Socialists Aid the Banker/Corporate Cartels in Fleecing the Poor

Socialists naively aid and abet the Banker/Corporate Cartels in fleecing the poor and middle class Estar 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 competition.


The biggest problem is the BANKSTERS and corporations use of "Social Political Activism" to dress up their hidden agenda to make it palatable to Americans.


AND I can PROVE it too!

Here is an excellent example of the BANKSTERS and corporations in action from a very well researched article (4 pages of references) so please read it!

[THE ORGANIZATION]
...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.[1]

[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....

[THE PLAN]
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'"...

[THE EXECUTION]
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 number....

CED members were influential in business, government, and agricultural colleges, and their outlook shaped both governmental policies and what farmers were taught.....

[THE RESULTS
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.[5]

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 [6], not unlike farmers in India today who have been tricked into debt and desperation and can see no other way out.[7]

WHO BENEFITS?

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.

WHY?
A weak sense of national identity makes a country vulnerable. This article explains it: Eight Steps to Destroy America

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 may have 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 enterprise" 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 financiers.

The critical question is WHERE does money come from?

First Prong of the Massive Rip Off:
Graham Towers 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. 394)

So that massive $14 trillion in debt is owed to the banks because the government refused to protect the interests of the people!

Second Prong

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

Third Prong

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 worker. timelines.ws...

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 further.

Mises on Money explains money and how an increase in the money supply steals from the general population.

"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 game.

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.

reply to post by crimvelvet


A brilliant read, from angles I hadn't considered before. Thanks for sharing this with us. It's time we all woke up and started to share this with our friends relatives and colleagues. It's time we started to do something about it.

Crimvelvit,very nice post,if only the public would or could grasp just how badly the federal reserve system has robbed Americas wealth. In the span of 230 yrs between the bankers and the politicians we are broke,unbelievable.

Where did it go? Where is the wealth from all of Americas resources that have been stripped,all the timber,all the gold,just where is it? In 1% hands? I dunno,I been working like a dog for 25 plus yrs to be poor and I'm pretty tight with my money,check to check,just getting by. I hope you can wake some people up but I"m kinda leaning with George, people just dont get it,they just dont. I'll tell you one reason why,my daughter is in high school,her economics book devoted a whopping 1/2 page to the federal reserve and it was a very minimal description of the fed,basically stating the feds the central bank. Thats one very good reason why they've gotten away with it for so long.

And now for George. s&f for you

reply to post by dampnickers

A brilliant read, from angles I hadn't considered before. Thanks for sharing this with us. It's time we all woke up and started to share this with our friends relatives and colleagues. It's time we started to do something about it.

Thanks,

It is indeed past time we all woke up. It has become critical for the American people to identify their true enemies and to see through all the Smoke and Mirrors.

We have allowed groups like the CED, the CFR, and the FED to intentional tear apart the very fabric of American culture so they can keep us at each others throats.

Dick Lamm, former Governor of Colorado gave a speech entitled Eight Steps To Destroy America In that speech he states of "An autopsy of history would show that all great nations commit suicide.'" What would that autopsy show? " ...that no nation can survive the tension, conflict, and antagonism of two or more competing languages and cultures. "

And what do we see? Eager socialists busy supporting multi-culturism., discouraging the assimilation of individuals into the American culture, and insisting on the "right" of non-Americans to "special treatment"

I recently talked to a government agency about some business regs. The agent sent me a pamphlet with the need information. Unfortunately I can not read it because it is NOT WRITTEN IN ENGLISH!

Please understand, three out of four of my Grandparents are immigrants. None spoke English on arrival. If your were to ask what their nationality is they would promptly reply American - in English so would all the rest of the family.

reply to post by nickoli

. I'll tell you one reason why,my daughter is in high school,her economics book devoted a whopping 1/2 page to the federal reserve and it was a very minimal description of the fed,basically stating the feds the central bank. Thats one very good reason why they've gotten away with it for so long.

nickoli, you are correct. Our school system has been intentionally gutted.

“... Over the last quarter-century, historians have by and large ceased writing about the role of ruling elites in the country's evolution. Or if they have taken up the subject, they have done so to argue against its salience for grasping the essentials of American political history. Yet there is something peculiar about this recent intellectual aversion, even if we accept as true the beliefs that democracy, social mobility, and economic dynamism have long inhibited the congealing of a ruling stratum. This aversion has coincided, after all, with one of the largest and fastest-growing disparities in the division of income and wealth in American history....Neglecting the powerful had not been characteristic of historical work before World War II. ” hnn.us...

"For 10 years, William Schmidt, a statistics professor at Michigan State University, has looked at how U.S. students stack up against students in other countries in math and science. "In fourth-grade, we start out pretty well, near the top of the distribution among countries; by eighth-grade, we're around average, and by 12th-grade, we're at the bottom of the heap, outperforming only two countries, Cyprus and South Africa."
Source

... Surveys of corporations consistently find that businesses are focused outside • the U.S. to recruit necessary talent. In a 2002 survey, 16 global corporations complained that American schools did not produce students with global skills. United States companies agreed. The survey found that 30 percent of large U.S. companies “believed they had failed to exploit fully their international business opportunities due to insufficient personnel with international skills.” One respondent to the survey even noted, “If I wanted to recruit people who are both technically skilled and culturally aware, I wouldn’t even waste time looking for them on U.S. college campuses.”

...the U.S. ranks 21st out of 29 Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries in mathematics scores, with nearly one-quarter of students unable to solve the easiest level of questions....In 2000, 28 percent of all freshmen entering a degree-granting institution required remedial coursework...
Source

It was done on purpose to brainwash generations of good little unthinking socialists. You can thank John Dewey for the trashing of our school system.

Dumbing Down America gives a pretty good explanation.

....Dewey's philosophy had evolved from Hegelian idealism to socialist materialism, and the purpose of the school was to show how education could be changed to produce little socialists and collectivists instead of little capitalists and individualists. It was expected that these little socialists, when they became voting adults, would dutifully change the American economic system into a socialist one.

In order to do so he analyzed the traditional curriculum that sustained the capitalist, individualistic system and found what he believed was the sustaining linchpin -- that is, the key element that held the entire system together: high literacy. To Dewey, the greatest obstacle to socialism was the private mind that seeks knowledge in order to exercise its own private judgment and intellectual authority. High literacy gave the individual the means to seek knowledge independently. It gave individuals the means to stand on their own two feet and think for themselves. This was detrimental to the "social spirit" needed to bring about a collectivist society. Dewey wrote in Democracy and Education, published in 1916:...

reply to post by crimvelvet

I would have thought The socialist would be here defending themselves. Is no action on this thread an admission that they ARE in the pocket of the bankers? Who'd of thunk!

Proving there's more than one way to skin a cat (or a nation)
You can kill it or enslave it.
Or you can trick it into doing your work for you.
The role of government is to make sure you never get ahead and join the upper classes.
Keep working! Uncle Samhain needs you!

Good thread with good insights.
S@F fir U Crim.
Cheers.

reply to post by crimvelvet


All I can add is 'WAKE UP PEOPLE..!!!!"
This has been going on for nearly 100 years..Fed Creation 1913...

Let's not let them celebrate 100 years of fleecing us in 2013 !!

S&F

Social programs are not social ideologies.

Social programs are part of the overall scheme you wrote of,but not socialism.

This country leaned more toward socialism when it was founded than does now.

True socialism resembles anarchy very strongly,that's why governments really don't like very it much.

reply to post by chiponbothshoulders

Social programs are not social ideologies.
Social programs are part of the overall scheme you wrote of,but not socialism.

socialism

1. Any of various economic and political philosophies that support social equality, collective decision-making, distribution of income based on contribution and public ownership of productive capital and natural resources, as advocated by socialists.

2. The socialist political philosophies as a group, including Marxism, libertarian socialism, democratic socialism, and social democracy.

3. (Leninism) The intermediate phase of social development between capitalism and full communism. This is a strategy whereby the state has control of all key resource-producing industries and manages most aspects of the economy, in contrast to laissez faire capitalism.

I am not commenting on "Socialism" but on the "socialist" drive toward socialism and the support of socialists for specific policies such as Zoning and the EPA which removee rights from the property owner and transfer them to the state.

As one of my business instructors stated:
"When you go into business you have a silent partner, the US government, who will tell you what you can do, how you can do it and take a slice of your profit."

Sure sounds like an intermediate phase to me!