| Home | Community | Message Board |
|
You are not signed in. Sign In New Account | Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery » |

This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.
|
| Shop: |
| |||||||
|
Trumps Bone Spurs Registered: 12/07/13 Posts: 13,347 Last seen: 1 hour, 22 minutes |
| ||||||
Quote: ^^^ The only conservative on these forums with a fucking brain. I commend you qman, for yet another interesting, thought provoking insight.You are very right that we live in an entirely different world. The factors that play into building a competitive economy today were not an issue throughout most of the 20th century. The only real way that Americans can compete is to make themselves more valuable through education. We can't compete with the labor costs of people who make $5 a day. The way I see it, if there's going to be less to go around, we should spread it around more equitably and all reap the benefits of globalization instead of the few who already have the economic means to take advantage of it. I agree that we need a tighter labor market, though I'm not sure it is even possible to tighten it up enough to really have an impact these days. Real unemployment is what, 20%? Opening the flood gates to immigrants is really just bringing globalization home to America. This is one of a few conservative views that I support. We have to decide what is more important for us as a nation. We really do have an ultimatum here. Our economy, or taking care of the misfortunes of those from foreign lands, and bringing them aboard to weigh down a sinking ship. I am not racist, or heartless, but we can't always make reality fit our bleeding hearts. I don't like the right-wingers try to frame immigrants as welfare whores and rapists. The plain and simple reality is persuasive enough without demonizing people. I would also say that closing the boarders is enough without deporting everyone who is here illegally. If we could manage to close the boarders, established trade tariffs (when our agreements are over with), establish a more functional education system, raise the minimum wage, and spread wealth more equitably through a variety of programs, I think it might make a huge difference. Bernie Sanders' proposed infrastructure plan would be a great way to tighten up the labor market also. If private enterprise won't supply jobs, then government can do it. Edited by Bigbadwooof (10/29/15 11:14 PM)
| |||||||
|
Stranger Registered: 03/16/05 Posts: 32,557 Loc: California, US Last seen: 4 months, 22 days |
| ||||||
-------------------- I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
| |||||||
|
Sporocarp Stretching Registered: 08/05/08 Posts: 1,336 |
| ||||||
Quote: You're not a conspiracy theorist? I do understand the negative connotation, which perhaps is why you used the term so many times. I suppose there is no such thing as a conspiracy then. But please tell me what Conspiracy theory are you speaking of sir? The federal reserve is owned by its PRIVATE member banks. There is no conspiracy there, its on their website and I already quoted where it says exactly that. The bank is owned by private institutions, plain and simple. You can also find this information on page 2 of the original text of the Federal Reserve Act (1913). On that same page you will see that every national banking association within a Federal Reserve district is required to purchase and own stock of that district's federal reserve bank, equal to 6 percent of its equity, to be purchased using gold or gold certificates. So as you can see, the larger the bank, the larger the ownership stake. So I suppose if you wanted to know which banks specifically own the banks within the Federal Reserve system, you would have to compile a list of every National Bank within every Federal Reserve district. But even then you still wouldn't be able to ascertain every ownership stake in the system. Because on page 3, and I didn't know this until now, individuals, co-partnerships, and corporations are also permitted to own Federal Reserve bank stock, though they have no voting rights. Only the Federal Reserve board may promulgate rules and regulations governing the transfers of the stock, so you've got to be a special kind of "individual" to ever get your hands on some. These are all codified facts, and not conspiracy theory by any stretch. If you choose to ignore the conflict of interest in all of this, then such is your choice. More power to you (ironic, I know). The power to coin money and regulate the value thereof is constitutionally delegated to congress (Article 1 Section 8). The Federal Reserve Act, while it delegates these very powers to an institution owned by private entities, does not trump the constitution. I may be giving you too much credit but I'm assuming you know that the Constitution can only be amended through ratification by the States in the Democratic Republic known as the United States of America. Furthermore, there exists no explicitly granted power for the Federal Government to have ever created a central bank to begin with. Therefore, congress had no legal authority to delegate these powers in the first place, which in turn means the Federal Reserve is unconstitutional. And so it has been for the past 102 years. None of this is a conspiracy theory, it is objective fact. If you don't believe me, may I suggest some further reading: 1.) Constitution of the United States (1787) 2.) The Federal Reserve Act (1913) 63rd Congress of the United States; At the Second Session But hey if you like big government, deficit spending, and income inequality, then I can certainly see why you would like private bankers doing what was, for good reason, explicitly granted to congress in the Constitution. If you think that their "annual report summarizing their activities" amounts to anything of substance then you are very naïve. You can put out a balance sheet with very generalized information and leave congress completely in the dark about the terms of the transactions that go on. That's why Grayson was so pissed about the Fed not being able to tell him who got the bailout money, because it was not available to congress while it was still pertinent. Ya boy Bernie Sanders got his panties all in a bunch over that whole 'who got the bailout money' issue back in '08. Go on youtube and watch him yell at Bernanke for 5 minutes at a time trying to get him to talk. Don't tell me you think ya boy Bernie is a "Conspiracy theorist" as well, because he certainly is not a fan of the Fed. -------------------- "Monopoly, besides, is a great enemy to good management, which can never be universally established but in consequence of that free and universal competition which forces everybody to have recourse in it for the sake of self-defense." -Adam Smith
| |||||||
|
Stranger Registered: 03/16/05 Posts: 32,557 Loc: California, US Last seen: 4 months, 22 days |
| ||||||
Quote: You quoted that member banks own stock in the Federal Reserve, and your quote said: Quote: The Fed's website also says: Quote: But whether they state that they are not owned by anyone, or they are, it really doesn't even matter because the rules are clearly defined - the member banks get a 6% dividend, and they don't get to change that or any of other rules - only Congress gets to make/change the rules, which for all practical purposes makes them the 'owners'. Quote: Page 2 talks about the requirement to own reserve bank stock. Which again is irrelevant because they unlike private owners, the Fed stock owners have no power to make or change any of the rules. The Federal Reserve Act is an act of Congress, and only Congress has the authority to change the rules. Quote: It's you that's ignoring the fact that the "owners" don't get to make/change the rules which codified by Congress, and they don't get to keep whatever they like. Is that really ownership??? Quote: That's all well and good, except you forgot to quote the part that makes it illegal. I may be giving you too much credit, but I assume you know that the Constitution gave the Supreme Court the power to judge whether federal, state, and local governments are acting within the law. If it were illegal, the Supreme Court would have struck it down. Quote: I previously asked how long after the question was asked did it take to get the information to Grayson. You conveniently didn't answer that question either. Quote: Bernie does NOT accuse the Fed of being owned by bankers, or of being illegal. I'm also familiar with that exchange, and I even wrote about it here. Quote: -------------------- I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side. Edited by Falcon91Wolvrn03 (10/30/15 01:55 AM)
| |||||||
|
Waterman Registered: 08/12/08 Posts: 3,131 |
| ||||||
Quote: The structure of the Federal Reserve, IMHO, is very interesting and the very nature of it invites all kinds of conspiracy theories and new world order doubts. I think the world was a very different place back in 1913 when the FED was formed and I do think a few banking families really did have enormous influence on how global money was used ... Things have changed A LOT since 1913. The global economy is much more diversified now than it was then both in terms of sovereign nations with real wealth, financial institutions and global multi nationals not to mention the enormous pools of dark money that is not controlled by the big banks. Add to that the fact that the shares of the Member Banks are owned, to a large extent by institutional investors and it gets even more de-centralized. And while daddy Rothschild or Rockafellar or Bush might have been a real genius, the generations that followed (GWB for instance) didn't have the chops and it all just kinda slipped away into sterile and technocratic boards of corporate management. IMHO, there is no wizard behind the curtain. The FED is now simply a technocratic organization with appointed members that really do run it. There is a political element in terms of who is appointed, but after that, I do not believe the member banks call the Chairman secretly and tell him/her what to do. I don't think the current system allows for that. If there is indeed a nefarious global banking cartel run by a few kingpins, which I doubt, it is higher up the food chain running the BIS (Bank of International Settlements) ... Having said that, there are all kinds of opportunity for opportunistic and predatory collusion that is happening on a very wide scale. In fact, the US Government has collected over 120 BILLION in fines over the last 6 years from these banking groups. It also comes as a shock to the conspiracy folks that the FED actually gives nearly all its profits to the US treasury each year ... Last year over 90 Billion .... that's a lot of profits. Does the FED make a ton of money off the US government? Yes. Most of it goes right back to the Treasury, however. -------------------- "The universe is endless, limitless and infinite. Any effort to define it's boundaries is an attempt to overcome ignorance. We are physical, mental and spiritual beings ... there is no beginning and there is no end. There is only memory. Our repeated loss of memory experiences create the illusion of beginnings and ends. Immortality is the ability to retain full memory through all consciousness transformations. Loss of memory is man's greatest curse and, in very real terms, death." -- Ancient Taoist Master Edited by KauaiOrca (10/30/15 08:15 AM)
| |||||||
|
Stranger Registered: 12/06/06 Posts: 34,927 Last seen: 3 hours, 34 minutes |
| ||||||
Quote: So buying bonds with printed money that never existed and returning the interest payments is some type of noble act? It's really the least they could do after buying $3 trillion of toxic paper off of the member banks.The private owned member banks and their shareholders have made plenty from the policies created by the FED, that's the point.
| |||||||
|
Waterman Registered: 08/12/08 Posts: 3,131 |
| ||||||
Quote: If the private member banks control the FED and the FED controls our government, why did our Justice department fine the private member banks (and others) over 120 Billion over the last 6 years? -------------------- "The universe is endless, limitless and infinite. Any effort to define it's boundaries is an attempt to overcome ignorance. We are physical, mental and spiritual beings ... there is no beginning and there is no end. There is only memory. Our repeated loss of memory experiences create the illusion of beginnings and ends. Immortality is the ability to retain full memory through all consciousness transformations. Loss of memory is man's greatest curse and, in very real terms, death." -- Ancient Taoist Master
| |||||||
|
Stranger Registered: 12/06/06 Posts: 34,927 Last seen: 3 hours, 34 minutes |
| ||||||
Quote: That's a fair question, but many people feel including myself that it's mainly just for show. When you think about the massive amount of theft that has occurred since the financial crisis, $120 billion in fines is really not that much. Give me complete control of monetary and fiscal policy, give me $3 trillion to undue my wrongs and keep me in business, and let me continue to pay off politicians to write favorable legislation for the future, and I will gladly pay $120 billion in fines.
| |||||||
|
Waterman Registered: 08/12/08 Posts: 3,131 |
| ||||||
Quote: 120 Billion right off the bottom line is a HUGE amount of money. Took a lot of dough away from shareholders (share value + dividends) and, of course, exposed a lot of collusion and manipulation. Don't get me wrong, I think the big banks are a racket and should be broken up and an even stronger version of Glass Steagall should be passed ... I just don't think, anymore, that the big banks are run by some secret cabal ... I think it's quite likely they were back in the early 1900's, but after WW2, everything changed. Corporations compete to control politicians and that's how it works now ... -------------------- "The universe is endless, limitless and infinite. Any effort to define it's boundaries is an attempt to overcome ignorance. We are physical, mental and spiritual beings ... there is no beginning and there is no end. There is only memory. Our repeated loss of memory experiences create the illusion of beginnings and ends. Immortality is the ability to retain full memory through all consciousness transformations. Loss of memory is man's greatest curse and, in very real terms, death." -- Ancient Taoist Master
| |||||||
|
Sporocarp Stretching Registered: 08/05/08 Posts: 1,336 |
| ||||||
Quote: The Federal Reserve act H.R. 7837 is quite clear. If you don't understand the concept of stock ownership and equity stakes then I am sorry. Yes they get a 6% dividend, and yes they cant change the rules regarding the TRANSFERRING OF STOCK, but how does that change the fact that they control literally everything else that goes on! Congress has absolutely no voting rights whatsoever when it comes to setting policy, private member banks do through representation. Congress also has no rights to change the rules governing the transfer of stock, that is the job of the Federal Reserve Board (the last sentence on page 3). Once again this is not an opinion, it is a fact. You can quote where the Federal Reserve made a statement which is intentionally designed to mislead gullible people like yourself into believing that the bank is "not "Owned" by anyone" all you want. On the same page they explained everything I just said about stock ownership and voting rights. I implore you to read the Federal Reserve act, AKA the Banking and Currency Bill a few more times, until you gain a more thorough understanding of what it is you actually read. Quote: I guess they just made this law for no fucking reason at all then huh? You are really making yourself look silly now. I'll pull a falcon and ask you to "please provide support for this claim". Quote:Quote: I don't know your level of education, but I have a BBA in accounting and all I can say is that your comprehension of the law is simply wrong. Fed stock owners, (except for individuals, copartnerships, and corporations) have voting rights. In other words, the national bank associations within the federal reserve districts have exclusive voting rights. The government has none. Its all plainly written in the law. Its ok man, I understand the language is a bit obfuscating, so I wont ridicule you too much for allowing something that is designed to be black and white, to mislead you so completely. Quote:Quote: I'm embarrassed for you at this point. You really don't understand what you read, nor are you capable of reading between the lines when it comes to assessing the environment this bill creates. Private banks have voting power based on their membership. This voting power is in regards to setting board members and presidents that in turn set economic policy that affects the quality of life of billions of people world wide. All of this power WAS delegated to congress and IS NOW carried out by representatives of private entities. I've sourced all the information which I used to arrive at that conclusion. 1.) The U.S. Constitution 2.) The Federal Reserve Act Your abysmal reading comprehension skills do not render any of these points moot. Quote:Quote: The fact that the supreme court has not struck it down does not make it constitutional. The fact that it was created from powers that the Federal Government never had in the first place is what makes it Unconstitutional. If a power is not explicitly granted to the Federal Government, it does not have that power. So I suppose you would have to read the entire constitution to determine whether or not congress has that power, which is exactly what I sourced. Once again I apologize if these concepts are going over your head, but your needing me to hold your hand through the whole process here, once again, doesn't negate any of the points raised. Quote:Quote: And you sir, didn't address my point about timely reporting and the need for information while it is still relevant. Its an accounting concept that has heavy weight on GAAP (not gov't standards but they are designed to provide for an adequately informed public). These questions were asked 8 months after the fact and she didn't know why, how, or even THAT the Fed expanded its balance sheet by over a $1 trillion. And I believe it was Ron Paul and Bernie Sanders who passed the audit the fed bills in the House and Senate which resulted in a one time audit of the bailout package that led to them finally getting their information. Quote:Quote: You don't understand. You keep getting caught up in little semantics and fail to see the larger picture here. Just because the Fed is a non-profit entity doesn't mean it is not used as a vehicle for securing the profits of for-profit entities. Just because the stock ownership differs from publically traded stock in regards to its transfer privileges doesn't mean that the people who hold it are not owners. And just because the Supreme court hasn't been challenged on the Fed, doesn't mean that its constitutional. Im sorry you are having so much trouble with all of this man. This is yet another example of you choosing to argue with someone despite the fact that you have NO IDEA what you are talking about. You are arguing to me that the government controls the decision making at the Fed, unbelievable. -------------------- "Monopoly, besides, is a great enemy to good management, which can never be universally established but in consequence of that free and universal competition which forces everybody to have recourse in it for the sake of self-defense." -Adam Smith Edited by amp244 (10/30/15 04:10 PM)
| |||||||
|
Sporocarp Stretching Registered: 08/05/08 Posts: 1,336 |
| ||||||
|
And lets be clear here. When I speak of a banking cartel I am speaking of the leaders within banking industry at large. We are talking about hundreds, if not thousands of national bank associations which own the Fed. They are all looking out for their best interests and the fact that they have the exclusive power to manipulate interest rates and bring money into existence at the stroke of a keyboard is a huge conflict of interest.
And $160 billion over 6 years to hundreds if not thousands of entities really is not that much. I would have much rather seen people go to prison then to see fines levied against other people's money. These are not real penalties that will prevent any future fraud. Losing money doesn't get these CEO's kicked out of work, the financial crisis proved that. They pay the fine to the treasury, who in turns pays it right back out to the financial institutions. The gov't will levy a fine here, maybe throw some lowly trader in prison there, but the CEOs (for the most part) walk away scot free. The SEC is inept and in some rather egregious instances, highly compromised. These two videos will illustrate my point quite well. Regarding the Madoff Ponzi scheme: This one is gold... Heres the guy who found out the fraud who he is referring to: -------------------- "Monopoly, besides, is a great enemy to good management, which can never be universally established but in consequence of that free and universal competition which forces everybody to have recourse in it for the sake of self-defense." -Adam Smith
| |||||||
|
Sporocarp Stretching Registered: 08/05/08 Posts: 1,336 |
| ||||||
|
The Akerman video continued. None of these people claim any accountability for any of this.
-------------------- "Monopoly, besides, is a great enemy to good management, which can never be universally established but in consequence of that free and universal competition which forces everybody to have recourse in it for the sake of self-defense." -Adam Smith
| |||||||
|
Stranger Registered: 03/16/05 Posts: 32,557 Loc: California, US Last seen: 4 months, 22 days |
| ||||||
Quote: I don't think you appreciate the Federal Reserve's role in turning the economy around. I'll try to summarize: When the housing bubble burst in 2008, many 'too big to fail' banks, insurance companies, and financial institutions were headed to bankruptcy. Because of their massive size and the number of other businesses they were connected with, many of these inter-connected businesses would also have gone down with them, which in turn would have taken down still more businesses. If the Government allowed the country go into a full scale depression, we would have been there for a very long time (see the 1st Great Depression, which lasted 10 years until the stimulus from WWII finally came along). Credit markets tightened greatly, as banks didn't want to risk loaning money to companies in danger of bankruptcy, and investors wanted to get their money out at the same time. The only way to open the credit markets back up and reverse the trend was for the Fed to purchase trillions in Government debt from the banks so they would have a huge influx of money that they could then loan out, and to save the 'too big to fail' institutions, like AIG. Where did the Fed get the money to do that? By creating trillions of dollars out of thin air (Quantitative Easing). This didn't add to the national debt, it simply shifted Government bonds from the banks to the Fed's balance sheet (a POSITIVE balance), while at the same time reducing interest rates for the tax payer because of the increased demand for bonds. The Fed also loaned stimulus money to the US Government by creating more money out of thin air, which DID add to the national debt (money owed to the Fed). So why doesn't the Fed just keep creating more and more money out of thin air to pay the bills? Why doesn't Congress just tell the Fed to forgive the Government for the money they owe? Most of you already know that this would lead to hyperinflation. Instead, when the Fed sees signs of inflation, they cash in some of their bonds and retire the money from existence, or increase interest rates to help keep inflation in check. We never would have recovered so quickly from the 2008 recession without the Fed. Quote: That's true, and so did all the other businesses that stayed alive, and so did all the Americans that kept their jobs as a result of the country not going into depression. The reason Main Street didn't do better after all this is because Congress gave most of the stimulus money that they borrowed from the Fed to Wall St rather than Main St. -------------------- I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
| |||||||
|
Stranger Registered: 05/14/15 Posts: 8,602 Loc: 'Merica Last seen: 6 years, 7 months |
| ||||||
|
I call BS! I remember when the "smartest people in the room" told us we had 24 hours to prevent financial collapse, it took congress over a week to pass the bailouts...
| |||||||
|
Waterman Registered: 08/12/08 Posts: 3,131 |
| ||||||
Quote: Instead of lending it to small businesses and homeowners they instead gave loans for giant financial engineering schemes (stock buybacks, re-structuring, etc.) to giant companies who then used that credit to increase EPS and generate more dividends, bonuses, etc. while they held onto their cash or, worse, off shored it. -------------------- "The universe is endless, limitless and infinite. Any effort to define it's boundaries is an attempt to overcome ignorance. We are physical, mental and spiritual beings ... there is no beginning and there is no end. There is only memory. Our repeated loss of memory experiences create the illusion of beginnings and ends. Immortality is the ability to retain full memory through all consciousness transformations. Loss of memory is man's greatest curse and, in very real terms, death." -- Ancient Taoist Master
| |||||||
|
Sporocarp Stretching Registered: 08/05/08 Posts: 1,336 |
| ||||||
|
And yea the FED gives its profits back to the Treasury. Remember that interest rates are near zero and that the FED doesn't exist to generate profits. It is used as a mechanism for securing the profits of private banks, not itself.
I also find the argument that the "Fed had to act quickly because the situation was so dire. That's why the congress was given less than an hour to read the bailout bill" is retarded. If there was enough time to write a 900+ page bill, then there was enough time to allow congress to read it before voting on it. -------------------- "Monopoly, besides, is a great enemy to good management, which can never be universally established but in consequence of that free and universal competition which forces everybody to have recourse in it for the sake of self-defense." -Adam Smith Edited by amp244 (10/30/15 03:14 PM)
| |||||||
|
Stranger Registered: 03/16/05 Posts: 32,557 Loc: California, US Last seen: 4 months, 22 days |
| ||||||
Quote: I get it. Ownership in a private company means control of the company. Ownership in the Fed means membership. Shareholders get to participate in the Fed to the extent allowed by law. Quote: Exactly. Those are the rights given to it by Congress, and Congress DOES have the right to change the rules governing the transfer of stock if they wish. Quote: I guess you missed the part where I told you "whether they state that they are not owned by anyone, or they are, it really doesn't even matter... Congress makes the rules... Is that really ownership???" I'M the one who told you the wording doesn't matter, and you're calling me gullible for believing the wording? Quote: You want me to support my claim that only Congress gets to make/change the rules for the Federal Reserve? The Federal Reserve Act was an act of Congress, and Congress has the power to change its own laws. See the US Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clause 18: Quote: Quote: It's all in the About me (and you) thread. Quote: Now you're straw-manning BIG time. I never said members don't have voting rights, and I never said they don't have any other responsibilities. What I've been telling you is that the so called "owners" can't change any of the rules that Congress laid out for them, and that demonstrates they aren't effectively owners. Quote: Again, this power is provided by Article I, Section 8, Clause 18 of the US Constitution as cited above. Congress considered a central bank a reasonable use of the constitution's 'necessary and proper' clause. Although the constitution forbids States from making anything but gold or silver a legal tender, it places no such restriction on Congress. Quote: That's not true based on the videos you linked to. She didn't know how much money the Federal Reserve lost, because it didn't lose any money. Quote: Another straw man. I never said anything about whether or not it helped for-profit entities. Quote: No it doesn't. But the fact that the members don't get to keep all the money, nor make any of the rules means they are not owners. Quote: I provided the very clause that gives the Congress this power. Quote: No, I'm arguing about ownership, and I'm arguing about who makes the rules that the Federal Reserve has to follow. No more straw-men, please. Quote: I guess you missed my last post explaining how it prevented a great depression.
-------------------- I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
| |||||||
|
Stranger Registered: 12/06/06 Posts: 34,927 Last seen: 3 hours, 34 minutes |
| ||||||
Quote: I know about the whole series of events that took place, you forget one important detail, the Fed bought $2.5 to $3 trillion of MBS's off the banks, that's giving them .100 cents on the dollar for distressed assets, that's crony capitalism.
| |||||||
|
Waterman Registered: 08/12/08 Posts: 3,131 |
| ||||||
Quote: I think we'll be debating for decades whether or not the QE programs actually helped or hurt the economy, but there is no doubt whatsoever that at the height of the banking crisis, just before and after TARP was passed, the FED played a crucial role in providing liquidity for a lot domestic and foreign banks that would probably have been insolvent without it. I've heard that the number may be as high as 7 Trillion at one point to keep these giant institutions from defaulting ... luckily it "worked out." The treasury and MBS buying program, however, is a whole different issue that had a lot less to do with saving the economy from imminent collapse and more to do with a strategy to prevent more homeowner defaults. -------------------- "The universe is endless, limitless and infinite. Any effort to define it's boundaries is an attempt to overcome ignorance. We are physical, mental and spiritual beings ... there is no beginning and there is no end. There is only memory. Our repeated loss of memory experiences create the illusion of beginnings and ends. Immortality is the ability to retain full memory through all consciousness transformations. Loss of memory is man's greatest curse and, in very real terms, death." -- Ancient Taoist Master
| |||||||
|
Stranger Registered: 12/06/06 Posts: 34,927 Last seen: 3 hours, 34 minutes |
| ||||||
Quote: "more to do with a strategy to prevent more homeowner defaults" How so? Did banks ever try to renegotiate the terms of the loans? No, they booted them out for non-payment and then sold it on the open market. And what happened when people tried to refinance with the record lows interest rates, most were told to piss off. This so called "bailout" served one purpose, save the rich and their precious paper assets and fuck Joe Six-Pack and his problems, yet we have people around here telling us how grateful we should all be for the Fed and its actions, who needs friends like that, not the average working class.
| |||||||
| |||||||
| Shop: |
|
| Similar Threads | Poster | Views | Replies | Last post | ||
![]() |
Hillary 2008 Already in Gear ( |
3,845 | 30 | 11/04/04 01:36 PM by Innvertigo | ||
![]() |
Interesting E-mail....and it all checks out ( |
3,998 | 25 | 12/16/02 04:20 PM by Evolving | ||
![]() |
Why people love Hillary Clinton ( |
2,817 | 32 | 06/30/03 05:43 AM by luvdemshrooms | ||
![]() |
Swift Vets Mailing in PA | 1,944 | 17 | 10/19/04 10:00 PM by Swami | ||
![]() |
Will Hillary run in 2004? (poll) | 660 | 4 | 09/20/03 05:51 PM by shakta | ||
![]() |
Coalition Launches Anti-Empire Drive | 605 | 2 | 10/17/03 04:38 PM by PsiloKitten | ||
![]() |
HILLARY'S CHUTZPAH | 409 | 0 | 11/02/03 05:27 PM by luvdemshrooms | ||
![]() |
He turned himself blue. | 1,070 | 8 | 10/15/02 07:27 PM by dee_N_ae |
| Extra information | ||
| You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa 86,874 topic views. 7 members, 8 guests and 11 web crawlers are browsing this forum. [ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ] | ||


I commend you qman, for yet another interesting, thought provoking insight.

It's really the least they could do after buying $3 trillion of toxic paper off of the member banks.
