ArloNet • Is it possible for one person to earn a billion dollars..

Jafo · **Posted:** Mon Feb 13, 2012 9:44 am

heraclitis wrote:

Looky here, it now appears you miraculously agree with me 100%! See what happens when get pinned down on clarity, suddenly it becomes apparent that we need a whole damn salt shaker when you are around!

Umm, the Fed caused the depression, you say capitalism cause the depression.. How is it we agree again?

heraclitis wrote:

The Federal Reserve in its current incarnation was created by Senator Nelson Aldrich with support of JP Morgan and John D Rockefeller after they put up the money to quell the Panic of 1907. They wanted a more streamlined efficient approach to dealing with these things.

And why is it they would want to control bank panics in such a manner? Because it would eliminate their competition. That is not free market capitalism! That is crony capitalism. You do understand the difference right?

heraclitis wrote:

Of course the rest is history (as I originally stated and you reaffirmed after you decided to try and back up your bullshit Jafo). The next Panic was not about a Post War adjustment it was about a true blue old fashioned credit bubble unseen before and only bested in the 21 century when George Bush was at the helm! True to form, those socialist wealthy bankers turned the screws to cleanse the system of weak banks and to increase unemployment to recalibrate wages and BOOM! THE GREAT DEPRESSION!

What a load of shit. The SAME FED oversaw both disasters. The free market did NOT. So AGAIN, it was not a failure of capitalism it was a failure of meddling socialists. When markets manage themselves, we have no great depressions. When you allow markets to become infested with government meddling, then all hell breaks loose. Sure, you will have some good times here and there, but it is in spite of the socialist meddling, not because of it.

So please, stop trying to conveniently forget the point YOU tried to assert, that the great depression was a failure of capitalism, because it was not. It was a failure of government which has NO business managing the economy.

heraclitis · **Joined:** Jul 17, 2010 **Posts:** 1375

Jafo, I am sorry but this makes your Nobel Prize Winning Economist kind of a self interested twit (I mean an economy theory has to connect all the dots).

But look on the bright side:

Albert Einstein is no longer a greedy little bastard!

(Yah!!!)

Jafo · **Posted:** Mon Feb 13, 2012 9:47 am

leoburg wrote:

The Fed is in no way what so ever a social managed business. Its owned by private banks.

http://www.federalreserve.gov/pf/pdf/pf_1.pdf#page=4

Quote:

The Federal Reserve System is the central bank of the United
States. It was founded by Congress in 1913 to provide the
nation with a safer, more flexible, and more stable monetary
and financial system. Over the years, its role in banking and
the economy has expanded.

Ok, do you wish to change your statement now?

leoburg wrote:

The Fed is only out for the interests of its banksters owners.

Well DUHHH! In a CAPITALISTIC society there would be no such body as the Fed. This is purely a result of government overreach.

heraclitis · **Joined:** Jul 17, 2010 **Posts:** 1375

Jafo wrote:

heraclitis wrote:

Look, Yes or No, Is that what you are saying. If not, then in clear precise statements, please modify it so we all know EXACTLY WHAT YOU ARE SAYING? You have a tendency to say "you didn't answer me" or "my thoughts and logic are so incredible you have no argument". That is why we have to go through this painful procedure to pin down what you are saying!

I have to say yes or no to YOUR opinion now? Sorry, that is not how it works. How about we listen to the Obama and Bush nominated head of the Fed, Bernanke who actually ADMITS it was the Feds fault:

Quote:

Before the creation of the Federal Reserve, Friedman and Schwartz noted, bank panics were typically handled by banks themselves – for example, through urban consortiums of private banks called clearinghouses. If a run on one or more banks in a city began, the clearinghouse might declare a suspension of payments, meaning that, temporarily, deposits would not be convertible into cash. Larger, stronger banks would then take the lead, first, in determining that the banks under attack were in fact fundamentally solvent, and second, in lending cash to those banks that needed to meet withdrawals. Though not an entirely satisfactory solution – the suspension of payments for several weeks was a significant hardship for the public – the system of suspension of payments usually prevented local banking panics from spreading or persisting. Large, solvent banks had an incentive to participate in curing panics because they knew that an unchecked panic might ultimately threaten their own deposits.

It was in large part to improve the management of banking panics that the Federal Reserve was created in 1913. However, as Friedman and Schwartz discuss in some detail, in the early 1930s the Federal Reserve did not serve that function. The problem within the Fed was largely doctrinal: Fed officials appeared to subscribe to Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon’s infamous ‘liquidationist’ thesis, that weeding out “weak” banks was a harsh but necessary prerequisite to the recovery of the banking system. Moreover, most of the failing banks were small banks (as opposed to what we would now call money-center banks) and not members of the Federal Reserve System. Thus the Fed saw no particular need to try to stem the panics. At the same time, the large banks – which would have intervened before the founding of the Fed – felt that protecting their smaller brethren was no longer their responsibility. Indeed, since the large banks felt confident that the Fed would protect them if necessary, the weeding out of small competitors was a positive good, from their point of view.

In short, according to Friedman and Schwartz, because of institutional changes and misguided doctrines, the banking panics of the Great Contraction were much more severe and widespread than would have normally occurred during a downturn. …

Let me end my talk by abusing slightly my status as an official representative of the Federal Reserve. I would like to say to Milton and Anna: Regarding the Great Depression. You’re right, we did it. We’re very sorry. But thanks to you, we won’t do it again.

Sources:

http://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs ... efault.htm

http://www.wnd.com/2008/03/59405/

Ok, I agree 100% with what Bernanke said right there.

I get it, you just posted this, you didn't actually read it!

Jafo · **Posted:** Mon Feb 13, 2012 9:50 am

heraclitis wrote:

Jafo, I am sorry but this makes your Nobel Prize Winning Economist kind of a self interested twit (I mean an economy theory has to connect all the dots).

But look on the bright side:

Albert Einstein is no longer a greedy little bastard!

Ahh yes, the grandmaster of economic theory for almost the last 75 years is a twit. At least his arguments were not filled with these amazing facts:

His was at least based on pure scientific methods rather than the ramblings of an idiot.

Jafo · **Posted:** Mon Feb 13, 2012 9:52 am

heraclitis wrote:

Jafo wrote:

I get it, you just posted this, you didn't actually read it!

Just what is it in what you quoted illustrates a failure of capitalism? You show me.

(Ok everyone, watch him dodge this one)

heraclitis · **Joined:** Jul 17, 2010 **Posts:** 1375

Jafo wrote:

heraclitis wrote:

Jafo wrote:

I get it, you just posted this, you didn't actually read it!

Just what is it in what you quoted illustrates a failure of capitalism? You show me.

(Ok everyone, watch him dodge this one)

A lesson for you boys and girls,

If all else fails, pretend you are the village idiot!

Jafo · **Posted:** Mon Feb 13, 2012 9:58 am

heraclitis wrote:

Jafo wrote:

(Ok everyone, watch him dodge this one)

A lesson for you boys and girls,

If all else fails, pretend you are the village idiot!

And there it is ladies and gentlemen, the typical Heraclitis dodge when he is beaten..

leoburg · **Posted:** Mon Feb 13, 2012 9:59 am

S.S. has not contributed 1 dime to the debt or deficit, and is fully funded for the next 25 years. No retirement plan is perfect. Sure in perfect times it would be great and wouldn't be needed. There are just too many other issues, of these times, that there's no need to break what isn't broken. It sure don't seem like an oppressive tax to me.

Now I'm not even sure what funds Medicare. But I think its greed that has raised the cost of Healthcare for everyone.

Jafo · **Posted:** Mon Feb 13, 2012 10:03 am

leoburg wrote:

S.S. has not contributed 1 dime to the debt or deficit, and is fully funded for the next 25 years.

Thanks, I needed that laugh..

leoburg wrote:

No retirement plan is perfect. Sure in perfect times it would be great and wouldn't be needed. There are just too many other issues, of these times, that there's no need to break what isn't broken. It sure don't seem like an oppressive tax to me.

That is part of your problem, you consider SS a retirement plan. Even the founders of it didn't consider it that.. It was called INSURANCE by them. I call it a ponzi scheme because any private citizen running the exact same plan would be thrown in jail.

leoburg wrote:

Now I'm not even sure what funds Medicare.

By this last statement of yours, I have to assume that you have never cashed a paycheck in your life. If you had, you would know the answer to that.

leoburg wrote:

But I think its greed that has raised the cost of Healthcare for everyone.

Actually it is government intervention and tort that has caused the most increase.

leoburg · **Posted:** Mon Feb 13, 2012 2:43 pm

That statement about Medicare was just a question. For I don't believe its the SS tax that funds it. Could be wrong. But when share holders are out to make a profit off of the sick, (Which for over 3 decades has sounded immoral to me.-that doesn't mean HC workers should not make a good living.) rather than provide care, greed has clearly taken over that system.

Oh its more than only Sanders who keeps saying SS has not contributed 1 dime to the debt and is fully funded for the next 25 years. That good Journalistic Cenk from Young Turks has time after time said the same thing, while bringing up economist after economist who say the same thing. Sure it would have helped had not Reagan borrowed from it...which had Clinton end up adding it to the budget, where it was never meant to be.

You really buy that crap of Perry's about SS being a Ponzi scheme? Guess you do. It has kept a lot of people from starving, while not in any way being an oppressive tax.

SS is not a complete fulfillment of Tom Paine's thoughts here, but it has help much towards it. "When shall it be said in any country of the world, my poor are happy; neither ignorance or distress is to be found among them; my jails are empty of prisoners, my streets of beggars; the aged are not in want, the taxes are not oppressive...when these things can be said, then may that country boast of its constitution and government."
~ Thomas Paine (I can hear you now calling the Founder of the Revolution a Communist, for he really cared about Society.)

Jafo · **Posted:** Mon Feb 13, 2012 2:56 pm

leoburg wrote:

That statement about Medicare was just a question. For I don't believe its the SS tax that funds it. Could be wrong.

Take a look at your last paycheck, it is RIGHT THERE.. I am betting you probably have never had one.. How can you even question a system you do not partake in?

leoburg wrote:

But when share holders are out to make a profit off of the sick, (Which for over 3 decades has sounded immoral to me.-that doesn't mean HC workers should not make a good living.) rather than provide care, greed has clearly taken over that system.

You don't understand insurance do you? Insurance companies profit off those who do not get sick. Care PROVIDERS will always profit regardless what you do to the system unless you make it 100% volunteer. Good luck with that.

leoburg wrote:

Oh its more than only Sanders who keeps saying SS has not contributed 1 dime to the debt and is fully funded for the next 25 years. That good Journalistic Cenk from Young Turks has time after time said the same thing, while bringing up economist after economist who say the same thing. Sure it would have helped had not Reagan borrowed from it...which had Clinton end up adding it to the budget, where it was never meant to be. You really buy that crap of Perry's about SS being a Ponzi scheme? Guess you do. .

Oh please.. You don't even know how everything is funded yet you know how much money is there? I don't care WHO you ask, SS is a bunch of IOU's. The CURRENT payees are paying the benefits for those collecting now. Those collecting now are not receiving the money they put in. The money THEY put in went to the beneficiaries at the time. That is a classic ponzi scheme. If it were not a ponzi scheme, beneficiaries would be receiving the money they put in, plus whatever interest (profit) accrued. Do you know what a ponzi scheme is?

leoburg wrote:

It has kept a lot of people from starving, while not in any way being an oppressive tax

Says you. You do realize the social security tax is regressive right? It taxes the poor more than the rich. These people you who you say cannot earn a living wage today... Tell me, how much money do they pay in SS tax as a percentage, compared to the rich? Now tell me again why this tax is a good thing?

leoburg wrote:

SS is not a complete fulfillment of Tom Paine's thoughts here, but it has help much towards it. "When shall it be said in any country of the world, my poor are happy; neither ignorance or distress is to be found among them; my jails are empty of prisoners, my streets of beggars; the aged are not in want, the taxes are not oppressive...when these things can be said, then may that country boast of its constitution and government."
~ Thomas Paine (I can hear you now calling the Founder of the Revolution a Communist, for he really cared about Society.)

You sir are justifying a means to an end, not Paines' vision of Utopia.

leoburg · **Posted:** Mon Feb 13, 2012 3:19 pm

Letter to:
Alan Simpson, Senator from Wyoming, Co-Chair of Obama's deficit
commission, calls senior citizens the Greediest Generation as he
compared "Social Security" to a Milk Cow with 310 million teats.
August, 2010.

1. As a career politician, you have been on the public dole for FIFTY
YEARS.

2. I have been paying Social Security taxes for 48 YEARS (since I was 15 years old. I am now 63).

3. My Social Security payments, and those of millions of other
Americans, were safely tucked away in an interest bearing account for
decades until you political pukes decided to raid the account and give
OUR money to a bunch of zero ambition losers in return for votes, thus
bankrupting the system and turning Social Security into a Ponzi scheme
that would have made Bernie Madoff proud.

(Since you Jafo have such strict definitions of words, a better word than ponzi could have been used.)

4. Recently, just like Lucy & Charlie Brown, you and your ilk pulled the proverbial football away from millions of American seniors nearing
retirement and moved the goalposts for full retirement from age 65 to
age 67. NOW, you and your shill commission is proposing to move the
goalposts YET AGAIN.

5. I, and millions of other Americans, have been paying into Medicare
from Day One, and now you morons propose to change the rules of the
game. Why? Because you idiots mismanaged other parts of the economy to such an extent that you need to steal money from Medicare to pay the bills.

6. I, and millions of other Americans, have been paying income taxes our entire lives, and now you propose to increase our taxes yet again. Why? Because you incompetent bastards spent our money so profligately that you just kept on spending even after you ran out of money. Now, you come to the American taxpayers and say you need more to pay off YOUR debt.

To add insult to injury, you label us "greedy" for calling "bullshit" on
your incompetence. Well, Captain Bullshit, I have a few questions for
YOU.

http://www.opednews.com/Diary/Answer-to ... rtcomments

1. How much money have you earned from the American taxpayers during your pathetic 50-year political career?

2. At what age did you retire from your pathetic political career, and
how much are you receiving in annual retirement benefits from the
American taxpayers?

3. How much do you pay for YOUR government provided health insurance?

4. What cuts in YOUR retirement and healthcare benefits are you
proposing in your disgusting deficit reduction proposal, or, as usual,
have you exempted yourself and your political cronies?

It is you, Captain Bullshit, and your political co-conspirators called
Congress who are the "greedy" ones. It is you and your fellow nutcases who have bankrupted America and stolen the American dream from millions of loyal, patriotic taxpayers. And for what? Votes. That's right, sir. You and yours have bankrupted America for the sole purpose of advancing your pathetic political careers. You know it, we know it, and you know that we know it.

And you can take that to the bank, you miserable son of a bitch!

Jafo, am very glad there are sane Paul supporters on Restore The Republic, now rtr.org, who do have a conscience. For if they were all like you, I'd have to waste a 2012 vote on Rocky Anderson's Jusitce Party or maybe The Green Party.

Jafo · **Posted:** Mon Feb 13, 2012 3:37 pm

There is no, and never has been a fund with money in it waiting for the depositor to withdraw. That is not the way the system was designed. Current depositors fund current beneficiaries. That is a FACT that cutting and pasting will not change. You can quote admitted socialist Bernie Sanders all you like, but it doesn't change the fact.

Here, let me illustrate:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Sec ... Trust_fund

Quote:

Current year expenses are paid from current Social Security tax revenues

Do you understand what that means? I am not being mean here. I am really genuinely curious whether you understand this. If you were working in the US today, paying your SS tax. That money would go from your paycheck, to a social security check of someone collecting SS, directly. It would not go into a fund that you draw off of later, at least not a fund in the normal sense of the term. If there is any extra money at the end of the day, it goes towards the deficit. It is not saved anywhere.

Ok, now follow with me here.. The same source:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ponzi_scheme

Quote:

A Ponzi scheme is a fraudulent investment operation that pays returns to its investors from their own money or the money paid by subsequent investors, rather than from any actual profit earned by the individual or organization running the operation.

So please, without copying and pasting some quote by an irrelevant party, can you tell me what the difference is between Social Security investing and a Ponzi scheme?

leoburg · **Posted:** Mon Feb 13, 2012 3:47 pm

''FDR's insurance system does not have the key characteristics of Ponzi or Pyramid schemes. It's a perpetual and stable generational rollover plan.''

''I have had it with the lie most prominently proclaimed of late by the latest theocon Texan whom wants to be an anti New Deal President that Social Security is a Ponzi scheme. That's a through the teeth, outright Texas sized lie because it's simply not anywhere close to being technically accurate. Nor is Social Security a pyramid scheme as many on the right contend.

''A pyramid scheme is, hello, shaped like a pyramid. Check out the excellent description at en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyramid_scheme. There are tiers of pseudoinvestors, each layer being smaller progressing towards the pinnacle, ergo the pyramid analogy. It is a vertical affair with the tiny elite at the top making huge amounts of money, which flows vertically up to the peak. The few a bit lower in the upper layers may do pretty or fairly well too, but the great majority that make up the lower levels will be badly screwed. Pyramids are also unstable bubbles vulnerable to collapse. Often opaque at least some degree, they may or may not be legal.''-article

http://www.care2.com/news/member/406091837/2940067

''To understand how perversely manipulative the anti-SS lie is, consider that privatization means replacing it with Wall St type investments that are a lot more like financial pyramids! Privatization will transfer a good chunk of the trillions the poor and middle class will put into their commercial retirement investments right up into the pockets of the financial elites at the top of the pile. And as per pyramids the new system will be far less stable than SS, leaving many seniors in the monetary lurch in their not so golden years.''-article

OEN where this article was published, has lots of wise writers thinking outside of the box, offering many real solutions on things. It calls itself a mainly progressive site, if labels must be used, but will publish any good written article from any point of view. I like what Rob Kall, its Founder and Chief Editor said in a ''Congress of Cowards'' article a while back: ''There are a few brave souls in Congress, Kucinich, Paul and Sanders, but the rest of the cowards who made this mess, are not the ones who are going to fix it.''

Biography

Forums

FAQ

Chat

Links

Contact

Search

Home of Everyone's Favorite Folkslinger!

Login

Register

Options

Is it possible for one person to earn a billion dollars..

Topic Options

Who is online