stunning upset in the Massachusetts Senate race. Democrats are eager to appear allied with ordinary Americans disgusted with Wall Street's excesses. (It's good they would APPEAR that way. Wouldn't it be awesome if they actualy felt that way?)

Higher interest rates that could follow a Bernanke defeat would make it costlier for the government to pay down its record-high debt. Right now, low rates are allowing the Treasury Department to manage its debts. (HA HA HA HA HA HA HA... so the reason we are keeping intrest rates down is so that the Treasury can afford to pay off debts? Have they ever considered the other methods of NOT SPENDING MORE THAN THEY HAVE? This is good economics? This is where central management of the economy has brought us? We have to keep intrest rates down so that we can AFFORD to make the minimum payments on our debt? And we want more of this? Drug addicts are better with their money!)

If investors think the White House and Congress will choose a successor who would keep the Fed pumping money into the economy and hold interest rates at record lows for too long, it would erode trust in the Fed's oversight of the economy.(Anyone who still trusts the Fed is a moron.)

Continued low rates would please many ordinary Americans. But it would risk creating new speculative bubbles and stoking inflation. (Yes the ordinary Americans, eating SPAM, listening to their Elvis and the Crabs, or Beatles or some such nonsense. Luckily, since we are still in the early stages there is no chance for any bubbles to form now. Just like there wasn't one in housing before, and the holocaust never happened... and yes Virginia, I'm being sarcastic.)

Some economists say that in long run, they most fear that global investors would see a rejection of Bernanke as setting a precedent for Congress to intrude on"monetary policy." That refers to the Fed's decisions on whether and when to adjust rates to influence economic activity, inflation and employment. (Can Congress intrude on their duty as spelled out by the Constitution? Anyway we all know that those things should be determined by large coporate banks who control the President and would benefit most from them.)

The Fed's independence in monetary policy is vital to public confidence in the central bank. If it's undermined, the Fed could lose its credibility on Wall Street, which would fan inflation pressures and send up interest rates, choking the economic rebound. (Ummmmm, the Fed has no credibility on Wall Street. That's why you have to make it a law not to use gold as money, or noone would use the Fed for anything by choice. And by the way, when your at over 70% consumption, a little choking of that is a good thing.)

"Do we get to the point where instead of having an independent Fed chairman who keeps his hand on the wheel and does what is right for the economy, we have a Fed chairman spinning the wheel at the behest of Congress?" says Peter Morici, an economist at the University of Maryland. (Or the president Peter? Wow, my opinion of the University of Maryland just went downhill.)

Speaking on Sunday talk shows, Senate Republican leader McConnell and Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois, the No. 2 Senate Democrat, predicted the Senate would approve Bernanke's confirmation. And over the weekend, President Barack Obama phoned Senate allies and was given assurances that Bernanke's approval is likely. (It's just a matter of getting a few more Senators paid off Mr. President...)

The Fed chief's supporters need 60 votes to stop opponents from blocking confirmation, though the confirmation vote itself requires only 50 votes. Sen. Bernie Sanders, an independent liberal from Vermont, and Republican senators Jim Bunning of Kentucky, Jim DeMint of South Carolina and David Vitter of Louisiana are leading an effort to block confirmation. All told, about a dozen senators have indicated they'll vote against Bernanke. (Glad to see the good guys getting some press, maybe we could find out their viewpoints...)

White House spokesman Robert Gibbs told "Fox News Sunday" that lawmakers would send a worrisome message to financial markets by "playing politics in any way" with Bernanke's nomination. (You heard the man, no voting or speeches or questions or anything like that see....)

Investors have generally signaled their faith that Bernanke has the know-how and political will to sop up the money the Fed pumped into the economy during the financial crisis and prevent an outbreak of inflation. (Especialy in the housing and credit swap sectors of the late 90's and early 2000's. The people in the adjustable rate buisness really thought he knew what he was doing.)

A major challenge for the Fed will be deciding when to start boosting rates and when to phase out some big emergency economic revival programs. (Also when to replace the dollar with a world currency and begin the process of gold and gun confiscations.)

One such program is the Fed's purchase of mortgage securities from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, as a way to keep mortgage rates down. The Fed is on track to buy $1.25 trillion in those securities by the time the program is scheduled to end at the end of March. But the Fed hasn't ruled out continuing to buy mortgage securities after then to support the economy. (And why not? Why end the program when people are still getting rich off of the stupid working class without having to go through all the trouble of being good at buisness, or having a product people want to buy, or a service or skill that is in demand. This way, Trillions of dollars can be funneled into projects that are neither needed or wanted, and away from the things that would probaly actualy create wealth and deliver on the needs of the consumers.)

First appointed to the Fed by Republican President George W. Bush, Bernanke is likely less objectionable to Republicans than other potential alternatives, such as White House economic advisers Larry Summers or Christina Romer, or Janet Yellen, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco. (Yes, so much less objectionable that only most of the country despises him. He also would beat out the head of KKK, the American Nazi party, several serial killers, and possibly even Gary Coleman.)

A change in leadership wouldn't immediately mean a shift in Fed policy. That's because rates are expected to remain a record lows through much of this year to nurture the recovery. (And since the Fed chairman would be in the pocket of the same people who own Bernanke, we can pretty much guarantee this.)

No Fed chairman has been rejected by the Senate. The most "no" votes cast against a Fed chairman was Paul Volcker in 1983. The count: 84-16. (Hmmm, the "NO" side must have got a safety or 2 2 point conversions.)

So what did we learn? Some people who were very much benefited either directly or indirectly may possibly feel with some certainity that there may or may not be, depending on many factors and people, that there could possibly be in an obtuse sense, with some clarity, that Ben Bernanke is the only thing stopping us from a possible recession that he is the cause of. Yes, thank you for this absolutely worthless piece of journalism, and for reminding me why I don't read AP storys Jeannine.

Socializing Higher Education Posted by ckohtz

Posted 09/17/09

I just heard a story on NPR that made me wonder what planet politicians are from. House Bill Lets Students Bypass Private Lenders.

The House is expected to vote on a bill Thursday that would let students borrow directly from the U-S Treasury - instead of from private lenders subsidized by the government. House Democrats say this would save millions in the long run. But the bill has opponents in the loan industry - and obstacles in the Senate

This absolutely blows my mind! Here is the reasoning behind the bill. The government backs a vast majority of student loans in the United States. This means banks lend students money who are at high risk of defaulting on the loan - the reason for government backing. When the students eventually do default on their loan, banks get to keep the profits while the tax payer (via government backing) is stuck with the bill.

So, the solution according to Washington is to take out the middle man - the banks. This will include Nelnet btw, which employs about 1000 people in Nebraska including several of my friends. Under the proposed bill, students would get loans directly from the Treasury Department. The government would then be able to offer lower interest rates and reduce lending standards even more, which would allow more people to go to college. The government and tax payers would "save" the billions of dollars the banks were making off the loan defaults because the evil profits would be eliminated.

Do I even need to say what the obvious problems with this would be? I hardly know where to begin. First, it's not savings. The lawmakers writing this bill already have these "savings" spent. In fact, that's one "problem" with the bill in the House, everyone wants to get their hands on that money and spend it. They're tripping over themselves and getting in each others way to get their hands on it. This is proof they aren't concerned with our tax money at all. It's a bold faced lie. That money should go to the bad loans! That's the whole point of the bill!

Second, by giving out more loans at lower interest rates, they are going to create an even bigger education bubble then we already have. Colleges will grow bigger, hire more teachers, buy more equipment, and enroll more students. Over time, they will need to maintain the buildings, pay the teachers and replace the equipment. Since everyone is already enrolled in college who wants to go, they will need to raise tuition. This will cause more students to get government loans (who in their right mind would lend someone without a job $50,000 - $100,000 to get a sociology degree that might earn them $30,000/year?), cause more defaults, and require more tax payer bailouts. Then there will be talk about a "public option" in education because nobody can afford it. College will become a "right" of every American.

The fact is, a lot of people aren't cut out for college. Standards are so low now, and money so easy to get, that only 54% of students who enter a 4 year program have a degree 6 years later. College is becoming so expensive, that it is ruining students financial futures before they even have a chance at getting a job. This bill will exasperate the problem exponentially.

If this happens, the next obvious step is with housing. Why should all these banks be making money off government backed loans people can't pay back? I have pointed out numerous times how the government is already backing the vast majority of new loans. And isn't owning a house an American "right" already?

I won't even go into the fact that the U.S. is already broke. This is absolutely unbelievable. If you work at Nelnet, you might want to consider calling your representative today before they get a chance to vote.

Read more of my blog posts at kohtz.org.

Victory? Posted by JFeldman

Posted 08/16/09

Yahoo News is reporting that Obama has given up on a public option for health care, and will instead push for private non-profit co-ops. I'm not sure if this horse is dead or not, but things look very promising!

Playing monopoly with my younger cousin. Posted by JFeldman

Posted 08/04/09

When I was a kid, I had a younger cousin who lived a couple blocks away who I spent a lot of time with when we were growing up. Usually we played football or baseball with the other neighborhood kids, but the weather wasn't always willing to cooperate. So, on those days, we would play Monopoly. Before I go further, I should take a second and point out that I am not a good loser, and have always been too competitive. Even now I find it hard to let my daughters beat me in something, and it takes real effort to let someone else win. That being said, hopefully you can put my actions into some kind of perspective.

Anyone who has ever played monopoly knows that the key to winning is to own property, but more importantly, properties of the same color.  During the normal course of game-play you land on the properties, buy them, and collect rent when others land on them. When my cousin was young, winning was easy, I would simply make an offer of, say double what he paid for a property which he would eagerly accept. He got all the worthless monopoly money, and I got all the value. As we got older, he caught on to my schemes, and I had to come up with more and more elaborate schemes to steal the value (properties) that were rightfully his. We traded properties, cash, promises of rent free landings on properties with hotels, get out of jail free cards, so on and so forth, until it got to the point where it was so complicated that I was the only one who could see that I was stealing his value for the worthless money.

Maybe it was this experience that makes it so easy for me to see right through the schemes of the "insiders" today. I can see that a five year car loan is a terrible idea, because the bank is going to get much more of my value, as measured in productivity than I am willing to trade for it. Of course this is where the scheme comes into play, the point at which the car salesman comes to me and asks "just how low do we need to make this payment?" Credit swaps, commodity speculation, regulation, tax codes, and any number of other rules that complicate what is basically a simple proposition... are you willing to trade away your properties (i.e. your labor, your assets, your future labor) for the shiny paper money?  Many Keynesian economists want to measure economic success by things like employment, but who wants to be employed if your labor is wasted and you receive very little for it? I don't know too many people who would rather spend time with coworkers over their friends and family. But it's part of the scheme. It's their job to convince you you are doing well, even if it isn't true.

Interest is the enemy. Interest is the cost of borrowing current assets against future labor. Interest is what you have to pay down the road when you trade your monopoly properties for the monopoly money. Once you land on Park Place a few times with a hotel all the money you got for it is gone, and the person who tricked us into trading it away ends up with the money and property. And you will eventually land on those properties.

Unlike Monopoly however, real life is different. If you don't buy into their schemes men with guns, tasers, and badges take away your freedom. It is against the law not to have insurance, (scheme), there are laws against not having money on your person in public called loitering (scheme), there are laws that say you have to adhere to regulation even if what you are growing or making is going to be consumed by yourself (scheme).  If you try to buy a property with cash and you are stopped by an officer of the law, your cash can be confiscated because there are laws on how much you can carry on you at one time, meaning you have to get a bank account (scheme). Unlike Monopoly we are forced into the schemes through taxes, laws, and regulations.

Although the circumstances are different, the same basic principal applies: those with knowledge of systems take advantage of those systems to enrich themselves at others expense. The question is, how long are you going to take it?

Ben Nelson supports S604, that's why he isn't supporting it! LOL Posted by JFeldman

Posted 07/30/09

From the office of Senator Nelson:

Dear Joshua:

Thank you for contacting me about legislation to audit the Federal Reserve, specifically S. 604, the Federal Reserve Sunshine Act of 2009.  I agree that transparency and accountability are important for all governmental and public agencies.

I recognize your concerns and agree that an audit of the Federal Reserve is needed, especially in light of its recent actions and exercise of emergency authority resulting from the ongoing financial crisis. This is why I signed on as a cosponsor of S. 1457, the Federal Reserve Credit Facility Review Act of 2009. This bill is targeted specifically at auditing credit facilities of the Federal Reserve System established as a response to the ongoing financial crisis or as unconventional instruments of monetary policy. The legislation will authorize reviews by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) of the United States of any credit facility established by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System or any Federal reserve bank, notwithstanding any current restrictions on GAO's access. I look forward to following the progress of this legislation.

In the meantime, you can currently track Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP) transactions here: http://www.financialstability.gov/latest/reportsanddocs.html, and you can find the Federal Reserve monthly reports here: http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/monthlyclbsreport200906.pdf.

Thank you again for taking the time to contact me. I realize the importance of this issue to you and always appreciate hearing from civic-minded Nebraskans such as yourself. Please do not hesitate to contact me again on any other issue of concern to you.

Sincerely,

Ben Nelson
U.S. Senator   

From the office of Mike Johanns:

Dear Mr. and Mrs. Feldman:

Thank you for contacting me regarding legislation to require an audit of the Federal Reserve System. I appreciate having the benefit of you veiws on the issue.

On March 16, 2009, Senator Benard Sanders (I-VT) introduced the Federal Reserve Sunshine Act of 2009, S. 604, which was referred to the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, on which I serve. A companion bill, H.R. 1207, was introduced  in the House by Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX). Both bills repeal constraints on the ability of the Comptroller General to carry out audit examinations of banks or holding companies and directs the Comptroller General to complete an audit of the Board of Governers of the Federal Reserve System by 2010.

During the Fiscal year 2010 budget debate, I supported Senate admendment 913 that would have provided an audit of the Federal Reserve System. This admendment was agreed to in the Senate by a vote of 96-2. The amendment was retained in the final budget Confrence Report. I look forward to recieving the  results of this audit, and I will keep you thoughts in mind should this issue come before the Senate for further consideration.

Thank you again blah blah blah. Mike Johanns.

Here we have it folks, the old bait and switch. Don't fall for it, these bills they support don't do enough, and don't go far enough. We have to stay on them.

An extremely complex graph of the Free Market Health Care solution Posted by Andrew Ward

Posted 07/22/09 Last updated 07/22/09

http://www.thehamiltonpost.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/Free-Market-Chart.gif

Compare this to an overly simple graph of the government's health care scheme:

Neb. Sen. Ben Nelson's Response response (S. 604) Posted by evad1089

Posted 07/18/09

Dear David:

Thank you for contacting me regarding legislation to reform the manner in which the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System is audited by the Comptroller General of the United States and the manner in which such audits are reported. I appreciate hearing your views on this legislation, and I appreciate this opportunity to clarify some potential misunderstandings of recent Senate floor action regarding this matter.

As you know, the Senate recently passed the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2010, H.R. 2918. As you may also know, as the Chairman of the Legislative Branch Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations, I have the responsibility of drafting and managing Senate consideration of the annual Legislative Branch Appropriations bill. During debate on this bill, Senator Jim DeMint of South Carolina offered an amendment "to amend title 31, United States Code, to reform the manner in which the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System is audited by the Comptroller General of the United States and the manner in which such audits are reported, and for other purposes." In addition to amending title 31, this amendment ordered the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to audit the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. The amendment was ruled out of order by the Presiding Officer of the Senate under Rule XVI of the Standing Rules of the Senate, which prohibits legislating on appropriations bills.

Some have suggested that the DeMint Amendment was inappropriately ruled out of order; or that H.R. 2918 contained other requests for GAO audits and, thus, applying Rule XVI to the DeMint amendment exhibited "hypocrisy"; or that this amendment was selectively "blocked" while other provisions requesting GAO audits were allowed to remain in the bill. In fact, H.R. 2918 does not order any GAO audits. There is legislative language in the bill to repeal certain statutory requirements for ongoing audits - such as recurring audits of small business participation in construction of the Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline and recurring audits of assistance under Compacts of Free Association - which GAO has requested be eliminated because they are outdated, unneeded, or duplicative. These provisions were included in the bill because they eliminated wasteful analyses and reports, thus saving taxpayer dollars.

The Legislative Branch Subcommittee has the authority to mandate reports and studies only within our area of authority. In recent years, we have requested studies of the U.S. Capitol Police, the Capitol Visitor Center, and the Library of Congress. While no audits were requested in the legislative text of this year's bill, the Committee Report does include GAO directives to: 1) conduct a Capitol Police sworn staffing analysis; and 2) conduct an Architect of the Capitol Senior Level Employees Study. While it may sound bureaucratic, the Senate rules do not give my Subcommittee the jurisdiction to order the GAO to conduct studies of areas outside of the agencies and departments covered by the bill. A study of the Federal Reserve is the proper jurisdiction of the Senate Banking Committee.

Regarding the substance of the DeMint Amendment, which is identical to the Federal Reserve Sunshine Act, S. 604, I agree that transparency and accountability are important for all governmental and public agencies. This is why I have supported recent efforts to increase transparency at the Federal Reserve, especially with regard to their recent actions and exercise of emergency authority resulting from the ongoing financial crisis. As far as the specific objectives of S. 604, that legislation has been referred to the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs; and I will certainly keep your views in mind should it come to the floor for debate. I agree that it is an important issue which deserves to be considered in the appropriate fashion, and I look forward to the opportunity to do so.

Thank you again for taking the time to contact me. I realize the importance of this issue to you and always appreciate hearing from civic-minded Nebraskans such as yourself. Please do not hesitate to contact me again on any other issue of concern to you.

Sincerely,

Ben Nelson
U.S. Senator

What is Barney Frank going to do? Posted by JFeldman

Posted 07/16/09

After watching another terrific episode of Freedom Watch with several of my favorite people, (Adam Kokesh, Peter Schiff, Lew Rockwell, Ron Paul, Shelly Roche, and of course the Judge) I finally heard Dr. Paul say something that I had been fearing for a while now. Dr. Paul finally verbalized his fear that it is the Democrat leadership's position that they will give token support of the Audit the Fed bill, HR1207, and then pass a gutted, toothless version in Barney Frank's new regulation bill. The fact that Frank has yet to bring it up in committee, and Pelosi has yet to bring it to the floor, even with all the cosponsors is an indication to me that there is something going on here. Along with President Obama's recent call to increase the powers of the Fed, and make them a super-regulator, things are simply not adding up. Along with a sudden flood of Democrat supporters in the house, I would tend to think that it is now politically okay for them to do so, as a plan has been made in the upper tiers of the Democratic party as to how to handle it. Judging the past actions of Pelosi and Frank it seems they deflect while leaving themselves in position to plausibly deny. Interviews with Frank, who isn't near as slippery as he thinks he is, he has constantly used language in which he states that their should be no interference into the monetary side of the Fed's activities.

It doesn't take a rocket surgeon or brain scientist to realize that there is something going on, and that we probably aren't going to get what we started out to get. It is important to make sure Pelosi and Frank feel the heat, and realize that there is going to be repercussions to their plan. I would rather just be told no than to be placated by liars.

Number Of Cosponsors for S.604 Doubles! Posted by zakhaev

Posted 07/09/09 Last updated 07/09/09

Sen Brownback, Sam [KS] - 7/8/2009
Sen Chambliss, Saxby [GA] - 7/8/2009
Sen Isakson, Johnny [GA] - 7/8/2009

Thats 6 Cosponsors in total!

1207 also gained another 4 Cosponsors!

Rep Sullivan, John [OK-1] - 7/8/2009
Rep Courtney, Joe [CT-2] - 7/8/2009
Rep Hirono, Mazie K. [HI-2] - 7/8/2009
Rep Farr, Sam [CA-17] - 7/8/2009

Peter Schiff on Glenn Beck Discussing Cap-and-Trade, 6/25/09 Posted by Matt Hawes

Posted 06/26/09

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=384CqqxGyZE (Thanks to Minnesota Chris!)