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.

 

$9,000,000,000,000 MISSING From The Federal Reserve .. Shocking Footage !

page: 12
137
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 3 2012 @ 11:51 AM
link   
reply to post by TheAnarchist
 


Funny. If that were $9,000,000,000,000 worth of missing tax money, the government would hunt down every motherf#cker that owed them.

Just a reminder that $9 trillion was not and is not "missing". www.abovetopsecret.com...

edit on 8/3/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 3 2012 @ 12:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by harryhaller

Originally posted by longlostbrother
The 100/1 ratio is in relation to the CT community, not the general population.
Hell, most people didn't even bother to see if the OPs claim was true. They assumed it was, and that the pol in the vid had his facts straight. And they assume she SHOULD know the answers, and could.
That's a lot of assumptions.
Let me guess...
Hell, I even find the term "sheeple" (however you want to spell it) to be ridiculously simpleminded and inaccurate.


Yes indeed, a lot of assumptions, assertions, unqualified accusations and generalisations, along with an unhealthy portion of personal prejudice.


So you're saying, that of 100 conspiracy theorists, the lone, single "debunker" is the only sane, correct, informed person of the lot. The rest are all deluded, tricked, lazy, feeble, whatever, and need the debunker to correct their delusions of ... conspiracy?


Do i understand you correctly? This is getting better with each new post.


So you're the Super debunker!


Do you have super powers of obfuscation, misdirection and fallacy too?




Look at this thread.

What percentage of people commented on the OP, as if it were true. It is not true.

Go into the HOAX section, how many people claim the HOAX threads are true.

Go look.

You can mock the concept, without engaging in a discussion about the empirical evidence, all you want, but this thread is a great example of my point.

As for the 100 number, I suppose you think I meant exactly 100/1. That if it was 99/1 or even 60/1 you'd claim victory... yes?

Instead, ask why a thread like this, which is factually inaccurate, is full of conspiracy theorists who, without bothering to fact check, glom onto the OP and congratulate him for, in essence, spreading a lie.

Why is that?

Count the reply and see what percentage of the respondents actually know the truth about the situation.

Then get back to me and tell me how wrong I am.

Otherwise, stop simply claiming I'm wrong without providing a single bit of evidence.

Here, I'll help... there's 220 (aprox) posts.

How many posters?

First page has 20 posts.

Posters:

Ben81
mytheroy
Mattodlum
benrl
FOXMULDER147
seeker1963
OccamAssassin
boncho
BlueMule
GuidedKill
ElOmen
GD21D
MmmPie

Of those 13 posters, not one figured out this wasn't true.

13/0

0%

Care to do the other 10 pages and see how well the CT community does?

I'd also point that this hoax of a thread has 131 Flags and the OP has close to 100 stars.

Still think 100/1 is way off?
edit on 3-8-2012 by longlostbrother because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 3 2012 @ 12:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by longlostbrother
Count the reply and see what percentage of the respondents actually know the truth about the situation.

Then get back to me and tell me how wrong I am.


Clearly the auditor general doesn't know the truth of the situation either.

That the amount quoted in the op is incorrect... well you're right about that. But since they don't have a publicly available audit we're all just thumb sucking, really. There is no accountability. The fractional reserve banking system is broken, there is always a bigger debt than money available in the system.

And i think your 1/100 comment is completely off base, a gross exaggeration.
edit on 3-8-2012 by harryhaller because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 3 2012 @ 12:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by harryhaller

Originally posted by longlostbrother
Count the reply and see what percentage of the respondents actually know the truth about the situation.

Then get back to me and tell me how wrong I am.


Clearly the auditor general doesn't know the truth of the situation either.

That the amount quoted in the op is incorrect... well you're right about that. But since they don't have a publicly available audit we're all just thumb sucking, really. There is no accountability. The fractional reserve banking system is broken, there is always a bigger debt than money available in the system.

And i think your 1/100 comment is completely off base, a gross exaggeration.
edit on 3-8-2012 by harryhaller because: (no reason given)


So wait, you just glossed over the fact that this info is incorrect?

Sorry, and you were mocking my 100 number, but sure, when the 9 zillion dollars is shown to be wrong... hey, no big deal, the point is still valid... that's your attitude..

riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight...

high standards you have there...

As for you "thinking" I'm wrong; don't be lazy, do some research or admit you don't know if I'm right or wrong.

I already showed you one page f this.

Maybe the other 10 will prove you right?

Or maybe just admit you're just making claims without bothering to check if they're true... kinda like the OP.

100 is a random high number, a bit of poetic license, but the concept, as I said, is true.

Many many many many many threads are full of people, majorities, like this thread, believing untruths and high-fiving each other over how obvious the implications of these lies are.

People in this thread, multiple people, think this LIE is justification for a revolution in America,

A lie, justification for a revolution. They didn't even check if it was true.


edit on 3-8-2012 by longlostbrother because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 3 2012 @ 12:32 PM
link   
This was not a hoax in 2009 when it was reported. In fact it took a FOIA request to "find out" what the Fed refused to divulge. The Inspector General's role in the Fed is a joke... she has no real function except to protect the Fed from scrutiny and not authority to do what the Inspector General Act calls for... hence the title is "Special" Inspector General....

Ultimately, you're insistence and dedication to 'debunking' the events of 2009 seem consistent with the kind of damage control internet sources (like Snopes) are engaged to execute.

It's easy to make it all seem like a lie when you can recreate the narrative.to suit your perception.

A HOAX is a deliberate deception... are you saying that the hearing/investigation was a HOAX... I'm sure you're not.



posted on Aug, 3 2012 @ 12:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Maxmars
This was not a hoax in 2009 when it was reported. In fact it took a FOIA request to "find out" what the Fed refused to divulge. The Inspector General's role in the Fed is a joke... she has no real function except to protect the Fed from scrutiny and not authority to do what the Inspector General Act calls for... hence the title is "Special" Inspector General....

Ultimately, you're insistence and dedication to 'debunking' the events of 2009 seem consistent with the kind of damage control internet sources (like Snopes) are engaged to execute.

It's easy to make it all seem like a lie when you can recreate the narrative.to suit your perception.

A HOAX is a deliberate deception... are you saying that the hearing/investigation was a HOAX... I'm sure you're not.


I am.

This is well old (2009) and as Phage noted, well debunked (also in 2009).

The amount of anti-Fed stuff, untrue stuff, that is pushed on ATS, as part of an agenda, is astonishing.

I have NO DOUBT that the YouTuber that put this up knows it's not true now, and yet, up it stays with its BS title.

And the OP didn't even bother to see if it was true.. they just jumped on and ranted about something that a simple google search would debunk.

And others say, on this thread, that they are now spreading this lie to other websites...

And people wonder why the truth is so hard to find online...

I'm all for finding out ANY truth, but... either the anti-Fed people are by and large lazy or they are deliberately engaging in Hoaxng the board.

You tell me.
edit on 3-8-2012 by longlostbrother because: (no reason given)

edit on 3-8-2012 by longlostbrother because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 3 2012 @ 12:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Maxmars
 




A HOAX is a deliberate deception... are you saying that the hearing/investigation was a HOAX... I'm sure you're not.

The hoax is the claim that $9 trillion was missing. It wasn't.
Coleman didn't say it was. Grayson didn't claim it was.

Of course, in pointing this out, it must mean that I fully support the Fed and its policies. Or maybe I could just be attempting to deny ignorance and apply a teeny bit of due diligence.

edit on 8/3/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 3 2012 @ 12:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Maxmars
 




A HOAX is a deliberate deception... are you saying that the hearing/investigation was a HOAX... I'm sure you're not.

The hoax is the claim that $9 trillion was missing. It wasn't.
Coleman didn't say it was. Grayson didn't claim it was.


Exactly!

The OP ALSO claims the 9 Trillion was "stolen" to make underground cities to the elite.

If the money wasn't stolen (it clearly wasn't) then that is, at the very least, wildly untrue.

If the OP KNEW it was untrue, i.e. they weren't just too lazy to check if what they were posting was accurate, then that too is a HOAX.


edit on 3-8-2012 by longlostbrother because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 3 2012 @ 12:58 PM
link   
Longlostbrother and Phage....

So you both agree that the HOAX claims are because of the title of the video (which the member diligently used to title his thread?)

Since the title expresses the understanding of the contributor, in addition to correcting the misconception, you advocate silencing the conversation and characterizing the contribution as 'agenda-driven' lies? Truly?

We should remind every member never to be mistaken in your presence... Apparently you wield a lot of social currency; since you can proceed to rail against the thread after you have given your "final word" on the matter.

Understand this: and try not to flail over it too violently.... You have added your contribution to the thread... in it you reveal that the questions being asked were not as the video title indicates... good job... you explain that a subsequent FOIA request managed to get the details of the distribution of the trillions which were the subject of inquiry for the Special Inspector general during the official hearing ...

Now, having done that... everyone needs to shut up and stop being wrong? I am afraid you overestimate the gravitas of your contribution. Perhaps you should start a thread of your own - outside political madness - to make clear your point.

Much of your frustration with this is common fare anywhere where the thread gets so long that people don't read it all before responding.... your solution appears to be geared towards accommodating your sense of self-importance. Perhaps we can do without that.

If you really want to discuss the topic - you need to make people want to discuss it... I think that seems the opposite of what you are attempting to do.
edit on 3-8-2012 by Maxmars because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 3 2012 @ 01:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by longlostbrother
So wait, you just glossed over the fact that this info is incorrect?


I glossed over the fact that the named number was $1 trillion, established missing.

The figure of $9 trillion relates to "off balance sheet transactions".

Both the above are from the video in the OP.

$13 trillion is a more recent development in "Secret fed loans to congress". Bloomberg

$21-32 trillion is the recent estimate of "unspecified offshore accounts". Guardian.

No, i glossed over nothing at all. Clearly you have.



posted on Aug, 3 2012 @ 01:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Maxmars
Longlostbrother and Phage....

So you both agree that the HOAX claims are because of the title of the video (which the member diligently used to title his thread?)

Since the title expresses the understanding of the contributor, in addition to correcting the misconception, you advocate silencing the conversation and characterizing the contribution as 'agenda-driven' lies? Truly?

We should remind every member never to be mistaken in your presence... Apparently you wield a lot of social currency; since you can proceed to rail against the thread after you have given your "final word" on the matter.

Understand this: and try not to flail over it too violently.... You have added your contribution to the thread... in it you reveal that the questions being asked were not as the video title indicates... good job... you explain that a subsequent FOIA request managed to get the details of the distribution of the trillions which were the subject of inquiry for the Special Inspector general during the official hearing ...

Now, having done that... everyone needs to shut up and stop being wrong? I am afraid you overestimate the gravitas of your contribution. Perhaps you should start a thread of your own - outside political madness - to make clear your point.

Much of your frustration with this is common fare anywhere where the thread gets so long that people don't read it all before responding.... your solution appears to be geared towards accommodating your sense of self-importance. Perhaps we can do without that.

If you really want to discuss the topic - you need to make people want to discuss it... I think that seems the opposite of what you are attempting to do.
edit on 3-8-2012 by Maxmars because: (no reason given)


I find your insulting language offensive.



posted on Aug, 3 2012 @ 01:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Maxmars
 


If you really want to discuss the topic - you need to make people want to discuss it... I think that seems the opposite of what you are attempting to do.


12 pages would tend to contradict your statement. It seems that my contribution (of fact) did little to stifle discussion. Too bad most of the discussion has had little to do with the topic, the "missing" funds.

I have not "railed against the thread". Discuss away, but do you really think it should not be pointed out that the OP is in error? Do you really think it is inappropriate to point out that fact when it is obvious that this has been overlooked by someone?

Please correct me if I'm wrong but as far as I can tell, placing a thread in the hoax bin does not preclude discussion. Nor does it necessarily indicate that is was the OP who originated the hoax, only that they fell for it.


edit on 8/3/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 3 2012 @ 01:13 PM
link   
Longlostbrother and Phage....

I suggest you follow the T&C and alert my post that it may be subject to review... I am not above the law.



posted on Aug, 3 2012 @ 01:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


Yes, good point. It does get somewhat complicated, at least for me...so many words! Not always that much is said...at least as far as weeding through it all.



posted on Aug, 3 2012 @ 01:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
the OP who originated the hoax, only that they fell for it.


How is $9trillion unaccounted* for a hoax?

I'm still missing that part, whatever evidence may have been received after the fact, this was never a hoax, nor was the OP misrepresenting the content in any way.

*unaccounted for and missing are the same thing. IMHO.
edit on 3-8-2012 by harryhaller because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 3 2012 @ 01:37 PM
link   
reply to post by harryhaller
 


$13 trillion is a more recent development in "Secret fed loans to congress"
Is not about loans from the Fed. It is about income earned because of low interest rates.

And no one calculated until now that banks reaped an estimated $13 billion of income by taking advantage of the Fed’s below-market rates, Bloomberg Markets magazine reports in its January issue.
www.bloomberg.com...



$21-32 trillion is the recent estimate of "unspecified offshore accounts"

In total, 10 million individuals around the world hold assets offshore, according to Henry's analysis; but almost half of the minimum estimate of $21tn – $9.8tn – is owned by just 92,000 people.

www.guardian.co.uk...
What does that have to do with the Fed?

edit on 8/3/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 3 2012 @ 01:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by SeesFar
Do you have sources for that information? The source I provided states that it was abolished and "From 1868 to 1913, almost 90 percent of all revenue was collected from the remaining excises."

So, what other central banks, and by what other names, did the U.S. have prior to the Federal Reserve Bank?

The initial site I provided explained the tie of the Internal Revenue Service to the Federal Reserve Bank and explained how the Fed makes (literally) money, whether it's printed at the Fed or at the Treasury, they still make (as in create) it for cost and lend it at face value.

If either you or Aloysius Gaul (hope I got that name correct) can provide any credible information contradicting the claims of the Econ 101 page, I would be grateful to have the links to read. TYIA

As far as anyone getting the idea from England, central banks go much farther back than that and cover several other Countries. And, as far as researchers can determine, they all involved ownership by at least one particular family.


Yes, I have some links.
From ushistory.org:


The war left us in debt. Some states were bankrupt. We needed one unified currency ... Hamilton suggested a central bank. (Please note the classical facade!)

The First Bank of the United States was needed because the government had a debt from the Revolutionary War, and each state had a different form of currency. It was built while Philadelphia was still the nation's capital. Alexander Hamilton conceived of the bank to handle the colossal war debt — and to create a standard form of currency.

Up to the time of the bank's charter, coins and bills issued by state banks served as the currency of the young country. The First Bank's charter was drafted in 1791 by the Congress and signed by George Washington. In 1811, Congress voted to abandon the bank and its charter. The bank was originally housed in Carpenters' Hall from 1791 to 1795. The neo-classical design of the bank was intended to recall the democracy and splendor of ancient Greece. When you're there, note the eagle which crowns the two-story portico. At the time of the bank's creation the eagle had been our national symbol for only 14 years. The bank building was restored for the Bicentennial in 1976.


Here are a couple of others:
History of Central Banking

And this is from A Brief History of Central Banking:


The U.S. experience was most interesting. It had two central banks in the early nineteenth century, the Bank of the United States (1791–1811) and a second Bank of the United States (1816–1836). Both were set up on the model of the Bank of England, but unlike the British, Americans bore a deep-seated distrust of any concentration of financial power in general, and of central banks in particular, so that in each case, the charters were not renewed.

There followed an 80-year period characterized by considerable financial instability. Between 1836 and the onset of the Civil War—a period known as the Free Banking Era—states allowed virtual free entry into banking with minimal regulation. Throughout the period, banks failed frequently, and several banking panics occurred. The payments system was notoriously inefficient, with thousands of dissimilar-looking state bank notes and counterfeits in circulation. In response, the government created the national banking system during the Civil War. While the system improved the efficiency of the payments system by providing a uniform currency based on national bank notes, it still provided no lender of last resort, and the era was rife with severe banking panics.

The crisis of 1907 was the straw that broke the camel’s back. It led to the creation of the Federal Reserve in 1913, which was given the mandate of providing a uniform and elastic currency (that is, one which would accommodate the seasonal, cyclical, and secular movements in the economy) and to serve as a lender of last resort.


Granted, there was some evolution, or progression, toward what we now have compared to what we started with, but the general consensus seems to consider those first models central banks just as the Fed is, although it wasn't thought of that at first, oddly enough.

Creating, or printing, the fiat currency was one of a few motivations for the national banks' inception. There was a big problem taking form when every state had their own currency...a lot of counterfeiting. I do think the Fed overprices their product, so to speak...but that doesn't have to be and it also isn't attributed to their assigned role of being the ones appointed to print the money.



posted on Aug, 3 2012 @ 01:40 PM
link   
reply to post by harryhaller
 


unaccounted for and missing are the same thing. IMHO.

Not exactly.
But where is it said in the video that the funds were unaccounted for?

edit on 8/3/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 3 2012 @ 02:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
What does that have to do with the Fed?


2:12 Off balance sheet transaction



posted on Aug, 3 2012 @ 02:40 PM
link   
reply to post by queenannie38
 


Thank you very much!

I don't believe I ever claimed the Fed was the only central bank we've had, which seemed to be the point you wanted me to admit to. I don't believe I ever made any claim that there was never an income tax prior to 1913. My point was that the author of the site I provided pointed out that the IRS (created in 1913) was created to support the Federal Reserve Bank (created in 1913) and that the Federal Reserve Bank DOES decide when and how much currency to print and when and how much to dump into the system. WHERE it gets printed is a moot point. Now, if I am mistaken and I did, in fact, make an error in what I claim my point was, don't hesitate to show me where. If I am wrong, you WILL have my public apology.

My *point* is that Congress, in 1913, gave over it's Constitutional empowerment to "mint coin" to a privately owned organization (that we're not even allowed to know who the owners are), without the consent of 'We, the People' and that Central Bank now "mints coin" for what it costs them to print it but loans it to the Federal Government at face value and has no true accountability to the government or to the people; and, that by the time that fiat money trickles through the government down to the actual working economy, it's worth even less than when printed out of thin air. THAT is what had never happened before 1913.

Every currency dump they make; every dollar they print; every dollar they 'loan,' every Quantitative Easing they perform (under whatever pleasing pseudonym they give it), they steal from you and me and everyone else.

And, while I will admit to not being the most broadly educated individual to ever grace this site, I don't believe I'm wrong in saying that those acts put through in 1913 were FIRSTS in our history. They were not implemented as a temporary means to an end, as were the previous acts. They have not been repealed. They have not expired. They will not go away without a fight.

They were put in place 99 years ago and our wealth, as a Country and as individuals, has suffered ever since and at an ever increasing rate.

I want to make it clear that I am not accusing you or Aloysius the Gaul or Phage or anyone else who disagrees about the missing "trillions" of obfuscating; however, it does SEEM (to me) that you are, in a sense, obfuscating. It seems many are focused on proving the video provided by the OP as a hoax or a lie, when it is neither. There are many here who would dissolve the issue into a matter of semantics, or nitpick that "it has happened before (which it has NOT to the degree of the 1913 event), or that it's an "old" video ~ all of which are a great injustice to the *general concept* of the thread topic.

Trillions HAVE been stolen since 1913. It's been stolen through the deflation of the value of our currency. It's been stolen by printing money for the pennies it costs in paper and ink and then loaning it at face value plus interest. It's been stolen in derivatives and every other form of "on paper only" or "computerized" "currency" it has created. No one will ever know the complete depth of the theft, even with a thorough, fine-toothed, no stone unturned audit of the Fed. But it can start there.

Our economy has no chance in h3ll of recovering without the dismantling of the Federal Reserve Bank. No chance of recovery without all of us going through some very hard times and, most likely, defaulting on ALL our debt - individual, civic, governmental, national and international. We ARE Weimar Republic Germany and so few are willing to face it.

We will all pay the price, even more than we already have, due to the traitorous acts of the President and Congress in 1913 and the currency manipulations of our own government, Wall Street and the Federal Reserve Bank that have taken place daily ever since.

In THAT sense, money is missing ... a LOT of it ... and no one wants to take the blame but we will all pay the price.

edit on 3-8-2012 by SeesFar because: typo; probably more of them; sorry



new topics

top topics



 
137
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join