1. Advertising
    y u no do it?

    Advertising (learn more)

    Advertise virtually anything here, with CPM banner ads, CPM email ads and CPC contextual links. You can target relevant areas of the site and show ads based on geographical location of the user if you wish.

    Starts at just $1 per CPM or $0.10 per CPC.

The offshore banks' scam exposed!

Discussion in 'Politics & Religion' started by BRUm, Apr 10, 2010.

  1. #1
    BRUm, Apr 10, 2010 IP
    Blogmaster likes this.
    SEMrush
  2. Blogmaster

    Blogmaster Blood Type Dating Affiliate Manager

    Messages:
    25,919
    Likes Received:
    1,354
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    380
    #2
    This problem has been in existence ever since 1913. Now finally people are paying attention as the economical forecasts are looking uglier by the minute.

    The Federal Reserve is not a part of the federal government, nor is it controlled by the federal government. There is no Congressional oversight, no audits are performed, and, as of 1983, we do not even know who owns the controlling interest. Yet, since 1913, the Federal Reserve controls our monetary system, and we give them the right to create “new” money, and pay them interest on it.
    THE GRACE REPORT
    When Ronald Reagan took office, he commissioned a blue ribbon panel of businessmen to assess various functions of the government, headed by Peter Grace.
    This is a quote from that report:
    “100% of what is collected is absorbed solely by the interest on the Federal debt and by Federal Government contributions to transfer payments. In other words, all individual income tax revenues are gone before one nickel is spent on the services which taxpayers expect from their Government.”

    Income tax revenues amount to around 20% to 25% of the revenue collected by the government. Other funds come from corporate income taxes, imports, cigarettes, gasolene and a slew of excise and other taxes. Further corruption of your tax dollar occurs when the Federal Reserve “loans” money to the government. These “loans” are simply Congress allowing the Reserve to print (spell that “create”) money for the government to use. The bankers print these notes, with no value behind them (“fiat currency”) , then send us the bill for the interest. Make sense? If so, please re-read the sentence. Due to the fact hat the money has no value behind it, the dollar is degraded and inflation is the result.
    MONETIZATION
    When the expenses of the U.S. Government exceed the revenue collected, it issues new debt to cover the deficit. This debt typically takes the form of new issues of government bonds which are sold on the open market. However, the debt can also be monetized* by which the Federal Reserve creates an entry on its books to credit the US Government for an amount equal to the dollar amount of the bonds the Federal Reserve is acquiring. The money created in this process not only includes the new dollars that came into existence just to purchase the bonds, but much more because this new money is now sitting in the form of checkbook money at the Federal Reserve.
    Under the scheme of Fractional Reserve Banking** this new checkbook money is treated as an asset to lend against. The expansion of the money supply becomes many times the amount of the initial money created, with the exact amount being a function of what percentage of deposits banks must set aside as “reserves”. By this system, $100.00 in fiat currency can become $10,000.00 in loans processed to consumers.
    * Monetization is the process of converting or establishing something into legal tender. It usually refers to the printing of banknotes by central banks.
    Debt monetization occurs when the Federal Reserve buys government bonds. Debt monetization prevents the government from taking capital out of the private market. Since there is a limited amount of capital available in the market, there will be less available to fund business growth if the government takes a substantial portion.
    Debt monetization can be seen as a flat tax because the government acquires additional funds while the currency decreases in value.
    In some industry sectors, monetization is a buzzword for adapting non-revenue-generating assets into those that generate revenue.
    The ultimate consequence of monetizing U.S. debt is that it expands the money supply which will tend to dilute the value of dollars already in circulation. This is the cause of inflation.

    ** The Federal Reserve defines Fractional Reserve Banking thus: “The fact that banks are required to keep on hand only a fraction of the funds deposited with them is a function of the banking business. Banks borrow funds from their depositors (those with savings) and in turn lend those funds to the banks’ borrowers (those in need of funds). Banks make money by charging borrowers more for a loan (a higher percentage interest rate) than is paid to depositors for use of their money. If banks did not lend out their available funds after meeting their reserve requirements, depositors might have to pay banks to provide safekeeping services for their money. For the economy and the banking system as a whole, the practice of keeping only a fraction of deposits on hand has an important cumulative effect. Referred to as the fractional reserve system, it permits the banking system to “create” money.”

    A little video for those who do not like reading:

    [video=youtube;NzLIz27GqWs]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NzLIz27GqWs&feature=player_embedded[/video]

    I highly recommend watching The Obama Deception to anybody who hasn't done so yet:

    [video=youtube;eAaQNACwaLw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eAaQNACwaLw&feature=fvw[/video]
     
    Last edited: Apr 10, 2010
    Blogmaster, Apr 10, 2010 IP
  3. snappy198

    snappy198 Peon

    Messages:
    63
    Likes Received:
    4
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #3
    LOL you are a retarded sheep that probably knows nothing about economics or even what the fed is and does.
     
    snappy198, Apr 10, 2010 IP
  4. BRUm

    BRUm Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,086
    Likes Received:
    61
    Best Answers:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    100
    #4
    Snappy, are you referring to me? While studying for my Business and Financial Management degree at one of England and Europe's top ranked business schools, I had various economic modules.

    What's with the abusive language? If you're an expert on the private federal reserve, I'd like to hear your opinions on it and how you think it has operated.

    I can tell you now that your comment regarding sheep is incredibly ironic. I read and research, I'm far from a sheep.

    If you can't partake in a civil discussion, get the hell out of my thread.

    The federal reserve has never been audited, all Americans need to show support for Ron Paul's auditing bill(s): HR 1207 and S 604.

    P.S. Blogmaster, serious kudos for that info. Fellow infowarrior? :)
     
    Last edited: Apr 10, 2010
    BRUm, Apr 10, 2010 IP
  5. Blogmaster

    Blogmaster Blood Type Dating Affiliate Manager

    Messages:
    25,919
    Likes Received:
    1,354
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    380
    #5
    Thank you for bringing it up. :) The problem in America is that people like to trust someone. It's one side or the other, and the notion that both sides are working for those bankers and not for the people has not crossed most people's minds (yet).

    But regardless, more and more are waking up knowing something is wrong.

    As long as the message keeps coming through, some may get tired of CNN and Fox telling them what they want to hear and look deeper into why such an economical force as the U.S. has come down to being in the current situation resembling 1923 Weimar more than a super power.
     
    Blogmaster, Apr 10, 2010 IP
  6. snappy198

    snappy198 Peon

    Messages:
    63
    Likes Received:
    4
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #6
    No I didn't even read your post and was responding to the OP. I do take issue with your statement "If you're an expert on the private federal reserve". The twelve regional Federal reserve banks each hold 1 of the 12 shares of the federal reserve. Those regional banks are made up the member banks which range from big banks such as Cit, BOA, WF, etc and thousands of small comunity banks etc. So therefore even I am 1 of MILLIONS of owners of the Federal reserve as I own stock in one of the big publically traded member banks. It isn't owned by {insert conspiracy theory of your choice} and there it is NOT privately owned. Saying otherwise just shows your complete ignorance and makes you sound like you are just repeating some other sheep's nonsense, which obviously you are.
     
    snappy198, Apr 10, 2010 IP
  7. Blogmaster

    Blogmaster Blood Type Dating Affiliate Manager

    Messages:
    25,919
    Likes Received:
    1,354
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    380
    #7
    You're very confused. He is the OP. Calm down and think. Then post.
     
    Blogmaster, Apr 10, 2010 IP
  8. BRUm

    BRUm Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,086
    Likes Received:
    61
    Best Answers:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    100
    #8
    How can the federal reserve not be privately owned when as you said yourself, there are millions of share holders and no democratic governmental agency or branch declares authority or oversight? Not even congress does. It is not controlled by the elected government and has never been audited. Tell me, how many shares do you think the bankers themselves or a select few families own, hm? Sure, there may be millions of share holders but that's irrelevant macroscopically speaking.

    Also, I like how you took that information straight from wikipedia. Hah, and I've shown my ignorance?

    It seems you forgot to include a part of your copy & paste: "Twelve regional privately-owned Federal Reserve Banks located in major cities..." and these banks are at the very bottom of the organisation's structure, meaning they have very little power of their regional Fed. branch. In fact, they have no control over any monetary policy!. So much for the millions "owning" this organisation, eh?

    The matter of the fact is the sheer secrecy of the Fed. is something to question, especially when it is the sole source of currency in America which is created with interest. In return, all the taxes the people pay are used to pay off this never ending interest.

    Woe be upon ye who cannot look further back than one hundred years.

    Out of curiosity, did you watch the clip?
     
    Last edited: Apr 10, 2010
    BRUm, Apr 10, 2010 IP
  9. snappy198

    snappy198 Peon

    Messages:
    63
    Likes Received:
    4
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #9
    I didn't copy and paste anything or even look it up. What I said should be common knowledge for anyone with an interest in US economics. The rest of what you said is just babble not worth responding. Honestly I don't want to spend the time and effort arguing on the internet so I won't. Good luck if someone else comes around wiling to put in the effort arguing with you.
     
    snappy198, Apr 10, 2010 IP
  10. Blogmaster

    Blogmaster Blood Type Dating Affiliate Manager

    Messages:
    25,919
    Likes Received:
    1,354
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    380
    #10
    You wouldn't stand a chance arguing this with me, Snappy, I tell you that.
     
    Blogmaster, Apr 10, 2010 IP
  11. Obamanation

    Obamanation Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    8,016
    Likes Received:
    237
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    180
    #11
    So sad. I was thinking Ratigan was someone I could watch on MSNBC, but then you get this crap. Glaringly absent from his presentation were any voices presenting the opposing opinion. This is common practice on MSNBC. Instead, the star witness for the defense is Congressman Grayson, an obviously un-opinionated middle of the road non-polarizing type:rolleyes:. I especially loved his explanation of the opposition to the health care reform bill being only because of lobbyist dollars, as if all of the American people are just sheep. The people most responsive to those lobbying dollars are our legislators, so his example makes little sense.

    One of the areas I agree with Dr. Paul. Our system of government is based on checks and balances and it appears the creation of the Fed never had a check or balance put in place. They have fought auditing for years stating "we need to maintain the Fed's independence" as the obvious reason. It does beg the question of what actions would be taken if they found payoffs, or something nefarious. Dissolve the Fed? I don't think so.

    Since Mr. Ratigan didn't present any opposing viewpoints, let me present one here. The premise of Ratigan's presentation was that the government would guarantee any risk taken by banks with bailout money. Though that would appear true via the TARP program, looking at recent history, the Banks seem to be the only bailout that is actually paying the money back. The government is about to sell its stake in Citi group for an enormous profit (windfall profits tax anyone?). When all is said and done, the TARP program may have feasibly completed without costing taxpayers a dollar, were it not for Obama misappropriating all the repaid funds and using them as "Free Money" for whatever his liberal heart desires. Money spent bailing out GM, on the other hand, might better have been used as firewood last winter.

    Reform is needed, but the call to "End the Fed" is overly simplistic. Other possibilities could involve tighter regulation(did I just say that?) on how banks invest and limiting the size of banks.
     
    Obamanation, Apr 10, 2010 IP
  12. BRUm

    BRUm Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,086
    Likes Received:
    61
    Best Answers:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    100
    #12
    Well for a start the Glass-Steagall act should be enforced again. As for TARP, I believe that was a very lame attempt to pretend to repay money with more controversies than I can bother to mention. The banks have paid a fraction back and I expect them to never pay it back.

    I support smaller banks, and more of them, to compete and provide currency, which is more historic than this monstrous monopoly system.

    Snappy, all I just read from your post was excuses mate. See you around.
     
    BRUm, Apr 10, 2010 IP
  13. Obamanation

    Obamanation Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    8,016
    Likes Received:
    237
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    180
    #13
    Brum, what you are saying lacks for facts. What controversies? What "attempt" to pay back? If the banks weren't legitimately paying the money back, why is Obama claiming he is using it as this stash to fund his programs?

    US to sell Citibank for 8bn profit
    Banks repaid 161B of the 245B put out by TARP1

    This goes on and on. Yes, there will be some of the banks who do not repay the money, but I suspect the government could come close to breaking even on this when you take into account profit made by some of these deals. It seems the people taxpayers should be angry at are the people who have turned repaid TARP money into their own personal slush fund. It is another example of why the American people should say NO every last time the government asks to raise taxes( Give us more money), even if they call it a "temporary" tax. The government NEVER gives back money. They NEVER shrink. They RARELY repeal taxes.

    Here is one of the real points of humor about this whole thing. TARP was the biggest black spot on the Bush presidency from a spending perspective. Sure the war was expensive, but TARP was egregious, and one of the big things that made him unpopular towards the end, even amongst his base. Democrats were put in office to put an end to the excessive Bush spending. Obama supposedly "Inherited" the deficit and the debt. Obviously Obama has blown out any expectation of a government that spends sanely, even when compared to Bush's outrageous spending. Proper accounting would deduct the repaid TARP funds from Bush's spending and apply them to Obama's spending. The man is insane.

    FYI, regarding Glass-Steagal, there are very credible arguments to be made that the CDS market prevented problems, not created them. A lot of the predictions on bank investment behavior post Glass-Steagal turned out to be false. There seem to be issues with CDS contracts and mark to market pricing that still need to be resolved, but I've heard credible arguments made for both sides of this issue. From my limited knowledge of the issue, I suspect the CDS market should be regulated.
     
    Last edited: Apr 10, 2010
    Obamanation, Apr 10, 2010 IP
  14. BustPriceline

    BustPriceline Guest

    Messages:
    127
    Likes Received:
    1
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #14
    Do you also believe in that high way that is planned to be built in Ron Paul's head?
     
    BustPriceline, Apr 10, 2010 IP
  15. BRUm

    BRUm Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,086
    Likes Received:
    61
    Best Answers:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    100
    #15
    Bust, what are you talking about? They're building the Trans-Texas corridor and I am appalled that the state is land grabbing from farmers for this globalist project.

    Obamanation, the reason for "lack of facts" is that these controversies are rather tedious and quite irrelevant to my original post in this thread. You even pointed out one yourself: "It seems the people taxpayers should be angry at are the people who have turned repaid TARP money into their own personal slush fund". I'll clarify anyway:

    1. Experts warned that banks using the TARP money could use it to buy weaker banks. On October 24th 2008, PNC Financial Services received $7.7Bn in TARP funds, then only hours later agreed to buy National City Corp. for $5.58Bn. Although this has been the only case of this use of TARP.

    2. Quotes from the congressional body overseeing TARP: "In particular, the Panel sees no evidence that the U.S. Treasury has used TARP funds to support the housing market by avoiding preventable foreclosures". The panel also concluded that "Although half the money has not yet been received by the banks, hundreds of billions of dollars have been injected into the marketplace with no demonstrable effects on lending."

    3. During 2008, companies that received $295 billion in bailout money had spent $114 million on lobbying and campaign contributions.

    4. Banks that received bailout money had compensated their top executives nearly $1.6 billion in 2007, including salaries, cash bonuses, stock options, and benefits including personal use of company jets and chauffeurs, home security, country club memberships, and professional money management.

    There are more, I'm sure, but these show how fickle and unrealistic TARP is. It's an attempt to fool the public into thinking that their money is going to be paid back and wasn't stolen in vain.

    I've watched clips of people in congress claiming the bailouts were really blank cheques, allowing tens of trillions of dollars in total, not the ridiculous $700Bn they initially stated - this will never, ever, ever be paid off. TARP is laughable and so are all the other attempts to pull the wool over The People's eyes.The constitution is in shreds and people believe the rubbish Obama and the gangster bankers push. All these fancy "pay back schemes", I believe, are just further scams. Your industry, just like ours here in England, is trickling abroad while our nations fall in more debt.

    You say Obama is using TARP to fund his programs, that may be so, but that doesn't mean anything really. It is no indication as to how much banks have "repaid", nor how much money is held. The television is an awful source of information, unless you're watching something like a congressional hearing and the like.

    Besides, TARP seems highly insignificant when one figure for US debt is $78.8 Trillion ($55 Trillion Social Security & Medicaid, $7.8 National public debt and $16 Trillion insurance guarantees)

    I agree with you on the governmental issue. The COG (continuity of government) ensures that nothing worthwhile is ever repealed. Just you watch, I bet anything that when the Republicans gain majority next time around they won't repeal this awful healthcare system or any other unconstitutional legislation.
     
    Last edited: Apr 11, 2010
    BRUm, Apr 11, 2010 IP
  16. Obamanation

    Obamanation Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    8,016
    Likes Received:
    237
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    180
    #16
    I disagree. Your original post has Ratigan going on about the "scam" being perpetrated on Americans by the creation of the Fed. Tarp is his cited evidence. He completely failed to present viewpoints to the contrary, including the entire reason for the existence of the fed(moderation of the economy by controlling the supply of money). Specifically on topic, was Greenspan a good custodian of the money supply? There are some good arguments to say he was not, citing the several enormous bubbles and busts that occurred under his watch as evidence. There are also, in my opinion, credible arguments to be made on either side of the need for the existence of the Fed. That said, I find pieces like the one provided in your link to be over simplistic and inciting( not insightful). Had he done his journalistic duty and explained both sides of the argument, people could be left to make a more informed opinion.



    These are both essentially the same complaint. TARP oversaw a lot of consolidation in financial services, from what I can recall. Politically speaking it was hoped it would get banks lending again, but that was obviously unrealistic. The truth is, banks ARE lending. You just need good credit and an ability to repay(A good job and a good debt to income ratio). To ask banks to lower their lending standards again is to ask them to go back to one of the fundamental causes of this whole mess. Was TARP money used on consolidation a bad thing? I don't know. I do know our banks are a lot stronger and more stable because of it. That is the nature of business. The weak die off, the strong survive and acquire. One obvious downside I see is that the "too big to fail" institutions are now larger than ever because of it. I guess the proof will be in whether they change their investment habits. I have very mixed feelings about limiting how big one of these organizations can be, but I lean towards the "break them up into smaller pieces" camp.

    States, counties, and cities that made large donations to Obama's election campaign received an obscenely disproportionate amount of the "Stimulus" money. You'll get no argument out of me on this one. One of the many reasons you don't want the government "redistributing wealth". Not sure what it has to do with the Fed.

    I personally don't care if those executives throw lavish parties where everyone comes nude, coats themselves in guano, and drinks the blood of baby lamas while filming group midget sex. It should concern the shareholders of those companies, as should the fraternal relationships between the board of directors and the executive management team (GM in particular). I disapprove of the idea of bailouts on the whole, though I suspect they may have averted disaster in this case. When the government became more than a 30% shareholder in CITI, I think it was appropriate for them to question the outrageous sums of cash paid to their management. Why weren't the stockholders able to ask the same for the many years previous to the crash? They were getting just as badly ass f*cked then. Perhaps the take away from this is more direct accountability of management teams and boards to the share holders.

    Oh the money will never be paid back to the American people, but I don't think it is unrealistic to think it may be paid back to the federal government.

    Actually, 350B under Bush, 350B under Obama. You have evidence that disputes this?

    Fair enough. It would seem the malaise of this crisis will last quite a bit longer for Britain's businesses than it will for the U.S.. Here in the U.S. many economists are starting to acknowledge that unemployment may not come under 8% in the next decade. Welcome to the age of Obama.


    Debt+unfunded liabilities. We don't use standard accounting practices here so we like to say the number is only $12 trillion.

    Sadly, you are probably right. I was watching Ron Paul last night talking about the one page adjustment he would like to add to the bill. It is the repeal of the individual mandate clause. It is only a minor adjustment to the bill but would have the effect of repealing it since it would effectively defund it. Sometimes I really like Dr. Paul. The Tea Party movement in America is pretty much a one issue movement and will be a major player in the 2010 elections. It will be interesting to see if they a) have the integrity to stick to their one issue (fiscal sanity) and b) if they have the staying power to punish Republicans (or anyone else) elected to office in November that give us more of the same. Even more interesting to see if they will continue to exist in 2012.
     
    Last edited: Apr 11, 2010
    Obamanation, Apr 11, 2010 IP
  17. BRUm

    BRUm Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,086
    Likes Received:
    61
    Best Answers:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    100
    #17
    I like how you attribute the Tea Parties to Ron Paul (if I am correct in thinking you have). It saddens and frustrates me when some people state Glenn Beck or Palin are the politicians behind this grass roots movement... Neo-cons hijacking Libertarianism, bleugh.

    Your comment on Greenspan is interesting. I must admit that there have been some good done on his watch, but obviously the bad that you mentioned. I think that on one level he tried to do the best he could with a silly, over complicated and messy banking system. I find it very hard to believe that the thought of at least pegging the dollar against something tangible and of value, has yet to cross the minds of those with power.
     
    Last edited: Apr 11, 2010
    BRUm, Apr 11, 2010 IP
  18. Obamanation

    Obamanation Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    8,016
    Likes Received:
    237
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    180
    #18
    I think Paul shares the Tea Party ideal of smaller federal government, though I don't consider him a Tea Party kind of guy. Paul believes in a purely non-interventionist US foreign policy, which I consider as idealistic and naive as a purely free market economy. Like anything in life, there obviously has to be a balance.

    I suspect Palin's attachment to the tea party is much like that of Paul's. There may be some bible banging religious conservatives, like her, in the population of the tea party, but she has the important value in common of smaller federal government. She also stands for traditional American values and every time the media smears her it energizes the base. She's also hot, in a MILFy kind of way. The fact that she and Beck are making millions off of the politics of the day is.... expected? I'm pretty impressed that, so far, the Tea Party has refused to have their agenda hijacked by some idiot. The dog has a few fleas, but what dog doesn't.
     
    Obamanation, Apr 11, 2010 IP
  19. eric8476

    eric8476 Active Member

    Messages:
    1,547
    Likes Received:
    16
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    78
    #19
    we are not going back to a monetary system that is only based on gold. there is just too much invested and involved.
     
    Last edited: Apr 11, 2010
    eric8476, Apr 11, 2010 IP
  20. BRUm

    BRUm Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,086
    Likes Received:
    61
    Best Answers:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    100
    #20
    Ron Paul firmly believes in a precious metal backed monetary system, however I tend to agree with those who believe that gold (not so much silver) is in too short supply, and as we all know the elite own most of it and a government wouldn't be able to afford to buy it back from them, thus giving them control once again. I support competing currencies, hell, anything but this ludicrous fractional reserve banking and leveraged system.

    Having any system solely controlled by one organisation, in this case the federal reserve, is incomprehensible. Most people acknowledge how poor human decision is itself when organising and planning small projects, let alone an entire country's monetary supply and fiscal value! I think spreading the risk and responsibility amongst many smaller banks is a good idea. I like Obamanation's "camp" - breaking into smaller pieces. This is what Thatcher did with our once nationalised industries, although I must say that she was careless and didn't think to make sure only native buyers and shareholders could own these newly divided companies, ultimately meaning she ensured that internationalists quickly got their hands on our economy.
     
    BRUm, Apr 12, 2010 IP