Re: A calm zen-like ability to turn the argument into something else...
Ahhh. So much better. :)For me, the point of the audit is to return a sense that it is possible for the citizens to know what is being committed in their name . . . what backstage, clandestine deals have the private bankers all shaking hands and nodding in agreement, and why exactly are we the people disallowed from knowing about those deals.Was it you, or Reg, or Rosskol? I can't remember now, but some smart person made the point once on this board that it is unlikely that you'd get legislative (or even popular) support behind the idea of amending the constitution again and again . . . and I retorted something like "that's just the point . . . Paul wants to say, if you're not willing to screw with the constitution, then STOP screwing with the constitution." (I'm sure it sounded much more eloquent in those days.)The argument has been made that the Federal Reserve, whose chair is arguably more powerful than the president, is a non-constitutional (some would say illegal) body. Still, they supposedly get their authority from congress, and yet congress (and therefore we the people) cannot know what they are up to? This is the body that has been put in charge of managing the economy, for pete's sake! People's lives and livelihoods depend upon the everyday decisions made by these people.So let's audit them & see what they're doing in our name. Maybe it will be the congressional equivalent of letting photos of tortured detainees slip into the media. I'm sure the conspiracy people and staunch libertarians think so. Sunlight, disinfectant . . . all that.But if we find out that the private bankers who make up the Fed are actually just being really scrupulous and going about their day-to-day business with care for the general welfare of the nation as their utmost concern, then won't we be better for knowing that?I find that argument far more fascinating than Obama's dramas. Although, like you, I do admire the man's ability to "turn the argument into something else." It is a characteristic found in all of the best stage performers and master debaters.Herring405
"a face in the crowd"
H
Herring405
(view)
Ahhh. So much better. :)For me, the point of the audit is to return a sense that it is possible for the citizens to know what is being committed in their name . . . what backstage, clandestine deals have the private bankers all shaking hands and nodding in agreement, and why exactly are we the people disallowed from knowing about those deals.Was it you, or Reg, or Rosskol? I can't remember now, but some smart person made the point once on this board that it is unlikely that you'd get legislative (or even popular) support behind the idea of amending the constitution again and again . . . and I retorted something like "that's just the point . . . Paul wants to say, if you're not willing to screw with the constitution, then STOP screwing with the constitution." (I'm sure it sounded much more eloquent in those days.)The argument has been made that the Federal Reserve, whose chair is arguably more powerful than the president, is a non-constitutional (some would say illegal) body. Still, they supposedly get their authority from congress, and yet congress (and therefore we the people) cannot know what they are up to? This is the body that has been put in charge of managing the economy, for pete's sake! People's lives and livelihoods depend upon the everyday decisions made by these people.So let's audit them & see what they're doing in our name. Maybe it will be the congressional equivalent of letting photos of tortured detainees slip into the media. I'm sure the conspiracy people and staunch libertarians think so. Sunlight, disinfectant . . . all that.But if we find out that the private bankers who make up the Fed are actually just being really scrupulous and going about their day-to-day business with care for the general welfare of the nation as their utmost concern, then won't we be better for knowing that?I find that argument far more fascinating than Obama's dramas. Although, like you, I do admire the man's ability to "turn the argument into something else." It is a characteristic found in all of the best stage performers and master debaters.Herring405
"a face in the crowd"
