It’s All So Deplorable

As a card-carrying member of The Deplorables, it’s getting rather crowded in our, er, deplorable Basket. But look who else is fixing to join us! I mean, how deplorable is that? Why, it’s sexist, racist and xenophobic all in one! It’s foreign girls who work in those Haitian sweatshops. Too bad they’re not Moslem or lesbian, then she would have hit the trifecta!

Really, what more can be said? She has tin ear for politics that’s second to none. It’s one thing to call your opponent a Klansman, a Nazi, whatever, but rule number one of electoral politics is that you don’t make fun of the electorate or –worse–disparage them. Even a subset of them.

In the old Scooby Doo cartoons, at the end of the episode, our fearless heroes would unmask the villain and it’d invariably be some upstanding citizen. Well, speaking before an aggregation of wealthy lesbians, gays, bi-sexuals and transsexuals in New York (let that sink in for a moment) she unmasked herself as the elitist that we’ve always known her to be.

Stories going back to the Arkansas days describe Hillary as being snooty towards the rubes that Bill knew how to play. After his first loss as governor for example, he forced her to take his name and so she went from being Hillary Rodham to Hillary Clinton. After all, she had studied at the knees of the great Alinsky and she knew what she had to do. That didn’t mean she had to like it though. Bill, bless his heart was able over the years to rein in her worst instincts but he can’t be everywhere all the time.

There’s so much more that can be said about this and no doubt, more will be said. Like I said, buckle your seat belts, it’s going to be a bumpy ride!

Comments

  1. Peter Millman says

    Hi George,
    Well, for one thing, Bubba can’t be everywhere at once when he’s having consensual and nonconsensual sex with myriads of women. Very good news- Trump is ahead of the Hillary beast by five points nationally. I don’ want t this obscene mouthed cretan anywhere near the Presidency. She is a disgrace to humanity- and I’m being extremely kind. She is one of the most loathsome parasites on the planet.

    • THANK YOU! Go Trump!!

      • Bishop Tikhon (Fitzgerald) says

        DUMP TRUMP!

        • Peter Millman says

          Your “Grace,”
          I typed Bishop Tikhon Fitzgerald into google,and the first site that came up has the headline, ” We Should Horsewhip Tikhon Fitzgerald for His ” Public Service to the…
          Well, my friend, I’ll have you know I disagree completely with that sentiment. We should always be kind to animals.

          • Um… Are you seriously going to quote BMD as part of your brief against Bp. Tikhon? George, a little education might be in order, if you aren’t willing to moder ate some of this stuff.

            • Peter Millman says

              Edward, What did I say? I see that reading comprehension is not your forte. I said that I disagreed with the headline. ” We should always be kind to animals.” What part of that do you not understand? I defended the ” bishop.” Yes, you definitely need to learn how to read. I guess you’ve never heard of the expression “tongue in cheek.” Geesh, what an imbecile! I agree that, perhaps, should moderate your stupid comments.

          • Peter A. Papoutsis says

            Peter, babs is well off the reservation. He/she/it has issues to say the least. I wouldn’t reference her.

            Peter

        • Peter A. Papoutsis says

          I think you meant GO TRUMP!

          Peter

  2. Peter A. Papoutsis says

    Wikileaks & Guccifer 2.0 Strike again:
    _________________________________
    WikiLeaks’ Guccifer 2.0: Obama Sold Off Public Offices to Donors
    Corruption doesn’t start or end with Hillary
    By Michael Sainato • 09/14/16 11:00am

    US President Barack Obama (L) bids farewell to US Ambassador to Britain Matthew Barzun at London’s Stansted airport on April 24, 2016. Photo: Jim Watson/AFP/Getty Images

    On September 13, WikiLeaks lived up to its promise of releasing more Democratic National Committee (DNC) documents. This time they were from hacker Guccifer 2.0, serving as a teaser for larger and likely more embarrassing leaks from the DNC and Hillary Clinton campaign.

    Both the Democratic Party and Clinton campaign have attempted to insulate themselves from the content of the releases by alleging the hacks were organized by the Russian government. The claims are a mix of paranoia and PR/damage control, and will have enduring consequences. It may lead to what former Secretary of Defense William Perry referred to as a drift back into Cold War mentalities.

    The leaks include more evidence of overt corruption within the DNC. One email dated May 18, 2016, from Jacquelyn Lopez, an attorney with the law firm Perkins Coie, asked DNC staff if they could set up a brief call “to go over our process for handling donations from donors who have given us pay to play letters.”

    Included in the leak was a list of high-profile donors from 2008 and the ambassadorship they received in exchange for their large donation to the DNC and Barack Obama’s Organizing For Action (OFA). Essentially, Obama was auctioning off foreign ambassador positions and other office positions while Hillary Clinton served as secretary of state. The largest donor listed at contributions totaling over $3.5 million, Matthew Barzun, served as U.S. Ambassador to Sweden from 2009 to 2011, served as President Obama’s National Finance Chair during his 2012 reelection campaign, and now serves as U.S. Ambassador to the United Kingdom.

    The second largest donor, Julius Genachowski, donated just under $3.5 million to the DNC and OFA, and in exchange was appointed chairman of the FCC by Obama in 2009.

    The third largest donor on the list, Frank Sanchez, donated just over $3.4 million and exchange was appointed to Undersecretary of Commerce for International Trade by Obama in 2010.

    A 2013 article published by the Guardian corroborates the pay-to-play scheme this list suggests. “Barack Obama has rewarded some of his most active campaign donors with plum jobs in foreign embassies, with the average amount raised by recent or imminent appointees soaring to $1.8m per post, according to a Guardian analysis,” wrote Dan Roberts. “The practice is hardly a new feature of U.S. politics, but career diplomats in Washington are increasingly alarmed at how it has grown. One former ambassador described it as the selling of public office.”

    A separate release from DC Leaks, an anonymous organization, revealed emails between former Secretary of State Colin Powell and Democratic Party mega-donor and Powell’s business partner, Jeffrey Leeds. In the exchange, Powell vents to Leeds over the Clinton campaign trying to use him as a scapegoat regarding Clinton’s controversial use of a private email server that instigated a FBI criminal investigation. “I warned her staff three times over the past two years not to try to connect it to me. I am not sure HRC even knew or understood what was going on in the basement,” Powell wrote in one email, according to The Intercept.

    Another major issue brought up by the latest leaks is the media blackout on the content of what was released. Politico, The New York Times, and several other news outlets opted to report solely on the fact that there was a new leak—citing a statement from DNC Chair Donna Brazile, who claims the DNC is the victim of a Russian cyber-attack—without delving into the specifics of the content.

    The recent leak teaser from WikiLeaks and Guccifer 2.0 serves to show how extensive and far back the documents obtained in the hacks go. While no emails were released in this latest release, the documents to come will—at the very least—shed further light as to the extent of corruption in the Democratic Party.
    _________________________

    Can somebody get Rod Blagojevich’s attorney’s on the phone. They just got a WHOLE new argument to make.

    Also, why is Blago in jail and not Obama, Rahm or HRC? Oh yeah, they didn’t get caught, and Blago did. Well what about now? Or will no reasonable prosecutor go after them? Hmmm? More to come boys and girls, more to come.

    I am so glad we are going to elect such a fine upstanding citizen like HRC. Makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside…NOT!

    God Bless the Republic…WITH REPENTANCE!

    Peter

    PS HRC DID know what was going on with her private server as we now know from the FBI’s report, but somehow did not find her guilty, and Russia is blamed for this? OK what if Russia is Blamed for this what did it do wrong? Expose the corruption and evil of our leaders? WOW! Russia is evil because it exposed the truth!

    And yes, I know Russia and Putin are not saints, but man Obama and HRC are way more dirty than even I imaged! Lord have mercy! More imformation from Wikileaks to come.

    Peter

    Again, why is Blago in jail?

    • The difference Peter, between Blago and the rest of them (Bush, Clinton, Bush, Obama, etc.) are that there is nothing stated/demanded by the others. They make a big contribution and demand zilch. Blago demanded payment.

      Let me explain something to you Peter because you don’t really understand money.

      For some people, it is obtained easily. And I mean like water falling from a shower spigot. For others, they barely scratch by. And for some others, they work and earn a decent living, but no shower spigot. That is the America you love Peter.

      And when money is obtained by the spigot, it can be given easily. And with no promise of a quid pro quo. Take for example, Peter, contributors to Bush. What did they get? They got soft regulations and the housing crash. Pretty current, and far worse than Obama giving Barzun a position in government. And you think you are onto something. How many of the Bush contributors went to jail? Zip.

      So, you see, Peter, just because wiki knows the Obama donors through illegal means, doesn’t mean anything illegal occurred. Now, you will guffaw and backpedal, because you want to make Obama out to be a criminal, but 3 million dollars is chump change for a whole bunch of Americans.

      And ask yourself, what is the return?

      It is a silly federal job with a menial salary and a nice thing on a resume’ that might get you another job as a lobbyist, etc. someday, or a plaque on the wall. Or in the case of the Bushies, it was government turning an eye to something…oversight of lending practices (they were regulated – a bit).

      So, before you jump for joy for finding something to indict Obama for, you better be careful what you wish for…

      Backscratching is part of how the Congress operates friend. You vote for my bill and I’ll vote for yours.

      Welcome to merica(sic).

      • George Michalopulos says

        Anon, I’ll let Peter answer your critiques in his own inimitable way but as for myself, you’re attempted exoneration of this huge scandal is nothing but sophistry. It’s not even naive as you clearly know the depths to which our republican governance has sunk.

        This is nothing less that what one finds in a Third World banana republic. It’s so bloody naked that it’s impossible to see it as anything else.

        • The Bush jr. scandal is bigger. An entire economy melted.

          And you sir.

          Crickets.

          If you don’t believe me, how about a Benjamin on it? Zero indictments on anything related to the Obama appointments. We can wait a couple of years. You game?

          Why don’t you look up how ambassadors are given their positions on google George. For heaven’s sake, you’ve been paying far too much attention to some pundit. The political appointments are rewards for helping the presidents financially as a simple matter of fact. It is called a patronage reward.

          • George Michalopulos says

            The “Bush scandal” is a curious locution. I suppose Barney Frank is also a Bush operative? No, for all his manifest faults, Dubya actually wanted to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac but the proglibs marshaled their forces and put a stop to it. The liberalization of mortgage lending began with Jimmy Carter and really went into hyperdrive under Bill Clinton. I hate to admit it, but redlining worked in that it prevented the most incapable people from ever getting mortgages in the first place.

            • Facts and Figures says

              How appropriate that you make one of your most colossally ignorant and nakedly racist statements ever on this blog under a post about ‘the Deplorables’

              I hate to admit it, but redlining worked in that it prevented the most incapable people from ever getting mortgages in the first place.

              There’s no shortage of extensive coverage of the whole housing bubble saga. Blaming the housing crash on bad loans to colored folk is so ridiculously out of touch with reality that it makes you look like you get all your news from Stormfront threads. It’s a simple but false answer for lazy racists who can’t be bothered to learn about the intricacies of the American financial system.

              In addition, subprime loans were not exclusively used by minorities, but major lenders did engage in predatory lending practices deliberately targeting them with poorer loan terms not because they had worse incomes or jobs, because they didn’t but based on race.

              http://prospect.org/article/staggering-loss-black-wealth-due-subprime-scandal-continues-unabated

              It turned out that several of the major banks had been purposely giving people of color subprime mortgages, including borrowers who would have qualified for a prime loan. The City of Baltimore took Wells Fargo to court, bringing some of the banking giant’s abhorrent lending practices to light. One former employee testified that in 2001, Wells Fargo created a unit that would be responsible for pushing expensive refinance loans on black customers, especially those living in Baltimore, southeast Washington, D.C., and Prince George’s County—all locations with large black populations.

              According to court testimony, some of the loan officers at Wells Fargo spoke of these subprime loans as “ghetto loans,” and referred to their black customers as “mud people.”
              According to court testimony, some of the loan officers at Wells Fargo spoke of these subprime loans as “ghetto loans,” and referred to their black customers as “mud people.” There was even a cash incentive for loan officers to aggressively market subprime mortgages in minority neighborhoods. In the end, the Justice Department found that 4,500 homeowners in Baltimore and the Washington, D.C., region that had been affected by these flat-out racist lending practices.

              • George Michalopulos says

                Dream on. The race card has been played out. Pick another.

                The facts speak for themselves. No mortgage lender in his right mind would consent to a mortgage for a single mother in a dead-end job on some type of Welfare. I know because 33 years ago my wife and I had to move heaven and earth to buy a “fixer-upper” in my old neighborhood. I had just passed my state boards and was making a nice salary and my wife was a full-time employee as a reimbursement specialist for a major health insurance company.

                • George Michalopulos says

                  Under Clinton, the Feds forced bankers to make mortgages so they did what any reasonable person would do: sell them on the secondary market. The trouble with that is that’s a Ponzi scheme. Eventually people stop buying bad paper. When that happens, bubbles burst and collapses happen.

                  • Reality Checker says

                    *

                    • Bishop Tikhon (Fitzgerald) says

                      I agree, Reality Checker. George is a large, economy-size, industrial-strength rationalizer, especially in trying to defend himself against the facts provided by”Facts and Figures,” above!

                  • here is a patronage reward to an American mortgage lender

                    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roland_Arnall

                    but it is fun watching you blame Clinton and trying to indict Obama when the bubble burst under Bush and there is factual evidence he extended carrots to mortgage lenders

                    how about a little honesty? Clinton sent a lot of American jobs overseas and Bush allowed the mortgage crisis to occur in classic laissez faire fashion.

                  • Peter Millman says

                    Hi George, With all due respect, the Fed didn’t force the banks to make bad loans; they deregulated the banking industry. I have a particular interest in the housing failure because my brother is a partner with Goldman Sachs. The banks were loaning money without any documentation and selling the loans to the big banks. Goldman Sachs, Salomon Brothers, Merrill Lynch and others got the ratings agencies to give triple A ratings to triple B loans. The banks created bonds for subprime loans called Collateralized Debt Obligations, and then synthetic bonds. Most people in the banking industry didn’t understand any of these extremely complex financial instruments. The subprime loans were lent with a teaser adjustable interest rate for three years. When the new interest rate kicked in and the rise in housing prices ceased, many people defaulted on their loans triggering the collapse of major banks along with AIG. Some very shrewd investors understood the housing bubble and bet against the housing market by buying credit default insurance. People like Dr. Michael Burry, John Paulson, and some other investors made large fortunes as a result. Like I said, it is extremely complicated and confusing. A couple of good books on the subject are The Big Short and The Greatest Trader Ever. The banks were extremely greedy, to say the least. It’s very difficult to understand and almost impossible to explain.

                    • George Michalopulos says

                      Peter, thanks for the correction and a brief overview of the housing bubble, but I don’t think I said that “the Fed” drove the banks to do it. If by “Fed” you mean the Federal Reserve. I did not mean the Federal Reserve but Federal institutions such as Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae as well as liberal and Jack Kemp-type Republicans who fought to lower standards for mortgages.

                    • Reality Checker says

                      Peter, thanks for the correction and a brief overview of the housing bubble, but I don’t think I said that “the Fed” drove the banks to do it. If by “Fed” you mean the Federal Reserve.

                      Of course that’s exactly what you said. Note that the Federal Reserve is what everyone else on Earth understands by “the Fed.” Having your own private lexicon is not literate nor is it something to defend, rather it is something to get over.

                      I did not mean the Federal Reserve but Federal institutions such as Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae as well as liberal and Jack Kemp-type Republicans who fought to lower standards for mortgages.

                      The CRA (passed in 1976, rewritten over the decades since) featured some incentives to ease up, reasonably, on banks’ requirements for loans in order to encourage expansion of the middle class. No one was actively encouraged, much less forced, by the CRA to write mortgages for borrowers with no income, or with objectively inadequate income and credit history. It is a lie to suggest otherwise. No one was encouraged by any law to lie to minority and/or naive borrowers about the downside of adjustable rate and other “subprime” loans. And most importantly, credit rating agencies weren’t forced to enable fraud, much less commit it outright. Greed and corruption were wholly sufficient to drive the abuse of some well-intentioned programs and laws — some ill-intentioned laws, too. Your recitation of dishonest and simple-minded talking points is false, as is so often the case. The 2008 meltdown was extremely complicated with lots of blame to go around.

                    • George Michalopulos says

                      Well, I was mistaken. That still doesn’t obviate the fact that the Federal Reserve is the recipient as well as instigator of all federal spending. Look it up: see what our debt was from 1789-1913 and what it was from 1913-today.

                • “I hate to admit it, but redlining worked in that it prevented the most incapable people from ever getting mortgages in the first place.” – George

                  “Dream on. The race card has been played out. Pick another.” – George

                  Hypocrisy at its finest. Or maybe just complete lack of self-awareness. Or maybe “the race card” can only be played by non-whites.

        • George, we are Orthodox and are well aware of sin and the corrupted nature that is our human inheritance. If we read our American history the fleeting moments of high-minded government have been few and very short lived – if they ever really existed. It was the Goo Goos and Progressives who pretended that the Congress in Courts were filled by angels masquerading as men. While I cannot condone, I am not shocked by anything that politicians will say or do to gain and maintain personal power. I only hope and pray that Christ Jesus will pardon me of my transgressions.

      • Peter A. Papoutsis says

        Reveal your name then we talk. Otherwise bye bye.

      • Peter Millman says

        Greetings Anonymous,
        When I express a contradictory opinion from someone, I usually begin by saying,” With all due respect,” but in your case, I say, “With absolutely no respect whatsoever.” Who cares what you think when you are too cowardly and gutless to sign your real name? You are a lilly livered, cowardly parasite. With absolutely no respect whatsoever, take your worthless opinions and keep them to your obnoxious self. Coward!!
        Remember this my pusillanimous friend, the great George Michalopulos, the great Gail Sheppard, the great Peter Papoutsis, the great Peter Millman, and various others have the integrity to sign our REAL NAMES.

        • Peter A. Papoutsis says

          Peter, what people do not understand about the Blago situation is that he ATTEMPTED to sell a senate seat to the highest bidder, but never did it. This is why Blagos attorneys, the First time around, beat via a jury verdict, 23 out of 24 charges of corruption against him and the 24th charge was legally inconsistent because of what the Jury ruled on the previous 23. Dawn Reiss of Time Magazine stated:

          “This was the second trial Blagojevich faced on most of the same charges. His defense had dramatic success the first time around with a successful deployment of the element of surprise. In a stunning move last summer, Blagojevich’s attorneys rested their case instead of presenting any evidence, despite their original promise that the defendant would take the stand. That left the jury drowning in the government’s complex evidence of intent that nevertheless had no fully completed act of bribe taking. Irredeemably hung, the jurors were unable to convict Blagojevich or his brother Robert except on one count (lying) out of the original 24 charges. (Emphasis added).

          The Second time around, according to Mrs. Reiss, the Prosecution:

          “took to straightforward, focused outrage more than anything else. First they decided to drop the charges against Robert Blagojevich. Then they streamlined the charges down to 20 and made it clearer that asking for a bribe was just as bad as getting the bribe. In the government’s final statement, Assistant U.S. Attorney Carrie Hamilton, a thin, petite woman with blond hair pulled back in a ponytail, asked the jury to remember how Blagojevich swore under oath in 2003 and again in 2006 to uphold the state constitution, pledging to use his powers for the people of Illinois. “You have learned that the defendant violated that oath,” she said, staring down her audience. “He used his power to get things for himself and tried to trade the signing of a bill, state funding for grants, roads, and the appointment of a Senate seat to try and get things for himself. This was not only a profound violation of his oath but a violation of the law.”

          So Peter my original question still stands: Why is Blago in prison and not Obama, Rahm, & Co.? The emails clearly reveal Pay to Play activity so why is Blag in Prison and not them? Answer Blago got caught, Rahm needed him out of the way so he didn’t muddy the good name of Obama, because his pay to play activity involved Rahm and Obama, and he needed to be taken out of the way ASAP!

          As the Chicago Tribune reported at the time:
          ____
          Blagojevich issue casts shadow on Emanuel
          Questions about links to ex-governor likely to resurface in mayoral campaign
          October 02, 2010|By John Chase and Jeff Coen, Tribune reporters

          Much will be made of Rahm Emanuel’s ties to President Barack Obama as Emanuel returns to Chicago in preparation for a mayoral run, but he also will have to deal with his connections to the state’s most toxic politician — former Gov. Rod Blagojevich.

          During a hugfest at the White House Friday to announce his departure as chief of staff, Emanuel told the president he was “eager to see what I can do to make our hometown even greater.”

          Back in Chicago, though, Emanuel will face questions about his earlier role as the envoy for the president-elect in discussions with Blagojevich over whom the governor should appoint to succeed Obama in the U.S. Senate.

          There was no suggestion that the Obama administration’s dealings crossed any lines, but Emanuel’s name popped up repeatedly in Blagojevich’s corruption trial as prosecutors alleged the governor sought to sell the seat for everything from a Cabinet post to an ambassadorship. Following a hung jury on all but one charge, prosecutors have said they will retry Blagojevich as soon as January, a month before the Feb. 22 election.

          That raises the prospect that Emanuel’s name will once again be in headlines with Blagojevich. There’s also the chance he could be called as a witness to bolster the defense case that Blagojevich was merely engaging in political horse-trading.

          Some of the specifics of Emanuel’s dealings with Blagojevich have been shielded by the ongoing criminal case, and he has declined to publicly detail his role.

          But the Tribune has learned more about taped conversations Emanuel had as well as what he told investigators about efforts to get Blagojevich to accept someone who had Obama’s approval. They offer a deeper glimpse into his late-inning involvement in negotiations over the seat.

          A 2008 internal report by the new Obama administration as well as testimony at the trial outlined Emanuel’s role in delivering a list of approved candidates for Blagojevich to consider that included state Comptroller Dan Hynes, U.S. Reps. Jesse Jackson Jr. and Jan Schakowsky and Iraq War veteran Tammy Duckworth.

          The report stated that Emanuel also presented Attorney General Lisa Madigan and former Blagojevich communications director Cheryle Jackson as additional options in at least one phone call to Blagojevich chief of staff John Harris before the governor was arrested by FBI agents at his home on Dec. 9, 2008.

          “As the White House counsel concluded, Rahm did not engage in deal-making over the Senate seat with Gov. Blagojevich and his representatives,” Emanuel spokesman Rick Jasculca said Friday, on the eve of Emanuel’s return to Chicago to begin laying the groundwork for his anticipated run.

          The internal report did not provide specifics on Emanuel’s phone conversations with Harris or on his Dec. 20 interview with federal investigators.

          The Tribune has learned Emanuel told the investigators his motivation for offering other names was a concern by Obama’s transition team that Blagojevich had rejected their initial list of acceptable candidates. Emanuel said the administration was responding to a Fox News report that former state Senate President Emil Jones of Chicago — who was not on Obama’s short list — could be Blagojevich’s pick.

          Emanuel told investigators he called Harris and suggested Madigan after meeting with U.S. Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., and Obama adviser David Axelrod, who agreed she would be a good pick.

          A wiretap on Harris’ phone also captured Emanuel pushing to have Blagojevich consider then-Chicago Urban League President Cheryle Jackson for the post, the Tribune has learned. She had been one of the governor’s highest-ranking African-American aides and Emanuel said selecting her would make a statement that would play well for the beleaguered governor.

          “He’s got to do something that big,” Emanuel told Harris in the Dec. 7, 2008, recorded conversation, the Tribune has learned. Harris told Emanuel that Blagojevich had a falling out with Jackson.

          “I am more than willing to talk to him,” Emanuel said of Blagojevich in the recording.

          At his trial, Blagojevich attorneys contended the former governor’s real aim was to name the attorney general to the seat in a political deal with her father, powerful Illinois House Speaker Michael Madigan, a leading Blagojevich critic who was making preparations to have the governor impeached.

          The defense told the jury that Emanuel had agreed just the day before Blagojevich’s arrest to help broker the deal.

          The Tribune has learned that Harris told investigators Emanuel agreed to be the “go-between” on the Madigan deal.

          The jury in the Blagojevich case never heard any recording capturing an Emanuel conversation, although the Obama report confirmed that he spoke to Blagojevich “one or two” times from Nov. 6 to 8.

          ______________

          So Blago got cut from the DNC team because he wouldn’t play the way Obama and Rahm wanted and somehow now after the leaks Blago is in prison, Rahm is mayor of Chicago, Obama became President for 8 years, and evil incarnate HRC is somehow going to be installed as our next President, and THEY ALL DID THE SAME IF NOT MORE THAN BLAGO! Yet, Blago is in prison and they are not.

          Blago’s real crime was he was never as important as these guys.

          Peter

        • Peter Millman says

          George, I’m, extremely embarrassed by the stupid post I wrote to Anonymous. I feel very silly calling myself great. When I went to delete it , it was too late. To all, please accept my sincere apologies.

          • Believe it or not Peter, anonymity is not my preferred pen. I like to speak with people here about their opinions, but I decided the fact I post here might be taken as inherent agreement with the content by someone taking a cursory look. For example, a lot of articles about homosexuality – a cursory look might make a third person think I enjoy talking about or slamming gays – I don’t really like either. That’s it man.

            I like, okay love the Orthodox faith. Please understand I made a conscious decision that I don’t really like, but believe it is best. Furthermore, there are clerics and even bishops who post here pseudonymously, so take it up a notch, you might be talking to a bishop.

            I forgive you.

            And if you look at my response to George above, you will also see that patronage rewards are done by all presidents. Bush rewarded Arnall for contributing 250k 3 times to the inaugural ball. It was required to be done in that fashion for some or another reason. He did it legally by incorporating three businesses (Arnall, that is). This story about Obama is a non-starter.

            Blago demanded money in exchange for something.
            Obama didn’t demand money – it was given to him with a wink and a nod.
            Bush didn’t demand money – it was given to him with a wink and a nod.

            There is a big difference, but the apes here can’t seem to see it. Even when Bush and Obama behaved precisely the same way and Blago demanded money for his actions.

            • Peter A. Papoutsis says

              This will be the first and last time I lower myself to you.

              First, I am a man. I fear no one. NO ONE. so everything I say, right or wrong has my name. I do not step aside nor step down, I STEP UP. Bishop or no bishop, priest or no priest, etc.

              Second, stop being a fool and stop being a useful puppet and Idiot because your apology for evil, Bush, Obama, Blago, is sickening, and your crude hair-splitting a complete disgrace to you. Further, due to your anonymity proves to me you are truly a coward.

              Go find your spine and you may also find your common sense, and you just may stop coddling and apologizing for evil whoever it may be and wherever it may be.

              Again this is the last time I will lower myself to talk to a coward. Good night to you sir.

              Peter

              • Bishop Tikhon (Fitzgerald) says

                Peter, you and the other Peter should re-read “Anonymous’s” message above. He wrote this, “so take it up a notch, you might be talking to a bishop.” After re-reading what preceded that, don’t you think the author is someone known for compulsive opposition to toll-houses?

            • Peter Millman says

              Hello Anonymous,
              I was apologizing for my arrogance and pomposity. Your explanation for remaining anonymous seems cowardly and reeks of convoluted logic. Bishop Tikhon Fitzgerald, Archpriest Webster, the highly esteemed attorney Peter Papoutsis, Dr. Stankovich and others, whether they agree or disagree, sign their real names. It’s the honest thing to do.

  3. Who is Princess Tatiana and why is she doing a book signing at a Greek church?

    http://kimisishamptons.org/news-items/her-royal-highness-princess-tatiana-book-signing

    PS on the political stuff. When the Republican alternative brags on YouTube about who he has snogged, seemingly venerates racist, doesn’t pay his employees, and stiffs college kids for their prepaid tuition for non accredited courses of dubious value, I gotta ask myself, do I have to learn to get along with the idea of the Democratic alternative, or write in, or pretend I don’t have voting rights?

    • Peter A. Papoutsis says

      No you need to stop drinking the Kool-Aid, vote Trump, and YOU start restoring our constitutional republic, and take it out of the globallists hands.

      Peter

      • Do you truly believe that Trump has a clue what our constitutional republic is or was? I find your faith in D.Trump breathtakingly naive.

        • Peter A. Papoutsis says

          My faith is in Jesus Christ first and foremost. Second, I suggest you go back and read my comments. My faith is in us, the American People NOT Donald Trump. Trump is an egoist and self-promoter that likes nothing more than Money, Women and Accolades. I have NO rose colored glasses on when it comes to him.

          But what I do know is that when a candidate, any candidate, catches the wind of populism that is built upon personal financial ruin by Wall Street fat cats, and Globalists Corporations I support and vote for that candidate.

          When the party that I supported and voted for throughout my life used and abused me and hundreds of by brothers and sisters a so-called values voters (i.e. traditional Christians) and through us overboard on the social issues of Abortion and Same-Sex marriage I vote for the candidate that will punish them and teach them not to take me or mine for granted.

          When the first modern populist politician (i.e. Ross Perot) warned us of the great sucking sound of jobs going to Mexico because of NAFTA and was the first to warn us en mass about the coming scourge of Globalism, and it all came true and the GOP hated him I knew the GOP had nothing but hatred and contempt for me, my dad, my uncles and all the other hard working men and women in America who busted their hump to make a better life for themselves and their families.

          So I support and am voting for Trump not because I see him and his Ego. I am supporting and voting for Trump because I see all those Americans that got shafted by the Political and Economic Establishment in this country and this is the only way to get the PEOPLE’S voice heard to not only make America Great Again (thank you Bill Clinton for giving us that phrase), but to START to give back the American Dream to all those People that had it ripped away from them by the Powers that be, which not only include the GOP and Wall Street, but the DNC, Obama & Co., Bush,Sr. and Jr. & Co., the NeoCons, and every other Globalists that never did and never will give a damn about you and me.

          So its NOT Trump, but the People that are using him to finally get their voices heard and to START to take our country back and to START to reclaim the American Dream.

          And Terry I truly find YOUR FAITH greatly lacking in the American People, but I am glad that you are awake…FINALLY! Now let’s get to work and make sure HRC (i.e. Evil Incarnate) never gets elected (i.e. Installed?) in the White House.

          Peter A. Papoutsis

          • Peter, So true, it’s really not about Trump at all, Trump is our trumpet, pun intended, it’s all about the rejection of the two parties forced upon us for decades. Trump is NOT pretty, but he is our only path to show those in power we will not settle for the abuse of power again. Trump reflects our anger, frustration, and hope in a new direction. Even if Trump will lose this election, with his own personal stupidity ,the message is out, hopefully others will take notice, before it’s too late. We need to take back our country, from the hordes of refugees, and illegal aliens that flood our country, and stop the politicians that want to water down our
            votes. If not this election, the next WILL be the point of no return for those of us who remember what America was, and what it can be again.

            • George Michalopulos says

              My feeling is that he is going scorched earth. It’s a high-risk gambit but the rewards on these for him and his cause:

              1. he wins, or

              2. he delegitimizes the entire the American Establishment and exposes the kabuki theater that is the political system.

              My God, even George Will, #nevertrumper-in-chief and cuckservative extraordinaire has admitted that Trump is right about the system being rigged. When I read Will’s commentary, I almost choked on my drink.

              One thing is for sure, the present system cannot last forever.

              • Peter A. Papoutsis says

                Right you are George. However, I believe this election will finally destroy this fake system (house of cards) that we call globalism. This now a fight between good and evil. May God’s will be done.

                Peter

                • In other news…The Phillippines have announced separation from the U.S, and declared their unity with China. Thanks team Obama/Clinton. How many more countries will go to China until our dollar is worthless. The great American Ponzi is near its end. Time to buy some farmland, and make like old McDonald!

                  • George Michalopulos says

                    Unbelievable, isn’t it Dino? Subic Bay, one of the world’s greatest naval bases will be turned over to the Chinese Navy soon.

                  • The President of the Philippines refuses to follow the rule of law and has been chastised for sanctioning miscellaneous murder.

                    Crediting Obama or Clinton for his antics is a hoot, but keep trying.

                    Giving the Chinese unabashed access to the South China Sea will be Duterte’s reward.

                    They are already illegally building islands where they didn’t exist and far, far outside their lawful territory. The Chinese, that is.

                    A calculated risk, but one with a certain price. The Chinese will annex and devour the Philippines.

                  • Bishop Tikhon (Fitzgerald) says

                    I bet Trump is jealous of Duterte! Beat him to the punch in embracing a Putinesque dictator!!

    • Andrew Roberts says

      Princess Tatiana of Greece and Denmark is the wife of Prince Nikolaos of Greece and Denmark, son of King Constantine II of Greece and Queen Anne-Marie of Greece.

    • Andrew Roberts says

      Princess Tatiana of Greece and Denmark is the wife of Prince Nikolaos of Greece and Denmark, son of King Constantine II of Greece and Queen Anne-Marie of Greece.

  4. Gail Sheppard says

    Someone should tell the DNC Chair, Donna Brazile, that I don’t care WHERE the truth comes from, if it’s the truth. She just sank her own candidate. – Is it my imagination, or is the DNC turning against Hillary? All these revelations are coming from THEM!

  5. Reality Checker says

    Well, I was mistaken.

    Now if only you’d get in the habit of admitting your larger and much more consequential errors. A good start tho.

    That still doesn’t obviate the fact that the Federal Reserve is the recipient as well as instigator of all federal spending. Look it up: see what our debt was from 1789-1913 and what it was from 1913-today.

    ???
    Congress is the “instigator” of federal spending; its appropriations are the reason for all the debt. The Fed has nothing to do with it. It’s the central bank. They print the money and stabilize the financial system, and all interest on its portfolio beyond operating expenses and some small percentage for dividends to bank stockholders (6%, I think about $2 billion last year ) is deposited into the Treasury. Last year that was just under $100 billion. The recipient of federal spending is whoever gets the money — again, not the Fed. I have no idea what you’re talking about. Neither do you.
    Are you referring to the “interest on the debt”? That’s paid to holders of US Treasury bonds. Separate problem (a big one).

    • George Michalopulos says

      RC, you’re being trite. Though technically factual, you are missing the bigger picture. The engine of debt is federal spending, which is brought about by several factors, among them foreign wars, interventions, entitlements, etc. These things don’t happen overnight but over years, decades. Central banking is the culprit that makes these things possible. That’s why we had so little Federal spending after 1836 when Andy Jackson closed the Second Bank of the United States. As the Gipper said: “paying taxes should hurt.” The national income tax via withholding as well as central banking, which devalues fiat money as the need arises takes the pain out of paying taxes.

      It all goes back to what Nathan Rothschild said back in the early 19th century: “Give me the control of printing a nation’s money supply and I don’t care a whit who makes the laws.” (Paraphrase.)

      • Reality Checker says

        I’m sorry that corrections of your incessant factual errors strikes you as trite. For your patients’ sake I hope you aren’t as careless and reckless about pharmacological matters of fact, or mathematical matters of fact.

        You regularly hold forth on topics about which you give little evidence of possessing the most elementary knowledge. It’s hard to see how the “bigger picture” you like to talk about could be much more than a mere figment of your imagination when it’s so evident that your grasp of basic facts is so consistently inadequate. Intuitions unrooted in the demonstrable details of concrete reality are known as delusions. You demonstrate no acquaintance with the basic vocabulary of our financial system; you appear to have little idea about the meaning of basic terms or the operations of basic government institutions.

        • George Michalopulos says

          Actually, I’ve become somewhat flattered that you and a few others (Drezhlo perhaps?) have taken a keen interest in fact-checking me. The intent of course is to embarrass me but rest assured, I paint in broad strokes, not pale pastels.

          At this point in our nation’s life, what with rioting now being the “new normal,” I can’t possibly remember what Imam Obama first took Air Force One out for. Copenhagen to lobby for the Olympics? Istanbul to apologize for the Crusades? Canada? As our esteemed former Secy of State said in another venue: “what difference does it make?” Reasonable people can agree that the narrative of Obama’s (shall we say indifference?) to America is decidedly apologetic (at best).

          And as Josh Earnest, his Press Secretary said just the other day, “it’s all about the narrative.”

          So, if you want to pick apart the argument because of a misspelled word, a minor anachronism or a sloppy syllogism, go right ahead. I’ll stick to the broader narrative, in this case the Federal Reserve being the engine of our devalued currency, growing debt, and incessant wars. Then when your son comes back in a body bag because “democracy” didn’t take in East Crapistan, you can comfort yourself with knowing who was the Director of the Federal Reserve in 1939 whereas that Monomakhos fellow got it wrong.

          • Reality Checker says

            ‘Bigger picture’, ‘painting in broad strokes’, ‘broader narrative’ … in other words, based on years of “essays” and comments, your intent looks dreary and quite unoriginal: to scapegoat “the Jews,” the fags, the poors, the darker-skinned minorities and Ay-rabs, the immigrants, with lies, absurd distortions, grave fact-twisting, parroting white nationalist propaganda, retailing mobthink, semi-psychotic conspiracy theories and nearly every tiresome racist, anti-semitic talking point, spiced with more than a little bit of totally made-up horseshite. Your “bigger picture” is coming into perfectly clear focus Michalopulos.

            So, if you want to pick apart the argument because of a misspelled word, a minor anachronism or a sloppy syllogism, go right ahead.

            Comments like this make me wonder whether you’re stupid and delusional or a conscious liar. If you honestly think the problems with the unconscionable crap you traffic in here are only as trivial as that, then at best you haven’t been paying attention. What’s wrong with your worldview runs far deeper, buddy. We’ll take a much closer look at that.

          • Reality Checker says

            I feel like I should add that, quite truthfully, I really don’t get any pleasure from being so hard on you, taking this sort of tone. I’m not a troll and this isn’t really much fun. It’s just that like a lot of Americans, after this campaign year especially, I’m fed up with all the lies and the grave degeneration in fact/truth content of our public discourse, and the serious decline in basic intellectual decency. This is not going to come to a good end. So it makes me cranky.

            • George Michalopulos says

              You can get off your high horse. If you were truly “fed up with all the lies and grave degeneration in fact/truth content of our public discourse” you’d concentrate a little of your picayune assessments against the Left and its manifest and manifold lies. Instead you choose to pick apart trivial arguments and factoids that are secondary at best to my arguments.

              A major argument is not discredited if one of its many points is shown to errant or more likely, open to interpretation. I stand by what I said: Central banking and the printing of fiat money are the engines of totalitarian control.

              • Reality Checker says

                I must have missed all the leftists on this blog making irrational evidence-challenged assertions. Where are they?

                I think it’s self-flattery to call your stuff arguments, Mr. Michalopulos. Arguments are based on facts, evidence and sound reasoning.

                Central banking and the printing of fiat money are the engines of totalitarian control.

                That’s something a bit different from what you claimed before. And anyway, typing out a mere assertion is not making an argument, much less a “major argument.” But I wonder what alternative you propose to appropriately regulated central banks. How would that work? And if that question is too complex for you to answer with a competently stated “major argument,” tell us how a central bank and printing of fiat money can possibly become “the engines of totalitarian control” in a republic with an at least minimally educated, well-informed, rational and reasonably virtuous populace with a healthy, intricate and functioning civil society? I want to hear you explain how a central bank and fiat money can overcome all that and usher in a tyranny. I say that tyranny is a likely consequence of the degeneration of the good things above, not “central banking and fiat printing of money.” The latter do not cause the pathology; other factors do. So your claim isn’t an argument, it’s nothing but a nonsensical and entirely unsupported assertion.

                • Reality Checker says

                  To be clear, I’m not suggesting that greed and prioritizing sordid profit-making are not gravely immoral, socially and spiritually destructive forces. They certainly are. And greed takes many forms. Ultimately, the principle of greed is the coveting of what rightly belongs to someone else. Coveting that has the direct or indirect result of unjustly depriving others of what they need for wholesome thriving. “Central banks and the printing of fiat currency” are hardly either a necessary or a sufficient condition for this to occur, obviously. Your whole perspective on this is way off base, irrational and skewed toward delusion.

                  Thomas Hobbes, from Leviathan:

                  If in this case, at the making of Peace, men require for themselves, that which they would not have to be granted to others, they do contrary to the precedent law, that commandeth the acknowledgement of naturall equalitie, and therefore also against the law of Nature. The observers of this law, are those we call Modest, and the breakers Arrogant Men. The Greeks call the violation of this law πλεονεξία; that is, a desire of more than their share.

                  Pleonexia is idolatry. It’s the root pathology. It existed long before central banks and the printing of fiat currency. You’re scapegoating, and your assertion is just garden variety sorcery, diverting attention from the real root problems and therefore from effective solutions.

                  • George Michalopulos says

                    Pornography, erotica and adultery existed long before the internet as well. They were nowhere near as quantitatively destructive as they are presently. I believe it was Napoleon who said “quantity has a quality all of its own.”

                    As for central banking, I stand by my assertion (as would Thomas Jefferson for that matter). Wars in Europe during the Medieval period as well as the early Renaissance were minor affairs and very self-limiting. The nation-states could not prosecute industrial strength wars such as the Napoleonic wars, the War Between the States and World Wars I and II without the connivance of central bankers. Some of these bankers, like Nathan Rothschild actually supported both sides in the Napoleonic wars.

                    • Make Monomakhos Great Again! says

                      Talk about sins of omission!

                      Wars in Europe during the Medieval period as well as the early Renaissance were minor affairs and very self-limiting. The nation-states could not prosecute industrial strength wars such as the Napoleonic wars, the War Between the States and World Wars I and II without the connivance of central bankers.

                      What’s missing from this account? I don’t know, maybe the products of the industrial revolution! Steam power, the internal combustion engine, electricity, increased agricultural production all made war possible on a grander scale than ever before.

                      You also have a hilariously rose tinted view of the 19th century American economy and financial system. Sad!

                    • George Michalopulos says

                      Those things you describe only made the devastation of war in the industrial age more widespread. In the Middle Ages, kings were constrained not only by the inefficiencies of agriculturalism but by complex laws, ecclesiastical canons and customs which highly regulated military adventurism. The so-called Hundred Years War for example was a series of skirmishes followed by years and even decades of truces between the French and the English.

                      During these truces the nobility on both sides fraternized with each other. I believe King John II of France was captured and then ransomed at one point. (According to some sources, in order to entertain him, the English invented playing cards.) When he found out that their were peculiarities about the ransom, he turned himself back in to his captors. So high was the respect for the rules of engagement that when Henry V of England used radically different tactics at Agincourt (using unmounted Welsh long-bowmen against mounted French knights) it was considered the end of an era.

                    • Bishop Tikhon (Fitzgerald) says

                      The Thirty Years War was a minor affair and very self-limiting? Egads! Such blind dogmatism about banking! When DID all the Christian Churches decide to ignore their ancient canons against interest-bearing loans (usury) and break the monopoly on banking given to the Jews by those Christian canons?
                      How Jewish were the Fuggers, by the way? You’re right, the Rothschilds, wisely, DIDN’T TAKE SIDES in those fraternal wars of the Christians, but did help in some actions against Islamic powers, The English Monarchy was wise to INVITE Jews to come and settle in England rather than ban them or massacre them! Why they even raised a Rothschild to the nobility—still resented by descendants of Non-Conformists in areas like the unreconstructed South!

                    • George Michalopulos says

                      Excellent point, Your Grace regarding the Thirty Years War. I’d say that that was an outlier, an exception that proves the rule.

                    • Cynthia mae Curran says

                      Well, the Romans did without a central bank in the modern sense. Julius Caesar claimed he killed a million people while some historians said he exaggerated the number in his Gallic Wars, but he killed a lot of Gauls for the time..

                • The banks are very poorly regulated I’d add.

                  The right has done its best to remove any oversight from banks. As a result, banks end up with primary income sources from overdrafts. Recently in the Citizens Bank case, the banks were exposed for allowing people to overdraft on accounts with known zero balances in electronic transactions. Quite hilarious. I got a check for 9 bucks. Lawyers made millions.

                  The Federal Reserve is not ultimately responsible for the debt. Blaming them is either foolish or obfuscation. We have a huge problem where the right suggests cutting taxes as the solution to everything and the left constantly tries to prop up the economy with spending. If you look at Bush Jrs unraveling of the c.g. tax during a time of greater spending (Iraq 2); you can instantly know how rhetoric and cliche’ has run the debt to massive levels. When the right stops beating the cut taxes cut spending drum; and Ted Cruz takes up the banner to raise taxes, maybe we’ll get somewhere. Yup, that is what it’d take. And then those boys in Texas ‘d throw him out on his ear.

                  Raise taxes, cut spending, reduce deficits. (government accounting 101)

                  Here comes the broaden the base baloney.

                  Nope, it is the Fed? Come on George.

        • Peter Millman says

          Hello Reality Checker,
          George Michalopulos has a thick skin, but that’s no excuse to try to make him look stupid. That’s neither Christian nor charitable. George has graciously given us the opportunity to express our opinions, but we should express them like Christians.We should never try to make ourselves look good at someone else’s expense. Whether I agree or disagree with George, I still respect him, and am grateful for this forum. We shouldn’t excoriate another until we, ourselves, are perfect. I don’t know about you, but I’m many miles from being a saint or perfect. We get it; George is stupid and you’re a genius. NOT! All the best!

      • Reality Checker says

        The engine of debt is federal spending, which is brought about by several factors, among them foreign wars, interventions, entitlements, etc. These things don’t happen overnight but over years, decades. Central banking is the culprit that makes these things possible.

        Right there in bold you demonstrate a root delusion wrapped up in ignorance. The central bank is a mere tool, a utility. Fiscal policy decisions, the details of the federal budget, its spending priorities — those are Congressional and to a lesser extent Presidential affairs. The Federal Reserve has next to nothing to do with any of that. The Fed and its member banks maintain the integrity of the money supply and stabilize the monetary policy aspects of the American macroeconomy. The Fed has almost no impact at all on fiscal policy, such as the examples of appropriation you’ve cited. Your posts often amount to the conceptual equivalent of a word salad.

        To blame the Fed for fiscal, foreign policy and trade policy decisions made in New York in Washington is pure scapegoating. It’s certainly true that much evil has been done in the name of maintaining the dollar as a reserve currency — now backed by oil rather than gold and by the US military. But you can’t blame any of this on the central bank as such.

        • George Michalopulos says

          You’re naivete regarding the dangers which central banking ennables is astounding to me.

          • Bishop Tikhon (Fitzgerald) says

            George, expressing astonishment is hardly a rational reply–it’s like fainting.

          • Reality Checker says

            Your ignorance and abject susceptibility to mindless paranoia and superstition is astounding to me. We’ll investigate the details of just how you understand this and some other aspects of your “bigger picture.”

            • Reality Checker says

              Should add that usury is very destructive too of course and is back big time today in the US. Not talking about that problem. Talking about the institution of central banking as such, as a utility, perhaps in an ideal sense, an ideal that can be approached in reality via competently written and well-enforced regulation. The point is that contrary to your assertion, I don’t see how anything intrinsic to a central bank as such causes tyranny. Bad laws, general injustice, corrupt government, and above all the abuse of standing armies are the main drivers of that.

              • George Michalopulos says

                RC, go back and read what Thomas Jefferson said about banks in general, about how they enabled the vast majority of wars. Remember, he was talking about banks in general. There were no central banking institutions in his day (at first at least). If banks were that dangerous, just think how bad a central bank could be. One, like the First Bank of the United States (which Jefferson was forced to acquiesce to in order to win the presidency in 1800) which under its Director (Nicholas Biddle)was able to inflate or deflate the currency at will.

                I believe I see your larger point: that is that human greed and avarice are ultimately at fault, not lending institutions. Point conceded. By that logic we shouldn’t blame no-fault divorce because divorce has always been with us. The reality though is that no-fault divorce made it easier to seek divorces. Before then people remained married simply by making their marriages work out because there was no easy way out.

                Another example: how many of us reading this blog are in debt to credit card companies? I’d say 90% at least (myself included). Can anyone today imagine not living with credit cards? My parents did. Except for a mortgage everything they bought was with cash. That meant we almost never ate out, never got in the car and drove just to go visit a friend or go to the mall, never went shopping (hand-me-downs for clothes and second-hand thrift stores for furniture, etc.)

                Now think about how the vast majority of us live, how many times a week we go out to eat (even if it’s just McDonald’s). How many of us can’t park our cars in the garage because they’re full of cast-offs that are no longer used? We could go on. I myself am on my fourth smartphone. Thanks to easy credit, we are now a consumerist society, bombarded daily by commercials which entice us with buying the latest gadget, suit, purse, cosmetics line, etc.

                Central banking is just this writ large; it enables a nation-state to get into ever-increasing debt.

                • Reality Checker says

                  I would like to apologize for being unfair to you at one point above, taking a cheap shot. It was unintentional. You’ve used “the Feds” in a broader sense a few times, and in one post that I jumped on you were evidently referring to other agencies beside the Federal Reserve (FNMA and FHLMC). Peter Millman had misquoted you, it seems, you didn’t correct his misquotation in your response, and in my reply to your response to him I incorrectly assumed you were confused about what “the Fed” conventionally refers to. I didn’t do this on purpose to score a cheap debating point.

                • Peter Millman says

                  Hi George, That’s a very good post from you. If you don’t mind, I would like to add my two cents. First of all, I have always been a fanatical saver. Fortunately, I only have one credit card with a zero balance. I just got cable tv four years ago. Don’t own a cell phone, canceled my gym membership, have no mortgage, and pay cash for everything. I wanted to buy a dog, but decided not to because of the expense. To me, the only way to save money is to save money. The lack of stress is fantastic. Consumerism is more difficult than the passions.
                  As an anecdotal point, my brother is a centi- multi- millionaire, and is the second cheapest person I know. He built a gym in San Antonio for over a million dollars- all out of his own pocket. He has an apartment in Manhattan and a mansion in Texas- all paid for in cash. I still believe that if you can’t pay cash for something- you can’t afford it. In my opinion, the secret to getting rich is work hard, save all the money you can, and make very wise investments. Thank you, my friend.
                  Oh, by the way, my friend, I get my haircut at the local high school because they only charge eight dollars. That reminds me of a funny little story: my cousin was a fanatic like me, and handled his money just as stringently. He bought a brand spanking new Corvette for cash, but he didn’t want to drive it at all. He bought a beat up, old Volkswagen bug, and put a sticker on the bumper that said, ” My Other Car Is A Corvette.”

                • Reality Checker says

                  I think dogmatism about fiat money, debt and deficit spending is dangerous. Whether it’s healthy or pathological depends on what the borrowed money is spent on. Spending it on war is nearly always insane (unless it’s a defensive war). Spending it on luxuries, on bailing out parasitic commodity or bond speculations that have come to grief, bailing out reckless and incompetent and corrupt bankers and their bad investments — all examples of destructive abuse of borrowing from a central bank. Borrowing for wise investments, say in infrastructure and manufacturing, borrowing to augment the health, education and welfare of the people, to bail out mismanaged but reasonable pension plans, etc. is an entirely different matter. Sometimes, a lot like nihilistic terrorists who hide among the innocent population and stash weapons in hospitals and schools, these very different types of borrowing get intertwined by malefactors. That should be punishable by strict laws enforced harshly.

                  I do realize that taking this position marks me as a “progressive,” and therefore Satanic, presumably. I confess that I also think that environmental pollution is evil, and that human activity is driving increased CO2 in the atmosphere and leading to warming and climate chaos. So you see I’m an utterly horrible “leftist” in many ways. And yet I fail to understand what’s so wicked about benevolent, rational, evidence-based common sense. Perhaps one of you could enlighten my darkness.

                  • George Michalopulos says

                    RC, that’s good as far it goes but the reality is that things always seem to spiral out of control, that is to say in the favor of increased deficit spending.

                    The excuses become easier over time. It’s like that old saw about the difference between needs, wants and desires. We want good schools but then we “need” Olympic sized swimming pools. We “need” a car to get around but then we “need” to upgrade to a Mercedes SUV. Etc. Same thing with government.

                    I take your point about going into debt to finance a war particularly if it’s a defensive war (btw, I’m not a pacifist), but how many wars which we think are “defensive” are the result of a provocation that the injured nation via secret machinations instigated?

                    • Reality Checker says

                      My whole point has been that, while a central bank may be open to abuse like anything else is, even very serious ones, it’s not in itself innately corrupt and necessarily corrupting, as you seem to be suggesting — except insofar as using money (and credit) at all is corrupt. Paul said that the love of money is a root of all evil. Money is an inescapable fact of life.

                      The opening clause in your third paragraph seems to have introduced a subtly false twist into what I wrote; I didn’t use the word ‘particularly.’ But I take your point in the final clause and agree.

                    • George Michalopulos says

                      But the reality RC is that central banking almost always devolves into profligate spending and burdening a nation with a crippling debt. That’s why the Constitution went out of its way to tie itself into knots in how it restricted the Federal government in this and other regards.

                      The Federal Reserve Act essentially cut the Gordian knot of Congressional control over the fisc so that now it’s basically a rubber-stamp for an intrusive, top-down, centralized government. Laws, States’ rights, local control are basically fictions at this point. Case in point: Obama’s regulations regarding transgender bathrooms.

        • Michael Bauman says

          Central banking is a tool if the monies elite to control the productive lives of the rest of us. Debt and the false economy of scarcity and consumerism is the hammer.

          Still it is a symptom of our Godlessness and selfishness and our addiction to the things of this world.

          Andrew Jackson proved long ago that while inveighing against the central bank and taking action against it gets you votes, that alone is not an economic policy.

          Capitalism is dead BTW if it ever was alive. We are fascist economy. We are given the illusion of choice while being enslaved in a system that is not based on anything real: land and the productive creativity of communities of human beings to meet their own needs.

          The Aboriginal culture of Australia we could learn from. DNA studies have recently suggested that they are the oldest extant culture on earth living in the same place for somewhere between 50000 and 70000 years old. I cannot even imagine the wisdom there. Our “progress” is nothing but the nihilist passion to destroy and control writ large.

          The myth of progress is the greatest heresy we have ever faced based on a false eschatology and we have only begun to realise how deadly it is.

          There is no political or economic theory in our world that does not drink deeply of it’s poison and spread that poison to everyone. It is inescapable. We live in a fantasy house.

          Getting all worked up over the way the furniture is arranged is a destraction.

          Fast, pray, kenotically give alms with a merciful heart, worship, repent, forgive.

          Then all of the darkness that surrounds us and penetrates us will be dispelled. But shoot, that takes work. It is real.

          So much easier to play fantasy politics or fantasy economics along with our fantasy sports.

  6. Reality Checker says

    You’re right, the Rothschilds, wisely, DIDN’T TAKE SIDES in those fraternal wars of the Christians, but did help in some actions against Islamic powers, …

    Exactly.

  7. Reality Checker says

    Vladyka puts out the dark fire of Michalopulos’s innuendo with some cold water of fact:

    How Jewish were the Fuggers, by the way? You’re right, the Rothschilds, wisely, DIDN’T TAKE SIDES in those fraternal wars of the Christians, but did help in some actions against Islamic powers, The English Monarchy was wise to INVITE Jews to come and settle in England rather than ban them or massacre them! Why they even raised a Rothschild to the nobility—still resented by descendants of Non-Conformists in areas like the unreconstructed South!

    Anti-semites are insane. A very old story.

    • George Michalopulos says

      RC, Vladyka is quite incorrect. Nathan Rothschild financed both Napoleon and Wellington. And it’s not anti-Semitic to point it out. Sorry, the race card is maxed out.

      • Reality Checker says

        It’s you who constantly plays the race card, first of all. Obviously. Second, the bishop is not “quite incorrect.” Obviously. You’re in the habit lately of blatantly underlining others’ points in the process of imagining that you’re rebutting them. This is interesting. Note that Napoleon (quasi-Catholic France) and Wellington (Anglican England) represented two ancient Christian powers at fraternal war, just as Vladyka observed, and recall that the banks didn’t take sides between them, as he observed, since both sides were financed.

        I’m seriously wondering if the fracking wastes might be getting to you. I suggest that you drink a good bottled water from out of state, and ask your wife to cook with it, too.

        • George Michalopulos says

          RC, I’m sorry, you’re quite incorrect. Nathan Rothschild most certainly did finance Great Britain in its war with Napoleon. (Only later was it found out that he financed Napoleon as well.)

          Frankly, you’re both embarrassing yourselves if you don’t think that banking cartels do not finance rebellions, wars and revolutions. Whether they’re Jewish or gentile is beside the point.

      • Reality Checker says

        Incidentally, a remark that is just possibly anti-semitic in intent becomes blatantly and definitely anti-semitic precisely when you gloss it as you’ve done here, when you as much as openly admit that you intended a dog-whistle of “race”** to be heard. FYI.

        Whether they’re [“banking cartels”] Jewish or gentile is beside the point.

        If as you claim you meant Nathan Rothschild’s confessional status to be beside the point, then I wonder why you didn’t simply reference his bank and its investment strategy rather than marquee his Irish Catholic surname?

        **Though it’s sloppy to think of Jewishness as “race” rather than religion and culture.

        • That’s silly, as if the Jews, as an ethnic group, haven’t been hip deep in finance, the diamond trade, etc., all the “stereotypes” which are absolutely valid, accurate and harmless so long as they are not coupled with genocidal hatred.

          Grow up.

      • Bishop Tikhon (Fitzgerald) says

        George, don’t you read what you write? I said Rothschilds did not take sides. Your remark AGREES WITH MY REMARK: “Nathan Rothschild most certainly did finance Great Britain in its war with Napoleon. (Only later was it found out that he financed Napoleon as well.) see that? both SIDES! tHAT’S WHAT NOT TAKING SIDES MEANS. DUUH!

        • Mike Myers says

          Your Grace, Christ in in our midst! I hope you are well.

          I see George is still up to the same old tricks, receiving correction but failing to admit when he’s wrong!

  8. Reality Checker says

    In the Middle Ages, kings were constrained not only by the inefficiencies of agriculturalism but by complex laws, ecclesiastical canons and customs which highly regulated military adventurism. The so-called Hundred Years War for example was a series of skirmishes followed by years and even decades of truces between the French and the English.

    Yes, and a lovely, most chivalric time was had by all. It would only harsh your nostalgic buzz to point out that England and France lost half their populations.

    • George Michalopulos says

      Well, there was a plague going on at the time. As for actual hostilities, the casualty rates were miniscule in comparison to Antietam, Gettysburg, the Somme, etc.

      • Reality Checker says

        You’ve probably heard of that unholy trinity of war, famine and plague. They’re synergistic. War has often paved the way to the other two in that order. Some historians attribute as many as 3 million deaths directly to the wars, which wouldn’t jibe with my sense of the meaning of minuscule.

  9. Reality Checker says

    But the reality RC is that central banking almost always devolves into profligate spending and burdening a nation with a crippling debt.

    Alternative to central banking? Already asked this, but you ignored the question.

    • George Michalopulos says

      RC, Sorry. I didn’t catch your question earlier.

      I’ll explain it as best I can: the Constitution grants the power to coin money only to the Congress. We had no central bank between 1836 and 1913. I believe we were on a bi-metallic standard (gold and silver). During that time, the value of the dollar was a dollar and America became the strongest and wealthiest country on earth, passing Great Britain and Argentina.

      It appears to me that those countries that have central banks invariably get involved in wars. The only exception I can think of is Switzerland and they are an anomaly. (I’m not sure if Credit Suisse serves as a central bank for that Alpine republic.)

    • Michael Bauman says

      Alternative: moving to an economy that is based on real things instead of debt, consumerism and fake money. Central banks are like the Wizard of Oz.

      It will all he moot in 30 years or so when robots do all the work.

      Arguing about the economy is like arguing about fantasy sports.

  10. Reality Checker says

    So in other words you’re recommending a return to a gold or bimetallist standard?

    • George Michalopulos says

      Yeah, or the creation of several official, regional banks each providing their own currency, to be traded much as we trade in commodities today.

      Regardless, what we have now, a private corporation (the Federal Reserve) printing fiat money and loaning it to us at interest is quite the abomination. Have you ever wondered why all attempts by Congressmen to audit the Fed and thus find out who are its principle shareholders, never goes anywhere?

      • Reality Checker says

        Mr. Michalopulos, you simply don’t know what you’re talking about. And this is clearly true on multiple levels of understanding of the relevant facts.

        The Federal Reserve lends at interest only to private banks, not to the US Treasury, to begin with. All interest accrued by US Treasury bonds that are held in the assets portfolio of the Federal Reserve is deposited into the Treasury. So, unless you meant the antecedent of “us” to be: private commercial entities, operating to make a profit, who borrow from the Federal Reserve, your assertion is flatly and comically false. They are not “us.”

        The Fed is already thoroughly audited in the usual sense, by an independent inspector general and by an outside accounting firm (currently, Deloitte and Touche), and the resulting financial reports are made public online. Every security owned by the Fed, up to the detail of the identifying CUSIP number, is also available online. Moreover, the Government Accountability Office (GAO), which does in-depth reviews and analyses (“audits” of a different type) of government activities at the request of Congress, has wide latitude to review Fed operations, including supervision and regulation as well as other functions. For example, as required by the Dodd-Frank Act of 2010, the GAO conducted reviews of the Fed’s emergency lending programs during the crisis and of the Fed’s governance structure. Since the financial crisis, the GAO has done some 70 reviews of aspects of Fed operations.

        If you’re parroting some conspiracy theory talking point you’ve picked up from one or more of your off-the-wall, alt-right meme factories online, some static related to Ron Paul’s “Audit the Fed” bill, that bill isn’t really about auditing the Federal Reserve. Your typical, grossly uninformed and shallow remarks demonstrate, furthermore, that you have little or no insight into the dangers of complete political control (i.e., not of highly qualified and experienced economic experts but, at best, professional politicians, at worst lying, unprincipled, corrupt hacks) over the money supply that you appear to advocate, as opposed to the proven, semi-independent, checks-and-balances regulated system that’s been in place for the past century. The Federal Reserve is subject to Congressional oversight but there is some independence built into its charter. By law, i.e., by mandate of the US Congress.

        Who do you think you are? What do you think you know? Based on what credentials or expertise? You’re ridiculous.

        The principal shareholders of Federal Reserve stock are member banks. What are you talking about?

        • George Michalopulos says

          Looks like we agree: you clearly don’t seem to be an expert in finance.”

          Regarding the majority of your comment, these are distinctions without differences especially regarding the third-to-the-last paragraph. Though you are correct in theory you are not correct in fact. In reality Congress exercises no real authority of the Fed. Hence my assertion (never repudiated btw) that all its attempts to audit its books have come to naught. This bears repeating: if the Congress is consistently unable to enact legislation enabling it to audit the Fed then it has no real control over it.

          As to your last two paragraphs, I see that you know next-to-nothing about the creation of the Federal Reserve Bank and the fact that: (1) it’s a private corporation, and (2) that the taxpayers continue to pay dividends to the shareholders in the form of interest on the national debt. That is blatantly unconstitutional as it is the sole prerogative of the Congress to issue currency, not farm it out to a private third party.

          But for the sake of argument, I will continue to play along: can you tell me which private banks set up the Federal Reserve System in 1913?

          • What about QE guys?

            The entire debate about the FR system is supposed to be about QE and how the right hates that Obama gets helped by bankers while Carter was gleefully destroyed by them.

            The FR, however, had no control over the CDO shell game played during Bush Jr.’s presidencies. But it sure is fun to watch the right bitch about regulation and central banking QE and too big to fail when their anti-regulation, laissez faire attitudes nearly sent the nation into a depression and it was rescued by QE.

            Oh, but it was the left’s policy of lending to the poor that created the massive incomes earned by loan makers, loan swappers, and the loosely controlled investment banks (after the 1999 repeal of Glass Seagull) [sic] (1999 Clinton year). The Clinton’s have their part in the crash, sorry all you lefties, but it was more about the systemic problems created by the repeal of Glass than the fantastic anti-right idea of lending to the working poor. The stated income forms were basically a sure way of economic collapse (happened under Bush).

            Hilary Clinton is also going to be a net contributor to the next crash as she, too, will avoid putting enough regulation on big banks (like the glass seagull [sic]).

            Like Trump would do any differently. (another ha!)

            But the FR has little to do with this side of the business. It is politicians and bankers that run the world, or try to take all the money while running the world into the ground.

          • Reality Checker says

            You’re a bad bluffer. You remind me of Trump. When asked to explain relevant specifics you blow your cover. When you volunteer any, the case is usually worse.

            As to your last two paragraphs, I see that you know next-to-nothing about the creation of the Federal Reserve Bank and the fact that: (1) it’s a private corporation, and (2) that the taxpayers continue to pay dividends to the shareholders in the form of interest on the national debt. That is blatantly unconstitutional as it is the sole prerogative of the Congress to issue currency, not farm it out to a private third party.

            The way you generally go about trying to explain something that you want to appear to know more about than your reader is amusing. You nearly always demonstrate how confused you are and how meager at best your factual knowledge is about how that something actually works. Like Trump, it soon becomes obvious that your pontifications are essentially BSing. For clarity’s sake, I’d like to ask you to unpack the bolded assertion above: by “shareholders,” do you mean that Federal Reserve shareholders are paid dividends in the form of interest on the national debt? Your wording shrouds in mystery exactly who and what you are referring to. I’m sure that was unintentional, so I hope you can clarify your meaning.

            • Reality Checker says

              . . . As to your last two paragraphs, I see that you know next-to-nothing about the creation of the Federal Reserve Bank and the fact that: (1) it’s a private corporation, . . .

              LOL. Your presumptuousness is surreal. And I seldom really know what you’re jabbering about or why, once I take a close careful look at it. The “last two paragraphs” refer to the two short ones at the end of this post, I presume. So tell me: In your mind, what would the content of those two paragraphs have to do a) with the creation of the Federal Reserve ??? or b) your simplistic claim that it’s a private corporation (only partly true, because in fact it’s a hybrid public/private institution, and everyone who asserts this proves right off the bat that they don’t understand much at all about the Fed)? I ask because the first of these two paragraphs consists of three questions directed to you — in some amazement — and a final statement of a more and more rigidly held opinion. The last paragraph just fills you in on what I would have thought was an elementary and well-known fact, in response to your grossly uninformed bogus assertion in the form of a conceptually sloppy rhetorical question:

              “Have you ever wondered why all attempts by Congressmen to audit the Fed and thus find out who are its principle shareholders, never goes anywhere?”

              It’s bogus and uninformed because 1) the Fed undergoes a financial audit annually, as already noted, by the IGO and by an independent accounting firm, and this audit is reported and available to the public online. And 2) its principal shareholders are the member banks of the Federal Reserve. All common knowledge to any first-year student of Macroeconomics 101.

          • Reality Checker says

            First question: What do you mean by “audit?”

            This is a link to the report on the thorough, annual financial audit of the Fed (covering the calendar year 2014) conducted by the Office of the Inspector General. It also includes a report on the independent audit referred to:
            https://oig.federalreserve.gov/reports/board-financial-statements-2014-2013-mar2015.pdf

            Please tell me what you want to “audit” that isn’t audited already. Please be as specific as you can, avoiding your characteristic amorphous generalities and squid-inkery.

            Could you be referring to what Ben Bernanke wrote about here, perhaps?:

            . . . The principal effect of the bill would be to make meeting-by-meeting monetary policy decisions subject to Congressional review and, potentially, Congressional pressure. The bill would do this by repealing existing restrictions, imposed by Congress nearly forty years ago, on what the GAO can examine when reviewing the Fed. The most important such restriction blocks the GAO from reviewing “deliberations, decisions, or actions on monetary policy matters,” as well as “discussion or communication among or between members of the Board and officers and employees” related to such deliberations. The repeal of the existing restrictions would accordingly allow the GAO to view all materials and transcripts related to a meeting of the Fed’s Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) at essentially any time and require the GAO, at Congressional request, to provide recommendations on monetary policy, including potentially on individual FOMC interest-rate decisions.

            You wrote: “Looks like we agree: you clearly don’t seem to be an expert in finance.” I am not, that’s true. Are you suggesting you are?

            • George Michalopulos says

              I take it back. Clearly you’ve done some research into the history of the Federal Reserve it’s just that you don’t want to “go there” and feel more comfortable citing statutes regarding its supposed oversight by the Congress.

              Here’s a thought: why don’t you write your Congressmen? Tell him that you go by the name “Reality Checker” and you want to prove this Monomakhos fellow wrong. You go by this moniker not because you’re a coward but because (well, I don’t know why, you fill in the blank.) Anyway, he says that the Congress can’t (or won’t) audit the Fed but I know better, it says so right here in the US Statutes that the Federal Reserve is subject to it.

              See how far that gets you. (If you want, you can get your neighbor’s cat to write the letter for you if you feel the need to preserve your anonymity.)

              • Reality Checker says

                To answer that question yet again, George, I post as Reality Checker because too many of you embarrass me by the ignorance, stupidity, poor judgement and malice in which, it appears, you choose to marinate. I do not want to be personally associated with you (it’s really very simple), and, as I put it a couple of times before — and I mean this — if I’m a coward, it’s in the sense that I don’t have the courage of your too often mean-spirited, gravely ill-informed “opinions.” This place is a showcase of the Dunning-Kruger effect. I say that with sadness mostly. You’d have to take my word for it.

                But I do post here, and this because notwithstanding the above I pity you and would like to help lift you up out of the swamp of illusions and errors in which you languish. Thus my nom de plume.

                As to your suggestion: it strikes me as odd. As I already informed you, the Federal Reserve is audited annually, by a government agency, the IGO, and the industry-leading independent auditing/accounting firm, Deloitte and Touche. I linked above to the online report of a recent audit. Here it is again.

                As usual, you’ve elected to ignore each of my pointed, specific and highly pertinent questions above, which were designed to clarify what you are getting at and why. Don’t you want to communicate more clearly and accurately, George? I’m trying to help.

                I make it a point to answer all of your questions. I keep hoping my good example will inspire you, so I shall persevere and ask once again: what is it about the Federal Reserve that you want to be audited, which is not audited now? Is that such a difficult question? You keep risibly asserting it isn’t audited — when it is. So I take it that you must feel that something important is going unrevealed by these dual annual audits. Therefore I’m asking you the simple question: WHAT do you want to know about the Federal Reserve’s business that is not divulged by the audits performed now?

                If I may, I’d like to ask once again one of my other question, too. I’ll limit this quest for clarification to just two principal points for now; these are key. You wrote:

                As to your last two paragraphs, I see that you know next-to-nothing about the creation of the Federal Reserve Bank and the fact that: (1) it’s a private corporation, and (2) that the taxpayers continue to pay dividends to the shareholders in the form of interest on the national debt. That is blatantly unconstitutional as it is the sole prerogative of the Congress to issue currency, not farm it out to a private third party.

                Please direct your attention to the assertion emphasized above. I asked: are you contending that shareholders are paid dividends in the form of interest on the national debt? Which shareholders do you refer to? And shares of what?

                Please answer these two questions, George. I fear that if you persist in dodging them I’ll be forced to entertain dark suspicions about your essential honesty and integrity.

                • Reality Checker says

                  I didn’t mean to italicize that last sentence. You have a bug in your formatting code. I intended to bold and italicize this:

                  “2) that the taxpayers continue to pay dividends to the shareholders in the form of interest on the national debt.”

                  I’m asking you to clarify this assertion. It’s too vaguely stated as it stands.

                  • George Michalopulos says

                    Nothing to clarify: it’s stated as fact. Not vague at all. If you can’t understand what “dividends” and “shareholders” are then you really don’t know what you’re talking about. It’s that simple.

                • George Michalopulos says

                  You flatter yourself. If what I write is bogus or vacuous, you should have nothing to fear from your counter-arguments. In fact, I dare say that you could start your own blog and attract many to your site.

                  As to the argument at hand, since it is (as you assert) “audited” by the Congress, can you tell me who the shareholders of said corporation are?

                  While you’re at it, can you answer these four simple questions:

                  1. What was the value of a dollar between 1789 and 1913?

                  2. What is its value today?

                  3. Since 1913, how much interest has been paid to the shareholders of the Federal Reserve?

                  4. Who are the present shareholders of the Federal Reserve?

                  There’s no reason for your to “entertain dark suspicions” about my motives. This blog is an open book. I take what our Lord and Saviour commanded very seriously: “Let your yea be yea and your nay be nay. Of anything else cometh evil.”

                  You ought to try it, it’s very refreshing.

                  • Reality Checker says

                    As to the argument at hand, since it is (as you assert) “audited” by the Congress, can you tell me who the shareholders of said corporation are?

                    Yes, I can. Nothing mysterious or secretive about it. You are badly misinformed. The stockholders in the non-profit Federal Reserve System are every commercial bank in the 12 regions of the Federal Reserve who want to be members of their District’s Federal Reserve Bank. By law, only member banks can buy or hold this stock: all national banks (that is, all federally chartered banks) are required to be stockholders, and all state-chartered banks who want the benefits of membership are required to be stockholders — i.e., about 3,000 banks, or 38% of the ~8,000 US banks. How many shares these banks must buy and hold of their District’s Federal Reserve stock depends entirely on their capitalization. Federal Reserve Bank stock can only be held, it cannot be traded or pledged as collateral. It is not “on the market,” although up to $25,000 may be sold to individuals or organizations. Yes, that’s all.

                    While you’re at it, can you answer these four simple questions:
                    1. What was the value of a dollar between 1789 and 1913?
                    2. What is its value today?
                    3. Since 1913, how much interest has been paid to the shareholders of the Federal Reserve?
                    4. Who are the present shareholders of the Federal Reserve?

                    1. and 2. are not at all simple questions, contrary to your evidently false and simplistic assumptions about these matters. But we can talk about that later.

                    You’re quite correct, however, that 3. and 4. are simple questions. Already answered 4. I’ll answer 3. as soon as you’ve responded to the far, far simpler question in my only other post today, where I ask you to clarify which stockholders you’re talking about. I presume of course that you mean Federal Reserve stockholders, but I just want to be totally certain about your intended meaning.

                  • Reality Checker says

                    It’s time for me to make clear that I absolutely am not claiming that the Governors of the Federal Reserve and the FOMC are doing a good or even an acceptable job managing monetary policy in the US, or that they are wisely advising Congress. Among lots of other problems, the net effect of the Fed’s policy of QE has been to accelerate the concentration of income and capital wealth. And on top of this socially catastrophic increase in inequality, we’re right on the verge of another potential debacle, once again due to unregulated derivatives.

                    My meta-point is that the spread of ignorant bluster about the Fed from bloggers in thrall to irrational and completely debunked conspiracy theories is dangerous as hell, because it increases the static and disinformation. The real corruptions are quite serious enough. People who blather madly about hallucinated and imaginary ones are on the same side as the workers of iniquity.

                    • George Michalopulos says

                      RC, we finally agree! You just admitted that the Board of Governors are not doing a good job in many different areas. Unfortunately, your optimism is somewhat reminiscent of dorm-room Marxism. You know, when a couple of college sophomores tap a keg in someone’s dorm-room explaining that Marxism has failed because it has “never been tried.” But, given time and the right circumstances it’ll all work out in the end.

                      That’s naivete on steroids. Like Marxism, while the theory of central banking may be hunky-dory, the reality is that it always degenerates into inflation, increased debt and national demise. That’s why our Founding Fathers were aghast at the idea of democracy. John Adams said that democracies always “commit suicide.”

                  • Mike Myers says

                    As to the argument at hand, since it is (as you assert) “audited” by the Congress, can you tell me who the shareholders of said corporation are?

                    4. Who are the present shareholders of the Federal Reserve?

                    Good Lord, George. That question was answered at least 7 times already in this thread. The obvious innuendo evidently laying beneath its ad nauseam repetition is answered thoroughly here, by Professor Flaherty.

                  • Mike Myers says

                    1. What was the value of a dollar between 1789 and 1913?
                    2. What is its value today?

                    “Value” = “What does it buy in goods and services?” The only meaningful way to compare the “value of the dollar” in two different periods in the same place is to compare the prices of similar things and median income in the same two periods. If similar goods and services cost ten times as much now as at some point in the past but median income is ten times higher, too, then the “value of the dollar” is unchanged with respect to those indices. I think the biggest relative difference between today and 50 years ago (not to mention 100 or 200 years ago) when it comes to “the value of the dollar” is that home prices have increased so much, relative to income. I could be wrong but I doubt it. Health care is another thing that costs a lot more (in the US, not the civilized world).

                    Something else to consider is that there is far, far more these days to buy, both in kind and quantity, than ever before. Generally speaking, modern consumers own far more stuff than ever and they buy it more frequently. For this reason alone it’s almost pointless to compare the dollar’s “value between 1789 and 1913” to its value today. That’s not apples and oranges, it’s more like pollen and asteroids. (If y’all can indulge in colorful hyperbole, so can I.)

                  • Mike Myers says

                    3. Since 1913, how much interest has been paid to the shareholders of the Federal Reserve?

                    Educated guess: less than $50 billion in dividends — not interest! Repeat after me: shareholders aren’t paid interest! Any academic macroeconomist would know where to get a more precise figure.
                    This article makes a good case for drastic reductions in the annual dividend member banks are paid on their shares of Federal Reserve stock. But that would be up to Congress.

                    • George Michalopulos says

                      Mike (RC?), you and other apologists for central banking are missing the fundamental point about how the Federal Reserve has imprisoned us in an ever-growing spiral of debt and non-stop war. That alone is a huge enough reason to lament its creation.

                      Your semantic games re the “value” of the dollar is juvenile. Between 1789 and 1913 the dollar’s value held steady and inflation was a rarity. During that time the US grew from a small, coastal confederation to a continental republic and the world’s premier economic power. That’s not chump change.

                      Since then inflation has hollowed out the dollar. Whereas at one time a single worker could support a family now it takes both spouses. We could go on. The income tax alone is a monstrosity and we could spend years talking about its ill effects. (Ain’t it a bitch that a cad like Donald Trump could legally use that 70,000 page monstrosity to his economic benefit? I imagine that’s particularly galling to liberals right about now. Oh well, too bad.)

                      Moreover, legalistic obfuscations regarding the differences between “shareholders” as opposed to creditors (many of whom are foreigners) completely misses the point: the Federal government is to be financed by legal tender coined issued by the Congress and the Congress alone. Not farmed out to a private corporation. The present system is completely immoral.

              • Reality Checker says

                I take it back. Clearly you’ve done some research into the history of the Federal Reserve it’s just that you don’t want to “go there” and feel more comfortable citing statutes regarding its supposed oversight by the Congress.

                You’re too funny. Clearly, you need to do some yourself, George. You don’t have a clue.

                You’ve read “The Creature from Jekyll Island” by Edward G. Griffin, the grifting, John Bircher huckster of conspiracy memes who’s made a career cashing in on the credulity and ignorance of the paranoid and ill-informed, beginning with his stint as a lying hack for George Wallace’s VP in 1968. So you think you know something profound and chilling about the Fed. We’ll see about that.

                I’ll tell you what, George. We can discuss Nelson Aldrich and his European adventure after you answer my two questions. Not before, though. Be a good boy and answer me.

                • George Michalopulos says

                  Actually, I never read “The Creature from Jekyll Island.”

                  • Reality Checker says

                    OK, then good for you if true. The book’s a scam by a shameless huckster. Then perhaps you’ve read one of these magisterial tomes?:

                    Kah, Gary. 1991. En Route to Global Occupation. Lafayette, La.: Huntington House.

                    Mullins, Eustace. 1983. Secrets of the Federal Reserve. Staunton, Va.: Bankers Research Institute.

                    Robertson, Pat (1994). The Turning Tide. Dallas: Word Publishing.

                    Shauf, Thomas. 1992. The Federal Reserve. Streamwood, IL: FED-UP, Inc.

                    • George Michalopulos says

                      Nope, not them either. Have you?

                      BTW, I’m still waiting to get the answer to those four simple questions. I’ll release your other comments when you answer those. Seems only fair since your anonymity puts us all at a disadvantage.

                  • Peter A. Papoutsis says

                    I have and it is a great read. I also read “Secrets of the Temple ” which has all the same facts, but both books come to vastly different conclusions. One wants to abolish the Fed while the other wants it reformed.

                    Peter A. Papoutsis

                    • Mike Myers says

                      Comparing a masterpiece of journalism like Greider’s “Secrets of the Temple” to Griffin’s probably plagiarized conspiracy BS is not unlike comparing a dedicated and accomplished public servant like HRC to an overdetermined fraud like Donald Trump. I’m amazed that anyone would broadcast their obliviousness to such stark differences in essential quality. Sad!

                      Interesting, too, that you describe Griffin’s book as a “great read.” That’s what people say about summer fictions they take to the beach. LOL

                      FYI, Peter, “Secrets of the Temple” was published many years before Griffin’s silly cartoon knock-off. If they “have all the same facts,” that’s no doubt because Griffin shamelessly stole them from Greider and his exhaustive research.

              • Reality Checker says

                I prescribe these famous, therapeutic words for our pharmacist, Mr. Michalopulos. I think they’re most profitably meditated upon by those who suffer miserably* from that terrible affliction: the “known” “known”**:

                τούτου μὲν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἐγὼ σοφώτερός εἰμι· κινδυνεύει μὲν γὰρ ἡμῶν οὐδέτερος οὐδὲν καλὸν κἀγαθὸν εἰδέναι, ἀλλ᾽ οὗτος μὲν οἴεταί τι εἰδέναι οὐκ εἰδώς, ἐγὼ δέ, ὥσπερ οὖν οὐκ οἶδα, οὐδὲ οἴομαι· ἔοικα γοῦν τούτου γε σμικρῷ τινι αὐτῷ τούτῳ σοφώτερος εἶναι, ὅτι ἃ μὴ οἶδα οὐδὲ οἴομαι εἰδέναι.

                *often unknowingly
                **Pace Sec. Rumsfeld

              • Reality Checker says

                Tell him that you go by the name “Reality Checker” and you want to prove this Monomakhos fellow wrong.

                In some matters your level of awareness hasn’t progressed even as far as the point of being wrong. You flatter yourself.

          • Reality Checker says

            Regarding the majority of your comment, these are distinctions without differences especially regarding the third-to-the-last paragraph.

            Cite or block-quote the paragraph you’re referring to. No idea what you’re talking about here. Which distinctions? Be specific.

          • Reality Checker says

            But for the sake of argument, I will continue to play along: can you tell me which private banks set up the Federal Reserve System in 1913?

            I’m honored that you would be so generously willing to continue to play along, Mr. Michalopulos! Even if only “for the sake of argument.” And I’m more grateful than I can express that you would be humble enough to condescend to share your bounteous knowledge on this subject with me and your other readers.

            By “set up,” what do you mean exactly? Congress set it up, by law, with the Federal Reserve Act, which President Wilson signed on Dec. 23rd. He appointed the first five governors of its Board, and created the Federal Advisory Council that would comprise 12 bankers elected by US regional banks to meet with the Governors. (These days there are seven Governors, all of whom are still appointed by the President and approved by the Senate.) More than 200 member banks provided the starting capital over the next few years, including prominent houses such as National City Bank of New York, J.P. Morgan Company, First National Bank of New York, Bankers Trust Co., and Kuhn, Loeb & Company. Why do you ask, pray?

            • George Michalopulos says

              You either don’t know what you’re talking about or you don’t want to answer the question. (A reminder, both Andrew Napolitano and Glenn Beck had shows on FOX News but when they started talking about the Fed they were cancelled.)

              I’m leaning towards the latter.

      • Reality Checker says

        And just by the way, I’m not particularly knowledgable in finance, banking, money or the long, vexed history of money creation But I know enough to recognize the predominance of HS when I whiff it. Your words constantly betray very little in the way of solid insights or even basic substantive knowledge about this subject, or about too many of most of the other topics you’re wont to play the blowhard about, for that matter. I’m not trying to be rude, just being honest with you. It’s embarrassing.

        • George Michalopulos says

          Which “insights” in particular?

          BTW, I got a question to ask you: are employed in the private sector or are you an academic? Are you employed in the public sector perhaps? My HS detector leads me to believe that you are fairly young and have little experience in the real world. Am I wrong?

          • Reality Checker says

            My HS detector . . .

            This would be analogous to a deep-ocean fish making reference to his water detector.

          • Reality Checker says

            Oops, I see I’ve neglected to wholly answer these your queries, so bemused was I by your chutzpah.

            BTW, I got a question to ask you: are employed in the private sector or are you an academic? Are you employed in the public sector perhaps? My HS detector leads me to believe that you are fairly young and have little experience in the real world. Am I wrong?

            I’ve been employed in both the private sector and in academia. Therefore, in the public sector, too. I’m not fairly young, no. And as to whether I “have little experience in the real world,” that’s relative of course and would depend on what “experience” comprises and also what you mean by “the real world” — thus, a hard question for me to answer meaningfully. More than most, probably, and less than some. Leave it at that.

            RE: “which insights in particular,” please stay tuned, y’all. I’m getting to that.

            • George Michalopulos says

              I imagine your private sector employment was rather lowly and/or brief. I can easily sense that you never started a business. That makes a lot of difference. Your lack of experience in the real world is very telling. I imagine you are not over forty given your naivete as well.

    • Michael Bauman says

      I would have to study that more but as it is now money is nothing more than digital blips that has value only because the powerful say it does. Money is no longer a store of value.

      There will be problems with any currency or money supply.

      The real problem is consumerism and debt and the devaluation of human labor, the land and the creation of globalism.

      It is a multi-faceted problem that cannot be intelligently examined here.

      Wendell Berry has some fine thoughts but he has no solutions really. In part because of the massive changes it would take for all of us.

      The real answer is Christian asceticism and not just with monks.

      It is not a political-ecobomy problem but a massive spiritual problem.

  11. Reality Checker says

    Nope, not them either. Have you?

    No, I try to avoid reading trash. Except …

    BTW, I’m still waiting to get the answer to those four simple questions. I’ll release your other comments when you answer those. Seems only fair since your anonymity puts us all at a disadvantage.

    One of the posts you’re holding answered the last two of your questions, the most important and on-topic of the four. (The first two are not simple questions and would take a lot of my time to answer meaningfully. It’s rather arrogant of you to demand that, don’t you think?) And why would you hold back a post that answers your questions and then complain I haven’t answered. them? That’s kinda weird and dishonest of you.
    And finally, how would my anonymity put anyone at a disadvantage? I think you know better than anyone that that isn’t the problem, George.

    LOL

  12. Mike Myers says

    A bit baffled by why you keep repeating the same questions, after you’ve received answers to them. A number of your comments make clear that you don’t understand the nature of some of the basic components and players in the problems you would decry. One example of an elementary misunderstanding blocking your comprehension of basic facts: Interest on the national debt has absolutely nothing to do with, no connection whatsoever to, dividends the Fed pays to its stockholders, which are the commercial banks and thrifts that are members of the Federal Reserve System.

    The national debt is the amount owed by the Federal government (i.e., the US Treasury) to its creditors. These creditors are holders of US Treasury securities: T-bill, T-notes, T-bonds and various non-marketable securities. THESE SECURITIES HAVE NO CONNECTION AT ALL TO FEDERAL RESERVE STOCK. Can you understand that simple sentence? Stockholders in the Federal Reserve do not now and never have received a single penny of “dividends” “in the form of interest on the national debt.” Unless they hold Treasury securities, which are something else completely. Anyone can hold those, including you and me. Approximately 28% of this debt is currently owed to US government entities (the two Social Security trust funds and, since 2008, the Fed’s portfolio of assets). But all of that interest is deposited right back into the US Treasury. As of 2015, China and Japan are by far the biggest foreign holders of US Treasury securities.

    You really owe Reality Checker an apology for this entirely false accusation:

    As to your last two paragraphs, I see that you know next-to-nothing about the creation of the Federal Reserve Bank and the fact that: (1) it’s a private corporation, and (2) that the taxpayers continue to pay dividends to the shareholders in the form of interest on the national debt. That is blatantly unconstitutional as it is the sole prerogative of the Congress to issue currency, not farm it out to a private third party.

    Almost nothing in this quote is even close to being accurate or true. And as I explained, your claim following (2) is just absurd, completely off-the-wall.

    The last sentence: “That is blatantly unconstitutional as it is the sole prerogative of the Congress to issue currency, not farm it out to a private third party.” is difficult to rationally evaluate because what comes before it is either completely false or else a serious distortion of easily demonstrable facts. But it sounds like you’re blustering with some cornpone nonsense in ignorant contradiction of what has been settled law for nearly two hundred years: the Supreme Court’s unanimous ruling of 1819. Many relevant Federal Court rulings since, and a few of these are cited below. You can go to the linked site for URLs to webpages detailing these rulings.

    The Supreme Court had its say on the matter in McCulloch v. Maryland (1819). It voted 9-0 to uphold the Second Bank of the United States as constitutional. The Court argued with the doctrine of implied powers, stating that to be ‘necessary and proper’ the Bank needed only to be useful in helping the government meet its responsibilities in maintaining the public credit and regulating the money supply. Chief Justice Marshall wrote, “After the most deliberate consideration, it is the unanimous and decided opinion of this court that the act to incorporate the Bank of the United States is a law made in pursuance of the Constitution, and is part of the supreme law of the land” (Hixson, 117). The Court affirmed this opinion in the 1824 case Osborn v. Bank of the United States (Ibid, 14).

    Therefore, the historical legal precedent exists for Congress’ power to create a central bank. It formed the Federal Reserve system in 1913 to perform many of the same functions as its predecessors. As before, the courts have agreed that a central bank, and the Federal Reserve in particular, is constitutional.

    Recent Federal Court Rulings on the Federal Reserve and Paper Money

    Below are some recent court rulings on the issues of the Federal Reserve and paper money.

    U.S. v. Rickman, 638 F.2d 182, C.A.Kan. 1980:
    Federal Reserve Notes in which the defendant, charged with failure to file federal income tax returns, was paid were lawful money within the meaning of the United States Constitution. 26 USCA §7203; USCA Const. Art. 1, §8, cl. 5.

    U.S. v. Wangrund, 533 F.2d 495; C.A.Cal. 1976
    The statute establishing Federal Reserve Notes as legal tender for all debts, public and private, including taxes, is within the constitutional authority of Congress; thus the defendant could not overturn his conviction on two counts of wilful failure to make an income tax return on the theory that he did not receive money since checks he received as compensation for his services could be cashed only for Federal Reserve Notes which were not redeemable in specie. 26 USCA §61, §7203; USCA Const. art. 1, §8; Coinage Act of 1965, §102; 31 USCA §392.

    Nixon v. Individual Head of St. Joseph Mortgage Company, 615 F.Supp. 890, affirmed 787 F.2d 596. D.C.Ind. 1985.
    Federal Reserve notes are legal tender.

    Ginter v. Southern, 611 F.2d 1226, certiorari denied 100 S.Ct 2946, 446 US 967, 64 L.E.d.2d 827. C.A.Ark. 1979.

    Tax protestor’s claims concerning the constitutionality of the Federal Reserve System, Internal Revenue Code and establishment of tax court were so frivolous as not to require discussion and detail. USCA Const. Amends. 5, 13; 28 USCA §1346; 26 USCA §6532, 26 USCA §7422.

    U.S. v. Schmitz, 542 F.2d 782 certiorari denied 97 S.Ct. 1134, 429 US 1105, 51 L.Ed.2d 556. C.A.Cal. 1976.
    Federal Reserve Notes constitute legal tender and are taxable dollars. USCA Const. Art. 1, §10.

    Milam v. U.S., 524 F.2d 629. C.A.Cal. 1974.
    The statute which delegates to the Federal Reserve System the power to issue circulating notes for money borrowed and the power to define the quality and force of those notes as currency is valid … Although golden eagles, double eagles, and silver dollars were lovely to look at and delightful to hold, the holder of a $50 Federal Reserve Bank Note, although entitled to redeem his note, was not entitled to do so in precious metal. Federal Reserve Act, §16, 12 USCA §411; Coinage Act of 1965, §102, 31 USCA §392.

    Moreover, the paper money issue is an irrelevant one. If we replace each all paper that has “one dollar” printed on it with a coin that has “one dollar” stamped on it, what will we gain? We willl have achieved compliance with the literal words of the constitution at the expense of a convenient and popular form of money.

    As Reality Checker has been patiently trying to explain, you just don’t have a clue, George. You’ve proved yourself to be the one who knows next to nothing real about the Federal Reserve, the US Treasury, the national debt, Federal Reserve stock or stockholders. It’s time to admit it.

  13. Mike Myers says

    If someone reading this blog wants real and substantive information about the national debt, you could do a lot worse than to begin with the facts presented here.

  14. Mike Myers says

    *

  15. Mike Myers says

    Mike (RC?), you and other apologists for central banking are missing the fundamental point about how the Federal Reserve has imprisoned us in an ever-growing spiral of debt and non-stop war. That alone is a huge enough reason to lament its creation.

    Only one country on Earth has no central bank. It’s west of Japan and directly north of South Korea. Sounds like it would be your role model of a moral and well-functioning economy.
    Responsibility for the debt and wars falls solely on the Executive and Legislative branches of our government, i.e., ultimately, on the American people — the ones who vote these politicians into office and pay the taxes enabling them to act out their poor judgment and worse. Not even remotely the Fed’s fault, George. You’re out of your mind.

    Moreover, legalistic obfuscations regarding the differences between “shareholders” as opposed to creditors (many of whom are foreigners) completely misses the point: the Federal government is to be financed by legal tender coined issued by the Congress and the Congress alone. Not farmed out to a private corporation. The present system is completely immoral.

    Fascinating obliviousness of an unteachable clown. You launched this highly revealing charade by falsely accusing President Clinton of forcing banks to write mortgages for single mothers on welfare: a tired Tea Party caricature scrawled by phony ideologues to help propagate mindless, moldy lies about the CRA among the mean-spirited. And not incidentally to camouflage the real malefactors. When called on that noise, you Gish-Galloped off in a typical cacophony of irrational static. You reined your rhetorical horsie to a halt just long enough to perpetrate the following ludicrous assertion, surreal in its stupidity:

    That still doesn’t obviate the fact that the Federal Reserve is the recipient as well as instigator of all federal spending. Look it up: see what our debt was from 1789-1913 and what it was from 1913-today.

    You were patiently corrected, informed that, no, the Fed is neither the recipient nor the instigator of federal spending. Appropriations, obligations and the mandatory spending of the US Congress and discretionary spending by the President are the “instigators” of all that, and its recipients are just about everyone but the Fed: it’s self-supporting and always has been. Not only has the Fed never received a penny from the US Treasury but last year deposited about $100 billion therein. All its profits end up there, always have. One stupid, clueless remark after another made obvious that you had not the least inkling of any of this, while nevertheless presuming to pose grandly as an insightful savant on all things economic, fiscal and monetary.

    Then you proceeded to dig yourself even deeper into self-beclownment:

    As to your last two paragraphs, I see that you know next-to-nothing about the creation of the Federal Reserve Bank and the fact that: (1) it’s a private corporation, and (2) that the taxpayers continue to pay dividends to the shareholders in the form of interest on the national debt. That is blatantly unconstitutional as it is the sole prerogative of the Congress to issue currency, not farm it out to a private third party.

    Where to begin … The Fed itself is a hybrid, public/private, non-profit institution composed of member banks and thrifts that are themselves purely private, for-profit commercial businesses — unlike the Fed. The Fed is not a private corporation in anything but its form, its exterior organization. It controls the money supply and sets interest rates; its overriding responsibility is to minimize price inflation and unemployment. It performs other services for its member banks. It’s independent of Congress, semi-independent of the Executive (and the Sec. of Treasury) but regularly accountable to them, too. The political/financial pas-de-deux on shared turf has a rich and complicated 100-year history, with plenty of blame and even some glory to go around. Your comical remarks prove you know nothing worth sharing about any of that. What comes after 2) is far too confused and idiotic to be worth any further deconstruction, and all positive instruction seems wasted on you anyway. Your smug oblivion is invincible. The final sentence is the equivalent of declaring yourself superior in knowledge and judgment to a unanimous, 200-year old Supreme Court decision and numerous Federal Court rulings since. Ridiculous.

    You know basically nothing about the nature and operations of the Fed or the US Treasury. You’ve proved to lack even a minimal comprehension of the simplest, most basic facts about the sources and real reasons for the federal debt. You should just shut up on these (and most other) subjects. You’ve made an ass of yourself again, publicly. It’s masochistic.

  16. Mike Myers says

    Your semantic games re the “value” of the dollar is juvenile.

    OK, George. You place expert economists’ definition of value in scare quotes, suggesting you have a better one. So let’s hear it.

    Between 1789 and 1913 the dollar’s value held steady and inflation was a rarity.

    All untrue. First of all, your hollow rhetoric about “the” dollar and its value proves you have no idea what you’re talking about. Many different state dollars and bonds, many different values. In fact, for the first few decades of our republic the Spanish peso was the currency most commonly used by the vast majority of Americans. Your words imply you didn’t even know that. It wasn’t until the Union’s National Bank Acts of 1863 and 1864 that the dollar became the sole American currency. At least in part as a result, the United States entered a period of very strong, sustained economic growth and relative stability — after the Civil War.
    Before, the economy was quite chaotic, contrary to your ignorant, false assertion. Inflation, deflation and recessions were continual.

    During that time the US grew from a small, coastal confederation to a continental republic and the world’s premier economic power. That’s not chump change.

    It was a republic from the start, and its economy would have grown under almost any financial regime given all of the highly favorable conditions — low-cost slave labor in particular, as well as the abundance of raw materials and a vast land mass to expand into. It wasn’t the “world’s premier economic power” until after WWI. After generations of a steady trend toward increasingly centralized monetary authority, culminating in Congress’s institution of the Fed.

    • Mike Myers says

      After generations of a steady trend toward increasingly centralized monetary authority, culminating in Congress’s institution of the Fed.

      This trend was wisely balanced by the concurrent development of strong state power to regulate and enforce standards for federally chartered banks. Until the disastrously stupid Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999 paved the way for the incompetent and probably corrupt Comptroller of the Currency, J.D. Hawke, to wreak havoc during the early, momentous years of the Bush Administration, state attorneys general exercised a healthy oversight of national banks’ operations in their states, and had done since the Civil War. Like so much else, all that changed for the hugely worse under W.

      . . .The OCC [Office of the Comptroller of the Currency] also promulgated new rules that prevented states from enforcing any of their own consumer protection laws against national banks. The federal government’s actions were so egregious and so unprecedented that all 50 state attorneys general, and all 50 state banking superintendents, actively fought the new rules.

      But the unanimous opposition of the 50 states did not deter, or even slow, the Bush administration in its goal of protecting the banks. In fact, when my office opened an investigation of possible discrimination in mortgage lending by a number of banks, the OCC filed a federal lawsuit to stop the investigation.

      • George Michalopulos says

        Mike, since you know so much, would you please file a Freedom of Information Act and find out who the actual owners of the Federal Reserve are? I mean the real flesh-and-blood humans, not the corporations (which are nothing more than legal constructs anyway). While you’re at it, find out how much money they have made off of the backs of American taxpayers by creating money out of thin air and charging interest for it lo, these last 103 years.

        • Mike Myers says

          . . . who [are] the actual owners of the Federal Reserve …?

          George, what’s the point of answering your questions? Even the good ones? You seem incapable of learning anything that would undermine your false biases.

          No one “owns” the Federal Reserve. That’s like asking who owns the Library of Congress or the Government Accountability Office or the EPA. No one owns the 12 separately incorporated Federal Reserve District Banks, either. Only its ~3800 member banks and thrifts have owners. Why is that so hard for you to understand?

          The Federal Reserve System is an umbrella organization for private commercial, for-profit banks and thrifts. It’s true the Fed usually “makes a profit” — and often a big one — but it is itself an essentially non-profit institution, because all that profit (after expenses and dividends*) goes right back into the US Treasury.

          The Fed mainly looks out for the often dubious self-interest of commercial banks and financial oligarchs, and only secondarily, these days, for the real interests of everyone else. It’s certainly true that the interests of the very rich rarely line up neatly with yours and mine and those of most people these days. God knows there’s a lot to criticize and even loudly denounce about the Fed and central banking and financial oligarchy and inadequate regulation of financial markets and the terrible corruption inherent to how neoliberal economic doctrines and gravely unjust tax laws are playing out. But to do it the way you do, motivated by pretentiousness, undermined by your easily demonstrated grotesque ignorance, is thoroughly counter-productive. Especially now, when we’re probably right on the edge of another meltdown, and a critical mass of solidly informed citizens is more important than ever in the US and Europe. You’re not helping at all. The blind leading the blind can only end up in one place.

          *About $2 billion recently. That high a return (6%) on member banks’ Fed stock holdings is rightfully controversial.

        • Mike Myers says

          Do you even know that Wall Street and the Fed aren’t the same thing? And do you know who’s being held hostage to whom? Why do you rail about the Fed but utter not a peep about Wall Street? Or about Deutsche Bank — you’ll be hearing a lot about that entity soon enough.

        • Mike Myers says

          While you’re at it, find out how much money they have made off of the backs of American taxpayers by creating money out of thin air and charging interest for it lo, these last 103 years.

          How has “the Fed” done that, George? What exactly have “they” charged interest on? Who pocketed this interest they allegedly charged? The Fed buys and sells Treasuries to indirectly control the money supply. Sort of. All the interest they earn on these and the other assets in their portfolio goes to the US Treasury. What are you talking about?

          By law, fractional-reserve banks make loans to governments, businesses and consumers, i.e., they make money, and they charge interest to do it and expect the principal to be repaid. Complaining about that is about as pointless as complaining about gravity. Advise everyone to borrow from their relatives or friends then, when they want to buy a house or a car or put their children through college.

          Do you want to get rid of fractional-reserve banking, too? Is that your real beef, rather than central banks as such?

          • George Michalopulos says

            I’ll tell you how: they’ve charged interest on the money that they printed out of thin air. Usury was condemned not only by the Old Testament but by Aristotle and countless other philosophers since then.

            Besides the abomination of usury, the very fact that Congress has ceded its power to issue currency to a private institution should be a horrible enough concept. At least it is in my book. What next? Hire entire Gothic armies to protect our borders? (On second thought, scratch that last one, at least the Romans were serious about defending their border.)

            • Mike Myers says

              At the Discount Window these days they charge 0.25 to 0.50% for the federal funds rate, up to 1.5% for secondary. Yup, that’s really abominable usury. (And never mind that all their profits go into the U.S. Treasury … You know the dark “truth” — they go to the Rothschilds.)

              Besides the abomination of usury, the very fact that Congress has ceded its power to issue currency to a private institution should be a horrible enough concept. At least it is in my book.

              No kidding! You wrote a book arguing why that unanimous 200-year-old Supreme Court decision and all those Federal Court rulings since stem from a “horrible enough concept,” did ya? Send me a review copy, OK? To save postage, why not throw in the draft of that magisterial monograph you’ve mentioned also, the one where you disprove evolution.

              Developmental editor’s suggestion: a huuuuuuuuuuuge market out there for a good read unveiling the fascinating psychology behind “Christian” support of Donald J. Trump for President. Something to consider for your next book, George. Very timely.

              • George Michalopulos says

                You know, Mike, I’m rather flattered by your desire to “make monomakhos great again” as well as your punctilious observance of every jot and tittle of my arguments. And I can’t tell you how pleased I am that Reality Checker spends all his precious time trying to catch me in a logical lapse or historical inaccuracy. It’s all rather touching.

                Having said that, I believe that in the matter of the Fed we are talking past each other. I believe (with strong evidence I might add) that central banking has made wars easier and more plentiful. I also believe that it has debased our currency considerably (again with much evidence). I also believe that we are enslaved to a debt engine which will eventually result in a default on the national debt (to be seen).

                You don’t.

                • Bishop Tikhon (Fitzgerald) says

                  George, I think you don’t KNOW what Mike believes or doesn’t believe relative to banking, Don’t forget that usury was not condemned just in Scripture, Aristotle and philosophers, but by CANON LAW. That is how the Jews got into the money-lending business–they were not bound by CANON LAW. The Christians, ALL OF THEM, got so jealous of the Jews for being able to lend at interest that they have gone into complete denial about their own canons, without changing them! Jews and Moslems, etc., say, “Typical!”

                • Mike Myers says

                  George, it doesn’t take much effort to fact-check you, so don’t worry about my time. This is seldom very challenging.
                  Your three opinions about the Fed are just that. You’ve made nothing resembling an argument for any of them.

                  The fear in your third belief is refuted by this graph. Nothing foreordained about default. As you can see, if only the Bush tax cuts were allowed to expire, in 20 years the US would be one of the least-indebted nations in the first world. As a percentage of GDP.

                  I’m not Make Monomakhos Great Again, but I think you already knew that. It’s easy enough to check. I guess you’re trying to give that false impression because you prefer your readers to think there’s one fewer mocking critic of your bogus rhetoric.

                  Lastly, it’s not that we’re talking past one another. The problem is you don’t have, or at least haven’t provided, either evidence or cogent rationale for these beliefs of yours. (And to speak of belief is neither relevant nor appropriate to rational discussion of such subjects.)

    • George Michalopulos says

      I asked a simple question and like Reality Checker, you could not or would not answer it. Let me ask another way: has the dollar maintained the same value since 1913 that it had before 1913?

      While you’re at it, what was our National Debt before 1913? I’ll make it easy for you by not asking you what it is today.

      • Mike Myers says

        As RC told you it’s far from being a simple question. Except to the simple-minded and confused. But I did give you a reasonably thoughtful answer to it. Your “reply” was typically vacuous, and also petulant. I then asked for your definition of the term ‘value’ in the context of the dollar, since you obviously don’t like the one economists would use. Nor did you care for the sense provided of the bigger picture, necessary to endow your question with any real heft — this appears to have displeased you for some reason. Anyway, you ignored that request. So I must assume you don’t have a better definition to give, but then I already knew that.
        Above, you informed us, “During that time [1789-1913], the value of the dollar was a dollar.” I can tell that you need desperately to cling to such hollow, homely nonsense. It’s probably cruel to disabuse you of it. God knows there’s little point in bothering to try. But here’s something for you to ask yourself: has the US economy grown in real terms since 1913? Get back to me when you’ve caught up.

        • George Michalopulos says

          Well, since you are so confident that all is hunky-dory, why don’t you ask your Congressman to pass a resolution for a complete audit of the Fed?

          Seriously, in answer to your previous question about all countries (save North Korea) which have central banks, does it not intrigue you in the slightest that only one of those countries –Switzerland–has never engaged in military action for its existence? Why is it an outlier?

          Consider: of all 170 or so countries on planet Earth, Great Britain (for one example) has invaded all but 22 countries! What was the casus belli of the Boer War? Since 1913, the United States has been involved in more armed conflicts (only two of which have been declared) than seems warranted in retrospect. I can see why we briefly invaded Mexico in 1913 because of Pancho Villa’s massacre of 19 American citizens in Arizona, but Guatemala? Iraq? Libya? Yemen? Bosnia? Kosovo? And why did we try to stoke up war in Georgia, Ukraine, and now Syria? The list is endless at this point.

          • Mike Myers says

            Well, since you are so confident that all is hunky-dory, why don’t you ask your Congressman to pass a resolution for a complete audit of the Fed?

            Your tiresome riff on the basic methodology of the Big Lie is the Big Stupid Question. Repeat it often enough, and the irrational mob will believe there’s something to the innuendo you’re dishonestly smuggling into the discourse. So now you’re qualifying audit with “complete.” Looks like a relevant fact finally penetrated your thick skull, and you get that the Fed is audited every year. So maybe you could clarify what you mean by a complete “audit” of the Fed.

            With some trepidation I’ll give you a little hint to feed your paranoia: there actually is something arguably significant that’s not financially audited already. A little hide and seek for someone so fond of childish games. Let’s see what medieval horrors your ludicrous logismoi can irrationally weave into this.

            The Swiss National Bank is a central bank. “Does it not intrigue you in the slightest that” every nation that “engages in military action” had a standing army, and politicians who drummed up war fever in the people? Or male humans with arms, legs and opposable thumbs? Or an atmosphere with oxygen that soldiers could breathe?

  17. Mike Myers says

    Do you know what GDP is, George? And if someone asked you to define “economic growth,” what would you say?

    • Michael Bauman says

      The problem with your analysis Mr. Meyers is that you and George use different assumptions. You are using the assumptions that are at the foundation of the current political economy. George is attempting to question those assumptions. That being the case it is fruitless to try and force him into your assumptions.

      The ideology that drives our political economy is deeply at odds with a Christian life. It is rapacious and oppressive. To change the system requires a change of heart by me, by many.

      To answer your question to George I would define economic growth as an economy that is human based, increases in actual value, wholeness, creativity and virtue. An economy that allows for the exchange of goods and services on the smallest scale possible without either large corporations favored by government or draconian regulation(hallmarks of fascism and socialism respectively) nor the pursuit of ever increasing quarterly profits within an Orwellian named “free market” supported and driven by debt and interest that is the hallmark of what is called capitalism. All are inhuman.

      There is no inherent virtue in homogeneity nor efficiency nor economies of scale nor government control. Neither is the ability to count and quantify necessarily virtuous.

      The three inhuman ideas I would love to see go: globalism, utilitarianism and consumerism. Each reflects a distortion of our souls in particular ways that, unchallenged, lead us into a dark and evil place which the Bible calls the love of Mammon.

      Despite that, they have become the driving force of our political economy. It cannot, it will not survive forever. When it crashes it will create much chaos and death. Exactly what it’s author wants.

    • Bishop Tikhon (Fitzgerald) says

      I’d look forward to an answer to that one, Mike Myers, but I think we’ll get anything BUT!