Socialists naively aid and abet the Banker/Corporate Cartels in fleecing the poor and middle class
question on another thread illustrates my point:
I honestly am astounded by the attitudes by a large group of people within America, how is socialised healthcare a bad thing?
Why the attitude? The short answer is:
Because we no longer believe in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny or "I am from the Government and I am Here To Help You"!
I cannot understand why the same people who call police pigs, and who rant about police brutality and about the NWO, still believe the US
government does anything but advance the corporate/banker agenda.
The Long Answer:
The agenda is very very real. See Dan Estulin -
Bilderberg - ONE WORLD COMPANY LIMITED
(note the Bilderberg Organization started meeting, as far as we know, in 1954.)
If you really want to know the reason I believe socialists are used to further the Corporate/Banker objectives - keep reading.
I know it is long, but I like to provide evidence to back-up my reasoning with the hope that I might actually open a few eyes. This CON by the
bankers, like any good con is subtle, well hidden, complicated and multi-pronged.
Ludwig von Mises calls the CON a zero-sum game. This means every time the bankers create "new money" they transfer wealth (labor) from the working
stiffs to themselves and their cronies, as shown by the decrease in real wages. That means every time a new “social” program increases the size
of the US government and the size of the US debt the bankers win and we lose. A side benefit is new regulations help kill off small business
The biggest problem is the BANKSTERS and corporations use of "Social Political Activism" to dress up their hidden agenda to make it palatable to
AND I can PROVE it too!
Here is an excellent example of the BANKSTERS and corporations in action from a very well researched
(4 pages of references) so please
...Committee for Economic Development, was officially established in 1942 as a sister organization to the Council on Foreign Relations. CED has
influenced US domestic policies in much the same way that the CFR has influenced the nation's foreign policies.
[WHO THEY ARE]
Composed of chief executive officers and chairmen from the federal reserve, the banking industry, private equity firms, insurance companies,
railroads, information technology firms, publishing companies, pharmaceutical companies, the oil and automotive industries, meat packing companies,
retailers and assisted by university economists - " representatives from every sector of the economy with the key exception of farmers themselves "
- CED determined that the problem with American agriculture was that there were too many farmers. But the CED had a "solution": millions of farmers
would just have to be eliminated....
In its 1945 report "Agriculture in an Expanding Economy," CED complained that "the excess of human resources engaged in agriculture is probably the
most important single factor in the "farm problem'"...
Some of the report's authors would go on to work in government to implement CED's policy recommendations. Over the next five years, the political
and economic establishment ensured the reduction of "excess human resources engaged in agriculture" by two million, or by 1/3 of their previous
CED members were influential in business, government, and agricultural colleges, and their outlook shaped both governmental policies and what farmers
Their plan was so effective and so faithfully executed by its operatives in the US government that by 1974 the CED couldn't help but congratulate
itself in another agricultural report called "A New US Farm Policy for Changing World Food Needs" for the efficiency of the tactics they employed to
drive farmers from their land.
The human cost of CED's plans were exacting and enormous.
CED's plans resulted in widespread social upheaval throughout rural America, ripping apart the fabric of its society destroying its local economies.
They also resulted in a massive migration to larger cities. The loss of a farm also means the loss of identity, and many farmers' lives ended in
suicide , not unlike farmers in India today who have been tricked into debt and desperation and can see no other way out.
Think about it for a minute: Farmers either lost their farms or mortgaged their land, which had been owned free and clear for generations, to buy
equipment, fertilizer etc. A large labor pool was created. These effects were ALL big wins for the Banksters and the corporations.
But there is a more subtle result - the "ripping apart of the fabric of society"
Before CED succeeded in destroying American communities and America's identity, communities mostly relied on each other. I am old enough to have seen
it. If a neighbor was burned out he was helped. The town Doctor and Dentist saw poor patients for free or in return for eggs or a chicken. The
community collected money to help with large medical expenses. Now it is ILLEGAL for a doctor to see a patient for FREE! Now we are forced to rely on
the Federal Government instead of our neighbors.
A weak sense of national identity makes a country vulnerable. This article explains it: Eight Steps to
KEY POINT: the BANKSTER RIP OFF SCHEME
This is a bit complicated so please follow closely.
First look at this line in the Grace Commission Report to the President
With two-thirds of everyone's personal income taxes wasted or not collected, 100 percent of what is collected is absorbed solely by 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.
At the time this was written, in January 1984, the report states, the National Debt for 1983 was "$195 billion" Today, 27 years later, the debt is
about $14 trillion.
The first question is WHO owes the debt?
The obvious answer is us. But again as the Grace Commission report shows, the "us"
is the poor and middle classes, NOT the rich.
Importantly, any meaningful increases in taxes from personal income would have to come from lower and middle income families, as 90 percent of all
personal taxable income is generated below the taxable income level of $35,000.
Further, there isn't much more that can be extracted from high income brackets. If the Government took 100 percent of all taxable income
beyond the $75,000 tax bracket not already taxed, it would get only $17 billion, and this confiscation, which would destroy productive enterprise,
would only be sufficient to run the Government for seven days.
Senator Bernie Sanders may bleat that the top 1% earns 23.5% of all income, Pareto
pointed out that 80% of the wealth belongs to 20% of the population in all countries and times...
But that wealth, belonging to the very rich, is well insulated from taxation. Congress's belief in "confiscation, which would destroy productive
not to mention, their own personal fortunes, has made DARN SURE it stays that way.
The second question is WHO gets that interest?
"...absorbed solely by interest on the Federal debt and by Federal Government contributions to transfer payments." tells us who: The Bankers and
The critical question is WHERE does money come from?
First Prong of the Massive Rip Off:
Governor of the Bank of Canada, tells us:
Q. But there is no question about it that banks create the medium of exchange?
Mr. Towers: That is right. That is what they are for... That is the Banking business, just in the same way that a steel plant makes steel. (p.
287) The manufacturing process consists of making a pen-and-ink or typewriter entry on a card in a book. That is all. (pp. 76 and 238) Each and every
time a bank makes a loan (or purchases securities), new bank credit is created — new deposits — brand new money. (pp. 113 and 238) Broadly
speaking, all new money comes out of a Bank in the form of loans. As loans are debts, then under the present system all money is debt. (p. 459)
Q. When $1,000,000 worth of bonds is presented (by the government) to the bank, a million dollars of new money or the equivalent is created?
Mr. Towers: Yes.
Q. Is it a fact that a million dollars of new money is created?
Mr. Towers: Yes. (p. 286)
This is the real kick in the rear!
Q. Will you tell me why a government with power to create money, should give that power away to a private monopoly, and then borrow that which
parliament can create itself, back at interest, to the point of national bankruptcy?
Mr. Towers: If parliament wants to change the form of operating the banking system, then certainly that is within the power of parliament. (p.
So that massive $14 trillion in debt is owed to the banks because the government refused to protect the interests of the people!
It gets worse.
What do the bankers do with all those government securities (the $14 trillion in debt).
Congressman Wright Patman
Chair of the House COMMITTEE ON
BANKING AND CURRENCY tells us:
When the Federal Reserve purchases a $1 million Government bond and gives some bank credit for $1 million in its reserve account, that bank also
credits the bond dealer's checking account with $1 million.
In other words, to acquire $1 million of reserves, the bank also assumes a liability to pay its customers $1 million. If the transactions stopped
here, the bank would, of course, come out even, neither gaining anything nor losing anything. But the fact that there is now $1.million more of bank
reserves than existed before means that the private banks as a group can create $6 million more money than existed before.
In other words, by acquiring this $1 million more in bank reserves, the private banks have the privilege of creating another $6 million of bank
deposits, in the process of which they acquire $6 million in interest-bearing securities or loan paper, less an allowance for leakage into the cash
(currency) balances of the public. [pg 43]
So the bankers, using the US debt as collateral, create SIX TIMES as much money and loan it to the public!
This is verified by First National Bank of Montgomery vs. Daly
....To everyone's surprise, Morgan admitted that the bank routinely created money "out of thin air" for its loans, and that this was standard
banking practice. "It sounds like fraud to me," intoned Presiding Justice Martin Mahoney amid nods from the jurors. In his court memorandum,
Justice Mahoney stated:
"Plaintiff admitted that it, in combination with the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, . . . did create the entire $14,000.00 in money and
credit upon its own books by bookkeeping entry. That this was the consideration used to support the Note dated May 8, 1964 and the Mortgage of the
same date. The money and credit first came into existence when they created it. Mr. Morgan admitted that no United States Law or Statute existed which
gave him the right to do this. A lawful consideration must exist and be tendered to support the Note. "
The court rejected the bank's claim for foreclosure, and the defendant kept his house....
Justice Mahoney, ... died less than six months after the trial, in a mysterious accident that appeared to involve poisoning.4
This is the rip off that most people fail to see or understand - Devaluation of the dollar.
In 1976 A typical American CEO earned 36 times as much as the average worker. By 2008 the average CEO pay increased to 369 times that of the average
The typical American CEO of course, is not about to take a pay cut, so he is actually paid five times MORE in “buying power” compared to 1976
while the rest of us are now paid a third of what we were paid in 1976.
The price of gold indicates the steady devaluation of the US dollar as its purchasing power is diluted by the ever increasing supply of fiat money.
Date...$ /oz gold..Money supply total...minimum wage...Pay in gold...CEO in gold
1976......124.74...........$113 billion...............$2.30..............0.0184 oz.....0.663.oz
2008......880.30........ $831 billion................$5.85..............0.0066 oz. ......2.44.oz
If you look at the price of gold, you can see how the value of the dollar has dropped and how the minimum wage no longer has the buying power it had
in 1976. In the spring of 2009, the money supply was jacked up to $1663 billion. This will start a new spiral of devaluation eroding wages even
Mises on Money
explains money and how an increase in the money supply steals from the general
"Because money is not capital, he concluded that an increase of the money supply confers no identifiable social value."
Money serves as a transmitter of value through time because certain goods serve as media of exchange.
Money transmits value, Mises taught, but money does not measure value. This distinction is fundamental in Mises's theory of money.
Mises was adamant: "there is no measure of economic value."
[THE KEY POINT]
New money does not appear magically in equal percentages in all people's bank accounts or under their mattresses. Money spreads unevenly, and
this process has varying effects on individuals, depending on whether they receive early or late access to the new money
It is these losses of the groups that are the last to be reached by the variation in the value of money which ultimately constitute the source of the
profits made by the mine owners and the groups most closely connected with them.
This indicates a fundamental aspect of Mises's monetary theory that is rarely mentioned: the expansion or contraction of money is a zero-sum
A zero-sum game means every time the bankers create "new money" they transfer wealth (value of labor) from the working stiffs to them and their
cronies as shown by the decrease in real wages in my chart above. That means every time a new social program increase the size of the US government
and the size of the US debt the bankers win and we lose.
This is how Socialists anxious to help people instead aid the bankers in stealing from the working stiff.