The Point Grayson was trying to make about The Fed

The only thing Alan Grayson should Apologize for …

was not having the Fed’s Price List

for their services!

(imo)

Perhaps Grayson can be excused, since “The Fed” does favors for its clients, far from the scrutiny of prying eyes … giving away Billions to their good ole Buddies, both Foreign and Domestic, without so much as a Receipt or and IOU exchanging hands …

It’s easy to see how this shady activity just might get “mis-construed”:

Alan Grayson: Which Foreigners got the Fed’s 500 Billion?



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v…

Congressman to Bernanke: Where’s the money?

Allison Kilkenny, Unreported – Oct. 15  2009

This isn’t the first time Grayson has gone for Bernanke’s jugular. Back in July, Grayson grilled the Fed Chairman over the same question: Where did the money go?

Link to previous Video

Alan Grayson: “Which Foreigners got the Fed’s 500 Billion?”

Bernanke’s response: “I don’t know.”

Alan Grayson: “A half a Trillion Dollars and you Don’t know WHO got the Money?!!”

[…]

You’ve heard of a “Boys’ club.” Well, this was the “Money club.” All the right players won. As soon as the mortgage bubble popped, money started flying all over the place, quickly. Goldman Sachs fan boy, Timothy Geithner, held secret meetings with the Big Three (Goldman Sachs, Citigroup, JPMorgan Chase) to discuss who would get the biggest slices of the taxpayer money pie.

http://trueslant.com/allisonki…

The Fed’s lack of ReceiptsCheck!

New York Fed’s Secret Choice to Pay for Swaps Hits Taxpayers

By Richard Teitelbaum and Hugh Son, Bloomberg, Oct. 27, 2009

The Federal Reserve has been reluctant to publish information on its efforts to stabilize the financial system since the crisis began. The Fed has loaned more than $2 trillion, yet it refuses to name the recipients of the loans, or cite the amount they borrowed, saying that doing so may set off a run by depositors and unsettle shareholders.

Bloomberg LP, the parent of Bloomberg News, sued in November 2008 under the Freedom of Information Act for disclosure of details about 11 Fed lending programs. In August, Manhattan Chief U.S. District Judge Loretta Preska ruled in Bloomberg’s favor, saying the central bank had to provide details of the loans.

The Fed has appealed to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, and the data remain secret while the appeal proceeds.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/…

The Fed’s Secrecy about its Client ListCheck!

‘An Outrage’

Friedman’s role remains controversial. In December 2008, weeks after the payments to the banks were authorized in November, Friedman bought 37,300 shares of Goldman stock at $80.78 a share, according to SEC filings. On Jan. 22, he bought 15,300 more at $66.61.

Both purchases took place before the payments to Goldman Sachs were publicly disclosed under pressure from Senator Dodd in March. On Oct. 26, Goldman Sachs stock closed at $179.37 a share, meaning Friedman had paper profits of $5.4 million.

Jerry Jordan, former president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland, says Friedman should have resigned from the New York Fed as soon as it became clear that Goldman stood to benefit from its actions.

It’s an outrage,” Jordan says. “He needed to either resign from the Fed board or from Goldman and proceed to sell his stock.”

Same as previous Bloomberg link – Oct. 27, 2009

The Fed silently condones its Insider TradingCheck!

Anything Less Than Full Disclosure is Unacceptable

Dr. Ron Paul, U.S. Congressman – 26 October 2009  

Last week a new bill was introduced in the Senate to audit the Federal Reserve.  Some backers of my bill HR1207 and the existing Senate companion bill S.604 were a little miffed at this, but depending on how you think about it, this new legislation poses no great threat to our efforts.

[…]

HR 1207 does not seek to replace the wisdom of the Fed with the wisdom of Congress.  That would be a giant step backwards.  HR 1207 simply asks for full disclosure, and I am agreeable to allowing for a reasonable lag time to calm the fears that Congress intends to dictate monetary policy.

What we do want, what we insist upon, is that no longer will decisions that carry so much economic weight be made in absolute secrecy.  We want to know what arrangements the Fed makes with other governments and central banks. We want to know who is benefitting from the actions of the Fed and what deals are being made.  The Fed is already reacting to pressure by scaling back its liquidity facilities and returning to more traditional monetary policy through direct asset purchases.  

http://news.goldseek.com/RonPa…

Hmmmm?  The Fed is worried that Congress is demanding Transparency, and so may be, dialing back on the “free wheeling” Monetary give-aways …

The Fed is NOW “cleaning up its act”, sort of … Check!

No Wonder Grayson could be confused by all The Fed’s “below board” actions, especially since they only seem to “benefit” their closest friends and associates.

And Since the Fed DOESN’T willing publish its “Price List for Services”, perhaps we shouldn’t even expect Grayson, to have produced that “evidence”, either.

Perhaps, Grayson should apologize for DEMANDING Accountability!

Perhaps, Grayson should apologize for FOR GETTING SO DAMN MAD, when such $Trillion Dollar Accountability, is NOT forthcoming!

Hmmmm maybe Grayson, is simply confused by the implied “colloquial usage” of the impolitic word, as used in many social circles?

The ‘Lectric Law Library’s Lexicon On

Prostitution – definition


[yada, yada, yada …]

In a figurative sense, it signifies the bad use which a corrupt judge makes of the law, by making it subservient to his interest; as, the prostitution of the law, the prostitution of justice.

http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/p1…

Perhaps Grayson, should apologize for trying to DO the People’s Business, damn those hypocritical torpedoes, anyways!

also posted on dkos

6 comments

Skip to comment form

    • jamess on October 29, 2009 at 3:30 am
      Author

    Beware of the Billionaires

    Whatever you do,

    don’t call them,

    what they are!

  1. I like that he’s speaking out.  But, without factual evidence that the lobbyist was, in fact, whoring herself out, I can see where this was over the top.

    He should have generalized it citing the California case where the state lawmaker said, on mic, that he was screwing a lobbyist, not to mention the spanking.

  2. when he said the Congress should not be involved in monetary policy.  The Fed is private and this fuckhead is saying our representatives have no right to be involved in this country’s monetary policy!  Maybe there isn’t anything more outrageous I’ve heard.  

Comments have been disabled.