Why arent american women required to sign up for selective service?
I signed up for selective service and would be proud to serve and honor the country that has given me the freedom and opportunity. However the problem I have is that why arent women forced to do the same. If women can vote, run for president like hillary clinton, receive financial aid, federal benefits, and federal jobs why arent they required to do the same as by law. If they are not forced to do the same as men would it be best to give men more benefits and rights in certain aspects or take away some woman rights to make up for this.
If you really want equal rights, then pull away the illusion you’re saying that it’s not fair that women don’t have to register. We are all people first before men or women, and therefore you can say that the draft requires 50% of the population to register.
So you see now that it’s really pretty much totally random, since you have a 50/50 chance of being born either a man or a woman, and the population is about 50/50 men and women.
So unless you think that we will need more than 50% of the population to be drafted one day, it really doesn’t matter.
Women can join up of their own accord, and if there’s discrimination going on, then that is an unrelated issue.
Once we have this out of the way, we can start talking about how this might affect attitudes toward genders, or why all men instead of all women. But all this brings us back to is the question we thought we already answered: “Are women physically equal to men and therefore are they equally capable of serving?”
As to your question about men having more benefits because of their responsibility… Well think about it: anyone who serves receives military benefits. In essence, they already do get more benefits. More rights? This makes no sense. A right is a right because it can’t be taken away or given. These are the same for all people.
“Ask not what your country can do for you….” so the famous quote goes.
Is this one for the history books?
Aug. 25 (Bloomberg) — The Federal Reserve must for the first time identify the companies in its emergency lending programs after losing a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit.
Manhattan Chief U.S. District Judge Loretta Preska ruled against the central bank yesterday, rejecting the argument that loan records aren’t covered by the law because their disclosure would harm borrowers’ competitive positions.
The Fed has refused to name the financial firms it lent to or disclose the amounts or the assets put up as collateral under 11 programs, most put in place during the deepest financial crisis since the Great Depression, saying that doing so might set off a run by depositors and unsettle shareholders. Bloomberg LP, the New York-based company majority-owned by Mayor Michael Bloomberg, sued on Nov. 7 on behalf of its Bloomberg News unit.
“The Federal Reserve has to be accountable for the decisions that it makes,” said U.S. Representative Alan Grayson, a Florida Democrat on the House Financial Services Committee, after Preska’s ruling. “It’s one thing to say that the Federal Reserve is an independent institution. It’s another thing to say that it can keep us all in the dark.”
The judge said the central bank “improperly withheld agency records” by “conducting an inadequate search” after Bloomberg News reporters filed a request under the information act. She gave the Fed five days to turn over documents it told the reporters it located, including 231 pages of reports, and said it must look for more at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, which runs most of the loan programs.
The central bank “essentially speculates on how a borrower might enter a downward spiral of financial instability if its participation in the Federal Reserve lending programs were to be disclosed,” Preska wrote. “Conjecture, without evidence of imminent harm, simply fails to meet the Board’s burden” of proof.
David Skidmore, a Fed spokesman who said the board’s staff was reviewing the 47-page ruling, declined to comment on whether the central bank would appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals in New York.
Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke, who led the biggest expansion of the central bank’s power in its 95-year history, was nominated to a second term today by President Barack Obama.
Obama promised a new era of government openness when he took office in January, issuing a statement telling agencies “to adopt a presumption in favor of disclosure” in responding to requests under FOIA.
Banks are worried that the disclosure of borrowers’ identities by the Fed, the lender of last resort, would cause customers to empty their bank accounts in a run on the bank, said Scott Talbott, vice president of governmental affairs at the Washington-based Financial Services Roundtable, a lobbying group.
“This issue is: ‘This bank borrowed X billion from the Fed, therefore they must be in trouble, therefore I’m going to pull my money out,” said Talbott. “That’s the type of danger that we’re worried about. That’s the risk.”
Bloomberg LP said in the suit that U.S. taxpayers need to know the terms of Fed lending because the public became an “involuntary investor” in the nation’s banks as the financial crisis deepened and the government began shoring up companies with capital injections and loans. Citigroup Inc. and American International Group Inc. are among those who have said they accepted Fed loans.
“When an unprecedented amount of taxpayer dollars were lent to financial institutions in unprecedented ways and the Federal Reserve refused to make public any of the details of its extraordinary lending, Bloomberg News asked the court why U.S. citizens don’t have the right to know,” said Matthew Winkler, the editor-in-chief of Bloomberg News. “We’re gratified the court is defending the public’s right to know what is being done in the public interest.”
The Fed’s balance sheet about doubled after lending standards were relaxed in the wake of the collapse of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. on Sept. 15, 2008. For the week ended Aug. 19, Fed assets rose 2.3 percent to $2.06 trillion as it continued to buy mortgage-backed securities under a program allowing the central bank to purchase non-government securities for the first time.
The U.S. House may vote as soon as next month on a bill to require the Fed to submit to audits by the Government Accountability Office, said Representative Scott Garrett, a New Jersey Republican on the Financial Services Committee.
The judge’s ruling “is strikingly good news,” Garrett said. “This is what the American people have been asking for.”
On a side note…I thought the line about Obama and “openness” was bogus. Is’nt it his people that have been fighting thi
Is’nt it his people that have been fighting this?
@ “Audit the fed” > Well once Bloomberg prints that list, it could light a fire under the audit movement?!?
When you have been in a autonomous position for your entire history.
One would be extremely guarded to have its secrets relayed to the
world. What this will actually accomplish I am not sure. Accept we
will know, who and why received the money. And then we have’
to follow the bouncing ball, to see what they inturn did with it, I think
the biggest issue to be disclosed. Is did we actually have a problem
to begin with,
How many of you Support President Obama for Immigration Reform Bill, Why?
Reasonable people may disagree on the parameters of the illegal immigration problem, and the shape of the solution, but the words “illegal” and “the law” miss the mark.
Nevertheless, I recognize that “the law” is human-made and therefore fallible. Not so long ago, “the law” required black men and women to live as slaves, and declared it a crime to assist escaping slaves. Not so long ago, “the law” prohibited women from voting. The mere fact
that an act is illegal does not end the discussion.
The important question is whether the law effectively protects the freedoms we cherish.
When “the law” is used to dismiss individuals and activities as criminal, the important questions remain unasked:
Have our border enforcement activities to date actually slowed illegal entry? Are U.S. international trade policies complicit in the economic problems driving so many to immigrate? Are the bureaucratic, financial and physical barriers to legal entry too high? Are American citizens losing jobs to immigrants? How does the increased cost in social services to immigrants compare to increased tax revenues and income to local economies where immigrants work and purchase goods and services?
If it is true, as one interviewee stated, “We’re not responsible to take care of the world,” what are we responsible for? Most importantly, is it possible to forge a new legal system that treats immigrants with compassion and respect while recognizing a sovereign nation’s right to control its borders and obligation to meet the basic needs of its citizens?
We need to read about the horrible conditions they are fleeing from — the poverty, the hunger and the desperation.
In short, rather than asking what the law requires, we must dig deeper and ask what we, the people require of our laws.
We must all Support President Obama in passing the New Immigration Reform Bill !
Obama pledged to “again pursue comprehensive immigration reform” and said he is “committed to reforming our system in a way that is tough, fair and practical.”
Watch the Video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yi17AYMESJ0
***** Here are few points to be addressed *****
1) Strengthen Border Control
2) Remove Incentives to Enter Illegally
3) Bring People Out of the Shadows
4) Harsh Punishment for Business that hire illegals
5) Work with Mexico, to promote economic development in Mexico to decrease the economic desperation that leads to illegal immigration.
“3) Bring People Out of the Shadows”
Means Taxing them, No more Freebies!
rckfrom1966 Said “Think of this problem on a smaller scale. Do I have the right to come into your house, uninvited, and eat your food, watch your tv, and sleep on your bed because you make more money than I do? Yes or no?”
It depends on the relationship between you and me, If you are related to me or my friend you do, but guess this isn’t a question of 2 houses. Its question of 10 – 20 million people.
I cannot comment about Iran, because many of innocent will die and still no change will be there. Do you agree? I hope for something positive this time for the Iranians too.
We would always talk about Civil & Human Rights Violations of people in countries like Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, North Korea, China etc… While ignoring 10 – 20 Millions without any rights in our farms, restaurants, warehouses and factories…
Viva La Raza said “how about sending the whities back to europe”
This is as true as sending all Mexican back to Mexico, use your brain!
Joel said “They don’t have the education to tax.. they will become welfare dependent for the rest of their lives essentially.”
Are you or anyone you know is living on Welfare for his life? What a joke, I believe people would only take welfare if unemployed.
Sasori said “You do realize that someone making under $30,000 a year with several dependents will not become a tax payer. With EITC and Child Tax Credit he will receive twice what he pays in.”
Is it that only illegal do this? aren’t people already doing it? Why blame everything on illegals?
“Who is without sin among you let throw a stone at illegals” says everyone
“Amnesty Will Cost U.S. Taxpayers at Least $2.6 Trillion”
What a genius, he who predicted this, should have predicted the fall of GM, AIG, Lehman etc… We would not have problem at all!
What about fall of your and my house prices? where were these gurus?
They are nothing but bull 😉
Yes I do support it and I have called the White House to tell them to pass it.
Do you support HR 1207 to audit the Fed? 149 cosponsors? Do you know why we need it?
The federal reserve has injected trillions of dollars worth of credit into the markets in the last several months, with no Congressional oversight or approval. Further, the Fed has refused to give information regarding to whom those payments were made, even under freedom of information act requests, stating (accurately) that they are not a federal agency. Isn’t it a bit scary to give over our monetary policy to an unaccountable privately owned corporation with shareholders made up of the very banks it is supposedly regulating?
Moreover, Obama has signaled that the Fed is likely to be given even more power, over the entire financial industry, not just banks.
Current audit power does not allow Congress to look at the very things needed to make the Fed accountable. HR 1207, introduced by Congressman Ron Paul would change that and require a thorough audit by 2010.
Here is a partial discussion: http://www.cbonds.info/all/eng/news/index.phtml/params/id/432326
“WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) — While not quite in the same league as Tina Fey’s take on Sarah Palin, Saturday Night Live’s spoof on the banks’ stress tests last Saturday was pretty funny.
Will Forte as Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner explained that the stress test went from being a graded test, to a pass/fail, to a pass/pass-with-an-asterisk, to a pass/pass system, and then he congratulated all the banks for passing. Watch the video.
Time will tell how useful the stress tests were, but few serious economists or analysts believe the banking problem is solved.
In the meantime, there’s a groundswell in Congress for closer scrutiny of the stress tester – the Federal Reserve itself. America’s central bank is a curious public-private sector hybrid, largely free from any governmental oversight or control.
But as the steward of the nation’s money, the Fed’s actions in recent months to print hundreds of billions of dollars in new money seem to cry out for some sort of democratic review. Congress, after years of fawning over Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan as the maestro of monetary policy, has learned the hard way that, while trust is good, control is better.
So there is a bill before Congress that calls for a full-scale audit of the Federal Reserve System — the Federal Reserve Board based in Washington, and the 12 regional Federal Reserve Banks.
That bill, H.R. 1207, now has 149 cosponsors and counting. It was introduced by Texas Rep. Ron Paul, now nominally a Republican, but a former leader of the Libertarian Party who is still best known for his strong libertarian principles. Read more about the bill.
Paul, as his fans well know, would just as soon abolish the Fed as look at it, but this issue gives him a chance to come in from the political fringe and at least start a process the could result in changing accountability at the Fed.
Paul’s bill directs the Government Accountability Office to audit the Federal Reserve Board and regional banks by the end of 2010 and present a detailed report to Congress. The audit would look at the Fed’s actions during the crisis and its decision-making process.
The 149 cosponsors include all but three of the 29 Republican members of the House Financial Services Committee, starting with ranking member Spencer Bachus of Alabama. While the bulk of the bill’s supporters are Republicans, 20 House Democrats have also signed on as cosponsors. The companion bill in the Senate, S. 604, introduced by independent Bernie Sanders of Vermont, has no cosponsors yet.
House Financial Services Chairman Barney Frank, D-Mass., has promised that the bill will get a hearing in his committee. “I hope we’re going to put some limitations on this power of the Federal Reserve to lend any money to anybody,” Frank recently told an audience in Boston, “and to significantly increase the auditing and transparency at the Federal Reserve.”
Paul made it clear what he was after when he introduced the bill. “The Treasury gets hundreds of billions, which is huge, of course,” Paul said in a speech on the floor, “and then we neglect to talk about the Federal Reserve, where they are creating money out of thin air, and supporting all their friends and taking care of certain banks and certain corporations. This, to me, has to be addressed.”
Paul has some support outside Congress as well. No less an authority than former Fed Chairman Paul Volcker thinks the Federal Reserve will come in for some congressional review after its emergency actions during the crisis.
“I think for better or for worse we are at a point where the Federal Reserve Act, after all that has been happening in the last year or more, is going to be reviewed,” Volcker said last month in a speech at Vanderbilt University.
Volcker said that the political system could not “tolerate” the degree of activity that the Fed has undertaken in conjunction with the Treasury Department, using emergency powers without any congressional authorization or review.
At the same time, of course, the Fed is the leading contender to take on the role of monitoring systemic risk as part of the administration’s proposed regulatory reform. Before that can happen, though, it seems likely that Congress will want to rein in the Fed and establish better oversight of its actions. ”
What do you think? If we want the Fed audited people need to write to their reps to support this bill, and write to Pelosi to bring it to a vote.
kadiss, I do short questions, too, but I wanted to post the article for those who wanted more detail.
Not only stand behind it, demand it. The fed needs to be abolished.
Do u agree w/ this statement by Ron Paul that Federal Reserve transparency thru audit is needed?
“Before the Committee on Financial Services, Humphrey Hawkins Hearing on Monetary Policy, U.S. House of Representatives, July 21, 2009
Mr. Chairman, at a time when we find ourselves once again receiving a report on the Federal Reserve’s conduct of monetary policy, it is more important than ever that we in the Congress push for more effective oversight and transparency of the Federal Reserve System. It would be unconscionable for this body, especially after the financial crisis of the last two years, not to take forceful and deliberate action to bring more transparency to the Fed.
A common misconception is that the Fed is completely independent of political pressure, and that any attempt to oversee or audit the Fed would jeopardize that independence. While the Fed has far too much authority to make agreements with foreign governments and central banks, or create temporary liquidity facilities, the governors and, more importantly, the chairman, are appointed by the President. The chairman is the dominant figure within the Board of Governors and the Federal Open Market Committee, the public face of the Fed, and he must be reappointed by the President every four years, with the advice and consent of the Senate. Thus, his job security as chairman is dependent on keeping the President and the Senate pleased. Every time the chairman acts, it is with the knowledge that within four years he will be forced to justify his actions to the President and the Senate.
Meetings of the Federal Open Market Committee, the committee responsible for conducting monetary policy and setting interest rates, are held in secret. Minutes are released after three weeks, and transcripts after five years. The ostensible reasons for this secrecy are that too much openness will either hamper the freedom of FOMC participants to discuss issues freely, or that markets will be unnerved. However, this is not really a condemnation of transparency, but rather a sign that far too much power has been given to one tiny organization.
We here in the Congress hold our committee hearings publicly, broadcast on C-SPAN and over the Internet. We are the most powerful branch of the government and our decisions have no less effect on the lives of everyday Americans than the decisions of the Fed. More importantly, our discussions have a direct impact on our ability to win re-election. Every word we speak can be used against us in our campaigns for re-election. It would be far easier for us to hold hearings in secret and release minutes and transcripts well after the fact. Yet we understand that the American people deserve to know not only what comes out of Congress, but also what goes on in the legislative process.
In the same way, it is vital that the American people understand what is going on inside the Fed. Attempts at enhanced transparency and auditing of the Fed’s auctions are not intended to dictate monetary policy to the Fed or second-guess the Fed’s actions. To my knowledge not a single legislative proposal put forward thus far has this as its intended goal. We as Congressmen have the ultimate responsibility for keeping the Fed in check, but how can we fulfill that duty if we do not know what the Fed is doing? Greater transparency is the first step, and only then can we begin to perform effective oversight. Given the Fed’s abysmal stewardship of the dollar and repeated fumbling of financial crises, we owe this to the American people.
The last… this is what he said.
“We here in the Congress hold our committee hearings publicly, broadcast on C-SPAN and over the Internet.
“We are the most powerful branch of the government and our decisions have no less effect on the lives of everyday Americans than the decisions of the Fed.
“More importantly, our discussions have a direct impact on our ability to win re-election.
“Every word we speak can be used against us in our campaigns for re-election.
–> “It would be far easier for us to hold hearings in secret and release minutes and transcripts well after the fact. Yet we understand that the American people deserve to know not only what comes out of Congress, but also what goes on in the legislative process.” <–
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Can you say "Bingo?"
I absolutely agree that the Fed must be audited.
DAR: I agree re: densely populated areas gaining too much power. I'm trying to review parts of the Federalist Papers and record of the Constitutional Convention and figure out how Madison would have maintained more equality despite such concentrations.
Powered by Yahoo! Answers