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.

 

Both sides agree Senate budget deal

page: 3
17
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 16 2013 @ 02:44 PM
link   
reply to post by xuenchen
 



xuenchen
The long term solution is to limit borrowing and limit government spending.

The only way to do that is to limit imports and increase manufacturing and production.

Thats only part of a real long term solution.

As long as the U.S. keeps its current monetary system there is no way out of endless debt / deficit spending, because A: your entire currency is debt-based, and B: backed by nothing but artificial demand of petro-dollars.


xuenchen
The big resistance on that plan is coming from the foreign banking interests.

The U.S. needs to think about just *WHO* are friends and *WHO* are the economic enemies.

Your real "economic enemies" are the owners (stockholders) of your monetary system.
I noticed you implied a few times that they are "foreign", may I ask how you know this when the stockholders of "your" Federal Reserve are secret?

*ETA:
I just realized you probably know well what I'm talking about...
I'm still curious how you know who owns the scheme?
edit on 16-10-2013 by ColCurious because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 16 2013 @ 02:44 PM
link   
Reaching a deal is all well and good, BUT, does anyone know what it is they agreed to reduce spending on for the next two years? I don't trust them one bit.



posted on Oct, 16 2013 @ 02:45 PM
link   

Chickensalad
reply to post by xuenchen
 


Ive been saying that we are under economic attack since I was 12. Its just too obvious.
And there's always tiny little stories that come out of no where and on the outside, have nothing in common. But when connected, to me its clear that we are being picked apart from the inside out.

Im gonna say its Russia and China. With the help of a few other countries.

But, On Topic: Big suprise!
edit on 16-10-2013 by Chickensalad because: (no reason given)


It started in the late 1800's.

And the big onslaught in 1913 ---

---- Federal Reserve and the current form of the IRS.

The outside influences are from The Fabian economic principals that are taught in economic/social schools like the London School of Economics and a few others.

The old USSR, Russia, and China are under the same attack by the same principals and influences.



posted on Oct, 16 2013 @ 02:45 PM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


Oh relax little bunny, here have a shovel. Go ahead, feel free to beat on anyone who doesn't agree with you. It's America and that too is your right. If your not up for that then you could do the one thing that would really help Republicans and the Tea Party with their image problem and develop a sense of humor.



posted on Oct, 16 2013 @ 02:53 PM
link   

beezzer
reply to post by Indigo5
 


I started to say that those in DC can't be so effing stupid that they can't plan ahead and see that they might over-spend.

Then I remembered that we're talking about politicians, and yes, they are that effing stupid.


But we aren't over-spending...just the opposite. We are under austerity measures in the form of sequester, the only reason we haven't sputtered and stalled is because we are a larger, stronger economy than most.


beezzer
We take in more than we owe. There was never any danger of us defaulting.

This was just scare ginned up to push for more damned spending.


No offense Beez, but this is BS. We would have gone into selective default within days. I know the right wing likes to keep saying that bit, but it's BS all the same.



Hey.

Celebrate!

You progressives won!



Everybody won except for those cheering on a second depression in hopes they would finally get to use all those weapons and food they had been stockpiling. You can say "Progressive" all you like, but tons of Conservatives in DC, the Conservative media, and orgs like Chamber of Commerce all WON.

Castrating extremists and avoiding national bankruptcy isn't a partisan issue. It is an American issue.

And "win" is a relative term. This debacle actually cost us Billions in increased rates, plus Billions in the Shut-down expense and lost revenue...plus GDP and Jobs....dip in investment and a drop in consumer confidence going into the holidays.

DC can call this a victory...but the numbers/charts will show the pain, just like they did during the last smaller debate over the debt ceiling.

The TP just added Billions to our debt and trimmed thousands of jobs that would have been there if not for their Manufactured Crisis...AGAIN...



posted on Oct, 16 2013 @ 03:08 PM
link   

beezzer


Yes, we have just 2 choices. Segregation or total government control over our liv-. . . . wait. . . wasn't segregation a government plan?



No. DE-Segregation was a government plan. Segregation was the states-rights crew and racist business owners not accepting the outcome of the civil war.



posted on Oct, 16 2013 @ 03:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Indigo5
 


So with 20% of the government shut down for 2 weeks, we lost billions of dollars and thousands of jobs?

Something tells me government is just too damned big.



posted on Oct, 16 2013 @ 03:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Indigo5
 


*sigh*


Separate but equal was a legal doctrine in United States constitutional law that justified systems of segregation. Under this doctrine, services, facilities and public accommodations were allowed to be separated by race, on the condition that the quality of each group's public facilities was to remain equal. The phrase was derived from a Louisiana law of 1890, although the law actually used the phrase "equal but separate."[1]

en.wikipedia.org...

Not to go off topic, but this is all about government.

(rolling eyes)



posted on Oct, 16 2013 @ 03:13 PM
link   
reply to post by ColCurious
 




I noticed you implied a few times that they are "foreign", may I ask how you know this when the stockholders of your Federal Reserve are secret?


It's not so secret.

The Federal Reserve requires all banks doing business in the U.S. must buy stock in the 12 regional Federal Reserve Banks, and they receive a fixed 6% dividend by law.

All the private banks are owned by stockholders.

Many have foreign ownership.

Therefore, we have direct foreign influence.

Most of the major stockholders of large banks like BOA, JP Morgan, etc. are the big investment firms like State Street, Blackrock, etc.

Those outfits have steering committees that control the boards of directors of all large international corporations including banks.

Lots of research and reading to understand.....


Federal Reserve Bank Ownership




1. Amount of shares; increase and decrease of capital; surrender and cancellation of stock

The capital stock of each Federal reserve bank shall be divided into shares of $100 each. The outstanding capital stock shall be increased from time to time as member banks increase their capital stock and surplus or as additional banks become members, and may be decreased as member banks reduce their capital stock or surplus or cease to be members. Shares of the capital stock of Federal reserve banks owned by member banks shall not be transferred or hypothecated. When a member bank increases its capital stock or surplus, it shall thereupon subscribe for an additional amount of capital stock of the Federal reserve bank of its district equal to 6 per centum of the said increase, one-half of said subscription to be paid in the manner hereinbefore provided for original subscription, and one-half subject to call of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. A bank applying for stock in a Federal reserve bank at any time after the organization thereof must subscribe for an amount of the capital stock of the Federal reserve bank equal to 6 per centum of the paid-up capital stock and surplus of said applicant bank, paying therefor its par value plus one-half of 1 per centum a month from the period of the last dividend. When a member bank reduces its capital stock or surplus it shall surrender a proportionate amount of its holdings in the capital stock of said Federal Reserve bank. Any member bank which holds capital stock of a Federal Reserve bank in excess of the amount required on the basis of 6 per centum of its paid-up capital stock and surplus shall surrender such excess stock. When a member bank voluntarily liquidates it shall surrender all of its holdings of the capital stock of said Federal Reserve bank and be released from its stock subscription not previously called. In any such case the shares surrendered shall be canceled and the member bank shall receive in payment therefor, under regulations to be prescribed by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, a sum equal to its cash-paid subscriptions on the shares surrendered and one-half of 1 per centum a month from the period of the last dividend, not to exceed the book value thereof, less any liability of such member bank to the Federal Reserve bank.

[12 USC 287. As amended by act of Aug. 23, 1935 (49 Stat. 713).]


Federal Reserve Act .. Section 5. Stock Issues; Increase and Decrease of Capital


U.S. Offices of Foreign Banking Organizations


Federal Reserve Foreign Banks


Foreign Banking Offices in U.S.





The Federal Reserve coordinates the supervisory program for the U.S. operations of foreign banking organizations with the other federal and state banking agencies. Since a foreign banking organization may have both federally and state-chartered offices in the United States, the Federal Reserve plays a key role in assessing the condition of the organization’s entire U.S. operations and the foreign banking organization’s ability to support its U.S. operations. In addition, under the Bank Holding Company Act and the International Banking Act, the Federal Reserve is responsible for approving, reviewing, and monitoring the U.S. nonbanking activities of foreign banking organizations that have a branch, agency, commercial lending company, or subsidiary bank in the United States.


more.... www.abovetopsecret.com...



Right from the horse's mouth;

Foreign banking institutions, which include foreign bank branches, agencies, and U.S.-chartered bank subsidiaries, hold approximately one-fourth of all commercial banking assets in the United States.
Foreign Banks and the Federal Reserve




Is this confusing enough ?




posted on Oct, 16 2013 @ 03:27 PM
link   

beezzer
reply to post by Indigo5
 


So with 20% of the government shut down for 2 weeks, we lost billions of dollars and thousands of jobs?

Something tells me government is just too damned big.


It would be interesting to find the numbers for the police and government workers who were paid during the shut down to close things, verses paying the ones whose job it was to keep stuff open to begin with, No ? Wonder what would have cost more?



posted on Oct, 16 2013 @ 03:34 PM
link   
reply to post by MystikMushroom
 



Yes, but how can the government force companies to move their factories back to the USA and hire American workers? Isn't that a little...socialist?

There would be no *forcing back*. The companies can do all the business they want anywhere any time. Limiting imports would be profitable within the U.S. because Americans would buy the goods they produce. And exporting would continue. It has nothing to do with Socialism. Many new localized industries would be created.






Restricting imports would hurt the very manufacturing companies that you want to increase internal production. They make their cheap crap that we all buy in places like China. If we can't import it from China, those companies will look elsewhere for customers (India maybe?)
Most foreign made *crap* is manufactured by foreign companies. And we wouldn't have to limit *ALL* imports. The cheap garbage would be a good start.


If we keep going in the current direction, what will be the soon to be realized result ?



posted on Oct, 16 2013 @ 03:55 PM
link   
So, what's the point of having an opposition party if it is not going to oppose, or even check and balance what the other party wants to do? Why has the debt not been addressed at any time over the years? Perhaps, because it is a poisoned chalice for whomever does address it? Political suicide even?

I can't see how it can be addressed without the country having to take quite a hit to its economy. It seems to me that the only way it can be addressed is one of two ways: a) do not raise the debt ceiling level, sell off assets and drastically reduce expenditure in all governmental departments for years to come; b) somehow create a boom for the nation that puts more people in work, thus collect more taxes, and begin to reduce the debt level.

The thing is, every time it comes around to having to deal with the debt, it's simply pushed down the road after great drama and theatre. No one wants to deal with it on their watch. If other countries have any real business acumen about them, they would extricate themselves away from any financial dealings with American fiscal policy or investment. Afterall, it looks more and more probable that America has no intention of dealing with its extraordinary level of debt, it's the only fiscal stick it holds by which it can threaten and beat the rest of the world with. It is time to dump the dollar while the Americans breathe a temporary sigh of relief.



posted on Oct, 16 2013 @ 04:07 PM
link   

beezzer
reply to post by Indigo5
 


*sigh*


Separate but equal was a legal doctrine in United States constitutional law that justified systems of segregation. Under this doctrine, services, facilities and public accommodations were allowed to be separated by race, on the condition that the quality of each group's public facilities was to remain equal. The phrase was derived from a Louisiana law of 1890, although the law actually used the phrase "equal but separate."[1]

en.wikipedia.org...

Not to go off topic, but this is all about government.

(rolling eyes)



Separate but equal was a legal doctrine in United States constitutional law that justified systems of segregation. Under this doctrine, services, facilities and public accommodations were allowed to be separated by race, on the condition that the quality of each group's public facilities was to remain equal. The phrase was derived from a Louisiana law of 1890, although the law actually used the phrase "equal but separate."[1]


Not to go off topic...But you are mightily confused if you think Segregation was a government program.

"Separate but equal" was the loophole that allowed the Southern states and various businesses to segregate.



posted on Oct, 16 2013 @ 04:08 PM
link   
I wonder if this is really the done deal it's being made out to be by the media. If you remember back to the Syria vote to authorise military action Boehner wanted that to pass too but still didn't have the numbers despite all the cross party support from dems and the neo con vote. They almost certainly would have lost that vote if it went to vote. That was the first sign to me there was a real gulf between Boehner and conservatives in the house. It will be interesting to see how this vote goes.



posted on Oct, 16 2013 @ 04:23 PM
link   
reply to post by xuenchen
 



xuenchen
Is this confusing enough ?

Not at all. I just misread you I guess.

I thought you wanted to imply that the mess the U.S. is in was predominantly caused by foreign stockholders and that is clearly not the case.

Its all good. Always good to see some people actually know whats going on.



posted on Oct, 16 2013 @ 04:26 PM
link   

john452
I wonder if this is really the done deal it's being made out to be by the media. If you remember back to the Syria vote to authorise military action Boehner wanted that to pass too but still didn't have the numbers despite all the cross party support from dems and the neo con vote. They almost certainly would have lost that vote if it went to vote. That was the first sign to me there was a real gulf between Boehner and conservatives in the house. It will be interesting to see how this vote goes.


There is no *done deal* yet.

The Senate hasn't voted yet.

The House will vote after the Senate this time.

The House could reject, or could make changes and then vote.



posted on Oct, 16 2013 @ 04:26 PM
link   

beezzer
reply to post by Indigo5
 


So with 20% of the government shut down for 2 weeks, we lost billions of dollars and thousands of jobs?

Something tells me government is just too damned big.


Yes. Shut Down: Lost income from parks and user fees, plus extra cost of closing and opening offices...Last Shut-Down was estimated at 2B per day, I expect this one to be similar.

Federal Workers? back pay...And what is the value of the work that wasn't done by those workers? It still needs doing. Double that expense.

So the Shut-Down cost us 20-30 Billion.

NOW...The Debt Ceiling Debate?

Consumer Confidence dropped
The Treasury Bills rate rocketed...the INTEREST ON OUR DEBT...That is immediately money gone and while it will recover soon, it won't return to the previous rate anytime soon if ever, cuz even though there is a deal...people trust the good faith of the US less now that they have had a look at the anarchist TPs in congress.
GDP...It took a hit during the last debate, it sure as hell will with this one. You will see the dip in the numbers when released.
Corporations and businesses will hire LESS. They stopped hiring during the debate in preparation for calamity and will hold their breath until early next year when the debate returns.

The list goes on..

The TP COST us Billions, ADDED to OUR Debt both directly through interest rates and shut-down expense and indirectly through higher interest rates for all of us and fewer jobs.


edit on 16-10-2013 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 16 2013 @ 04:32 PM
link   
So.... In short... If this passes the house... We can expect another shutdown in January??? If not sooner with the way our leaders spend...

At least we can have a semi-peaceful Christmas...



posted on Oct, 16 2013 @ 04:34 PM
link   
reply to post by xuenchen
 


I know but from the headlines you could be forgiven for thinking it's a done deal that has already been voted on. Does anyone have an information on who is going to vote for or against this? I guess this latest senate deal happened too recently for anyone to be able to gauge the support for it. We know Boehner supports passing it but that doesn't mean much if recent events are anything to go by.



posted on Oct, 16 2013 @ 04:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Indigo5
 





So the Shut-Down cost us 20-30 Billion.


Hmmm.

Got any verifiable sources ?

The *Trust but Verify* warning lights are flashing.

Have a look-see at the Treasury balance sheet from yesterday....
Cash and debt operations of the United States Treasury Tuesday, October 15, 2013


Past statements;
Daily Treasury Statements




top topics



 
17
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join