Frugal Living: 15 new messages in 9 topics

Saturday, September 20, 2008

15 new messages in 9 topics - digest

misc.consumers.frugal-living
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living?hl=en

misc.consumers.frugal-living@googlegroups.com

Today's topics:

==============================================================================
TOPIC: A national mortgage payment boycott would discipline the rotten banking
industry.
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/2722c3b7b41085ff?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 5 ==
Date: Fri, Sep 19 2008 6:17 pm
From: SMS

hpope@lycos.com wrote:
> If just 20% of mortgage holders withheld their payments for say two
> months the banking swine
> would be on their knees. Such a boycott would need big-name support.

The banks would love to foreclose on the properties with a lot of
equity, where the people have low interest loans.

The vast majority of homeowners didn't get those ridiculous loans with
zero-down, negative amortization, and low initial rates. Those that
bought before the run-up in prices still have a lot of equity.

== 2 of 5 ==
Date: Fri, Sep 19 2008 6:34 pm
From: "Billzz"

"SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
news:8bYAk.826$ZP4.187@nlpi067.nbdc.sbc.com...
> hpope@lycos.com wrote:
>> If just 20% of mortgage holders withheld their payments for say two
>> months the banking swine
>> would be on their knees. Such a boycott would need big-name support.
>
> The banks would love to foreclose on the properties with a lot of equity,
> where the people have low interest loans.
>
> The vast majority of homeowners didn't get those ridiculous loans with
> zero-down, negative amortization, and low initial rates. Those that bought
> before the run-up in prices still have a lot of equity.

Yes, indeed. I have a 5.5% loan, and the house is worth well over twice what
I owe, even after the bubble burst. I would have to be crazy to let them
foreclose, when I could sell the house myself and make over 100% profit. In
my general area, the largest city is Sacramento, famous for "flippers"
buying and selliing every six months. They got caught owing more than the
house was worth, so they walked, letting the banks hold worthless paper.
Even worse, mortgage holders wrapped a bunch of mortgages up and sold them
as some sort of investment-grade product, so whole portfolios went belly-up.
Even my mortgage was sold three times in six years. It is now owned by a
very large bank that, itself, is probably bankrupt.

If I could make a new rule it would be that the originator of a loan may not
sell it. Live with it.

== 3 of 5 ==
Date: Fri, Sep 19 2008 6:50 pm
From: Blash

hpope@lycos.com wrote:

>> If just 20% of mortgage holders withheld their payments for say two
>> months the banking swine
>> would be on their knees. Such a boycott would need big-name support.

What an amazing idea......it's not often you hear something this
clever.......

== 4 of 5 ==
Date: Fri, Sep 19 2008 8:33 pm
From: never@millions.com

On Fri, 19 Sep 2008 18:34:52 -0700, "Billzz"
<billzzstring@starband.net> wrote:

>
>"SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
>news:8bYAk.826$ZP4.187@nlpi067.nbdc.sbc.com...
>> hpope@lycos.com wrote:
>>> If just 20% of mortgage holders withheld their payments for say two
>>> months the banking swine
>>> would be on their knees. Such a boycott would need big-name support.
>>
>> The banks would love to foreclose on the properties with a lot of equity,
>> where the people have low interest loans.
>>
>> The vast majority of homeowners didn't get those ridiculous loans with
>> zero-down, negative amortization, and low initial rates. Those that bought
>> before the run-up in prices still have a lot of equity.
>
>Yes, indeed. I have a 5.5% loan, and the house is worth well over twice what
>I owe, even after the bubble burst. I would have to be crazy to let them
>foreclose, when I could sell the house myself and make over 100% profit. In
>my general area, the largest city is Sacramento, famous for "flippers"
>buying and selliing every six months. They got caught owing more than the
>house was worth, so they walked, letting the banks hold worthless paper.
>Even worse, mortgage holders wrapped a bunch of mortgages up and sold them
>as some sort of investment-grade product, so whole portfolios went belly-up.
>Even my mortgage was sold three times in six years. It is now owned by a
>very large bank that, itself, is probably bankrupt.
>
>If I could make a new rule it would be that the originator of a loan may not
>sell it. Live with it.
>

Selling? And end paying capital gains at the state and federal level.
You would have enoug left to purchase a new place similar in size.
Other options
such a location, etc. adds to the mix of such notions to sell.

DCI

== 5 of 5 ==
Date: Fri, Sep 19 2008 9:14 pm
From: silky

On Sep 19, 11:33 pm, ne...@millions.com wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Sep 2008 18:34:52 -0700, "Billzz"
>
>
>
> <billzzstr...@starband.net> wrote:
>
> >"SMS" <scharf.ste...@geemail.com> wrote in message
> >news:8bYAk.826$ZP4.187@nlpi067.nbdc.sbc.com...
> >> hp...@lycos.com wrote:
> >>> If just 20% of mortgage holders withheld their payments for say two
> >>> months the banking swine
> >>> would be on their knees. Such a boycott would need big-name support.
>
> >> The banks would love to foreclose on the properties with a lot of equity,
> >> where the people have low interest loans.
>
> >> The vast majority of homeowners didn't get those ridiculous loans with
> >> zero-down, negative amortization, and low initial rates. Those that bought
> >> before the run-up in prices still have a lot of equity.
>
> >Yes, indeed. I have a 5.5% loan, and the house is worth well over twice what
> >I owe, even after the bubble burst. I would have to be crazy to let them
> >foreclose, when I could sell the house myself and make over 100% profit. In
> >my general area, the largest city is Sacramento, famous for "flippers"
> >buying and selliing every six months. They got caught owing more than the
> >house was worth, so they walked, letting the banks hold worthless paper.
> >Even worse, mortgage holders wrapped a bunch of mortgages up and sold them
> >as some sort of investment-grade product, so whole portfolios went belly-up.
> >Even my mortgage was sold three times in six years. It is now owned by a
> >very large bank that, itself, is probably bankrupt.
>
> >If I could make a new rule it would be that the originator of a loan may not
> >sell it. Live with it.
>
> Selling? And end paying capital gains at the state and federal level.
> You would have enoug left to purchase a new place similar in size.
> Other options
> such a location, etc. adds to the mix of such notions to sell.
>
> DCI
Capital Gains??????????????????????????????

You obviously have never owned or sold a home in your entire life

please educate yourself and read this

http://www.bankrate.com/brm/news/real-estate/20041018a1.asp

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Frugal HDTV (Pocket LCD 1" BW?)
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/2779d19f66d2bd16?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Fri, Sep 19 2008 6:21 pm
From: Al Bundy

On Sep 19, 8:24 am, "Pszemol" <Psze...@PolBox.com> wrote:
> <vjp2...@at.BioStrategist.dot.dot.com> wrote in message
>
> news:gav7rb$pkj$1@reader1.panix.com...
>
> > I watch TV half an hour a month and don't care much for it. I have
> > three pocket 1" BW LCD TVs and I'm looking for the cheapest way to get
> > HDTV after February. If I had to pay more than fifty bucks I would
> > forego TV altogether.
>
> $50 converter - $40 federal check ~= $10.https://www.dtv2009.gov/

I figure if he has a 1" TV that he wants to carry it around. He may
not want to also carry a converter box and a long cord and an added
antenna. I just put a converter box on my TV. It needed an antenna
booster to pull in the channels. The picture is great, but the sound
is reduced. I suspect his 1" TV is going in the trash.
PS. The first set of coupons I sent in for were expired when received.
The government site seems to be scamming folks. So I mailed a request
for two in my brother's name from Detroit. Those were sent out
immediately. They have to show some coupons redeemed. I think they
want to show they helped the inner city people.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Jennifer Nance invites all guys to East 13th St. for some free pussy
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/92c9fd6f3263e70a?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Fri, Sep 19 2008 7:12 pm
From: Anonymous Remailer

In article <b2ba676e-58d0-48bd-8abf-
d6aa82b56397@m3g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>
Great ExSpangtations <spangliekins71@gmail.com> wrote:

> You're soooooo easy.

Who is easy?

==============================================================================
TOPIC: In fact, it really does look as if the foundations of US capitalism
have shattered. The World As We Know It Is Going Down
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/88a58a209e9d86e2?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Fri, Sep 19 2008 8:41 pm
From: Jeff

Dennis wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Sep 2008 15:44:49 -0400, Jeff <jeff@spam_me_not.com> wrote:
>
>> Dennis wrote:
>>> On Fri, 19 Sep 2008 03:28:21 -0400, Jeff <jeff@spam_me_not.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> And as financial giants fall, the leader of the free world watches from
>>>> the sidelines ready to give a cheer and an atta boy when the hometown
>>>> crowd needs it.
>>> And the US Congress, who actually made all the rules that got us into
>>> this, adjourns and slinks home, ducking and muttering "Not our
>>> fault!".
>> You've missed a couple of points.
>>
>> Congress is not responsible for administering and executing the laws.
>> You've got an administration that has been doing everything it could to
>> do exactly what it wants. That goes from reinterpreting rules and
>> regulations, to signing statements to just plain foot dragging and
>> gutting government entities.
>>
>> For example:
>> http://www.senate.gov/~gov_affairs/envrollbacksreport.pdf
>>
>> On January 20, 2001, the crowd that was gathered at the Capitol for
>> President Bush's
>> Inauguration had barely dispersed when the President's Chief of Staff
>> Andrew Card took one of
>> the most far-reaching and significant steps of the administration's
>> early days: he issued a
>> directive to all Federal agency heads to immediately freeze the Federal
>> regulatory process in its
>> tracks. Although couched in terms more familiar to the bureaucracy than
>> the citizenry, the so called
>> Card memo had the potential to diminish the health and safety of tens of
>> millions of
>> Americans.
>>
>> The second point you've missed is that it is the administration that
>> sets the agenda, and an intransigent president that does only what he
>> wants. It's all perfectly opaque and in some respects criminal.
>>
>> Now, if you feel that the president has little to do in setting the
>> direction of the country, I suggest that you just don't cast a vote for
>> that office. Myself, I think it's better to have someone running the
>> government that doesn't hate the government.
>
> All this partisan blaming one side over the other is simply a bunch of
> crap.

I hadn't mentioned one party or the other. But this perfect storm could
not have been sailed into by a skipper that cared about oversight and
fiscal discipline. Just another trillion dollar unneeded expense to go
with the Iraq war and the medicare cost explosion whose real value was
carefully hidden in the wee hours of the night.

I do not defend anything the president did or didn't do. I'm
> simply saying that with our form of government being what it is, there
> is plenty of blame to go around. Congress makes the laws, and it was
> Congress that insisted that the rules be loosened so that minorities
> and low-income people would have better access to loans, regardless
> of their ability to pay it back. So "It's not our fault!" doesn't
> fly.

Trickle down does not work. Propping up trickle down with cheap money
and an attitude that capital markets will forget greed and act sensibly
has lead to this fiasco.

Congress has always had the same faults. This presidents faults will
be duly noted for generations.

Jeff
>
>
> Dennis (evil)
> --
> An inherent weakness of a pure democracy is that half
> the voters are below average intelligence.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Is the 'Good Life' as America Knows It Over?
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/a9ae723bacaa6ec6?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Fri, Sep 19 2008 8:55 pm
From: chief_thracian@yahoo.com (Chief Thracian)

Is the 'Good Life' as America Knows It Over?
By Steve Fraser, Tomdispatch.com. Posted September 19, 2008.

http://tinyurl.com/3kf5t9

The relationship between Washington and Wall Street has changed
fundamentally, and as a result, the road ahead is dark and unknown.

Introduction by Tom Engelhardt: Among the many media spectacles of the
moment, the most unnerving is undoubtedly the crisis on Wall Street
that has already essentially toppled Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers,
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, Merrill Lynch, and -- probably not last
and certainly not least -- the gigantic insurance company AIG, which
has just been given $85 billion in taxpayer moneys to liquidate
itself. Before we're done, that hoary old oxymoron of the Left, "late
capitalism," may gain new life.

Elsewhere on the planet, it turns out, it was more obvious that the
U.S. was in crisis. One small sign of the changing state of the
globe's "sole superpower" is that, even before banking institutions
started to tumble off walls like so many Humpty Dumpties, the
International Monetary Fund, that dominatrix of global capital, was
planning to pay Washington a working visit. This is the sort of thing
you expect, with great trepidation, if you're Haiti, or Pakistan, or
Malawi, or Argentina on the brink of financial meltdown -- but the
United States? Nonetheless, according to NPR's David Kestenbaum, "The
U.S. Treasury says America has now agreed to get a stability
assessment from the IMF. The announcement didn't get much attention,
but officials at the IMF expect to start examining U.S. finances in
the next couple [of] months."

Welcome to the Third World, America. Now, hold your hats while the
whirlwind blows and the stock market goes into heart-attack mode.
Steve Fraser, an expert on Gilded Ages (and how they end), as well as
the author of a superb new book on our financial "masters of the
universe" from the eighteenth century to the present, Wall Street:
America's Dream Palace, brought up the dreaded "D" word (for
depression) this April at TomDispatch when, in the mainstream, pundits
were still wondering whether we might possibly, actually, really be
edging toward, or near, a recession. He wrote at the time: "The
current breakdown of the financial system is portentous. It threatens
a general economic implosion more serious than anyone has witnessed
for many decades.

Depression, if that is what it turns out to be, together with the
agonies of a misbegotten and lost war no one believes in any longer,
could undermine whatever is left of the threadbare credibility of our
Gilded Age elite." Now he's being quoted on the front page of the New
York Times. How times (of every sort) have changed in just the space
of a few months... Drawing on his knowledge of the history of Wall
Street and Washington, now let him offer you now a little perspective
for the months to come. -- Tom Engelhardt

What is Washington to do as the financial system collapses? Clearly,
stark differences in approach as well as in public policy have already
emerged. Bail-out Bear Stearns and pump up the brokerage and
investment business with new lines of credit. Nationalize Fannie Mae
and Freddie Mac on the backs of the taxpayer -- but let Lehman drown.
Tell the financial community to save itself, after which Bank of
America salutes and buys Merrill Lynch. Then, the Fed gets cold feet
and decides it can't let an institution the size of the insurance
giant AIG go under as well. Washington is left staring into the abyss.
The old rules no longer apply.

And that's the point. At moments of crisis since the mid-1980s, the
relationship between Washington and Wall Street has changed
fundamentally, at least when compared to anything that would have been
recognizable in the previous century. As a result, the road ahead is
dark and unknown.

During the nineteenth century, Washington was generally happy to do
favors for Wall Street financiers. Railroad tycoons, who often used
those railroads as vehicles of extravagant speculation, enjoyed
subsidies, tax exemptions, loans, and a whole smorgasbord of financial
fringe benefits supplied by pliable Congressmen and Senators (not to
mention armadas of state and local officials).

Since the political establishment was committed to laissez-faire,
legerdemain by greedy bankers was immune from public scrutiny, which
was also useful (for them). But when panic struck, the mighty, as well
as the meek, went down with the ship. Washington felt no obligation to
rush to the rescue of the reckless. The bracing, if merciless,
discipline of the free market did its work and there was blood on the
floor.

By early in the twentieth century, however, the savage anarchy of the
financial marketplace had been at least partially domesticated under
the reign of the greatest financier of them all, J.P. Morgan. Ever
since the panic of 1907, the legend of Morgan's heroics in
single-handedly stopping a meltdown that threatened to become
worldwide, the iron discipline he imposed on more timorous bankers,
has been told and re-told each time an analogous implosion looms.

Indeed, last week's news carried its fair share of 1907-Morgan
stories, trailing in their wake an implicit wistfulness. They all
asked, in effect: Where is the old boy when we need him?

Back then, with Morgan performing his role as the nation's unofficial
private central banker, Teddy Roosevelt's administration continued to
keep its distance from Wall Street, still unready to offer salvation
to desperate financial oligarchs. Not normally chummy with Morgan and
his crowd, Roosevelt did cheer from the sidelines as the über-banker
performed his rescue operation.

As it turned out, though, the days of Washington agnosticism about
Wall Street were numbered. The economy had become too complex and
delicate a mechanism and, in 1907, had come far too close to meltdown
-- even Morgan's efforts couldn't prevent several years of recession
-- to leave financial matters entirely in the hands of the private
sector.

First came the Federal Reserve. It was established in 1913 under
President Woodrow Wilson as a quasi-public authority meant to regulate
the country's credit markets -- albeit one heavily influenced by the
viewpoints and interests of the country's principal bankers. That
worked well enough until the Great Crash of 1929 and the Great
Depression that followed and lasted until World War II. The depth of
the country's trauma in those long years vastly expanded the scope of
Washington's involvement in the financial marketplace.

President Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal did, as a start, engage in
some bail-out operations. The Reconstruction Finance Corporation,
actually created by President Herbert Hoover, continued to rescue
major railroads and other key businesses, while some of the New Deal's
efforts to help homeowners also rewarded real estate interests. The
main emphasis, however, now switched to regulation. The Glass-Steagall
Banking Act, the two laws of 1933 and 1934 regulating the stock
exchange, the creation of the Securities and Exchange Commission, and
other similar measures subjected the financial sector to fairly
rigorous public supervision.

This lasted for at least two political generations. Wall Street, after
all, had been convicted in the court of public opinion of reckless,
incompetent, self-interested, even felonious behavior with
consequences so devastating for the rest of the country that
government was licensed to make sure it didn't happen again.

The undoing of that New Deal regulatory regime, and its replacement,
largely under Republican administrations (although Glass-Steagall was
repealed on Clinton's watch), with what some have called the
"socialization of risk" has contributed in a major way to the mess
we're in today. Beginning most emphatically with the massive bail-out
of the savings and loan industry in the late 1980s, Washington
committed itself, at least under conditions of acute crisis, to
off-loading the risks taken by major financial institutions, no matter
how irrationally speculative and wasteful, onto the backs of the
American taxpaying public.

Despite free market/anti-big-government rhetoric, real-life Washington
has tacitly acknowledged the degree to which our national economy has
become dependent on the financial sector (Finance, Insurance, and Real
Estate -- or FIRE). It will do whatever it takes to keep it afloat.

This applies not only to particular institutions like Bear Stearns, or
even to mortgage mega-firms like Fannie and Freddie, but to finance in
general. When it seemed necessary, public monies were indeed funneled
in the general direction of the banking/brokerage community to shore
up the whole rickety structure. This allowed one burst bubble -- the
dot-com debacle -- to be replaced by another, namely our late,
lamented mortgage/collaterized-debt-obligation bonanza, just now
dramatically going down the tubes.

Backstopping the present bail-out is the ever-credulous, put-upon
American public with its presumably inexhaustible resources. Even
while Washington was instituting the periodic "socialization" of bad
debts, it was systematically abandoning the New Deal's commitment to
regulation. That, of course, was in the very period when financial
markets became ever more arcane, ever less comprehensible even to
their Frankenstein-ian inventors, and ever more in need of monitoring.
So the "socialization of risk" was accompanied by the "privatization
of reward," which now is likely to prove a truly deadly combination.

That the crisis has now reached a newly terrifying stage is suggested
by Washington's sudden willingness to depart from the new orthodoxy
and let the huge investment bank, Lehman Brothers, go under. Some may
see in this a steely return to a laissez-faire faith. More likely, it
represents wholesale confusion on the part of Bush administration and
Federal Reserve policymakers about what to do, even as all endangered
businesses have come to take it for granted that Washington will toss
them a life-preserver when they need it.

The times call for a new departure. The next administration, which
will surely enter office under the greatest economic pressure in
memory, must confront reality. The financial system is out of control
and has led the economy into a wildly turbulent sea of heavily
leveraged speculation.

It's time for a reversal of course. Stringent re-regulation of FIRE is
not enough anymore. Washington's mission may, at this late date, be an
even greater one than Roosevelt's New Deal faced. The government must
figure out how to deploy its power to shift the flow of investment
capital out of the mine-fields of speculative paper transactions and
back into productive channels that will help meet the material needs
of American society. Real value must be created in place of chimeras.
In the meantime, we all have ringside seats -- in fact, far too close
to the action for comfort -- as another gilded age is ending. What
comes after is, in part, up to us.

--end of article

--
Steal This Blog!
http://www.gay-bible.org/steal

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Fri, Sep 19 2008 11:10 pm
From: "Rod Speed"

Chief Thracian <chief_thracian@yahoo.com> wrote

> Is the 'Good Life' as America Knows It Over?

Nope.

> By Steve Fraser, Tomdispatch.com. Posted September 19, 2008.

In other words just another complete nobody. Very incomplete, actually, no brain.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: At least Palin isn't a homosexual muslim drug addict like Barry Soetoro.
Re: Palin
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/968a95c4d776c842?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Fri, Sep 19 2008 8:59 pm
From: chief_thracian@yahoo.com (Chief Thracian)

> At least Palin isn't a homosexual...

And being homosexual is bad, how? Do explain.

For my amusement, if nothing else.

--
Steal This Blog!
http://www.gay-bible.org/steal

==============================================================================
TOPIC: I am losing my butt
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/2b88d0c3914417a6?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Fri, Sep 19 2008 9:27 pm
From: chief_thracian@yahoo.com (Chief Thracian)

On Fri, 19 Sep 2008 16:53:15 +1000, "Rod Speed"
<rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:

>> EVERY market is highly volatile, dufus.
>
>Cash under the bed isnt, fool.

Right, keep believing that. Funny thing though, in the case of cash
under the bed, it is the most LITERALLY volatial than any other type
of savings...paper burns! Why lose sleep each and every night,
worrying about a fire?

>That is JUST saying that cash under the bed isnt HIGHLY VOLATILE, fool.

I repeat: paper burns. And, you are subject to burglary, once word is
out. Some people will soon be desperate enough to demand you hand over
the moolah at gunpoint...security safe or no. "The combination or
your life!"

>Nothing like the same thing as saying you should put your cash under the bed, liar.

What you said is what you said:
"Keep your money under the bed."

Better luck next time,
Verbose slime.

--
Steal This Blog!
http://www.gay-bible.org/steal

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Fri, Sep 19 2008 11:16 pm
From: "Rod Speed"

Chief Thracian <chief_thracian@yahoo.com> wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote

>>> EVERY market is highly volatile, dufus.

>> Cash under the bed isnt, fool.

> Right, keep believing that.

I will thanks.

> Funny thing though, in the case of cash under the bed, it is the most
> LITERALLY volatial than any other type of savings...paper burns!

Not if you have enough of a clue to have fireproof safe under the bed, fool.

> Why lose sleep each and every night, worrying about a fire?

Dont need to with a fireproof safe, fool.

>> That is JUST saying that cash under the bed isnt HIGHLY VOLATILE, fool.

> I repeat: paper burns.

I repeat: anyone with a clue puts their money in a fireproof safe if they want to avoid highly volatile markets, fool.

> And, you are subject to burglary, once word is out.

No need for any word to get out, and if you are that paranoid,
you can always keep the cash in a bank vault instead if you want
to avoid highly volatile markets, fool.

> Some people will soon be desperate enough to demand you hand over
> the moolah at gunpoint...security safe or no. "The combination or your life!"

Even someone as stupid as you should have noticed that there
are bank vaults that solve that problem and have insurance that
covers the situation where that doesnt work, fool.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Video - Banking: The Swindle - "That's why I quit paying my credit
cards. Fuck em if they can't take a joke"
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/8aa4bfee504165cf?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Fri, Sep 19 2008 11:32 pm
From: strabo

Ralph wrote:
> 007 <007@embarqmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sep 18, 5:44 pm, nos...@noway.net (Ralph) wrote:
>>> St Georges Day April 23rd <bbbbbdfgdfgdgd...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Swindling the Goyim
>>>> How the bankers steal with simple tricks. If this is true, then what
>>>> are they doing with credit cards and home mortgages?
>>>> http://de.youtube.com/watch?v=a2kfUNo4_r8
>>> This is way oversimplfied. The central banks of Europe and the US create
>>> money out of nothing.
>>>
>>> Money, Banking & The Federal Reserve (42 minutes)
>>> http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-466210540567002553
>>>
>>> G Edward Griffin - Creature From Jekyll Island A Second Look at the
>>> Federal Reserve (42 minutes)
>>> http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6507136891691870450
>>>
>>> Monopoly Men (Federal Reserve Fraud) (47 minutes)
>>> http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7065177340464808778
>>>
>>> ZEITGEIST, The Movie - Official Release - Part 3 of 3 (47 minutes)
>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=__YFnUfYXZk
>>> (I don't recommend Zeitgeist parts 1 and 2 which are basically a fuzzy
>>> logic anti-religion rant and 9-11 conspiracy theories, but he's right on
>>> in his segment on the Fed)
>>>
>>> FIAT EMPIRE - Why the Federal Reserve Violates the U.S. Constitution (59
>>> minutes)http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5232639329002339531
>>>
>>> America: Freedom to Fascism - Director's Authorized Version (1 hour 51
>>> minutes)http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1656880303867390173
>>>
>>> The Money Masters - How International Bankers Gained Control of America
>>> (3 hours 35 minutes)
>>> http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-515319560256183936
>> I've seen some of these videos. Many, if not all, of them say that
>> banks may loan many times what they take in as deposits. What is the
>> source for this claim? I've heard it for 20 years and I've never come
>> across any justification for it besides the assertion.
>

Originally banks were for money storage and a place to verify
holdings and where checks could be cashed. The banks held all
depositors money in its vaults.

Then some corrupt fuck decided to loan his customers money out the
back door. This was fraud and predictably resulted in the greedy
and stupid losing all depositor money. Bankers were hung.

But the money lenders were determined so they bought off
politicians who passed laws which said that banks could
loan a small percentage of depositor money but the rest had to be
available to customers on demand. This was called fractional
banking.

Over time more politicians were paid off and the percentage dropped
to a few percent. Hence, banks today loan far more money than they
have in reserve.

>
> If the federal government owned the Federal Reserve, then why does the
> government borrow money at all? Why doesn't it just print the money
> itself like Lincoln did with "Greenbacks" to fund the American Civil
> War?
>

The Federal Reserve is neither federal or a reserve. It is a private
bank which is supposed to be supervised by Congress. Obviously it
is not.

>
>> Here is an example of how money is created through fractional reserve
>> banking:
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Money_creation
>
> Yeah, the Fed just creates it out of nothing. It's supposed to go back
> into nothing when the loan is paid back, but look at the history of
> inflation since the creation of the Fed:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:US_Historical_Inflation.svg
>

That's what happens with fiat money.

>
> Apparentlyt they immediately spent huge sums right after its creation in
> 1913. This included buying up all major publications to squelch any
> debate on the subject, but this doesn't explain this much inflation.
> They probably also bought up some big corporations for their power. Then
> the Fed caused the great depression by calling in loans in mass,
> actually it was their second attempt as the Fed is in complete control
> of the money supply after 1913. Then during the great depression they
> bought up more big corporations at pennies on the dollar with money made
> from nothing. It wouldn't surprise me if the 12 families who own the fed
> probably own 50% or more of the wealth in this country.
>

The Federal Reserve is not the only distributor of money.

The Treasury printed many billions of dollars a few years ago and the
DOD sent it to Iraq where it was used to payoff warlords, generals and
anyone who could grab a batch.

Special Congressional committees authorize the CIA, NSA, defense
contractors and others to receive billions of dollars off the books.

This obviously contributes to inflation.

>
> And notice inflation is strong as Bill Clinton had deficit spending
> reduced, so overspending by the US government can't explain inflation.
>
> Inflation is basically the super rich (who own the press) taxing you.
> The graph of inflation before the Fed shows periods of deflation
> offsetting inflation, but after the bankers established their dominance
> it's been pretty consistantly an inflation only economy because they
> continue adding money into the system which means these few super rich
> families keep increasing their power.
>
> It's a massive scam. The Bank of England and the EU operate the same
> system. This was what the American Revolution was over, because Britian
> forced the colonies to use only inflated British currency, but pay their
> taxes in gold. It wasn't fought over some stupid tea tax.
>
> Most currency around the world is bank issued. They take over the
> currency of small countries by giving them huge loans and when they
> can't pay them back they offer to forgive the loan if they allow the
> bankers to issue their currency. The attempted overthrow of Hugo Chávez
> in Venezuela came soon after he refused to allow the bankers to issue
> their currency.
>

----== Posted via Pronews.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.pronews.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

==============================================================================
TOPIC: AIG borrows $85 billion (USD) from the U.S. government today just to
stay afloat
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/f165c292fdf5921a?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Fri, Sep 19 2008 11:47 pm
From: strabo

"The Rifleman" wrote:
> How wonderfully left wing socialist.
>

Just 'socialist' will do.

We were long ago infiltrated and now subverted. This place, like yours,
is infested with socialists.

>
> "Taylor" <lukebenward@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:46864c41-b00c-41c5-a7d1-94f9191158cc@j22g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>> dad:"Buddy, we're with A.I.G."
>> son: "Oh."
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9VvGW98D3XA
>>
>> ______________________
>> mccaw@rogers.com
>> www.nocirc.org
>
>

==============================================================================

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "misc.consumers.frugal-living"
group.

To post to this group, visit http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living?hl=en

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to misc.consumers.frugal-living+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com

To change the way you get mail from this group, visit:
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/subscribe?hl=en

To report abuse, send email explaining the problem to abuse@googlegroups.com

==============================================================================
Google Groups: http://groups.google.com/?hl=en

Frugal Living

Blog Archive

Saturday, September 20, 2008

15 new messages in 9 topics - digest

No comments: