FAQ   Search   Memberlist   Usergroups   Register   Profile   Log in to check your private messages   Log in 
Banks: Are they really the bad guys? (Clint Richardson)
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Next Level Forum Index -> General Discussion
  ::  Previous topic :: Next topic  
Author Message
bardo_being



Joined: 07 Nov 2011
Posts: 34

PostPosted: Fri Jan 13, 2012 1:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

As to the quantity of what they are calling governmental corporations, Walter Burien was using a number of, I think, 54,000 of them during the late 90's, which has grown to, I think, 184,000 more recently.

They consist of cities, towns, counties, states, the federal government, associations, pensions, enterprises and quite a few other types of public entities.

As to public pensions, Walter Burien says in his first documentary that it's not about the money that will eventually be paid out to the recipients, but rather that the pensions, per their CAFR's, are extremely overfunded.

I'd refer you to them if you care to know more. As I wrote above, this is all new to me and I've simply watched their videos recently. I'm by no means claiming to be an expert nor even agreeing with what they are saying. I am intrigued, especially with the information about the CAFR's.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
leon



Joined: 22 Aug 2008
Posts: 1046
Location: 3d-rate nation

PostPosted: Fri Jan 13, 2012 1:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The typical diversion is to blame everything on the ďgovímentĒ, forgetting the simple fact that Government is not that Evil Entity that has a life and will of its own, but just a collection of various Bureaucratic Institutions that execute whatever policy is passed from top down from high-level political appointees (under current election process I put in that category even those who were supposedely elected).
Under normal political leadership the Government will execute normal usefull functions like protecting the Nation, prosecuting the swindlers, enforcing legal contracts, delivering mailÖ
However, if a bad policy comes down they will start dilligently executing that as well, like feeling you up at the airport gates or spying on your email.
Question is who is responsible for consistantly, throughout Democratic and Republican administration, year after year sometimes gradually, sometimes abrupt (Patriot Act) implementing the policy that lead to enslaving of US population by private entities. Why those policies are always aim at reducing level of Industrial Production and Productive Employment in the US? Why those policy, little by little, erode the Civil Liberties? Why those policy year after year let off the hook the biggest law breakers?

It's The Empire stupid!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
bardo_being



Joined: 07 Nov 2011
Posts: 34

PostPosted: Fri Jan 13, 2012 2:50 pm    Post subject: The blurring of public versus corporate entities Reply with quote

Look at it a different way. What they seem to be arguing is that the difference between a private entity and a public entity is more blurry than we think. In fact, they may be synonymous. The division is more along the lines of publicly held versus privately held.

We all know that our cities are "incorporated", i.e. they are corporations. Pensions, too, for example, are corporations created to manage pension funds for both private and public employees. I used to live in the incorporated city of Seattle. Was I a shareholder? No. Who is? "The public"? How do we know? Many it's benign and there's nothing peculiar going on.

What they are suggesting, and offering proof, is that every entity we think of as public is, in fact, a private corporation acting on behalf of the public persona of this or that city, county, state, etc.. Walter Burien would phrase it, "the corporation representing the state of Arizona".

Now, as corporations, they all must file financial statements, and they do. They are called CAFR's, Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports. Some are made public, most are harder to come by. Walter Burien, and now later Clint Richardson, have reviewed numerous quantities of CAFR's are are concluding that these government corporations are very, very wealthy. And this sits in contrast to their claims that they are desperate for money, are running deficits, needing to make drastic cuts, etc.

So, to claim that private-industry corporations have corrupted the inherently benevolent public institutions may not be accurate. They are all for-profit corporations and they are squeezing us from all angles and they are in both partnership and competition with each other.

So, again, a couple unanswered questions are, a) who owns the corporations that represent the public entities, and b) how much wealth are they sitting on?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
leon



Joined: 22 Aug 2008
Posts: 1046
Location: 3d-rate nation

PostPosted: Fri Jan 13, 2012 3:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Polonius. What do you read, my lord?
Hamlet. Words, words, words.
Polonius. What is the matter, my lord?
Hamlet. Between who?
Polonius. I mean, the matter you read, my lord.
Hamlet. Slanders, sir; for the satirical slave says here that old men have grey beards, that their faces are wrinkled, their eyes purging thick amber or plum-tree gum, and that they have a plentiful lack of wit, together with weak hams; all which, sir, though I most powerfully and potently believe, yet I hold it not honesty to have it thus set down; for you yourself, sir, should be old as I am, if like a crab you could go backward.

William Shakespeare "The Tragedy of Hamlet Prince of Denmark".

Act II
Scene II
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Plato



Joined: 09 Dec 2010
Posts: 360

PostPosted: Fri Jan 13, 2012 3:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

FYI;
CAFR; really cool term, just means Comprehensive Annual Financial Report; the public statement pension funds make with regard to their investments.
What really matters is how much is invested right now in banks, other companies, gov't bonds etc.

According to ICI (see link) total retirement assets in the US (both public and private), was 17.5 USD trillion at the end of 2010; of which only USD 4.4 trillion had in any way to do with the government (in the form of it being pension funds for government employees).

http://www.ici.org/pressroom/news/ret_10_q4

Please don't put insane amounts like USD 100 trillion out there, if you have no solid proof; you can't turn 4.4 trillion into USD 100 trillion (may be Clint is on some serious drug that helps him out).
Furthermore, it worries me that I do not seem to get my point across that these so-called government pension funds are not owned by the gov't at all; the owners are the current and past contributors; however this does not mean that they are not trying to get their hands on them..

_________________
"A person hears only what he understands."
Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
bardo_being



Joined: 07 Nov 2011
Posts: 34

PostPosted: Fri Jan 13, 2012 3:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Plato, why are you singling out pension funds and retirement funds as if they are somehow the only government corporations that these men (Richardson and Burien) are referring to? In fact, they constitute a minuscule portion. And I'm not the one making these claims so I'm not the one who needs to provide solid proof. You can find that from the men who are making these claims in the videos that they have produced following the links above.

Further, current and past contributors are not the owners of the pension funds. They are the beneficiaries. The pension funds themselves are corporations set up to manage the contributions and payouts of the beneficiaries as well as to invest the assets held on behalf of the beneficiaries.

For example, there is a corporation that runs the pension fund for the teachers of the State of Washington. My sister is a teacher in that state and contributes to the fund. She is not an owner of the corporation that manages the fund, she has no shares in the corporation. She is a beneficiary of the fund subject to the terms of the program. To understand this distinction is very important.

This is why some people have lost their pension benefits in the past, specifically because they are not the true owners of the funds, and the terms of the program can be altered by those with administration authority to deprive people of receiving funds that had been contributed on their behalf.

And, chill, man. I'm not your enemy.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
IronClad



Joined: 10 Aug 2011
Posts: 435
Location: Kent

PostPosted: Fri Jan 13, 2012 3:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/politics/article-24026917-pound-20bn-of-council-pension-funds-could-build-new-roads.do

"First set out in Chancellor George Osborne autumn statement" as though it has only been thought of in Britain.

The sort of money in £20 billion range has got to be invested somewhere and for years, ever since there has been Pension Funds.

Well, it has to be invested somewhere and the Funds will want a return on their members investments.

Why not investments in toll roads and house building. Why not investment in wheel clamping companies, for instance. And why not investments in banking, particularly when banks are screwing their customers with laughable rates of interest and penny-pitching laughable amounts of tax deducted.

What we need to understand is that it is business. If there is any injustice then it has to be pin-pointed. Pension Fund management and associated company structures will want to see profit for their individual companies and for the Pension Fund. Again this is business. We have to understand this part of our economy.

But when it gets to the payout to pensioners. What has happened in between the obtaining of benefits to the Fund and the payout to its members who have to stay alive long enough to "collect" and when the time comes when the payout is made to the surviving spouse. How long are we talking about between retirement and the last day on earth?

There is obviously big money in Pension Funds and so there should be.

What is needed is a grass roots complaint that avoids the making of money and the fat cats who benefit from investing it.

We have in Britain what are called chuggers who work for agencies that take a cut of the money. They are also called "charity muggers" who walk up to people on the street to talk them into signing up for donations to good causes. It is said that the vast majority of people do not give to charity unless they are asked to. It is said to be regulated and indeed they all seem to be polite and accept no for an answer.

It must be a disheartening job for mostly youngsters who do it but this too can be described business. The charity gets something and people are employed and the young are given something to do.

Business is the money maker. There is nothing evil about making money. We have to become more of an expert to pin-point injustices, if any.

Rhetric is in vast supply, we have to get through it if we want to be heard.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Plato



Joined: 09 Dec 2010
Posts: 360

PostPosted: Sat Jan 14, 2012 3:52 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ok, we're getting into technicalities now; you're right, the participants in the retirement plans donít own the corporations that have been set up to administer and invest their pension premiums, but they do own the money that they have put in there; the money in the pension fund is the accumulated premiums that have been/are/will be invested and are paid out/will be paid out to them once retired. This is their right; of course, the administrators may do things the participants may not agree with; I do hope, for your sistersí sake and the sake of all the other public employees that they watch their pension funds actions carefully. The canary in the coal mine is of course when past contributors/retired public employees are not receiving their rightful pensions any more.

When I say that the proof is on you when you put out numbers like USD 100 trillion, is in my view, completely valid; you bring it up, so you back it up. To assert that other people said something like this or that is no good, you canít have a proper discussion like that, it completely obfuscates the topic, which is of course, who owns these darn banks.

I can tell you that the true owners and the ones that actually control these banks are laughing their heads of when they learn about discussions like this; once again attention is diverted away from them, which is exactly what they want and need. May be mr Richardson can find out for us who the owners of the Federal Reserve Bank are, that would be truly helpful. This is the bank of banks; controlling this one is the holy grail of the modern fiat currency/fractional reserve banking system. I havenít heard a peep about this one, kind of makes you wonder whose side mr Richardson is on.

Bardo being dude, no, youíre not my enemy; I tend to get a little carried away when it comes to this topic of privately-owned-banks-that-screw-it-up-for-everybody; its nothing personal. Its just that people seem to have a tendency to be wanting to believe anything when it comes to these banks, except the truth.

_________________
"A person hears only what he understands."
Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
IronClad



Joined: 10 Aug 2011
Posts: 435
Location: Kent

PostPosted: Sat Jan 14, 2012 5:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-16547725

Where has the CEO of The British Corporation been visiting?

The purpose of the visit is difficult to say when it is denied that sales of arms were not the focus of the visit. The focus then must have been politial to talk about human rights and matters of peace in the Middle East and democracy and religion.

Still, its a difficult call. "If there was any threat" to the Straights and there was any unrest in the region the Saudis would not want to buy more arms from Britain.

CEO of Britain Corporation or Prime Minister of the British [independent] Government. It's difficult to draw a line between one and the other.

It's brilliant when they deny something that otherwise was obviously the case. Sale of arms was not the focus of the visit.

But hey, its business and the planet is getting over crowded and we ain't much good at manufaturing much else.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
leon



Joined: 22 Aug 2008
Posts: 1046
Location: 3d-rate nation

PostPosted: Sat Jan 14, 2012 8:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

"it completely obfuscates the topic, which is of course, who owns these darn banks"

Exactly Plato, that's the point. Who's got the real control of any assets held by banks or corporations?

Any corporate entity(or bank) could go down in flames, common shareholders (or FDIC) left holding the bag and the good stuff goes missing like was the case of MF Global. Millenium old swindle.

But honestly, I am getting tired of that blame-shifting game being played by certain contributors of the Forum. They are ready to blame anything and anybody for our current woes, except of course the real culprits: The Organized Money
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Plato



Joined: 09 Dec 2010
Posts: 360

PostPosted: Sat Jan 14, 2012 8:28 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

May be this helps in clearing up a few things (from David Wilcock's website, released just a few hours ago, I haven't read it yet, but full of Rothschilds, banks, the Fed, the defense industry etc.

http://divinecosmos.com/start-here/davids-blog/1023-financial-tyranny

_________________
"A person hears only what he understands."
Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
leon



Joined: 22 Aug 2008
Posts: 1046
Location: 3d-rate nation

PostPosted: Sat Jan 14, 2012 11:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Plato, I can't find anything on the site from your link, maybe because I am not using FireFox browser as they recommend. I am not about to spend any time installing another piece of spying software on my machine, so could you recommend some reading or video that is viewable from IE?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Next Level Forum Index -> General Discussion All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next
Page 2 of 10

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group

Theme xand created by spleen.