If the Fed is audited, what might we find that they are doing which would be bad?

I've asked you twice now to quote the sections that say what you claim. It is a simple request.

The fact you cannot do so leads me to the conclusion you're simply making it up. Others can decide for themselves.

 

they're not a mom and pop operation, that's just looney

but just for fun, let's say they are, why would they be out of business?

 

I know, right?

He writes in one post: "That's because you support corruption in government." And then in very next few posts he vehemently denies saying it.

It's just .... bizarre.

 

…just his usual games

 

Says the person who claimed to have a PhD in economics, got caught lying, and proceeded to deny that he was lying.

 

either show me where i said that or admit you're making stuff up

 

Corruption, bribery, and insider trading is a criminal offense unless you are one of the chosen few. Jeeez?

 

show me exactly where i claimed to have a phd

show me evidence the federal reserve has bribed anyone

 

More stuff you're making up? Another example of something you cannot quote the text for, right?

 

In the link I posted you claimed you have "an advanced degree in economics." Then you referenced "PhD."

Just in case you are now claiming to have only a master's degree, let me make this preemptive statement: the lack of knowledge you displayed when I asked you a simple computational question that any graduate student would know, proves you do not have an advanced degree in economics of any kind.

 

i do

obviously i was referring to someone else, not myself

just admit it's you that's lying, i never claimed to have a phd

 

You can't even show any evidence why the FED is constitutional that it claims to be. You play ring around the rosy with questions you won't answer, and endless trolling on this forum. This is why, you're are full of bull(*)(*)(*)(*) dujac, and all you do is rant and attack Ron Paul because he is against what you believe- The U.S. Constitution. Hell you can't even go a single post without you saying "No wonder why Ron Paul lost" yeah no (*)(*)(*)(*) dip(*)(*)(*)(*) because he didn't support the global elites. A big government, over stepping it's constitutional bounds. You're the most progressive liberal on this forum. You're against the constitution, our country, and we don't have time for spineless loyalist to the status quo like you.

When the FED can't even answer a simple question where 9 trillion (*)(*)(*)(*)in dollars went, people like you who support such a institution needs to be all flushed down the toilet.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nE3BmhhWFFQ

How I look you Dujac is like the lone wolf guy in the crowd being called "Shame on you!" defending the FED.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hFWZ925zK0A

Fortunately for you our ancestors had balls compared today who are spineless sheep. People like you in 1776 would of been tared and feather in a heart beat.

 

you don't know what you're talking about

i can easily show referenced evidence that the fed is constitutional

Congress is explicitly granted power to regulate currency, and to make any law that is 'necessary and proper' to fulfill any of its enumerated powers. Therefore, if Congress can create a Bureau of Mint to coin and print money, it can also create a Bank that can regulate said currency. This argument has stood the test of time since 1791 when congress created the Bank of the United States. In 1819 the Supreme Court voted 9-0 to uphold the Second Bank of the United States. Critics also refute some claims that only gold and coin are legal tender in the U.S. The Supreme Court Case U.S. v. Rifen, 577 F.2d 1111. C.A.Mo. 1978 clearly tells us that paper money can be legal tender:

The United States Constitution prohibits states from declaring legal tender anything other than gold or silver but does not limit Congress' power to declare what shall be legal tender for all debts. Coinage Act of 1965, §102, 31 USCA §392; USCA Const. Art. 1, §10.

you wouldn't even be able to get near me with any tar or feathers, without wearing it home yourself

you're just wrong, i'm all for the constitution

and president george washington signed into law the first central bank of the united states

 

http://www.sanders.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/GAO Fed Investigation.pdf

The first sentence says they authorized numerous "selective" individual loans invoking emergency status to manipulate the markets. It doesn't say anything about if all of the "emergency" loans were legitimate of not. Just that it was authorized so it must be OK. Later it talks about them doing their best to eliminate insider trading between employees, the management and private investments, but basically says they are doing their best but hey it still happens. Well if it is happening as they say why isn't anything being done about it. I'll bet people who spent time in jail for much less would like to inquire about that. Martha Stewart comes to mind.

That is my problem, they point out all the things that would normally be considered unethical possibly illegal practices, but don't seem to care about that stuff just how to get around it by not making it so obvious the next time they are audited.

This is why an actual investigation into the finding of the audit needs to be done to assure these guys were not as they claim doing anything wrong, not on just their say so, but based on the evidence that can be investigated fully according to the facts. You want to give them a pass because they say so, but we as a nation are in a lot of trouble because of these good ole boy transactions, that are obviously questionable and probably illegal. Not that a corrupt government like we are currently hamstrung by would actually prosecute such dirty dealing with their crony peers, since their own fingerprints are most likely all over this stuff.

Any other business would be under constant scrutiny but not the Fed, why is that do you suppose? Blind trust, or corruption at its finest? I'm leaning toward carte blanche corruption at its finest myself. You and Dujac can be the cheerleader section for corruption I want to see more facts pertaining to these questionable maneuvers, you know actual facts, not the benefit of the doubt being offered so freely or a pencil whipped approval without investigating it properly.

 

http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=1913+Federal+Reserve+Conspiracy&mid=E3CAA5A7F29A0D073DBEE3CAA5A7F29A0D073DBE&view=detail&FORM=VIRE3

 

You don't have an advanced degree in economics as has been proven.

Here is yet another proof:

Someone with such a vast knowledge of "monetary science" and an advanced degree should have no problem describing the main model which the Fed uses to describe the economy and to make forecasts. This model consists of several hundred equations. What is the mathematical term that describes those equations and how were they derived?

 

No where in that prior post did I say that she said she supported corruption in government.

LOL

Show me where I said that I did not say that she supports corruption in government.

Your claim:

I never said she said she supports corruption in government. I said she supports corruption in government.

 

you obviously don't know what proof is

it's time for you to admit it's you that's lying, i never claimed to have a phd

 

Basic logic. Fully auditing the Fed would decrease the likelihood of government corruption occurring. Opposing fully auditing the Fed means you support an increased likelihood of government corruption occurring relative to what it would be if the Fed was fully audited.

 

Answer the question, kiddo. Show us your vast knowledge of "monetary science" that a person with an advanced degree would possess.

 

what a joke, the fed is audited

of course lunatics are going to claim it's not fully audited

show me any bank in this country that is more thoroughly audited than the fed

just read this thread

and isn't it funny how you're not admitting you lied about me claiming to have a phd

when you clearly did

 

Let's audit the CIA, NSA and DHS as well

 

You haven't shown any knowledge of what you refer to as "monetary science." I asked you a very specific question that someone who has made the claims you have would know. It's not surprising you can't answer it given that you are a fraud.

 

you haven't read this thread have you?

 

Here's the first sentence, since you seem to lack the ability to post it yourself:

On numerous occasions in 2008 and 2009, the Federal Reserve Board invoked emergency authority under the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 to authorize new broad-based programs and financial assistance to individual institutions to stabilize financial markets.

where does it say they authorized "selective loans", if they did what is criminal or illegal or wrong with it? They made the loans to stabilize the financial market that was frozen and in danger of collapsing. There is nothing inappropriate with that. That is the Fed's job as mandated by Congress.

So you just assumed they were not. Got it.

Just that it was authorized so it must be OK.

Later it talks about them doing their best to eliminate insider trading between employees, the management and private investments, but basically says they are doing their best but hey it still happens. Well if it is happening as they say why isn't anything being done about it. I'll bet people who spent time in jail for much less would like to inquire about that. Martha Stewart comes to mind.

You mean this: "In addition, all Reserve Bank directors are prohibited from disclosing nonpublic information related to the programs and such disclosures may risk violating insider trading laws."

How is that saying it is happening?

There is nothing wrong with an organization being concerned about insider trading and implementing policies to avoid it.

There was no finding of impropriety that was not investigated.

The thread is under constant scrutiny, is the most heavily audited entity in the world to my knowledge, and regularly reports to Congress and other agencies which scrutinize its activities and decisions.

So far, all you've refernced in one sentence that states the Fed invoked its emergency powers because of the financial crisis, which you've said is "selective lending" as if that is some kind of problem, and made an unidentified reference to "insider trading" which you did not quote or cite a page number to because it's bull(*)(*)(*)(*).

Where does the report it say "Manipulation of markets, selective loaning practices, insider trading, no bid contracts, and basically advise from the auditors on what needs to be done next time to cover their tracks better than they already have been." that you claim you read?

Where does it talk about "no bid" contracts? I did a search and found no hits for "no bid" in the entire document.

Where does it talk about "bribery? I did a search and that word isn't in the entire document.

Where does it say anything about the Fed lying, cheating or stealing?

Where does it say anything about improprieties?

None of terms things are even mentioned in the GAO report.

As is all to typical of the type of anti-Fed posts and sources we see, this appears to be another example were the attack is based on nothing more than misimplications, distortions, and downright fabrication.