Ron Paul's "Audit the Fed" Bill passes the House

[Alexander Krosky]

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...fed-bill-marking-capstone-on-rep-paul-career/

Yesterday was truly a great day for sentient beings. With this bill, Ron Paul argues that there are possible issues with an unregulated private agency feigning as a governmental body, allowing for 0 congressional oversight and immune from any law. Do you think the powers that be will allow this bill to pass the Senate? Will Obama veto this?

Personally I just can't see this bill actually being executed, even if it becomes law. The Fed is already resisting by claiming that actual congressional oversight would politicize monetary policy. Are we really supposed to believe that the Fed's decisions already aren't based on political or ulterior motives?

 

[bigbadwolf]

Politics is such a dirty word that "politicizing monetary policy" is portrayed as something undesirable. The Fed is a private cabal -- with no real democratic oversight. Paul's proposal has the same chance as a snowball remaining intact in hell.

 

[Tom Maloney]

An economic decision based on politics is a bad one. Just witness: Governments can't even balance a budget...

 

[Alexander Krosky]

An economic decision based on politics is a bad one. Just witness: Governments can't even balance a budget...

But isn't much of the reason that they can't balance the budget due to the Fed itself? There's no limit to spending when you can just "print" more money.

 

[APalley]

But isn't much of the reason that they can't balance the budget due to the Fed itself? There's no limit to spending when you can just "print" more money.

That is true, but preventing the Fed from printing more money will not limit spending. Most of the spending is on 'borrowed' money (hence, the national debt) and not printed money. The problem is twofold: The Fed, and Congress's unlimited power to spend. Which is why we need a balanced budget amendment...

 

[Alexander Krosky]

That is true, but preventing the Fed from printing more money will not limit spending. Most of the spending is on 'borrowed' money (hence, the national debt) and not printed money. The problem is twofold: The Fed, and Congress's unlimited power to spend. Which is why we need a balanced budget amendment...

The balanced budget amendment is another great idea which will never become reality. I think the root of the problem might be the obsession with Keynesian economics. Somewhere along the line, economists decided that "Capitalism" = "Keynesian economics" and now it's as if there is no distinction. The very existence of debt on this order of magnitude is impossible without the "Federal" Reserve system.

 

[APalley]

The balanced budget amendment is another great idea which will never become reality. I think the root of the problem might be the obsession with Keynesian economics. Somewhere along the line, economists decided that "Capitalism" = "Keynesian economics" and now it's as if there is no distinction. The very existence of debt on this order of magnitude is impossible without the "Federal" Reserve system.

I believe what you are saying is that congress only has the unlimited ability to borrow because of the existing mentality in the Fed of 'we can always print our way out of debt'; take that away and suddenly borrowing is not so innocuous anymore. While the Fed may have caused the borrowing mentality in the first place, I doubt ending the Fed would inhibit Congress's borrowing and spending at this point -- it's too politicized. The only way to ensure limited spending would be with the amendment (which almost did pass in 1995).

'Capitalism = Keynesian Economics' is an oxymoron and has been debunked years ago. Anyone who still propagates that is either anti-capitalism and purposely misleading for political reasons, or is just plain ignorant.

 

[Alexander Krosky]

I believe what you are saying is that congress only has the unlimited ability to borrow because of the existing mentality in the Fed of 'we can always print our way out of debt'; take that away and suddenly borrowing is not so innocuous anymore. While the Fed may have caused the borrowing mentality in the first place, I doubt ending the Fed would inhibit Congress's borrowing and spending at this point -- it's too politicized. The only way to ensure limited spending would be with the amendment (which almost did pass in 1995).

'Capitalism = Keynesian Economics' is an oxymoron and has been debunked years ago. Anyone who still propagates that is either anti-capitalism and purposely misleading for political reasons, or is just plain ignorant.

Ending the Fed isn't just about changing the paradigm which allows debt to grow. Even with a balanced budget, there are still a lot of issues with the Fed's existence in its current form. They're a private owned bank and are likely looting trillions of dollars from the economy seeing as how there is 0 transparency or oversight aside from a few hours of bi-annual Congressional testimony. If GS, MS, JPM, etc. would loot when given the chance, why wouldn't the Fed? After all, "Federal" Reserve officials have diplomatic immunity. They aren't subject to the laws that us Plebs must follow.

"Give me control of a nation's money and I care not who makes her laws." -- Mayer Amschel Rothschild