The House Financial Services Committee’s hearing on HR 1207, the Federal Reserve Transparency Act of 2009, is now over. C-SPAN posted the full 3 hour recording of the hearing here.
Hi there i am kavin, its my first occasion to commenting anywhere, when i read this post i thought i could also create comment due to this brilliant article.
Like or Dislike: 0 0
very good post, i actually love this website, keep on it
hey there and thank you for your info – I have definitely picked up anything new from right here. I did however expertise several technical points using this website, as I experienced to reload the site lots of times previous to I could get it to load correctly. I had been wondering if your hosting is OK? Not that I am complaining, but sluggish loading instances times will very frequently affect your placement in google and could damage your quality score if advertising and marketing with Adwords. Well I’m adding this RSS to my e-mail and can look out for much more of your respective fascinating content. Make sure you update this again soon..
Rep. Grayson from Florida was the best of course. Also Rep. Royce! Watt, Frank, and Lynch should be thrown out of Congress as traitors! As for Alvarez, he should be thrown out of the country and made to give up his citizenship! He appears to me to be a second class liar! Now it is time to get this bill on the floor!!!!!!!! No more BS hearings!
Love Woods' comment as it relates to the FED.
Just like when the government comes out with a new surveilance program on the American people, "If you've done nothing wrong, you have nothing to worry about."
1) What was with Alvarez's use of "so" as the first word of nearly every answer he gave? Is there a legal weasel angle? And there's no doubt he's a legal weasel as a gatekeeper to what transpired between Treasury that he does know all about as a very well paid FED counsel.
2) A better defenseless seeming "Casper Milch-toast" the FED could not have chosen.
3) Tom had a difficult job, and he's probably wishing he didn't fall for the planned traps, the committee already having read his testimony prior.
4) I think it was over all a success few Americans will ever see - one has first to spend the lions share w/Alvarez, revealing as it may be. Another plus is were the excellent agreement between the bill's intents by the majority of the Dem side.
5) Will sweating the FED preciptitate further earth shattering events as evidenced by the long history of mysterious bad luck suffered by its critiques and opponents Jackson, Lincoln, Garfield, JFK, RFK, AND Larry McDonald. There's been a small spree of "suicides" amongst financial elites of late.
Here's the McDonald horror story that makes me so suspicious.
If you plan to ending the fed, do you plan to make new currency in America ? Because American currency cannot live without fed,
so once fed is finished, there must be new currency created after that,otherwise, there will be a big chaos, there must be a backup plan...maybe Amero?
Just stopping by, I understand your concern but I don't agree that the dollar can't live without the fed. Actually, I think the opposite is true. Right now the dollar is backed by nothing, which is the problem since the Fed can print them to their heart's desire, and devalue the purchasing power of each dollar as they do it. If the dollar were backed by a commodity, this would not be a problem and the dollar would maintain its value through the years.
Another option would be to reinstate gold and silver coins to be used as legal tender. This would be a more dramatic change, but manageable.
I don't see the point in creating a completely new currency, especially if it too is just paper. We have gold which has been a currency for around 6,000 years and is the only one to be proven to maintain its purchasing power. Another important aspect of gold is that it protects property rights, which a fiat currency is incapable of doing.
I think the reference might be speaking to the fact that the current U.S. currency has Federal Reserve printed on it - when we are able to away with the FED, there must be another currency waiting in the wings. Yes? I would think at least there should be a transitional phase moving away from the current printed versions to a new version.
The "Federal Reserve" on the paper money we have today wasn't always there. Actually, that same line previously read "Silver Certificate", which also contained a promise to pay "[x] dollars in silver payable to the bearer on demand." In 1963 the promise to pay vanished. This had the effect of forcing people to accept paper receipts as money.
It's important to note the distinction between the dollar and a Federal Reserve note. By law, the dollar is a specific amount of gold or silver as defined by Congress. A Federal Reserve note is not a dollar, it is a lie.
I recommend reading F. Tupper Saussy's "The Miracle on Main Street" for a more in depth look at how the scheme was achieved.
Both life and currency existed and flourished before the Fed. The quality and value of each have decayed since the Fed. Who says currency has to end with the Fed? All the Fed does is tell the Treasury when and how much money to print and inject into or remove from circulation. The country still owns the Treasury and mints. Take control of those away from the Fed, disband it and give the decision to another body, the people.
"The issue that has swept down the centuries, and must be fought sooner or later, is, The People vs. The Banks" - Lord Acton. Chief Justice of England (1875)
That time is now.
The Fed not only prints circulates and withdraws money. It is highly likely that it has given preferential loans to organisations who have had unfair advantage to go into the market and cause distortions and worse. If the Audit the Fed campaign does not move fast, I fear it will be too late and we will be fast approaching meltdown. This will happen quickly - and I think the signs of it are already here and can not be reversed!
Just stopping by: The U.S. Treasury will still print the money but the people will decide how much (The Congress). This is the way it was set up in our original constitution and that is the way it should be!
Actually, the constitution in Article 1 Section 8 states that Congress can coin money, regulate the value thereof, and fix the standard of weight and measures. It also states that Congress shall not emit bills of credit (i.e. paper money).
There's nothing in the Constitution that suggests that we should use paper money. In fact it's the opposite because the founders understood the danger of having a paper money, which is exactly why they took these safeguards against it.
Nothing changes the value of the dollar is what we give it backed by the faith of the American tax payer. The difference is if its in government hands we do not pay interest on the money the fed creates and that is one of the keys to paying our national debt and lend money like we use to.
I liked Tom Woods very much. He's very smart and well spoken.
Perhaps reading Tom Woods' book, Meltdown, made it easy to appreciate him in this hearing. I think the interrogation by the Congressman from No. CA was painful and clearly hostile in its intention, complete with sarcasm. This put Tom Woods in a bad light, as did Barney Frank's redress of Tom Woods for categorizing the group of economists as being bought and sold. Though the categorization may have been too broad, I believe it is consistent with the public's frustration and mistrust of the prevailing system and those who would defend it. Tom Woods' honest reaction, however broad, is probably an accurate assessment, and rang true with me.
As for Scott Alvarez-- what a smooth talking lawyer. He had every answer perfectly suited and expressed. It sounded totally convincing to me. What ever on earth was I thinking--he had every sound argument, but this is not merely an academic exercise. As the Congresswoman from Wisconsin said, this should be a full audit of both policy and numbers. Somewhere in the scope of the Fed's unlimited powers to create policy, there is very likely to be a revelation. As Tom Woods said, something hasn't been working, why do we want more of that! It is interesting that the Fed sent only the attorney and none of the money policymakers.
I agree that this hearing will have little or no bearing on the way the vote goes(whenever they get to it) and was a show for the public-- lots of opportunities for the members to represent themselves as heroes to their constituents, who are just anxious to have this move along.
Why can this same body pass bills overnight,despite objections from the people, yet they need an elaborate staged hearing just to consider bringing this already fully sponsored/supported bill to a vote?! --More posing for the masses that amounts to another delay tactic and failure to deliver on the public will. We the People raised our bi-partisan voice to bring this bill to this point, and what do we get? A PR stunt.
I agree with you James to some extent, but not completely. I agree that Dr. Woods was potentially less effective than I would have liked. We'll find out how effective he was or wasn't in a few days. However, I don't agree with you that Mr. Alvarez came across as a person much better. To me he came across as an attorney defending his client by being as vague as possible on the answers to the questions he was asked.
That being said, I'm not convinced that the testimony of either party will really make a difference at all in the passage of this bill. This hearing would never have happened if it wasn't for the American people taking action and contacting their representatives. The majority of the people that co-sponsored this bill would have ignored it just like any other year if it wasn't for the people demanding they support it. It wasn't a hearing the people wanted, however this is a tremendous step forward. It is transparency of the Fed that the people of America want, and they will demand it until they get it. This hearing, to some extent, is immaterial. I don't think anyone changed their mind on how they are going to vote.
Ron Paul needs to get somebody with better PR skills from the Mises institute for these kind of hearings. Tom Woods displayed zero charm and zero interpersonal skills when being questioned by the members. Compare Woods to Scott Alvarez from the Fed; completely another demeanor and way of building people relations with those questioning him. Alvarez came accross as a person much better. Woods may be a great technician, but to get the audit of the fed to happen we need people that can communicate, and do so with class.
I wanted badly to watch Tom Woods testimony and the HR1207 hearing en toto. The link at Barney Frank's HFS Committee was SOUNDLESS. (bastards)
Was it taped by CSpan?
Does anyone have a link to the whole hearing - PLEASE - ANYONE????
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *
7 × = twenty eight
You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>
Yes, send me email updates and action alerts from RonPaul.com
Notify me of follow-up comments by email.
Notify me of new posts by email.
RonPaul.com is maintained by independent grassroots supporters of Ron Paul. Neither this website nor the articles, posts, videos or photos appearing on it are paid for, approved, endorsed or reviewed by Ron Paul or his staff.