It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Taxpayer Assets to be Sold to Hedge Funds, Foreign Investors, etc.

page: 1

log in


posted on Aug, 27 2011 @ 01:16 PM
Okay - we (taxpayers) bailed out the Fannie & Freddie mess, leaving us with huge numbers of properties. Now they are about to be sold, at virtual pennies on the dollar, en masse to the likes of Goldman Sachs hedge funds and even foreign sovereign wealth funds.

The largest transfer of wealth from the public to private sector is about to begin. The federal government will be bulk-selling the massive portfolio of foreclosed homes now owned by HUD, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to private investors -- vulture funds. These homes, which are now the property of the U.S. government, the U.S. taxpayer, U.S. citizens collectively, are going to be sold to private investor conglomerates at extraordinarily large discounts to real value. You and I will not be allowed to participate. These investors will come from the private-equity and hedge-fund community, Goldman Sachs and its derivatives, as well as foreign sovereign wealth funds that can bring a billion dollars or more to each transaction. In the process, these investors will instantaneously become the largest improved real estate owners and landlords in the world. The U.S. taxpayer will get pennies on the dollar for these homes and then be allowed to rent them back at market rates.

So it appears that many of us will be paying our rent to the corporate overlords - I guess the next logical step after giving them our tax dollars.

Or maybe our rent checks will find their way into our (future overlord) Chinese pockets. Reminds me of an actual MSM news report years ago, showing organized tourist/investor buses bringing Chinese citizens into suburban US neighborhoods, expressly for encouraging US real estate investment purchasing. So I guess we'll save them the time and bother of having to individually shop - and sell them whole neighborhoods at once.

On the bright side, by then we may all be pitching a tent or sheltering in a cave anyway.

posted on Aug, 27 2011 @ 01:40 PM
wow this really sucks so basically banks are loaned money, they in turn loan money to people to buy a house, house cant be paid, so it goes to forclosure, banks fail and need bail out, taxpayers bail them out and purchase the forclosed home at regular price, then we sell this back to the bank for pennies on the dollar. WTF

basically banks are getting to buy all these homes at pennies on the dollar from the beginning, only giving more reason to try and push foreclosures on people.

Cant believe this is happening, I hope this does start mass protest but I am really doubting it, especially since this is the first I am hearing about it.

posted on Aug, 27 2011 @ 01:42 PM
If you have followed the events of the subprime mortgage fiasco from day one until now... You could almost believe that this was just a long scheme coming to a close.

posted on Aug, 27 2011 @ 01:44 PM
reply to post by thegoods724

Very similar to credit default swaps done in third world countries, where the countries are given loans they were never meant to pay back and in the long run sold off all their assets at discounted rates to cover debt.

Odious Debt

posted on Aug, 27 2011 @ 01:57 PM
There was a report about Fannie and Freddie selling off foreclosures way below market value. In this once case they highlighted the foreclosure they sold was worth 15g's on the market but they sold it for 5g's. Some of the advocates in the area say this isn't a one time occurrence, but actually happens all over the town.

They believe they are doing this to drive down the market value of the homes for a massive sell off. And what do you know, looks like they are about to start a massive sell off.

posted on Aug, 27 2011 @ 01:59 PM
Matt Taibbi has recently become rather well known but before he hit the journalistic big time in recent days, he was an expat writer in Russia. In 2003 he wrote something that rings truer today than ever:

...Many of us who spent the 90s in Russia became aware over time that the aim of the United States was to create a rump state that would allow economic interests to strip assets at will. The population in this scheme was to be good for consuming foreign goods produced abroad with Russia’s own cheaply sold raw materials. The aim was a castrated state, anarchy, a vast, confused territory of captive consumers, cheap labor and unguarded oil and aluminum.

Some of us who came home after seeing this began to realize that the same process is underway in the United States: the erosion of the tax base, the gradual appropriation of the tools of government by economic interests, a massive, disorganized population useless to everybody except as shoppers. That is their revolution: smashing states everywhere and creating a scattered global nation of villas and tax shelters, as inaccessible as Olympus, forbidding entry even to mighty dictators.

What the arrest of Mikhail Khodorkovsky really means by Matt Taibbi

posted on Aug, 28 2011 @ 07:30 AM
Kinda reminds me that the end result will be much like the plot of the original 'Roller Ball' movie. The NWO will be corporate and control all facets of your life. Sure sucks!!!


posted on Aug, 28 2011 @ 07:37 AM
It was all a scam from the start.

Why would the Federal government be interested in the well-being of the Individual. The criminals in Washington are not there to serve The People, they are their to enrich themselves through theft of your income.

It all begins with the taxation of YOUR income.

A tax on your income is the root of all evil.

posted on Aug, 28 2011 @ 07:50 AM
reply to post by boncho

If you have followed the events of the subprime mortgage fiasco from day one until now... You could almost believe that this was just a long scheme coming to a close.

Of COURSE it is a long term scheme coming to a close! Republicans AND Democrats are up to their necks in it!

I just wish the average American would get their heads out of the sand and SEE the politicians of BOTH parties are TRAITORS that sold our country off to the highest bidder... and it ain't us little folk.

I wrote this a year ago and now we see I was right.
THIS is what the Republicans AND Democrats have planned for us so LISTEN UP!!! We have been SOLD to the international cartels and it wasn't JUST Bush who did it. (Note, I dislike Bush too, actually I hate most politicians)

Clinton was the President who Ratified the North American Free Trade Agreement and the World Trade Organization Treaties and then got China admitted to the WTO. This set up the mass exodus of our jobs.

Gene Sperling (Clinton's head of the National Economic Council) and William Daley (Clinton's Sec of Commerce) worked on China’s entry into the World Trade Organization, an event which caused millions of manufacturing jobs in U.S. to be permanently lost. Currently General Electric CEO Jeffery Immelt has been tapped to lead a newly created Council on Jobs and Competitiveness. Obama is appointing this team of three TRAITORS to spearhead his economic policies. LINK

The patriot Act, AIG bailout. (AIG, was 80% nationalized by the U.S. government) and foreign wars increasing the Federal Debt.

Obama-Dodd financial bill would further enrich Goldman Sachs The "bill would reward the firm with potentially billions of dollars by instituting a so-called “resolution authority” that would, in practice, be a permanent bailout fund."

Continue Bankrupting the American people and destroying the dollar, Effectively lower wages to "international levels" using QE 2 and possibly QE 3

...QE has Keynesianism in its roots. All economists know the solution to unemployment is lower real wages. A central part of Keynes’ theory was the notion of money illusion. Keynes believed that workers would not accept nominal decreases in wages but that they could be fooled via inflation, a belief that only an elitist could have. If the cost of living goes up and wages stay the same, then real wages go down and presumably employment goes up (or down less than it otherwise would).

Inflation, the critical tool in the Keynesian paradigm, has been used regularly. Since the formation of the Federal Reserve, the purchasing power of the dollar has fallen almost 96%....

Bernanke’s QE destroys the value of the dollar. In terms of outcomes, continued abuse of this policy will result in a collapse of the dollar and possibly hyperinflation. The article below deals with how Bernanke could create the first (which ends up as the second).

Could Bernanke Spark a Run on the Dollar?
By Mike WhitneyJanuary 27, 2010

Treasury yields are “blinking red”, but the Fed keeps acting like nothing’s wrong....

The reason we should care is because the yield curve is signaling one of two things; inflation or default. What it is NOT signaling is a robust recovery.Remember, the Fed’s main job is “price stability” which means keeping a lid on inflation....

...granted, QE2 has boosted stock prices, but the extra liquidity has also inflated commodities prices (making it harder on consumers) and wreaked havoc in emerging markets forcing trading partners to control capital flows or raise rates to tamp down inflation. But QE2′s greatest shortcoming is that is really doesn’t create jobs as advertised....

Here’s how the Wall Street journal’s Kelly Evans summed it up:”…the limits of monetary policy are becoming clearer. History suggests any further easing probably would do too much for the stock market and asset prices, and too little for jobs.The only real fix is to lower the cost of U.S. workers relative to foreign rivals and machines, or else raise their bang for the buck. The latter, while clearly preferable, requires education and training that won’t turn things around overnight.” (“The Fed’s Magic Show Appears to Be Over”, Wall Street Journal)

In other words, the Fed is planning to give every working man and woman in the US a big pay-cut so they can go nose-to-nose with foreign labor.

You can see how this blends seamlessly with Obama’s State of the Union Speech where he focused on “competition” as his central theme. More importantly, Obama reiterated his pledge to double exports in the next 5 years. The only way that can be achieved is by destroying the dollar....

...from an op-ed by Judy Shelton that explains what’s going on:

he government will continue to run a large budget deficit, which must be financed by issuing more government debt. The debt is monetized when the Federal Reserve purchases it from the public. The effect is to increase the money supply. Inflationary monetary policy goes hand-in-hand with a falling dollar in foreign-exchange markets.” (“The Wrong Way to Double Exports”, Judy Shelton, Wall Street Journal)So, while working people and pensioners see their savings sliced in half to accommodate the globalist dream of an evenly-depressed world labor market; the investor class will get regular injections of Fed liquidity via QE2 to keep stocks “bubbly” and profits high.

This policy of lowering the US standard of living is exactly what Al Gore's buddy Maurice Strong was calling for at the Rio Conference (Earth Summit II) in 1992, when he stated that industrialized countries have:

“…developed and benefited from the unsustainable patterns of production and consumption which have produced our present dilemma. It is clear that current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class -- involving high meat intake, consumption of large amounts of frozen and convenience foods, use of fossil fuels, appliances, home and work-place air-conditioning, and suburban housing -- are not sustainable. A shift is necessary toward lifestyles less geared to environmentally damaging consumption patterns."

It is what Obama's top Science Czar John Holdren and his co-authors meant when they wrote in their 1973 text book:
“A massive campaign must be launched to restore a high-quality environment in North America and to de-develop the United States..”

Funny how the US census bureau statistics showed 24% of US labor was engaged in manufacturing in 1970 and by 2009 it was less that 9%. Funny how Clinton's trade pact cost America 20 percent of its manufacturing jobs in just 14 years. Funny how Obama's Health Care Laws will kill 800,000 jobs according to the Congressional Budget Office. Funny how 70% of the US GNP is foreign owned..

The Value of Money January 3, 2003

...The United States now has the dubious distinction of being the world’s largest debtor nation and needs to attract fully 80% of the world’s free capital just to keep the dollar stable. During the 1990s, this was not a problem as strong financial markets led to increased foreign investment and consequently to further dollar denominated investments.

Foreign ownership of U.S. assets amounted to 33% of U.S. GDP in 1990. Today it is valued at over 70% of U.S. GDP. Foreigners own $2 trillion (19% of U.S. GDP) more in U.S. assets that the U.S. holds of theirs. Foreign ownership of the U.S. Treasury market is over 30%, over 23% of the corporate bond market, and 13% of the U.S. equity market. (Statistics courtesy of Bridgewater, Dec 13, 2002.)

The fate of the dollar now boils down to a question of confidence. But not the confidence of its own citizens, but of foreigners....

...In 1991 the US. switched from emphasizing Gross National Product (GNP) as the basic measure of total output, to Gross Domestic Product (GDP)... (Clinton AGAIN???
...the production of a foreigner in the US is not counted as part of US GNP. GDP is different from GNP in that it measures output produced on US soil...

U.S. imports have been more than U.S. exports in all but two of the years since 1965, so the U.S. has persistently run trade deficits....Last time we noted how the U.S. economy has become increasingly international in the past half-century. An increasing proportion of what we consume is produced abroad, and foreigners are among the biggest investors in the U.S. stock, bond, and real estate markets.

Because of the growing internationalization of the U.S. economy. TV newscasters sometimes warn that "foreigners are buying up America," and it's partly true...

In 1990, U.S. GDP > GNP by $37 billion-- there were a lot more foreign-owned businesses in U.S. than U.S.-owned businesses in rest of world. (In recent years, by contrast, GNP has been slightly larger than GDP in the U.S.) Foreign direct investment in the U.S. jumped from $54.5 billion in 1979 to over $400 billion in 1989.

...Per-capita GDP is a reasonable measure of a country's standard of living. In fact, "standard of living" and "per capita GDP" have come to be virtually synonymous...

edit on 28-8-2011 by crimvelvet because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 28 2011 @ 08:23 AM

History of the Scheme

You can go all the way back to 1913 and the Federal Reserve Act but I will start with more recent history.

Agin this is something I wrote about a year ago
Here are the critical moves by each president that will lead to the coming Great Depression:


First stop is Nixon and the Vietnam War. Wars are VERY expensive and run up the Federal debt big time. American literally could not afford the Vietnam war, gold was flying out of Fort Knox (only foreigners could trade dollars for gold) so Nixon detached the Dollar from gold. This allowed the bankers to print dollars with abandon and we got wage devaluation and price inflation. Another way of saying Americans got raped ... AGAIN.

Edit to add:
Of course those in the know were not about to get "sheared" along with the sheeple so when Nixon took the USA off the gold standard they made sure their wages kept up with inflation unlike the poor smucks in the factories and offices. In 1976 A typical American CEO earned 36 times as much as the average worker. By 2008 the average CEO pay increased to 369 times that of the average worker.

Ronald Reagan

Reagan facilitated Leveraged buyouts/Hostile takeovers

....Both economic and regulatory factors combined to spur the explosion in large takeovers and, in turn, large LBOs. The three regulatory factors were the Reagan administration's relatively laissez-faire policies on antitrust and securities laws, which allowed mergers the government would have challenged in earlier years; the 1982 Supreme Court decision striking down state antitakeover laws (which were resurrected with great effectiveness in the late eighties); and deregulation of many industries, which prompted restructurings and mergers. The main economic factor was the development of the original-issue high-yield debt instrument. The so-called "junk bond" innovation, pioneered by Michael Milken of Drexel Burnham, provided many hostile bidders and LBO firms with the enormous amounts of capital needed to finance multi-billion-dollar deals....

The result was a consolidation of wealth in a few mega-corporations who now wield vast power. *0% of the world's food supply is now controlled by just nine corporations last I checked.

Bill Clinton

Clinton was responsible for the World Trade Organization, NAFTA, Formation of Mega Banks, and "Most favored Nation Status" - China

1995 World Trade Organization Agreement on Ag and 1996 Freedom to Farm Act, both written by VP of Cargill Dan Amstutz. Amstutz later joined Goldman Sachs who manipulated grain futures and caused the 2008 food price hikes and the world wide food riots.

Today's global food crisis shows "we all blew it, including me when I was president," by treating food crops as commodities instead of as a vital right of the world's poor, Bill Clinton told a U.N. gathering on Thursday. UNITED NATIONS, Oct. 23, 2008

President Bill Clinton, now the UN Special Envoy to Haiti, publicly apologized last month for forcing Haiti to drop tariffs on imported, subsidized US rice during his time in office. The policy wiped out Haitian rice farming and seriously damaged Haiti’s ability to be self-sufficient.

Consolidation of Mega Banks, AIG Bailout and Foreclosuregate: Quick list of Banking laws

After the Great Depression, several laws were put in place to prevent another depression. The 1933 and 1934 Security and Exchange laws, The McFadden Act of 1927, The Glass-Steagall Act or Banking Act of 1933. Also Bank Holding Company Act of 1956.

Clinton's laws Negating above: Riegle-Neal Interstate Banking and Branching Efficiency Act of 1994 and Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999

More pro-banking Clinton laws:
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Improvement Act of 1991:Allowed big banks to gobble up smaller banks more easily.

Housing and Community Development Act of 1992 and RTC Completion Act - Housing and business loans to minorities.

Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 200 - left CDSs unregulated and set up AIG bailout and Foreclosuregate.

The Baby BUSH

Bush - MORE EXPENSIVE Wars, Patriot Act, John Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007, AIG bailout.

Wars are costly to those fighting them and profitable to those financing them. If the "winning" country does not gain appreciable amounts of land and resources to offset the cost of war, the war make absolutely no sense---- UNLESS of course you are a banker. Bankrolling the Bolshevik Revolution and Bankers and WAR

Patriot Act:
It is very interesting to read the Patriot Act. It addresses border security at the Canadian border but now where in the document does it address the Mexican border despite Radical Islam makes inroads among Latin America's Native peoples

Of course Bush and the bankers see nothing to fear from the Muslims given their "intimate" connections.
Therefore the only real reason for the Patriot Act is to oppress "Homegrown Terrorists" On February 14 2008 U.S. Northern Command, Canada Command established new bilateral Civil Assistance Plan allowing Canadian troops to be used to "respond quickly to the other nation's requests for military support of civil authorities,” and the John Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007 repealed Posse Comitatus.

The Military Commissions Act, allows the president to station military troops anywhere in the United States and take control of state-based National Guard units without the consent of the governor or local authorities, in order to “suppress public disorder.”

Clinton was not to be out done by Bush in preparing for insurrection.

So Where Do Anti-Hoarding Laws Come In?

These ideas of anti-hoarding legislation may have stemmed from two areas of confusion:

First is from Executive Orders in place dating back to 1939 which Clinton has grouped together under one order, EO #12919 released on June 6, 1994. The following EOs all fall under EO#12919:

10995--Federal seizure of all communications media in the US;
10997--Federal seizure of all electric power, fuels, minerals, public and private;
10998--Federal seizure of all food supplies and resources, public and private and all farms and equipment;
10999--Federal seizure of all means of transportation, including cars, trucks, or vehicles of any kind and total control over all highways, seaports and water ways;
11000--Federal seizure of American people for work forces under federal supervision, including the splitting up of families if the government so desires;
11001--Federal seizure of all health, education and welfare facilities, both public and private;
11002--Empowers the Postmaster General to register every single person in the US
11003--Federal seizure of all airports and aircraft;
11004--Federal seizure of all housing and finances and authority to establish forced relocation. Authority to designate areas to be abandoned as "unsafe," establish new locations for populations, relocate communities, build new housing with public funds;
11005--Seizure of all railroads, inland waterways and storage facilities, both public and private;
11051--Provides FEMA complete authorization to put above orders into effect in times of increased international tension of economic or financial crisis (FEMA will be in control incase of "National Emergency").

These EOs are not aimed at anti-hoarding but rather at seizure or confiscation of items...


Obama - Bankrupt the American people, prevent the economy from recovering.

Obama-Dodd financial bill would further enrich Goldman Sachs The "bill would reward the firm with potentially billions of dollars by instituting a so-called “resolution authority” that would, in practice, be a permanent bailout fund."

Obama loan modification program actually forces foreclosures:

Even though many homeowners are put into trial Making Home Affordable Programs, thousands of homeowners complain that a few months after making reduced monthly mortgage payments their banks avoid permanent loan modifications. By now, it's no secret that home loan servicers are making money on foreclosures rather than approving home loan modifications.

Although the article admits "Homeowners are tired of sending the same paperwork again and again and getting the runaround from their banks.." It neglects to say that after many months of drag the process out, the banks then hand the cash strapped homeowner a colossal bill for back payments, penalties, added interest AND LAWYERS FEES! You are given one month to make the payment or the bank forecloses. IF by some miracle you manage to scrap up the payment you get ANOTHER run around with the bank refusing to name the exact amount need to avoid foreclosure.

It took SIX MONTHS for my lawyer to pin the S.O.B.s down! Here is the reason why

“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.”

...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....

50% of the US labor force work for small business. Obamacare makes a change in the tax law governing 1099's that is going to be a NIGHTMARE for ALL businesses and force many small businesses to close their doors. Worse it will greatly impede the start of new small businesses.

The second fiasco is the food safety law. Most American farmers, despite the media's hype, have to work a second job to support their farm. Very few farms actually get tax payer money and those are normally the large corporate farms. The addition of food safety regulations are going to push many out of business. It is starting alread with 400 farms within 50 miles of my home.

This destruction of American farming is intentional and started right after WWII. The key moves were the 1995 World Trade Organization Agreement on Ag and the 1996 farm bill called the "Freedom to Farm Act" both written by the VP of Cargill Dan Amstutz. Those two not only wiped out many farmers in the US but all over the world. The "Freedom to Farm Act" also got rid of the US strategic grain reserve. As of 2008 the USDA reported "The Cupboard is bare"

The economic disparity between industrial farms and those that retain locally owned and controlled farms may be due in part, to the degree in which money stays in the community. Locally owned and controlled farms tend to buy their supplies and services locally, thus supporting a variety of local businesses. This phenomenon is known as the economic “multiplier” effect, estimated at approximately seven dollars per dollar earned by the locally owned farm. PEW REPORT

The total economic impact of farming for my state, North Carolina, was over $704 million in 2002. Only 171 Farms of the 53930 NC farms are not Family held.

Impact on other industries for NC farms:
238,389,000.....Fertilizer, lime,etc
319,142,000.....Supplies,repairs, Maintainance

65,193,000.....Contract Labor

3,762,881,000 Total added to economy
164,848,000......Interest expense

Will the Food Safety Law effect your home garden? It may if not now then later because despite all the media hype the Tesser Amendment does NOT exempt small farms.

...Ignorance about the law’s broad reach (and how it will be construed by the courts) has thwarted opposition to the bill, which will likely pass Congress. For example, a newspaper claims the bill “doesn’t regulate home gardens.” The newspaper probably assumed that was true because the bill, like most federal laws, only purports to reach activities that affect “interstate commerce.” To an uninformed layperson or journalist, that “sounds as if it might not reach local and mom-and-pop operators at all.” ...

But lawyers familiar with our capricious legal system know better. The Supreme Court ruled in Wickard v. Filburn (1942) that even home gardens (in that case, a farmer’s growing wheat for his own consumption) are subject to federal laws that regulate interstate commerce. Economists and scholars have criticized this decision, but it continues to be cited and followed in Supreme Court rulings, such as those applying federal anti-drug laws to consumption of even home-grown medical marijuana. Indeed, many court decisions allow Congress to define as “interstate commerce” even non-commercial conduct that doesn’t cross state lines.

... As a lawyer, I am skeptical of this claim. (I co-represented the prevailing defendant in the last successful constitutional challenge to federal regulation under the interstate commerce clause, United States v. Morrison (2000) — one of only two cases since the 1930s where the Supreme Court limited, rather than rubberstamped, regulation in the name of “interstate commerce”). And it appears that that the proposed law CAN apply to that tomato plant in your backyard (or Michelle Obama’s garden), since Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause is almost unlimited in the eyes of the courts...

Another lawyer's comments on Food Safety and the Commerce Clause

Like President Clinton, President Reagan and President Bush, history will point to Obama as one of the five presidents that INTENTIONALLY hamstrung the USA and CAUSED world wide hunger, the starvation of millions of children and the transfer of American land to the Mega-corporations.

edit on 28-8-2011 by crimvelvet because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 28 2011 @ 08:36 AM
reply to post by Open2Truth

well, there's one thing that might be OK...

95% of all those properties are bundled up in the MERS registration system... the greedy mortgage bankers lumped the deeds & titles/Mortgages into that electronic whiz-bang of a fraudulent entity...

so, as a result the homes were never locally recorded or registered in the tax districts they were situated in... hence the local tax rolls missed out on the fees & document stamps the county assessor would have been paid if the registration process was done in the tried & true way that was working for a 100 years before the 'MERS' system was created and the housing bubble burst in the 2006-2008 window of crisis

I think that when these properties are resold to these investors, that they will be bound to reregister the home in the tax district they lie in... and there will (or should be) a penalty assessment applied to the house that is 5-6 years old with no legal mortgage holder known

the local governments stand to take in $100s of millions in establishing the legal line of ownership the correct way this time around ~
unless there's more crooked dealings being done behind our backs again....
edit on 28-8-2011 by St Udio because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 28 2011 @ 08:51 AM
How is this even legal? Every one of these bastards needs to be tried and prosecuted under RICO statutes!
I am seriously getting fed up with this sh*t!

posted on Aug, 28 2011 @ 11:46 AM
reply to post by St Udio

I fear that as a component of these mega-deals there will be legal protection against prior liens, taxes, etc. for the buying entities - in fact, the more I think about how they would/could structure such deals the more certain I am that they will be sure of it.

I don't even think they'll bother with the effort to do it "behind our backs." I think they are pretty cocky robbers by now - whole situation makes me sick to my stomach, literally.

edit on 8/28/2011 by Open2Truth because: clarity malfunction

posted on Aug, 29 2011 @ 08:43 AM
A little birdie pointed me to this thread and I must say, this is not necessarily the result of an outrageous monetary policy. Instead, I propose, this is the result of an outrageous fiscal policy.

Many of you are well-versed in the jargon, so I have to wonder if that idea will be understood as I intend it. It is quite possible, after all, that it is I who have the ideas mixed up.

Let me start with some definitions that you can challenge.

Wikipedia starts the general topic of monetary policy as follows: "Monetary policy is the process by which the monetary authority of a country controls the supply of money, often targeting a rate of interest for the purpose of promoting economic growth and stability." This seems to imply that those who "issue currency" (which I am know confident can be attributed to the global banking cartel) control the supply of money (and thus its value) and the interest rate at which the notional wealth is distributed to other banks. Monetary policy is the "control" of the economic environment by means of the availability and value of currency. In the compartmentalized "global" economic environment it thus "influences" the economic global outlook as to the ability to exploit revenue streams.

On the flip-side we have fiscal policy, which Wikipedia describes as "In economics, fiscal policy is the use of government expenditure and revenue collection (taxation) to influence the economy." Fiscal policy is the domain of the government; our elected officials and their "political appointees." By means of taxation and expenditure, our nations finances are "controlled" while our economy is "influenced." But since the government can only expend and tax revenue within the national arena (and presumable for its benefit) it is entirely dis-empowered at the global level.

Since the rather subversive integration of the global banking cartel within the US government has become almost permanently entrenched, it is clear that the momentum of fiscal policy has been to appease and benefit those financial interests that have become the true first-class citizens of the nation (some of whom aren't even American concerns - perhaps even most of whom aren't.)

As we can see by the diligent studies and vigilance of some of our members, the specificity of the action that these people take (meaning the monetary ans fiscal executive bodies, or persons, or corporations) are not hidden. They are simply couched in a morass of theatrical elements which obfuscate a more simple reality.

There is no free market.

Every key entity has a hand in resisting or encouraging the institution or dissolution of policy and regulations which would impede profit-taking by those who sponsor and make possible the stage play of politics.

That many people participated and measured their activity in terms of 'helping others' and 'making affordable housing available' was the cruelest form of misdirected energy.

The stereotypical "bubble/pop" method of exploitation of the market has been seen repeatedly in this nation. Perhaps more than any other; because as a capitalist state ostensibly devoted to a free market economy, we are naturally disinclined to interfere with others amassing wealth... since we would all like to be able to just that. Unfortunately for us, the real wealth gathering and distribution comes from those who "own" the currency we trade with.... two guesses who that might be..... and the first doesn't count.

Here is what I think is happening... really.

Like an impetuous and undisciplined teenager, our politicians were given a credit card... one that they didn't have to pay off themselves. They did precisely what most such injudicious and suddenly wealth-drunk fools do... they spent themselves into a hole. As far as our government construct was concerned; safeguards against this abuse were put in place; and the threat was at least spoken of, and recognized. The "issuer" of this credit card was none other than our non-federal Federal Reserve, whom we can't fire, audit, or eliminate (or so they have been told.)

Suddenly, as the natural dispersal of wealth became less natural, some less oblivious policy-makers recognized the threat to themselves and more importantly; their corporate party. With the input of their sage adviser and mentor in all things economic - the Fed - they created two completely mutant "quasi" governmental entities... Freddy and Fannie... like the Fed, there was nothing governmental about their finances.

People I speak to often confuse the idea that Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were 'government' entities... they were not. they were "political-financial' entities... the fact that their underpinnings were in the Fed and the politicians made everyone susceptible to believe that they were 'governmental' but actually - they inflated the housing market (bubble-up) and as most know... all bubbles pop.

That the financial entities that engendered the pop stand poised to loot the spoils is neither outrageous nor should it have been unexpected. it is the point of the bubble/pop strategy... to consolidate control of revenue streams under increasingly powerful corporate interests.

Since our politicians are willing to accept that ANY corporation is a citizen, and thus cannot be 'singled out' they cannot refuse the sale to any willing to purchase the "bad debt' that has been assigned to this "real wealth" - property.

How many politicians are discussing this during their campaigns? How many news outlets are dissecting the loss of the true wealth (as opposed to the movement of fiat currency?) Is anyone willing to see if their will be a "bidding" option for the ownership of this land? Or are our politicians simply "handing off" the responsibility to a "quasi" governmental FM to do with as they please (as if they "owned" the land?)

There is great room for discussion here. But not if we don't accept that as long as FM and FM are presumed to be governmental... that would imply that we haven't already lost the land.... we did... it's already in private hands. In our country; that's as good as it being "gone." Just because the tax-payers foot the bill does not mean the government will allow the citizens to "have a say" in it's disposition.

Watch the political appointees, the political "oversight" board members.... and the 'written-in-stone' declarations of the "economists" priests who will tell us this is a good thing.

I don't mean to offend; but the noble goal of making housing available to to less affluent Americans was a trick. It's not the citizens fault, it's an old con... one that I am nearly certain the political corporation will engender again. We couldn't have the government selling houses to the poor... that would have been the nasty "C" or "S" word (communism or socialism) so they created a "quasi" governmental agency - which is to say a private entity
to undertake the idea.

And we manned it with ... wait for it...... politically appointed ......BANKERS.

Redirect your outrage and angst... this battle was lost a while back.... what we really need to be concerned about is the underpinning that this affront will conceal..... the large wholesale transfer of ownership of immense preserves, parks, highways, and other infrastructure lost to corporate tom-foolery... to front-men for the same global cartel that cause the mess in the first place.

I feel for the loss of millions of homes and the parcels of land they are on.... but compared to the final target; this is small potatoes.
edit on 29-8-2011 by Maxmars because: misfire

edit on 29-8-2011 by Maxmars because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 29 2011 @ 04:36 PM
reply to post by Maxmars

Hey Maxmars, thanks for adding your perspective and input.

I agree that this particular situation is the direct result of egregious fiscal policy, and in the scheme of things, is small potatoes.

However, in this particular case, it was my hope that even people who don't peek behind the curtain very often can get a sense of how the cards get played - even if it is only one hand in a much broader "game," (This hand being create bad loans, threaten collapse, receive government money, then collect the properties themselves.) Perhaps I am insensitive to the people who lost their homes as a result of all this BS, but for me the maddening thing is how easily you can see the few financial elite, the wizards behind the curtain, are yet again benefiting directly from their own malfeasance. But that's part of the point, IMHO, that many haven't gotten to yet. They are not benefiting from their own mistakes - but instead are masters of planning, watching the fruits of their labors blossom.

new topics

top topics


log in