PDA

View Full Version : H.R. 1207 in danger of being derailed.




Harris4LarouchePAC
09-26-2009, 06:07 AM
If any of you watched the hearings today, which I assume more than just a few did, you would have noticed that Barney Frank and others such as Watts from NC are pushing to include this into some regulatory reform that is being pushed by Obama and Frank/Pelosi now.

This is extremely dangerous for obvious reasons. Keep in mind this is the same "regulatory reform" that wishes to grant the federal reserve even more power.

We must sustain the efforts to keep the H.R.1207 a single respected piece of legislation. We must Audit the Federal Reserve, and we must, afterwards, Put the Federal Reserve SYSTEM through bankruptcy.

KAYA
09-26-2009, 08:39 AM
If any of you watched the hearings today, which I assume more than just a few did, you would have noticed that Barney Frank and others such as Watts from NC are pushing to include this into some regulatory reform that is being pushed by Obama and Frank/Pelosi now.

This is extremely dangerous for obvious reasons. Keep in mind this is the same "regulatory reform" that wishes to grant the federal reserve even more power.

We must sustain the efforts to keep the H.R.1207 a single respected piece of legislation. We must Audit the Federal Reserve, and we must, afterwards, Put the Federal Reserve SYSTEM through bankruptcy.

I think Alan Greyson may be able to keep the Dems' nefarious plans in check.

klamath
09-26-2009, 09:26 AM
If any of you watched the hearings today, which I assume more than just a few did, you would have noticed that Barney Frank and others such as Watts from NC are pushing to include this into some regulatory reform that is being pushed by Obama and Frank/Pelosi now.

This is extremely dangerous for obvious reasons. Keep in mind this is the same "regulatory reform" that wishes to grant the federal reserve even more power.

We must sustain the efforts to keep the H.R.1207 a single respected piece of legislation. We must Audit the Federal Reserve, and we must, afterwards, Put the Federal Reserve SYSTEM through bankruptcy.

I wrote this for the other thread concerned about what is going on with HR1207 but it fits into your concerns exactly.

This the worse possible thing. Frank will tack this onto a huge financial government regulatory bill using it to draw votes for his main goals. Complete government control of the financial markets.

This is exactly what is going to happen. Frank is smart enough to entice those 290 cosponsers from this very popular bill, to vote on what he really wants.
We need to start a drive to get HR1207 voted on, on its own.
The sad part is an Fed audit attached to a giant government financial takeover bill might even spur an even larger govenment power grab, a wholely owned government banking system from the central bank to the local neighborhood bank. When all the corruption of the fed is reveiled those socialist democrats like Kicinich and Grayson will be the first ones to be pushing for a massive federal government bank or worse yet a IMF takeover.

Unless HR1207 is voted on by itself, RP will be forced to vote against his own bill.

robertwerden
09-26-2009, 09:50 AM
Ron, needs to bring this to the house floor asap and get a vote under suspension. He said it would pass now if he did this.

I understand he wants the bill to go through all its normal rigors before it arrives on the presidents desk, but the longer he waits the more of a chance a smear campaign can take effect.

I mean all that needs to happen is someone says one bad thing and suddenly everyone is against it.

Andrew-Austin
09-26-2009, 09:54 AM
If any of you watched the hearings today, which I assume more than just a few did, you would have noticed that Barney Frank and others such as Watts from NC are pushing to include this into some regulatory reform that is being pushed by Obama and Frank/Pelosi now.

This is extremely dangerous for obvious reasons. Keep in mind this is the same "regulatory reform" that wishes to grant the federal reserve even more power.

We must sustain the efforts to keep the H.R.1207 a single respected piece of legislation. We must Audit the Federal Reserve, and we must, afterwards, Put the Federal Reserve SYSTEM through bankruptcy.

The whole hearing from yesterday for people who missed it: http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/037200.html

--

So they wouldn't alter the bill they would just staple it on to one that gives the Fed more power? Would that really be that big of a deal? Sure none of us want to give the Fed more power, but it could be the only way that it can pass.

I think the pro Fed stooges in Congress just want to have some shrapnel of legitimacy left when they give the Fed more power. So they say "well we're giving them a lot more power, but we are also auditing them!" They act so afraid of the idea of a 'policy audit' so I guess giving the Fed more power helps them come to terms with a numbers audit. But I imagine they don't know what to expect from a numbers audit, so it could really expose the Fed and make Congress look stupid at the same time for giving them more power?

Austin
09-26-2009, 10:11 AM
If there is a strong indication that it will be attached with another bill, I think a discharge petition is in order. I think Paul could convince Grayson, a Democrat, to sign the petition. Having one Democrat on there will make it easier for others to go against their party leadership.

Hopefully they are considering this. They just have to get a few Democrats to sign, and we will get a vote. Currently, there are 202 Republicans in the House. That means we would need all 202 Republicans to sign it, and just 16 Democrats to sign. There are 97 Democrat cosponsors, so we would need about 17% of the current Democrat supporters to sign and make this happen.

Paul should start talking with Grayson immediately about this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discharge_petition

Aratus
09-26-2009, 10:44 AM
paul kirk now is to sit where sen. teddy kennedy once did. is the desire by rep. frank to let some version of 1207
now go to the senate thusly reflective of my home state being at full representation for all practical purposes??
there may be another legal challenge to paul kirk by our local g.o.p, although he was just sworn in, yesterday!

erowe1
09-26-2009, 11:55 AM
Frank is smart enough to entice those 290 cosponsers from this very popular bill, to vote on what he really wants.

I know this is a real concern. But I see it more as a way of getting the audit not to happen than a way to get those cosponsors to vote for something else just because the audit is included. I'm sure some (maybe even a lot) will still vote for it, and for some gladly so. But Ron Paul will vote against his own bill if it comes to that, and it will surely lose at least enough support to get it to override a veto.

anaconda
09-26-2009, 12:22 PM
I think Alan Greyson may be able to keep the Dems' nefarious plans in check.


I have never seen a more intimidating and brilliant cross examining attorney, even in the movies. He makes Perry Mason look like a third stringer.

anaconda
09-26-2009, 12:24 PM
Ron, needs to bring this to the house floor asap and get a vote under suspension. He said it would pass now if he did this.

I understand he wants the bill to go through all its normal rigors before it arrives on the presidents desk, but the longer he waits the more of a chance a smear campaign can take effect.

I mean all that needs to happen is someone says one bad thing and suddenly everyone is against it.

From what I understand, Frank/Pelosi will not allow a vote "under suspension." And a discharge petition will not work because the Dems would make enemies with Pelosi.

anaconda
09-26-2009, 12:33 PM
If there is a strong indication that it will be attached with another bill, I think a discharge petition is in order. I think Paul could convince Grayson, a Democrat, to sign the petition. Having one Democrat on there will make it easier for others to go against their party leadership.

Hopefully they are considering this. They just have to get a few Democrats to sign, and we will get a vote. Currently, there are 202 Republicans in the House. That means we would need all 202 Republicans to sign it, and just 16 Democrats to sign. There are 97 Democrat cosponsors, so we would need about 17% of the current Democrat supporters to sign and make this happen.

Paul should start talking with Grayson immediately about this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discharge_petition


Thank you for your post, Krippy. I therefore stand corrected. The numbers actually look VERY GOOD here for pulling off the discharge petition. I would be very surprised if we could not get 16 Blue Dogs to sign a discharge petition. I must have been thinking that a discharge petition needed more than a simple majority (but it does not).

itshappening
09-26-2009, 01:02 PM
they will attach it to another bill with all their BS regulations, which will pass easy with the Dem majority

then Shelby in the senate will work his magic and try and remove it or water it down, WE NEED TO TARGET SENATOR SHELBY AND MAKE SURE THIS GOON DOESN'T DO THAT

anaconda
09-26-2009, 01:04 PM
they will attach it to another bill, which will pass easy with the Dem majority

But what about Krippy's nice analysis above that it would take very few Democrats to sign a discharge petition in order to bring HR 1207 to an immediate up or down vote in its current format?

erowe1
09-26-2009, 01:05 PM
Thank you for your post, Krippy. I therefore stand corrected. The numbers actually look VERY GOOD here for pulling off the discharge petition. I would be very surprised if we could not get 16 Blue Dogs to sign a discharge petition. I must have been thinking that a discharge petition needed more than a simple majority (but it does not).

Stangely, among the Democrats, it's not the blue dogs who are the most with us on this. Some of the most enthusiastic Democrats are ultra-left. My own blue dog rep, who's on the financial services committee, is not a cosponsor.

anaconda
09-26-2009, 01:08 PM
Stangely, among the Democrats, it's not the blue dogs who are the most with us on this. Some of the most enthusiastic Democrats are ultra-left. My own blue dog rep, whose on the financial services committee, is not a cosponsor.

Excellent point. I did not know that. Yet, 16 Dems to sign a discharge petition seems do-able.

newbitech
09-26-2009, 01:33 PM
just curious, but how exactly would attaching HR 1207 to another bill diminish what this bill is trying to accomplish?

First off, HR 1207 is a bill that will repeal sections of an existing law. That existing law is none other than an audit of the Federal Reserve. The problem with the existing audit is that it allows 4 things to be hidden from the audit, and "consent" by the bank to be audited. Hr 1207 removes the secrecy and the "consent".

The other two things it does is to allow the existing audit to be publicly available after 90 days of completion and include recommendations by the comptroller. Oh and be done before the end of 2010.

I guess what I am wondering is, as long as they do not plan on altering the text of the bill or make any other changes to the sections of code that the bill alters, why would it matter if it rode out in some other legislation? What would be ironic is if it did ride in another bill and had the same change but Ron Paul couldn't vote for it cause the other stuff in the final bill.

Anyways, does everyone know that the comptroller is appointed by the president? That's who would be running the audit.

erowe1
09-26-2009, 01:39 PM
I guess what I am wondering is, as long as they do not plan on altering the text of the bill or make any other changes to the sections of code that the bill alters, why would it matter if it rode out in some other legislation?

You answered your own question when you said this:



What would be ironic is if it did ride in another bill and had the same change but Ron Paul couldn't vote for it cause the other stuff in the final bill.


That's precisely the concern. It will either get passed as a tool to bring about some other grotesque thing, or (more likely) it will not get passed because that other grotesque thing it gets attached to scares a bunch of supporters away.

itshappening
09-26-2009, 01:48 PM
Ron will just abstain, the dems can pass what they want as they have the votes I assume but yeah it sucks.

brandon
09-26-2009, 02:06 PM
If any of you watched the hearings today, which I assume more than just a few did, you would have noticed that Barney Frank and others such as Watts from NC are pushing to include this into some regulatory reform that is being pushed by Obama and Frank/Pelosi now.

This is extremely dangerous for obvious reasons. Keep in mind this is the same "regulatory reform" that wishes to grant the federal reserve even more power.

We must sustain the efforts to keep the H.R.1207 a single respected piece of legislation. We must Audit the Federal Reserve, and we must, afterwards, Put the Federal Reserve SYSTEM through bankruptcy.

I thought you made some boring thread about how you weren't going to post here anymore because your feelings got hurt or something.

Harris4LarouchePAC
09-26-2009, 02:41 PM
I thought you made some boring thread about how you weren't going to post here anymore because your feelings got hurt or something.

Do you have something to offer to the topic? Or do you just wish to poke and jab at me? I intend to leave after I get done with McArtor's moneybomb efforts. Does that make you happy?

Now, offer some sort of intelligent response to the topic, or kindly stfu and stay out of the thread.

brandon
09-26-2009, 02:43 PM
Do you have something to offer to the topic? Or do you just wish to poke and jab at me? I intend to leave after I get done with McArtor's moneybomb efforts. Does that make you happy?

Now, offer some sort of intelligent response to the topic, or kindly stfu and stay out of the thread.

u mad?

Harris4LarouchePAC
09-26-2009, 02:52 PM
u mad?

Nope. But unless you have something to add to the topic I would like you to refrain from making pointless posts in the thread. Thanks.

newbitech
09-26-2009, 03:26 PM
You answered your own question when you said this:



That's precisely the concern. It will either get passed as a tool to bring about some other grotesque thing, or (more likely) it will not get passed because that other grotesque thing it gets attached to scares a bunch of supporters away.

Ok, I am just playing the devil's advocate here for a minute because I really need to understand the concern that HR 1207 might get derailed. From my point of view, the momentum for passage of this bill is awesome especially considering we are due for another down wave. That being said, couple of questions that I need answers for that would help me understand and better explain the danger.

1.) Do we agree that there is broad based support in this country for comprehensive financial reform including (but not limited to) regulatory, monetary, fiduciary, fiscal, audit, and accounting reform?

2.) a.) Do you think that HR 1207 is comprehensive enough to cover all areas of the above mentioned reforms?
b.) If you don't think it is comprehensive enough, what other pending legislation or current laws do you think ought to be looked at in any broader structured reform bill, specifically?

3.) Do you agree that some type of financial legislation will be signed by the president this year?

4.) Do you think it is better to have HR 1207 fail on its own merits? Or do you think that it is better to have HR 1207 pass IN FULL as part of larger more comprehensive financial regulation?

5.) Assuming the president would sign HR 1207 on its own merits, what other single piece legislation do you believe could and should also be passed on their own merits?

6.) In reference to question 5, do you think that HR 1207 would still be in danger if it was part of a bundled financial reform package that included all the bills in question 5?

7.) And finally, thank you, if you have a chance, would you compare or contrast Ron Paul's no vote on onerous unconstitutional legislation that included the FULL TEXT of Hr 1207 vs. Ron Paul defending his earmarks in appropriations and/or authorization bills and then voting no on passing the legislation?

Thanks look forward to yours, and anyone else who would like to take on some of these "devils in my mind".

TCE
09-26-2009, 03:52 PM
If there is a strong indication that it will be attached with another bill, I think a discharge petition is in order. I think Paul could convince Grayson, a Democrat, to sign the petition. Having one Democrat on there will make it easier for others to go against their party leadership.

Hopefully they are considering this. They just have to get a few Democrats to sign, and we will get a vote. Currently, there are 202 Republicans in the House. That means we would need all 202 Republicans to sign it, and just 16 Democrats to sign. There are 97 Democrat cosponsors, so we would need about 17% of the current Democrat supporters to sign and make this happen.

Paul should start talking with Grayson immediately about this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discharge_petition

Wiki says there are only 177 Republicans in the House. Where are you getting your number from? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/111th_United_States_Congress

erowe1
09-26-2009, 04:14 PM
Ok, I am just playing the devil's advocate here for a minute because I really need to understand the concern that HR 1207 might get derailed. From my point of view, the momentum for passage of this bill is awesome especially considering we are due for another down wave. That being said, couple of questions that I need answers for that would help me understand and better explain the danger.

1.) Do we agree that there is broad based support in this country for comprehensive financial reform including (but not limited to) regulatory, monetary, fiduciary, fiscal, audit, and accounting reform?

2.) a.) Do you think that HR 1207 is comprehensive enough to cover all areas of the above mentioned reforms?
b.) If you don't think it is comprehensive enough, what other pending legislation or current laws do you think ought to be looked at in any broader structured reform bill, specifically?

3.) Do you agree that some type of financial legislation will be signed by the president this year?

4.) Do you think it is better to have HR 1207 fail on its own merits? Or do you think that it is better to have HR 1207 pass IN FULL as part of larger more comprehensive financial regulation?

5.) Assuming the president would sign HR 1207 on its own merits, what other single piece legislation do you believe could and should also be passed on their own merits?

6.) In reference to question 5, do you think that HR 1207 would still be in danger if it was part of a bundled financial reform package that included all the bills in question 5?

7.) And finally, thank you, if you have a chance, would you compare or contrast Ron Paul's no vote on onerous unconstitutional legislation that included the FULL TEXT of Hr 1207 vs. Ron Paul defending his earmarks in appropriations and/or authorization bills and then voting no on passing the legislation?

Thanks look forward to yours, and anyone else who would like to take on some of these "devils in my mind".

I definitely don't see what I would describe as "awesome momentum" for this bill. I think, notwithstanding the number of cosponsors it has, the odds have always been and remain against it passing without being neutralized by some amendment. I think the # of cosponsors is a testament to the ongoing influence of Ron Paul and this movement that arose out of his campaign. Without a doubt we have an enthusiasm that translated into far more contacts with our representatives than the shear # of us would suggest.

1) I'm not sure. I think there may be broad based support for the things you listed as generic abstractions. But certainly not anything close to the kind of opposition to the Fed that Ron Paul stands for.

2) No. HR1207 is not that comprehensive and isn't supposed to be. It's a Fed audit, not a Fed abolition. What it is supposed to do is get the incriminating evidence in front of the public so that they then demand the comprehensive reforms.

3) I don't know. But he won't sign HR 1207. And anything he will sign will be more bad than good.

4) I don't know. That depends on what the other stuff it might be passed with is. But I think you've set this question up backwards. It's if 1207 goes to the floor on its own with as little change as possible that it has the greatest chance of passing (at least in the House), since in that scenario all of its sponsors would be expected to vote for it. Bundling it with something else is a way of getting its current supporters to vote against it.

5) The president would not sign it.

6) Yes. If 1207 is bundled with other stuff it will be more in danger of not passing, not less, which is why they will try to bundle it.

7) Sure, both scenarios are scenarios of RP voting no on a bill he opposes as unconstitutional. Whether RP should have earmarks for his district added into bills he votes against is a topic that has been discussed on its own plenty, and my view on that is the same as RP's, so there's nothing new I can say.

None of what I'm saying should be taken as pessimism. I just think we need to keep our eyes open and keep the pressure on every legislative individual we can at every step of the process. Judging from the recent C4L email imploring us to contact the Financial Services Committee and urge them to bring 1207 to a full House vote without change and on its own, I'd say RP has the same sense.

rp08orbust
09-26-2009, 04:28 PM
Currently, there are 202 Republicans in the House.

Nope, it's 256 Dems and 179 Republicans. A discharge petition would require a significant number of Democrat defectors.

Austin
09-26-2009, 04:48 PM
Nope, it's 256 Dems and 179 Republicans. A discharge petition would require a significant number of Democrat defectors.

Ah, the site I used to get that number must've been outdated. :(

Arklatex
09-26-2009, 05:40 PM
Could you imagine them stuffing into a bigger bill and then Paul voting against it!

We need to keep it a stand alone bill.