Posted on 02/03/2009 9:28:11 AM PST by shielagolden
link isn’t working
BOOKMARK
Too bad the same rules don't apply to SS.
Fed Secretly Lends $2 Trillion to Banksters without Oversight
Kurt Nimmo
February 3, 2009
It turns out the bankers are not finished looting the American tax payer. As the American News Project video posted below reveals, the Federal Reserve has doled out around $2 trillion to unknown suspects behind our backs, described as a “staggering, enormous, unprecedented sum of money.” Of course, we have a pretty good idea who the recipients are, never mind all the secrecy — the international bankers, the same people who took more than $8.5 trillion under threat last year from your children and grand-children.
Alan Grayson, Democratic Congressman in Florida’s 8th congressional district.
If not for freshman Congressman Alan Grayson of Florida, you might not be any wiser about this latest scam. In the video, Grayson grills Fed vice-boss Donald Kohn over the “lending” of an addition $2 trillion to unspecified “institutions,” a highly unusual situation because our congress critters rarely — with the notable exception of Rep. Ron Paul — take on bankster operatives at the Fed or the Treasury. “I guess I haven’t got the memo on questions not to ask and people not to question closely,” Grayson told the American News Project. In fact, Congress has no oversight of the private banker held Federal Reserve.
Donald Kohn admits during testimony why the Fed keeps its transactions secret. “I’d be very concerned, Congressman, that if we published the individual names of who was borrowing from us, no one would borrow from us. The purpose of our borrowing is not to support individual institutions but the credit markets.” In other words, the international bankers making oodles of ill-gained profit from the Fed’s out-of-thin-air funny money don’t want the people to know who they are. Criminals dread the light of day.
Kohn understands well enough the real purpose of this “lending” to the credit markets — to further indebt the nation to the bankers. The international banking cartel are the underwriters of the U.S. public debt. “The bailout is conducive to the consolidation and centralization of banking power, which in turn backlashes on real economic activity, leading to a string of bankruptcies and mass unemployment,” writes economist Michel Chossudovsky. “The ‘bailout’ proposed by the US Treasury does not constitute a ’solution’ to the crisis. In fact quite the opposite: it is the cause of further collapse. It triggers an unprecedented concentration of wealth, which in turn contributes to widening economic and social inequalities both within and between nations.”
It also turns us into debt slaves. In this regard, it is worth repeating Thomas Jefferson’s warning, written in a letter to the Secretary of the Treasury Albert Gallatin in 1802:
“I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around [the banks] will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs.”
Watch the video:$1.2 Trillion Slush Fund: Congressman Alan Grayson Grills Fed Vice Chair Donald Kohn
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mj0JAfq4esk
Not one word in the whole article about the possibility of REDUCING the benefits to retirees. Oh no! Just keep taxing the working guy and taking away the benefits of new hires. Either that or just go broke!
Maybe we need to make some adjustments in pension payments and/or health benefits. All these years, people have demanded "cost of living" increases. Now that things have gone south, there is never any mention of a "cost of living" decrease.
Ron Paul Grills Fed Governor 1/13/09
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_LdFo0Ab_Qc&NR=1
thanks
The Money Masters - How International Bankers Gained Control of America
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-515319560256183936&hl=en
There is the chance we old geezers will rebel.
After 35 + years of paying pension & S/S taxes, then having to live in tent city may not sit well with many.
Of course the young blood may want to look into more of the euthanasia solution the younger generation has been toying with.
Whatever you decide, you may want to keep in mind that you will also grow old.
... Well perhaps you will.
Same to you. ;)
Too bad the same rules don't apply to SS.
Traditionally, public investments and union-based corporate pension funds were managed according to strict fiduciary principles designed to protect workers and taxpayers. For the most part they invested in safe government securities, such as bonds or U.S. Treasury bills. Professional managers oversaw the funds with little political interference.
The trouble with the Social Security Trust Fund, over and above the pyramid scheme aspect, is that the SSTF is invested in "safe government bonds." Which sounds fine - until you realize that when the retirement boom hits and the SSTF needs to cash in those "safe government bonds," the Treasury will be obligated to redeem them from your grandchildren's taxes. And there aren't enough young Americans to carry that burden.100% safe investment is illusory.
I know the points you make are valid. And, by the way, I am retired. I see many around me living the good life and having all of their health care benefits paid. I am just saying, we may need people (hopefully the ones with plenty) to start taking responsibility for more of their daily needs. The monthly checks are pretty much sacred. Some of them are exorbitant. Those people should not also be getting benefits free. Use some of the monthly income to pay for it.
You see when I signed on, there was no stipulation that should I hit the lottery, or made a fortune smuggling moonshine, that I would forfeit my pension, or S/S.
BTW ... In my post #12 ... "Whatever you decide, you may want to keep in mind that you will also grow old.
... Well perhaps you will."
The you should have been they.
Sorry about that.
He's got this one at least partially wrong.
My defined contribution pension plan is more like a bank account. There's a guaranteed interest rated stated every year. And the balance raises accordingly. My nominal savings grows every year, it doesn't ever reduce.
That's not to say there isn't risk. The risk I have is that the company didn't play safe with the funds behind the nominal balance, and can't meet their obligations when it comes time to pay.
One elephant in the room that’s not covered here:
The coming bout with inflation will reduce even these devalued retirement accounts by half or more (easily).
So sorry old-timers, the money will not be there (for you or for me). The money was already spent. It is gone.
pay everyone every red cent of SS that they contributed, but after that, index it all....
over the last 30 yrs, when the govt went to "fix" SS or the pensions, all it did was increase my taxation and my work life.....
We are watching government entities go broke. Just like the UAW, they are drowning in retiree indebtedness. I'm not saying you can just take away everyone's pension. I'm saying you have to take a look at the "fat". Some of those pensions are exorbitant. In those cases, more of the burden needs to fall on the recipient. You can't just keep raising taxes on the young to pay for the retirees' lifestyle. For example, say a retiree has a pension of $80K or $100 a year. Let's say he also gets a $400 a month stipend to cover his Medicare costs. (Heaven forbid he have to use his fun money to pay for something as banal as health care!) I love the idea as long as it is sustainable. Just like the UAW - I love the good fortune of their retirees as long as the auto industry pays for it. But, when the entity that is paying the pensions and stipends no longer has the funds to cover them, it is time to look for ways to reduce the benefits, not increase revenue.
What makes me the maddest is people's refusal to recognize how great things were. For so many years we lived through the highest standard of living imaginable. During those same years, libs could only talk about the "worsening economy". They watched the stock market go nuts, saw people living like kings, businesses booming and could only point out how "bad" things were (Bush's fault). They never acknowledged how good things were.
Ok, excuse the rant!
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.