[SK in CV]

Investor, is it your assertion that those same families, the Warburgs, the Rockefellers and the Rothchilds still have significant ownership and control of the Fed? What about the ownership interests of the roughly 3,000 other federally chartered banks and state banks which also have interests? What about the current 5 member board of governors, 4 of which were appointed by President Bush and approved by congress? What about the Open Market Committee, made up of those same members along with reps from the 12 regional banks? Do they not exercise autority independently of those claimed founding members?

Unless you believe that current control and ownership of those entities is significantly different from their public pronouncements, who promoted the formation of the fed is incidental.

As an aside, I don’t see where you pointed out how our money system works, only that the fed has a nefarious history.

[SK in CV]

Investor, is it your assertion that those same families, the Warburgs, the Rockefellers and the Rothchilds still have significant ownership and control of the Fed? What about the ownership interests of the roughly 3,000 other federally chartered banks and state banks which also have interests? What about the current 5 member board of governors, 4 of which were appointed by President Bush and approved by congress? What about the Open Market Committee, made up of those same members along with reps from the 12 regional banks? Do they not exercise autority independently of those claimed founding members?

Unless you believe that current control and ownership of those entities is significantly different from their public pronouncements, who promoted the formation of the fed is incidental.

As an aside, I don’t see where you pointed out how our money system works, only that the fed has a nefarious history.

[SK in CV]

Investor, is it your assertion that those same families, the Warburgs, the Rockefellers and the Rothchilds still have significant ownership and control of the Fed? What about the ownership interests of the roughly 3,000 other federally chartered banks and state banks which also have interests? What about the current 5 member board of governors, 4 of which were appointed by President Bush and approved by congress? What about the Open Market Committee, made up of those same members along with reps from the 12 regional banks? Do they not exercise autority independently of those claimed founding members?

Unless you believe that current control and ownership of those entities is significantly different from their public pronouncements, who promoted the formation of the fed is incidental.

As an aside, I don’t see where you pointed out how our money system works, only that the fed has a nefarious history.

[SK in CV]

Investor, is it your assertion that those same families, the Warburgs, the Rockefellers and the Rothchilds still have significant ownership and control of the Fed? What about the ownership interests of the roughly 3,000 other federally chartered banks and state banks which also have interests? What about the current 5 member board of governors, 4 of which were appointed by President Bush and approved by congress? What about the Open Market Committee, made up of those same members along with reps from the 12 regional banks? Do they not exercise autority independently of those claimed founding members?

Unless you believe that current control and ownership of those entities is significantly different from their public pronouncements, who promoted the formation of the fed is incidental.

As an aside, I don’t see where you pointed out how our money system works, only that the fed has a nefarious history.

[SK in CV]

Thanks for posting that davelj.

Conspiracy theories about the fed have been circulating for almost 100 years. The freemasons, the illuminati, the Rockefellers, JP Morgan and dozens more have been accused of running it, and manipulating the flow of funds that control the US (and to a great extent, the world) economy.

It’s primary specific charges are to avoid panic, and manage the money supply to provide both elasticity and stability in the market. Are those functions being manipulated by those who own it? You betcha. Is it transparent? Nope. Same way Ford and BP and Alcoa attempt to manipulate their markets without complete transparency.

No excuses being made here, that’s just the way it was set up by congress, under powers of delegation specified in the constitution. Part of the financial reform now under consideration in congress are audit and review powers over the Fed. The fed is fighting those reforms, and as is typical, support has fallen mostly along partisan lines, with republicans also rejecting those powers, democrats supporting those reforms. Strangely, the white house has been less supportive than democrats in either house. Fodder for more conspiracy theories.

[SK in CV]

Thanks for posting that davelj.

Conspiracy theories about the fed have been circulating for almost 100 years. The freemasons, the illuminati, the Rockefellers, JP Morgan and dozens more have been accused of running it, and manipulating the flow of funds that control the US (and to a great extent, the world) economy.

It’s primary specific charges are to avoid panic, and manage the money supply to provide both elasticity and stability in the market. Are those functions being manipulated by those who own it? You betcha. Is it transparent? Nope. Same way Ford and BP and Alcoa attempt to manipulate their markets without complete transparency.

No excuses being made here, that’s just the way it was set up by congress, under powers of delegation specified in the constitution. Part of the financial reform now under consideration in congress are audit and review powers over the Fed. The fed is fighting those reforms, and as is typical, support has fallen mostly along partisan lines, with republicans also rejecting those powers, democrats supporting those reforms. Strangely, the white house has been less supportive than democrats in either house. Fodder for more conspiracy theories.

[SK in CV]

Thanks for posting that davelj.

Conspiracy theories about the fed have been circulating for almost 100 years. The freemasons, the illuminati, the Rockefellers, JP Morgan and dozens more have been accused of running it, and manipulating the flow of funds that control the US (and to a great extent, the world) economy.

It’s primary specific charges are to avoid panic, and manage the money supply to provide both elasticity and stability in the market. Are those functions being manipulated by those who own it? You betcha. Is it transparent? Nope. Same way Ford and BP and Alcoa attempt to manipulate their markets without complete transparency.

No excuses being made here, that’s just the way it was set up by congress, under powers of delegation specified in the constitution. Part of the financial reform now under consideration in congress are audit and review powers over the Fed. The fed is fighting those reforms, and as is typical, support has fallen mostly along partisan lines, with republicans also rejecting those powers, democrats supporting those reforms. Strangely, the white house has been less supportive than democrats in either house. Fodder for more conspiracy theories.

[SK in CV]

Thanks for posting that davelj.

Conspiracy theories about the fed have been circulating for almost 100 years. The freemasons, the illuminati, the Rockefellers, JP Morgan and dozens more have been accused of running it, and manipulating the flow of funds that control the US (and to a great extent, the world) economy.

It’s primary specific charges are to avoid panic, and manage the money supply to provide both elasticity and stability in the market. Are those functions being manipulated by those who own it? You betcha. Is it transparent? Nope. Same way Ford and BP and Alcoa attempt to manipulate their markets without complete transparency.

No excuses being made here, that’s just the way it was set up by congress, under powers of delegation specified in the constitution. Part of the financial reform now under consideration in congress are audit and review powers over the Fed. The fed is fighting those reforms, and as is typical, support has fallen mostly along partisan lines, with republicans also rejecting those powers, democrats supporting those reforms. Strangely, the white house has been less supportive than democrats in either house. Fodder for more conspiracy theories.

[SK in CV]

Thanks for posting that davelj.

Conspiracy theories about the fed have been circulating for almost 100 years. The freemasons, the illuminati, the Rockefellers, JP Morgan and dozens more have been accused of running it, and manipulating the flow of funds that control the US (and to a great extent, the world) economy.

It’s primary specific charges are to avoid panic, and manage the money supply to provide both elasticity and stability in the market. Are those functions being manipulated by those who own it? You betcha. Is it transparent? Nope. Same way Ford and BP and Alcoa attempt to manipulate their markets without complete transparency.

No excuses being made here, that’s just the way it was set up by congress, under powers of delegation specified in the constitution. Part of the financial reform now under consideration in congress are audit and review powers over the Fed. The fed is fighting those reforms, and as is typical, support has fallen mostly along partisan lines, with republicans also rejecting those powers, democrats supporting those reforms. Strangely, the white house has been less supportive than democrats in either house. Fodder for more conspiracy theories.

[SK in CV]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
Interesting that you juxtapose Newt getting his gear greased at the same time Clinton was, in that it illustrates a commonly held misconception that Leftists like you try to push, namely that Clinton was nearly impeached for getting a hummer from Lewinsky. Not so. Clinton was nearly impeached (and was disbarred) for suborning perjury. Big, big difference.
[/quote]

Not exactly. Clinton was accused of actual perjury, not merely suborning, or procuring another to commit perjury. Had he actually committed perjury, undoubtedly there would have been charges filed. But he didn’t. What he did, was lie under oath. Which does not, by itself qualify as perjury. (And no, it has nothing to do with what “is” is. Perjury requires that the false testimony must be material to the case in which the testimony is given. It was not material. Ruled such, as a matter of law, by the judge in the case.)

[SK in CV]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
Interesting that you juxtapose Newt getting his gear greased at the same time Clinton was, in that it illustrates a commonly held misconception that Leftists like you try to push, namely that Clinton was nearly impeached for getting a hummer from Lewinsky. Not so. Clinton was nearly impeached (and was disbarred) for suborning perjury. Big, big difference.
[/quote]

Not exactly. Clinton was accused of actual perjury, not merely suborning, or procuring another to commit perjury. Had he actually committed perjury, undoubtedly there would have been charges filed. But he didn’t. What he did, was lie under oath. Which does not, by itself qualify as perjury. (And no, it has nothing to do with what “is” is. Perjury requires that the false testimony must be material to the case in which the testimony is given. It was not material. Ruled such, as a matter of law, by the judge in the case.)

[SK in CV]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
Interesting that you juxtapose Newt getting his gear greased at the same time Clinton was, in that it illustrates a commonly held misconception that Leftists like you try to push, namely that Clinton was nearly impeached for getting a hummer from Lewinsky. Not so. Clinton was nearly impeached (and was disbarred) for suborning perjury. Big, big difference.
[/quote]

Not exactly. Clinton was accused of actual perjury, not merely suborning, or procuring another to commit perjury. Had he actually committed perjury, undoubtedly there would have been charges filed. But he didn’t. What he did, was lie under oath. Which does not, by itself qualify as perjury. (And no, it has nothing to do with what “is” is. Perjury requires that the false testimony must be material to the case in which the testimony is given. It was not material. Ruled such, as a matter of law, by the judge in the case.)

[SK in CV]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
Interesting that you juxtapose Newt getting his gear greased at the same time Clinton was, in that it illustrates a commonly held misconception that Leftists like you try to push, namely that Clinton was nearly impeached for getting a hummer from Lewinsky. Not so. Clinton was nearly impeached (and was disbarred) for suborning perjury. Big, big difference.
[/quote]

Not exactly. Clinton was accused of actual perjury, not merely suborning, or procuring another to commit perjury. Had he actually committed perjury, undoubtedly there would have been charges filed. But he didn’t. What he did, was lie under oath. Which does not, by itself qualify as perjury. (And no, it has nothing to do with what “is” is. Perjury requires that the false testimony must be material to the case in which the testimony is given. It was not material. Ruled such, as a matter of law, by the judge in the case.)

[SK in CV]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
Interesting that you juxtapose Newt getting his gear greased at the same time Clinton was, in that it illustrates a commonly held misconception that Leftists like you try to push, namely that Clinton was nearly impeached for getting a hummer from Lewinsky. Not so. Clinton was nearly impeached (and was disbarred) for suborning perjury. Big, big difference.
[/quote]

Not exactly. Clinton was accused of actual perjury, not merely suborning, or procuring another to commit perjury. Had he actually committed perjury, undoubtedly there would have been charges filed. But he didn’t. What he did, was lie under oath. Which does not, by itself qualify as perjury. (And no, it has nothing to do with what “is” is. Perjury requires that the false testimony must be material to the case in which the testimony is given. It was not material. Ruled such, as a matter of law, by the judge in the case.)

[SK in CV]

Binding contract entered into on or before April 30, 2010.

Under state law, it wasn’t binding until you signed it (real estate contracts must be in writing).

[Author]

Posts