Lol
Republicans, Remember This When Democrats Now Urge ‘Bipartisanship’
- Thread starter JamesL
- Start date
You seem to be a nice young man. You seem to have the right sentiments. But it may be that neither side you choose will help you. One side is wrong one way, and the other side is wrong the other. Does the ridiculousness of continually calling for lower taxes and higher spending ever sink in? Or is inflation a non-issue with you? After all, there is such a thing as monetary neutrality, though we seldom encounter it in practice.
I can still picture McConnell plugging ShamWows with that utterly devoid of emotion, drooling, droll monotone, and it makes me LMAO.
In principle I favor lower taxes and a balanced budget.
But note, if the govt is borrowing the money via bond auctions... that is not inflationary overall. Because no new money is created when doing that. its just shifting spending patterns in around. (marginal this equals marginal that)
If you wish to speak about monetary policy and inflation. The cause of our 700 percent inflation in the last 50 years? You have to realize that systematic inflation is caused by trillions of dollars of extra money creation... by a private central bank that does even tell us how much money it creates.
If you don't know how much money is created... what is the point of paying taxes.
The govt should just print more and tell the bank to create less.
As I stated before you need to go back and study money and economics.
I can see Democrats telling us that they could cover tens of million of uninsured, and our rates would go down 2500 bucks ... as you defended it.
That makes me laugh.
But note, if the govt is borrowing the money via bond auctions... that is not inflationary overall. Because no new money is created when doing that. its just shifting spending patterns in around. (marginal this equals marginal that)
If you wish to speak about monetary policy and inflation. The cause of our 700 percent inflation in the last 50 years? You have to realize that systematic inflation is caused by trillions of dollars of extra money creation... by a private central bank that does even tell us how much money it creates.
If you don't know how much money is created... what is the point of paying taxes.
The govt should just print more and tell the bank to create less.
As I stated before you need to go back and study money and economics.
I can see Democrats telling us that they could cover tens of million of uninsured, and our rates would go down 2500 bucks ... as you defended it.
That makes me laugh.
Last edited:
Several things you should get straight. 1. I'm a Keynesian, and I strongly believe that a Keynesian solution was the right approach to extract the country from the financial and unemployment crisis. I wish the brakes had not been applied too soon. We'd have got a better result. But the Party of "No" said "NO". 2. I've never been a fan of O'Romney care in the form it was passed. I was a supporter and a defender of the original proposal with a public option, but not wildly enthusiastic so long as McCarran Fergusion was left untouched.. As originally proposed, I thought it was best to give it a chance and see how well it worked. I was even willing to take the Pelosi's advice and wait until it passed to see what's in it. I've seen what's in it. It stinks! Without the public option, leaving McCarran-Ferguson intact is a fatal flaw. My choice would have been repeal of McCarran- Ferguson, bringing insurance under Dept. of Commerce regulation, followed by a thoroughly Democrat revamp of Healthcare, i.e., single payer, medicare-like system for everyone with medicare's cost control features, and insurance companies selling optional, supplemental policies. In the end we got a thoroughly Republican implementation, via the Heritage Foundation, otherwise known as Obamacare. And it is worse than dreadful. About the only worthwhile achievement was to bring a few million under medicaid in States that had enough sense to expand it. 3. Except for counterfeit, and the bills you light your cigars with, we know exactly how much new money is put into circulation and how much is taken out. 4. An incorrect statement, no matter how often repeated, is still incorrect. The Federal reserve is not privately owned. If you think it is, why not put some venture capital together and buy it?
5. QE is not the same as printing. Printing an extra 4 trillion and putting it into circulation would quickly lead to hyperinflation. Do you see any hyperinflation? You probably just fried your brain a little listening to Rush Limbaugh. The Fed can contract the money supply any time it needs to. Printing is unidirectional, QE is bidirectional. Why do you think the Treasury is still able to sell bonds to buyers other than the Fed? Had the Treasury just had the Mint print an extra 4 Trillion, or had the Fed just credited Bank reserve accounts without getting securities in exchange, do you think buyers would still be lining up to buy Treasury bonds? Get real.I'm tiring of this Jekyll Island nonsense. The Fed may not be as wholesome as your local 4H club, and there may be conflicts of interest represented in the structure of the Branch Banks, but it is nothing like the YouTube picture either.
P.S. I see you've noticed we are not on a gold standard anymore with gold pegged at $35/Oz.
Last edited:
Pie, reality check pal. Obamacare passed without a single republican vote. Now you want to blame it on republicans? Seriously?
You also appear hopelessly cocnfused on what QE did in practice, but I've covered that before.
You also appear hopelessly cocnfused on what QE did in practice, but I've covered that before.
1. McCarran - Fergusson is a red herring put out by KOS, your argument makes no sense and neither does theirs. You all don't seem to understand that Federal laws like these would pre empt states laws. Insurance companies were going to raise their rates because they wrote the law and Obama Pelosi and Reid made sure the democrats voted for it.
b. Its obamacare not ORomney... that is a childish and silly argument. The dems voted for it after having the insurance companies write it.... It had nothing to do with Romney... It was passed without a single Republican vote. They could have had single payer or public option but your team screwed the country because they are owned by the insurance companies and wall street.
c. By next year with all the non renewals obamacare will have made very few people gained insurance.
2. Money creation...
a. see the article from forbes next.
you seem to now understand that the creation of a readily liquefiable account is money...
I will present to you a Forbes article next... that explains it.
Note... if you think you know how much money the Fed creates.. please provide a link. Congress can't even get that info. (currency is not the only form of money).
b. The fed is a private bank.. see 2nd article below.
c. The Fed put 4 trillion into readily liquefiable accounts... the reason it did not lead to massive inflation is because the dollar is used all over the world. In terms of M2 alone there is 10.5 on the books.
And if you spent some time studying money... you would learn hyperinflation comes from peoples expectations and inflation takes some time to appear.
here is a bit of a primer on the expansion of the money supply and inflation.
http://socialdemocracy21stcentury.blogspot.com/2010/04/austrian-theory-of-inflation-myths-and.html
b. Its obamacare not ORomney... that is a childish and silly argument. The dems voted for it after having the insurance companies write it.... It had nothing to do with Romney... It was passed without a single Republican vote. They could have had single payer or public option but your team screwed the country because they are owned by the insurance companies and wall street.
c. By next year with all the non renewals obamacare will have made very few people gained insurance.
2. Money creation...
a. see the article from forbes next.
you seem to now understand that the creation of a readily liquefiable account is money...
I will present to you a Forbes article next... that explains it.
Note... if you think you know how much money the Fed creates.. please provide a link. Congress can't even get that info. (currency is not the only form of money).
b. The fed is a private bank.. see 2nd article below.
c. The Fed put 4 trillion into readily liquefiable accounts... the reason it did not lead to massive inflation is because the dollar is used all over the world. In terms of M2 alone there is 10.5 on the books.
And if you spent some time studying money... you would learn hyperinflation comes from peoples expectations and inflation takes some time to appear.
here is a bit of a primer on the expansion of the money supply and inflation.
http://socialdemocracy21stcentury.blogspot.com/2010/04/austrian-theory-of-inflation-myths-and.html
Does the Fed Create Money?
Certain deflationists have recently gone on record saying that the increase in the Fed’s balance sheet is meaningless with regard to creating inflation because our central bank can’t print money, it can only create bank reserves. The problem with their view is that it both disregards the definition of money and ignores the process of creating bank reserves.
Money is commonly defined as “a medium that can be exchanged for goods and services and is used as a measure of their values on the market, including among its forms a commodity such as gold, an officially issued coin or note, or a deposit in a checking account or other readily liquefiable account.” The Fed creates a “readily liquefiable account” when creating excess bank reserves, so it is also creating money. Since inflation is properly defined as an increase in the money supply, the Fed unquestionably creates both money and inflation when it creates reserves.
The deflationists’ error is to suppose that because the amount of currencyhas not grown, the money supply hasn’t grown. But the Fed never creates currency – all the printing is handled by Treasury; instead, it creates bank deposits which are held at the Fed. In ignoring this “base money,” the deflationists make no distinction between having the Fed’s balance sheet at $800 billion or $3 trillion. Doing so is a huge mistake for both making investment decisions and predicting asset price levels.
In short, for deflationists to be correct, they must contend that only money which is currently in circulation can be considered inflationary, i.e. lead to rising prices. Therefore, they must also believe that all increases in demand and time deposits should not be included in the money supply and should not be considered inflationary. This isn’t just wrong, it’s grossly wrong.
Not only do the Fed’s monetary additions increase the money supply, but the effect can be vastly multiplied through the fractional reserve system.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelpento/2010/11/22/does-the-fed-create-money/
Certain deflationists have recently gone on record saying that the increase in the Fed’s balance sheet is meaningless with regard to creating inflation because our central bank can’t print money, it can only create bank reserves. The problem with their view is that it both disregards the definition of money and ignores the process of creating bank reserves.
Money is commonly defined as “a medium that can be exchanged for goods and services and is used as a measure of their values on the market, including among its forms a commodity such as gold, an officially issued coin or note, or a deposit in a checking account or other readily liquefiable account.” The Fed creates a “readily liquefiable account” when creating excess bank reserves, so it is also creating money. Since inflation is properly defined as an increase in the money supply, the Fed unquestionably creates both money and inflation when it creates reserves.
The deflationists’ error is to suppose that because the amount of currencyhas not grown, the money supply hasn’t grown. But the Fed never creates currency – all the printing is handled by Treasury; instead, it creates bank deposits which are held at the Fed. In ignoring this “base money,” the deflationists make no distinction between having the Fed’s balance sheet at $800 billion or $3 trillion. Doing so is a huge mistake for both making investment decisions and predicting asset price levels.
In short, for deflationists to be correct, they must contend that only money which is currently in circulation can be considered inflationary, i.e. lead to rising prices. Therefore, they must also believe that all increases in demand and time deposits should not be included in the money supply and should not be considered inflationary. This isn’t just wrong, it’s grossly wrong.
Not only do the Fed’s monetary additions increase the money supply, but the effect can be vastly multiplied through the fractional reserve system.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelpento/2010/11/22/does-the-fed-create-money/
Courts have ruled the Federal Reserve is a Private Bank...
http://www.save-a-patriot.org/files/view/frcourt.html
Plaintiff, who was injured by vehicle owned and operated by a federal reserve bank, brought action alleging jurisdiction under the Federal Tort Claims Act. The United States District Court for the Central District of California, David W. Williams, J., dismissed holding that federal reserve bank was not a federal agency within meaning of Act and that the court therefore lacked subject-matter jurisdiction. Appeal was taken. The Court of Appeals, Poole, Circuit Judge, held that federal reserve banks are not federal instrumentalities for purposes of the Act, but are independent, privately owned and locally controlled corporations.
Affirmed.
On July 27, 1979, appellant John Lewis was injured by a vehicle owned and operated by the Los Angeles branch of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco. Lewis brought this action in district court alleging jurisdiction under the Federal Tort Clains Act (the Act), 28 U.S.C. Sect. 1346(b). The United States moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The district court dismissed, holding that the Federal Reserve Bank is not a federal agency within the meaning of the Act and that the court therefore lacked subject matter jurisdiction. We affirm.
In enacting the Federal Tort Claims Act, Congress provided a limited waiver of the sovereign immunity of the United States for certain torts of federal employees. . . . Specifically, the Act creates liability for injuries "caused by the negligent or wrongful act or omission" of an employee of any federal agency acting within the scope of his office or employment. . . . "Federal agency" is defined as:
the executive departments, the military departments, independent
establishments of the United States, and corporations acting
primarily as instrumentalities of the United States, but does not
include any contractors with the United States.
28 U.S.C. Sect. 2671. The liability of the United States for the negligence of a Federal Reserve Bank employee depends, therefore, on whether the Bank is a federal agency under Sect. 2671.
[1,2] There are no sharp criteria for determining whether an entity is a federal agency within the meaning of the Act, but the critical factor is the existence of federal government control over the "detailed physical performance" and "day to day operation" of that entity. . . . Other factors courts have considered include whether the entity is an independent corporation . . ., whether the government is involved in the entity's finances. . . ., and whether the mission of the entity furthers the policy of the United States, . . . Examining the organization and function of the Federal Reserve Banks, and applying the relevant factors, we conclude that the Reserve Banks are not federal instrumentalities for purpose of the FTCA, but are independent, privately owned and locally controlled corporations.
Each Federal Reserve Bank is a separate corporation owned by commercial banks in its region. The stockholding commercial banks elect two thirds of each Bank's nine member board of directors. The remaining three directors are appointed by the Federal Reserve Board. The Federal Reserve Board regulates the Reserve Banks, but direct supervision and control of each Bank is exercised by its board of directors. 12 U.S.C. Sect. 301. The directors enact by-laws regulating the manner of conducting general Bank business, 12 U.S.C. Sect. 341, and appoint officers to implement and supervise daily Bank activities. These activites include collecting and clearing checks, making advances to private and commercial entities, holding reserves for member banks, discounting the notes of member banks, and buying and selling securities on the open market. See 12 U.S.C. Sub-Sect. 341-361.
Each Bank is statutorily empowered to conduct these activites without day to day direction from the federal government. Thus, for example, the interest rates on advances to member banks, individuals, partnerships, and corporations are set by each Reserve Bank and their decisions regarding the purchase and sale of securities are likewise independently made.
It is evident from the legislative history of the Federal Reserve Act that Congress did not intend to give the federal government direction over the daily operation of the Reserve Banks:
It is proposed that the Government shall retain sufficient power over
the reserve banks to enable it to exercise a direct authority when
necessary to do so, but that it shall in no way attempt to carry on
through its own mechanism the routine operations and banking which
require detailed knowledge of local and individual credit and which
determine the funds of the community in any given instance. In other
words, the reserve-bank plan retains to the Government power over the
exercise of the broader banking functions, while it leaves to
individuals and privately owned institutions the actual direction of
routine.
H.R. Report No. 69 Cong. 1st Sess. 18-19 (1913).
The fact that the Federal Reserve Board regulates the Reserve Banks does not make them federal agencies under the Act. In United States v. Orleans, 425 U.S. 807, 96 S.Ct. 1971, 48 L.Ed.2d 390 (1976), the Supreme Court held that a community action agency was not a federal agency or instrumentality for purposes of the Act, even though the agency was organized under federal regulations and heavily funded by the federal government. Because the agency's day to day operation was not supervised by the federal government, but by local officials, the Court refused to extend federal tort liability for the negligence of the agency's employees. Similarly, the Federal Reserve Banks, though heavily regulated, are locally controlled by their member banks. Unlike typical federal agencies, each bank is empowered to hire and fire employees at will. Bank employees do not participate in the Civil Service Retirement System. They are covered by worker's compensation insurance, purchased by the Bank, rather than the Federal Employees Compensation Act. Employees travelling on Bank business are not subject to federal travel regulations and do not receive government employee discounts on lodging and services.
The Banks are listed neither as "wholly owned" government corporations under 31 U.S.C. Sect. 846 nor as "mixed ownership" corporations under 31 U.S.C. Sect. 856, a factor considered is Pearl v. United States, 230 F.2d 243 (10th Cir. 1956), which held that the Civil Air Patrol is not a federal agency under the Act. Closely resembling the status of the Federal Reserve Bank, the Civil Air Patrol is a non-profit, federally chartered corporation organized to serve the public welfare. But because Congress' control over the Civil Air Patrol is limited and the corporation is not designated as a wholly owned or mixed ownership government corporation under 31 U.S.C. Sub-Sect. 846 and 856, the court concluded that the corporation is a non-governmental, independent entity, not covered under the Act.
Additionally, Reserve Banks, as privately owned entities, receive no appropriated funds from Congress. . . .
Finally, the Banks are empowered to sue and be sued in their own name. 12 U.S.C. Sect. 341. They carry their own liability insurance and typically process and handle their own claims. In the past, the Banks have defended against tort claims directly, through private counsel, not government attorneys . . ., and they have never been required to settle tort claims under the administrative procedure of 28 U.S.C. Sect. 2672. The waiver of sovereign immunity contained in the Act would therefore appear to be inapposite to the Banks who have not historically claimed or received general immunity from judicial process.
http://www.save-a-patriot.org/files/view/frcourt.html
Plaintiff, who was injured by vehicle owned and operated by a federal reserve bank, brought action alleging jurisdiction under the Federal Tort Claims Act. The United States District Court for the Central District of California, David W. Williams, J., dismissed holding that federal reserve bank was not a federal agency within meaning of Act and that the court therefore lacked subject-matter jurisdiction. Appeal was taken. The Court of Appeals, Poole, Circuit Judge, held that federal reserve banks are not federal instrumentalities for purposes of the Act, but are independent, privately owned and locally controlled corporations.
Affirmed.
On July 27, 1979, appellant John Lewis was injured by a vehicle owned and operated by the Los Angeles branch of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco. Lewis brought this action in district court alleging jurisdiction under the Federal Tort Clains Act (the Act), 28 U.S.C. Sect. 1346(b). The United States moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The district court dismissed, holding that the Federal Reserve Bank is not a federal agency within the meaning of the Act and that the court therefore lacked subject matter jurisdiction. We affirm.
In enacting the Federal Tort Claims Act, Congress provided a limited waiver of the sovereign immunity of the United States for certain torts of federal employees. . . . Specifically, the Act creates liability for injuries "caused by the negligent or wrongful act or omission" of an employee of any federal agency acting within the scope of his office or employment. . . . "Federal agency" is defined as:
the executive departments, the military departments, independent
establishments of the United States, and corporations acting
primarily as instrumentalities of the United States, but does not
include any contractors with the United States.
28 U.S.C. Sect. 2671. The liability of the United States for the negligence of a Federal Reserve Bank employee depends, therefore, on whether the Bank is a federal agency under Sect. 2671.
[1,2] There are no sharp criteria for determining whether an entity is a federal agency within the meaning of the Act, but the critical factor is the existence of federal government control over the "detailed physical performance" and "day to day operation" of that entity. . . . Other factors courts have considered include whether the entity is an independent corporation . . ., whether the government is involved in the entity's finances. . . ., and whether the mission of the entity furthers the policy of the United States, . . . Examining the organization and function of the Federal Reserve Banks, and applying the relevant factors, we conclude that the Reserve Banks are not federal instrumentalities for purpose of the FTCA, but are independent, privately owned and locally controlled corporations.
Each Federal Reserve Bank is a separate corporation owned by commercial banks in its region. The stockholding commercial banks elect two thirds of each Bank's nine member board of directors. The remaining three directors are appointed by the Federal Reserve Board. The Federal Reserve Board regulates the Reserve Banks, but direct supervision and control of each Bank is exercised by its board of directors. 12 U.S.C. Sect. 301. The directors enact by-laws regulating the manner of conducting general Bank business, 12 U.S.C. Sect. 341, and appoint officers to implement and supervise daily Bank activities. These activites include collecting and clearing checks, making advances to private and commercial entities, holding reserves for member banks, discounting the notes of member banks, and buying and selling securities on the open market. See 12 U.S.C. Sub-Sect. 341-361.
Each Bank is statutorily empowered to conduct these activites without day to day direction from the federal government. Thus, for example, the interest rates on advances to member banks, individuals, partnerships, and corporations are set by each Reserve Bank and their decisions regarding the purchase and sale of securities are likewise independently made.
It is evident from the legislative history of the Federal Reserve Act that Congress did not intend to give the federal government direction over the daily operation of the Reserve Banks:
It is proposed that the Government shall retain sufficient power over
the reserve banks to enable it to exercise a direct authority when
necessary to do so, but that it shall in no way attempt to carry on
through its own mechanism the routine operations and banking which
require detailed knowledge of local and individual credit and which
determine the funds of the community in any given instance. In other
words, the reserve-bank plan retains to the Government power over the
exercise of the broader banking functions, while it leaves to
individuals and privately owned institutions the actual direction of
routine.
H.R. Report No. 69 Cong. 1st Sess. 18-19 (1913).
The fact that the Federal Reserve Board regulates the Reserve Banks does not make them federal agencies under the Act. In United States v. Orleans, 425 U.S. 807, 96 S.Ct. 1971, 48 L.Ed.2d 390 (1976), the Supreme Court held that a community action agency was not a federal agency or instrumentality for purposes of the Act, even though the agency was organized under federal regulations and heavily funded by the federal government. Because the agency's day to day operation was not supervised by the federal government, but by local officials, the Court refused to extend federal tort liability for the negligence of the agency's employees. Similarly, the Federal Reserve Banks, though heavily regulated, are locally controlled by their member banks. Unlike typical federal agencies, each bank is empowered to hire and fire employees at will. Bank employees do not participate in the Civil Service Retirement System. They are covered by worker's compensation insurance, purchased by the Bank, rather than the Federal Employees Compensation Act. Employees travelling on Bank business are not subject to federal travel regulations and do not receive government employee discounts on lodging and services.
The Banks are listed neither as "wholly owned" government corporations under 31 U.S.C. Sect. 846 nor as "mixed ownership" corporations under 31 U.S.C. Sect. 856, a factor considered is Pearl v. United States, 230 F.2d 243 (10th Cir. 1956), which held that the Civil Air Patrol is not a federal agency under the Act. Closely resembling the status of the Federal Reserve Bank, the Civil Air Patrol is a non-profit, federally chartered corporation organized to serve the public welfare. But because Congress' control over the Civil Air Patrol is limited and the corporation is not designated as a wholly owned or mixed ownership government corporation under 31 U.S.C. Sub-Sect. 846 and 856, the court concluded that the corporation is a non-governmental, independent entity, not covered under the Act.
Additionally, Reserve Banks, as privately owned entities, receive no appropriated funds from Congress. . . .
Finally, the Banks are empowered to sue and be sued in their own name. 12 U.S.C. Sect. 341. They carry their own liability insurance and typically process and handle their own claims. In the past, the Banks have defended against tort claims directly, through private counsel, not government attorneys . . ., and they have never been required to settle tort claims under the administrative procedure of 28 U.S.C. Sect. 2672. The waiver of sovereign immunity contained in the Act would therefore appear to be inapposite to the Banks who have not historically claimed or received general immunity from judicial process.
