Thanks cybernytrix.
This is the second time in as many weeks that I have left off a negative modifier that completely changed the thrust of what I was saying.
Thanks for bringing it to my attention - it is fixed.
For those who are interested, below are links to Bloomberg’s complaint (and amended complaint) and the Fed’s Answer. Btw, paragraph one in the answer states:
“To the extent a response is required, defendant admits that the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (the "Board") is an agency of the United States government.”
Here are the links:
Complaint:
http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/new-york/nysdce/1:2008cv09595/335178/1/0.pdf
Amended Complaint:
http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/new-york/nysdce/1:2008cv09595/335178/4/0.pdf
Answer:
http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/new-york/nysdce/1:2008cv09595/335178/5/0.pdf
Fed to Treasury, Treasury is government-
If anybody loans money to the Treasury, the Treasury IS Government, and subject to the freedom of information act. I am pretty sure Paulson is a government employee, and he is the primary in charge of allocating TARP to whoever, so this is a legal point.
This is made evident by Chris Dodd-
Secretary Paulson’s original proposal contains a sweeping provision that utterly strips the courts of any power to review his decisions. Section 8 of the Paulson proposal reads: "Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency."
The alternative bailout bill, APPROVED by Congress and sponsored by Democratic Sen. Chris Dodd of Connecticut, has a very different clause. The Dodd proposal reads: "Any determination by the Secretary with regard to any particular troubled asset pursuant to this Act … shall not be set aside unless such determination is found to be arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or not in accordance with the law." In other words, the Treasury secretary’s determinations can be challenged on legal grounds. The Dodd version goes on to recite that "the terms of a residential mortgage loan that is part of any purchase by the Secretary under this Act shall remain subject to all claims and defenses that would otherwise apply notwithstanding the exercise of authority by the Secretary or Corporation under this Act."
So does this not qualify for abuse of discretion or not in accordance with the law? How can you take money that is unchecked and practically gone with no reporting to Congress or no Congressional panel approved to for oversight and also possibly divert funds to the Auto Bailout?
This has to fall under the freedom of information act unless Bernanke did the allocation all on his own without Paulson involved whatsoever.
[quote=bsharon]
Actually I’m a little surprised at the outrage about the Fed not disclosing to whom they loaned the money. I believe that the Crash Course details the fact that the Federal Reserve is a private corporation. As such it is not subject to the Freedom of Information Act – otherwise we all could find out the secret formula for coke.
I think it would be more useful to use this event to help people understand that monetary policy and the money supply is under the control of a private corporation. That would be a useful discussion.
Outrage in these times is rapidly loosing its utility. Clarity is a much more potent human experience.
[/quote]
So what is the Treasury? Owned by GE? Don’t they have accountability? Don’t they fall under the Freedom of Information Act? Is Paulson in charge of a government organization and not a private company? This is your first post so I am not going to be too hard on you, but do you really think this is outrage? That’s a little bit harsh a word for this. I think it’s more like disgust that Congress is not doing it’s job.
As for your request to have more understanding of monetary policy and money supply under control of a private corporation as a useful discussion, I can see you have not read the forums on here at all practically because it’s been covered on this forum to the point of nausea, so I suggest you spend some time actually reading posts on here before making this kind of statement.
And if your looking for your potent clarity, the United States Government is the last place I would look to find it. Potent clarity or truth is an almost impossible to find in this society and the world. The most you will get is varied opinions, outright lies or distortions of the truth, or possible truths being argued from all sides of which cannot be proven or discredited fully. This is the world we all live in.
bill
i have to apologize for my good friend krogoth. he has been a little stressed lately .
he hasnt been getting his shipments of seeds from the states as the taiwanese customes officials cant understand why he doesnt like homegrown in taiwan uh food that is.
they apparently been holding up his meds as well… he gets a little testy when the supply of meds is sporadic.
and to top it all off his homeland is experiencing a tremendous lack of security. you see in case you have not noticed there is this raid on the u.s. treasury going on . and it would seem that the folks responsible are the ones in charge of stopping the raid are the ones doing the raiding. oh it is all so confusing i dont know if that is clear or not. but from krogoths point of view it would seem a little odd that since they are taking our money we should at least know where it is going, not that it would stop the raid or that any one might suffer the consequences of such a dastardly act( i love that word dastardly…kinda rhymes with another of my favorote words).
i certainly think it useful that we have a discussion of who owns our monetary system. i think however the point krogoth was trying to make without typing in all caps is that we have been having that discussion trying to reach a state of clarity here for months. i think we have now reached that state of clarity since you have pointed out that our monetary system is owned by a private corporation.
i think some of us and i cant speak for my good friend krogoth are running a high level of outrage and are doing everything we can to maintain an even strain. because if we dont some of us will go out and get a gun and blow some banker or congressman away.
i hope that is clear.
oh and welcome to the discussion
Can someone please help me out here…I have read on this site and elsewhere that the Fed is a private corporation. However the Bloomberg Complaint against the Fed alleges that the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System is a government agency (paragraph one) to which the Fed admits in the Answer:
“To the extent a response is required, defendant admits that the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (the “Board”) is an agency of the United States government.”
Can someone please clarify? Is the Board of Governors separate from the Fed Reserve Bank, is the Board a governmental agency, but the Reserve Bank not?
Lisa G. : Yes, I think you have pretty much got it close to the truth, inasmuch as the truth might exist in these times.
Joe2baba : I laughed at your commentary on Krogoth’s postings, and I certainly hope that was how you meant it. I do agree that many of us are unusually stressed at this point in the development of our world and lives, and it is tolerance from ALL sides that can help mitigate this.
Krogoth: I actually find your comments in what I would suspect is a state of exasperation to be quite truthful, if a little blunt. I just think that the blunt part sometimes prevents people from seeing what a teddy bear you really are. 
I really hope that I offend no one, and I do not intend to sidetrack this thread, I just see tensions running high when almost everyone is making valid points or contributions.
And yes, were I American I would be seriously considering the founding fathers’ rationale for the right to bear arms. Unfortunately, here in Canada our apathetic english population never actually had any soveriegn rights, especially not to arms. Our French compatriots are quietly leading the coup already underway in the parliment, so they are no help. Put simply, although men may be revolutionaries, one man is likely to wind up a martyr at best. 
duplicate post removed.
I have found repeated postings on this site from people in other countries that seem somewhat envious of the 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. I wonder if Barack Obama understands that the 2nd Amendment and the freedom it stands for is actually a point of strength in our Republic and a beacon of hope for many of our international friends.
As I see it (and I don’t wish to paint too bleak a picture for those that are gun-deprived), it would be difficult for any disarmed nation to credibly repel an authoritarian regime. It is true that our 2nd Amendment is constantly under attack in America and it is true that the military has much greater weapons. But I think for the first time since the civil war, our government might have to contend with the fact that there are limits to how much they can get away with and still maintain peace at home.
“loss in confidence in and between financial institutions can occur with lightning speed and devastating effects.”
Of course, and nothing would shake the world’s confidence more than laying bare the fact that the Fed does not know what it is doing. They can’t show us what they are doing, because it would show us that they don’t know what they are doing. Well, that’s the nice version.
The more cynical version is that showing us what they are doing might very well land people in prison for essentially "looting" the US economy.
Still, the very fact that there are at least these two visions of reality underscores the need for transparency. This is the very reason for the FIA, to lay bare before the people the actions of the people’s government and, in doing so, eliminate the need for the pitchforks and torches (or, at least, class action lawsuits).
Brian
RUN. Now.Where to?
Well, I easily answered my own question by going to the Fed’s website at http://www.federalreserve.gov/generalinfo/faq/faqfrs.htm
Who owns the Federal Reserve?
The Federal Reserve System is not "owned" by anyone and is not a private, profit-making institution. Instead, it is an independent entity within the government, having both public purposes and private aspects.
As the nation’s central bank, the Federal Reserve derives its authority from the U.S. Congress. It is considered an independent central bank because its decisions do not have to be ratified by the President or anyone else in the executive or legislative branch of government, it does not receive funding appropriated by Congress, and the terms of the members of the Board of Governors span multiple presidential and congressional terms. However, the Federal Reserve is subject to oversight by Congress, which periodically reviews its activities and can alter its responsibilities by statute. Also, the Federal Reserve must work within the framework of the overall objectives of economic and financial policy established by the government. Therefore, the Federal Reserve can be more accurately described as "independent within the government."
The twelve regional Federal Reserve Banks, which were established by Congress as the operating arms of the nation’s central banking system, are organized much like private corporations–possibly leading to some confusion about "ownership." For example, the Reserve Banks issue shares of stock to member banks. However, owning Reserve Bank stock is quite different from owning stock in a private company. The Reserve Banks are not operated for profit, and ownership of a certain amount of stock is, by law, a condition of membership in the System. The stock may not be sold, traded, or pledged as security for a loan; dividends are, by law, 6 percent per year.
Therefore it appears as if it is something of a misnomer to call the Fed private, or a private corporation, as some have in these postings. Clearly the Fed is subject to the FOIA (read paragraph one of the Fed’s Answer to Bloomberg Complaint).
While watching C-SPAN a while back, Paulson argued that he was not going to provide the names of the recipients of the money because doing so might cause people to pull money out of these institutions that received funds due the negative implications of actually having the need for them.
While I can see his rational behind this argument, I am still left feeling cheated and mislead because this is something he knew well before actually receiving the money. There was never any intention for complete and total transparency of these allocations.
It seems obvious to me at this point that our impotent congress is unwilling to act in accordance with the will of the people and this country’s Constitution and they are not really running the show, so to speak. It appears that we are ruled by the elite banking and Wall Street groups as well as the CFR who do not have the best interests of Main Street in there master plans. In fact, quite to the opposite, they seem to be striving to bring upon a total demise of the middle class.
This is a perfect example of what can happen when the government either becomes too powerful or gives such power to another entity such as the Federal Reserve. I think of the playground bully that takes your lunch money and says, "What are you going to do about it?"