What happens if the Fed gets audited?

RE: The American people will awaken from the lie that this is truly a 'free country' and they will be upset.

I for one hope this is actually what will happen. But I also have reservations that they will truly awaken or will it just be spun in a way that the sleeping masses will never notice or refuse to even see the reality of what actually happened and who is truly to blame.

Oh, that would be nice...

I just don't see the 'powers that be' allowing anything or anyone to do anything to the Federal Reserve...if a politician tries to introduce any bill to 'shut it down' (s)he will be 'shot down'...(as in this attempt to 'audit' by RP)...Too many people will 'disappear' and perhaps 'have fatal accidents'...

These real owners of the Fed Reserve (and by that, own the United States lock, stock and barrel) are 'ruthless' and will stop at nothing to keep what they have...

It will take the will of ALL of the people of the US to make it happen and most are just still to deaf, dumb and blind to see it. Let alone unite long enough to make it happen.

...if a politician tries to introduce any bill to 'shut it down' (s)he will be 'shot down'...(

JFK found out how ruthless they can be.

Hey upswing that's one of the best ideas I've heard on this subject. and hes right,

wasn't it Andrew Jackson that removed all the governments money from the 2nd national bank and deposited it in state banks?

Andrew Jackson believed that the Second Bank of the United States was unconstitutional and that it posed a serious threat to the American economy and its democratic political institutions. Though its charter was not set to expire until 1836, BUS president Nicholas Biddle requested and received a congressional recharter in 1832. Jackson decided to veto the bill. Jackson escalated this so-called "Bank War" in 1833 when he removed federal government funds that were on deposit with the BUS and distributed them to loyal state banks.

To bad he was the only American president to be censured for doing that without approval from congress. he should have gotten a medal.

wasn't it Andrew Jackson that removed all the governments money from the 2nd national bank and deposited it in state banks?

Yes, it was. He also passed down the debt down to the sate level, which sent the economy into the toilet, because the states couldn't handle it. They ended up passing it back to the federal government the during the next administration. It was the only time the federal government could show that they had no debt. Yet, it was actually there, just at the state level.

Yes, it was. He also passed down the debt down to the sate level, which sent the economy into the toilet

I never knew that...or if I did I forgot...:)

Yes, it was. He also passed down the debt down to the sate level, which sent the economy into the toilet

USAF Vet-923294,

I never read that part of the story either. Can you supply us a link to source of this information. I love to see it.

I will see what I can do. I did a paper on it in college, so the references weren't on the net then. But, I will look to see what I can find for you.

As much as I hate to use Wikipedia, it was the fast to use to show the effects of closing the National Bank.

The bank's money-lending functions were taken over by the legions of local and state banks that sprang up. This fed an expansion of credit and speculation. At first, as Jackson withdrew money from the Bank to invest it in other banks, land sales, canal construction, cotton production, and manufacturing boomed.^[28] However, due to the practice of banks issuing paper banknotes that were not backed by gold or silver reserves, there was soon rapid inflation and mounting state debts.^[29] Then, in 1836, Jackson issued the Specie Circular, which required buyers of government lands to pay in "specie" (gold or silver coins). The result was a great demand for specie, which many banks did not have enough of to exchange for their notes. These banks collapsed.^[28] This was a direct cause of the Panic of 1837, which threw the national economy into a deep depression. It took years for the economy to recover from the damage.

The U.S. Senate censured Jackson on March 28, 1834, for his action in removing U.S. funds from the Bank of the United States. When the Jacksonians had a majority in the Senate, the censure was expunged.

Just as the funds wee passed down to the states, so were the debts. These state banks produced their own money (which is worth a lot of money if you ever get a hold of some) and caused the speculation that caused the depression of 1837 and lasted till 1844.

The Wiki article does not go into detail about the debt that the states could not pay so I will keep looking for an online source for you.

USAF Vet-923294,

Great, I'll look forward to it

Here you go. This is from Andrew Jackson's state of the union address where he proposes passing the debt from infrastructure to the respective states and in the future passing the revenue down to the states to determine what is spent on infrastructure:

...as it would be natural to expect, the States which have been least favored in past appropriations should insist on being redressed in those here after to be made, at the expense of the States which have so largely and disproportionately participated, we have, as matters now stand, but little security that the attempt would do more than change the inequality from one quarter to another.

Thus viewing the subject, I have heretofore felt it my duty to recommend the adoption of some plan for the distribution of the surplus funds, which may at any time remain in the Treasury after the national debt shall have been paid, among the States, in proportion to the number of their Representatives, to be applied by them to objects of internal improvement.

Although this plan has met with favor in some portions of the Union, it has also elicited objections which merit deliberate consideration. A brief notice of these objections here will not, therefore, I trust, be regarded as out of place.

They rest, as far as they have come to my knowledge, on the following grounds: first, an objection to the ration of distribution; second, an apprehension that the existence of such a regulation would produce improvident and oppressive taxation to raise the funds for distribution; 3rd, that the mode proposed would lead to the construction of works of a local nature, to the exclusion of such as are general and as would consequently be of a more useful character; and, last, that it would create a discreditable and injurious dependence on the part of the State governments upon the Federal power.

The problem was that the debt was never fully paid off and a surplus never showed. It was left with a balance of just over $33K and the states never received the revenue. In the following years their debts increased and lead to them repudiating them.

Outstanding public debt by state governments rose from $26 million to $170 million during the decade of the 1830's. Most of these securities were financed by British and Dutch investors.

http://mises.org/daily/1423

I still wish I had the college library for use that I did when I wrote the paper. It was much clearer and much better sources then I could find online.

Heads will roll at the federal level, but I do think the dollar will fall.

The dollar won't be the only thing...our country is just one...the whole global economy would be another...

Nah, 'status quo' is the best solution for these guys. Because the fall out would hurt the 'average person' more than it would those 'rich ones'...

And that was it? If I did that with my business I would be in jail...right?

and to think I worked all week making sure every cent is where it shuld be for taxes...

The federal government doesn't use Government accounting standards or generally accepted accounting standards for that matter. The President can change through executive orders at will, congress can do them through acts and the tax payers get screwed. If they did it on an accrual basis, at least the public would see all the assets kept by the government, all the revenue and the debts.

Yes, the govt. likes to tell us about its budget shortfalls and yet the CAFR's and govt. assets avoid being mentioned. In the state I live in they had 8 billion in pension plan assets until the stock market went down. They now have bounced back up to 5.4 billion. They pay out around 300 million a year for these pension plans. Another words with the 5.4 billion now they have enough of a surplus yet to last for 15 years at the present rate of payout. If you have a year where you gain 10% on 5.4 billion, will that is a chunk of money now isn't it? What bothers me about this system is the fact that if each state could only by law invest in 1% of a corporation like Citibank then all of the states combined would own 50% of Citibank. Add another 1% for the federal govt. and now the states and the feds have a 51% ownership. Does that scare anyone other than me? Is it any wonder why the govt. would consider some business's to big to fail?

KtoLV:

Thanks for the links.

The Fed itself is unconstitutional.

Absolutely!

It was created in 1916.

1913??