HR 1207 is growing w/out the media help
- Thread starter Gainster
- Start date
Can HR1207 save the dollar?
NEW YORK – The price of gold surged to a fresh high Wednesday as the dollar fell to a 15-month low.
Gold futures for December delivery jumped to as high as $1,119.10 an ounce on the New York Mercantile Exchange in morning trading, then slipped back to $1,114.20, up $11.70 from Tuesday's close.
Commodities including gold have been rising as the dollar has dropped. Gold's latest advance came as the dollar fell after Federal Reserve officials reiterated that the central bank will keep interest rates low for an extended period to support the economic recovery.
Low rates tend to weaken currencies including the dollar, encouraging investors to put their money in higher-yielding assets like gold. Investors also use gold as a hedge, not only against the falling dollar but also against inflation, which economists don't see as a threat right now.
The market, however, feels otherwise.
"There is this idea that inflation is inevitable," said Richard Sparks, senior equities analyst at Schaeffer's Investment Research.
Gold prices are up 26 percent year-to-date. That compares with a mere 5.5 percent increase in the gold price in 2008.
Remarks by Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner that the government supports a strong greenback did little to quell investors' concerns about a continued slide in the dollar. The ICE Futures US dollar index, a widely used gauge of the dollar against other major currencies, slid 0.2 percent after earlier hitting its lowest point since August 2008.
NEW YORK – The price of gold surged to a fresh high Wednesday as the dollar fell to a 15-month low.
Gold futures for December delivery jumped to as high as $1,119.10 an ounce on the New York Mercantile Exchange in morning trading, then slipped back to $1,114.20, up $11.70 from Tuesday's close.
Commodities including gold have been rising as the dollar has dropped. Gold's latest advance came as the dollar fell after Federal Reserve officials reiterated that the central bank will keep interest rates low for an extended period to support the economic recovery.
Low rates tend to weaken currencies including the dollar, encouraging investors to put their money in higher-yielding assets like gold. Investors also use gold as a hedge, not only against the falling dollar but also against inflation, which economists don't see as a threat right now.
The market, however, feels otherwise.
"There is this idea that inflation is inevitable," said Richard Sparks, senior equities analyst at Schaeffer's Investment Research.
Gold prices are up 26 percent year-to-date. That compares with a mere 5.5 percent increase in the gold price in 2008.
Remarks by Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner that the government supports a strong greenback did little to quell investors' concerns about a continued slide in the dollar. The ICE Futures US dollar index, a widely used gauge of the dollar against other major currencies, slid 0.2 percent after earlier hitting its lowest point since August 2008.
W
Wolfrun
ACCOUNT CLOSED
The fall of the dollar scares the crap out of me. The wife told me I had better update my wheelbarrow because we would need a wheelbarrow of money to buy a loaf of bread when Bo gets done.I don't believe a word Geithner had to say either, he still looks like a deer in the headlights. He scares me too.
Crap!
November 13, 2009
What was the federal deficit for October? Go ahead, guess.
Rick Moran
The federal government took in $176.36 billion dollars less than it received in revenue for the month ending October 31.
As an old codger, I can fondly recall the days when that number was an abomination of a deficit for an entire year. Now Obama has made it a monthly monstrosity.
Meena Thiruvengadam and Darrell Hughes of the Wall Street Journal put that number in perspective:
The October deficit figure is wider than the Congressional Budget Office's estimate for a $175 billion deficit in the month and wider than the $165.9 billion expected by analysts surveyed by Dow Jones Newswires.
The Treasury on Thursday also revised September's deficit to a slightly narrower $46.57 billion, from a previously reported $46.61 billion. Even with the revision, the U.S. in fiscal year 2009 posted a record total budget deficit of near $1.4 trillion -- three times its previous record.
At the equivalent of 9.9% of gross domestic product, the figure is the widest U.S. deficit as a share of GDP since 1945.
The staggering number has had U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner pledging to rein in the deficit as the nation's economy recovers.
The U.S. at this point is expected to post a fiscal year 2010 deficit similar to that posted in fiscal year 2009.
The government paid $17.93 billion in net interest last month on the federal debt. Net interest on the federal debt excludes interest paid on nonmarketable government securities held by federal trust funds, such as Social Security.
With trillion dollar deficits as far out as we can see, we will probably have to start importing red ink.
November 13, 2009
What was the federal deficit for October? Go ahead, guess.
Rick Moran
The federal government took in $176.36 billion dollars less than it received in revenue for the month ending October 31.
As an old codger, I can fondly recall the days when that number was an abomination of a deficit for an entire year. Now Obama has made it a monthly monstrosity.
Meena Thiruvengadam and Darrell Hughes of the Wall Street Journal put that number in perspective:
The October deficit figure is wider than the Congressional Budget Office's estimate for a $175 billion deficit in the month and wider than the $165.9 billion expected by analysts surveyed by Dow Jones Newswires.
The Treasury on Thursday also revised September's deficit to a slightly narrower $46.57 billion, from a previously reported $46.61 billion. Even with the revision, the U.S. in fiscal year 2009 posted a record total budget deficit of near $1.4 trillion -- three times its previous record.
At the equivalent of 9.9% of gross domestic product, the figure is the widest U.S. deficit as a share of GDP since 1945.
The staggering number has had U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner pledging to rein in the deficit as the nation's economy recovers.
The U.S. at this point is expected to post a fiscal year 2010 deficit similar to that posted in fiscal year 2009.
The government paid $17.93 billion in net interest last month on the federal debt. Net interest on the federal debt excludes interest paid on nonmarketable government securities held by federal trust funds, such as Social Security.
With trillion dollar deficits as far out as we can see, we will probably have to start importing red ink.
It comes down to today!
http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog.php?view=28891
Watts up? http://www.opensecrets.org/cmteprofiles/overview.php?cmte=HFIN&cmteid=H05&cycle=2010
http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog.php?view=28891
Watts up? http://www.opensecrets.org/cmteprofiles/overview.php?cmte=HFIN&cmteid=H05&cycle=2010
Last edited:
By RON PAUL AND JIM DEMINT
For nearly a century the Federal Reserve has operated in the shadows, away from the prying eyes of Congress, journalists and the American people. Created in 1913, the Fed was given enormous responsibility to protect the value of our currency. Yet in the last 96 years the U.S. dollar has lost more than 95% of its purchasing power. The Fed's unprecedented actions over the past year in attempting to stabilize the financial system have now forced it into the spotlight, and caused millions of people around the country to question the opacity of the Fed's financial transactions.
While the Fed is more transparent now than it was 20 or 30 years ago, there is still a long way to go. If the Fed were fully transparent, organizations such as Bloomberg and Fox News wouldn't have to sue its board of governors to receive materials that should be available through Freedom of Information Act requests. These include information on which banks and companies received loans and for what amounts after the 2008 financial meltdown.
One puzzling assertion made by the Fed and its supporters is that the Federal Reserve has some sort of independence from the government and independence in undertaking monetary policy. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Federal Reserve is a government-created banking monopoly, and its top decision makers are appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate. If they do not perform satisfactorily in the eyes of politicians, they will not be renominated.
The Fed has also, for the past three decades, been required to engage in monetary policy with the goal of maintaining stable prices and full employment. Since the natural trend over time is for prices to decrease, a mandate to maintain stable prices is a mandate to pursue an expansionary monetary policy and inflate the money supply to counteract the lower prices we would expect from increased productivity.
The Fed chairman is required to appear twice a year before Congress to explain the Fed's actions, and how the Fed is complying with its mandates of stable prices and full employment. However, the idea that this constitutes any sort of oversight is laughable.
Each congressman who questions the chairman receives only a few minutes in which to ask questions and receive answers. Having been on the receiving end of Alan Greenspan's notoriously obtuse "Greenspan-Speak" answers and Ben Bernanke's similarly convoluted statements, we can assure you that the process is completely ineffective at getting any real answers.
No matter how direct the questions are, Fed chairmen answer with a vagueness common to bureaucrats. The whole process is window dressing for public consumption, not any sort of attempt to exercise oversight or gain any real insight into the Fed's actions.
What is needed is a full audit of the Fed, something that has never happened. We need to know who the Fed is giving money to, what types of securities are being purchased and what backs those securities, how much money is being paid for those securities, etc.
While Rep. Mel Watt's (D., N.C.) efforts to audit the new lending facilities authorized to bail out private firms such as AIG is a step in the right direction, it is still just a first step. These facilities have the same effect on the money supply as securities purchased through open market operations. Why should securities placed on one line of the Fed's balance sheet be subject to audit while the exact same securities placed elsewhere on the balance sheet are not subject to audit? The loopholes need to be closed.
In coming weeks we plan to offer companion amendments to legislation already before the House and Senate that will open the Fed up to a complete audit. The amendments set a six-month time lag on the publication of previously unreleased audit data to address the Fed's concerns that actions undertaken in support of monetary policy would immediately be politicized. The transcripts and minutes of the Federal Open Market Committee meetings would continue to be made public at the Fed's discretion, with unpublicized details of meetings not subject to any additional scrutiny. Finally, the amendments make clear that the purpose of the audits is not to interfere with or dictate monetary policy.
As strong opponents of government intervention into the economy, we do not want to see Congress directly dictate monetary policy. But while the Fed is involved so heavily in monetary policy and its actions so heavily influence the future of our economy, it is necessary that it be fully transparent. Interventions into the economy on the order of trillions of dollars cannot continue to escape public scrutiny. American taxpayers deserve better.
Mr. Paul is a Republican congressman from Texas. Mr. DeMint is a Republican senator from South Carolina.
For nearly a century the Federal Reserve has operated in the shadows, away from the prying eyes of Congress, journalists and the American people. Created in 1913, the Fed was given enormous responsibility to protect the value of our currency. Yet in the last 96 years the U.S. dollar has lost more than 95% of its purchasing power. The Fed's unprecedented actions over the past year in attempting to stabilize the financial system have now forced it into the spotlight, and caused millions of people around the country to question the opacity of the Fed's financial transactions.
While the Fed is more transparent now than it was 20 or 30 years ago, there is still a long way to go. If the Fed were fully transparent, organizations such as Bloomberg and Fox News wouldn't have to sue its board of governors to receive materials that should be available through Freedom of Information Act requests. These include information on which banks and companies received loans and for what amounts after the 2008 financial meltdown.
One puzzling assertion made by the Fed and its supporters is that the Federal Reserve has some sort of independence from the government and independence in undertaking monetary policy. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Federal Reserve is a government-created banking monopoly, and its top decision makers are appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate. If they do not perform satisfactorily in the eyes of politicians, they will not be renominated.
The Fed has also, for the past three decades, been required to engage in monetary policy with the goal of maintaining stable prices and full employment. Since the natural trend over time is for prices to decrease, a mandate to maintain stable prices is a mandate to pursue an expansionary monetary policy and inflate the money supply to counteract the lower prices we would expect from increased productivity.
The Fed chairman is required to appear twice a year before Congress to explain the Fed's actions, and how the Fed is complying with its mandates of stable prices and full employment. However, the idea that this constitutes any sort of oversight is laughable.
Each congressman who questions the chairman receives only a few minutes in which to ask questions and receive answers. Having been on the receiving end of Alan Greenspan's notoriously obtuse "Greenspan-Speak" answers and Ben Bernanke's similarly convoluted statements, we can assure you that the process is completely ineffective at getting any real answers.
No matter how direct the questions are, Fed chairmen answer with a vagueness common to bureaucrats. The whole process is window dressing for public consumption, not any sort of attempt to exercise oversight or gain any real insight into the Fed's actions.
What is needed is a full audit of the Fed, something that has never happened. We need to know who the Fed is giving money to, what types of securities are being purchased and what backs those securities, how much money is being paid for those securities, etc.
While Rep. Mel Watt's (D., N.C.) efforts to audit the new lending facilities authorized to bail out private firms such as AIG is a step in the right direction, it is still just a first step. These facilities have the same effect on the money supply as securities purchased through open market operations. Why should securities placed on one line of the Fed's balance sheet be subject to audit while the exact same securities placed elsewhere on the balance sheet are not subject to audit? The loopholes need to be closed.
In coming weeks we plan to offer companion amendments to legislation already before the House and Senate that will open the Fed up to a complete audit. The amendments set a six-month time lag on the publication of previously unreleased audit data to address the Fed's concerns that actions undertaken in support of monetary policy would immediately be politicized. The transcripts and minutes of the Federal Open Market Committee meetings would continue to be made public at the Fed's discretion, with unpublicized details of meetings not subject to any additional scrutiny. Finally, the amendments make clear that the purpose of the audits is not to interfere with or dictate monetary policy.
As strong opponents of government intervention into the economy, we do not want to see Congress directly dictate monetary policy. But while the Fed is involved so heavily in monetary policy and its actions so heavily influence the future of our economy, it is necessary that it be fully transparent. Interventions into the economy on the order of trillions of dollars cannot continue to escape public scrutiny. American taxpayers deserve better.
Mr. Paul is a Republican congressman from Texas. Mr. DeMint is a Republican senator from South Carolina.
good Post's Gainster
.
.
good Post's Gainster
.
Thanks RLG but its not me, Its the True American Patriots Paul & DeMint that are covering all our a$$es!
Similar threads
