Obama administration now supports Fed audit

Obama administration now supports Fed audit

www.google.com

The Obama administration now says it supports a proposal to audit the Federal Reserve's lending practices that has won broad bipartisan backing in the Senate.

Deputy Treasury Secretary Neal Wolin said last-minute changes to an amendment before the Senate would ensure that the Federal Reserve's monetary policy authority would not be compromised by an audit.

The audit has been pushed by a bipartisan coalition led by independent Sen. Bernard Sanders of Vermont. The audit by Congres

(visit the link for the full news article)

I bolded what I think are the important part was of the article. Does anyone here who has been paying attention have any idea what they changed and gotten out of the bill? I remember Ron Paul was saying the most important stuff was gutted out of the amendment or something like that when he was complaining about it and that... but like I'd like to know if this is about that, or, it's about something else.

www.google.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

This is the best news yet. Kennedy was killed after signing executive order 11110 trying to end the fed and Reagan was shot after mentioning abolishing the fed in a speech a couple of weeks earlier.......... I think obama is finally on the right path.....

Okay. I knew it was too good to be true. The deal that Bernie Sanders struck with Chris Dodd wouldn't allow congress to look at the fed's open market policy or their interest rates. This is absolute bull. At least it's something, but, this is BS.

Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) will cosponsor Sen. Bernie Sanders' (I-Vt.) amendment to audit the Fed, he said on the Senate floor Thursday afternoon, though with modifications, the details of which are crucial to the weight of the audit.

Sanders had been negotiating a compromise with the Federal Reserve to come to an agreement on how broadly the audit powers would extend, Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) told reporters.

Corker said he had spoken with Sanders and that the Fed wants to "make sure that the audit is not looking at the open market policy, where you're not looking at how interest rates are set." The White House expressed similar concerns earlier Thursday.

Sanders (I-Vt.) has insisted repeatedly that his amendment makes no attempt to audit monetary policy, but rather is focused on the trillions in lending the Fed has done in the dark.

The goal of the negotiations, said Corker, was to make sure "what you're looking at is the financial transactions.... It's my understanding he's working very closely with the Fed to try to get that part right."

Spokespersons for Sanders and the Fed declined to comment.

Shortly after Corker spoke, Dodd, who had been opposing the amendment, took to the Senate floor.
Story continues below

"He's absolutely correct on the transparency issues," Dodd said, adding that he wanted the audit "done in a way so there is no concern about the independence of the Fed being compromised in any way. He has guaranteed with his language here that that is no longer an issue whatsoever. And I want to thank him for that. It's a great amendment."

Sanders, on the Senate floor, hinted at the agreement. "Would allow the GAO to conduct a top-to-bottom audit of all of the Federal Reserve's emergency lending activities since December 1, 2007. In addition, the modifications require the Fed to put on its Web site all of the recipients of over $2 trillion in emergency assistance since December 1, 2007," Sanders said.

www.huffingtonpost.com...

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/fccba49486af.jpg[/atsimg]

Amazing!!!!
I never talk this would happen......

I'm speechless!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

reply to post by ModernAcademia


Did you not read my posts explaining this in more detail? It's going to be a watered down version of the original legislation. It's only going to allow a one time audit of the fed probing for potential conflicts of interest. It's not going to do more than that. They're not going to look at the fed's monetary policy, their open market exchanges, or, their policy on interest rates or anything like that which would give us more insight on how the federal reserve actually operates. I think this is a false hope.

Political stunt, that is all this is.

We are still not threatening the Fed in any way shape or form, and the way these politicians are tip toeing around a true deep investigation tells me they are owned.

We we see a deep audit and 100% transparency with the Fed, like we DESERVE TO then I'll start believing in politics again.

Means nothing they watered it all down, so it nothing. The bill they getting through is not the one ron paul made. Go on youtube, and watch ron paul talk about this.

Do not get fooled by this, this is not ron pauls bill, they drastically changed it all.

Its now rubbish.

Originally posted by AwakeAndAware
This is the best news yet. Kennedy was killed after signing executive order 11110 trying to end the fed and Reagan was shot after mentioning abolishing the fed in a speech a couple of weeks earlier.......... I think obama is finally on the right path.....

It would be good news, but for this: Deputy Treasury Secretary Neal Wolin said last-minute changes to an amendment before the Senate would ensure that the Federal Reserve's monetary policy authority would not be compromised by an audit.

So the reason this will be happening, and the reason Obama will remain alive, is because it isn't a real audit. For if it was, then the Fed would topple upon itself.

reply to post by Frankidealist35


This is a show trial. That they will conduct an audit is fine. There are a few things that you need to find out:

- WHO will conduct the audit. An audit performed by a government entity such as the GAO, FDIC or SEC will not be worth the paper it is written on

- What audit standards will be utilized. Will the audit conform to GAAP or standard accounting principals? If so, the audit should be similar to that done for a public institution, be it a company, university, etc. An "audit" that is performed without being subject to established audit protocols is also not worth the paper it is written on.

What is the scope of the audit. The most important thing with respect to audits is the scope. The entity being audited always looks to narrow the scope as much as possible. The auditor always seeks to conduct the audit on an expansive scope. To understand the value of the information and most importantly what the audit results are NOT telling you, you need to review the audit scope in extreme detail.

What will be the transparency level of the audit results? What good is an audit when most of the information is redacted and not made available to the public? Many members of congress, certainly those on the banking committees know the shell games played by the fed. Audit results reviewed only by them is also worthless.

If the business of the fed is not subject to Sarbanes/Oxley, specifically section 404 which governs the documentation of controls over material transactions, it too is worthless. I believe Sarbanes/Oxley and specifically section 404 are worthless in their own right, but they do provide a common standard and will enable the auditors to attest to the details in a manner consistent with all public firm audits conducted annually in the states today.

This audit needs to be conducted by serious, public sector accountants. A working group of senior auditors from each of the major public accounting firms with some additional non-governmental support coming from the public accounting world is what is required to perform this work. Accountants and specifically auditors are serious people. The only thing they have is the value of their credibility and reputation for integrity. Put these folks in the public spotlight and they will do a serious job.

If none of the above are included in this effort what you will get is an audit performed by a government entity that is heavily redacted for public consumption. The results will be given to the Executive Branch and select committees of congress. Both will come out with a bunch of "serious findings" that will in reality will be a bunch of bromides meant to create the appearance of not only a serious inquiry into the governing of the Fed but also demonstrate the government's "seriousness" of dealing with the issues uncovered.

Don't get too excited about this, it's a bogus effort.

...Dodd said, adding that he wanted the audit "done in a way so there is no concern about the independence of the Fed being compromised in any way."

This makes me a tad bit ill. How can we not see the blatant dangers in allowing a machine like this to be independent...

reply to post by Frankidealist35


It's not a real audit.

It's a "certain timeframe audit" excluding monetary making policies.

So really it's nothing at all, the Fed will most likely just show figures and charts that are far too confusing for us to understand and everything will go as smoothly as they want.

I highly doubt Obama or Bernanke want the real truth about Money Mechanics to come out.

~Keeper

Originally posted by Frankidealist35
reply to post by ModernAcademia

 

I think this is a false hope.

Yep, they're just doing this so that it can be done with. I mean, who is going to call for a thorough auditing of the Fed once the crappy one is done with and everyone get's a high five? It's not as if they are going to let Ron Paul ramble on about it once they "give him what he wants." Then, that will make Ron Paul look a bit despotic.

I pray for that man every moment I think of him.

Here's what I mean..

The one-time audit would focus on the Fed's emergency lending to financial institutions in the months leading up to and after the 2008 financial crisis. At its peak, at the end of 2008, the Fed's lending totaled $1.16 trillion.

Source

~Keeper

reply to post by Frankidealist35


Ya I know, I was so surprised I posted before reading the article.
Then I had the misfortune of reading the article immediately after.

Here is an update, damn Bernie Sanders


Bernie Sanders has sold out!!!!!

Originally posted by ModernAcademia
reply to post by Frankidealist35

 

Ya I know, I was so surprised I posted before reading the article.
Then I had the misfortune of reading the article immediately after.

Is there anything more irresponsible than not being fully informed before involving yourself in a topic?

*facepalm*

reply to post by camelian


No there is not!
It is absolutely the most irresponsible thing on the planet BAR NONE!!!

Calm down, If you follow my posts you would know I very rarely do that!