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.
Originally posted by RedBird
The Federal Reserve returns its profits to the U.S. Treasury Department. This year it was close to 60 Billion dollars.
How can people be unaware or ignorant of this?
Now it's *that* kind of thinking that got [the] US into this situation! We elect officials for a reason: to do our bidding via proxy. When they don't do that, we vote them out (or we swallow some campaign rhetoric and grab for our ankles.. )
Originally posted by Dance4LifeThere is no reason for a higher authority to reason with a lower one.
Originally posted by RedBird
The Federal Reserve returns its profits to the U.S. Treasury Department. This year it was close to 60 Billion dollars.
How can people be unaware or ignorant of this?
Google Video Link |
Except it's the Fed in this case! And they've run a muck with our hard earned cash!
"What do you think the Russians talk about in their councils of state, Karl Marx? They get out their linear programming charts, statistical decision theories, minimax solutions, and compute the price-cost probabilities of their transactions and investments, just like we do."
What does the Fed do with all the money it receives?
...You are led to the question of where is this river flowing? ...They're not accumulating it at all. What are they spending it for? The answer may surprise you..... When a person has all the wealth that you could possibly want for the material pleasures of life, what is left? Power. They are using this river of wealth to acquire power over you and me and our children.
They are spending it to acquire control over the power centers of society. The power centers are those groups and institutions through which individuals live and act and rely on for their information. They are literally buying up the world but not the real estate and the hardware, they're buying control over the organizations, the groups and institutions that control people. In other words, to be specific, they are buying control over politicians, political parties, television networks, cable networks, newspapers, magazines, publishing houses, wire services, motion picture studios, universities, labor unions, church organizations, trade associations, tax-exempt foundations, multi-national corporations, boy scouts, girl scouts, you name it. Make your own list of organizations and you will find that this is where those people have been for many decades spending this river of wealth to acquire operational control particularly over those institutions and individuals, those organizations that represent opposition to themselves. That's a critical area for expenditure on their part... www.bigeye.com...
What amount of Government securities have the private banks acquired with bank-created money?
“On January 31, 1964, all commercial banks in this country owned $62.7 billion in U.S. Government securities. The banks have acquired these securities with bank-created money. In other words, the banks have used the Federal Government's power to create money without charge to lend $62.7 billion to the Government at interest.
On January 29, 1964, commercial banks had total assets amounting to $304.7 billion, and all of these had been paid for with bank-created money, except $25.4 billion which had been paid for with their stockholders' capital. In other words, less than 10 percent of the banks' assets have been acquired with money invested by stockholders in the banks.” [pg 46]
If the Government can issue bonds, Why can't it issue money and save
the interest?
A few clearheaded and firm individuals, such as Abraham Lincoln,
have insisted that the Government can.
The late Thomas A. Edison once stated the matter this way :
If our Nation can issue a dollar bond it can issue a dollar bill. The element that makes the bond good makes the bill good also. The difference between the bond and the bill i s that the bond lets money brokers collect twice the amount of the bond and a n additional 20 percent, whereas the currency pays nobody but those who contribute directly in some useful way. It i s absurd to say that our country can issue $30 million in bonds and not $30 million in currency. Both are promises to pay: but one promise fattens the usurers. and the other helps the people. [pg 47]
What are the sources of revenue of the Federal Reserve?
By far the largest single source of income of the Federal Reserve banks is interest on holdings of U.S. Government securities. In 1963, interest on Government securities accounted for 98.9 percent of the total income of the Federal Reserve. [pg 62]
How much of the Federal Reserve's earnings must be returned to the Treasury?
No law or regulation specifies how much of the Federal Reservoe earnings must be returned to the Treasury nor when payments must be made. In practice, the Federal Reserve spends all of its income that it cares to spend, pays dividends to its member banks on their "stock" and sets aside a large amount as "surplus." The remainder is returned to the Treasury a t the end of each year. Despite the fact that there is no limitation on how much the Federal Reserve may spend to meet "expenses," it usually returns to the Treasury an amount many times the amount of its expenses. In 1963, it returned to the Trensuiy $879,685,219. [pg 63]
Holy WOW! I've been looking for something like this for a minute now, it's the "Golden Ticket" of sorts pertaining to The Federal Reserve as this is the map of their overall architecture.
Senior investors, who are typically financial institutions, own the AAA tranches that are insured against default by AIG, and they WANT to foreclose on the Middle Class so that insurance payments kick in. Conversely, the junior tranche investors want workouts with homeowners because their investment is not insured.
“To ensure that the mortgage servicer pushes default instead of workout, the servicer is paid double (50 basis points versus 25 basis points) by the MBS to service a loan in default. Why do you think your servicer tells you that you must be in default before it will consider a mortgage modification, a practice known as invited default?
“Simply put,” says Parker, “the government bailout of AIG has actually encouraged foreclosures because the taxpayers continue to fill AIG’s coffers with enough cash to pay out insurance on defaulted home loans.”
“A credit default swap (CDS) is a credit derivative contract between two counterparties,” says Wikipedia. "The buyer makes periodic payments to the seller, and in return receives a payoff if an underlying financial instrument defaults. CDS contracts have been compared with insurance, because the buyer pays a premium and, in return, receives a sum of money if one of the specified events occur...
Instead of cars or houses, credit default swaps were used to guarantee mortgage-backed securities (MBS), a safe bet according to the best-available mathematical models. Why? Because most homeowners pay off their home loans with the certainty of an ATM.
The is no reserve requirement with CDS because there's no government regulation. Each insurance company can set aside as much — or as little — as it wants for reserves. In fact, a company could set aside nothing for potential losses without violating regulatory requirements.
The money NOT set aside for reserves can be invested in high-risk securities to create a larger cash flow for the insurance company. This means that with CDS, insurers expected not only premiums but also bigger investment returns then would be possible with regular insurance products.
CDS premium revenue is not restricted to those who might have actual losses or real assets to protect. You can bet as much as you want and create as many CDS as you want....
www.realtytrac.com...
MATT TAIBBI: Well, the insurance policies, the things that Cassano [AIG] was selling that are like insurance, Goldman Sachs actually had bought $20 billion worth of those guarantees, so that when we bailed out AIG, we were effectively bailing out Goldman Sachs, because AIG owed Goldman Sachs $20 billion.
And that’s significant, because who was the Treasury Secretary who engineered this bailout? It was Hank Paulson, who was the former head of Goldman Sachs. They ultimately ended up installing Ed Liddy as the CEO of AIG, and Liddy, himself, is a former Goldman employee. And now the top aide to Timothy Geithner, Mark Patterson, is a former Goldman executive. I mean, this whole situation is rife with Goldman Sachs employees...
MATT TAIBBI: Well, you know, the biggest situation is, you know, a lot of these contracts, these CDS contracts, are like gambling, in the sense that—normally when you buy an insurance policy, you’re buying a policy on a house that you actually own. With these CDS contracts, you could actually bet on somebody else’s mortgage. AIG, for instance, could have gone to Goldman Sachs and said, you know, “We’d like to bet that the mortgages that were issued by JPMorgan Chase are going to default in the next ten years.” So these two parties that don’t have anything to do with the actual underlying loan could actually gamble on the outcome of that loan. So, this is—it’s really no different at all from gambling. And that’s why they had to seek a specific exemption from gaming laws in the year 2000, when they actually went forward with the deregulation of these instruments.
AMY GOODMAN: What do you mean?
MATT TAIBBI: In the Commodity Futures Modernization Act in the year 2000, they specifically exempted credit default swaps from being treated as gaming under any state laws. And they had to do that, because they were afraid that they were going to be regulated by, you know, state gaming agencies.
www.democracynow.org...