Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

This unbelievable video just made the front page of AOL.com

page: 19
202
<< 16  17  18    20 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 8 2013 @ 04:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by theabsolutetruth
reply to post by roreagin
 

I am well aware of the GAO report, thanks.

I posted stats and data, it happened, regardless of terms, so stop debating things I didn't even say.

Go troll some other poster.

No troll here...
&
Since you are 'well aware of the report' then you will know that Intel-Hub's claim of " How $16 trillion was ''given'' to various banks etc." is FoS right...?

The intel hub and Democratic Socialists like Senator Sanders have an Agenda which obviously skews their ability to comprehend what they read, which leads their readers into Quoting & Promoting Wrong Conclusions

If we go to a site that usually Tries To get to the 'heart of the matter' by asking the Right Questions WE just may read something like this discussion between Bill Harshaw and Paul Solman from the PBS site:

Bill Harshaw: Sen. Bernie Sanders in July 2011 said: "The first top-to-bottom audit of the Federal Reserve uncovered eye-popping new details about how the U.S. provided a whopping $16 trillion in secret loans to bail out American and foreign banks and businesses..."

"Could you explain?"

Paul Solman: I could try. Bloomberg.com, which was reporting this story last year, came up with a total of $1.2 trillion, pretty much the amount people originally thought the Fed had pledged at the time of the Crash of '08.

Here's Bloomberg on the difference between its number and $16 trillion, as explained by Phil Kuntz and Bob Ivry:

"If a bank borrowed $1 billion overnight for 100 nights, Bloomberg's analysis would show that the bank had a $1 billion balance at the Fed for 100 days;
~
"The GAO method that produced the $16 trillion total would sum up those transactions to $100 billion,
even though the bank never owed more than 1 percent [$1 Billion] of that total."

www.pbs.org...

Get It or Not... I'm just diggin up da facs

bs CT Sites & Democratic Socialists = DisInfo Specialists
&
A pain the arse imho... ~rore
edit on 8-3-2013 by roreagin because: (no reason given)
edit on 8-3-2013 by roreagin because: reword
edit on 8-3-2013 by roreagin because: (no reason given)
edit on 8-3-2013 by roreagin because: (no reason given)
edit on 8-3-2013 by roreagin because: added pbs link
edit on 8-3-2013 by roreagin because: clean up wording




posted on Mar, 8 2013 @ 11:29 AM
link   
reply to post by roreagin
 


I already told you I am aware of the FACTS, the adjusted figures and all, thanks.

I never asked for your opinion, I posted the Federal Reserve stats etc because another poster believed the missing trillions weren't FEDERAL MONEY, I posted examples of how the Federal Reserve uses money for bailing out banks etc.

So kindly, stop posting things to me about the GOA, I know all about it.



posted on Mar, 8 2013 @ 03:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by theabsolutetruth
reply to post by roreagin
 
I posted the Federal Reserve stats etc
because
another poster believed the missing trillions weren't FEDERAL MONEY,

I never asked for your opinion,
I know all about it.

Honestly, I was Not giving my opinion in regards to claims that $16 Trillion was secretly given to banks et al .

I merely posted Facts showing that There Is NO Missing $16~Trillions$ as the links you posted Claimed

To Clarify: There Is NO Missing $16 Trillion Federal Dollars



posted on Mar, 8 2013 @ 04:42 PM
link   
abolish the federal reserve/for-profit banking system and in so doing save Humanity from slavery.



posted on Mar, 8 2013 @ 04:43 PM
link   
Now that we know the Federal Reserve is a privately owned, for-profit corporation, a natural question would be: who OWNS this company? Peter Kershaw provides the answer in "Economic Solutions" where he lists the ten primary shareholders in the Federal Reserve banking system.

1) The Rothschild Family - London 2) The Rothschild Family - Berlin 3) The Lazard Brothers - Paris 4) Israel Seiff - Italy 5) Kuhn-Loeb Company - Germany 6) The Warburgs - Amsterdam 7) The Warburgs - Hamburg 8) Lehman Brothers - New York 9) Goldman & Sachs - New York 10) The Rockefeller Family - New York
Now I don't know about you, but something is terribly wrong with this situation. Namely, don't we live in AMERICA? If so, why are seven of the top ten stockholders located in FOREIGN countries? That's 70%! To further convey how screwed-up this system is, Jim Marrs provides the following data in his phenomenal book, "Rule By Secrecy.
" He says that the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, which undeniably controls the other eleven Federal Reserve branches, is essentially controlled by two financial institutions:
1) Chase-Manhattan (controlled by the Rockefellers) - 6,389,445 shares - 32.
3%
2) Citbank - 4,051,851 shares - 20.
5%
Thus, these two entities control nearly 53% of the New York Federal Reserve Bank. Doesn't that boggle your mind? Now, considering how many trillions of dollars are involved here, and how the bankers are WAY above our "selected" officials in Washington, D.C., do you think the above-listed banks and families have an inordinate amount of say-so in how our country is being run? The answer is blindingly apparent.



posted on Mar, 8 2013 @ 05:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by cornucopia
Now that we know the Federal Reserve is a privately owned, for-profit corporation...

If it were only that simple...

Here's an excerpt from a speech given by The Fed's Vice Chairman of the Board, Donald L. Kohn at the American Bar Association, Banking Law Section, Washington, November 3, 2006...

"Agrarian and progressive interests, led by William Jennings Bryan, favored a central bank under public, rather than banker, control.

"But the vast majority of the nation's bankers, concerned about government intervention in the banking business, opposed a central bank structure directed by political appointees.

"The legislation that Congress ultimately adopted in 1913 reflected a hard-fought battle to balance these two competing views
and
Created the hybrid public-private, centralized-decentralized structure that we have today."

www.federalreserve.gov...



posted on Mar, 8 2013 @ 06:45 PM
link   
reply to post by roreagin
 


nationalize the banks...

no more profit banking,


banks are just supposed to be a safe place to hold your money because it's the right thing to do...

Humans need to start to care about Humans on this world ASAP.



posted on Mar, 8 2013 @ 10:03 PM
link   
That chart is actually making me nauseated and disgusted.

80% of the population is living in front of green screen called "freedom"... "equality"..."justice"...



posted on Mar, 8 2013 @ 10:41 PM
link   
The top 1% have programmed the computers to extract the bits and bytes we now call money away from us and into their accounts. They control the distribution of goods and they don't care. As long as they have theirs. They talk of exterminating us rather than compensating us. Another Nazi like 'thinning of the herd' is the plan they speak of putting into place. Things are not changing because they wait for 'attrition' through starvation and sickness.



posted on Mar, 8 2013 @ 10:46 PM
link   
reply to post by cornucopia
 


The U.S. needs to socialize:

Healthcare
Transportation
Energy Utilities
and Banking

The 1% would normalize and the "middle class" would thrive.



posted on Mar, 8 2013 @ 11:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by BurbGirl378
reply to post by cornucopia
 


The U.S. needs to socialize:

Healthcare
Transportation
Energy Utilities
and Banking

The 1% would normalize and the "middle class" would thrive.



yep...

WHAT IF THE PEOPLE IN THE USA...

took advantage of immanent domain and took over corporate properties, government properties and oil fields.



posted on Mar, 9 2013 @ 01:18 AM
link   
reply to post by cornucopia
 


I think it is interesting when those held down by whatever system fight for the system to continue.

CJ



posted on Mar, 9 2013 @ 11:08 AM
link   
lets get this on yahoo main page

thank you



posted on Mar, 9 2013 @ 12:31 PM
link   
Let me ask you all a question? Is there a hard limit to the amount dollars in the world? If the top .05% horded there billions, or burned them, would that mean less money for anyone else to earn? What would that chart look like if we removed the top .05%?

We all agree that the capabilities today to make billions is much easier than anyother time in the past. Those in that position are in a different world than the rest of us, so how is it that they effect what another person could make? Other than skewing the chart, what is the effect?

If we say that 1/2 of Americans don't pay Federal Taxes this mean they make less than 55k or so, if we say 75 million households on the poor end to low middle average 40k that comes out to 300 billion, and so it would only take 300 top wage earners to equal 75 million households.

Then we say HOW DARE THEY MAKE SO MUCH!!!!

When we look at that over 50% of America work for small businesses owned by Non-billionaires, or people not even close to that, and barely millionaires how does that play into the equation? Add in that the better paying jobs and better opportunity are typically with bigger companies once again how does that all play into it all?

Minimum wages in Washington state is 9.19 so if we look at history where inflation doubles every 18 years or so how does that look?

1945 .40

187.5% with Inflation 70%

1961 1.15

152% with 144% inflation

1979 2.90

77.5% with 113% inflation

1997 5.15

40% with 46% inflation

2012 7.25

if 2013 10.00
Then 94% with 49% inflation...seems we would be right on track once again, but the chart would be still extremely skewed due to the very few who can make billions these days, but minimum wage would not be out of alignment with inflation looking back at over 50 years of data.

So if the lowest of low is aligned right then where is the problem? How much should a counter person at MacDs make per hour based on the skill/education level needed to do that job? How much should a maid make, or a department store worker make?

Most would agree that 100k household is not bad, but that would put a family in the top 15% bracket. Can any of you live on 100k per year? I think most would say they can live rather well.

But what we do is compare 100k household to one that makes billons and say that the billionaire is taking opportunity away from 100k worker, but that becomes a slippery slope in suggesting a limit one can make.

There other side of this is if I made a billion dollars and all my employees were 2 to 5 times or better than minimum wage why should I pay some huge amount of tax beyond what is max today? It would be like a fine for being too successful...



posted on Mar, 9 2013 @ 12:31 PM
link   
Looking at that chart it suggests "wealth" as in what one has....

The poor to middle class don't have "wealth" they live month to month...something they have always done since...forever

If I carry 50k in savings then that means I have 50,000 percent more wealth than 50% our our nation...I must be a bad person....

edit on 9-3-2013 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 9 2013 @ 12:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by BurbGirl378

The U.S. needs to socialize:

Healthcare
Transportation
Energy Utilities
and Banking

The 1% would normalize and the "middle class" would thrive.


Looks nice on paper, but the Government is not efficient in ANYTHING they do. How would you account for the tremendous waste that would also be a part of it all. When a system doesn't need to make profit to survive it just continually bloats all out of proportion. What company would be in business if they had 10 years of loss and borrowed every year to make up that loss while continually increasing their expenses every year without a care?

Well that is our government and what it would be like if they did have control as you suggest.


edit on 9-3-2013 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 9 2013 @ 01:05 PM
link   
reply to post by stirling
 



The conduit to it all, is the Bond market and that continues because of Democracy as people want more then
they contribute , which ultimately destroys the economy as everyone sits on the arrse and waits for their variation of
a freebie.

Life is not egalitarian but it can be fair with it's encompassing inequalities.



posted on Mar, 9 2013 @ 02:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xtrozero

If I carry 50k in savings then that means I have 50,000 percent more wealth than 50% our our nation...I must be a bad person....

edit on 9-3-2013 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)


You're probably not reading that chart right, but that said, judging by how you see yourself relative to the great unwashed common horde that is American society, you're probably a bad person due to may other irredeemable issues.



posted on Mar, 9 2013 @ 07:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by NorEaster

You're probably not reading that chart right, but that said, judging by how you see yourself relative to the great unwashed common horde that is American society, you're probably a bad person due to may other irredeemable issues.


You have missed my point completely...

Since a good chunk of Americans do not save then any chart that shows wealth is totally skewed.



posted on Mar, 10 2013 @ 03:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by BurbGirl378
reply to post by cornucopia
 


The U.S. needs to socialize:

Healthcare
Transportation
Energy Utilities
and Banking

The 1% would normalize and the "middle class" would thrive.


Clever girl... heh.

I am disgusted that there we have completely unregulated capitalism in this country. Some things are more important than money, believe it or not. People should have the option to buy a sustenance shake for less than a McDonald's cheeseburger, even if it doesn't taste as good. There is no such option, who could produce these in large quantities akin to the cardboard cheeseburger.

Healthcare, don't get me started. Tons of families like me are stuck in their jobs and therefore where they live, because not having healthcare would literally debt us to death. The prices are absolutely sickening, it would be a good joke if it weren't our sad reality.

IMO, charge the hell out of entertainment and luxury things (this is where the greed should be able to have their unbridled profits free from guilt, non-necessities). We all need Internet today to be competitive (intelligent people who can also find the best jobs), we need mobile phones for emergencies, cheap phones with extremely limited call time should just be free. Republicans and libertarians say well even the poor have phones now, the poor are doing great in this country. Of course they have phones, the rich want to suck from our wallets every month, why wouldn't we, it's a social norm at this point.

No one has to go out for sushi. Charge the # out of it. Continue to charge a lot for movies. For super trendy clothes. Whatever. Kids clothes that are not trendy are pretty cheap, thank goodness they aren't abusing this space.

We need nationalized healthcare where doctors nurses etc. live an upper-middle class or lower-upper class lifestyle as part of their ongoing service. They could basically get free stuff/good but not MTV-Cribs-level housing (tracked and limited within reason) from all companies in this nation, that would be their contribution rather than paying ridiculous amount for healthcare. This would get good people in healthcare for the right reasons, vs. just getting rich off of the unfortunate circumstances of others.

Education doesn't have to be free, but in this age where people can learn whatever they want more than ever if they put in the time (online/via literature/etc.) college or no college should no longer be what decides which resumes are trashed outright. People who have the skills and knowledge should get the jobs, otherwise we're just encouraging some other industry that's become all about the money (education).

Ya dig? We should get paid for what we produce, no more 1% my daddy owns Bounty and now we get free money forever for doing nothing bull#! No more people getting all of the money when the underlings are the ones who can point to things they contributed or did in the product, while the CEOs screw around and career hop as their job/take their golden parachutes/mostly provide a face for the company.
edit on 3/10/2013 by AkumaStreak because: (no reason given)





new topics

top topics



 
202
<< 16  17  18    20 >>

log in

join