And yes I realize that was childish, but, Jesus, all I wanted was something like "don't make more tanks" or "sell Alaska" or "shoot all the old farts"

LOL...I'm sorry stratagos. It's just you hit a nerve with your original post. I'm on board with the don't make more tanks. ;)

And keep that silver safe.

I keep an 1883 silver dollar in my wallet; I bought an identical one for my wife. It's just one of those random things dating couples do.

Plus silver coins just sound *cool* when you ''ding" them on a table ;)

Its been a while since I've checked this....lot of stuff said. Let's see if I can jump in here.

Darwyn, you seem to be under the idea that the Fed is a private corporation. That is false.
From the Fed's website

The Federal Reserve System is not "owned" by anyone and is not a private, profit-making institution. Instead, it is an independent entity within the government, having both public purposes and private aspects.

As the nation's central bank, the Federal Reserve derives its authority from the U.S. Congress. It is considered an independent central bank because its decisions do not have to be ratified by the President or anyone else in the executive or legislative branch of government, it does not receive funding appropriated by Congress, and the terms of the members of the Board of Governors span multiple presidential and congressional terms. However, the Federal Reserve is subject to oversight by Congress, which periodically reviews its activities and can alter its responsibilities by statute. Also, the Federal Reserve must work within the framework of the overall objectives of economic and financial policy established by the government. Therefore, the Federal Reserve can be more accurately described as "independent within the government."

The twelve regional Federal Reserve Banks, which were established by Congress as the operating arms of the nation's central banking system, are organized much like private corporations--possibly leading to some confusion about "ownership." For example, the Reserve Banks issue shares of stock to member banks. However, owning Reserve Bank stock is quite different from owning stock in a private company. The Reserve Banks are not operated for profit, and ownership of a certain amount of stock is, by law, a condition of membership in the System. The stock may not be sold, traded, or pledged as security for a loan; dividends are, by law, 6 percent per year.

Also, to prevent corruption, any member of the Fed's Board of Governors is forbidden to own securities in any financial institution.

About the fractional lending, if banks didn't do this, their profit margin would not be enough to justify them staying in business. It is a safe practice because the Fed stipulates what percentage of reserves they are supposed to have, and the FDIC protects investments in the case of bankruptcy. The bank closings recently happened because they took stupid risks for the sake of profit which came back and bit them in the ass. most of those people who defaulted on loans should never have qualified for them to begin with.

As for our debt, I believe that we finance it through the sale of *Treasury* bonds, so the Fed has nothing to do with it. I may be wrong, so feel free to correct me.
Sorry its so long

"The Federal Reserve System is not "owned" by anyone" but "the Reserve Banks issue shares of stock to member banks."

"The Reserve Banks are not operated for profit" but "dividends are, by law, 6 percent per year."

"the Federal Reserve is subject to oversight by Congress" Um... what oversight? The very basic audit bill Ron Paul pushed over the last year was shot down. Can someone explain what real oversight there is?

For a propaganda page, that is an epic fail. Someone at the Fed ought to lose their bonus over this!

@Darwyn: You just took Hitlers side. Automatic Fail :)

LOL! Dammit! : /

Real oversight? None whatsoever. But then, that's hardly atypical of the American Financial sector. Just take a look at McCarran-Ferguson some time if you want to get your blood pressure to spike up to about double what it currently is.

Genghis: I'd look, but based on your description, my doctor would not approve. My blood pressure is high enough already.

At the risk of rehashing this argument, I just came upon this which is highly relevant...

http://poorrichards-blog.blogspot.com/2010/11/41-facts-about-history-of-central-banks.html

One of the things it points out is that every single president who openly and actively opposed the central bank was SHOT. Jackson, Lincoln, Garfield and Kennedy.

Coincidence?

>Coincidence?

*rolls eyes*

You did *not* just try to imply some centuries-long banker's conspiracy, did you?

Ah, conspiracy theories. They are ever so much fun.

All the fun of jerking yourself off without having to find any tissues.

How about this one:

My wife wants me to cut down on my soda intake
The vending machine is out of diet pepsi
Therefore, my wife removed the soda

lol...ok, firstly, what I presented is fact. You are free to come to your own conclusions. But the more important point here is the article itself. Let me guess...you didn't read it?

btw - your analogy sucks.

What does this mean to you?

"In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet it was planned that way."
Franklin D. Roosevelt

It means you're quote mining to support your position, because you've got nothing else to support it?

And yes, I didn't get a chance to read it, yet.

And no you didn't just "present a fact" - you presented a fact and then asked a question implying a possible causal link between being a president that dislikes central banking and getting shot.

Something, incidentally, that I'm not taking as a given - there may be other presidents who disliked the central bank that did *not* get shot.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_equal_causation

no, it means what it says...

Also, a more appropriate analogy would be:

Your wife wants you to cut down on soda intake
Your wife happens to be employed by a vending machine company and has access to them.
News report confirms an abundance of diet pepsi throughout region.
week one: vending machine out of diet pepsi
week two: vending machine out of diet pepsi
week three: vending machine out of diet pepsi
week four: vending machine out of diet pepsi

Motive and opportunity reside with your wife.

It's true that I implied a causal link, yes. But that's no excuse to disregard the facts.

also, I am regretting asking the question now and implying the causal link. I do not have the time today to defend it. Gotta play catch up at work from yesterday. ;)

I didn't *read* the fact yet, which I freely admitted, but even if every single president that was opposed to a central bank was shot, you're going to have to have a hell of a lot more evidence than "ohh, they disliked X" to get me to buy some uberconsipracy.

Unless you believe aliens did it. That I can accept.

No, you are absolutely right. More evidence is needed of course.

And no, I don't believe in aliens for the record.

No, strat - it was the commies. They shot Lincoln (never mind the fact that neo-communism is a product of the very late 19th Century, after Lincoln was shot). And Booth didn't shoot Lincoln alone. There was a second shooter across the stage in the opposite box who was never found and the CIA was behind it (nevermind that the history of the CIA starts around 1940 just prior to the US entering World War II).

I knew it! And since that flows along with my preconceived notions, I'll just guilelessly swallow it whole! ;)

LOL. ;-)

And then there's the other extreme strat and Draug...

"Conspiracy? There are NO conspiracies! No one actually *plans* anything nefarious. Everything happens by pure accident. In fact, as soon as I hear the word, my mind automatically shuts down so that I don't have to think for myself."

:)

I can play that game too fellas. So instead of tainting this thread, I shall start a new one very shortly.

Didn't say that, but I'm very much of the "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" frame of mind.

Burden of proof is on the conspiracy theorists to prove their theory. Occam's razor would clearly indicate that the simplest answer (shit happens) is the most likely answer. What is easier. That the President's were shot at is a coincidence which corresponds to the fact that *other* President's have been targets of assassination, or that the banking system decided to eliminate these men and convinced there assasins and would be assassins to do the job? Lincoln was shot by a Confederate Sympathizer, hardly someone who would do the bidding of the Union banking system as the Confederacy had their own currency.

Don't know why I made Presidents be possessive...