sensible bank regulation

tokeprep

Well-Known Member
They COULD? This isn't about what COULD be, its about what IS. You can fantasize all you want, but your still 100% WRONG

Why don't they? Without the Fed, most politicians could never be elected. The Fed enables the Government to spend beyond its means, without the Fed the politicians would have to actually stop spending, that won't get them elected.

So as far as your little fantasy goes, never gonna happen.
You make it sound like the congress is powerless to exercise oversight or to control the Fed. The congress retains such power and may exercise it as it pleases. Could is all that matters, because the fact that it could happen defeats the narrative you want to spin about the Fed being forever unanswerable and unaccountable.

Without the Fed politicians couldn't get elected? How does that make any sense? The Fed enables the government to spend beyond its means? You don't need the Fed for that!
 

tokeprep

Well-Known Member
You should read the Constitution once in a while.

Article 1, section 9

No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.
Has this been violated...?
 

Dr Kynes

Well-Known Member
True, they don't do shit. However, there is a big difference between being having no oversight; and not exercising your powers of oversight.
the congress has established a system where they literally have NO oversight, by design.

by enthroning a bureaucracy the congress frees it'self form the burden of blame when the bureaucracy performs it's function as intended.

example:
the FDA prohibits weed despite all the evidence that there is no call for it, and the congress just shrugs and says "we didnt make those rules... "
the IRS engages in illegal taxation, and without actual legislation which can be overturned by the courts, and the congress shrugs and says " the IRS makes those rules, not us..."
the EPA classifies CO2 as a pollutant and the congress smiles and throws up it's collective hands helplessly "we didnt do that..."

establishing bureacracies to do by regulation what the congress is PROHIBIITED from doing by legislation is old shit now. they do it without thinking, and the people seem to accept it without complaint.
 

Dr Kynes

Well-Known Member
Has this been violated...?
yes. it has.

many times every day for the last 100 or so years.

bypassing the treasury dept and going through the fed violates the spirit and the letter of the law. creating the extra-constitutional bureaucracy of the fed was a deliberate attempt to circumvent restrictions placed on the federal government by the constitution.


pretending the federal reserve is part of the treasury dept is your next assertion right?

sorry, im totally InB4, but that dog does not nor will it ever, in any way, hunt.
 

tokeprep

Well-Known Member
the congress has established a system where they literally have NO oversight, by design.

by enthroning a bureaucracy the congress frees it'self form the burden of blame when the bureaucracy performs it's function as intended.

example:
the FDA prohibits weed despite all the evidence that there is no call for it, and the congress just shrugs and says "we didnt make those rules... "
the IRS engages in illegal taxation, and without actual legislation which can be overturned by the courts, and the congress shrugs and says " the IRS makes those rules, not us..."
the EPA classifies CO2 as a pollutant and the congress smiles and throws up it's collective hands helplessly "we didnt do that..."

establishing bureacracies to do by regulation what the congress is PROHIBIITED from doing by legislation is old shit now. they do it without thinking, and the people seem to accept it without complaint.
Except they do have oversight, by design. In order to delegate power, the congress must have oversight. If an agency does something the congress doesn't like, the congress can overrule it. Legal weed? No tax? Not a pollutant? if congress says yes or no, whatever the agency said is irrelevant.

We got here because the world is complex and congress is not the place to make some of these decisions. Come on now, you know what it means when "congress" decides, don't you? A legion of lobbyists, drafts in hand, descend on the capitol to explain to our ignorant lawmakers how their bills are going to do such wonderful things. Isn't the problem that the group with the deepest pockets can have the most significant influence? And you want to turn it all over to them, really? You want to unleash everything to the ravenous wolves, to the lobbyists, to the staffs?
 

tokeprep

Well-Known Member
yes. it has.

many times every day for the last 100 or so years.

bypassing the treasury dept and going through the fed violates the spirit and the letter of the law. creating the extra-constitutional bureaucracy of the fed was a deliberate attempt to circumvent restrictions placed on the federal government by the constitution.
You'll have to explain how it was meant to circumvent restrictions placed on the federal government. Under an 1800s case, the supreme court declared that the constitution permitted the federal government to issue fiat currency; congress delegated this power to the Fed in 1913, and the courts have upheld that delegation as constitutional.

You might not like it, but reality is that it's totally constitutional.

pretending the federal reserve is part of the treasury dept is your next assertion right?

sorry, im totally InB4, but that dog does not nor will it ever, in any way, hunt.
The Board of Governors is an independent federal agency. It controls the issuance of Federal Reserve Notes and monetary policy.
 

NoDrama

Well-Known Member
How does that make any sense? The Fed enables the government to spend beyond its means? You don't need the Fed for that!
Wait, you don't understand how a direct tax for everything that needs to be spent would keep congress's excessively thrifty ways in check? SO, if government needed to pay off the public debt tomorrow, you woudn't protest the $230,000 bill you get payable within one year or its off to prison with ya? That seem ok to you?

Or congress can make up a piece of paper called a Bond, and sell it to the Fed for whatever amount of money it needs to build a nice new stadium or something. And you just have to pay your share of the minimum payment, cuz its on credit with 30 years to pay for it and after the 30 years is up, just do it all over again.

You understand how this works or not?
 

tokeprep

Well-Known Member
Wait, you don't understand how a direct tax for everything that needs to be spent would keep congress's excessively thrifty ways in check? SO, if government needed to pay off the public debt tomorrow, you woudn't protest the $230,000 bill you get payable within one year or its off to prison with ya? That seem ok to you?

Or congress can make up a piece of paper called a Bond, and sell it to the Fed for whatever amount of money it needs to build a nice new stadium or something. And you just have to pay your share of the minimum payment, cuz its on credit with 30 years to pay for it and after the 30 years is up, just do it all over again.

You understand how this works or not?
Except most of the budget is funded by tax revenues and that has always been the case; and most of the national debt--the vast, vast majority of it--has been owned by parties other than the Fed. You don't need the Fed to spend $3.8 trillion a year and to have a $15 trillion debt.

The federal deficit this year is going to be about $600 billion, meaning the government actually will have received $3.2 trillion of the $3.8 trillion it spends this year.
 

NoDrama

Well-Known Member
The answer is no, dumbass. Only if you live in some magical fantasy reality that ignores legality reality.
O Rly? Explain where the TARP money went then. Don't simplify it, really try to figure out where it went by using every public record you have available. I think you'll find nothing. Anything you find in the official record I would like you to link to it.
The Fed is not under the authority of the Freedom of Information Act.
 

NoDrama

Well-Known Member
Except most of the budget is funded by tax revenues and that has always been the case; and most of the national debt--the vast, vast majority of it--has been owned by parties other than the Fed. You don't need the Fed to spend $3.8 trillion a year and to have a $15 trillion debt.

The federal deficit this year is going to be about $600 billion, meaning the government actually will have received $3.2 trillion of the $3.8 trillion it spends this year.
Revenue total is $2.7 Trillion, making us almost 1 trillion short. That's a bill of $4,300 for each and every living soul in the USA.

If everyone got that bill, there would be a massive rush of politicians out the door almost overnight. If you think otherwise, well I can't help it if you live in fairy tale world in your box on the third floor.

http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/total
 

tokeprep

Well-Known Member
O Rly? Explain where the TARP money went then. Don't simplify it, really try to figure out where it went by using every public record you have available. I think you'll find nothing. Anything you find in the official record I would like you to link to it.
The Fed is not under the authority of the Freedom of Information Act.
You haven't made any case why it would be a constitutional violation. We have plenty of records to go from, so that's no excuse.
 

tokeprep

Well-Known Member
Revenue total is $2.7 Trillion, making us almost 1 trillion short. That's a bill of $4,300 for each and every living soul in the USA.

If everyone got that bill, there would be a massive rush of politicians out the door almost overnight. If you think otherwise, well I can't help it if you live in fairy tale world in your box on the third floor.

http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/total
I like how you accepted my higher spending figure and tried to junk the higher revenue figure. If we go by CBO, receipts will be $2.8 trillion and spending will be $3.45 trillion, leaving the gap I specified. The point was that the government takes in the vast majority of the money it spends these days.
 

NoDrama

Well-Known Member
You haven't made any case why it would be a constitutional violation. We have plenty of records to go from, so that's no excuse.
i never said it was a constitutional violation you dipshit. You should get reading glasses and then have your brain removed and replaced with one that can think clearly. Someone said that there is nothing in the constitution that says that they have to have an accounting done. I proved them wrong.

Now go fuck your dumb self

Goddamned idiot.
 

tokeprep

Well-Known Member
i never said it was a constitutional violation you dipshit. You should get reading glasses and then have your brain removed and replaced with one that can think clearly. Someone said that there is nothing in the constitution that says that they have to have an accounting done. I proved them wrong.

Now go fuck your dumb self

Goddamned idiot.
What accounting hasn't been done...? If it's required by the constitution, not doing it is a violation of the constitution. Do you not recognize this...?
 

Harrekin

Well-Known Member
The constitution requires the congress to oversee a lot of things. Many of them, like money, have been delegated to other agencies. The oversight hearings are part of the constitutionally required oversight for the delegation of power to be proper. It's not different than many other powers that congress has passed other people.
No no, the constitution grants the Feds power to coin money and to access credit on behalf of the United States...where does it mention the power can be deligated to a private agency to issue their own funny money with little to no oversight?

I bet tokenperv IS Ben Bernake, sucking his own pecker and believing his own lies.
 

tokeprep

Well-Known Member
No no, the constitution grants the Feds power to coin money and to access credit on behalf of the United States...where does it mention the power can be deligated to a private agency to issue their own funny money with little to no oversight?

I bet tokenperv IS Ben Bernake, sucking his own pecker and believing his own lies.
The constitution doesn't say anything about that, but the body of constitutional law on delegation of powers does. The court cases addressing this question say that congress constitutionally delegated its power to the Fed, so that's that.
 
Top