Greek banks closed

[AgeofKnowledge]

The Remington 870 is also a solid shotgun for personal home defense. But then, I'm sure your father knows that. As for your babe Deborah, she's beautiful.

What a great rifle, useful for shooting sport and tactical/defensive applications. No shortcuts in that design and assembly. It's expensive but that's what you want walking out the front door. Good job.

Solid rig, my friend. I've never shot a Benelli, but I hear those are fine shotguns. My dad has the Remington 870 tactical model, but I do not like the tactical sights and accouterments. They make target acquisition more difficult than your standard 870.

View attachment 123621

This is my babe Deborah, a DDM4 VII from Daniel Defense. If you meet her have some courtesy, have some sympathy, have some taste.

 

[Desdichado]

Careful! You'll have the feds at you door with that pic.

It's actually a stock photo. Plausible deniability.

 

[Desdichado]

The Remington 870 is also a solid shotgun for personal home defense. But then, I'm sure your father knows that. As for your babe Deborah, she's beautiful.

What a great rifle, useful for shooting sport and tactical/defensive applications. No shortcuts in that design and assembly. It's expensive but that's what you want walking out the front door. Good job.

Yeah, I'm not a huge fan of his shotgun, but it's solidly built and he's comfortable with it. I'm confident that my parents and siblings have enough firepower with it in the terrible event that they would find a need for a shotgun.

It's also not bad for hunting.

Thanks! You're absolutely right- it's a well-conceived and well-built. I would have paid a premium either way with building/modifying, so I figured I would get everything I needed in an AR right off the bat.

Lived like a cave man for awhile to scratch the nickels together, but I'm glad I did. It's a tool designed to work.

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

Just the first drop of water squeezing thru the systemic crack running the length of the dike. A year, a decade, two decades, the dike's going to break.. wait for it.

Hunker down. This is definitely getting ugly.

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

An impressive tool at that. Don't forget about the vest. Peace.

It's a tool designed to work.

 

[Willie-T]

Our FA said we might expect to see about a $15,000 loss.

 

[Viligant_Warrior]

Just the first drop of water squeezing thru the systemic crack running the length of the dike. A year, a decade, two decades, the dike's going to break.. wait for it.

Or it may happen next week. Admittedly, the Asian markets recouped about half of yesterday's losses. The European markets are still down, but only slightly. Have to see how the U.S. markets react, but my guess is they go up, at this stage.

Everyone's gotten use to the idea of a Greek default overnight, I guess. But if IMF pulls in its lending capabilities because Greece fails to make its interest payment today -- it is them who took the first hit, not the ECB as I erroneously stated yesterday -- the economic dominoes will begin to totter.

 

[p_rehbein]

Letting the citizens ONLY draw out $66.00 per day............Wut? They couldn't have made it $65.00 or $67.00?


On the other hand, the President of Puerto Rico has officially informed the US Government that they will not be paying back their loans..........oh well............guess another Obama "bail out" is in the works.......

 

[p_rehbein]

Or it may happen next week. Admittedly, the Asian markets recouped about half of yesterday's losses. The European markets are still down, but only slightly. Have to see how the U.S. markets react, but my guess is they go up, at this stage.

Everyone's gotten use to the idea of a Greek default overnight, I guess. But if IMF pulls in its lending capabilities because Greece fails to make its interest payment today -- it is them who took the first hit, not the ECB as I erroneously stated yesterday -- the economic dominoes will begin to totter.

Germany, as I understand it, holds most of their debt.......so they will surely suffer financially

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

No, that would be too soon. I've made a study of it and about twenty years, give or take, before the walls start tumbling down is my prediction.

Of course, there will be all sorts of problems between now and then which include market crashes and rebounds, social upheaval, etc...

The most important economic benchmark leading up to it is our escalating debt which is a result of the present faulty economic, trade, and financial paradigm. The old paradigm was not perfect, by any means, but it was better than this one.

Tick, tock, wait for it...

Or it may happen next week.

 

[jaybird88]

the corporate elites are gonna crash the anglo-american economic systems so they can solve the problem with 1 centralized bank and global currency.
Ordo ab Chao - order out of chaos.

 

[Desdichado]

the corporate elites are gonna crash the anglo-american economic systems so they can solve the problem with 1 centralized bank and global currency.
Ordo ab Chao - order out of chaos.

Brilliant. The Federal Reserve has had such a stellar record of preventing a run on currency.

 

[jaybird88]

Brilliant. The Federal Reserve has had such a stellar record of preventing a run on currency.

they are all a bunch of scumbags. if there are lines to get into hell i bet these guys would get to go through the express lane.

 

[Viligant_Warrior]

the corporate elites are gonna crash the anglo-american economic systems so they can solve the problem with 1 centralized bank and global currency.
Ordo ab Chao - order out of chaos.

Somebody will crash them, but it won't be the corporate elites. Look who's in control of the currency and the Fed right now. Not the corporate elites.

 

[jaybird88]

Somebody will crash them, but it won't be the corporate elites. Look who's in control of the currency and the Fed right now. Not the corporate elites.

i always thought of the rothchilds, rockerfellers, etc as corporate elites. so who is in control of the fed? when you follow the chain of command through the parent companies they are always tied to big banks.

 

[Viligant_Warrior]

i always thought of the rothchilds, rockerfellers, etc as corporate elites. so who is in control of the fed? when you follow the chain of command through the parent companies they are always tied to big banks.

The Fed is in the firm control of the federal government. A lot of people want to believe that the banks own the Fed, and so-called "Rothschild banking dynasty" -- which hasn't existed for over 90 years -- owns the banks. Not true.

Ownership of the Fed gets confusing due to the fact the regional Fed banks issue stock to their member banks. That stock pays a fixed six percent dividend that technically gives those banks a share of the Fed’s profits on an annual basis. But this surface fact needs some perspective.

Last year, for example, the Fed earned $90.5 billion, paying out a little over &1.6 billion in dividends. The remaining $88 billion was remitted back to the U.S. Treasury, even though Treasury doesn’t technically own shares in the Fed.

Under the law authorizing the creation of the Federal Reserve system in December of 1913, the Fed is required to remit its profits at the end of the year back to the Federal Government. Obviously, that remittance often dwarfs any dividends paid back to the banks. In other words, the US Treasury is the recipient of most of the Fed’s profits.

So the claims of the conspiracy theorists are bogus. No federal fiscal policy is made by the Fed, and if the commission acts to raise or lower interest rates at what Congress considers a risky or ill-advised pace, they can overrule it. There is a lot to criticize about the way the Fed operates, but the "Rothschild banking empire" claim is as bogus as $3 bill.

 

[jaybird88]

The Fed is in the firm control of the federal government. A lot of people want to believe that the banks own the Fed, and so-called "Rothschild banking dynasty" -- which hasn't existed for over 90 years -- owns the banks. Not true.

Ownership of the Fed gets confusing due to the fact the regional Fed banks issue stock to their member banks. That stock pays a fixed six percent dividend that technically gives those banks a share of the Fed’s profits on an annual basis. But this surface fact needs some perspective.

Last year, for example, the Fed earned $90.5 billion, paying out a little over &1.6 billion in dividends. The remaining $88 billion was remitted back to the U.S. Treasury, even though Treasury doesn’t technically own shares in the Fed.

Under the law authorizing the creation of the Federal Reserve system in December of 1913, the Fed is required to remit its profits at the end of the year back to the Federal Government. Obviously, that remittance often dwarfs any dividends paid back to the banks. In other words, the US Treasury is the recipient of most of the Fed’s profits.

So the claims of the conspiracy theorists are bogus. No federal fiscal policy is made by the Fed, and if the commission acts to raise or lower interest rates at what Congress considers a risky or ill-advised pace, they can overrule it. There is a lot to criticize about the way the Fed operates, but the "Rothschild banking empire" claim is as bogus as $3 bill.

if the rothchilds and rockerfellers are not involved, then who are? who sets the agenda for the fed?

Fed banks issue stock to their member banks.

who are these member banks? here is a hint, they are the true power behind the fed.

there are many red flags with the fed that dont add up.

if its gov, why do we pay so much interest to it?
why are their members secret?
why do they cause economic waves that only benefit the few.
and on and on.

cui bono - ask a simple fundamental question, who benefits from the fed?
read history, anytime banks get involved and start their monaplies you see the same trends, the few get everything and the masses are reduced to slaves. how are the masses doing today?

No federal fiscal policy is made by the Fed, and if the commission acts to raise or lower interest rates at what Congress considers a risky or ill-advised pace, they can overrule it.

the fed is not held accountable by congress. why would the banks spend so many millions in lobbying congress to cut banking regulation? who benefits from that?

i dont get my info from CNN or mainstrem news, they lie about everything so why would i trust them. most my knowledge comes from university academics who have spent many years studying it and they dont seem to have a biased agenda. i am by no means the expert but these are a few thngs i have learned.

 

[Viligant_Warrior]

if the rothchilds and rockerfellers are not involved, then who are? who sets the agenda for the fed?

who are these member banks? here is a hint, they are the true power behind the fed.

They have no say in how the Fed is run. The Federal Reserve commission, appointed by the president and approved by Congress, runs the Fed. I'm not saying that political influence doesn't enter into the appointments, but there is no clandestine power behind the Fed. There is no profit in it for anyone other than the U.S. Treasury. Sure, last year, they paid out dividends amounting to $1.6 billion -- spread among 6,799 banks nationwide, proportionate to their shares.

Even if it was spread out evenly, that would amount to a bit more than $235,000 per bank. Obviously some get larger dividend payouts, others get a lot less. Either way, it's a pittance, as even the smallest banks in a farming community will easily do a million dollars a week in transactions, and earn far more in dividends on their own stock than the Fed will ever pay them in dividends from that stock.

why are their members secret?

Try Googling current members federal reserve board and you'll see that isn't even a valid question.

why do they cause economic waves that only benefit the few.

Right now they're holding down bank interest rates so the banks won't raise borrowers' rates. If borrowers' rates go up, the anemic "recovery" will disappear into thin air. There's talk of the bank rates going up, but the Fed has twice delayed action on the proposal because the overall economy is stagnant, and the board won't take that action until it gets much better.

the fed is not held accountable by congress. why would the banks spend so many millions in lobbying congress to cut banking regulation? who benefits from that?

Red herring Jay, no offense. The Fed doesn't set banking regulations. Congress does. Hence, the answer to your question.

i dont get my info from CNN or mainstrem news, they lie about everything so why would i trust them. most my knowledge comes from university academics who have spent many years studying it and they dont seem to have a biased agenda.

You mean other than the proven ultra-liberal socialist bias that exists on virtually every public and private institution of higher education in the U.S.? I can't imagine that would lead to lies and misinformation at all!

[/sarcasm]

 

[jaybird88]

They have no say in how the Fed is run. The Federal Reserve commission, appointed by the president and approved by Congress, runs the Fed. I'm not saying that political influence doesn't enter into the appointments, but there is no clandestine power behind the Fed. There is no profit in it for anyone other than the U.S. Treasury. Sure, last year, they paid out dividends amounting to $1.6 billion -- spread among 6,799 banks nationwide, proportionate to their shares.

Even if it was spread out evenly, that would amount to a bit more than $235,000 per bank. Obviously some get larger dividend payouts, others get a lot less. Either way, it's a pittance, as even the smallest banks in a farming community will easily do a million dollars a week in transactions, and earn far more in dividends on their own stock than the Fed will ever pay them in dividends from that stock.

Try Googling current members federal reserve board and you'll see that isn't even a valid question.

Right now they're holding down bank interest rates so the banks won't raise borrowers' rates. If borrowers' rates go up, the anemic "recovery" will disappear into thin air. There's talk of the bank rates going up, but the Fed has twice delayed action on the proposal because the overall economy is stagnant, and the board won't take that action until it gets much better.

Red herring Jay, no offense. The Fed doesn't set banking regulations. Congress does. Hence, the answer to your question.

You mean other than the proven ultra-liberal socialist bias that exists on virtually every public and private institution of higher education in the U.S.? I can't imagine that would lead to lies and misinformation at all!

[/sarcasm]

if there is no money in it for anyone, why is there interest charged on the currency? who pays the interest and who benefits from it? if the benefit was for the masses then whats the point of the interest in the first place? why not just pay taxes and make the currency interest free, like it used to be before the fed. think about it. the whole system is set up to make fortunes off the backs of the masses. its the same scam empires been doing for centuries all the way back to rome and before.
think about this, Jesus showed anger one time, dealing with the money changers. and who were they? the bankers of their day. these banks that you think are working in our best interest are way more dangerous than you think.

 

[Viligant_Warrior]

if there is no money in it for anyone, why is there interest charged on the currency?

Are you suggesting the banks operate as non-profits? And the interest charged banks by the Fed helps pay for the Fed's operation, so there is no government money spent on a quasi-public entity that wasn't supposed to be tax-supported.

who pays the interest and who benefits from it?

You benefit from it, among others. If the bank is able to make money on offering loans, small businesses are able to acquire operating capital and start-up costs through loans providing them money they otherwise would have no access to, and only giant corporations would be in business. But the giant corporations all began as someone's start-up, too, didn't they?

if the benefit was for the masses then whats the point of the interest in the first place?

I'm not sure I can give you a crash course in free enterprise on a message board. I've already answered that question as best I can without posting a textbook with my first two responses here.

why not just pay taxes and make the currency interest free, like it used to be before the fed.

That isn't how it worked at all, before the Fed. Before the Fed came into being, we had the First Bank of the United States, in existence from 1791 to 1811, and the Second Bank of the U.S., from 1817-1837. Both had 20-year charters. Both were initially funded by a purchase of 20% of the stock by the U.S. government. But the remaining 80% of the stock of both banks was up for grabs, giving the wealthiest investors in the country control of the U.S. banking system. Ironically, that's exactly what people accuse the Fed of being today, and it simply is not so.

An effort to renew the Second Bank was vetoed by Andrew Jackson, which began a period of what was called "free banking." Then, to finance the Civil War, an interlocking system of national banks was authorized by the National Currency Act of 1863. Revised in 1864 by the National Bank Act, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency was created. It still exists today, and is chartering all banks nationally, including the Federal Reserve system.

There were inherent problems with that system, too.

A Brief History of Central Banking in the United States - Edward Flaherty

National bank currency was considered inelastic because it was based on the fluctuating value of U.S. Treasury bonds rather than the growing desire for easy credit. If Treasury bond prices declined, a national bank had to reduce the amount of currency it had in circulation by either refusing to make new loans or by calling in loans it had made already. The related liquidity problem was largely caused by an immobile, pyramidal reserve system, in which nationally chartered rural/agriculture-based banks were required to set aside their reserves in federal reserve city banks, which in turn were required to have reserves in central city banks. During the planting seasons, rural banks would exploit their reserves to finance full plantings, and during the harvest seasons they would use profits from loan interest payments to restore and grow their reserves. A national bank whose reserves were being drained would replace its reserves by selling stocks and bonds, by borrowing from a clearing house or by calling in loans. As there was little in the way of deposit insurance, if a bank was rumored to be having liquidity problems then this might cause many people to remove their funds from the bank. Because of the crescendo effect of banks which lent more than their assets could cover, during the last quarter of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th century, the United States economy went through a series of financial panics.

After a few years of debate among the wealthy who again wanted control of the banking system -- this is where the "Rothschild" myth of today originates -- and the more pragmatic who saw a great danger in the economic system of the nation being in the hands of a few multibillionaires, the Federal Reserve System was proposed and enacted, with the safeguards in it I described in my earlier post.

think about it. the whole system is set up to make fortunes off the backs of the masses.

That's a myth perpetuated by the conspiracy theorists who don't even bother to look into the history of the banking system in the U.S., and make stuff up when they can't figure out any other way to disparage the system.

its the same scam empires been doing for centuries all the way back to rome and before.

Also a myth, for the same reasons.

think about this, Jesus showed anger one time, dealing with the money changers. and who were they? the bankers of their day.

Nope, they weren't bankers. They were crooked businessmen who robbed from the poor Temple goers by claiming to "judge" the quality of their sacrifice. Of course they always found it wanting, and sold them a "flawless" sacrifice" in exchange for their animal and cash. Sometime soon thereafter, they resold that same animal to another unsuspecting Temple goer. Jesus, in fact, endorsed the ancient banks of that time in His Parable of the Talents. Go read that to see what I'm talking about.

these banks that you think are working in our best interest are way more dangerous than you think.

My bank is working in my best interest. They've proven that time and time again, and they work within the system you obviously want torn down. We've tried other systems. They did not work at all. So if you wish to cling to your conspiracy theories, Jay, I won't try to talk you out of them, but I'd urge you to actually learn about the system you hate before you make wild claims that you can't support. No offense, brother, but that is exactly what you're doing. God bless.