• #3
    That looks like real bipartisanship to me. Let's see what the Senate does with it.

    Here's a little insight into that from the source article.

    ""Not this work period," the aide said about the Senate acting on the bill ahead of the month-long August recess. "Don’t know about September, but I doubt it.""

    "Another top Senate Democratic aide concurred that the bill likely won't go anywhere, but speculated it could resurface in a different form."

    ""We probably won’t bring it up," said the aide, adding that Paul's son, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), "will probably start insisting on this as an amendment to everything under the sun, so it's possible it comes up for an amendment vote at some point.""

    Go! Go! Rand Paul! I'd also like to see Mitch McConnell do some procedural shenanigans as well to force a vote like he did with the Obama budget back in May.
  • #13
    Haha, you go Bob. The senate will stall this till it dies, they don't want the transpancy, it might enlighten the public and would bring into light some of the crooked dealings that go. Could even shoe how corrupt our system has become
  • #17
    IS there anyone left in this world that still has a strong sense of principle, ethics and morals??????????
  • #20
    Yep... People like us exist... we're just in the minority right now. And I'm not talking about republicans. I'm talking about Ron and Rand, Paul Ryan, Alan West, the rest of the Tea Party freshmen and and a handful that were already there like Louis Gohmert, Pete Sessions, and yes Michelle Bachmann.

    Small government, reduced spending and entitlement reform.... and a Fed Audit. I don't expect anything this year since President Obama would never sign it but I can hope for next year.
  • #34
    The Daily Caller has an update about 8 of the representatives who voted against the "Audit the Fed" bill.

    "Eight co-sponsors of ‘audit the Fed’ bill vote against it without explanation."

    "The eight co-sponsors, all Democrats, that voted against their own legislation not only sponsored the 2012 bill, but each also co-sponsored its 2009 incarnation."

    Huh? Something isn't adding up. Have they been apprised of something between then and new? The Daily Caller asked for comment.

    "A spokesman for California Democratic Rep. Pete Stark merely informed TheDC,“He did not release a statement,” and declined to explain his about-face."

    "Spokesmen for the other seven flip-floppers — Lynn Woolsey of California, John Conyers of Michigan, Maurice Hinchey of New York, Jim McDermott of Washington, Marcy Kaptur of Ohio, Steven Rothman of New Jersey and Silvestre Reyes of Texas — did not respond at all."

    There is a similar phenomena occurring in the Senate. As evidenced by Harry Reid.

    "In 2010 and 1995, Reid boasted that he had tried in vain to pass legislation to audit the Fed. The Nevada senator, however, is now refusing to bring the bill, which would fulfill his self-professed yearning, to a Senate vote."

    "Like the eight congressmen, Reid has ignored requests for comment."

    My guess is that it was all political for them. Now that the idea is actually catching on? Forget it. I guess they agree with Steny Hoyer

    "House opponents of the bill argued that it could result in the politicization of the Federal Reserve’s policymaking.“Congress has rightly insulated the Fed from short-term political pressures,” said House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer, a Maryland Democrat.

    So Hoyer says that we shouldn't be able to look at the books(pull back the curtain) of the Federal Reserve (Wizard of Oz) because it would politicize policymaking?

    Politics is All there IS if we can't check the MATH!
  • #33
    Sure...why not...They've got nothing better to do. Their certainly not going to fix the legal industry. Let them fix the financial industry instead.
  • #23
    ABSOLUTELY. And Bob is right: If we stood up and FORCED our representation to address more issues with a similar "this-is-just-getting-dow nright-ridiculous"-kind of attitude, we'd REALLY be getting somewhere...FAST. Maybe the outcome will encourage THE PEOPLE and CONGRESS to stand up and take charge.
  • #22
    The problem is not in the House.. They've passed a lot of bipartisan legislation (vote to abolish the Presidents health care)..
    Its the Senate that refuses to do anything.. This election will be fun to watch.
  • #18
    Way overdue. This would shine light on all those depts. That get funded directly from the Fed. Bypassing Congress. Like the New Federal Consumer Credit Protection bureau or whatever its called.
  • #43
    i think we should eliminate, the federal reserve banks. and get our goldnapped, gold and silver back held in escrow hostage.
  • #41
    The Federal Reserve is unconstitutional it should be audited and dismantled.

    Top 10 Reasons to End the Federal Reserve

    Senate leader Harry Reid supported auditing the Fed in 1995 before opposing it today.
    YouTube Harry Reid: "I think we should audit the Federal Reserve"
    &fe ature=player_embeded

    Send an e-mail to all 100 Senators today to audit the Fed.
  • Comment removed for Engagement Etiquette violation. Replies may also be deleted.
  • Comment removed for Engagement Etiquette violation. Replies may also be deleted.
  • #32
    I don't have a problem with an audit of the Federal Reserve, but it begs the question of what are they looking for?
  • #42
    When they audit the fed they will find out it is a private bank owned by international bankers.

    In 1913 when the Federal Reserve Act was fraudulently pushed through Congress, Congressman Charles Lindbergh stated: "This Act establishes the most gigantic trust on earth....When the President signs this Act, the invisible government by the money power, proven to exist by the Money Trust Investigation, will be legalized....The new law will create inflation whenever the trust wants inflation....From now on, depression will be scientifically created."

    Most people assume that the Federal Reserve Bank is federal--that is, part of the united States' government. However, the Ninth Circuit Court put that issue to rest in 1982 when they adjudicated: 
    "Examining the organization and function of the Federal Reserve Banks, and applying the relevant factors, we conclude that the Reserve Banks are not federal instrumentalities for purposes of the FTCA, but are independent, privately-owned and locally controlled corporations." [Lewis vs. U.S., 680 F. 2d 1239, 1241]

    Ron Paul: The Fed thieves from Americans and showers U.S. credit on corrupt international bankers and even thugs like Gaddaffi
  • #24
    To quote a NASA employee who was recently interviewed about this administration's space policy: "Basically what they're saying is it'd be nice to go to the moon or Mars, and the next guy in line can do it if he likes."

    Now insert "audit the Fed" in the place of "got to the Moon or Mars" and you'll get the point. Sure, it's fantastic that the two parties came together to push this bill through the House. BUT. As show by the reversal of both parties on their stance on the Bush-era tax cuts, that can change with just one election.

    Again, looks good. But I can't get behind it. "If something seems too good to be true, it probably is."
  • #15
    If this would pass, wouldn't the oversight be simular to the foxs watching out for the best interest of the chicken coop. There does the omlet.
  • #19
    Yes but these foxes have been fenced out. That's why they are upset. They don't care about the chickens, they care about a free lunch.
  • #30
    Right now there is No Oversight. The hope is that the "audit" would be made public. A better comparison is that if this passes, it would be like the police (us) investigating the financial records of Bernie Madoff (The Fed).
  • #8
    Do you think audits stop spending? Or you implying the government is involved in illegal action that needs to be hidden?
  • #10
    I'm going with your second option Hum but I doubt what they are doing is "illegal" since the law is written to allow just the types of things that require a "Wizard of Oz" type deception to pull it off. I believe unethical actions have been taking place for a long time and once the curtain gets pulled back by an audit... The Financial Industry, the Fed and the Federal Government will be caught out in the open with their hands in the cookie jar.
  • #16
    Federal Reserve Preferred shareholders. I hope during the audit they make it very clear who actually hold the preferred shares. G20 nations. Monetary Policy is shaped by the preferred shareholders. American public is basically clueless.
  • #25
    I don't Hum. I know where you are. I've been trying to get through to you that the people you bunch together as the "rich" include a whole lot of people like small/medium business owners and top tier professionals. They are not the "power players".

    It's the people and corporations (especially the financial ones) that have the money to use lawyers and politicians as tools to get the laws written in their favor. Like the Government and the Big Six banks did with Dodd-Frank. People like George Soros who hundreds of millions if not billions on his array of 501(c)(3)'s I'll throw the Koch's in there too if it'll make you happy.

    But it's not campaign donations that is the problem or even the Super Pac advertisements. It's the money spent behind the scenes paying lawyers to write the bills and lobbyists to sell it to Congress.

    I don't like the ones that use government for their own gain and use law to shut out competition. I don't want to give them More government to use against us... because they will. They always have, like the Fed, and there's no reason to expect them to change.

    Take the power away from them by shrinking the power of government. Simplify the tax code. That's the easiest way to achieve transparency. The fewer pages? the fewer places to hide loopholes and the more honest judge we can be of how much the "rich" are actually paying.
  • R Load more comments...