AUDIT THE FED hearing to be broadcast live

[Maestro232]

So....what's next? Is that the end of the hearing for today?

 

[newbitech]

yeah, got to make sure we have the votes necessary, so stick with the text of the bill.

good thing you have such a handle on the process.

are you still wasting your time dancing around my observations?

The "language" of the bill is what I said, not text. The process is like several congressmen/women in support of this have said, to take away the arguments of anyone against the bill.

Several of Wood's exchanges did the opposite of this, sad to say.

 

[PreDeadMan]

so....

is that it or are they coming back i see the video says they are in a recess? i missed 95 % of this whole thing up untill 4 minutes before they went to recess damnit lol....i hope someone youtubes this!

 

[torchbearer]

Several of Wood's exchanges did the opposite of this, sad to say.

which words had an opposite effect and why?

 

[JamesButabi]

I think woods gave a complete and honest testimony.
He has the right to say anything he wants in his testimony as long as it is the truth.
The people in congress who oppose this measure are bought and paid for...
He shouldn't have backed down, Woods should have requested an investigation into the federal reserves lobbyist and finances of those congressmen who seem to be leading the charge for the fed reserve.
I wouldn't back down. I'd make it tomorrow's headlines.

I think that would be even better TBH. Why shy away? This is what we have worked for. Make it known what we think, get headlines, get people riled up calling their reps, do not back down. I like how he expresses that if the fed wasn't so secretive they wouldn't have to delve into rhetoric. When thats all you have access to what do you expect?

 

[Andrew-Austin]

I don't know, he pretty much forced Barney into the position where he argued against the possibility of people being against the bill being "paid off". Just the fact that Frank brought it up kept reinforcing the possibilty. Which side do you think the majority of the American people are more likely to believe?

What did Woods say at the end of that exchange with Frank again?

Something like: I find it hard to imagine that taxpayers demanded you protect the Fed.

 

[MsDoodahs]

Is it over?

Anyone know?

 

[ARealConservative]

The "language" of the bill is what I said, not text. The process is like several congressmen/women in support of this have said, to take away the arguments of anyone against the bill.

Several of Wood's exchanges did the opposite of this, sad to say.

the text of the bill = the language of the bill.

 

[Chester Copperpot]

when are they going to come back to announce the votes?

 

[torchbearer]

when are they going to come back to announce the votes?

do we have the numbers in the committee to get it to the floor?

 

[Bruno]

why the hell was this not on Cpan?

 

[Chester Copperpot]

do we have the numbers in the committee to get it to the floor?

Im guessing from the way they mostly seemed to support it

 

[torchbearer]

Im guessing from the way they mostly seemed to support it

I guess its up to Chairman Fudd to call for a vote.
That doesn't seem to be happening today.

 

[Chieftain1776]

Nope just wanted him to stick the language of the bill instead of trying to squeeze in 50 years of austrian economics into 5 minutes of exchange between various voters and decision makers.

eh, as I mentioned earlier it should have stuck to the technical aspects but I don't think the arguments advanced in these hearings really matter to be honest. It's not a bunch of statesmen mulling over the merits of each argument.

For example remember when there were testimonies on Iraq? Shinseki a four star general and Chief of Staff of the Army gave them a troop estimate that shocked the public the neocons like Wolfowitz scoffed and belittled the number and they got their war anyway.

So the hearings are mainly a reflection of our activism as opposed to a crucial step in the process. Pressure is what matters.

 

[specsaregood]

What did Woods say at the end of that exchange with Frank again?

Something like: I find it hard to imagine that taxpayers demanded you protect the Fed.

I don't recall, but no doubt a tube will be up later.

But look at it this way, if they don't allow it to go up to a vote, it will look like Woods was right and they are "paid off". Seems to me he threw that out there like a worm on a hook and Frank took the bait.

 

[newbitech]

which words had an opposite effect and why?

Well for instance, one of the biggest arguments against the bill is that it would allow congress to manipulate FED policy decisions through politicizing the results of the audit.

We all know this is true to a certain extent. In fact, most of us hope that this bill will pass to expose the lying BY THE NUMBERS. I understand that the two are related, in fact I think most people understand that the two are related.

However, this bill is carefully worded to make sure that certain none policy related questions of the existing GAO audit of the fed are repealed.
Unfortunately, it sounded like what Woods was advocating was a full on investigation of the federal reserve and ALL of its actions.

While I don't disagree that this needs to occur, and people should go to jail, I don't think that is what this hearing needed to be about.

Specifically, Woods didn't answer a direct question from Watts. Sure Watts is a douche bag and was asking leading questions. But the fact that Watts had to pry the answer out of Woods on making a distinction between a numbers audit and a policy audit showed that there is merit to argument that this bill might be more than "just a numbers" audit.

Also, the exchange between Bachman and Woods, they both specifically agreed that a numbers audit AND a policy audit are necessary.

I feel like his gave the impression that this bill does not go far enough. And I agree it doesn't. BUT if this bill gets watered down or augmented to appease the requirement that a policy audit need not occur, this allows the argument that the lawyer had to be taken one step further.

Such that the reason those sections of 13-3 are excluded from the audit is that those sections ARE part of monetary policy. If that is the determination of Congress and the compromise that is made, then this bill is moot.

 

[newbitech]

the text of the bill = the language of the bill.

sorry have to disagree on that. Make the distinction between a policy audit and a numbers audit.

The bill doesn't do this with text, but clearly the language does.

Maybe you see them as the same, but I made the distinction because you don't necessarily have to talk about the text to be talking about the language.

I thought that not only did Woods get away from the text, he also got away from the language.

 

[newbitech]

eh, as I mentioned earlier it should have stuck to the technical aspects but I don't think the arguments advanced in these hearings really matter to be honest. It's not a bunch of statesmen mulling over the merits of each argument.

For example remember when there were testimonies on Iraq? Shinseki a four star general and Chief of Staff of the Army gave them a troop estimate that shocked the public the neocons like Wolfowitz scoffed and belittled the number and they got their war anyway.

So the hearings are mainly a reflection of our activism as opposed to a crucial step in the process. Pressure is what matters.

I do not disagree. I am not bashing Woods, just saying he didn't really capture the spirit that you are talking about IMO. Nothing he said was really that riveting IMO. It was cool that he was up there, but I wouldn't put this witness (Woods) up against the FED's witness (the lawyer whats his face) at my trial.

I just refer back to Alan Grayson's grilling of the lawyer.

I don't know, maybe Woods was just a little melodramatic after hearing the grilling the lawyer got.

I am really not impressed with anything Woods said. I thought he got into a scrap where he shouldn't have an came across as too aggressive on points that had nothing to do with the bill in question.

Hell even Woods questioned himself. "Why I couldn't get my point across."

Sure he got interrupted, but that is what testifying in Congress is all about. You don't get to just give a speech, you have to answer questions too. And I don't think he handled the first one very well. He saved it a little bit by punting to Dr. Paul when he didn't have a good answer. But over all, I think he didn't really say enough to capture the spirit and probably compounded the question of separating a policy audit from a numbers audit.

Just my take away. I hope we have more hearings and the pro-audit witnesses are more prepared to answer the questions from the anti-audit questioners.

 

[KAYA]

So is it over?

 

[s35wf]

sorry have to disagree on that. Make the distinction between a policy audit and a numbers audit.

The bill doesn't do this with text, but clearly the language does.

Maybe you see them as the same, but I made the distinction because you don't necessarily have to talk about the text to be talking about the language.

I thought that not only did Woods get away from the text, he also got away from the language.

Yeah; we shoulve had Grayson do the closing arguements