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.
What are you talking about? I just said the scam was bank bailouts, and now you are telling it back to me? I also unequivocally stated that the Fed system was corrupt.
Do you read English or do you just go into these insane ,overwrought narratives without reading the response? I also suspect you see no such wealth transfer during credit crunches, and thus I doubt you understand credit at all.
I read just fine ... ever read what you write yourself? This is what you said that summoned my response:
"The Fed is not the primary source of the scam. But no hard feeling MessNTexas, I'll sent you some foil pants to go with your outfit..."
The fact is, the FED is the single source of the scam, and it was designed that way from it's very inception. The Federal Reserve Act of 1913, passed on December 23, 1913 (while a large contingent of congress was away for Christmas holiday) handed over control of the monetary system to private bankers (who crafted their conspiracy ... read the book .. "Creature from Jekyll Island for detailed information), and it's no coincidence that this followed the ratification of the 16th Amendment to the Constitution that established the mechanism to extract wealth from the American people in the form of income tax that was previously prohibited by the constitution, earlier that year, February 3, 1913.
So there are no "other sources" of the scam ... the FED is the SINGULAR SOURCE ... the rest are just symptoms and results of that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwynedd1
Now that we got that out of the way, we can get back to the interest collected on US sovereign debt and that the interest collected on it is rebated to the treasury. If people understood that, then they would realize just how corrupt bailouts are since there is no need to rely on these private creditors raping the nation to halt a depression in a credit monetary system. That is the point Cletus is making. If the Fed were actually used for the benefit of the people, it could maintain price stability by expanding its balance sheet while raising interest rates and replacing debt with faux debt in the money supply.
That's total nonsense and it just shows that you have no clue about what you're talking about. The monies rebated to the Treasury from the FED related to profits on FED investments ... NOT the interest paid to them on the National Debt. You don't need to take my word for that, all you need to do is check your own data ..... you already posted that the FED paid the Treasury 79 Billion in "profits" for 2010. Previous to that, the FED averaged paying about 25 Billion for previous years. Now, match that up to the ACTUAL amounts of interest paid to the FED!!! Here's the amounts just in the last 5 years:
This is over $2 Trillion Dollars paid in interest to the FED on national debt. The amounts returned to the Treasury from the FED as "Profits" are a paltry fraction of that amount ... averaging roughly 10% or LESS most years ... with the exception of 2010 when they gave back 20% of what they stole.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwynedd1
But I suppose you can't be reasoned with, distracted as you are like so many of you hard money types who like to narcissistically preen themselves to the reflection of their shinny nickles.
You're absolutely right ... I cannot be reasoned with by someone who stands out in the blazing hot Texas sunshine in the middle of the afternoon, trying to tell me it's night time, and that the Sun is actually the moon. In this instance, the FED was paid $413,954,825,362.17 for 2010 ... they "returned" $79,000,000,000 ... just 20% of that almost 1/2 Trillion they "collected" (stolen), that you want to claim is a profit to the American people.
Tell you what ... if that's such a great deal ... hand over your entire income to me ... and I'll give you 50% back, doubling your "profit"
What are you talking about? I just said the scam was bank bailouts, and now you are telling it back to me? I also unequivocally stated that the Fed system was corrupt. Do you read English or do you just go into these insane ,overwrought narratives without reading the response? I also suspect you see no such wealth transfer during credit crunches, and thus I doubt you understand credit at all.
Now that we got that out of the way, we can get back to the interest collected on US sovereign debt and that the interest collected on it is rebated to the treasury. If people understood that, then they would realize just how corrupt bailouts are since there is no need to rely on these private creditors raping the nation to halt a depression in a credit monetary system. That is the point Cletus is making. If the Fed were actually used for the benefit of the people, it could maintain price stability by expanding its balance sheet while raising interest rates and replacing debt with faux debt in the money supply.
But I suppose you can't be reasoned with, distracted as you are like so many of you hard money types who like to narcissistically preen themselves to the reflection of their shinny nickles.
actually he said that you must separate them, that what's good for everyone, as an individual, is not necessarily good for everyone as a group. I don't think it's a particularly complicated analogy.
That's what I meant.... You CANNOT separate macro from micro. The simplest example is taxation...Once you inject systemic thievery you have ceded to them not being separate. And then all you have is the convoluted theory as to why it needs to be done...
It isn't actually convoluted even... it's Communist. How can you cede the macro sphere to statism but leave the micro sphere a free market? It let's all special interests roam free.... if you can refute that, please do.
Secondly, the baseball analogy is stupid. All he said was "Well, if YOU stand up it makes sense at an individual level...but if everybody stands up then everybody has an issue" and he leaves it at that...he left a totally undefined analogy up for interpretation and just says "it's much more complicated". That is sophistry.
HE doesn't explain HOW the micro applies to the one person standing up and how the crowd applies to the macro. It's an argument for the state sayin "Hey, we need force to make your life happy"
As if you can reduce the meaning of prosperity in laymans terms by likening it to a baseball game... that....is....retarded..
Gary Gensler, a Goldman Sachs partner who is Obama’s Commodity Futures Trading Commission head. Gensler is the former Treasury official who pushed to exempt the 58 trillion in the credit default market from oversight. Those financial instrumentals played a key role in the global economic downturn and led to billions of dollars in profits for banks like Goldman Sachs.
Mark Patterson, former lobbyist for Goldman Sachs who serves under Timothy Geithner (Treasury Secretary) as his top deputy and overseer of TARP bailout funds, $10 billion of which went to Goldman Sachs.
Larry Summers, Obama’s chief economic adviser and head of the National Economic Counsel. Summers’s boss at Goldman Sachswas non other than Robert Rubin, former co-Chairman of Goldman Sachs and also former head of Citicorp
Timothy Geithner, Treasury Secretary, is also a Robert Rubin protoge'. Geithner, of course, headed the New York Federal Reserve Bank
Stephen Friedman, Chairman of Obama’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board. Friedman's career with Goldman Sachs, includes co-chief operating officer from 1987 to 1990, co-chairman from 1990 to 1992, and the sole chairman from 1992 to 1994; he still serves on the company board.
Neel Kashkari, former Vice President of Goldman Sachs in San Francisco where he where he led Goldman’s Information Technology Security Investment Banking practice. Kashkari served under Treasury Secretary Paulson and was kept on by Obama after his inauguration for a limited period to work on TARP oversight.
Diana Farrell, Obama's Deputy Director of the National Economic Council formerly worked for Goldman Sachs in New York.
Karen Kornbluh, referred to often as "Obama’s brain" is Ambassador to the OECD ... formerly serving as Deputy Chief of Staff to Mr. Goldman Sachs himself ... Robert Rubin.
Adam Storch, formerly Vice President, Goldman Sachs Business Intelligence Group , is Obama’s Managing Executive of the Security and Exchange Commission’s Division of Enforcement. (UN-BELIEVEABLE the Fox really is guarding the chicken coop).
Robert Hormats, the top economics official at Obama’s State Department, who spent the prior 27 years at Goldman Sachs, including as the Vice Chairman of GoldmanSachs international.
Gene Sperling, advisor to US Treasury Secretary, Timothy Geithner, on bailouts, is a former consultant to Goldman Sachs
Goldman Sachs "not so much" aye? Goldman Sachs OWNS AND RUNS THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION, top to bottom .... from the Treasury to the Securities and Exchange Commission
Forgot something. GS has controlling shares owned by govt in investment funds. They are one of the primary backers for election companies, as well.
That's what I meant.... You CANNOT separate macro from micro. The simplest example is taxation...Once you inject systemic thievery you have ceded to them not being separate. And then all you have is the convoluted theory as to why it needs to be done...
It isn't actually convoluted even... it's Communist. How can you cede the macro sphere to statism but leave the micro sphere a free market? It let's all special interests roam free.... if you can refute that, please do.
It's not communist, nor it is statist. It couldn't be both anyway, since Communism is a "stateless society", the opposite of statism.
But that's a moot point, we're talking about monetary policy and you're obviously in over your head, mixing up tax policy and monetary policy and irrelevant GOP talking points.
Quote:
Secondly, the baseball analogy is stupid. All he said was "Well, if YOU stand up it makes sense at an individual level...but if everybody stands up then everybody has an issue" and he leaves it at that...he left a totally undefined analogy up for interpretation and just says "it's much more complicated". That is sophistry.
HE doesn't explain HOW the micro applies to the one person standing up and how the crowd applies to the macro. It's an argument for the state sayin "Hey, we need force to make your life happy"
As if you can reduce the meaning of prosperity in laymans terms by likening it to a baseball game... that....is....retarded..
i can't tell if you're being serious or not. is this a joke? The baseball analogy was not intended to represent "the meaning of prosperity." What the hell did that phrase come from, anyway, "meaning of prosperity?" Not from me, and not that video. If that's what the video represents to you, in your own words, then I'm just baffled.
the baseball analogy describes an observable fact. that fact is: when everyone saves, then you have deflation.
How you manage to tie this in with communism and taxation and special interests and blah blah blah blah is beyond me.
Last edited by Cletus Awreetus-Awrightus; 06-15-2012 at 08:45 AM..
That's total nonsense and it just shows that you have no clue about what you're talking about. The monies rebated to the Treasury from the FED related to profits on FED investments ... NOT the interest paid to them on the National Debt. You don't need to take my word for that, all you need to do is check your own data ..... you already posted that the FED paid the Treasury 79 Billion in "profits" for 2010. Previous to that, the FED averaged paying about 25 Billion for previous years. Now, match that up to the ACTUAL amounts of interest paid to the FED!!! Here's the amounts just in the last 5 years:
This is over $2 Trillion Dollars paid in interest to the FED on national debt.
No, those figures are paid from the U.S. Treasury. Not all of it goes to the Fed.
The Interest Expense on the Debt Outstanding includes the monthly interest for:
U.S. Treasury notes and bonds
Foreign and domestic series certificates of indebtedness, notes and bonds
Savings bonds
Government Account Series (GAS)
State and Local Government series (SLGs) and other special purpose securities.
Quote:
The amounts returned to the Treasury from the FED as "Profits" are a paltry fraction of that amount ... averaging roughly 10% or LESS most years ... with the exception of 2010 when they gave back 20% of what they stole.
Those interest expenses come out of the treasury, and only some of it goes to the Fed.
I read just fine ... ever read what you write yourself? This is what you said that summoned my response:
"The Fed is not the primary source of the scam. But no hard feeling MessNTexas, I'll sent you some foil pants to go with your outfit..."
Because its not, that's why. Its a Federal Reserve System. The talk in the streets is the cost of the national debt and the money the Fed makes. Its just plain wrong. Its the member banks of the federal reserves system, and to be perfectly honest, Clyde, it was congress that bailed out the member banks. You see a difference between cheap loans from the Fed and Treasuries? cause I sure do. I am sick of seeing "revenue of the Fed". You will be debunked faster than a grunt in basic training.
Quote:
The fact is, the FED is the single source of the scam, and it was designed that way from it's very inception. The Federal Reserve Act of 1913, passed on December 23, 1913 (while a large contingent of congress was away for Christmas holiday) handed over control of the monetary system to private bankers (who crafted their conspiracy ... read the book .. "Creature from Jekyll Island for detailed information), and it's no coincidence that this followed the ratification of the 16th Amendment to the Constitution that established the mechanism to extract wealth from the American people in the form of income tax that was previously prohibited by the constitution, earlier that year, February 3, 1913.
So there are no "other sources" of the scam ... the FED is the SINGULAR SOURCE ... the rest are just symptoms and results of that.
So what? Anyone from Bill Still to Edward Griffin could tell you that. But even Griffin would tell you its "the bailouts" to the member banks that blows a passably functional system. You really think in the past that they just said, oh OK, counterfeit away...No, because the bailout is not in the design.
You just have this religious faith that just about every silver dime a dozen "Austrian" has as if a shovel and dirty finger nails is the path to sainthood. The weapon of the enemy needs to be understood, and if necessary used against him. We are not going back to coins. Its not going to happen unless your are driving along with your dingo in a V8 intercept.
Quote:
That's total nonsense and it just shows that you have no clue about what you're talking about. The monies rebated to the Treasury from the FED related to profits on FED investments ... NOT the interest paid to them on the National Debt. You don't need to take my word for that, all you need to do is check your own data ..... you already posted that the FED paid the Treasury 79 Billion in "profits" for 2010. Previous to that, the FED averaged paying about 25 Billion for previous years. Now, match that up to the ACTUAL amounts of interest paid to the FED!!! Here's the amounts just in the last 5 years:
All revenue collected by the Fed, less expenses, is rebated to the treasury including national debt in its possession. And its chump change. We are paying nearly 3 trillion renting our money from the Federal Reserve System, the member banks. Done with this..
This is over $2 Trillion Dollars paid in interest to the FED on national debt. The amounts returned to the Treasury from the FED as "Profits" are a paltry fraction of that amount ... averaging roughly 10% or LESS most years ... with the exception of 2010 when they gave back 20% of what they stole.
You must be on drugs to post something like that. Its the national debt in the possession of the Federal Reserve that is rebated to the Treasury that I am talking about, Clyde. You posted the interest expense on the entire national debt. Stop being completely idiotic, please.
Quote:
You're absolutely right ... I cannot be reasoned with by someone who stands out in the blazing hot Texas sunshine in the middle of the afternoon, trying to tell me it's night time, and that the Sun is actually the moon. In this instance, the FED was paid $413,954,825,362.17 for 2010 ... they "returned" $79,000,000,000 ... just 20% of that almost 1/2 Trillion they "collected" (stolen), that you want to claim is a profit to the American people.
Tell you what ... if that's such a great deal ... hand over your entire income to me ... and I'll give you 50% back, doubling your "profit"
How do like them apples?
Just like William Tell did.
I just can't believe you posted numbers including foreign and private domestic holdings when the discussion is on assets held by the Federal Reserve . This is fundamentally about expanding the balance sheet of the Fed along with deficits. Talking about the national debt and including foreign debt is like comparing money you owe to grandma vs your mob connected bookie.
If the national debt is expanded only on the balance sheet of the Federal Reserve, its is not a real debt.
That is what he is talking about.
If it the entire national debt is comparatively the same to you, this will make your head explode.
No, those figures are paid from the U.S. Treasury. Not all of it goes to the Fed.
The Interest Expense on the Debt Outstanding includes the monthly interest for:
U.S. Treasury notes and bonds
Foreign and domestic series certificates of indebtedness, notes and bonds
Savings bonds
Government Account Series (GAS)
State and Local Government series (SLGs) and other special purpose securities.
Those interest expenses come out of the treasury, and only some of it goes to the Fed.
But Paul has argued that Fed purchases of Treasury debt represent a debt that the government owes to itself, and one that also leads to an unwanted and inflationary increase in the money supply.
Did you catch that? Debt da guberment owes itself and increases the money supply... and it costs nothing....and he doesn't want that.
That means the only way to grow the money supply is private debt which the article correctly states is shrinking.
Ron Paul for the Depression!
And his idiot followers want me to vote for that piece a work? What a moron. No thanks Ron, you senile lunatic.
But Paul has argued that Fed purchases of Treasury debt represent a debt that the government owes to itself, and one that also leads to an unwanted and inflationary increase in the money supply.
Did you catch that? Debt da guberment owes itself and increases the money supply... and it costs nothing....and he doesn't want that.
That means the only way to grow the money supply is private debt which the article correctly states is shrinking.
Ron Paul for a the Depression!
And his idiot followers want me to vote for that piece a work? What a moron. No thanks Ron, you senile lunatic.
To be fair to Ron Paul,
he does advocate dismantling the fractional reserve banking system; he just rarely talks about it, and he often contradicts himself (for instance, returning to the gold standard or not). He likes to focus on government spending and the deficit, probably because that's what the right-wing corporate propagandists have been laying the foundation for. (and so it is popular)
Last edited by Cletus Awreetus-Awrightus; 06-15-2012 at 01:00 PM..
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.
