patrick.net

Tfish says

Real Solution = Ending Fractional Reserve Banking!!!

What? And take away the Banksters ability to make their easy $Billions by loaning out multiples (as in 20x) of their reserves? You can’t be serious. I suppose you're also against the government bailing out the Banksters too when they "lose" money on their risky loans? You're also probably in favor of usury laws that would limit the amount the Banksters charge on credit cards. Just what this site needs .... another intelligent fiscal conservative!

RayAmerica says

For an in depth look into this subject

If you ever get tired of the ignorance and lies about the Fed, here is one of many sources. This one is good though, because it addresses the Myths directly.

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

An example from the link I just shared:

Facts: The Federal Reserve rebates its net earnings to the Treasury every year. Consequently, the interest the Treasury pays to the Fed is returned, so the money borrowed from the Fed has no net interest obligation for the Treasury. The government could print its own currency independent of the Fed, but there would be no effective safeguards against abuse of this power for political gain.

marcus .... thank you for the link to the socialist, one world order, globalist propanda site. Here's one that REALLY deals with the subject of the Federal Reserve:

http://www.apfn.org/apfn/reserve.htm

the link I gave you was by:
Edward Flaherty, Ph.D. Department of Economics College of Charleston, S.C.

Seems to me, fact checking might be kind of important to his reputation and his job for that matter.

Question Ray, here it is 2010, and sure the Federal Reserve is a complex topic, but do you think the truth is out there ?

That is the problem with the current right wing; THEY ACTUALLY THINK THAT FACTS ARE DEBATABLE !!!!!!!

Here's how it works Ray.

Anyone can make a web page. Anyone can put something in writing. So when you read or hear information, presented as fact, do your best to check your facts.

marcus says

Here’s how it works Ray.
Anyone can make a web page. Anyone can put something in writing. So when you information, presented as fact, do your best to check your facts.

But why? isn't it better to evoke an emotional response? Those pesky facts just get in the way...

Also FYI Ray, this is relatively nonpartisan. There are many left wingers who are equally ignorant about the Fed and equally opposed to it's existence. Also, like you they have no real idea about what would actually work as a replacement for the Fed's functionality.

marcus says

Also FYI Ray, this is relatively nonpartisan.

They are socialists and make no bones about hiding their bias. As far as "how it works" as you claim, there is a very good, well documented NONPARTISAN book that was written on the Federal Reserve: The Creature from Jekyll Island by Griffin. I suggest you secure a copy from your library and read it ... all 600+ pages of it. After that, maybe we can have a discussion about it.

I guess arrogantly suggesting I read 600 pages is a good way to get me to shut up with my talk of facts.

From the same economics PHD I cited:

G. Edward Griffin lays out this conspiratorial version of history in his book The Creature from Jekyll Island. His amateurish take on history is highly suspect, however. Gerry Rough, in a series of well- researched essays on U.S. banking history, reveals many historical inaccuracies, inconsistencies, and even contradictions in Griffin's book and others of its genre. Instead of reproducing Rough's work here, I offer the reader a substantially more accurate view of the events leading up to the creation of the Federal Reserve System in 1913. To get a proper historical perspective, the story of begins just prior to the Civil War...

...
...
...later...
....

Also in 1910, Senator Nelson Aldrich, Frank Vanderlip of National City (today know as Citibank), Henry Davison of Morgan Bank, and Paul Warburg of the Kuhn, Loeb Investment House met secretly at Jeckyll Island, a resort island off the coast of Georgia, to discuss and formulate banking reform, including plans for a form of central banking. The meeting was held in secret because the participants knew that any plan they generated would be rejected automatically in the House of Representatives if it were associated with Wall Street. Because it was secret and because it involved Wall Street, the Jekyll Island affair has always been a favorite source of conspiracy theories. However, the movement toward significant banking and monetary reform was well-known.3 It is hardly surprising that given the real possibility of substantial reform, the banking industry would want some sort of input into the nature of the reforms. The Aldrich Plan which the secret meeting produced was even defeated in the House, so even if the Jekyll Island affair was a genuine conspiracy, it clearly failed.

The Aldrich Plan called for a system of fifteen regional central banks, called National Reserve Associations, whose actions would be coordinated by a national board of commercial bankers. The Reserve Association would make emergency loans to member banks, create money to provide an elastic currency that could be exchanged equally for demand deposits, and would act as a fiscal agent for the federal government. Although it was defeated, the Aldrich Plan served as an outline for the bill that eventually was adopted. 5

The problem with the Aldrich Plan was that the regional banks would be controlled individually and nationally by bankers, a prospect that did not sit well with the populist Democratic party or with Wilson. As the debate began to take shape in the spring of 1913, Congressman Arsene Pujo provided good evidence that the nation’s credit markets were under the tight control of a handful of banks – the "money trusts" against which Wilson warned.1 Wilson and the Democrats wanted a reform measure which would decentralize control away from the money trusts.

The legislation that eventually emerged was the Federal Reserve Act, also known at the time as the Currency Bill, or the Owen-Glass Act. The bill called for a system of eight to twelve mostly autonomous regional Reserve Banks that would be owned by the banks in their region and whose actions would be coordinated by a Federal Reserve Board appointed by the President. The Board’s members originally included the Secretary of the Treasury, the Comptroller of the Currency, and other officials appointed by the President to represent public interests. The proposed Federal Reserve System would therefore be privately owned, but publicly controlled. Wilson signed the bill on December 23, 1913 and the Federal Reserve System was born.6

Conspiracy theorists have long viewed the Federal Reserve Act as a means of giving control of the banking system to the money trusts, when in reality the intent and effect was to wrestle control away from them. History clearly demonstrates that in the decades prior to the Federal Reserve Act the decisions of a few large New York banks had, at times, enormous repercussions for banks throughout the country and the economy in general. Following the return to central banking, at least some measure of control was removed from them and placed with the Federal Reserve.

marcus says

After that, maybe we can have a discussion about it

As if you could ever listen,... or learn.

RayAmerica says

After that, maybe we can have a discussion about it.

Rayray, perhaps as soon as you live in reality, we can have a discussion about THAT.

marcus says

I guess arrogantly suggesting I read 600 pages is a good way to get me to shut up with my talk of facts.

Facts? We don't need no stinkin' facts...

marcus says

I guess arrogantly suggesting I read 600 pages is a good way to get me to shut up with my talk of facts.
From the same economics PHD I cited:

Somehow, I think your credibility is damaged when you quote as an authority an economist that posts on a radical, left wing, self proclaimed progressive/socialist web site. Your admission that you won't take the time to read the definitive book on the subject only proves your intellectual laziness. Stick to your fast food, sound bite web sites, they are more your speed. After all, why would you want to upset your presumptive mindset by reading a book?

I’ll stand by what I consider sound reasoning. The fact that elsewhere on that site are what I call progressive issues, and what you call radical left wing socialist, is not relevant. But the fact that he puts his name to it, and that he has a reputation to protect, puts it on an entirely different level you and your friends (no names no risk to out right lies and stupidity for the ignorati) at apfn (American Patriotic Friends and Neanderthals).

Apparently Griffin, your dear author thought that most of what Flaherty writes is true (or half true, he says defensively).

http://www.freedom-force.org/freedomcontent.cfm?fuseaction=meetflaherty&refpage=issues

Griffin gives Flaherty FAR more respect than you do.

About intellectual laziness, all I can say is, wow. I don’t have time or need to read the book, in part because of being buried already by my to do list. But also, I get the gist of what he says by reading the summary and what the critics say about it.

RayAmerica says

Somehow, I think your credibility is damaged when you quote as an authority an economist that posts on a radical, left wing, self proclaimed progressive/socialist web site.

According to Wikipedia, your author is a life long card carrying member of the John Birch society. I guess radical is in the eyes of the beholder. I still think that being a PHD in economics carry's some weight. Oh, and another of Griffin's obsessions (and topics for successful books) is Leatril as a cancer fighting agent. Has he dropped that yet ? He is quite a "jack of all trades."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G._Edward_Griffin

That's, like, totally rad.

Regarding this graph that TRoy has shown us many times:

I came across a bullish spin on it today:

One might guess that the debt service (that is actual payments) are as low as they are because of low interest rates, foreclosures and other defaults, and also maybe some renegotiated mortgage terms.

Ray, there you go again - arguing with idiots. But even though you're completly outnumbered you're doing a great job. You're the one sane person on this site (well other than Bap 33, myself, and a few others) who have common sense, defend the Constitution, understand sound money, support the concept of personal responsibility, realize the Fed is responsible for boom - bust cycles, understand the law of unintended consequences, know whcomprehend cause and effect, and know that a debt and spending problem cannot be solved by more debt and more spending. Apparently the other's cannot.

But its not their fault, they have a distorted view of the world today, caused by some type of physical or emotional trauma, from the past. In other words - they have brain damage, haha. And there you have it.

marcus says

and also maybe some renegotiated mortgage terms.

These really bug me the most. I see it as welfare for loanowners. Totally unacceptable to "renogotiate" some idiots loan. They owe "X", they pay "X". Anything else is total crap.

Abe seems to have all the answers. Where as more intelligent folk are happy just trying to comprehend what the most important questions are.

Here I go with another Bertrand Russell quote especially for Abe:

The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.

Bap33 says

Anything else is total crap

I agree. Certainly doesn't seem fair. But if the bank can come out better, and the home owner too, and the house doesn't go vacant, which is bad for the neighborhood, who can blame them. It comes down to a business decision. Although the federal subsidy of it, that goes to the banks, does seem wrong.

(haven't kept up with how much of that has actually occurred)

Then again, I am renting and waiting to buy (effectively "short" real estate), so I have a bias toward letting the market do it's thing for reasons that include my own self interest.

My apologies if I already shared that quote before. It just seems so fitting. I forget whether it was Ray or Abe, but I now recall that they came back with something like, "oh I have my doubts alright, about our government, and about the Federal reserve, about Obama" or something along those lines.

In other words the quote wasn't actually even understood.

IT's about doubting yourself Abe, which believe it or not, is an intelligent and wise thing to do every now and then. Maybe if you can't do that, you could understand what a fool you appear to be, and so in the interest of at least appearing like a humble and wise person you could act like you didn't have all the answers.

Bap33 says

These really bug me the most. I see it as welfare for loanowners. Totally unacceptable to “renogotiate” some idiots loan. They owe “X”, they pay “X”. Anything else is total crap.

That's the free market at work BAP. A similar process exists with credit card debt as well. Once a collection agency takes over, you typically can settle for 1/2 or less of the total amount due.

Banks are much better off if they can continue to collect mortgage payments even at a renegogiated rate than if they had to foreclose.

Nomograph says

But you took an FHA loan. That’s welfare for loanowners.
Why is it OK for you to accept government welfare, but it’s not OK for anyone else?

Incredibly stupid comparison. First, when a borrower takes out an FHA loan, they are not borrowing funds from the Government. The Government guarantees the loan to the lender which in turn enables the lender to stretch the qualifying ratios and also allows for lower down payments. The interest rates are comparable to conventional loans. The fact is, the money is being borrowed from the private sector, not the Government. Second, unlike "welfare," FHA loans have a funny little requirement that Nomo apparently conveniently forgot to mention; the loans must be paid back by the borrower. Nomo, do “welfare” recipients EVER pay back what they’ve received from the Government?

So Nomo, how is it that FHA borrowers are on "welfare?" Care to explain this nutty position or will you conveniently take a pass?

RayAmerica says

Nomo, do “welfare” recipients EVER pay back what they’ve received from the Government?
So Nomo, how is it that FHA borrowers are on “welfare?” Care to explain this nutty position or will you conveniently take a pass?

if you apply for General Assistance while you're awaiting a disability determination, you not only have to qualify financially but you also have to pay it back. The retro disability is first sent to the agency that provided the general assistance and it takes its money back, then the disabled person gets the rest. This is a federally mandated program paid out of the block of funds the state receives for welfare. So, the federal government has essentially guaranteed the funds if they're not paid back. There are other welfare programs that require pay-back as well. Thanks for asking.

Nomograph 947

RayAmerica 1

The main point I was making is this: FHA is NOT a WELFARE program. At least you liberals are consistent in failing to either make a valid point or recognize one when it is made.

As far as your “math” Marcus, I have a feeling you’d have a very hard time landing a job as a minimum wage cashier that needed to know how to make change.

Nomograph says

It doesn’t surprise me that you suddenly are a cheerleader for the FEDERAL HOUSING AUTHORITY. Government assistance is government assistance. FHA = Welfare.

As usual, you are lying. I never said I was a cheer leader for FHA. I simply stated it is not a welfare program.

RayAmerica says

Nomograph says

It doesn’t surprise me that you suddenly are a cheerleader for the FEDERAL HOUSING AUTHORITY. Government assistance is government assistance. FHA = Welfare.

As usual, you are lying. I never said I was a cheer leader for FHA. I simply stated it is not a welfare program.

The government spending one parties money to benefit another party is welfare period. It doesn't matter what the initials are.

bob2356 says

The government spending one parties money to benefit another party is welfare period. It doesn’t matter what the initials are.

The point is, the Government isn't "spending" money, it is guaranteeing the loan. The money is being borrowed from the private sector.

RayAmerica says

I read once the definition of insanity goes something like this: keep doing the same thing over and over again in spite of the fact that you still achieve the same failed result.

Giggles, it strikes that this line is a very apt line for your posts. It basically summarizes your entire effort here at Patrick.net...

kentm .... trust me on this one: if you were in agreement with me on anything I'd have plenty to worry about. I take your comment as a very serious compliment. Thank you very much for making my day.

Sen. Harry Reid, D has taken credit on numerous occasions for the economic boom period in Nevada. Now, he's singing a different tune over the bad economy (SURPRISE!): "I had nothing to do with this bad economy ...." LOL!!

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/senate/harry-reid-i-had-nothing-to-do.html

easy there Trigger ....
lol

I am "trying" to use an FHA loan .. so far I am batting .000 in house buying. We have put a few offers in, and just got the RE circle jerk from there. They want stupid people with free money, anyone else need not apply.

I spent the money to get my own home plans (my design, my drafting) engineered (a very exspensive $4,000 stamp) , I then found a cheap acre with dry utiliities to the prop, got bids for the stuff I would rather not do, gathered all of the permit costs ($30K for a 2,775 house), and then sat down with a few loan folks. It turns out the loaning people have no faith that my home will be worth whatever I spend to build it by the time it gets done. The bank people basicly said in the 8 months it will take me to build that the comps will drop in value so greatly that I could not refi out of the high interest construction loan without putting more cash into the pot. The entire deal will cost me -$250K, land, permits, home, done. But, the gamble of being stuck with the super high intrest construction loan portion being carried along if the refi is not supported scares me.

RayAmerica says

As far as your “math” Marcus, I have a feeling you’d have a very hard time landing a job as a minimum wage cashier that needed to know how to make change.

Fascinating. If that's supposed to hurt because you remember that I'm a Math teacher, ooow, ouch ! I noticed that you didn't say you thought I was bad at logic or Calculus or differential equations, or even trigonometry, but instead that I couldn't make change ? I'm assuming that's because you don't even know what Math is beyond arithmetic.

"math ?"

My comment (947 to 1) was meant as a sort of compliment. For once I thought you sounded right in your interaction with Nomo. It was just my attempt to be funny noting that.

By the way, on Nomo's last point, I believe he might just be correct.

In my experience, there is another possible explanation for Ray's obsession with welfare. I completely agree with:

Nomograph says

Welfare, food stamps, and government housing assistance aren’t even on the radar screen of productive, self-supporting people.

But there is another type of person who gets worked up about this, and it is weird. It is people who inherited a lot, or otherwise are very well off, but aren't and weren't productive themselves. Nomo is right, most people who work hard, and get paid at least half way decently, and especially if they have any job satisfaction at all, are not going to begrudge food stamp recipients, or others who need and receive government aid.

Marcus .... thanks for the compliment .... I think.

I can't wait for summer. I really hope the "Summer Recovery Tour" goes back on the road. The first one was so very, very helpful.

He did give away a lot of money, I think it just ended up being hoarded by the crony benefactors at the end. I think it was rather dumb to not expect for Democrats to start handing money out left and right... they had no political bipartisan check on them.

I'm very glad Republicans came into congress to put a stop this government take over. Bipartisan bickering is a necessity in this nation otherwise we'll just fall.