Ron Paul schools Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke once again.

[Morgan]

If that's the case, thank GWB who appointed him.

[Biggs3535]

If that's the case, thank GWB who appointed him.

Ah, so that's why you defend Bernanke.  Now it makes sense.

FYI slugger, Obama appointed him as well.  Change you can believe in.

[Vatican_Assassin]

If that's the case, thank GWB who appointed him.

Ah, so that's why you defend Bernanke.  Now it makes sense.

FYI slugger, Obama appointed him as well.  Change you can believe in.

Dang it Biggs you beat me to it but ill just reiterate. How about your boy Obama nominating him again in 09' and approved by a dem controlled Senate Morgan? I here crickets

[CBWx2]

Ron Paul schools Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke once again.

You've got it backwards.

^This^

I respect Paul as a representative. I think he's an honest man in a place that's short on them. But this was political posturing on Paul's part, and Bernanke was spot on with his answers.

[Vatican_Assassin]

Are you talking about his deer in a headlight answers? How was he correct in his answers? Do explain.

[CBWx2]

1. Paul begins with trying to tie in the bank bailout to the national debt. Bernanke kindly pointed out that most of the bank bailout money has been paid back. It has not contributed to the national debt.

2. Paul brings up the statistic about if the 5.1 trillion dollars had went to the people rather than the banks to increase consumer spending (Is Paul becoming a Keynesian?). Bernanke kindly pointed out that giving rebates to the constituency is not the job of the Fed. The Fed is a banking regulatory institution. This perhaps would have been a more compelling argument had Paul made it to the congress, not the Fed chief.

3. Paul goes into a mini rant about the Price of gold rising against the dollar. Bernanke kindly points out that the reason the price of gold is rising is BECAUSE the value of the dollar is dropping, causing many to purchase it in order to protect themselves in the face of economic uncertainty. More demand for gold leads to it being valued more. It's self perpetuating.

4. Paul asks if gold is money. Bernanke says no, it's an asset. This is 100% true. I can't go to the supermarket with a gold nugget and buy groceries with it. I can, however, sell that gold nugget, and take the money I make from it to the supermarket to buy groceries. Gold is not money. Money is money. Gold is an asset which can be sold to acquire money.

5. Paul asks why gold, and not diamonds. Bernanke says tradition. This is also 100% correct. It is because of tradition. Nothing more. It could just as easily be diamonds that people are purchasing. Assets are assets. They have monetary value, but neither gold or diamonds are money. $100 worth of gold and $100 dollars worth of diamonds is worth the exact same thing. $100.

[Morgan]

1. Paul begins with trying to tie in the bank bailout to the national debt. Bernanke kindly pointed out that most of the bank bailout money has been paid back. It has not contributed to the national debt.

2. Paul brings up the statistic about if the 5.1 trillion dollars had went to the people rather than the banks to increase consumer spending (Is Paul becoming a Keynesian?). Bernanke kindly pointed out that giving rebates to the constituency is not the job of the Fed. The Fed is a banking regulatory institution. This perhaps would have been a more compelling argument had Paul made it to the congress, not the Fed chief.

3. Paul goes into a mini rant about the Price of gold rising against the dollar. Bernanke kindly points out that the reason the price of gold is rising is BECAUSE the value of the dollar is dropping, causing many to purchase it in order to protect themselves in the face of economic uncertainty. More demand for gold leads to it being valued more. It's self perpetuating.

4. Paul asks if gold is money. Bernanke says no, it's an asset. This is 100% true. I can't go to the supermarket with a gold nugget and buy groceries with it. I can, however, sell that gold nugget, and take the money I make from it to the supermarket to buy groceries. Gold is not money. Money is money. Gold is an asset which can be sold to acquire money.

5. Paul asks why gold, and not diamonds. Bernanke says tradition. This is also 100% correct. It is because of tradition. Nothing more. It could just as easily be diamonds that people are purchasing. Assets are assets. They have monetary value, but neither gold or diamonds are money. $100 worth of gold and $100 dollars worth of diamonds is worth the exact same thing. $100.

Very well stated-

That whole dialogue is the reason why Paul opponents think he's a nutjob that needs to be taken out to pasture.

Hard to believe that many want to give him the keys to the car.

[Vatican_Assassin]

1. Paul begins with trying to tie in the bank bailout to the national debt. Bernanke kindly pointed out that most of the bank bailout money has been paid back. It has not contributed to the national debt.

2. Paul brings up the statistic about if the 5.1 trillion dollars had went to the people rather than the banks to increase consumer spending (Is Paul becoming a Keynesian?). Bernanke kindly pointed out that giving rebates to the constituency is not the job of the Fed. The Fed is a banking regulatory institution. This perhaps would have been a more compelling argument had Paul made it to the congress, not the Fed chief.

3. Paul goes into a mini rant about the Price of gold rising against the dollar. Bernanke kindly points out that the reason the price of gold is rising is BECAUSE the value of the dollar is dropping, causing many to purchase it in order to protect themselves in the face of economic uncertainty. More demand for gold leads to it being valued more. It's self perpetuating.

4. Paul asks if gold is money. Bernanke says no, it's an asset. This is 100% true. I can't go to the supermarket with a gold nugget and buy groceries with it. I can, however, sell that gold nugget, and take the money I make from it to the supermarket to buy groceries. Gold is not money. Money is money. Gold is an asset which can be sold to acquire money.

5. Paul asks why gold, and not diamonds. Bernanke says tradition. This is also 100% correct. It is because of tradition. Nothing more. It could just as easily be diamonds that people are purchasing. Assets are assets. They have monetary value, but neither gold or diamonds are money. $100 worth of gold and $100 dollars worth of diamonds is worth the exact same thing. $100.

Very well stated-

That whole dialogue is the reason why Paul opponents think he's a nutjob that needs to be taken out to pasture.

Hard to believe that many want to give him the keys to the car.

Yep, just like the founders were a bunch of nutjobs too. I guess hes a nutjob for being an idealist and everything hes been saying for the last 30 years has come to fruition. I think we all know who the real nutjob is

[kevabuc]

1. Paul begins with trying to tie in the bank bailout to the national debt. Bernanke kindly pointed out that most of the bank bailout money has been paid back. It has not contributed to the national debt.

Let's look at the Debt held by the Public since TARP was initiated. I will be gennerous and say that even though 700 billion was set as the maximum amount available, only about 500 billion has been distributed or held in reserve. Looking at the Debt held by the public  in reserve, the dedt increased 500 billion from Dec 1, 2008 until March of 2009. Let's just say that that entire amount was TARP. Now, if as you say the entire amount has been paid back, there should be a corresponding decrease in the public debt by 500 billion sometime between March 2008 and today. Nowhere is there any significant decrease by that amount to be found. Or, let's put it another way. I borrow $100 to give to a friend, the friend pays me back but I don't pay back the loan. Has that fact that the friend paid me back any bearing on whether my debt hasn't been effected? The bank bailout may or may not have contributed to the debt, but certainly the pay back has done nothing to reduce it either.



2. Paul brings up the statistic about if the 5.1 trillion dollars had went to the people rather than the banks to increase consumer spending (Is Paul becoming a Keynesian?). Bernanke kindly pointed out that giving rebates to the constituency is not the job of the Fed. The Fed is a banking regulatory institution. This perhaps would have been a more compelling argument had Paul made it to the congress, not the Fed chief.

Keynesian economics does not support direct payments to consumers, you know that. It promotes "priming the pump" by either increasing the money supply, which the Fed has done and Paul objects to, or it promotes payments by the government to purchase goods to stimulate the pump.

3. Paul goes into a mini rant about the Price of gold rising against the dollar. Bernanke kindly points out that the reason the price of gold is rising is BECAUSE the value of the dollar is dropping, causing many to purchase it in order to protect themselves in the face of economic uncertainty. More demand for gold leads to it being valued more. It's self perpetuating.

What Benanke fails to mention is the fact that the dollar is falling due to his policies. Paul missed a golden opportunity there.

4. Paul asks if gold is money. Bernanke says no, it's an asset. This is 100% true. I can't go to the supermarket with a gold nugget and buy groceries with it. I can, however, sell that gold nugget, and take the money I make from it to the supermarket to buy groceries. Gold is not money. Money is money. Gold is an asset which can be sold to acquire money.

This area is mostly true, however, gold can be money if it is in the form of a coin. Or, if I take a gold brick down to the store for a loaf of bread I'm sure the manager would be more then willing to "trade".

5. Paul asks why gold, and not diamonds. Bernanke says tradition. This is also 100% correct. It is because of tradition. Nothing more. It could just as easily be diamonds that people are purchasing. Assets are assets. They have monetary value, but neither gold or diamonds are money. $100 worth of gold and $100 dollars worth of diamonds is worth the exact same thing. $100.

But why is it  "tradition", that's the real question? Could it be because gold as opposed to any paper currency is universally accepted? Could it be that gold represents diversification providing for security to the paper currency, just in case. Could it be that gold can both be broken down into smaller portions and at the same time have the ability to put back together, unlike diamonds? Once again Berneake gave the most shallow answer available to him. 

[Morgan]

Let's look at the Debt held by the Public since TARP was initiated. I will be gennerous and say that even though 700 billion was set as the maximum amount available, only about 500 billion has been distributed or held in reserve. Looking at the Debt held by the public  in reserve, the dedt increased 500 billion from Dec 1, 2008 until March of 2009. Let's just say that that entire amount was TARP. Now, if as you say the entire amount has been paid back, there should be a corresponding decrease in the public debt by 500 billion sometime between March 2008 and today. Nowhere is there any significant decrease by that amount to be found. Or, let's put it another way. I borrow $100 to give to a friend, the friend pays me back but I don't pay back the loan. Has that fact that the friend paid me back any bearing on whether my debt hasn't been effected? The bank bailout may or may not have contributed to the debt, but certainly the pay back has done nothing to reduce it either.

That's quite an analysis - care to share any link that shows the breakdown of our national budget and how the bank bailout affected the bottom line. Anything that supports what you posted?

[kevabuc]

Let's look at the Debt held by the Public since TARP was initiated. I will be gennerous and say that even though 700 billion was set as the maximum amount available, only about 500 billion has been distributed or held in reserve. Looking at the Debt held by the public  in reserve, the dedt increased 500 billion from Dec 1, 2008 until March of 2009. Let's just say that that entire amount was TARP. Now, if as you say the entire amount has been paid back, there should be a corresponding decrease in the public debt by 500 billion sometime between March 2008 and today. Nowhere is there any significant decrease by that amount to be found. Or, let's put it another way. I borrow $100 to give to a friend, the friend pays me back but I don't pay back the loan. Has that fact that the friend paid me back any bearing on whether my debt hasn't been effected? The bank bailout may or may not have contributed to the debt, but certainly the pay back has done nothing to reduce it either.

That's quite an analysis - care to share any link that shows the breakdown of our national budget and how the bank bailout affected the bottom line. Anything that supports what you posted?

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np

[Morgan]

I find it funny that the rightwingers like Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, and that witch Coulter talk like all of our national spending was initiated only by President Obama......that he started off w/ a zero balance and generated all this debt alone. I recall that GWB had gotten a lot of criticism regarding NOT including war expenses in Iraq and Afghanistan in his budget. But I'm sure that our current debt and deficit has come from our war effort that Bush place our country into for the last ten plus years...then there's that prescription drug benefit that I recall hearing about that GWB paid for. 

[Morgan]

This is a good read for anyone claiming only President Obama is responsible for the current debt.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When Obama took office in January of 2009, the federal debt was about $10 trillion, or roughly 70 percent of GDP. Today it's about $14.3 trillion, which is close to 100 percent of GDP. By the end of Obama's third year, the debt will have risen by about $5.5 trillion, or 55 percent. That's partly because of all the stimulus spending enacted under Obama, meant to help end the worst recession since the 1930s. But it's specious to say that Obama should have foregone all that extra spending just to keep the debt under control. Any president, Democrat or Republican, would have been under severe pressure to do something to ease the pain of the recession, and it's worth keeping in mind that President George W. Bush, a Republican, enacted a smaller stimulus plan in 2008, when the magnitude of the nascent recession was still unknown. We have new doubts today about the effectiveness of stimulus spending, but in 2008 and 2009 it was widely considered one of the most effective ways to battle a recession.


http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/rick-newman/2011/07/15/who-to-blame-for-the-debt-fiasco

[Morgan]

Let's look at the Debt held by the Public since TARP was initiated. I will be gennerous and say that even though 700 billion was set as the maximum amount available, only about 500 billion has been distributed or held in reserve. Looking at the Debt held by the public  in reserve, the dedt increased 500 billion from Dec 1, 2008 until March of 2009. Let's just say that that entire amount was TARP. Now, if as you say the entire amount has been paid back, there should be a corresponding decrease in the public debt by 500 billion sometime between March 2008 and today. Nowhere is there any significant decrease by that amount to be found. Or, let's put it another way. I borrow $100 to give to a friend, the friend pays me back but I don't pay back the loan. Has that fact that the friend paid me back any bearing on whether my debt hasn't been effected? The bank bailout may or may not have contributed to the debt, but certainly the pay back has done nothing to reduce it either.

That's quite an analysis - care to share any link that shows the breakdown of our national budget and how the bank bailout affected the bottom line. Anything that supports what you posted?

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np

That website doesn't support what you posted about TARP.

[Biggs3535]

I find it funny that the rightwingers like Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, and that witch Coulter talk like all of our national spending was initiated only by President Obama......that he started off w/ a zero balance and generated all this debt alone.

I find it funny when people have to conjure straw man arguments.