The following is a link to a sort of town hall meeting (highly staged) for Ben Bernanke moderated by Jim Lehrer.
Embedded video clips can be seen below. Audio and transcript links are also provided
Below are embedded videos from the program:
Part One: Bernanke on the Record (27 minutes)
Part Two: Bernanke on the Record (18 minutes)
Part Three: Bernanke on the Record (26 minutes)
What you don't hear in that video are questions about why the Fed was created to handle avoiding recessions but we've had so many over the last near 100 years, including the Great Depression.
You won't hear anything about how the Fed creates money. Paul Solman's segment said the Fed buys treasury bonds; however, they buy them with nothing. The taxpayers needlessly owe the private bankers interest on that. You won't hear any discussion about that the Fed is privately owned and controlled. Yes, the President appoints, but the President appoints those the Fed tells the President to appoint.
You do hear at the beginning of the video that the questions were screened. You won't hear any questions about why the whole usury system is good. There is no questioning of the first premises. In fact, as pointed out concerning Paul Solman's segment, that issue is conveniently sidestepped. Solman definitely avoided it. Was the Fed's spokesman visibly relieved? See for yourself. Watch the video and closely listen for and watch that dodge.
Ben Bernanke does say that history shows that branches of government don't do well with monetary policy, but that doesn't answer why they couldn't be reformed to handle the setting of the volume of money in circulation.
Calling into question the undeserved and unearned privilege of the private bankers is deliberately avoided.
Ben Bernanke also said that the Federal Reserve has nothing to do with the National Debt. He mentioned that the fiscal budget deficit this year is about $2 trillion; however, it is my understanding that $400 billion or there about is now (2009) interest on the National Debt and that a large percentage of that is paid to the Federal Reserve members. For Ben Bernanke to say that the Fed has nothing to do with the National Debt is misleading, although he means that technically the Fed doesn't say to the government that the government must spend above its budget. Although that's exactly what the Fed wants. The Fed loves the government to borrow rather than using pay-go (that is pay as you go via taxes rather than borrowing). The Fed does not want the U.S. to live within its means. It doesn't want the U.S. issuing United States Notes pegged to real Main Street productivity and getting rid of Federal Reserve Notes.
The Fed setting interest rates and not regulating members did contribute to the boom and then bust that has caused the deficit to be so high. Alan Greenspan has claimed that he could not have done anything about that, but that's completely untrue.
Ben Bernanke wasn't asked about the deregulation craze (rolling back aspects of the Glass-Steagall Act, etc. "Who's More to Blame: Derivatives or the Glass-Steagall Repeal?" by Dan Caplinger and Christopher Barker. Motley Fool. March 24, 2009.) that led to the overleveraging in the unregulated securities market most particularly in the derivatives such as the Credit Default Swaps (CDS's). Ben Bernanke is buying the toxic securities but not transparently. We don't know how he is decoupling the junk from the portion that is attached to otherwise so-called valuable assets (real estate that would be fine in a stable market rather than overheated).
As for the issue of auditing the Fed, Ben Bernanke said that the people don't want the Congress setting monetary policy. He knows that if the people learn that the Fed's private owners make all that interest on the National Debt that is completely unnecessary and in fact evil, that the people would do away with that.
The truth is that the volume of money put into circulation could easily be pegged to a fix gage of real productivity on Main Street without all the hocus pocus on Wall Street.
You hear Ben Bernanke say that the private sector must issue all credit. Why? Why do the people have to obtain on borrowing and being saddle with paying other's interest or usury? It isn't necessary. I lay out the reasons why elsewhere on this site, but the Christian Commons explains much of it.
Ben Bernanke emphasizes that "too big to fail" must go. What he isn't saying is that the decisions to let Lehman Brothers fail and to bailout the other institutions did not have to be made the way that they were. Nationalization of those entities was always an option. Once nationalized, the assets could have been sold off and shareholders could have taken the losses without the whole system collapsing. Ben Bernanke is misleading and PBS is obviously helping. Of course PBS is far from the only media outlet doing that.
The following should appear at the end of every post:
According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":
Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.
Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.
Political Campaign Intervention
Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.
Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.
Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:
- Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
- Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
- Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
- Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
- Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office
Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:
- The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
- Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
- We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
- When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
- It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
- We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
- We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
- When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
- We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
- It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.
And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)