Just don't ask how they came to their conclusion.
Be good little boys and girls and let Bernanke and the other adults run things.

Please define "earns" as used in the headline.

Since they were allowed to play with our money for free, do we get it back in the form of a tax refund?

Joe...

How much of your money did they get?

From what I see the only money they played with was from China and other creditors to the US Treasury.

This is what I've found fascinating about Bernanke's $2 trillion + in unauthorized expenditures -- while it's scary that one person can do this, buying during the firesale made sense not only as a way to recapitalize struggling businesses, but b/c buying at firesale prices could lead to profits that could fund the enormous debt payments coming up.

Since they were allowed to play with our money for free, do we get it back in the form of a tax refund? -- #3 | Posted by JOE

You get it back in the form of a reduction in future tax payments.

From what I see the only money they played with was from China and other creditors to the US Treasury.

Exactly, we reduced the burden on current taxpayers and leveraged our children's future in exchange. These so-called "earnings" should be used to pay down that debt.

They don't just play with money, they print it and if you're their special friend they give it away free.

How does the Fed make this kind of money when they are providing cash to fraudsters for zero percent interest. I don't get it.

At the core of our decline is corruption.

The Fed just wanted some good press to help them stave off the demands for an audit and to bolster Bernanke's chances for reappointment. I suspect they pulled a number out of the sky for the profit they report.

Right. I can see that $45B in spending cuts coming any day now.

That was in response to "You get it back in the form of a reduction in future tax payments."

I can see that $45B in spending cuts coming any day now. -- #10 | Posted by JOE

That was in response to "You get it back in the form of a reduction in future tax payments." -- #11 | Posted by JOE

I don't think you're making sense. My point was that we're slated for years of deficits, which are going to be paid in part by taxes. Money coming in from the Fed reduces that burden.

More money coming in to the federal government has never reduced our tax burden. The federal government has more money to spend every year - and they spend all of it.

and they spend all of it.

#13 | Posted by JOE

And then they spend some more...

"More money coming in to the federal government has never reduced our tax burden. The federal government has more money to spend every year - and they spend all of it."

We aren't talking about the federal government, this is the federal reserve. The fed is a seperate entity from the government and has been delegated the authority to "make" our money rather than our government actually issuing it. It literally creates money out of thin air by lending it electronicly to the government and to banks.

Just don't ask how they came to their conclusion.
Be good little boys and girls and let Bernanke and the other adults run things.

Says the person who agrees with Bernanke and the other "adults" that an audit of the Fed would be devastating to the economy.

Money coming in from the Fed reduces that burden.

Money from the Fed = Debt. Always.

"The fed is a seperate entity from the government and has been delegated the authority to "make" our money rather than our government actually issuing it. It literally creates money out of thin air by lending it electronicly to the government and to banks. "

Hopefully this $45 billion will just be wiped off the books electronically, part of a payback of the $1 trillion that was "created" a few days before the Bush Bailout.

Taxpayers put in 14 trillion and get 45 billion back.

pigs at the trough.

"Taxpayers put in 14 trillion and get 45 billion back."

Um, that's not taxpayers' money. That's bankers' money. "The Fed" isn't part of the federal government.

"Says the person who agrees with Bernanke and the other "adults" that an audit of the Fed would be devastating to the economy."

When it was originally suggested I said I wondered if it was a good idea, later I decided it was.
That's the advantage of not being a hack, you get to think about things and make up your own mind, even change your mind. It's called thinking.

Um, that's not taxpayers' money. That's bankers' money. "The Fed" isn't part of the federal government. -- #19 | Posted by Danforth

The first part doesn't follow from the second, Danforth:

"The first part doesn't follow from the second"

I was talking about the profit. Those monies don't go into the Treasury, they go to the Fed bankers.

I was talking about the profit. Those monies don't go into the Treasury, they go to the Fed bankers. -- #22 | Posted by Danforth

Dude, finish your coffee. From the article:

The Fed will return about $45 billion to the U.S. Treasury for 2009...

Um, that's not taxpayers' money. That's bankers' money. "The Fed" isn't part of the federal government.

-------------

How fucking stupid can you be dimforth?

Corporations ARE government you imbecilic fucking jackass. Or more precisely, government without public inputs.

The U.S. Treasury gets an extra $45 billion in profit from the Fed and people are spinning it as bad news? Sheesh. Would you folks prefer it if the government didn't earn that profit on the bank bailout?

This was similar to when Bubba loaned money to Mexico, and the Tight said it was the end of the world.

We made 50 million on that one, too.

The U.S. Treasury gets an extra $45 billion in profit from the Fed and people are spinning it as bad news? -- #25 | Posted by rcade

Well, my word was "fascinating." (#5 | Posted by Phoenix)

Yes, absolutely, $45 billion to the U.S. Treasury is good news.

But remember, this is the result of Bernanke's invoking depression-era emergency powers to spend $2 trillion with no further authorization, oversight, or even disclosure.

Regardless of how this turns out, would you want Sarah Palin's choice for Fed to have the same power?

"Dude, finish your coffee."

My bad, Phoenix. I stand corrected. My apologies.

"How fucking stupid can you be dimforth?
Corporations ARE government you imbecilic fucking jackass."

Corporations are government?!?

Ya gotta love the self-retorting retort.

so have we come to another issue that unites all sides here on the ole retort?

"Regardless of how this turns out, would you want Sarah Palin's choice for Fed to have the same power?"

That would be the least of our worries with her as president because the Senate has to approve the Chairman of the Fed.

45 billion is about 2.5%. So that would never pay off a 2 Trillion dollar debt. And it was a record amount. Obomanomics - make it "look" good and sell the people and their children's futures down the road.

They'll use the same smoke and mirrors to put health care to all in good light, create a bunch of gov't jobs and call it good and then act as though they saved the world. Then e years from now they'll have to blame some unforseen event. It should make economic sense from the start. "Health care to all" is not a "right" for those truly unable, yes for deadbeats, and people who make comnbined $60,000 thinking they could afford a $300K house or more, and spend till the file bankruptcy or cry poor poor me, bail me out, I think not.

i.e. dimforth has nothing.

remember the 'good old days' when dems told us it was wall street v main street and they were for main street and all that.
while the fed isnt wall street, the concept is the same..
wall street won and main street lost as now record bonuses on the way...

BUT is there anyone who is NOT in favor of throwing some light on the fed????

This is a result of the TARP investment that BUSH instituted ( and that Obama followed up with ) for the banks.

TARP was a LOAN to keep the financial institutions stable- but Obama somewhat perverted it with use in GM and Chrysler.

This is to be compared Stimulas - which has been a complete failure as has the Massive budget increase that Obama and DEMS have instituted on us.

You may not like it - but investing in the financial institutions was the smart thing to do. Money is the grease on the economy - and the banks are the machines that keep the economy going.

Without them NOBODY has a job.

That would be the least of our worries with her as president because the Senate has to approve the Chairman of the Fed.-- #31 | Posted by danni

President nominates, Senate confirms.

That process has put Scalia and Thomas on the Supreme Court. You don't think it could lead to a scary Fed Chief appointment?

"TARP was a LOAN"

All of it? Link?

The U.S. Treasury gets an extra $45 billion in profit from the Fed and people are spinning it as bad news? Sheesh. Would you folks prefer it if the government didn't earn that profit on the bank bailout?

#25 | Posted by rcade at 2010-01-12 10:48 AM | Reply | Flag

No. But they would be bitching just as bad if the Fed lost $45 billion on it.

It is part of the Deranged Obama Hatred Syndrome.

Damned if you do. Damned if you don't.

"You don't think it could lead to a scary Fed Chief appointment?"

Good point, all I meant was that whoever was appointed would at least have to pass the Senate.

"This is to be compared Stimulas - which has been a complete failure"

Charlie Crist here in Florida says it save thousands of teachers, firemen, police jobs, it has funded unemployment for millions, and much, much more. To claim it has been a complete failure is simply a partisan talking point which is not just wrong but is a lie.

It's nothing but a snow job folks. It's not a profit until the fed pays back all the money loaned by the government. What we the taxpayers got was 2.5% interest only back over two years because in 2008 bush loaned out 480+ billion and then another 1.3 trillion in Feb 09 and don't forget, Obama did not engineer that last ripoff). I wouldn't put my money in a bank for 2.5% for a year much less two. Inflation was 5.6% for that two year period.

Now, did the government make money or loose money? You do the math.

45 billion is about 2.5%. So that would never pay off a 2 Trillion dollar debt. -- #32 | Posted by NonDLR

That's one of the things I've been trying to figure out -- what does "$45 billion profit" mean? "Covered the $2 trillion and made an additional $45B" doesn't sound plausible -- and as you note, a 2.5% return isn't anything to crow about anyway.

If the whole $2 Trillion was spent in 2008, and the Fed showed a profit for 2009, does that mean it showed a $2 trillion LOSS in 2008? Not easy to get excited about the $45B under that scenario, either.

Without them NOBODY has a job.

#35 | Posted by foshaffer at

with an admission of not knowing a whole lot about the subject, I wonder is this is completely true.
wouldnt the economy work itself out...for want of a better way to describe it...??????

You get it back in the form of a reduction in future tax payments.

#6 | Posted by Phoenix

You are a dreamer. The politicians have spent it already.

That's one of the things I've been trying to figure out -- what does "$45 billion profit" mean?

It means the assets they purchased went up $45 billion in value before they sold them, so the money was returned to the Treasury.

It is good news. People who refuse to acknowledge good news have no ground to stand on when they bitch about bad news.

so is this the money that frank and other dems said should be used to put into ANOTHER stimulus? or was that the other taxpayer screwing?

and when it comes to jobs...does this make a difference?

rca, math and logic arn't your long suit. Stick to things of emotion. You are good at that.

You may not like it - but investing in the financial institutions was the smart thing to do. Money is the grease on the economy - and the banks are the machines that keep the economy going.

Without them NOBODY has a job.

-------

Clueless and stupid as people who believed that without the church you couldn't get to heaven(see medieval europe).

The truth is that the serfs keep the economy going. The bankers could all die, and nothing would change.

It is good news. -- #44 | Posted by rcade

I think you're probably right, but that's not so clear.

Without knowing what they paid for the assets sold, you don't know the rate of return -- could be less than the opportunity cost (another difficult calculation).

And let's say you're right, that they sold assets. (Not so clear to me -- could be reporting marked-to-market valuation of assets held, less obligations.)

But again, let's grant your premise. Surely Bernanke would sell the most profitable assets off first. Do we know anything about the present value of the remaining assets?

Truly, I'm not trying to be difficult or rain on anyone's parade. Just looking for responsible journalism.

"It means the assets they purchased went up $45 billion in value before they sold them, so the money was returned to the Treasury"

If they sold assets, shouldn't that recoupment be credited to the Treasury as well (seriously, I'm asking)?

It is good news. People who refuse to acknowledge good news have no ground to stand on when they bitch about bad news. -- #44 | Posted by rcade

Also, I think you're oversimplifying here. Suppose we had won the Iraq War quickly and with little loss of life. Good news, sure.

But would it mean that no one should question the Bush Adminstration's "Preventive War", trumped-up WMD claims, or lies about the Iraq-AQ link?

Lets try this one.

I bought 10 different stocks at $1 each.

After 2 years I sold one of them for $1.03 but the rest of them have gone down in value. Did I make a profit?

"After 2 years I sold one of them for $1.03 but the rest of them have gone down in value. Did I make a profit?"

Yes.

Just ask the IRS.

#51 | Posted by Sniper

Thanks. Well put.

#51 | Posted by Sniper at 2010-01-12 12:10 PM | Reply | Flag:

Did you use the socks?

#52 | Posted by Danforth

Lol. Ok, ok, but based on that record, would you hire him as your financial manager?

***"It means the assets they purchased went up $45 billion in value before they sold them,"***

Not necessarily. From the article:

"By the end of 2009, the Fed owned $1.8 trillion in U.S. government debt and mortgage-related securities, up from $497 billion a year earlier. The interest income on those investments was a major source of Fed profits, though there remains a risk of significant losses in the future if the Fed sells some of its investments or loses money on its stakes in bailed-out firms."

Many of the assets the Fed bailed out are still either devaluating or at risk of further loss. They're making the profits off the interest as well as transaction fees.

"based on that record, would you hire him as your financial manager?"

It depends. If he did that in calendar 2008, as everything else went down 30%-40%...yes.

Without knowing what they paid for the assets sold, you don't know the rate of return...

If the Chinese only knew!

That's the advantage of not being a hack, you get to think about things and make up your own mind, even change your mind. It's called thinking.

That's convenient. It's funny that you claim you're not a hack when you called people who were for an audit when you were arguing against it the same thing.

Are you prepared to now take back the things that you said about the posters on this website and the members of congress who were pushing for an audit when you thought it was a bad idea?

Most people wait their entire lives to have an epiphany such as this. You seem to have them with the frequency of bodily functions.

So you were for an audit before you were against an audit before you were for it?

#57 | Posted by Danforth

Yeah, exactly.

Stock market went up more than 3% during 2009, didn't it? Realizing a 2.5% return on $2 trillion might not seem so great.

Then again, there are social benefits to consider. If it also mitigated a systemic failure...

I don't think it's silly to ask whether this is good news or not. I'd bet this chapter in the Fed's history becomes as closely-studied as the Cuban Missile Crisis.

"Yeah, exactly.
Stock market went up more than 3% during 2009, didn't it? Realizing a 2.5% return on $2 trillion might not seem so great. "

But it was over the last TWO years. A 2.5% gain from the start of the meltdown is better than the markets.

"If it also mitigated a systemic failure..."

Good point. Another positive.

"That's convenient. It's funny that you claim you're not a hack when you called people who were for an audit when you were arguing against it the same thing."

I disagreed with them and said I thought the issue was not so simple and that an audit could reveal to our trading partners weaknesses that we might not want to reveal. I honestly do not remember calling anyone anything on that issue. You apparently do remember me calling you or someone else a "hack" during that discussion, link please.

"Most people wait their entire lives to have an epiphany such as this. You seem to have them with the frequency of bodily functions."

You are simply full of crap. I have a very consistent history right here at DR and have argued the same issues, with the same basic viewpoint for, literally, years.

You made an attempt at an attack on me over the Fed audit issue, I answered you honestly and now you are determined to try and still use it to attack me. Good luck with that.

Also, I think you're oversimplifying here.

I was oversimplifying how the Fed turned this profit, but it remains good news that the Fed earned $45 billion thanks to activities related to the bailouts. This is a good thing; it shows that at least one facet of the bailout effort was an exceptionally good deal for the U.S.

Back to my stocks in post number 51.

Did I make 3 pennies on the $1 or did I get that great return from the $10.

The IRS says from the $1 but my wallet doesn't feel that way. I am still in the hole $9.97.

We aren't talking about the federal government, this is the federal reserve.

Are you retarded? The $45B "profit" is being put into the United States Treasury - that means it is now the federal government's money. A poster said this would lower our tax burden. I disagree.

The U.S. Treasury gets an extra $45 billion in profit from the Fed and people are spinning it as bad news?

No, this is great news - if they apply it directly to the deficit or refund it to the taxpayers. They won't be doing either, unfortunately, so it is bad news. They'll start a few new programs and get "used to" having that money, then they'll have to raise taxes in order to avoid "cutting necessary services."

No, this is great news - if they apply it directly to the deficit or refund it to the taxpayers. They won't be doing either, unfortunately, so it is bad news.

If I win $1 million in the Lottery and blow all the money on coke and strippers, that doesn't mean it was bad news I won the Lottery.

"I am still in the hole $9.97."

No you aren't you still have the socks. YOu just need to sell them to get your money. If one is worth $1.03 then why aren't the rest?

"Back to my stocks in post number 51. Did I make 3 pennies on the $1 or did I get that great return from the $10."

You made a profit on the one stock you sold.

"The IRS says from the $1 but my wallet doesn't feel that way. I am still in the hole $9.97."

No, you're not. You still have the value of the 9 other stocks, which, until sold, have not realized a gain or a loss.

I think it's amusing when people argue over bean counting. Kinda like comic book enthusiasts fighting over whether superman would beat the green lantern in a throw down. Or trekkies engaging in fisticuffs over which captain is/was better.

The idea that they whole thing is meaningless bullshit never crosses their minds...

Kinda like comic book enthusiasts fighting over whether superman would beat the green lantern in a throw down. Or trekkies engaging in fisticuffs over which captain is/was better.

The idea that they whole thing is meaningless bullshit never crosses their minds...

There is a value to the mental exercises that go along with such debates. The problem solving skills, the ability to take in factors and project outcome as a result of it is invaluable. Just because a debate's subject is pointless does not mean the act of debating it is.

no.

No more value than theologians debating which god has the bigger penis.

Mindless distraction from real facts.

I pity you in your black and white world, Shawn. One day you may discover the beauty of grey.

blow me.

The fact that you choose to believe that air has no weight doesn't change the fact that it does.

If I win $1 million in the Lottery and blow all the money on coke and strippers, that doesn't mean it was bad news I won the Lottery.

You are a private citizen and are not entrusted with being responsible for the money of others. If you blow your own money on coke and strippers, that's your prerogative. When Congress does the equivalent with everyone's money, it's not okay.

If you were actually serious there, that was pretty weak.

I think it's amusing when people argue over bean counting. The idea that they whole thing is meaningless bullshit never crosses their minds... -- #71 | Posted by Shawn

How would you decide whether Bernanke's $2 trillion bailout was working out?

The fact that you choose to believe that air has no weight doesn't change the fact that it does.

Strawman on line 3.

Break it up, you two.

How would you decide whether Bernanke's $2 trillion bailout was working out?

----------

I don't give a shit. They own the presses. They can do whatever the fuck they want. God says it's this way! God says it's that way! Drive on the left side! No the right side!

Grow up. Stop playing games with real life. Concentrate on what is important, or choose to waste your life. Up to you.

Break it up, you two

Yeah Phoenix and Joe! Back to your corners!

If I win $1 million in the Lottery and blow all the money on coke and strippers, that doesn't mean it was bad news I won the Lottery. -- #68 | Posted by rcade

If you embezzle $1 million from UNICEF and give to OXFAM, must the headline be "Generous Bloggod (and did we mention handsome and brilliant?) Donates $1M to Charity?"

Strawman on line 3.

------

Your inability to read between the lines is legendary fucktard.

Go away.

#83 | Posted by Shawn at 2010-01-12 01:06 PM

ROFLMAO while Pointing at Shawn and pissing myself.

You are a private citizen and are not entrusted with being responsible for the money of others.

What does that have to do with what we are talking about? Good news can be followed by bad news and still be good news. A $45 billion profit for the Fed is good news. How the U.S. government responds to this news is another matter entirely.

People are twisting themselves into pretzels to avoid acknowledging good news while Obama is president. Wonder why.

If you embezzle $1 million from UNICEF and give to OXFAM, must the headline be "Generous Bloggod (and did we mention handsome and brilliant?) Donates $1M to Charity?"

That's a non sequitur. The Fed didn't steal $45 billion from anybody. It earned a profit on its activities. Banks are money-making enterprises. Even central ones.

"People are twisting themselves into pretzels to avoid acknowledging good news while Obama is president. Wonder why."

Ooh! Ooh! I know!!! Call on me! Call on meeee!!!

What does that have to do with what we are talking about? Good news can be followed by bad news and still be good news. A $45 billion profit for the Fed is good news. How the U.S. government responds to this news is another matter entirely.

How we know they will respond makes it bad news. As I said before, anyone who pays attention knows that the federal government will not apply this money directly to the deficit or refund it to the taxpayers. They will likely start new programs and get "used to" having that money, then they'll have to raise taxes in order to avoid "cutting necessary services."

Under your logic, giving money to a crackhead would be a good thing, so long as we pretend not to know what he'll be doing with the money.

That's a non sequitur. The Fed didn't steal $45 billion from anybody. It earned a profit on its activities. Banks are money-making enterprises. Even central ones.

-----

And as i've already stated. You give me the keys to the printing presses, a license to make 14 trillions dollars of monopoly money, and i'll show a 45 billion dollar profit tooooooooo...

They made $45 billion in interest payments and transaction fees. That's great, but the Fed is still invested in a lot of risky areas. What happens when the businesses can no longer pay the interest payments? What happens if the businesses go tits up even after the bailout and the Fed (or whoever) is stuck with a worthless business and the accompanying debt? We can toot horns about this all we want, but until the economy truely turns around, we're still on very, very thin ice. We're still covering a bullet hole with a band-aid IMO.

How we know they will respond makes it bad news.

So nothing the government can do is good news, by virtue of the fact that it's the government. Gotcha.

That's a non sequitur. The Fed didn't steal $45 billion from anybody. It earned a profit on its activities. -- #86 | Posted by rcade

Shoot. It's waaaaaaaaaay past time for me to get back to work. Will check back later.

Where things stand now:

--Still arguing about whether "Fed Earns Record Profit" is unquestionably good news.

--No debate over Blog God's generosity, brilliance, and good looks.

My point, btw, is not that the reported profit is bad news -- see my #5 -- but that there's a lot more to this story and mostly it gets about as much attention as Shawn thinks it should.

I can agree with that. The Fed is so complex you know that dubious things are happening there.

No debate over Blog God's generosity, brilliance, and good looks.

I can agree with that too. :-).

So nothing the government can do is good news, by virtue of the fact that it's the government. Gotcha.

Nothing the government can do with free money handed to it from the federal reserve is good, exactly because they are the government. You'd think any reasonable adult would be realistic enough to know that giving money to the government is like giving it to a crackhead.

Unless, of course, you think they are going to pay down the deficit with that money. If that's the case, come out and say so. I know you don't think that though.

I do understand your cynicism Joe but by the same token at some point we have to begin paying down the debt and it will have to be government that does it. Your cynicism would justify never increasing the taxes necessary to pay it down and thereby insure we never do. AT some point we are going to have to demand that government operate fiscally responsible as we did in the fifties and sixties.

I agree, and I think that time is now. But with the people currently there, we can basically kiss this $45B goodbye.

No you aren't you still have the socks. YOu just need to sell them to get your money. If one is worth $1.03 then why aren't the rest?

#69 | Posted by danni

Yes I still have the stock. One company has filed chapter 11, one has gone out of business and the others have dropped in value.

Are you trying to tell me that we are going to get all of the TARP money or the money the fed "created" back and it will be used to pay off the debt? You have a lot more faith in politicians than I do.

Next time you have an econ class, try to stay awake.

OK Danforth Per your request.

Let's see..... 45 billion divided by 55 million..... what's that come to?

When it was originally suggested I said I wondered if it was a good idea, later I decided it was.
That's the advantage of not being a hack, you get to think about things and make up your own mind, even change your mind. It's called thinking.

#20 | Posted by danni

oh yeah right, YOU were FOR nationalizing the banks. Take them all was your endless retort. Now you PRETEND you switched sides HA! Just like obama you blast the banks at every opportunity and blame republicans for everything bad. You ragged incessantly about the banks, now you say you have switched to being FOR saving them. LIAR

Just like him you have dissed GW's TARP plan, and said praise for 'shovel ready' stimulus projects!! Make that shovel ready "targeted ideas." How many jobs has he saved or created lately??? Where are all those 'green jobs'??

The funniest part is how the zero blasted the TARP plan back in December, saying how inperfect it was because it was rushed so quickly. Never said what he did not like, nor explain why he retained 2 of the 3 authors of the plan.

It's just like CNN said, the messiah (AND YOU) contradicts himself, often in the same sentence.

Stimulus? There's No Stimulus Here.
The president wants to spend more, but don't ask him what the money is for

Next talking point danni loves to fall back on, 'bending the cost curve'!!!!

Another warning that reform 'bends the cost curve'up.

That's the advantage of not being a hack

HOW much can one person deceive themselves? IF you really believe that bs you need a psychologist AND meds.

So nothing the government can do is good news, by virtue of the fact that it's the government. Gotcha.

------

fascism = government by the corporation, for the corporation.

People who believe in the 'free market' need to do 2 basic things:

1. read the Tragedy of the Commons.(goggle it, it's free).

2. get it through their thick fucking skulls that corporations are government bureaucracy without public influence. i.e. fascism/national socialism.

Noone here gets it.

Not one.

Finance, Insurance and Real Estate are the problem (FIRE), NOT the solution. No job is complete until the paper work is complete, but paper work does not generate wealth or do anything to help our balance of payments deficit.

Wall Street has engaged in fraud. In packaging, rating, selling and betting against their own securities. To bail these fuckers out is profoundly dishonest and unconscionable. Unconscionable contracts are unenforcable. Yet, immediately after breaking union contracts the fuckers running the Fed and Treasury proceeded to pontificate on the sacredness of contracts for AIG, Goldman-Sachs... bonuses for CEOs many of whom still haven't been fired.

Jobs, fire Bernanke, Geithner and Summers, audit the Federal Reserve & Treasury, investigations, prosecutions, reinstitute Glass-Steagal, clean house at the Federal Reserve, Treasury & SEC.

Paperwork is an incidental overhead and that is all banking, insurance or stock and real estate speculation is. Labor, as farming, fishing, mining, manufacturing is the source of real prosperity. Workers deserve the bulk of a nations wealth. Instead it has been hijacked by a bunch of crooked, con-artists, NAFTA, offshoring. Its labor arbitrage plain and simple, played to transfer wealth from labor to capital.

This country is worse than any other Western Industrial country because of the horrendous amount of money needed for politicians to use the completely commercialized mass media. Wall Street owns the media and loans money to politicians for elections, which returns it them. They are their own law, separated from people with Capital.

600,000 people lost their jobs in December?

How does this help them in any way, shape or form?
Just curious.

Ron Paul may not be so wacky after all?

So, "the Fed" is as "federal" as Fed Ex (as in not at all)?

the 'fed' is part of government(as are all corporations), but they are allowed to exist without public supervision. i.e. power wihout responsibility

no truly free public would allow such an abomination.

"the 'fed' is part of government (as are all corporations)"

Corporations are part of government? Theoretically or Philosophically?

Simple Recipe:Crooks Cook the Books...Mmm...Rich & Tasty!!!

realistically moron.

they control the distribution of goods and resources. i.e. do what they tell you or you get no money and starve to death.

fascism without borders.

During the Middle Ages, the Roman Catholic Church sponsored the creation of various institutions including brotherhoods, monasteries, religious orders, and military associations, especially during the Crusades to sponsor connection between these groups.[15] In Italy, various function-based groups and institutions were created in the Middle Ages, such as universities, guilds for artisans and craftspeople, and other professional associations.[16] The creation of the guild system is a particularly important aspect of the history of corporatism because it involved the allocation of power to regulate trade and prices to guilds, which is an important aspect of corporatist economic models of economic management and class collaboration.[17]

Absolute monarchies in the Middle Ages gradually subordinated corporatist systems and corporate groups to the authority of centralized and absolutist governments, resulting in corporatism being used to uphold social hierarchy.[18]

In the aftermath of the French Revolution, the existing absolutist corporatist system was completely dismantled due to its support of social hierarchy and special "corporate privilege" for the Roman Catholic Church.[19] The new French government saw corporatism's emphasis on group rights as inconsistent with the government's promotion of individual rights.[20] Subsequently corporatist systems and corporate privilege throughout Europe were abolished in response to the French Revolution.[21] From 1789 to the 1850s, most supporters of corporatism were reactionaries.[22] A number of reactionary corporatists favoured corporatism in order to end liberal capitalism and restore the feudal system.[23]

"oh yeah right, YOU were FOR nationalizing the banks."

You dumb ass, I was for nationalizing banks that were bankrupt which is the standard operating procudure of FDIC and has been for decades. They appoint new management, get the bank operating profitably agains and then resell it to private investors. The advantage of nationalization instead of just loaning the banks money without adequate security for it is that the government can then prevent the same managers who ran the bank into trouble from doing it again....as they are presently in the process of doing.
Never mind all that, you don't even understand what we were discussing, it was not nationalization of the banks but the concept of a complete audit of the Fed which I did have doubts about, and still do and you certainly don't know enough to be able to tell my why or why I should not have those reservations. I changed my position in spite of those reservations mainly because of the respect I have for some of the people who support the audit such as Dennis Kucinich.
You really go out of your way to make yourself look idiotic BTW.

#96 Danni> I do understand your cynicism Joe but by the same token at some point we have to begin paying down the debt and it will have to be government that does it.

I wish somebody could tell me when that day arrives. We should have been doing it several administrations ago. I will give Clinton (plus the Republican majority in the House) credit for cutting some of the federal government's bloated spending.

D> Your cynicism would justify never increasing the taxes necessary to pay it down and thereby insure we never do. AT some point we are going to have to demand that government operate fiscally responsible as we did in the fifties and sixties.

And here is where you and I will continue to disagree. I want the feds to cut spending first and foremost. We all know how quickly they can raise taxes (either party), all the while moaning about the perils of shutting down government functions, starving kids in public/government schools, etc. I want to see some administration attack bloated, wasteful, unconstitutional programs and seriously downsize the federal budget. Not just a little trimming of the fat, which Obama espoused during his campaign (like almost all Presidential candidates) but utterly failed to do once in office.

I think we are temporarily staving off an economic tsunamai that will hit us at some point. At some point the debt will hurt us and future generations much more than the current crisis.

So nothing the government can do is good news, by virtue of the fact that it's the government. Gotcha.
#91 | POSTED BY RCADE

The Federal Reserved is running the largest Pyramid Scheme in history and Rcade and others don't see it.

The Fed creates money out of nothing, loans it out and charges interest on it. The new money is spread out in the economy as higher prices. To keep the Pyramid Scheme going, they have to create new money faster than the old money is defaulted and paid off.

It's robbery in every sense of the world. Pyramid Schemes always collapse as this one is in the process of doing.

No that would be organized religion.

Also your critique of the fed is only partially correct: ALL MONEY IS A PYRAMID SCHEME! Property in itself is theft. What the fed does is take it to an even more ludicrous extreme where no one can ever hope to challenge its power without disbanding it(see organized religion).

Libertarians are always a day late and a dollar short on wisdom and history. They see a problem, diagnose it half way, and then commit the same fallacies.

Shawn-

Do you have an income? Do you earn money? Do you buy things? Do you pay rent or a mortgage? Are you like us other humans, or are you composed of fairy dust and buy your beans with happiness and rainbows?

As usual you argue to the man. Irrelevant to the issue.