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.
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.
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?
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.
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)
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.
A HOAX is a deliberate deception... are you saying that the hearing/investigation was a HOAX... I'm sure you're not.
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.
Originally posted by longlostbrother
So wait, you just glossed over the fact that this info is incorrect?
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)
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.
Originally posted by Phage
the OP who originated the hoax, only that they fell for it.
Is not about loans from the Fed. It is about income earned because of low interest rates.
$13 trillion is a more recent development in "Secret fed loans to congress"
www.bloomberg.com...
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.
$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.
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.
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.
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.
unaccounted for and missing are the same thing. IMHO.
Originally posted by Phage
What does that have to do with the Fed?