Fri, Jul 25, 2014, 4:14 AM EDT - U.S. Markets open in 5 hrs 16 mins

Recent

% | $
Click the to save as a favorite.

Petr Message Board

  • winsabokk winsabokk Jan 3, 2011 4:11 PM Flag

    Ron Paul: The Fed Spends “More Money Than Congress Does"

    12/10/10 Baltimore, Maryland – This morning, Dr. Ron Paul (R-TX) held his first interview since being appointed chair of the House Monetary Policy Subcommittee. From what he says in the video below, he’s going “to think things through and not overdo things too soon,” but ultimately plans to stick to his guns, and “emphasize the oversight of the Federal Reserve.”

    He also points out why he views his new role as important in these times…

    “Obviously, it is very popular with the American people to audit the Fed and know what they’re doing when they can spend trillions of dollars and we don’t know where it goes. They have a bigger budget; they spend more money than the Congress does. Yet, we have no oversight. It was never intended
    that a secret body like this could
    create money out of thin air spend to take care of some banks and big
    business and foreign banks and the
    American people struggle? We have to look into it and we have to start to consider reforms.”

    You can see and hear more details in the clip below, which came to our attention via Bloomberg Television in its recent exclusive interview with Ron Paul.

    see link for video

    http://dailyreckoning.com/ron-paul-the-fed-spends-more-money-than-the-congress-does/

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • You are ignorant; fool!

      I'll be laughing when they spill over from Juarez to chop you up. You don't know diddley squat.

    • *... all in bed together, to F us over...^ !!!

      OMG... Are you aware how paranoid you sound? Maybe you should take up arms and share a bunker with, cdbuyer and his kissin cuzzin... I understand canned tuna is like wine, it gets better with age. LOL

    • There are inconsistencies that's for sure..

      what might seem bad for Venezuela is somehow good for the US it seems.

      Methinks it's maybe a political bias and who is in the WH that clouds things up a bit.

      Happens on both sides of the political spectrum.

    • Nice try musk

      There all in bed together, to F us over. The Fed, the banks, Wall St. and the Congress.(save a few souls like RP.)

      My ideology went out the door of my mind about five years ago... I'm a slow learner.

    • Less regulation is what got us into the recent financial crisis. That is the historical record.

      I try not to allow an ideological agenda to color my perception of reality. The government should not be in the business of capital allocation but it should protect citizens from the rapacious forces of the market and it should ensure the survival of the institutions which allow the economy to function.

    • <<I do not believe in the long term nor in the existence of free markets.>>

      Just curious...How about public sector unions?


      Allocation of capital by the many is an important part of why the US made such progress in the past.

      I take it you prefer to have govt have more of a role in these matters because you 'trust' it to do the right thing.

      I don't. I've seen far too much corruption that becomes established and that has an idirct effect of stifling innovation.

      Good thing you don't believe in the long term.

      << I find reprehensible these ease with which you would put millions out of work and into an economic wasteland.>>

      What you fail to see is that misallocation of capital over the LT can have even more disastrous impacts on the economy and jobs and govt generally has a poor record in that regard.

      The greater good is what this is all about and history is on the side of less govt and less regulation, not more.

      That's the historical record.


      Of course, there are lots of gray areas but in the end, it comes down to just how much overall govt we should have (including how much infuence it should have) and right now it seems to me it's pretty clear that there's too much govt.

      Note the differences in states' and cities' economic performance vs their style of governance and influence.


      When govt can't pay its bills on a current basis over the business cycle and keeps adding to the debt at a rate faster than the economy is growing, it's time to look in the mirror.

      Countries like Greece illustrate what can go wrong and there are many others that will rear their ugly heads in the next year or two.

      And we'll see the same thing in various states and cities because of many of the same reasons.

      Keep in mind, the financial picure is worse than we are told because of creative accounting.

      At some point, we have to stop bailing out those that aren't responsible or we run the risk of failure of the country as a whole.

      And loss of lots more jobs.

      You favor bailing out California, Illinois et al by increasing taxes on states that acted responsibly?

      Where will you invest your $$ if that happens?

      Outside of the US?

      Do you also favor capital controls and restrictions on where US citizens can invest?



      Wins

    • 1. I do not believe in rewarding bad behavior but I do believe in saving those who have suffered collateral damage as a result of the acts of others.

      2. As an institution, the Fed has become more transparent over the course of its existence and the current Fed is the the most transparent ever.

      3. My investment returns are a minor influence on my perception of things in the real world. Generally, I try to rely on data, the facts. Current economic policy has been effective at meeting its goals of underpinning the financial system and promoting economic activity. The facts support this conclusion. Its worth noting that my investment returns have depended on being mostly long, as opposed to short, and mostly US investments, as opposed to EMs.

      4. I do not believe in the long term nor in the existence of free markets.

      5. I believe the institutions of Wall Street needed to be saved, but that many more of the leaders of those institutions should have been punished.

      6. You suggest I am selfish, but I find reprehensible these ease with which you would put millions out of work and into an economic wasteland. You want to dish out pain, but you do not seem to care who suffers -- including yourself. This is similar to the psychological profile of suicide bombers.

      7. I think we can agree to disagree.

    • Musk, obviously, lives in a fantasy land where as long as his portfolio rises the Fed. and US 1is right.

      Can't wait until he is retiring and has the financial rug pulled beneath him, inflation is rampant and he becomes the new greeter at Walmart and commiserates, with his fellow workers, about the days when his portfolio was huge. Right before the bubble crashed and his nest egg halved.

      It has happened many times in my lifetime to so many people I know. He is so smug in his faith in the NYFRB. He obviously does not own real estate and this is his first time having his portfolio ransacked for the sake of lavish WS bonuses.

      He will also learn the key phrase "will that be paper or plastic" The Fed will make our poverty a continuous cycle.

    • I know you have me on iggy so, please, don't respond.

      You wrote: "The notion of letting *natural processes* rule our economic life is even more absurd than the notion of free markets."

      You consider the free market system an "absurd...notion"?

      What system do you prefer or are YOU working toward?

      When you see Chinese Aircraft Carriers; coming on line in July '11'; off the East Coast you, now, have someone to blame. That would be you Musk, you dirt bag. When China starts selling TBs on the open market and the dollar goes to zero, we now have someone to blame; other than the Fed. douche.

    • Musk, if you don't see the damage that Bernanke is doing by bailing out WS with the printing presses and virtually rewarding bad behaviour, there's not much I can say to convince you.

      And I don't mean just the formallly announced bailout plans and programmes.

      there have been undisclosed activities that dwarf the scale and scope of the announced programmes that should bother the hell out of you.

      Yet you believe in transparency???

      You seem like an intelligent enough guy but it seems to me you are looking at your very recent investment returns and are using that as a guage to evaluate policy over most everything else.

      i prefer to look at things from a more LT (and less selfish) perspective and I honestly believe bad behaviour should not be rewarded.

      Issues related to moral hazard here are not lost on me and free markets must be allowed to work.

      wall street banks equity should be allowed to be wiped out just like should have(but didn't) happen at GM.

      Do you support what happened at GM in order to bail out union interests because if you do, there's no way we see eye to eye on how markets should work.



      Bondholders would have been waiting in the wings of GM (and these WS banks) and I would much prefer that reorganizations were made after some pain had been dished out.

      Pain is important. It reinforces lessons.

      It also forces business to downsize and refocus when it becomes necessary ...with an eye on the pain that was previously suffered.

      But instead we see central planning( US style)...the sort of thing you might criticize if it was say in Brazil???

    • View More Messages
 
PBR
17.07-0.08(-0.47%)Jul 24 4:00 PMEDT

Trending Tickers

i
Trending Tickers features significant U.S. stocks showing the most dramatic increase in user interest in Yahoo Finance in the previous hour over historic norms. The list is limited to those equities which trade at least 100,000 shares on an average day and have a market cap of more than $300 million.