Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Sanders Concerned White House May Kill Fed Audit Amendment

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU
 
t0dd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-04-10 03:02 PM
Original message
Sanders Concerned White House May Kill Fed Audit Amendment
Edited on Tue May-04-10 03:03 PM by t0dd
Source: TalkingPointsMemo

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) has rounded up an impressive, bipartisan array of cosponsors to an amendment he authored requiring an audit of the Federal Reserve. Just today, he added Sens. Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH) and Maria Cantwell (D-WA) to a list that includes 12 Republicans, seven Democrats, in addition to Sanders himself.

In the past, a different version of legislation opening up the fed to audit received 59 votes--one shy of the 60 required to break a filibuster. But eight of the Republicans who voted no are now cosponsors of Sanders' amendment. That should mean it's a shoo-in, right?

Not necessarily.

"Am I concerned that some of the most powerful and wealthiest people in the world are in opposition to my amendment, people who have run the United States Congress for decades?" Sanders asked reporters rhetorically before a caucus meeting today. "Do I have any worry about that? Yeah. I do."

"Do I think we're going to get a vote? Yes. Do I think we have a chance to get 60 votes? Yes."

When I asked, though, whether he worried that the White House might succeed in peeling away Democratic support for his amendment--just as they did during the health care debate vis-a-vis a popular drug reimportation amendment--Sanders acknowledged it was a real possibility.

And indeed, it's early to assume that prior support for the idea of auditing the Fed will translate into a vote for Sanders' amendment.

Read more: http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/05/sanders-concerned-white-house-may-kill-fed-audit-amendment.php
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Enrique Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-04-10 03:04 PM
Response to Original message
1. Geithner!
:mad:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DJ13 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-04-10 03:08 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. Exactly
This is why the Rubin alums are spread out throughout the government.

Its a hedge to keep their criminal enterprise a secret from the public, and when Obama selected Geithner for Treasury he insured there would be no real reforms.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-05-10 06:03 AM
Response to Reply #1
17. Look at who Sanders says it is--people who have run Congress for decades.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sabrina 1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-06-10 01:15 AM
Response to Reply #1
28. Yes, he is the number one suspect. He has fought everyone to try to
keep the negotiations that bailed out AIG secret, and to prevent the list of the banks who were the benficiaries of the 100% bailout, from becoming public.

Neil Barofsky, Elizabeth Warren, Bloomberg and many others have tried to get him to reveal the list as well as how it was decided to use TARP money to bail out AIG 100% when normally such bail-outs would be more like between 40% and 60%. By doing that they cost the tax-payers billions of dollars, and will not say who were the beneficiaries. I think Barofsky, the Special Investigator of the TARP funds, suspects that Golman Sachs was one of them.

People also want to know if former Bush appointee to the Fed, Freidman engaged in insider trading when he bought stocks in Goldman Sachs right before that questionable bailout was made public.

Barofsky is a tough in vestigator by all accounts and when asked recently if Geithner might be indicted he had no comment.

Elizabeth WArren questioned Geithner at length about the actions of the Fed in a recent hearing, but he dodged every question.

They have a lot to hide so Sanders is probably right, they do not want an audit and the question is 'what are they hiding'?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BrklynLiberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-04-10 03:10 PM
Response to Original message
3. DAMN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Northerner Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-04-10 03:32 PM
Response to Original message
4. Gee, I wonder why there might be opposition to auditing the Fed...
I do hope it passes nonetheless but it looks like it might be an uphill battle.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ebbie15644 Donating Member (97 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-04-10 03:36 PM
Response to Original message
5. Time to call
I called Casey and Specter and told them to support the amendment!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ebbie15644 Donating Member (97 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-04-10 03:43 PM
Response to Reply #5
7. I doubt
He will veto the entire bill
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-05-10 06:08 AM
Response to Reply #5
19. I'll call out of habit, not bc I have hope that we are actually influencing our legislators.
Edited on Wed May-05-10 06:38 AM by No Elephants
If anything should have told us that, it was the so-called health care reform bill. 70% of all Americans, not Democrats, Americans, wanted a public option. Was one in the bill?

Voters went to sleep. I hope they wake up soon. It may already be too late, but I hope not. We have to shake our apathy and inertia fast, though.

Please see Reply # 23.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-04-10 03:38 PM
Response to Original message
6. Even if it gets 60 votes, there's no way Obama doesn't veto this
n/t.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
robinblue Donating Member (385 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-04-10 06:24 PM
Response to Reply #6
15. That would be very telling indeed!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
high density Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-04-10 03:44 PM
Response to Original message
8. Can he find 67 votes?
Unfortunately I can easily see Obama vetoing this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jefferson23 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-04-10 03:49 PM
Response to Original message
9. I love you Bernie! n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
biermeister Donating Member (425 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-04-10 04:02 PM
Response to Original message
10. www.auditthefed.com sign the petition! nt.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jefferson23 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-04-10 06:32 PM
Response to Reply #10
16. Done and thanks. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-05-10 06:10 AM
Response to Reply #10
20. I'll sign, but not bc I believe internet petitions do squat. Please see Reply ##s 19 and 23.
Edited on Wed May-05-10 06:39 AM by No Elephants
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jefferson23 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-05-10 08:36 PM
Response to Reply #10
25. Kick for audit the fed. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jody Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-04-10 04:37 PM
Response to Original message
11. A veto would betray those who work for their daily bread and enrich the corporatist puppet masters
who control our government.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wildbilln864 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-04-10 04:39 PM
Response to Original message
12. ******k&r! nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ShockediSay Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-04-10 05:20 PM
Response to Original message
13. Maybe the future of our now so-called democracy, lies w/ the 3d party independents
forgetting Joe Lieberman, as I try to do every day

and I live in Connecticut
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-05-10 06:17 AM
Response to Reply #13
21. Don't think so. For the most part, Independents will vote either Pub or Dem.
Look at what Sanders says: the people who may stop his amendment are the same ones who have controlled Congress for decades. That means people who control Congress whether it is majority Dem or it is majority Pub. The money people.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ShockediSay Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-05-10 08:39 PM
Response to Reply #21
26. It's The Lobbyists nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
boppers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-04-10 06:22 PM
Response to Original message
14. Text here:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:SP3738:

Still allows permanent secret decisions, and 180 days of embargoing....

"Audits of the Federal Reserve Board and Federal reserve banks shall not include unreleased transcripts or minutes of meetings of the Board of Governors or of the Federal Open Market Committee. To the extent that an audit deals with individual market actions, records related to such actions shall only be released by the Comptroller General after 180 days have elapsed following the effective date of such actions."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-05-10 06:19 AM
Response to Reply #14
22. IOW, even an amendment that is not as strong as it should be might not make it
through Congress and Obama.

Nothing new about that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wilms Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-05-10 06:07 AM
Response to Original message
18. k&r n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-05-10 06:35 AM
Response to Original message
23. The U.S. has ceased being a democracy, for practical purposes. At some point, while we slept, it
MODs: In the source, the quote below is only 2 paragraphs total. I broke it up for readablity.
became a plutonomy.

Plutonomy:

"Economic growth that is powered and consumed by the wealthiest upper class of society.

Plutonomy refers to a society where the majority of the wealth is controlled by an ever-shrinking minority; as such, the economic growth of that society becomes dependent on the fortunes of that same wealthy minority

Investopedia explains Plutonomy
This buzz word was initially coined by analysts at Citigroup in 2005 to describe the incredible growth of the U.S. economy during that period despite increasing interest rates, commodity prices and an inflated national debt.

Citigroup analysts argued that as such an economy continues to grow in the face of contradictory elements, the more important the society's ultra rich become to maintaining such growth. The analysts also believed that in addition to the U.S., Canada, Great Britain and China are also becoming plutonomies."

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/plutonomy.asp


The 2006 Citigroup memo where the word plutonomy appeared for the first time--they had to invent a new word, because we had gone well beyond plutocracy by then--will curl your hair. If you have none, it will curl your scalp. Read 'em and weep.

If it's too hard to read, even with the virtual magnifying glass, you can find it on the net in pdf if you google.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/6674234/Citigroup-Oct-16-2005-Plutonomy-Report-Part-1

http://www.scribd.com/doc/6674229/Citigroup-Mar-5-2006-Plutonomy-Report-Part-2
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sabrina 1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-06-10 01:43 AM
Response to Reply #23
30. Wow, I just read that. It is breath-taking in its arrogance
But it does prove that what many have suspected is not a conspiracy theory. Btw, one of the comments said that this memo appeared in the Michael Moore Doc. 'Capitalism, A Love Story'. I knew I would have to watch that move a few times as there was so much to absorb in it. I do remember references to CitiGroup though. An excellent movie for anyone who hasn't seen it.

There has been a slow, steady Corporate Coup D'etat in this country. I was surprised to see Canada mentioned as a 'plutocracy' also.

From the comment section:

We need a French Style Revolution... Where is my Guillotine?

I liked this comment, probably the only way to rescue the country since the current politicians are mostly owned and are a part of, as the memo says, what a Plutocracy requires, 'a cooperative government'/

Stunning to read that ~
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joe black Donating Member (514 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-05-10 11:26 AM
Response to Original message
24. Bernie for POTUS.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zorra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-06-10 01:01 AM
Response to Original message
27. And the argument against requiring this audit is...what, exactly?
Calling all Democratic Senators.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
laughingliberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-06-10 01:17 AM
Response to Reply #27
29. No credible argument exists. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Apr 25th 2024, 02:05 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC