translation: bend over even more america.

He's equivocating. FED audits are conducted in accordance with generally accepted accounting standards and Government Accounting Standards issued by the Comptroller General of the United States.

How that means they use accounting incorrectly I have no idea.


.

So it's your assertion and past Presidents assertions.

Fair enough... lmk when charges are pressed.


.

Well, it's really just my understanding.... it's the Presidents assertion based on the facts that support why they've (or tried) to take it down several times.


We wouldn't press charges, a law isn't being broken.

If history is not proof for you then why would it be proof for you if it happened in the future?

appreciated.

Where is this audit? Not an audit on it's little programs, or a bailout, like of the actual reserve, it's books! Where is that? I'll tell ya where it is... no where, it's never been done!

They may use some standards, but it's not like anything we use or any other accounting standard in the world. When we make a profit, we do not create an equal debt out of thin air, we account for it, something the fed does not do, at any level.

That would be incorrect accounting by ever standard in the world.

but the fed does account for profit, at least on the surface, all profits go back to the us treasury right?

At the Federal Reserve’s July 13, 2011 hearings before the House Financial Services Committee, Representative Al Green cited evidence that the Fed made a profit on its QE 1 and QE 2 asset acquisitions and that the transfer of those funds back to the Treasury had helped reduce the deficit.

http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2011/07...-the-taxpayer/

detailed analysis of fed accounting:

http://www.cumber.com/commentary.aspx?file=072111a.asp

The process of printing money creates the threat of future inflation. If the Fed does nothing, then that future inflation can wipe out real wealth and the purchasing power of the taxpayer (which is a future cost of quantitative easing). Of course, the Fed can’t let this happen. The canceling out of the Treasury debt that I suggested above is also not really a feasible option, because the Fed would have a liability with no offsetting asset



One final point. Lest one doubt that the Fed is part of the government or that the Treasury is the ultimate backstop to the Fed, Federal Reserve Notes, which are Federal Reserve liabilities, are deemed obligations of the US government under Title 12 (Chapter 3, Subchapter XII, Section 411) of the US Code.

"The amount returned to the Treasury by the Fed will be less than what the Fed receives as an interest payment."

What they did was claim a profit because they had extra money left over on a debt payment, which isn't really growth or profit at all.

This should get you started.


.

i don't understand how this pertains to the accounting principles they use.

regardless of whether or not what is returned to the treasury as profit and how much, there will still be a blank spot on the accounting ledger next to the $1.5 trillion cash printed in coordination with the debt that this legislation will *wipes out*.

Is it opposite day? One of RP's most distinguishable qualities is his consistency. Saying he's a flip flopper is entirely backwards. 95% of other politicians? Yes, that's what they do. RP does not. Dyna, your example of his "flip flop" doesn't even make sense. Not everything in life is black and white, especially with politics.

And the few of you who are so trusting of the fed is laughable.

None of that shows the audit of the reserve, but rather audits of functions within the reserve.

Any debt created on our printed money can be wiped out. All they do is use an eraser, and remove the interest, and not the actual debt. So next to the 1.5 trillion would be a spot waiting for the 1.5 trillion to be paid back, instead of 3 trillion. Or actually, 6 trillion, because debt would be created to pay it back.

1. you glossed over the FACT i posted earlier that i have been a constituent of ron paul's and have voted for him more than everyone in this thread combined.

b. again, i also posted earlier that after allof these years, i have come to the conclusion that he is a flip flopping career politician. i am not posting to change anyone's opinion over to mine, i am confident enough in my own view of this hypocritical career politician who espouses the very institition he has manipulated for decades.

* which one of us here is so trusting of the fed?

that's a default. just deleting the entry? you can't just delete an entry like that, right?


not to mention the other potential consequences many economists believe something like this would trigger, several of which i posted earlier.

You could call it a default... I guess technically, if I loan myself $10, and apply $5 interest on it, and I fail to pay that interest, I defaulted on myself. Which is basically what the gov is doing.

We've failed to pay the interest on our debts before, a few times on purpose, once by mistake, it depends on which one we miss, if it hurts us or not. Debts are for sure not all created equally.

i'm still chuckling at the irony of your post.

you come to the defense of a career politician with your made-up comparison between ron paul and 95% of ALL politicians while you point your finger at people in this thread that you also made-up some bizarre conclusion that they (we) are so trusting of the fed.

that's classic gfy irony right there and i am loving it! :1orglaugh well done.

:thumbsup

That means about as much to this argument as me telling you I played tennis today.

Okay? If you don't want to post proof, fine. I haven't seen any.