This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Senator Sanders: "Ben Bernanke Is Part Of The Problem"
- AIG
- American International Group
- Bank Failures
- Ben Bernanke
- Ben Bernanke
- Bernie Sanders
- Brazil
- CDS
- Counterparties
- Credit-Default Swaps
- Fannie Mae
- Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
- Federal Reserve
- Federal Reserve Bank
- Freddie Mac
- Goldman Sachs
- goldman sachs
- House Financial Services Committee
- Housing Market
- Janet Yellen
- Joint Economic Committee
- Monetary Policy
- Moral Hazard
- Mutual Assured Destruction
- Nomination
- Output Gap
- Real estate
- San Francisco Fed
- TARP
- Testimony
- Unemployment
- Warren Buffett
Ben Bernanke's low-road approach of taking the Fed's "noble mission" of bailing out Wall Street at any and all costs directly to the people seems to have come at curiously opportune time, a mere week ahead of his December 3 Senate Banking Committee hearing for his second 4 year term nomination. It also seems to have backfired as some people in high standing seem less than enthused by the oodles of human lactic acid kindness that suddenly overflow from each and every floor (yes, even the 3rd sub-basement which houses the 10 consistently overheating druckmachinen) of the Marriner S. Eccles building.
One such among them is Senator Bernie Sanders who earlier said on ABC's "This Week" that Bernanke will be renominated over his dead body (metaphorically speaking):
"No, I absolutely will not vote for Mr. Bernanke. He is
part of the problem. He's the smartest guy in the world, why didn't he
do anything to prevent us from sinking into this disaster that Wall
Street caused and which he was a part of? No, I will not vote for
Bernanke to stay on as chairman."
And even as the dollar moves increasingly underwater and is now even more "collateralized" by worthless and completely unwanted (except by the Fed) MBS and Agency securities, less and less people buy Bernanke's strong dollar Kool Aid: it was not enough for Bernanke to launch the greatest bail out in history using the Mutual Assured Destruction threat as the "end of the world as we know it" event that would occur if Goldman Sachs shareholders were to get wiped out. No, now he has to destroy the US middle class to ensure that Wall Street has one more, maybe two years, of good bonuses, before the main show of commingled feces and precariously balanced cards can collapse with impunity.
As senators consider how much money their Wall Street backers will stuff in their Christmas lobby stockings, we present a modest proposal of 15 or so questions that those in Washington with even half a conscience should ask the Chairman before making sure that nothing ever changes and we are set on a catastrophic bubble collapse of even more epic proportions.
Questions courtesy of The Cunning Realist:
1. The TARP Inspector General recently disclosed that the New York Federal Reserve did not believe that AIG's credit-default swap (CDS) counterparties posed a systemic financial risk. In Congressional testimony and elsewhere, you have stated repeatedly that AIG posed a systemic risk based partly on its CDS obligations [source: Bernanke's testimony to the House Financial Services Committee, 3/24/09]. Explain this apparent contradiction. What was your specific role in the decision to pay AIG's counterparties 100 cents on the dollar?
2. On May 5, 2009, in front of the Joint Economic Committee, you said the following about the unemployment rate: "Currently, we don’t think it will get to 10 percent. Our current number is somewhere in the 9s" [source]. In November it hit 10.2%, and many economists predict it will go even higher. This is happening despite enormous fiscal and monetary stimulus that you previously said would help create jobs. What happened after your JEC testimony in May that caused your prediction to miss the mark?
3. It's now widely accepted that loose monetary policy is at least partly to blame for the credit bubble and subsequent crash. You played an important role in that policy. For eight straight meetings of the FOMC, from June 2003 to May 2004, you voted to keep the Fed funds rate at 1%. But transcripts of recently-released FOMC meetings show you wanted the FOMC to consider cutting rates even further. In the August 12, 2003 meeting, with the Fed already at 1%, you said:
Despite the good news, I think it’s premature to conclude that we should not consider further rate cuts, if not at this meeting then at some time in the near future depending on how the data play out. [source: transcript of FOMC meeting on 8/12/03, page 63]
How much worse would the bubble and subsequent crash have been if you had gotten your way? What do your comments in that meeting imply about your ability to correctly time the reversal of the Fed's current accommodative policy?
4. Forecasts are an important part of the Fed's work. Monetary policy by nature depends on forecasts, making predictive ability an essential part of the job description for any Fed chairman. Yet your record of predictions, including the one about unemployment in (2) above, is questionable at best. Some examples [source]:
March 28, 2007: “The impact on the broader economy and financial markets of the problems in the subprime markets seems likely to be contained.”
May 17, 2007: “We do not expect significant spillovers from the subprime market to the rest of the economy or to the financial system.”
Feb. 28, 2008, on the potential for bank failures: “Among the largest banks, the capital ratios remain good and I don’t expect any serious problems of that sort among the large, internationally active banks that make up a very substantial part of our banking system.”
June 9, 2008: “The risk that the economy has entered a substantial downturn appears to have diminished over the past month or so.”
July 16, 2008: Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are “adequately capitalized” and “in no danger of failing.”
Explain this pattern of terrible predictions and forecasts. What do they imply about your ability to conduct policy going forward? Is there some fatal flaw in your economic models or forecasting tools? Are you just winging it?
5. Derivatives such as credit-default swaps played an important role in the financial crisis, and they are central to the financial reforms currently being contemplated. During the Senate Banking Committee's hearing in November 2005 to confirm you as Alan Greenspan's successor, you had the following exchange with Senator Paul Sarbanes [source]:
SARBANES: Warren Buffett has warned us that derivatives are time bombs, both for the parties that deal in them and the economic system. The Financial Times has said so far, there has been no explosion, but the risks of this fast growing market remain real. How do you respond to these concerns?
BERNANKE: I am more sanguine about derivatives than the position you have just suggested. I think, generally speaking, they are very valuable. They provide methods by which risks can be shared, sliced, and diced, and given to those most willing to bear them. They add, I believe, to the flexibility of the financial system in many different ways. With respect to their safety, derivatives, for the most part, are traded among very sophisticated financial institutions and individuals who have considerable incentive to understand them and to use them properly. The Federal Reserve’s responsibility is to make sure that the institutions it regulates have good systems and good procedures for ensuring that their derivatives portfolios are well managed and do not create excessive risk in their institutions.
How did you get it so wrong?
6. An important factor in the financial crisis (and a large part of the ultimate cost to taxpayers) was the implicit government guarantee of the GSEs. In part because of decisions you made, there is now an explicit government guarantee of every large firm on Wall Street. Has moral hazard increased or decreased over the past year?
7. Via the FDIC, the American public now explicitly guarantees the bonds of Wall Street firms where bonuses are surging and individual employees can be paid millions of dollars a year. What is your opinion on the morality of this guarantee?
8. The importance you place on the output gap is well known. You have often cited "excess slack" in the economy to justify loose monetary policy, arguing that a large output gap lowers the risk of inflation. But economists such as Allan Meltzer have noted that there are "lots of examples of countries with underutilized resources and high inflation. Brazil in the 1970s and 1980s" [source]. Moreover, in a new paper dated December 2009 and titled "Has the Recent Real Estate Bubble Biased the Output Gap?", researchers at the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis state the following:
Because this (predicted) output gap is so large, several analysts have concluded that monetary policy can remain very accommodative without fear of inflationary repercussions. We argue instead that standard output gap measures may be severely biased by the bubble in real estate prices that, according to many, started around 2002 and burst in 2007.
They conclude with a warning that seems directed at you: "We offer a word of caution to policymakers: Policies based on point estimates of the output gap may not rest on solid ground."
Please comment on 1) Allan Meltzer's point and 2) the St. Louis Fed's research paper. Why do you continue to put such a high priority on the output gap?
9. In a scenario in which unemployment remains uncomfortably high, but the dollar continues to fall and commodities including oil and gold continue to rise, what would the Fed do? At what point do market signals take priority over hard-to-measure statistics like the output gap?
10. The Fed has a dual mandate: maximum employment and price stability. But unemployment is at its highest level in decades. And in early and mid-2008, with oil at $150 a barrel and prices of basic staples skyrocketing, opinion polls showed that inflation was the public's highest concern, even more so than jobs or the housing market [source]. Why has the Fed failed so badly in its mandate? Is employment an appropriate objective for monetary policy? Should the Fed have a single mandate of price stability?
11. In February 2009, Janet Yellen, president of the San Francisco Fed, said that the Fed needed to fight back against the argument that its liquidity efforts would eventually lead to higher inflation and higher interest rates, calling the notion "ludicrous" [source]. Since then, the dollar has fallen precipitously, oil has almost doubled in price, and gold has surged to all-time highs. Do you share your colleague's view on inflation?
12. What does the surge in gold mean to you? At what price level would it begin to worry you, if it doesn't already? Does gold have any impact on the Fed's policy deliberations?
13. Why does the Fed insist on waiting five years before it releases transcripts of FOMC meetings to the public? Shouldn't someone tasked with evaluating your performance and voting on your reconfirmation have access to transcripts from late 2008 and early 2009?
14. Has the Fed ever had an internal debate about how monetary policy contributes to geopolitical tensions via the rising oil prices caused by a falling dollar?
15. Before the financial crisis there was a widespread sense, especially on Wall Street trading desks, that the stock market was strangely resilient. This encouraged excessive risk-taking in various types of assets. Do you have direct or indirect knowledge of the Federal Reserve or any government entity or proxy ever intervening to support the stock market (or any individual stock) via futures or in any other way? If yes, who decides the timing of such intervention and with what criteria? How is it funded? Which Wall Street firm handles the orders, and who sees them before they are executed?
»
- 11301 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
12. "What does the surge in gold mean to you? At what price level would it begin to worry you, if it doesn't already? Does gold have any impact on the Fed's policy deliberations?"
Gold? What's gold?
I got a highly complex economic system for you to supervise Ben. Cash or GTFO.
"They provide methods by which risks can be shared, sliced, and diced, and given to those most willing to bear them. They add, I believe, to the flexibility of the financial system in many different ways. With respect to their safety, derivatives, for the most part, are traded among very sophisticated financial institutions and individuals who have considerable incentive to understand them and to use them properly."
What a bunch of crap. The risk is all put on the taxpayer and anyone who doesn't finance armies and secret services and Halliburtons to force the risk on anyone who can't fight against it. Otherwise known as taxpayer to you.
Bernanke is a pig.
Ok I'm holding my breath that those very reasonable questions will be asked.... wait....starting.....to.....pass....out....
Give'em hell Bernie
The budget should be balanced, the treasury should be refilled, public debt should be reduced, the arrogance of public officials should be tempered and controlled, and the assistance to foreign lands should be curtailed lest Rome become bankrupt.
People must learn to work instead of living off of public assistance
Cicero55 BC
This "Cicero" guy sounds like a dirty Commie.
Waterboard him, for Feedom's sake!
+1
Bernie is upset with Ben? This is supermarket bullshit, the FED needs to go away, and we need to return to a constitutional republic...
John F Kennedy had the right idea with executive order 1110. However after it's enactment in June of 1963 someone vetoed it in Dallas....
Lately I find myself in agreement with Bernie Sanders on a regular basis. My God, I've become a Socialist.
Great list of potential questions TD. I hope you have forwarded them on to Senator Sanders.
My God, I've become a Socialist.
Well, relizing it is the first step in the recovery..
And lately I (socialist) find myself more and more in agreement with Ron Paul. Must be End Of Times.
Most of all this is Greenspan's fault. This took decades to create. Yeah, Bernanke is an extension, but I've always felt he would turn out to be Greenspan's fall guy. The wheels were already strongly in motion for this collapse to occur when Bernanke first assumed office.
My March 18, 2008 Commentary on www.siv0.com (now DerivativesCollapse.com):
March 18, 2008Well, the drastic Fed actions (arranging a buyout for Bear Stearns and cutting the discount rate) did avert disaster today. Not only did it restore some order, but we saw increases in a number of US stock indexes. The real question is what is the status of the derivative holdings of Bear, JP Morgan, Citigroup, and many others. There is a recognition occuring that this is a much bigger problem, and quite likely the actual reason why the Fed acted in such a drastic manner. Estimates for OTC derivatives are as high as $560 trillion (notional value). This is 8x the world's GDP. In the wind-up of this potential time bomb, the US Federal Reserve was not only complicit, but even somewhat positive (especially under Alan Greenspan). This 2003 article from Forbes is an example of Greenspan's attitude (and thus the Fed's) towards derivatives. The article compares Greenspan's attitudes to Warren Buffet's.
Greenspan's overall view:
"Although the benefits and costs of derivatives remain the subject of spirited debate, the performance of the economy and the financial system in recent years suggests that those benefits have materially exceeded the costs."
Warren Buffet's:
"We view them as time bombs, both for the parties that deal in them and the economic system."
On regulation, Greenspan:
"Except where market discipline is undermined by moral hazard, owing, for example, to federal guarantees of private debt, private regulation generally is far better at constraining excessive risk-taking than is government regulation."
Oops, got that one wrong. Sounds like a bit of "irrational exuberance".
Warren Buffet on regulation:
"There is no central bank assigned to the job of preventing the dominoes toppling in insurance or derivatives.... [Total return swaps and] other types of derivatives severely curtail the ability of regulators to curb leverage and generally get their arms around the risk profiles of banks, insurers and other financial institutions."
Sounds a bit more rational, and more or less what we are seeing today.
Alan Greenspan on risk concentration:
"One development that gives me and others some pause is the decline in the number of major derivatives dealers and its potential implications for market liquidity and for concentration of counterparty credit risk."
Got it right on that one! unfortunately the "private regulation generally is far better ...than is government regulation" policy kind of nullified the correct observation.
Warren Buffet on risk concentration:
"Large amounts of risk, particularly credit risk, have become concentrated in the hands of relatively few derivatives dealers, who in addition trade extensively with one another."
Bingo! Like Bear Strearns and JP Morgan, perhaps?
Alan Greenspan on recent [derivative related events from 2003 perspective]:
"Even the largest corporate defaults in history (WorldCom and Enron) and the largest sovereign default in history (Argentina) have not significantly impaired the capital of any major financial intermediary."
But [purportedly] a US housing bubble may change the historical record.
Warren Buffet on recent events:
"In the energy and utility sectors, companies used derivatives and trading activities to report great 'earnings' --until the roof fell in when they actually tried to convert the derivatives-related receivables on their balance sheets into cash. 'Mark-to-market' then turned out to truly be 'mark-to-myth.'"
History does repeat itself. Sometimes in larger proportions.
The takeaway, Greenspan:
"We have made great strides in expanding the volume of publicly disclosed information related to risk exposures and derivatives. A more complex question is whether this greater volume of information has led to comparable improvements in the transparency of firms."
Well, we may soon get the answer.
Warren Buffet's takeaway:
"Derivatives are financial weapons of mass destruction, carrying dangers that, while now latent, are p otentially lethal."
I wonder if Warren Buffet is interested in a position as head of the Federal Reserve System?
Why is the fed continuing to lend at the emergency window when there is no longer an emergency?
That Cunning Realist post is pure gold. Great find.
Bernanke is Obama's candidate, and Democrat's support for this Republican is only lukewarm. Maybe a majority against Bernanke can form out of Republicans who want to hurt Obama and Democrats who had enough of Bernanke's policies?
Peter T
Excellent questions. I hope these find their way to the Senators on the Banking Committee.
Is the suggestion of tar and feathers considered violence or justice?
No it's wasteful. Why waste good tar and feathers.
Perhaps tar and feathers are insufficient violence to constitute justice???
I'd love to hear some response to #15. Hell, I'd like to hear the question asked. Sadly..... ah, nevermind.
Audit the Fed: Bernanke and the Bankers Are Running Scared
Text size
Kurt Nimmo
Infowars
November 28, 2009
Ben Bernanke, Federal Reserve mob boss, is running scared. He is deathly afraid an audit of his criminal organization.
“These measures are very much out of step with the global consensus on the appropriate role of central banks, and they would seriously impair the prospects for economic and financial stability in the United States,” Bernanke wrote in the CIA’s favorite newspaper, The Washington Post.
Maybe Bernanke is worried he will be obliged to wear an orange jumpsuit in the wake of an audit.
Bernanke penned his tribute to central banking and globalism prior to his scheduled testimony before a Senate panel on his renomination to serve a second four-year term as Fed mob boss.
Bankster tool Barney Frank, chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, tried to derail an effort to audit the Fed but failed. A proposal to audit the Fed’s monetary policy deliberations won a committee vote recently over Frank’s objections.
In his Mockingbird media editorial, Bernanke “conceded the Fed had missed some of the riskiest behavior in the lead up to the crisis. But he said the Fed had helped avoid an even more damaging economic meltdown and has stepped up its policing of the financial system.”
In fact, the Fed was specifically designed to create financial crises. It was all plotted in 1910 when minions of J.P. Morgan, John D. Rockefeller, the Rothschilds and Warburgs met on Jekyll Island off the coast of Georgia. In 1913, the U.S. Federal Reserve Bank was created as a direct result of that secret meeting. Said Congressman Charles Lindbergh on the midnight passage of the Federal Reserve Act: “From now on, depressions will be scientifically created.”
In order to scientifically create an economic depression, the Fed prompted irresponsible speculation by expanding the money supply sixty-two percent between 1923 and 1929. The so-called Great Depression followed. This depression “was not accidental. It was a carefully contrived occurrence,” declared Congressman Louis McFadden, Chairman of the House Banking Committee. “The international bankers sought to bring about a condition of despair here so that they might emerge as rulers of us all.”
In March of 1929, Paul Warburg issued a tip that the scientifically created crash was coming. Before it did, John D. Rockefeller, Bernard Baruch, Joseph P. Kennedy, and other banksters got out of the market.
A few years later, the banksters and their minions met in Bretton Woods, New Hampshire, and plotted the creation of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. The purpose of these two criminal organizations was to set-up a global Federal Reserve system and wage economic warfare on billions of people. The weapon they used was debt and the loss of sovereignty that follows.
In 1971, then president Nixon fit one of the last pieces into the puzzle — he signed an executive order declaring that the United States no longer had to redeem its paper dollars for gold. It was a great day for the banksters and the global elite. The gold standard ensured predictability and regularity in the economy and the banksters wanted to put an end to that. For the bankers, order and control is realized out of chaos and misery.
Fast-forward to the present day. Bernanke’s Fed has meticulously sabotaged the economy in order to create a crisis in classic Hegelian fashion. The corporate media tells us the crisis is the result of ineptitude and mismanagement at the Federal Reserve. Au contraire. Like the Great Depression, the even Greater Depression now on the horizon was scientifically created.
The Fed is the primary instrument the bankers are now using to destroy the middle class, hand over all public assets and resources to them, implement a crushing austerity, usher in a new era of global corporatist feudalism and build a sprawling planet-wide slave plantation based on China’s totalitarian model.
It is the ultimate dream of the banking cartel. It will be used as the foundation to build world government. Destroying the dollar as the world’s reserve currency is only the beginning.
Bernanke knows Ron Paul and the audit the Fed movement are extremely dangerous. That’s why he is pushing this facile “oops” theory. In order to fix things, the Fed will use its “knowledge of complex financial institutions” in order to supervise them, he writes in his Mockingbird editorial. Allowing audits of Federal Reserve monetary policy would increase the perceived influence of Congress on interest rate decisions, he says.
No, it would lay bare the criminality of the Federal Reserve. Maybe Bernanke is worried he will be obliged to wear an orange jumpsuit in the wake of an audit.
As for Congress, Bernanke needs to read Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution. Congress shall have exclusive power to “coin Money, regulate the Value thereof,” not a criminal cartel of monopoly men who dream of a prison planet.
http://www.infowars.com/audit-the-fed-bernanke-and-the-bankers-are-running-scared/
Michael. I really enjoyed that overview/restatement.
Thanks, i.
Glad to oblige.
I would like to add a question. Bernanke has been on the public circuit in a crusade against auditing the fed. His main argument is for them to maintain their independence. Independence huh? How indepent have his decisions/actions been of serving Wall St. & I dont just mean since last fall when panic shifted into high gear.
Most notably, for anyone that remembers Kerviel's little fiasco @ SocGen, the day they were unwinding his trades, it was Martin Luther King day here in the US. I believe the date was Monday, January 21, 2008. pls correct me if i'm wrong about the date. European mkts were down anywhere from 4 to 6% across the board, & no one, at least in the US knew why. With just 1 week until the FOMC meeting on rates, Bernanke decides in his ultimate wisdom to do an emergency unprecedented 75 bp cut in the fed funds on the following Tuesday morning, before the US mkts open. What I would like to know is how much of that snap, knee jerk, amateur decision was made on the basis of "achieving maximum employment and price stability", note its not solely speculative equity security prices, and how much was bailing out the wall st stakeholders who owned stocks & risk assets. How could that move have been anything more than an attempt to prevent a sell of in US mkts based on watching what happened in Europe, w/o them having any facts.
wh are the names and email addresses pf
16: In looking at the FED balance sheet, we can't help but notice the $1.25T in MBS and Agency paper, under what authority did you buy these assets and at what price? How will you eventually tighten with these types of assets?
17: As we have seen in the private sector some SIVs are not kept on balance sheet. Does the FED have any items listed off balance sheet? If yes, what are they and in what amounts? If no, ask the question again, and remind him he is on record.
18: Why did you purchase $300B of Treasuries in 2009? Doesn't this send a clear message to the world that we have no regard for our own currency? Did you loan these treasuries out? and if so to whom?
19: By the actions of the Federal Reserve, the US government is now the largest real estate lender of last resort and backstop of the nation. How is socializing the real estate market a prudent economic policy? How do you back out without tanking the market further?
20: By way of action it seems like you are repeating the mistakes of Japan. Why after the repeated warnings to Japan at the beginning of their crisis, do you basically chart a similar path for the US economy?
21: In de-leveraging debt how do you anticipate regaining losses that should have been written off and not purchased? Are you not basically betting against the market? What if prices never regain their losses?
22: Ask him if he believes we have sound money policies in the US? Then ask him why he is debasing the currency?
The best questions would be ones backed by data and charts from an impartial source like the Congressional Research Office.
For example: show the sensitivity to Treasury Yields based on 2010 auction scenarios linked to funding Gov. Then ask do you think we will ever pay off our debts? Under what circumstances and time frame?
Then ask;
Would you buy US Treasuries?
If he says yes, then tell him that you would like him too to show his confidence by purchasing some 10Y notes ASAP, and that the purchase should be a substantial part of his net worth, and that Tim Geithner will be contacting him to handle his order directly.
Mark Beck
Who would be the right candidate?
Yes, this talks about good ol' Ben...I found this article titled “Government Backed $4.3 Trillion in Assets Last Year” on cnbc. Over the past year, several articles have appeared exactly like this one, and the math never seems to make sense. Does that imply that people are withholding information? Or are the numbers that large that a few billion here or there doesn’t make a difference? I beg to differ about a few billion missing. Read the rest of my analysis of the numbers here: http://www.graspthemarket.com/articles/20091130b.php
He's the smartest guy in the world, what committee decided that? Maybe its a mutual admiration society thing. No, Bernanke is absolutely not the smartest guy in the world. Maybe when he is alone in a phone booth, he's the smartest man there. That is part of the problem. The man is nothing more than a used car salesman wearing white shoes. Hopefully the senate will see Bernanke as the lying manipulator he really is. Maybe Volker can fix the mess once Bernanke is given the boot.
anyone who calls bernanke part of the problem is an instant hero and i don't care if he is a socialist....
bernanke is a total quack and an evil fraud....the man is a financial terrorist and should be tried for crimes against humanity.....
flush him down the potomac on a giant log of shit....
Ha,ha Ben is alredy next chairman of FED.
And program of Big guys is done from Rothschild and Rockefeller. DOW must going to 15,000 points and unemployement 20%.
Less workers more money and stimulus from goverment.
New world order and One world goverment.
Poor Senator.
you may be on to something anon. unemployment goes up, so wages go down, and thus profits are up. jobless recovery means "we can make nice profits without you".
I would expect the questions to be a little less rude. Perhaps something like:
1. What is your favorite color?
2. Don’t you just love Grey Poupon?
3. Are Barney’s boy friends enamored of your cute little beard?
4. Was it exciting to meet the Obamas?
5. Can you share with us any tips on the coming social season in the Hamptons?
6. Should they make new episodes of FUTURAME? Or do you feel showing anything that is future related is "passé"?
7. What is your involvement in the company "BENANKE PAPERMILLS"?
8. It seems you just placed a bid on the "island" Amerika in the Dubai world. What are your plans with it? Are you going to put it out for rent? make a amusment parc out of it? what?...
9. What would your country of refuge be if you would be deported?
10. Got any new surprises for us before the year end?
The gatekeeper, Sanders, Grayson, or Paul to Bernanke:
Q. "What is your favorite color?"
A. "Blue,... no yellow...Auugggghhhhhh"
The best thing for Bernanke to do is to withdraw his nomination, accept that he will never be famous, and go home.
This is not a global recession. This is a global revolution. Bernanke must go. We're building new global power structures. He has no place in our future because the people are now going to ensure that there is a better day. There is nothing so powerful as an idea whose time has come. The people are no longer acquiescing. They're taking back their rightful power in this democracy. Bye Bye Bernanke. We won't miss you. We'll try to recover from your destruction.
added questions:
What is an appropriate level for the US Dollar?
How dangerous is the unwinding of the carry trade?
As futile a gesture as it may seem, be sure to write, email or call your Senators today and tell them not to vote for Bernanke's reappointment. And remind them you're still waiting for the approval of the Paul-Grayson Audit the Fed Bill.
What surprises me most is that Ron Paul has not yet been assassinated by the bankster scum. If that ever happens, of course, they will have created a hero and martyr for the masses to follow, as we bring out the guillotines and get rid of the banksters!
These guys have all adopted this attitude...and it seems to work as no one is ever accountable:
http://tinyurl.com/ahjm53
Bernie Sanders .... whistling past the graveyard
A recent CNN television broadcast gave the impression that Esperanto aims to be a single global language. The comparison was with a global reserve currency, instead of the US dollar.
See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZpC8mPk4QBM
May I put the record straight? Esperanto intends to be an auxiliary language, or a second language for all.
Please see http://www.lernu.net for confirmation.
A recent CNN television broadcast gave the impression that Esperanto aims to be a single global language. The comparison was with a global reserve currency, instead of the US dollar.
See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZpC8mPk4QBM
May I put the record straight? Esperanto intends to be an auxiliary language, or a second language for all.
Please see http://www.lernu.net for confirmation.
16. Mr. Bernanke, let's skip any questions regarding whether or not you should be reappointed. In 200 words or less, please explain why the Civil War-era National Banking Act, the 1913 FRA and any subsequent central bank legislation should not all be revoked. Please include in your answer why the FRB and FOMC should continue to exist despite what appears to be a blatant demonstration of outright contempt for 98% of us in just about every FRB and FOMC action taken in at least the last 30 years. Please answer the question after we have hooked you up to the polygraph.
Dear Senator Hagan,
The Senate Banking Committee has scheduled Ben Bernanke's reconfirmation hearing for Thursday December 3.
While I know that you will not be directly involved in the confirmation process, I would like for you know that I think Mr. Bernanke's past performance as Chairman of The Board of Governors of The Federal Reserve is questionable. The link below is to a Blog posting which includes some pertinent questions which Mr. Benanke may be asked during the hearing:
http://cunningrealist.blogspot.com/2009/11/rewarding-failure.html
I know you are very busy, but hope you can take the time to read this posting as it includes questions of Mr. Bernake that citizens of the United States deserve answers to.
Sincerely,
Bubby