Random Politics & Religion #00

Trying to force our entire economy away from fossil fuels when the technology to replace them is too expensive and inefficient is a national disaster.

Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen on Tuesday reiterated her strong opposition to “Audit the Fed” legislation championed by Sen. Rand Paul that would subject the Fed’s monetary policy decisions to new scrutiny from the investigative arm of Congress, arguing it would place harmful political pressure on the central bank.

Yellen said much of the Fed’s operations, including financial transactions, are already audited, pushing back against the charge from Paul (R-Ky.) and other critics that it is not transparent.

“I want to be completely clear that I strongly oppose Audit the Fed,” she told the Senate Banking Committee at a hearing. “Audit the Fed is a bill that would politicize monetary policy and it would bring short-term political pressures to bear on the Fed.”

Under current law, the Fed’s monetary policymaking process cannot be scrutinized by the Government Accountability Office. Paul’s bill would lift this ban and ask GAO to perform an audit, although it is short on specifics beyond that. Supporters of the legislation argue that prohibiting the GAO from keeping tabs on monetary policy prevents Congress from providing greater oversight of a policy process that has an enormous impact on the economy.

Paul is promoting the bill as part of his early foray into the 2016 presidential contest and is using it as a fundraising tool.

The House has passed the legislation previously and the Republican-controlled Senate is expected to take it up this Congress, with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) earlier this year announcing his support for the proposal.

That Yellen came to the hearing to pan “Audit the Fed” came as no surprise.

That Republican Sen. Bob Corker of Tennessee helped her make the strongest case against the proposal was unexpected.

Corker made clear on Tuesday that he is no fan of “Audit the Fed,” arguing it would be bad policy.

His questioning at the hearing took on a joking tone when he asked Yellen about the Fed’s transparency.

“While you may issue an updated balance sheet each week, how do we know those securities actually exist?” Corker said with a smile.

Yellen said Big Four accounting firm Deloitte audits the Fed’s balance sheet and she held up a copy of the audited financial statements.

“So they do exist?” Corker asked cheekily.

“They do exist senator,” Yellen affirmed.

“It’s obvious to me that the Audit the Fed effort is to not to address auditing the Fed because the Fed is audited,” Corker said.

“So to me it’s an attempt to allow Congress to be able to put pressure on Fed members relative to monetary policy. And I would just advocate that would not be a particularly good idea and it would cause us to put off tough decisions for the future, like we currently are doing with budgetary matters. Do you agree with that?”

“I strongly agree,” Yellen said.

Again, who is trying to do this?

teh guberment!

You know, I've been thinking, given I have no children, plan on having no children, and really have no vested interest in the world past like 2080 at the absolute latest...why am I so concerned with the future of the planet again?

I really need to learn to ditch these feelings and look out for myself.

I think I'm going to go buy the gas-guzzlingest awesome vehicle I can find and invest in some gas and oil companies based in various global economies for some currency diversification.

Maybe even invest in fracking in OTHER states so it doesn't make my state ugly, but I can still profit from it being done elsewhere.

GO PIPELINE!

You know, I've been thinking, given I have no children, plan on having no children, and really have no vested interest in the world past like 2080 at the absolute latest...why am I so concerned with the future of the planet again?

You might reincarnate on this same planet again, you never know!

Who said that we shouldn't have environmental regulations again? Oh right, nobody did.

It's a method the liberals like to use to portray conservatives in a negative light. Nobody is against the regulations itself, but regulations for regulation's sake, that's a different argument.

Unless you want to live in a nanny state where the government tells you how to live and what to do with your life, you shouldn't be for the types of regulations being passed in the past 6 years.

You might reincarnate on this same planet again, you never know!

I, uh.

Wasn't being entirely sarcastic.

I really do question myself sometimes on this stuff.

Oh, well, carry on.

I would like to spend the next hour complaining about low flow toilets and their impact on your mental health when you have three teenagers whose mission in life appears to be to clog every toilet in your house on a routine basis...

Well look at the argument I just made!

No kids, no intention of kids, I guess I should care about the future of nieces and nephews and second cousins and the like, and I do to some degree but...uh...well, do I care about it enough to lower my own standard of living?

I do, apparently.

I'm just not entirely sure why sometimes.

shower heads

My *** shower head...it has two modes: in one I stand under it and it rains all around me, except ON me; in the second mode, it actually flows down the middle but it comes out at such a thin amount that it takes a day to wash all the soap.

It would be one thing if we were going to be completely dependent on fossil fuels for the remainder of our existence, but with technology progressing today towards alternative fuels, it's a completely different argument.

Having Keystone isn't going to hurt us that much environmental-wise. I mean, how often does a pipe burst or leak vs. how often a truck tanker/train tanker spills oil during an accident? Pipelines are safer in that case.

The only argument against Keystone is pretty much the same argument against oil period. Well, I'm sorry to tell you this, but it will be impossible to completely remove ourselves from the dependence of fossil fuels as it currently stands. 20-30 years ago, that statement will not hold true. But today, removing fossil fuels, you stopped the world economically.

And those tree-huggers never think about that at all.

I know, right? Low-flow toilets and shower heads are *** terrible. I don't care how ecofriendly you are. If you tell me they don't irritate you you're *** lying, or you've never showered in a good, high-pressure shower.

My *** shower head...it has two modes: in one I stand under it and it rains all around me, except ON me; in the second mode, it actually flows down the middle but it comes out at such a thin amount that it takes a day to wash all the soap.

There was this guy in my hs who never washed his hair cause it was against his religion...I never quite understood what this religion that forbids shampoo was.

It's one of those things that I'd prefer we do without but I'm not vehemently against it.