Cagematch: Ron Paul's two views - wacky or sane?

Page 11 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

NoStateofMind

Diamond Member
Oct 14, 2005
9,711
6
76
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
Originally posted by: Mavtek3100
Everyone satisfied now?


I am, don't know about anyone else.

I know you would be. You're satisfied by youtube videos.

LOL That is funny. But I do my fair share of reading, just not all of it on economic scenarios. As a matter of fact I'm doing a little research on Leo Strauss, Bill Kristol, Rupert Murdoch, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and anything to do with the creation of the neo conservative political philosophy. You can be sure you will hear about it :p

 

Mavtek3100

Senior member
Jan 15, 2008
524
0
0
PC, you're watching Power of Nightmares! Loved it! Course LK will rack it all up as conspiracy nonsense, by the BBC and the AP. :)
 

Mavtek3100

Senior member
Jan 15, 2008
524
0
0
LK I'm not going to respond to any and every irrelevant post you've made. Sorry, not going to happen. The task is to prove how Paul's, Mises' and Rothbard's theories are loony. I went ahead and included Rothbard as he has the best book currently outlining the case for the Fed's abolishment.

http://www.amazon.com/Case-Aga...&qid=1201221991&sr=8-4

Tell you what, show me your book refuting them that's currently on Amazonc.com
 

LegendKiller

Lifer
Mar 5, 2001
18,256
68
86
Originally posted by: Mavtek3100
LK I'm not going to respond to any and every irrelevant post you've made. Sorry, not going to happen. The task is to prove how Paul's, Mises' and Rothbard's theories are loony. I went ahead and included Rothbard as he has the best book currently outlining the case for the Fed's abolishment.

http://www.amazon.com/Case-Aga...&qid=1201221991&sr=8-4

Tell you what, show me your book refuting them that's currently on Amazonc.com

I don't need books, nor names of economists to refute you, I have done a fucking good job already and apparently 90% of America agrees.

Nice dodge by the way, I am happy your practical education and knowledge, now go back to your books Michael Bolton.

How do you like them apples?
 

NoStateofMind

Diamond Member
Oct 14, 2005
9,711
6
76
Originally posted by: Mavtek3100
PC, you're watching Power of Nightmares! Loved it! Course LK will rack it all up as conspiracy nonsense, by the BBC and the AP. :)

Yep I am watching it ;) (nice eye). Wikipedia is a good source of knowledge as well. Lots of facts and dates.

Well it is a conspiracy, just not nonsense. Funny, I was talking to someone about word play today. Whenever the word "conspiracy" is used in a political sense it carries a negative connotation as if it were not true, but say if someone was charged with "conspiracy to distribute meth" it gives off the consensus is that its true. Keep that in mind when listening to people rant ;)
 

CitizenKain

Diamond Member
Jul 6, 2000
4,480
14
76
Originally posted by: Mavtek3100
LK I'm not going to respond to any and every irrelevant post you've made. Sorry, not going to happen. The task is to prove how Paul's, Mises' and Rothbard's theories are loony. I went ahead and included Rothbard as he has the best book currently outlining the case for the Fed's abolishment.

http://www.amazon.com/Case-Aga...&qid=1201221991&sr=8-4

Tell you what, show me your book refuting them that's currently on Amazonc.com

Those people on Amazon are just as obtuse and you guys are, and as completely wrong.
 

Mavtek3100

Senior member
Jan 15, 2008
524
0
0
Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
Originally posted by: Mavtek3100
PC, you're watching Power of Nightmares! Loved it! Course LK will rack it all up as conspiracy nonsense, by the BBC and the AP. :)

Yep I am watching it ;) (nice eye). Wikipedia is a good source of knowledge as well. Lots of facts and dates.

Well it is a conspiracy, just not nonsense. Funny, I was talking to someone about word play today. Whenever the word "conspiracy" is used in a political sense it carries a negative connotation as if it were not true, but say if someone was charged with "conspiracy to distribute meth" it gives off the consensus is that its true. Keep that in mind when listening to people rant ;)

Yes it's quite hysterical to watch people in this forum dispute what famed Economists have said for years. People like CitizenKain, who clearly lacks education regarding economics, is claiming Murray N. Rothbard, the author of 25 books and thousands of articles, was a historian, philosopher, and dean of the Austrian School of economics, S.J. Hall Distinguished Professor of Economics at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, he was also Academic Vice President of the Ludwig von Mises Institute in Auburn, Alabama, is incorrect and he's the one who knows.
 

NoStateofMind

Diamond Member
Oct 14, 2005
9,711
6
76
Originally posted by: Mavtek3100
Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
Originally posted by: Mavtek3100
PC, you're watching Power of Nightmares! Loved it! Course LK will rack it all up as conspiracy nonsense, by the BBC and the AP. :)

Yep I am watching it ;) (nice eye). Wikipedia is a good source of knowledge as well. Lots of facts and dates.

Well it is a conspiracy, just not nonsense. Funny, I was talking to someone about word play today. Whenever the word "conspiracy" is used in a political sense it carries a negative connotation as if it were not true, but say if someone was charged with "conspiracy to distribute meth" it gives off the consensus is that its true. Keep that in mind when listening to people rant ;)

Yes it's quite hysterical to watch people in this forum dispute what famed Economists have said for years. People like CitizenKain, who clearly lacks education regarding economics, is claiming Murray N. Rothbard, the author of 25 books and thousands of articles, was a historian, philosopher, and dean of the Austrian School of economics, S.J. Hall Distinguished Professor of Economics at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, he was also Academic Vice President of the Ludwig von Mises Institute in Auburn, Alabama, is incorrect and he's the one who knows.

If you follow his posts, he does that all the time.
 

event8horizon

Senior member
Nov 15, 2007
674
0
0
this is from money masters website. ive seen this court case before on other websites. they ruled "are independent, privately owned and locally controlled corporations."

http://www.themoneymasters.com/faqs.htm

or

http://www.geocities.com/chrisforliberty/lewis.html

if u havent watched money masters as the movie, please do. the history of the central banks is very interesting. its long but if your interested in the fed and international bankers, its a must watch.

Question: Have the Courts had to decide whether the Federal Reserve Banks are privately owned or not?

Answer: Yes, in several cases. Here is one of them on point which went up to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals: LEWIS v. UNITED STATES

John L. LEWIS, Plaintiff/Appellant v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant/Appellee. No. 80-5905. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted March 2, 1982; Decided April 19, 1982; As Amended June 24, 1982

"Plaintiff, who was injured by vehicle owned and operated by a federal reserve bank, brought action alleging jurisdiction under the Federal Tort Claims Act. The United States District Court for the Central District of California, David W. Williams, Jr., dismissed holding that federal reserve bank was not a federal agency within meaning of Act and that the court therefore lacked subject-matter jurisdiction. Appeal was taken. The Court of Appeals, Poole, Circuit Judge, held that federal reserve banks are not federal instrumentalities for purposes of the Act, but are independent, privately owned and locally controlled corporations.
Affirmed.

. . .Examining the organization and function of the Federal Reserve Banks and applying the relevant factors, we conclude that the Reserve Banks . . . are independent, privately owned and locally controlled corporations.

Each Federal Reserve Bank is a separate corporation owned by commercial banks in its region. The stockholding commercial banks elect two-thirds of each Bank's nine member board of directors. The remaining three directors are appointed by the Federal Reserve Board. The Federal Reserve Board regulates the Reserve Banks, but direct supervision and control of each Bank is exercised by its board of directors. 12 U.S.C. § 301. The directors enact by-laws regulating the manner of conducting general Bank business, 12 U.S.C. § 341, and appoint officers to implement and supervise daily Bank activities. These activities include collecting and clearing checks, making advances to private and commercial entities, holding reserves for members banks, discounting the notes of members banks, and buying and selling securities on the open market. See 12 U.S.C. §§ 341-361.

. . . The Banks are listed as neither "wholly owned" government corporations under 31 U.S.C. § 846 nor as "mixed ownership" corporations under 31 U.S.C. § 856, . . .

Additionally, Reserve Banks, as privately owned entities, receive no appropriated funds . . ."

Let?s sum up: The Federal Reserve consists of 12 regional banks, the stock of which is owned and the Boards controlled by the member banks, which are privately owned bank corporations. These institutions receive 6% profit on their funds paid into the Fed, rain or shine, peace or war (sometimes more).

The Federal Reserve Board of Governors is an independent (its own word) entity ?within? the government (i.e., something much like an independent, internal parasite in a host organism), with 14 year, reform-proof terms (i.e., only one of 7 can be replaced every two years).

The Fed was deliberately designed to appear as a sort of government body to hide the fact that it is a private banking cartel whose member banks share in the vast profits of seigniorage (i.e., the difference between the cost of printing/minting or otherwise creating money [a few cents per $100], and its face value). Yes, the Department of the Treasury does still mint our coins (at the US mint) but that represents under 1% of the US money supply, the great bulk of which is simply bankbook entries - electronic keyboard impulses in computer memories - created by banks on-the-spot to fund loans they make in response to loans applications their "customers" submit (hence the competition by banks for your loan applications and credit card borrowing).

Wouldn't you love to have that exclusive ability - simply to type numbers on your keyboard creating bank accounts, and then write checks or charge purchases to those accounts (actually, no - it is gravely unjust to everyone else and is impoverishing the world for that power to be in private hands).

The Federal Reserve Notes we all accept as currency (there are no U.S. Notes printed since passage of the ill-advised, 1994 Reigle Act abolished Lincoln's greenbacks) are actually sold to the Fed at the cost of printing - a few cents per sheet - by the Treasury Department Bureau of Engraving and Printing. Seigniorage is properly a benefit solely to government (and indirectly then to the people) - not to private bankers - that the Federal Reserve Act, passed by misrepresentation and deception, transferred to the bankers. Thus, rather than the government receiving the vast benefits of creating all of our money, private banks create over 98% of our money supply - literally billions of dollars annually - and pocket the interest charged on loaning that new money, as their private profit. Our government is left with only the insignificant seigniorage from minting coins.

Since the bankers actually wanted to control the new, national central bank (called the Federal Reserve Banks), to accomplish this they had to make it appear governmental, which accounts for the occasional use of the term quasi-govenmental, to describe this governmental facade. This also explains the construction of the Federal Reserve headquarters building on the Mall in Washington, DC, right in the midst of the authentically governmental buildings there.

The real problem is, thus, not the Fed itself (it only makes about 2% of the money supply ? the base for the rest), it?s the private banks that, pursuant to the fractional reserve banking authorized by the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, make/create-from-nothing-for-their-private-profit the other roughly 98% of the US money supply. The Fed is just a quasi-governmental smokescreen (and central organizing body) for the private banking cartel's money-creation operation.

im not interested in the theory behind it. im interested in the people that designed it and what agenda they may of had. as paul warburg (the brains behind the fed, a german) once said before the senate "We shall have World Government, whether or not we like it. The only question is whether World Government will be achieved by conquest or consent."

legend killer states it is good for our politicians remain out of the fed. which is understandable. but, what is the political views warburg is expressing.

an interesting quote from hitler:
The masses find it difficult to understand politics, their intelligence is small. Therefore all effective propaganda must be limited to a very few points. The masses will only remember only the simplest ideas repeated a thousand times over. If I approach the masses with reasoned arguments, they will not understand me. In the mass meeting, their reasoning power is paralyzed. What I say is like an order given under hypnosis. [Mein Kampf My Struggle 1925]
terrorists...terrorists...osama.....al qaeda....taliban!!!!

paul warburg sat on the ig farben american board. without ig farben there would have been no ww2 or hitler some say. and of coarse, who helped finance hitler. the answer.....wallstreet. look it up.

paul warburg also helped create the council of foreign relations. i hope everyone is familar with them. they believe the u.s. should give up some sovernity.



 

LegendKiller

Lifer
Mar 5, 2001
18,256
68
86
Originally posted by: event8horizon
More idiocy

FFS people.

1. The Fed isn't any more owned by "private" companies than any other "private" company which has audited financial statements out to stockholders. The 6% is fractional reserves held at the Fed, which the Fed dividends 6%.

2. They don't get any money from "printing money", they get their dividend for the reserves. The rest of the money the Fed produces, mainly interest gained from the debt held by it to change interest rates, is dividended back to the government. The Fed dividends out 80bn annually, about all that it makes.

3. The Fed is no more "fed" than the USPS. BFD?

4. OMG, WARBURG! RUN! Christ, people think that just because a Warburg was around makes the problem evil. Get over yourselves. The best people to set up a banking system is...bankers! Holy shit, imagine setting up a nuke plant, you might have...NUKE ENGINEERS!

5. How do you think debt is created by banks? Do you think it's magically made? Do you think that somebody has to pay for it?

What I find immensely funny is that people think that dollars come from nowhere, that nobody earns them, they are just put into the system. Wealth is never created, nor destroyed, nor are wages maintained. We just suddenly got banks lending, creating nothing, but nobody lends to the banks.

If wages were so eroded, the how come we can still afford anything, despite them being eroded so much?


Really, yo people need to get a grip.
 

xj0hnx

Diamond Member
Dec 18, 2007
9,262
3
76
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Originally posted by: event8horizon
More idiocy

FFS people.

1. The Fed isn't any more owned by "private" companies than any other "private" company which has audited financial statements out to stockholders. The 6% is fractional reserves held at the Fed, which the Fed dividends 6%.

Really, yo people need to get a grip.

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
1. The Fed is *not* a private company. It operates under Congressional mandate and is owned 100% by the member banks within the system.

. . .Examining the organization and function of the Federal Reserve Banks and applying the relevant factors, we conclude that the Reserve Banks . . . are independent, privately owned and locally controlled corporations.

. . The Banks are listed as neither "wholly owned" government corporations under 31 U.S.C. § 846 nor as "mixed ownership" corporations under 31 U.S.C. § 856, . . .

Additionally, Reserve Banks, as privately owned entities, receive no appropriated funds . . ."

 

halik

Lifer
Oct 10, 2000
25,696
1
81
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Originally posted by: event8horizon
More idiocy

FFS people.

1. The Fed isn't any more owned by "private" companies than any other "private" company which has audited financial statements out to stockholders. The 6% is fractional reserves held at the Fed, which the Fed dividends 6%.

2. They don't get any money from "printing money", they get their dividend for the reserves. The rest of the money the Fed produces, mainly interest gained from the debt held by it to change interest rates, is dividended back to the government. The Fed dividends out 80bn annually, about all that it makes.

3. The Fed is no more "fed" than the USPS. BFD?

4. OMG, WARBURG! RUN! Christ, people think that just because a Warburg was around makes the problem evil. Get over yourselves. The best people to set up a banking system is...bankers! Holy shit, imagine setting up a nuke plant, you might have...NUKE ENGINEERS!

5. How do you think debt is created by banks? Do you think it's magically made? Do you think that somebody has to pay for it?

What I find immensely funny is that people think that dollars come from nowhere, that nobody earns them, they are just put into the system. Wealth is never created, nor destroyed, nor are wages maintained. We just suddenly got banks lending, creating nothing, but nobody lends to the banks.

If wages were so eroded, the how come we can still afford anything, despite them being eroded so much?


Really, yo people need to get a grip.

Just give up man, there's no point... it's like trying to refute any other conspiracy theorists out there. Lack of education and the sense of intellectual superiority is all it takes.

I could post 100 papers from the various econ/finance journals I have access too and it would make no difference. If they can sell them on Breton Woods as a cure for inflation you might as well not waste your time.

 

halik

Lifer
Oct 10, 2000
25,696
1
81
Originally posted by: xj0hnx
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Originally posted by: event8horizon
More idiocy

FFS people.

1. The Fed isn't any more owned by "private" companies than any other "private" company which has audited financial statements out to stockholders. The 6% is fractional reserves held at the Fed, which the Fed dividends 6%.

Really, yo people need to get a grip.

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
1. The Fed is *not* a private company. It operates under Congressional mandate and is owned 100% by the member banks within the system.

. . .Examining the organization and function of the Federal Reserve Banks and applying the relevant factors, we conclude that the Reserve Banks . . . are independent, privately owned and locally controlled corporations.

. . The Banks are listed as neither "wholly owned" government corporations under 31 U.S.C. § 846 nor as "mixed ownership" corporations under 31 U.S.C. § 856, . . .

Additionally, Reserve Banks, as privately owned entities, receive no appropriated funds . . ."

It's fun to misquote things!

John L. Lewis was injured by a vehicle owned and operated by a federal reserve bank, and brought action alleging jurisdiction under the Federal Tort Claims Act. The District Court dismissed the case by ruling that the federal reserve bank was not a federal agency within meaning of the Federal Tort Claims Act and the court therefore lacked subject-matter jurisdiction. The Appeals court affirmed the decision.
...
The court stated ?Examining the organization and function of the Federal Reserve Banks, and applying the relevant factors, we conclude that the Reserve Banks are not federal instrumentalities for purpose of the FTCA, but are independent, privately owned and locally controlled corporations.?

Lewis v. United States, 680 F.2d 1239 (9th Cir. 1982)
 

LegendKiller

Lifer
Mar 5, 2001
18,256
68
86
Originally posted by: halik
Originally posted by: xj0hnx
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Originally posted by: event8horizon
More idiocy

FFS people.

1. The Fed isn't any more owned by "private" companies than any other "private" company which has audited financial statements out to stockholders. The 6% is fractional reserves held at the Fed, which the Fed dividends 6%.

Really, yo people need to get a grip.

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
1. The Fed is *not* a private company. It operates under Congressional mandate and is owned 100% by the member banks within the system.

. . .Examining the organization and function of the Federal Reserve Banks and applying the relevant factors, we conclude that the Reserve Banks . . . are independent, privately owned and locally controlled corporations.

. . The Banks are listed as neither "wholly owned" government corporations under 31 U.S.C. § 846 nor as "mixed ownership" corporations under 31 U.S.C. § 856, . . .

Additionally, Reserve Banks, as privately owned entities, receive no appropriated funds . . ."

It's fun to misquote things!

John L. Lewis was injured by a vehicle owned and operated by a federal reserve bank, and brought action alleging jurisdiction under the Federal Tort Claims Act. The District Court dismissed the case by ruling that the federal reserve bank was not a federal agency within meaning of the Federal Tort Claims Act and the court therefore lacked subject-matter jurisdiction. The Appeals court affirmed the decision.
...
The court stated ?Examining the organization and function of the Federal Reserve Banks, and applying the relevant factors, we conclude that the Reserve Banks are not federal instrumentalities for purpose of the FTCA, but are independent, privately owned and locally controlled corporations.?

Lewis v. United States, 680 F.2d 1239 (9th Cir. 1982)

lol, nice catch. They love to quote only when it works for them.
 
Dec 10, 2005
28,662
13,806
136
Originally posted by: Mavtek3100
Where did Xjohn misquote anything? He put the same thing you put up.

No he didn't. Are you blind??

XJohn wrote:
we conclude that the Reserve Banks . . . are independent, privately owned and locally controlled corporations.

Notice the ellipsis. (I bolded it for you in case you couldn't see it).

Now see the actual quote (with the underlined part being the important part):

The court stated ?Examining the organization and function of the Federal Reserve Banks, and applying the relevant factors, we conclude that the Reserve Banks are not federal instrumentalities for purpose of the FTCA, but are independent, privately owned and locally controlled corporations.?

The bolded part here is the complete sentence. Notice how the real quote says that the Federal Reserve Banks cannot be sued under the FTCA.
 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,521
0
76
Originally posted by: Brainonska511
Originally posted by: Mavtek3100
Where did Xjohn misquote anything? He put the same thing you put up.

No he didn't. Are you blind??

XJohn wrote:
we conclude that the Reserve Banks . . . are independent, privately owned and locally controlled corporations.

Notice the ellipsis. (I bolded it for you in case you couldn't see it).

Now see the actual quote (with the underlined part being the important part):

The court stated ?Examining the organization and function of the Federal Reserve Banks, and applying the relevant factors, we conclude that the Reserve Banks are not federal instrumentalities for purpose of the FTCA, but are independent, privately owned and locally controlled corporations.?

The bolded part here is the complete sentence. Notice how the real quote says that the Federal Reserve Banks cannot be sued under the FTCA.
wow.. that's fvcking shady.

GG john!
 

Mavtek3100

Senior member
Jan 15, 2008
524
0
0
Originally posted by: Brainonska511
Originally posted by: Mavtek3100
Where did Xjohn misquote anything? He put the same thing you put up.

No he didn't. Are you blind??

XJohn wrote:
we conclude that the Reserve Banks . . . are independent, privately owned and locally controlled corporations.

Notice the ellipsis. (I bolded it for you in case you couldn't see it).

Now see the actual quote (with the underlined part being the important part):

The court stated ?Examining the organization and function of the Federal Reserve Banks, and applying the relevant factors, we conclude that the Reserve Banks are not federal instrumentalities for purpose of the FTCA, but are independent, privately owned and locally controlled corporations.?

The bolded part here is the complete sentence. Notice how the real quote says that the Federal Reserve Banks cannot be sued under the FTCA.


Jesus, that's not a misquote! It's an exclusion and it's irrelevant. The court ruled they are privately owned and locally controlled corporations. That's reason they are not under that jurisdiction.
 

event8horizon

Senior member
Nov 15, 2007
674
0
0
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Originally posted by: event8horizon
More idiocy

FFS people.

1. The Fed isn't any more owned by "private" companies than any other "private" company which has audited financial statements out to stockholders. The 6% is fractional reserves held at the Fed, which the Fed dividends 6%.

from your 1st post on this thread-

1. The Fed is *not* a private company. It operates under Congressional mandate and is owned 100% by the member banks within the system. *Every* bank that is part of the Federal Reserve system, which is more or less every bank in the country, ownes shares in that system. This includes Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase, Bank of New York Mellon, Wachovia, Washinton Mutual, LeSalle, TFC, Wells Fargo, Bank Atlantic, Commerce Bank, 5/3rd, or any other bank you can think of. Since those banks are *PUBLIC* companies, the Fed is essentially owned by *EVERYBODY* in the country.

what do u say about this court case......http://www.geocities.com/chrisforliberty/lewis.html
"but are independent, privately owned and locally controlled corporations."
thats what im asking.


2. They don't get any money from "printing money", they get their dividend for the reserves. The rest of the money the Fed produces, mainly interest gained from the debt held by it to change interest rates, is dividended back to the government. The Fed dividends out 80bn annually, about all that it makes.

thats why im concerned about the member banks that dont have to pay the gov back....and what their agenda may be. take for instance brown brothers harriman as a member and prescott bush with the nazi connections. helping finance agendas that could be harmfull to our national securtiey. and of coarse all the foreign debt held by nations such as china. who the hell owns those banks???? is it the chinese central banks that own all our debt our private chinese banks??


3. The Fed is no more "fed" than the USPS. BFD?

??????? i know, private as the court stated. im not sure what your saying.

4. OMG, WARBURG! RUN! Christ, people think that just because a Warburg was around makes the problem evil. Get over yourselves. The best people to set up a banking system is...bankers! Holy shit, imagine setting up a nuke plant, you might have...NUKE ENGINEERS!

its not just warburg. its his politics and his family connections. Paul M. Warburg, first director of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and chairman of the Bank of Manhattan, was a Farben director and in Germany his brother Max Warburg was also a director of I.G, Farben. H. A. Metz of I.G. Farben was also a director of the Warburg's Bank of Manhattan. there are also links to the infamous rothschilds through the warburgs. some think paul was rothschild man sent to form the fed. i know during this time there were people trying to bring fascism to america as well. u might of read my thread. maybe trying to make an "alliance" as u said in one of your previous threads. tell me, what did u mean by alliace when you were describing federal reserve.

5. How do you think debt is created by banks? Do you think it's magically made? Do you think that somebody has to pay for it?

greenbacks....interest free by the treasury would be good (my suggestion) but with the fed and fractal reserve banking, the interest should only be on that 10% they actually have instead of the entire amount that is 90% created out of thin air.

What I find immensely funny is that people think that dollars come from nowhere, that nobody earns them, they are just put into the system. Wealth is never created, nor destroyed, nor are wages maintained. We just suddenly got banks lending, creating nothing, but nobody lends to the banks.

i do get the point that our income tax pays the interest on the borrowed money. we are all slaves to the economy so to speak. its a matter of wants and needs of coarse. i just dont like paying my income tax to interest if there is another way. i know u say it the best way for now but there must be another way.

If wages were so eroded, the how come we can still afford anything, despite them being eroded so much?


Really, yo people need to get a grip.
id like to keep a grip on my hard earned money!!!

 

xj0hnx

Diamond Member
Dec 18, 2007
9,262
3
76
Originally posted by: event8horizon
i was not trying to misquote anything. i just want LK view on the matter

He gave you his view on your posting, I believe he called it idiocy. Seems to be a habit of his to insult people when they post something that refutes his claims.
 

event8horizon

Senior member
Nov 15, 2007
674
0
0
go look through your government issued black binders guys....dont take to long...hahaha...i really am just trying to learn here......as well as attack if i can. im just not a fan of the fed. i see palehorse here too. im not a fan of the states being the police of the world as well.