Abolish The Federal Reserve Act of 1913

The Amerikkkan Idol · May 6, 2009

SIGN HERE

Abolish%20The%20Federal%20Reserve%20Act%20of%201913%20Petition_1241664896130.jpeg

Lamarr · May 6, 2009

done!

thoughtone · May 7, 2009

First the Tea baggers, now this. Not that I'm supporting the Fed, but didn't the US become the wealthiest and most powerful country in history after 1913 and began its first trillion dollar debt about 1990?

Lamarr · May 7, 2009

Thought, The Federal Reserve has been responsible for every boom & bust since 1913 because they have the power to expand / contract the money supply for the country and they are accountable to nobody, not even to Obama!

Notice how the graph was somewhat flat before 1971, that's because we were on the 'Gold Standard'. Our currency was backed by Gold and that provided the discipline to control spending. In 1971, Nixon took us off the Gold Standard and that allowed Congress to spend, spend, spend. Nothing backs our currency and thats why the Fed just prints money like its going out of style, some would say its counterfeit!

During the last 10 years, when people were payin $3-$400,000 for a house, Did you ever wonder where this money was coming from?

Cruise · May 7, 2009

Lamarr said:
Thought, The Federal Reserve has been responsible for every boom & bust since 1913 because they have the power to expand / contract the money supply for the country and they are accountable to nobody, not even to Obama!

This point is glossed over and not taught in any school, college, nor university.

The Federal Reserve runs this country. They dictate the law, the wealth, and the direction.

This country is the country of the Federal Reserve.

Lamarr said:
Notice how the graph was somewhat flat before 1971, that's because we were on the 'Gold Standard'. Our currency was backed by Gold and that provided the discipline to control spending. In 1971, Nixon took us off the Gold Standard and that allowed Congress to spend, spend, spend. Nothing backs our currency and thats why the Fed just prints money like its going out of style, some would say its counterfeit!

It's hard to underestimate the damage caused by abandoning a precious metal standard.

Instead of a gold/silver reserve mechanism, there is no reserve (nor pretense of one).

It's the path of monetary destruction. I believe this bailout binge is the death knell for the dollar. It may limp along a few more years (possibly a decade, I hope), but it's over.

Lamarr said:
During the last 10 years, when people were payin $3-$400,000 for a house, Did you ever wonder where this money was coming from?

It was crazy. :smh:

thoughtone · May 7, 2009

Lamarr said:
Thought, The Federal Reserve has been responsible for every boom & bust since 1913 because they have the power to expand / contract the money supply for the country and they are accountable to nobody, not even to Obama!

Notice how the graph was somewhat flat before 1971, that's because we were on the 'Gold Standard'. Our currency was backed by Gold and that provided the discipline to control spending. In 1971, Nixon took us off the Gold Standard and that allowed Congress to spend, spend, spend. Nothing backs our currency and thats why the Fed just prints money like its going out of style, some would say its counterfeit!

During the last 10 years, when people were payin $3-$400,000 for a house, Did you ever wonder where this money was coming from?

My dad told me once that "a little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing”. The cost of housing, to use your example did not rise precipitously in the 1970s, the cost of housing rose largely in the later 1980s. I’ll give you a personal, “micro-economic” example. My parents bought their first house in the early 1950s for about $12,000 or so. They sold that house in 1974 for $34,000. The person that bought that house in 1974 for $34,000 sold it around 2000 for $300,000! When the Reagan polices of deregulation and privatization of everything and his attack on labor (the PATCO confrontation), began in the 1980s, all bets were off as far as consumers and those that were not playing the stocks.

The corporatists/conservative goal is to total control labor. They were not happy with the growing economy of strong unions and great manufacturing post WWII, they needed to have total control of the populous, for example the Taft-Hartley Act of 1947.

Your explanation of the graph was “somewhat flat before 1971” fails to account for the oil price issues of the 1970s, which had monumental effects on the price of goods. Also Nixon’s reasons for abdicating the “Bretton Woods System” has based on his reaction to political and real issues of the day.

Below is an excerpt from corporatist Daniel Yergin from his book Commanding Heights.

source: Nixon Tries Price Controls

[Following the Kennedy-Johnson administration in the United States, there was a massive effort to manage the marketplace, in part by controlling wages.] This initiative was not the handiwork of left-wing liberals but of the administration of Richard Nixon, a moderately conservative Republican who was a critic of government intervention in the economy. As a young man during World War II, prior to joining the navy, Nixon had worked as a junior attorney in the tire-rationing division of the Office of Price Administration, an experience that left him with a lasting distaste for price controls.

What, then, were the forces that led Nixon to try to impose government management on the most basic elements of the market? Certainly, economic matters were hardly his passion. That was reserved for foreign policy. Even foreign economic policy did not much interest him. There was a memorable time during some moment of international monetary perturbation when he rudely suggested exactly what should be done with the lira. As for domestic economics, he liked to give his radio talks on economics at noon on Saturdays, because he was convinced that the only listeners would be farmers riding their tractors, and they were likely, in any event, to be his supporters.

For one thing, whatever the effects of the Vietnam War on the national consensus in the 1960s, confidence had risen in the ability of government to manage the economy and to reach out to solve big social problems through such programs as the War on Poverty. Nixon shared in these beliefs, at least in part. "Now I am a Keynesian," he declared in January 1971 -- leaving his aides to draft replies to the angry letters that flowed into the White House from conservative supporters. He introduced a Keynesian "full employment" budget, which provided for deficit spending to reduce unemployment. A Republican congressman from Illinois told Nixon that he would reluctantly support the president's budget, "but I'm going to have to burn up a lot of old speeches denouncing deficit spending." To this Nixon replied, "I'm in the same boat."

While Nixon may have philosophically opposed intervention in the economy, philosophy took a rear seat to politics. He had lost very narrowly to John Kennedy in 1960 -- 49.7 to 49.5 percent of the popular vote. He sometimes blamed the state of Illinois, whose electoral votes had made all the difference and where the Chicago Democratic machine was known for its effectiveness in getting out all possible voters, dead as well as living Kennedy won Illinois by just 8,858 votes. But Nixon certainly believed that mismanagement of the economy had also cost him the election. "He attributed his defeat in the 1960 election largely to the recession of that year," wrote economist and Nixon advisor Herbert Stein, "and he attributed the recession, or at least its depth and duration, to economic officials, 'financial types,' who put curbing inflation ahead of cutting unemployment." Looking toward his 1972 reelection campaign, Nixon was not going to let that happen again. And he had to pay attention to economics. Despite the optimism about government's ability to manage the economy, economic conditions had begun to deteriorate. The inflation rate, which had been 1.5 percent at the beginning of the 1960s, had risen to 5 percent. Unemployment was also up from the 3.5 percent level of the late 1960s to 5 percent.

So the central economic issue became how to manage the inflation-unemployment trade-offs in a way that was not politically self-destructive; in other words, how to bring down inflation without slowing the economy and raising unemployment. One approach increasingly seemed to provide the answer -- an income policy whereby the government intervened to set and control wages, whether in hortatory words or legal requirements. Such policies had become common in Western European countries. In the 1970s, the Democratic Congress provided the tools by passing legislation that delegated authority to the president to impose a mandatory policy.

The administration remained overtly dedicated to markets. But there were those in it who believed that the "market" was more an idyll of the past than an accurate description of how the current economy functioned. To them, the economy was like the question that Lenin had expressed -- Kto kvo? -- Who could do what to whom? That is, they saw the economy "as organized by relations of power, status, rivalry and emulation." Government intervention was required to bring some greater balance to the struggles for power between strong corporations and strong unions that would drive the wage-price spiral upward.

A critical push toward an income policy came from Arthur Burns, whom Nixon had appointed to be chairman of the Federal Reserve. Burns was a well-known conservative economist; Nixon paid special attention to Burns because he had warned Nixon in 1960 that the Federal Reserve's tight monetary policy would accentuate the economic downturn and thus threaten Nixon's chances in the race against Kennedy -- which is exactly what had happened. Now, a decade later, in May 1970, Burns stood up and declared that he had changed his mind about economic policy. The economy was no longer operating as it used to, owing to the now much more powerful position of corporations and labor unions, which together were driving up both wages and prices. The now-traditional fiscal and monetary policies were seen as inadequate. His solution: a wage-price review board, composed of distinguished citizens, who would pass judgment on major wage and price increases. Their power, in Burns's new lexicon, would be limited to persuasion, friendly and otherwise.

Further reinforcement of the pressures toward control came with the recruitment of former Texas Democratic governor John Connally to fill the critical slot of Treasury secretary. The forceful Connally had no philosophical aversion to controls. Indeed he did not seem to have strong feelings one way or the other on economic policy. "I can play it round or I can play it flat," he would say. "Just tell me how to play it." What Connally did like was the dramatic gesture, the big play; and grabbing inflation by the neck and shaking it out of the system would be such a move.

A second issue was also now at the fore -- the dollar. The price of gold had been fixed at $35 an ounce since the Roosevelt administration. But the growing U.S. balance-of-payments deficit meant that foreign governments were accumulating large amounts of dollars -- in aggregate volume far exceeding the U.S. government's stock of gold. These governments, or their central banks, could show up at any time at the "gold window" of the U.S. Treasury and insist on trading in their dollars for gold, which would precipitate a run. The issue was not theoretical. In the second week of August 1971, the British ambassador turned up at the Treasury Department to request that $3 billion be converted into gold.

With inflation rising, the clamor to do something was mounting in both political circles and the press. At the end of June 1971, Nixon had told his economic advisors, "We will not have a wage-price board. We will have jawboning." But resistance to an income policy weakened with each passing month. The climax came on August 13-15, 1971, when Nixon and 15 advisors repaired to the presidential mountain retreat at Camp David. Out of this conclave came the New Economic Policy, which would temporarily -- for a 90-day period -- freeze wages and prices to check inflation. That would, it was thought, solve the inflation-employment dilemma, for such controls would allow the administration to pursue a more expansive fiscal policy -- stimulating employment in time for the 1972 presidential election without stoking inflation. The gold window was to be closed. Arthur Burns argued vociferously against it, warning, "Pravda would write that this was a sign of the collapse of capitalism." Burns was overruled. The gold window would be closed. But this would accentuate the need to fight inflation; for shutting the gold window would weaken the dollar against other currencies, thus adding to inflation by driving up the price of imported goods. Going off the gold standard and giving up fixed exchange rates constituted a momentous step in the history of international economics.

Most of the participants at the Camp David meeting were exhilarated by all the great decisions they had made. During their discussions, much attention was given to the presentation of the new policy, particularly to television. President Nixon expressed grave concern that if he gave his speech during prime time on Sunday, he would preempt the tremendously popular television series Bonanza, thus potentially alienating those addicted to the adventures of the Cartwright family on the Ponderosa ranch. But his advisors convinced him that the speech had to be given before the markets opened on Monday morning, and that meant prime time. A few of the advisors would recollect that more time was spent discussing the timing of the speech than how the economic program would work. Indeed, there was virtually no discussion of what would happen after the initial 90-day freeze or how the new system would be terminated.

Nixon's chief of staff, H.R. Haldeman, went in to see the president privately at Camp David the evening before his speech. "The P. was down in his study with the lights off and the fire going in the fireplace, even though it was a hot night out," Haldeman wrote in his diary. "He was in one of his sort of mystic moods." Nixon told Haldeman "that this is where he made all his big cogitations.... He said what really matters here is the same thing as did with [Franklin] Roosevelt, we need to raise the spirit of the country; that will be the thrust of the rhetoric of the speech.... We've got to change the spirit, and then the economy could take off like hell." As he worked on the speech, Nixon tormented himself, worrying whether the headlines would read NIXON ACTS BOLDLY or NIXON CHANGES MIND. "Having talked until recently about the evils of wage and price controls," Nixon later wrote, "I knew I had opened myself to the charge that I had either betrayed my own principles or concealed my real intentions." But Nixon was nothing if not a practical politician, as he made clear in his masterful explanation of his shift. "Philosophically, however, I was still against wage-price controls, even though I was convinced that the objective reality of the economic situation forced me to impose them."

Nixon's speech -- despite the preemption of Bonanza -- was a great hit. The public felt that the government was coming to its defense against the price gougers. The international speculators had been dealt a deadly blow. During the next evening's newscasts, 90 percent of the coverage was devoted to Nixon's new policy. The coverage was favorable. And the Dow Jones Industrial Average registered a 32.9-point gain -- the largest one-day increase up to then.

The Cost of Living Council took up the job of running the controls. After the initial ninety days, the controls were gradually relaxed and the system seemed to be working. But unemployment was not declining, and the administration launched a more expansionary policy. Nixon won reelection in 1972. In the months that followed, inflation began to pick up again in response to a variety of forces -- domestic wage-and-price pressures, a synchronized international economic boom, crop failures in the Soviet Union, and increases in the price of oil, even prior to the Arab oil embargo. Nixon, under increasing political pressure from the investigations of the Watergate break-in, reluctantly reimposed a freeze in June 1973. Government officials were now in the business of setting prices and wages. This time, however, it was apparent that the control system was not working. Ranchers stopped shipping their cattle to the market, farmers drowned their chickens, and consumers emptied the shelves of supermarkets. Nixon took some comfort from a side benefit that George Shultz, at the time head of the Office of Management and Budget, identified. "At least," Shultz told the president, "we have now convinced everyone else of the rightness of our original position that wage-price controls are not the answer." Most of the system was finally abolished in April 1974, 17 months after Nixon's triumphant reelection victory over George McGovern -- and four months before Nixon resigned as president.

In retrospect, some would call the Nixon presidency the "last liberal administration." This was not only because of the imposition of economic controls. It also carried out a great expansion of regulation into new areas, launching affirmative action and establishing the Environmental Protection Agency, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. "Probably more new regulation was imposed on the economy during the Nixon administration than in any other presidency since the New Deal," Herbert Stein ruefully observed.

Only one segment of the wage-and-price control system was not abolished -- price controls over oil and natural gas. Owing in part to the deep and dark suspicions about conspiracy and monopoly in the energy sector, they were maintained for another several years. But Washington's effort to run the energy market was a lasting lesson in the perversities that can ensue when government takes over the marketplace. There were at least 32 different prices of natural gas, a rather standard commodity, each of whose molecules is based on one atom of carbon and four atoms of hydrogen. The oil-price-control system established several tiers of oil prices. The prices for domestic production were also held down, in effect forcing domestic producers to subsidize imported oil and providing additional incentives to import oil into the United States. The whole enterprise was an elaborate and confusing system of price controls, entitlements, and allocations. It was estimated that just the standard reporting requirements for what became the Federal Energy Administration involved some 200,000 respondents from industry, committing an estimated five million man-hours annually.

Lamarr · May 7, 2009

thoughtone said:
My dad told me once that "a little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing”. The cost of housing, to use your example did not rise precipitously in the 1970s, the cost of housing rose largely in the later 1980s. I’ll give you a personal, “micro-economic” example. My parents bought their first house in the early 1950s for about $12,000 or so. They sold that house in 1974 for $34,000. The person that bought that house in 1974 for $34,000 sold it around 2000 for $300,000!

Thought, think objectively about what I'm about to say, OK! Take your views of Reagan out of the argument. Your parents house didn't magically appreciate to 300 stacks. In the business cycle, prices of goods and services adjust to the total amount of money in circulation. In 2000, there was a lot of money in circulation chasing the same goods, so prices went up. Modern economists would define this as inflation, however, I define it as the increase in the money supply. Price fluctuations are results of what the Federal Reserve does with the money supply, not a President.

Follow what Thomas Jefferson wrote years ago and it describes everything that is happening today, since you have issues with corporations, I think you'll appreciate this:

The central bank is an institution of the most deadly hostility existing against the Principles and form of our Constitution. I am an Enemy to all banks discounting bills or notes for anything but Coin. If the American People allow private banks to control the issuance of their currency, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the People of all their Property until their Children will wake up homeless on the continent their Fathers conquered.

The Amerikkkan Idol · May 7, 2009

thoughtone said:
First the Tea baggers, now this. Not that I'm supporting the Fed, but didn't the US become the wealthiest and most powerful country in history after 1913 and began its first trillion dollar debt about 1990?

First off, there were people calling for a tea-bag revolution LAST YEAR. I've saved articles where people have commented on it from 2007 and 2008. It only blew in recent times, because people have just started losing their jobs and 401ks and retirment funds in the past 8 months.

People in the know have been known we were getting raped.

The problem with the people on the left is, they're dangerously close to becoming Bush people, where they'll ignore faults because THEIR guy is in office. People like Ron Paul have been talking about this SINCE 1988, when Ronald REagan was in office.

Fiscal policy is not a Democrat or Republican thing, it's an American thing.

Dude, we pay an institution that we cannot control to dictate our financial policy. Don't you see something wrong with that? Don't you have a problem with us paying a private institution to control us? IT's unconstitutional. Congress is supposed to control monetary policy. It doesn't have the authority to delegate that to the Federal REserve, which WE don't get to vote on.

America became the richest country in the world, because WWII destroyed all our competition and we had to REBUILD THE ENTIRE civilized world.

We'd be saved again if China, Japan, England, France, and Russia were destroyed, with relatively minor damage on our part.

If it wasn't for WWII, we wouldn't be where we are today.

Lamarr · May 7, 2009

The Amerikkkan Idol said:
The problem with the people on the left is, they're dangerously close to becoming Bush people, where they'll ignore faults because THEIR guy is in office. People like Ron Paul have been talking about this SINCE 1988, when Ronald REagan was in office.

Fiscal policy is not a Democrat or Republican thing, it's an American thing.

Dude, we pay an institution that we cannot control to dictate our financial policy. Don't you see something wrong with that? Don't you have a problem with us paying a private institution to control us? IT's unconstitutional. Congress is supposed to control monetary policy. It doesn't have the authority to delegate that to the Federal REserve, which WE don't get to vote on.

Well said Idol!!

Ron Paul 1988 interview, when Reagan was Prez!

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/qap9q25m53k&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/qap9q25m53k&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

SloPoke · May 7, 2009

With the gold standard in place our country was already doing well. The Federal Reserve is just a projection of credit that the country has to make us "appear" richer than what we are. So basically....we just had a bigger credit limit.

The Federal Reserve needs to be put down in order for the county to actually grow.

Cruise · May 7, 2009

Lamarr said:
Well said Idol!!

Ron Paul 1988 interview, when Reagan was Prez!

That was a great series of videos of Ron Paul. That guy is no joke, considering he was saying this 2 decades ago!

I'm not a big fan but he said 2 things I did not know...

The Federal Reserve still uses gold as backing for the currency. It was ONLY gold until the Monetary Control Act passed in 1980. Then they began including debt and other assets.

The Bank of International Settlements (in Switzerland) is THE ULTIMATE central bank to the central banks (e.g. Federal Reserve, Bank of England, Bundesbank, Bank of Japan, etc.).

Our whole financial system is a HUGE extortion scheme.

Yet, we all willingly support it.

Lamarr · May 8, 2009

Cruise said:
Yet, we all willingly support it.

We support it because we, as a nation, don't know any better. The Powers That Be have done an excellent job at keeping people divided whether by race, gender, political persuasion etc. Yet there's never any scrutiny over Fed decisions, nor oversight!

Bump 4 Thoughtone!

thoughtone · May 8, 2009

The Amerikkkan Idol said:
First off, there were people calling for a tea-bag revolution LAST YEAR. I've saved articles where people have commented on it from 2007 and 2008. It only blew in recent times, because people have just started losing their jobs and 401ks and retirment funds in the past 8 months.

People in the know have been known we were getting raped.

The problem with the people on the left is, they're dangerously close to becoming Bush people, where they'll ignore faults because THEIR guy is in office. People like Ron Paul have been talking about this SINCE 1988, when Ronald REagan was in office.

Fiscal policy is not a Democrat or Republican thing, it's an American thing.

Dude, we pay an institution that we cannot control to dictate our financial policy. Don't you see something wrong with that? Don't you have a problem with us paying a private institution to control us? IT's unconstitutional. Congress is supposed to control monetary policy. It doesn't have the authority to delegate that to the Federal REserve, which WE don't get to vote on.

America became the richest country in the world, because WWII destroyed all our competition and we had to REBUILD THE ENTIRE civilized world.

We'd be saved again if China, Japan, England, France, and Russia were destroyed, with relatively minor damage on our part.

If it wasn't for WWII, we wouldn't be where we are today.

First off, Ron Paul lost. Second, republicans/corporatists have been trying to diminish the New Deal since its inception. The republican policies of Hoover and JP Morgan got us into the depression and now modern day republicans/corporatists disguised as populists are trying to bring them back in a new form of rhetoric.

Elizabeth Warren, a possible Supreme Court Nominee. Pay attention toward the end. "...those 3 rules (those dreaded, evil regulations) bought us 50 years of security and prosperity'.

Lamarr · May 8, 2009

thoughtone said:
First off, Ron Paul lost.

Have you read anything in this thread? The fact that Paul lost is insignificant, please proofread the thread!

thoughtone · May 8, 2009

Lamarr said:
Have you read anything in this thread? The fact that Paul lost is insignificant, please proofread the thread!

You obviously weren’t around during the presidential campaign. I have commented extensively on Ron Paul. I am not going to argue Ron Paul again. If you want to know what I feel about Ron Paul and his stances put a little effort in to searching my posts. I will just say, He makes good points, but over simplifies some things. What is current is my post above.

Lamarr · May 8, 2009

thoughtone said:
You obviously weren’t around during the presidential campaign. I have commented extensively on Ron Paul. I am not going to argue Ron Paul again. If you want to know what I feel about Ron Paul and his stances put a little effort in to searching my posts. I will just say, He makes good points, but over simplifies some things. What is current is my post above.

We're not arguing Paul. His name was bought up in supprt of the thread. I posted a clip of him in 1988 (the Reagan Years) and he is saying the same thing today as he was 20 years ago! Its not about repub vs. Dem. This is about an independent bank who is dictating monetary policy with no oversight. Do you think it is justified that the US pays interest on its national debt to a private group of bankers?

I'll post my Thomas Jefferson quote again - peace!

The central bank is an institution of the most deadly hostility existing against the Principles and form of our Constitution. I am an Enemy to all banks discounting bills or notes for anything but Coin. If the American People allow private banks to control the issuance of their currency, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the People of all their Property until their Children will wake up homeless on the continent their Fathers conquered.

Cruise · May 8, 2009

thoughtone said:
Elizabeth Warren, a possible Supreme Court Nominee. Pay attention toward the end. "...those 3 rules (those dreaded, evil regulations) bought us 50 years of security and prosperity'.

You're quoting CNBC!!!

Basically, they are the bankers propaganda channel.

It's like takling to a company spokesman to get accurate information on a company. It is completely biased, one-sided, always favorable, and always misleading.

Lamarr said:
We're not arguing Paul. His name was bought up in supprt of the thread. I posted a clip of him in 1988 (the Reagan Years) and he is saying the same thing today as he was 20 years ago! Its not about repub vs. Dem. This is about an independent bank who is dictating monetary policy with no oversight. Do you think it is justified that the US pays interest on its national debt to a private group of bankers?

I tend to look at these bailouts like this.

The only companies that cannot fail are the Big Banks in this country. Why? Because without the Big Banks there is no need for a Federal Reserve.

Citibank, Bank of America, Chase, Wells Fargo, etc. are all failures. They are insolvent, should be in bankruptcy, and been liquidated long ago.

Yet, people still make deposits, borrow, invest, place their pensions and retirements, in FAILED BANKS!!!!!

Now, who is crazier...

Is it the big banks getting the bailouts, or
the people who continue to believe/trust them???

This bailout episode lays bare US Dollars are not taxpayer money. They are entirely bank money or bank credit (property of the banks). Our savings, investment, pensions, 401K are not our money, not our wealth, not our property. We are simply the collateral.

Dollars and Deposits (since the 1980 Monetary Control Act) are entirely the property of the BIG private banks via the Federal Reserve. We only exist to serve their interests and to guarantee their profits.

Until people remove their deposits from these failed BANKS, get rid of the BIG BANK credit/debit cards, move their IRAs/401ks/investments from the BIG BANKS, we are financing our own servitude.

Using credit unions and state-chartered banks (not member of the Federal Reserve System) is a start.

Lamarr · May 8, 2009

Cruise said:
Citibank, Bank of America, Chase, Wells Fargo, etc. are all failures. They are insolvent, should be in bankruptcy, and been liquidated long ago.

Yet, people still make deposits, borrow, invest, place their pensions and retirements, in FAILED BANKS!!!!!

Now, who is crazier...

Never looked at it like that, but so true!

Cristar Mymine · May 8, 2009

So where should we keep our money?

Cruise said:
Citibank, Bank of America, Chase, Wells Fargo, etc. are all failures. They are insolvent, should be in bankruptcy, and been liquidated long ago.

Yet, people still make deposits, borrow, invest, place their pensions and retirements, in FAILED BANKS!!!!!

Now, who is crazier...

The Amerikkkan Idol · May 8, 2009

thoughtone said:
First off, Ron Paul lost. Second, republicans/corporatists have been trying to diminish the New Deal since its inception. The republican policies of Hoover and JP Morgan got us into the depression and now modern day republicans/corporatists disguised as populists are trying to bring them back in a new form of rhetoric.

Elizabeth Warren, a possible Supreme Court Nominee. Pay attention toward the end. "...those 3 rules (those dreaded, evil regulations) bought us 50 years of security and prosperity'.

<param name="type" value="application/x-shockwave-flash"/>
<param name="allowfullscreen" value="true"/>
<param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"/>
<param name="quality" value="best"/>
<param name="scale" value="noscale" />
<param name="wmode" value="transparent"/>
<param name="bgcolor" value="#000000"/>
<param name="salign" value="lt"/>
<param name="movie" value="http://plus.cnbc.com/rssvideosearch/action/player/id/1116549423/code/cnbcplayershare"/>
<embed name="cnbcplayer" PLUGINSPAGE="http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer" allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always" bgcolor="#000000" height="380" width="400" quality="best" wmode="transparent" scale="noscale" salign="lt" src="http://plus.cnbc.com/rssvideosearch/action/player/id/1116549423/code/cnbcplayershare" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" />
</object>

Dude, didn't you see Jon Stewart DEMOLISH that entire network? You still watch them?

Dude, it wasn't a Ron Paul for president endorsement. Dennis Kucinich and Ralph Nader LOST too. Al Gore "Lost" too(kinda). What's your point? There's no such thing as global climate change and the War in Iraq wasn't a mistake? Losing is proof of a person being wrong? From where I stand, most of the time the people who are right LOSE every election I've ever voted in.

I'd NEVER vote for Ron Paul. He's probably a racist. The point is that Democrats and Obama nut riders argue that NOBODY was arguing against this easy credit system that we've been a part since we were taken off the gold standard, until a Black Democrat was elected president. I posted Ron Paul as proof that there are people who've always know our economy was based on fraud.

And it wasn't REAL prosperity we've had for 50 years. What happened was all of our competition was destroyed in World War II and we had to REBUILD all of Europe. That fixed the Great Depression. No World War II and we'd be a lot worst off.

Secondly, the "prosperity" you speak of was FAKE prosperity. That's why our economy is crashing back down to earth. It wsn't real to begin with. Our real estate market was over inflated as well as damn near everything else, because credit was soooo easy to attain.

Don't you see that all the government numbers are doctored? The unemployment rates, the GDP, the national debt, the stardard of living index? The government actually changed the way we counted things to make it seem as if we are better off than we actually are.

Our entire economy has been a sham since the '70s. Doesn't that bother you?

thoughtone · May 8, 2009

Cruise said:
You're quoting CNBC!!!

Basically, they are the bankers propaganda channel.

It's like takling to a company spokesman to get accurate information on a company. It is completely biased, one-sided, always favorable, and always misleading.

The Amerikkkan Idol said:
Dude, didn't you see Jon Stewart DEMOLISH that entire network? You still watch them?

I didn't get those clips from CNBC. I despise CNBC as much as I despise Faux Snooze. I got them from the Huffington Post. Check the source. CNBC is basically one long commercial for GE and Jack Welsh. Listen to what Huffington, Spitzer and Warren are retorting. They, in effect shut those corporatist shills up. They had them babbling. To summarize this post, The Fed may or may not be the problem. The Fed has definitely
been out of control since the Reagan years, for sure. But my contention is that if you have politicians that are surrogates for business and disregard their individual constituents, the corruption will continue. Any system is only as good as the people operating it.

The Amerikkkan Idol said:
Dude, it wasn't a Ron Paul for president endorsement. Dennis Kucinich and Ralph Nader LOST too. Al Gore "Lost" too(kinda). What's your point? There's no such thing as global climate change and the War in Iraq wasn't a mistake? Losing is proof of a person being wrong? From where I stand, most of the time the people who are right LOSE every election I've ever voted in.

I'd NEVER vote for Ron Paul. He's probably a racist. The point is that Democrats and Obama nut riders argue that NOBODY was arguing against this easy credit system that we've been a part since we were taken off the gold standard, until a Black Democrat was elected president. I posted Ron Paul as proof that there are people who've always know our economy was based on fraud.

And it wasn't REAL prosperity we've had for 50 years. What happened was all of our competition was destroyed in World War II and we had to REBUILD all of Europe. That fixed the Great Depression. No World War II and we'd be a lot worst off.

Secondly, the "prosperity" you speak of was FAKE prosperity. That's why our economy is crashing back down to earth. It wsn't real to begin with. Our real estate market was over inflated as well as damn near everything else, because credit was soooo easy to attain.

Don't you see that all the government numbers are doctored? The unemployment rates, the GDP, the national debt, the stardard of living index? The government actually changed the way we counted things to make it seem as if we are better off than we actually are.

Our entire economy has been a sham since the '70s. Doesn't that bother you?

Ok, here is a Nader clip, saying essentially the same things.

The Amerikkkan Idol · May 23, 2009

thoughtone said:
I didn't get those clips from CNBC. I despise CNBC as much as I despise Faux Snooze. I got them from the Huffington Post. Check the source. CNBC is basically one long commercial for GE and Jack Welsh. Listen to what Huffington, Spitzer and Warren are retorting. They, in effect shut those corporatist shills up. They had them babbling. To summarize this post, The Fed may or may not be the problem. The Fed has definitely
been out of control since the Reagan years, for sure. But my contention is that if you have politicians that are surrogates for business and disregard their individual constituents, the corruption will continue. Any system is only as good as the people operating it.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/aIaYI5Rnimc&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en&feature=player_embedded&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/aIaYI5Rnimc&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en&feature=player_embedded&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/C6eCzgBXjM4&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en&feature=player_embedded&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/C6eCzgBXjM4&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en&feature=player_embedded&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Ok, here is a Nader clip, saying essentially the same things.

The Fed IS the problem, because it's a unnecessary drain on the tax payers of the United States and devalues the currency, simple. Even the guy who passed The Federal Reserve Act, Woodrow Wilson, lived to regret it and said that he, "Ruined a ONCE great nation". Now, I aint the biggest fan of Wilson, but he was right.

Look up what our other founding fathers said about central banking and tell me it doesn't apply to where we're at today.

Encouraging that type of lack of fiscal discipline and greed is not good for any nation, not just the U.S.

Lamarr · May 23, 2009

thoughtone said:
To summarize this post, The Fed may or may not be the problem. The Fed has definitely
been out of control since the Reagan years, for sure.

Thats because Nixon took us completely off the Gold Standard!
Give this clip 90 seconds, please!

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/_Rr_Gqn-3Wc&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/_Rr_Gqn-3Wc&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Those that use the money first, the military-industrial complex, pharmacutical complex, banking complex etc! Ron breaks it down to Romneys dismay as you will see in the clip!

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/opl2m0vMJ0A&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/opl2m0vMJ0A&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Gifted&Afrikan · May 23, 2009

The national currency act of 1864 has to be looked at also because it basically began what the fed does today but the fed act just centralized it.

thoughtone · Sep 14, 2010

Lamarr said:
Thats because Nixon took us completely off the Gold Standard!
Give this clip 90 seconds, please!

</EMBED>

Those that use the money first, the military-industrial complex, pharmacutical complex, banking complex etc! Ron breaks it down to Romneys dismay as you will see in the clip!

</EMBED>

Thats because Nixon took us completely off the Gold Standard!

Why?

Cruise · Sep 14, 2010

Nixon, strictly speaking, abandoned the "gold exchange" standard, on August 15, 1971, which was essentially a Federal government bankruptcy (default, failure, whatever).

Of course, the Federal government is TOO BIG TO FAIL, so they simply said they weren't going to pay their obligations.

Under the Bretton Woods system, the dollar became the world reserve currency by agreeing to deliver gold at $35/ounce to any Central Bank or sovereign nation that presented dollars to the United States Treasury. In 1946, when the system was created, the market price for gold was $35/ounce.

With Vietnam and the expenses for the War on Poverty, the US gold reserves were being drained very rapidly (specifically by France) as gold prices rose above $35/ounce due to dollar inflation.

When the Treasury Department made it clear to Nixon the gold would run out if it kept going out the door at $35/ounce (market price was $42 at that time, losing $7 on every ounce of gold), Nixon decided to default on his obligations entirely to foreigners who had dollars.

The United States basically destroyed its credit with the world when it comes to gold at that point. This is one reason why you will never see any kind of gold-backed dollar in the United States ever again.

The gold confiscation of 1933 and the gold default of 1971 have wiped out any chance the world would ever again trust the United States government to honor its gold obligations.

thoughtone · Sep 15, 2010

Cruise said:
Nixon, strictly speaking, abandoned the "gold exchange" standard, on August 15, 1971, which was essentially a Federal government bankruptcy (default, failure, whatever).

Of course, the Federal government is TOO BIG TO FAIL, so they simply said they weren't going to pay their obligations.

Under the Bretton Woods system, the dollar became the world reserve currency by agreeing to deliver gold at $35/ounce to any Central Bank or sovereign nation that presented dollars to the United States Treasury. In 1946, when the system was created, the market price for gold was $35/ounce.

With Vietnam and the expenses for the War on Poverty, the US gold reserves were being drained very rapidly (specifically by France) as gold prices rose above $35/ounce due to dollar inflation.

When the Treasury Department made it clear to Nixon the gold would run out if it kept going out the door at $35/ounce (market price was $42 at that time, losing $7 on every ounce of gold), Nixon decided to default on his obligations entirely to foreigners who had dollars.

The United States basically destroyed its credit with the world when it comes to gold at that point. This is one reason why you will never see any kind of gold-backed dollar in the United States ever again.

The gold confiscation of 1933 and the gold default of 1971 have wiped out any chance the world would ever again trust the United States government to honor its gold obligations.

With Vietnam and the expenses for the War on Poverty, the US gold reserves were being drained very rapidly (specifically by France) as gold prices rose above $35/ounce due to dollar inflation.

This proves you don't know what you are talking about. You are quoting David Frum.

Learn more about what actually caused the situation.

Cruise · Sep 15, 2010

thoughtone said:
This proves you don't know what you are talking about. You are quoting David Frum.

Learn more about what actually caused the situation.

I've met a lot of so-called "successful" people in my time who are so resistant to facts and logic as long as things are going their way in life, that they ignore all informed and practical advice until they head right into disaster.

This response is so cliche, I wonder if you realize how simple-minded it is.

Abolish The Federal Reserve Act of 1913

Star

Star

Rising Star

Star

Star

Rising Star

Star

Star

Star

Star

Star

Star

Rising Star

Star

Rising Star

Star

Star

Star

Star

Star

Rising Star

Star

Star

Potential Star

Rising Star

Star

Rising Star

Star

Similar threads