Dominionist Governor Rick Perry Acknowledges Abuse of Power Allowing Austin to Secede from Texas

[Gary Anderson]

And Todd, Yellen is paid by interest earned, not by the Federal Government.

So?

She is paid out of the interest earned by the Fed. It is a private bank. Most of the money the Fed earns in interest is returned to the treasury but not all of it and not always. The Fed banks are owned by the banks in their sections. So the most powerful Fed is the NY Fed, being owned by the most powerful banks.

 

[Gary Anderson]

The Fed is required to hand over a large portion, but not all of its profits to the Treasury: "The Fed is required by law to hand over a large majority of its profits," http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/11/business/economy/feds-2012-profit-was-88-9-billion.html?_r=0

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

And Todd, Yellen is paid by interest earned, not by the Federal Government.

So?

She is paid out of the interest earned by the Fed. It is a private bank. Most of the money the Fed earns in interest is returned to the treasury but not all of it and not always. The Fed banks are owned by the banks in their sections. So the most powerful Fed is the NY Fed, being owned by the most powerful banks.

She is paid out of the interest earned by the Fed. It is a private bank.

She is paid out of interest earned. The Fed is not a private bank.

Most of the money the Fed earns in interest is returned to the treasury but not all of it

Yes. The great majority. Over 95% lately.
How many private banks give 95% or more of their earnings to the Treasury?
Should be a short list.

The Fed banks are owned by the banks in their sections.

And those "owners" got less than 2% of the Fed's earnings the last 4 years. Wow!

 

[Gary Anderson]

From the above article: The Fed has transferred at least some profit to the Treasury every year since 1934.

That is not all of the profit by any means. The Fed is a private, for profit, bank.

 

[eagle1462010]

FRB Federal Reserve Act Section 7

Section 7. Division of Earnings
(a) Dividends And Surplus Funds Of Reserve Banks.

1. Stockholder Dividends.
   1. In General. After all necessary expenses of a Federal reserve bank have been paid or provided for, the stockholders of the bank shall be entitled to receive an annual dividend of 6 percent on paid-in capital stock.
   2. Dividend Cumulative. The entitlement to dividends under subparagraph (A) shall be cumulative.
2. Deposit Of Net Earnings In Surplus Fund. That portion of net earnings of each Federal reserve bank which remains after dividend claims under subparagraph (1)(A) have been fully met shall be deposited in the surplus fund of the bank.

(b) Transfer For Fiscal Year 2000.

1. In General. The Federal reserve banks shall transfer from the surplus funds of such banks to the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System for transfer to the Secretary of the Treasury for deposit in the general fund of the Treasury, a total amount of $3,752,000,000 in fiscal year 2000.
2. Allocated By Fed. Of the total amount required to be paid by the Federal reserve banks under paragraph (1) for fiscal year 2000, the Board shall determine the amount each such bank shall pay in such fiscal year.
3. Replenishment Of Surplus Fund Prohibited. During fiscal year 2000, no Federal reserve bank may replenish such bank's surplus fund by the amount of any transfer by such bank under paragraph (1).

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

From the above article: The Fed has transferred at least some profit to the Treasury every year since 1934.

That is not all of the profit by any means. The Fed is a private, for profit, bank.

Not all, just 95% plus the last few years. Not very private, for profit behavior.

 

[eagle1462010]

They get 6% which is why they love the Federal Gov't getting into more debt, and they love loaning out Trillions of Green backs.............

They get 6% of Treasury bonds when we are selling the hell out of them when we are borrowing a Trillion a year................

That's how they make a fortune with that low rate............

Then they can now borrow money at .25% and loan it out, even back to the Gov't at a higher interest rate....Guarantees Profits every year.................

But they do it for free if we listen to Todd..........

Me and him have been round and round on this before.

They are Private Stock Holders and aren't Federal.

 

[eagle1462010]

BTW...............(c) Exemption From Taxation. Federal reserve banks, including the capital stock and surplus therein, and the income derived therefrom shall be exempt from Federal, State, and local taxation, except taxes upon real estate.

Should have posted that with the other link.......Profits are TAX FREE FOR THEM................................

Damn. They got a good gig going..............

 

[Gary Anderson]

From the above article: The Fed has transferred at least some profit to the Treasury every year since 1934.

That is not all of the profit by any means. The Fed is a private, for profit, bank.

Not all, just 95% plus the last few years. Not very private, for profit behavior.

6 percent of a gazillion dollars is a lot of money. And, the Fed tips the banks. It works for changes in interest rates, etc, which allows the banks to profit even more. The interest rate swap scam is much bigger than the MBS scam that melted the money markets and caused the financial crash of 2008. Banks make money taking the floating low rate of the swap and the fixed higher rate is assumed by the counterparties. The scam is in the fact that if the floating LIBOR exceeds the fixed rates, the banks become insolvent as happened in 2008, and must be bailed out or depositor money has to be taken in a bail in. Or both.

 

[Gary Anderson]

So, the MBS meltdown was that the collateral was bad for interbank lending. The bad collateral resulted in LIBOR spiking above the fixed interest rate swaps rate. At that point the banks were insolvent.

The next crisis will be not enough collateral, not enough treasury bonds to serve as collateral for all the trades and lending between the banks and counterparties and between the banks and each other.

 

[RKMBrown]

And do you know where the first liar loans came from that led to the housing bubble? Yep, the UK. They were called Self Certified loans there. They were stated income, or liar loans. So it wasn't the CRA, Acorn or the like. The loans were made in Spain, the UK and other places. They were liar loans and the financial system fooled Reagan. He should have stayed a New Dealer. The Greatest Generation loved FDR and the rewrite of history against FDR was paid for by the same people who wanted the liar loans.

You have been had, Reaganites.

Yeah ok. So you want to call sub-prime loans with no-validated income a liar loan. Why should it be illegal for a bank to provide a high risk loan?

Good Question. It isn't the loan itself that is the problem if used by wealthy people. It is the loan that was supposed to be for wealthy people with variable income, being applied to the masses. There were so many liar loans that it affected the prices of houses and caused the bubble and crash that destroyed the middle class. The loans were a churn, like the fake CME contracts. The churn was set up by Wall Street, and the victims of the churn were the people of the United States of America.

Well yes, when folks pump up the prices of an item through speculation, that causes a bubble. Sort of the definition of a bubble no? Blaming one party or the other for speculation is a masochistic exercise, when the real reason is desire for quick profit.

As for the "victims"... yeah well I never signed up to bankroll high risk loans... did you?

 

[eagle1462010]

From the above article: The Fed has transferred at least some profit to the Treasury every year since 1934.

That is not all of the profit by any means. The Fed is a private, for profit, bank.

Not all, just 95% plus the last few years. Not very private, for profit behavior.

6 percent of a gazillion dollars is a lot of money. And, the Fed tips the banks it works for to changes in interest rates, etc, which allows the banks to profit even more. The interest rate swap scam is much bigger than the MBS scam that melted the money markets and caused the financial crash of 2008. Banks make money taking the floating low rate of the swap and the fixed higher rate is assumed by the counterparties. The scam is in the fact that if the floating LIBOR exceeds the fixed rates, the banks become insolvent as happened in 2008, and must be bailed out or depositor money has to be taken in a bail in. Or both.

Yep........

List of largest corporate profits and losses - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

According to this Exxon Mobil has the largest recorded Corp profit in 2008 at 49.5 BILLION.

Feds sell a Trillion in Bonds at 6% they've gotten larger profits than Exxon Mobil for manipulating money. That's a 60 Billion dollar debt to the American Tax payer.......problem is that the Treasury could do it for free.

Again, nice gig they got there.

 

[Gary Anderson]

And do you know where the first liar loans came from that led to the housing bubble? Yep, the UK. They were called Self Certified loans there. They were stated income, or liar loans. So it wasn't the CRA, Acorn or the like. The loans were made in Spain, the UK and other places. They were liar loans and the financial system fooled Reagan. He should have stayed a New Dealer. The Greatest Generation loved FDR and the rewrite of history against FDR was paid for by the same people who wanted the liar loans.

You have been had, Reaganites.

Yeah ok. So you want to call sub-prime loans with no-validated income a liar loan. Why should it be illegal for a bank to provide a high risk loan?

Good Question. It isn't the loan itself that is the problem if used by wealthy people. It is the loan that was supposed to be for wealthy people with variable income, being applied to the masses. There were so many liar loans that it affected the prices of houses and caused the bubble and crash that destroyed the middle class. The loans were a churn, like the fake CME contracts. The churn was set up by Wall Street, and the victims of the churn were the people of the United States of America.

Well yes, when folks pump up the prices of an item through speculation, that causes a bubble. Sort of the definition of a bubble no? Blaming one party or the other for speculation is a masochistic exercise, when the real reason is desire for quick profit.

As for the "victims"... yeah well I never signed up to bankroll high risk loans... did you?

You weren't in Las Vegas. My daughter was. She said you could buy a massive house for a 5 year adjustable at 700 bucks a month. And they said you could refi. My daughter was sorely tempted and many were trapped. But it was orchestrated by the Fed. You know why? Greenspan in Feb, 2004, said you could get a better deal, a better deal, by taking an adjustable. He was in on it.

 

[Toro]

Have You Heard About The 16 Trillion Dollar Bailout The Federal Reserve Handed To The Too Big To Fail Banks

According to the GAO audit, $16.1 trillion in secret loans were made by the Federal Reserve between December 1, 2007 and July 21, 2010. The following list of firms and the amount of money that they received was taken directly from page 131 of the GAO audit report....

Citigroup - $2.513 trillion
Morgan Stanley - $2.041 trillion
Merrill Lynch - $1.949 trillion
Bank of America - $1.344 trillion
Barclays PLC - $868 billion
Bear Sterns - $853 billion
Goldman Sachs - $814 billion
Royal Bank of Scotland - $541 billion
JP Morgan Chase - $391 billion
Deutsche Bank - $354 billion
UBS - $287 billion
Credit Suisse - $262 billion
Lehman Brothers - $183 billion
Bank of Scotland - $181 billion
BNP Paribas - $175 billion
Wells Fargo - $159 billion
Dexia - $159 billion
Wachovia - $142 billion
Dresdner Bank - $135 billion
Societe Generale - $124 billion
"All Other Borrowers" - $2.639 trillion

http://www.sanders.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/GAO Fed Investigation.pdf

The Federal Report disclosing the loans.

Federal Reserve Emergency Loans Liquidity for Banks - Bloomberg

Yup, and Obama supports Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood.

No, Obama is a Zionst who employs the wife of PNAC neocon kagan as secretary of State. Her name is Victoria Nuland.

^^^^^^
This is why it isn't a good idea to take political advice from former NFL kickers.

 

[eagle1462010]

1. Exxon Mobil Corp. was formed in 1999 by the merger of two major oil companies, Exxon and Mobil. Both Exxon and Mobil were descendants of the John D. Rockefeller corporation, Standard Oil which was established in 1870.

Chase bank - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Chase Manhattan and the Mergers with J.P. Morgan.........Rockefellers...............

Who owns the Fed

Who owns the Federal Reserve Banks. aka primary stockholders............

FYI info

 

[eagle1462010]

Todd and Toro....................

This could get interesting, but I got some honey do's to do..........LOL

 

[RKMBrown]

And do you know where the first liar loans came from that led to the housing bubble? Yep, the UK. They were called Self Certified loans there. They were stated income, or liar loans. So it wasn't the CRA, Acorn or the like. The loans were made in Spain, the UK and other places. They were liar loans and the financial system fooled Reagan. He should have stayed a New Dealer. The Greatest Generation loved FDR and the rewrite of history against FDR was paid for by the same people who wanted the liar loans.

You have been had, Reaganites.

Yeah ok. So you want to call sub-prime loans with no-validated income a liar loan. Why should it be illegal for a bank to provide a high risk loan?

Good Question. It isn't the loan itself that is the problem if used by wealthy people. It is the loan that was supposed to be for wealthy people with variable income, being applied to the masses. There were so many liar loans that it affected the prices of houses and caused the bubble and crash that destroyed the middle class. The loans were a churn, like the fake CME contracts. The churn was set up by Wall Street, and the victims of the churn were the people of the United States of America.

Well yes, when folks pump up the prices of an item through speculation, that causes a bubble. Sort of the definition of a bubble no? Blaming one party or the other for speculation is a masochistic exercise, when the real reason is desire for quick profit.

As for the "victims"... yeah well I never signed up to bankroll high risk loans... did you?

You weren't in Las Vegas. My daughter was. She said you could buy a massive house for a 5 year adjustable at 700 bucks a month. And they said you could refi. My daughter was sorely tempted and many were trapped. But it was orchestrated by the Fed. You know why? Greenspan in Feb, 2004, said you could get a better deal, a better deal, by taking an adjustable. He was in on it.

I refinanced my houses quite a few times. I like low interest loans. As for the so called "victims" of get rich quick offers... ROFL I don't believe for a second those people didn't know what they were getting themselves into, and quite frankly it's not by problem, or at least it wasn't my problem till my government decided to make me pay for their gambling losses.

 

[Gary Anderson]

[/QUOTE] Yeah ok. So you want to call sub-prime loans with no-validated income a liar loan. Why should it be illegal for a bank to provide a high risk loan?[/QUOTE]
Good Question. It isn't the loan itself that is the problem if used by wealthy people. It is the loan that was supposed to be for wealthy people with variable income, being applied to the masses. There were so many liar loans that it affected the prices of houses and caused the bubble and crash that destroyed the middle class. The loans were a churn, like the fake CME contracts. The churn was set up by Wall Street, and the victims of the churn were the people of the United States of America.[/QUOTE]
Well yes, when folks pump up the prices of an item through speculation, that causes a bubble. Sort of the definition of a bubble no? Blaming one party or the other for speculation is a masochistic exercise, when the real reason is desire for quick profit.

As for the "victims"... yeah well I never signed up to bankroll high risk loans... did you?[/QUOTE]
You weren't in Las Vegas. My daughter was. She said you could buy a massive house for a 5 year adjustable at 700 bucks a month. And they said you could refi. My daughter was sorely tempted and many were trapped. But it was orchestrated by the Fed. You know why? Greenspan in Feb, 2004, said you could get a better deal, a better deal, by taking an adjustable. He was in on it.[/QUOTE]

I refinanced my houses quite a few times. I like low interest loans. As for the so called "victims" of get rich quick offers... ROFL I don't believe for a second those people didn't know what they were getting themselves into, and quite frankly it's not by problem.[/QUOTE]

I understand what you are saying, but the churn and the bubble was orchestrated by the lenders not the borrower. And it was against the law, according to eh 1989 FIRREA Act, which Bush never enforced. Don't vote me down on the disagree to deflect blame. Some say the Madoff investors should have know better, but they had no criminal liability, or even civil liability. Same with the housing bubble. The fault was with the creators of the system, the lenders. and their Fed handlers.

 

[Gary Anderson]

And the motive for the housing bubble was to pay for PNAC's Yinon Zionist incursion into the Middle East: Project for the New American Century - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Post-9/11 call for regime change in Iraq
On September 20, 2001 (nine days after the September 11, 2001 attacks), the PNAC sent a letter to President George W. Bush, advocating "a determined effort to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq", or regime change:

...even if evidence does not link Iraq directly to the attack, any strategy aiming at the eradication of terrorism and its sponsors must include a determined effort to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq. Failure to undertake such an effort will constitute an early and perhaps decisive surrender in the war on international terrorism.[5][19]

From 2001 through 2002, the co-founders and other members of the PNAC published articles supporting the United States' invasion of Iraq.[20] On its website, the PNAC promoted its point of view that leaving Saddam Hussein in power would be "surrender to terrorism."[21][22][23][24]

In 2003, during the period leading up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the PNAC had seven full-time staff members in addition to its board of directors

and:

"New Pearl Harbor"
Section V of Rebuilding America's Defenses, entitled "Creating Tomorrow's Dominant Force", includes the sentence: "Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event––like a new Pearl Harbor" (51).[15]

Though not arguing that Bush administration PNAC members were complicit in those attacks, other social critics such as journalist Mark Danner,[39] journalist John Pilger, in New Statesman,[40] and former editor of The San Francisco Chronicle Bernard Weiner, in CounterPunch,[41] all argue that PNAC members used the events of 9/11 as the "Pearl Harbor" that they needed––that is, as an "opportunity" to "capitalize on" (in Pilger's words), in order to enact long-desired plans.


Gary here. I do argue that they were complicit in the attacks. As FDR said, nothing happens in government by accident. And the retired president of Italy said Mossad and the CIA carried out the plan.

 

[RKMBrown]

I understand what you are saying, but the churn and the bubble was orchestrated by the lenders not the borrower. And it was against the law, according to eh 1989 FIRREA Act, which Bush never enforced. Don't vote me down on the disagree to deflect blame. Some say the Madoff investors should have know better, but they had no criminal liability, or even civil liability. Same with the housing bubble. The fault was with the creators of the system, the lenders. and their Fed handlers.

I believe you are mixing blame and pointing fingers with, no, or little actual understanding of who's job it was to manage risk.

Clearly it is the job of the borrower to manage his risk.

Clearly it is the job of the lenders to sell their instruments, high and low risk and manage those.

Still more clearly, it is the job of the government to make sure instruments are not being mixed illegally, by calling high risk bond investments low risk bond investments.

Congress was in charge of financial institution regulatory enforcement not the president.