Obama, intellectual or empty suit?

[all]

[quote=walterwhite]On the other hand he does say that he will promise us anything because he has no intention of keeping any promise hemakes once elected.

He’s a really great communicator though and has the calm soothing voice of a cult leader/hypnotist.

Lol is out loud but what’s the acronym for giggling silently and slightly creepily to self?

Gsascts?[/quote]

!ROTFLMAO

[markmax33]

[quote=SK in CV][quote=markmax33]

SK – LOL! These aren’t full fed audits! These are the fake audits they put out! Don’t you know the first partial audit was done in 2008![/quote]

LOL! You don’t know what an audit is![/quote]

SK,
I’m sorry I came at your with the 30 year old language. I know that gets you older guys riled up and I don’t intend to do that. Here are the areas exempt from an annual audit of the Federal reserve, and this includes almost everything the do:

Exemptions to the Scope of GAO Audits
The Government Accounting Office does not have complete access to all aspects of the Federal Reserve System. The law excludes the following areas from GAO inspections (31 USCA §714):

(1) transactions for or with a foreign central bank, government of a foreign country, or nonprivate international financing organization;
(2) deliberations, decisions, or actions on monetary policy matters, including discount window operations, reserves of member banks,
securities credit, interest on deposits, open market operations;
(3) transactions made under the direction of the Federal Open Market Committee; or
(4) a part of a discussion or communication among or between members of the Board of Governors and officers and employees of the Federal Reserve System related to items.

[SK in CV]

[quote=markmax33][quote=SK in CV][quote=markmax33]

SK – LOL! These aren’t full fed audits! These are the fake audits they put out! Don’t you know the first partial audit was done in 2008![/quote]

LOL! You don’t know what an audit is![/quote]

SK,
I’m sorry I came at your with the 30 year old language. I know that gets you older guys riled up and I don’t intend to do that. Here are the areas exempt from an annual audit of the Federal reserve, and this includes almost everything the do:

Exemptions to the Scope of GAO Audits
The Government Accounting Office does not have complete access to all aspects of the Federal Reserve System. The law excludes the following areas from GAO inspections (31 USCA §714):

(1) transactions for or with a foreign central bank, government of a foreign country, or nonprivate international financing organization;
(2) deliberations, decisions, or actions on monetary policy matters, including discount window operations, reserves of member banks,
securities credit, interest on deposits, open market operations;
(3) transactions made under the direction of the Federal Open Market Committee; or
(4) a part of a discussion or communication among or between members of the Board of Governors and officers and employees of the Federal Reserve System related to items.[/quote]

Let me get this straight. The fed was never audited before a couple years ago because anything that isn’t on the exclusion list is a fake audit. And the only real audit is one that includes the specific things that you want it to include. Do I have that right?

And the link wasn’t to GAO audits. It was to reports that included audits done by independent outside auditors. Which are done every year.

[markmax33]

[quote=pri_dk][quote=SK in CV][quote=markmax33]

SK – LOL! These aren’t full fed audits! These are the fake audits they put out! Don’t you know the first partial audit was done in 2008![/quote]

LOL! You don’t know what an audit is![/quote]

Ron Paul know more about the Constitution than judges do.

And he knows more about audits than accountants do.

Is the space program Constitutional? I don’t see anything about moon rockets in Article 1, Section 8.

I’ll bet Ron Paul knows more about space flight than NASA does.[/quote]

Obviously there is no authority for a GOV funded space program. It could be added legally but never was.

[Anonymous]

Ron Paul hates bald eagles and astronauts?

How can he call himself a real American?

[markmax33]

[quote=SK in CV][quote=markmax33]

SK,
I’m sorry I came at your with the 30 year old language. I know that gets you older guys riled up and I don’t intend to do that. Here are the areas exempt from an annual audit of the Federal reserve, and this includes almost everything the do:

Exemptions to the Scope of GAO Audits
The Government Accounting Office does not have complete access to all aspects of the Federal Reserve System. The law excludes the following areas from GAO inspections (31 USCA §714):

(1) transactions for or with a foreign central bank, government of a foreign country, or nonprivate international financing organization;
(2) deliberations, decisions, or actions on monetary policy matters, including discount window operations, reserves of member banks,
securities credit, interest on deposits, open market operations;
(3) transactions made under the direction of the Federal Open Market Committee; or
(4) a part of a discussion or communication among or between members of the Board of Governors and officers and employees of the Federal Reserve System related to items.[/quote]

Let me get this straight. The fed was never audited before a couple years ago because anything that isn’t on the exclusion list is a fake audit. And the only real audit is one that includes the specific things that you want it to include. Do I have that right?

And the link wasn’t to GAO audits. It was to reports that included audits done by independent outside auditors. Which are done every year.[/quote]

SK,
An audit implies that you look at everything that institution does not just 10% or 20% of it. The independent audits do not report on any more information than the GAO audits. Show me the exempted areas in the audit and the other 80-90% the fed does and prove me wrong. That’s why I called it a fake audit. It is a trick to make the general public believe they are being audited and it has been surprisingly effective for many years.

The independent audits:

Audits By Private Accounting Firms

Financial audits of the Fed are also conducted regularly. Each Reserve Bank is audited every year by independent General Auditors who report directly to the Board of Governors. These examinations involve financial statement audits and reviews on the effectiveness of financial controls. Each Reserve Bank also has its own internal audit mechanisms. The Board contracts each year with an outside accounting firm to evaluate the audit program’s effectiveness. Price Waterhouse conducted an audit of the Board’s 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, and 1998 financial statements and filed this report in the Board’s 1996 Annual Report (nearly identical ones appear in other Annual Reports):

We have audited the accompanying balance sheets of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (the Board) as of December 31, 1995 and 1994, and the related statements of revenues and expenses for the years then ended. These financial statements are the responsibility of the Board’s management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements based on our audits.
We conducted our audits in accordance with generally accepted accounting standards and Government Accounting Standards issued by the Comptroller General of the United States. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audits to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement. An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. An audit also includes assessing the accounting principles used and significant estmates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.

In our opinion the financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of the Board as of December 31, 1995 and 1994, and the results of its operations and its cash flows for the years then ended in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles.

As discussed in Notes 1 and 3 to the financial statements, the Board implemented Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 112, Employers’ Accounting for Postemployment Benefits, effective January 1, 1994. In accordance with Government Accounting Standards, we have also issued a report dated March 25, 1996 on our consideration of the Board’s internal control structure and a report dated March 25, 1996 on its compliance with laws and regulations.4

[sdrealtor]

markmax
You clearly dont know what an audit is. I was an auditor for Touche Ross in 1985 and conducted many of major financial insitutions on Wall Street. In an audit looking at everything is impossible. You look at a relatively small sample of what an institution does and render an opinion as to whether the financial statements are a fair representation based upon your review of that sample. That is what an audit is. Nothing more….nothing less.

[markmax33]

[quote=sdrealtor]markmax
You clearly dont know what an audit is. I was an auditor for Touche Ross in 1985 and conducted many of major financial insitutions on Wall Street. In an audit looking at everything is impossible. You look at a relatively small sample of what an institution does and render an opinion as to whether the financial statements are a fair representation based upon your review of that sample. That is what an audit is. Nothing more….nothing less.[/quote]

No an audit would touch on all programs. To exclude certain programs entirely from the auditors is what I am saying. I understand an auditor can only look at the surface of things, but to have 80% of the information excluded entirely is not an audit at all. You don’t have a “fair representation” as you put it.

You can’t sell a 20% audit of the federal reserve as an Audit of the federal reserve.

[sdrealtor]

But that is exactly what an audit is.

[Jazzman]

Intelligence and intellect are not the same thing. There is more than one kind of intelligence, just as there is more than one kind of stupidity as the OP question clearly illustrates.

[markmax33]

[quote=sdrealtor]But that is exactly what an audit is.[/quote]

You can’t exclude 80% of the programs from a company, allow an auditor to look at only 20% of of the programs and claim the Auditor audited 100% of the programs. That is exactly what they are doing. That is why it is a fake audit.

A real audit would give Auditors access to 100% of the programs and allow them to choose what programs they would like to audit. They may still only look at .005% of the stuff but they weren’t limited.

[SK in CV]

[quote=markmax33]
SK,
An audit implies that you look at everything that institution does not just 10% or 20% of it. The independent audits do not report on any more information than the GAO audits. Show me the exempted areas in the audit and the other 80-90% the fed does and prove me wrong. That’s why I called it a fake audit. It is a trick to make the general public believe they are being audited and it has been surprisingly effective for many years.

[/quote]

I’ll go through this with you one more time Mark. An audit tests compliance. That’s all it does. It tests whether established processes and protocols have been followed. There is no such thing as a “complete audit”. An audit has a specific scope. It does not verify every event or transaction. It tests, using statistical sampling within an acceptable margin of error. What it does not do, is look at everything a entity does. Nor does it guarantee compliance, only reports on the level of compliance. It does not fix problems, only identifies areas that need fixing. And I’ll repeat one more time, there is no such thing as a “complete audit”.

The reports I linked to included financial audits, and the reports outline the scope of those audits.

I don’t want to pull rank on you, but this is something I happen to know about. Back in the old days, at the beginning of the 20th century, all CPA’s learned how to do audits. It was required in order to get certified. It was the first thing I did. I hated it, but I learned how to do it. I managed audits. My firm did 20-30 audits every year. (almost never profitable, btw) I did financial audits. Inventory audits. Medical records compliance audits. Time card audits. Techonology audits. None of them are “complete audits”.

[Anonymous]

But Ron Paul (and by extension, his fanboys) still knows more about audits than you do, SK!

Looks to me that most of the stuff that on marky’s list of things that are excluded from the audits is information available to the public through other means.

For example, information on open market operations is announced on CNBC and elsewhere every friggin’ day.

And what is it that these “incomplete” audits are failing to uncover? Are there trillions of dollars being funneled off to some secret banker island?

[briansd1]

I think that Ron Paul’s fixation on the Federal Reserve is borderline obsession.

There is no conspiracy. The Fed has unlimited funds. Given enough time, they will make money on the money they lend out, in nominal terms. They don’t need to cheat.

Yes, certain big banks will have access to funds at very low rates. But those banks do have to pay back the loans.

[briansd1]

[quote=no_such_reality]
Wow, you’re missing the forest for the trees. Stalin would have loved you.

Obama is the quintessential demagogue.

The only difference between Newt and Obama is that Obama has charisma. They’re the same guy, just opposite sides of the political coin.
[/quote]

I find it interesting that certain folks on the right equate Obama to Stalin or Hitler.

Quantitatively and qualitatively, Obama is superior to Gingrich in every way. It takes intelligence to speak well and develop charisma. You need good knowledge of vocabulary and intelligence to form good speech on the fly.

Character wise, Gingrich is porky-pig evangelical trailer-trash in every way — a person who lets his stomach hang out, his big mouth blabber away, and can’t keep his dick in his pants. Then, of course he calls for repentance and redemption.

Come to think of it, perhaps Gingrich is similar to Barney Frank on the opposite site. Barney Frank is better in that he’s not a bible thumper and he’s a live-and-let-live kinda guy.

[Author]

Posts