Should We Kill The Fed?

[Kevin_Kennedy]

For the financial crisis that has wiped out trillions in wealth, many have felt the lash of public outrage.

Fannie and Freddie. The idiot-bankers. The AIG bonus babies. The Bush Republicans and Barney Frank Democrats who bullied banks into making mortgages to minorities who could not afford the houses they were moving into.

But the Big Kahuna has escaped.

The Federal Reserve.

Should We Kill the Fed? by Patrick J. Buchanan

 

[Zoom-boing]

Can the Fed be killed?

 

[editec]

How about we (meaning our government) simple takes control of it?

Of course that won't work because the same people running our private banks will be the people our government puppets put in charge of it.

The more I look at the problem, the more I think we need tar, feathers, a rope and tree to even BEGIN solving the REAL problems we have.

Our leadership, which is nothing more than the unholy aliance between the haves and the servant class of the haves who run THEIR government (it isn't the American people's government folks, get used to it) , has got so many of us bambozzled into thinking that the problem is too much liberalism or too much conservtism, they've been propagandizing us for so long, that few of us can see the forest for the trees.

So none of you patriots are ever going to find the people to use your guns on. ]

And even if you do the wealthy have never had the slightest difficulty finding one citizen to kill another for a modest salary, health care and a pension, have they?

The War on Drugs, which it is obvious most people object to, is prooof positive of that sad fact.

So when the shit hits the fan the people we should be going after will probably be leading us just as they are now.

And we'll dutifully take out whatever scapegoat class our masters tell us is to blame, I suspect.

That's pretty much how formerly civil societies evolve into tyrannies.

 

[dilloduck]

How about we (meaning our government) simple takes control of it?

Of course that won't work because the same people running our private banks will be the people our government puppets put in charge of it.

The more I look at the problem, the more I think we need tar, feathers, a rope and tree to even BEGIN solving the REAL problems we have.

Our leadership, which is nothing more than the unholy aliance between the haves and the servant class of the haves who run THEIR government (it isn't the American people's government folks, get used to it) , has got so many of us bambozzled into thinking that the problem is too much liberalism or too much conservtism, they've been propagandizing us for so long, that few of us can see the forest for the trees.

So none of you patriots are ever going to find the people to use your guns on. ]

And even if you do the wealthy have never had the slightest difficulty finding one citizen to kill another for a modest salary, health care and a pension, have they?

The War on Drugs, which it is obvious most people object to, is prooof positive of that sad fact.

So when the shit hits the fan the people we should be going after will probably be leading us just as they are now.

And we'll dutifully take out whatever scapegoat class our masters tell us is to blame, I suspect.

That's pretty much how formerly civil societies evolve into tyrannies.

If push comes to shove they have the ability to starve us into submission. Guns might come in handy at the soup lines.

 

[Iriemon]

How about we (meaning our government) simple takes control of it?

Of course that won't work because the same people running our private banks will be the people our government puppets put in charge of it.

The more I look at the problem, the more I think we need tar, feathers, a rope and tree to even BEGIN solving the REAL problems we have.

Our leadership, which is nothing more than the unholy aliance between the haves and the servant class of the haves who run THEIR government (it isn't the American people's government folks, get used to it) , has got so many of us bambozzled into thinking that the problem is too much liberalism or too much conservtism, they've been propagandizing us for so long, that few of us can see the forest for the trees.

So none of you patriots are ever going to find the people to use your guns on. ]

And even if you do the wealthy have never had the slightest difficulty finding one citizen to kill another for a modest salary, health care and a pension, have they?

The War on Drugs, which it is obvious most people object to, is prooof positive of that sad fact.

So when the shit hits the fan the people we should be going after will probably be leading us just as they are now.

And we'll dutifully take out whatever scapegoat class our masters tell us is to blame, I suspect.

That's pretty much how formerly civil societies evolve into tyrannies.

We've had 8 years of coservative Republican adminsitration, which made it clear that they're primary objective has been to make the rich richer. So what would you expect? You expect a new Dem president inhereting a financial crises to have turned it all around in 2 months?

I know its sport to look at the Fed in hindsight and say they shoulda raised rates faster or whatever. You can always do that in hindsight.

But giving the government -- Congress and the WH -- control of the money supply would be an unmitigated disaster. Those yahoos can't even balance a budget. You think giving them the keys to free money would be better? We'd have hyperinflation in short order.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

How about we (meaning our government) simple takes control of it?

Of course that won't work because the same people running our private banks will be the people our government puppets put in charge of it.

The more I look at the problem, the more I think we need tar, feathers, a rope and tree to even BEGIN solving the REAL problems we have.

Our leadership, which is nothing more than the unholy aliance between the haves and the servant class of the haves who run THEIR government (it isn't the American people's government folks, get used to it) , has got so many of us bambozzled into thinking that the problem is too much liberalism or too much conservtism, they've been propagandizing us for so long, that few of us can see the forest for the trees.

So none of you patriots are ever going to find the people to use your guns on. ]

And even if you do the wealthy have never had the slightest difficulty finding one citizen to kill another for a modest salary, health care and a pension, have they?

The War on Drugs, which it is obvious most people object to, is prooof positive of that sad fact.

So when the shit hits the fan the people we should be going after will probably be leading us just as they are now.

And we'll dutifully take out whatever scapegoat class our masters tell us is to blame, I suspect.

That's pretty much how formerly civil societies evolve into tyrannies.

We've had 8 years of coservative Republican adminsitration, which made it clear that they're primary objective has been to make the rich richer. So what would you expect? You expect a new Dem president inhereting a financial crises to have turned it all around in 2 months?

I know its sport to look at the Fed in hindsight and say they shoulda raised rates faster or whatever. You can always do that in hindsight.

But giving the government -- Congress and the WH -- control of the money supply would be an unmitigated disaster. Those yahoos can't even balance a budget. You think giving them the keys to free money would be better? We'd have hyperinflation in short order.

There was nothing conservative about George Bush's administration, for the record.

The Fed should not have been tampering with interest rates in the first place, that's one of the main causes of this downturn. The market should be setting interest rates.

 

[sealybobo]

How about we (meaning our government) simple takes control of it?

Of course that won't work because the same people running our private banks will be the people our government puppets put in charge of it.

The more I look at the problem, the more I think we need tar, feathers, a rope and tree to even BEGIN solving the REAL problems we have.

Our leadership, which is nothing more than the unholy aliance between the haves and the servant class of the haves who run THEIR government (it isn't the American people's government folks, get used to it) , has got so many of us bambozzled into thinking that the problem is too much liberalism or too much conservtism, they've been propagandizing us for so long, that few of us can see the forest for the trees.

So none of you patriots are ever going to find the people to use your guns on. ]

And even if you do the wealthy have never had the slightest difficulty finding one citizen to kill another for a modest salary, health care and a pension, have they?

The War on Drugs, which it is obvious most people object to, is prooof positive of that sad fact.

So when the shit hits the fan the people we should be going after will probably be leading us just as they are now.

And we'll dutifully take out whatever scapegoat class our masters tell us is to blame, I suspect.

That's pretty much how formerly civil societies evolve into tyrannies.

We've had 8 years of coservative Republican adminsitration, which made it clear that they're primary objective has been to make the rich richer. So what would you expect? You expect a new Dem president inhereting a financial crises to have turned it all around in 2 months?

I know its sport to look at the Fed in hindsight and say they shoulda raised rates faster or whatever. You can always do that in hindsight.

But giving the government -- Congress and the WH -- control of the money supply would be an unmitigated disaster. Those yahoos can't even balance a budget. You think giving them the keys to free money would be better? We'd have hyperinflation in short order.

After 8 years of watching private bankers, credit card companies, mortgage, oil, healthcare and wallstreet fuck the American people over under the GOP's protection, you still trust the richest bankers?

There is literally no end to America's stupidity.

Quote by: Mayer Amschel Rothschild
[Mayer Amschel Bauer] (1744 -1812), Godfather of the Rothschild Banking Cartel of Europe

“It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning.”

- Henry Ford

Lucky for the bankers that Americans will never understand.

 

[sealybobo]

How about we (meaning our government) simple takes control of it?

Of course that won't work because the same people running our private banks will be the people our government puppets put in charge of it.

The more I look at the problem, the more I think we need tar, feathers, a rope and tree to even BEGIN solving the REAL problems we have.

Our leadership, which is nothing more than the unholy aliance between the haves and the servant class of the haves who run THEIR government (it isn't the American people's government folks, get used to it) , has got so many of us bambozzled into thinking that the problem is too much liberalism or too much conservtism, they've been propagandizing us for so long, that few of us can see the forest for the trees.

So none of you patriots are ever going to find the people to use your guns on. ]

And even if you do the wealthy have never had the slightest difficulty finding one citizen to kill another for a modest salary, health care and a pension, have they?

The War on Drugs, which it is obvious most people object to, is prooof positive of that sad fact.

So when the shit hits the fan the people we should be going after will probably be leading us just as they are now.

And we'll dutifully take out whatever scapegoat class our masters tell us is to blame, I suspect.

That's pretty much how formerly civil societies evolve into tyrannies.

We've had 8 years of coservative Republican adminsitration, which made it clear that they're primary objective has been to make the rich richer. So what would you expect? You expect a new Dem president inhereting a financial crises to have turned it all around in 2 months?

I know its sport to look at the Fed in hindsight and say they shoulda raised rates faster or whatever. You can always do that in hindsight.

But giving the government -- Congress and the WH -- control of the money supply would be an unmitigated disaster. Those yahoos can't even balance a budget. You think giving them the keys to free money would be better? We'd have hyperinflation in short order.

There was nothing conservative about George Bush's administration, for the record.

The Fed should not have been tampering with interest rates in the first place, that's one of the main causes of this downturn. The market should be setting interest rates.

There was nothing conservative about the GOP run government from 2000-2006 either. I wonder why they didn't keep any of their promises? Why did they break pork spending records for 3 years straight? Can you explain?

And another thing. There is nothing conservative about most Republicans. Last year we told guys like you that the US spends more than the rest of the world on defense, and conservatives like you approved of that kind of spending.

You didn't even care if half of the spending was fraud/waste/corruption.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

We've had 8 years of coservative Republican adminsitration, which made it clear that they're primary objective has been to make the rich richer. So what would you expect? You expect a new Dem president inhereting a financial crises to have turned it all around in 2 months?

I know its sport to look at the Fed in hindsight and say they shoulda raised rates faster or whatever. You can always do that in hindsight.

But giving the government -- Congress and the WH -- control of the money supply would be an unmitigated disaster. Those yahoos can't even balance a budget. You think giving them the keys to free money would be better? We'd have hyperinflation in short order.

There was nothing conservative about George Bush's administration, for the record.

The Fed should not have been tampering with interest rates in the first place, that's one of the main causes of this downturn. The market should be setting interest rates.

There was nothing conservative about the GOP run government from 2000-2006 either. I wonder why they didn't keep any of their promises? Why did they break pork spending records for 3 years straight? Can you explain?

And another thing. There is nothing conservative about most Republicans. Last year we told guys like you that the US spends more than the rest of the world on defense, and conservatives like you approved of that kind of spending.

You didn't even care if half of the spending was fraud/waste/corruption.

Earmarks aren't a problem sealy, the money is being spent regardless of whether it's earmarked or not. That's not to say that I agree with all of it, but at least understand what an earmark is before you buy into the media's condemnation of it.

I'm not a conservative, which you already know by the way, and I don't approve of our foreign policy or it's price tag. In fact, our Democratic President is far more pro-war than me.

I care very much about government spending sealy, that's one reason why I didn't vote for McCain or Obama.

 

[sealybobo]

There was nothing conservative about George Bush's administration, for the record.

The Fed should not have been tampering with interest rates in the first place, that's one of the main causes of this downturn. The market should be setting interest rates.

There was nothing conservative about the GOP run government from 2000-2006 either. I wonder why they didn't keep any of their promises? Why did they break pork spending records for 3 years straight? Can you explain?

And another thing. There is nothing conservative about most Republicans. Last year we told guys like you that the US spends more than the rest of the world on defense, and conservatives like you approved of that kind of spending.

You didn't even care if half of the spending was fraud/waste/corruption.

Earmarks aren't a problem sealy, the money is being spent regardless of whether it's earmarked or not. That's not to say that I agree with all of it, but at least understand what an earmark is before you buy into the media's condemnation of it.

I'm not a conservative, which you already know by the way, and I don't approve of our foreign policy or it's price tag. In fact, our Democratic President is far more pro-war than me.

I care very much about government spending sealy, that's one reason why I didn't vote for McCain or Obama.

Go back and look at all the pork the GOP passed in 2005 and 2006. Seems to me they knew they were going to lose power and so they emptied the treasury before it was over. Remember Bridges to knowhere, etc.

And I don't know why people are calling Obama "pro war". Have you lost interest in capturing/killing Osama and destroying Al Queda and the Taliban?

Remember, us liberals are mad about being lied into Iraq and we are mad at how Bush used Iraq to empty the treasury.

Same as we are not happy about the $750 billion bank bailout right at the end.

So think about all that GOP wasteful spending that went on. The pork of 2005 & 2006, the wars, and now the $750 billion dollar bailout Bush asked for in his last month in office.

Am I nuts to think it was all on purpose?

 

[Iriemon]

We've had 8 years of coservative Republican adminsitration, which made it clear that they're primary objective has been to make the rich richer. So what would you expect? You expect a new Dem president inhereting a financial crises to have turned it all around in 2 months?

I know its sport to look at the Fed in hindsight and say they shoulda raised rates faster or whatever. You can always do that in hindsight.

But giving the government -- Congress and the WH -- control of the money supply would be an unmitigated disaster. Those yahoos can't even balance a budget. You think giving them the keys to free money would be better? We'd have hyperinflation in short order.

There was nothing conservative about George Bush's administration, for the record.

The Fed should not have been tampering with interest rates in the first place, that's one of the main causes of this downturn. The market should be setting interest rates.

It sure wasn't liberals pushing to squander the surplus with tax cuts, or pushing deregulation, or doubling military spending. I'm pretty sure those were conservative backed programs.

I disagree that the Fed interest rate policy was a major cause of the downturn. I agree that lower interest rates in the 2003-04 time frame made housing more affordable, which put upward price pressure on the market. But there were many causes for the downturn, but chief among them were over-speculation in the housing market in '06-07, fueled by a market for sub-prime lending created by securitization of mortgage bundles that people thought made them much less risky, speculative investment by folks who were buying properties for investment purposes, flipping them in a year for preferential capital gains tax treatment, sloppy lending practices by an industry making shitloads of $$ and no one thinking the market could go down.

By 2005 the Fed had alread raised its funds rate to 4.25% and continued increasing it, but it didn't have much effect on the greed induced speculative frenzy going on.

 

[Peejay]

And here we go.......can't have a conversation without partisan finger pointing.

Playing us like a cheap banjo. Keep up the bickering among one another and the elite will keep picking everyone's pocket while we're distracted.

And yes, do SOMETHING with the Fed.

 

[Iriemon]

How about we (meaning our government) simple takes control of it?

Of course that won't work because the same people running our private banks will be the people our government puppets put in charge of it.

The more I look at the problem, the more I think we need tar, feathers, a rope and tree to even BEGIN solving the REAL problems we have.

Our leadership, which is nothing more than the unholy aliance between the haves and the servant class of the haves who run THEIR government (it isn't the American people's government folks, get used to it) , has got so many of us bambozzled into thinking that the problem is too much liberalism or too much conservtism, they've been propagandizing us for so long, that few of us can see the forest for the trees.

So none of you patriots are ever going to find the people to use your guns on. ]

And even if you do the wealthy have never had the slightest difficulty finding one citizen to kill another for a modest salary, health care and a pension, have they?

The War on Drugs, which it is obvious most people object to, is prooof positive of that sad fact.

So when the shit hits the fan the people we should be going after will probably be leading us just as they are now.

And we'll dutifully take out whatever scapegoat class our masters tell us is to blame, I suspect.

That's pretty much how formerly civil societies evolve into tyrannies.

We've had 8 years of coservative Republican adminsitration, which made it clear that they're primary objective has been to make the rich richer. So what would you expect? You expect a new Dem president inhereting a financial crises to have turned it all around in 2 months?

I know its sport to look at the Fed in hindsight and say they shoulda raised rates faster or whatever. You can always do that in hindsight.

But giving the government -- Congress and the WH -- control of the money supply would be an unmitigated disaster. Those yahoos can't even balance a budget. You think giving them the keys to free money would be better? We'd have hyperinflation in short order.

After 8 years of watching private bankers, credit card companies, mortgage, oil, healthcare and wallstreet fuck the American people over under the GOP's protection, you still trust the richest bankers?

There is literally no end to America's stupidity.

No, I don't trust 'em. What does that have to do with the Fed?

 

[sealybobo]

We've had 8 years of coservative Republican adminsitration, which made it clear that they're primary objective has been to make the rich richer. So what would you expect? You expect a new Dem president inhereting a financial crises to have turned it all around in 2 months?

I know its sport to look at the Fed in hindsight and say they shoulda raised rates faster or whatever. You can always do that in hindsight.

But giving the government -- Congress and the WH -- control of the money supply would be an unmitigated disaster. Those yahoos can't even balance a budget. You think giving them the keys to free money would be better? We'd have hyperinflation in short order.

After 8 years of watching private bankers, credit card companies, mortgage, oil, healthcare and wallstreet fuck the American people over under the GOP's protection, you still trust the richest bankers?

There is literally no end to America's stupidity.

No, I don't trust 'em. What does that have to do with the Fed?

The Federal Reserve was started by JP Morgan, Rockafellor, Carnege.

Standard Oil was started by Rockafellor.

If you look at the history of these robber barons, they were ruthless cutthroat business men.

Anyways, so these rich bankers bribed Congress in 1913 to let them control our countries finances. No way the government would have done that if they weren't bribed.

Anyways, to make a long story short, Rockafellor was forced to break up Standard Oil. When he did, he became the richest man in the world because he kept part ownership of all the new oil companies.

The Federal Reserve is owned by private bankers. IF they don't own all the banks, they own the people who own all the banks.

Our Money | Ron Paul .com

 

[sealybobo]

We've had 8 years of coservative Republican adminsitration, which made it clear that they're primary objective has been to make the rich richer. So what would you expect? You expect a new Dem president inhereting a financial crises to have turned it all around in 2 months?

I know its sport to look at the Fed in hindsight and say they shoulda raised rates faster or whatever. You can always do that in hindsight.

But giving the government -- Congress and the WH -- control of the money supply would be an unmitigated disaster. Those yahoos can't even balance a budget. You think giving them the keys to free money would be better? We'd have hyperinflation in short order.

There was nothing conservative about George Bush's administration, for the record.

The Fed should not have been tampering with interest rates in the first place, that's one of the main causes of this downturn. The market should be setting interest rates.

It sure wasn't liberals pushing to squander the surplus with tax cuts, or pushing deregulation, or doubling military spending. I'm pretty sure those were conservative backed programs.

I disagree that the Fed interest rate policy was a major cause of the downturn. I agree that lower interest rates in the 2003-04 time frame made housing more affordable, which put upward price pressure on the market. But there were many causes for the downturn, but chief among them were over-speculation in the housing market in '06-07, fueled by a market for sub-prime lending created by securitization of mortgage bundles that people thought made them much less risky, speculative investment by folks who were buying properties for investment purposes, flipping them in a year for preferential capital gains tax treatment, sloppy lending practices by an industry making shitloads of $$ and no one thinking the market could go down.

By 2005 the Fed had alread raised its funds rate to 4.25% and continued increasing it, but it didn't have much effect on the greed induced speculative frenzy going on.

I love it when I read an intelligent post.

PS. You know what bugged me? Remember they were talking about sub primes and how these people's monthy bills went up big time?

Well after that, the Fed kept lowering rates more, and more, and more. So I thought that the people who had sub prime rates monhtly bills were being lowered too. But I found out that is/was not the case.

Why didn't the Fed lower the home owners rates back to what they were before they went up? That would have solved the problem.

So is it any wonder we think it was on purpose. Bernake kept lowering the interest rates for the banks but they weren't passing it on to the customer.

To me, it seems like they wanted this mess to happen. They made money on the way up, and the government bailed them out on the way down.

 

[Iriemon]

After 8 years of watching private bankers, credit card companies, mortgage, oil, healthcare and wallstreet fuck the American people over under the GOP's protection, you still trust the richest bankers?

There is literally no end to America's stupidity.

No, I don't trust 'em. What does that have to do with the Fed?

The Federal Reserve was started by JP Morgan, Rockafellor, Carnege.
Standard Oil was started by Rockafellor.
If you look at the history of these robber barons, they were ruthless cutthroat business men.

Well no, it was established by a law passed by Congress, which, in a rare moment of wisdom, realized that it was too irresponsible to have control of something as critical as the money supply, and put control of the nation's money supply in a quasi-government institution.

Anyways, so these rich bankers bribed Congress in 1913 to let them control our countries finances. No way the government would have done that if they weren't bribed.

Anyways, to make a long story short, Rockafellor was forced to break up Standard Oil. When he did, he became the richest man in the world because he kept part ownership of all the new oil companies.

The Federal Reserve is owned by private bankers. IF they don't own all the banks, they own the people who own all the banks.

That is true, they are the shareholders, but unlike a normal corporation, they don't choose the Board of Directors. The President does, with approval of the Senate. Unlike a normal corporation, the shareholders of the Fed (which get a fixed ROI by law of 6%) don't control "management."

 

[Iriemon]

There was nothing conservative about George Bush's administration, for the record.

The Fed should not have been tampering with interest rates in the first place, that's one of the main causes of this downturn. The market should be setting interest rates.

It sure wasn't liberals pushing to squander the surplus with tax cuts, or pushing deregulation, or doubling military spending. I'm pretty sure those were conservative backed programs.

I disagree that the Fed interest rate policy was a major cause of the downturn. I agree that lower interest rates in the 2003-04 time frame made housing more affordable, which put upward price pressure on the market. But there were many causes for the downturn, but chief among them were over-speculation in the housing market in '06-07, fueled by a market for sub-prime lending created by securitization of mortgage bundles that people thought made them much less risky, speculative investment by folks who were buying properties for investment purposes, flipping them in a year for preferential capital gains tax treatment, sloppy lending practices by an industry making shitloads of $$ and no one thinking the market could go down.

By 2005 the Fed had alread raised its funds rate to 4.25% and continued increasing it, but it didn't have much effect on the greed induced speculative frenzy going on.

I love it when I read an intelligent post.

PS. You know what bugged me? Remember they were talking about sub primes and how these people's monthy bills went up big time?

Well after that, the Fed kept lowering rates more, and more, and more. So I thought that the people who had sub prime rates monhtly bills were being lowered too. But I found out that is/was not the case.

Why didn't the Fed lower the home owners rates back to what they were before they went up? That would have solved the problem.

So is it any wonder we think it was on purpose. Bernake kept lowering the interest rates for the banks but they weren't passing it on to the customer.

To me, it seems like they wanted this mess to happen. They made money on the way up, and the government bailed them out on the way down.

I don't quite understand your point hear. The Fed lowered interest rates in 01-02 because of the slowdown and 9-11 fears, and started raising rates again in '04. It only recently reduced them in response to the crisis.

I'm not sure what effect that had on mortgage rates, but they have gone very high in the last several years.

 

[dilloduck]

There was nothing conservative about George Bush's administration, for the record.

The Fed should not have been tampering with interest rates in the first place, that's one of the main causes of this downturn. The market should be setting interest rates.

It sure wasn't liberals pushing to squander the surplus with tax cuts, or pushing deregulation, or doubling military spending. I'm pretty sure those were conservative backed programs.

I disagree that the Fed interest rate policy was a major cause of the downturn. I agree that lower interest rates in the 2003-04 time frame made housing more affordable, which put upward price pressure on the market. But there were many causes for the downturn, but chief among them were over-speculation in the housing market in '06-07, fueled by a market for sub-prime lending created by securitization of mortgage bundles that people thought made them much less risky, speculative investment by folks who were buying properties for investment purposes, flipping them in a year for preferential capital gains tax treatment, sloppy lending practices by an industry making shitloads of $$ and no one thinking the market could go down.

By 2005 the Fed had alread raised its funds rate to 4.25% and continued increasing it, but it didn't have much effect on the greed induced speculative frenzy going on.

I love it when I read an intelligent post.

PS. You know what bugged me? Remember they were talking about sub primes and how these people's monthy bills went up big time?

Well after that, the Fed kept lowering rates more, and more, and more. So I thought that the people who had sub prime rates monhtly bills were being lowered too. But I found out that is/was not the case.

Why didn't the Fed lower the home owners rates back to what they were before they went up? That would have solved the problem.

So is it any wonder we think it was on purpose. Bernake kept lowering the interest rates for the banks but they weren't passing it on to the customer.

To me, it seems like they wanted this mess to happen. They made money on the way up, and the government bailed them out on the way down.

Have you discussed this with Obama? Have you asked him why Bernanke is still at the Fed?
Have you done a damn to alleviate the problem ?

 

[sealybobo]

No, I don't trust 'em. What does that have to do with the Fed?

The Federal Reserve was started by JP Morgan, Rockafellor, Carnege.
Standard Oil was started by Rockafellor.
If you look at the history of these robber barons, they were ruthless cutthroat business men.

Well no, it was established by a law passed by Congress, which, in a rare moment of wisdom, realized that it was too irresponsible to have control of something as critical as the money supply, and put control of the nation's money supply in a quasi-government institution.

Anyways, so these rich bankers bribed Congress in 1913 to let them control our countries finances. No way the government would have done that if they weren't bribed.

Anyways, to make a long story short, Rockafellor was forced to break up Standard Oil. When he did, he became the richest man in the world because he kept part ownership of all the new oil companies.

The Federal Reserve is owned by private bankers. IF they don't own all the banks, they own the people who own all the banks.

That is true, they are the shareholders, but unlike a normal corporation, they don't choose the Board of Directors. The President does, with approval of the Senate. Unlike a normal corporation, the shareholders of the Fed (which get a fixed ROI by law of 6%) don't control "management."

Yea, too irresponsible for the government to control our nations finances, so they put it in the most greedy/corrupt/monopolistic bankers hands.

Same guys who owned Standard Federal and the government had to break that company up, and you think it was wise to give them control of our nations finances?

I just found this doing a google search:

Analysts say JP Morgan Chase (the Rockefellers and the Rothschilds) will emerge from the bank collapse as the big winner, becoming a megabank.

How sweet--you found/own the federal reserve, get the fed to cause a collapse by printing dollars and doling out the credit, then, as Alex often points out, move in and buy up the assets on the cheap.

First they got Bear Stearns, now they're going after Washington Mutual, and numerous banks across the nation will soon follow.

But Rothschild is merely doing what they've always done for hundreds of years.

And they take care of those who help them perpetrate these schemes:

Ex-Bear Stearns CEO joins Rothschild -NY Post: [link to www.reuters.com]


Can you tell me who decides who the President's choices are for BOD? I'll tell you who. The Federal Reserve bankers. They decide who Bush/Obama/Clinton can nominate.

Ok, last thing. Remember last year when the first bailout was announced? Bear Stearns. Who gave the Federal Reserve the authority to give Bear Stearns our tax dollars? No one? The Fed acted on its own? They didn't have to go thru Congress to take billions from our treasury? Wow!

And I just LOVE your spin on this. Just take a look at the national debt. The Federal Reserve LOVES IT everytime we double it. The more we owe, the more they own us.

So you are actually defending the system we have in place now. I find that fascinating. Continue.

 

[sealybobo]

It sure wasn't liberals pushing to squander the surplus with tax cuts, or pushing deregulation, or doubling military spending. I'm pretty sure those were conservative backed programs.

I disagree that the Fed interest rate policy was a major cause of the downturn. I agree that lower interest rates in the 2003-04 time frame made housing more affordable, which put upward price pressure on the market. But there were many causes for the downturn, but chief among them were over-speculation in the housing market in '06-07, fueled by a market for sub-prime lending created by securitization of mortgage bundles that people thought made them much less risky, speculative investment by folks who were buying properties for investment purposes, flipping them in a year for preferential capital gains tax treatment, sloppy lending practices by an industry making shitloads of $$ and no one thinking the market could go down.

By 2005 the Fed had alread raised its funds rate to 4.25% and continued increasing it, but it didn't have much effect on the greed induced speculative frenzy going on.

I love it when I read an intelligent post.

PS. You know what bugged me? Remember they were talking about sub primes and how these people's monthy bills went up big time?

Well after that, the Fed kept lowering rates more, and more, and more. So I thought that the people who had sub prime rates monhtly bills were being lowered too. But I found out that is/was not the case.

Why didn't the Fed lower the home owners rates back to what they were before they went up? That would have solved the problem.

So is it any wonder we think it was on purpose. Bernake kept lowering the interest rates for the banks but they weren't passing it on to the customer.

To me, it seems like they wanted this mess to happen. They made money on the way up, and the government bailed them out on the way down.

Have you discussed this with Obama? Have you asked him why Bernanke is still at the Fed?
Have you done a damn to alleviate the problem ?

Yes, No and Yes.