Quote:
Can I borrow your Delorean?
·Theme
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Feds to sue banks over fraud
Feds to sue banks over fraudFollow
Yes, but you need to fill it up. The lybians aren't falling for the pinball parts thing anymore.
Admiral Lubriderm wrote:
ShadowedgeFFXI wrote:
catwho wrote:
Bout damn time.
Edited, Sep 2nd 2011 9:00am by catwho
You realize that the FED really owns these banks, right? /facepalm
The image seems broken. It's not moving.
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
ShadowedgeFFXI wrote:
Admiral Lubriderm wrote:
These banks are traded on the stock exchange. While the FED could do plenty to squash any one of them, they don't own them.
This is a tricky situation so I'll explain what I meant. There are 2 theories that could apply to almost every single one of these banks. Either A) the bank has a controlling interest by those that work/are connected to the FED or B) By "own", I mean control those that actually own the banks because to go against the FED(stronger than the mafia) is suicide. The FED owns so many banks and runs them as dummy corporations with these bank CEO's working for their interests. I wish the FED was just an extension of the government, but it's much worse than that. I'll tell you another thing. Every time the the government bails out a corporation, that company is controlled by the FED at the highest levels if it wasn't already. There lies the problem and the reason why bailouts don't work.
Quote:
Yes, the loss of value of the dollar should create inflation in oil much more than any other commodity even when we know that the emerging markets are screaming for energy, too. Makes total sense.
Good this means you won't ***** at the gas prices, but at the FED that just screwed you.
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
Loobes,
I've been saying gold will continue to increase in value if Obama is re-electected and decrease if not. I'll wait until Oct 2012 to make the decision to unload what i've got or not.
I told all you idiots to invest in gold when Obama was elected. Just like I told you to invest in gold when the Dems took control of congress during W's second term. Gold was around 750$ when I started buying it back in 05. By the end of next year, when I expect to unload it, it will be easily over 2k an o. And that's why I have money and most of you liberal tw*ts b*tch about me having it.
I've been saying gold will continue to increase in value if Obama is re-electected and decrease if not. I'll wait until Oct 2012 to make the decision to unload what i've got or not.
I told all you idiots to invest in gold when Obama was elected. Just like I told you to invest in gold when the Dems took control of congress during W's second term. Gold was around 750$ when I started buying it back in 05. By the end of next year, when I expect to unload it, it will be easily over 2k an o. And that's why I have money and most of you liberal tw*ts b*tch about me having it.
varusword75 wrote:
Loobes,
And that's why I have money and most of you liberal tw*ts b*tch about me having it.
And that's why I have money and most of you liberal tw*ts b*tch about me having it.
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
Elinda wrote:
varusword75 wrote:
Loobes,
And that's why I have money and most of you liberal tw*ts b*tch about me having it.
And that's why I have money and most of you liberal tw*ts b*tch about me having it.
He's a conservative, he doesn't have to pay taxes. Only people who do work pay taxes.
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
Gumbo Galahad wrote:
I told all you idiots to invest in gold when
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
varusword75 wrote:
Gold was around 750$ when I started buying it back in 05. By the end of next year, when I expect to unload it, it will be easily over 2k an o. And that's why I have money and most of you liberal tw*ts b*tch about me having it.
So is there no connection between gold going up and people buying gold because somebody told them to? This just strikes me as a self-fulfilling prophecy. Buy gold because its gonna go up, everybody wants to buy gold, demand increases, so the price rises.
xantav wrote:
varusword75 wrote:
Gold was around 750$ when I started buying it back in 05. By the end of next year, when I expect to unload it, it will be easily over 2k an o. And that's why I have money and most of you liberal tw*ts b*tch about me having it.
So is there no connection between gold going up and people buying gold because somebody told them to? This just strikes me as a self-fulfilling prophecy. Buy gold because its gonna go up, everybody wants to buy gold, demand increases, so the price rises.
Of course there's a connection. That's why most sane people recognize that gold is a bubble right now. But it'll stay a bubble until other elements of the economy start to recover. The trick is knowing when to bail on gold so that you gain money on it. Most people will lose money. Certainly, most people buying gold right now will.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
varusword75 wrote:
Gold was around 750$ when I started buying it back in 05. By the end of next year, when I expect to unload it, it will be easily over 2k an o. And that's why I have money and most of you liberal tw*ts b*tch about me having it.
I easily get a bonus every Christmas that is over 2k, and I didn't have to shell out $750 six years ago to do so.
So, uh, no.
gbaji wrote:
Of course there's a connection. That's why most sane people recognize that gold is a bubble right now. But it'll stay a bubble until other elements of the economy start to recover. The trick is knowing when to bail on gold so that you gain money on it. Most people will lose money. Certainly, most people buying gold right now will.
I'm not so sure this time. The US government has never been this broke in our history. If only are problems could be solved with a quick fix, I'd agree with you. This time however a collapse will happen one of two ways. Either A) the FED prints more money and thus your money becomes useless by hyperinflation or B) our debt collectors buy our debt. Now I serious doubt any country has the means to buy 14 trillion in REAL assets so it's only logically to conclude option 1 is more likely. All printing money will do is stall for time. It will cause more problems than it's worth because most of America is on a fixed income. If inflation goes too high, you'll kill people literally.
Edit
Option 3 is a long shot because it all depends if Ron Paul can win office. If our defense budget was cut in half or more, the currency could possibly bounce back in theory. This would call for most of the troops and contractors being pulled out of the Middle East though. So like I said, it's a long shot, but it's the only shot we have left. Don't believe those liars running for office. Social security, Medicare, etc is a drop in the bucket compared to nation building costs. I think paying off half the debt would be possibly in 4 years in theory if they follow Paul's plan.
Edited, Sep 6th 2011 11:07pm by ShadowedgeFFXI
ShadowedgeFFXI wrote:
The US government has never been this broke in our history.
Linky.
Just for the graph. The U.S. Govt. had a higher level of debt as a percentage of GDP shortly after WWII. It's the private sector that's in deeper than it's even been before.
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
someproteinguy wrote:
Linky.
Just for the graph. The U.S. Govt. had a higher level of debt as a percentage of GDP shortly after WWII. It's the private sector that's in deeper than it's even been before.
There are some differences now. The biggest difference is when Nixon separated us away from the gold standard. Rapid inflation happened ever since and our economy has never been as secure. #2 You realize that the bailouts to the private sector are paid out by the FED. I'm interested in your thoughts on this matter. We need to learn all we can from each other.
Quote:
Of course there's a connection. That's why most sane people recognize that gold is a bubble right now. But it'll stay a bubble until other elements of the economy start to recover. The trick is knowing when to bail on gold so that you gain money on it. Most people will lose money. Certainly, most people buying gold right now will.
I'm actually kind of impressed you understand that.
someproteinguy wrote:
ShadowedgeFFXI wrote:
The US government has never been this broke in our history.
Linky.
Just for the graph. The U.S. Govt. had a higher level of debt as a percentage of GDP shortly after WWII. It's the private sector that's in deeper than it's even been before.
EDIT: Sometimes I forget that there are more pages to a thread.
Edited, Sep 7th 2011 11:29am by Eske
Edited, Sep 7th 2011 11:29am by Eske
Eske Esquire wrote:
EDIT: Sometimes I forget that there are more pages to a thread.
Edited, Sep 7th 2011 11:29am by Eske
Edited, Sep 7th 2011 11:29am by Eske
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
Gumbo Galahad wrote:
blind as anne frank.
On related news, Kevin Smith continues to be a horrible comic writer.
Edited, Sep 7th 2011 12:37pm by lolgaxe
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
ShadowedgeFFXI wrote:
First of all, this isn't a "fake news" show.
Quote:
The point is politics and the banking industry is corrupt.
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
ShadowedgeFFXI wrote:
someproteinguy wrote:
Linky.
Just for the graph. The U.S. Govt. had a higher level of debt as a percentage of GDP shortly after WWII. It's the private sector that's in deeper than it's even been before.
There are some differences now. The biggest difference is when Nixon separated us away from the gold standard. Rapid inflation happened ever since and our economy has never been as secure. #2 You realize that the bailouts to the private sector are paid out by the FED. I'm interested in your thoughts on this matter. We need to learn all we can from each other.
I'm seeing an oligopoly and instances of corruption. The idea that people are conspiring or working together behind the scenes seems unverifiable and unnecessary. It's kind of like The Incredible Hulk putting on brass knuckles before punching someone.
But my lack of knowledge about things is a bit limitless, and I'm just shooting from the hip here.
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
You're too apologetic Protein. Simply make up your mind and then inform us of the truth.
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
Sir Xsarus wrote:
You're too apologetic Protein. Simply make up your mind and then inform us of the truth.
Simple it's not, I'm afraid you will find, for a mind-maker-upper to make up his mind.
<3 Dr. Seuss
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
ShadowedgeFFXI wrote:
Edit
Option 3 is a long shot because it all depends if Ron Paul can win office. If our defense budget was cut in half or more, the currency could possibly bounce back in theory. This would call for most of the troops and contractors being pulled out of the Middle East though. So like I said, it's a long shot, but it's the only shot we have left.
Option 3 is a long shot because it all depends if Ron Paul can win office. If our defense budget was cut in half or more, the currency could possibly bounce back in theory. This would call for most of the troops and contractors being pulled out of the Middle East though. So like I said, it's a long shot, but it's the only shot we have left.
Ah... You're a Paulite. Explains a lot!
Quote:
Don't believe those liars running for office. Social security, Medicare, etc is a drop in the bucket compared to nation building costs. I think paying off half the debt would be possibly in 4 years in theory if they follow Paul's plan.
Sigh... Debate trick #5. When stating something that is completely false, always precede it with a statement about how those who say differently are liars.
Your statement is wrong. It's not just wrong, it's completely 180 degrees the wrong direction wrong. In 2010, the total defense budget was $689B. Social Security alone was $700B. Medicare was $520B. Medicaid was $272B. "Income Security" (welfare basically) was $437B.
The totals for social spending just in those areas adds up to $1929B. Total Defense spending is less than 1/3rd of what we spend on the social stuff. Oh... And that's only counting the non-discretionary spending. We also have Domestic Discretionary spending, which amounts to $614B. Now, to be fair, a small amount of that falls into the category you might call "defense" (domestic defense stuff, some research, maybe some national guard spending, etc). But an overwhelming amount of dollars in that domestic spending category also falls into social spending or infrastructure categories. I don't count that normally because some of that is worth doing and some of it isn't.
The point is that we only need to look at Social Security to see that you're wrong. The other stuff just makes you that much more wrong. Sadly, if history is any indicator, in a week you'll have conveniently forgotten this and still be insisting that defense is the number one expense our Federal government has.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
gbaji wrote:
The point is that we only need to look at Social Security to see that you're wrong. The other stuff just makes you that much more wrong. Sadly, if history is any indicator, in a week you'll have conveniently forgotten this and still be insisting that defense is the number one expense our Federal government has.
Your numbers are wrong. The money set for contractors alone is over 600B and that's NOT including any of our defense projects. You expect me to believe your figures when we're policing most of the Middle East right now, either on or off the record. I'm interested what you have against Paul. He's supported by the military more than other candidate for a reason. You know the people that know the real deal. These sleazy media outlets don't have a clue. I don't think you understand what's it like to risk your life based on a lie. I was there day 1 in Iraq and I worked with the CIA/Green beret/Seals/British forces etc. I know how much this war costs, don't insult my intelligence. I was there and I know how much it costs to wage a war/police a country.
We spend at LEAST 60% of all our tax dollars on these wars. I don't care if the money goes to Black OP projects, contractors, or even rebuilding efforts. Don't even get me started with the drug trade in Afghanistan and our soldiers(my friends) who are forced to watch them. I had to babysit the oil wells in Iraq, not that it did us any good. The spin that the mainstream media claims is total b.s. I bet you can't even explain why these government contractors get paid up to 5x as much to do the same job as someone in the military. I don't mean to come off blunt, but you seriously have no clue. Please don't buy into that propaganda. Even if Social security costs as much as you claim, you realize there is supposed to be a 2.5 trillion surplus for it. In other words, it's NOT in the budget at all. Why... Because we the people already paid into for years and continue to do so.
Edited, Sep 7th 2011 4:43pm by ShadowedgeFFXI
Recent Visitors: 391
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (391)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Feds to sue banks over fraud
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC