thebigp

Representative Thomas Massie kicked off the legislative year on January 3 with H.R. 24, the Federal Reserve T***sparency Act. This bill is the latest in a series of bills introduced by the likes of Massie and former Congressman Ron Paul calling for a congressional audit of the Federal Reserve, an event that has never taken place in the Fed’s 105-year history. On^ in the Fed’s 105-year history. Once politically unthinkable, the drive to audit the Fed has gained considerable momentum in recent years as many Democrats and even some influential far-left progressives, such as Bernie Sanders, have signaled their support. With a president in the White House who has made no secret of his dislike for the Fed, there is a real possibility that Massie s bill—should it ever pass the House and Senate—could become law.
This bill has passed through the House with a veto-proof majority. This last Congress it passed out of committee, but the Speaker {Paul Ryan] did not pick it up. I believe if we can get it on the floor in the House and to the Senate, it would pass with a large majority; we wouldn’ t even have to worry about a veto proof majority because I believe this president would sign it.
Of course, with the House now controlled by ultra-liberal establishment such as Nancy Pelosi, who are determined to avoid any legislative matters that might resonate with a president they detest, Massie s assessment of the bill’s political prospects may be overly optimistic. But the fact that a majority of congressmen in the last Congress supported a similar bill bodes well for the movement’s eventual success.
The Fed and its supporters, for their part, remain staunchly, opposed to any congressional audit. For more than a century, they have argued that the Fed, in order to function free of political bias or attachment to special interests, must be able to operate completely independent of congressional oversight which of course would include any type of audit carried out by lawmakers.
Fed was created by an act of Congress, and from its inception has had a long history of aligning its policies with the will of powerful politicians. Treasury officials, whose debt issues the Fed buys and sells as a chief means of controlling the money supply. To argue that the Fed, its chairman, and its Board of Governors are beholden to no interests is to willfully ignore the nature and purpose of the organization. After all, the Fed is charged with managing America ‘s money supply the very money that is issued by the federal government in the first place.
Should the public and their congressional representatives come to understand how the Fed truly operates, with its network of privileged primary dealers, its shady currency trading, and its obvious tics to and preference for large banks and financial firms, pressure would be brought to bear to get rid of the Fed altogether.
For more than a century, the Fed’s monetary policies have systematically enriched the well-connected few (such as the bankers and traders who work at the Fed’s primary dealers) at the expense of the many (the rest of us, whose savings are gradually depleted by the Fed ‘s program of incessant inflation). The Federal Reserve System has fundamentally t***sformed the American economic and cultural landscape by creating a financial climate in which savers are punished (by inflation) and profligacy is rewarded (by unnaturally low interest rates and easy money that incentivize borrowing and spending.
‘nowadays risky home purchases, online currency trading, and other high-risk activities are regarded as the height of financial sophistication. And all because of generations of fed-fueled inflation. It is long past time to end the Fed. Congressman Massie s bill is a much-needed step in the right direction.

source-the New American

RT friend Loc: Kangaroo valley NSW Australia

This thread should attract an interesting OPP discussion, my sentiments entirely abovementioned.

I'm not sure if an audit would include the real value of collateral provided by Metropolitan Banks to underwrite their assets, or even if it would be realistically possible to figure out that value given all the legally misrepresented ledger entries there are, I hope some experts come forward to explain how over 90% of all new issue is done by Metropolitan Banks through electronic t***sfer completely outside of the Fed's jurisdiction, except for the small deposit the Regional banks put on the Fed's balance sheet.

Also there is this idea that the 8 tonns of gold held in Fort Knox or wh**ever, wherever, is revealed from $ 44 an ounce to something more concurrent with the real value of gold it could erase the Sovereign Debt, but would this push up the price of precious metals to maybe, - gold $30,000 an ounce. ???.

woodguru

Who knows how much gold is in Ft Knox? Different administrations have made deals with who knows how much. The last inventories I've heard of were so wrapped up in conspiracy theories that I have no idea what to think.

I suspect there is far less than is supposed to be there, but what is supposed to be there and who would even know that?

RT friend Loc: Kangaroo valley NSW Australia

That's the same as me, the problem is 1 tonne = 32150•7466 troy ounces and there are 148 million Troy ounces of gold officially reported by the US Mint in Fort Knox that's 4,603•3 tonnes according to my working out.


If you work that out at $1000 per ounce
it comes to $148,000,000,000 ($148billion) dollars just add 3 zeroes, right - z - ?, correct me if I'm wrong.

We know that is accurate because Fort Knox is audited.

So that's Fort Knox, add to that the supposed gold held in the Federal Reserve Bank Vaults in New York 458 tonnes as troy ounces that is exactly 13, 376, 987•724 troy ounces

Fort Knox 4,603 tonnes = 148,000,000 troy ounces = $148 bullion at $1,000 an ounce.

Fed. basement N.Y. only a mere 458 tonnes = 13,376, 987•724 troy ounces = $ 13• 377 billion rounded off at $1,000 an ounce.

So that's not the 8,134 tons commonly reported as US reserves or is it ?.

I just want to point that out to OPP users because this is where many people go wrong.

That's 4,603 + 458 = 5,061 "metric" tonnes where 1000 Kg is required to make 1 tonne.

And as an "imperial" measure 8,134 "imperial" tons is made up of only 2,000 lb. to the ton.

Actually I remember my teacher telling me in 1968 when I was doing a apprenticeship in Fitting and Turning that the Americans began the t***sition from the imperial system to the metric system of measurement and then the Americans abandoned the idea because it was too expensive.

One of my class mate put his hand up and said " excuse me Sir , my father told me the Yanks abandoned the idea because they couldn't figure it out". I was very upset about his comment and I would have offered him out but I had a train to catch.