The Stimulus Seems to have failed

[Skeptic Ginger]

Now I'm confused about the point you were making. We seem to agree that the stimulus enriched the wrong people and yet you were using that fact as an example of its' success?

Yes, I am on the side that thinks Obama's policies are bad for business. He is enriching a narrow segment at the expense of millions of small business people.

I am disappointed in some of Obama's compromises and pro-corporate positions. But overall, I think an awful lot has been accomplished that does benefit the masses and much of it is being poorly reported in the news-commodity-in-lieu-of-information.

 

[stilicho]

I am disappointed in some of Obama's compromises and pro-corporate positions. But overall, I think an awful lot has been accomplished that does benefit the masses and much of it is being poorly reported in the news-commodity-in-lieu-of-information.

Fortunately, though, the protectionist Democrats are quickly losing control of Congress since that's where the real opposition to NAFTA comes from. Now, if the Republican Party can keep Sarah Palin doing TLC commercials in Alaska instead of supporting Wiccans and joke candidates, they'll win back both houses in 2012.

Obama can keep the White House if he wants to. Congress holds the keys to economic well-being.

 

[BeAChooser]

Ah. So now we were stimulating England too?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...-more-than-640bn-from-US-Federal-Reserve.html

British banks borrowed more than $1 trillion (£640bn) from the Federal Reserve during the financial crisis, led by Barclays following its swoop on the US business of Lehman Brothers.

The disclosures came because the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform Act forced the Fed to reveal which banks and companies it lent money to in an effort to shore up the financial system from the end of December 2007 onwards.

… snip … British banks represented more than a third - about $1.5 trillion - of the $3,300bn lent by the US authorities to prop up the financial sector.

And was this decision made without Congressional input?

And what proof do we have the loans were repaid? The Fed's word?

 

[BeAChooser]

And it gets even worse.

Turns out the Fed secretly loaned a bunch of people money during this last recession.

Trillions of dollars.

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_120210/content/01125109.guest.html

Thomas Jefferson was right.

"If the American People ever allow the banks to control the issuance of their currency, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their fathers occupied. The issuing power of money should be taken from the bankers and restored to Congress and the people to whom it belongs. I sincerely believe the banking institutions having the issuing power of money are more dangerous to liberty than standing armies." - Thomas Jefferson in a letter to James Monroe, January 1, 1815

 

[Kid Eager]

Are you saying that it would have been better to *publicly* lend money to these institutions during a time of crisis? I'm sure that would have done well for consumer confidence....

 

[Sceptic-PK]

Ah. So now we were stimulating England too?

A stimulus is spending, not lending. Why are banks' geographical location especially relevant given it was a global crisis? Why wouldn't the Fed lend to other banks as risk spread across the world?

And was this decision made without Congressional input?

Of course. Central banks engage in all kinds of market activities without the input of Congress. That is their mandate.

And what proof do we have the loans were repaid? The Fed's word?

What proof do you have that the loans aren't/will not be repaid (at least in the vast majority of cases)? Do you have any evidence to support your insinuation that the Fed has acted dishonestly?

Thomas Jefferson was right.

You mean if he'd actually ever said it, yeah?

http://www.snopes.com/quotes/jefferson/banks.asp

Commercial banks issue loans, not currency. Currency is only issued by the central bank (ie the government or the government's appointees). So even if that quote was real, it'd still be meaningless, populist nonsense. It's one thing to criticise the actions of the Fed, but flirting with conspiracy theory talking points is something else entirely.

 

[BeAChooser]

A stimulus is spending, not lending. Why are banks' geographical location especially relevant given it was a global crisis? Why wouldn't the Fed lend to other banks as risk spread across the world?

The Fed is not like a regular bank. In a regular bank, people willingly give the bank real assets (and receive interest for doing it), which that bank then lends to other people to make money. The Fed has no real assets in this case. How could it, given that the US government is trillions of dollars in debt? And it gives no interest. To provide these loans ... TO FOREIGN COUNTRIES no less, the Fed merely printed more money and saddled ours and the future generations shoulders with an obligation to give the government real assets in that amount (plus all future interest on that debt). And that *loan* was not willingly made by the American people. They weren't even asked. The money was simply STOLEN from them without their permission. And then it was given to mostly FOBs (Friends Of Obama), be they here or abroad. And then the Fed tried to hid the loans. Does that clear up your confusion?

What proof do you have that the loans aren't/will not be repaid (at least in the vast majority of cases)?

How am I to provide proof given that the Fed, etc, control all the information. Wouldn't it be more reasonable to have YOU prove that the loans were repaid using the Fed's paperwork? There is a paper trail to do this, isn't there? Or do you just *trust* the Fed. But why would you, given that the Fed already did something they clearly didn't want the American people to know about? That shows a certain degree of dishonesty, wouldn't you say?

You mean if he'd actually ever said it, yeah?

http://www.snopes.com/quotes/jefferson/banks.asp

On further investigation (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/mtj:@field(DOCID+@lit(tj110150)) ), it does look like the January 1 1815 letter from Jefferson to Monroe didn't contain the quote I cited from that other source. The letter merely says:

Although a century of British experience has proved to what a wonderful extent the funding on specific redeeming taxes enables a nation to anticipate in war the resources of peace, and although the other nations of Europe have tried and trodden every path of force or folly in fruitless quest of the same object, yet we still expect to find in juggling tricks and banking dreams, that money can be made out of nothing, and in sufficient quantity to meet the expenses of a heavy war by sea and land. It is said, indeed, that money cannot be borrowed from our merchants as from those of England. But it can be borrowed from our people. They will give you all the necessaries of war they produce, if, instead of the bankrupt trash they now are obliged to receive for want of any other, you will give them a paper promise funded on a specific pledge, and of a size for common circulation. But you say the merchants will not take this paper. What the people take the merchants must take or sell nothing. All these doubts and fears prove only the extent of the dominion which the banking institutions have obtained over the minds of our citizens, and especially of those inhabiting cities or other banking places; and this dominion must be broken, or it will break us. But here, as in the other case, we must make up our minds to suffer yet longer before we can get right. The misfortune is, that in the meantime we shall plunge ourselves in unextinguishable debt, and entail on our posterity an inheritance of eternal taxes, which will bring our government and people into the condition of those of England, a nation of pikes and gudgeons, the latter bred merely as food for the former.

I'd say that the quote, even though apparently inaccurate or at least misattributed, does seem to capture the essense of what Jefferson thought about a central bank. And this is confirmed by a quote that even Snopes acknowledged as legitimate. Snopes states:

Although Jefferson certainly expressed distain and distrust of banking institutions

where the word "expressed" is linked to this:

http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/jeff1325.htm

which contains this quote:

"I sincerely believe... that banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies, and that the principle of spending money to be paid by posterity under the name of funding is but swindling futurity on a large scale." --Thomas Jefferson to John Taylor, 1816. ME 15:23

which Snopes goes on to suggest IS legitimate. In fact, here's the Libary of Congress record of the letter: http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/mtj:@field(DOCID+@lit(tj110172)) proving that it is an accurate quote. So my original quote, while inaccurate, does seem to have derived from this one and accurately reflect it's intent.

So … I'll stand by my statement. Jefferson was right.

 

[BeAChooser]

Oh my. Isn't unemployment supposed to drop during the Christmas season?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703989004575652483381208608.html

The U.S. economy added fewer jobs than expected in November and the unemployment rate rose, dashing hopes that the recovery is gaining momentum.

Nonfarm payrolls rose by 39,000 last month as private-sector employers added only 50,000 jobs, the Labor Department said Friday. The jobless rate, obtained from a separate household survey, unexpectedly rose to 9.8%, the highest level since April.

Economists surveyed by Dow Jones Newswires had forecast payrolls would rise by 144,000 and that the unemployment rate would remain unchanged at 9.6%.

… snip …

The November breakdown showed a big job decline in retail trade, a sector where strength was expected heading into the holiday season. The manufacturing sector, which had been the big creator of jobs at the start of the recovery, shed 13,000 jobs, the fourth decline in a row.

How's that stimulus working for you folks, now?

And by the way, it's worse than it looks.

As this article notes:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/po...mployment_jumps_to_98_perce.html?hpid=topnews

The most significant job losses were in manufacturing and construction. Some of the biggest job gains were in health care.

And job gains in the health arena aren't because of providing better health care, but to take care of all the extra paperwork created by Obamacare. In other words, those jobs create NOTHING that America can sell and get the economy moving again. They merely push papers in a industry where costs have increased despite promises those paper pushers would lower costs.

 

[Sceptic-PK]

The Fed is not like a regular bank. In a regular bank, people willingly give the bank real assets (and receive interest for doing it), which that bank then lends to other people to make money. The Fed has no real assets in this case.

Of course the Fed isn't like a regular bank (why would it be?), but of course it has real assets. What do you consider all the member banks to be? Perhaps you should go read their balance sheet to see the breakdown of the Fed's assets? They provide a monthly report after all, which I'm betting you've never read.

To provide these loans ... TO FOREIGN COUNTRIES no less, the Fed merely printed more money and saddled ours and the future generations shoulders with an obligation to give the government real assets in that amount (plus all future interest on that debt).

Lol, what nonsense. Those loans will be repaid by Barclays et al, the cost to taxpayers will be negligible.

And that *loan* was not willingly made by the American people. They weren't even asked.

Yeah, I'm sure Billy Bob really needed to be consulted on the complexities of monetary policy during a global crisis, ROFL. This is how central banks work champ, it's how they're supposed to work, and your criticisms are so far off base it's ridiculous. If you want to argue that the Fed made mistakes, that's fine, but this populist nonsense is beneath you.

And then it was given to mostly FOBs (Friends Of Obama), be they here or abroad. And then the Fed tried to hid the loans.

Lol, yeah, the independent Fed was concerned with propping up friends of Obama, hahahaha. The reason the Fed kept the loans "hidden" was to help maintain confidence in the financial system to prevent further collapses through speculation. Nothing nefarious about that.

Does that clear up your confusion?

Not at all; it has confused me how an ordinarily intelligent person could go around believing/spouting complete bollocks. Either you don't appreciate what a central bank is/how it works or you're deliberately trolling.

How am I to provide proof given that the Fed, etc, control all the information.

Gee, I dunno. How about you read their previous reports concerning loans and market operations during the last 92 years and provide evidence of the Fed being unable to manage the mandate given to it by Congress? Perhaps you should raise your concerns with the GAO?

Wouldn't it be more reasonable to have YOU prove that the loans were repaid using the Fed's paperwork?

No, you are the one that is asserting that these loans haven't been repaid and that the Fed is incapable of managing its own affairs. So provide evidence that the Fed is throwing money away on international loans that are never paid back.

There is a paper trail to do this, isn't there? Or do you just *trust* the Fed. But why would you, given that the Fed already did something they clearly didn't want the American people to know about? That shows a certain degree of dishonesty, wouldn't you say?

Yes, of course there is a paper trail. The minutaie will be released in 5 years after the fact, or 2013 and beyond I suspect.

No, that isn't a "certain degree of dishonestly" (as I pointed out above), and your belief that it is is highly disingenuous. You'll see whatever you want to I suppose.

I don't "trust" the Fed any more than I trust any other government agency. But as a sceptic I certainly wait for evidence before jumping to conclusions, and I think it more likely that the Fed can manage its mandate than not.

I'd say that the quote, even though apparently inaccurate or at least misattributed, does seem to capture the essense of what Jefferson thought about a central bank. And this is confirmed by a quote that even Snopes acknowledged as legitimate. Snopes states:

Right, so you admit you were duped by a bastardisation of Jefferson's words, yes? There's no doubt what Jefferson thought about banking indeed, but that's different from using made up quotes to support your argument.

So … I'll stand by my statement. Jefferson was right.

I'm not sure why you "grin" after saying something stupid. US currency isn't issued by commercial banks, it is issued by the government via its central bank. In the time of Jefferson, banks were issuing their own currency. It's completely different and your inability to appreciate that difference goes to the heart of your conspiratorial mindset regarding the Federal Reserve/central banking generally.

 

[BeAChooser]

Of course the Fed isn't like a regular bank (why would it be?), but of course it has real assets.

What the Fed has is the ability to print money and increase an already gigantic debt. That's the ONLY way it could loan foreign banks/governments and host of FOBs several trillion dollars. If the Fed operated with the requirements levied on ordinary banks for maintaining real assets, it would be shut down tomorrow.

Perhaps you should go read their balance sheet to see the breakdown of the Fed's assets?

You know the assets aren't really real when the Fed can increase them overnight using money it prints out of nothing but paper and ink, and can do so at a whim as it recently did to the tune of trillion or more.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503983_162-4877724-503983.html

The Federal Reserve's remarkable announcement on Wednesday that it would print $1.2 trillion to buy bonds and mortgage-backed securities will yield some short-term benefits, namely lowering rates on mortgages, credit cards, and other loans.

… snip …

But inflation remains a possibility in the not-so-distant future. "The question is at what price?" wrote analysts from Germany's Landesbank Baden-Wurttemberg. "Bottom line is the Fed is adding a trillion dollars to their balance sheet. In the long run, the price for these massive rescue measures might be inflation as once the economy recovers the Fed might be not able to raise interest rates quickly enough."

How do you just create a billion in assets that you can loan out if the assets are in any way real … other than by stealing from Americans living and yet to be born? Hmmmm?

Those loans will be repaid by Barclays et al, the cost to taxpayers will be negligible.

How do you know they have been repaid (as actually claimed by the Fed) given that the Fed (and democrats) have refused to allow the Fed's books to be audited … not even once? http://www.ronpaul.com/legislation/audit-the-federal-reserve-hr-1207/ It sounds like the Fed is hiding something they don't want the American people to know. Hmmmmmm?

And what bank do you know that is never audited? Hmmmmm?

And they clearly tried to hid those trillions in "loans" from the public. So how do you know they aren't hiding the non-repayment of the loans right now? Hmmmmmm?

Yeah, I'm sure Billy Bob really needed to be consulted on the complexities of monetary policy during a global crisis, ROFL.

LOL! yourself. It's "Billy Bob's" money, so why shouldn't he have a say?

This is how central banks work champ, it's how they're supposed to work,

Which doesn't make it right, wise or not a threat to the country's well being. Based on what we've seen the Fed do recently, Jefferson might be right. The Fed has grown too powerful and lacks oversight that healthy organizations require. Look what lack of oversight did with Fannie and Freddie … again something that Fannie and Freddie and democrats opposed when oversight still could have done some good. Have we just substituted a tyranny of kings for a tyranny of the Fed?

Lol, yeah, the independent Fed was concerned with propping up friends of Obama, hahahaha.

Well it certainly does look like many of the receipients of the Fed's generosity were supporters of Obama and democrats. Shall we go down the list one by one? Hmmmmmm?

The reason the Fed kept the loans "hidden" was to help maintain confidence in the financial system to prevent further collapses through speculation.

Have we collapsed as a result of this coming to light? Odd how democrats demand transparency from everyone else ... but the organizations that support them or they control.

Either you don't appreciate what a central bank is/how it works or you're deliberately trolling.

Nah. I'm just wondering why the Fed and democrats don't want the Fed audited.

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
How am I to provide proof given that the Fed, etc, control all the information.

Gee, I dunno. How about you read their previous reports concerning loans and market operations during the last 92 years and provide evidence of the Fed being unable to manage the mandate given to it by Congress?

Have they? Without an audit it's hard to know. But there are some clues that something might be really wrong. For example:

http://www.ronpaul.com/2009-05-08/why-we-need-hr-1207-ron-pauls-bill-to-audit-the-federal-reserve/

Date: 5/5/2009

Alan Grayson: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Inspector Coleman, you’re the Inspector General for the Federal Reserve, right?

Elizabeth A. Coleman: That’s correct.

… snip ...

Alan Grayson: Right, but you’re the Inspector General. My question specifically is do you know who received that $1 trillion-plus that the Fed extended and put on its balance sheet since last September? Do you know the identity of the recipients?

Elizabeth A. Coleman [head of the fed: I do not know.

… snip …

Alan Grayson: So I’m asking you if your agency has in fact, according to Bloomberg, extended $9 trillion in credit, which by the way works out to $30,000 for every single men, women, and child in this country. I’d like to know if you’re not responsible for investigating that, who is?

Elizabeth A. Coleman: We, actually… we have responsibility for the Federal Reserve’s programs and operations, to conduct audits and investigations in that area. In terms of who is responsible for investigating… would you mind repeating the question one more time?

Alan Grayson: What have you done to investigate the off-balance sheet transactions conducted by the Federal Reserve, which according to Bloomberg now total $9 trillion in the last eight months.

Elizabeth A. Coleman: I’ll have to look specifically at that Bloomberg article. I’m not… I don’t know if I have actually seen that particular one.

… snip …

lan Grayson: So are you telling me that nobody at the Federal Reserve is keeping track on a regular basis of the losses that it incurs on what is now a $2 trillion portfolio?

Elizabeth A. Coleman: I don’t know if… you’re telling me that there’s… you’re… missing… that there are losses. I’m just saying that we’re not… until we actually look at the program and have the information, we are not in a position to say whether there are losses or to respond in any other way to that question.

And the plot thickens ...

http://www.stockmarketdigital.com/s...dy-fed-made-9-trillion-overnight-crisis-loans

Fed and financial jeopardy: Fed made $9 trillion in overnight crisis loans!

Dec 2, 2010

A newly released Fed data shows that lenders received emergency ‘overnight’ loans during the worst-ever-seen 2008 financial crisis and foreign banks and firms like Merrill Lynch were one of the top lenders and receivers of trillions from the Fed.

What a coincidence.

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
Wouldn't it be more reasonable to have YOU prove that the loans were repaid using the Fed's paperwork?

No, you are the one that is asserting that these loans haven't been repaid and that the Fed is incapable of managing its own affairs.

Why not just admit you can't provide any proof … and now you want me to prove a negative, when the Fed has it's thumb on all the documentation regarding the loans and won't even allow an independent audit? When even the mere existance of the loans was hidden for years. Seems a little unfair. Tell you what … can you even tell us what interest rate the US got for loaning the money? Hmmmmmmm?

Yes, of course there is a paper trail.

How do you know? Or more important how can you know they didn't cook that paper trail given that they won't even allow an independent audit … not even by another government agency?

I don't "trust" the Fed any more than I trust any other government agency.

Oh please. Your defense of this reeks of trust.

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
I'd say that the quote, even though apparently inaccurate or at least misattributed, does seem to capture the essense of what Jefferson thought about a central bank. And this is confirmed by a quote that even Snopes acknowledged as legitimate. Snopes states:

Right, so you admit you were duped by a bastardisation of Jefferson's words

Not at all. As I proved with other verified quotes, the first "quote" still captured Jefferson's essential beliefs regarding a central bank. Hence it cannot be described as a "bastardisation" since that term refers to the process of corrupting the meaning.

 

[Sceptic-PK]

What the Fed has is the ability to print money and increase an already gigantic debt.

"The debt", that crushing ~$13 trillion load is the responsibility of Congress, not the central bank.

That's the ONLY way it could loan foreign banks/governments and host of FOBs several trillion dollars. If the Fed operated with the requirements levied on ordinary banks for maintaining real assets, it would be shut down tomorrow.

As I already explained, the Fed's assets are many and varied, and they include the value of the stock bought by the member banks that make up the Federal Reserve system.

How do you know they have been repaid (as actually claimed by the Fed) given that the Fed (and democrats) have refused to allow the Fed's books to be audited … not even once? http://www.ronpaul.com/legislation/audit-the-federal-reserve-hr-1207/ It sounds like the Fed is hiding something they don't want the American people to know. Hmmmmmm?

Like I pointed out before, you simply don't understand central banking and how it is supposed to work. Using Ron Paul as a source just proves that fact. Seriously, you're well into the CT Land of Nonsense now.

The Fed is audited regularly by the GAO, and those audits are available online for you to read. The reason that some functions of the Fed are off limits to Congress for 5 years is to ensure the Fed's independence within the government. It has nothing to do with the Fed "hiding" something, and only charlatan's suggest otherwise. Taking Ron Paul's BS at face value without doing your due diligence makes you look a little silly.

And what bank do you know that is never audited? Hmmmmm?

As above. Learn something about the system you're criticising.

And they clearly tried to hid those trillions in "loans" from the public. So how do you know they aren't hiding the non-repayment of the loans right now? Hmmmmmm?

I know because that's not how the Fed works and it would be ludicrous for it to behave in such a manner. Feel free to bump this thread in ~3 years time (when all such details are published) and prove me wrong. Until then, I'll take the Fed's history of trustworthy activities over the fear-mongering of someone who doesn't understand central banking.

LOL! yourself. It's "Billy Bob's" money, so why shouldn't he have a say?

Because Billy Bob, like you, wouldn't know which way was up. A central bank is supposed to remain independant to ensure it can carry out monetary policy in the best interest of the economy, not the interests of the halls of power or what the common ignoramus on the street thinks is best.

Which doesn't make it right, wise or not a threat to the country's well being. Based on what we've seen the Fed do recently, Jefferson might be right. The Fed has grown too powerful and lacks oversight that healthy organizations require. Look what lack of oversight did with Fannie and Freddie … again something that Fannie and Freddie and democrats opposed when oversight still could have done some good. Have we just substituted a tyranny of kings for a tyranny of the Fed?

The Fed saved the US (and the world's) economy, maybe you missed that. The Fed doesn't lack oversight and allegations to the contrary are demonstrably wrong. Go read a GAO audit.

Well it certainly does look like many of the receipients of the Fed's generosity were supporters of Obama and democrats. Shall we go down the list one by one? Hmmmmmm?

Why does the Fed care about Obama? The Fed is independent. The Fed's activities also started before Obama had even won office. What's your point? That big business donate to presidential candidates? You don't say!

Have we collapsed as a result of this coming to light?

What, you mean 2 years after the worst of the crisis? You find this surprising? Who knows what could have happened if this information had become public knowledge. Businesses like Lehman went under in part to lack of confidence. Do the math.

Odd how democrats demand transparency from everyone else ... but the organizations that support them or they control.

It is telling that you label everything/everyone you disagree with as "democrat". I'm not even American champ, and you should be ashamed a foreigner knows more about your banking system than you do.

Nah. I'm just wondering why the Fed and democrats don't want the Fed audited.

Go learn about central banking then. There are numerous articles floating around on why HR 1207 should have been voted down.

Have they? Without an audit it's hard to know. But there are some clues that something might be really wrong. For example:

http://www.ronpaul.com/2009-05-08/why-we-need-hr-1207-ron-pauls-bill-to-audit-the-federal-reserve/

LOL, Ron Paul again aye? As I have explained already (and for some reason you don't know this) the actions of the Fed not audited by the GAO are available for scrutiny 5 years after the fact. So, go knock yourself out, find me some damning evidence of the Fed up to no good.

The reason Elizabeth Coleman didn't answer the question is because she didn't know the answer. If you infer from this that nobody at the Fed knows the answer, or that an answer didn't exist somewhere in the Fed's record, then you are seriously deluded. Far better for her to admit she didn't know than give an incorrect response. You could argue that she should have been better prepared sure, but that's about all. You're grasping at straws.

And the plot thickens ...

http://www.stockmarketdigital.com/s...dy-fed-made-9-trillion-overnight-crisis-loans

What a coincidence.

What is your point exactly? Everyone knows the Fed was lending money. We knew that at the time. Its mandate is lender of last resort for crying out loud.

Why not just admit you can't provide any proof

You're right, I can't until the 5 year limit has expired. I only have a 97 year history of the Federal Reserve NOT doing anything remotely similar, which is good enough for me. Certainly better than the illogical assertions from somebody who takes Ron Paul as a serious source regarding central banking.

… and now you want me to prove a negative, when the Fed has it's thumb on all the documentation regarding the loans and won't even allow an independent audit?

It's not proving a negative at all. Banks have balance sheets, proving that a loan they made isn't being repaid is nothing like proving a negative, LOL. You can go through the financial details in 3 years time. I look forward to you being horribly wrong at this time.

When even the mere existance of the loans was hidden for years. Seems a little unfair. Tell you what … can you even tell us what interest rate the US got for loaning the money? Hmmmmmmm?

Nope, and I don't care. I don't consider myself to be in a position to second-guess the economists making monetary policy decisions. You definitely shouldn't be, LOL.

How do you know? Or more important how can you know they didn't cook that paper trail given that they won't even allow an independent audit … not even by another government agency?

How do I know aliens aren't cooking the books at the central bank? Your insinuations are ridiculous. No bank could function by behaving in the manner you're alleging. I have 97 years of central banking history that tells me they're not cooking the books. What do you have? Conjecture and fallacious reasoning.

Oh please. Your defense of this reeks of trust.

My defense reeks of fatigue from debating conspiracy theorist numpties who don't understand central banking. Virtually nothing you've said has been accurate, and the parts that are accurate are ruined by the woeful inferences you make from them.

Not at all. As I proved with other verified quotes, the first "quote" still captured Jefferson's essential beliefs regarding a central bank. Hence it cannot be described as a "bastardisation" since that term refers to the process of corrupting the meaning.

Quotes, by their very definition, should be verbatim. Not a hodge-podge of rough approximations of what a person kind've thought.

I don't agree with your posts very often, but I normally appreciate the view from the other side, but on this subject you're off in fairy land, barely a notch above the 911 nutjobs (who will all tell you that the Fed has never been audited, LOL).

 

[Sceptic-PK]

Might I add, that the US and its citizens are shouldering much of the burden regarding the economic crisis because they were ever so slightly responsible for it. So, even if you are right that these extreme measures have created a legacy of pain for future US generations, I would refer you to the planet's Tough Titties amendments and clauses!

 

[BeAChooser]

The Fed is audited regularly by the GAO, and those audits are available online for you to read. … snip … Taking Ron Paul's BS at face value without doing your due diligence makes you look a little silly.

There are many exclusions to that auditing ability: http://www.gao.gov/products/T-GGD-94-44 . For example, the GAO is not allowed to perform audits of Fed transactions with foreign central banks or governments. Exactly the sort of transaction that occurred here.

So you think Ron Paul's concern is just CT? Yet Ron Paul's legislation calling for a full audit of the Fed had 320 House co-sponsors. It only failed in July of this year when 114 of them, all democrats, ended up voting against the bill. The Senate version failed in May mostly along party lines too. What is it democrats fear we might learn?

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
It's "Billy Bob's" money, so why shouldn't he have a say?

Because Billy Bob, like you, wouldn't know which way was up.

Oh I understand. The average American Joe (the folks who pay the taxes) are just stupid and therefore it's all right to steal their money and use it like only you *intelligent* people know how to do. Seems I've been hearing that sentiment from a lot of democrats lately on a lot of subjects … be it health care, stimulus, the environment, TSA actions or taxes. Seems to me that's the same sort of mentality that drove the thinking of the very tyrants this country was formed to escape and which it has fought wars with repeatedly throughout it's history.

The Fed saved the US (and the world's) economy, maybe you missed that.

How can you be certain? You don't have crystal ball that would allow you to see how things might have turned out had the government and Fed stayed out of most that they interfered with. I think the original crisis was way overblown. And I think the reason we are still in crisis with employment nearing 10%, rather than well on the road to recovery and even greater prosperity, is that continued interference. That's the theme of this entire thread. The Stimulus was a bust. It's only made matters worse. And the Fed secretly loaning money to foreign governments and FOBs is symptomatic of that problem.

Why does the Fed care about Obama? The Fed is independent.

Like I said, would you like to go down the list of the folks who got these loans and see what percentage are intimately connected to Obama and the democratic party or the liberal agenda? Shall we start with Goldman Sachs?

I'm not even American champ

Then I'm curious about your interest in this? What country you are from? The UK?

The reason Elizabeth Coleman didn't answer the question is because she didn't know the answer.

Wow! So the Fed loans out $9 TRILLION dollars and the person they put before Congress to answer questions doesn't know to whom they loaned the money. Now why doesn't that give me confidence in the Fed and it's willingness to be honest with the Congress and American people?

If you infer from this that nobody at the Fed knows the answer, or that an answer didn't exist somewhere in the Fed's record, then you are seriously deluded.

Of course, I never said any such thing. I simply asked if you could show us where the answer is … tell us how much interest the US got for it's loans. One would think you'd know that, knowing so much about our central bank and it's dealings.

Its mandate is lender of last resort

Yes, for things that cannot be allowed to fail.

I only have a 97 year history of the Federal Reserve NOT doing anything remotely similar, which is good enough for me.

How can you be sure, since transactions with foreign banks and governments are not even allowed to be audited?

Certainly better than the illogical assertions from somebody who takes Ron Paul as a serious source regarding central banking.

Were it only me complaining, you might have a point. But many people are now suspicious. Like all those who co-sponsored Ron Paul's bill. Like Robert Auerbach, an economist with the House of Representatives Financial Services Committee for eleven years who assisted with oversight of the Federal Reserve. He even wrote a book on the subject: "Deception and Abuse at the Fed: Henry B. Gonzalez Battles Alan Greenspan's Bank". One would think someone like him would be worth listening to, wouldn't you?

It's not proving a negative at all. Banks have balance sheets, proving that a loan they made isn't being repaid is nothing like proving a negative, LOL.

Except you admit the balance sheets won't be available for YEARS? So yes, you are asking me to prove a negative when the Fed is keeping the information secret. And that information may never be available on some of these loans since the GAO can't audit foreign transactions. The Fed gets to keep them secret.

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
Tell you what … can you even tell us what interest rate the US got for loaning the money? Hmmmmmmm?

Nope, and I don't care.

Ah, now we get to the crux of the matter. You Don't Care.

I don't consider myself to be in a position to second-guess the economists making monetary policy decisions.

I see. You consider yourself one of *us* too-stupid-to-really-understand Billy Bob's.

How do I know aliens aren't cooking the books at the central bank? Your insinuations are ridiculous.

What is ridiculous about asking where $9 TRILLION dollars in loans went and under what sort of agreements? I wonder if you show the same lack of interest with what your bank does with your money?

No bank could function by behaving in the manner you're alleging.

Except the Fed isn't a regular bank. It gets all sorts of special privileges and powers.

I have 97 years of central banking history that tells me they're not cooking the books.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article25203.htm

Is the Fed Helping the Big Banks to Cook the Books?

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=a70JZmfcakF0&

Fed's Bear Stearns Books Look Prime for Cooking: Jonathan Weil

Quotes, by their very definition, should be verbatim.

Of course they should. So let's just say what was first "quoted" was instead a close paraphrase of what Jefferson thought.

on this subject you're off in fairy land, barely a notch above the 911 nutjobs

But at least I'm in the same room with Jefferson concerning distrust of the Fed. YOU, one the other hand, just trust … and don't care.

 

[BeAChooser]

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/555733/201012031900/Keynesianism-RIP.htm

The Labor Department report confirms not only a jobless recovery, but the failure of Obama's neo-Keynesian economic policies. It's time to give them up, and gracefully negotiate with Republicans over more effective alternatives.

The president's stubborn pride is prolonging the agony of 15 million Americans still out of work (not including discouraged workers who no longer show up in the numbers).

… snip …

The White House tried to put a happy face on the report, noting it showed private-sector gains for the 11th straight month. Only, the 50,000 gain in private jobs was down sharply from the 160,000 created in October and was the smallest gain since January. It was even smaller than November 2009's 75,000 gain.

… snip …

Obama's answer is more social spending and gerrymandered tax credits, combined with a tax-rate hike on many small businesses — the very jobs engine still stuck in his famous "ditch."

… snip …

An unrepentant Obama insists the lopsided election was a referendum on the economy and not a repudiation of his policies. He says voters were "not thinking clearly" when they voted for change.

Who's not thinking clearly, Mr. President?

I imagine it's hard to think clearly when you are Stuck On Stupid.

 

[Sceptic-PK]

Edited by jhunter1163: 

Edited for civility.

Be sure to start a thread in a few years when all the Fed's fraudulent transactions come to light and have the evidence to back up your wild claims. I feel sorry for partisan hacks

 

[BeAChooser]

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-brief...my-collapse-and-been-in-majority-for-40-years

Retiring Rep. Brian Baird (D-Wash.) said that Democrats wisely passed the 2008 financial rescue bill, but it cost them politically.

… snip …

“We could have said, 'The economy is going to collapse. The world is going to go into a depression. You’re going to get the blame and your party is going to get the blame because you’re in power and we are going to ride this into the majority for the next 40 years.' That is what the Democrats could have done.”

Yep. Still Stuck On Stupid.

 

[BeAChooser]

Here's a Dec 3, 2010 interview with former OMB Director David Stockman (starting at 2:40 in the video):

http://www.cnbc.com/id/15840232?video=1680963951&play=1

Things don't look got folks.

Here's a few excerpts:

"When we look below the surface, the job outlook really, and the trend that we've been in, is a lot worse than people think."

"I think there are four basic buckets we can look at in the 130 million jobs in the economy. And the first is the heart of it. It's the middle class economy. That's about 54 million jobs. That's everything you might think of as breadwinner jobs: construction, manufacturing, finance, insurance, real estate, media and information. … snip … The problem in this sector, its the core … if we are going to have recovery it has to happen here … we lost 7 million jobs in the two year downturn fo the Great Recession. … snip … Now we are in what I call the 'New Normal', I don't really think it's a recovery. Since December, the bottom last year, we've gained back only … snip … 130,000 jobs and only 3000 this month. So at the rate that we are recovering jobs in the core of the economy … snip … , it would take us about 500 months."

"The second sector of the economy … snip … is core government … snip … that's federal, state and local government and everything except education … snip … That's been the evergreen growth for the last 50 years. There's about 11 million jobs there and guess what is happening? Last month we lost jobs in core government. Over the last year we've lost 100,000 jobs. So there for, for the first time in history, the government sector, which has the highest paying jobs in the economy … snip … is shrinking. The reason it's shrinking, obviously, is that governments are broke. You know what California is doing, Illinois is doing, New Jersey is doing, and the federal government is close behind."

"Now, if you take core government, plus the middle class economy, … snip … that's the breadwinning economy … how many jobs in November in the two together? … snip … ZERO. How many jobs since last December, the first 11 months of this bounce back? NET ZERO. How many jobs since the bottom of the recession dated in June 2009? We're still a million behind where we were last June when the recession ended."

And to the question "Can the economy grow without employment growth?", he answered:

"I can't imagine how it can because employment growth generates income growth which is the basis for spending and saving ultimately and we are not getting income growth out of lack of jobs in what I call this middle class economy. … snip … If we look at the other part of the economy, what I call the part time economy, this is restaurants and bars and retail stores and service jobs, shoe repair and so forth, that's where two-thirds of the job pickup since last December has occurred. … snip … but the average wage in that sector, there is 35 million jobs in that sector, is $20,000 a year. That isn't a breadwinning job, you can't support a family on that, you are not going to save on that. … snip … Those jobs will not generate income that will become self-feeding into spending."

Now can it be any clearer than that, folks? The stimulus UTTERLY FAILED. Anyone still saying it worked is Stuck On Stupid.

 

[BeAChooser]

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/12/net_job_impact_of_stimulus_zer.html

December 05, 2010

… snip …

A study by Daniel J. Wilson of the San Francisco Federal Reserve Bank, suggests that the net job creation from the $814 billion stimulus bill passed in February, 2009, was zero by August 2010. In the first year, the stimulus "saved or created" 2 million jobs (not 4 million as repeatedly claimed by the Administration), but this number proved to be short lived, paying for temporary jobs, at a very high cost of $400,000 per job "saved or created."

So nearly a trillion dollars was wasted by Obama and the democrats.

And, by the way, the real cost of the stimulus isn't $814 billion but …

http://blog.heritage.org/2009/02/12/true-cost-of-stimulus-327-trillion/ "True Cost of Stimulus: $3.27 Trillion"

And that's over just the next 10 years. That makes me ...



Democrats should lose control of all three branches for the next 10 years as punishment. That would make me ...

 

[BeAChooser]

The stimulus at work ...

 

[Sceptic-PK]

Nope.