Is The Fed Really a Product of The NWO or is Disinformation Being Used To Make Them Look Bad.

reply to post by mybigunit

No doubt it [adopting a new currency] would not be easy and I never said it would and that’s why my slowly introduce it approach seemed reasonable to me. But the long term rewards of getting rid of the type of system we have where are money is basically debt and reliance on borrowing from other countries and the FED is not going to last and it will smash the middle and poor class and in the end affecting everyone.

Pie chart shows primary sources of state income
General sales taxes 13% Charges & misc. 21.2%
Corporate Income tax 2.1% Interest earned 3.7%
Individual income tax 11.9% Federal aid 21.7%
Excise taxes 6% Property tax 16.6%
Other taxes 3.7%
National Conference of State Legislatures

I agree you have a justifiable complaint. I do not think the “enemy” is paper money. Personal: I receive social security and veterans disability checks by direct electronic deposit into my checking account. I pay 2 credit cards, my health insurance, my electric utility bill and my combined phone, internet and cell phone to AT&T, all by the internet. I pay only my landlord, the grocery store and my barber by check. I offer myself as a typical example how money is fast going out of style.

In fact, I recently bought a used car and paid for it by check. Had I offered $5,000 in cash to the dealer, he might have “turned me in” as a probable drug dealer. As you know, banks must report all cash transactions - in or out - of $10,000 or more to the IRS. And I guarantee that if you withdraw $9,999.99 in cash once a month, the IRS will learn of that. The IRS has already decided that 2 transactions of $5,000 each meet the $10,000 required level for reporting. Don’t get cute with the Federal government. A “FREE” country?

Except cash for bribes - Iraq, Afghan, Columbia, and 100 other countries, the US is an electronic or printed check enterprise. No major transaction is done in cash anywhere, anymore. Imagine you inadvertently drove off in a car like yours but not yours. It had a cool $1 million in small bills in the trunk. $1s, $5s and $10s. Say you waited a month and no one called and you heard not a word about the mixup. You empty the car’s trunk, take it back, and get your old car back. You leave the other car - with the empty trunk - where you found it.

If you run off to a Lexus dealer with $50,000 in $5s and $10s, you may find a dealer who says, “I’d rather not sell it to you for cash. Please go to the bank and bring me a check.” Or if you want to buy a house and you go to the closing with $100,000 in $1s, $5s and $10s and tell them jokingly, “It will take me a few minutes to count out the money.” Many people will just say “No thanks.”

Federal borrowing is due to the POWER of the R&Fs who are doing what is called GENERATIONAL shifting of the tax burden. We are an indecent society, too selfish to pay for our own defense. Unworthy of our ancestors. Moochers we are. Dead-beats. Bums. It makes a shambles of the fanciful claim for Homeland Security when you ask your grand-children and as yet unborn great-grandchildren to pay YOUR bills. NO Great Generation these.

[edit on 05/05/2008 by donwhite]

reply to post by mybigunit

Primary sources of state income (in the aggregate)
General sales taxes 13%
Individual income tax 11.9%
Charges & misc. 21.2%
Excise taxes 6%
Property tax 16.6%
Corporate Income tax 2.1%
Other taxes 3.7%
Interest earned 3.7%
Federal aid 21.7%
from the National Conference of State Legislatures website

Property tax. This is the largest source of revenue for states. Most of it is assessed on residential property. Yes, renters pay property tax too, unless you are arguing property owners are too dumb to include taxes in their rent calculations. Unlikely. You don’t get rich being dumb. This is a regressive tax because it takes no account of the taxpayers resources to pay the tax.

General sales tax. I am assessed 7% in Jacksonville, FL. 6% goes to the state of Florida, 1% is retained here. This is the most regressive tax of all.

Individual income tax. Some states have it, some like Florida, do not. I believe a state should “tax everything.” Taxing many different activities means you reach more people to pay the cost of government. It means each tax can be as low as possible. It also means government revenues are not subjected to peaks and valley of revenue when the state is dependant on 2 or 3 sources only. This is also a regressive tax as used in most states as it usually takes effect on very small net income and rises slowly to a low top rate.

Charges and miscellaneous. This includes state park fees, the cost of driver’s licenses, auto license tags, and court costs which are a large source of revenue, and income from inspections and licencing.

Excise taxes. This is mainly the taxes on alcoholic beverages and tobacco products.

Corporate income taxes. So trifling in its overall contribution to state revenue it really does not deserve its own category. It is put in here so you can see who is getting the FREE ride. The amount as you can see - 2.1% - is very much UNDER TAXED. This is a direct result of the urge for State’s Rights Americans are so fond of on the theoretical level but have little understanding how this had “dumbed them down” both financially and intellectually.

Other taxes. I do not know what is included here.

Interest. Federal laws require states put surplus funds in US Treasury obligations on which they both earn interest and are assured the money will be there when needed. Most states carry substantial surpluses in the Unemployment Insurance programs for example.

Federal Aid. It is given here as the largest single category - 21.7% - of state’s revenue. I’m sure this includes such items as Medicaid and the SCHIP program although the Federal government is going very much “on the cheap” towards the states here. I would venture it also includes the highway building and maintenance funds. There are probably other items too, likely related to Homeland Security, that I am unaware of. It is my opinion this miserly Federal number should be DOUBLED while keeping the other categories of state revenue at the same level, except Corporate Income Tax would ought to be raised 4 X or at least to equal the Individual Income Tax amounts.

[edit on 05/05/2008 by donwhite]

reply to post by donwhite

The $14 t. sounds more like the US annual GDP. Gross domestic product. The value of all goods and services produced in the US. $13.79 trillion (2007 est.)

Nope Im talking about actual existing dollars out there...M3 stats
upload.wikimedia.org...

With that being said I realized I gave you a state revenue and not the federal revenue. Here is the Federal...I thought the Income tax % looked small




It makes no difference. Getting rid of the income tax takes us back down to 2000 levels and I thought we did pretty good in 2000. That is PLENTY of money for the government to spend.

As far as who holds our debt you are mostly right...the UK owns quite a bit of out debt you can see who owns what here..

www.treas.gov...

As far as the Argentine cattle Baron who has a lot of money to spend would I buy US bonds or Fillipino I would choose neither and but gold and sit on it. If you dont want a long time investment like that then maybe Id consider the US bonds.

As far as the no taxes that is right not only did we tax during the Civil War but we also brought back a central banking system again to print the money for the war. Then Lincoln got rid of it I believe and got a bullet in the head. Now as far as out country being a great power Im all for a strong military but Im all for a strong military to defend our borders not to police the world. Why do we need bases in 130 countries to me this makes no sense. To me we would save all that money bringing our men and women home. This country wasnt founded to be an empire. Even manifest destiny there were reservations because we didnt want to look like an empire.

The government is formed by us to help us and Im not against that money going to school lunches or whatever when the government invests in its people they will get their money back later on and Im a prime example of that growing up in a welfare house myself. This year alone I paid enough taxes to cover the whole life my mother lived on the government as a single mother.

As far as too much democracy yes we need to get back to being a republic. You know the weird things like states and individual rights. We need to shrink down the government and the only way I can see to do that is to limit their spending and the only way to do that is to change our monetary system.

As far as the generational shifting I agree it is wrong and very immoral that my kids will have to pay for bills that we rack up now. For all the people who believe in the cause we should have to pay for it. But we dont sacrifice like the WWII generation did. Most of us go on with our daily lives spending away and not realizing our country is going bankrupt for situations we shouldnt be in. It sucks and its annoying and sometimes I wish I was as ignorant as the people shopping just going along in life like nothings wrong. Now I have it stuck in my head that the crap is going to hit that fan and Im going to get sprinkled with some of it. I dont know maybe Im the only one who feels this way.

In final I think our monetary system does have a lot to do with this. The money we would save in interest payments and the money we would save just having the power to limit government spending would be enough to save us all a ton of money. That in turn would help the economy. But I do think a change will come. It may not be anytime soon but its coming...people are waking up.

reply to post by mybigunit

Nope Im talking about actual existing dollars out there...M3 stats

Graph 1
This shows the value of currency (M0) on June 30, 2005 to be $800 b. That is double the amount I have previously quoted. I appreciate being updated. There is nothing less useful than out of date statistics.

The June 30, 2005, value of M1 is shown to be $600 b.
The June 30, 2005, value of M2 is shown to be $5.4 t.
The December 31, 2004, value of M3 is shown to be $3.2 t.

Aggregating $10.1 t, on December 31, 2004.

Graph 2.
The second graph shows the percentage for each category from 1960 to 2005. It shows the relative amount of currency is pretty much constant although in real numbers, it has grown as graph 1 shows.

M1 has seen the largest decline over the years.
M2 has held constant, more or less.
M3 was not indicated until 1962 which means it must have been “invented” then.
Note: Numbers are MY reading of the somewhat inexact graphs.

Q. What does M1, M2 and M3 represent?

A.
M0: Physical currency. A measure of the money supply which combines any liquid or cash assets held within a central bank and the amount of physical currency circulating in the economy. M0 (M-zero) is the most liquid measure of the money supply.

M1: M0 + demand deposits, which are checking accounts.

M2: M1 + small time deposits (less than $100,000), savings deposits, and non-institutional money-market funds. M2 is a broader classification of money than M1.

M3: M2 + all large time deposits, institutional money-market funds, short-term repurchase agreements, along with other larger liquid assets. The broadest measure of money.

Mr OBE1 furnished these links.
As of December 2006, currency in circulation—that is, U.S. coins and paper currency in the hands of the public—totaled about $820 billion dollars. The amount of cash in circulation has risen rapidly in recent decades and much of the increase has been caused by demand from abroad. The Federal Reserve estimates that the majority of the cash in circulation today is outside the United States. www.newyorkfed.org...
research.stlouisfed.org...

[edit on 05/05/2008 by donwhite]

reply to post by donwhite


Correct and since then we have added 4 more trillion making the 14 trillion. Im not concerned about liquid money I want to know how much money we have out there in its entirety. M3 is broader. If you added up everything thats how many dollars we have out there.

Here's a college professor's explanation:

reply to post by ianr5741


Thanks for the YouTube. Actually, the “professor” must be on the run from a mental institute? He proves anyone can get on YouTube. He sounds like the progeny of the old John Birch Society. I thought they had all died but I was wrong. I noted he is flying a TEXAS flag in the classroom which is NO plus for a good education. Wow!

reply to post by donwhite



character assassination
n. An attack on the personality or individual characteristics of a person intended to discredit or destroy the figure's public reputation. An effort to persuade the public to ignore a political figure by ascribing faults or deficiencies in their personal character.

"Banks lend by creating credit. They create the means of payment out of nothing."

- Ralph M. Hawtery, British Secretary of Treasury



"When you or I write a check there must be sufficient funds in our account to cover the check, but when the Federal Reserve writes a check there is no bank deposit on which that check is drawn. When the Federal Reserve writes a check, it is creating money."

- "Putting it Simply", Boston Federal Reserve Bank



"By this means government may secretly and unobserved, confiscate the wealth of the people, and not one man in a million will detect the theft."

- Lord John Maynard Keynes, "Economic Consequences of Peace"



"The eyes of our citizens are not sufficiently open to the true cause of our distress. They ascribe them to everything but their true cause: the banking system... a system which if it could do good in any form is yet so certain of leading to abuse as to be utterly incompatible with the public safety and prosperity."

- Thomas Jefferson



"The modern banking system manufactures money out of nothing. The process is perhaps the most astounding piece of sleight of hand that was ever invented."

- Major L.B.Angus



"Of course, banks do not really pay out loans from the money they receive as deposits. If they did this, no additional money would be created. What they do when they make loans is to accept promissory notes in exchange for credits to the borrowers' transaction accounts. Loans (assets) and deposits (liabilities) both rise by the same amount."

- Chicago Federal Reserve booklet "Modern Money Mechanics"



"The regional Federal Reserve banks are not government agencies, but are independent, privately owned and locally controlled corporations."

- Lewis vs. United States, 680 F. 2d 1239 9th Circuit 1982



"All the perplexities, confusions, and distresses in America arise, not from defects in the Constitution or confederation, not from want of honor or virtue, as much as from downright ignorance of the nature of coin, credit, and circulation."

- John Quincy Adams



"I am afraid that ordinary citizens will not like to be told that the banks can, and do, create and destroy money; and they who control the credit of the nation direct the policy of governments and hold in the hollow of their hands the destiny of the people."

- R. McKenna, Chairman, Midland Bank London



"The actual process of money creation takes place primarily in banks. Bankers discovered that they could make loans merely by giving their promise to pay, or bank notes, to borrowers. In this way banks began to create money. Transaction deposits are the modern counterpart of bank notes. It was a small step from printing notes to making book entries crediting deposits of borrowers, which the borrowers in turn could 'spend' by writing checks, thereby 'printing' their own money."

- Modern Money Mechanics, Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago.



"The one aim of these financiers is world control by the creation of inextinguishable debts."

- Henry Ford



"See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them; and gives it to persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen cannot do without committing a crime. Then abolish this law without delay, for it is not only an evil in itself, but also is a fertile source for further evils, for it invites reprisals. If such a law is not abolished immediately, it will spread, multiply and develop into a system."

- Frederic Bastiat



"I have never yet had anyone who could, through the use of logic and reason, justify the Federal Government borrowing the use of its own money . . . I believe that the time will come when people will demand that this be changed. I believe the time will come in this country when they will actually blame you and me and everyone else connected with Congress for sitting idly by an permitting such an idiotic system to continue."

- Wright Patman, Democratic Congressman 1928-76, Chairman, Committee on Banking & Currency 1963-75



[edit on 19-5-2008 by ianr5741]

reply to post by ianr5741


He was not attacking you. So uh. Stop trying to be a moderator. Freaking newbies.. wth.

ANYWAYS.

I don't have time to respond right now. But I disagree with both Don AND MBU (aka Cucumber.....)

And after a few glasses of wine, I plan on denouncing both of you! Just had to yell at the nooblit here.

reply to post by ianr5741


Please place your quotations in EX format by clicking the EX and then pasting your copied material into the TXT Box.

THEN cite your source for your information to give the author or collector of information due credit. Thanx.

reply to post by ianr5741


The last quote is one of the big reasons I want the fed gone. We have to borrow our own money to spend and pay interest on it......good quotes good find

reply to post by mybigunit


Yeah .. we "borrow" our own money..

Or do we? .. Do we take out loans as a federal government?

I am seriously inquiring about this, so all you amateur economist on ATS get the heck in here and help me.

Does the United States of America take out LOANS from American Banks -- specifically the Federal Reserve.

NOT INCLUDING

Bonds. Or any form of other SECURITY gained from the sale of said securities to private or corporate - sovereign entities.

Other then this source of income from "debts" paid, does the Untied States actually take out loans or, in other words, borrow money from the Federal REserves or any bank specifically?

Congress every 9 months or so raises "debt ceiling" to which they raise the amount of outstanding debt the Untied States can legally issue. This is directly controlled by Congress, not the Federal Reserve, and as the "ceiling" is raised, the debt ratio to GDP is increased. So if we extend government debts by 100 billion or more for example, the government will sell various Security products like Federal Bonds to private and corporate entities. Which the USA can safely back the security making it a prime place to put money to hedge investment. The USA then pays the interest and or dividens to the debt certificate for the outstanding debt until it matures. Most debts of the USA mature in one year to 5 years.

Theoretically if we stopped taking out new debts and paid off interest of old securities.. the US would have no national debt?

However, It imo appears that we take out more outstanding debt through these securities to pay off the current securities. Eventually then the debt to gdp ratio will get to the point where the system collapses.

BUT ANYWAYS.

Back to my original point .. does the Government actually "borrow" money specifically from banks in the form of loans? Of course, I won't except anything without some kind of proof.

reply to post by mybigunit

As far as the Argentine cattle Baron who has a lot of money to spend would I buy US bonds or Fillipino I would choose neither and but gold and sit on it. If you dont want a long time investment like that then maybe Id consider the US bonds.

Thanks Mr M/B/U, for the very excellent graph. I don’t know if I can explain the significance of it or not. But I’ll try. The graph shows $837.8 b., 34.8% of Federal revenues or income from social security and retirement payments. But that is “obligated” money. Trust Fund money. For most of us it is part of the FICA withholding from your paycheck. Currently 15.3% of wages - mostly true but not exactly.

Downside. The Government uses that income as part of its general operating budget. In other words, it is TRUST FUND money but spent as it comes in and not “saved.” Even if we do not borrow any money from China or elsewhere, we are still creating a DEBT of that amount every year.

But we know that. Alarmists like to add up all that debt and call it UNFUNDED ENTITLEMENTS. But, as I say, we’ve known that since 1935. And the world has not come to an end YET. Cries of wolf!

Upside. Not all that debt comes due in one year, but rather, is spread over 20 years. It does mean the best reason to have continued the Clinton 1993 tax rates would have allowed us to begin PAYING DOWN the Federal debt. By 2020, the Social Security payout will EXCEED the amount collected by FICA. The shortfall will have to be borrowed. The system will not go broke!

The deficit condition will continue until around 2040. Then, it is forecast that the number of workers will have increased so that FICA collections will once again exceed Social Security payout.

Note: 1945 is the generally accepted starting date for the Baby Boomer Generation. All the 16 million WW2 veterans coming home and catching up on lost love-making and etc. Add 65 years to 1945 and you get 2010. The number of babies began to decline by 1965 and we went back to normal rates of reproduction. That is 2030.

Unfortunately for the money supply, we have added about 10 years to our life expectancy between 1945 and 2008. The amount of money collected was at a rate calculated to pay benefits for 10 years - to age 75 - but now, by 2040, we’ll be living to 85 on the average. Because the Social Security theory was always a plan for workers to support retirees, the ratio of workers to retirees is crucial for the solvency of the fund.

Because social security is so valuable to us, I cannot imagine doing away with it. Which is what the so-called privatizers want to do. They want you to put your money into Wall Street and etc. But it does mean the current rate of collection - 6.2% + an equal amount contributed by the employer - must be raised to probably 8% + 8% from employers.

The benefits payable to those who make larger contribution would be raised accordingly. Today, the limit is $1,800 a month. The new limit at 8% would be $2,200. Maybe we’ll have to make such an adjustment every generation or two?

reply to post by Rockpuck


Ummm Im confused....I thought you knew we borrowed money this whole time.

www.treas.gov...

The above link shows debt that countries hold

www.fms.treas.gov...

The above shows how much debt the federal reserve holds.

Rock Yes our government literally borrows money and pays interest on it. Now you can also say its printed however you want to put it but either way we pay 450 billion a year in interest payments or 22% of our governments revenue or 9% of the budget.




If you look on this thread there is a whole host of charts and links its in here you have to read cmon man put some effort into it. On page 2 there is a video that Ian posted Fiat Empire its 58 minutes long but it does give you a good insight on how our system works but yes Rock we literally pay interest on our own money.

[edit on 19-5-2008 by mybigunit]

reply to post by mybigunit


I know we borrow money.

That is not what I asked.

I asked is there evidence we borrow money from banks in the form of loans or other direct securities.

I own Federal Bonds. I own National Debt. I am aware that my money went to pay something, and I get paid crappy interest on it.

I asked where is the evidence we actually borrow money from the Federal Reserve.

reply to post by Rockpuck


www.fms.treas.gov...

There ya go...its a word doc but theres your answer.

reply to post by donwhite


With all this spending I dont even think keeping the clintons tax policy in effect would even phase anything either. Bush has spent so much money I mean look




Clinton was the best republican to ever take office. Low spending, Low Debt, Nafta, WTO, all republican talking points...he really set up Bush to have a great term but her REALLLLLYYYY screwed things up. I know he didnt have any help with 9/11 and Katrina but we spent wayyyy more than we needed and you know what if there is a serious risk to us all then we all need to sacrifice and pay more taxes....

reply to post by mybigunit



That is not what I asked........

Is there ANY EVIDENCE THAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TAKES LOANS FROM BANKS OR THE FEDERAL RESERVE!!!!!!????????

National Debt from my studies and classes to attain my license to trade registered securities.. National Debt is in the form of Bonds for the vast majority, to which individuals and entities buy and the Gov pays interest.

So...

Answer my question damnit!

I wasn't saying that my character was being attacked. I was saying that the professor in one of the videos I posted was being attacked. Said something about a Texas flag... as if that's the criteria by which you judge whether or not you should take a person seriously: "do they teach in a Texas university? If yes, then ignore all statements from them." ... that sort of thing.


The reason I post all these quotes is not so much to hear what they say (although that is obviously important) but to see WHO said it. This information is essentially coming from the horse's mouth: publications BY the federal reserve, chairman of the committee on banking & currency, U.S. congressmen, U.S. presidents, capitalist icons, bank chairmen, treasury secretaries, authors, court cases... etc.


The point I'm hoping to make is that if you don't take my word for it (I never expected anyone would) because I'm just a nobody... then hear it from people who are famous, respected, and would know what they're talking about.