It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Is anyone actually buying into this load of crap?

page: 8
104
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 15 2010 @ 10:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by CookieMonster09



Just curious, What is your relationship with banking?

How do you mean exactly? Are you asking me to divulge personal information on a public forum?


You don't have to divulge anything personal, I was just wondering why you are defending the banks so assertively.

What's your stake in this?




posted on May, 15 2010 @ 11:04 PM
link   
I really have no personal stake, other than to address what I perceive to be distortions, misinformation, and slander.

I believe that traditional banks serve a valid and practical function in society. I even believe that they have a vital role to play in our economy, by working in partnership with business owners to create jobs. Banks provide capital to businesses that employ average, working class people - That's a very important role to play in society.

I also tend to pin the blame for the current crisis at the local level where mortgage fraud occurred. Criminal activity by primarily sub-prime mortgage brokers is the prime reason why we had the sub-prime crisis. Some banks lent recklessly. Others were seriously defrauded by fraudulent loan applications and straw buyers.

Wall Street investment banks and rating agencies are also culprits, for packaging up and selling these toxic assets and calling them AAA investments.

I just want people to call a spade a spade, and not resort to unnecessary slander, emotional outbursts, and utterly ridiculous conspiracy theories.



posted on May, 15 2010 @ 11:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by FortAnthem

Originally posted by CookieMonster09



Just curious, What is your relationship with banking?

How do you mean exactly? Are you asking me to divulge personal information on a public forum?


You don't have to divulge anything personal, I was just wondering why you are defending the banks so assertively.

What's your stake in this?



Just got done reading the entire thread and he is without a doubt in the financial sector. If he wrote a 20 page paper in college about Jekyll Island, then he's in finance doing something.

He is defending what he has chosen as his life's work.

CookieMonster, since you DO seem to have a wealth of knowledge on this subject... could you answer me 3 quick questions....

1) What is the currency in the United States?
2) Where does this currency originate?
3) Who owns the originating entity of this currency?

Okay and a 4th.... are these questions beyond the scope of your defense of private banking or do the answers agree with/support the ideas you've presented??



posted on May, 15 2010 @ 11:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by slt63366
Jeez, what do you guys want? Banks to stop lending? No more small business loans, no more student loans, no more car loans, no more mortgages. This thread is ridiculous. Yeah, lets shut down the entire economy and go to an all cash system.

FYI, The going rate for a 1 year CD around here is 1.25-1.5%. A 5 year car loan is going for around 3.5% to 4%. OMG, banks ripping us off!!! I get a kick out of the perception that banks are gouging everyone. Your average Joe has an average balance of a few hundred bucks and in return gets free checks, a free debit card system at every place he shops, a huge ATM network that provides instant access to cash on every corner, brick and mortar locations across the nation with a full staff to tend to all his needs, a free online access system, full protection against any fraud, etc..............And he pays nothing, nada, zilch. All free.


Gotta agree with you. Yes! I use a bank. Gasp! And it costs me nothing. Yes, nothing. I don't even pay for checks, because I don't buy them from a printer. I can pay almost all of my bills online, at no cost to me. I already have the comuter and internet connection. I didn't purchase these things to do banking transactions, it just happens to be a benefit of being connected to the www. And the two bills I must pay in person or send a check in the mail, well, I just walk into my bank and write on a slip of paper, provided free to me by the bank, the exact amount of money I need to pay the bills, and withdraw the cash and go about my merry way.

It costs me nothing. Oh, these evil banks!!!

So could I come up with the cash to pay for my 80,000 dollar house? Nope. Thank you, banksters, for helping me to have my own place at a reasonable cost to me. And I didn't even have to pay closing costs. Why? Because in my proposal to the previous owner of the house, I included that I wanted HIM to pay those costs, out of the money her received from my bankster. And he accepted.

Good for me. And good for the previous owner. He got out from under a mortgage for a house he no longer lived in and I got a pretty good house, at a quite reasonable price, and with a quite reasonable interest on the money I borrowed. Oh, and I also got enough land with the house to grow enough vegetables and fruit for my wife and me and anyone else in my family who woulc like some canned or frozen vegetables and fruit.

By the way, those peach trees I planted after I bought the house are producing very well. Yay! And I don't have to worry about a lack of bees. The trees are self-pollenating.

Life is good. Never thought I would even make it to this age. lol. And thank you, Bankster! Without you I would be living in a rented home, proabably with no place to plant a garden or fruit trees, and all at a very reasonable interest rate.

And I don't have to put up with noise from neighbors living above me or below me. And I don't have to walk my dog for a doodoo. lol. I can just open the door and the doggie goes about her business. Thank you, you evil bankster bastidges!



posted on May, 16 2010 @ 01:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by CookieMonster09
If you have ever worked in a bank, you can detect suspicious behavior. Someone that withdraws $15,000 in a single teller transaction, acts with evasiveness and hesitation, etc. is going to raise suspicion.


That's an interesting observation! The bank gladly accepts the depositor's money even when the depositor acts with "evasiveness and hesitation", exhiliration, or is just dead pan without emotional expression of any kind, when making the deposit. No problem! They'll gladly launder it so long as it remains on deposit for their own profit. But dare withdraw the money and they'll report the depositor as a suspected criminal or terrorist. F**ing hypocrites.

[edit on 5/16/2010 by dubiousone]

[edit on 5/16/2010 by dubiousone]



posted on May, 16 2010 @ 02:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Revolution-2012
reply to post by FortAnthem
 


My bank didn't loan to me when I asked for a 5000 dollar loan to get a #ing car, and I showed them that I was registered for college and everything.

This ad makes me sick.

Good lookin out OP.


Probably not a bad thing. I was a college student once too. If I had to pay for insurance, tires, and other repair costs on top of everything else I would've been so screwed!

Especially given the situation with student loans in this country.

You should be able to be in debt if you want to be (I guess). The hard part is digging yourself out of it. Being a full time college student that doesn't work full time is not a great position to be in if you're already in debt. I can understand your frustration but it may have been a blessing in disguise.

And for crying out loud, stay away from credit cards!


God forbid a college student does somehow get a big loan for a car, you suddenly owe like 10-12 % interest or something so the payments are outrageous since you don't have enough credit established. Then the insurance companies take you for everything your worth on top of that. When I was 18/19 it was so freaking difficult just to pay the insurance payments when they were twice what my car payment was!!

-ChriS

[edit on 16-5-2010 by BlasteR]



posted on May, 16 2010 @ 04:30 AM
link   
reply to post by FortAnthem
 


Bingo Bingo Bingo. You said it all right there.


Everyone is looking for "investments" so that they can "put their money to work" ... and I know there are plenty out there trying to get something for free, but secretly I think everyone is really just trying to make sure that the money they worked so hard for is still worth something tomorrow, while we watch taxes continue to climb up, gas prices going all over the place, and the grocery bill breaking 4 figures a month.

We wouldn't need all this speculation and investing if our money just held value.

Not gonna happen when the banking system is permitted to inflate the money supply at its discretion.



[edit on 16-5-2010 by 30_seconds]



posted on May, 16 2010 @ 08:59 AM
link   
reply to post by FortAnthem
 


True, but unfortunately impractical. To amass enough money to purchase a home could take decades. And in the meantime, do what? Throw money away on rent every month? Live in your parent's basement?

Nah, I'd rather stick with the mortgage.



posted on May, 16 2010 @ 10:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by dubiousone

Originally posted by CookieMonster09
If you have ever worked in a bank, you can detect suspicious behavior. Someone that withdraws $15,000 in a single teller transaction, acts with evasiveness and hesitation, etc. is going to raise suspicion.


That's an interesting observation! The bank gladly accepts the depositor's money even when the depositor acts with "evasiveness and hesitation", exhiliration, or is just dead pan without emotional expression of any kind, when making the deposit. No problem! They'll gladly launder it so long as it remains on deposit for their own profit. But dare withdraw the money and they'll report the depositor as a suspected criminal or terrorist. F**ing hypocrites.

[edit on 5/16/2010 by dubiousone]

[edit on 5/16/2010 by dubiousone]


And that is EXACTLY where the scam lies within. Banks are ONLY required to have physical representation of DIGITAL BYTES ON A COMPUTER at 10%.

For every $100, $90 IS IMAGINED and $10 is tangible and can be withdrawn, so to discourage customers(actually fools) from withdrawing money the bank does not actually have, they have to create all kinds of silly excuses such as terrorist/drug dealer/etc. Nothing but scare tactics!

Contrary to what people may think, I don't actually hate the principal of banking, I just think governments have done an absolutely lousy job of regulating them as well as allowing PRIVATE central banks to gain such an incredibly strong foothold.

Central banking should be a public endeavor, something like a credit union. People at the top are benefitting at everyone's expense and have hijacked government. I don't know what else can be said other than people need to wake the hell up and realise what is going on. 2013(if we make it that far) will mark 100 years of the Federal Reserve scam and all the mainstream brainwashing we have endured.

Very sad indeed!

[edit on 16-5-2010 by EarthCitizen07]



posted on May, 16 2010 @ 10:11 AM
link   
reply to post by FortAnthem
 


I remember when I was little that you were told to put money away in savings and let it accrue.

What happened to that? I think it was even 5% interest. Now you make like a buck a year.

People fault other people for not saving money. But banking has become so complicated, it is no wonder people don't know what to do. Putting it in savings was easy enough for everyone to do. Now there is all this CD,IRA,401k.



posted on May, 16 2010 @ 10:45 AM
link   


1) What is the currency in the United States? 2) Where does this currency originate? 3) Who owns the originating entity of this currency?


1.) The base currency of the United States in the U.S. dollar.

2.) The Treasury prints and mints all paper currency and coins in circulation through the Bureau of Engraving and Printing and the United States Mint.

3.) The Department of the Treasury is an executive department of the United States Government. The head of the Department is the Secretary of the Treasury. The Secretary is appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate.



Okay and a 4th.... are these questions beyond the scope of your defense of private banking or do the answers agree with/support the ideas you've presented??


In my discussions in this forum, I am specifically referring to privately owned banks, not the Treasury. I've presented several ideas in this discussion, ranging from mortgage fraud, distressed banks, the capitalization of banks, and more.

Which specific idea in this discussion are you pinpointing?

If you are referencing mortgage fraud, then I don't think that you can blame the criminal acts of sub-prime mortgage brokers on the U.S. Government, other than to state that the U.S. Government should have implemented stronger regulatory and lending parameters to deter fraud. I am in total agreement with this concept. Lending practices were too loose, which allowed the fraud to take place. Smart banks implemented measures to minimize the likelihood of mortgage fraud. Others turned a blind eye to mortgage fraud and are now paying the consequences.

In terms of capitalization of banks, we are seeing more and more banks getting shut down by the FDIC every Friday. There are still well-capitalized, and well-managed banks in our country, but many, many banks are still quite distressed. These are privately run enterprises, accountable to stockholders, and to a lesser extent, overseen by the appropriate federal and state regulators at to their soundness and stability.

As noted above, your typical small town Main Street retail bank does not print currency, nor does it mint coins. That function falls under the U.S. Treasury Department.

A small Main Street bank does, however, lend money at interest. Loans are written on valid legal contracts, enforceable by the courts. Loans are also underwritten by credit analysts, who determine the likelihood of default based on the borrower's financial strength.

The interest earned over the course of the loan is the profit earned by the bank for the risk taken in making the loan. Given the high rate of defaults in recent years, many banks are holding toxic real estate assets that are severely devalued due to a rapidly deteriorating real estate market.




That's an interesting observation! The bank gladly accepts the depositor's money even when the depositor acts with "evasiveness and hesitation", exhiliration, or is just dead pan without emotional expression of any kind, when making the deposit.

You're avoiding the question. Do banks have a responsibility to report financial crimes, such as money laundering, identity theft, etc.? Yes or no.

Or should banks turn a blind eye to blatant criminality?

Are you actually defending money laundering, terrorism, and identity theft? Are you serious?

Banks are sophisticated enough to detect when a criminal is utilizing the banking system for nefarious means. They have a duty to report crimes, just as any other respectable person has a duty to report a crime.



posted on May, 16 2010 @ 11:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by CookieMonster09

1.) The base currency of the United States in the U.S. dollar.

2.) The Treasury prints and mints all paper currency and coins in circulation through the Bureau of Engraving and Printing and the United States Mint.

3.) The Department of the Treasury is an executive department of the United States Government. The head of the Department is the Secretary of the Treasury. The Secretary is appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate.


Man you are in it deep lol. I read those responses off BEPs website yesterday in the FAQ section but I wanted to know how you would answer those questions... To be fair I do see that you're trying very hard to make a distinction between big banking corpo's and Mom and Pop banks... and I agree with you that there is not only a huge difference between the 2 but also that banking is a necessity. But I don't think the American people are getting a fair deal through the Federal Reserve, who is in ultimate control of our money supply and I know you know that.

So what about the power that Congress had granted themselves to borrow moneys against the nation's credit? (Paragraph 2 Section 8 of Article 1 US Constitution.)

And what about how they do this?

They do this by auhtorizing 12 branches of the Federal Reserve Bank, a privately owned international bank to print Federal Reserve Notes. Look at any ol "US Dollar" you pick up on the street.. at the very top above Washington it clearly states "Federal Reserve Note." Has anyone actually seen a US dollar in their lifetime that does NOT say Federal Reserve Note?
(in any denominations)

Why don't you talk about the Federal Reserve at all and skip over discussing it?

A Federal Reserve Note is nothing more than an obligation by the US Government to pay back the Federal Reserve.

We actually used to HAVE United States Notes... issued directly from a national bank (if the US treasury was the sole proprietor of our currency, why does it state Federal Reserve note on all of them?)

We however do not have this anymore and haven't for a while.

We have Federal Reserve notes... issued from a privately owned international bank... demanding interest on the money loaned.

None of this bothers you or is this essential to modern banking?

I'd really like to hear more from you about this, to be honest you've shown a lot more knowledge on this than anyone else I've read on here but I am also super curious why you don't like to talk about the Federal Reserve.





[edit on 16-5-2010 by ImaNutter]



posted on May, 16 2010 @ 11:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by ladyinwaiting
reply to post by FortAnthem
 


True, but unfortunately impractical. To amass enough money to purchase a home could take decades. And in the meantime, do what? Throw money away on rent every month? Live in your parent's basement?

Nah, I'd rather stick with the mortgage.



When you have a mortgage with a bank, they are only giving you the illusion of ownership.

For the first 10 years of the mortgage, the money you pay into the mortgage is applied amost exclusively to service the interest on the mortgage. You won't see any significant drop in the balance owed until you have been paying for over a decade.

To me this is just as bad a throwing money away on rent. In the end, most mortgages end up costing the buyer about TWICE (or more) the original price of the home. If you run into hard times, you will find out that you never really owned the home to begin with. It doesn't matter how close you were to paying it off, it becomes their house.

The bank will also try to hold you accountable for the balance of the loan after you have been evicted from "your" home (minus the amount they get for selling the house you "owned" which, in this economy, won't be nearly as much as you owe).

At least in a rented property, if you run into hard times, you can walk away from the home without having to be on the hook for the unpaid balance.



[edit on 5/16/10 by FortAnthem]



posted on May, 16 2010 @ 01:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by CookieMonster09

2.) The Treasury prints and mints all paper currency and coins in circulation through the Bureau of Engraving and Printing and the United States Mint.


Nobody is arguing who PRINTS the currency. We are arguing who ISSUES the currency! It is totally irrellevant who prints it because they are merely providing a service to the PRIVATE Federal Reserve Bank.

They do this on purpose to CONFUSE people into thinking printing and issuing is the same thing and that the federal reserve is either part of the government or closely related to the government. ABSOLUTELY NOT TRUE! Can I prove it? It should be SELF-EVIDENT to anyone with a reasonable IQ!



posted on May, 16 2010 @ 01:14 PM
link   
reply to post by FortAnthem
 


The only good thing about mortgaging a house is that you can sell it and recoup all your expenses down the line and if your lucky even turn a profit.

Of course that assumes you have a steady job, never get sick, never suffer any accidents, you never get laid-off, your a good budgeter, your spouse and kids are frugal, your spouse and kids work, mexicans don't steal your job, the russians don't nuke america, no asteriod hits earth, etc....................................etc!

When you sit down and compare renting versus buying its a lose-lose situation regardless what avenue you choose. The only solution is for government to do its job properly but thats like asking a wolf to protect the sheep. I am not holding my breath, thats for sure!



posted on May, 16 2010 @ 02:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by CookieMonster09
1.) The base currency of the United States in the U.S. dollar.


By definition, a dollar is a coin containing 24.1 grams of silver. What you have in your wallet masquerades as a dollar, but it's a fancy piece of paper.

What we use as a currency for exchange is called a "Federal Reserve Note." However, I use the word note in quotes because in legal parlance, a note is a promise to pay. What do fed notes promise to pay?

Take a look at an older note issued from the treasury. There once was a time when it said "redeemable in gold." This is what the promise was for. They were notes which promised to give you gold being held at a bank or treasury.

Today a federal reserve note promises to pay.... nothing!

The reason why the system was gradually and stealthily changed from having gold backing to no backing is because you can't print gold, but you sure can create a lot of paper. The government always wants to fund more of its projects, and if it ran out of gold, it would be finished. Not so with a "flexible" currency that can be inflated by the printing press, issuing bonds, or creating money on computers.


I have a question on a slightly different subject: Why must our credit system be in the hands of stockholders and privately owned corporations? Doesn't the government itself possess the authority to create money already? Why pass it off privately and then force the public to pay interest on it?

If we (the public, the people, the united states) own the federal reserve, why do we charge ourselves interest on money that belongs to us in the first place?


The point I'm trying to make is that interest does NOT have to be paid to corporations in order to have credit or currency. A public agency can be created to provide the same service, but with no obligation to create profits. They can operate by collecting small amounts of interest or fees. No stockholders. No profit motive. Just the people, accountants, and some computers. And credit would be available to anyone with the ability to demonstrate credit-worthiness, the money supply could increase in proportion to increases in commerce, and inflations and depressions wouldn't happen anymore because no one system would have its hands on the levers controlling access to credit or manipulating interest rates. Last but not least, the borrower wouldn't find themselves forced to fulfill a contract that becomes more burdensome over time, come hell or high water, prosperity, or bankruptcy.



posted on May, 16 2010 @ 02:41 PM
link   
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 


For the common man, 25 years toil to service a mortgage or a lifetime toil to pay exhorbitant rent to service someone else's mortgage, keeps the common man a slave.

Just to provide a roof over his head.

Were the toil of the common man valued and rewarded more highly, reducing the ratio between the average income and average house price, debt culture would not have taken hold in the way it has.

Wages are kept artificially low and during economic boom periods, house prices are artificially inflated. Most people I know have told me that the one thing that would seriously improve their quality of life is to be rent and mortgage free. Yet how many can actually provide for themselves and their family that most basic of human rights, a home, with cash, no saving over time, no debt to service over time?

Governments make no difference. The money and how it is distributed or alloted, is controlled by corporate, commercial interests.



posted on May, 16 2010 @ 02:53 PM
link   
Does anyone buy that BP stands for Beyond Petroleum when their profits coming from anything OTHER than Petroleum are less than 1%?

Silliness abounds in this little world we have created. Filled with silly people.



posted on May, 16 2010 @ 06:27 PM
link   
In the OP's ad we see a vortex conflating religious, social, and economic imagery. Despite 200 years of stringant, post-Enlightenment-era attempts to keep these fields of public life seperate, they are collapsing back together under the weight of their collective interactive gravity...Soon they will revert to the old shaman-and-chieftan dual Ceasaropapist model...we'll be getting our economic, political, and social cohesion fix all in a one-stop media cyclone of solumn black-robed chanting and chicken-entrail reading, punctuated by the rattling of spears and and machine-guns, perhaps.



posted on May, 16 2010 @ 07:19 PM
link   


To be fair I do see that you're trying very hard to make a distinction between big banking corpo's and Mom and Pop banks...

I think there is a huge difference. Chase, and Bank of America, are a lot like their own countries. These are both mammoth organizations, full of bureaucracy, and run by tin-pot dictators who call themselves CEO's. They are completely out of touch with their client base, unless that client is a large multi-national corporation.

Smaller, and mid-sized banks, and credit unions, on the other hand, tend to have a more customer-friendly approach.

I also want to point out another distinction I have mentioned several times: Mortgage brokers are not banks. A mortgage broker does not accept deposits, and is not under the same regulatory umbrella as a traditional brick and mortar retail bank.

Basically, a mortgage broker solicits, originates, and submits loan applications to various banks. Sometimes these brokerages will also provide servicing. But, most importantly, they do NOT fund mortgages themselves. They need a bank, or Fannie/Freddie, etc. to fund their loans.

Most of their salespeople or "brokers" are almost always on straight commission. If a loan goes bad, it does not typically affect their commission whatsoever.

The prime culprit in the real estate mess we are in is directly attributable to mortgage brokers, not banks. Why? Because they are the criminals that submitted falsified loan applications to defraud banks.

Big difference between a mortgage broker and a traditional bank. Examples: Rock Financial, Taylor/Bean/Whitaker, Countrywide, Ameriquest Mortgage, etc. These are all most emphatically NOT banks.



Why don't you talk about the Federal Reserve at all and skip over discussing it?

I am happy to discuss the Federal Reserve. What do you want to talk about?



None of this bothers you or is this essential to modern banking?

Would I rather have Ben Bernanke, who is a Harvard graduate with a Ph.D. in economics, run our nation's banking system, or would I rather have a politician like Ron Paul run it?

Frankly, I am not too impressed with either option. For all the venom against the Federal Reserve, some of which is certainly warranted, I am not 100% convinced that our politicians would be any better. Every conspiracy theorist always says that it would be better if Congress took over the reins of the Federal Reserve, but I am not that impressed with Congress' ability to do much of anything right nowadays.

So, in fairness, to answer your question, to me it doesn't really matter. Whoever runs the Federal Reserve - whether it's Congress or the private banking cartel - either way, I think we probably aren't going to be too happy.

At least in the private sector of banking - at the retail level - there is competition and there is a profit motive, which means that efficiencies are important to banks, and that - in a lot of cases - banks compete for your business. I view that as generally a good thing for the consumer.

If you let the government run the banking sector (which might be inevitable one day anyhow), I don't think you'd be too impressed with their level of service, efficiency, or accountability. I think it would be bad for business. At least with privately owned banks, they do their best most of the time to provide above average service. Not so much at the big bank level, but certainly at the community banking level.

Funny enough, as an aside note, I find it absolutely ironic that during the real estate boom, when lending criteria was loose as a goose, the American taxpayer never really complained. No, they were happy as a clam that any borrower with a pulse could buy a $500,000 house with no money down, no verification of income, at interest-only, as a speculative "house flipping" real estate investment.

Now that we have seen what happens to banks that lend too freely, the American taxpayer is up in arms and angry at the banking sector!!!!

You can't have it both ways: You can't have loosey-goosey credit and a stable banking sector. It's just not possible.



new topics

top topics



 
104
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join