Where's Bush Going To Get The Money ?

Originally posted by AlnilamOmega
I hope this helped you out.

LMAO. Indeed, it made my day

"The establishment of the Federal Reserve System provided the 'conspiracy' with an instrument whereby the international bankers could run the national debt up to the sky, thereby collecting enormous amounts of interest and also gaining control over the borrower."

The national debt is the decision of your elected officials through the Treasury Department, not the Federal Reserve.

"Two months prior to the passage of the Federal Reserve Act [in 1913], the conspirators had created the mechanism to collect the funds to pay the interest on the national debt. That mechanism was the progressive income tax, the 2nd plank of Karl Marx' Communist Manifesto." (pg 58) "...in the world of super-politics the real rulers are not always the ones the public sees." (pg 65) "

Explain how a progressive income tax is needed to pay government debts, because it's not clear from your post or the link associated with this statement. If you have a problem with the progressive income tax, that's cool, but don't take it out on the Fed.

if that's not enough...

Hahaha. Jeez, sorry to be such a pain, on which you as you said waste time... Yeah you're going to need more...

"FACT#1. The Federal Reserve is a private corporation, owned and controlled mostly by foreign bankers.

That's funny, the amusing link you gave then proceeded directly to "FACT" #2. That the Fed is a private corporation is true (and I'm grateful), but can the other part be backed up?

FACT#2. How the Federal Reserve banks work (using a 10% reserve requirement).
1. F.R. "creates" $1,000,000 worth of "debt certificates" with no assets behind the creation, just the "OK" of Congress, and distributes it to banks.

HAHAHA.. Excuse me? The Treasury Department issues debt certificates. The Fed controls the money supply by setting short-term interest rates, defining reserve requirements, etc.

2...3...4...5...

Interest is the price of borrowing. Why wouldn't the bank expect payment for its services? If interest was 0% the bank would invest it elsewhere and people and businesses wouldn't get to borrow. Yeah, that would be great for the economy. Or perhaps, you being such a fan of Marx, the government could just run the entire economy.

Also, money is a virtual thing. Most of the money in existence is not in any physical form. It's value is not in gold or other assets backing it, but in the confidence its holders have in what it can be exchanged for.

"Why don't we just print all of the money we need to pay off the debt or to pay for government services?"

Printing money reduces the value of all money in circulation. If the US printed money to pay its debts, a couple of things would happen:

• The arbitrary increase in the money supply would devalue all money. Prices would rise. Remember, money is a relative concept
• Exhange rates would change -- the value of US currency would plummet as its inflation rate went sky-high. As well, investors would lose confidence in the sanity of the US economy and would pull their money out of US businesses. And they would rightly see US debt securities in a different light -- bond prices would go down, and thus effective interest rates would go up since lenders would expect a higher premium since when they're payed back, by virtue of how the payment occurs, the money they get would be devalued.
  
  

  
  I hope this helped you out.

  
  Nope. I suggest you educate yourself on how the economy works before you make more irresponsible, false statements.

Since you obviously know it all, I was hoping to see some documents to substantiate your information. You know, at least to properly counter mine. Instead, you chose to repeat what you think is right because that is what you have been told. For instance, you think that the US Treasury issues debt certificates. Fine, but where do you think they get the authorization and funds to appropriate such certificates?

Furthermore, judging by your response, you didn't read very clearly what I said. You accused me of being a fan of Marxism when I said nothing of the kind. I never even hinted at it. You made such an accusation from a source that I quoted which was not of my own words. I have no opinion at this time on progressive income taxes, for one thing.

I also like how you skipped quoting the other facts from that site which exemplify the fraudelent fiat system that the federal reserve owns. What? You don't have any comments on those? I also found it hilarious how you appreciated the idea that the sole financier of the US's currency is privately owned by foreign investors. I think that truly illustrated which side of the bread you have your butter. Because of your motivation to greedily defend what you have, I can understand your position and find it foolhardy for you to continue. But if you want to, be my guest.

A reason why the National debt is truly irrelevant is within your statement

Also, money is a virtual thing. Most of the money in existence is not in any physical form. It's value is not in gold or other assets backing it...

. If it's money created out of thin air without any kind of financial backing, how can anyone know what it's actually worth until it is spent? That's like me selling you an ounce of fool's gold that you use to purchase an actual brick of pure gold in return. It's fiat currency, meaning it's really quite worthless by default. Since you know that, you know fully well of how easily the federal reserve becomes a source of where Bush gets his money for his deficit spending plans.

You still have not proven that the Federal Reserve is not the financier of this so-called national debt, which is why, I believe, you formulated your defense against my statement. All you have apparently done is put together nothing but dribble in terms of substantial information that disputes my claim, sorry to say. All you have here is economic hogwash that they indoctrinate you with in schools but have little to no value in the real world in terms of mass econometrics.

Originally posted by AlnilamOmega
Since you obviously know it all, I was hoping to see some documents to substantiate your information. You know, at least to properly counter mine. Instead, you chose to repeat what you think is right because that is what you have been told.

I corrected your information. Would an web link make a difference? Why? Because anything on the internet is right? (I mean those craptacular sources you have...) Here's a start: do a google on "federal reserve." Chalk up how many sources agree with me, and how many agree with you. Then take a closer look at the, ahem, sources that put forward your viewpoint.

Furthermore, judging by your response, you didn't read very clearly what I said. You accused me of being a fan of Marxism when I said nothing of the kind. I never even hinted at it. You made such an accusation from a source that I quoted which was not of my own words. I have no opinion at this time on progressive income taxes, for one thing.

If you're quoting stuff that has no relevance in the argument, you're misleading people and wasting space. If you think it's relevant, then it's fair game. If you quote something and don't deny a statement, and use the source you quote to support your arguments elsewhere, it is reasonable to assume that you support the specific statement. This can be corrected by denying support for particular statements.

I also like how you skipped quoting the other facts from that site

The other "facts" from that site weren't quoted and were not brought into the discussion by you. I have no intention of responding to every lunatic claim on the internet. If you feel like bring that crap into the discussion, go ahead, and I'll take it from there.

you appreciated the idea that the sole financier of the US's currency is privately owned by foreign investors

Never said this. I said I'm grateful that the Fed is a private corporation. But you being the economics expert, I'll let you infer the difference . Also, that isn't to say that if it were run like any other private corporation I'd still be happy.

greedily defend what you have

Really? Since you're looking at my financial statements anyway I wonder if I could ask you to do my taxes

It's fiat currency, meaning it's really quite worthless by default. Since you know that, you know fully well of how easily the federal reserve becomes a source of where Bush gets his money for his deficit spending plans.

What are you saying? That money has no value? Last time I checked I could pay for stuff, and the paper the money was printed on wasn't worth much.

The Fed is the banker for the government, not the nanny. It doesn't tell the gvoernment what it may or may not spend money on.

All you have apparently done is put together nothing but dribble in terms of substantial information that disputes my claim, sorry to say. All you have here is economic hogwash that they indoctrinate you with in schools but have little to no value in the real world in terms of mass econometrics.

They do teach this stuff in schools, yes. If that makes it illegitimate in your eyes there's nothing I can do. If you have reason to doubt it, put forward credible reasons. Simply calling superior arguments hogwash doesn't make them go away.

OK, my friend. You're obviously going to refute and make a mockery of everything I say, no matter how well I explain them for you or try to speak in a language you can understand. Sometimes the best explanations are the most simple ones so here goes. And this explanation is probably irrefutable because you can verify it by looking in your wallet (If you are in the US, of course).

What kind of money does George Bush use to pay for these ideas of his? Well, the US Dollar, right? And guess what the US Dollar is:

A federal reserve note

Do you know what that means? I think you do. It means that $1 is a FRN. It means that $5 is a FRN. It means that $20 is a FRN. It means that trillions of dollars are essentially trillions of FRN's, if the value were actually physically made up of units of $1. You strike me as an intelligent individual, so I don't think I need to explain this any further. But if I do... *sigh*

[edit on 7/1/2004 by AlnilamOmega]

Originally posted by AlnilamOmega
"Making money out of thin air and charging you over 100% interest over it since 1913!"

Okay I finally figured out where you got that 100% interest claim. I'm guessing it's from that site:

FACT#2...
* 1. F.R. "creates" $1,000,000
2. The bank "Holds" the 10% reserve as operating capital ($100,000) and loans the rest out at 10% interest.
3. The bank pockets $90,000 in interest, and accepts the $900,000 back as a deposit.
4. The bank retains 10% of the $900,000 deposit as a reserve, and loans out the $810,000 at 10% interest.
5. The process is repeated over and over...

You do realize it is completely deceitful to say that this is equivalent to making a 100% interest loan, don't you?

Say I mow my neighbour's lawn, each time charing $15. I do it 8 times over the summer, so that's 8 * $15 = $120. Oh no! I just ripped off my neighbour by charing $120 to mow the lawn, at least by your reasoning... Wrong! I provided a service 8 times, and charged for it 8 times, each time charging $15, not $120.

Lending money is a service. If a bank loans it to a farmer for 8%, then when it gets paid back it loans it to a used car dealer for 8%, did it charge 16% interest??? NO!!! It charged 8% interest. The fact that it accumulated earnings by repeatedly lending has nothing to do with it. The bank's business is to lend, why is it surprising that it would continually lend money? And if the bank had instead offered the loan to the farmer only, for the entire combined period, it would still have earned the same money. Do you still not see how this same amount of money can not equal 8% and 16% at the same time?

Really, you should take back your statement if you have any intention other than blatantly lying to support your conspiracy theories.

Originally posted by AlnilamOmega
Do you know what that means? I think you do. It means that $1 is a FRN. It means that $5 is a FRN. It means that $20 is a FRN. It means that trillions of dollars are essentially trillions of FRN's, if the value were actually physically made up of units of $1. You strike me as an intelligent individual, so I don't think I need to explain this any further. But if I do... *sigh*

I have no argument with this -- it is one of the first true statements I've noticed from you in this thread. Unfortunately it has nothing to do with your point (or lack thereof).

Guess what? You know that time you donated to that relief fund for that country in sub-Saharan Africa? Guess what the money was? Federal Reserve Notes

So if I read you right the Fed exists to bail out poor Africans. Is that what you're saying?

[edit on 1-7-2004 by HeirToBokassa]

Another speculation...Government's Secret Slush Funds

Even though it is slightly dated material, I found this an interesting read - and looking to investigate further:

"...All levels of government conceal the existence of these vast sums of money by keeping and filing what amounts to two sets of financial books -- one for the general public, which shows a very limited revenue stream, and the second, for political insiders, bond brokers, investors and the like, which reveals the money hoards and gives an accurate account of a government's income..."

www.worldnetdaily.com...

Originally posted by muckminer
"...All levels of government conceal the existence of these vast sums of money by keeping and filing what amounts to two sets of financial books -- one for the general public, which shows a very limited revenue stream, and the second, for political insiders, bond brokers, investors and the like, which reveals the money hoards and gives an accurate account of a government's income..."

Hahaha. That's good stuff. Yup, there are two sets of books, the second for "...bond brokers, investors, and the like" These bond brokers, etc. not being members of the public, not having the slightest incentive to reveal this evil conspiracy and cash in on it. What is "and the like" ? Which investors?

Oh there's more: the money is being hoarded at all levels of government. That's right, the local redneck city councillor in Alabama is hoarding money for the feds.

I have no problem believing that slush funds exist and that politicians are corrupt at all levels. But the first paragraphs of this article tell a totally different story than the rest of it. The opposing viewpoints by people who are familiar with the "black art" of accounting are found further down the article and do very little to substantiate the sensationalist claims of the author. The issue is left as basically this "while disputes over how much public money is stolen, concensus exists that money is stolen" (I paraphrase). Wow, that is totally earth-shattering! No one ever suspected that! And that confirms that those evil inscrutable bond traders are in on it!

Really, why leave it open ended? If WorldNetDaily is so sure that this vast conspiracy involving investors and traders and who ever else exists, why not get to the bottom of it, take a clear stance, and put its reputation ( ) on the line? Why leave the issue as a question unanswered or only hinted at?

Added: oh man, I went to the first page of worldnetdaily.com. There at the top in big bold letters: Will your kids be adopted by homosexuals?

[edit on 1-7-2004 by HeirToBokassa]

Never said it was true or to what level, just that it was a speculation...

Originally posted by HeirToBokassa

I have no argument with this -- it is one of the first true statements I've noticed from you in this thread. Unfortunately it has nothing to do with your point (or lack thereof).

Guess what? You know that time you donated to that relief fund for that country in sub-Saharan Africa? Guess what the money was? Federal Reserve Notes

So if I read you right the Fed exists to bail out poor Africans. Is that what you're saying?

Unfortunately, the truth you thankfully admitted to me has everything to do with my point. It is clear to me that you are not reading what I saying and trying to understand it as I am doing with you, but instead are just looking for things to pick on from my statements.

Also, you are really speaking nonsense. You are literally inserting words I never said into my proverbial mouth (or keyboard if you really want to be specific). I never said a word about how the Fed exists to bail countries out of situations, nor did I mention a thing about time or money being spent in sub-Saharan africa. Not only have I established stone-cold evidence that binds truth to my primary statement being the federal reserve is the source of money for all of this defecit spending, that being all US currency being an FRN, I also tried to demonstrate how the organization is a fraud as an added bonus. I think this supporting issue of mine is what set you off your rocker. We are both speaking different languages to each other, so it is likely that we will not come to a consensus at this point. I am sorry.

I don't usually respond to slander, but I will try to say that my 100% claim does not come from the website I listed. My 100% interest claim, though possibly inaccurate (I am tired and lazy at this point to go look it up but maybe I will in the near future for the satisfaction of others) is based on what I remember reading in the past. I am saying 'inaccurate' in an effort to establish that my memory isn't always 100% fail-proof. No human has a flawless memory capability . I am trying to establish the fact that I do not blatanly lie; I remain honest to the letter to the best of my ability. As a matter of fact, when I am proven completely wrong, I submit to the superior argument and withdraw my position. A liar does not do this, particularly when they are pathological.

It works like this. The US Treasury says "ok, we need $X amount to be printed or loaned to us." In turn, the fed says "ok, It's going to cost you double that plus an additional 10% at certain times for overhead." The treasury then says, in that Eddie Murphy voice of submission from the stand-up comedy Raw, "ok" because of the Federal Reserve Act of 1913.

I'm going to say this one more time in a very simple manner. This is my main point, which I have illustrated and proven several times now. I have no other separate points or agendas I am trying to examine in this thread other than the idea that the Fed is where this money comes from, primarily. The main source of the money and national debt is the Federal Reserve. That doesn't mean the Fed is the CAUSE of the debt. It is merely an effect of the debt, in a manner of speaking. It is such an effect because it is the entity that such a debt is mostly owed to. The cause would be the President or any other governmental body asking for more money, and the effect is the Federal Reserve loans this amount thus being the financial proprietor of these funds.

Originally posted by nanna_of_6

e......... there is no way your going to get me upset with anything you say.

Your right because I've got my trusty ignore button.

Ive had enough

And cheap attacks on spelling.

Originally posted by AlnilamOmega
Also, you are really speaking nonsense. You are literally inserting words I never said into my proverbial mouth (or keyboard if you really want to be specific). I never said a word about how the Fed exists to bail countries out of situations, nor did I mention a thing about time or money being spent in sub-Saharan africa.

Indeed you have not. If you were not doing what you accuse me of, "looking for things to pick on from my statements", you would see what is obvious: I am constructing a hypothetical scenario in second person narrative to illustrate how wrong you are when you said that George Bush funds his policies with Fed Reserve Notes and therefore the Fed is responsible. It is a style of writing, and not meant to be deceptive. If you like, you can substitute anything you really spent your money on. Consider any charity you ever gave to. If you used Federal Reserve Notes, does that make the Fed responsible for giving to that charity? Because that is what you implied here:

What kind of money does George Bush use to pay for these ideas of his? Well, the US Dollar, right? And guess what the US Dollar is:

A federal reserve note

So the question I ask is, do you still not see how this statement you made only serves to discredit you?

Not only have I established stone-cold evidence that binds truth to my primary statement being the federal reserve is the source of money for all of this defecit spending, that being all US currency being an FRN, I also tried to demonstrate how the organization is a fraud as an added bonus. I think this supporting issue of mine is what set you off your rocker.

First you insinuated that the Fed charges 100% interest. Then you claimed the Fed was a fraud. Both arguments were false and my dismissals of them have yet to be answered.

I submit to the superior argument and withdraw my position.

Well that was easy, wasn't it?

It works like this. The US Treasury says "ok, we need $X amount to be printed or loaned to us." In turn, the fed says "ok, It's going to cost you double that plus an additional 10% at certain times for overhead."

And despite your apparent conciliatory tone you have yet to learn not to make false uneducated statements, and if I criticize you for that am I really slandering you? How, pray tell, does the Treasury pay the Fed in this hypothetical scenario? I mean, really, the Fed can create money anyway, right? Where in the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 is your hypothetical scheme embedded?

the effect is the Federal Reserve loans this amount thus being the financial proprietor of these funds.

The Federal Reserve does not loan the amount. The Treasury Department does. Next you'll tell me that the clerk who entered in the commercial loan I requested at my bank loaned me the money.

We could go on this merry-go-round for days and never come to any kind of mutual understanding because of our apparent differences and conflicting interests. You are also incessantly turning my statements into propulsion for your own arguments, which is not what I am trying to do here. That kind of behavior does not demonstrate a willingness to comprehend, but in fact, it portrays a form of aggressive delusion in which case you are trying to apply directly against my statement. On this post, I am not going to offer any more of my own opinions or ideas. Instead, I am just going to list the information gathered by others. Whether or not you choose to agree with them or even read them is your choice. I personally don't care if you choose to laugh at what I have submitted here and express it obnoxiously with several "lol smilies".

The Fed is the producer of US currency:

from :
www.freerepublic.com...

"This group of private financiers to this date still controls and issues our money. You can look at any Federal Reserve note and see who has issued the note. It is not issued by the Treasury. It is an obligation of the United States government, but it is not issued by the United States government. "



The Fed is fraudelent... how?
from:
www.freerepublic.com...

"The Federal Reserve Act is absolutely un-Constitutional. Congress is mandated by Article 1, Section 8, paragraph 5 of the constitution to "coin money (and to) regulate the value thereof." section 10, paragraph 1 of Article 1 declares that "no state shall...make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts." In other words, any money that is not issued and controlled by the United States Government, and any money that is not redeemable in gold or silver, does not consist of coins in gold or silver, is un-Constitutional money. "

The US constitution does say this:
from:

www.constitution.org...

"Original U.S. Constitution
Art. I Sec. 8 Cl. 5
[Congress shall have Power ... ] To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, ...;
Art. I Sec. 10 Cl. 1
[No State shall ...] make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; ...
Note that there is no such prohibition against Congress, or any delegated power to make anything legal tender. Congress was originally understood to have no power to make anything legal tender outside of federal territories, under Art. I Sec. 8 Cl. 17 and Art. IV Sec. 3 Cl. 2, but in 1868 a Supreme Court packed by Pres. Ulysses S. Grant, in the Legal Tender Cases, allowed Congress to make paper currency issued by the U.S. Treasury, backed by gold, legal tender on state territory, a precedent that remains controversial to this day, when courts allow paper currency not backed by anything to be considered "legal tender".

Seventh Amendment
The only money amount in the Constitution or its amendments is in the Seventh Amendment:

In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law."


While Congress has the legal entitlement to set values and guidelines on currency,nor they or other governmental bodies have the means to really set these precedents as mandated by the Constitution:

from:

ascend.comm.uic.edu...

"You probably know that the Federal Reserve prints U.S. currency and that the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) collects it (through taxes). You probably don�t know that both are not a part of the United States government.

Though the Constitution prohibits any entity but Congress the right to print money, Federal Reserve Board was allowed to do so in 1913. Right before Christmas of that year, while many members were absent, Congress passed the Federal Reserve Board Act. (They used the word Federal because it is official sounding.)Upon returning the next year, President Woodrow Wilson signed the bill. Wilson later stated �I have unwittingly ruined my country.� ...

The Fed began as approximately 300 banks or individuals which bought stock in the Federal Reserve Banking System. These 300 were pawns for the Power Elite and don�t really own the stock. Today, There are less than12 actual owners. The players include Lazard Bros. Banks of Paris, Israel Moses Seif Banks of Italy, Warburg Banks of Hamburg and Amsterdam, Lehman Bros. Bank of New York, Kuhn Loeb Bank of New York, Chase Manhattan Bank of New York, Goldman Sachs of New York and Rothschild Banks of London and Berlin. The Rothschilds are by far the most influencial of the bunch.

The Feds create meaningless money and loans it back to us through banks, charging us interest on that money. The Fed also buys US debts and charges taxpayers interest on that. These many billions of dollars in interest are distributed to the stockholders each year. The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) is usedby the Feds to ensure payment of taxes by individuals and corporations. Proof of this is in United States Legislation. No where in Title 31 (or anywhere in Title 5 U.S.C.) is the Federal Reserve or IRS accounted for. Additional proof is that employees of these groups are nowhere listed as employees of the United States government.

Presidents Abraham Lincoln and John F. Kennedy were the two biggest opponents of the Federal Reserve, and tried to abolish it "

The Fed is bad news... how?
from the freeper site as well as :

www.lawresearchgroup.com...

"Congressman Louis T. McFadden, Chairman of the House Banking and Currency committee, addressed the House on June 10, 1932: "We have in this country one of the most corrupt institutions the world has ever known. I refer to the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal Reserve Banks. Some people think the Federal Reserve Banks are U.S. government institutions. They are not government institutions. They are private credit monopolies; domestic swindlers, rich and predatory money lenders which prey upon the people of the United States for the benefit of themselves and their foreign customers. The Federal Reserve banks are the agents of the foreign central banks. The truth is the Federal Reserve Board has usurped the Government of the United States by the arrogant credit monopoly which operates the Federal Reserve Board." - 75 Congressional Record 12595-12603 "

The Fed is where taxpayer money goes when paying for the national debt and is essentially a part of the Department of Treasury despite your last claim in your previous post.:
from the same source of the material above:

Don't confuse the "U.S. Treasury," which has the Mint, with the "Department of the Treasury" that has the IRS.

a.. Pursuant to Treasury Delegation Order number 92, the IRS is trained under the direction of the United Nations Division of Human Resources.
a.. Executive Order 10422. The "Office of Personnel Management" is under the direction of the Secretary of the United Nations. Pursuant to Treasury Delegation Order number 91, the IRS entered into a Service Agreement with the U.S. Treasury Department (see Public Law 94-564 and its Legislative History page 5967) to service the "Reorganization Plan" for the "Agency for International Development."
a.. The IRS is an also an Agency of INTERPOL (22 USC 263a). The memorandum of understanding (MOA) is between the "Secretary of the Treasury" and the "International Monetary Fund" and the "International Bank for Reconstruction and Development." They pay the IRS.
a.. The IRS operates under "Public Policy" and not Constitutional law. They are agents of your nation's creditors. This is perfectly legal. The IRS never states that they collect taxes for the United States Treasury, they only refer to "The Treasury."
a.. According to the U.S. Government Manual, the Attorney General is the permanent representative to INTERPOL, and the Secretary of the Treasury is the alternate member.
a.. Under Article 30 of the INTERPOL Constitution, these members must abstain from advising INTERPOL's Secretary General, they can only take Orders.

How the Fed is the effect of the national debt
from:

landru.i-link-2.net...

"Federal Reserve game
The Federal Reserve banks and local banks have been given a special privilege to create and control money by our Congress. For example, under the Monetary Control Act of 1980, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York can purchase through its open market operation $10 million worth of Microsoft stock. The bank pays for this stock with its own check, a Fed check or its electronic equivalent. [The Fed check is created from thin air, there are no funds backing this check. No funds!]

The Fed check is deposited, by the stock seller, into a local bank. It is then returned to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, where the check is cleared and the local bank is given full credit for this deposit. This is all a bookkeeping procedure. Local banks, through their bank deposit / loan cycle can create $90 million from this $10 million initial deposit.

Again, realize that the local banks are creating money from thin air, just as the Federal Reserve Bank of New York created the Fed check from thin air. Obviously, the banks can get fabulously rich under this grand scheme.

It is interesting to note that the 12 privately owned Federal Reserve banks have zero debt. These banks started in 1914 with a worth of $143 million, their present worth is estimated to be half a trillion dollars. Quite a gain.

Now consider our government, it has an astronomical debt of approximately $6 trillion ($6,000,000,000,000) and growing. We, the taxpayers are responsible to payoff this debt. "

How the Fed can be legally defeated while also repaying the immense national debt, which again, has everything to do with the Federal Reserve
from:
www.worldnewsstand.net...

"The U.S. Government can buy back the FED at any time for $450 million (per Congressional record). The U.S. Treasury could then collect all the profit on our money instead of the 300 original shareholders of the FED. The $4 trillion of U.S. debt could be exchanged dollar for dollar with U.S. non- interest bearing currency when the debt becomes due. There would be no inflation because there would be no additional currency in circulation. Personal income tax could be cut if we bought back the FED and therefore, the economy would expand."

Finally, a correction to my disputed over 100% interest claim as well as explanation of how this kind of astronomical debt is created
from:
www.afn.org...

"Fractional Reserve Banking
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Equally as bad is Fractional Reserve Banking. Banks, and the Fed, loan additional money above their cash assets at a percentage set by the Fed. For example, if the fractional reserve is set at 10% and a bank has $1 million on deposit (10% of $10 million), they can loan an additional $9 million- money they do not have! But they charge interest on this imaginary money that they loan! Thus banks are printing money in the form of checks. It is fraudulent and unconstitutional , but as long as other banks, businesses, and people honor the checks it functions as money. This illegal act by banks has been one of the primary causes of panics and depressions throughout history."

more from a horses mouth, if that floats your boat. I know you have already explained this, but I want to reiterate this just to add sense to all of how so much extra money is generated out of nothing as it is financially backed by nothing:

www.investorwords.com...

"fractional reserve banking :
A banking system in which only a fraction of the total deposits managed by a bank must be kept in reserve. The amount of the deposits equals the amount of the reserves times the deposit multiplier. In the U.S., this system is maintained by the Federal Reserve Board. "

Now, seriously, how many more sources of information will it take?

One more to tip the scales even further. And this one is an official statement that took place within an official government body, that pretty much consolidates most of my supporting arguments for the Fed being directly related to the national debt.

This is very recent, coming from Congressman Ron Paul, an elected official depicting the picture that the fed paints for all Americans:

from:
www.house.gov...

"Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce legislation to restore financial stability to America's economy by abolishing the Federal Reserve. ...

Since the creation of the Federal Reserve, middle and working-class Americans have been victimized by a boom-and-bust monetary policy. In addition, most Americans have suffered a steadily eroding purchasing power because of the Federal Reserve's inflationary policies. This represents a real, if hidden, tax imposed on the American people.

From the Great Depression, to the stagflation of the seventies, to the burst of the dotcom bubble last year, every economic downturn suffered by the country over the last 80 years can be traced to Federal Reserve policy. The Fed has followed a consistent policy of flooding the economy with easy money, leading to a misallocation of resources and an artificial "boom" followed by a recession or depression when the Fed-created bubble bursts.

With a stable currency, American exporters will no longer be held hostage to an erratic monetary policy.....

Though the Federal Reserve policy harms the average American, it benefits those in a position to take advantage of the cycles in monetary policy. The main beneficiaries are those who receive access to artificially inflated money and/or credit before the inflationary effects of the policy impact the entire economy. Federal Reserve policies also benefit big spending politicians who use the inflated currency created by the Fed to hide the true costs of the welfare-warfare state....

Abolishing the Federal Reserve will allow Congress to reassert its constitutional authority over monetary policy. The United States Constitution grants to Congress the authority to coin money and regulate the value of the currency. The Constitution does not give Congress the authority to delegate control over monetary policy to a central bank. Furthermore, the Constitution certainly does not empower the federal government to erode the American standard of living via an inflationary monetary policy.

In fact, Congress' constitutional mandate regarding monetary policy should only permit currency backed by stable commodities such as silver and gold to be used as legal tender. Therefore, abolishing the Federal Reserve and returning to a constitutional system will enable America to return to the type of monetary system envisioned by our nation's founders: one where the value of money is consistent because it is tied to a commodity such as gold. Such a monetary system is the basis of a true free-market economy."

[edit on 7/1/2004 by AlnilamOmega]

Here are some similar ATS threads that illustrate this kind of situation as well. It would be unfair to not give proper recognition to what other people have also put together:

Quote from TrueLies's thread based on some similar topics I have illustrated:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

While trillions of dollars have vanished from our federal budgets over the past 12 years - from the Pentagon budget over $2 trillion, from the HUD budget, from the IRS, and so on - the staggering billions used for bribes is dwarfed by the TRILLIONS of dollars in public funds funnelled into personal bank accounts.

"federal financial books appear to be as 'cooked' as Enron's. . US citizens pay federal taxes of $5,324 every year for every man, woman and child.[2] Of that amount, $4,835, or approximately 85% is spent by eleven agencies that cannot produce reliable financial systems or audits.":

www.scoop.co.nz...

From Mogus's thread from a few years back:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

1. Great Depression of 1929 - The Federal Reserve System deliberately caused the �29 depression by manipulating the U.S. money supply. From 1915 to early 1929, the money supply was very loose. You could get a loan to do almost anything. The Standard & Poor�s Index followed the same pattern during this same period. Both went into free-fall from �29 to �33. The Fed drastically tightened the money supply, and loans were almost unavailable, resulting in a panic. Unable to pay their massive debts, many committed suicide. Those who try to cover for the Fed say that the depression was caused by the Glass-Spiegal Act, which is far from the truth.

A thread that has more sources of information based on this than you can poke a stick at from smirkley, and ,yes, defines how the fed is in some shape or form in control of the national debt:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

And finally, a very well-put together and mathematically factual basis of information that states precisely what I have formed my primary reason as to where Bush gets his money from flyby:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

What is the dumbest federal law regarding the National Debt and for that matter the entire history of America? The Federal Reserve Act is without question in my mind. Why? Because the government allows the Fed to control the printing of new money.

Why would that be such a bad thing? I have two words for you. National Debt. The Vietnam War is still on and there is a one hundred percentage draft despite the fact that we are at peace. >How could this be? It is called refinancing We are still having to pay for the Vietnam War despite the fact that it is over. Let me prove my argument. Below are the years of the National Debt from peace in 1963 to the year 1975 when the troops left.
Let the model assume that year 1863 there was no National Debt. Only the change from 1963 to 1964 will be used. Assume the only way to pay of the debt is to issue 1 year t-bills. Also assume we do not pay of the debt.

Year Deficit
1963 $309,346,845,059.17
...
1973 $469,898,039,554.70
...
Below is a table showing how the debt will grow.

Year Cost of Refiancing National Debt in Dollars
1964 1.0376 8916748059.20
...
1974 1.0772 2.42263E+11
...
1984 1.0991 7.6289E+11
...
1995 1.0569 1.44572E+12
...
2000 1.0585 1.86396E+12
As a Percentage of Current Debt Dec 22 2003 0.26926828 of Current Debt

And that's all I have to say about that.

I'm been reading this thread and though I'd chip in with something I read recently. Sorry, it was in one of those old fashioned book things so I can't provide a link..

the Book was The Power of Gold (2004) by PL Bernstein.

To summarise a section,

In the 1890's there was a huge growing trade deficit, and gold was slipping out of the country fast. At one point in 1895 the US treasury as down to $40 million in gold and paying out $2 million a day. Everyone was expecting the treasury to collapse any day. The pressure to abandon the gold standard was a major issue at the time. (the gold standar had been around for all living memory). Lot's of very worried people in Wall st.

In 1899 JP Morgan, representing the House of Rothschild got President Cleveland to sign up for what was effectively a loan of gold, by a consortium of private European banks. This was the initial loan, that was never designed to be paid back, which indebted the US and would eventually lead to the creation of the privately backed Federal Reserve. It also committed the US to maintaining and protecting this agreement with the bankers.


I actually posted this in another thread , about the Wizard of Oz of all things, and whether it was the author's protest against the abandonment of the gold standard.

So yes, technically the federal reserve, is owned and controlled by a consortium of European private banks.

I can recommend the book, it's quite a gripping read that take's you from early babylon through to the current day. The federal reserve makes a about a quarter of a chapter I think.. if that.

Also it comes endorsed by a former Chairman of the Federal Reserve so it can't be too far off the mark.

Well worth a look.



[edit on 1-7-2004 by muppet]

On this post, I am not going to offer any more of my own opinions or ideas...

Then don't take it personally when I rubbish some of what's left and dismiss the rest as irrelevant (providing full explanation for why I do so).

After losing all threads of the argument, you resort to posting a deluge of text. Note that I refrain from calling it information. Text becomes information through interpretation. But if the only way the text you provide can be interpreted as a cohesive or relevant argument is thorugh reliance on half-truths and falsities, then it is simply text, or at best misinformation.

I could easily flood the board with some of the abundant information available that explains how the Fed and how the economy work. But out of respect for ATS I refrain from doing so. I prefer content, analysis, opinion, argument. Links suffice for support when needed. This post will be longer than I'd like because of the quantity of misinformation you provided; however it will be observed that I'm much more efficient with words out of respect for ATS.

You depict the use of money other than gold or silver as controversial. I would not dispute the legal question, and I think that it should be addressed. It could be argued that the Fed should be suspended until it is addressed, and that would be a very quick way to have the Fed sanctified in an ammendment to the Constitution . But the question is theoretical. Were slaves really worth 3/5 of free men before the Fifth Amendment?

(AlnilamOmega)
"here are less than12 actual owners. The players include Lazard Bros. Banks of Paris, Israel Moses Seif Banks of Italy, Warburg Banks of Hamburg and Amsterdam, Lehman Bros. Bank of New York, Kuhn Loeb Bank of New York, Chase Manhattan Bank of New York, Goldman Sachs of New York and Rothschild Banks of London and Berlin. The Rothschilds are by far the most influencial of the bunch."

(muppet)
So yes, technically the federal reserve, is owned and controlled by a consortium of European private banks.

"The twelve regional Federal Reserve Banks, which were established by Congress as the operating arms of the nation's central banking system, are organized much like private corporations--possibly leading to some confusion about "ownership." For example, the Reserve Banks issue shares of stock to member banks. However, owning Reserve Bank stock is quite different from owning stock in a private company. The Reserve Banks are not operated for profit, and ownership of a certain amount of stock is, by law, a condition of membership in the System. The stock may not be sold, traded, or pledged as security for a loan; dividends are, by law, 6 percent per year."
www.federalreserve.gov...

So the "owners" can not pressure the Fed by
-threatening to change the Board (appointments are made by the President and confirmed by the Senate)
-threatening to sell shares and attack the share price (shares can't be sold, so price is fixed or rather doesn't exist)
-threatening to sell shares and affect the company's ability to raise capital (the Fed needs not raise capital)

In other words, unlike a normal company, the Fed can not be pressured by its shareholders. The ownership of shares is no more than a ceremonial relic.

The Feds create meaningless money and loans it back to us through banks

Money, whether it's gold or "meaningless" paper, is only valuable if it can be exhanged for something. You could call gold meaningless too if you liked, but that doesn't make it true.

I am not defending the IRS, nor have I confused the Treasuries, so if you were considerate and observed the waste of space and readers' time you could have left that out.

the local banks are creating money from thin air

No, the Fed is. Local banks can not create money without the authority of the Fed. And yes, as SHOCKING! as the idea is, get used to it. Money is created through numbers everyday, and it's what keeps the system running.
money.howstuffworks.com...

Originally posted by HeirToBokassa

(muppet)
So yes, technically the federal reserve, is owned and controlled by a consortium of European private banks.

"The twelve regional Federal Reserve Banks, which were established by Congress as the operating arms of the nation's central banking system, are organized much like private corporations--possibly leading to some confusion about "ownership." For example, the Reserve Banks issue shares of stock to member banks. However, owning Reserve Bank stock is quite different from owning stock in a private company. The Reserve Banks are not operated for profit, and ownership of a certain amount of stock is, by law, a condition of membership in the System. The stock may not be sold, traded, or pledged as security for a loan; dividends are, by law, 6 percent per year."

Sorry, I was talking about the private, (mostly european)bankers and financiers underwrote the original loan to the US, not the Federal reserve Banks. These are completely different.

With regards to the modern workings and functioning of the Fed, you are absolutely correct... The whole issue regarding ownership is very much an historical relic now, given modern monetary theory and policy. Only time will tell if this continues to be the case, or whether we return to a gold standard once more.

However my statement about the origins of the Fed, and who's money underwrites it, is correct.(though I may be slightly out with the date since this is from memory.. it was a month or two ago that I read the book)

It's just a shame I can't link it! I may scan and OCR the chapter sometime.



[edit on 1-7-2004 by muppet]

Originally posted by muppet
Sorry, I was talking about the private, (mostly european)bankers and financiers underwrote the original loan to the US, not the Federal reserve Banks. These are completely different.
[edit on 1-7-2004 by muppet]

Good point. Even so, there's a distinction between "owned" and "controlled." The European banks did not control the Fed even at that time. And since in usual practical matters ownership implies some degree of control, their "ownership" is disputable except in the most technical of senses.

The Board sets policies and and manages the money supply. The Board is totally insulated from private sector banks within the Fed system.

The Regional Banks (again not the private sector banks), on the other hand, provide the services according to Fed policy, and regulate financial institutions. These are the banks that have issued shares to the private sector banks. As outlined in my previous post these shares did not grant with them any control over the Fed. The only control the private sector banks had over the Fed was at the instant of its creation, because it was created with their assistance. One could argue that private sector banks control the Fed since they execute its policies, but one would be wrong. The actions of the Regional Reserve Banks are supervised by the Board.

Any money the Fed has left over after it pays all of its expenses are sent to the U.S. Treasury. Since the Federal Reserve System began in 1914, about 95 percent of the Reserve Banks' net earnings have ended up being paid into the Treasury.
money.howstuffworks.com...

Edit: removed compound quoting

[edit on 2-7-2004 by HeirToBokassa]

Originally posted by HeirToBokassa
Even so, there's a distinction between "owned" and "controlled." The European banks did not control the Fed even at that time. And since in usual practical matters ownership implies some degree of control, their "ownership" is disputable except in the most technical of senses.

The Board sets policies and and manages the money supply. The Board is totally insulated from private sector banks within the Fed system.

You're absolutely right HeirToBokassa, the ownership/control issue is pretty much academic these days.

The "ownership" aspect comes from the fact it was originally backed by foreign gold, as a loan, and was thus an "asset" on the European bankers balance sheet. From a non-accounting point of view however, the Fed is a government agency so as you say, ownership possibly isn't the right word.

The "control" aspect comes from the initial terms of the deal whereby the bankers, so as to secure their loan of gold, ensured the US was contractually committed to protecting, maintaining, and continuing the system.. i.e. the US congress couldn't decide at any point abandon the system or start issuing currency themselves.

All this was 100 years ago though.. Only 40 years after the US civil war, and the US wasn't as stable a place as it is now. The bankers were just safe-guarding their investment, in the same way the the World Bank and the IMF do today. They lend money to a country, and demand legislative assurances that the the loan will be protected.

I can see why it rubs some Americans up the wrong way, though today though it is of no huge consequence. The Board at the Fed, are now part of the American "establishment", rather than a European "establishment", and so these days will naturally act in the interests of the US rather than anyone else.

As a Brit I guess things like this don't bother me that much. We've lived around old, quirky institutions with dubious histories all our lives, and they don't seem to do any harm over here, just add to our curious national history. Old institutions don't worry me.. It's when politicians start trying to make new ones I get scared!!



EDITED FOR TYPOS


[edit on 2-7-2004 by muppet]

[edit on 2-7-2004 by muppet]

Many people say, Bush knows where to find the money, and we may see that, if he will be reelected.I would vote for him, just to see how this whole war end up under his command.

Perhaps, Iraq will be a great money-mine for the USA, it is not a good thing to miss that chance..