If Bush and his handlers really carried on 9/11. then why is he giving up power?

[torgos_pizza]

The crime of Bush and his minions was not causing 9/11, but exploiting it for political gain.

Bush can't be called an idiot, yet be given credit for carrying out 9/11 and covering it up with no leaks of any kind- If there is one thing the Bush administration accomplished, it's establishing their across the board incompetence. If the Bushies did carry out 9/11, they were anything BUT incompitant..

That being said, i defend the Truthers right to their beliefs, and encourage them to seek the truth....

I do have a question, for those who think Bush, Cheney, etc were behind 9/11- If they carried this out as a means to seize power- then why are they walking away from it all, and allowing Obama and the Democrats to assume power? Had Bush canceled the election, I might have been persuaded to think there may have been involvement with 9/11- but Bush leaving and Obama coming it has convinced me 9/11 was in no way an inside job. If it was, Bush wouldn't let something like an election depose him.

[Ghost in the Machine]

1. Once again, someone uses the failed premise that it was Bush himself...

instead of actors within the Bush *administration*. George Bush is an incurious idiot who is nothing more than a puppethead for the PNACers. He was the perfect front. They let him come out and make a fool of himself just to give the illusion of incompetence. Yes, *Georgie* is incompetent, but the puppetmasters pulling the strings behind the curtains sure aren't. Being incompetent doesn't accomplish all your goals, does it? Look how much they gained.

It wasn't Bush who did the planning, it was the neocons, through PNAC, who did the planning. This is why Cheney chose himself as V.P. when he was in charge of finding a V.P. for Bush.

Just follow the PNAC trail... look at the PNACers in high places in the government and military: Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Feith, Wolfowitz, JEB Bush,.... put the pieces of the puzzle together, it's not that hard.

Peace,

Ghost

[zonmoy]

164. I figure that they have set up some serious poison pills to destroy the democrats once and for all

I figure that another false flag terror attack combined with the collapse of the american economy should do that real well.

[RedSock]

2. "but Bush leaving and Obama coming"

A peaceful transition of power has not happened yet.

Just sayin'.

...

(One thing I have learned in the last 8 years is to never, ever, ever say "Well, they wouldn't do THAT.")

[petgoat]

48. Agreed. The only reason they don't do "THAT" is because they don't need to.

Which is perhaps why I find the idea that Obama is, like 95% of
his legislative colleagues, a puppet more comforting than the idea
that he isn't. Because the latter notion implies that "THAT" is
coming.

Of course he needn't be an actual puppet to serve the neofascist's
agenda very well.

They've loaded him down with unsolvable problems. He's promised
the sun, moon, and stars to his supporters. The neocons need only
sabotage his solutions, load him with more problems, dash his
supporters hopes, and in 2012 blame him and the Democratic Congress
for all the problems. They've got their scapegoat and their whipping
boy. He's a necessary part of the program.

[petgoat]

3. What makes you think they're giving up power?

They're not seizing power because they can't. They're too unpopular, things
are too screwed up, and won't get away with it. The success of their neo-fascist
program is that nobody noticed. Overtly seizing power through election fraud or
emergency legislation was not practical.

And it's not necessary. They hold the cards. They've handed Obama the Augean
stables to clean, and they're going to do everything they can to obstruct and
thwart him, and blame him for his failures. They can certainly arrange military
embarrassments for him (as was done for Carter and Clinton) and another 9/11 might
cause a Republican sweep in 2012. They're not just going away.

Besides, Obama won't dare pursue any meaningful change--taking down the Federal
Reserve and the CIA and the military-industrial complex, for instance. He's
already declared a hawkish nature. And he can't afford any fancy social programs.
So from their standpoint, how much damage can he do? He's the ideal front man
for them--the one who may not even know he's a front.

Nothing changes, we just switched from Sprite to Pepsi, that's all.

[SDuderstadt]

6. Taking down rhe Federal Reserve???

Why would Obama want to do that? Do you even know what the Federal Reserve does and how it does it? Do you realize that most, if not almost all, the anti-Federal Reserve nonsense comes from RWers? I'm willing to bet that you haven't got a clue as to how the Federal Reserve actually operates and why we need a central bank. Note: for the record, I am not remotely claiming the FR should be above scrutiny. However, I am really getting tired of know-nothings and their yapping about the Federal Reserve.

[david_watts]

176. You need a central bank ....... operated by the people not privately owned.

You need a central bank ....... operated by the people not privately owned.

[SDuderstadt]

178. The Federal Reserve is not "privately owned"....

while it is true that the members of the regional Federal Reserve banks are required to owjn subscription stock in that regional bank, that isn't "ownership" in the manner you're implying. Moreover, the Federal Reserve is an independent federal agency (a la the EPA) and NO ONE owns it. This is a totally silly argument. You might want to consider some classes is civic, economics, Logic or all three.

[reinvestigate911]

185. quasi-private: branches comprising the FR are privately owned. director appointees are from the Fed

[AZCat]

7. Why the hell would Obama want to "take down" the Federal Reserve?

That would be rather stupid, and he's not a stupid man.

[petgoat]

8. Because the debt-based monetary system is the source of corruption.

Why do we have wars? Because they make the bankers rich!

Waste and destruction are the font of debt. When everybody
has everything they need, nobody borrows. What's right wing
about copping to that?

My Green friends are fully aware of the corruption inherent in
the fractional reserve banking system. Dems know too, but
they're all on the take.

[AZCat]

9. Hmmm. No.

Corruption existed long before the Fed. Borrowing serves an important fuction in an efficient economy, not the other way around.

[petgoat]

10. An efficient economy? That's a good one! nt

[AZCat]

11. Yeah. You might want to read up on economics sometime.

It appears you are as ignorant of that subject as you are engineering and physics. Pity your "science degree" from that prestigious university has been so worthless.

[petgoat]

12. This economy is anything but efficient. nt

[AZCat]

13. It appears you lack reading comprehension skills too.

Might want to brush up on that. Even janitorial work requires a modicum of literacy.

[MNReformer]

37. Fractional reserve banking. Interest-based debt notes.

Direct violation of our Constitution.

[PatrickSMcNally]

44. "Interest-based debt notes."

That's another Right-wing urban legend. The notes are printed by the Treasury and then nominally sold to the Fed for a few cents on each bill. There is no interest paid by the public to the Fed as a charge for having the bills printed and most of what the Fed earns each year on its securities is simply turned back over to the Treasury each year minus some operating costs. These types of nonsense theories about the national debt promoted on the Right are pushed in order to obscure the disaster caused by Reaganomics.

As far as fractional reserve lending is concerned, what on earth do you think this country's whole economy was built on in the 19th century? The idea of lending money while holding only a fraction of what you've promised wasn't created in 1913. Quite the reverse. The whole point of setting up a central banking system was to establish some regulation over such fractional lending processes. Some points on the history of that earlier period are worth recalling.

-----
For the new parts of the country as they opened up, there was the right to create banks at will and therewith the notes and deposits that resulted from their loans. No central bank tested the ability of these banks to redeem their notes; while there were state regulations specifying the cash to be held in reserve against notes and deposits, these were enforced with a light and gracious hand. In consequence, as civilization, or some approximation, came to an Indiana or Michigan crossroads in the 1830s or 1840s, so did a bank. Its notes, when issued and loaned to a farmer to buy land, livestock, seed, feed, food or simple equipment, put him into business. If he and others prospered and paid off their loans, the bank survived. If he and others did not prosper and pay, the bank failed, and someone -- perhaps a local creditor, perhaps an eastern supplier -- was left holding the worthless notes. But some borrowers from this bank were now in business. Somewhere someone holding the notes had made an involuntary contribution to the winning of the West.

It was an arrangement which reputable bankers and merchants in the East viewed with extreme distaste. Yet for them it was not intolerable. They had good money in which to do business with each other and with foreigners. And also good banks. With care they could distinguish between the good and the doubtful notes from the West and either refuse the latter or accept them at an appropriate discount. They had losses but they also had expanding sales. Men of economic wisdom, then as later expressing the views of the reputable business community, spoke of the anarchy of unstable banking. And they explained that the settlers, in their urge to get hold of bank notes and with their primitive view of economics, were confusing money with capital. The men of wisdom missed the point.

The anarchy served the frontier far better than a more orderly system that kept a tight hand on credit could have done...

...

The other and more important new development was free banking. By action of the state legislatures a bank was held to be not a corporation, which then and for many years required a special charter from the state, but a voluntary association of individuals and thus, like blacksmithing or rope-making, open to anyone. There were rules, notably as to the hard-money reserves to be held against notes and deposits. In some states these were enforced with considerable firmness, usually after a saddening experience with no enforcement at all. But frequently failure to abide by regulations wasdiscovered only after the failure of the Bank had made the question academic. In these years in the by then conservative Commonwealth of Massachusetts, a bank with a note circulation of $500,000 was discovered after its demise to be holding a specie reserve of only $86.48. A modest backing. Perhaps because the history was better preserved there than elsewhere, the annals of Michigan banking in the 1830s are especially engaging. The law required a 30 percent reserve of gold and silver against note circulation -- a very solid foundation. And commissioners were put in circulation to inspect the banks and enforce the requirement. Also put in circulation, just in advance of the commissioners, was the gold and silver that served as the reserve. This was moved in boxes from bank to bank; when required, the amount was extended by putting a ballast of lead, broken glass and (appropriately) ten-penny nails in the box under a thinner covering of gold coins...

On occasion, the depth of the forest, the middle of the swamp or, more plausibly, a desolate country trading post was considered an especially excellent site for a bank. For from there the bank could issue notes to a borrower (who in turn would pass them on) and hope that no eventual recipient would know where to send them for redemption....
-----
-- John Kenneth Galbraith, MONEY: WHENCE IT CAME, WHERE IT WENT, pp. 85, 86-7.

Just taking Galbraith's case of the $500,000 loaned out on a reserve of $86.48, that represents not 10% but 0.017296%. That was the type of fractional reserve lending which was customary in the economy of the 19th century. The creation of the Federal Reserve System was not about introducing fractional reserve lending for the first time. Instead it was all about establishing some type of regulations on the procedure. Now since the Reagan era we've had a massive push for deregulation of every type. So that's a new source of problems. But two things which have to be understood for any semi-intelligent comment are that: a) fractional reserve lending has a history which predates the creation of the Federal Reserve by many centuries; b) fractional reserve lending is neither inherently good or bad in an absolute sense, it all depends on the context. As Galbraith points out, the economy of the West grew most effectively off of rampant unregulated fractional reserve lending. That push to the West was a time of rapid expansion when regulations were inherently meaningless. The conquest of the West was finished in 1890 and the creation of the Federal Reserve in 1913 was a consequence of people realizing that the older unregulated forms of 19th century economy were unworkable. Since Reaganomics took hold, we've had a push for a return to the deregulated western frontier happening amidst an overdeveloped economy. That has been a mess, but don't waste your time looking for conspiracies buried as far back as 1913 to explain the modern economy.

[Name removed]

92. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[defendandprotect]

152. Wow ...

naive ...!!!

[PatrickSMcNally]

14. "Because the debt-based monetary system is the source of corruption."

US national debt as we know it took off in the 1980s under Ronald Reagan. The causes of this were not anything particular about the Federal Reserve System per se, but simply the fact that the Reagan administration combined tax cuts for the very rich with astronomical military budgets. Such a pattern is going to necessitate heavy borrowing since military expenditures by themselves do not constitute a productive investment. They can only at best serve to defend a nation, assuming that the military spending is done in proportion to a real imminent military threat. But bombs themselves are produced with the expectation that they will not be sold on the market and will hence nothing to the volume of goods in trade. Such military expenses were classically accounted for by the monarch imposing a tax on the peasants. But if an administration is going to advocate tax cuts for the wealthiest estates at the same time that military spending soars, then this will have to be compensated for by heavy borrowing. There's nothing specific about the Federal Reserve System with regards to this pattern, and government borrowing is generally not done from the Federal Reserve. Waving red flags around the Fed has become a means by which the Right seeks to divert attention from the catastrophes of Reaganomics.

[wildbilln864]

21. didn't the Grace commission determine that all the taxes paid in go to pay the interest on the debt?

Doesn't the Constitution say that only the congress can create money? :popcorn:

[PatrickSMcNally]

23. Grace Commission

The Grace Commission had nothing much to do with the Federal Reserve per se. It was simply referencing Federal debt as a whole without any distinctions. A person's eyebrows should begin rising skyhigh when a commission under Ronald Reagan begins speaking of national debt. It was certainly intended as an ideological diversion of some sort. To the extent that one can pick out any single valid point made it would be the assertion that the national debt entails interest charges which make it difficult to pay off the primary loans. That's quite believable. But it doesn't tell us anything about how the Federal Reserve or any other monetary system which might take its place could simply abolish the debt while the US government goes on with the same types of war-spending and tax-cutting patterns followed by Reagan.

Congress has the right to make any law that is 'necessary and proper' for the execution of its enumerated powers (Art. I, Sec. 8, Cl. 18). That includes the right to form a central bank for which the Board of Governors is subject to Presidential appointments and Congressional review of the appointments.

[MNReformer]

40. The point that Petgoat is making, I believe, is

that this collapse is entirely engineered, has been planned and documented for some considerable time, going back at least a century and at its core lies the international private banking system, the body of the fractionalized reserve system that is the Fed.

[PatrickSMcNally]

46. "this collapse is entirely engineered ... going back at least a century"

That is one of the most absurd Right-wing myths on record. It's a fact that the USA enjoyed its greatest period of economic prosperity in the 25 years or so after WWII. Moreover, many of the policies which allowed an enlarged middle-class to prosper during these years depended on the Federal Reserve. How do you think GI Loans came about? Someone has to have decided on a monetary policy which makes such easy credit available so that former soldiers can get a low-interest loan which allows them to buy a cheap house in an expanding market and go to college and so on. The point is though that those years of economic prosperity followed a war which had destroyed industrial rivals and turned the USA into the world's main producer and exporter. Eventually the destroyed countries were bound to rebuild and by the 1970s the time when US-based business could prosper and grow while letting the benefits trickle down to the population was over. At that point the attitudes in much of the major business community shifted towards Reaganomics as a way of maintaining profits by driving down wages, cutting taxes and keeping military-based contracts in strong supply. That pattern has strained the real economy while maintaining profit levels for the richer sectors. But none of this has anything to do with a conspiracy a century old. You really need to take some more time studying some economics before going on with further ramblings like this.

[MNReformer]

52. Yes, but all of that doesn't change the fact of private bankers

and a fractionalized system that was designed from the beginning as debt rather than being currency from our own government and not borrowed from private foreign interests. This was a key point in the formation of our government; the founding fathers did not want to have monetary control by other nations over our country. The Federal Reserve Banking Act was an unconstitutional act and brought us this debt system under which we are currently being exploited. The game is rigged to the advantage of the bankers, and the money is nothing more than numbers in a network of computers that they "print" by typing it in. There was actually a foreclosure case here in my state of Minnesota in the 1970s in which a mortgagor argued that because there was no real "consideration" in the contract it was void--and won on that basis.

[PatrickSMcNally]

54. "currency from our own government and not borrowed from private foreign interests"

The currency is not borrowed from any foreign interests. You're suffering confusion on that point.

[MNReformer]

55. The banks were begun in Europe and the Fed is part of that system.

That is undeniable.

[PatrickSMcNally]

60. "The banks were begun in Europe"

Moving over to Europe, you seem to be seriously confused about the Bank of England. The latter was nationalized in 1946 by the Labour government and is not any type of "Rothschild-owned" bank. Are you at all aware of the actual history of the Bank of England, or do you just regurgitate e-mail sound-bites?

Getting to the more general issues involved here, it simply has to be repeated that the climax of European colonial expansion across North America in 1890 did necessitate a major shift in the monetary system. The mode of finance which existed in the USA while the Indian Wars were still on was strongly shaped by the fact that settlers would move into newly conquered territory where no banking system had yet been set up and towards which the more established banks of the east tended to be cautious. As a result the forms of money-lending which grew along the western frontier had an anarchistic quality to them. But that system was bound to end when the conquest of the continent had been completed. There's nothing odd or suspicious about the fact that by that time Europe had begun developing notions of central banking and that similar concepts then came to the US. If the conquest of the continent had been completed before 1890 then central banking would have developed earlier in the USA. That's all there is to it.

[MNReformer]

62. Our banks are being nationalized as well.

That doesn't change the players involved, does it? And yes, I am aware of the history of the Bank of England, having read up on it in many sources not including e-mails.

Our revenue was originally derived from tariffs and taxation was approved only on manufacture, sale and consumption.

Now we have revenue derived from loans from international bankers, we have loopholes that allow corporations to evade taxes, and we have an income tax on our labor which pays back the debt from the international bankers loans to the Treasury.

[PatrickSMcNally]

71. "Our banks are being nationalized as well."

No, you're way off on that. Did you mean the bailout of Wall Street? That would be better characterized as the privatization of the US Treasury. The bailout money was simply forked over without any regulatory stipulations on its whatsoever. That certainly does not constitute "nationalization" of any type.

"That doesn't change the players involved, does it?"

If you're going to be reaching as far back in time as the days when the Rothschild family was once the preeminent banking family of Europe, then, yes, a lot of things have changed in the last century. In the 19th century the Rothschild banking houses acquired a reputation as "the world's banker." Tumult in the 20th century upset all of that. They're still is a wealthy Rothschild banking firm in operation, but they are no longer the world's leaders as they once were. Many things have changed.

"we have an income tax on our labor"

The IRS was formed in the same year as the Fed. In the first several decades the firm policy followed was for taxation to be centered on the upper strata. Starting with the Reagan era a push was launched for relieving taxes on the upper class and shifting costs down to the middle and lower classes. None of that has anything to do with a scheme launched in 1913. It stems from later developments which took shape at a time when growth had slowed in the early 1970s and attempts to recover declining profits by cutting taxes and transferring costs became the norm.

[MNReformer]

72. Do you follow Naomi Klein?

Klein: But listen, this is all connected and in terms of what the stakes are--these banks were going down, these banks were going bankrupt because of their own deeds; but as we know, the bankers themselves have golden parachutes and bonuses and so on, but it is possible to get so much of a better deal than the one that has been "negotiated" by Henry Paulson and Neel Kashkari of Goldman Sachs, OK?


The point of negotiating that deal is that these banks that have failed in the private sector are having to move in to the public sector; they are being nationalized but the question is, is it going to be a good enough deal that they will actually be serious revenue generators, because this could end up being a backwards opportunity. Being in a financial crisis and actually having a new revenue stream, a significant new revenue stream, which are the banks—frankly, it they are well managed, can be a serious source of revenue—could be the way that Barack Obama could pay for the promises he is making now.


I realize that sounds like something radical to say: "Nationalize the banks and use the revenue to pay for your (government) services." But I don't think that's more radical than what they're doing now. They are doing socialism for the rich and I think, if we're going to be nationalizing the banks, nationalize them in the interest of everyone, nationalize them in a way that will make this country be able to afford a real green energy infrastructure. Nationalize them in a way that will allow the United States to provide healthcare to every person in the country. That is what people actually should be demanding in this moment of Dog Years when things are moving so quickly and suddenly we don't know what's possible, think BIG.


http://www.opednews.com/articles/4/Naomi-Klein-Interivew-with-by-Rob-Kall-081026-271.html

[PatrickSMcNally]

85. "these banks that have failed in the private sector are ... being nationalized"

That's a butchery of the English language. Once more, what has been carried out has been a privatization of the Treasury. To speak of nationalization of banks means first of all the imposition of regulations as a means of depriving the banks of their authority to act as independent corporate entities. Nothing like that has been even suggested. All of the bailout talk has given clear emphasis to the idea that once banks receive money from the Treasury it is their private affair what they do with it.

"if we're going to be nationalizing the banks, nationalize them in the interest of everyone"

Here you've gone very far outside of anything having to do with the Federal Reserve System per se. As I've already mentioned, the Bank of England was nationalized in 1946. No, this was not a bailout with the Labour government forking over trillions of dollars to private hands to be allowed to disappear such as we've seen here in the USA in the last couple months. This was a nationalization of the Bank of England. If simply wished to argue that the banking system of the USA should be completely nationalized then we might be closer to agreement. But none of that has anything to do with hokum theories about the Fed being created in 1913 as part of a grandiose conspiracy to bankrupt the USA. That's just rubbish.

[MNReformer]

88. So you are questioning Naomi Klein?

Those are her words, not mine.

And PatrickSMcNally brought nationalization into the discussion.

[PatrickSMcNally]

93. "brought nationalization into the discussion"

Actually, you were the one who introduced the claim of "the Federal Reserve is a private bank," and subsequently drew a false line to the Bank of England. It was only in following up on what you were saying that I had to mention that the Bank of England was nationalized by the Labour government in 1946. Klein definitely does misuse the term "nationalization" as part of a general overture to the Right. A good general review of Klein is given by Nick Beams in two parts:

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/feb2008/kle1-f27.shtml

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/feb2008/kle2-f28.shtml

[MNReformer]

94. It doesn't matter that you introduced it. SDuderstadt continued it.

It would be "nice" if people could stick to the topic instead of trying to digress.

I don't read the socialist print.

[PatrickSMcNally]

98. "I don't read the socialist print."

Given some of the stockpiles of Right-wing silliness which you've referenced here, you would definitely benefit from going through an able Leftist author like Nick Beams.

[MNReformer]

99. The last thing I am is right wing.

In fact I lean way left.

[PatrickSMcNally]

102. "Confused" is the word that stands out.

Much of what you've rehashed here does indubitably come from the Right. But mostly you've come across as someone who ran across a few books for the first time and became very excited without having taken much time to methodically think things through yet.

[MNReformer]

104. It seems perfectly clear to me. n/t

[SDuderstadt]

117. Then why do you rely so heavily on RW propaganda?

Don't you find that a bit odd?

[MNReformer]

118. What I find odd is you calling it RW propaganda. n/t

[SDuderstadt]

119. Because it IS RW propaganda!

Do you deny that people such as Eustice Mullins are far RW? If not, why does Mullins write for AFP?

[MNReformer]

123. Redirection.

And since when does anti-semitism (your clear angle in this discussion) equate to RW propaganda?

[SDuderstadt]

125. Anti-semitism is not my "clear angle"...

Do you really deny that AFP is far RW? Really?

[MNReformer]

127. You are focused on AFP. There are others on the list.

Get off it.

[SDuderstadt]

129. Why are you defending RW propaganda?

Pretty strange for a so-called "liberal".

[MNReformer]

130. Your efforts to somehow bait me are failing.

Knock it off or I will alert for harassment.

[SDuderstadt]

132. How in the hell am I "baiting" you....

my question is simple and straightforward. Why do you keep either denying something is RW propaganda or defending it? Don't you think that's odd behavior for a liberal discussion board? Do you bother to fact-check any of this at all? And, feel free to alert all you want. Your idea of "harassment" is laughable.

[MNReformer]

133. You are harassing me.

I have already identified myself. It is your problem if you cannot accept it. And you are harassing me about it, as well as redirecting the discussion.

[SDuderstadt]

137. Why can't you answer a simple question?

How would you propose we monetize value in our economy?

[MNReformer]

138. The Founding Fathers already answered that for us. n/t

[SDuderstadt]

144. I see that you've ducked the question yet one more time....

Why not just say you can't answer it, rather than continue this charade?

[SDuderstadt]

66. You have absolutely no idea how the Federal Reserve works...

you really ought to educate yourself.

[MNReformer]

75. I do.

And I have.

[SDuderstadt]

78. If you did, then....

you wouldn't spout such nonsense. Seriously.

[SDuderstadt]

65. Most of what you're spouting here is pure RW propaganda...

Without knowing where you get your "info", I'd guess that you've watched Paul Grignon's "Money as Debt" or "The Creature from Jekyll Island", both of which are equally nonsense. If you'd like to learn how the Federal Reserve actually works, I would suggest either "Secrets of the Temple" by Bill Greider or Edwin Flaherty's debunking of Federal Reserve myths (see below).


http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/3616/FedReserveFacts.html

[MNReformer]

76. Greider is on the list.

The Class A stockholders have control and that's all they needed since it was their assets used to start up the NY Fed Bank!
These people are already very very rich they use this system to prop up whom they wish and knock down who they wish!
They can make whom they want and ruin whom they want if you don't go along with their game!
No since they control the deck of cards and the jokers they can add more cards by telling their Fed officials what to do.
Take a good look at the way the Fed System is set up with the NY Fed taking control and most of the seats on the Fed Open Market Committee. Even Obama has tipped the current head of the Fed Reserve Bank of NY to join his economic team as of last Friday while former Chairman Paul Volcker 1979-1987 was standing behind him during his 1st press conference as President Elect!
But remember that The Fed Chairman is not appointed until his term is over every 5 years and not as new Presidential administrations enter every 4 years!
Then most of the Fed Board Members and Chairmen served in the NY Fed 1st.
I suggest you read a few books on the Fed such as:
1. The Federal Reserve Hoax (1963) by Vennard, Wickliffe B.
2. Secrets Of The Temple: How The Federal Reserve Runs The Country by William Greider
3. Secrets of the Federal Reserve by Eustice Mullins
4. Pieces of Eight by Ed Viera Jr
also
http://www.archive.org/details/Federal
http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/hoax/mcfadden.htm
http://www.reformation.org/federal-reserve.html
http://www.reformation.org/secrets-of-the-bank-of-rome.html
http://www.federal-reserve.net/catchmeifyoucan.htm
http://www.federal-reserve.net/books.htm


The Fed has private shareholders, but they are owners in name only(nominal). They do not exercise true control over the fed. He is explaining why the Fed is a de facto government agency.

The sytem is similar to the German style socialism that existed during the Nazi Regime. Capitalists retained formal ownership of their factories, but the german state directed all production and prices.

[SDuderstadt]

80. This is hysterical....

you purport to lecture me on the Federal Reserve by citing "The Federal Reserve Hoax" and "authors" such as Eustace Mullins? Really? You think that referring me to Federal Reserve CT's is convincing? You might want to study the logical fallacy known as the "true believer syndrome".

[MNReformer]

83. Funny...I was just referred to Greider.

Who has appeared on PBS with Bill Moyers, as well.

[SDuderstadt]

84. And, as I said earlier....

Greider is about the only legitimate source you have there. The rest are firmly in the anti-Federal Reserve myth/propaganda camp. You really ought to know better. And saying that this "info" should be in the debate (or words to that effect) does not nearly substitute for the fact-checking you've neglected to do. For the record, I really am alarmed by the amount of RW propaganda that has filtered into liberal websites/forums. For example, did you know that Mullins writes for Willis Carto's far-right American Free Press? Does that bother you in the least?

Do you respect Paul Krugman? You know, the Nobel Laureate in Economics and liberal commentator/Princeton professor? Perhaps you should write him and ask him what he thinks of Eustace Mullins. I'm sure he'll say much of what I've said.

[MNReformer]

87. Here's a progressive with a BA from Harvard & MBA from Wharton

See what you think of what he says.

http://sjlendman.blogspot.com/2006/06/dirty-secrets-of-temple.html

[PatrickSMcNally]

97. One really doofus error ...

which stood out on that page was when he repeats the old Kennedy-fighting-Federal-Reserve line. Before a person even starts to research the specifics of EO 11110, it should sound odd that this wasn't repealed until 1987 and yet we're being asked to believe that somehow this was part of an attack on the Federal Reserve which Kennedy had been making. But actually the whole purpose of EO 11110 was to replace silver certificates with Fed notes. This was done because it was realized that there was not sufficient silver to back currency and so Kennedy approved laws which were aimed at getting silver out of circulation. That's what EO 11110 was about. Lendman appears mixed up here.

[MNReformer]

103. It returned the authority to issue new silver certificates back to the Treasury

President Kennedy's Executive Order 11110 gave the Treasury Department the explicit authority: 'to issue silver certificates against any silver bullion, silver, or standard silver dollars in the Treasury'.

The Order was for the Treasury to issue silver certificates against all silver held by the government which did not already have certificates against it. The Order was needed due to the passage of Public Law 88-36 which repealed the Silver Purchase Act and other related monetary measures. One result was that after the repeals, only the President could issue new silver certificates.

The Federal Reserve System could replace the certificates, but only in larger denominations.

The thrust of the Order returned the authority to issue new silver certificates (and specify denominations) back to the U.S. Treasury.

This executive order allowed for the Federal Reserve System to distribute and exchange currency at lower denominations that met the growing economic need. The authoritative basis for the Order was substantially nullified in 1982 with the passage of Public Law 97-258.

The Order was never directly reversed. However, Section 1(j) of Executive Order 10289, which was added by Section 1(a) of Executive Order 11110, was revoked when Ronald Reagan signed Executive Order 12608 in 1987.

Why did Bush and Reagan revoke it?

[PatrickSMcNally]

105. Public Law 88-36

Public Law 88-36 was what came before EO 11110. It was signed by Kennedy and allowed the Fed to issue small denominational notes to replace Silver Certificates. It was an unnecessary side-effect of PL 88-36 that it took formal authority for issuance away from the Treasury Secretary and invested such authority in the President. EO 11110 reversed this, but not as any pattern aimed at advocacy of Silver Certificates. If that had been Kennedy's goal, he would have done better to keep the authority himself and simply issue the Silver Certificates. EO 11110 transferred the authority of issuance back to the Treasury, which as intended ceased to ever issue the Silver Certificates. There is no evidence of any plan by Kennedy to push for the issuing of Silver Certificates. EO 11110 was a compliment to PL 88-36, which was all aimed at removing Silver Certificates from circulation.

[MNReformer]

106. Certificates were issued after EO 11110 was signed.

More than $4 billion in United States Notes were brought into circulation in $2 and $5 denominations. $10 and $20 United States Notes were never circulated but were being printed by the Treasury Department when Kennedy was assassinated. After Kennedy was assassinated just five months later, no more silver certificates were issued.

EO 11110 was designed specifically to return the authority to the Treasury as directed by the Constitution.

[PatrickSMcNally]

115. "More than $4 billion in United States Notes"

United States Notes have nothing to do with Silver Certificates. You're confusion is showing through again. There was no significant issuance of Silver Certificates by the Kennedy administration and the whole purpose of Kennedy's measures had been to withdraw them. They ceased completely to be issued in October 1964, and there is no evidence of Kennedy ever having pushed for an issuance of Silver Certificates at anytime in his administration. The fact that you confuse these with United States Notes is just more evidence that you haven't studied anything with comprehensiveness but are simply lifting phrases from scattered writings by other ideologically confused authors.

[MNReformer]

124. You're [sic] efforts to redirect and diffuse the discussion are suspect.

The next thing you will pull out is the anti-semitism canard.

[SDuderstadt]

126. I notice that you cannot respond intelligently to questions we raise...

Doesn't Naomi Klein have an FAQ?

[MNReformer]

128. I notice that you cannot discern that I have answered your questions.

Intelligently.

And, by the way, who is "we"?

[SDuderstadt]

131. No, you haven't answered the questions...

Again, how would you propose we monetize value in our economy? That's a pretty simple question you keep ignoring.

[MNReformer]

135. Now you are onto yet a different subject.

I don't propose anything other than what was provided in our Constitution, and I have made that quite clear.

[SDuderstadt]

145. Please tell us precisely what's provided for in the constitution....

otherwise, your answer is meaningless. It almost sounds like you're making the claim that, unless something is explicitly laid out in the constitution, it's unconstitutional. I'd suggest you read the parts concerning the powers of Congress. Do you agree that the constitution can't possibly spell out every regulation or action the government takes? I'd also love for you to show precisely how I "changed the subject".

[defendandprotect]

153. And the myth/farce of capitalism as anything but organized crime ---

Notice how CLEAR that message is ...

Bush had to come out warning us off of really looking at capitalistic

system and dismantling it ---

[AZCat]

15. It's difficult to respond properly to your posts when you keep editing them.

You (and your "Green" friends) seem to think there is "corruption inherent in the fractional reserve banking system". This is, of course, yet another foolish idea you seem to have adopted. It is not, however, as foolish as thinking that "Dems know it too, but they're all on the take". Yet for those of us who know you, it is not unusual for you to accuse whole groups of people of wrongdoing without any evidence whatsoever. Do you seriously think that every Democrat in office is somehow bribed to hide the truth that only you and your special group of friends can see?

[petgoat]

16. "Every Dem is somehow bribed" is childish thinking. Party discipline comes with the system. nt

[AZCat]

17. Childish? Yes, I agree.

However, you're the one who claimed they were all "on the take".

[petgoat]

18. On the take: campaign contribs, party perks, favors, media coverage, college admits for family nt

[AZCat]

19. Yep, that's what I thought you meant.

It's childish alright. And it's a stupid thing to claim, but like I've said - we're used to it.

[defendandprotect]

154. Agree and more ...

[SDuderstadt]

20. You know absolutely nothing about the Federal Reserve....

and it's clear that you've been reading a lot of CT nonsense. I challenge you to provide proof of any of your silly claims. More importantly, please tell us how the money supply should be increased/regulated if not through fractional reserve banking? Again, I seriously doubt you remotely u8nderstand how the Federal Reserve works or why it's necessary.

[MNReformer]

38. Adams fought Hamilton over the idea of a central bank.

Lincoln agreed with him. Hamilton smeared Adams' reputation and Lincoln, who embraced Adams-Clay coalition with Jacksonian-Jeffersonian ideals in the Civil War incarnation of the Republican Party, and created a U.S. currency, was shot.

[LARED]

24. Fascinating idea. So what type of monetary system would you

recommend?

[MNReformer]

39. The one the founding fathers put in the Constitution?

One created by our own government, not debt notes from foreign private banks.

[Bolo Boffin]

43. If you don't mind my asking, what's your opinion of Ron Paul? n/t

[MNReformer]

56. On the issue of the Fed I agree with him. n/t

[Bolo Boffin]

57. Personally I think he and his little Paultard followers should bug the hell out of here.

This is a liberal and progressive site. People who think Ron is peachy keen should just leave. Plenty of room out there on the Internet for all of us.

[MNReformer]

61. And I am a progressive liberal Democrat. n/t

[SDuderstadt]

67. If you are a progressive liberal democrat....

then you really ought to skip the RW anti-Federal Reserve propaganda.

[MNReformer]

74. I don't agree. I think it's vital to the conversation. n/t

[SDuderstadt]

77. And it's still RW propaganda....

and factually incorrect. Have you bothered to fact-check ANY of it? Have you ever taken an economics class? Have you ever studied political economies? Where are you getting this "info" from?

[MNReformer]

79. I posted a list above.

And I have explored other sources as well.

[SDuderstadt]

81. Have you actually READ the Greider book?

Greider is a legitimate source, but Mullins and the rest certainly are not. Did you bother to fact-check ANY of it?

[MNReformer]

89. See what you think of this.

http://sjlendman.blogspot.com/2006/06/dirty-secrets-of-temple.html

[PatrickSMcNally]

96. Compounds errors in Greider.

Like Naomi Klein, Greider has tendency to occasionally toss around phrases in ways which misuse the language but are intended to appeal to the Right. That was why Greider subtitled his book "How the Federal Reserve Runs the Country." In fact the Fed is more like a would-be doctor who has only a limited number of potential treatments but whose patient's sickness is hard to identify. The Fed is assigned to make financial decisions which will stimulate the economy but they don't really have any control over what the outcome of any specific measure will be. They're forced to guess at what measures to try and then monitor the effects. The Fed has a fair level of power, but they operate under significant restraints which they can't alter. In Greider's book this fact is still visible, though he does go a bit overboard rhetorically at times. But the fellow you've linked has simply picked the more caricature features of Greider's writing and chosen to feature them as the main attraction. Not a reliable methodology.

[MNReformer]

100. What do you think of "Greenspan's Fraud"? n/t

[PatrickSMcNally]

101. Since you don't specify anything specific, I'm going to have to be general.

To review some of the general developments in Greenspan's tenure, there was the real estate bubble. That's what crosses my mind first when I think of Greenspan. So I'll focus on that and if you had something more specific in mind you can identify it yourself.

Now right away it should be said that the principal cause of the housing bubble was simply the overdeveloped nature of the modern US economy. It would be a complete waste of anyone's time to try digging back in the year 1913 for a conspiracy which somehow explains the housing bubble 9 decades later. The real estate bubble occurred because, in a highly developed economy, large numbers of people were not really able to think of any better way to make a profit than to try buying real estate on the market and sprucing it up so as to sell it again at a higher price. Of course when you do buy and sell real estate in this fashion, the potential market of buyers shrinks steadily as fewer people can afford it. If you continue with this for a long time then ultimately someone in the economy must end up with a lot of overpriced real estate on their hands which they wish to sell but can't find buyers for. The fact that so many people jumped onto this real estate bandwagon is symptomatic of the fact that many people simply were not able to find any more productive outlet as a business option. That in turn is largely due to the fact that our economy is so well developed already that there necessarily are fewer options for opening a whole new shop of your own and amking a good fortune selling something new which you thought up. It can still occur, but at a lower frequency than a century ago. So that generates the interest in people wanting to see if they could make a killing by speculating on the real estate market.

As far as Greenspan's policies towards all of this, they were meant to stimulate the housing market. Greenspan did not himself cause the economy to turn so heavily towards real estate speculations, but once it had Greenspan's basic assignement is to create friendly conditions for whatever the current trend in the market may be. Because I consider most of the real estate speculation binge to have been overall wasteful, I generally have never approved of Greenspan's policies towards this. But it's also fair to say that Greenspan in some respects was basically just dealing with the hand that he had been dealt. In the 1950s and '60s there was a burst of new productive enterprises and the Fed was able to stimulate all of this along by allowing for easy loans at low interest. That trend reached a saturation point by the 1970s however, and the trend from the 1980s onward was much more speculatively oriented. Greenspan did not cause that shift, nor did anyone else in charge of the Federal Reserve. But Greenspan's way of trying to keep the real estate market artifically afloat was exactly what the Fed has typically been assigned to do, i.e., encourage whatever seems to be the best-running trend in the economy. If Greenspan had tried to pull the plug on the real estate speculative boom, we would have had Right-wingers up in arms over that. So instead he kept in on life-support for as long he was able, and now they're complaining about that. That's why most of the Fed conspiracy literature doesn't really add much to your understanding of economics.

[MNReformer]

107. The real estate (and economic) collapse was caused by one thing.

Deregulation. If not for deregulated credit default swaps we wouldn't be here. The CDSs were issued specifically to bet against the mortgage backed securities and pay out in the case of default. Defaults, in the form of foreclosures and bankruptcies, made the "investors" rich. And we, in turn, get to bail out not only the banks but the largest insurance company in the world, AIG.

And we can look primarily to Phil Gramm as the instigator, but also to Clinton, Greenspan, Summers and Rubin as abettors.

[AZCat]

109. Clinton didn't really have any choice.

The repeal of Glass-Steagall was passed by a veto-proof majority. He could have vetoed, but it would have been symbolic.

[MNReformer]

110. Glass-Steagall was only part of the picture.

It was the second part--Gramm's legislation that he slipped into the appropriations bill as an "amendment"--which took down the Shad-Johnson Accord. This is what created the Enron loophole and the deregulated Credit Default Swaps. I have read that no one could have understood what Gramm's amendment meant in the first place, even if they knew he had slipped it in, although he gave a speech on the Senate floor.

[PatrickSMcNally]

112. "If not for deregulated credit default swaps we wouldn't be here."

With that statement you've moved several light years away from the creation of the Federal Reserve in 1913. This is a perfect illustration of exactly the types of errors which I've already mentioned elsewhere. It's a fact that in the saturated production economy of the 1970s the business world began lobbying for deregulation and tax cuts of all types in order to increase the opportunity of making profits grow on speculation without requiring an overall increase in the volume of goods and services. That economic trend which the business community began lobbying for at this time has been disastrous overall. But it was not created by a handful of conspirators at the Federal Reserve and it has nothing to do with the motives that compelled the formation of the Fed in 1913. Right-wingers like to pawn off a golden image of the 19th century economy with the argument that a London conspiracy in 1913 somehow took us all away from that golden era, but we can go back to it if we abolish the Fed. That's ridiculous and is based totally on economic ignorance. The problems which are the result of demands in the post-1970s business community for heavy tax cuts and massive deregulation to fuel a speculative market have to be analyzed for what they are as a product of that time. It doesn't help to fantasize about 1913. Moreover, with regards to the business lobbying towards Reaganism which began in the 1970s, it is quite offbase to regard the Federal Reserve as somehow in control of this. The push for deregulation measures came from the business community at large in the 1970s. The Fed does not have control over what the demands of the larger business community are. Rather, like any government agency, the Fed is forced to listen and attempt to respond to those demands. But that has nothing to do with the Fed somehow being a "private bank." Sort out your thinking a bit more clearly.

[MNReformer]

113. On the contrary.

It is completely germane, as the benefactors of this swindle ARE the bankers. The bailout in fact contains language that represents a "windfall" for the banks, not the least of which is the money now going to AIG to cover the liability of the default swaps. And the Fed now is demonstrating a complete lack of transparency in regard to how $2 Trillion of our money is being spent. What does that tell you?

Edited to add that the same players in the Fed--Goldman Sachs, Morgan, Lehmann, etc.--are all presently in control of the Treasury "bailout" as well as being the benefactors, in an obvious conflict of interest.

[PatrickSMcNally]

116. "the same players in the Fed--Goldman Sachs, Morgan, Lehmann"

Goldman-Sachs and Lehman Brothers are investment banks, not commercial banks, and so are ineligible to own any shares of a Federal Reserve Bank. Again, the issues which you're pointing to here having nothing to do with the creation of the Fed in 1913. They are a result of the deregulatory drive which was launched by the entire business community at large in the 1970s. Lack of transparency became pervasive everywhere at this time precisely because the economy had now shifted into a state of saturation and where profits were mainly derived from speculation and cost-cutting. The trends started because of this tell us nothing about a completely different historical era leading up to 1913. You need to learn to organize your thinking more carefully.

[MNReformer]

136. Did you miss the memo?

The wall came down between the investment banks and the commercial banks, in case you weren't paying attention. We now have four mega-banks, BofA, Morgan, Goldman, Citigroup/Wells Fargo--Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs are functioning as holding companies.

http://www.thedeal.com/newsweekly/features/making-megabanks-1.php

Here is the pertinent history:

http://www.creative-i.info/?p=1537

What is happening is that the Bush administration is engineering a massive raid on the Federal treasury to pay off the people within the financial industry who have been operating the housing scam because the politicians told them to do it. This is hush money. The people in the financial institutions who are getting the money will be passing it on to the big banks that leveraged their criminal lending practices. The giant sucking sound you hear is almost a trillion dollars of future taxpayer earnings going into the vaults of the nation's biggest banks, such as Citibank, Bank of America, and--the pet bank of the Rockefeller family--J.P. Morgan Chase. Much will also go into the vaults of foreign investors such as the Bank of China.

And these banks have no intention of recycling the money into productive U.S. investments. Despite the political posturing, where much of it will go at the second or third tier is into executive salaries and bonuses. The fat cats are "gittin' out while the gittin's good."-

What happens next?

Well, it is already happening. In the post-bubble era there will be no more economic engines for the American economy. A long-term recession and depression are inevitable, and they are expected by those in the know. In fact, there has been a plan in the works for a very long time to bring down the U.S. economy, and it will be happening over the coming months.

This is the plan, so people need to begin to take whatever measures they can to cut their cost of living, get out of debt, and protect themselves and their families.

http://www.opednews.com/articles/Does-the-Bailout-Bill-Mark-by-Richard-C-Cook-081001-554.html

[defendandprotect]

155. Still ...it could have been stopped 3+ years ago -- Spitzer got Govs together ...

Bush stopped Spitzer at the time and then made sure he'd be no further threat --

[PatrickSMcNally]

45. "created by our own government, not debt notes from foreign private banks."

That's a meaningless statement when presented out of context such as here. One has to go back to the fundamentals of how since 1980 we've seen a steady drive for all tax cuts in favor of the rich, while simultaneously military spending has gone skyrocketing. Put together, this can only lead to a mushrooming of debt. If one were to attempt to print dollar bills to cover such debt created by such policies, the result would be soaring inflation. This was what caused the famous explosion of inflation in the early Weimar Republic. The Weimar government sought to mock the reparations bill which had been assigned to them at Versailles by blindly printing bills to cover the reparations. The only result was that inflation shot through the roof. Similarly, one can not go on with the policies that have been practiced by Washington and claim that the national debt would go away if only more notes were printed up. That's absurd.

[SDuderstadt]

47. Wtf?

"debt notes from foreign private banks"? Please provide evidence of your claim.

[PatrickSMcNally]

50. "Wtf?"

I think MNR is simply confusing the way that insane military budgets and massive tax cuts force the US government to borrow from abroad with the issue of how the Fed regulates the money supply. The Fed has nothing to do with "foreign private banks," but an escalating national debt caused by rampant spending and tax cuts most likely does entail loans from "foreign private banks." These are different issues, but some people educated on the internet may not be able to tell them apart.

[MNReformer]

53. No I am referring to the ownership of the Fed

and the fact that it is an extension of the Bank of England which is itself an invention of the Rothschild family who still control it and the European central banks (with a recent 20% investment in the European Rothschild bank by China). There seems to be little doubt that the Rothschilds continue to influence the world economy, and it is known that they are squarely behind the movement to unite all the western European nations into a single political entity, which is just another step towards one-world government.

[Bolo Boffin]

58. Talk to us about the Jews, MNR.

You know you want to.

[MNReformer]

63. Don't change the subject. n/t

[PatrickSMcNally]

59. "it is an extension of the Bank of England"

No, that's an urban legend. The Federal Reserve System itself is not "owned" by anyone. The Board of Governors which directs general monetary policy is appointed by the President, subject to approval by Congress. If we read the actual laws we get:

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/12/283.html

-----
No individual, copartnership, or corporation other than a member bank of its district shall be permitted to subscribe for or to hold at any time more than $25,000 par value of stock in any Federal reserve bank. Such stock shall be known as public stock and may be transferred on the books of the Federal reserve bank by the chairman of the board of directors of such bank.
-----

That places restrictions on how much stock can be owned in any of the 12 Federal Reserve banks by foreigners of any type. The ownership is mainly confined to the member banks. There's also the fact that:

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/12/usc_sec_12_00000285----000-.html

-----
Stock not held by member banks shall not be entitled to voting power.
-----

Neither can stocks be blindly sold on the market:

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/12/286.html

-----
The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System is empowered to adopt and promulgate rules and regulations governing the transfers of said stock.
-----

The Federal Reserve System was explicitly designed so that authority would be invested in the government-appointed Board of Governors and that member banks which joined any of the 12 regional Federal Reserve banks would not have the customary authority of a private investor owning shares in a corporation which trades freely on the stock market.

[MNReformer]

64. It doesn't matter who the Board of Governors are & that the chair is appointed

It's a figurehead position. And the stock restrictions are not applicable. The Fed is merely an extension of the original international European banks which derived from the Bank of England begun by the Rothschilds. The owners may be American families (Morgan, Rockefeller, Goldman-Sachs) but the banks are part of the same network.

To operate as a commercial bank in the US a bank must own the stock of the Federal Reserve, but this stock does not confer any of the normal rights of ownership. Furthermore, the members of the Fed's National Board of Governors -- the seven most senior executives of the Fed -- are appointed by the US President and confirmed by the Senate. These 7 senior executives dominate the 12-member Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC), not just because they form a majority but also because they have veto power over who the other 5 members of the Committee will be.

In other words, a small group of people appointed by the US President exerts almost total control over the Fed, while the stockholders are stockholders in name only. Of course, banks are major beneficiaries of the Federal Reserve System in that the existence of the Fed paves the way for banks to grow their assets at a much faster pace than would otherwise be possible. Also, the private banking system exerts considerable influence over the government and, therefore, over the President's appointees to the National Board of Governors. It's important to understand, though, that this influence has nothing to do with the ownership of Federal Reserve stock. In fact, some of the most important US financial corporations in terms of their influence on the government -- Goldman Sachs springs to mind -- are not even members of the Federal Reserve and hence own no Federal Reserve stock.

The main issue (problem) is that the Fed, regardless of its ownership, has the legal power to counterfeit money in unlimited amounts. This power, in turn, enables the unfettered growth of both the Federal Government and the banking system. Specifically, due to the existence of the central bank there are no rigid limits on how much the government can borrow and spend because the Fed stands ready to monetise (purchase using money created out of 'thin air') every dollar of new debt not purchased by private investors. As a result, the rampant expansion of government gets 'paid for' by the devaluation of the existing stock of money. And due to the potentially unlimited quantity of money that can be created by the Fed, the private banks are able to grow their balance sheets to a much greater extent than their equity levels would otherwise dictate.

In summary, the issue is not the Fed's ownership; the issue is its ability to create an unlimited amount of "legal tender" money out of 'thin air'.

[SDuderstadt]

70. The Federal Reserve does NOT "conterfeit" money....

and the fact that you think it does, shows how little you understand about how our economic and monetary systems work. If you don't even know that currency is printed by the Bureau of Printing and Engraving and released into the system by the Treasury Department, there is no way to help you.

[MNReformer]

73. The money is counterfeit in the sense that it is backed by nothing.

They just "create it" out of thin air.

[SDuderstadt]

82. Oh, jesus...

do you even understand monetization? Let me ask you a question. As value gets created in an economy, how would you propose to monetize it? I'd love to hear your thoughts.

[MNReformer]

91. I'm sorry but your efforts to belittle have no effect on me. n/t

[SDuderstadt]

120. I see you can't answer the question...

It's not that hard. Again, how would you propose that we monetize value in our economy? Do you have any idea?

[MNReformer]

140. Read the Constitution. What's left of it. n/t

[SDuderstadt]

146. I HAVE read the Constitution....

Have you? If so, why can't you simply explain what you think it provides for?

[PatrickSMcNally]

86. "The money is counterfeit in the sense that it is backed by nothing."

Several classical misconceptions are wrapped up in their. First of all, the statement that bankers can create money out of thin air is false in a literal sense insofar as it suggests that if a bankers wife wishes to do some expensive shopping all that's needed is for the banker to print some extra dollar bills. That is false. What the fractional reserve lending concept relates to is that banks are allowed to nominally lend out more money on credit than they actually hold. This does not, however, automatically translate into money for the bank. Bad loans and bad investments will ultimately cause a bank to go under. A bank's profits depend on lending money in a wise way so as to be able to count upon loans being repaid.

The problems of the last few decades are linked with the fact that in an oversurplus economy there is much less room for the classical type of honestly profitable investment. Giving out loans on interest to be paid at a later date can only fuel the economy to the extent that such loans contribute to setting up new enterprises which increase the volume of consumer goods and services and hence add to what is exchanged in the economy. That in turn justifies the printing of higher volumes of dollar bills which corresponds to the increased volume of trade going on in the economy. When the growth of the economy does itself compell the increase of the money supply then the original investor can subsequently claim a share of this new money as profit. But if an economy is overfilled with more goods and services than people know what to do with, such as is the case with the modern USA, then there is less room available for such honest profitable investments in the classic sense. In a deregulated environment, such as the USA has moved towards since the Reagan era, that reduction in opportunties for productive investment in the classical sense results in a growth of Enrons, WorldComs and Halliburtons. None of this has anything much to do with the decisions made back in 1913. These are issues of the modern-day highly developed economy.

But the real misconception which seems to run through your comments here seems to be related to the gold standard, although I don't think you've actually mentioned that yet. The gold standard failed because there simply isn't enough gold in the world at large to account for all of the exchanges which people make everywhere across the world. In fact, the idea that money should be "backed" by something is a fundamental error. Money by its nature is merely the result of a social consensus arrived at by some form or other. What makes a dollar bill in my pocket valuable is only the fact that I'm reasonably confident that when I go to eat tomorrow the people will recognize this same consensus which allows them to take the bill from me, even there is nothing which they can actually do with it. If someone actually discovered a means of doing something useful with dollar bills, say, for example, if it was found that the bills could be used as roof shingles and a roof-constructor saved money when using them as a substitute, then dollar bills would begin disappearing and a money shortage might occur.

With the gold standard in place what used to occur was that when the economy was on the rise people would carry on too many transactions, produce too many goods and services, for all of this to be backed by gold in each case. Then when a drop in confidence occurred people would panic and run to the bank to try to claim a share of gold because they knew there wasn't enough to back everything in the economy. The banks would crash then as they ran out of gold and still had customers waiting in line for their share. The original formation of the Fed was part of an attempt to get away from these older problems. It had nothing to do with a conspiracy and the problems of today have to be understood on their own terms as problems of the modern economy.

[MNReformer]

90. It is not "legal tender". It is a debt note.

An IOU. Counterfeit money.

[PatrickSMcNally]

95. "Legal tender"

That phrase simply means anything which can be offered in extinguishing a debt which the recipient is obligated to accept. If you were taken to court on charges that you hadn't paid a bill, the court would evaluate whatever claims of payment which you made to show you had offered something up for that bill. If you could demonstrate in court that you had provided Federal Reserve notes equal to the required debt, the court would accept that you had paid the bill. If you tried to argue in court that you haven't paid the bill because you don't believe in Federal Reserve notes, the court would rule in favor of your accuser. That's all that legal tender means. If you go back to the legal code you can read:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/31/5103.html

-----
United States coins and currency (including Federal reserve notes and circulating notes of Federal reserve banks and national banks) are legal tender for all debts, public charges, taxes, and dues. Foreign gold or silver coins are not legal tender for debts.
-----

There is no other definition of legal tender.

[MNReformer]

108. They are not redeemable in gold or "lawful money".

The constitution of the United States has vested in congress the power "to coin money, and regulate the value thereof." Art. 1, s. 8.

After the States united under the Articles of Confederation created the United States of America under the Constitution of 1791, they delegated to Congress the complementary powers to (1) establish the Value of a Dollar and (2) to mint and circulate said Dollars.

Congress, in The Coinage Act of 1792, established, by definition, a Dollar as a certain weight of silver, shaped into a coin <"minted">, and placed into circulation; and authorized the minting of the first United States of America silver Dollars, gold 'Eagles', and silver and copper fractional coins. During the American Civil War, the Union government did not have enough silver or gold bullion to mint enough money to pay the costs of the war in Lawful Money, so it unconstitutionally printed, not minted, the first United States of America paper currency: United States Treasury Notes (called "Greenbacks") under the Doctrine of "Necessity" . You will notice that this piece of paper has the appearance of a conditional Promissory Note (a Negotiable Instrument); i.e., a Promise to pay X to the Bearer limited by the condition that the bearer may redeem the Note in lawful money at the United States Treasury in New York.

After the Civil War, Congress recalled the Greenbacks from circulation and re-authorized the minting of silver and gold Dollars.

After 1913, the first Federal Reserve Notes were introduced into circulation.

You will notice that Federal Reserve Notes were Redeemable in Gold or in Lawful Money. Obviously, if something is Redeemable in Gold or Lawful Money, it is NOT, and CANNOT be, either Gold or lawful money.

Federal Reserve Notes may have been construed by the courts to be "Legal Tender" , but they are not, and cannot ever be declared to be, lawful money.
That is legally impossible, no matter what the Supreme Court might wish.

Fiat currency is currency that has no intrinsic value. It has no backing and would be entirely worthless, except for the fact that people have been persuaded to use and accept it as if it had value.

Federal Reserve Notes are clearly "debt notes". They are backed by United States National Debt. The Federal Reserve Notes are printed for a few cents per bill, regardless of denomination, and then lent into circulation to be repaid at full face value, plus interest. The printing of the Federal Reserve Notes creates our National Debt. A debt cannot be paid in fiat currency. It can only be discharged; that is, passed on to someone else.

[PatrickSMcNally]

114. "to coin money, and regulate the value thereof."

That's a meaningless statement. This is why when has to be wary of attempting to translate phrases which a politician may right into a legal document into economic logic. In reality, the value of either coins or notes are determined by the overall body of goods and services up for sale in the economy and the total volume of coins or notes in circulation. The only methodology by which a government may attempt to regulate the actual value of money is by increasing or descreasing the money supply, or by attempting to outlaw certain items on the market. Apart from changing the volume of the money supply or legally intervening in the market, there is nothing which can be done to regulate the value of money. Even these measures are inherently unpredictable.

Art. I, Sec. 8, Cl. 18 of the US Constitution does allow Congress to make any law considerd 'necessary and proper' for the execution of its enumerated powers. This was the clause which Alexander Hamilton invoked when designing the charter of the Bank of the United States in 1791. Jefferson attempted to argue that this was unconstitutional. Hamilton pointed out that that Congress clearly had the power to tax, to borrow money, to regulate interstate and foreign commerce, and on that basis he went on to argue that Congress also should hold the authority to form an institution to which it delegates tasks under supervision. Hamilton's arguments won out and the Bank of the United States was formed.

"Fiat currency is currency that has no intrinsic value. It has no backing and would be entirely worthless, except for the fact that people have been persuaded to use and accept it as if it had value."

That actually is the basis for every money supply at all times in history. If you prefer accepting a bill which you think is backed by gold, then all which that signifies is that by hearing someone speak of rare metals you have been persuaded to use and accept the money as if it had value. In reality there isn't enough gold or silver in the world to be able to pretend that every bill in circulation is somehow backed by these metals. But that's meaningless anyway because money in the working world never was effectively backed such metals, not at any time in history. This was why, in the debates around the constitutional convention of 1787, banking interests tended to argue against paper money while agricultural interests argued for it. Farmers argued at the convention in favor of the government issuing bills of credit, while bankers wished that money should be based on gold and silver. It's a general fact that whenever the money supply becomes large enough to reach people who are not already rich, at that point we now have too much money in circulation to be able to back it all up with rare metals. The only real significance of money is precisely that is a social convention which allows me to walk into a store and take something with the guaranteed understanding that they will accept my bills without me having to find anything else to trade with.

"The Federal Reserve Notes are printed for a few cents per bill, regardless of denomination, and then lent into circulation to be repaid at full face value, plus interest."

Nothing is "repaid" anywhere on any of these notes. The Fed has a certain volume of operating costs which must be expected of any functioning government agency. But that's it. There is nothing paid to the Federal Reserve beyond that.

"The printing of the Federal Reserve Notes creates our National Debt."

No it does not. National debt arises because Congress chooses to spend without first accounting for the expenditures via taxation.

[MNReformer]

141. The money borrowed is debt money. n/t

[SDuderstadt]

122. It's pretty clear that you're parrotting....

RW anti-Federal Reserve propaganda.

[MNReformer]

142. Your view...but not those of a progressive liberal.

Who also posts on globalresearch.ca -- hardly "RW propaganda".

http://sjlendman.blogspot.com/2006/06/dirty-secrets-of-temple.html

[SDuderstadt]

147. So far you've got Lendman.....

I'd think Paul Krugman qualifies as a progressive liberal (which is why I like him so much). Do you think Krugman (Nobel Laureate in Economics) agrees with Lendman?

[SDuderstadt]

121. This is your dumbest claim yet...

and shows the degree to which you've bought into propaganda. I'd love to hear your solution for a better economic/monetary system.

[MNReformer]

143. Again, the Founding Fathers view is my view.

And why do you and PatrickSMcNally "tag team" on here?

[SDuderstadt]

148. Which you apparently can't explain...

Have you ever heard of the logical fallacy known as "begging the question"? What I want to know is what you think they said and what they meant.

[SDuderstadt]

69. Jesus....

this is such typical RW anti-Federal Reserve nonsense. You have ZERO idea how the Federal Reserve actually works.

[SDuderstadt]

68. I agree...n/t

[LARED]

25. "Obama is ideal front man for them"

Good Lord PG, I had no idea of the depths of your paranoid fantasies.

[petgoat]

28. I said "The idea front man for them--the one who doesn't know he's a front." nt

[LARED]

29. So he's being manipulated by them, but just doesn't know it

Correct?

[petgoat]

30. He doesn't even need to be manipated. All he needs to do is unquestioningly accept

the current power structure's legitimacy, the dominant paradigms.

As long as he leaves those alone, he can happily plant all the daffodils
he wants, but no real change will happen.

[LARED]

32. So Obama is powerless in the face

of almighty "them." (or they)

They're not seizing power because they can't. They're too unpopular, things
are too screwed up, and won't get away with it. The success of their neo-fascist
program is that nobody noticed. Overtly seizing power through election fraud or
emergency legislation was not practical.

And it's not necessary. They hold the cards. They've handed Obama the Augean
stables to clean, and they're going to do everything they can to obstruct and
thwart him, and blame him for his failures. They can certainly arrange military
embarrassments for him (as was done for Carter and Clinton) and another 9/11 might
cause a Republican sweep in 2012. They're not just going away.

Besides, Obama won't dare pursue any meaningful change--taking down the Federal
Reserve and the CIA and the military-industrial complex, for instance. He's
already declared a hawkish nature. And he can't afford any fancy social programs.
So from their standpoint, how much damage can he do? He's the ideal front man
for them--the one who may not even know he's a front.

Nothing changes, we just switched from Sprite to Pepsi, that's all.

So who the hell is they, them, their ?

[petgoat]

33. "They" is obviously, from the context, the Republicans. nt

[LARED]

34. So Obama etal, just gave the Republican a good old fashioned

butt kicking, yet he will be powerless to implement change, because Republicans control everything.

Is that you point?

[petgoat]

35. Since the Dems didn't raise a finger against Bush during his 8 years

I see no reason to think they're going to raise a finger against the people
behind Bush in the next four years. They let those fascists steal elections,
ignore the law, trample the Constitution, violate treaties, wiretap, torture,
terrorize, and demonize.

Clinton and Gore were totally on board with the whole NAFTA, CAFTA, FTAA, IMF
"economic hit man" program, and Clinton was, until Bush, the most anti-privacy
President in history.

The only signal I get from Obama is his behavior on the telecom immunity bill:
He promised he was going to filibuster it, and instead he voted for it. I'll trust
him when he gives me a reason to trust him, and not one minute earlier.

[LARED]

41. Humm, you don't like Republicans, the Democrats are part of the problem

Obama is just a puppet for "them".

So where do you political allegiances lie?

[petgoat]

49. I'm a fringe Democrat. I admire Kucinich, McKinney, Dean.

I despise Kerry, Pelosi, and just about the entire loathsome crew otherwise.

[AZCat]

51. Is McKinney still a Democrat?

I know she ran on the Green ticket, but did she declare she's no longer part of the Democratic Party?

[Name removed]

156. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MNReformer]

36. Exactly. Just look at what came out today.

New Al Qaeda "threat" in London. Story about media control for "national security purposes" in the UK media. Murdoch just consolidated more control over the British Media. The story about the U.S. Army staging "roaming attacks" against "Al Qaeda". All right on cue.

[LARED]

42. All right on cue?

For waht?

[MNReformer]

111. An effort to keep the WOT alive. n/t

[LARED]

134. Here's a new flash for you

The WOT is not going away for a while. Obama will not end the WOT, because it is not a fabrication of the right wing. It's real, get used to it.

[MNReformer]

139. It's real? How do you know? n/t

[LARED]

149. I'm Osama bin Laden. - nt

[defendandprotect]

151. Sad but excellent reasoning .. and you're citing my fears ...

looking at the "picks," I see trouble --

We have to move on third parties and IRV --

[seemslikeadream]

4. Well let's see

an on-going never ending war

financial collapse

[Dubiosus]

5. shivering right now!

more than ever!


:scared:

[noise]

22. CIA withholding of intel

related to alHazmi and alMihdhar started in January 2000. Richard Clarke was a bigshot back then. Why won't he tell the public what happened? President Clinton was in office at the time. Why did Clinton's national security adviser Sandy Berger steal al Qaeda related documents from National Archives and then destroy them? Do you think this isn't important because an asshole like Rush Limbaugh uses it to bash Democrats? To reiterate, CIA was protecting al Qaeda operatives during the Clinton administration's time in office.

Bush vs. Clinton and Rice vs. Clarke debates are too simplistic. I don't care what party they are from. A lot of people were murdered and these officials owe the public some answers.

ETA: Bush vs. Clinton debates remind me of the binary "with us or against us argument." As if the choices are limited to support for Bush's police state or Bin Laden's Sharia law. That is a stupid argument yet the GOP and many of their supporters think acceptance of this crap is patriotic. With regard to 9/11 it is possible to despise Bin Laden and question whether US officials told the truth about 9/11. It isn't an either/or choice.

1. Why did CIA withold intel from January 2000 through August 2001?

2. Why did the NSA fail to seek FISA warrants or alert the FBI so they could seek the warrants?

3. Why did the FBI UBLU (Bin Laden unit) withhold intel from the Cole investigators which prevented these agents from heading the search for alHazmi and alMihdhar?

[Twist_U_Up]

26. And thats all from the news team at Disney!!

over to the weather with Goofy!!

[CJCRANE]

27. Why did Musharraf give up power?

Why does any leader give up power?

You give up power when the other guy has more supporters - both voters and inside the govt. For me that is the crucial difference - I believe Obama has support within the bureacracies - the Pentagon, State Dept, Langley, the Treasury etc because they want a return to competence.

[petgoat]

31. Another reason to "give up power".

If Bush seized dictatorial control, people might think he had something to hide.

If a Democratic administration leaves him unpunished, people will assume he did
nothing wrong.

[defendandprotect]

150. Try this ... Why would any Muslim bring such harm to their ME countries ...??

Iraq is devastated ... over 18 years of bombing them ...

and the new war --??

How did that work well for Bin Laden and Muslims?

[William Seger]

157. It ain't over until the fat lady sings

The Sunni Islamists believe that Allah will give them victory over any enemy, even if it takes centuries, and they don't give a damn about the "martyrs" who are killed. Religious extremists are never rational.

[defendandprotect]

158. It's not believable ... from any look at 9/11 --

It is GOP and Bushco and corrupt US government which has most effectively used

religious fanatics ...

See Mark Crispin Miller's view on who has assisted GOP with election steals --

And our entry into Afghanistan "6 months before the Russians came in....

in order to bait Russians into Afghanistan, in hopes of giving them a Vietnam-type experience."

US/CIA created Taliban/AlQaeda thru Pakistan intelligence --

It's an old idea --

Patriarchy is underpinned by their invented patriarchal religion

which serves their needs --

[William Seger]

159. Not believable?

Al-Qaeda declared war on the US, used suicide attacks to blow up two embassies and a Navy ship, and hardly a week goes by that there is not another suicide attack in the Middle East. But you find it "not believable" that they would and could plot and carry out 9/11?

And yet, you believe bizarre stuff like "no planes" and imaginary physics weapons, and that the "US/CIA created Taliban/AlQaeda"?

Sorry, but I'm not too impressed with your "believability" ratings.

[defendandprotect]

160. WE invented Al Qaeda -- We created Taliban ...

wake up --!!

[William Seger]

161. Really? So, how much do you suppose we pay suicide bombers?

We gave aid to the Afghan "resistance" when they were fighting the Soviets. We did not "invent" them, nor did we invent Sunni extremism. Stop interpreting everything that happens in the world in ways that make your irrational fantasies more plausible.

[defendandprotect]

162. Again ...

Here's Carter's man Brzezinski on "baiting the Russians into Afghanistan" ...

The CIA's Intervention in Afghanistan
Interview with Zbigniew Brzezinski,
President Jimmy Carter's National Security Adviser

Le Nouvel Observateur, Paris, 15-21 January 1998

Question: The former director of the CIA, Robert Gates, stated in his memoirs <"From the Shadows">, that American intelligence services began to aid the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan 6 months before the Soviet intervention. In this period you were the national security adviser to President Carter. You therefore played a role in this affair. Is that correct?

Brzezinski: Yes. According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention.

Q: Despite this risk, you were an advocate of this covert action. But perhaps you yourself desired this Soviet entry into war and looked to provoke it?

B: It isn't quite that. We didn't push the Russians to intervene, but we knowingly increased the probability that they would.

Q: When the Soviets justified their intervention by asserting that they intended to fight against a secret involvement of the United States in Afghanistan, people didn't believe them. However, there was a basis of truth. You don't regret anything today?

Q: Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it? The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter. We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam war. Indeed, for almost 10 years, Moscow had to carry on a war unsupportable by the government, a conflict that brought about the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet empire.

Q: And neither do you regret having supported the Islamic fundamentalism, having given arms and advice to future terrorists?

Q: What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?

http://www.takeoverworld.info/brzezinski_interview_shor...


And here's info on CIA creating Taliban ...

"CIA worked with Pakistan to create Taliban"
"CIA worked with Pakistan to create Taliban" emperors-clothes.com/docs/pak.htm - Cached

Times of India, 3/7/01
The U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) worked in tandem with Pakistan to create the *monster* that is today Afghanistan's ruling Taliban, a leading US expert on ...
www.multiline.com.au/~johnm/taliban.htm - Cached

News
Home " 2001 " #465 " Archives " Cover Story: How the CIA created Osama bin Laden ... role in creating the vicious movement that spawned bin Laden, the Taliban ...
www.greenleft.org.au/2001/465/25199 - Cached

There are better articles than these ... but they should do it for anyone who truly
wants to understand what has been going on --

[William Seger]

163. You don't seem to be understanding what those stories are really saying

... and you are completely failing to logically tie those stories to your 9/11 conspiracy nonsense.

[defendandprotect]

167. What they are saying is patriarchy has always used religious fanatics ...

and still does -- including in the 9/11 "false flag" operation --

[William Seger]

168. You're still not making any sense

You asked, "Why would any Muslim bring such harm to their ME countries?"

I answered: Because they believe they will win "by the grace of Allah" and because they believe that anyone who dies in a holy war gets a free ticket to heaven.

Beats the hell out of me what you're getting at now, but it doesn't seem to have any bearing on the original question.

[defendandprotect]

169. Everywhere you seem to miss the "sense" of what's being said to you --

since I don't have time to waste -- you're on ignore --

[SDuderstadt]

170. Congratulations, WS!

Pretty soon D&P will have EVERYONE who asks questions she can't answer on ignore. Talk about an echo chamber! No wonder she believes such goofy things.

[William Seger]

171. In other words, YOU don't know what you're talking about, either?

[Realityhack]

172. I feel left out...

AFAIK I am not on ignore yet.

[SDuderstadt]

173. Just ask D&P a question she can't answer...

then you'll join the rest of our little club. We even have a secret handshake and everything.

[Realityhack]

174. Ohhh... is it:

:eyes::fistbump:

[LARED]

166. Because, outside of their #1 desire to see the US out

of the Middle East, the secondary goal is to collapse Middle Eastern governments that are viewed as too secular or corrupt. Ie Saudi, Egypt, Afghanistan, etc.

[mhatrw]

165. LOL!

You got me there. Your logic is flawless! If you are capable of being complicit in a surreptitious false flag operation, it logically follows that you must remain in direct charge of the executive branch forever. Yes, that makes perfect sense!

[david_watts]

175. Let us wait and see if there is an inauguration.

Let us wait and see if there is an inauguration. They probably have Obama in their back pocket anyway if there is an inauguration..

[SDuderstadt]

177. So, you hedge your bet either way, right?

Either there won't be an inauguration or, in the event there is, it doesn't matter because Obama is "probably in their back pocket". Oy. Have you ever taken a logic class?

[david_watts]

179. You missed the point.

You missed the point.

What is the deal anyway.... do you like me or something? You seem to be following me around.

[Realityhack]

183. No he nailed the point perfectly n/t

[jberryhill]

180. Because "they" have Obama's "real" birth certificate

Most conspiracies are best explained in connection with other ones.

[Realityhack]

181. What on earth are you talking about? n/t

[jberryhill]

184. The next latest and greatest conspiracy synthesis

It was thinking about Phillip Berg - 9/11 Truther and Obama Birth Certificate Truther - that made me realize where the 9/11 truthers need to go next in order to explain why Bush is leaving office and Obama is going to be sworn in.

Surely you've bumped across the "Obama is not a natural born citizen" nonsense, which is ardently promoted by various loony tunes who don't seem to be able to grasp that someone born in Hawaii in 1961 is incontrovertibly a natural born US citizen regardless of their parentage or other adventures under the age of 18.

However, it provides what 9/11 truthers are going to sorely need - some nefarious mechanism of "controlling" Obama.

So, here we go, in order to reconcile forthcoming events, the truthers - as Phillip Berg has already pretty much done - are going to need the "Birth Certificate" nonsense to provide that control mechanism. You see, "they" have the real birth certificate and can disqualify Obama from being president at any time. But what they've chosen to do instead is to provide the illusion of "change", so that people will ask the very question posed in the OP.

[Grateful for Hope]

186. Please stop conflating

RW wackos and their "theories" with all those who doubt the 9/11 official story. This is actually against DU rules -- to accuse posters here of being RW'er's even if done subtly.

Philip Berg is by no means representative of the truth movement.

[Realityhack]

190. Ah I see...

for a second there I thought you were jumping on board with that notion.
I agree that it may be the outlet some use. I think 'all the parties are the same/in on it' is more likely but either way I agree they will find a way to avoid facing facts.

[Grateful for Hope]

182. Ummmm

The OP has "left the building", so to speak.

[aldo]

187. It looks to me like most appointees have been one-party government types

So how did they lose?

[sofa king]

188. Because there's nothing left to steal.

Or maybe a better way to put it is, "why did the Vikings leave Ireland after they raided it?" And the answer to that is they had to wait for Ireland to become worth raiding again, and wait for the locals to forget enough to let down their guard again. Someone's got to rebuild, and as the Bush team showed in Iraq and Afghanistan, that's hardly their area of expertise.

And yes, I absolutely do think that you can call Bush and idiot and a diabolical criminal at the same time, because Bush is merely the front-man for the operation. There's no question he's a person of at least average intelligence, but on the international stage, where most other nations put forward their very best and brightest, it's perfectly reasonable to call him a goddamned fool, because by comparison to Tony Blair, Pervez Musharraf, and Vladimir Putin, he is and all of those folks proved it, repeatedly. And for that matter, so did Karl Rove and Dick Cheney, who are walking away from this thing in far better shape than the boss they led around by the nose.

For the record, I put the chances at 50/50 that they were gonna go for the whole noodle, but just like a kid who steals another kid's toy and plays with it until it breaks, it looks like they're gonna simply walk away from it.

And another thing: we haven't heard the last of 9/11 by a long shot. We're talking about guys who did not hesitate to skirt the boundaries of treason to damage a political rival, who have been carrying on a systematic program of murder in Iraq, who made loyalty and politics the centerpiece of everything they did. In six weeks, some of the pressure will be off employees of the Executive Branch to keep their mouths shut, and I guaran-fucking-tee you more than one will have something to say, starting then.

This whole thing reminds me of the scholarly debate which raged around the possibility of flight in the late 19th Century. Many maintained it wasn't possible. They still maintained it wasn't possible after Otto Lillienthal flew his gliders, and still maintained it wasn't possible after the Wright Brothers flew their airplane. They did it by redefining "flight" every time the truth impinged on their beliefs. And eventually, the old joke went, they only way they could prove they were right was by asking a pilot to flap his arms and saying, "aha!" The Bush Administration ain't gonna get away with this, but by the time most of you are convinced they had a hand in it, they too will have flown the coop.

[Grateful for Hope]

189. Enjoy your stay. n/t