Many on DU hoping for economic collapse

[bbinacan]

I'm sick and fucking tired of many here that seem to want an economic collapse. Why the loathsome attitude toward the Federal Reserve Bank. Do you even know why it was created? It was created, in part, to provide liquidity to banks to avoid runs on the banks. An Adam Smith attitude would say, you guys fouled up, and you may go out of business. My common sense tells me that there must be equilibrium in the liquidity of the banking system to maintain confidence with the depositor.

NO FED = BANK RUNS.

Get a clue folks.


:mad:

[thunder rising]

1. THIS SYSTEM MUST COLLAPSE. IT'S AN INSTITUTION OF CRONIES

[Zynx]

2. You think that won't hurt you?

[WHEN CRABS ROAR]

7. If it does collapse, you will probably be first to complain that your

ATM card won't work.

[reggie the dog]

90. that would imply

that we actually had any money to take out.......

[bbinacan]

12. Now there's an intelligent reply.

:eyes:

[asthmaticeog]

49. If it collapses, WE starve to death, not them.

[martymar64]

137. If it collapses, WE THE PEOPLE will finally wake up

and man, will they be pissed. Maybe mad enough to start taking up arms and bringing some long overdue justice to the fats cats that have brought us to this point. It might end up like Russia in 1918 or France in 1789. It wouldn't hurt me a bit to see a few CEOs strung up like Mussolini or on the block like Charles the First or Louis the Sixteenth or full of bullets like the Czar.
Sometimes it takes thing like total economic collapse to shake people out of their complacency and their complicity. It's not a matter of wanting it, it's already happening and nobody, not Hillary, not Barack, can stop it.

[mondo joe]

159. What happened to the ordinary people in those uprisings? Ever heard of The Great Terror?

Lame.

[citizen snips]

162. Do you mean The Great Purge?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Purge#_note-Social_Catastrophe

[mondo joe]

164. No, I meant the Reign of Terror

Also known as The Terror, and in part The Great Terror

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reign_of_Terror

The Reign of Terror (5 September 1793 – 28 July 1794) or simply The Terror (French: la Terreur) was a period of about 11 months during the French Revolution when struggles between rival factions led to mutual radicalization which took on a violent character with mass executions of enemies of the revolution.

The Reign of Terror itself started on 5 September 1793. The repression accelerated in June and July 1794, a period called la Grande Terreur (The Great Terror), which ended the coup of 9 Thermidor Year II (27 July 1794), in which several key leaders of the Reign of Terror were themselves executed, including Saint-Just and Robespierre. The Terror took the lives of between 18,500 to 40,000 people (estimates vary widely, due to the difference between historical records and statistical estimates). In the single month before it ended, 1,900 executions took place.

[citizen snips]

165. both are good examples

[martymar64]

215. I'm fully aware of the Great Terror.

In that case the revolution started eating it's own, which was bad in it self and ended with Napoleon. Hopefully it won't get to that point. It's didn't happen like that here in our revolution and might not happen in our second upcoming revolution.
As far as hoping for it, no I don't hope it gets that crazy. But it's not something I have any say in. The powers that be could've prevented what's coming down the pike, but they were and are stupid to think that they can keep heaping shit on the heads of the people without any repercussions. So now, they are going to have to deal with the consequences of their arrogance, and it won't be pretty.
What is your solution, that we let all of those criminals that have screwed people over for decades get off scot-free? Sorry, Bill Clinton did that in 1992 with the criminals in the White House (Iran/Contra, etc) and look at where it got us now.
The wheels of justice grind slow but they grind fine.

[PerfectSage]

230. Too bad the pentagon isn't capable of producing a dictator/military genius like Napoleon

only a dictator/military cluster#### like Il Duce.

Well looking at the Carlyle Group taking a $16 bill hit on their CMO's in a year, the wheels of justice are speeding up.

Dubya's inheritance is melting. I pray GHWB is another Prescott who got wiped in 29.

[Speck Tater]

3. No need to "hope" for something that is inevitable.

It's already happening. All we can do is watch in horror as the Bush economic legacy unfolds before our very eyes.

The good news is that it will be a generation before the public ever trusts another Republican.

[Brigid]

38. You hope.

So do I. But let's not forget that the Bush regime, through cheating, lying, and playing the fear card, has managed to get its two terms.

[nadinbrzezinski]

188. Steal two terms

lets get the terms right

[RFK_Democrat]

4. Your daily reminder that banks are people too.

Oh wait...well I think you may be correct in theory, but the problem with the Fed is that it has no oversight and is part of the problem concerning the complete destruction of the dollar.

[bbinacan]

11. Well , the FED

could raise rates and strengthen the dollar. Contracting the money supply like this is what extended the Great Depression. Bright idea.:eyes:

[RFK_Democrat]

24. And World War Two got out of the depression. Maybe McCain is right!

Let's bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran!

[bbinacan]

29. You're partly right

the rest of what I said was supported by Galbraith. Do you even know who he is?

[lonestarnot]

59. Did you forget the sarcasm emoticon?

[bbinacan]

104. No. n/t

[timtom]

206. WWII worked because

America believed in a common enemy who they thought attacked us. It was an all-out mobilization and change in lifestyle. Rosie the Riveter. Boys going off to fight in what they believed was a just war. Their hearts were in it.

It was the last of its kind.



(Except for Grenada, of course...)

[TomClash]

5. More accurately

No Fed = No banks

The JPM fire sale purchase is what should happen. The BS shareholders and management bear the brunt of the loss.

[bbinacan]

21. I agree. n/t

[LakeSamish706]

6. Well I certainly don't want a collapse, but I can see one coming with this bunch...

of dick wads that have been in control for the last 7 1/2 years. This has been coming for some time and if you start to look at the facts it is bound to happen.... I was just talking to a friend today that was talking about the real estate price in Palm Springs... A couple years ago they were checking prices in a certain area on condo's and the price was $300,000.00 plus and today they can buy the same condo for $159,000.00... The economy is screwed and that is just a fact...

[enid602]

9. yes

I would agree with you; THEY deserve an economic failure, but we don't.

[Hannah Bell]

56. But that's how they recover from their mistakes!

By socializing the losses & expropriating from the "little people" doncha know.

[El Pinko]

160. And inflating away massive corporate debt by debasing the dollar...

...which we "little people" pay for in the form of soaring prices at the pump and supermarket.

If people realized how much the pump & grocery prices were due to fed intervention & not OPEC, they would be furious, but the media does their best to obscure that connection...

[bbinacan]

17. 300k vs. 159k

That my friend is called supply and demand. One gets to a point that the supply is not worth the cost and demand goes down.

[LakeSamish706]

28. Yes it is, but that still comes under the collapse scenario IMO. n/t

[bbinacan]

31. It's also called a correction

to an excessive market run up. Remember the dot com boom and bust?

[defendandprotect]

189. No one is looking for a collapse . . . however, we are looking to STOP the stealing of taxpayer

money thru FED draining our Treasury and printing money freely ---

[juajen]

8. Not I. That's the last thing any of us should want.

NT

[Yael]

10. The Fed is more than that

It is also privately held and works in the best interest of the owners -- which are NOT the US Taxpayers.

[bbinacan]

13. It's not totally privately held

Read up. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_reserve

[SDuderstadt]

19. The Federal Reserve is NOT "privately held"

What a bunch of malarkey. Do you even know how the Federal Reserve works? It is an independent Federal agency and is not "owned" by anyone. You're confusing the Federal Reserve with the member banks which are privately owned. I think you need to fully educate yourself before you make such absolutely silly claims.

http://money.howstuffworks.com/fed.htm

[Trillo]

72. Nice little bit of projection there...

Most of us do not know how the Federal Reserve works. In Econ 101 I did an oral presentation on the Fed, and most of it was BS because the community college's library had no substantial information on it, in spite of giving economics classes at the school.

We citizens cannot be responsible for the censorship of our educational system.

[SDuderstadt]

77. Excuse me, but are you claiming the educational system...

is censoring information about the Federal Reserve? I went to a state university and studied the Federal Reserve in both my economics and comparative political systems classes.

[Trillo]

78. Maybe so, but it would have helped if you could have learned to read.

Then, it wouldn't have been a question for you as to what I wrote.

Not sure what that says about your "state university" education. Perhaps you could request your money back?

[SDuderstadt]

79. Ummm, your writing is, to say it charitably, unclear...

My point about the "state university" is that I went to a public college and we had plenty of resources (also accurate) about the Federal Reserve. Your claim about censorship appears, at the very least, to be unsupported. Your snideness is also unappealing.

[Trillo]

81. Your lack of honesty is unappealing,

Your claim about plenty of resources in your college is also unsupported. It's so sad that because of people who act as you do, that college graduates are considered to lack honesty, generally.

My snideness is simply a mirror of your own attitude, which is clear to me. It's necessary for people on this board to know what your alias stands for, since honesty is a quality you lack.

[SDuderstadt]

82. WTF?

My lack of honesty? My claim about plenty of resources in my college is "unsupported"? What do you want me to do? Scan pages from my undergraduate texts? WTF are you talking about? Are you claiming the Federal Reserve is kept hidden from the public? WTF are you talking about?

"College graduates are considered to lack honesty"? Says who? If you have evidence of any dishonesty from me, please provide it. And exactly what is my "alias"? My screenname is my first initial and last name. I don't think that qualifies as an "alias". There is plenty of information readily available about the Federal Reserve. Start with the Federal Reserve Act. You also might learn that, by Federal law, the Federal Reserve returns the vast majority of its "earnings" to the Federal treasury. If you believe there's something nefarious about that, I'd love to hear it.

[Trillo]

83. Touchy, touchy,

Funny how false outrage manifests, eh? I won't reply to you further, it's not worth the gray hairs.

This has not yet been debunked invalidated: Money as Debt, and Money as Debt.

Have at it.

[SDuderstadt]

84. I should have known...

Paul Grignon. I love your claim that "this has not been debunked yet". Do you think that makes it true? The burden of proof is on the maker of the claim. Do you honestly think because you've watched a YouTube video that makes you some sort of expert on monetary and economic policy? Not even three minutes into the film, Grignon makes a serious factual error. Paper money is not printed by the Mint. It's printed by the Bureau of Printing and Engraving. How do you expect to learn something of value from someone who doesn't even know the distinct function of the Mint vs. the Bureau of Printing and Engraving?

Paul Grignon is an artist. Do you think that makes HIM some sort of expert on economic and monetary policy? Did you submit ANY of his claims to any sort of verification or did you just swallow them whole? What he demonstrates is a lack of understanding about how basic economic systems work. Does this mean that banks and banking systems are totally above reproach or undeserving of scrutiny? Hell, no. But you'll need someone with more credentials and subject knowledge to convince someone who understands these things.

[Name removed]

117. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Trillo]

121. Thank you!

The projection comment of mine was in regards to his or her phrase "What a bunch of malarkey". Wikipedia has a CITED link that states the Federal Reserve is part private, part public. His or her claim was that it was "not private".

It cannot be both "not private" and "part private". It is logistically impossible.

You may think my statement was "idiotic", but it was my experience of the community college's library back in the 80s. They also had a censored copy of Scientific American, that I could probably cite the precise issue because I remember what article I was looking for. So to claim my educational experiences absurd, is just simple invalidation.

If one looks at where this country has gone for many years now, and thinks of the FACT that everything is run by frat boys and girls partying hardy and living in mansions, while preying on working people to pay for their hangovers, then it begins to make sense why everything is falling apart. Our country is run by dishonest people, our businesses are run by dishonest people, and the rest of us get the financial shaft. That's why when citizens fail, we go bankrupt, when private institutions fail, well, they can't fail, our "leaders" bail them out by printing more money, another type of tax, so once again, the frat boys and girls cannot fail, they only want the rest of us to fail.

But, yes, go ahead, slay the messenger. Ruiner. I'll take Douchebag as a compliment, I honed my skills here on DU against many similar "invalidators", likely professional ones.

"Written history is at least six thousand years old." {snip} "Hence the state . . . used and forged many instruments of indoctrination--the family, the church, the school--to build in the soul of the citizen a habit of patriotic loyalty and pride." --Will Durant

Oh, by the way, the OP's formula is also idiotic. We're apparently having "bank runs" right now. The Countrywide affair has been called one. I'm sure that there are a number of them that have been kept out of MSM. Weren't there a big one back in the 80s?

So, the formula "NO FED = BANK RUNS" is a non-sequitor. BANK RUNS seem to be a fact of life with or without a Federal Reserve. This is because 'FED = BANK RUNS'.

[SDuderstadt]

131. Boy, you really got me this time, didn't you...

or, did you? If you'd bother to read what I wrote more carefully, you'd realize that you're having an argument with yourself. What I said was, the Federal Reserve is not "privately held". And it isn't. In typical keyboard commando style, you read part of what I wrote, then went off in a quest to prove me wrong, never realizing that your grasp of nuance is sadly lacking.

What exactly does Wikipedia say about the Federal Reserve? "Created in 1913 by the enactment of the Federal Reserve Act, it is a quasi-public (part private, part government) banking system<1> composed of (1) the presidentially-appointed Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System in Washington, D.C.; (2) the Federal Open Market Committee; (3) 12 regional Federal Reserve Banks located in major cities throughout the nation acting as fiscal agents for the U.S. Treasury, each with its own nine-member board of directors; (4) numerous private U.S. member banks, which subscribe to required amounts of non-transferable stock in their regional Federal Reserve Banks; and (5) various advisory councils."

The wording in Wikipedia is a little imprecise, so it's easy to understand how one can come away with the wrong impression, UNLESS one knows how to properly conduct research. If you'd bother to read the ENTIRE Wikipedia entry, you'd find it goes on to say the following:

"'The Federal Reserve System is not "owned" by anyone and is not a private, profit-making institution. Instead, it is an independent entity within the government, having both public purposes and private aspects.

As the nation's central bank, the Federal Reserve derives its authority from the U.S. Congress. It is considered an independent central bank because its decisions do not have to be ratified by the President or anyone else in the executive or legislative branch of government, it does not receive funding appropriated by Congress, and the terms of the members of the Board of Governors span multiple presidential and congressional terms. However, the Federal Reserve is subject to oversight by Congress, which periodically reviews its activities and can alter its responsibilities by statute. Also, the Federal Reserve must work within the framework of the overall objectives of economic and financial policy established by the government. Therefore, the Federal Reserve can be more accurately described as "independent within the government."

The twelve regional Federal Reserve Banks, which were established by Congress as the operating arms of the nation's central banking system, are organized much like private corporations--possibly leading to some confusion about "ownership." For example, the Reserve Banks issue shares of stock to member banks. However, owning Reserve Bank stock is quite different from owning stock in a private company. The Reserve Banks are not operated for profit, and ownership of a certain amount of stock is, by law, a condition of membership in the System. The stock may not be sold, traded, or pledged as security for a loan; dividends are, by law, 6 percent per year.'

I can't speak for you, but that's pretty clear to me and establishes EXACTLY what I said in my previous post (you know, the one you "disproved"): the Federal Reserve is NOT privately held. Just because it has public purposes and private aspects does not make it privately held in any sense of the word. So, we probably ought to enunciate some "lessons learned" for you. I'll try to be polite.

1. If you're going to quote me, please quote me correctly. I challenge you to find any post from me remotely like what you described thusly: "His or her claim was that it was 'not private'". I said nothing of the sort. Do you honestly claim that since the Federal Reserve has private aspects, it is privately held? Do you even understand the distinction being made here?

2. "So to claim my educational experiences absurd, is just simple invalidation".

WTF are you trying to say here? Did you mean to say it was an attempt at "simple invalidation" or did it succeed? I don't recall anyone saying or claiming your educational experiences were absurd. For my part, I merely pointed out that your experiences were far from universal. You seem to be trying to blame the educational system for your own failure to grasp complex subjects.

3. "If one looks at where this country has gone for many years now, and thinks of the FACT that everything is run by frat boys and girls partying hardy and living in mansions, while preying on working people to pay for their hangovers, then it begins to make sense why everything is falling apart".

Feeling a little hyperbolic today? EVERYTHING is run by frat boys and girls? Do you need a list of business leaders/owners who were never in a fraternity or sorority? What a silly claim and hardly a "FACT", as you assert. BTW, you mean partying "hearty", not partying "hardy". I grew up largely before "party" became more well-known as a verb and even I know the difference between "hearty" and "hardy".

4. "Our country is run by dishonest people, our businesses are run by dishonest people, and the rest of us get the financial shaft".

So, no businesses are run by honest people? Really. I run the analysis division of a business consulting firm that helps small and medium-sized businesses, which means I work with a great deal of family-owned businesses. Maybe I should start busting their chops for being "dishonest". Of course, my personal experience has been that they are not only honest, but mostly want the best for their employees and customers. Your claim is absurd.

5. "That's why when citizens fail, we go bankrupt, when private institutions fail, well, they can't fail, our "leaders" bail them out by printing more money, another type of tax, so once again, the frat boys and girls cannot fail, they only want the rest of us to fail".

So, no business ever fails because they are all bailed out by the government? Do I really have to debunk this? Do you realize what an absurd over-generalization this is? Would you like a list of failed businesses that refutes your absurd claim? Here's a partial list:

TWA
Pan-American Airways
Braniff International Airways
Regent Air
Texas Air
Western Pacific Airways

And, when the government "bails out a business", they do it by "printing more money"? Do you have any evidence of this at all? Or, is this another one of your suppositions? Do you even know how the Federal Reserve and our monetary system work? Your silly assertions belie an utter lack of understanding of this area. And, when the Federal Reserve "creates money", how exactly is that "another type of tax"? Honestly, you're sounding like you've been reading JBS literature exclusively.

6. "I'll take Douchebag as a compliment, I honed my skills here on DU against many similar "invalidators", likely professional ones".

Could you explain to me exactly what a professional "invalidator" is? Is there someplace I could apply? How's the pay? Do you honestly think that anyone worries about your yammering (as well as that of others) so much that they would pay people to rebut you on a message board?

7. "Oh, by the way, the OP's formula is also idiotic. We're apparently having "bank runs" right now. The Countrywide affair has been called one. I'm sure that there are a number of them that have been kept out of MSM. Weren't there a big one back in the 80s?

So, the formula "NO FED = BANK RUNS" is a non-sequitor. BANK RUNS seem to be a fact of life with or without a Federal Reserve. This is because 'FED = BANK RUNS'".

This is your most absurd claim yet. How was the Countrywide "affair" a "bank run"? Could you please explain that one? Do you even know what a "bank run" is? You claim that you are sure that a "number of them that have been kept out of MSM". Really. Well, since you're since a crack researcher, why don't you name a couple? Please be specific.

"Weren't there a big one back in the 80s?". Do you have a problem with subject/verb agreement? Let's let your embarrassing lack of grammatical skills go for a moment, though. If there was one "back in the 80's", surely you would remember the name, wouldn't you? Why don't you tell us what it is, or is this just you blowing smoke?

BTW, it's "non-sequitur", not "non-sequitor". If you're going to pretend to have some mastery of Logic, learn how to spell the terms properly. As far as your claim that "Fed = Bank runs", please provide some proof of this. Again, your claims show your absolute lack of knowledge of how some of our most critical and fundamental institutions actually operate. And, please, don't respond with some idiotic YouTube video supposed to educate me as to how Paul Grignon or any other know-nothing thinks our monetary system works.

Finally, an appeal. Would you consider rounding up some (or all) of your like-minded friends and inhabiting some non-progressive website instead? Liberalism is finally in ascendancy and, frankly, posters like you are a huge embarrassment to the progressive movement. I honestly did not think I would start encountering such absurd RW nonsense about the Federal Reserve here.

[Hannah Bell]

231. Here's a partial list:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C06EFD6143DF937A35753C1A962958260

pan-am pension bailout


"Although American Airlines accepted millions of dollars in federal bail out monies on TWA's behalf"

http://aviation.beloblog.com/archives/2007/07/extwa_flight_attendants_try_a_1.html

twa bailout

[SDuderstadt]

243. The PBGC bailout of Pan-Am's pension plan was...

not a bailout of Pan-Am. Again, I don't know what you're trying to get at here. Similarly, for the life of me, I don't know what you think linking to a letter from an ex-TWA supposedly proves about TWA. Frankly, I don't know what the letter writer is claiming and, candidly, I don't think she does either. If you're going to claim that the U.S. government bailed out TWA or assisted AA in doing so, you'll need something more convincing.

[Hannah Bell]

259. They took their employees' money - deferred wages & investments.

and "lost" it. It's a bailout: they were responsible, the taxpayers got the bill.

There are many links on the TWA thing - AA got the bAilout money when they took them over.

[SDuderstadt]

260. If there were "many links on the TWA thing"...

then provide one.

[Hannah Bell]

264. sure

AA acquired near-bankrupt TWA early 2001.

After 911, AA & other airlines received gov't bailout $:

"Congress, meanwhile, has handed the airlines $15 billion in taxpayer money: $5 billion in direct grants and $10 billion in loan guarantees. At the depressed prices of airline stocks, the government could have easily bought a controlling interest in the entire industry for $15 billion. In another place or another time, the airlines might have been nationalized under management by airline workers. But this is far from the reality in Washington, D.C., today."

"So far, over 300 airlines have collected nearly $4 billion in bailout money. The lion's share has gone to industry giants United, American, and Delta. Also, on March 9, Congress passed a new tax break for the airlines. Airlines are now allowed to claim losses from 2001 and 2002 on their taxes over the last five years, a change that could mean $2 billion in cash for the companies."

http://www.dollarsandsense.org/archives/2002/0502ward.html

According to TWA & other airline personnel, promises were made to former/laid off workers at the time of the bailouts. I tend to believe them.


AA Executive Bonuses Driven By Taxpayer Dollars

May 1, 2007

St. Louis - American Airlines CEO Gerard Arpey and over 874 senior managers received millions in shares of stock based upon the April 18, 2007 closing stock price. The approximate $160 million payout leaves the laid-off employees of the former TWA fuming.

Immediately following the 9/11 attacks, American was on the verge of bankruptcy and received a government bailout in the form of cash payments and loan guarantees that totaled approximately $840 million, while simultaneously American Airlines was laying off the entire flight attendant work force of the newly acquired TWA.

Congress and the TWA employees were promised a fair and equitable integration of the work groups but managed to sidestep these promises once approval was given. Today, the very same former TWA employees are still without jobs and being permanently severed as their five-year recall rights to their positions expire.

Just days after American’s executives lined their pockets with an approximate $160 million in bonuses, CEO Gerard Arpey during a meeting with analysts hinted he holds little hope for these laid-off employees ever returning due to the contractual five year recall rights with American’s flight attendant union.

http://trustno1-1.blogspot.com/

[SDuderstadt]

272. Sigh...

Hannah, your earlier claim was that AA received government bailout money to ACQUIRE TWA. How in the world do the circumstances above prove your assertion? Hint: they don't. Now you're trying to change the subject. Do you have any proof at all that AA received bailout money to acquire TWA? Yes or no? If not, then retract your goofy assertion.

[Hannah Bell]

278. No, I didn't say that. That was what you decided to read into it.

Your claim was that a list of airlines never received bailout money.

[SDuderstadt]

289. And my claim was true....

and I stand by it. So far, you have not been able to show that AA received "bailout money" to buy Pan-Am. As far as the list I posted, as I said previously, it was a partial list. This whole exchange started with another poster's assertion that the federal government just routinely steps in and bails out all or most failing businesses, which is so absurd on its face that it should need no refutation. Here's the larger list of airlines that have failed. I'd like you or anyone else to show that all, or even most of them were "bailed out".

AAXICO Airlines (1946 - 1965, to Saturn Airways)
Access Air (1998 - 2001)
ADI Domestic Airlines
Aeroamerica (1974 - 1982)
Aero Coach (1983 - 1991)
Aero International Airlines
Aeromech Airlines (1951 - 1983, to Wright Airlines)
AeroSun International
AFS Airlines (Arcata Flying Service)
Air America (owned and operated by the CIA in SouthEast Asia)
Air America (1980s)
Air Astro
Air Atlanta (1981 - 88)
AirAtlantic Airlines
Air Bama
Air Berlin, Inc. (Air Berlin USA) (1978-1990 )
Airborne Express (1946 - 2003, to DHL)
Air California, later AirCal (1967 - 87, to American Airlines)
Air Carolina
Air Central (Michigan)
Air Central (Oklahoma) (to Trans-Central Airlines)
Air Chaparral (1980 - 82)
Air Chico
Air Colorado
Air Cortez
Air Florida (1972 - 84)
Air Gemini
Air General
Air Great Lakes
Air Hawaii (1960s) (1960s)
Air Hawaii (ceased operations in 1986)
Air Hyannis
Air Idaho
Air Illinois
Air Iowa
Airlift International (1946 - 81)
Air Kentucky
Air LA
Air-Lift Commuter
Air Lincoln
Air Link Airlines
Air Link Airways
Air Metro
Air Miami (to North American Airlines)
Air Michigan
Air Mid-America
Air Midwest
Air Missouri
Air Molokai (1980s)
Air Molokai (1990s)
Air Molokai-Tropic Airlines
Air Nebraska
Air Nevada
Air New England (1975 - 81)
Air New Orleans (1981 - 88)
Air Niagara
Air North (Alaska)
Air North (1963 - 1983, to Brockway Air)
Air O'Hare
Air Olympia
Air Oregon
Air1 (1980s)
Air One (1990s)
AirPac
Air Pacific (USA)
Air Pennsylvania
Air Resorts Airline
Air Sierra
Air South (1968 - 1975, to Florida Airlines;
Air South (1981-1982)
Air South (1986-1987)
Air South (1994-1997)
Air Speed (1974)
Air Spirit
Air Sunshine (1970s)
Air Sunshine (1980s)
Air Texana
Air Texas
Air Trails
Air 21
Air US
Air Utah
AirVantage Airlines
Air Vegas (1971 - 2004)
Air Vermont
Air Virginia
Airways of New Mexico
Air West
Alaska Air Transport (1935 to 1939) to Alaska Coastal Airlines
Alaska Coastal Airlines (1939 - 1968) to Alaska Airlines
Alaska Coastal-Ellis Airlines
Albany Air
All American Aviation Company (became US Airways)
Allegheny Airlines (became US Airways)
American Central Airlines
American Flyers Airline
American International Airways
American Overseas Airlines (1945 - 1950) merged into Pan American World Airways
Arista International Airlines
Arizona Airways
Arizona Airways (1993-1996)
Aroostook Airways
Aspen Airways (1962 - 1990)
Atlantic Coast Airlines (1989 - 2004, to Independence Air)
Atlantic Gulf Airlines
Bar Harbor Airlines (1971 - 1992)
Big Sky Airlines (1978 - 2008)
Boeing Air Transport (1927 - 1930) to United Airlines
Bonanza Air Lines (1945 - 1968, to Hughes Airwest)
Braniff (1991 - 1992)
Braniff Inc. (1983 - 1990)
Braniff International Airways (1928 - 1982)
Britt Airways (1976 - 1987)
Brockway Air
Business Express Airlines to American Eagle
CalPac (California Pacific) (1993 - 1995 to Mesa Airlines)
Cal Sierra Airlines (1980)
Cape Smythe Air (1975 - 2005, to Frontier Flying Service)
Capitol Air Lines (1970s - 1980s)
Capital Airlines (1936 - 1961, to United Airlines)
Capitol Airways (1946 - 1982)
Cardinal Airlines
Caribbean Sun (2002 - 2007)
Carnival Air Lines
Cascade Airways (1969 - 1986)
Catalina Airlines (1940 - 1969)
CCAir
Centennial Airlines
Central Airlines (1944 - 1967)
Challenge Air Cargo (1978 - 2001)
Chicago Air
Chicago and Southern Air Lines (1934 - 1953)
Chicago Express Airlines (1993 - 2005)
Coastal Airways (1929 -1930)
Cochise Airlines
Colgan Airways (1971 - 1986, to Presidential Airways, revived 1991, and currently operating as Continental Express, United Express, and US Airways Express: see http://www.colganair.com)
Colonial Air Transport (1926 - 1930)
Command Airways
Conquest Sun Airlines (to AirTran Airways)
Crown Airways (1969 - 1992 to Mesa Airlines)
Curtiss Flying Service (1929 - 1932)
Delta Express (1996-2003: replaced by Song; folded back into Delta Air Lines)
Desert Sun Airlines (1995 - 1997 to Mesa Airlines)
Eastern Air Lines (1926 - 1991)
Eastwind Airlines
Ellis Airlines (1936 to 1962) to Alaska Coastal Airlines
Emerald Air (1978 - 1991)
Emery Worldwide Airlines (1977 - 2003)
Empire Airlines (1976 - 1985, to Piedmont)
Eureka Aero (c. 1976 - 1979)
Falcon Air Express (1995 - 2007)
Fine Air (1989 - 2004)
Florida Coastal Airlines (ceased operations 2006)
FloridaGulf Airlines (1991 - 1997, to Air Midwest)
Flying Tiger Line (1945 - 1988, to Federal Express)
Freelandia
Frontier Airlines (1950 - 1986)
Galaxy Airlines
Gem State Airlines (1979, to Golden Gate Airlines)
Gemini Airlines
Global International Airways (1981 - ?)
Golden Gate Airlines (1980-1981)
Golden Pacific Airlines (1969-1973)
Golden Pacific Airlines (1981 - 1988)
Golden West Airlines
Great Plains Airlines (2001 - 2004)
Great Western Aviation Company (to AirVantage Airlines)
Gulf Air Transport (1979 - 1990)
Hooters Air (2003 - 2006)
Hughes Airwest (1968 - 1980, to Republic Airlines)
Imperial Airlines (1964 - 1986)
Independence Air (2004 - 2006)
Independent Air (1966 - 1990)
Indigo Airlines
Intermountain Airlines
Irving Airways (1936) to Alaska Air Transport
Island Pacific Air (to Air Hawaii)
Jet 24 (1981 - 1986)
Jet Express
Key Airlines
Kitty Hawk Airways
Kitty Hawk International (to Kalitta Air)
Kiwi International Air Lines
L'Express Airlines (1989-1992)
Lake Central Airlines (1949 - 1968, to Allegheny Airlines)
Lakeland Airlines (1980 - 1984)
Las Vegas Airlines (1973 - 1987)
Legend Airlines (1996 - 2000)
Leisure Air (1992 - 1995)
Liberty Express Airlines ((1994 - 1997, to Air Midwest)
Lone Star Airlines
Mackey Airlines (1957 - 1981)
Maddux Airlines (1927 - 1929, to Transcontinental Air Transport)
Mahalo Air (1993 - 1997)
Mall Airways (1973 - 1989, to Business Express)
Marine Airways (1936 to 1939) to Alaska Coastal Airlines
MarkAir (1947 - 1995)
Marquette Airlines (to Trans World Airlines)
MAXjet (2005 - 2007)
Mayflower Airlines (1936 - ?)
MetroJet
Mexus Airlines
MGM Grand Air
MidAtlantic Airways (2002 - 2006)
Mid-Continent Airlines (1928 - 1952, to Braniff)
Mid Pacific Air (1981 - 1988)
Mid-State Airlines (1964 - ?, to Sentry Airlines)
Midway Airlines (1979 - 1991 and 1993 - 2003)
Mississippi Valley Airlines (1969 - 1985)
Modern Air Transport (1946-1975)
Mohawk Airlines (1952 - 1988, to Allegheny Airlines)
Morris Air to Southwest Airlines
Mountain Air Express
Mountain West Airlines (1995 - 1997 to Mesa Airlines)
Muse Air to Southwest Airlines
National Airlines (1929 - 1980, to Pan American World Airways)
National Airlines (1983 - 1986)
National Airlines/Private Jet Expeditions (1994 - 1995)
National Airlines (1999 - 2002)
National Air Transport (1926 - 1930)
Nations Air Express (1994-1998)
Nationwide Airlines Southeast
New England & Western Air Transportation Co. (1930)
New York Air (1980 - 1986, to Continental Airlines)
New York Airways (1949 - 1979)
New York, Rio, and Buenos Aires Line (to Pan American World Airways)
North American Airlines
North Central Airlines (1939 - 1979)
Northeast Airlines (1940 - 1972, to Delta Air Lines)
Northeastern International Airways (1980 - 1986)
Overseas National Airways (1950 - 1978)
Ozark Airlines (1943 - 1986, to Trans World Airlines)
Pacific Air Lines (1958 - 1968, to Hughes Airwest)
Pacific Air Transport (1926 - 1927)
Pacific Alaska Airways (1973 - 1986)
Pacific East Airlines (ceased operations 1984)
Pacific Express
Pacific Nevada Airlines
Pacific Southwest Airlines (PSA) (1945 - 1987, to USAir)
Pan American Airways (1996-1998)
Pan American Airways (1998-2004)
Pan American-Grace Airways (Panagra) (1928 - 1967, to Braniff International Airways)
Pan American World Airways (1927 - 1991)
Paradise Island Airlines
People Express (1981 - 1987, to Continental Airlines)
Piedmont Airlines (1940 - 1989, to USAir)
Pioneer Airlines
Planet Airways (????- June 8, 2005, speculation only at this point in time)
Potomac Air
Presidential Airways (1985 - 1989)
Private Jet Expeditions (???? - 1995)
Pride Air (August 1985 - November 1985)
Pro Air (1997 - 2000)
Provincetown-Boston Airlines
Ransome Airlines (1967 - 1986)
Red Carpet Airlines
Red Dodge Aviation
Reeve Aleutian Airways (1932 - 2001)
Regent Air
RegionsAir (1996 - 2007)
Reno Air (1990 - 99, to American Airlines)
Republic Airlines (1979 - 1986, to Northwest Airlines)
Rich International Airways (1971 - 1996)
Riddle Airlines (1945 - 1965, to Airlift International
Rio Airways (1970 - 1987)
Robertson Air Service
Rocky Mountain Airways (1964 - 1986)
Russia Jet Direct (2005)
Samoa Air (American Samoa, ceased operations in 2003)
Saturn Airways (1960 - 76, to Trans International Airlines)
Seaboard World Airlines (1946 - 80, to Flying Tiger Line)
Shuttle by United and United Shuttle (1994 - 2001)
SkyTrain Airlines (to Air Great Lakes)
SkyValue (2006-2007)
Slick Airways (1946-1965)
Song (2003-April 30th, 2006 Merged back in with its parent company, Delta Air Lines)
South Pacific Island Airways (SPIA) (American Samoa, ceased operations in 1987)
Southeast Airlines (1992 - 2004)
Southern Air Transport
Southern Airways (1943 - 1979, to Republic Airlines)
Southern Jersey Airways
Southwest Airways (1946 - 58, renamed Pacific Air Lines)
Standard Airlines (1926 - 30) 1927 subsidiary of Aero Corp. of Ca., In 1930, bought by Western Air Express, thru merger with TAT became TWA, Transcontinental & Western Air, Trans World Airlines
StatesWest Airlines (1986-1993)
Stol Air Commuter
Sunbird Airlines (1979-1987 to CCAir)
SunCoast Airlines (?-1988)
Sun West Airlines
Sunworld International Airlines (? - 2004)
Superior Airlines (1993 - 1995 to Mesa Airlines
Swift Aire Lines (1969 - 1981)
TAG Airlines
Tamir Transport (?-1971)
TAT - Maddux Air Lines (1928 - 30)
Tennessee Airways
Texas Air
Texas Trans Air
Texas International Airlines (1944 - 1986, to Continental Airlines)
The Hawaii Express (1982 - 1983)
Tower Air (1983 - 2000)
Trans Air (1979 -1985)
Transamerica Airlines (1948 - 1986)
Trans-Central Airlines
Transcontinental Air Transport (1928 - 1930, TWA)
TransMeridian Airlines (1995 - 2005)
Transocean Airlines 1946-1962
Trans International Airlines (1947 - 1986)
TranStar Airlines (1981 - 1987)
Trans-Colorado Airlines
Trans-Texas Airways
Trans World Airlines (1930 - 2001, to American Airlines)
Trans World Express
Trump Shuttle (1989 - 1991, to US Airways)
UltrAir (1993)
Universal Airlines (US Cargo Operator 1966 - 1972, to Trans International Airlines)
ValuJet Airlines (1993 - 1997, to AirTran Airways)
Vanguard Airlines (1994 - 2002)
Varney Airlines to United Airlines
WestAir Commuter Airlines
West Coast Airlines (1940s - 1968, to Hughes Airwest)
Western Airlines (1925 - 1987, to Delta Air Lines)
Western Pacific Airlines (ceased operations 1998)
Westward Airways (2002 - 2005)
Wien Air Alaska
Wilmington - Catalina Air Line
WinAir Airlines (1998 - 1999)
Wings Airways
Wright Airlines
Zantop Air Transport
Zantop Flying Service
Zantop International Airlines

[SDuderstadt]

262. As usual, Hannah...

you're all wet. With all due respect, you have no idea how the PBGC works, but you won't let that stop you from making absurd claims.

You claimed: "It's a bailout: they were responsible, the taxpayers got the bill.". No, the taxpayers did NOT get the bill which, again, shows how little you know about what you're talking about. From Wikipedia:

"Money PBGC takes in and pays out
The PBGC is not funded by general tax revenues. Its funds come from four sources:

Insurance premiums paid by sponsors of defined benefit pension plans;
Assets held by the pension plans it takes over;
Recoveries of unfunded pension liabilities from plan sponsors' bankruptcy estates;<1> and
Investment income.

Currently PBGC pays monthly retirement benefits to approximately 612,000 retirees of 3,683 terminated defined benefit pension plans. Including those who have not yet retired and participants in multiemployer plans receiving financial assistance, the PBGC is responsible for the current and future pensions of about 1.3 million people.<2>"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PBGC

How in the world you're claiming "the taxpayers got the bill" is beyond me as no general tax revenues are involved. Maybe you ought to fact-check your goofy claims before you post them.

[Hannah Bell]

265. I'm not sure why you say "as usual"

since this is the first thread I've had any interaction with you in.

You're quite right: PBGC doesn't receive taxpayer $ directly: it comes from the corps & the profits of invested retirement funds, among others.

Too bad it's in debt. Too bad that those pension raids eventually filter down to the final consumers in the form of 1) higher prices & 2) higher demands on the public purse in the form of unemployment insurance & other social costs. The basic schema is correct: Private profit, socialized loss.

Now if you'll be so kind as to acknowledge most airlines have, indeed, received "bailout" money, including TWA's white knight AA.

[Hannah Bell]

266. As I said:

April 16, 2004
Final Pension Agreement Places Corporate Interests Above Taxpayer Interests
by David C. John
Executive Memorandum #924

President George W. Bush's signing of the recently passed Pension Funding Equity Act (H.R. 3108) was both a serious mistake and a step toward a multibillion-dollar taxpayer bailout of underfunded corporate pension plans. President Bush should have stood by his original objections to the bill's corporate welfare provisions and vetoed it. While the final version is better than the earlier Senate proposal, it still sends a dangerous message that inconvenient pension-funding requirements can be twisted--and even avoided--through special-interest provisions.

Corporate Welfare in the New Law

The White House deserves some credit for insisting that Congress remove some of the special-interest provisions that were contained in the Senate version of H.R. 3108. The Senate bill (S. 1550) would have granted virtually every underfunded pension plan--whether sponsored by a single-employer or by several employers and a union--a two-year holiday from having to contribute most of the additional money required to strengthen the plan.

The law also provides limited relief to about 4 percent of underfunded, multi-employer pension plans. To qualify for this relief, a plan would have to have investment losses of at least 10 percent in 2002 and actuarial certification that it will be underfunded in any year between 2004 and 2006.

...Since taxpayers will be called upon to shoulder the cost if their pension plans fail, the net effect of pension relief is to shift some market failure risk from stockholders and lenders to taxpayers. If this is allowed for the airline and steel industries today, which "deserving" industry will be able to persuade a weak Congress to grant it equal relief tomorrow, citing this legislation as a precedent?

Already, the agency that insures this type of pension plan, the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation (PBGC), is itself seriously underfunded. According to numbers released earlier this year, the PBGC is running a record $11.2 billion deficit in its single-employer program. That number could climb to $85.5 billion if all of the pension plans that could be "reasonably" expected to fail did so. In addition, PBGC's multi-employer program reported a deficit for the first time.

By allowing companies to avoid funding their pension plans' deficits, the new law makes it likely that taxpayers will have to pick up that liability.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/SocialSecurity/em924.cfm

[Hannah Bell]

267. More socialization of losses (or theft)

"Because when Bethlehem Steel went bankrupt, not only did the company die — and workers lose their jobs — but retirees who thought they were "set for life" suddenly found themselves out in the cold.

...In 2001, Bethlehem gave up and filed for bankruptcy. A year later, it transferred its pension fund and its obligations to the U.S. Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC).

...In no time at all, the PBGC put the kibosh on Bethlehem's agreement to let workers retire on full pensions after 30 years. Instead, workers got the standard deal: Work until age 62 or forget about collecting a check. It didn't matter whether you had just joined the company or were due to hit 30 years of service the next week — if you hadn't yet crossed the finish line, the PBGC erased it under your nose.

But it gets worse. For Bethlehem's retirees, and for the workers who soldiered on in the employ of International Steel Group (which bought Bethlehem before selling itself to Mittal Steel (NYSE: MT)), the secure retirement they had worked for their whole lives was about to disappear. Because when pensions are underfunded, the PBGC doesn't necessarily make up the difference.

In Bethlehem's case, the PBGC determined that the pension fund lacked $4.3 billion to be made sound. The PBGC anted up $3.7 billion — that's the good news. The bad news was that Bethlehem's employees and retirees had also bargained — and worked — for the promise of health-care coverage in retirement. The PBGC calculated the value of that promise at $3.1 billion, but didn't cover a dime of it."


Who paid for those who lost their jobs after contributing, but got nothing? Who paid for those who lost the health care they'd paid into for their old age?

Ordinary people. Taxpayers, families, communities. Bethlehem isn't the only case. Pension plans, & the PBGC, have been deliberately underfunded for a long time - enabled by Congress - to allow corps to rake off the OPM.

http://www.lawschoolloans.com/articles/vanishing-pension-money.php

[SDuderstadt]

274. And this proves your claim that "the taxpayers foot the bill"...

how, exactly?

[Hannah Bell]

279. In the TWA case:

AA acquired TWA April 2001: acquired its assets & obgligations.

Many glowing promises were made to TWA's workforce.

What actually happened was, 100% of flight attendants were fuloughed. Then after 911 the airlines went to the gov pleading poverty & got 15 billion in bailout $ & loan guarantees. The majority of that $ went to 4 carriers: AA was one of them, & part of that $ was allotted to aa because of burden of the recent twa acquisition.

Then the carriers used 911 as an excuse to lay off their workforces & restructure their benefits, reduce entry wages, etc.

Senior flight attendants (right at retirement) got 75% of promised pensions. Most got nothing: their promised pensions & benefits expired if they weren't hired back within 5 years of the acquisition (and according to what I'm seeing, none were):

"After twenty-five years of service they will lose the pension, travel and health benefits they had worked a lifetime to acquire. Tragically there remains no recourse for the TWA flight attendants because the action that ended their careers has been found to be legal, as of today."

The pain always trickles down to the bottom, the perks to the top.

[Hannah Bell]

282. And according to one in the know, TWA wasn't "bankrupt" at the time of the merger.

April 7, 2003

The Honorable Kay Bailey Hutchison
United States Senator
284 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510

Via Federal Express

Dear Mrs. Hutchison,

Please allow me to make some corrections to comments that you made on the Senate floor during the debate on the defense appropriations bill wherein Senator's Jim Talent (R-Mo) and Christopher (Kit) Bond (R-Mo) attempted to add legislation to assist airline workers...

I speak from the knowledgeable position of being the pilot representative to the Trans World Airlines, Inc. (TWA) Board of Directors and chairman of the TWA unit of the Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA) during the purchase of TWA's assets by American Airlines, Inc.

Some of your comments are misleading or lack a factual basis. Please allow my perspective.

You said..."It was a difficult situation when TWA was in bankruptcy. A number of airlines sought to take over TWA. American was the one that was willing to do it."

TWA was not in bankruptcy prior to American's purchase. The bankruptcy filing by TWA was a condition of the Asset Purchase Agreement as written and proposed by American.... One purpose of the bankruptcy filing was to evict Carl Icahn's onerous Karabu Ticket Agreement....

At the time of the American purchase, TWA was in the midst of negotiations to merge with America West Airlines. The American deal was not mentioned to the TWA Board until January 9th, 2001 and came as a bit of a surprise, to say the least.

You said, "American offered to preserve the jobs and pensions of the TWA employees at the time if the unions would agree to waive their seniority rights from TWA..."

You have oversimplified what was agreed to - and never carried out...

You further stated, "If American had not stepped up to the plate, all of the TWA pilots, flight attendants, mechanics, and ticket agents would have lost their jobs immediately and their pension funds would have been wiped out."

I can speak for the pilots. Our pension funds were never in danger or at risk. In the 1992 bankruptcy we were successful in extricating our Directed Account Plan (DAP) from TWA and self-manage it.

As to your comment that TWA would have gone out of business - that's the spin put on TWA's situation by American and its unions - just like the fallacy that TWA was in bankruptcy when American came along. TWA had 157 million in cash at the instant of the American Purchase. There had been times in TWA's past that they had less than 5 million operating capital and still succeeded because the true spirit of TWA lies in the brothers and sisters that worked there - the employees. They had given before and would have again. In addition, American gained a partial ownership in Worldspan, TWA's reservation unit, which American sold last month and netted them some 500 million dollars (this does not count the excess cash that Worldspan was forecast to distribute to the partners in 2001 and 2002). It is also far in excess of the bankruptcy value of $200 to $210 million placed upon it at the time.

You should also know that the TWA Board was in negotiations to replace its top management when the American purchase came along. On January 5, 2001 at a special board meeting a resolution was placed in front of the board to change out management, but withdrawn on the promise of a third party investor which turned out to be American. That saved management's rear end and they escaped with healthy golden parachutes leaving the employees to fend for themselves.

You said: "Everyone hoped the aviation industry would recover and that everyone would stay employed. It is still the hope of every American employee that the TWA former employees who have been laid off will be hired back. American is committed to hire back former TWA employees before anyone else."

While American may be "committed," it is only bound by its contractual agreements with its employees. In the case of the pilots, they have ten year recall rights and the flight attendants five....This furlough then is nothing more than a termination notice to thousands of TWA employees....every single former TWA flight attendant will be terminated (five year recall rights). TWA flight attendants with 40 years seniority are gone, just gone...

Robert A. Pastore
Former Member, TWA Board of Directors
Former Chairman, TWA Master Executive Council, Air Line Pilots Association.

http://www.smilinjack.com/cgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=6;t=000671

[Hannah Bell]

283. And BTW: Blast from past securities meltdown:

"Carl Celian Icahn (born February 16, 1936) is an American billionaire financier, corporate raider, and private equity investor. His net worth is $14 billion as of 2008, making him the 46th richest man in the world.

Icahn began his career on Wall Street in 1961. In 1968, he formed Icahn & Co., a securities firm that focused on risk arbitrage and options trading. In 1978, he began taking control positions in individual companies. ...Icahn made extensive use of financier Michael Milken's junk bonds.

Icahn developed a reputation as a ruthless corporate raider after his hostile takeover of TWA in 1985.<1> The result of that takeover was Icahn systematically stripping TWA of its assets for his own profit.<2>"


But he's the 46th richest man in the world.

How'd he do it? He stole it. From flight attendants, among others.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Icahn

[Hannah Bell]

284. & pilots....

Upholds Ruling on T.W.A. Pensions

July 12, 2003

Pension plans for the employees of Trans World Airlines, which was acquired by the AMR Corporation in 2001, were terminated properly by the United States Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, a federal appeals court has ruled.

The Court of Appeals in Washington upheld a lower court's rejection of claims by pilots that the pension agency violated federal law when it canceled the pensions.

After T.W.A.'s 1992 bankruptcy, the retirement plans were preserved by an agreement among the company; its workers; the former T.W.A. chairman, Carl C. Icahn; and the guaranty corporation that put the pensions under the sponsorship of a company controlled by Mr. Icahn.

That agreement lasted until January 2001, when an unfavorable ruling on Mr. Icahn's tax liabilities as sponsor activated a clause in the accord that allowed termination after certain ''significant events.''

[SDuderstadt]

293. And you're posting this why?

Does this have anyting to do with your assertion that the taxpayers foot the bill for pension plan bailouts?

[SDuderstadt]

292. If you're trying to get me to defend Carl Icahn...

you won't see it from me. The funniest thing is we are probably quite similar in our beliefs (the idea of privatizing profits while socializing risk and other pathologies of the business world are hardly defensible, in my opinion). I am not calling you out on your beliefs, I am calling you out on factual errors and asking to prove your assertions.

[SDuderstadt]

291. Hannah....it's REAL simple....

your claim was that AA received "bailout funds" to purchase TWA. So far, you've shown everything BUT that.

[SDuderstadt]

290. Here we go again....

without any credible sources for your assertions, are we just supposed to take your word for it?

As I said before, when you can show that AA received "bailout money" to purchase TWA prior to that purchase (not after the fact, triggered by 9/11), then you might have something. Otherwise, your assertion remains false.

[SDuderstadt]

273. Jesus, Hannah....

now you're citing an opinion piece from a RW think tank as your proof?

[Hannah Bell]

277. So what?

You're citing the entire party line.

[SDuderstadt]

295. Exactly what...

party line am I citing? I am calling you out on factual errors. If you're accusing me of being GOP, you might want to know that I have voted steadily Democratic since I was first able to vote. It might help if you stick to the facts being debated and quit impugning my motives.

[SDuderstadt]

271. Because you make assertions as if that proves something...

that's why. Exactly how do the "pension raids" filter down to the final consumers in the form of "higher prices" and "higher demands on the public purse"? I notice that you can't simply say you were wrong about your assertion that the taxpayers foot the bill for pension bailouts but, instead, just produce another unsupported assertion. Where is your proof for your claim? Why would a pensioner be drawing unemployment insurance?

[Hannah Bell]

276. In fact, I did say you were right about the funding.

But I also noted it didn't cover the complete losses, & that PBGC was technically broke, & that a bailout was being discussed in at least some circles. Also that its poor financial condition was the result of Congressionally-enabled underfunding.

However, I note you didn't admit you were wrong about airline bailouts.

According to the article I posted, Bethelehem defaulted on obligations to those who hadn't reached retirement age when the co. was sold. That's how they would be unemployed & pensionless.

[SDuderstadt]

294. Because I am not wrong about the airline bailouts....

and when you can show that the government either bailed out TWA (which it didn't) or gave AA bailout money to purchase TWA (which it didn't), you might have a point.

As far as saying I was right about the funding, that is what I have been debating. I have no idea where you're going with the rest of this.

[Hannah Bell]

297. 15 billion. n/t

[SDuderstadt]

299. 15 billion received when?

As I said before, this was triggered by 9/11. To claim it was a before the fact use of government bailout money to initially purchase TWA is intellectually dishonest, to say the least.

[Hannah Bell]

300. Show me where I said,

"aa was given gov. $ to purchase twa".

[Hannah Bell]

305. Still waiting....

[SDuderstadt]

310. This is the last time, Hannah

I'm tired of explaining things to you. If you can't follow a thread or wind up responding to something out of context, you're on your own from here. This started when I responded to another poster who claimed that private businesses can't fail because our leaders just bail them out by printing more money. I'm sure you'll agree that is an absurd over generalization. Here's the exchange:

"That's why when citizens fail, we go bankrupt, when private institutions fail, well, they can't fail, our "leaders" bail them out by printing more money, another type of tax, so once again, the frat boys and girls cannot fail, they only want the rest of us to fail".

So, no business ever fails because they are all bailed out by the government? Do I really have to debunk this? Do you realize what an absurd over-generalization this is? Would you like a list of failed businesses that refutes your absurd claim? Here's a partial list:

TWA
Pan-American Airways
Braniff International Airways
Regent Air
Texas Air
Western Pacific Airways

And, when the government "bails out a business", they do it by "printing more money"? Do you have any evidence of this at all? Or, is this another one of your suppositions? Do you even know how the Federal Reserve and our monetary system work? Your silly assertions belie an utter lack of understanding of this area. And, when the Federal Reserve "creates money", how exactly is that "another type of tax"? Honestly, you're sounding like you've been reading JBS literature exclusively.

Of course, that's where you jumped in with this:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=3019420&mesg_id=3035878

"Although American Airlines accepted millions of dollars in federal bail out monies on TWA's behalf"

http://aviation.beloblog.com/archives/2007/07/extwa_fli...

twa bailout

I responded thusly:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=3019420&mesg_id=3038800

The PBGC bailout of Pan-Am's pension plan was not a bailout of Pan-Am. Again, I don't know what you're trying to get at here. Similarly, for the life of me, I don't know what you think linking to a letter from an ex-TWA supposedly proves about TWA. Frankly, I don't know what the letter writer is claiming and, candidly, I don't think she does either. If you're going to claim that the U.S. government bailed out TWA or assisted AA in doing so, you'll need something more convincing.

Of course, at this point, you jumped in with the following:


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=3019420&mesg_id=3038800

There are many links on the TWA thing - AA got the bAilout money when they took them over.

I don't know about you, Hannah, but that seems pretty clear to me. "AA got the bAilout money when they took them over" is saying that TWA was getting some bailout money and AA got it instead when they bought them. Except the time period in question was April of 2001. Unless you're claiming that either the feds or AA were psychic, there's no way that "AA got the bAilout money when they took them over", inasmuch 9/11 would not occur for 5 more months and the "bailout money" was not authorized until the last part of September 2001.

http://www.ustreas.gov/offices/domestic-finance/atsb/hr2926.pdf

Here's what Wikipedia says about AA's acquisition of TWA:

2000s

Acquisition by American Airlines
Financial problems began to resurface shortly afterward, and TWA's airline assets were acquired by American Airlines in April of 2001. As part of the deal, TWA declared Chapter 11 bankruptcy (for the third time) the day after it agreed to the purchase. The terms of the deal included a $500 million payment. However, since American assumed TWA's liabilities, the deal was estimated to have cost American $2 billion.<5> American did not claim the naming rights for the Rams' home, which eventually became the Edward Jones Dome, named after the financial services company with the same name.

TWA booking ended on November 30, 2001. <6>

Trans World Airlines flew its last flight on December 1, 2001 with a Super 80 Aircraft (N948TW). The ceremonial last flight was Flight 220 from Kansas City, Missouri, to St. Louis, with CEO Captain William Compton at the controls. The final flight before TWA officially became part of American Airlines was completed between St. Louis and Las Vegas, Nevada, also on December 1, 2001. At 10:00 p.m. CST on that date, employees began removing all TWA signs and placards from airports around the country, replacing them with American Airlines signs. At midnight, all TWA flights officially became listed as American Airlines flights. Some aircraft carried hybrid American/TWA livery during the transition, with American's tricolor stripe on the fuselage and TWA's name on the tail. Signage still bears the TWA logo in portions of Concourse D at Lambert St. Louis International Airport. On some Super-80 aircraft, the cabinets retain TWA logos.

American Airlines acquired some Ambassadors Clubs, and other Ambassadors Clubs closed on December 2, 2001 <7>

One lighted TWA sign still exists (as of 2006) on the runway side of Saarinen's New York JFK terminal. According to Dave Barger, COO of JetBlue Airways, JetBlue intends to retain the lit TWA sign on the Saarinen terminal after the renovation of Terminal 5.

TWA's St. Louis hub decreased after the merger due to its proximity to American's larger hub at Chicago's O'Hare International Airport. As a result, American initially replaced TWA's St. Louis mainline hub with regional jet service (going from over 800 operations a day to fewer than 300) and downsized TWA's maintenance base in Kansas City. (St. Louis, as of January 2007, is American's fourth main hub.).

You know what I think, Hannah? I think you jumped into a debate with no idea of what I was talking about, jumped to the conclusion I was claiming no airline ever received bailout money from the feds (which I never ever said) and, despite my specific references to AA not receiving bail out money to purchase TWA, you kept responding to a different argument (probably in your head). The moral of the story: pay attention to the actual debate and you won't look silly.

[Trillo]

245. That is in no way trying to be polite.

(Hannah Bell inspired me to post back to you once more)

The SDuderstat School of Politeness and Etiquette

You wrote: "I'll try to be polite".

Well, at least you tried, but failed. Of course, your assertion that you'll "try" could just be a false habitual assertion without honest inward intent.

You seem to be conducting an interrogation, not only of me, but also of others here. Do you really consider that politeness by any stretch of the imagination? Its one thing to pose a question, even two, maybe three, but a whole series of them interspersed by insults ain't polite. It seems there's a unique SDuderstat school of politeness and etiquette, meaning that you have made up your own rules and redefined language and or custom to suit yourself.

First off, I will apologize for misquoting you. That error was due to not copying and pasting, but by reading, then typing. However, you also misquoted me:

"His or her claim was that it was 'not private'"

I actually placed double quotes around what I thought were your words, not private, i.e., "not private". Perhaps this is about the same level of distinction-of-difference as between private and privately held within the context of the FED, the two word misquote you jumped all over me for. I'd have to consult a style guide on nested quoting (I've never seen a reference to it in them, nor do I have easy access to a recent revision of them), but for preciseness, which you claim to extol, and which I agree is an honorable goal in formal use (as distinguished from discussion board types of places) I believe you would have needed to write it so it appeared:

'His or her claim was that it was "not private"'

or

"His or her claim was that it was "not private""

They way you did it suggests I used single quotes, and that's absolutely not accurate and is not what I wrote, and seems illiterate given your criticisms of my language use, unless we're simply exploring your inward/outward dishonesty again.

I'm having trouble reading the following sentence fragment of yours:

"Well, since you're since a crack researcher"

It seems a little adjective/adverb confusion presents itself. Normally I ignore other people's obvious typos, but after that reaming you gave me about some of my typos, and the delay of about a day or a half day in answering, I felt quite sure you probably composed your document in the word processor, ran it through every grammar checker you had on hand, perhaps even handed it to your colleagues for a proofread, since every experienced writer knows that it's 'nearly' impossible to find every typo in their own writing. I hope you got much joy from that, I can tell you I did not from reading it. It's pedantic. Does that give you a thrill, I wonder to myself.

This type of typo is likely because of a brain processing issue where the writer sees the correct word in the place that the correct replaced word should be. I would never consider such a typo an embarrassment unless it was published by a staff of folks whose job it was to produce perfect English. It seems that "embarrassment" comment of yours was just meant to demean, and seems rooted in the SDuderstat school of politeness and etiquette.

"So, no businesses are run by honest people?"

I don't know, but people are supposedly presumed innocent until proven guilty. Yes, its true I have a personal tendency to hyperbole at times, yet, wherever I go (in reality), businesses seem to presume I'm guilty, so who knows what the actual truth is therein. I can't write a check without showing ID even if the cashier recognizes me, at most places I routinely shop. I can't enter the local courthouse without being searched (presumes I'm carrying something banned) until I prove otherwise, yet the last time I was there several years ago, there was a fast entry without searching for some attorneys and or staff to pass through. So, it seems our corporatist system does not presume innocence of us human citizens, except in some very narrowly construed ways.

I've had way too many experiences with dishonest businesses cheating in various ways, sometimes quite small, to presume that any business is honest, though I accept the possibility of an honest business, theoretically speaking. I did have one employer once who seemed honest, but he had a hostile workforce which was abusive, and that is, again theoretically, against the law as I understand it, so, perhaps his honesty wasn't perfect, and perhaps it was a clannish behavior shown to insiders that I saw, that perhaps I misinterpreted as honesty. Hard to say, actually. So I don't know.

Maybe someday I'll write a blog post on what honesty is, and what it isn't.

I'm not certain how to prove someone is honest, yet a K-12 school I went to when I was younger required all male students to memorize an honor code about honesty and discouraging others from lying, and the school would punish us severely if we were caught in the most minor of lies, among many other punishable offenses. Why would a school teach such a stupid lesson, without also teaching, using equivalent zeal and memorization techniques, how to detect when others are lying to you, if they were truly doing their stated duty of educating on survival(?). This question is not intended to be answered by SDuderstat and the SDuderstat school of politeness and etiquette.

Perhaps it was just a technique of hazing, of knowing one's pecking order, this memorization of the honor code that has little to no relevance to survival in a dog-eat-dog economic system. It's pretty clear that most honest people do not 'get ahead' in the world I'm familiar with by direct experience (reality), it seems they're always undermined by others in various ways, a few of which appear quite complex in mechanism, but that complexity may just be a surface appearance created by those withholding truth.

Last night I was listening to a lawyer on Net2 TV talking about credit card disclaimers and how, even with her education, she was unable to understand the 'fine print' in the contract. In her words (paraphrased by me), people see a smiling face telling them how low the interest rate is (in the advertisement), then the company hires a staff of MBA lawyers to insure they can never lose a dime (all of that was paraphrase, I was sort of half listening while doing something else) and can legally justify all their extra charges above and beyond the advertising image they presented, and part of this is in writing incomprehensible legal boilerplate (not her chosen word). Much of this cryptic legal boilerplate, the company counter-spokesperson offered, was required by law, including the precise point size and typeface used.

When I was in public elementary school, one of a teachers lectures (not sure they formally gave "lectures" in those early grades, consider its usage a figure of speech) explained to us how ignorance of the law was not an excuse for breaking it. Therefore: 'How reasonable is having contracts that are so complex another lawyer cannot understand them given their typical language skills' presents a question to ponder; 'How reasonable is having so many laws that a lawyer must specialize to be an expert' presents another related one; 'How does this relate to any typical citizen's (HS level education) ability to understand laws they are reportedly required to know' presents a third; and how that relates to my elementary-level grade school teacher's lecture to us regarding 'ignorance of the law is no excuse' are questions that don't seem to have honest or satisfactory answers in reality that are appropriate for sub-ten year olds. Ignorance of laws is apparently a defense against them in courts, I've read, that's one rationale for why you are required to be notified of them in so many places.

It's clear we live in a hierarchically organized, top-down civilization, where what happens above in a control sense gets flooded downhill, so to say. I've never been able to resolve these phenomenons to the phrase in the Declaration of Independence "pursuit of happiness" that is supposedly one of every human's inalienable rights. I see that phrase is absent in the UN's equivalent document type and is substituted with something about or similar to "security". Ben Franklin must be rolling over in his grave.

I've actually wondered about the hostility of some small retail business owners in our general area. Many retail businesses have a sign near the cash register that threatens anyone reading the sign with prosecution for writing a bad check, regardless of whether that reader has ever written any business a bad check or not. This seems a form of negative stereotyping. I've wondered about the intelligence of projecting such an intent onto generally nice and well meaning customers in the context of customer service. I've queried one employee of a busy, small local business and found out that any fraud they have is an extremely small percentage of their total cash business, the approximate figures he reported to me were in the 3% range (curiously about the same as a customer's credit card use merchant charge), but their total biz which nowadays is conducted primarily electronically with debit and credit cards (so "writing a bad check" isn't an issue) he indicated is much larger, but he didn't divulge by how much, so the 3% statistic is apparently much smaller when compared against their total gross cash flow. I also have to remember that an employee is not an "owner" with an "owner's attitude". At a very minimum, I find the signs hostile. The cashiers usually have smiling faces. So, there's a lie right there, having smiling faces indicating happiness to see you (false happiness showed by employee under duress of loss of job is one possible rationale) and threatening signs in the 'fine print' of their checkout areas if you look for them.

At the very minimum, this would seem to create a psychological framing that may not be healthy for people to be exposed to, bad check writing certainly doesn't seem to be a preponderant problem, yet these signs are apparently required to be on display to everyone, or this is a choice of the merchants. Citizens are routinely told bad check writing is a 'huge problem' by the media. When signs like these are repeated in enough business places, it represents a mass exposure, and could possibly represent some kind of mass psychological warfare conducted against humankind. Presumption of guilt created by a sick empire is one possible motive.

"Do you honestly think that anyone worries about your yammering (as well as that of others) so much that they would pay people to rebut you on a message board?"

Sure. There are many reports of just such activity in various places including the MSM. A police state, as I understand how they work, typically pays informants in one of the baser manifestations of the phenomenon. I've seen private business websites that have advertised they will defend your business from attack, though I am having difficulty finding one of those right now (if I happen across one in the next few days, I'll post it back as a reply to this post). It seems that the "your yammering" comment is, once again, from the SDuderstat school of politeness and etiquette.

Here's just one possibility of several different kinds I've read of over the years:

...The Pentagon’s plans for engaging in “virtual warfare” are impressive. As BBC notes: “The operations described in the document include a surprising range of military activities: public affairs officers who brief journalists, psychological operations troops who try to manipulate the thoughts and beliefs of an enemy, computer network attack specialists who seek to destroy enemy networks.” (BBC)

The enemy, of course, is you, dear reader, or anyone who refuses to accept their role as a witless-cog in new world order. Seizing the internet is a prudent way of controlling every piece of information that one experiences from cradle to grave; all necessary for an orderly police-state.
...
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11901.htm

If this report is true, I wonder what the relationship is to the Declaration of Independence's clause regarding every human's inalienable right to pursue happiness. If common citizens are "the enemy" because of "thoughts" they have that they share with others, and these thoughts (that are not incitements to violence) are considered dangerous to our own military, then it seems a portion of the military could be usurping happiness from many, or at least some, of its own citizens; and if this excerpted report is true, it seems logistically likely they could have participated clandestinely in online message board discussions such as DU. It is undoubtedly true that humans are largely social animals, and survival, before civilization, likely was maximized by living in groups where communication with each other was an aid to the groups functioning. So, I'd presume, that the dis-hearting attempts at psychological manipulation, the 'dis-heartening' that would tend to occur in most people who have empathy, would be little more than business-as-usual or its equivalent, such as "their job", when viewed from the operatives point of view, and it's questionable whether they would do it if they weren't getting paid.

Hmm, I just now realized that that second paragraph, specifically "controlling every piece of information that one experiences from cradle to grave; all necessary for an orderly police-state" fits right in with my educational censorship comment. With all the privatization reportedly ongoing (Blackwater for one) today, these types of services could be contracted out, then possibly pieced and subcontracted.

I'm afraid I have no patience for you personally. You are rude, apparently a snob according to another poster, and you practice feigned ignorance, nor do you seem to exhibit any honor or respect towards truth. The attitude of some other long term DUers has been written to you in this thread that confirms some consensus regarding the futility of giving you what you ask for.

I think I'll call it quits (to this posting) real soon, as details that are required to be supplied to people such as yourself are never enough, you always need more more more to "understand", yet we are supposed to believe that you are "intelligent". This seems to be an interrogation technique you are practicing. I see that at the supreme court, similar interrogations are made of attorneys, but most of those attorneys get paid in some way for arguing there. I thought this was a "discussion" board. You know, something with some lightness and informality (never to be expected on DU in regards to candidates during primary season). But expressing lack of satisfaction can be one way of disheartening an enemy, so this could just be a debate technique of yours, one that would seem quite consistent with the rest of the online behavior patterns you display.

"Do you even know how the Federal Reserve and our monetary system work? Your silly assertions belie an utter lack of understanding of this area."

Tah dah, "silly assertions", from the SDuderstat school of politeness and etiquette! You claimed you were trying to be polite, "I'll try to be polite". Perhaps I'm taking liberty with the context of your usage of it, as it's pretty clear to not only me, but other DUers seemed to have inferred similar conclusions as well, that you are anything but polite. Hmm, it seems this "polite" word of yours is a lie, but not unexpected. That could indicate some kind of psychosis or other psychological disorder of yours. Anyway, I thought I wrote to you above that it was unreasonable to require citizens to know things that have been censored. I haven't done a great deal of study of the FED in some years, but have posted some of what I've learned on DU in past threads in the archive somewhere.

Do you have a learning disability as well as a reading comprehension problem, or is this just the interrogator's technique of continuing to ask a question that has already been answered, in the hopes of gathering more information for the databases?

The monetary system it is claimed we have is known as Fractional Reserve, that's where banks are only required to keep a small percentage of deposits on hand, and may loan out the rest, and that prior phrase was perhaps a paraphrasing of something wikipedia has on the topic. It is a fiat money system, that means it's not backed by anything. However, that may be a deceitful way of wording the mechanism used to maximize profitability: if they keep 100% of their depositors cash on hand, and they create money (and this has implications with respect to the money supply, M1, 2, and 3) by creating it when making a loan (because they are legally authorized to do so), then that 100% can be a small fraction of the total of loans they are allowed to make. So, its really a Fractional Reserve OF DEBT banking system. The curious thing is that when the bank makes a loan, they create currency electronically by creating an account which shows as money deposited in the debtor's (loanee) account. This increases their balance sheet of deposits, which they may loan against. So, the actual percentage used from this POV changes dynamically again.

I make no claims of being a banker. Schools imbued me with a strong distaste for paperwork of many different kinds. Because of that, why would I desire to learn banking?

This type of monetary system is claimed to result, eventually or at some point in time, into hyperinflation. One of the German dollars had this phenomenon happen in the early part of the 20th century, I believe after WWI. Maybe it was called the Wiemark. Maybe something else. There are other examples, I've read. Anyway...

What we seem to have during most of my lifetime is continual inflation, with a surge of it during Bush's term, along with an acceleration in secrecy surrounding economic reporting (M3), among other usurpations of "open government". Inflation is a type of tax that all are subject to, but in a relative sense, is probably hardest on the poorest and therefore regressive, though I've never seen this explored by the popular or progressive media as a statistic versus other types of tax's progressive/regressive range.

When Congress authorizes spending, and since most all spending is deficit spending in the last few years, so when the Treasury needs money for deficit spending, a particular type T-Bill or its precursor is supposedly issued. I've read the Fed buys these from the Treasury, and creates that money to give to the Treasury.

Now, what does the FED use to purchase those bonds? They create money out of thin air, using bookkeeping entries to manufacture credit out of nothing. They used to do it with pen and ink, then typewriters, and now computers do the job. This artificial money would normally create very rapid inflation. This happened in Germany just prior to World War II, when Louis McFadden was a Congressman. It eventually took a wheel barrow full of Deutsche marks just to buy one loaf of bread. Imagine that, if you can!

The bankers realized that a mechanism was needed to withdraw this artificial money out of circulation as quickly as it was put into circulation. Enter the Internal Revenue Service. The IRS is really a collection agency for the Federal Reserve. The FED pumps money into the economy, and the IRS sucks it out of the economy, like two pumps working in tandem. This has the effect of artificially maintaining the purchasing power of this "fiat money", as it is called by monetary experts.

This is one of the primary purposes of the income tax. We know this to be true, because a man named Beardsley Ruml explained it clearly in an essay he published in the magazine American Affairs in January of 1946. Beardsley Ruml was Chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, so he was in a position to know. The shocking fact is that federal income taxes do not pay for any government services; they are used to make interest payments on the federal debt. For proof, read the Grace Commission report. These interest payments are now approaching 40 percent of the annual federal budget.

The Federal Reserve Act is unconstitutional for many reasons, foremost among which is that Congress delegated to a private municipal corporation a power which Congress never had, that is, to counterfeit money. It is unlawful for Congress to exercise a power which is not authorized to it by the Constitution. The people, you and I, and the 50 States reserve all powers not expressly delegated to the federal government.

The Federal Zone, Chapter 8

"You seem to be trying to blame the educational system for your own failure to grasp complex subjects."


There's that insincere (that's a polite way of saying "lying") flavor of "polite" that is reminiscent of the "witless-cog" noun, and once again The SDuderstat school of politeness and etiquette jack-hammers common sense and human decency. For someone who doesn't like others to assume anything and who seems to require multiple repetitions of answers, it doesn't seem human for you to not hold yourself to the same standard. That question was already answered by me, but it seems you don't accept that.

Most complex subjects can be reduced to a simple and short abstract (for lack of a better word) that makes logical sense when the more complex parts are studied in greater detail and which makes sense no matter which POV it is viewed from. This is done in many "complex subjects". For one example, math is distilled down to addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division, while higher levels of it are used with many cryptic symbols that generally require years of study to be expertly familiar with. Yet, at the basic level, math is still logical. Counting is logical.

In the case of concealment or censorship of a basic fact, apparently simple concepts can be made much more complex and when the dots are connected, well the dots really can't be connected without understand everything about the system under study, in order to detect the precise concealment and its nature. Without numbers (censor numbers and the number line), mathematics becomes hocus pocus that would be exceedingly difficult.

What they did in school was conceal some basic truths, then FLOOD us with various minute details which we were expected to cough up on tests. The problem with this is that it favored those with great memories, and denied to those brains that recall their memories based upon logical pattern matching (stereotyping?), because with the basic truths concealed the dots did not connect, we were told we were expected to 'believe them' essentially because 'they said so'. So, they would just give us reams and reams of useless, impractical information that would never be used by 99.9% of us (unless we got jobs working for the Federal Reserve, perhaps), and expected us to spit it back to them on tests. If we literally spit at them, they'd get upset at us, yet that's metaphorically precisely what they wanted us to do.

Most humans seem "fair", most humans seem cooperative, most humans have empathy. At a minimum your comment seems to indicate some kind of mental health issue of yours, to demand something of others that you are able but unwilling to offer back to them in reciprocity yourself. I wonder whether this is another debate technique of disheartening the enemy. If so, how this relates to my inalienable right to pursue happiness (were I to take you seriously as a person with any honor and integrity), is another philosophical conundrum. I'm not a lawyer arguing in front of the supreme court, yet, that appears one place where such interrogations might occur, potentially becoming feisty, but still with a measure of dignity and respect lacking many of the personal insults so common in the Sduderstat school of politeness and etiquette. However, I'm not a lawyer arguing in front of the supreme court, nor do you appear to be a supreme court justice slyly reading DU while the others think you're doing something else, rather, you seem to be playing a stupid game of dominance that is riddled with deceit and deception.

I was just rereading the excerpt above about the Pentagon's war on the Internet, and I saw "witless cog" in one of the sentences. Hmm, that pretty much sums up this attitude of yours that you habitually project to others including me in this discussion board. Perhaps "witless cog" is a noun that applies to your inner life. It is also seems a common attitude among a number of employers, sometimes rationalized in reports as a method of keeping wages low; perhaps it's just an issue with those kinds of people who are habituated to dominance and routinely practice economic warfare even when money isn't changing hands, whether they are aware of it or not.

You'll note that I didn't ask you any direct questions. I don't encourage further interrogation by creating it directly, at least with you, though I certainly can't stop you from posting, nor would I want to. But don't expect me to reply back to you, as encouraging people such as your self in your techniques of belittlement, coupled with disregard of your own lack of honesty or integrity, or possession of the hypocritical double standard and lack of respect of others, is likely not prudent of me.

I have already achieved my objective of warning by showing to others precisely what you are, and you did all the work. Thank you for being so cooperative and predictable.

[SDuderstadt]

250. "You seem to be conducting an interrogation, not only of me, but also of others here"

It's called "debate". Perhaps you've heard of it.

[SDuderstadt]

251. The way I cited your misquotation of me...

is by the book.

You wrote : "They (sic) way you did it suggests I used single quotes, and that's absolutely not accurate and is not what I wrote, and seems illiterate given your criticisms of my language use, unless we're simply exploring your inward/outward dishonesty again." Actually, here are your exact words to show that I quoted you correctly (without quotation marks): His or her claim was that it was "not private".

In fact, I never claimed such a thing and I'd be delighted if you could pint to a post where I did.
Your point here is absurd and, again, you show your lack of knowledge about simple grammar. If you're quoting someone who is, in turn, quoting someone or something, proper grammar is to enclose the entire phrase in quotation marks and to enclose whatever portion was cited in quotation marks within single quote marks to differentiate the earlier quotation from the subsequent quotation. Why you're having trouble with this is beyond me.


http://owl.english.purdue.edu/handouts/grammar/g_quote.html

Quotation within a quotation
Use single quotation marks for a quotation enclosed inside another quotation. For example:

The agricultural reporter for the newspaper explained, "When I talked to the Allens last week, they said, 'We refuse to use that pesticide.' "


Am I being tough on you? Perhaps, but no tougher than I am on others who further silly and unsupportable myths about the Federal Reserve. Frankly, I find your lack of knowledge and that of others on a progressive/liberal message board appalling, inasmuch as we liberals tend to be better educated. Maybe instead of writing long, rambling posts, you could take the time to properly educate yourself about the Federal Reserve. Note that I am not saying in the least that the Fed is without flaws or does not deserve scrutiny. But, it also should not be scapegoated by people who have no earthly idea how it functions.

For example, one of your cited "sources" is Paul Andrew Mitchell who, despite holding no law degree, holds himself out as "counselor-at-law" and also claimed to be acting as the "Private Attorney General" in "People v United States". Are you seriously citing this guy as an expert in law or monetary/tax policy? I certainly hope not. If you can't tell that this guy is a serious whackjob, I can't help you.

[Trillo]

288. Regarding your chosen style guide,

their example was not precisely analogous, as it was a single-depth quotation: the Allens were not quoting someone else.

If you want to get really picky about it, using the rules on that page along with my assertion regarding honest use of quotes:

"His or her claim was that it was ['] . . . not private . . . [']"

The ellipsis would indicate where you deleted my text (double quote), while the bracket indicates your addition (single quote).

Regarding your invectives, I'd point out that debate doesn't require personal attack.

[SDuderstadt]

296. Please show me where I...

"deleted your text". I did no such thing. If you are now claiming that when quoting previously quoted material inside a subsequent quotation, one does not enclose the prior quotation is single quote marks, I can't help you.

[Trillo]

302. It is hopeless "debating" with you,

you appear unable to understand the links which you yourself use to "prove" your case. The reference you are looking for is above, you wrote it, and you're now likely being, as Hannah Bell pointed out, deliberately obtuse and wanting me to go searching for it, just for you.

If, as you seem to claim, it is considered acceptable to change text when quoting, then I would submit that the English language itself is now perpetuating lying by it's own rulesets, but I simply do not see that on that English page you referenced. I challenge you to show me where they do, if that's what you're claiming.

What it appears to me that you have done, is failed to read that page fully, a point that you jumped all over me for allegedly doing above. The style guide you referenced is clear enough, and nowhere do they state that they encourage changing text without indicating the change made. You simply didn't read far enough AND THINK about what they are saying.

Honestly, your writing is exceedingly unclear in places that I presume you want it to be, and as I wrote above, you seem to practice strategic and feigned ignorance. So all this crap from you about preciseness, is merely crap stylistically given for appearances sake. Another deception.

One point you and I agree upon. I cannot help you to be honest, as it requires an intent to project honesty outward. It seems you routinely fail to do that, even after others point it out to you gently or harshly, therefore it seems deliberate, it seems you do not wish to improve yourself. Only you can choose honesty. Perhaps someday you will choose that, but the choice is solely yours.

[SDuderstadt]

308. If I "changed" your text...

it should be easy for you to show exactly where and how I did it. Instead you are trying to shift the burden back to me to show I didn't, which I have already done. YOU'RE making the claim. It's YOUR burden of proof. Since you can't seem to understand this, I'll do it one more time. Here's a link to your ENTIRE post, which I will excerpt:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=3019420&mesg_id=3026003

From your own post:

His or her claim was that it was "not private".

Here's what I said in response:

1. If you're going to quote me, please quote me correctly. I challenge you to find any post from me remotely like what you described thusly: "His or her claim was that it was 'not private'". I said nothing of the sort. Do you honestly claim that since the Federal Reserve has private aspects, it is privately held? Do you even understand the distinction being made here?

Notice that I quoted you verbatim. In case you still contend I didn't, here's what you said again:

His or her claim was that it was "not private".

And, for the record, here's what I quoted you as saying:

"His or her claim was that it was 'not private'".

Now, I would be delighted to have you show how I, in any way, "changed" what you said. Please do or quit making phoney accusations. What's particularly ironic about this whole exchange is that it began with you misquoting me.

[SDuderstadt]

311. If I'm not being honest...

then it should be easy for you to point out where I have been dishonest. Accusing me of being dishonest is a rhetorical trick often used when one cannot respond to the evidence/proof/claim at hand. Is this what you are doing? If not, it's real simple. Point to any dishonesty from me. Be specific.

[SDuderstadt]

252. Unintentional dupe

[SDuderstadt]

254. Here's more on your "source",....

Paul Andrew Mitchell. I was going to ask you if you still claim he's credible but, frankly, I'm laughing too hard. Do you know how to evaluate these goofy sources of yours??




From: Supreme Law Firm
Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2008 12:30 AM
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TO: Sergeant at Arms, U.S. Senate, PUBLIC NOTICE OF INTENT to issue
a proper CITIZEN'S WARRANT FOR ARREST of John McCain


TO:


Hon. Terrance W. Gainer
Sergeant at Arms
United States Senate
Washington 20510
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, USA


http://www.senate.gov/reference/common/person/terrance_gainer.htm


SUBJECT:


PUBLIC NOTICE OF INTENT to issue a proper STATE


CITIZEN'S WARRANT FOR ARREST of John McCain


Greetings Mr. Gainer:


I am presently preparing a CITIZEN'S ARREST WARRANT


expressly authorizing you, Sergeant at Arms of the U.S. Senate,


to apprehend John McCain on formal charges as alleged in my


FOURTH VERIFIED CRIMINAL CROSS-COMPLAINT here:


<http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/azvmitch/crossco4.htm>
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/azvmitch/crossco4.htm


Thank you very much for your professional consideration.


Cc: The Internet


Sincerely yours,
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Private Attorney General, 18 U.S.C. 1964(a)
http://www.supremelaw.org/decs/agency/private.attorney.general.htm
Criminal Investigator and Federal Witness: 18 U.S.C. 1510, 1512-13
http://www.supremelaw.org/reading.list.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/index.htm (Home Page)
http://www.supremelaw.org/support.policy.htm (Support Policy)
http://www.supremelaw.org/guidelines.htm (Client Guidelines)
http://www.supremelaw.org/support.guidelines.htm (Policy + Guidelines)


All Rights Reserved without Prejudice


Our condensed list of IRS outreach resources:


http://www.supremelaw.org/sls/nutshell.htm <-- START HERE
http://www.supremelaw.org/letters/irs.estopped.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/end.times.irs.forward.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/letters/irs.perjury.jurats.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/psta.analysis.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/lien.or.levy.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/notice.of.deficiency.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/end.times.irs.cclists.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/support.guidelines.htm

[Hannah Bell]

268. "you seem to be playing a stupid game of dominance that is riddled with deceit and deception."

I agree.

[bbinacan]

152. I'm the OP and

let me lend you this.:tinfoilhat: And BTW, I was in a fraternity, and damned proud of it. Now that you know this, your narrow ass mind can simply dismiss anything I say. You suffer from reverse snobbery. FYI. I have a BA in Economics from The University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill. If you know anything about UNC, you'll know it's no bastion of conservatism. When you want to have a logical discussion, I'm all ears.

[Trillo]

156. Thank You!

Actually, I'm just trying to mirror. I suppose that "reverse" may be a semantic permutation of "mirror", as mirror images are reversed from each other. "Snobbery" wouldn't have occurred to me, but it's good to put a label on the tonalities I was mirroring.

No, I do not know much at all about your alma mater, and am sad to report that most of my dealings with the college crowd have been less than satisfactory from an ethics standpoint. The term "frat" boy or girl that I used is more of a characterization of a particular subset of college grads that possess particular characteristics. I'm fairly certain there's a rich history behind the characterization.

[SDuderstadt]

166. Does the word anecdotal mean anything to you?

Your plaintive wailing about the "college crowd" seems to belie a kind of anti-intellectual/education rationalization. It certainly is evident from your attempts to wow us with silly rhetoric. Did you get rejected by a college or something?

[bbinacan]

218. It seems you stereotype and

profile people based on their associations.

[Trillo]

154. A little documentation

Two failures, among several thousand (in the 80s), were the Home State Savings Bank of Cincinnati and Lincoln Savings and Loan.

From wikipedia:

Home State Savings Bank of Cincinnati

In March 1985, it came to public knowledge that the large Cincinnati, Ohio-based Home State Savings Bank was about to collapse. Ohio Gov. Dick Celeste declared a bank holiday in the state as Home State depositors lined up in a "run" on the bank's branches in order to withdraw their deposits. Celeste ordered the closure of all the state's S&Ls. Only those that were able to qualify for membership in the FDIC were allowed to reopen. <11> Claims by Ohio S&L depositors drained the state's deposit insurance funds. A similar event also took place in Maryland.

Lincoln Savings and Loan

The Lincoln Savings led to the Keating five political scandal, in which five U.S. senators were implicated in an influence-peddling scheme. It was named for Charles Keating, who headed Lincoln saving and made $300,000 as political contributions to them in the 1980s. Three of those senators - Alan Cranston, Don Riegle, and Dennis DeConcini - found their political careers cut short as a result. Two others - John Glenn and John McCain - were rebuked by the Senate Ethics Committee for exercising "poor judgment" for intervening with the federal regulators on behalf of Keating.<12>
...

Consequences

While not part of the Savings and Loan Crisis, many other banks failed. Between 1980 and 1994 more than 1,600 banks insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) were closed or received FDIC financial assistance. <15>

During the Savings and Loan Crisis, from 1986 to 1995, the number of US federally insured savings and loans in the United States declined from 3,234 to 1,645. <16> This was primarily, but not exclusively, due to unsound real estate lending.<17>

The market share of S&Ls for single family mortgage loans went from 53% in 1975 to 30% in 1990.<18> U.S. General Accounting Office estimated cost of the crisis to around USD $160.1 billion, about $124.6 billion of which was directly paid for by the U.S. government from 1986 to 1996. <19> That figure does not include thrift insurance funds used before 1986 or after 1996. It also does not include state run thrift insurance funds or state bailouts.

The concomitant slowdown in the finance industry and the real estate market may have been a contributing cause of the 1990-1991 economic recession. Between 1986 and 1991, the number of new homes constructed dropped from 1.8 to 1 million, the lowest rate since World War II. <20>

A taxpayer funded government bailout related to mortgages during the Savings and Loan crisis may have created a moral hazard and acted as encouragement to lenders to make similar higher risk loans during the 2007 subprime mortgage financial crisis. <21>

Here's one "bank run" newspaper citation regarding Countrywide:

A rush to pull out cash

Unsure about the future of home-loan giant Countrywide, bank customers line up to withdraw their money.

By E. Scott Reckard and Annette Haddad, Los Angeles Times Staff Writers
August 17, 2007

Anxious customers jammed the phone lines and website of Countrywide Bank and crowded its branch offices to pull out their savings because of concerns about the financial problems of the mortgage lender that owns the bank.
...
The rush to withdraw money -- by depositors that included a former Los Angeles Kings star hockey player and an executive of a rival home-loan company -- came a day after fears arose that Countrywide Financial could file for bankruptcy protection because of a worsening credit crunch stemming from the sub-prime mortgage meltdown.

http://www.latimes.com/business/printedition/la-fi-countrywide17aug17,0,5944637.story

[SDuderstadt]

167. Funny that you have to go all the way back to the S&L crisis...

for your "examples". Do you realize the difference between a bank failing and a run on the bank? No one ever said there are no bank runs (and I'd invite you to show me where I ever said such a thing). However, if not for the Fed, there would be far more bank runs, which is among the reasons why we have the Fed (which you'd understand if you had a freaking clue as to what you're yammering about.

As far as the Countrywide example, do you see that you are not talking about a simple bank run, but something called "complex cause"? In other words, are you claiming that Countrywide's problems were caused by a bank run or do you see that the "bank run" was caused by the escalating sub-prime mortgage crisis? Even further, was Countrywide closed due to a bank run? Hint: no, they were purchased by another bank. I'm sure you've heard of the FDIC? Or, do you think that's part of the "conspiracy" too?

[Hannah Bell]

233. fdic = roosevelt.

fed = 1913.

failures & runs continued apace until roosevelt reforms.

[SDuderstadt]

237. Ummm, Hannah.....

As much as I admire FDR, it's a bit of a stretch to credit him with the FDIC and, in fact, he initially opposed it. But it's simply not true to claim that the number of bank runs "continued apace" until the "Roosevelt reforms". If it had and had it been a problem of the magnitude you're implying, Congress would most certainly have not waited for 20 years to enact it. Clearly, the Glass/Steagall Act was prompted by the vast number of bank failures triggered by the Great Depression, but that's not evidence that bank runs, in and of themselves, were not a consequence of many other economic factors (complex cause). I think it's also interesting to note that FDR was, himself, a former banker. I wonder if those on here that attempt to pin all of our economic woes on the "banksters" realize that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FDIC

[Hannah Bell]

239. shorthand for roosevelt admin

depression = bank failures.

the fed didn't prevent them.

[SDuderstadt]

241. The Federal Reserve wasn't created to prevent....

depressions. I'm not sure what you are trying to claim here.

[Hannah Bell]

246. Bank failures & runs. In the depression.

I do believe you're being deliberately obtuse.

[SDuderstadt]

253. I'm being deliberately obtuse?

You're being unintentionally ironic, right? Especially since you're posting myths about the Federal Reserve.

[Hannah Bell]

255. What myths are those?

You mean the myth that the existence of the Fed prevents bank runs?

The myth that fdic has something to do with the fed?

[Hannah Bell]

269. Why is it "funny"?

It's cyclical, like the economy.

[defendandprotect]

190. It also charges us INTEREST on the money it prints . . . rightly done by Treasury!!!

JFK moved the printing of dollars back to the Treasury . . .

a dangerous decision for him, obviously --- !!!

[leftofthedial]

14. who gives a shit why it was founded?

it has existed since the 60's, maybe since WWII, to further the right wing economic agenda.

Capitalism is cancer. We need chemo and radical surgery or the planet is finished.

[SDuderstadt]

22. You obviously know nothing about the Federal Reserve...

especially if you think it has only existed "maybe since WWII". Jesus.

"Before the Federal Reserve was created in 1913, there were over 30,000 different currencies floating around in the United States."

http://money.howstuffworks.com/fed.htm

[leftofthedial]

27. it's only PURPOSE since WWII or so

has been to further RW economic policy and to undermine progressive economic policy.

Jesus.

[SDuderstadt]

33. More BS...

you don't remotely understand how the Federal Reserve works. For one thing, it is our government's bank. Do you understand what that means? With no Federal Reserve, how would our government function? This is not a LW or RW thing. Did you even read the info on the Federal Reserve that I linked to?

And, just to beat you to the punch, I'll match my liberal credentials up against anyone's and I despise the Bush administration. You have zero idea what you are talking about.

[Dreamer Tatum]

70. Don't waste your time arguing

Let's just go back to life before the depression, where you had to have 50% down to buy a house, and a local bank willing to loan you the money.
That bank had better be rock solid, too, because if it goes down, there goes liquidity for the entire community. Inflation...deflation...hey, who cares...almost a hundred years of stabilization policy means absolutely nothing, after all...

[Hannah Bell]

232. Depression happened after the creation of the Fed. n/t

[SDuderstadt]

248. No shit, Hannah...

and that proves?

[Hannah Bell]

256. Is there some reason for your nasty tone?

I don't see any justification for it. I made a flat, non-personal, true statement.

I'm not interested in talking to people who immediately resort to personal attack in discussions.

[SDuderstadt]

258. I'm challenging you on exactly what your post...

proves. Is that so hard to understand?

[Hannah Bell]

263. And I'm asking why you take such a nasty tone.

I won't say "Is that so hard to understand?"

Because that's the kind of nasty, demeaning comment I dislike.

I repeat: I made a flat statement of fact. There was no personalism, no demeaning comment attached.

The Fed: 1913.

The Depression's banking crisis: 1929-1933. Runs & record failures.

Draw your own conclusions.

I don't try to engage in discussion with persons who use attack & personal denigration as their first weapon.

[SDuderstadt]

270. And again, what is your point?

That the Fed caused the bank runs? That the Fed caused the depression? That the depression caused the bank runs? That the bank runs caused the depression?

As far as "personal attack and denigration", I'll remind you that you accused me of being "deliberately obtuse".

[Hannah Bell]

286. Your snark on the topic began well before that.

& after 2 posts attempting to clarify the meaning of "FDIC = roosevelt," the short, completely impersonal post you took issue with, it appeared you weren't interested in clarification. Thus, my assumption your obtuseness in not taking my point was deliberate.

[SDuderstadt]

298. Hannah....for crying out loud...

as I pointed out before, the legislation creating the FDIC originated in Congress and FDR initially opposed it. For your information, Congress is not part of the executive branch and, therefore, was not part of the FDR administration.

[Hannah Bell]

304. Yes, you pointed those things out.

Of course, you understood my point; the one I made 3 times in different ways; but you pointed those things out.

Not that I didn't understand them to begin with, but because your interest isn't in discussion.

Good evening. Enjoy the sound of your own voice.

You win! Whee!!!

[Name removed]

301. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

34. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Thothmes]

130. And Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, Carter and Clinton

just sat back and allowed the Fed to continue furthering RW economic policy.

[defendandprotect]

191. JFK moved the printing of money back to the Treasury . . .

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

15. Sorry, but...

As an objectively poor person, watching rapacious rich people becoming poor people is the most fun I have had since the pigs ate my little brother.

Good times. Good times.

[Brigid]

50. Yes, there is a part of me that enjoys that idea too. But . . .

They're taking us down with them.

[Vanje]

113. We're already down nt

[martymar64]

139. And when the fats cats come down . . .

we'll be there to greet them with ropes and guns and guillotines.

Heads will roll.

[Zhade]

52. What wine goes with rich people?

I'm just sayin'...

[Brigid]

55. A nice chianti,

according to Hannibal Lector, if I remember correctly. :evilgrin:

[Greyhound]

73. Don't forget the fava beans... n/t

[PVnRT]

65. You really think the "rich" will become poor?

You don't know much about how America works, do you?

[martymar64]

140. Maybe not poor, but . . .

do you think those gated communities could hold back an angry armed mob with revenge on their mind?

A fate similar to those Blackwater guys in Falluja a few years back awaits the fat cats.

The rich might just need to flee the US altogether if they want to keep the heads.

[Hannah Bell]

234. Pump & dump.

"In recession/depression, wealth returns to its rightful owners."

[drexel dave]

99. been doing good in the hood'

for years now, but people keep telling me what a bad person I am since I live in a shit neighborhood in a ghetto-ass city.

It is fun seeing the vacuous elite of America fall.

Hell, being poor ain't nothin' new to me. I know the meaning of soup beans and cornbread oh too well! I can also survive in the forest, as many of us "po' white trash" types whom I gladly admit to being can (I was in the Army and learned all kinds of fun stuff).

Peace,
DD

[Demeter]

16. You Must Be Out of Your MInd

Nobody hopes for an economic collapse--but telling DU that it's here is a service for the clueless, uniformed and inattentive.

It's here. It started last summer, it's moving at an accelerating speed, and there are steps one can take to protect oneself and family.

Get educated the easy way, or the hard way, it's your choice.

[DemocratInSoCal]

18. Are You Kidding Me?

The system IS going to collapse. The people controlling the strings right now are CORRUPT, GREEDY, SELFISH, EVIL, LYING, ASSHOLES.

This is the only way PEOPLE WILL WAKE THE FUCK UP, AND TAKE BACK THEIR COUNTRY! Perhaps FINALLY, the Corporate WHORE Media, won't be able to CON the masses, as they've been doing for the past decade.

[bbinacan]

23. Yawn

:rofl:

[Name removed]

54. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Skittles]

57. something certainly wrong with finding this subject amusing

:o

[TheWatcher]

96. It is very sad isn't it?

People like that just like to giggle and snicker at everything, and pretend everything is fine, nothing exists, my comfortable paradigm is the only reality, etc, etc, fingers in the ears, "la la la la la, I'm not listening to You".

It is shocking to see people pooh-poohing what is going on to the extent that they are.

But it is a waste of time to direct anger or outrage at them anymore, and believe me, take it from someone who has wasted far too much time and energy doing so.

Get educated, informed, and make a plan for yourself and your family.

It's too late to help those who won't listen.

Their education, I am afraid, will be a very hard one of experience.

[maxsolomon]

68. or elect a Fascist.

its happened before.

[varelse]

20. Oh, no thank you

I didn't order an economic collapse, nor am I contributing to one. However, combining deregulation of banks and investment companies with seemingly unlimited taxpayer liability to protect them from consequences of their unregulated fuckups - that seems to me to be a recipe for the "perfect storm" type of economic collapse. Especially when the same people handing out the dole to these major corporations with one hand are "stage whispering" to the individual citizens (unemployed, bankrupt, homeless, sick without insurance coverage, ran a red light and don't have the money to pay the ticket) "the trouble you have is all due to consequences of YOUR choices, now just suck it up," well it seems certain that at some point this untenable "system" is bound to collapse. *

Just sayin'


*Yes, I am rambling, and that is a run-on sentence... deal with it :P

[bbinacan]

112. Glass-Steagall Act

should have never been repealed.

[Selatius]

170. You can blame Bill Clinton and the Republican Congress for its repeal in 1999.

The Republicans and their backers on Wall Street knew what they were doing.

[bbinacan]

220. I'm pissed off

at everyone who supported this.

[MadMaddie]

25. Don't be ridiculous.....folks at DU and other liberal sites are

like a steerage passanger on the bow of the Titantic- we see the iceberg, we don't want to hit the iceberg and we have been screaming warning, warning.

No it's not a wish of DU'rs to have a complete economic collapse...we are the passengers in steerage....no one cares about what we think or cares about our well being.


The problem is the Captain of the ship G.W. * is drunk on power and speed and he and his cronies have been determined to stay on course even though all of the signs say that the course should be altered....

Place credit where credit is due....The Republican party and their policeis of destruction.

[Brigid]

39. Very apt analogy.

And I just happen to be watching that movie on DVD right now.

[MadMaddie]

40. Thanks! It is a pretty good movie.

:hi:

[uppityperson]

41. Thank you for the analogy. We don't want it, but see it coming.

Yelling "beware the iceberg" doesn't mean we want it, or cause it, at all.

[jesus_of_suburbia]

93. Best post I've read today! Thanks! So true, MadMaddie!

[Vanje]

114. If I could recommend a post,

This would be it

[ret5hd]

26. bbinacan INSISTS we all go shopping! Tonight! Not tomorrow (well, tomorrow too) but tonight!

And spend that tax advance on consumer goods...don't save it for hard times!

[Name removed]

42. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[reggie the dog]

92. i live overseas

but I filed taxes this year, and was under the exemption amount so I paid nothing, do I still get the 600 dollar rebate? I just love taking money the government gives me through tax rebates and using it to buy cannabis, it makes me feel like I am turning the feds into accessories.....

[Ichingcarpenter]

30. Bullshit on your OP....

The warnings have been there and the warnings were given.

Who are you to say that is a wish of the many?
Nobody wants this coming economic downturn to be a burden of the middle
class and poor.

BTW gold now is a to $1040 which means oil, gas and food will not be far behind.

[Brigid]

45. Now I know why . . .

So many jewelry stores are trying to buy old gold jewelry, and ads appear on TV to send your gold in for cash. I've already sold off most of the old pieces I have.

[high density]

32. The gold, guns and ammo brigade here on DU is amusing

It's almost like the anti-CNBC.

[leftrightwingnut]

35. Well, maybe if the fed was handled correctly.

See http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x345761">Forget Spitzer, fire Bernanke

[Hippo_Tron]

36. I agree, unfortunately people have bought into libertarian propaganda

Economic policy isn't all about class warfare and some people will never understand that.

[Hannah Bell]

61. it's not? n/t

[Two Americas]

107. huh?

Class warfare is a libertarian concept?

The wealthy and powerful sure think that economic policy is about class warfare and they act quite effectively and consistently with that.

Maybe you are thinking of France as a country where "class warfare" has run amok. Can't have that.

[martymar64]

143. Maybe the collapse will be like France around 1789

or Russia in 1917. I'm beginning to think things have advanced too far for it not to end up ugly and bloody.

[Two Americas]

223. a paradox

Those of advocating a more radical approach are accused of wishing to foment revolution or civil war - as though denying that those could happen will make the possibility go away, and as if those sounding the alarm are causing the danger by pointing it out.

The longer we cling to false hopes about half measures and working within the system, the more dangerous it will be when the eventual and inevitable reckoning comes. I believe that those of us advocating radical approaches are advocating the safer path, not the more dangerous one. Those advocating caution and moderation and working within the system are putting us in greater and greater danger.

Denying danger doesn't make it go away. Facing the danger is not the cause of the danger.

[defendandprotect]

192. MUCH of our "economic policy is about class warfare" ... in fact, capitalism

is a "ridiculous King-of-the-Hill-Sytem" . . . intended to move assets from the many to the few!

[SarahB]

37. Just who do YOU think these "many" are?

Sure, those of us who have the foresight to see what's really going on are sitting around posting and pontificating living off our trust funds. :sarcasm:

HELLO?! WE ARE WORKING PEOPLE TOO! We have families to feed, jobs to go to, bills to pay, gas to buy, and have to live and try to survive in this collapsing mess. No one wants this. Some of us just chose not to keep our heads in the sand.

Edit: Because people would rather nitpick about an insignificant grammatical error in an effort to marginalize someone's opinion than open their eyes. :eyes:

[bbinacan]

44. I think you mean't to say

Just who do you think these "many" are?

And if you want to see the "many", just go to Latest on DU.

[angstlessk]

51. wait a moment, deary, meant does not come with an apostrophe and you repeated verbatim

exactly what the poster said??? who are you?

[TheWatcher]

97. Just another sheep who can't wait to get slaughtered, I suppose.

[uppityperson]

142. A not very good proof reader?

[Name removed]

43. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

106. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Marr]

128. Just out of curiosity--

is your degree in economics? I'm not going anywhere with this question, I'm just curious.

[treestar]

46. I admit it

The average moran will not get it otherwise. They will tolerate a police state, so long as they have all the crap they can buy. But have it hit their pocketbooks, and they will rebel.

[Brigid]

48. Bill Maher said it best . . .

"People think this country is in great shape because the stock market is going through the roof and their cell phones work." Granted, he said that several years ago, but his basic idea is still valid. People will keep their head in the sand so long as they believe their own little corner of the world is secure. When they lose that belief, then there will be trouble.

The thng that scares me is that when the collapse comes, there are going to be millions of people wandering around this country with nothing to lose. That is not exactly a recipe for stability.

[flvegan]

47. Ask them how they think it'll work for them for it to collapse.

I'm all for change, and I think the whole system needs to be revamped. Much like our democracy. I don't want that to collapse, either.

[Zhade]

53. "Hoping for" and "recognizing" are two different things.

NT!

[neverforget]

58. The Fed is screwing the little guy with all these rate cuts to help Wall Street.

Every time they cut they fuel inflation. They don't give a shit about us little guys. It's Wall Street that butters their bread not us.

[Uncle Joe]

67. I agree, so long as they keep pumping money in to the system or lower rates, gas, food

and pretty much everything else will keep going up and the people will lose ground just as if they were trapped in quicksand.

[Thickasabrick]

60. Bear Stearns wasn't a bank - it was a large brokerage operation

[Elidor]

66. Exactly

The Fed has not been in the business of bailing out non-bank financial institutions. Privatize the profits, socialize the losses. It's a scam.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

62. Yeah. Bring on the food riots!

I could stand to lose 20 lbs. :eyes:

[Bushwick Bill]

63. Fed background.

A Talk by G. Edward Griffin
Author of The Creature from Jekyll Island (scroll down)
http://www.bigeye.com/griffin.htm

[SDuderstadt]

64. You realize that G. Edward Griffin is a RW whacko...

right?

[tabasco]

69. Then leave.

Is someone holding a gun to your head, forcing you to read DU and become "sick and tired?"

[bbinacan]

111. Look buddy,

I like DU. I took issue with one thing. What are your thoughts on the role of the FED?

[Greyhound]

71. Yes, I know exactly why it was created, and speaking of clueless,

it had nothing to do with liquidity, but with a cabal of wealthy families controlling the economy of the United States, the same families that the founders of this country went to some great pains to rid us of.

The whole Central Banking scheme is a classic Ponzi scheme, and as such, when the cash stops coming in at the bottom the whole thing falls apart.

Now which part of the financial sector do you work in?

[SDuderstadt]

76. This is such bullshit...

you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about and I don't work in part of the financial sector. You seriously need to educate yourself as to why we have the Federal Reserve and how it works. A Ponzi scheme? Pray tell...how is the Federal Reserve a "Ponzi scheme"? Unfrickingbelievable.

[Greyhound]

95. I will put my knowledge of history and the motivations behind this scheme

up against yours any day of the week. Your baseless accusation that I "have absolutely no idea what you are talking about..." is just that, a baseless accusation that has only one purpose, to foment the idea that you know what is 'really' happening. Unfortunately, the truth is that you are just one of the suckers that has been taken in and, like the man that fell from the roof of the building, when asked on the way down how it is going replies, "so far, so good".

From the Wikipedia; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ponzi_scheme">A Ponzi scheme usually offers abnormally high short-term returns in order to entice new investors. The high returns that a Ponzi scheme advertises (and pays) require an ever-increasing flow of money from investors in order to keep the scheme going. The system is doomed to collapse because there are little or no underlying earnings from the money received by the promoter. In fact, this particular scheme doesn't even have the high returns that the traditional Ponzi provides. It is nothing but bald faced theft that inevitably ends with the bank owning everything.

So explain to me how a system that allows an institution to "loan" something it does not own to people, and charge interest for the privilege, is anything other than a scam. If I sell you the Grand Canyon I am guilty of fraud, since I don't own it, but when a bank charges you interest on money it doesn't have, but just creates out of thin air, you're OK with that. Who is the mark in this scenario?

[angstlessk]

102. who this person is I am not sure...he takes the side the boosh

in the 9/11 dungeon...a political appointee to surf the web??? I wonder???

[SDuderstadt]

144. "he takes the side the boosh"

Are you saying that the Federal Reserve was this "nefarious" when Clinton was President? As I have said repeatedly before, I despise "Boosh" (Bush), but that does not entitle you (or anyone else) to make up shit about the Federal Reserve.

[SDuderstadt]

145. I see...

so, if your claim that the Federal Reserve (and banking in general, I suppose) is a "Ponzi scheme", why don't the interest rates on savings accounts, CD's, etc. keep going up, since that would be the only way for the "Ponzi scheme" to continue? I'll say it again. You have no freaking idea what you are talking about. Maybe you could suggest a better way for the banking system to work. If you can, I'm sure we'll be all ears. In the meantime, there are plenty of legitimate problems in our economic/monetary/banking systems to concern ourselves with, without you inventing or parrotting these goofy "the Federal Reserve" is a "Ponzi scheme" BS assertions. Just because you don't understand how a complex system works, doesn't mean it's crooked. By the way, if the Federal Reserve system is a "Ponzi Scheme", why does it return nearly everything it "earns" (something like 95%) to the Federal Treasury (which is required by federal law)? That's a pretty odd "Ponzi scheme". Your allegation is absurd and silly.


http://money.howstuffworks.com/fed15.htm

[Name removed]

148. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SDuderstadt]

149. In other words...

you can't answer the question, so you'll just accuse and insult me. Let me make sure I get this straight. YOU believe the Federal Reserve is a "Ponzi scheme" despite the fact that, by federal law, it returns 95% of its earnings to the federal treasury, yet you think I'm the one who's incredibly stupid? Is this wasn't so pathetic, it would actually be funny. You have zero idea how the Federal Reserve actually works, yet you parrot all these CT memes about it. If I'm wrong about this, maybe you could demonstrate your knowledge by explaining how the FOMC works.

As to your accusation that I might be a troll, you'd be surprised to find that a number of us liberals actually understand how our most critical and fundamental entities work so that it's head-shakingly astonishing to us when fellow "liberals" parrot absolute nonsense like the Federal Reserve is a "Ponzi scheme". Unfuckingbelievable.

[Greyhound]

178. Just more BS. You asked no question, just avoided the point, even ignored

the definition posted and linked for you. Now back to your bridge, before the sun comes up and turns you to stone.

[defendandprotect]

193. The answer is . . .

BOTH --- !!!

I have him on "ignore" ---

my only "ignore" ---

[SDuderstadt]

209. D&P has me on igore because...

I keep asking him/her questions that he/she can't answer and for proof that he/she cannot provide. It's got to be embarrassing.

[truedelphi]

172. At the Very Least, The Federal Reserve is a big bad stinky LIE

Supposedly it exists to prevent bank panics.

It was created in 1913, and a mere sixteen yrs later we had the Mother of all Depressions, (1929) so so much for the friggin' theory of why we supposedly need it.

Another poster said it best: on account of the Federal Reserve, we, the average taxpayers, realize all the losses and none of the gains of the "free market." The gains belong to the banking class.

[defendandprotect]

194. WONDERFUL ...!!! And, please keep on tellin' that truth . . . !!!

[Still-ill]

74. I agree with you

I can only speak for myself but I sure dont want to live through the second great depression. I dont care who's in office.

[LanternWaste]

75. I imagine that....

I imagine that there's some visceral glee re: the recession on DU that reads much like the rapture ready boards.

"Good-- let the rich folk fall" vs. "Good-- let the heathen burn". Six of one, half a dozen of the other...

[reggie the dog]

94. the worst part of it is

that the wealthiest will still be super rich even after the crash.

[stewert]

80. I Disagree

I sure as hell dont want the economy to collapse. I know it will hurt Bush and the Republicans, but I dont want it to collapse.

And if it does collapse it will show the people how bad Republican policies are for them. I dont think anyone here wants the economy to collapse, they just dont mind the economy being bad while Bush is in office.

But nobody wants it to collapse.

[Raksha]

85. It's not so much a matter of "hoping" for a collapse

as being aware of the silver lining, namely the downfall of the neocons, and hopefully the Republican Party. Many of us realized that a certain segment of the American population (hopefully not the majority, but enough to swing elections) is so self-centered and/or lobotomized by the corporate media that nothing less than a total economic meltdown that affected THEM personally stood a chance of waking them up.

We're grateful for the wake-up call, NOT the collapse.

[DemocratDammit]

86. OP: I think you misread people.

Nobody wants a collapse, but smart people see that collapse is nearly inevitable.

And some of us hope it hurts mostly rich Rethuglicans, though we all know they are usually out of a market long before the pain comes.

[girl gone mad]

87. Can you point me to the post..

of a DUer hoping for an economic collapse?

[bbinacan]

150. All you had to do was

read the Latest on Sunday. Why is everyone so quiet now?

[Hannah Bell]

307. Link, link, link.

Evidence. Link to the "many". Should be no sweat, since according to you, they're all over the place.

Betcha don't, though.

[Mike03]

88. I appreciate your sentiments, and I'm NOT hoping for economic collapse.

I'm ambivalent about the Fed, but they have saved us several times from a bank run, which would damage not only the wealthy but the poor. In fact, it would probably harm the poor and middle class more than it would hurt the wealthy, because the wealthy have their money in instruments that are not subject to liquidation.

In any event, the people who want financial ruin are just venting their emotions in the heat of the moment. When we really have collapse, which is coming, it won't be good for any of us. And all of these passionate outcries will have been forgotten.

[question everything]

89. Probably the same who cheered the California fire

because "rich mansions" were burned.

I hope that all are just immature without the simple understanding of real people's lives.

What, exactly are they cheering for? Long bread and soup lines? Is this what they think will bring a better society?

How naive, how foolish.

[AlinPA]

91. Many?

[Warren Stupidity]

98. I see collapse as the only way out of the current dilemma

I am not looking forward to it, but it is where we are heading and some good will come out of it. Without the collapse of '29 there would not have been a New Deal. There also probably would not have been a WWII - so I understand your point as well. However both the collapse of 29, the New Deal and WWII were inevitable. We need to accept what is happening and make the best of it.

Our system has reached the point where it cannot act in a rational fashion to address the problems, the real problems, that are going to result in its collapse. Instead, shackled by a failed ideology and pervasive institutional corruption, at best it puts band-aids around the festering wounds while continuing the same ideologically bankrupt policies that are only of benefit to the elites who have corrupted the republic for their private benefit.

[many a good man]

100. Many DUers want to crucify mankind on a cross of gold!

God help us all!

[Baby Snooks]

101. Your common sense?

My common sense tells me that there must be equilibrium in the liquidity of the banking system to maintain confidence with the depositor.

There was no liquidity today in Bear Stearns. $30 a share does not require a bail-out in order to prevent bankruptcy. $2 a share forced upon shareholders does not maintain confidence with the depositor.

No one is hoping for economic collapse. No one, however, believes the Federal Reserve should be bailing out hedge funds. Would you be so up on the Federal Reserve if this had been Carlyle Group instead of Bear Stearns? It may be next. Then another. Then another.

The government insures banks. Not hedge funds. So why is the Fed covering losses on hedge funds the banks probably shouldn't have involved themselves in to begin with?

Anyone whose pension plan or mutual fund plan included shares of Bear Stearns lost $28 between the closing bell on Friday and the opening bell on Monday. Just because. Just because the Federal Reserve said "here's the money." In other words, no SEC, no anything. Done deal.

Maybe all they would have gotten today was $22. If so, they still would have had $20 extra in their pocket. It was taken out of their pocket by the Federal Reserve. And it is gone. And that is okay with you?

[katty]

103. next stop: Pottersville

[BlooInBloo]

105. I think it's mostly the Doom & Gloomers who so desperately want to be right...

... about THE END OF THE WORLD IS NIGH.

Not so much that they want the collapse per se, it's just that they want to be RIGHT and be able to say neener-neener-NEE-NER!!!

[Two Americas]

108. damned leftists

If we could just get rid of them, we could make some real progress.

All of those negative people have been predicting bad things for a few years now, and it isn't like any bad things have actually happened.

[El Pinko]

163. Speaking only for myself, I would LOVE to be wrong.

I was yelling about the housing bubble to all my friends in SF and Miami back in 2005, and nowbody would listen.

I got my butt outta there while the getting was good while other people were buying massively overpriced housing with visions of 5%/month appreciations in their eyes.

I was right about the bubble (which has only barely started to leak at this point), and I suspect I'm right about our hollowed-out economy.

Perhaps someone will step forward and put some juice in the old engine that will keep her humming for a few more years (like the late 90s tech bubble). I wouldn't be averse to that if it prevents people from suffering, but it still wouldn't fix the sustainability problems of the present system.

[Echo In Light]

109. I'm sometimes amazed at the amount of chest-thumping haters here at DU n/t

[JanMichael]

110. There really are, and it's not because of "bad" reasons:

I think that so many people on DU are old enough to have seen the horrors of the Reagan years come to roost, and they feel that the only way to permanently solve the problems is a complete depression.

Sometimes I feel that way too: kind of a "fuck it, you want it you stupid Republicans, bring it on."

[Make7]

115. I think many people are upset about why things are where they are....

... and hope something will actually be done to lessen the chance of it happening again.

This article from a post by debbierlus explains what I mean:

The Bubble Economy

The sub-prime mess, the huge risks taken by hedge funds, and the conflicts of interest that led to Enron are all the consequences of serial bouts of financial deregulation. Will we reverse field in time to prevent another 1929?

http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=the_bubble_economy

The current situation did not occur in a vacuum, it was practically unavoidable given the circumstances.

- Make7

[mrbluto]

116. Economic Brownshirts

The Fed defends this economy like the police enforced the law in Nazi Germany.

The Brownshirt gangs smashed Jewish property and commited assaults and the police stood by. The Jewish resisters were arrested for their "crimes" by the same police.

The Fed stands by while the average American suffers, or is duped and stuck with the bill for corporate risk-taking and malfeasance. The Fed swoops in with whatever remedy it can provide when rich fat threatens to slip out of the pan into the fire.

Sizzle.

After getting beat over the head in ways Adam Smith would never advocate (in fact opposed*) regular people are practically salivating for a little schadenfreude.

Can you really blame them?

Even chimps at some point refuse to credit an inequitable set up.

---

*Looks like Adam Smith agrees with the Brownshirt analogy too, in a way:

Masters are always and everywhere in a sort of tacit, but constant and uniform combination, not to raise the wages of labour above their actual rate… (When workers combine,) masters… never cease to call aloud for the assistance of the civil magistrate, and the rigorous execution of those laws which have been enacted with so much severity against the combinations of servants, labourers, and journeymen.

Just swap in "Federal Reserve" for "civil magistrate" and we're off to the races.

[trayfoot]

118. F'ING CLUELESS!

If this is what you think.......you are NUTS!

[magellan]

119. What total bollocks

I've been reading DU posts warning about where the economy was headed for nearly four years and I've never come across one hoping for economic collapse -- except one recent one from an obvious troll that I put right.

Where do you get off accusing people of this? It's the kind of thing I'd expect to hear from the RW with their low reading comprehension skills and desire to paint the left as anti-American.

You are right, though, about how some including me feel about the Federal Reserve. For some time it's been just another WH propaganda tool, feeding us feel-good data about the economy that has little to no bearing on the truth...until the truth can't be hidden any longer. And STILL we're being lied to about the real unemployment and inflation data. We'll see how much longer they can stay ahead of those realities.

My father and grandmother told me all I ever want to know about the Great Depression. Learning about it firsthand because no one listened when warned that the Fed and WH were aiding and abetting the systemic trashing of this country's economic underpinnings is NO wish of mine.

[Xenotime]

120. This economy is fucking dead.. don't you see it?

People don't know shit about what is to happen. Lives are being ruined but you just love the fed and everything it stands for.

[defendandprotect]

195. Notce all the arguments for the FED are fear-based . . .

No one wants to see economic ruing for the many --

most of us are simply arguing that the many are being harmed while the few are

profiting wildly at the espense of taxpayers --- and the accumulation of huge debt for the US!

[SOS]

122. Bear Stearns had depositors?

They were an investment bank. No depositors. And yet we told to "get a clue".

BS was a greedy, crooked operation. They deserve nothing.
They should have gone bankrupt and the assets divided amongst the ripped-off investors.
BS was famous for bashing "government bail outs" most notably when they refused the Feds request to help with LTCM in 1998.
And since when does the Fed take on the risk in the liquidation of a rotten investment bank?

There is a difference between" hoping for economic collapse" and disagreeing with the Feds actions in regard to BS.
The winners succeed and the losers go out of business. That's the alleged basis of the competetive, free enterprise, capitalist system, isn't it?

Bear Strearns is a loser.

[bbinacan]

151. Yes get a clue

The lack of knowledge about the economy, banks, investment houses, etc. is astonishing. Investment accounts have evolved into dual investment and checking accounts. Merrill has the CMA, Morgan Stanley has the AAA, etc. I used to work for Morgan Stanley and many of my clients had their paychecks directly deposited to their investment accounts. They had checks and debit cards that would allow them to withdraw monies that were DEPOSITED to their accounts. Come back when you have a fucking clue.:banghead:

[SOS]

179. It's not a deposit, period.

From the Merrill Lynch CMA web site, as cited in your post:

"The CMA account is a powerful financial management tool that allows you to manage a wide range of investments while giving you easy access to your assets."

As a former Morgan Stanley employee, you are surely familiar with the difference between a deposit and an investment?

Are Bank Deposits Safe?
http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/content/mar2008/db20080317_533267.htm

[bbinacan]

219. I am familiar

with the difference. Let me lay this out simply. Many people have grown weary of maintaining separate checking, savings, and investment accounts. They now combine all into to one account. Their paychecks etc. now can go into a central account. The cash goes into a money market account (think savings account), they can write checks (think checking account), and they can move their deposited money over to longer term investments (think investment account). The only difference is that one account now does what three accounts used to. Got it now? I knew you could do it.:toast:

[Hannah Bell]

235. They write checks for investments.

Not for their groceries. Unless they're idiots, since BS deposits aren't federally insured.

[bbinacan]

244. They write checks

for groceries, rent, mortgage, car payments, etc. NOT just investments. Go out and buy a clue.

[Hannah Bell]

261. your unprovoked nAstiness is whAt's clueless.

Bear, Stearns & Co. Inc., one of the largest global investment banks and securities trading and brokerage firms in the world. The main business areas, based on 2006 net revenue distrubtions, are: capital markets (equities, fixed income, investment banking; just under 80%), wealth management (under 10%) and global clearing services (12%).


which is the checking Account for the groceries? my understAnding is thAt "weAlth mAnAgement" stArts in the millions.

[A HERETIC I AM]

281. Retail Brokerage firms have been offering check writing privileges on investment accounts for years.

Putting aside Bear Sterns and the other large Commercial investment banks and securities companies, major retail brokerages (that's the likes of Morgan Stanley, Merrill Lynch, AG Edwards (Now Wachovia) Raymond James, UBS, Stifel Nicholaus and many others offer check writing against investment accounts. They require, for the most part, a margin agreement and if there is no cash available, either in a Money Market fund or a bank deposit program, the check is satisfied using a margin loan. The account owner then has the responsibility of satisfying the margin by either selling securities or adding funds to the account. Depending on the terms of the account agreement and with a few exceptions, the checks can be written for any amount and for any thing (some might have a minimum check size of $200.00 for instance). Most of these types of accounts have higher minimum balances and perhaps a higher annual fee than a typical banking checking account, but these types of accounts are not at all unusual.

[Hannah Bell]

287. So what?

It doesn't make them a retail savings bank.

They were expressly not a retail bank, but an investment bank/securities broker; not regulated under retail banking laws, not guaranteed by fdic, not subject to even retail reserve requirements; they catered to "sophisticated" (i.e. rich) investors who didn't need such protections.

Now they come pleading poverty & saying the accounts were used to buy groceries. Funny if it weren't so crooked.

The original the poster responded to:

"My common sense tells me that there must be equilibrium in the liquidity of the banking system to maintain confidence with the depositor."

It's not "the banking system". It's "the investment system".

It's not "depositors." It's "investors."

"Investors" shouldn't get bailed out. Epecially for criminality.

[bbinacan]

303. ..

:boring:

[Hannah Bell]

306. Personal attacks & denigration seem to be the preferred MO of some

around here. Why is that, I wonder?


I've always figured it was an unconscious fear of one's own weakness.

[defendandprotect]

196. At the least, US taxpayers should now own Bear Stearns . . . !!!

[amborin]

123. wanting economic collapse is not equal to loathing the Fed Reserve

the Fed Reserve is fine, but an economic collapse might mean a temporary end to:
over development, habitat loss (as folks construct second and third homes), materialism, hyper consumerism, and assorted other morbidities of contemporary culture

[better tomorrow]

124. then why was it created in secret on an illusive island?

[better tomorrow]

125. A primer

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ojn0HSETnw&eurl=http://www.bigeye.com/griffin.htm

[qanda]

126. Is it hope or insight?

I'm just wondering. Because a lot of DUers predicted what the Iraq war venture was going to turn out to be and they were right. In most cases, they weren't hoping for America to do poorly-- they just had the insight to know that all the conditions were leading to a poor outcome. It may be the same insight they're using to predict what will happen in the economy.

[better tomorrow]

127. I think it is reading the right Websites ahead of time....

Everything I read back in 2001 - 2004 has come true. I now have people who today say, "How did you know this?" I told them I read about it on underground websites....so pay attention to those "odd things you think are silly on here". Most of them will come true or ARE happening.....You can tell the tinfoil hatters, thanks. Don't make fun of them. They are in the know more than you know.

[defendandprotect]

197. Iraq is bankrupting the Treasury . . . for one thing . .

[me b zola]

129. Could you please post links to those "many" DUers?

Thanks.

[hogwyld]

132. Bring it on!

We need to reset the paradigm in this country, and feast on the fat, wealthy bastards for a change. We need to eliminate the Fed, and go back to the gold standard of our monetary supply. ON top of that, we need a serious budgetary diet to bring our national debt to ZERO. That means eliminating the defense budget, the homeland security administration, no more earmarks whatsoever, with independent auditing of the budget. We need to repeal all of the Bush tax cuts, with a 90% margin on those making over 100k. When we attain those simple things, the dollar will eventually rebound. I have my victory garden, and don't use banks anymore. Cash is king, and credit is the path to ruination. Once the Fed is gone, we can then go after the predatory banking industry, and bring them to justice. We also need to cap the interest rate on all loans to eliminate the profit motive of these cannibalistic lenders. Hopefully, we will then rediscover the value of COOP's in our local communities, or the barter system, where actual work is promoted instead of some twit pushing electronic dollars here and there. This coming depression will strengthen us, and rebuild as well as renew our society.

[hogwyld]

133. Kick for Anarchy

[hunter]

134. I wasn't hoping the war in Iraq would go badly, but I knew it would.

Oh goody, goody, we won, we knocked down a statue of Saddam! Mission Accomplished.

USA NUMBER ONE! USA NUMBER ONE! USA NUMBER ONE! USA NUMBER ONE!

Oh bother. The shit just keeps getting deeper, don't it? When Bush stole into the White House a lot of us knew it would.

If only we could think happy thoughts, this would all go away, and the dollar would be strong!.

Ah well, the Fed did what it was supposed to do, and keeps doing it. Instead of riding on the rims until the car crashes, as happened in the Great Depression, we've got a trunk full of those spiffy little spare tires new cars come with.

Do not exceed 50mph, do not drive more than 50 miles. Do not crawl under a car supported with this jack.

[Subdivisions]

135. ...

You're either woefully uninformed or you have a kool-aid mustache.

Which is it? Red? or Green?



THIS SYSTEM MUST COLLAPSE! Yea, it's going to take some people out and it's going to hurt the rest of us in differing degrees. But, in order to wipe the slate clean it must collapse.

[texshelters]

136. The Federal Reserve Banks protects the wealthy

not the average citizen. It is the bank for ruined system that bails out the wealthy and passes laws that make it harder for the average citizen to declare bankruptcy.

I do not want economic collapse, but it might be the only remedy for a system that only works for the wealthy and the expense of all of us.

A central bank that works for the people sounds good.

Tex Shelters

[Fire Walk With Me]

138. America needs to learn what is important: taking care of each other, and the world itself.

Living together and celebrating differences as being our source of strength, when we are combined together.

[MadHound]

141. Sorry that reality disturbs you so much

I seriously doubt that more than a handful of DUers "want" an economic collapse. However many DUers are very smart and savvy about what is being done with the economy, how it is effecting ordinary people adversely for the benefit of corporations, and what a house of cards our current economic situation. You may not like the negative tone that is expressed around here, but quite frankly the reality of the matter is that there's not much to be happy about.

As far as the Fed goes, yes, it is supposed to provide liquidity. The trouble is that the mechanisms that the Fed uses, buying bonds, rate cuts, are all inflationary and screw the ordinary person. What is essentially happening with these current moves is that the Fed is propping up the financial sector at the expense of screwing over ordinary people. Basic macro-economics.

The real kicker is that all the Fed can do at this point is delay the inevitable. This economy has already gone into recession, and it's very close to crashing into a major depression. And frankly all these Fed rate cuts are doing is exacerbating the problem. Higher inflationary rates means less consumer spending, which means lower profits, lower GDP, lower consumption, and worse problems for the financial sector, and around and around we go in a vicious circle. That's the problem with economies that are based on consumption and the financial sector.

You may want to see everything is great and fine, and that's your right. But frankly most of us prefer to deal with a reality based world.

[penguin7]

155. inflation transfers wealth

Fixed income people get hurt the most. People in debt with a highly leverage house get helped the most.

But why bail out Bear Stearns? The government is trying to prop up their paper. This paper is all over the places and in foreign banks also. This is one big giveaway to the very wealthy at the expense of inflation.

Why not let Bear Stearns go down the toilet and use their paper to wipe their butts? This would not be inflationary and a whole bunch of foreigners would lose gobs of money. Of Course some very wealthy Americans would lose gobs of money also. So what.

Another thing about bailing people out of their home loan. These people have the option to walk away from the house. It is not like when they took possession that they did not know the house was worth hundreds of thousands of dollars.

This is a major bailout for alot money and why should someone overextended by buying too much house get this sweet deal?

[defendandprotect]

200. No . . . these foreclosures should be frozen . . .

These people were extended mortages based on 25% of their salaries which they could handle,
with guarantees of new loans in two years which would also be 2%...

When the time came, they were denied the new loans --- and assessed huge penalties ---
their mortages went from 25% of their salaries to almost 50% ---

$900 mortages because $1700 mortages payments ---

PLUS huge penalties by the banks to keep the loans going at all!!!

[truedelphi]

176. Agree with you very much. n/t

[Mike03]

146. The attitude of wanting a collapse is simply the result of ignorance.

There's nothing to elaborate on here, because Ignorance is Ignorance.

I'm sad to see so much of it at DU, a site I have such a high regard for.

[fascisthunter]

147. Pretty Ridiculous Projection There

Nobody wants an economic collapse... there's a difference between saying one is on the way and saying, yes, collapse economy.

[femrap]

153. You do know that the Fed Reserve is NOT

federal...it is outside of the gov't. It's run by the wealthiest of the world.

The Fed you seem to love is devaluing THE DOLLAR. That is their intent...so they can possibly start a new currency that is used in Mexico and Canada. Of course, if I have $100, the new currency will give me only $50.

The Fed is NOT your friend.

And Bear Sterns is NOT A BANK....it is an investment firm...just like Merrill Lynch...this is UNPRECEDENTED. You need to read more.

The Fed is causing inflation. Let Bear Sterns go out of business or let the public buy shares at $2/share...I'd take a piece of that action!!!!

Fuck the Fed and Bernake...who is just a puppet. It's the Rothschild/Rockefellers, Stupid!!!!!

[SDuderstadt]

169. Jesus freaking Christ!

The Fed is NOT outside of the government. They are known as an independent federal agency, meaning they are self-funded and insulated from political pressure...for a very good reason. By federal law, 95% of the earnings are returned to the federal treasury, which you would know if you had a clue as to what you are talking about. If it's run by the "wealthiest of the world", do you honestly think they would fool with something that, by federal law, has to give back 95% of its earnings (after their operating expenses)? Why would they do that when they can make much ore money in other ways? I don't know how many times this has to be exlained to people. If you don't believe me, see what Howstuffworks.com has to say about the Fed. Then you can apologize when you learn the Fed is exactly what I said.


http://money.howstuffworks.com/fed.htm

[Selatius]

171. Maintain low inflation my ass.

By dropping the cost of borrowing down to as low as they've gone, they've guaranteed higher inflation rates due to the nature of fractional lending. It's the same situation in the 1970s. The only difference is the government calculates inflation differently than it did under Carter.

[femrap]

204. Plus devalues the Dollar.

Maybe the Fed wants to introduce a new currency?? Of course the public will be screwed.

[Name removed]

180. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SDuderstadt]

181. Are you really implying that JFK was assassinated because...

of his supposed attitude towards the Federal Reserve? You're kidding, right? Sounds like you've been reading Fletcher Prouty. If not, I'd be interested to know who is filling your mind with such nonsense. The "Federal-Reserve-Killed-JFK" is probably one of the goofiest conspiracy theories out there. If you want to see it totally debunked, follow the link.

http://www.publiceye.org/conspire/flaherty/flaherty9.html

Before you try to impeach the above as some sort of RW site, take note of the fact that it is the work of Chip Berlet, perhaps one of the best chroniclers of RW populism and its dangers.

I hesitate to defend people who worked at Bear Stearns in general (I believe the financial sector makes far too much money and contributes greatly to the widening income and wealth disparity, which ultimately threatens democracy), but I'm not sure you have the whole picture. Not that I'm feeling sorry for them, but BS being sold to JPM hurt a number of them quite badly financially (although I'm sure they'll still be okay). Also, the Fed did not "bailout" BS, in a direct way. If you suspect my source on this, remember that the San Francisco Chronicle is probably one of the nation's most liberal newspapers, reflecting SF's status as probably the most liberal city in America (which is why I live here because, despite whatever you think I have been a liberal since college and will stack my progressive credentials against yours anyday).


http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/03/18/BUHTVLFGO.DTL&hw=bear+stearns&sn=003&sc=641

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/03/18/BUBEVLLEQ.DTL&hw=bear+stearns&sn=002&sc=724


BTW, do you really think it's a good idea to call me "stupid" or allege I work for the RNC? Or, are you just incapable of reasoned debate without namecalling.

[femrap]

182. I lived in SF for 15

years....boy, their standards have been lowered.

[SDuderstadt]

183. This is funny....

you're insulting me because I disagree with you based upon the facts? Pathetic.

[femrap]

199. I thought I was

insulting the standards of SF? Notify the mayor, would you? Thanks.

There's no debating someone with blinders fully in place....been there and ain't doing again. You like your propaganda...it's save...it helps you cope. Please continue. Don't bring me into it...you're happy, don't worry.

buh bye.

[SDuderstadt]

210. In other words....

you can't debate the facts, so you just label it propaganda. Maybe you should look up the term "true believer". You're certainly not even remotely open-minded. By god, you're right and you won't even remotely entertain the possibility that you could be wrong. Pathetic.

What's more, you have to result to insults again. Why is that? Because your actual debating skills are so weak?

[femrap]

225. 'result to insults'....I like the sound of that.

I am tired of debating. Don't you have more fun things to do than sit in front of your computer...you're in SF!! Now who is pathetic? If you are reading websites entitled 'howstuffworks,' that should be a clue that maybe it is a bit on the propaganda side.

Check out Carolyn Baker...get on her email list....she just sends news articles on a daily basis.

And maybe read a book on the Federal Reserve...I read today that with the financial mess that the rich white boys have created, the Fed may not be rich enough to bail them out! I had to laugh. Then I came up with the idea that Congress needs to enact a new law...'Rich White Boys Can No Longer Handle Money of Any Kind.' OK, we'll allow them lunch money, but that's it.

Goddess, do I miss sourdough bread. And fog. And warm days in January. And wine country...ever been to Chateau Montelena? Call them and reserve an island. That tip right there is worth over $5,000. You'll thank me. And stop calling me 'pathetic.'

[SDuderstadt]

226. WTF?

Howstuffworks.com is a "bit on the propaganda side"? You're kidding, right?

BTW, I'm not calling you pathetic. I am calling what you're doing pathetic. Big difference. I also think it's funny you're whining about that, given the choice names you called me.

[femrap]

227. Fine...just go read a book on the Fed...one of

those scary ones, OK?

[SDuderstadt]

229. I've read a number of books on the Fed

The "scary ones" are usually sensationalistic BS with a poor grasp of how the Fed works. The best one I found was "Secrets of the Temple" by David Greider. If you reading something like "The Creature from Jekyll Island" or something, I'll know where you're getting your unreliable info from. FYI, Griffin also believes Noah's Ark was found, even though it's obviously a myth.

[defendandprotect]

201. "The Fed you seem to love is devaluing THE DOLLAR." . .. keep on telling it -- !!!

[TheFarseer]

157. not cheering for a collapse

just warning that we must change our ways.

You might be happy to know that your argument actually made up my mind that they acted appropriately to prevent a run on the bank. My only problem now is, why did the Feds have to kick in money when JP Morgan is already getting a sweetheart deal? But that's really nit-picking.

[El Pinko]

158. I am fully expecting an economic collapse and nothing the fed does will make any difference.

That's a very different thing than "wishing for" economic collapse.

I'm hoping against hope that it can be avoided, but all of the fundamentals point to a collapse.

And the feds actions will only exacerbate the problem. They lower rates, the dollar weakens, inflation soars and the economy slows even more, and mortgage and other rates do NOT go down anymore because of risk aversion by lenders.

If the fed does nothing, we're screwed. If they cointinue lowering rates, we're screwed.

The problems with the US cannot be fixed with monetary policy. Sorry. Your post is misguided and ignorant.

[truedelphi]

175. Thank you for the nice touch of sanity.

WIsh more people had decent heads on their shoulders.

[citizen snips]

161. Why? Our current economic system will not be replaced

by socialism or anything similar.

[New Dawn]

168. For the bottom 80% of the population, we already are in a recession.

Stagnant and declining wages, jobs sent overseas, etc.

[truedelphi]

173. Federal Reserve - created in 1913. Depression came abt a

Mere sixteen yrs later.

And as far as the liquidity - every time the major players behind these failing markets get bailed out, - 500 billion last year, (Almost the exact amount that was spent bailing out the S&L debackle back in 1987) the dollar becomes deflated, and that makes the many imports such as oil, and textiles etc more expensive. And with oil going up in cost, everything frioggin' thing that is transported any distance also goes up in price.

We just watched another 200 billion get pumped into the system this week. SO the cost of oil against the deflating dollar will RISE again.

[Hannah Bell]

236. Bailed out Chrysler so it could turn German.

That was a great deal for the taxpayers.

[SDuderstadt]

242. The Federal Reserve didn't bailout Chrysler

The Treasury Department and Congress did with federal loan guarantees. You do know the the Federal reserve is not part of the Treasury Department, right?

[Hannah Bell]

247. The poster I responded to wrote:

"every time the major players behind these failing markets get bailed out, - 500 billion last year, (Almost the exact amount that was spent bailing out the S&L debackle back in 1987)"

He's not talking about the fed in this paragraph, he's talking about the general phenomenon of bailouts, & that was what I was commenting on.

Taxpayers bailed out the S&Ls.

The Treasury & Congress didn't bailout Chrysler - taxpayers did.

[Quantess]

174. Bleh. Who cares what people on DU want?

We are all peons. We are the little people.
Sorry, but it's true.

[Norrin Radd]

177. And I'll still be poor.

I wouldn't wish an economic collapse on anyone, but not much would be different for me personally.

[AlCzervik]

184.

?

[txaslftist]

185. Why the loathesome attitude toward the federal reserve?

People are starting to recognize that the Federal Reserve created the boom bust cycle we are experiencing right now by keeping interest rates artificially low for so long under Greenspan.

We were Greenscammed! By the Federal Reserve banks!

People are learning who stole the value of their dollars and why gas costs so much and why groceries cost so much. Because of the stupidity of the Federal Reserve.

They have well-earned our loathing.

[truedelphi]

187. Txaslftist

You are rghtist on what you say

[txaslftist]

211. I hope you mean that as a compliment, not sure.

But as a "leftist" my number one concern is for the working poor and the middle class. The debasing of our currency doesn't actually do a lot of damage to the rich. They move their currency into gold and silver or foreign currencies or real estate and ride things out. Only on the margins are they taking a hit. In the meantime, the worker bee, even if he gets a raise, gets paid less because his money is worth less. It buys less food, less gas, less house, less everything. Which is why the fatcats at the top like to say "wages have increased" while smart people, adjusting for inflation, realize we make less money per person in this country than we did in the 1970s.

We're getting screwed, and the FED is directly responsible for it.

[truedelphi]

216. Oh I did. i certainly did not mean that you were a Neocon.

I just meant you are right!

You Say:

"It buys less food, less gas, less house, less everything. Which is why the fatcats at the top like to say "wages have increased" While smart people, adjusting for inflation, realize that we make less money per person in this country than we did in the 1970s."



The middle class person bears most of the tax burden. Then because that means that most famiies need two bread earners to keep up, both people must work.

This fact means the economy is slowly inflating upwards - in terms of the dollars expressed as income. And since we haven't revised our tax code to make the necessary adjustments, that couple is now paying way more than they should. For instance, why couldn't Mr Delphi and I live on our two incomes as comfortably as my dad and mom lived on his one? Like you say the buying power has stagnated if not slightly reversed.

But this year will be the telling year. The economy will implode and we will probably have to sit back and watch as our country descends to the level of Romania!

[defendandprotect]

203. Not "stupidity" . . . but a grand agenda ---

Isn't it treason to bankrupt the Treasury -- ????

[txaslftist]

212. O, I don't know if it's a "conspiracy" or "grand agenda"...

I just know they violated a fundamental rule, which is "never trust a person with other peoples' money". Much less the ability to simply create money and thereby steal from everyone else who has money by stealing its value.

Good lord, they left the keys to the treasury in the hands of the banks. Is it any wonder they're in there stealing us blind?

[defendandprotect]

214. Too few people are questioning the involvement of the FED . . . and this "unprecedented" bail out of

an investment corp --- Bear Stearns --- is not a bank!!

The public has to come to understand that if we want economic democracy, you have to have
the Congress setting economic policy --- ALL of it ---

On the other hand, as far as I can see, the FED is moving to take over even more economic decisions . . . and because Congress doesn't want the responsibility, they will probably
succeed --- !!!

[txaslftist]

217. Don't think of them as "banks" think of them as "pals"

just helpin' each other out with your money.

[defendandprotect]

222. They better get ahold of the FED soon and stop this crap ---

[txaslftist]

238. Why would they?

The Fed is doing what they perceive as their job. Bailing out the banks, bailing out investors and buying time for investors to get into other things and leave the pension funds ands rubes holding the bag. So what if the whole thing collapses? So long as they all get a chance to get out while the getting is good. Then they can hyper-inflate for a season or two, impoverishing wage earners to cover their bad bets, then back to business as usual.

And then all of their media shills will crow about how they "saved the day" and "thank God we have a fed!"

You and I will be a bit poorer, earning a bit less, maybe unemployed ... but that's hardly their lookout.

[nadinbrzezinski]

186. Nobody is hoping for anything...

but the fundamentals SUCK, and the parallels to 1929 are way too eerie

By the way, the very well to do live outside the economy... so they will not be affected, The rest of us will

But nobody is hoping for anything, it is just gonna happen

By the way, get a clue, it is not because of the Federal Reserve... but because of deregulation that has accelerated but started UNDER REAGAN and has way too many parallels to the economy under HOOVER.

[AlphaCentauri]

198. Freepers are adopting the Chinese economic model

don't you see it, no body expects a collapse.

[timtom]

202. Not having read any of the responses to this post

let me say that if that happens, all bets are off.

Anarchy, total martial lockdown, ????

Anything goes, but our lives will never be the same.

[defendandprotect]

205. Not that anyone is looking for a collapse . . . however don't you think they said

the same thing about revolution, the founders and "equality for all" . . ??

[defendandprotect]

207. I think you're seriously misreading what is being said ....

The FED represents a theft of taxpayer dollars, a devaluing of the dollar, a run on our
Treasury ---

Many here are looking for the situation to be changed and the FED restrained by Congress.

[Uncle Joe]

208. What do they call that privatized profit and socialized risk?

The average American is paying an going and escalating price for them to bail out the big boys. This is just one more of many reasons as to why the dollar is falling through the floor, basically it's a subliminal tax passed on to the American People.

I don't believe people are hoping for an economic collapse, but these incompetent and I believe inbred, corrupt policies can only lead to it.

[ozone_man]

213. We need monetary reform.

Basically, we need to either abolish the FED or make the FED operate under the U.S. Treasury to restore the power of money creation to the government. And we need to end the fractional reserve. As it is now, the FED is an organ for Wall Street not the American citizens. Lately, the FED seems to be in the business of buying equities and bailing out investment banks, which should never be allowed, but worst of all, it is with our money. If they made bad investments, we shouldn't have to bear the expense.

From the American Monetary Institute:

(snip)

Monetary reform is achieved in 3 parts which must be enacted together for it to work. Any one or any two of them alone won’t do it, but could actually further harm the monetary situation.

First, incorporate the Federal Reserve System into the U.S. Treasury where all new money is created by government as money, not interest-bearing debt, and spent into circulation to promote the general welfare; monitored to be neither inflationary nor deflationary.

Second, halt the banks privilege to create money by ending the fractional reserve system in a gentle and elegant way. All the past monetized private credit is converted into U.S. government money. Banks then act as intermediaries accepting savings deposits and loaning them out to borrowers; what people think they do now.

Third, spend new money into circulation on infrastructure, including education and healthcare needed for a growing society, starting with the $1.6 trillion that the American Society of Civil Engineers estimate is needed for infrastructure repair; creating good jobs across our nation, re-invigorating local economies and re-funding government at all levels.

The false specter of inflation is usually raised against such suggestions that our government fulfill its responsibility to furnish the nation’s money supply. But that is a knee jerk reaction - the result of decades, even centuries of propaganda against government. When one actually examines the monetary record, it becomes clear that government has a superior record issuing and controlling money than the private issuers have.* Inflation is avoided because real material wealth has been created in the process.

This press release from the recent monetary reform conference in Chicago, which I addressed highlights the beneficial effects of the plan both in terms of saving on interest, and in avoiding such disasters in the first place:

(more)

http://www.monetary.org/need_for_monetary_reform.html

Another link that explains FED operation:

http://www.monetary.org/federalreserveprivate.htm

Is the Federal Reserve System a Governmental or a Privately controlled organization?

Students of our monetary system quickly encounter this important question, normally phrased as whether the Federal Reserve System is part of the U.S. Government or is a private organization. The importance people are placing on the answer is indicated by the over 36,000 web sites the question raises on internet search engines.

We’ll examine evidence in the Federal Reserve legislation; in how the Fed operates; from Congressional testimony; from statements from the Federal Reserve’s publications; in statements by former Chairmen of the House Banking Committee; and in official rulings by US courts, to show why we conclude that although there are some elements of ambiguity, the Federal Reserve system is essentially dominated and controlled by private financiers, not our government; and to the extent that there is ownership of it, it is entirely private. Therefore despite the ambiguity – and confusion - the Fed is more accurately seen as a private, not a governmental institution, though with substantial governmental ties.

The ambiguity arises from a combination of misleading appearances; the fact that our President appoints (with consent of the Senate) the Chairman of the Fed to four year terms, and the 5 member Board in Washington to 14 year terms; the fact that the Fed is supposed to promote governmental fiscal policy; and the fact that the system was originally set up in law by Congress in 1913 and can be altered, nationalized or even dismantled by Congress.

Most Americans understand that the Fed controls our money system, but they believe its part of our government, as would be expected of any organization holding that much power over the destiny of our country. Americans also erroneously believe the banking business consists of accepting deposits from clients and then re-loaning them to borrowers at a higher rate of interest. Though the number is definitely growing, most Americans have no idea that money (or more accurately interest bearing bank credits - purchasing media which serves as money) is created by the banking system when loans are made, through the fractional reserve provisions. This is understood by few novices, and often economists and even bankers fail to comprehend that they function as part of a money creation system, when they issue credits, and deposit them into their client’s accounts when loans are extended.

Therefore most Americans would be surprised to learn that almost all of what we use for money is not issued by our government, but by private banks. They have been “allowed” to form erroneous assumptions about our money and banking system that are far from reality and that serves to shield from closer scrutiny, whether the Fed is truly operating in the public interest or advancing more private agendas, either on purpose or by default.

Organization And Ownership:

The Federal Reserve consists of 12 regional Federal Reserve banks, with boards of Directors, under an umbrella direction of the 7 member Federal Reserve Board in Washington, with the power to determine major aspects of banking activity, such as setting interest rates, and the reserve and other operational requirements. There are no shares of the Washington Fed Board organization; the only “ownership” of the Fed is in shares of each of the 12 regional banks which are entirely owned by the private member banks within their respective districts, according to a formula based on their size. The ownership is highly restricted in that such ownership is mandatory; the shares can’t be sold; and they pay a guaranteed 6% annual dividend..

Thus the stories that the Federal Reserve is “owned” by foreign bankers (the Rothschild’s and other prominent banker names usually come up) are not accurate and these types of rumors have mainly served to discredit wholesome criticism of the banking system. While it is true that our first central bank, the First Bank of the United States, upon dissolution in 1811 was found to be three quarters owned by British and Dutch interests, that bank was structured simply as a private share company on the Bank of England model.* The control of the Federal Reserve System is more difficult to untangle and is not just a matter of counting shareholder votes. While foreign bankers might indirectly own shares of the regional Federal Reserve Banks through ownership of American Banking companies, such ownership would be reported to the SEC if any entity held more than 5% of the American corporation. This however does not exclude strong, potentially undue foreign influence, for example through the Bank for International Settlements (BIS) as detailed below.

(more)

[SammyWinstonJack]

221. And just who is "many" on DU? I don't wish it and in fact I am scared shitless.

:shrug: So all those who believed Nader when he said there was no difference between Gore or Bu$h, where are you now? None of what has transpired these past 7 years would have gone down as it has under a Gore Administration. Thanks a lot you "values voters" You tools! :argh:

[ozone_man]

224. The bubble was created under Clinton in the 90's.

Bush only inherited it and made it worse. It has nothing to do with Nader.

It was a bubble created under a Democratic administration. You probably remember the stock market crash in 2000, where the NASDAQ went from 5,000 to 1,100 while Clinton was in office. That can't be blamed on Bush, for he wasn't in office yet. It was eight years of Clinton bubble economics.

F) The Real Estate Bubble

This is a double negative for the Fed. Counter to their professed price stability goal, they created massive inflation in housing costs, since about 70% of all Fed money creation goes into real estate loans. Then they look at soaring house prices and say “Aren’t we wise – the collateral we loaned on is worth much more than we allowed” – instead of saying “look at what our loans are doing to the real estate market – putting it further out of reach for too many.”


G) Stock market bubbles

Past pandering of Greenspan’s Fed to the financial sectors led to stock market bubbles, still being unwound. Exclamations of “irrational exuberance” was just talk, when he had the power to act on margin requirements, for example, but did nothing.

http://www.monetary.org/federalreserveprivate.htm

So, after the SM bubble popped in 2000 to 2003, a real estate bubble was created. Both bubbles were created by the Federal Reserve. Greenspan wrote a book on Irrational Exuberance of Wall Street, but he was largely responsible for that exuberance.

So what we're seeing now is a natural progression to what happens to all bubbles, whether they're tulips, or NASDAQ stocks, or overvalued real estate. Bubbles are not sustainable. The FED is does not promote a sustainable economy. Only a bubble economy. Boom and bust. So, if we are to move beyond that we have to change the FED. Abolish it or make it operate under the U.S Treasury.

[penguin7]

228. This OP is silly, $100,000.00 FDIC deposit insurance prevents bank runs

[defendandprotect]

280. But . . . it doesn't prevent bankrupting of the Treasury . . .

or stealing taxpayer dollars ---

The original arrangement was that banks were to be protected against theft and embezzlement up to $10,000 per account --

so there was some limitation on what the Treasury/taxpayer could be held liable for --

If you had more than $10,000, you had to take it to another bank ---

PRESUMING, that there wasn't a way to knock out a bunch of banks at one time ---

NOW, with organized theft by corrupt government de-regulating banks there can be organized theft

and embezzlement of many banks ---

and now we're bailing out investment companies --- Bear Stearns!!!

Unprecedented --- !!!

[Hannah Bell]

240. The Fed, in the person of alan greenspan,

enabled the bubble.

The Fed exists to protect the value of (rich people's) money.

[mdmc]

249. my economy already collapsed

I wouldn't want to wish it on any others... yet misery love company...

[TheWatcher]

257. Not at all, but it would be nice if the shills, apologists and pollyannas would stop trying to

convince everyone that things are just fine.

[Swamp Rat]

275. Straw Man - Freeper Logic

[avenger64]

285. I'm sure as hell not looking forward to it, but I do think it's coming.

n/t

[newspeak]

309. not wishing such a thing!!!!

Those jumping from windows from the 1929 Crash were not the so-called wealthy elite. As a matter of fact, suicide was more prevalent among the middle class. A lady I played cards with was a child before the crash, her father owned a business that made tires for Ford's vehicles. Her family was wealthy and rubbed elbows with the likes of the Fords. When the crash hit, they lost everything, including friendship with the Fords. The uber wealthy actually gained more power during those troubled times-some actually promoted, as well as, financed fascists, like Franco, Mussolini, Hitler. If you were for labor rights in those days, then you were labeled a commie-the "isms" were being bandied around alot then.

Some of the truly elite only care for themselves and will use, steal, destroy to gain more. As an example, Edwin Drake made millions for oil tycoons, like Rockefeller. Working for Seneca Oil at the beginning, his job was to locate and extract oil--he patented the first oil drill. He had poor health for a long time, being in financial distress, he went to those he had help make into millionaires (at the time)-they refused to give him monetary help. After all, that's charity-can't have that-yeah, right your supposed to pull yourself up by the bootstraps. He died a bitter man.

Then there's Charles Goodyear who invented everything from rubber tires to buttons. He was approached by business men from the US to France, that assured him that they would pay him well for his inventions. You see, that's all he wanted to do was invent-let the businessmen distribute his inventions. But, they "screwed" him. When he died, he was impoverished. His family went to Congress to obtain the money that was owed to him-those same companies argued that they paid him and he squandered it. The man lived like a monk-but those robber barons had as much influence as they have today. So, why should we bail out those who think even less of us.

I do not wish a depression on anyone, and with certain greedy corporations taking their money out of our country-that have offices all over the world and bank in the Cayman Islands--do you really think their going to lose their assets? We are the ones that will be royally screwed and it won't be the fault of migrant workers (did the fault thing in the '29 Depression also) or that we don't have enough entrepreneurial spirit to survive (argued that in the Depression also) or that we're not like workers in other countries, we work less than Japan (argued that in the eighties). See it's all our fault, not their greedy, grasping, anti-regulatory practices. Sad part, some workers will totally believe it!!!