28 responses to “Ron Paul: If HR 1207 Doesn’t Pass, The People Will Be Outraged”

  1. jerry

    I called my rep and asked why he has not co-sponsored after he sent me a letter stating he was going to back. Rep Paul Tonko D-NY will get back to me.
    Make sure you all get the word out, maybe a little flier?

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  2. Joe

    This is the best "state of the union" speech for the freedom movement I've seen so far by Dr. Paul. This is a must-read.

    He speaks freely and candidly about the powers that be, and gives great insight into what our expectations about HR1207 should be.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  3. mike

    Why we need to audit the FED = Possible Market Manipulation. The federal reserve doesn't hide the fact it has purchased securities. The question we need answered was Goldman Sachs controlling the federal reserve portfolio. If the answer to this question is yes then Market Manipulation almost guaranteed.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  4. Tom LaMar

    Sean, Dolores Y has mistakenly put a reply on the wrong blog. The person she is addressing is trying to say that children of illegal aliens and their illegal alien parents "deserve" to game the system for all sorts of benefits if they can get away with it.
    Another criminal mentality we have to fight...on that blog. It's hard enough to be a good American, let alone try to "take care of" the whole world...that is totally out of control in every way you can think of...politics, religion, population, etc. I have read it would take 5 or 6 earths to let everyone live good lives. but then, in this blog, we are logically first trying to put our own house in order of course, lest we have anarchy, like that presently along the Mexican border, etc., and the shouting she is doing out of total frustration and anger. Not helpful, but I understand.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    1. Sean

      ya i know.. i responded to jan in that same conversation.

      Again, there are no benefits for illegal aliens and it is racist stereotypical bullshit to assume that one person must be on government programs because they came from mexico.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      1. Sean

        FACT: Contrary to what people think, undocumented workers are not (and have never been) eligible to claim social security benefits. Moreover, most undocumented workers will use a false social security number to prove work authorization, therefore paying money into a benefit system that they will never be eligible to use.

        FACT: According to the Social Security Administration (SSA), undocumented immigrants "account for a major portion" of the billions of dollars paid into the Social Security system under names or social security numbers that don't match SSA records. As of October 2005, the reported earnings on which these payments are based-which are tracked through the SSA's Earnings Suspense File (ESF)-totaled $520 billion.

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    2. Dolores Y

      Sorry about that. I noticed that after I did it. No way to correct it. Hopefully, I will learn by my mistake. ;-)

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  5. Sean

    We cannot learn from one another until we stop shouting at one another, until we speak quietly enough so that our words can be heard as well as our voices.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  6. Dolores Y

    SERGIO! ILLEGAL. KEY WORD. I-L-L-E-G-A-L

    WHAT PART OF THIS WORD DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND?

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  7. Ross

    Why have the numbers suddenly stalled at 282 of Congressional support? There is an acrid stench in our humanity that trades momentary,monetary security and avarice for the enslavement of our children.

    Neither my parents nor yours would have ever conceived of such betrayal of future generations in their wildest dreams.

    If you don't dream and aspire to a better future,there will be none.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  8. dan valley

    Court Orders Fed to Disclose Emergency Bank Loans (Update2)

    Share | Email | Print | A A A

    By Mark Pittman

    Aug. 25 (Bloomberg) -- The Federal Reserve must for the first time identify the companies in its emergency lending programs after losing a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit.

    Manhattan Chief U.S. District Judge Loretta Preska ruled against the central bank yesterday, rejecting the argument that loan records aren’t covered by the law because their disclosure would harm borrowers’ competitive positions.

    The Fed has refused to name the financial firms it lent to or disclose the amounts or the assets put up as collateral under 11 programs, most put in place during the deepest financial crisis since the Great Depression, saying that doing so might set off a run by depositors and unsettle shareholders. Bloomberg LP, the New York-based company majority-owned by Mayor Michael Bloomberg, sued on Nov. 7 on behalf of its Bloomberg News unit.

    “The Federal Reserve has to be accountable for the decisions that it makes,” said U.S. Representative Alan Grayson, a Florida Democrat on the House Financial Services Committee, after Preska’s ruling. “It’s one thing to say that the Federal Reserve is an independent institution. It’s another thing to say that it can keep us all in the dark.”

    ‘Inadequate Search’

    The judge said the central bank “improperly withheld agency records” by “conducting an inadequate search” after Bloomberg News reporters filed a request under the information act. She gave the Fed five days to turn over documents it told the reporters it located, including 231 pages of reports, and said it must look for more at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, which runs most of the loan programs.

    The central bank “essentially speculates on how a borrower might enter a downward spiral of financial instability if its participation in the Federal Reserve lending programs were to be disclosed,” Preska wrote. “Conjecture, without evidence of imminent harm, simply fails to meet the Board’s burden” of proof.

    David Skidmore, a Fed spokesman who said the board’s staff was reviewing the 47-page ruling, declined to comment on whether the central bank would appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals in New York.

    Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke, who led the biggest expansion of the central bank’s power in its 95-year history, was nominated to a second term today by President Barack Obama.

    Banks Worried

    Obama promised a new era of government openness when he took office in January, issuing a statement telling agencies “to adopt a presumption in favor of disclosure” in responding to requests under FOIA.

    Banks are worried that the disclosure of borrowers’ identities by the Fed, the lender of last resort, would cause customers to empty their bank accounts in a run on the bank, said Scott Talbott, vice president of governmental affairs at the Washington-based Financial Services Roundtable, a lobbying group.

    “This issue is: ‘This bank borrowed X billion from the Fed, therefore they must be in trouble, therefore I’m going to pull my money out,” said Talbott. “That’s the type of danger that we’re worried about. That’s the risk.”

    Bloomberg LP said in the suit that U.S. taxpayers need to know the terms of Fed lending because the public became an “involuntary investor” in the nation’s banks as the financial crisis deepened and the government began shoring up companies with capital injections and loans. Citigroup Inc. and American International Group Inc. are among those who have said they accepted Fed loans.

    ‘Unprecedented Ways’

    “When an unprecedented amount of taxpayer dollars were lent to financial institutions in unprecedented ways and the Federal Reserve refused to make public any of the details of its extraordinary lending, Bloomberg News asked the court why U.S. citizens don’t have the right to know,” said Matthew Winkler, the editor-in-chief of Bloomberg News. “We’re gratified the court is defending the public’s right to know what is being done in the public interest.”

    The Fed’s balance sheet about doubled after lending standards were relaxed in the wake of the collapse of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. on Sept. 15, 2008. For the week ended Aug. 19, Fed assets rose 2.3 percent to $2.06 trillion as it continued to buy mortgage-backed securities under a program allowing the central bank to purchase non-government securities for the first time.

    Fed Audits

    The U.S. House may vote as soon as next month on a bill to require the Fed to submit to audits by the Government Accountability Office, said Representative Scott Garrett, a New Jersey Republican on the Financial Services Committee.

    The judge’s ruling “is strikingly good news,” Garrett said. “This is what the American people have been asking for.”

    The Freedom of Information Act obliges federal agencies to make government documents available to the press and public. The Bloomberg suit, filed in New York, didn’t seek money damages.

    “The public deserves to know what’s being done with the money,” said Lucy Dalglish, executive director of the Arlington, Virginia-based Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press. “This ought to be a wake-up call for the public that they need to be far more educated about this.”

    The case is Bloomberg LP v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 08-CV-9595, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York (Manhattan).

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    1. Tom LaMar

      So how do we stop a run on the Fed banks while the subpoenas are prepared, assuming disclosure will expose gross misconduct bordering on treason? A banking "holiday" like FDR did or what?

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      1. David Weirich

        A run on the Fed banks isn't the concern, as commercial banks are only required to maintain a small percentage of their deposits at Fed banks. The real concern is a large-scale run on commercial banks, not any of the 12 Federal Reserve banks. This concern is mitigated because (1) quite a bit of monetary transactions occur electronically, not with actual cash, (2) the FDIC insures most commercial bank deposits, and (3) if the FDIC fund runs low, there are legal provisions to provide emergency funds to the FDIC. But in a worst-case scenario, President Obama could declare a national emergency and a banking holiday.

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        1. Matt

          What would be best for the banking system is to just let a run happen, and whatever fails, fails! A good bank run would be cleansing for the financial system as a whole.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          1. Sean

            Except that these banks are not depository banks so they borrow money from our pension funds instead of the fed.

            If they failed, we would lose our retirement savings.

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          2. David Weirich

            I agree with that as long as the depositors at any failed bank, who had nothing to do with the bank management, don't lose their money. That was the original intent of federal deposit insurance and why the FDIC was created. Unfortunately, Mr. Bernanke and the Federal Reserve have bypassed the FDIC in order to help out their Wall Street buddies - the Fed's legal justification is HIGHLY questionable, if not downright untruthful.

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          3. Sean

            It was perfectly legal. If these non-depository investment banks (wall street) didn't fund their expenses from our pension funds, than we wouldn't of needed to bail them out.

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          4. David Weirich

            Concerning pension funds, the Securities Investor Protection Corporation acts kind of like the FDIC for investors in pension funds/hedge funds. The SIPC stepped in and helped out the victims of the Madoff scam, up to $500,000. Of course that didn't cover the entire amount for all the victims, but it was better than nothing. So people investing in a retirement program would be well advised to spread out their investments, so that the total amount in any single fund doesn't exceed the maximum amount covered by the SIPC.

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          5. Sean

            ya. thats a good investment strategy. "diversify your bonds"

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  9. Mrs. Pilgrim

    I'm sorry to post this off-topic, but I wasn't sure where else to drop it.

    http://www.drawaline.org/

    This Saturday, Texas delivers a petition to Gov. Perry to demand of the state legislature: tell the Federal government to respect the Constitution, or that the contract is terminated and we secede.

    Have a look for yourselves, and come if you're interested!

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  10. Todd Eads

    The reason why HR 1207 will probably not pass is because too many people do not believe that the Federal Reserve Bank IS the problem. After all, President Barack Obama just let Ben Bernanke have four more years as Chairman of the Federal Reserve. But, more and more Americans are discovering that this image of America being a prosperous nation is all an illusion being perpetuated by our fellow "leaders" and the media alike, including Barack Obama("A Change We Can Believe In." Yeah, right!)As long as Americans continue to wake up, maybe we can pass this bill and make Ben Bernanke's knees quake for four more years, and make him sputter around for answers if someone is smart enough to ask him a challenging question, like Ron Paul does, for four more years.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  11. David Weirich

    Not only does Congress need to pass HR 1207, there needs to be a legal investigation into the Fed's bailout activities. According to the OIG, the legal basis for the Fed's actions is contained in 12 U.S.C. section 343, paragraph 2. If you read this section of the U.S. code, it specifically mentions that the bank must provide collateral if the Fed is to extend a loan. Now, if a bank is near insolvency, how could it possibly provide any collateral for a loan? Furthermore, the responsibility for ensuring that a bank failure doesn't hurt depositors rests with the FDIC, not the Federal Reserve. So there is no legal basis for the Fed giving out $2.2 trillion for it's Wall Street buddies, and there needs to be an investigation. If the Fed felt that the existing law would not provide adequate protection against a financial system collapse, they should have been ahead of the game and recommended changes to the law, not simply have violated the law.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  12. VR

    Ride For Freedom
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4c84pZe-u-Q

    Spread The Word

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  13. Tom LaMar

    All, Yesterday a Manhatten Superior Court Judge ruled against the
    Fed with 08-9595. Go to Reuters or Bloomberg for details about transparency...we are technically started by a different means (1207/604) ! Rejoice!

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  14. LEGACY

    WATCH UR ASS RON PAUL

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  15. VR

    Five Myths About the Gold Standard
    http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=841

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  16. VR

    How does a mega-corporation pull a scam on an entire nation?
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fn7tD2WOswI&feature=player_embedded

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  17. bill_turd

    First.

    If they don't pass this bill, they're going to have ME on their hands. Dr. Paul, thank you for realizing the people are who really matter in all of this.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

Leave a Reply