Congress woes

[Berserker]

BOB SCHIEFFER: Any way you cut it, and whoever's fault it is, you have presided over what is perhaps the least-productive and certainly one of the least popular congresses in history. How do you feel about that?

SPEAKER JOHN BOEHNER: Well, Bob, we should not be judged on how many new laws we create. We ought to be judged on how many laws that we repeal. We've got more laws than the administration could ever enforce. And so we don't do commemorative bills on the floor. We don't do all that nonsense. We deal with what the American people want us to deal with. Unpopular? Yes. Why? We're in a divided government. We're fighting for what we believe in. Sometimes, you know, the American people don't like this mess.

[MorGrendel]

I'm good . . . Once you repeal the Fed Bank.

[Berserker]

I'm unsure if you're being sarcastic or not..

I was pointing out how ludicrous his statement was. The house did nothing in years, and are now asking to be judged not on what they didn't do (which is nothing), but on what they repealed..which is also nothing (even with the 40some times they passed a repeal to Obamacare which was simply a waste of time).

[MorGrendel]

Ahh, yes, I'm of generally the same mind. If you want to be judged by your repeals, then, you know, repeal something. And a good start is the Fed Bank.

[Fritz]

You do realize that when Jackson did exactly what you're asking it caused a depression right?

[MorGrendel]

You realize that printing money to bail out the banks, and then having the banks loan you back your false currency to "stabilize the economy" and then paying them interest (ie. my taxes) on this loan is not a healthy economy.
You realize that by printing fiat currency to keep the economy afloat we crush our children with inflation.

You realize with money and loans you only have two options, pay now or pay later. Later always costs you more in the long run.

[Berserker]

Iif you were to get rid of the FED, who would take on its charge? Someone has to make monetary policy.

And Congress cannot be the one because Congress is highly political and nothing would ever get done. Our rating already got lowered once because of congress. Imagine if they could influence monetary policy. In the end, the FED employes highly trained economists with PHDs and post-docs, while congress employes random people with random background, few with any high level degree, even fewer with economics degrees.

[MorGrendel]

I've got a novel idea for monetary policy - Balance the budget. An not yearly, but bi-monthly like everyone else does. You can take money from my paycheck, but you can be bothered with adding it up with others and only spending what you have. Give me a break. Gradeschoolers could write that program.

As far as who whould take charge. I can't imagine anything worse than handing the job over to lobbist from your largest campaign contributer. Oh, yeah, we just did that. But I guess it makes sense to hire the guys who helped wreck the economy, since they know how it was done.

Finally, our system is built on checks and balances, to which the Fed Bank is immune. It has no oversight and seeks no approval for its monitary policy. Those that run it are neither elected, nor are they put in their positions by economists. It's like having the guy who seen a plane pick his pilot based on a bribe and a resume.

[Berserker]

I think you're oversimplifying things. It's not the FED's job to keep a balanced budget. It's Congress's job and they have failed (both house and senate) for years. An yearly budget would be awesome to have. A yealy balanced budget would be even more awesome. Alas, we're going to have another continuing resolution and if unlucky, the gov't will shut down in 2 months..

If Congress passes a bill that they will spend 1 trillion dollars, then 1 trillion dollars must be spent. Removing the fed will not balance the budget in the least. The FED is more like Littlefingers in Game of Thrones. He is tasked to find money for shit that the king wants done. Somehow..

I'm actually ok with Congress not being able to tell the FED how to enact monetary policy because I am far more scared about party line politics creeping into that process, then the FED doing it wrong. Already the FED gets accused for everything under the sun.. Maybe right behind the IRS. ;)

I am not against doing regular audits to see what they are doing since transparency is good, but I don't want to give Congress a say on what the FED should be doing otherwise it will turn into a poop flinging festival. Can you imagine how long it would take for Congress to decide if rates should go up or down in any given month? The FED makes that decision all the time. Congress may never come to an agreement.

Also, the head of the FED is appointed like any head of any federal agency out there. Nothing special about that. The president appoints, and the senate confirms. That seems to work pretty well.

[MorGrendel]

I think you're oversimplifying things. It's not the FED's job to keep a balanced budget. It's Congress's job and they have failed (both house and senate) for years. An yearly budget would be awesome to have...
If Congress passes a bill that they will spend 1 trillion dollars, then 1 trillion dollars must be spent. Removing the fed will not balance the budget in the least. The FED is more like Littlefingers in Game of Thrones. He is tasked to find money for shit that the king wants done. Somehow..
I'm actually ok with Congress not being able to tell the FED how to enact monetary policy because I am far more scared about party line politics creeping into that process, then the FED doing it wrong. ...

I disagree. Money is simple, it is 1+1+1. It is not a matter of how you feel or who rights might be infringed, but math. I presuppose that our monetary policy would be to not live on promises and print fiat currency, thus forcing congress to work with only what they have.

I don't want to give Congress a say on what the FED should be doing ... Can you imagine how long it would take for Congress to decide if rates should go up or down in any given month? The FED makes that decision all the time. Congress may never come to an agreement.

I disagree here too. I think all this monkeying with the rate and night loans creates too much speculation. This artifically inflates prices. This is why gas is nearly 4 dollars a gallon. Basic economics, was there a gas shortage, No. Was there a higher demand, No. Then why did gas skyrocket 2 dollars a gallon, pricing power based on spec.

[Berserker]

I disagree. Money is simple, it is 1+1+1. It is not a matter of how you feel or who rights might be infringed, but math. I presuppose that our monetary policy would be to not live on promises and print fiat currency, thus forcing congress to work with only what they have.

You can blame the FED all you want, but the Congress gets to pass the budget. Not the FED. I can pull up many quotes from congressman all priding themselves on how they hold the purse strings. Nothing about feelings, or rights being infrindged here. Just an inept Congress. The FED is not forcing the congress to do anything. It's the other way around.

I disagree here too. I think all this monkeying with the rate and night loans creates too much speculation. This artifically inflates prices. This is why gas is nearly 4 dollars a gallon. Basic economics, was there a gas shortage, No. Was there a higher demand, No. Then why did gas skyrocket 2 dollars a gallon, pricing power based on spec.

Ok, so you're arguing that the FED shouldn't be messing with rates. I was arguing that Congress shouldn't controll what the fed does because nothing would ever get done. The Congress would then attempt to mess with rates themselves and would do it purely for political gains and nothing more. I merely gave the example of the rates to make the point of how inflexible a Congress trying to be the FED would be. The FED does far more then set rates, and I don't trust a bunch of corrupt politicians that know less then me about economics to make decisions for the FED (who actually employs PHDs in economics).

What you're really arguing is that you don't want any gov't entity to be able to set rates because you think that's bad (the fed, congress, etc). We can argue about the rate item separately if you want, but I don't believe your point makes a case for the Congress to start controlling the FED.

[MorGrendel]

So congress should be accountable for nothing because congressmen are too political?

I can hear Admiral Calimari now, "It's a trap!"

I think congress is inept, an that has fostered inordinate power in the other branches and departments in government. I don't really believe you can dismantle the entire FED Bank system, but I do believe it needs to reined in. Congress could use committees for more nimbleness, and the day-to-day rate could be set by a sub-commitee of ways and means. I don't see why Congress is free to rule on school loans, but not on housing loans. Its all part of the same economy.

Also, though I see the logic in having an economist in charge, do remember the housing bubble was created by Quints who were unable to comprehend why anyone would NOT pay their mortgage.

All that said, I think the FED Bank is put in a position by congress to print money so as to fight inflation. Said another way, I believe congress has a very direct effect on the economy and is very culpable for where we are. I hate the way both, but especially Congress talk numbers. How everything is SO MUCH better now. That prices are flat and 2% inflation is low. LOW! I guess when you compare it to the rapid inflation of the last 7 years. Anyway, I don't blame the Fed any more than I blame a junkies dealer.