Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Instead of me proving I know something to a stranger on the internet, which isn't going to happen anyway, how about y'all make a better argument for why the existence of the fractional banking system is a good reason for people not honoring the contracts they agreed to? The time for people to decide whether they want to participate in the system is before they sign the contract, not after. Y'alls argument sounds like the one where people think they owe no income tax because of such-and-such clause in the Constitution: it's really just an excuse to try to get stuff for free off the backs of others.
Heiwos,
They don't know how the system works anymore than a victim of a swindle. You can't even explain how it works. I also believe I clearly stated in an earlier post that there were sub prime examples that would not be valid in a legitimate system
bingo!! if people don't agree with our system then don't participate but as long as that is the system our country is using then those contracts are valid. the issue of fiat currency and whether we should get rid of the federal reserve is a separate issue that probably does need to be addressed in the future.
Hi floridasandy,
There are several reasons why sub prime needs foreclosure. One is moral hazard and the other is to allow houses to reach market prices. This will also help liquidity since free money will circulate from the defaults. So I agree with this. However any righteous indignation of the banks is not appropriate. Banks need to fold up with the houses and be given to their new owners, the tax payers.
The Federal reserve system has absolutely nothing to do with fiat currencies in particular. The dollar is not just any old fiat currency. As a matter of fact, it began with being gold backed and well as silver while including United States securities.
Congress has specified that a Federal Reserve Bank must hold collateral equal in value to the Federal Reserve notes that the Bank receives. This collateral is chiefly gold certificates and United States securities
Yes its hard make every post palatable for every audience. I was even well read on economics before I understood the implications of fractional reserves. Until that point, I was also easily fooled. So there are souls to be won at any level and if they are already well read in economics, it will hit them as it did me.
I am not even sure if this generation can be saved. I am simply leaving as much grass roots as I can so we can leave something behind for a generation that maybe someday will see what really has been going on.
"Banks have done more injury to the religion, morality, tranquility, prosperity,
and even wealth of the nation than they can have done or ever will do good." -John Adams
It's insanity! I'm so glad I came across this forum. The more and more I am reading, I cannot believe it. We are slaves to the banks and they are stealing our productivity. We become less productive just because we don't get a piece of paper or a loan from a bank. Yet we still have our arms, brains and legs!
We have forgotten how to think and read history. It's so sad.
I was reading and found the below, imagine life without being slaves to the banks. I can't get over how many years and generations we have been scammed. Whichever generation collectively figures it out are going to look back at us as naive fools.
During a visit to Britain in 1763, The Bank of England asked Benjamin Franklin how he would account for the new found prosperity in the colonies. Franklin replied.
"That is simple. In the colonies we issue our own money. It is called Colonial Script. We issue it in proper proportion to the demands of trade and industry to make the products pass easily from the producers to the consumers.
In this manner, creating for ourselves our own paper money, we control its purchasing power, and we have no interest to pay to no one."
Benjamin Franklin
That basically means you think I don't know and you were perfectly content to tell me. It does not bother me but it apparently bothers you. I suggest you don't do it first if that is the case. if you think this has nothing to do with fractional reserves and the power for banks to create money then you do not know. The entire banking system is a deception.
It fundamentally does not matter what the terms of the contract are. The system is designed to default on some fraction of borrowers and typically the last ones in. The only thing that can save someone who puts 50% down on their house is another who puts down 40% down. As soon as new borrowers are exhausted, the money supply begins to contract on principle pay back and interest payments. Banks going to the sub prime market only spared the 20% down market from the same fate. As soon as there are no more borrowers, default is inevitable even if the banks decided they need 30% down. It simply makes no difference. Defaults occur when the loans stop because the money supply will shrink.
You're confusing the issue - read the original link. It's about foreclosures in a court in Florida. It's not about fractional reserve, people that are the last ones in, the government, or a shrinking money supply. If you want to talk about fractional reserves, start your own thread (or feel free to hijack this one since it's probably past the point of no return anyway).
It's insanity! I'm so glad I came across this forum. The more and more I am reading, I cannot believe it. We are slaves to the banks and they are stealing our productivity. We become less productive just because we don't get a piece of paper or a loan from a bank. Yet we still have our arms, brains and legs!
We have forgotten how to think and read history. It's so sad.
I was reading and found the below, imagine life without being slaves to the banks. I can't get over how many years and generations we have been scammed. Whichever generation collectively figures it out are going to look back at us as naive fools.
During a visit to Britain in 1763, The Bank of England asked Benjamin Franklin how he would account for the new found prosperity in the colonies. Franklin replied.
"That is simple. In the colonies we issue our own money. It is called Colonial Script. We issue it in proper proportion to the demands of trade and industry to make the products pass easily from the producers to the consumers.
In this manner, creating for ourselves our own paper money, we control its purchasing power, and we have no interest to pay to no one."
Benjamin Franklin
"History records that the money changers have used every form of abuse, intrigue, deceit, and violent means possible to maintain their control over governments by controlling money and its issuance."
President James Madison
All our early presidents said the same thing. John Adams, James Madison, Thomas Jefferson ....
Its a bit like:
1st president says, "The bankers are tying to control the government to our detriment."
2nd president says, "The banks are gaining control."
3rd president says, "The banks are nearly in control".
4th president says "The banks are here to help".
...
A news paper says , "the banks have control of the government".
Another new paper says bankers are buying news papers...
New papers begin to have nice opinions of banks.
...
The first edition of a text book chronicles this event.
The second edition chronicles that a conglomerate owned by banking interests got into publishing.
The 3rd edition does not see any of this as current material.
The 19 century is loaded with material about banker swindles. It began to go silent in the middle of the 20th century.
You have heard of Reuters?
The agency was established by Paul Julius Reuter, a former bank clerk who in 1847 became a partner in Reuter and Stargardt, a Berlin book-publishing firm. The firm distributed radical pamphlets at the beginning of the Revolutions of 1848, which may have brought official scrutiny on Reuter. Later that year he left for Paris, where he worked for a short time as a translator. In 1849 he initiated a prototype news service, using electric telegraphy as well as carrier pigeons in his network. Upon moving to England, he launched Reuter’s Telegram Company two years later. The company was concerned with commercial news service at its inception and had headquarters in London serving banks, brokerage houses, and leading business firms. The agency expanded steadily, and in 1858 its first newspaper client, the London Morning Advertiser, subscribed. Newspapers bulked ever larger in the Reuters clientele thereafter. The value of Reuters to newspapers lay not only in the financial news it provided but in its ability to be the first to report on stories of international importance, as when the service broke the news of the assassination of U.S. Pres. Abraham Lincoln hours before its competitors.
-Encyclopedia Britannica.
Since the Greenback was another interest free currency it was probably the banking interests that had Lincoln assassinated and it just so happens the news agency in bed with them heard it first. They tried to get Jackson too but the guns misfired.
You're confusing the issue - read the original link. It's about foreclosures in a court in Florida. It's not about fractional reserve, people that are the last ones in, the government, or a shrinking money supply. If you want to talk about fractional reserves, start your own thread (or feel free to hijack this one since it's probably past the point of no return anyway).
scuba steve,
There would not be any foreclosures without it. They could never create a housing bubble in the first place.
Back to the OP, the only problem I have with the rocket docket is it bypasses a persons rights by making it so fast and pretty much telling the defendant whatever they have to say doesn't matter.
While I do feel that with a few exceptions the people in this postition shouldn't have been in the houses to begin with the banks are just as much to blame as the people.
In that vein I love the idea of making the bank that's forclosing PROVE they hold the whole loan and not just a little piece and if not that they have the right to forclose on the parts they don't hold.
It's not as cut and dried with many and since the banks did have a hand in this a little squirming and making 'em follow the law is in order.
I do not go to the local affiliate of the criminal association for redress of crimes. I go to the agency that is responsible to prevent crime. Criminals do care and cannot be held responsible. They are held in check by force.
The borrower is as irrelevant in their capacity to be held responsible as is a criminal from the point of view of the public trust and as an entity we empower to oversee it. It was the bank's job not to lend to all takers.
The procedure is nationalization of insolvent banks, meaning the tax payer owns them. Then as the agency responsible it may foreclose on unsustainable loans. We must first deal with the irresponsible agency since they are the crooks one and the same.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Best Way to Rob a Bank is to Own One.
