- This topic has 70 replies, 15 voices, and was last updated 12 years ago by
briansd1.
-
AuthorPosts
-
May 2, 2012 at 1:39 PM #742690May 2, 2012 at 1:55 PM #742698
markmax33
Guest[quote=SK in CV][quote=markmax33]
You really have no understanding of what’s going on. You do try hard. There has never been a full audit of the Federal Reserve presented to the public on all of their programs. He is presenting a bill that will do it. Stop slandering in cyber space again.[/quote]No mark, you have no clue, because you never do any research yourself. If Ron Paul says it, you think it must be true. It isn’t. He is either misinformed, or lies pretty regularly. I read the bill. I know what’s in it, and more importantly, what is not. Go read the bill. Go find where in the bill it does the things you want it to do. Quote the section for me that gives you what you want.
And learn what slander is before making accusations you can’t back up.[/quote]
You did research??!
I have proven to you several times that all of the programs in the Federal Reserve are not audited and you claimed they were. You must concede that point first.
“The crucial issue of Federal Reserve transparency requires an analysis of 31 USC 714, the section of US Code which establishes that the Federal Reserve may be audited by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) but which simultaneously severely restricts what the GAO may in fact audit. Essentially, the GAO is only allowed to audit check-processing, currency storage and shipments, credit facilities (limited) and some regulatory and bank examination functions, etc. The most important matters, which directly affect the strength of the dollar and the health of the financial system, are immune from oversight.
Currently, the GAO is prohibited from auditing:
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, and 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 clauses (1)-(3) of this subsection of US Code.The GAO is also prevented from conducting on-site examinations of banks or bank holding companies without the written consent of the appropriate regulatory agency.
HR 459 and S 202, The Federal Reserve Transparency Act, would eliminate these restrictions and mandate a thorough GAO audit of the Fed, finally delivering answers to the American people about how our money is being spent.”
http://www.auditthefed.com/about-the-audit/
Since you didn’t understand how the current “audit” process worked in the first place you couldn’t have understood the bill.
May 2, 2012 at 2:15 PM #742701SK in CV
Participant[quote=markmax33]
You did research??!I have proven to you several times that all of the programs in the Federal Reserve are not audited and you claimed they were. You must concede that point first.
“The crucial issue of Federal Reserve transparency requires an analysis of 31 USC 714, the section of US Code which establishes that the Federal Reserve may be audited by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) but which simultaneously severely restricts what the GAO may in fact audit. Essentially, the GAO is only allowed to audit check-processing, currency storage and shipments, credit facilities (limited) and some regulatory and bank examination functions, etc. The most important matters, which directly affect the strength of the dollar and the health of the financial system, are immune from oversight.
Currently, the GAO is prohibited from auditing:
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, and 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 clauses (1)-(3) of this subsection of US Code.The GAO is also prevented from conducting on-site examinations of banks or bank holding companies without the written consent of the appropriate regulatory agency.
HR 459 and S 202, The Federal Reserve Transparency Act, would eliminate these restrictions and mandate a thorough GAO audit of the Fed, finally delivering answers to the American people about how our money is being spent.”
http://www.auditthefed.com/about-the-audit/
Since you didn’t understand how the current “audit” process worked in the first place you couldn’t have understood the bill.[/quote]
Typically, you’ve misrepresented what I’ve said. Which not that all of the programs of the Fed have been audited, only that a financial audit is performed and the report published each year.
Paul’s bill DOES emiliminate those limitations. But it doesn’t call for any specific audit. Just “an audit”. There is no such thing as a “complete audit”. It would be prohibitively expensive. So without identifying a specific scope, Paul’s bill does nothing. It doesn’t increase the scope of existing audits.
The difference between what you understand in this space, and what I understand, is like the difference between someone who reads Mad Magazine and thinks they know what they’re talking about, and someone whose actually dealth with federal regulations on a day to day basis for more than 30 years. Sorry to be so condescending, but you don’t know WTF you’re talking about.
May 2, 2012 at 2:35 PM #742706Guest[quote=SK in CV][quote=markmax33]
You did research??!I have proven to you several times that all of the programs in the Federal Reserve are not audited and you claimed they were. You must concede that point first.
“The crucial issue of Federal Reserve transparency requires an analysis of 31 USC 714, the section of US Code which establishes that the Federal Reserve may be audited by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) but which simultaneously severely restricts what the GAO may in fact audit. Essentially, the GAO is only allowed to audit check-processing, currency storage and shipments, credit facilities (limited) and some regulatory and bank examination functions, etc. The most important matters, which directly affect the strength of the dollar and the health of the financial system, are immune from oversight.
Currently, the GAO is prohibited from auditing:
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, and 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 clauses (1)-(3) of this subsection of US Code.The GAO is also prevented from conducting on-site examinations of banks or bank holding companies without the written consent of the appropriate regulatory agency.
HR 459 and S 202, The Federal Reserve Transparency Act, would eliminate these restrictions and mandate a thorough GAO audit of the Fed, finally delivering answers to the American people about how our money is being spent.”
http://www.auditthefed.com/about-the-audit/
Since you didn’t understand how the current “audit” process worked in the first place you couldn’t have understood the bill.[/quote]
Typically, you’ve misrepresented what I’ve said. Which not that all of the programs of the Fed have been audited, only that a financial audit is performed and the report published each year.
Paul’s bill DOES emiliminate those limitations. But it doesn’t call for any specific audit. Just “an audit”. There is no such thing as a “complete audit”. It would be prohibitively expensive. So without identifying a specific scope, Paul’s bill does nothing. It doesn’t increase the scope of existing audits.
The difference between what you understand in this space, and what I understand, is like the difference between someone who reads Mad Magazine and thinks they know what they’re talking about, and someone whose actually dealth with federal regulations on a day to day basis for more than 30 years. Sorry to be so condescending, but you don’t know WTF you’re talking about.[/quote]
LOL… removing limitations and exceptions from the current audits isn’t expanding the scope? I guess we’ll leave that up to the Piggs to decide! checkmate!
May 2, 2012 at 2:41 PM #742707Anonymous
Guest[quote=markmax33]I guess we’ll leave that up to the Piggs to decide! checkmate![/quote]
“Let the Piggs decide.”
And then he makes the decision.
Classic mm33.
SK, I’ve fallen into this trap here too many times:
“argue with a fool proves there are two”
May 2, 2012 at 2:42 PM #742708Participant[quote=markmax33]
LOL… removing limitations and exceptions from the current audits isn’t expanding the scope? I guess we’ll leave that up to the Piggs to decide! checkmate![/quote]I’m reasonably sure that Piggs don’t get to decide what laws mean. And no, removing the limitations on the scope does not increase the scope all by itself. Not even close. All it does is allow for an increased scope. What would increase the scope would be to add language to the bill which increases the scope. He didn’t do that. The bill doesn’t even specify a scope. Which makes it an idiotic bill. One of the many reasons it’s unlikely to ever become law.
May 2, 2012 at 2:44 PM #742709Participant[quote=pri_dk]
“argue with a fool proves there are two”[/quote]touché.
My only defense, though weak, is that some people apparently buy into this drivel. They shouldn’t.
May 2, 2012 at 4:07 PM #742720GuestIt’s just too convenient, the idea that all the demons in our economy are wrapped in some nice tiny box hidden in some dark corner of the Fed.
All we have to do is look for the box – we’ll find it and crush the demons!
It’s a nice little fairy tale.
May 3, 2012 at 9:04 AM #742772Guest[quote=pri_dk]It’s just too convenient, the idea that all the demons in our economy are wrapped in some nice tiny box hidden in some dark corner of the Fed.
All we have to do is look for the box – we’ll find it and crush the demons!
It’s a nice little fairy tale.[/quote]
Absoloute power corrupts absoloutely. I am astonished you haven’t learned from history. For someone who claims to know everything I would expect better.
May 3, 2012 at 9:50 AM #742782
CoronitaParticipantRon Paul blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
Ron Paul blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
Ron Paul blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
May 3, 2012 at 12:54 PM #742825briansd1
Guest[quote=bearishgurl]I just reregistered again today as a Repub so I can vote for RP in the primary. I don’t like any of the other choices for Prez and will be paying attn to see how far RP can “upset the apple cart” this year!
And I’m sure I’m not alone ….[/quote]
I’m glad that Ron Paul has a hard core following. I like his brand of conservatism better than the social religious kind of conservatism.
I don’t support Ron Paul, but all the best to him at the Republican convention.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.