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: 13
137
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 3 2012 @ 03:14 PM
link   
reply to post by harryhaller
 

I was talking about your link:

$21-32 trillion is the recent estimate of "unspecified offshore accounts"
It has nothing to do with the Fed. It's talking about private funds held in offshore accounts.



Off balance sheet transaction IS missing.
No. It is not shown on the balance sheet of the Fed because it is in loans made by banks. It is not part of the Fed's Board of Governors accounting nor is it or was it missing.




posted on Aug, 3 2012 @ 03:21 PM
link   
reply to post by SeesFar
 


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.
The title of the video has nothing to do with the facts of the situation. $9 trillion was not, nor is it missing. Niether Grayson nor Coleman said it is missing. In that sense the video (and as a result the OP) is a hoax.


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.
Value may be missing. That is not the same thing as money being missing. The dollars are there but what they are (or are not worth) is not what is being discussed in the video.

Pointing out facts is not the same as defending the policies of the Fed.



posted on Aug, 3 2012 @ 03:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
It has nothing to do with the Fed.

$ US?


Off balance sheet transaction IS missing.No. It is not shown on the balance sheet of the Fed because it is in loans made by banks. It is not part of the Fed's Board of Governors accounting nor is it or was it missing.

Oh. Ok. Clearly i haven't read up enough yet.

Nothing you've suggested here supports your claim of HOAX.

Nor does it negate the fact that all this is a debt based system, fictions based on promises of future action.

An ugly mess.

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



posted on Aug, 3 2012 @ 04:00 PM
link   
reply to post by harryhaller
 


$ US?
It doesn't say so.

The world's super-rich have taken advantage of lax tax rules to siphon off at least $21 trillion, and possibly as much as $32tn, from their home countries and hide it abroad
www.guardian.co.uk...



Nothing you've suggested here supports your claim of HOAX.
Except that nothing in the video indicates that the funds were "missing". The only thing it establishes is that Coleman was not able to provide information about loans made by banks. Information which she did not have the authority to obtain. Information which there is no indication she had any reason to attempt to obtain prior to her questioning.



Nor does it negate the fact that all this is a debt based system, fictions based on promises of future action.
And what does that have to do with the OP and "missing" money being used to construct underground bases?

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



posted on Aug, 3 2012 @ 04:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
Value may be missing. That is not the same thing as money being missing. The dollars are there but what they are (or are not worth) is not what is being discussed in the video.

Pointing out facts is not the same as defending the policies of the Fed.


It still comes across as semantics and obfuscation of the overall subject. I won't apologize for how I see it and how I interpret your response to it. That, however, in no way indicates that you are responsible for my interpretation.

I don't think I'm listening to the same video you're listening to.

YOU do NOT know if the dollars are there or not. No one does (at least no one in the video).

@ :32, the Inspector General is asked about the "$1 trillion plus and expansion of the Federal Balance Sheet" - basically "Where is it?" ... and Inspector General can't answer the question; she doesn't KNOW;

@ 1:59 Inspector General is asked "What about Bloomberg's reports that there are trillions of dollars in off sheet transactions that the Fed has entered into since the previous September" and she's asked if she's familiar with those off sheet transactions. And she deflects because she doesn't KNOW

@ 2:37 she says "We do NOT have jurisdiction to directly go out and audit the Reserve Bank activities specifically." If she cannot directly go out and audit, then she does NOT KNOW

@ 3:51 she is asked "What have you done to investigate the off balance transactions conducted by the Federal Reserve which, according to Bloomberg, now total $9 Trillion in the last 8 months?

And HER response is "I'll have to look specifically at that Bloomberg article. I don't know if I've seen that particular one." She doesn't KNOW

THEN she's asked "Have you done any investigation or auditing of off balance sheet transactions investment of the losses the Federal Reserve has experienced on it's lending since last September?" And she says they have not.

If she's being asked "where are the losses of the Federal Reserve?," then that heavily implies money missing if no one knows where that money has gone.

So, if the Inspector General doesn't now, why are we to believe YOU know?

If we all just agree that you are correct and we all stop talking about it, will it make you feel that you've "won" what you seem to think was a subject never worthy of any debate? Is there a reason why you come across as believing that having made the claim that there is no claim, no one should discuss any aspect of it?

I don't believe I've ever replied to you and this post of yours exemplifies why. I recognize and respect that you have a wide following on this site and are a member of longer standing than am I; however, your posts seldom come across as pleasant. While I am not saying it's never happened, I've never ran across one of your posts where you concede that you are wrong; therefore, it is easy to presume that you believe yourself always correct.

I apologize for mentioning your name in my post to queenannie38; however, I stand by my firm belief that you would rather split hairs and hammer in your point until all conversation on a subject ceases just because everyone's mind has been numbed by you perpetually repeating your brilliant synopsis or point over and over, ad nauseam.

How many times must you make ONE point? You've made it; others disagree with it; you don't discuss it, you just keep repeating it.

The OP has followed the T&C by titling the thread exactly as the video. The sum of $9 Trillion IS mentioned in the video. I don't understand your incessant hammering of the matter which seems to be bent on shutting down all discourse.

Please allow others to discuss.
edit on 3-8-2012 by SeesFar because: messed up; wasn't done; arghhh!!!

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



posted on Aug, 3 2012 @ 04:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by longlostbrother
For every debunker there's 100 gullible "conspiracy sheople" that just believe what conspiracy theorists on blogs and YouTube and ATS tell them.


How would you know where they get their info, have you ever asked anyone? Sounds like reckless assumptions mixed in with a little arrogance.


Believe things based on facts, not just because they contradict the OS.


What, What you believe the "facts" are? Again, more like reckless assumptions.


The pro-conspiracy herd mentality is just as strong as the OS mentality. Either you know that, and you're independently minded and thorough in your research, or you're just another brand of sheople.
edit on 3-8-2012 by longlostbrother because: (no reason given)


I could say the same thing about so called know it all yes men robots with their heads stuck in the ground. I could look up in the sky and say that it's blue, and it is, but maybe you look up and see grey because there is overcast. Depends on one's point of view.

Some free advice.You should try not coming across so condescending and maybe you will get more respect around here. Don't make the mistake of thinking that I give a damn about what you think about my opinions. That's what we do here at ATS. Have a great day.
~$heopleNation
edit on 3-8-2012 by SheopleNation because: Typo



posted on Aug, 3 2012 @ 04:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by VeritasAequitas
reply to post by longlostbrother
 

Real sheop don't know how to spell sheep*.


Wrong. It's not "sheep" anyway. It's sheople. Who is to say how one should spell it? It's a made up word. If it was a sheep who is acting human, it would be sheeple. In this case, it's humans acting like sheep. Which = sheople.

I would not lose any sleep about it though, and your one line post (which is a violation by the way) was such a great contribution to the subject of this thread. ~$heopleNation



posted on Aug, 3 2012 @ 04:35 PM
link   
Congress, with much left to do, takes 5 Week Off


WASHINGTON (AP) — After a final day of partisan battles over drought relief and cybersecurity, Congress has departed for five weeks of vacation and prospects of a fall fraught with decisions on the political and economic future of the country.


Can we say the congress is provocking people to riot
they arrogancy on the timing to take 5 big weeks of vacation is ...


if JFK was still alive and President of the United States
he would have fire those imbeciles a long time ago
the congress played a big part in those missing trillions

edit on 8/3/2012 by Ben81 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 3 2012 @ 05:14 PM
link   
reply to post by SeesFar
 


It still comes across as semantics and obfuscation of the overall subject.
Only if you don't understand what is being discussed.


@ :32, the Inspector General is asked about the "$1 trillion plus and expansion of the Federal Balance Sheet" - basically "Where is it?" ... and Inspector General can't answer the question; she doesn't KNOW;
No. Grayson doesn't know what he is asking about. The fact that the amounts appear on the balance sheet at all means that the funds are not "missing". The $1 trillion dollars is an increase of the "bottom line" of the Fed balance sheet. The balance sheet showed an increase in the worth of the Fed of some $1 trillion dollars over a year and half. While some of the increase was due to lending, more was due to an increase in other assets. If you make an investment which increases in value your balance sheet shows an expansion. Grayson asked "who got it". The question is nonsensical, the figure involves a variety of factors, no one "got" the $1 trillion dollars.


@ 2:37 she says "We do NOT have jurisdiction to directly go out and audit the Reserve Bank activities specifically." If she cannot directly go out and audit, then she does NOT KNOW
So that means that the funds are missing? The banks that made the loans knew where the loans were made. The banks that made the loans were the ones to ask, not Coleman. As pointed out, a full accounting was made.


And HER response is "I'll have to look specifically at that Bloomberg article. I don't know if I've seen that particular one." She doesn't KNOW
Because she wasn't sure if she had seen an article several months before it means funds were missing?


If she's being asked "where are the losses of the Federal Reserve?," then that heavily implies money missing if no one knows where that money has gone.
Again. The balance sheet expanded. That represents a gain, not a loss. Did any individual investments by the Fed show a loss? Maybe, but investments do that from time to time. In fact some of mine have. I don't consider those funds "missing", I consider them lost and I know the source of that loss. The Fed made many investments, for Coleman to be aware of the details of each of them without having completed her review was expecting a bit much.

Coleman did not have access to the information about the $9 trillion at the time of Grayson's questioning nor should she have. In order to explain to Grayson about the $1 dollar extension of the balance sheet she would have had to give him a lesson in what a balance sheet represents, his question was meaningless.



Is there a reason why you come across as believing that having made the claim that there is no claim, no one should discuss any aspect of it?
I have no intention of coming across that way. Is there some reason people refuse to learn what was actually being talked about in the video? Or, if someone thinks I am incorrect in my assessment, I would be happy to discuss where my thoughts are incorrect about it. The problems is, few bother to go beyond "MISSING".

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



posted on Aug, 3 2012 @ 06:27 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Aug, 3 2012 @ 08:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ben81
You will never ask again .. why the economy is so bad after watching this
because it is been drained dry since 9/11 to this day

this particular video will show americans how politic really works
and explain with a big clear number (9 Trillions and probably much more)
why the economy is doomed to crash and it will never recover



They cant even answer his question like adults
she look like surprise this question wasnt filtered
they hate to be caught and EXPOSED

Now you know why they need to manipulate the market
so people will never realise until its to late
that the government has been stealing all that money under everyone nose

You will ask "WHY" ?

It is very expensive making underground cities for the elites
thats why they are not scared of retaliation from the mass
they just need to old the outrage waves before the SHTF
and run hidding in their deep rabbit holes
edit on 7/31/2012 by Ben81 because: (no reason given)
My question is can't the US government sell advanced technological patents to make money and pay off our debts? Another question is do you think that this will be the act of God that Ben Rich was talking about so that UFO technology could benefit humanity?



posted on Aug, 3 2012 @ 09:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Maxmars
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.


I did report your post. We all know though that Mods can insult people with no recourse.

Want proof? Read your post.



posted on Aug, 4 2012 @ 09:04 AM
link   
LOL! Repeat this with me everyone--

"In times of an economic crash, MONEY does not disappear--it only changes in the form of possession from the MANY--to the FEW. Money CANNOT disappear."

They are lying in more ways than one. They are going along with the lie--UNLESS YOU STOP THEM.

And NO, you cannot spend money paying off a debt with more debt based money. You get more Debt.

KILL THE BANK!
edit on 4-8-2012 by rainbowbear because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 4 2012 @ 11:23 AM
link   
reply to post by Ben81
 

this tape is more than a year old



posted on Aug, 4 2012 @ 11:48 AM
link   
reply to post by YellowRoseTx51
 


yes, we were warned for almost 100 years that this would happen--

The facts are immortal. Im having trouble understanding how the age of the info has any merit on value.



posted on Aug, 4 2012 @ 12:01 PM
link   
I want to know who that sour looking woman with glasses is. The one sitting behind the inspector general.
She seems to be hanging on every word she says, as if she's watching to see if the script is being followed.
Obviously the prevarication is intentional and deliberate.

What is that woman's purpose? Is she a lawyer? If so, why would the inspector general need to have a lawyer present? Is she a subordinate? If so, why is she coaching her boss?
Why is she pulling the puppet strings?

Anyone know who she is?



posted on Aug, 4 2012 @ 03:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by SeesFar
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.


Oh, no, I don't want you to admit to anything...I was more about correcting the site you referenced, Economics 101 Without the BS because I saw a lot of things in there that are not so much in error but maybe not completely understood and perhaps misrepresented because of it.

So my rebuttal was that both of these things existed in their pre-1913 respective precursor forms...and they weren't 'born' at the same time...only finalized and made official in 1913....for this seems to be the foundation upon which the idea has been established that income tax was created solely to fund the Federal Reserve. Which in a sense, is true, but not in the way it is held to as fact by many.

Income tax, whether straightened out and legally defined after 1913, or as more of an experimental work-in-progress, exists to fund the military, or 'standing army.'

The sixteenth amendment was first introduced as a proposal in July 1909 under the administration of Taft. It wasn't until February of 1913, however, that it was finally approved by the required 36 states for ratification as an amendment to the constitution. But it did not originate, in any form, to fund the Fed. The Fed regulates the funds collected from taxes which have their beginnings in the economics of war.

The Fed as our modern central bank, exists in order to prevent as much as possible the kind of panic and the resulting danger of a catastrophic economic collapse such as happened several times during the period in which banking was not centralized or regulated, the worst being in 1907 that led to the creation of the Fed 6 years later. From what I understand, the strong emphasis on the need to produce and mint banknotes and coin was directly the result of the chaos that ensued when people all swarmed to their banks to get their money out and there was no physical money available.

And it was not officially created until December of 1913 at which time congress also formalized and drew up the details of the newly approved income tax. Makes sense if you consider you need a bank of some sort to handle the collected tax funds.

Granted, as you point out, it IS terrible robbery if the figures for the cost to produce compared to the price for which they are sold is as widely spaced as the author of the 101 site has stated. I haven't checked that out yet but I intend to.

However, the gist of my argument against these claims against the Fed is that it is not the Fed who is ultimately responsible but our HUGE military force...the standing army we were warned about by Madison and Jefferson and 'anti-federalist' authors 200 years ago. They attempted to guard against this very thing in the constitution by requiring that congress review the need for an army every two years for the purpose of continuing or ceasing funding for same. I don't know if they do or if they don't...but if they do...they obviously approve the 'need' for an army every two years because it continues to receive funding...at a higher and higher cost than we can afford, including our income tax even at its highest collection rate.

I say perhaps the Fed is doing all it can to try to keep us afloat and at least bear some resemblance to an economically powerful nation that is solvent and still prosperous as we once were....or at least that's what I hear, anyway. This is PERHAPS.

After WWII, we have been continually engaged in military operations of varying sorts on FOREIGN soil and have only been threatened with invasion, for sure, ONCE during WWII when the Japanese got a toehold in the Aleutian Islands. And, regardless of what one believes about the 9/11 attack, that is whether it was truly bin Laden's plan or our own government...the idea of needing defense is still not justified...because if it was Al Qaeda, it was not without the provocation of our less than honorable military meddling back in Afghanistan at the end of the Cold War...or if it was our own leaders, either way it is a direct result of that which we were warned against about keeping a standing army vs a group of regionally controlled state militias.

The cost of our unnecessarily oppressive and massive military presence all over the world is staggering and it is growing almost exponentially since these last few decades with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. And that is just the two so-called 'wars' we are waging against (____). Currently we must also fund 700 military bases on foreign soil and all the troops stationed in over 150 regions/countries.

That's where we are being robbed, imo.



posted on Aug, 4 2012 @ 04:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by queenannie38
I say perhaps the Fed is doing all it can to try to keep us afloat and at least bear some resemblance to an economically powerful nation that is solvent and still prosperous as we once were....or at least that's what I hear, anyway. This is PERHAPS.


And I fully believe that they have stolen us blind, destroyed our economy and will let us sink while the super-rich private individuals who own it will make off with trillions. The sooner the better, in my mind. Something NOT pretty is going to happen here. We might as well get it over and done with so we can re-build from it.


Originally posted by queenannie38
After WWII, we have been continually engaged in military operations of varying sorts on FOREIGN soil and have only been threatened with invasion, for sure, ONCE during WWII when the Japanese got a toehold in the Aleutian Islands. And, regardless of what one believes about the 9/11 attack, that is whether it was truly bin Laden's plan or our own government...the idea of needing defense is still not justified...because if it was Al Qaeda, it was not without the provocation of our less than honorable military meddling back in Afghanistan at the end of the Cold War...or if it was our own leaders, either way it is a direct result of that which we were warned against about keeping a standing army vs a group of regionally controlled state militias.


On this, I could not agree with you more. If we were to follow Switzerland's model of EVERY person effectively being the military, keeping their military issued weapons after discharge from service, 'x' amount of weeks of training per year, etc., which is what I believe our Founding Fathers had in mind, we would have no need of any military except a Navy, an Air Force and a small amount of very, very specialized individuals. And, possibly not even a Navy and an Air Force if we had a terrific space program that hadn't been murdered.


Originally posted by queenannie38
The cost of our unnecessarily oppressive and massive military presence all over the world is staggering and it is growing almost exponentially since these last few decades with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. And that is just the two so-called 'wars' we are waging against (____). Currently we must also fund 700 military bases on foreign soil and all the troops stationed in over 150 regions/countries.

That's where we are being robbed, imo.


While I agree that our massive military presence all over the world is staggering, growing far too rapidly and thoroughly unnecessary, I disagree that it is our biggest expense. It is a matter of embarrassment to me that the U.S. somehow feels it has an obligation to 'police' the world. I think we have a lot of cleaning up in our own backyard before we worry about someone else's front yard. Seems a display of arrogance to me. That said, many members of my family have served in the military and I am proud of them for being willing to write that ultimate check - their hearts were in the right place and they followed orders. Thankfully, though a few served in the Middle East, none were in positions of having to kill someone else.

Here's our biggest expense: In 2011, 70 percent of the federal government’s budget goes to individual assistance programs. Unsustainable. Unacceptable. Untenable. But that's a whole separate issue and a rant, as well.

Thanks for your input and for being such a courteous participant. You are appreciated.



posted on Aug, 4 2012 @ 05:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by SeesFar
Here's our biggest expense: In 2011, 70 percent of the federal government’s budget goes to individual assistance programs. Unsustainable. Unacceptable. Untenable. But that's a whole separate issue and a rant, as well.


Yes, I've been thinking about starting a thread about this spending issue, the first in a long time. I rarely start threads. They usually die. I don't use the catchy title words, I guess.

Anyway, I just wanted to leave you with something to ponder...not to have the last word but because I can tell you like to know the facts as best as can be uncovered. The issue of military spending is somewhat tricky because not only do they like to just give us percentages instead of cold hard dollar figures, the 'defense' spending that is popularly believed...and allowed as such....to be the sum total of our military budget is literally just the tip of the iceberg. There is much hidden under the dark surface, in very clever ways, amidst all the rest of the budget and even outside of it. Here is an article that might give you an idea about this. I discovered this one research binge through questing for some figures instead of statistics or percentages. I can't remember now where I got my information that first time, but this Huffington Post article does sum up my own findings pretty well without any real differences from what I was shocked to discover.


Thanks for your input and for being such a courteous participant. You are appreciated.


Thanks! You are, too...it is nice to be able to DISCUSS.



posted on Aug, 4 2012 @ 07:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by queenannie38

Originally posted by SeesFar
Here's our biggest expense: In 2011, 70 percent of the federal government’s budget goes to individual assistance programs. Unsustainable. Unacceptable. Untenable. But that's a whole separate issue and a rant, as well.


Yes, I've been thinking about starting a thread about this spending issue, the first in a long time. I rarely start threads. They usually die. I don't use the catchy title words, I guess.

Anyway, I just wanted to leave you with something to ponder...not to have the last word but because I can tell you like to know the facts as best as can be uncovered. The issue of military spending is somewhat tricky because not only do they like to just give us percentages instead of cold hard dollar figures, the 'defense' spending that is popularly believed...and allowed as such....to be the sum total of our military budget is literally just the tip of the iceberg. There is much hidden under the dark surface, in very clever ways, amidst all the rest of the budget and even outside of it. Here is an article that might give you an idea about this. I discovered this one research binge through questing for some figures instead of statistics or percentages. I can't remember now where I got my information that first time, but this Huffington Post article does sum up my own findings pretty well without any real differences from what I was shocked to discover.


Thanks for your input and for being such a courteous participant. You are appreciated.


Thanks! You are, too...it is nice to be able to DISCUSS.


An extremely interesting article; thank you. I think you need to start a thread on the subject of spending - with the elections being just weeks away, it could not be better timed. You're very good with the fact finding and you provide a variety of sources and don't seem to use only those which indicate you're biased in the matter. Yet another plus for you!

For greater participation, perhaps consider taking a center view and reporting just the facts - you know people are going to try to turn it into an 'D vs R' thing when we both know it's both sides that do it.

If we add up all the money that is being spent on this, that and the other, it just drives home the reality that there is NO money. They're spending debt and writing checks they expect us to cash. I don't believe the American public has much money left. They're going to implode us and it's going to happen sooner rather than later.

If it were possible to find common ground that would unite people, rather that keep them divided, I think you would have accomplished a wonderful thing.

Perhaps a really experienced Mod would help you come up with a title that would draw attention?

If we're to have any hope at all in this Country, we must find something ... some starting point ... upon which most can agree. We simple HAVE to have commonalities, right? I think you might well be onto something with the spending. Most people are unaware of it and those of us who think we know a little about it learn something new down every Internet rabbit hole we travel.

I strongly encourage you. I believe you're just the person to do it!



new topics

top topics



 
137
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join