[SK in CV]

[quote=aldante][quote=SK in CV]inspector general audits may be less than optimal, and disclosure of those audit results may be limited, but it IS audited. Every single year.
Clues available for free.

http://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/files/BSTcombinedfinstmt2009.pdf%5B/quote%5D

Are you toying with us? Less then optimal?? I am laughing my a** off. I guess the Author Anderson audit of ENRON was less the optimal in your opinion? Look all you Fed defenders, this entity hired lobbyists using our money to stop s604. Someone somewhere convinced most major media outlets that auditing the past actions of the Fed – like actually where the money is, was the same as its losing its “independence”. Wrong, not in either the house bill or senate bill. As far as your cute statement “clues available for free” statement: the best information to decided to buy a car are the commercials on tv.[/quote]

The ignorant often laugh because they don’t know any better. I was responding to the claim that the fed had never been audited. It has been.

As to the rest of your comment. I got nothing. I don’t know how to respond to arguments that have no point and make no sense.

(and I haven’t defended the fed. I haven’t shared much opinion at all. Most of what I’ve written has just been factual counters to false, sometimes outrageously false claims.)

[SK in CV]

[quote=aldante][quote=SK in CV]inspector general audits may be less than optimal, and disclosure of those audit results may be limited, but it IS audited. Every single year.
Clues available for free.

http://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/files/BSTcombinedfinstmt2009.pdf%5B/quote%5D

Are you toying with us? Less then optimal?? I am laughing my a** off. I guess the Author Anderson audit of ENRON was less the optimal in your opinion? Look all you Fed defenders, this entity hired lobbyists using our money to stop s604. Someone somewhere convinced most major media outlets that auditing the past actions of the Fed – like actually where the money is, was the same as its losing its “independence”. Wrong, not in either the house bill or senate bill. As far as your cute statement “clues available for free” statement: the best information to decided to buy a car are the commercials on tv.[/quote]

The ignorant often laugh because they don’t know any better. I was responding to the claim that the fed had never been audited. It has been.

As to the rest of your comment. I got nothing. I don’t know how to respond to arguments that have no point and make no sense.

(and I haven’t defended the fed. I haven’t shared much opinion at all. Most of what I’ve written has just been factual counters to false, sometimes outrageously false claims.)

[SK in CV]

[quote=aldante][quote=SK in CV]inspector general audits may be less than optimal, and disclosure of those audit results may be limited, but it IS audited. Every single year.
Clues available for free.

http://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/files/BSTcombinedfinstmt2009.pdf%5B/quote%5D

Are you toying with us? Less then optimal?? I am laughing my a** off. I guess the Author Anderson audit of ENRON was less the optimal in your opinion? Look all you Fed defenders, this entity hired lobbyists using our money to stop s604. Someone somewhere convinced most major media outlets that auditing the past actions of the Fed – like actually where the money is, was the same as its losing its “independence”. Wrong, not in either the house bill or senate bill. As far as your cute statement “clues available for free” statement: the best information to decided to buy a car are the commercials on tv.[/quote]

The ignorant often laugh because they don’t know any better. I was responding to the claim that the fed had never been audited. It has been.

As to the rest of your comment. I got nothing. I don’t know how to respond to arguments that have no point and make no sense.

(and I haven’t defended the fed. I haven’t shared much opinion at all. Most of what I’ve written has just been factual counters to false, sometimes outrageously false claims.)

[SK in CV]

[quote=aldante][quote=SK in CV]inspector general audits may be less than optimal, and disclosure of those audit results may be limited, but it IS audited. Every single year.
Clues available for free.

http://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/files/BSTcombinedfinstmt2009.pdf%5B/quote%5D

Are you toying with us? Less then optimal?? I am laughing my a** off. I guess the Author Anderson audit of ENRON was less the optimal in your opinion? Look all you Fed defenders, this entity hired lobbyists using our money to stop s604. Someone somewhere convinced most major media outlets that auditing the past actions of the Fed – like actually where the money is, was the same as its losing its “independence”. Wrong, not in either the house bill or senate bill. As far as your cute statement “clues available for free” statement: the best information to decided to buy a car are the commercials on tv.[/quote]

The ignorant often laugh because they don’t know any better. I was responding to the claim that the fed had never been audited. It has been.

As to the rest of your comment. I got nothing. I don’t know how to respond to arguments that have no point and make no sense.

(and I haven’t defended the fed. I haven’t shared much opinion at all. Most of what I’ve written has just been factual counters to false, sometimes outrageously false claims.)

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[SK in CV]

[quote=investor]
Sorry I wasn’t clearer. Lets say that the US wants to loan 100 billion to the EU countries. The US could loan it directly and have the EU pay us the interest on it. Instead what happens is that the cash goes to the fed, at no interest, which then loans the money to the EU and charges the EU interest on it. So, the US taxpayer lost the ability to make interest on the dollars loaned to the EU. [/quote]

Oy. Where to begin. I’ve been reading fed reports for quite a few years. I have no recollection of any foreign government debt being on their books. Federal government loans to foreign governments must be ratified by congress and loans are issued by the treasury department, not the fed. Although more commonly, rather than actually making loans, they guarantee loans made by others. You have to come up with a citation of the US loaning the EU $100 billion. I don’t recall that every happening.

Moreover, (and please pay attention carefully here) 100% of the feds profits over statutory fixed dividends go back into the US treasury. So even if it was as you described (which it is not) any profit on those loans would still go back to the US treasury, so there would be no net cost running it through the fed over making the loan directly.

I could go on, I won’t. Except to say that your lack of curiousity about the things you’re writing about is astounding. The fed IS audited every year. By public CPA firms. (for 2009, they were audited by Deloitte, published in April.) Just like virtually every publicly traded company is. The scope and nature of disclosures probably differ because they are not subject to SEC regulations. But otherwise according to GAAS. By the GAO. By the inspector general. The scope of the GAO and inspector general audits may be less than optimal, and disclosure of those audit results may be limited, but it IS audited. Every single year.

Clues available for free.

http://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/files/BSTcombinedfinstmt2009.pdf

[SK in CV]

[quote=investor]
Sorry I wasn’t clearer. Lets say that the US wants to loan 100 billion to the EU countries. The US could loan it directly and have the EU pay us the interest on it. Instead what happens is that the cash goes to the fed, at no interest, which then loans the money to the EU and charges the EU interest on it. So, the US taxpayer lost the ability to make interest on the dollars loaned to the EU. [/quote]

Oy. Where to begin. I’ve been reading fed reports for quite a few years. I have no recollection of any foreign government debt being on their books. Federal government loans to foreign governments must be ratified by congress and loans are issued by the treasury department, not the fed. Although more commonly, rather than actually making loans, they guarantee loans made by others. You have to come up with a citation of the US loaning the EU $100 billion. I don’t recall that every happening.

Moreover, (and please pay attention carefully here) 100% of the feds profits over statutory fixed dividends go back into the US treasury. So even if it was as you described (which it is not) any profit on those loans would still go back to the US treasury, so there would be no net cost running it through the fed over making the loan directly.

I could go on, I won’t. Except to say that your lack of curiousity about the things you’re writing about is astounding. The fed IS audited every year. By public CPA firms. (for 2009, they were audited by Deloitte, published in April.) Just like virtually every publicly traded company is. The scope and nature of disclosures probably differ because they are not subject to SEC regulations. But otherwise according to GAAS. By the GAO. By the inspector general. The scope of the GAO and inspector general audits may be less than optimal, and disclosure of those audit results may be limited, but it IS audited. Every single year.

Clues available for free.

http://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/files/BSTcombinedfinstmt2009.pdf

[SK in CV]

[quote=investor]
Sorry I wasn’t clearer. Lets say that the US wants to loan 100 billion to the EU countries. The US could loan it directly and have the EU pay us the interest on it. Instead what happens is that the cash goes to the fed, at no interest, which then loans the money to the EU and charges the EU interest on it. So, the US taxpayer lost the ability to make interest on the dollars loaned to the EU. [/quote]

Oy. Where to begin. I’ve been reading fed reports for quite a few years. I have no recollection of any foreign government debt being on their books. Federal government loans to foreign governments must be ratified by congress and loans are issued by the treasury department, not the fed. Although more commonly, rather than actually making loans, they guarantee loans made by others. You have to come up with a citation of the US loaning the EU $100 billion. I don’t recall that every happening.

Moreover, (and please pay attention carefully here) 100% of the feds profits over statutory fixed dividends go back into the US treasury. So even if it was as you described (which it is not) any profit on those loans would still go back to the US treasury, so there would be no net cost running it through the fed over making the loan directly.

I could go on, I won’t. Except to say that your lack of curiousity about the things you’re writing about is astounding. The fed IS audited every year. By public CPA firms. (for 2009, they were audited by Deloitte, published in April.) Just like virtually every publicly traded company is. The scope and nature of disclosures probably differ because they are not subject to SEC regulations. But otherwise according to GAAS. By the GAO. By the inspector general. The scope of the GAO and inspector general audits may be less than optimal, and disclosure of those audit results may be limited, but it IS audited. Every single year.

Clues available for free.

http://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/files/BSTcombinedfinstmt2009.pdf

[SK in CV]

[quote=investor]
Sorry I wasn’t clearer. Lets say that the US wants to loan 100 billion to the EU countries. The US could loan it directly and have the EU pay us the interest on it. Instead what happens is that the cash goes to the fed, at no interest, which then loans the money to the EU and charges the EU interest on it. So, the US taxpayer lost the ability to make interest on the dollars loaned to the EU. [/quote]

Oy. Where to begin. I’ve been reading fed reports for quite a few years. I have no recollection of any foreign government debt being on their books. Federal government loans to foreign governments must be ratified by congress and loans are issued by the treasury department, not the fed. Although more commonly, rather than actually making loans, they guarantee loans made by others. You have to come up with a citation of the US loaning the EU $100 billion. I don’t recall that every happening.

Moreover, (and please pay attention carefully here) 100% of the feds profits over statutory fixed dividends go back into the US treasury. So even if it was as you described (which it is not) any profit on those loans would still go back to the US treasury, so there would be no net cost running it through the fed over making the loan directly.

I could go on, I won’t. Except to say that your lack of curiousity about the things you’re writing about is astounding. The fed IS audited every year. By public CPA firms. (for 2009, they were audited by Deloitte, published in April.) Just like virtually every publicly traded company is. The scope and nature of disclosures probably differ because they are not subject to SEC regulations. But otherwise according to GAAS. By the GAO. By the inspector general. The scope of the GAO and inspector general audits may be less than optimal, and disclosure of those audit results may be limited, but it IS audited. Every single year.

Clues available for free.

http://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/files/BSTcombinedfinstmt2009.pdf

[SK in CV]

[quote=investor]
Sorry I wasn’t clearer. Lets say that the US wants to loan 100 billion to the EU countries. The US could loan it directly and have the EU pay us the interest on it. Instead what happens is that the cash goes to the fed, at no interest, which then loans the money to the EU and charges the EU interest on it. So, the US taxpayer lost the ability to make interest on the dollars loaned to the EU. [/quote]

Oy. Where to begin. I’ve been reading fed reports for quite a few years. I have no recollection of any foreign government debt being on their books. Federal government loans to foreign governments must be ratified by congress and loans are issued by the treasury department, not the fed. Although more commonly, rather than actually making loans, they guarantee loans made by others. You have to come up with a citation of the US loaning the EU $100 billion. I don’t recall that every happening.

Moreover, (and please pay attention carefully here) 100% of the feds profits over statutory fixed dividends go back into the US treasury. So even if it was as you described (which it is not) any profit on those loans would still go back to the US treasury, so there would be no net cost running it through the fed over making the loan directly.

I could go on, I won’t. Except to say that your lack of curiousity about the things you’re writing about is astounding. The fed IS audited every year. By public CPA firms. (for 2009, they were audited by Deloitte, published in April.) Just like virtually every publicly traded company is. The scope and nature of disclosures probably differ because they are not subject to SEC regulations. But otherwise according to GAAS. By the GAO. By the inspector general. The scope of the GAO and inspector general audits may be less than optimal, and disclosure of those audit results may be limited, but it IS audited. Every single year.

Clues available for free.

http://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/files/BSTcombinedfinstmt2009.pdf

[SK in CV]

[quote=investor]
The loss of interest paid to the US govenment on loans to other governments is a large loss to the american tax payer as well as instead of making interest on loaning our money, we wind up paying the federal reserve to loan out our own money! As riduculous as this sounds, that is the reality of what is happening.
[/quote]

I have no idea what you mean by this. If interest is paid to the US government, then the US government gets it. Are you aware of loans the fed has made to foreign governments directly? (I’m not, they may exist. I’ve just never seen them disclosed. The feds annual financial disclosures do not identify any.) Additionally, the fed is self funding and any net profit that the fed has, over and above it’s statutory dividends (previously noted above), are paid directly to the US government, so there is no “profit” being lost to a private company.

[Author]

Posts