Study: 41 million in U.S. can't afford basics

Yes their predications where wrong except in the case of Iran which has said it has a nuclear program.

 

Great, now post all of those that did not have an American Central Bank involved. We had 5 before the Fed. I'll tell you right off the bat, 1819 is off the list.

 

Also banks loan money to the middle class which then turns around and buys homes and cars, which they live in and drive to work. Banks loan money to people and they pay an interest on that but the people turn around and invest that money and start business and become better off. You remove the incentive to lend you basically kill the economy.

 

Not true. It's not about removing the incentive to lend. It's the power to lend, with new money, created out of thin air by the fractional reserve system, that guarantees that the banks will always have money to lend, at little or no risk to themselves.

By inflating the money supply through the banks, and allowing the banks to loan that money as it is introduced to the economy, they basically claim interest on all new money created in the system. Yep, every dollar you earn, find or borrow has already earned a profit in interest for the bankers. Great scam hunh?

 

If by American Central Bank you mean the Federal Reserve that was created in 1913 So all of those on the list are valid. Also why is the panic of 1819 off the list?

 

This is incorrect. Iran does not have a nuclear weapons program. Iran was working on a nuclear power program. The UN weapons inspectors have found no evidence of a nuclear power program.

Now if you try to tell me that the enrichment level of uranium for nuclear power is anywhere near the enrichment level needed for a tactical weapon yield, you're wrong. And you would think our leaders, with the State Department, DoD, and Pentagon would be able to know something like this as well.

It's merely war propaganda. Iran has already committed to non-proliferation of nuclear weapons.

 

If you remove the power to lend, you would also greatly reduce the amount of money banks lend to people which would also increase interest rates which would dramatically slow the economy. Banks would only lend to people who would be able to pay a loan back relatively quickly if there was ever a need to shore up cash in a short period of time.

 

You mean you posted all of those from a list you found on Wikipedia and you don't actually know the subject matter?

Central Banking. That's what the Fed is. It's what the Bank of Canada is. It's what the Bank of England is. A Central Bank. Issue money, manipulate interest rates, steal from the lower and middle classes, and so on and so forth.

Prior to the Fed, America had 5 Central Banks. We would try it, it would suck, we would kill it. We would try it again, it would suck, we would kill it.

JFK tried to shut down the Fed, but he got shot and Lyndon Johnson stepped in when he transitioned from VP to President, and immediately opened it back up.

So my question is, when you posted those, did you exclude the ones which occurred under a Central Bank? And out of curiosity, why did you include the Panic of 1890? That was a panic in England. You are aware we stopped being a colony and established our Constitution in 1787?

 

I don't doubt that Iran needs nuclear power they live off oil exports and domestically their energy needs have increased but the UN weapon inspectors also have found traces of enriched uranium beyond what would be required for a power plant.

Uranium enriched to 4% is suitable for a power plant, uranium enriched to 90 some percent is weapons grade.

 

Again, I am not talking about the power to lend. I am talking about fractional reserve banking. If you do not understand this concept, I don't know how we can continue this discussion. The banks create money from thin air from deposits they make in the Fed. If they deposit $1 million, they get a deposit in their account of $10 million. They can now loan out that extra $9 million and charge interest on it.

It's a money making scheme for the banks.

Please use Wikipedia and read up on fractional reserve banking.

 

What yield did they find? Link please?

Good research. You get a gold star for effort and accuracy.

 

IAEA didn't say the yield other then it was highly enriched and they wanted IRAN to explain

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15712210/

 

I understand fractional reserve banking, the history behind that is that there should be enough money to help stem a run on banks. Also banks don't print money they lend it, they need money in their system to lend so when you deposit $100 they turn around and lend $90 of it to someone else depending on the risk levels associated with the person their lending too. I don't see anything wrong with this, you expect interest rates on your whole hundred dollars and they have to make enough interest to pay you and still have some left over to make a profit.

 

Too bad the 6th attempt has stayed with us for so long.

Great book.
The first few chapters are excellent.
I need to go back and finish it.

~~~
Yes, getting 'rich' is much easier when you don't spend much money.

 

I understand you have issues with our central bank system but there is a need for someone to control money supply to control interest rates to protect against inflation and so that we don't fall into deflation. The Federal Reserve is like a shock absorber in our system. If not the FED then who?

 

The value of any commodity is partly based on what others value it. You can have all the gold in the world but if no one wants it its not really worth anything. For example if the farmer doesn't want gold for milk what are you going to do with it.

 

During the early part of last winter the price of oil fell about 20% did that mean inflation fell 20%? The reason food and energy are excluded is because of how volatility they are. Also they're no totally over looked they are still counted towards the CPI but more weight is given to the Core CPI.

As for housing. Housing is considered more of an investment then a good you purchase on a daily basis. Also the cost to rent a house is considering into inflation.

 

Our currency doesn't have to be backed by a hard good its backed by the ability to tax future tax payers.

 

When you decrease combat training, you increase combat casualties.

Are you really willing to sentence our troops to die in combat in order to stop Consuela the housekeeper from working in San Diego?

It also won't do any good to have a base or two on the border. It's a long border. If you don't believe me, take a look at a U.S. map.

So your plan is to spy on all private land on the border, spotting people from miles and miles away using some sort of undefined technology -- and then stopping and interrogating everyone who leaves a piece of private land that touches the border.

You're really willing to implement this level of government surveillance and interrogation in order to prevent Jose from coming to America for the watermelon harvest?

The military has one job that it is good at: killing bad people.

Every unrelated task you give it makes it ess of a military and less capable of accomplishing it's primary task.

Oh yes "government programs" to "help" business. I think we should all realize that these are an enormous waste of taxpayer dollars. Government knows nothing about business. It would be the same if I tried to "help" a research geneticist by telling her how to do her job. Uselss!

What WILL happen is that these companies will either go out of business or they will choose to survive by leaving the United States. In either case, tax revenue will plummet.

ALL of these plans to stop immigration have only two effects:

• Increased tax burden due to hundreds of billions of dollars in Federal spending
• Decreased tax base due to damage to U.S. businesses

 

yeah but , illegals suck a ton of money out the economy in the form of social services, many also don't pay taxes and send their money back to mexico