The empty hat GOP.....another trickle down bs tax policy!!

[The Derp]

Awful! Just awful!!!

No surprise that funneling money to the wealthy ends up destroying the economy. We've seen it play out time and time again...

From the awesome economy!

Nope. From their tax cuts and from money borrowed from banks. They were literally investing in imaginary companies in order to keep the bull market going. That's not prosperity...that's desperation. And it's almost exactly like what Bush and the Conservatives did 80 years later by inflating a mortgage bubble with bullshit. In that case, no-doc loans. So the 1920's saw "prosperity" in the investment in imaginary companies built on debt, and the 2000's saw "prosperity" in the investment in housing via no-doc loans, also built on debt.

Conservatives seem to love debt, don't they? It's how they make their economies "grow". Debt, debt, debt...nothing but debt. Aren't you the people opposed to debt? What gives?

If the government takes 100% of all our money, the stock market will never crash!

Ah, so now you're tacitly admitting that the wealthy were pouring their tax cuts into the market to inflate it and keep the bull market going. OK, we're making progress. So what was the inevitable consequence of the rich inflating an artificial market? The Great Depression. Which we very nearly had 10 years ago, thanks to the same stupid Laissez-faire policies and ideas.

 

[The Derp]

The stock market crash of 29 was nothing more than a pump and dump scam.

That guy seriously thinks that artificially inflating a bull market is prosperity.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Awful! Just awful!!!

No surprise that funneling money to the wealthy ends up destroying the economy. We've seen it play out time and time again...

From the awesome economy!

Nope. From their tax cuts and from money borrowed from banks. They were literally investing in imaginary companies in order to keep the bull market going. That's not prosperity...that's desperation. And it's almost exactly like what Bush and the Conservatives did 80 years later by inflating a mortgage bubble with bullshit. In that case, no-doc loans. So the 1920's saw "prosperity" in the investment in imaginary companies built on debt, and the 2000's saw "prosperity" in the investment in housing via no-doc loans, also built on debt.

Conservatives seem to love debt, don't they? It's how they make their economies "grow". Debt, debt, debt...nothing but debt. Aren't you the people opposed to debt? What gives?

If the government takes 100% of all our money, the stock market will never crash!

Ah, so now you're tacitly admitting that the wealthy were pouring their tax cuts into the market to inflate it and keep the bull market going. OK, we're making progress. So what was the inevitable consequence of the rich inflating an artificial market? The Great Depression. Which we very nearly had 10 years ago, thanks to the same stupid Laissez-faire policies and ideas.

No surprise that funneling money to the wealthy ends up destroying the economy.

The U.S. Economy in the 1920s

So the 1920's saw "prosperity" in the investment in imaginary companies built on debt, and the 2000's saw "prosperity" in the investment in housing via no-doc loans, also built on debt.

How's your Pets.com stock doing?

The Great Depression. Which we very nearly had 10 years ago, thanks to the same stupid Laissez-faire policies and ideas.

Yeah, pushing banks and the GSEs to buy crappy mortgages, very laissez-faire.

 

[danielpalos]

Unfuckinbelievable.....the GOP is again betting on the trickle down pipe dream to now raise wages in this country....this with stock market profits in the trillions for the very corporations that need a break. One would think, with profits being soooooo high, your employer would have given out mega raises or a bonus by now, ya think? I know I'm still waiting.

Lets face it, the GOP is a party of what? I have yet to see these people come up with one new idea that is for the benefit for the idiots that keep supporting this do nothing useless party. I just don't get the love....Both Reagan and Bush have had the highest deficits in US history, with Trump to top them both in the near future, yet its always democrats that take the fall for it. This budget plan is gonna kick seniors off of medicare, gut medicaid, enhance the rich, and for the middle class the working poor, an increase in personal exemptions, whoopdi do

My God, these southern white bastards are just tooo motherfuckin stupid to be voting

More "gubermint", more taxes, more fees, more entitlements and subsidies...it's what da peoples want, eh, dipshit?


More Federal Reserve notes required but what the fuck? Just crank out more of them and fuck the fact that interest is attached to every debt note printed just so long as you get freebies. If life was a chicken farm and "da gubermint" was Colonel Sanders? You would be clucking, squawking and waddling your fat ass up to the porch demanding more feed. You don't have the foggiest fucking clue as to what is really going on...........not even in the slightest.

interest is attached to every debt note printed

That's funny! I'm holding some of those notes.
I'm not paying any interest on them.

Are you? Who do you pay?

It appears you are confused.

GIVE me control of a nation’s money supply, and I care not who makes its laws

You have probably heard that quote. Here is what that means.

Say the US wants to print a billion new dollars. Well, they have to BUY them from the Federal Reserve, a private outfit. Now the Fed, it just turns on the printing press. The dollars cost them pennies. But for every dollar printed the Government goes in debt a dollar. Hell, one years interest covers the cost of the dollars. The rest is sheer gravy. It is a sweet ass deal.

Now, QE--that is when the Fed introduced new dollars by purchasing what? Debt. They turned on the presses, printed out some dollars, and introduced them into circulation by buying up debt that, you got it, draws interest. Again, it's a sweet ass deal.

So yes, every Federal Reserve note you have in your pocket has interest attached to it. And worse, you are paying in the form of taxes that go to pay the interest on that debt. Maybe even your mortgage, it could be held by the Federal Reserve, so you could be paying interest on dollars that were used to purchase your mortgage.

Now, there is a cool solution. The Federal Government could print a couple trillion dollar coins, declare them legal tender, and pay off the Federal Reserve with them. If Trump was the man you guys think he is he would have done that already. But Trump is no more in charge than I am. ,

Just socialism bailing out capitalism, like usual?

 

[The Derp]

View attachment 157758

Not sure what this chart is supposed to prove other than the bull market was being artificially inflated by debt. Conservatives can't grow an economy without first plunging us into debt. Every single Conservative economy has had the unfortunate consequence of over-promising and under-delivering while expanding deficits and debt, and causing real economic turmoil, recessions, and depressions as a result.

How's your Pets.com stock doing?

I'm glad you brought that up because it just goes to serve my point about how tax cuts lead to artificial markets and economic collapses. The 1997 Capital Gains Tax Cut was responsible for the dotcom bubble, of which Pets.com was a part. So you had folks who got a tax cut on Capital Gains, pour that money into companies that either didn't "start up" or were doomed to fail (just like the 1920's), then tried to time it so that they got out of the companies just before they went under. Same scheme from the 1920's, only updated to the digital age. But it wouldn't have happened if we hadn't done what Conservatives said and cut Capital Gains Taxes in the first place.

So thanks for the assist there, proving that Conservatives should never be trusted when they talk about taxes.

Yeah, pushing banks and the GSEs to buy crappy mortgages, very laissez-faire.

Well, you guys forced GSE's to buy risky mortgages beginning in 2004. Clinton had stopped that in 2000, but you started it back up. How come? And yes, Bush and the Conservatives "pushed" banks to make loans by letting them police themselves and by having his regulators back off the enforcement of lending standards, particularly for subprime loans, beginning in 2004.

So just like the 1920's, Conservatives were artificially inflating a market with debt to make the economy look like it was growing as a result of their policies, when it was really only growing because of debt.

 

[deanrd]

The empty hat GOP.....another trickle down bs tax policy!!

It's not another one. It's same awful one that fails every time the GOP get enough votes to pass.

 

[The Derp]

The GOP should just change its name to the Debt Party. All their economic schemes rely on debt.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

View attachment 157758

Not sure what this chart is supposed to prove other than the bull market was being artificially inflated by debt. Conservatives can't grow an economy without first plunging us into debt. Every single Conservative economy has had the unfortunate consequence of over-promising and under-delivering while expanding deficits and debt, and causing real economic turmoil, recessions, and depressions as a result.

How's your Pets.com stock doing?

I'm glad you brought that up because it just goes to serve my point about how tax cuts lead to artificial markets and economic collapses. The 1997 Capital Gains Tax Cut was responsible for the dotcom bubble, of which Pets.com was a part. So you had folks who got a tax cut on Capital Gains, pour that money into companies that either didn't "start up" or were doomed to fail (just like the 1920's), then tried to time it so that they got out of the companies just before they went under. Same scheme from the 1920's, only updated to the digital age. But it wouldn't have happened if we hadn't done what Conservatives said and cut Capital Gains Taxes in the first place.

So thanks for the assist there, proving that Conservatives should never be trusted when they talk about taxes.

Yeah, pushing banks and the GSEs to buy crappy mortgages, very laissez-faire.

Well, you guys forced GSE's to buy risky mortgages beginning in 2004. Clinton had stopped that in 2000, but you started it back up. How come? And yes, Bush and the Conservatives "pushed" banks to make loans by letting them police themselves and by having his regulators back off the enforcement of lending standards, particularly for subprime loans, beginning in 2004.

So just like the 1920's, Conservatives were artificially inflating a market with debt to make the economy look like it was growing as a result of their policies, when it was really only growing because of debt.

Well, you guys forced GSE's to buy risky mortgages beginning in 2004.

Sorry, Clinton was pushing that in the 1990s.
Bush took Clinton's bad idea and made it worse.

 

[RealDave]

The OP does realize southern blacks have the right to vote and they voted Trump?

Bullshit. You calling 8% - "voting Trump"?

 

[The Derp]

Sorry, Clinton was pushing that in the 1990s.

In 2000, Clinton put in place a HUD rule that prohibited GSE's from purchasing risky mortgages. Bush removed that rule in 2004. How come?

Bush took Clinton's bad idea and made it worse.

Clinton put a stop to it in 2000...Bush reversed that in 2004. Why? Why in the world would Bush the Dumber reverse a rule that previously had prohibited GSE's from purchasing risky mortgages? To inflate a mortgage bubble to make the economy look like it was growing as a result of his tax cuts, when it was really growing as a result of debt.

 

[RealDave]

View attachment 157758

Not sure what this chart is supposed to prove other than the bull market was being artificially inflated by debt. Conservatives can't grow an economy without first plunging us into debt. Every single Conservative economy has had the unfortunate consequence of over-promising and under-delivering while expanding deficits and debt, and causing real economic turmoil, recessions, and depressions as a result.

How's your Pets.com stock doing?

I'm glad you brought that up because it just goes to serve my point about how tax cuts lead to artificial markets and economic collapses. The 1997 Capital Gains Tax Cut was responsible for the dotcom bubble, of which Pets.com was a part. So you had folks who got a tax cut on Capital Gains, pour that money into companies that either didn't "start up" or were doomed to fail (just like the 1920's), then tried to time it so that they got out of the companies just before they went under. Same scheme from the 1920's, only updated to the digital age. But it wouldn't have happened if we hadn't done what Conservatives said and cut Capital Gains Taxes in the first place.

So thanks for the assist there, proving that Conservatives should never be trusted when they talk about taxes.

Yeah, pushing banks and the GSEs to buy crappy mortgages, very laissez-faire.

Well, you guys forced GSE's to buy risky mortgages beginning in 2004. Clinton had stopped that in 2000, but you started it back up. How come? And yes, Bush and the Conservatives "pushed" banks to make loans by letting them police themselves and by having his regulators back off the enforcement of lending standards, particularly for subprime loans, beginning in 2004.

So just like the 1920's, Conservatives were artificially inflating a market with debt to make the economy look like it was growing as a result of their policies, when it was really only growing because of debt.

Well, you guys forced GSE's to buy risky mortgages beginning in 2004.

Sorry, Clinton was pushing that in the 1990s.
Bush took Clinton's bad idea and made it worse.

The CRA forced no one to loan money to people who could not pay it back. You keep telling this lie while claiming to be some economics expert.

The CRA said banks needed to take a portion of their profits & for their neighborhoods, offer a better rate or lower down payment to help those who could not quite meet the standards.

At no time did the CRA tell banks that had to loan money to people who could not pay it back./

You assholes keep screaming CRA to priovide cover for your party that fucked the country through years of constant deregulating.

 

[The Derp]

The CRA forced no one to loan money to people who could not pay it back. You keep telling this lie while claiming to be some economics expert.

The CRA said banks needed to take a portion of their profits & for their neighborhoods, offer a better rate or lower down payment to help those who could not quite meet the standards.

At no time did the CRA tell banks that had to loan money to people who could not pay it back./

You assholes keep screaming CRA to priovide cover for your party that fucked the country through years of constant deregulating.

I don't think he ever claimed to be an expert on economics. He just postures that he has knowledge in it, but his knowledge is limited to whatever the propagandist in charge tells him what to think on any given day. He just gleans things off the message board...too lazy to do any actual work.

The only place where he does put in effort is attempting to obfuscate. There was this thread not too long ago where I accurately showed that Bush the Dumber lost net private sector jobs. Then he said "nuh uh" and posted a segment of the workforce -but not the whole private sector workforce- that showed a net increase, then had the nerve to say it was apples-to-apples. It wasn't.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Sorry, Clinton was pushing that in the 1990s.

In 2000, Clinton put in place a HUD rule that prohibited GSE's from purchasing risky mortgages. Bush removed that rule in 2004. How come?

Bush took Clinton's bad idea and made it worse.

Clinton put a stop to it in 2000...Bush reversed that in 2004. Why? Why in the world would Bush the Dumber reverse a rule that previously had prohibited GSE's from purchasing risky mortgages? To inflate a mortgage bubble to make the economy look like it was growing as a result of his tax cuts, when it was really growing as a result of debt.

In 2000, Clinton put in place a HUD rule that prohibited GSE's from purchasing risky mortgages

Link?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

View attachment 157758

Not sure what this chart is supposed to prove other than the bull market was being artificially inflated by debt. Conservatives can't grow an economy without first plunging us into debt. Every single Conservative economy has had the unfortunate consequence of over-promising and under-delivering while expanding deficits and debt, and causing real economic turmoil, recessions, and depressions as a result.

How's your Pets.com stock doing?

I'm glad you brought that up because it just goes to serve my point about how tax cuts lead to artificial markets and economic collapses. The 1997 Capital Gains Tax Cut was responsible for the dotcom bubble, of which Pets.com was a part. So you had folks who got a tax cut on Capital Gains, pour that money into companies that either didn't "start up" or were doomed to fail (just like the 1920's), then tried to time it so that they got out of the companies just before they went under. Same scheme from the 1920's, only updated to the digital age. But it wouldn't have happened if we hadn't done what Conservatives said and cut Capital Gains Taxes in the first place.

So thanks for the assist there, proving that Conservatives should never be trusted when they talk about taxes.

Yeah, pushing banks and the GSEs to buy crappy mortgages, very laissez-faire.

Well, you guys forced GSE's to buy risky mortgages beginning in 2004. Clinton had stopped that in 2000, but you started it back up. How come? And yes, Bush and the Conservatives "pushed" banks to make loans by letting them police themselves and by having his regulators back off the enforcement of lending standards, particularly for subprime loans, beginning in 2004.

So just like the 1920's, Conservatives were artificially inflating a market with debt to make the economy look like it was growing as a result of their policies, when it was really only growing because of debt.

Well, you guys forced GSE's to buy risky mortgages beginning in 2004.

Sorry, Clinton was pushing that in the 1990s.
Bush took Clinton's bad idea and made it worse.

The CRA forced no one to loan money to people who could not pay it back. You keep telling this lie while claiming to be some economics expert.

The CRA said banks needed to take a portion of their profits & for their neighborhoods, offer a better rate or lower down payment to help those who could not quite meet the standards.

At no time did the CRA tell banks that had to loan money to people who could not pay it back./

You assholes keep screaming CRA to priovide cover for your party that fucked the country through years of constant deregulating.

The CRA forced no one to loan money to people who could not pay it back

Banks had to lend a certain percentage to poor and minority borrowers.
Or they could buy crappy mortgages from someone else who did.

The CRA said banks needed to take a portion of their profits & for their neighborhoods, offer a better rate or lower down payment to help those who could not quite meet the standards.

Oh, better rates or lower down payments to entice poorer risks to borrow?
Sounds a little riskier than a typical mortgage, eh?

You assholes keep screaming CRA to priovide cover for your party that fucked the country through years of constant deregulating.

Pushing banks to make weaker loans and pushing the GSEs to buy weaker loans is the opposite of deregulation, asshole.

 

[The Derp]

In 2000, Clinton put in place a HUD rule that prohibited GSE's from purchasing risky mortgages

link?

From Washington Post, June 10, 2008:

In 2000, as HUD revisited its affordable-housing goals, the housing market had shifted. With escalating home prices, subprime loans were more popular. Consumer advocates warned that lenders were trapping borrowers with low "teaser" interest rates and ignoring borrowers' qualifications.

HUD restricted Freddie and Fannie, saying it would not credit them for loans they purchased that had abusively high costs or that were granted without regard to the borrower's ability to repay. Freddie and Fannie adopted policies not to buy some high-cost loans.​

Bush reversed that restriction in 2004. Why?

 

[The Derp]

Pushing banks to make weaker loans and pushing the GSEs to buy weaker loans is the opposite of deregulation, asshole.

It wasn't the loans from the 90's that destroyed the economy. It was the loans from 2004-7.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

In 2000, Clinton put in place a HUD rule that prohibited GSE's from purchasing risky mortgages

link?

From Washington Post, June 10, 2008:

In 2000, as HUD revisited its affordable-housing goals, the housing market had shifted. With escalating home prices, subprime loans were more popular. Consumer advocates warned that lenders were trapping borrowers with low "teaser" interest rates and ignoring borrowers' qualifications.

HUD restricted Freddie and Fannie, saying it would not credit them for loans they purchased that had abusively high costs or that were granted without regard to the borrower's ability to repay. Freddie and Fannie adopted policies not to buy some high-cost loans.​

Bush reversed that restriction in 2004. Why?

HUD restricted Freddie and Fannie, saying it would not credit them for loans they purchased that had abusively high costs or that were granted without regard to the borrower's ability to repay.

Not credit them?
Oh, you mean some crappy loans wouldn't count toward their mandated purchases of crappy loans.
And yet, they still managed to buy plenty of weak mortgages.

 

[The Derp]

Not credit them?Oh, you mean some crappy loans wouldn't count toward their mandated purchases of crappy loans.And yet, they still managed to buy plenty of weak mortgages.

Fannie and Freddie were not responsible for the Bush Economic Collapse and neither were the mortgages they backed. That was all you guys and your de-regulatory zeal and laissez-faire approach; like letting banks police themselves and not enforcing lending standards for subprime loans.

Here's the chart of mortgage delinquency rates. Notice how GSE's have the best delinquency rate? Of course you don't notice that...because your eyes and brain won't let you. Why? Simple; it would ruin the fragile narrative you're trying to propagandize and your ego cannot take that bruising because it's as weak as your arguments and your upper body strength.

 

[The Derp]

Not credit them?
Oh, you mean some crappy loans wouldn't count toward their mandated purchases of crappy loans.
And yet, they still managed to buy plenty of weak mortgages.

More important, why did Bush reverse that restriction in 2004? What would be the reason to remove the restriction on GSE's purchasing risky loans...hmmm...gee...I wonder...

What's also really interesting is that in the 1920's, Conservatives did something similar with stock. They removed the restriction that had prevented one corporation from owning the stock of another. So there was a transfer of wealth from individuals to corporations, who then bought up stock in other corporations...this was done, obviously, to fuel the bull market well beyond its expiration date.

 

[Winston]

Unfuckinbelievable.....the GOP is again betting on the trickle down pipe dream to now raise wages in this country....this with stock market profits in the trillions for the very corporations that need a break. One would think, with profits being soooooo high, your employer would have given out mega raises or a bonus by now, ya think? I know I'm still waiting.

Lets face it, the GOP is a party of what? I have yet to see these people come up with one new idea that is for the benefit for the idiots that keep supporting this do nothing useless party. I just don't get the love....Both Reagan and Bush have had the highest deficits in US history, with Trump to top them both in the near future, yet its always democrats that take the fall for it. This budget plan is gonna kick seniors off of medicare, gut medicaid, enhance the rich, and for the middle class the working poor, an increase in personal exemptions, whoopdi do

My God, these southern white bastards are just tooo motherfuckin stupid to be voting

More "gubermint", more taxes, more fees, more entitlements and subsidies...it's what da peoples want, eh, dipshit?


More Federal Reserve notes required but what the fuck? Just crank out more of them and fuck the fact that interest is attached to every debt note printed just so long as you get freebies. If life was a chicken farm and "da gubermint" was Colonel Sanders? You would be clucking, squawking and waddling your fat ass up to the porch demanding more feed. You don't have the foggiest fucking clue as to what is really going on...........not even in the slightest.

interest is attached to every debt note printed

That's funny! I'm holding some of those notes.
I'm not paying any interest on them.

Are you? Who do you pay?

It appears you are confused.

GIVE me control of a nation’s money supply, and I care not who makes its laws

You have probably heard that quote. Here is what that means.

Say the US wants to print a billion new dollars. Well, they have to BUY them from the Federal Reserve, a private outfit. Now the Fed, it just turns on the printing press. The dollars cost them pennies. But for every dollar printed the Government goes in debt a dollar. Hell, one years interest covers the cost of the dollars. The rest is sheer gravy. It is a sweet ass deal.

Now, QE--that is when the Fed introduced new dollars by purchasing what? Debt. They turned on the presses, printed out some dollars, and introduced them into circulation by buying up debt that, you got it, draws interest. Again, it's a sweet ass deal.

So yes, every Federal Reserve note you have in your pocket has interest attached to it. And worse, you are paying in the form of taxes that go to pay the interest on that debt. Maybe even your mortgage, it could be held by the Federal Reserve, so you could be paying interest on dollars that were used to purchase your mortgage.

Now, there is a cool solution. The Federal Government could print a couple trillion dollar coins, declare them legal tender, and pay off the Federal Reserve with them. If Trump was the man you guys think he is he would have done that already. But Trump is no more in charge than I am. ,

Say the US wants to print a billion new dollars. Well, they have to BUY them from the Federal Reserve,

Exactly which US government agency needs Federal Reserve Notes?
Do you think HUD is using stacks of $20s to pay their bills?

It appears you are confused.

the Federal Reserve, a private outfit.

Private? LOL!

Now, QE--that is when the Fed introduced new dollars by purchasing what? Debt. They turned on the presses, printed out some dollars, and introduced them into circulation by buying up debt that, you got it, draws interest.

You think the Fed bought Treasuries and MBS in exchange for a trailer full of FRNs? Hilarious!!!

So yes, every Federal Reserve note you have in your pocket has interest attached to it.

The $20 you have in your wallet, are you paying interest on it? How much?
Where do you mail the check?

Or does someone owe you interest?

And worse, you are paying in the form of taxes that go to pay the interest on that debt.

My taxes go to pay interest on that debt, no matter who owns the debt.

Maybe even your mortgage, it could be held by the Federal Reserve, so you could be paying interest on dollars that were used to purchase your mortgage.

I'm paying interest on the money I borrowed to buy my home.
I give nary a shit who bought the mortgage later or what they used to buy it.
My interest payment has nothing to do with FRNs

Yes, the Federal Reserve purchased MBS with printed dollars.

The agency MBS purchase program was announced in November 2008 and the FOMC expanded the size of the program in early 2009. In total, $1.25 trillion in agency MBS were purchased between January 2009 and March 2010, when the purchase phase of the program was completed.

The Fed - Agency Mortgage-Backed Securities (MBS) Purchase Program

And yes, the Federal Reserve is privately held.

The Fed is privately owned. Its shareholders are private banks

https://www.globalresearch.ca/who-owns-the-federal-reserve/10489

Look and learn,

The US goverment runs a deficit annually. To cover this, the US goverment issues bonds which are bought by the FED.

Since the FED has the POWER TO PRINT MONEY, it can buy any amount of the US Government bonds at almost NO COST, save for the expense of printing money (approximately 3 cents per $100).

At this point, the owners of the FED already profit $99.97 for every 3 cents they invested to print the money. Basically, they exchange something that costs almost nothing to them with the US Government Bonds.

Since the FED can NOT be AUDITTED by the IRS (or even by Congress), most of this profit can go anywhere the FED owners want to. BTW, did I mention that the profit is TAX-FREE?

After buying the bonds, the owner of the FED can either:
1. Keep the bonds, and collect the interest the US Government now OWES them.
2. Sell the bonds to the US Tax Payers or foreigners.

In either case, the FED owners have profitted $99.97 for every 3 cents it invested to print the money. Remember, the FED is a PRIVATELY OWNED corporation, just like the Federal Express. The profit of the FED goes to the FED owners.

The US Government now owes the FED owners the interest on those bonds. Remember that the FED owners DO NOT EARN the bonds. They simply PRINT the money to buy the bonds. In other words, they created money out of thin air, and exchange it for the interest bearing bonds.

In order to pay for the bonds' interest, the US Government taxes the US population.

When a US Citizen holding US Government bonds receives his/her return of investment on the bonds, essentially the money he/she receives is the tax money he/she is paying to the Government.

The FED (Federal Reserve Bank) is a Commercial Privately Owned Bank