Tom Coburn takes on American's For Tax Reform

[ElFenix]

The FOMC has on it a significant number of unapointed people that just happened to be the president of a bank.

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

happen to be president of a Federal Reserve Bank. not just 'a bank.' most of the reserve bank presidents are academics or career federal reserve people, only 2 have come from private industry.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

happen to be president of a Federal Reserve Bank. not just 'a bank.' most of the reserve bank presidents are academics or career federal reserve people, only 2 have come from private industry.

Even if they are the intellectual elite they are still unelected AND unapointed by any elected official.

 

[mchammer187]

Even if they are the intellectual elite they are still unelected AND unapointed.

The chairman of the Fed is still appointed. Do you really want every person to be a political appointee that just is going to add cost because every political appointee has to go through a vetting process.

I work for the Department of commerce and only the secretary of commerce is appointed. Everyone else works there and their jobs don't change hands every 4 years. Would you really have it run differently?

 

[drebo]

the taxes would be completely regressive and wreck the economy.

Consumption-based taxes are not regressive in any way, as long as necessities (unprepared food items) and services are excluded.

Are you trying to tell me that all state sales taxes are regressive? If so, why have you not campaigned against them?

 

[Dr. Zaus]

The chairman of the Fed is still appointed. Do you really want every person to be a political appointee that just is going to add cost because every political appointee has to go through a vetting process.

I work for the Department of commerce and only the secretary of commerce is appointed. Everyone else works there and their jobs don't change hands every 4 years. Would you really have it run differently?

If the chairman appointed his own top staff that would be one thing; as it is the dictators of money are not only unelected but many are not even appointed by anyone elected or even vetted by such people.

Only ignorance of how the system works allows these philosopher kings of our money supply to continue on without proper democratic oversight. I'm talking about just 5 seats at the tabe, I don't think that would put undue burden on our federal government OR the federal reserve systeem.

 

[Darwin333]

Oh yea, and abolish the federal reserve while their at it.

You don't have to read many of my posts to find out that I am no fan of the Federal Reserve but do you really want to hand their job to Barney Frank and the other dipshits (on both sides) in Congress? Talk about going from bad to holy shit bad real quick.

 

[ElFenix]

Consumption-based taxes are not regressive in any way, as long as necessities (unprepared food items) and services are excluded.

Are you trying to tell me that all state sales taxes are regressive? If so, why have you not campaigned against them?

consumption based taxes can be regressive if they're designed that way.

income is the important metric because it's your potential. as your income drops you face a larger % of taxes. that's regressive. if the consumption tax doesn't exclude basics or provide a p/rebate then it's regressive across the board. if the consumption tax does exclude basics and/or provide a p/rebate it's likely progressive in places and regressive in others.

some regressiveness here and there is ok, just not the system overall. then you're hit with a double whammy of lowered income and higher relative taxes during a recession. which makes the recession worse. and so the spiral is started.

If the chairman appointed his own top staff that would be one thing; as it is the dictators of money are not only unelected but many are not even appointed by anyone elected or even vetted by such people.

Only ignorance of how the system works allows these philosopher kings of our money supply to continue on without proper democratic oversight. I'm talking about just 5 seats at the tabe, I don't think that would put undue burden on our federal government OR the federal reserve systeem.

7 of the 12 (well, 6 of 11 right now as there's a vacancy) FOMC directors are political appointees. so we're already beyond your 5 seats at the table. the other 5 are drawn from the 12 bank presidents, 10 of whom are academics or career fed bureaucrats. these guys have risen through the ranks of the technocrats which is how most management is done.

and it's not like political appointees are some great thing. you often end up with morons in charge who were big donors. yay graft. hmmm, experts in the field or the guy whose relevant experience is managing a horse track?

 

[Dr. Zaus]

. the other 5 are drawn from the 12 bank presidents,

Thats the five it was implied it was too much work to have vetted by our democratic process.

These guys have risen through the ranks of the technocrats which is how most management is done. and it's not like political appointees are some great thing.

Every time I get someone arguing for this un-american system of dictTors of money I get some well intentioned person explaining that democracy dosent work and thT the intellectual elite should be in charge.

I'm sorry, principles matter more than your fear of having our philosopher kings vetted... Hell we vet USSC justices, why not those who rule our money supply?

Make an argument for the system that dosent come down to "some our intelectual elite dictators should be free of any democratic scrutiny" or simply admit that the freedom of americans to control who controls them is something you object to.