The Comedian's "Economic Holocaust" ping list...
Frowning takes 68 muscles.
Smiling takes 6.
Pulling this trigger takes 2.
I'm lazy.
Posted on 01/23/2011 7:21:37 AM PST by FromLori
It is not independent, it is an arm of Treasury.
Everything you were told was a scam and a lie - yet another time for
But the new rules have slowly begun to catch the attention of market analysts. Many are at once surprised that the Fed can set its own guidelines, and also relieved that the remote but dangerous possibility that the world's most powerful central bank might need to ask the U.S. Treasury or its member banks for money is now more likely to be averted.
The change essentially allows the Fed to denote losses by the various regional reserve banks that make up the Fed system as a liability to the Treasury rather than a hit to its capital. It would then simply direct future profits from Fed operations toward that liability.
Got it?
Independent monetary authority my ass.
Function follows form. Anyone who believes that The Fed is independent after this charade, which incidentally it did on its own (and that, by itself, is cute - The Fed's "balance sheets" would never have passed examination under GAAP) has rocks in their head.
The simple fact of the matter is this - The Fed is out of bullets and they know it. They've driven rates to zero but still can't get beyond the premium demanded for loans, and the fact that cash flow is insufficient to meet service requirements. This is why the shift has taken place to the Government, which (thus far) has been able to keep borrowing and borrowing, since nobody is (yet) questioning whether the government will be able to meet the cash flow.
The key there is "yet."
Treasury, for its part, is worried too. They should be.
In his January 6, 2011 letter urging that Congress act to protect America’s creditworthiness by increasing the statutory debt limit, Secretary Geithner made clear that any default on legal debt obligations of the U.S. would be unthinkable. In response, Members of Congress of both parties have indicated agreement that the United States must honor its obligations. However, Treasury disagrees with suggestions by some that Congress could somehow evade this responsibility by passing legislation to “prioritize” payments on the national debt above other legal obligations of the United States.
Uh huh.
Guess what Timmy? Most of what The United States spends money on is not a legal obligation.
Oh sure, some of it is. Salaries for our servicemembers, for example. They worked, they're owed. Legally. That's a legal obligation. Debt service (interest) is a legal obligation.
Social Security and Medicare are not. Nor are farm subsidies, Department of Education meddling, and, incidentally, while your salary Timmy is for work you've already done, Congress can de-fund your position and reduce your salary for future work to one penny.
If they did, you'd be overpaid.
The simple solution to the "Debt Ceiling" is to spend only what you take in via taxes.
That means no more debt is required.
And yes, I'm well-aware that it also means a 43% (roughly) immediate cut in Federal Spending.
I assert that such a cut can be made without impinging on one dollar of actual legal obligation of The United States.
Stop lying Neal, and tell your boss Timmy that we know he's lying too.
You certainly implied that it is. So which is it, Skippy? Is the Fed a privately owned institution?
“But they are liars!!!! “ So, you want to know how’s that?
So, was Hank Paulson TELLING THE TRUTH when he CLAIMED that their would be martial law if TARP wasn’t passed?
Was he? Why would that be?? Hmmmm??????
“It’s a sure win to do the very opposite of what every you say.”
BINGO!!!!!
Post #28.
I can't predict the future.
Oh? What would you call it?
How much gold do they have? Where do they keep it?
The Federal Reserve Banks have an intermediate legal status, with some features of private corporations and some features of public federal agencies. The United States has an interest in the Federal Reserve Banks as tax-exempt federally-created instrumentalities whose profits belong to the federal government, but this interest is not proprietary.[73] Each member bank (commercial banks in the Federal Reserve district) owns a nonnegotiable share of stock in its regional Federal Reserve Bank. However, holding Federal Reserve Bank stock is unlike owning stock in a publicly traded company. The charter of each Federal Reserve Bank is established by law and cannot be altered by the member banks. Federal Reserve Bank stock cannot be sold or traded, and member banks do not control the Federal Reserve Bank as a result of owning this stock. They do, however, elect six of the nine members of the Federal Reserve Banks’ boards of directors.[38] In Lewis v. United States,[74] the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit stated that: “The Reserve Banks are not federal instrumentalities for purposes of the FTCA [the Federal Tort Claims Act], but are independent, privately owned and locally controlled corporations.” The opinion went on to say, however, that: “The Reserve Banks have properly been held to be federal instrumentalities for some purposes.” Another relevant decision is Scott v. Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City,[73] in which the distinction is made between Federal Reserve Banks, which are federally-created instrumentalities, and the Board of Governors, which is a federal agency.
So it’s not public, it’s not private, and Congress has only nominal control over it at best.
What could possibly go wrong?
Maybe I'm off, but isn't the debt that much higher? Somebody has to pay it off if the fed doesn't. Wouldn't that debt, and the prospect of more to come turn off foreign investors?
Those are good questions. As soon as you tell me how much the Fed pays in commissions when they buy Treasuries from a Primary Dealer.
If the Fed marks their bonds down by $50 billion, who is forced to borrow?
Somebody has to pay it off if the fed doesn't.
Pay it off? It's a mark down on their portfolio, it isn't debt.
Wouldn't that debt, and the prospect of more to come turn off foreign investors?
What debt?
2008 is NOT the future! Yikes, are you for real? IF he was telling the truth, WHY would that be true??
IF NOT, he was lying.
Very, very simple, eh.
Independent monetary authority my ass.
The Federal Reserve is owned by its shareholders, the member banks. It operates as a for-profit entity, and any direct profits are paid to the Treasury, while the indirect profits it makes for its member owners by implementation of its unchecked and uncontrolled policies are retained by those banks.
It's only "government" facade is the Presidentially-appointed board of governors who, in practice, are all former member bank executives whose pensions, stock holdings, and promises of future positions in government motivate them to act in the best interest of those banks to the exclusion of all other considerations.
it is an independent entity within the government, having both public purposes and private aspects.
Your cited source is tainted and subjective, being the description of the Fed, by the Fed.
Weasel words which contradict the reality of the situation.
It's like citing the DNC website for an honest description of what the Democrat Party is:
For more than 200 years, Democrats have fought for the interests of working families and equal opportunities for all Americans. We believe in an America where we don’t just look out for ourselves. We’re proud of our individualism, but we also know that we rise and fall as one nation. Throughout history, Democrats have worked from the ground up to bring about the change that matters
>>And what if the “future profits” fail to equal the liability?<<
>They keep allocating profits until it does.<
All great mistakes start with having the money to finance them. — The Mogambo Guru
Paulson wasn't talking about the future?
IF he was telling the truth, WHY would that be true??
You should ask him.
No it isn't.
It operates as a for-profit entity, and any direct profits are paid to the Treasury
Why would the owners pay the profits to the Treasury?
while the indirect profits
What's an indirect profit?
Your cited source is tainted and subjective, being the description of the Fed, by the Fed.
Yeah, why listen to the Fed about the Fed? We could cite some conspiracy website written by some idiot instead. LOL!
No it isn't.
Yes, it is.
It operates as a for-profit entity, and any direct profits are paid to the Treasury
Why would the owners pay the profits to the Treasury?
To maintain the illusion that was advanced when the Fed was formed by bankers, for bankers, in 1913, that it exists as some sort of extension of the Treasury and for the good of the people. Neither is true.
while the indirect profits
What's an indirect profit?
I defined the term in the part of comment that you snipped. Go back to my original comment for the definition.
Your cited source is tainted and subjective, being the description of the Fed, by the Fed.
Yeah, why listen to the Fed about the Fed? We could cite some conspiracy website written by some idiot instead. LOL
What conspiracy website or "idiot" did I cite?
And speaking of conspiracy websites cited by idiots, you snipped the part of my post with the definition of the Democrat Party by the Democrat Party as an example of the intellectually dishonest and transparently deceptive method you used to supply a definition of the Fed by the Fed.
Why did you do that?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.