Thread: “Is Herman Cain Just Another RINO?â€

Originally Posted by uniteasone

They are rolling in their graves from the DEBT we are in and still climbing. So where are all those cuts the Republicans were going to do?

I'd love to know the answer to that one myself! I am VERY disappointed in the Republicans in the House. They are really blowing an opportunity to make a real difference. By the time the elections get here, people will see that there's little difference between dems and repubs, and obama is apt to win again.

Originally Posted by kathyet

Originally Posted by topsecret10

Federal Reserve

In early 2011, Cain stated on his radio show that there was no need for an audit of the Federal Reserve (Cain objected to auditing the Federal Reserve in 2010 while hosting the Neal Boortz show).[42] Cain has clarified, however, that while such an audit is not a high priority for him, neither does he object to it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herman_Cai ... al_Reserve

Gee is that a flip flop??


Kathyet

Sounds like a waffle to me

May 11, 2010, 6:01 p.m. EDT
Senate unanimously approves measure to audit the Fed
Bill would have Fed disclose names of bank recipients of emergency loans


By Ronald D. Orol, MarketWatch

WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) -- A compromise measure requiring the government to conduct a one-time and unprecedented audit of the Federal Reserve's emergency-response programs was unanimously approved Tuesday by the Senate as part of sweeping bank reform legislation.

The amendment also calls for releasing the names of institutions that received in total more than $2 trillion in loans from the central bank during the peak of the financial crisis.

The provision received a vote of 96-0, with support following a compromise reached late Thursday.

"This makes it clear that the Fed can no longer operate under the kind of secrecy it has been operating under," said Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., the measure's author.
Click to Play
News Hub: Congress seeks to retrace market plunge

Kara Scannell discusses Congressional hearings that seek answers to last Thursday's sudden market plunge. The exchanges also agreed to new temporary trading limits on individual stock moves, reaching a "structural framework for strengthening circuit breakers."

The legislation is attached to sweeping bank-reform legislation under consideration on Capitol Hill. It would need to be reconciled with a more expansive audit-the-fed provision approved in the House last December.

The Senate measure would -- for the first time in the central bank's 95-year-history -- require a Government Accountability Office audit of the financial institutions that borrowed from the Fed during the financial crisis.

In addition, the legislation would require the Fed on Dec., 1, 2010, to put on its Web site all of the recipients of the central bank's emergency assistance between December 2007 and the date of the statute's enactment.

Sanders agreed to make several changes to the legislation to garner the support of the Obama administration and wavering senators who had concerns with the original measure. With the changes, Sanders obtained the support of Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., which he said was important to bringing on board other senators needed to obtain the 60 votes necessary for passage.

The legislation originally would have left open the possibility of future audits, however, Sanders eventually compromised to stipulate that it would be a one-time audit. The measure's house counterparty, which was introduced by long-time Fed opponent, Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, permits continuing periodic audits. A measure introduced by Sen. David Vitter, R-La., would have permitted sweeping periodic audits, but it failed Tuesday by a vote of 37-62.

The Senate measure originally would have required the names of bank recipients of the Fed's emergency lending to be posted within 30 days of the reform bill's approval, but the section was later changed so that the names need only be posted on Dec. 1, 2010. The original measure would have required posting of names annually.

With the compromise language, the GAO is also prohibited from conducting studies on the Fed's interest rate policy. This change was in response to concerns from the Fed and others that such studies would impact the central bank's independence when it came to monetary policy such as whether to raise or lower interest rates.

It also prohibits the GAO from auditing the Fed's so-called normal discount window lending. However, it does permit an audit of the discount window emergency lending programs, such as Term Asset-Backed Securities Loan Facility, in response to the financial crisis. The discount window is a government lending facility through which commercial banks and, in response to the crisis, investment banks borrowed reserves.

The GAO would be required to begin its Fed audit within 30 days of enactment and completed within a year.
House vs. Senate on audit the Fed

The House measure's language is much shorter, yet in its brevity it gives the GAO leeway to conduct continuing periodic audits of a wide-range of issues beyond the Fed's financial crisis response.

The Senate bill is more specific. The House bill says the GAO "may" post the names of recipients of Fed emergency loans where the Senate bill requires the GAO to do so. The Senate measure instructs the GAO to look into conflicts of interest at the Fed, while the House bill doesn't provide any such instructions.

By Ronald D. Orol, MarketWatch
Continued from page 1
Page 1 Page 2

Backers pointed out that no scrutiny would be placed on transcripts and minutes of the Federal Open Market Committee meetings, through which the central bank sets policy on interest rates.

"We should allow the GAO to audit the Fed since they have moved far beyond their traditional role of monetary policy," said Grassley.

The Fed has argued that it would weaken its traditional independence and hamper its ability to protect the financial system. The central bank argues that institutions would be afraid to borrow from the discount window when they need to because they would be stigmatized as troubled firms, and the result would be a more troubled economic situation.
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac

Also on Tuesday, the Senate on Tuesday rejected a controversial measure introduced by Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., that would have ended the government's control of mortgage finance giants Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae within two years of the enactment of the overall bank reform legislation. Fannie and Freddie have been under government control since September, 2008. The measure would also have capped the amount of assets held on the entities books to 95% of the mortgage assets it owned at the end of the prior year. The measure would also have the entities pay state and local taxes. Dodd opposed the measure arguing it is reckless because it doesn't provide any alternative structure for the entities.

A measure Dodd introduced that would have the Treasury produce a study about how to end the government's conservatorship of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae was approved.

Senators are also scheduled to vote later Tuesday or Wednesday on a measure introduced by Sens. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., and Jeff Merkley, D-Ore., that would seek to prohibit lenders from steering borrowers to high-cost, high-risk mortgages. It would also seek to ensure that lenders verify the borrowers income, employment history and ensure that they can pay back the loans.

"In recent years loan originators were paid more if they got borrowers to take riskier subprime loans even if they qualified for better mortgages," Klobuchar said.

Lawmakers also debated a Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., measure that would require borrowers to have a minimum 5% down payment. The measure would also strike a provision in the bank reform legislation that requires loan originators to retain 5% of the risk of the loan before they securitize them.

"This strikes the 5% retention that most people in this room think is going to actually shut down the securitization process and make less credit available especially in the commercial areas," Corker said.

Ronald D. Orol is a MarketWatch reporter, based in Washington.




http://www.marketwatch.com/story/senate ... 2010-05-11


And more recent information


The Federal Reserve is the chief culprit behind the economic crisis. Its unchecked power to create endless amounts of money out of thin air brought us the boom and bust cycle and causes one financial bubble after another. Since the Fed’s creation in 1913 the dollar has lost more than 96% of its value, and by recklessly inflating the money supply the Fed continues to distort interest rates and intentionally erodes the value of the dollar.

For the past 30 years, Congressman Ron Paul has worked tirelessly to bring much-needed transparency and accountability to the secretive bank. And in 2009 and 2010 his unfaltering dedication showed astonishing results: HR 1207, the bill to audit the Federal Reserve, swept the country and made the central bankers shudder at their desks. The bill passed as an amendment both in the House Financial Services Committee and in the House itself. But eventually the most significant portions of the bill were derailed. (Full story here.)

This year, Audit the Fed is back with a vengeance. Reintroduced on 01/26/2011 as HR 459, Ron Paul’s bill to audit the Federal Reserve now has 146 co-sponsors, and the numbers keep growing! HR 459′s companion bill in the Senate, S 202, has already attracted 3 co-sponsors.

This is history in the making, and victory is within reach. Imagine what will happen if HR 459, The Federal Reserve Transparency Act, comes up for vote in Congress! It has real potential to pass — BUT only if we educate and rally the people to support it and get our Congresspeople to put it to vote and pass it.
Step 1: Your Representative

If your representative is not on the following list of HR 459 co-sponsors, call their offices, write to them, email them. Let them know they need to support HR 459. If you live in their district, let them know. Go to their office.

Capitol Switchboard: (202) 224-3121

HR 459 Co-Sponsors

Rep Adams, Sandy [FL-24] – 2/11/2011
Rep Alexander, Rodney [LA-5] – 1/26/2011
Rep Altmire, Jason [PA-4] – 2/16/2011
Rep Amash, Justin [MI-3] – 2/8/2011
Rep Austria, Steve [OH-7] – 4/11/2011
Rep Bachmann, Michele [MN-6] – 4/6/2011
Rep Bachus, Spencer [AL-6] – 1/26/2011
Rep Baldwin, Tammy [WI-2] – 2/28/2011
Rep Barletta, Lou [PA-11] – 2/15/2011
Rep Bartlett, Roscoe G. [MD-6] – 1/26/2011
Rep Barton, Joe [TX-6] – 1/26/2011
Rep Benishek, Dan [MI-1] – 5/11/2011
Rep Biggert, Judy [IL-13] – 3/29/2011
Rep Bilirakis, Gus M. [FL-9] – 1/26/2011
Rep Blackburn, Marsha [TN-7] – 1/26/2011
Rep Broun, Paul C. [GA-10] – 1/26/2011
Rep Buchanan, Vern [FL-13] – 2/8/2011
Rep Burgess, Michael C. [TX-26] – 1/26/2011
Rep Burton, Dan [IN-5] – 1/26/2011
Rep Calvert, Ken [CA-44] – 1/26/2011
Rep Campbell, John [CA-48] – 1/26/2011
Rep Canseco, Francisco “Quicoâ€

The false hope of Herman Cain

Posted: May 23, 2011
1:00 am Eastern
© 2011

For an activity that nominally purports to concern itself with leadership, politics is essentially a game of tail-chasing. In a two-party system, or more accurately, a bifactional single-party system of the sort we suffer here in the United States, winning national elections is usually considered to rely upon slicing off a critical two percent from the least-committed, least-principled, most moderate portion of the other faction's supporters. Since the winner of the previous election succeeded in claiming critical center, it is customary for the losing party's next candidate to in some way mimic the previous winner in an attempt to reclaim the crucial minority.

So, it should come as no surprise that after having been ambushed by Barack Obama's unexpected defeat of an uncharacteristically inept campaign by Hillary Clinton, some Republicans have decided that they need a "magic negro" of their own. After all, what could counteract the uplifting post-racial appeal of the first half-black, half-American president so well as a presidential candidate who is an authentic American black man, with no unsettling questions about his birth, his Social Security number, his college records, his religion and even his name? Moreover, Herman Cain is a man of legitimate accomplishment; he is not only well-spoken, but has proven himself capable of stringing more than two resonant sentences together without the use of a teleprompter.

Nevertheless, his many fine qualities notwithstanding, Herman Cain should not be the Republican Party's candidate for president for two vitally important reasons:

1) He is poorly suited to lure the marginal center away from Obama. White voters who are disenchanted with the false promise of Obama's post-racialism will not be motivated to vote for its Republican version, however genuine it might be. Black voters, on the other hand, have not historically been favorably impressed by black Republicans and are very unlikely to abandon a Democratic poster president, even though Cain is much more genuinely representative of American blacks than the Indo-Kenyan American who presently claims that role.

2) He is not even close to being a genuine conservative on the single most important issue presently facing the nation. Indeed, both his economic philosophy and his employment record are quite literally Communist. In the fifth of the "10 Planks" of the Communist Manifesto, Karl Marx demanded "Centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly." In the United States, credit has been centralized in an exclusive government monopoly granted to the Federal Reserve; Mr. Cain was the deputy chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City from 1992-1994 and the chairman from 1995-1996.

Now, despite his five-year career as an elite bankster, Cain cannot be seriously regarded as one culpable for the massive credit booms and the various financial crises that were their inevitable consequences. Unlike Alan Greenspan and Ben Bernanke, Cain was not at the Federal Reserve proper or its flagship New York bank; it is also worth noting that his two terms of office at the bank preceded the periods of frantic money pumping that took place in 1998 and 2001 and launched the tech and housing bubbles. However, on the Neil Boortz show, his answer with regard to a prospective congressional audit of the Federal Reserve missed the point so completely that it leaves the informed observer wondering if the man is deeply disingenuous or astonishingly clueless.

"Some people say we ought to audit the Federal Reserve. Here's what I do know. The Federal Reserve already has so many internal audits it's ridiculous. I don't know why people think we're going to learn this great amount of information from the Federal Reserve. … Here's the advice I give to people who think we ought to audit the Federal Reserve. Call them up and ask them if you can have one of their PR people explain to you how the Federal Reserve operates. I think a lot of people are calling for the audit of the Federal Reserve because they don't know enough about it! There's no hidden secrets going on the Federal Reserve to my knowledge. We've got 12 Federal Reserve banks, find out which district you're in, call them up and go from there! We don't need to waste money with another commission or an audit. It's not necessary. Because, folks, we've got a lot of other problems we need to worry about."

This is untrue. There is no bigger or more central problem facing America than the one posed by its current financial system.

Furthermore, it is almost painful to have to point out that an internal audit is absolutely no use to parties outside the Federal Reserve system. The entire point of having an external audit is to determine the extent to which the Fed has been engaging in fraud and other criminal activities given that its highest officers have openly confessed to actions that clearly exceed its charter from Congress, and in some cases, even appear to violate the law. Given that major media organizations such as Bloomberg News were forced to file suit in federal court to learn what securities were being accepted by the central bank as collateral for trillions of dollars in illicit loans provided to various international banks, it is simply ludicrous to suggest that anything significant can be learned by a private individual telephoning the district office of a regional bank.

Herman Cain is far too financially and economically dubious to be given any serious thought as a conservative presidential candidate. Since the Federal Reserve is the primary cause of America's ongoing economic depression, it would be the height of stupidity to nominate one of its foxes in the expectation he will put right the American hen house.

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=301953

Well, it’s a long way to the 2012 elections, and we who are for limited government, upholding the spirit and letter of the Constitution, right-to-life, tax reform, auditing the Federal Reserve, et al, in short, the real Tea Party initiatives

I thought anyone who attended---or even sympathized with a tea party---was included. I don't think there is a set list of objectives. I've seen registered Democrats, people who didn't believe in any Social Security, small business people, retired government employees---the whole gamut.

http://online.wsj.com/community/groups/ ... id=2512262 Yes 82% No 18%

A RINO? Really?? Don't think so. Like TS stated...

"It Is taking a GIANT leap to call Herman Cain a 'Rino" given the fact that hee has never held a public office. "RINO" Is a definition that should be reserved for people like Newt Gingrich,John Mc Lame, Tim Pawlenty, Sarah Palin,Lindsey Graham and the like"

I agree.

I also never gave hussain obama the benefit of the doubt. He was hiding too much and a lot of his life and policies were not out there for all to see, therefore he did not get my vote.

Originally Posted by OneNationUnderGod

A RINO? Really?? Don't think so. Like TS stated...

"It Is taking a GIANT leap to call Herman Cain a 'Rino" given the fact that hee has never held a public office. "RINO" Is a definition that should be reserved for people like Newt Gingrich,John Mc Lame, Tim Pawlenty, Sarah Palin,Lindsey Graham and the like"

I agree.

I also never gave hussain obama the benefit of the doubt. He was hiding too much and a lot of his life and policies were not out there for all to see, therefore he did not get my vote.

I knew Obama was going to be BIG trouble--there certainly was never a shadow of doubt in my mind. He was NEVER an option for my vote. And whether or not Cain is a "RINO" by anyone's definition, I don't like his attachment to the Fed and I don't like his flip flop on the debt ceiling. He may be a great speaker, but that really isn't one of my criteria. So far, I'm not impressed.

Related Topic Here

TODAY’S THE DAY HERMAN CAIN IS LAUNCHING HIS CAMPAIGN FOR

http://www.alipac.us/ftopict-238670.html

Good grief folks, Cain isn't even out of the private gate and into the public limelight and you are eviscerating the man! I don't profess to know everything there is to know about him but thus far he looks like a very decent, honorable and country loving man. Perfect? Doubtful. Better than almost any of the others? It would appear so. Don't forget, at least Cain hasn't been smothered in the corruption that all of these other politicians are swimming in.