Should We Kill The Fed?

[neurosport]

Kevin these people are too fucking stupid to argue with.

however !

perhaps the title was misleading ? they are saying that to take power away from one private mega bank and to a couple very big private banks would not help.

well ... perhaps it wouldn't.

perhaps the thread should have been titled - how should money be created ? that FED has already been abolished will have been implied.

you have to frame the argument in a way so they don't overwork their pathetic little minds.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Kevin these people are too fucking stupid to argue with.

however !

perhaps the title was misleading ? they are saying that to take power away from one private mega bank and to a couple very big private banks would not help.

well ... perhaps it wouldn't.

perhaps the thread should have been titled - how should money be created ? that FED has already been abolished will have been implied.

you have to frame the argument in a way so they don't overwork their pathetic little minds.

Well if the Fed was abolished it would fall to the Congress, not private banks as they seem to be worried about. Though, I believe they're referring to the earlier discussion of private competing currencies, they can elaborate if they want.

At any rate, it would fall to the Congress as the Constitution authorizes. The benefit of this is that if we're displeased with the way our representatives handle monetary policy and the direction of the economy we can at least vote them out of office, unlike an unelected group of bankers who are able to act with no oversight or transparency whatsoever.

 

[neurosport]

it wouldn't "fall to the congress" by default ...

rather if FED blew up other banks would take up the slack most likely ...

you would have to devise an entire system to replace the FED before you can get rid of it ...

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

it wouldn't "fall to the congress" by default ...

rather if FED blew up other banks would take up the slack most likely ...

you would have to devise an entire system to replace the FED before you can get rid of it ...

Read the Constitution, the Fed's duties would go to the Congress.

 

[neurosport]

it wouldn't "fall to the congress" by default ...

rather if FED blew up other banks would take up the slack most likely ...

you would have to devise an entire system to replace the FED before you can get rid of it ...

Read the Constitution, the Fed's duties would go to the Congress.

HAHAHAHAHA !

if i read the constitution - how will that help you ?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

it wouldn't "fall to the congress" by default ...

rather if FED blew up other banks would take up the slack most likely ...

you would have to devise an entire system to replace the FED before you can get rid of it ...

Read the Constitution, the Fed's duties would go to the Congress.

HAHAHAHAHA !

if i read the constitution - how will that help you ?

I don't think it will help me.

 

[neurosport]

Read the Constitution, the Fed's duties would go to the Congress.

HAHAHAHAHA !

if i read the constitution - how will that help you ?

I don't think it will help me.

that's right. i know the Constitution says the congress shall have the power to issue money. but me knowing it won't help anybody.

 

[Iriemon]

I don't find your equating men who died fighting a war with the intentional slaughter of civilians persuasive.

NOBODY REPLY TO THIS !

tell me Iriemon - what is the difference ?

Not a simple question, but basically its the difference between combatants and non-combatants. The former are trained for combat and represent the fighting force of the nation. They can avoid death by not fighting. They are equipped to defend themselves and are trying to kill the soldiers on the other side. Civilians are not, and are being killed in Hitler's case solely because of their religion, it's basically murder.

No comment?

 

[editec]

It seems like some of us agree with what we want (a stable economy and money that retains value) but aren't sure how we get it.

The problem is that bankers end up with enormous power over the economy no matter what we do.

Now, we can either give that monetary power to the government's central bank and hope they won't screw it up, or we can allow the most aggressive banks to get that power and hope they won't screw up the economy for their own personal benefit. (Except we know they will, because that's what they were hired to do to begin with!)

Either way, it seems to me the same people basically end up in charge as the government is going to hire people from the largest banks to run the FED even if we reconstiuted it into something of which I might approve.

After all, nobody else is really qualified to run the FED.

I think most people understand that problem, which is why some of us think that having a gold standard limits their ability to manipulate the money supply to their own advantage

I doubt that's true, BTW, because it was never true when we were on the gold standard.

So the solution is to get leaders who are not working for their own benefit and who understand that the purpose of the banking industry is to foster national productivity.

But from a bankers standpoint manipulating debt IS productivity because that's what they do to make money!

CLEARLY the answer is to put ME in charge of the NEW FED because I have never thought that my role in this world was merely to make money.

Oh yeah, one more reason to put ME in charge?

I understand, like apparently few other people do that INFLATION IN INVESTMENTS AND INTEREST RATES, is no less destructive to the economy than inflation of incomes of workers.

You cannot ell me that the a high flying stock market indicated a healthy economy if the people aren't making any money, and for the last thirty years the monied classes have been telling us nothing BUT that.

​

 

[sealybobo]

It seems like some of us agree with what we want (a stable economy and money that retains value) but aren't sure how we get it.

The problem is that bankers end up with enormous power over the economy no matter what we do.

Now, we can either give that monetary power to the government's central bank and hope they won't screw it up, or we can allow the most aggressive banks to get that power and hope they won't screw up the economy for their own personal benefit. (Except we know they will, because that's what they were hired to do to begin with!)

Either way, it seems to me the same people basically end up in charge as the government is going to hire people from the largest banks to run the FED even if we reconstiuted it into something of which I might approve.

After all, nobody else is really qualified to run the FED.

I think most people understand that problem, which is why some of us think that having a gold standard limits their ability to manipulate the money supply to their own advantage

I doubt that's true, BTW, because it was never true when we were on the gold standard.

So the solution is to get leaders who are not working for their own benefit and who understand that the purpose of the banking industry is to foster national productivity.

But from a bankers standpoint manipulating debt IS productivity because that's what they do to make money!

CLEARLY the answer is to put ME in charge of the NEW FED because I have never thought that my role in this world was merely to make money.

Oh yeah, one more reason to put ME in charge?

I understand, like apparently few other people do that INFLATION IN INVESTMENTS AND INTEREST RATES, is no less destructive to the economy than inflation of incomes of workers.

You cannot ell me that the a high flying stock market indicated a healthy economy if the people aren't making any money, and for the last thirty years the monied classes have been telling us nothing BUT that.

​

The bankers are in power, "no matter what we do", because we have never done anything signifigant to stop it. Think about the illegal immigration bill we passed 2 years ago. It may have made the public calm down, but did it really solve the problem? No, and it cost billions. That's what happens when the politicians are owned by the corporations. The bankers own them, and so do the corporations that want the borders to stay open. People who hire illegals here and gun/drug companies/smugglers.

In my world, Bankers will still run the banking system and they will still be rich. They just won't print the money. They'll go to Congress and ask for more money if they need more. The government will set interest rates. And I'm not a economist. I'm not telling you I have all the answers. I'm just telling you the current system is a sick joke. The bankers own us. They have too much power.

And maybe we have them in check now that Obama is in office. But what about when Jeb Bush wins in 2016? Then the bankers will run wild again?

And if we take back the Fed, we won't pay interest on the national debt anymore. Do you know that if you add up all the money we all pay in Federal Income Tax that it doesn't even add up to the interest that we pay on the national debt? The more we go into debt, the more the bankers own us.

I would love to take it from them. But then they would crash the economy. That's why banks should not nationalized/socialized.

And why don't we value manufactures more than these assholes? Manufacturers actually make something. What do bankers create other than debt?

 

[editec]

it wouldn't "fall to the congress" by default ...

rather if FED blew up other banks would take up the slack most likely ...

you would have to devise an entire system to replace the FED before you can get rid of it ...

Read the Constitution, the Fed's duties would go to the Congress.

Yup...you're right about that.

 

[editec]

Sealy suggests:

And maybe we have them in check now that Obama is in office. But what about when Jeb Bush wins in 2016? Then the bankers will run wild again?

You think that Obama has the bankers in check?!

Consider that right now banks are borrowing money at ZERO PERCENT INTEREST and loaning it to us at 5-5.5% for motgages and the sky's the limit on credit cards.

You call THAT keeping them in check?

Obama is ENABLING THEM to rip off this nation, amigo.

They get free money, they get bailouts in the trillions, they have no limit to how much they can charge us to borrow money they got from the government, they're making money hand over fist and you think OBAMA is your friend?!

I hate to break this to you, Sealy because I like you, but your partisanship is blinding you to the shamocracy you really live in

 

[Iriemon]

It seems like some of us agree with what we want (a stable economy and money that retains value) but aren't sure how we get it.

The problem is that bankers end up with enormous power over the economy no matter what we do.

Now, we can either give that monetary power to the government's central bank and hope they won't screw it up, or we can allow the most aggressive banks to get that power and hope they won't screw up the economy for their own personal benefit. (Except we know they will, because that's what they were hired to do to begin with!)

Either way, it seems to me the same people basically end up in charge as the government is going to hire people from the largest banks to run the FED even if we reconstiuted it into something of which I might approve.

I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me how the current financial crisis which must have been engineered by the bankers who supposed control the Fed are enriching them, when at least a score of banks have gone under and major banks like Citi have lost hundreds of billions.

After all, nobody else is really qualified to run the FED.

I think most people understand that problem, which is why some of us think that having a gold standard limits their ability to manipulate the money supply to their own advantage

I doubt that's true, BTW, because it was never true when we were on the gold standard.

So the solution is to get leaders who are not working for their own benefit and who understand that the purpose of the banking industry is to foster national productivity.

But from a bankers standpoint manipulating debt IS productivity because that's what they do to make money!

CLEARLY the answer is to put ME in charge of the NEW FED because I have never thought that my role in this world was merely to make money.

Oh yeah, one more reason to put ME in charge?

I understand, like apparently few other people do that INFLATION IN INVESTMENTS AND INTEREST RATES, is no less destructive to the economy than inflation of incomes of workers.

You cannot ell me that the a high flying stock market indicated a healthy economy if the people aren't making any money, and for the last thirty years the monied classes have been telling us nothing BUT that.

​

The bankers are in power, "no matter what we do", because we have never done anything signifigant to stop it. Think about the illegal immigration bill we passed 2 years ago. It may have made the public calm down, but did it really solve the problem? No, and it cost billions. That's what happens when the politicians are owned by the corporations. The bankers own them, and so do the corporations that want the borders to stay open. People who hire illegals here and gun/drug companies/smugglers.

In my world, Bankers will still run the banking system and they will still be rich. They just won't print the money. They'll go to Congress and ask for more money if they need more. The government will set interest rates. And I'm not a economist. I'm not telling you I have all the answers. I'm just telling you the current system is a sick joke. The bankers own us. They have too much power.

And maybe we have them in check now that Obama is in office. But what about when Jeb Bush wins in 2016? Then the bankers will run wild again?

And if we take back the Fed, we won't pay interest on the national debt anymore. Do you know that if you add up all the money we all pay in Federal Income Tax that it doesn't even add up to the interest that we pay on the national debt? The more we go into debt, the more the bankers own us.

I would love to take it from them. But then they would crash the economy. That's why banks should not nationalized/socialized.

And why don't we value manufactures more than these assholes? Manufacturers actually make something. What do bankers create other than debt?[/QUOTE]

 

[Iriemon]

It seems like some of us agree with what we want (a stable economy and money that retains value) but aren't sure how we get it.

The problem is that bankers end up with enormous power over the economy no matter what we do.

Now, we can either give that monetary power to the government's central bank and hope they won't screw it up, or we can allow the most aggressive banks to get that power and hope they won't screw up the economy for their own personal benefit. (Except we know they will, because that's what they were hired to do to begin with!)

Either way, it seems to me the same people basically end up in charge as the government is going to hire people from the largest banks to run the FED even if we reconstiuted it into something of which I might approve.

After all, nobody else is really qualified to run the FED.

I think most people understand that problem, which is why some of us think that having a gold standard limits their ability to manipulate the money supply to their own advantage

I doubt that's true, BTW, because it was never true when we were on the gold standard.

So the solution is to get leaders who are not working for their own benefit and who understand that the purpose of the banking industry is to foster national productivity.

But from a bankers standpoint manipulating debt IS productivity because that's what they do to make money!

CLEARLY the answer is to put ME in charge of the NEW FED because I have never thought that my role in this world was merely to make money.

Oh yeah, one more reason to put ME in charge?

I understand, like apparently few other people do that INFLATION IN INVESTMENTS AND INTEREST RATES, is no less destructive to the economy than inflation of incomes of workers.

You cannot ell me that the a high flying stock market indicated a healthy economy if the people aren't making any money, and for the last thirty years the monied classes have been telling us nothing BUT that.

​

The bankers are in power, "no matter what we do", because we have never done anything signifigant to stop it. Think about the illegal immigration bill we passed 2 years ago. It may have made the public calm down, but did it really solve the problem? No, and it cost billions. That's what happens when the politicians are owned by the corporations. The bankers own them, and so do the corporations that want the borders to stay open. People who hire illegals here and gun/drug companies/smugglers.

In my world, Bankers will still run the banking system and they will still be rich. They just won't print the money. They'll go to Congress and ask for more money if they need more. The government will set interest rates. And I'm not a economist. I'm not telling you I have all the answers. I'm just telling you the current system is a sick joke. The bankers own us. They have too much power.

And maybe we have them in check now that Obama is in office. But what about when Jeb Bush wins in 2016? Then the bankers will run wild again?

And if we take back the Fed, we won't pay interest on the national debt anymore. Do you know that if you add up all the money we all pay in Federal Income Tax that it doesn't even add up to the interest that we pay on the national debt? The more we go into debt, the more the bankers own us.

I would love to take it from them. But then they would crash the economy. That's why banks should not nationalized/socialized.

And why don't we value manufactures more than these assholes? Manufacturers actually make something. What do bankers create other than debt?

I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me how the current financial crisis which must have been engineered by the bankers who supposed control the Fed are enriching them, when at least a score of banks have gone under and major banks like Citi have lost hundreds of billions.

 

[sealybobo]

Sealy suggests:

And maybe we have them in check now that Obama is in office. But what about when Jeb Bush wins in 2016? Then the bankers will run wild again?

You think that Obama has the bankers in check?!

Consider that right now banks are borrowing money at ZERO PERCENT INTEREST and loaning it to us at 5-5.5% for motgages and the sky's the limit on credit cards.

You call THAT keeping them in check?

Obama is ENABLING THEM to rip off this nation, amigo.

They get free money, they get bailouts in the trillions, they have no limit to how much they can charge us to borrow money they got from the government, they're making money hand over fist and you think OBAMA is your friend?!

I hate to break this to you, Sealy because I like you, but your partisanship is blinding you to the shamocracy you really live in

Who allowed the Credit card companies to charge us astronomical loanshark type rates? The GOP when they were in charge.

Now are the dems going to ignore this issue? NO!

Democrats in Congress are taking a swipe at credit card issuers and their increasingly creative reasons for raising fees on strapped consumers, sparking a well-financed duel over how to crack down on alleged abuses.

Lawmakers take a swipe at credit card fees | News for Austin, Texas | KVUE.com | Top Stories

And watch who defends these loanshark rates. That's right. THE GOP.

 

[sealybobo]

It seems like some of us agree with what we want (a stable economy and money that retains value) but aren't sure how we get it.

The problem is that bankers end up with enormous power over the economy no matter what we do.

Now, we can either give that monetary power to the government's central bank and hope they won't screw it up, or we can allow the most aggressive banks to get that power and hope they won't screw up the economy for their own personal benefit. (Except we know they will, because that's what they were hired to do to begin with!)

Either way, it seems to me the same people basically end up in charge as the government is going to hire people from the largest banks to run the FED even if we reconstiuted it into something of which I might approve.

After all, nobody else is really qualified to run the FED.

I think most people understand that problem, which is why some of us think that having a gold standard limits their ability to manipulate the money supply to their own advantage

I doubt that's true, BTW, because it was never true when we were on the gold standard.

So the solution is to get leaders who are not working for their own benefit and who understand that the purpose of the banking industry is to foster national productivity.

But from a bankers standpoint manipulating debt IS productivity because that's what they do to make money!

CLEARLY the answer is to put ME in charge of the NEW FED because I have never thought that my role in this world was merely to make money.

Oh yeah, one more reason to put ME in charge?

I understand, like apparently few other people do that INFLATION IN INVESTMENTS AND INTEREST RATES, is no less destructive to the economy than inflation of incomes of workers.

You cannot ell me that the a high flying stock market indicated a healthy economy if the people aren't making any money, and for the last thirty years the monied classes have been telling us nothing BUT that.

​

The bankers are in power, "no matter what we do", because we have never done anything signifigant to stop it. Think about the illegal immigration bill we passed 2 years ago. It may have made the public calm down, but did it really solve the problem? No, and it cost billions. That's what happens when the politicians are owned by the corporations. The bankers own them, and so do the corporations that want the borders to stay open. People who hire illegals here and gun/drug companies/smugglers.

In my world, Bankers will still run the banking system and they will still be rich. They just won't print the money. They'll go to Congress and ask for more money if they need more. The government will set interest rates. And I'm not a economist. I'm not telling you I have all the answers. I'm just telling you the current system is a sick joke. The bankers own us. They have too much power.

And maybe we have them in check now that Obama is in office. But what about when Jeb Bush wins in 2016? Then the bankers will run wild again?

And if we take back the Fed, we won't pay interest on the national debt anymore. Do you know that if you add up all the money we all pay in Federal Income Tax that it doesn't even add up to the interest that we pay on the national debt? The more we go into debt, the more the bankers own us.

I would love to take it from them. But then they would crash the economy. That's why banks should not nationalized/socialized.

And why don't we value manufactures more than these assholes? Manufacturers actually make something. What do bankers create other than debt?

I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me how the current financial crisis which must have been engineered by the bankers who supposed control the Fed are enriching them, when at least a score of banks have gone under and major banks like Citi have lost hundreds of billions.

What?

First of all, the Federal Reserve owns the banks, not the other way around.

Secondly, where did all the money go? The CEO's and Executives of these banks made a killing.

The stocks went down, so they may have lost a lot of money there, but then again, they probably knew they'd get bailed out.

And banks that didn't go bankrupt got to buy failing banks cheap. So they consolidated power.

I don't know if I answered your question, but one thing I know is that this bailout was the largest bank robbery in US history. And nothing Obama can do about it but assure that it can't ever happen again.

At least until America is dumb enough to put the GOP back into power, and then they'll rob us again.

 

[sealybobo]

Sealy suggests:

And maybe we have them in check now that Obama is in office. But what about when Jeb Bush wins in 2016? Then the bankers will run wild again?

You think that Obama has the bankers in check?!

Consider that right now banks are borrowing money at ZERO PERCENT INTEREST and loaning it to us at 5-5.5% for motgages and the sky's the limit on credit cards.

You call THAT keeping them in check?

Obama is ENABLING THEM to rip off this nation, amigo.

They get free money, they get bailouts in the trillions, they have no limit to how much they can charge us to borrow money they got from the government, they're making money hand over fist and you think OBAMA is your friend?!

I hate to break this to you, Sealy because I like you, but your partisanship is blinding you to the shamocracy you really live in

Please tell me who's side you are on here:

His panel led the way Tuesday by narrowly voting to send the full Senate a bill that would ban some of the many reasons credit card issuers raise interest rates and fees on consumers, raising the hackles of industry advocates who say such limits would ultimately cost consumers more money.

"Making this credit available is a very risky business and the committee's action today will unfortunately make it harder, not easier, for banks to continue doing so," said American Bankers Association's Kenneth J. Clayton.

The answer, according to some Republicans, is prosecuting predatory lenders and requiring issuers to more fully disclose agreements in language that consumers can easily understand. They point out that new rules by the Federal Reserve, designed to accomplish some of the same goals, take effect next year without punishing an industry suffering from the recession or putting credit out of reach for higher-risk borrowers.

"This legislation will take us back to an era when competition was limited, working families who needed help were denied access to credit cards and everyone paid interest rates one-third higher than today's, regardless of whether they paid their bills on time," said Rep. Jeb Hensarling of Texas, the top Republican on a House subcommittee that takes up the issue Wednesday.

Democrats rattle off examples of some in the industry that have exploited the needy: The college student or elderly consumer who was offered and accepted lines of credit they plainly could not afford; the economically viable consumer stunned by bigger-than-expected monthly payments, inflated under an obscurely written agreement or for hard-to-understand reasons.

"Disclosure is no longer enough. The credit card industry has found ways around disclosure," said Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y. "No average consumer can hope to keep up with all the changes that have been made."

"We should not, however, legislate by anecdote," warned Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Ala. Dodd's bill -- similar to the House measure to be considered Wednesday -- would force the industry to comply this year with some of the same rules approved by the Fed now slated to take effect in 2010.

Dodd's proposal, approved by the panel 12-11 on Tuesday, would bar so-called double-cycle billing, when a card issuer computes interest charges on outstanding balances from more than one billing cycle. It also would ban "universal default," the practice of raising a cardholder's interest rates when that consumer has problems paying other creditors. And it would prevent card issuers from changing the terms of a contract as long as the card holder pays on time.

Shelby said he supports some of those goals. But he voted against the bill, as did every other Republican on the panel, in part because he said it would prohibit card issuers from pricing according to an existing card holder's past and potential behavior.

That, Shelby said, would amount to abandoning risk-based pricing altogether.

Dems _____

GOP_______

 

[Iriemon]

The bankers are in power, "no matter what we do", because we have never done anything signifigant to stop it. Think about the illegal immigration bill we passed 2 years ago. It may have made the public calm down, but did it really solve the problem? No, and it cost billions. That's what happens when the politicians are owned by the corporations. The bankers own them, and so do the corporations that want the borders to stay open. People who hire illegals here and gun/drug companies/smugglers.

In my world, Bankers will still run the banking system and they will still be rich. They just won't print the money. They'll go to Congress and ask for more money if they need more. The government will set interest rates. And I'm not a economist. I'm not telling you I have all the answers. I'm just telling you the current system is a sick joke. The bankers own us. They have too much power.

And maybe we have them in check now that Obama is in office. But what about when Jeb Bush wins in 2016? Then the bankers will run wild again?

And if we take back the Fed, we won't pay interest on the national debt anymore. Do you know that if you add up all the money we all pay in Federal Income Tax that it doesn't even add up to the interest that we pay on the national debt? The more we go into debt, the more the bankers own us.

I would love to take it from them. But then they would crash the economy. That's why banks should not nationalized/socialized.

And why don't we value manufactures more than these assholes? Manufacturers actually make something. What do bankers create other than debt?

I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me how the current financial crisis which must have been engineered by the bankers who supposed control the Fed are enriching them, when at least a score of banks have gone under and major banks like Citi have lost hundreds of billions.

What?

First of all, the Federal Reserve owns the banks, not the other way around. [/qutoe]

Where do you get these ideas? How does the Fed own the banks? Reliable source please.

Secondly, where did all the money go? The CEO's and Executives of these banks made a killing.

The stocks went down, so they may have lost a lot of money there, but then again, they probably knew they'd get bailed out.

And banks that didn't go bankrupt got to buy failing banks cheap. So they consolidated power.

I don't know if I answered your question, but one thing I know is that this bailout was the largest bank robbery in US history. And nothing Obama can do about it but assure that it can't ever happen again.

That is because our Congress, not the Fed, let these intitutions get way too big. But many banks have gone under, their owners wiped out, and only those institutions Congress let get too big have been supported. Even then these insititutions have lost ownership and value, and the bonuses they got (I agree it was a fiasco) were smaller than previous years.

All in all it doesn't seem like a very good plan for the banks to profit from our misery.

 

[sealybobo]

I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me how the current financial crisis which must have been engineered by the bankers who supposed control the Fed are enriching them, when at least a score of banks have gone under and major banks like Citi have lost hundreds of billions.

What?

First of all, the Federal Reserve owns the banks, not the other way around. [/qutoe]

Where do you get these ideas? How does the Fed own the banks? Reliable source please.

Secondly, where did all the money go? The CEO's and Executives of these banks made a killing.

The stocks went down, so they may have lost a lot of money there, but then again, they probably knew they'd get bailed out.

And banks that didn't go bankrupt got to buy failing banks cheap. So they consolidated power.

I don't know if I answered your question, but one thing I know is that this bailout was the largest bank robbery in US history. And nothing Obama can do about it but assure that it can't ever happen again.

That is because our Congress, not the Fed, let these intitutions get way too big. But many banks have gone under, their owners wiped out, and only those institutions Congress let get too big have been supported. Even then these insititutions have lost ownership and value, and the bonuses they got (I agree it was a fiasco) were smaller than previous years.

All in all it doesn't seem like a very good plan for the banks to profit from our misery.

Check out the record bonus' they were getting between 2004 & 2007. And it wasn't just bankers. It was every corporation.

Look at the bonus' paid to CEO's of companies that went bankrupt.

And you don't know who the bank owners are. When Stardard Oil was broken up, Rockafellor held partial ownership in all the new little banks that were created. Maybe the same

I can't explain it all, but my brother is an executive. Executives at companies going bankrupt didn't/don't care enough about their companies to stop asking for insane bonus'.

Trust me, no one who owns a bank lost.

Think about this. Think about the poor banker who says he doesn't have any money. Now think about all the people who are paying back their loans on time. Where is all that money going?

Sure a lot of people are not paying back their loans. But what percentage of us are not paying back our loans? 10%? So where is all the money that we do pay them with going?

It is a scam. I just don't think Obama is in on it. He knows it is a scam, but he plans on ending the scam.

 

[Iriemon]

What?

First of all, the Federal Reserve owns the banks, not the other way around. [/qutoe]

Where do you get these ideas? How does the Fed own the banks? Reliable source please.



That is because our Congress, not the Fed, let these intitutions get way too big. But many banks have gone under, their owners wiped out, and only those institutions Congress let get too big have been supported. Even then these insititutions have lost ownership and value, and the bonuses they got (I agree it was a fiasco) were smaller than previous years.

All in all it doesn't seem like a very good plan for the banks to profit from our misery.

Check out the record bonus' they were getting between 2004 & 2007. And it wasn't just bankers. It was every corporation.

And how is that the Fed's fault?

If you have a problem with big bonuses (I can understand it) Congress needs to tax multi-million dollar incomes more.

Look at the bonus' paid to CEO's of companies that went bankrupt.

Previously addressed.

And you don't know who the bank owners are. When Stardard Oil was broken up, Rockafellor held partial ownership in all the new little banks that were created. Maybe the same

I can't explain it all, but my brother is an executive. Executives at companies going bankrupt didn't/don't care enough about their companies to stop asking for insane bonus'.

Trust me, no one who owns a bank lost.

Dead wrong.

Think about this. Think about the poor banker who says he doesn't have any money. Now think about all the people who are paying back their loans on time. Where is all that money going?

Sure a lot of people are not paying back their loans. But what percentage of us are not paying back our loans? 10%? So where is all the money that we do pay them with going?

Not to the old owners of the bank! Either to the trustee in liquidation or new owners of the bank.

It is a scam. I just don't think Obama is in on it. He knows it is a scam, but he plans on ending the scam.

I certainly don't deny that the wealthy has a disproporationate influence in Govt and control of wealth. But I don't see evidence that the Fed is part of some massive banker conspiracy, or that giving control of the money supply to Congress is an answer. Congress, aside from being completely irresponsible on fiscal matters, is equally suspect to influence peddling by banks as is the Fed. And probably more so because Congresspersons need to get elected every couple years.