• Welcome to the new NAXJA Forum! If your password does not work, please use "Forgot your password?" link on the log-in page. Please feel free to reach out to [email protected] if we can provide any assistance.

Socialist Playbook-this isn't about politics, it's about overthrowing the USA.

kastein said:
Problem is, if they let the yuan float, we end up spending more dollars to get the same junk from them. So they end up with even more of our money. I can only hope that they let the yuan float and it results in people buying more American products instead, but I am afraid this won't happen.
Click to expand...

Then quit buying junk. I wish I had several years ago.

One year ago next weekend I moved after being in the same house for the last 20 years. I found boxes unpacked from when I moved into that place. I obviously have more JUNK than I need.

My house has SIXTEEN dining room or kitchenette chairs. Sixteen! There are 25 of those cheap plastic chairs stacked in the garage. Why? My going out and impluse purchasing has dropped off considerably since I had to moved all that crap.

I have adopted and am doing my best to follow the philosophy of "Live simply, so other may simply live"
 
Most of the junk I buy these days is jeep parts and tools, with a little electronics stuff mixed in.
 
Goverment Looting of your Retirement Account- Social Justice for everyone!! (er........ except those who actually want to have a choice on how to spend their hard-earned retirement dollars)


The 401(k) plan was created and is regulated by the government. It consists of two types of plans: the Defined Benefit and the Defined Contribution.

In a Defined Contribution plan you can contribute whatever you want as long as you do not exceed your salary. Opting to take a lump sum upon retirement assures that you will at least get most of your retirement money out from under government control and will be able to invest it outside of government retirement plans.

If, however, you opt for the Defined Benefit plan you might become understandably concerned that your retirement funds might not be steady, or that you might not be paid at all---given the huge debt the government has incurred and the state of various government programs.

Consequently, retiring individuals increasingly choose to receive a lump sum upon retirement rather than "a lifetime stream of income."

The US Labor and Treasury departments want to force Defined Contribution employees to use "a lifetime stream of income"---i.e., government issued annuities---thereby forbidding lump sum payouts.

In other words, the employee's money will no longer be his to use as and when he wants it. Government officials will decide when employees can have the money they've earned and how they can receive it. When government takes over retirement accounts, the money will not be invested in reputable securities earning a return and watched over by expert investment analysts. The money will be siphoned off for other schemes, as is the money one pays into Social Security and Medicare. Employees' savings will be wiped out.



The Proposal is undisguised looting of employer and employee alike.

The Proposal is not only immoral, it is also, as all immoral acts, wildly impractical.

The EBSA Proposal is based on the assumption that savings are static and can be withdrawn from its function with impunity. But when withdrawn, savings become merely a sum that can be exchanged for something else.

They are no longer savings.

A nation's savings are the fundamental means of fueling a growing economy as well as cushioning unexpected setbacks, such as natural disasters. In a mixed economy such as ours---i.e., some freedom and many regulations---the continual setbacks ignited by government interference cause a declining standard of living. Savings, therefore, become even more acutely important---especially to youngsters starting out, bright with ambition and teeming with ideas. When savings dry up, so does economic growth.

Savings are savings because the wealth it comprises is viable. Were it not for savings, financial institutions would not have a reservoir of money that could be used profitably to finance new ventures, make loans and extend credit to trustworthy, hard-working clients. The profit from such contractual agreements benefits the institution as well as its savers, i.e., its account holders, shareholders and investors, thereby increasing the wealth of all.

Were it not for savings, the simplest everyday purchase could not be made. That ready cash in your pocket? It is there because someone somewhere has savings. The employer who paid you your salary had to have savings on which to draw. The grocer has goods to offer you because someone somewhere has savings and extended him credit. The auto shop that maintains your vehicle relies on someone's savings to ensure its payroll, support its inventory, accept your credit card and anticipate slow business days. And so forth.

In an industrial nation, men cannot successfully live hand-to-mouth, as once they did, and as the oppressed peoples in under-developed countries are forced to exist today.

Savings are not currency stuck in a can and buried in the ground. Savings today are in pension and retirement funds, almost all of which are in securities of one form or another. Most of those funds are in 401(k)s.

Many of those funds were hard hit in the disaster following the government "affordable housing" fiasco. Many accounts suffered losses of 50% or 75% of their value. Some lost all their value.

Accounts that did not suffer such drastic losses were held by the most financially responsible institutions and individuals. They are in effect now the only ones providing savings until others get back on their feet. The Treasury wants that money. Consider what that means.

Retirement accounts are the nest eggs of those who have worked to provide for their old age. They are the nest eggs of those living on fixed incomes---the retired---of those about-to-retire and of the young. The sum total of American retirement accounts is in the trillions. Should this proposal be made "law," it is obvious where that money will go. The government has incurred gargantuan debt. Turning Americans' retirement accounts over to government control is not merely economic insanity. It is economic suicide. There is no justification for destroying those who have saved.
To destroy them on the pretense that such destruction "helps" those who have not saved is based on the same premise that sticking a finger in a dike's hole will prevent the dam from bursting. It is unrealistic, wishful thinking.

Those who have taken responsibility for their retirement cannot help those who have not. The irresponsible will be as irresponsible with what he's given as he was previously.

Forcing the responsible to give to the irresponsible merely drains both pockets.

Savers have built retirement funds over years of work, their effort making innumerable goods and services, creating a prosperous, viable economy. Once the savers are destroyed, so will be all those who depend on them---including "low-wage employees," about whom government officials claim to be concerned. Is that what government officials want?

http://krazyeconomy.blogspot.com/2010/04/treasury-grab-of-retirement-assets.html

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2491843/posts
 
We have millions of people attending for profit schools to improve their lives... they actually do a better job than non-profits of teaching the working poor and improving their earning potential (hence a higher default rate on loans). So in the midst of all of this we decide to regulate them? In our current economy, what a great idea!

http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/1...ucation-ag/?icid=sphere_politicsdaily_inline2
 
The schools being regulated are the schools excepting federal aid money.

My kids all went to catholic school, I never supported a voucher program even thogh it would have benefitted me finanicially. Would tell other parents as soon as the school accepts outside money, they will be required to accept outside input.
 
Boatwrench said:
The schools being regulated are the schools excepting federal aid money.

My kids all went to catholic school, I never supported a voucher program even thogh it would have benefitted me finanicially. Would tell other parents as soon as the school accepts outside money, they will be required to accept outside input.
Click to expand...

The schools in question are colleges and Universities... Not K-12, though no doubt the feds will stick their noses ever deeper into that puddle as well.

All colleges and Universities that receive Title IV funding are under federal regulation, but most of these schools are regionally accredited and this system is a self regulation system that has made us the envy of the world because of its effectiveness as demonstrated by the quality of our schools. It has allowed for academic freedom in terms of courses and majors offered that is not under the thumb of government. Now the government wants to interfere in a segment of the private sector that is one of the greatest success stories in America. We know the outcome.
 
"Quantatative Easing".......this sounds so much better than "The Federal Reserve plan will force the US economy into at least a decade of massive inflation".
*********************************************************
(AP) — The Federal Reserve is about to take a huge risk in hopes of getting the economy steaming along again. Nobody is sure it will work, and it may actually do damage.

The Fed is expected to announced today that it will buy $500 billion to $1 trillion in government debt, and drive already low long-term interest rates even lower. The central bank would buy the debt in chunks of $100 billion a month, probably starting immediately.

Economists call it “quantitative easing.“ It gets the name ”QE2″ — like the ship — because this would be the second round. The Fed spent about $1.7 trillion from 2008 to earlier this year to take bonds off the hands of banks and stabilize them.

Here‘s how it’s supposed to work this time: The Fed buys Treasury bonds from banks, providing them cash to lend to customers. Buying so many bonds also lowers interest rates because demand for Treasurys leads to higher prices and lower yields. Interest rates are linked to yields. Lower rates encourage people to borrow money for a mortgage or another loan.

At the same time, lower interest rates make relatively safe investments like bonds and cash less appealing, so companies and investors take the cash and buy equipment or other investments, like stocks. The S&P 500 takes off and Americans celebrate with a shopping spree. Businesses see a rise in sales and begin hiring again, and a virtuous cycle of more spending and more hiring ensues.

But many analysts and even supporters of the plan see dangers. It could make the weak dollar even weaker and lead to trade disputes with other countries. It could lead bond traders to believe that higher inflation is on the way, and they could derail the Fed’s efforts by pushing rates higher. Many investors argue that it may create bubbles as hedge funds and other speculators borrow cheaply and make even bigger bets on stocks, commodities and markets in developing countries like Brazil.

“It’s a desperate act,” says Jeremy Grantham, co-founder of the investment firm GMO. Grantham says it’s a clear message from the Fed to the rest of the world: “The U.S. doesn’t care if the dollar weakens.”

Here is a look at the ways the Fed’s strategy could backfire:

—DOLLAR DROP
As word trickled out over recent months that the Fed was planning a new round of bond purchases, the dollar sank. It hit a 15-year low to the Japanese yen Nov. 1.
Why?

In the simplest terms, a country that cuts interest rates makes its currency less attractive to the worlds’ investors. The interest rate is also the investors’ yield, the payout they receive. When that yield falls, the world’s banks move their money into countries with higher rates. They may exchange U.S. dollars for Australian dollars then invest the money in higher-paying Australian bonds.

“The Fed aims to push up the prices of stocks, bonds, real estate, and you name it,” says Bill O’Donnell, head of U.S. government bond strategy at the Royal Bank of Scotland. “Everything is going to go up but the dollar.”

A drop in the dollar can help companies like Ford that sell their products abroad. When the dollar weakens against the euro, for example, one euro buys more dollars than before. Foreign customers notice the price of the Explorer they’ve been eyeing is lower in their currency, yet Ford still pockets the same number of dollars for every sale.

The downside is that a weakened dollar pinches people in the U.S. because anything produced in other countries becomes more expensive, like oranges from Spain or toys from China.
“Look around you,” says Thomas Atteberry, a fund manager at First Pacific Advisors. “How many things can you find that were made in the U.S.A?”

—BLOWING BUBBLES
Buying bundles of Treasurys knocks down interest rates, making borrowing cheap. But it also motivates investors to move out of safe investments into riskier ones in search of better returns. The stock market, for instance, rises in value and everyone with some of their savings in stocks feels wealthier. Ideally, it produces what what economists call a “wealth effect”: People who feel better off spend more.

The problem, according to some critics, is that cheap borrowing costs and buoyant markets make a fertile environment for bubbles, which eventually pop. “The effort to help the economy sets up another more dangerous bubble,” says Grantham, who warned of Japan’s surging real estate and stock markets in the 1980s, soaring Internet stocks in the 1990s and the housing market in the 2000s.

Stocks in developing countries are a likely candidate for the next bubble. Cash from Europe and the U.S. has plowed into emerging markets, such as Brazil and Chile, since the financial crisis, largely because these countries have less debt and faster economic growth than in the developed world.
Another concern: Hedge funds borrowing cheap money can magnify their bets, taking a loan at 2 percent to buy a security that’s rising 10 percent. They sell the security, pay off the bank and pocket the rest. That’s true whenever interest rates remain low. Falling rates allow speculators to borrow larger amounts. In the extreme, losses from hedge funds and other borrowers can put their banks at risk and leave governments to clean up the mess.

The game only works as long as the investment keeps climbing. When the bubble breaks, the fallout can devastate an economy.

“I think bubbles are the main villain in this piece,” Grantham says.

Cheap debt provided the fuel for the housing bubble, allowing home buyers to take out larger loans on the belief that somebody else would buy the house at a higher price. Fed chief Ben Bernanke’s answer, Grantham said, is to start the cycle over again by blowing a new bubble. “All they can do is replace one bubble with another one,” he said.

—FALLING FLAT
For others in the bond market, the greatest worry isn’t that the Fed will flood the economy with dollars and lets inflation run wild. It’s that the Fed will prove too timid.

“Whether QE2 works or not will be decided by the bond market,” says Christopher Rupkey, chief economist at Bank of Tokyo. “Without a big number that gets the market’s attention, the program they announce could be dead on arrival.”

News reports that the Fed may spend less than the $500 billion bond traders have been betting on has helped push long-term rates higher in the last three weeks. David Ader, head of government bond strategy at CRT Capital, sketches one scenario if the Fed shoots too small. Say the Fed announces a $250 billion plan. The yield on the 10-year Treasury note, which is used to set lending rates for mortgages and corporate loans, could jump from 2.6 percent to maybe 3.2 percent.

“If the Fed’s efforts fail we suddenly look like Japan,” Ader says. “Japan started off wimpishly, then did it again, and again and then they wound up losing a decade.”
 
REVROK said:
The schools in question are colleges and Universities... Not K-12, though no doubt the feds will stick their noses ever deeper into that puddle as well.

All colleges and Universities that receive Title IV funding are under federal regulation, but most of these schools are regionally accredited and this system is a self regulation system that has made us the envy of the world because of its effectiveness as demonstrated by the quality of our schools. It has allowed for academic freedom in terms of courses and majors offered that is not under the thumb of government. Now the government wants to interfere in a segment of the private sector that is one of the greatest success stories in America. We know the outcome.
Click to expand...

I've been following this as well because I work at a for-profit university. The regulation that will be the most damaging will be the gainful employment, if it passes in it's current form. However, I foresee some revisions to it before it becomes regulation.
 
New to the queue is Zubi Diamond, a U.S. financial author who says that the plan plays right into the hands of George Soros.

“This is the type of stuff we accused the communist and socialist governments of doing—interfering in free markets through currency manipulation,” declared Zubi Diamond, author of The Wizards of Wall Street, to the Canadian Free Press. “What the Fed is doing is not good for free market capitalism and it is not good for America.”

This round of quantitative easing, he predicted, “will devalue the dollar and lead to higher commodity prices, asset and price inflation. It may even lead to the end of the U.S. dollar as the world reserve currency.”

That, he added, plays right into the hands of billionaire, liberal financier George Soros:

“What is most troubling to me about this,” Diamond added, “is that the Fed’s QE2 is in alignment with George Soros’s agenda to destroy global capitalism.” The decline of the dollar “is what George Soros wants and what he has proposed in the past,” he noted.
Soros, the billionaire hedge fund operator who finances various leftist and Marxist groups, including Media Matters, has made his fortune by betting on the collapse of national economies and currencies. He was convicted of insider trading in France.
 
Chad Groening - OneNewsNow - 3/5/2010
A scholar and New York Times bestselling author suspects left-wing billionaire George Soros is trying to manipulate the euro as part of his goal of establishing a one-world currency and a one-world government.

The London Daily Mail and The Wall Street Journal both recently reported on what is being described as an all-star "ideas dinner" in New York City that was attended by some heavyweight hedge-fund managers, including George Soros. During that dinner, several participants argued that the euro is likely to fall to "parity" or equal on an exchange basis with the dollar.

Dr. Jerome Corsi, author of America for Sale: Fighting the New World Order, Surviving a Global Depression, and Preserving U.S.A. Sovereignty, believes this is a George Soros-led effort all the way.

Jerome%20Corsi.jpg
"Soros made his first billion in an effort to break the Bank of England when he similarly took short positions on futures and bet against the pound, which was hugely successful," Corsi explains. "That's when he made his first billion dollars. And now he is trying to do the same with the euro -- and the euro is vulnerable because the European Union has got debt problems."

The author adds that while bringing the euro closer to parity with the dollar is good for the dollar in the short term, this is not the best way to go about it.

"We should be bolstering the dollar...but not by taking down the euro," Corsi contends. "In some ways, I'm happy the euro could be taken down. I hope the nation states go back to their individual currencies. But that's not the outcome of this. The outcome is the globalists like Soros will ultimately say, 'Now let's go to a one-world currency and a one-world government."

The scholar concludes that the latter is what Soros has been working to accomplish. Meanwhile, President Barack Obama has done nothing or even said anything about protecting the dollar.

***************************************************************************************************************************

Monday, November 8, 2010 – Obama said the world needed a broad rebalancing.

‘We can’t continue to sustain a situation in which some coun­tries are maintaining massive surpluses, others massive def­icits and there never is the kind of adjustment with respect to currency that would lead to a more balanced growth pattern,” Obama said.

Obviously President Obama and George Soros feel it's time to spread the wealth around and devalue the dollar.

*****************************************************************************************************************************

How will this directly effect you and I?



November 5, 2010
NIA Projects Future U.S. Food Price Increases

The National Inflation Association today announced the release of its report about NIA's projections of future U.S. food price increases due to the massive monetary inflation being created by the Federal Reserve's $600 billion quantitative easing.

This report was written by NIA's President Gerard Adams, who believes food inflation will take over in 2011 as America's greatest crisis. According to Mr. Adams, making mortgage payments will soon be the last thing on the minds of all Americans. We currently have a currency crisis that could soon turn into hyperinflation and a complete societal collapse.

"For every economic problem the U.S. government tries to solve, it always creates two or three much larger catastrophes in the process," said Adams. "Just like we predicted this past December, the U.S. dollar index bounced in early 2010 and has been in free-fall ever since. Bernanke's QE2 will likely accelerate this free-fall into a complete U.S. dollar rout," warned Adams.

NIA projects that at the average U.S. grocery store it will soon cost $11.43 for one ear of corn, $23.05 for a 24 oz loaf of wheat bread, $62.21 for a 32 oz package of Domino Granulated Sugar, $24.31 for a 32 fl oz container of soy milk, $77.71 for a 11.30 oz container of Folgers Classic Roast Coffee, $45.71 for a 64 fl oz container of Minute Maid Orange Juice, and $15.50 for a Hershey's Milk Chocolate 1.55 oz candy bar. NIA also projects that by the end of this decade, a plain white men's cotton t-shirt at Wal-Mart will cost $55.57.

NIA's special U.S. food price projection report is now available to download for free by clicking here.

The report highlights how despite cotton rising by 54%, corn rising by 29%, soybeans rising by 22%, orange juice rising by 17%, and sugar rising by 51% during the months of September and October alone, these huge commodity price increases have yet to make their way into America's grocery stores because corporations have been reluctant to pass these price increases along to the consumer. In today's dismal economy, no retailer wants to be the first to dramatically raise food prices. However, NIA expects all retailers to soon substantially raise food prices at the same time, which will ensure that this Holiday shopping season will be the worst in recorded American history.
 
Milford Cubicle II said:
The NIA? Really?

I think the National Enquirer has more credibility than the National Inflation Association.

I agree with you in principle but the NIA stuff could be omitted.
Click to expand...

After looking at the rest of the sources on this thread are you surprised?
 
Always great to have you share your opinion, Cracker.....how about some facts to back it up?

This isn't a juvenile sparing match about "ownership".......why would our leaders take the same actions that have historically resulted in the complete meltdown of a nations economy, if it wasn't their endgame?

Here's some facts from those more wise that I.

9 Reasons Why Quantitative Easing is bad for the economy.

http://www.businessinsider.com/why-...ge-the-value-of-the-us-dollar-1#ixzz14r1iE0Yl



The Federal Reserve has effectively been monetizing far more US government debt than has openly been revealed, by cleverly enabling foreign central banks to swap their agency debt for Treasury debt. This is not a sign of strength and reveals a pattern of trading temporary relief for future difficulties.

This is very nearly the same path that Zimbabwe took, resulting in the complete abandonment of the Zimbabwe dollar as a unit of currency. The difference is in the complexity of the game being played, not the substance of the actions themselves.

When the full scope of this program is more widely recognized, ever more pressure will fall upon the dollar, as more and more private investors shun the dollar and all dollar-denominated instruments as stores of value and wealth. This will further burden the efforts of the various central banks around the world as they endeavor to meet the vast borrowing desires of the US government.
http://www.chrismartenson.com/blog/shell-game-how-federal-reserve-monetizing-debt/25806

:patriot:
 
Last edited:
platinum has more industrial uses and it generally does not have pricing bubble issues because most wackjobs stockpiling precious metals go for gold and silver.
 
Obama is again told, this time by world leaders at the G20 Summit, that his Quantative Easing policy is bad for the US and for the World.


After five largely harmonious meetings in the past two years to deal with the most severe downturn since the Depression, major disputes broke out between Washington and China, Britain, Germany, and Brazil.
Each rejected core elements of Obama’s strategy of stimulating growth before focusing on deficit reduction. Several major nations continued to accuse the Federal Reserve of deliberately devaluing the dollar last week in an effort to put the costs of America’s competitive troubles on trading partners, rather than taking politically tough measures to rein in spending at home.


Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner got into a trans-Pacific argument with one of his former mentors, Alan Greenspan, the former chairman of the Federal Reserve, after Greenspan wrote that the United States was “pursuing a policy of currency weakening.’’
Geithner shot back on CNBC that while he had “enormous respect’’ for Greenspan, “that’s not an accurate description of either the Fed’s policies or our policies.’’

Much of the rest of the world seemed to share Greenspan’s assessment.

Moreover, Obama seemed to be losing the broader debate over austerity. The president has insisted that at a moment of weak private demand, the best way to spur economic growth is to have the government prime the pump with cheap credit and government stimulus programs.
He quickly found himself in an argument with Prime Minister David Cameron of Britain and Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany.


“You do hear the argument made sometimes: If you have a deficit, put off the action to deal with it because taking money out of the economy will reduce your growth rate,’’ Cameron said at the meeting. “I simply don’t accept that.’’
Merkel, in a more traditional German view reflective of her country’s history of hyperinflation before World War II, was equally adamant.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation_in_the_Weimar_Republic


“I am not one, and Germany is not one, who says growth and fiscal consolidation are contradictory,’’ she said during a lunchtime address in Seoul. “They can go together, and it is essential to return to a sustainable growth path.’’

She also suggested that it was the job of deficit countries — like the United States and Britain, although she diplomatically avoided citing them — to increase their competitiveness rather than put limits on countries that had figured out how to get the world to buy their goods.


http://www.boston.com/news/world/as.../us_south_korea_trade_accord_not_a_done_deal/
 
holy crap, the rest of the (mostly more liberal) world told us to rein in our spending instead of pushing our problems on them? Yeah, we're screwed.

Also, George Soros can go to hell.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

C
The Execution of SEAL Team Six
Replies
7
Views
677
Darky
Darky
XJEEPER
FACT: Obama was elected as a pawn of the Socialist Movement in America.
Replies
1
Views
832
XJEEPER
XJEEPER
Back
Top