Sen. Sanders reads the RIOT ACT to the Fed on the Senate Floor (Update: WH offers watered down alt)

http://cinziamazzamakeup.com/?x=comprare-vardenafil-senza-ricetta-Torino (8PM EST – promoted by Nightprowlkitty)

Where did our 2 TRILLION dollars go, Ben Bernanke?

   Watch Senator Bernie Sanders as he spoke today for almost a half and hour in one of the greatest speeches the Senate has ever seen.

    I will be adding some quotes from this video in updates. I wanted to get this video published fast, because I think this is a matter of utmost importance.

    Are we looking at a Huge Scam?

~ Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT)

    The American people have a right to know where TRILLIONS of dollars of their tax payer dollars are going!

~ Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT)

    Why did the Fed argue that this information must be kept secret as a matter of National Security?

~ Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT)

     Congress required the Treasury Department to disclose who received TARP money, why is it wrong to demand the same of the Federal Reserve?

   

President Obama might veto Financial Reform if it includes the Sanders “Audit the Fed” Amendment. This would be a defining moment for his Presidency, and a massive betrayal of the public’s interests. Should Obama veto Financial Reform because it demands transparency from the Federal Reserve he will be sending the message that BANKS deserve more protection than people, that what the public wants is NOT what it will get no matter who is in charge if it threatens big money and Big Business, it will take the words spoken by Senator Dick Durbin that the banks “own the place” regarding Capital Hill, and it will make it true of the Presidency too, no matter if that President is Republican George W. Bush or Democrat Barack Obama.

   For Hope and Change to survive in American politics, you MUST NOT DO THIS, President Obama. We already know that the banks totally OWN the Republican party and many “Conservative” and moderate Democrats. If the banks obviously own the President who ran on “changing” the corruption and Corporatism of the Draconian Republican governance under George W. Bush, than hope is dead, Democracy is damned near over, and we literally have a Government for the Banks, by the Banks and of the Special Interests.

I can’t say this enough. Dear President Obama, don’t veto this bill. Give us transparency!

   Because I stand with Bernie Sanders more than any other politician . . .

    “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.

talkingpointsmemo.com

   The fact that transparency at the Federal Reserve is this hard to achieve is proof in and of itself that the Banks do OWN our Government. That is a tragedy, and as good of a reason as any of why we need to shine a light on what goes on in the dark at the Federal Reserve.

source UPDATE:

    The White House is hoping to cobble together a separate proposal, to be offered as an alternative to Sanders’ backers. The so called “side-by-side” would give them cover to vote down the Fed audit amendment, by offering them them a weaker plan to support.

But Sanders had to read about this plan in the newspaper.

“I read it in the New York Times,” Sanders said this morning, after a floor vote on a separate amendment.

Quoth the Times: “[T]he White House and the banking committee chairman, Senator Christopher J. Dodd, Democrat of Connecticut [are] scrounging for ideas for a so-called side-by-side amendment — an alternate proposal on the Fed that would give senators something to support http://maientertainmentlaw.com/?search=albumin-infusion-and-lasix while offering them cover to vote down the Sanders measure.”

talkingpointsmemo.com



go to site Bold text added by the diarist

   Why not back the Sanders Amendment? Because we can pass a watered down, toothless version of it that Tim Geithner and Ben Bernanke can believe in!

   Worse, Senator Sanders had to learn about it from the New York Times!

   So, how about that Change we can water down until Wall St owned Senators can believe in it?

   Or, we can push for real transparency.

   If this is not proof that the Federal Reserve has something to hide, I don’t know what is.

   Sunlight is the greatest disinfectant. I think the Federal Reserve could use a big dose of sunlight, don’t you?

Follow me on Twitter @JesseLaGreca

If you like my diaires join PeanutButterPAC, the Progressive PAC that fights back!

Cheers

http://maientertainmentlaw.com/?search=viagra-professional-pfizer-online Crossposted at Daily Kos buy viagra no prescription and The Progressive Electorate.com

26 comments

Skip to comment form

  1. How could anybody be against that who isn’t OWNED by the banks?

  2. we’ll know where his interests lie.  But, there is scarce little doubt that someone, somewhere, who thinks it is imperative to support Barack Obama, will find some rational reason why him vetoing it with such a provision and threatening to do so is the wise, pragmatic thing to do.

    Such is life when personality, and protecting the powerful, is put over issues.  To me, even threatening it is revealing.

    What’s that they say about people being spied on en-masse by the government?

    If you didn’t do anything wrong, you have nothing to hide ?

    Something like that ?

    • TMC on May 6, 2010 at 7:44 pm

    While it looks like he has real bipartisan support for his amendment it is opposed by the White House, the Fed and retiring Sen, Chris Dodd (D-CT) who is obviously looking for a well paid position with a financial institution that would benefit if this amendment was killed.

    Senate Liberals Push for Strict Financial Rules

    Another case in point is the proposal by Mr. Sanders, a self-described socialist, who is feeling bullish about his amendment requiring a public audit of the Fed. Mr. Sanders’s idea is opposed by the Fed and the White House, which view it as an encroachment on the central bank’s traditional independence.

    Conservative Republicans like David Vitter of Louisiana also support the idea, and Mr. Sanders says he believes he can win the 60 votes needed to attach his proposal to the bill.

    That, in turn, has the White House and the banking committee chairman, Senator Christopher J. Dodd, Democrat of Connecticut, scrounging for ideas for a so-called side-by-side amendment – an alternate proposal on the Fed that would give senators something to support while offering them cover to vote down the Sanders measure.

  3. Think about all the high rise towers in all of the American cities.  I mean they are not making stuff in these buildings like shoes or TVs or even bicylcles.  Not what is going on is ponzi schemes.  Passing money from one hand to the other.  Setting up sweat shops to make sneakers for 2 dollars they can sell for 200.  Figuring out how to be more anal in business, medicine, entertainment.  How best to step on the face of another to advance your own financial gain.

  4. The Fed should be subject to representative democracy not exempted from it.  

    • TMC on May 6, 2010 at 8:22 pm

    Feingold Will Filibuster FinReg Without Serious Banking Reform

    After saying that regulators have failed taxpayers over the last 30 years, Feingold laid out three specific amendments that would be needed in a final bill:

    * The McCain-Cantwell amendment to reinstate Glass-Steagall protections

    * The Brown-Kaufman Safe Banking Act to put a strict cap on size and leverage

    * The Dorgan amendment, which is a variant of the Brown-Kaufman Safe Banking Act. It would “require a break up of those activities in the largest financial institutions in the country that represent an unacceptable risk the American economy,” according to Dorgan.

    Earlier, Feingold expressed his full support, as a co-sponsor, for an amendment to audit the Federal Reserve. In his statement on that, he also threatened to filibuster:

       

    “Congress’ recent history on regulating the financial sector is not a proud one,” Feingold said. “For the last 30 years, both Democrats and Republicans have consistently given in to the wishes of Wall Street banks and voted to weaken essential safeguards. Congress needs to get it right this time, and enact tough reforms that will actually prevent another crisis from happening. I will not vote to end debate on this bill unless and until it meets that goal.”

    • Edger on May 6, 2010 at 8:28 pm

    to be transparent, didn’t he?

    I can see right through him. I don’t know why anyone couldn’t…

  5. “As a result of the bailout of Bear-Stearns and AIG, the Fed now owns credit default swaps betting that California, Nevada and Florida will default on their debt.

    http://cinziamazzamakeup.com/?x=farmacia-online-viagra-generico-a-Verona So Federal Reserve stands to make money if California, Nevada and Florida go bankrupt.

    Great catch BTW, MoT

    • TMC on May 6, 2010 at 9:58 pm

    the President will come out this afternoon opposing auditing the Fed.

    Surveillance Over the Federal Reserve: On the Sanders Amendment to the Dodd Senate Financial Regulation Bill

    This afternoon, if I am correctly informed, President Obama is going to come out in opposition to Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders’s amendment to the Senate financial regulation bill calling for the GAO to regularly audit the Federal Reserve’s conduct of monetary policy.

    • rossl on May 7, 2010 at 2:26 am

    “sold out” on this because he thinks the audit doesn’t do nearly enough.

  6. …I am trying to remember the last time something which I really supported — wrote in, e mailed and called about –actually came out the way I wanted.

    The last thing I can remember is when Bush 43 put a moratorium on bombing Vieques in 2001.  But it didn’t last long; it was only temporary.

    Can anyone here refresh my memory, since we mostly think similarly on important issues, as to when we actually got what we wanted, when we actually won on an issue.

    Have any of our issues won????

    Please help me.

Comments have been disabled.