do you know what the federal reserve is?

[SK in CV]

[quote=aldante]SV,
I think that the main line of the audit should be focused on obligations that the FED has with counter parties, and what the value is of thier entire balance sheet and what comprises their balance sheet. Its funny but Ron Paul was ridiclued by Ben Bernanke about the possiblity of the US funding part of the Greek crisis about 3 months ago now and it turns out our committment may be $60 billion or so.

Who should perform? Great question. I am pretty sure that HB 1207 and SB 604 say that entity should be the CBO. I don’t know enough either way to advocate for against that recommendation. I do disagree with you on your premise that “we” would not find out new information. I think that the majority of the American population would be appaled at what this independant organization has gotten us into. I don’t know the specifics but the notion that we live in a free society will be smashed when the FEDS’ committments are revealed. I think it would amount to the Germans funding Greek workers retirements at 50 years old x 100. I think that it will be difficult to control mass anger in the US at that point.
Bottom line is that we as a country (not individually) have been living beyond our means since 1982 and our debt needs to be either restructured or paid. The FED has been the bartenter – and Americans the drunks. So that is why-btw I am sitting it out in real estate….I think a lot more hurt is coming down the pipe.[/quote]
Again, I don’t know where to begin.

The fed has little in the way of outstanding obligations other than dollars in circulation and cash on deposit from federally chartered banks and the US Treasury. This makes up over 90% of the feds obligations. You’ll have to explain where that examination will lead.

The US did not fund $60 billion to aid in the crisis in Greece. It granted a credit line to the IMF a year ago, with exposure estimtated to be $5 billion. Many experts consider that estimate high.

I think you’re actually referring to S 3217 and HR 4173, which are the current bills headed to reconciliation. they both grant the examination powers to the GAO.

I never asserted that we would not find new information. Only that if the audit was consistent with what are normally called “audits”, then there would be little if any new information. Traditional audits have already been done. So the scope has to be redirected. Which is why I asked for your recommendations, that if I understand what you’re saying correctly, will lead nowhere. Even a different approach to “valuing the assets” may not be very informative.

You totally lost me on the free society thing. And with the “FEDS’ committments are revealed” thing. What do you think the secret fed committments are?

[davelj]

[quote=SK in CV]
I never asserted that we would not find new information. Only that if the audit was consistent with what are normally called “audits”, then there would be little if any new information. Traditional audits have already been done. So the scope has to be redirected. [/quote]

I agree here. I don’t really have an opinion on this idea of an independent audit for the Fed. It certainly can’t hurt, I suppose. But I don’t think a lot of new *valuable* information is going to be revealed. But if it makes the public feel less bad about the situation, then it’s probably a good idea. But this gets back to the old saw that, “the only way for three people to keep a secret is for two of them to get killed.” I doubt there will be any bombshells.

As disturbing as this may sound, while audits are helpful, they are FAR far from perfect. In fact, not even in the ballpark. Having sat on the boards of companies that have been audited (and knowing the gory details of what really goes on beneath the numbers), I am very skeptical of even audited financial statements. Generically, I don’t trust the financial statements of any company that I’m not intimately involved with (and even those need to be adjusted for reality), which is why I prefer private to public companies (the former are generally not trying as hard to hide the truth).

Anyhow, audits are generally a good thing, but they are quite limited in what they reveal. Expect the Fed’s audit to be the same.

[davelj]

[quote=SK in CV]
I never asserted that we would not find new information. Only that if the audit was consistent with what are normally called “audits”, then there would be little if any new information. Traditional audits have already been done. So the scope has to be redirected. [/quote]

I agree here. I don’t really have an opinion on this idea of an independent audit for the Fed. It certainly can’t hurt, I suppose. But I don’t think a lot of new *valuable* information is going to be revealed. But if it makes the public feel less bad about the situation, then it’s probably a good idea. But this gets back to the old saw that, “the only way for three people to keep a secret is for two of them to get killed.” I doubt there will be any bombshells.

As disturbing as this may sound, while audits are helpful, they are FAR far from perfect. In fact, not even in the ballpark. Having sat on the boards of companies that have been audited (and knowing the gory details of what really goes on beneath the numbers), I am very skeptical of even audited financial statements. Generically, I don’t trust the financial statements of any company that I’m not intimately involved with (and even those need to be adjusted for reality), which is why I prefer private to public companies (the former are generally not trying as hard to hide the truth).

Anyhow, audits are generally a good thing, but they are quite limited in what they reveal. Expect the Fed’s audit to be the same.

[davelj]

[quote=SK in CV]
I never asserted that we would not find new information. Only that if the audit was consistent with what are normally called “audits”, then there would be little if any new information. Traditional audits have already been done. So the scope has to be redirected. [/quote]

I agree here. I don’t really have an opinion on this idea of an independent audit for the Fed. It certainly can’t hurt, I suppose. But I don’t think a lot of new *valuable* information is going to be revealed. But if it makes the public feel less bad about the situation, then it’s probably a good idea. But this gets back to the old saw that, “the only way for three people to keep a secret is for two of them to get killed.” I doubt there will be any bombshells.

As disturbing as this may sound, while audits are helpful, they are FAR far from perfect. In fact, not even in the ballpark. Having sat on the boards of companies that have been audited (and knowing the gory details of what really goes on beneath the numbers), I am very skeptical of even audited financial statements. Generically, I don’t trust the financial statements of any company that I’m not intimately involved with (and even those need to be adjusted for reality), which is why I prefer private to public companies (the former are generally not trying as hard to hide the truth).

Anyhow, audits are generally a good thing, but they are quite limited in what they reveal. Expect the Fed’s audit to be the same.

[davelj]

[quote=SK in CV]
I never asserted that we would not find new information. Only that if the audit was consistent with what are normally called “audits”, then there would be little if any new information. Traditional audits have already been done. So the scope has to be redirected. [/quote]

I agree here. I don’t really have an opinion on this idea of an independent audit for the Fed. It certainly can’t hurt, I suppose. But I don’t think a lot of new *valuable* information is going to be revealed. But if it makes the public feel less bad about the situation, then it’s probably a good idea. But this gets back to the old saw that, “the only way for three people to keep a secret is for two of them to get killed.” I doubt there will be any bombshells.

As disturbing as this may sound, while audits are helpful, they are FAR far from perfect. In fact, not even in the ballpark. Having sat on the boards of companies that have been audited (and knowing the gory details of what really goes on beneath the numbers), I am very skeptical of even audited financial statements. Generically, I don’t trust the financial statements of any company that I’m not intimately involved with (and even those need to be adjusted for reality), which is why I prefer private to public companies (the former are generally not trying as hard to hide the truth).

Anyhow, audits are generally a good thing, but they are quite limited in what they reveal. Expect the Fed’s audit to be the same.

[davelj]

[quote=SK in CV]
I never asserted that we would not find new information. Only that if the audit was consistent with what are normally called “audits”, then there would be little if any new information. Traditional audits have already been done. So the scope has to be redirected. [/quote]

I agree here. I don’t really have an opinion on this idea of an independent audit for the Fed. It certainly can’t hurt, I suppose. But I don’t think a lot of new *valuable* information is going to be revealed. But if it makes the public feel less bad about the situation, then it’s probably a good idea. But this gets back to the old saw that, “the only way for three people to keep a secret is for two of them to get killed.” I doubt there will be any bombshells.

As disturbing as this may sound, while audits are helpful, they are FAR far from perfect. In fact, not even in the ballpark. Having sat on the boards of companies that have been audited (and knowing the gory details of what really goes on beneath the numbers), I am very skeptical of even audited financial statements. Generically, I don’t trust the financial statements of any company that I’m not intimately involved with (and even those need to be adjusted for reality), which is why I prefer private to public companies (the former are generally not trying as hard to hide the truth).

Anyhow, audits are generally a good thing, but they are quite limited in what they reveal. Expect the Fed’s audit to be the same.

[investor]

To SK in CV
OK. Then why does Ron Paul state that the fed has not been audited since its inception in 1913? Why do so many other authors also say the same thing? How can beranake refuse to state where all of the bail out money has gone,aside from 30 B to canada, as stated in john lott’s artical?(I don’t use the fed’s own web page as a reliable source.) And, if the fed did pay back every penny of interest that it receives from other sources, then I would not have a problem with the fed being there (assuming that the bailouts were also in the american people’s interest and not the fed’s buddies interest.)What is worse, I have read that our gold supply is also being transfered abroad by the fed. Fort knox’s gold supply has not been audited for about 55 years, even though it is supposed to be every year. Can you explain all of this?

[investor]

To SK in CV
OK. Then why does Ron Paul state that the fed has not been audited since its inception in 1913? Why do so many other authors also say the same thing? How can beranake refuse to state where all of the bail out money has gone,aside from 30 B to canada, as stated in john lott’s artical?(I don’t use the fed’s own web page as a reliable source.) And, if the fed did pay back every penny of interest that it receives from other sources, then I would not have a problem with the fed being there (assuming that the bailouts were also in the american people’s interest and not the fed’s buddies interest.)What is worse, I have read that our gold supply is also being transfered abroad by the fed. Fort knox’s gold supply has not been audited for about 55 years, even though it is supposed to be every year. Can you explain all of this?

[investor]

To SK in CV
OK. Then why does Ron Paul state that the fed has not been audited since its inception in 1913? Why do so many other authors also say the same thing? How can beranake refuse to state where all of the bail out money has gone,aside from 30 B to canada, as stated in john lott’s artical?(I don’t use the fed’s own web page as a reliable source.) And, if the fed did pay back every penny of interest that it receives from other sources, then I would not have a problem with the fed being there (assuming that the bailouts were also in the american people’s interest and not the fed’s buddies interest.)What is worse, I have read that our gold supply is also being transfered abroad by the fed. Fort knox’s gold supply has not been audited for about 55 years, even though it is supposed to be every year. Can you explain all of this?

[investor]

To SK in CV
OK. Then why does Ron Paul state that the fed has not been audited since its inception in 1913? Why do so many other authors also say the same thing? How can beranake refuse to state where all of the bail out money has gone,aside from 30 B to canada, as stated in john lott’s artical?(I don’t use the fed’s own web page as a reliable source.) And, if the fed did pay back every penny of interest that it receives from other sources, then I would not have a problem with the fed being there (assuming that the bailouts were also in the american people’s interest and not the fed’s buddies interest.)What is worse, I have read that our gold supply is also being transfered abroad by the fed. Fort knox’s gold supply has not been audited for about 55 years, even though it is supposed to be every year. Can you explain all of this?

[investor]

To SK in CV
OK. Then why does Ron Paul state that the fed has not been audited since its inception in 1913? Why do so many other authors also say the same thing? How can beranake refuse to state where all of the bail out money has gone,aside from 30 B to canada, as stated in john lott’s artical?(I don’t use the fed’s own web page as a reliable source.) And, if the fed did pay back every penny of interest that it receives from other sources, then I would not have a problem with the fed being there (assuming that the bailouts were also in the american people’s interest and not the fed’s buddies interest.)What is worse, I have read that our gold supply is also being transfered abroad by the fed. Fort knox’s gold supply has not been audited for about 55 years, even though it is supposed to be every year. Can you explain all of this?

[investor]

[quote=SK in CV][quote=investor]
The fed was passed on a voice vote of 3 people at midnight 12/23/1913. Does this sound like an honest discussion or more like a sneaky, corrupt bill? Place this in the context of the bill not passing in the years immediatly before and the 3 other central banks that ex-presidents called the worst entity placed on the american people and you can try and dismiss this as another conspiracy nutty idea if you want, but this one is well documented and is paralleled by the bank of england.[/quote]

Check the congressional record. The bill passed the house 298-60 with 76 abstentions. It passed the Senate 43-25 with 27 abstentions.[/quote]
I’d have to go back and check the record, which is probably not going to happen given my schedule. Your point is a good, check the facts. I am taking the word of the creature book and the book by mike maloney “how to invest in gold and silver”. But, again, the fed hasn’t been audited completly, or else why would it fight so hard being audited and why would any number of books say that it hasn’t been audited and how could bernanke say to congress go jump in the lake when asked were all of the bail out money is going? One thing I do know about human nature is that if it smells like a rat, ….. I do not trust any entity that has the money supply of the US and the reserve currency of the world in its hands and is not completly outright on where the money is. It’s clear that congress has no idea where the trillions are. Congress is stopped from finding out where by the fed and some people want to trust the fed that its doing the right thing? Where does working in secrecy lead to?

[investor]

[quote=SK in CV][quote=investor]
The fed was passed on a voice vote of 3 people at midnight 12/23/1913. Does this sound like an honest discussion or more like a sneaky, corrupt bill? Place this in the context of the bill not passing in the years immediatly before and the 3 other central banks that ex-presidents called the worst entity placed on the american people and you can try and dismiss this as another conspiracy nutty idea if you want, but this one is well documented and is paralleled by the bank of england.[/quote]

Check the congressional record. The bill passed the house 298-60 with 76 abstentions. It passed the Senate 43-25 with 27 abstentions.[/quote]
I’d have to go back and check the record, which is probably not going to happen given my schedule. Your point is a good, check the facts. I am taking the word of the creature book and the book by mike maloney “how to invest in gold and silver”. But, again, the fed hasn’t been audited completly, or else why would it fight so hard being audited and why would any number of books say that it hasn’t been audited and how could bernanke say to congress go jump in the lake when asked were all of the bail out money is going? One thing I do know about human nature is that if it smells like a rat, ….. I do not trust any entity that has the money supply of the US and the reserve currency of the world in its hands and is not completly outright on where the money is. It’s clear that congress has no idea where the trillions are. Congress is stopped from finding out where by the fed and some people want to trust the fed that its doing the right thing? Where does working in secrecy lead to?

[investor]

[quote=SK in CV][quote=investor]
The fed was passed on a voice vote of 3 people at midnight 12/23/1913. Does this sound like an honest discussion or more like a sneaky, corrupt bill? Place this in the context of the bill not passing in the years immediatly before and the 3 other central banks that ex-presidents called the worst entity placed on the american people and you can try and dismiss this as another conspiracy nutty idea if you want, but this one is well documented and is paralleled by the bank of england.[/quote]

Check the congressional record. The bill passed the house 298-60 with 76 abstentions. It passed the Senate 43-25 with 27 abstentions.[/quote]
I’d have to go back and check the record, which is probably not going to happen given my schedule. Your point is a good, check the facts. I am taking the word of the creature book and the book by mike maloney “how to invest in gold and silver”. But, again, the fed hasn’t been audited completly, or else why would it fight so hard being audited and why would any number of books say that it hasn’t been audited and how could bernanke say to congress go jump in the lake when asked were all of the bail out money is going? One thing I do know about human nature is that if it smells like a rat, ….. I do not trust any entity that has the money supply of the US and the reserve currency of the world in its hands and is not completly outright on where the money is. It’s clear that congress has no idea where the trillions are. Congress is stopped from finding out where by the fed and some people want to trust the fed that its doing the right thing? Where does working in secrecy lead to?

[investor]

[quote=SK in CV][quote=investor]
The fed was passed on a voice vote of 3 people at midnight 12/23/1913. Does this sound like an honest discussion or more like a sneaky, corrupt bill? Place this in the context of the bill not passing in the years immediatly before and the 3 other central banks that ex-presidents called the worst entity placed on the american people and you can try and dismiss this as another conspiracy nutty idea if you want, but this one is well documented and is paralleled by the bank of england.[/quote]

Check the congressional record. The bill passed the house 298-60 with 76 abstentions. It passed the Senate 43-25 with 27 abstentions.[/quote]
I’d have to go back and check the record, which is probably not going to happen given my schedule. Your point is a good, check the facts. I am taking the word of the creature book and the book by mike maloney “how to invest in gold and silver”. But, again, the fed hasn’t been audited completly, or else why would it fight so hard being audited and why would any number of books say that it hasn’t been audited and how could bernanke say to congress go jump in the lake when asked were all of the bail out money is going? One thing I do know about human nature is that if it smells like a rat, ….. I do not trust any entity that has the money supply of the US and the reserve currency of the world in its hands and is not completly outright on where the money is. It’s clear that congress has no idea where the trillions are. Congress is stopped from finding out where by the fed and some people want to trust the fed that its doing the right thing? Where does working in secrecy lead to?

[Author]

Posts