do you know what the federal reserve is?

[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?

[SK in CV]

[quote=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?[/quote]

Yes, I can explain all of it.

Sometimes Ron Paul is right. Sometimes he’s wrong. This time he’s wrong. As are other authors who make the same claim. Do you think a big international consulting firm like Deloitte Touche would allow their name on an audit report if they didn’t actually do thw work?

Bernanke can refuse to tell congress things because he’s Ben Bernanke. Head of the fed. You or I might get thrown in jail for doing what he has done. But for at least the last 40 years, maybe longer, congress is afraid of the fed. I can only speculate as to why. One of the reasons, I suspect, is that there are only a few of the 535 congressmen that understand finance. (Sadly, Chris Dodd and Barney Frank, both politicians who I adore, aren’t among them. Bernie Sanders, the only self-identified socialist of the bunch, does.) It shouldn’t be that way. But it is. Hopefully that will change.

As far as gold is concerned, eh, I don’t pay much attention to it. It’s value as a barometer of anything meaningful is a social and political construct, exactly like the dollar and the euro. I get paid in dollars not gold. So I pay attention to the dollar. My wife likes gold. Beyond that, it has no value to me. Nor does information about the gold supply.

[SK in CV]

[quote=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?[/quote]

Yes, I can explain all of it.

Sometimes Ron Paul is right. Sometimes he’s wrong. This time he’s wrong. As are other authors who make the same claim. Do you think a big international consulting firm like Deloitte Touche would allow their name on an audit report if they didn’t actually do thw work?

Bernanke can refuse to tell congress things because he’s Ben Bernanke. Head of the fed. You or I might get thrown in jail for doing what he has done. But for at least the last 40 years, maybe longer, congress is afraid of the fed. I can only speculate as to why. One of the reasons, I suspect, is that there are only a few of the 535 congressmen that understand finance. (Sadly, Chris Dodd and Barney Frank, both politicians who I adore, aren’t among them. Bernie Sanders, the only self-identified socialist of the bunch, does.) It shouldn’t be that way. But it is. Hopefully that will change.

As far as gold is concerned, eh, I don’t pay much attention to it. It’s value as a barometer of anything meaningful is a social and political construct, exactly like the dollar and the euro. I get paid in dollars not gold. So I pay attention to the dollar. My wife likes gold. Beyond that, it has no value to me. Nor does information about the gold supply.

[SK in CV]

[quote=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?[/quote]

Yes, I can explain all of it.

Sometimes Ron Paul is right. Sometimes he’s wrong. This time he’s wrong. As are other authors who make the same claim. Do you think a big international consulting firm like Deloitte Touche would allow their name on an audit report if they didn’t actually do thw work?

Bernanke can refuse to tell congress things because he’s Ben Bernanke. Head of the fed. You or I might get thrown in jail for doing what he has done. But for at least the last 40 years, maybe longer, congress is afraid of the fed. I can only speculate as to why. One of the reasons, I suspect, is that there are only a few of the 535 congressmen that understand finance. (Sadly, Chris Dodd and Barney Frank, both politicians who I adore, aren’t among them. Bernie Sanders, the only self-identified socialist of the bunch, does.) It shouldn’t be that way. But it is. Hopefully that will change.

As far as gold is concerned, eh, I don’t pay much attention to it. It’s value as a barometer of anything meaningful is a social and political construct, exactly like the dollar and the euro. I get paid in dollars not gold. So I pay attention to the dollar. My wife likes gold. Beyond that, it has no value to me. Nor does information about the gold supply.

[SK in CV]

[quote=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?[/quote]

Yes, I can explain all of it.

Sometimes Ron Paul is right. Sometimes he’s wrong. This time he’s wrong. As are other authors who make the same claim. Do you think a big international consulting firm like Deloitte Touche would allow their name on an audit report if they didn’t actually do thw work?

Bernanke can refuse to tell congress things because he’s Ben Bernanke. Head of the fed. You or I might get thrown in jail for doing what he has done. But for at least the last 40 years, maybe longer, congress is afraid of the fed. I can only speculate as to why. One of the reasons, I suspect, is that there are only a few of the 535 congressmen that understand finance. (Sadly, Chris Dodd and Barney Frank, both politicians who I adore, aren’t among them. Bernie Sanders, the only self-identified socialist of the bunch, does.) It shouldn’t be that way. But it is. Hopefully that will change.

As far as gold is concerned, eh, I don’t pay much attention to it. It’s value as a barometer of anything meaningful is a social and political construct, exactly like the dollar and the euro. I get paid in dollars not gold. So I pay attention to the dollar. My wife likes gold. Beyond that, it has no value to me. Nor does information about the gold supply.

[SK in CV]

[quote=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?[/quote]

Yes, I can explain all of it.

Sometimes Ron Paul is right. Sometimes he’s wrong. This time he’s wrong. As are other authors who make the same claim. Do you think a big international consulting firm like Deloitte Touche would allow their name on an audit report if they didn’t actually do thw work?

Bernanke can refuse to tell congress things because he’s Ben Bernanke. Head of the fed. You or I might get thrown in jail for doing what he has done. But for at least the last 40 years, maybe longer, congress is afraid of the fed. I can only speculate as to why. One of the reasons, I suspect, is that there are only a few of the 535 congressmen that understand finance. (Sadly, Chris Dodd and Barney Frank, both politicians who I adore, aren’t among them. Bernie Sanders, the only self-identified socialist of the bunch, does.) It shouldn’t be that way. But it is. Hopefully that will change.

As far as gold is concerned, eh, I don’t pay much attention to it. It’s value as a barometer of anything meaningful is a social and political construct, exactly like the dollar and the euro. I get paid in dollars not gold. So I pay attention to the dollar. My wife likes gold. Beyond that, it has no value to me. Nor does information about the gold supply.

[SK in CV]

Keep your eye on the ball.

[quote=investor][quote=SK in CV][quote=investor]
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?[/quote]

You’re looking in the wrong hole. No matter how long you look there, you won’t find it. It’s not where the money is, its not where the money went. It’s the policy. It’s the oversight (or more importantly, lack thereof). An audit, no matter how comprehensive will NEVER tell you why they lowered or raised interest rates. Why they loosened or tightened money supply. Why they allowed or prohibited member banks from conducting business the way they do. The great power of the fed is not in their actual dollars. It’s the influence they have over the economy.

[SK in CV]

Keep your eye on the ball.

[quote=investor][quote=SK in CV][quote=investor]
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?[/quote]

You’re looking in the wrong hole. No matter how long you look there, you won’t find it. It’s not where the money is, its not where the money went. It’s the policy. It’s the oversight (or more importantly, lack thereof). An audit, no matter how comprehensive will NEVER tell you why they lowered or raised interest rates. Why they loosened or tightened money supply. Why they allowed or prohibited member banks from conducting business the way they do. The great power of the fed is not in their actual dollars. It’s the influence they have over the economy.

[SK in CV]

Keep your eye on the ball.

[quote=investor][quote=SK in CV][quote=investor]
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?[/quote]

You’re looking in the wrong hole. No matter how long you look there, you won’t find it. It’s not where the money is, its not where the money went. It’s the policy. It’s the oversight (or more importantly, lack thereof). An audit, no matter how comprehensive will NEVER tell you why they lowered or raised interest rates. Why they loosened or tightened money supply. Why they allowed or prohibited member banks from conducting business the way they do. The great power of the fed is not in their actual dollars. It’s the influence they have over the economy.

[SK in CV]

Keep your eye on the ball.

[quote=investor][quote=SK in CV][quote=investor]
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?[/quote]

You’re looking in the wrong hole. No matter how long you look there, you won’t find it. It’s not where the money is, its not where the money went. It’s the policy. It’s the oversight (or more importantly, lack thereof). An audit, no matter how comprehensive will NEVER tell you why they lowered or raised interest rates. Why they loosened or tightened money supply. Why they allowed or prohibited member banks from conducting business the way they do. The great power of the fed is not in their actual dollars. It’s the influence they have over the economy.

[SK in CV]

Keep your eye on the ball.

[quote=investor][quote=SK in CV][quote=investor]
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?[/quote]

You’re looking in the wrong hole. No matter how long you look there, you won’t find it. It’s not where the money is, its not where the money went. It’s the policy. It’s the oversight (or more importantly, lack thereof). An audit, no matter how comprehensive will NEVER tell you why they lowered or raised interest rates. Why they loosened or tightened money supply. Why they allowed or prohibited member banks from conducting business the way they do. The great power of the fed is not in their actual dollars. It’s the influence they have over the economy.

[investor]

[quote=aldante]Allen,
Most analysts out there on Enron were taken by suprise by Enrons real figures. The reason why is that the audits purposely obfuscated the truth. (The opposite of what they are supposed to do). If the audits were so good and the information was disclosed why is Arthur Andersen (sorry for that spelling) now defacto defunct?
Could it be:
“The evidence available to us suggests that Andersen did not fulfill its professional responsibilities in connection with its audits of Enron’s financial statements, or its obligation to bring to the attention of Enron’s Board (or the Audit and Compliance Committee) concerns about Enron’s internal contracts over the related-party transactions”. **from the verdict against Andersen, wikipedia

All of this information came out in hearing that lead to our whole new set of laws called Sarbanes-Oxley. It was a gigantic deal back then. So I do not think your statement that “but everything was extensively annotated and footnoted” is/was shared by the thousands if not millions involved. If the courts would have agreed with you Arthur Andersen would still be with the living.

The analysts who were bearish did not know for sure Enron was lying they had to take leaps of Faith and fight against that “drinking the coolaid mentality” you speak of. But for you to insinuate that the audits were clean flys in the face of fact.

Are you saying that you were able to see through the Andersen audit and see Enrons shady deals? Very Impressive. I am glad that you can see exactly what the FED is doing with taxpayer committment. I am confident that you (haveing read the FEDS audit) can succintly let us know the answers to the questions I raised above.

I do not understand how you could try and counter my arguement using the “few analysts” who saw Enron coming and not see how that contradicts you own arguement. Anyone who is not in favor of an audit is drinking from the FED’s Koolaid – that same “buying the hype” crowd you spoke of in your post. Or they suspect that a real audit might reveal a gigantic ponzi scheme. 99% of Americans are worse off after our credit crisis. Mr. Bernenke, the guy people are defending (by not advocating a real audit) told us all in May 2008 all would be fine and we would not hit a recession. He also told us Freddie and Fannie would be fine. And you want to use his figures? You would read the “free info” and take it as fact?

At some point we all have to make a decision on who to believe and who to back. I don’t believe one thing that Bernanke chooses to say becasue while some if it may be true I know that the FED is not on the side of the taxpayer but needs the taxpayer to survive. If they want to come clean with a real audit and the results show how great they have helped America – fine I am happy to change my mind in the face of new information.[/quote]
I agree with you. Especially the last paragraph. SV in CV; I did some more research from the wikipedia site for the fed. What I heard from a mike malony youtube.com about the fed being passed on a voice vote of 3 may or not be correct. The bill was passed as you/wikipedia state and I don’t know if the final settlement between the two houses of congress was on a voice vote or not but the main thrust of the point was that the bill was carried with both houses and I agree with your point. It doesn’t change the main concern about the fed tho. The secrecy of the people who control the most important currency in the world and the lack of a complete audit of where the money goes and ownership of the fed. Someone mentioned, I think you, that you admire barney frank and dodd. How do you feel about franks promotion of easy mortgage loaning during the 1990’s and 2000’s that has lead directly to our current mess? I admit that bush should not have gone to war in iraq. Can you put aside your political leanings and admit that frank, for reasons of trying to promote black home ownership- a worthwhile goal- screwed up big time and should be kicked out of all power over banking in the US congress?

[investor]

[quote=aldante]Allen,
Most analysts out there on Enron were taken by suprise by Enrons real figures. The reason why is that the audits purposely obfuscated the truth. (The opposite of what they are supposed to do). If the audits were so good and the information was disclosed why is Arthur Andersen (sorry for that spelling) now defacto defunct?
Could it be:
“The evidence available to us suggests that Andersen did not fulfill its professional responsibilities in connection with its audits of Enron’s financial statements, or its obligation to bring to the attention of Enron’s Board (or the Audit and Compliance Committee) concerns about Enron’s internal contracts over the related-party transactions”. **from the verdict against Andersen, wikipedia

All of this information came out in hearing that lead to our whole new set of laws called Sarbanes-Oxley. It was a gigantic deal back then. So I do not think your statement that “but everything was extensively annotated and footnoted” is/was shared by the thousands if not millions involved. If the courts would have agreed with you Arthur Andersen would still be with the living.

The analysts who were bearish did not know for sure Enron was lying they had to take leaps of Faith and fight against that “drinking the coolaid mentality” you speak of. But for you to insinuate that the audits were clean flys in the face of fact.

Are you saying that you were able to see through the Andersen audit and see Enrons shady deals? Very Impressive. I am glad that you can see exactly what the FED is doing with taxpayer committment. I am confident that you (haveing read the FEDS audit) can succintly let us know the answers to the questions I raised above.

I do not understand how you could try and counter my arguement using the “few analysts” who saw Enron coming and not see how that contradicts you own arguement. Anyone who is not in favor of an audit is drinking from the FED’s Koolaid – that same “buying the hype” crowd you spoke of in your post. Or they suspect that a real audit might reveal a gigantic ponzi scheme. 99% of Americans are worse off after our credit crisis. Mr. Bernenke, the guy people are defending (by not advocating a real audit) told us all in May 2008 all would be fine and we would not hit a recession. He also told us Freddie and Fannie would be fine. And you want to use his figures? You would read the “free info” and take it as fact?

At some point we all have to make a decision on who to believe and who to back. I don’t believe one thing that Bernanke chooses to say becasue while some if it may be true I know that the FED is not on the side of the taxpayer but needs the taxpayer to survive. If they want to come clean with a real audit and the results show how great they have helped America – fine I am happy to change my mind in the face of new information.[/quote]
I agree with you. Especially the last paragraph. SV in CV; I did some more research from the wikipedia site for the fed. What I heard from a mike malony youtube.com about the fed being passed on a voice vote of 3 may or not be correct. The bill was passed as you/wikipedia state and I don’t know if the final settlement between the two houses of congress was on a voice vote or not but the main thrust of the point was that the bill was carried with both houses and I agree with your point. It doesn’t change the main concern about the fed tho. The secrecy of the people who control the most important currency in the world and the lack of a complete audit of where the money goes and ownership of the fed. Someone mentioned, I think you, that you admire barney frank and dodd. How do you feel about franks promotion of easy mortgage loaning during the 1990’s and 2000’s that has lead directly to our current mess? I admit that bush should not have gone to war in iraq. Can you put aside your political leanings and admit that frank, for reasons of trying to promote black home ownership- a worthwhile goal- screwed up big time and should be kicked out of all power over banking in the US congress?

[investor]

[quote=aldante]Allen,
Most analysts out there on Enron were taken by suprise by Enrons real figures. The reason why is that the audits purposely obfuscated the truth. (The opposite of what they are supposed to do). If the audits were so good and the information was disclosed why is Arthur Andersen (sorry for that spelling) now defacto defunct?
Could it be:
“The evidence available to us suggests that Andersen did not fulfill its professional responsibilities in connection with its audits of Enron’s financial statements, or its obligation to bring to the attention of Enron’s Board (or the Audit and Compliance Committee) concerns about Enron’s internal contracts over the related-party transactions”. **from the verdict against Andersen, wikipedia

All of this information came out in hearing that lead to our whole new set of laws called Sarbanes-Oxley. It was a gigantic deal back then. So I do not think your statement that “but everything was extensively annotated and footnoted” is/was shared by the thousands if not millions involved. If the courts would have agreed with you Arthur Andersen would still be with the living.

The analysts who were bearish did not know for sure Enron was lying they had to take leaps of Faith and fight against that “drinking the coolaid mentality” you speak of. But for you to insinuate that the audits were clean flys in the face of fact.

Are you saying that you were able to see through the Andersen audit and see Enrons shady deals? Very Impressive. I am glad that you can see exactly what the FED is doing with taxpayer committment. I am confident that you (haveing read the FEDS audit) can succintly let us know the answers to the questions I raised above.

I do not understand how you could try and counter my arguement using the “few analysts” who saw Enron coming and not see how that contradicts you own arguement. Anyone who is not in favor of an audit is drinking from the FED’s Koolaid – that same “buying the hype” crowd you spoke of in your post. Or they suspect that a real audit might reveal a gigantic ponzi scheme. 99% of Americans are worse off after our credit crisis. Mr. Bernenke, the guy people are defending (by not advocating a real audit) told us all in May 2008 all would be fine and we would not hit a recession. He also told us Freddie and Fannie would be fine. And you want to use his figures? You would read the “free info” and take it as fact?

At some point we all have to make a decision on who to believe and who to back. I don’t believe one thing that Bernanke chooses to say becasue while some if it may be true I know that the FED is not on the side of the taxpayer but needs the taxpayer to survive. If they want to come clean with a real audit and the results show how great they have helped America – fine I am happy to change my mind in the face of new information.[/quote]
I agree with you. Especially the last paragraph. SV in CV; I did some more research from the wikipedia site for the fed. What I heard from a mike malony youtube.com about the fed being passed on a voice vote of 3 may or not be correct. The bill was passed as you/wikipedia state and I don’t know if the final settlement between the two houses of congress was on a voice vote or not but the main thrust of the point was that the bill was carried with both houses and I agree with your point. It doesn’t change the main concern about the fed tho. The secrecy of the people who control the most important currency in the world and the lack of a complete audit of where the money goes and ownership of the fed. Someone mentioned, I think you, that you admire barney frank and dodd. How do you feel about franks promotion of easy mortgage loaning during the 1990’s and 2000’s that has lead directly to our current mess? I admit that bush should not have gone to war in iraq. Can you put aside your political leanings and admit that frank, for reasons of trying to promote black home ownership- a worthwhile goal- screwed up big time and should be kicked out of all power over banking in the US congress?

[investor]

[quote=aldante]Allen,
Most analysts out there on Enron were taken by suprise by Enrons real figures. The reason why is that the audits purposely obfuscated the truth. (The opposite of what they are supposed to do). If the audits were so good and the information was disclosed why is Arthur Andersen (sorry for that spelling) now defacto defunct?
Could it be:
“The evidence available to us suggests that Andersen did not fulfill its professional responsibilities in connection with its audits of Enron’s financial statements, or its obligation to bring to the attention of Enron’s Board (or the Audit and Compliance Committee) concerns about Enron’s internal contracts over the related-party transactions”. **from the verdict against Andersen, wikipedia

All of this information came out in hearing that lead to our whole new set of laws called Sarbanes-Oxley. It was a gigantic deal back then. So I do not think your statement that “but everything was extensively annotated and footnoted” is/was shared by the thousands if not millions involved. If the courts would have agreed with you Arthur Andersen would still be with the living.

The analysts who were bearish did not know for sure Enron was lying they had to take leaps of Faith and fight against that “drinking the coolaid mentality” you speak of. But for you to insinuate that the audits were clean flys in the face of fact.

Are you saying that you were able to see through the Andersen audit and see Enrons shady deals? Very Impressive. I am glad that you can see exactly what the FED is doing with taxpayer committment. I am confident that you (haveing read the FEDS audit) can succintly let us know the answers to the questions I raised above.

I do not understand how you could try and counter my arguement using the “few analysts” who saw Enron coming and not see how that contradicts you own arguement. Anyone who is not in favor of an audit is drinking from the FED’s Koolaid – that same “buying the hype” crowd you spoke of in your post. Or they suspect that a real audit might reveal a gigantic ponzi scheme. 99% of Americans are worse off after our credit crisis. Mr. Bernenke, the guy people are defending (by not advocating a real audit) told us all in May 2008 all would be fine and we would not hit a recession. He also told us Freddie and Fannie would be fine. And you want to use his figures? You would read the “free info” and take it as fact?

At some point we all have to make a decision on who to believe and who to back. I don’t believe one thing that Bernanke chooses to say becasue while some if it may be true I know that the FED is not on the side of the taxpayer but needs the taxpayer to survive. If they want to come clean with a real audit and the results show how great they have helped America – fine I am happy to change my mind in the face of new information.[/quote]
I agree with you. Especially the last paragraph. SV in CV; I did some more research from the wikipedia site for the fed. What I heard from a mike malony youtube.com about the fed being passed on a voice vote of 3 may or not be correct. The bill was passed as you/wikipedia state and I don’t know if the final settlement between the two houses of congress was on a voice vote or not but the main thrust of the point was that the bill was carried with both houses and I agree with your point. It doesn’t change the main concern about the fed tho. The secrecy of the people who control the most important currency in the world and the lack of a complete audit of where the money goes and ownership of the fed. Someone mentioned, I think you, that you admire barney frank and dodd. How do you feel about franks promotion of easy mortgage loaning during the 1990’s and 2000’s that has lead directly to our current mess? I admit that bush should not have gone to war in iraq. Can you put aside your political leanings and admit that frank, for reasons of trying to promote black home ownership- a worthwhile goal- screwed up big time and should be kicked out of all power over banking in the US congress?

[Author]

Posts