38 responses to “The Federal Reserve Taxes The People By Creating Money Out Of Thin Air”

  1. BC

    Leaving the FED in charge of our money with "oversight" is like "keeping your eye on" the priest that has been molesting your child.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  2. bluarc

    The conservative Outsider - The Threat:
    Virtually every public sector entity utilizes multiple “sets of books” to account for debt, deficits, and unfunded liabilities of welfare programs and the costs of their own employee benefits. In some cases, most notably concerning health insurance continuation coverage, there is virtually no unfunded liability disclosed to taxpayers. The federal government does not include the unfunded liabilities of Medicare, Social Security, or its own retirement programs as part of the official US debt. All federal and most non-federal public sector entities also pay higher salaries and offer better benefits to their employees than can be provided in the private sector. The massive cost of early retirement for public sector employees, available 10-25 years earlier than is allowed by Social Security, together with free or highly subsidized health insurance during the early retirement years, is generally hidden from taxpayers. Virtually every government entity has huge understated and underfunded liabilities that are either not represented at all, or are misrepresented to taxpayers via employing misleading or incomplete actuarial and accounting methods that the government itself will not tolerate of the private sector. A report prepared for FEN by Andrew Biggs, a scholar from the American Enterprise Institute, states that the disclosed “debt” of non-federal entities is approximately $2.2 trillion (the sum total of all bonds), and that the additional “off the balance sheet” unfunded liability for non-federal public sector pension plans is currently stated to be around $400 billion. Biggs concluded that the actual unfunded liability for these public sector pension plans would be $3.5 trillion if more realistic and conservative interest rate assumptions were utilized. Attempts by others to determine the true federal debt (including unfunded obligations) result in the determination that if one federal “balance sheet” were utilized, the total federal debt would exceed $107 trillion, not the $12.3 trillion currently stated as “debt”. The result is that the total federal and non-federal debt (if unfunded liabilities are included) is an estimated $112+ trillion, or SEVEN TIMES higher than the total $15 trillion currently disclosed to taxpayers.!!

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

    1. Joan

      I've been talking to people in boards for a couple of months about ther 100 trillon in unfunded liabilities for Medicare and Social Security. What I found out is no one cares. Everyone just says they paid into it, they want it, and they want it now, or they are on it, the government promised them, it's theirs. No one will admit it's free money after one year because they all want the free money. People make it up they paid milions of dollars into SS, they make it up that it was created as a goverment retirement for everyone, they call it their disability pension and pile their children on it too. Everyone makes it up that they would have invested the little money they had to pay into those programs if the government didn't tax them, each person says they would have made great investments and made millons on that money. They didn't invest one cent of the rest of their income, but supposedly they would have made millions investing the six percent they paid into SS. Each man wants his wife who didn't pay into it to get a full payment too. Most people have large retirements and were planning on collecting 3,000 a month in two payments, one for them and one for their wife, they long ago added it into their retirement and were planning on taking lots of trips to Europe on it. They don't care one thing if their kids and grandkids are in 100 trilllion of debt to pay for it or if they are taxed 25 percent to pay for it. The Tea Party is only fighting to get those two programs, which are socialism or welfare for wealthy people. No one cares, they just want the money. So, of course, no one is willing to pay a VAT tax to fund the programs, no one is willing to deal with the politicians on how to save the programs. All of the politicians, on the right and on the left are trying to get rid of those two programs and the old folks are fighting it tooth and nail. Newt Gingrich just came out with a book talking about getting rid of SS and Medicare, the Repubs and the Cato Institute and Glenn Beck are trying to privatize both programs. People are like two year olds, they don't go beyond, they want, they want, they were promised, and they won't ever discuss the fact that, of course it's welfare, that's why it would cost 100 trillion to pay the money and health care just to one more generation who has been promised it.

      Libertarians would do away with all of these programs, yet people who are on the programs come in here and post about getting rid of welfare and the illegals thinking that way they can get more free stuff from their entitlements.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  3. bluarc

    Buy the way the National Debt is not, repete not! the 13.45 trillion that they tell the public about. The true National Debt is 112+ trillion. That includes all debt foreign and domestic, including all the Federal pensions money, owed to Social Security Federal Bonds that are due anualy and much more. The money is owed and must be paid. This information can be found at FEN.com or at The Conservative Outsider on facebook. It has been collected and posted there in the discussions tab.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    1. fred the protectionist

      Wow amazing. Did you forget to add the future tax revenues?

      Dang, you make it sounds like there's going to be a 112 trillion deficit, like tomorrow.

      Radicals.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    2. Joan

      Sean Hannity said last week that the government is going to "means test" social security now. Unless you are poor, you won't be able to get it, or it will be given out for so many years and then cut depending on how much other income you have. I think it will end up being a tiered system, like people who make over 200K might get paid five times what they paid in, like four years of payments, people who make over 500K a year retired might get two years, two times what they paid. The politcians know they can't pay the 100 trillion, so they're chopping it all up now. Obama took 500 billion out of Medicare and cut back on Medicare procedures. The elderly got almost all of the free health care, the Cato Institute says they were receiving way too much care. Since it's all free to them, they wanted everything, now Medicare Advantage will be done away with. If people had to pay 5 percent themselves, they would take better care of themselves and wouldn't demand so many services.

      The funniest thing is Obama cut the socialism, and the Tea Party people say no socialism, evil socialism, but they are fighting to get their socialism back. They want to get rid of the health care bill to get the 500 billion put back into Medicare, which won't solve one thing, that will make the Medicare debt 10 trillion more. Once the politicians saw how addicted the older people are to these programs and the huge debt, they're trying to gradually phase the programs out.

      It should have been discontinued 20 years go when the WWII generation started living to be 100 and the government was spending a million dollars on each person for free health care. Most of those people are very wealthy, they would easily have given up the SSI after ten years and easily been able and willing to pay for part of their own health insurance premium. They knew it was wrong. Today everyone is so greedy because their so unhappy, they want all of the free stuff and would never agree to any limits on it. The politicians will end up privatizing Medicare, they're talking about giving people a voucher to buy insurance. It would save trillions on top of trillions if the government gave a 12K a year voucher instead of paying for all of the expensive surgeries and tests and meds. It will all be stopped one way or another. Funding 100 trillion for entitlements is beyond crazy talk. Only the people who want the stuff imagine any goverment is going to fund 100 trillion in entitlements.

      People pretend they don't know what it means, they don't understand what an unfunded liability is, they were promised, they want. This is why in some ways, people like Bill Maher and others who say Americans are idiots and you have to do everything for them and you have to take actions they don't like because they don't have a clue what is going on are actually right. We all would have been better off with universal health care and a VAT tax because retired people would be paying the 10 percent tax to, Medicare recipients would have had to continue to contribute a little tiny bit in paying for their healthcare, they could have gone single payer Medicare for all, like Dennis Kucinich was saying, that would have funded it, VAT tax it, and that would fund giving everyone the expensive tests and surgeries, the quality of care they want. The Dems had it right, but the old people only cared about themselves continuing to get free health care. I think everyone will end up being willing to negotiate now, either that or it's going to go to privatization, to vouchers, which isn't good.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  4. bluarc

    I am a firm beliver that if we are 80% of the world economy then we should only import 20% of GDP.
    GDP is 14.5 trillion for 2009 the Federal Governments revenue is 12% of GDP or was it is now 14% of GDP.
    Stoping the imports and not buying from any American companies that outsourse jobs, produce product out of country of any amount, no mater how small. Build American Buy American is the only way to save this economy and its jobs.
    Point of fact pfeiffer meds maker is colsing many of its facalities here in the United States and laying off 20,000 employees here in the US and keeping all of their operations over seas because they find it more profitable.
    Well I can tell you this it wouldn't be more profitable if we did not allow them to sell their product here or import their product by any means even through any other source. That would mean they would have to hire Americans. I can't say this enough "Build American, Sell American, Buy American" "Made by Americans For Americans"

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1

    1. EndtheFed

      I'm wondering, how do you explain away the benefits of trade?

      Do you not agree that specialization and division of labour allows for gains from trade?

      Sure, if we didn't allow anyone to intrude on our markets, and if we didn't allow our citizens to expand their market share to markets in other countries, we would secure jobs, but wouldn't we lose all of our gains from trade?

      The idea of gains from trade is that each party specializes in the products in which it has a comparative advantage in production over the other. Therefore, party A values party B's product more than he values his own, or else they would not exchange. This allows both parties to swap less valuable products for more valuable products, and effectively enables greater levels of utility than the two parties could have reached by consuming only what they produced on their own.

      In order to have a product of comparative advantage to trade, we must have jobs that produce them. It is possible to have both jobs and trade.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

      1. fred the protectionist

        "Do you not agree that specialization and division of labour allows for gains from trade?"

        You mean exploit cheap foreign labor (neo-slavery), whilst simultaneously destroying the middle class here.

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        1. EndtheFed

          Nope, the protected system we have now is the major cause of that because most of our labour force is employed in industries that are unfairly propped up by the government, which means they work in uncompetitive industries on the global scale. Our government further intervenes with prosperity abroad by hitting businesses at home with insane taxes, and barriers to entry which make it far less profitable for producers to produce at home.

          We are losing the race because the chinese have a streamlined boat (and an undervalued currency), and our boat is bogged down with harmful government intervention.

          Now before you start screaming about how libertarians "just want to get rid of allll government regulation and have anarchy", take a second to notice what I ACTUALLY said. In no way am I advocating that ALL regulation is bad, or that removing even the harmful regulations would instantly solve all of our problems.

          It's too bad I have to tell you what I didn't say, in order for you to comprehend what I did say. It must be rough living like that, not being able to comprehend the meaning of words.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    2. Joan

      Donald Trump says the same thing, bring the jobs home, people would have to be wiling to pay a little more for things, but he said he goes over to China and the Chinese think we are stupid. He says China is kicking our butts and we are letting them, and unless we bring the jobs home and stop the cheap labor stuff, we will no longer be an economic power.

      Another thing is, when you see the statistics what illegals cost each state, it is in the billions for each state. This is all for cheap labor for corporations, then we pay others to live on full welfare. All we have to do is make work for welfare, have the people on welfare and free housing do those jobs, send the illegals home, and we would save billions on the illegals and bilions on welfare programs. One of the candidates for governor in California, Meg Whitmann, wants to do work for welfare. It looks like she has a very good chance of winning.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  5. TEXICAN

    The only disappointing thing about Ron Paul is that he never yet made his mind for running for 2012. I believe we the people will either pore gold, dollars or whatever it takes to make his campaign successful because we the people are so FEDUP with Federal Reserve which there is nothing Federal nor Reserve about this creepy institution.

    RUN RON RUN

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1

    1. fred the protectionist

      Maybe Ron can hire Rand to show him how to run a campaign.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3

      1. grant

        maybe you can shut the f up

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

        1. fred the protectionist

          lol. Ron Paul got like 1/3rd of 1% of the vote.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  6. Koko

    Paul was suggesting oversight or limit of the bailout.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1

  7. fred the protectionist

    The Federal Reserve has no choice but to print more money because 700 billion dollars leaves a year with a 700 billion a year trade deficit. We'd be out of dollars in 2 years (during a massive 2-year period of deflation) and once out of dollars we'd be forced to barter with Euros or Pesos, then American's would be at the mercy of the European Union central bank or corrupt Mexican government. Why would you want that? That's crazy.

    Of course we can always return to the middle ages monetary system where everyone bartered chickens for goats.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4

    1. Citizen

      Dear Fred the P...

      You just don't get it do you! Federal Reserve Notes are just like Doritos, don't worry they'll make more! We won't run out of "toilet paper" either and the Federal Reserve Notes will soon be printed on soft perforated rolls too.

      You are partly right when you say "Federal Reserve has no choice but to print more..." but this endless money printing is akin to paying off one credit card with another credit card ENDLESSLY....
      Constant money expansion makes you and me poorer, destroys jobs, lays waste to our retirement hopes and ruins our economy.

      Do yourself a favor Fred.... Go out and buy 7 oz of pure gold coin, hold it in your hand, feel the weight and know that the FED is not able to COUNTERFEIT that GOLD! >>>REAL MONEY<<<
      We the people are CONSTITUTIONALLY guaranteed sound money. Not Fiat Federal Reserve Notes...

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 2

      1. longshotlouie

        You really do live in abject fear, huh?

        Watch out, terrorist under your bed.

        lol

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

      2. Citizen

        Fred...
        You said
        "you scam artists Jews me out of gold with a lead coin that’s only painted to look gold"

        Are you a paranoid racists?

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2

      3. fred the protectionist

        You do realize 99% of 'the people' couldn't tell a gold coin from a lead one. Personally I call that progress.

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

        1. Bottomline

          & who is the traitor now Fred?

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

        2. EndtheFed

          If the clerk at the pawn shop can do it, I wouldn't call it rocket science.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

          1. fred the protectionist

            Refined society doesn't bargain or barter. Why do you want to regress?...ive

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          2. EndtheFed

            Unless you consider the "Anglo-American Cotton-Rubber Barter Agreement" of the 1930s as barter.

            http://www.jstor.org/pss/1053085

            Or the direct barter described HERE:

            http://www.danielmevans.net/resources/barter-as-money.pdf
            on page 15 of 22

            "US pharmaceutical giant Monsanto sells saccharin to a company in China
            for trade.When the company was unable to pay in cash, Monsanto took frozen
            mackerel in exchange"

            Or the direct barter described on page 16 of 22. This gem was as recent as 1972:

            "PepsiCo does a deal with the government of the USSR to supply the first
            western consumer product on sale in the Soviet Union. Instead of roubles,
            Pepsi was traded for vodka"

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    2. Grant

      The Fed has to print more money to suffice the massive failures of socialistic entitlement programs. All of your arguments are built on sand.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

      1. fred the protectionist

        "The Fed has to print more money to suffice the massive failures of socialistic entitlement programs. All of your arguments are built on sand."

        Wrong. The FED doesn't print money and hand it to Congress to spend.

        A) Doesn't have the authority.

        B) The US Treasury coins money not the FED.

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    3. EndtheFed

      If Fred was truly worried about the trade deficit he would support the return of the international gold standard.

      As economist David Hume pointed out HUNDREDS OF YEARS AGO, the international gold standard provided an automatic mechanism for keeping the balance of payments of each country in equilibrium.

      EXAMPLE:

      If one country inflated their currency, it’s prices rise. Prices of imports from abroad are now relatively cheaper than prices at home. At the same time, the higher prices at home discourage exports abroad. The result is a deficit in the balance of payments. The gold outflow means that the country must contract it’s inflated paper currency in order to prevent a loss of all of it’s gold.
      The contraction lowers prices at home, creating an export surplus thereby reversing the gold outflow until the price levels are equalized amongst countries.

      This mechanism has created the most stable economic order the world has ever known.

      Trade deficits are THE RESULT of inflationary monetary policy, not the gold standard. Free trade (the absence of government intervention in trade) has nothing to do with it. In fact, it is government intervention into the money supply that causes trade deficits.

      Time to re-think your troll strategy. Free-trade is no longer your scapegoat.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

      1. EndtheFed

        The same loss of reserves is true with the fiat dollar we have now, accept the automatic check on our government's inflation is non-existent because we can't run out of gold reserves -- we just print more. This means that there is no reason for our government to reduce the trade deficit by limiting inflation of the money supply.

        Fred, if you keep supporting the notion that the Fed is good, don't expect to see the trade deficit come down. That is, until the currency collapses, which is inevitable because we have no check on government inflation of the money supply.

        It's like you said, " The Federal Reserve has no choice but to print more money because 700 billion dollars leaves a year". It leaves because of inflation. We`ve reached the point where we have to inflate to support our inflation, which is akin to borrowing to pay your debts.

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

        1. fred the protectionist

          Libertrarian say: "It leaves because of inflation. "

          It leaves because of the trade deficit.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

        2. EndtheFed

          ... And the trade deficit is caused by INFLATION.

          lol

          Is this a circle-jerk?

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

        3. fred the protectionist

          Wrong, the trade deficit is caused by Chinese earning 50 cents an hour, and Mexicans earning $2 an hour.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        4. EndtheFed

          Without what logical people like to call "a reason", all you have is a baseless accusation.

          Still waiting for some economics to back that up. (Real economics, not the kind you make up in your spare time)

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      2. fred the protectionist

        "Trade deficits are THE RESULT of inflationary monetary policy"

        Wrong, trade deficits are the results of the massive wage differences between the 1st and 3rd world. The European Union is suffering the same way.

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        1. EndtheFed

          Economics to back this up, please.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

        2. fred the protectionist

          Awww, poor baby can't face reality.

          Normal people see this, you are abby-normal.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        3. EndtheFed

          Oh, what's that Fred? No economic theory to back that up?

          Too bad, you lose.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    4. It gets worse

      An entire post of mistakes, inconsistencies, and exaggerations.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

Leave a Reply