The Fed is a criminal organization that steals from the American people

[Toddsterpatriot]

Adding money to the money supply does not add value. Say the value of a pencil is $1. And the fed adds 10% to the money supply. The price of a pencil just goes up to $1.10. No value was created.

No one but the left should hate the Fed more. When the government adds taxes, every time, they disproportionately tax the rich. The Fed printing money is a regressive tax because the "rich" have investments which compensate for the reduction in the buying power of a dollar.

The "poor" take the full hit because they spend what they earn, and every new dollar created by the Fed hits them in proportion to spending, which is higher for them.

If leftists actually believe what you say, and you grasped what the Fed does, you'd be the first to demand it's abolished. The reality though is you don't give a shit about the poor, you care about government power. Which is why you are the Fed's biggest advocate.

Once again you support what you say you oppose and fuck the people you claim to defend

Adding money to the money supply does not add value.

Adding money to the money supply during and after the crisis did add value.

that makes no sense. no economic value is created by adding currency to an economy, it just reduces the nominal value of everything in the economy

no economic value is created by adding currency to an economy

So you claim.

it just reduces the nominal value of everything in the economy

If the Fed adds 20% to money supply and prices only increase 5%, they've added value.
If the Fed adds 20% to money supply and prices increase 20%, they've added no value.
If the Fed adds 20% to money supply and prices increase 50%, they've destroyed value.

You don't add value by printing money.

You don't add value by tapping some digits into a computer.

An idiot knows this.

You're proof that an idiot doesn't know this.

 

[kaz]

Adding money to the money supply does not add value. Say the value of a pencil is $1. And the fed adds 10% to the money supply. The price of a pencil just goes up to $1.10. No value was created.

No one but the left should hate the Fed more. When the government adds taxes, every time, they disproportionately tax the rich. The Fed printing money is a regressive tax because the "rich" have investments which compensate for the reduction in the buying power of a dollar.

The "poor" take the full hit because they spend what they earn, and every new dollar created by the Fed hits them in proportion to spending, which is higher for them.

If leftists actually believe what you say, and you grasped what the Fed does, you'd be the first to demand it's abolished. The reality though is you don't give a shit about the poor, you care about government power. Which is why you are the Fed's biggest advocate.

Once again you support what you say you oppose and fuck the people you claim to defend

Adding money to the money supply does not add value.

Adding money to the money supply during and after the crisis did add value.

that makes no sense. no economic value is created by adding currency to an economy, it just reduces the nominal value of everything in the economy

no economic value is created by adding currency to an economy

So you claim.

it just reduces the nominal value of everything in the economy

If the Fed adds 20% to money supply and prices only increase 5%, they've added value.
If the Fed adds 20% to money supply and prices increase 20%, they've added no value.
If the Fed adds 20% to money supply and prices increase 50%, they've destroyed value.

I don't know how that makes sense to you, Todd. You're a smart guy. If the economy doesn't change, how does adding more paper to it create value for anyone?

 

[kaz]

Adding money to the money supply does not add value. Say the value of a pencil is $1. And the fed adds 10% to the money supply. The price of a pencil just goes up to $1.10. No value was created.

No one but the left should hate the Fed more. When the government adds taxes, every time, they disproportionately tax the rich. The Fed printing money is a regressive tax because the "rich" have investments which compensate for the reduction in the buying power of a dollar.

The "poor" take the full hit because they spend what they earn, and every new dollar created by the Fed hits them in proportion to spending, which is higher for them.

If leftists actually believe what you say, and you grasped what the Fed does, you'd be the first to demand it's abolished. The reality though is you don't give a shit about the poor, you care about government power. Which is why you are the Fed's biggest advocate.

Once again you support what you say you oppose and fuck the people you claim to defend

Say the value of a pencil is $1. And the fed adds 10% to the money supply. The price of a pencil just goes up to $1.10.

That assumes the demand for money remains constant.
During and after the financial crisis, demand for money spiked.

I don't know what that means

You can't look at money supply and ignore money demand.

If the Fed adds 10% to the money supply but demand for money rises 11%, prices would drop about 1%.

why would demand for money go up if no economic value is created?

Because of shenanigans that folks like Toddster and Indeependent support. That is why they won't explain it to you.

When the leeches of society are allowed to gain wealth off the backs of the producers, corruption sets in.

Why do you think the Christ threw the money changers out of the temple? It is the only time he was every reported to have gotten angry. The is why Rome colluded with the French State to do away with the fee based banking of the Templars and replace it with Fractional Reserve Banking. It's much easier to manipulate and corrupt.

We don't know when the next Fri. 13 (Bust) will come, but they are always guaranteed. The system ALWAYS has to correct itself. When it does, people will suffer and die.

Who cares if the powerful and rich stay in control though, right?

When the wealth disappears, the demand for the creation of new money and new debt is always there.

Here's a good example.

Where did all the money go?
As Cypriots are discovering, wealth can prove to be illusory
http://www.economist.com/news/finan...ng-wealth-can-prove-be-illusory-where-did-all
"High house or share prices, relative to personal incomes or profits, represent a bet that the good times will continue, and that incomes and profits (and cashflows in the form of dividends or rents) will rise significantly in future. When that bet proves wrong, the wealth disappears.


Now to the banks. When a customer deposits money, a bank must do something with it: buy assets or lend it to businesses. That is the banking system’s economic function; it transforms short-term liabilities (deposits that can be instantly withdrawn) into longer-term loans. Banks have always been at risk of two things: that the loans will not be repaid, and that customers will want to withdraw their deposits faster than the bank can turn its assets into cash. Until the 1930s bank failures, and the resulting losses to depositors, were a recurring problem.


Depositing money in a bank therefore amounts to a bet that the bank will lend its money wisely, or that the economy will be strong enough for bank loans to be repaid, and that confidence in the banking system will be maintained. In the modern era bank customers have tended to regard this risk as negligible, thanks to a combination of deposit insurance and governments’ willingness to rescue failing banks. But in many countries the banking sector has grown so large, relative to the economy, that few governments could plausibly guarantee all their system’s deposits. In such circumstances bank customers, particularly uninsured depositors, are in effect relying on the governments of other countries to bail them out in times of trouble—a risky proposition."


I'm already dreading the collapse of the big four big banks. There is no conceivable way to bail them out. I think Trump is already planning on ways to try to save the system. . .

I'm more than sure it involved some jack-booted thugs on the streets. But then, I'm not sure Hillary's will be much different, but her scheme will probably involve replacing it with a globalist scheme that they have been planning since day one.


The REAL solution, which I think Ron Paul, and a few others were maybe hinting at, is because the world economy has grow so large, and so complex, a better way needs to be found. Unfortunately, there are too many powerful interests that benefit from the way things are set up now that are resistant to change.

Toddster's no moocher. We almost always agree. I think he's just confused on this one how adding nominal dollars to an economy is adding no real benefit

 

[kaz]

Adding money to the money supply does not add value. Say the value of a pencil is $1. And the fed adds 10% to the money supply. The price of a pencil just goes up to $1.10. No value was created.

No one but the left should hate the Fed more. When the government adds taxes, every time, they disproportionately tax the rich. The Fed printing money is a regressive tax because the "rich" have investments which compensate for the reduction in the buying power of a dollar.

The "poor" take the full hit because they spend what they earn, and every new dollar created by the Fed hits them in proportion to spending, which is higher for them.

If leftists actually believe what you say, and you grasped what the Fed does, you'd be the first to demand it's abolished. The reality though is you don't give a shit about the poor, you care about government power. Which is why you are the Fed's biggest advocate.

Once again you support what you say you oppose and fuck the people you claim to defend

Adding money to the money supply does not add value.

Adding money to the money supply during and after the crisis did add value.

That's because the entire system is corrupt.

The way they have it set up like a casino, they wiped out the value of the REAL assets held by the little folks, then indentured those same tax payers through debt, created new QE1, QE2, QE2, etc. once again re-expanded the money supply, and gave it all to their criminal banking friends and the people on Wall Street.

It's a bullshit game and a bullshit system that screws the poor and the folks creating real wealth and only enriches the parasites.

Nice.

Exactly, the "poor" are by far disproportionately affected by the Fed's policies. The "rich" have what are essentially taxes buffered by the fact that they own real investments. The poor have none, it just devalues everything they have and earn

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Adding money to the money supply does not add value. Say the value of a pencil is $1. And the fed adds 10% to the money supply. The price of a pencil just goes up to $1.10. No value was created.

No one but the left should hate the Fed more. When the government adds taxes, every time, they disproportionately tax the rich. The Fed printing money is a regressive tax because the "rich" have investments which compensate for the reduction in the buying power of a dollar.

The "poor" take the full hit because they spend what they earn, and every new dollar created by the Fed hits them in proportion to spending, which is higher for them.

If leftists actually believe what you say, and you grasped what the Fed does, you'd be the first to demand it's abolished. The reality though is you don't give a shit about the poor, you care about government power. Which is why you are the Fed's biggest advocate.

Once again you support what you say you oppose and fuck the people you claim to defend

Adding money to the money supply does not add value.

Adding money to the money supply during and after the crisis did add value.

that makes no sense. no economic value is created by adding currency to an economy, it just reduces the nominal value of everything in the economy

no economic value is created by adding currency to an economy

So you claim.

it just reduces the nominal value of everything in the economy

If the Fed adds 20% to money supply and prices only increase 5%, they've added value.
If the Fed adds 20% to money supply and prices increase 20%, they've added no value.
If the Fed adds 20% to money supply and prices increase 50%, they've destroyed value.

I don't know how that makes sense to you, Todd. You're a smart guy. If the economy doesn't change, how does adding more paper to it create value for anyone?

If the economy doesn't change, how does adding more paper to it create value for anyone?

If demand for cash rises, adding cash adds value.
The same as any other good or service.

 

[kaz]

Adding money to the money supply does not add value. Say the value of a pencil is $1. And the fed adds 10% to the money supply. The price of a pencil just goes up to $1.10. No value was created.

No one but the left should hate the Fed more. When the government adds taxes, every time, they disproportionately tax the rich. The Fed printing money is a regressive tax because the "rich" have investments which compensate for the reduction in the buying power of a dollar.

The "poor" take the full hit because they spend what they earn, and every new dollar created by the Fed hits them in proportion to spending, which is higher for them.

If leftists actually believe what you say, and you grasped what the Fed does, you'd be the first to demand it's abolished. The reality though is you don't give a shit about the poor, you care about government power. Which is why you are the Fed's biggest advocate.

Once again you support what you say you oppose and fuck the people you claim to defend

Adding money to the money supply does not add value.

Adding money to the money supply during and after the crisis did add value.

that makes no sense. no economic value is created by adding currency to an economy, it just reduces the nominal value of everything in the economy

no economic value is created by adding currency to an economy

So you claim.

it just reduces the nominal value of everything in the economy

If the Fed adds 20% to money supply and prices only increase 5%, they've added value.
If the Fed adds 20% to money supply and prices increase 20%, they've added no value.
If the Fed adds 20% to money supply and prices increase 50%, they've destroyed value.

I don't know how that makes sense to you, Todd. You're a smart guy. If the economy doesn't change, how does adding more paper to it create value for anyone?

If the economy doesn't change, how does adding more paper to it create value for anyone?

If demand for cash rises, adding cash adds value.
The same as any other good or service.

But the purchasing power of the cash dropped by the money you printed, so how does that help?

 

[Wilbur Right]

The Fed's pumped billions of dollars into the markets through quantitative easing.

What did commodity prices do? Scrap prices? Energy prices?

Why don't you list an example of my dollars buying less in goods and services due to the expansion in the money supply through.Q.E.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Adding money to the money supply does not add value.

Adding money to the money supply during and after the crisis did add value.

that makes no sense. no economic value is created by adding currency to an economy, it just reduces the nominal value of everything in the economy

no economic value is created by adding currency to an economy

So you claim.

it just reduces the nominal value of everything in the economy

If the Fed adds 20% to money supply and prices only increase 5%, they've added value.
If the Fed adds 20% to money supply and prices increase 20%, they've added no value.
If the Fed adds 20% to money supply and prices increase 50%, they've destroyed value.

I don't know how that makes sense to you, Todd. You're a smart guy. If the economy doesn't change, how does adding more paper to it create value for anyone?

If the economy doesn't change, how does adding more paper to it create value for anyone?

If demand for cash rises, adding cash adds value.
The same as any other good or service.

But the purchasing power of the cash dropped by the money you printed, so how does that help?

But the purchasing power of the cash dropped by the money you printed,

Sometimes, but not always.
If the economy grows by 10% does an increase in the money supply of 10% have to raise prices?

I'll try to give an example.

You're a specialty car manufacturer.
You build 1 car per year and sell for $10 million each. Total value $10 million.

You think you can build more cars but you know the price will drop if it is less exclusive.

You build 2 cars per year and sell for $9 million each. Total value $18 million.
That wasn't so bad, you still increased the total value outstanding of your product.
You doubled production, but still brought in more money.

You build 3 cars per year and sell for $8 million each. Total value $24 million.
You build 4 cars per year and sell for $7 million each. Total value $28 million.
You build 5 cars per year and sell for $6 million each. Total value $30 million.
You build 6 cars per year and sell for $5 million each. Total value $30 million.
You build 7 cars per year and sell for $4 million each. Total value $28 million.
You build 8 cars per year and sell for $3 million each. Total value $24 million.
You build 9 cars per year and sell for $2 million each. Total value $18 million.
You build 10 cars per year and sell for $1 million each. Total value $10 million.

Because you were meeting previously unmet demand for your product, you were able to increase your revenue to $30 million at 5 cars. You added value. Using the strict ratio you imagine for money supply, you should get the same revenue, $10 million, no matter how many cars you build.

If you double the cars (or the money supply) you should be able to buy the same revenue (or goods bought with the money supply) because you've inflated the car (money) supply. But that's not the case.
At a certain point (hyperinflation), the prices start to increase much faster than new money can be printed.
That's where it is obvious new printing destroys value, instead of adding.

 

[kaz]

that makes no sense. no economic value is created by adding currency to an economy, it just reduces the nominal value of everything in the economy

no economic value is created by adding currency to an economy

So you claim.

it just reduces the nominal value of everything in the economy

If the Fed adds 20% to money supply and prices only increase 5%, they've added value.
If the Fed adds 20% to money supply and prices increase 20%, they've added no value.
If the Fed adds 20% to money supply and prices increase 50%, they've destroyed value.

I don't know how that makes sense to you, Todd. You're a smart guy. If the economy doesn't change, how does adding more paper to it create value for anyone?

If the economy doesn't change, how does adding more paper to it create value for anyone?

If demand for cash rises, adding cash adds value.
The same as any other good or service.

But the purchasing power of the cash dropped by the money you printed, so how does that help?

But the purchasing power of the cash dropped by the money you printed,

Sometimes, but not always.
If the economy grows by 10% does an increase in the money supply of 10% have to raise prices?

I'll try to give an example.

You're a specialty car manufacturer.
You build 1 car per year and sell for $10 million each. Total value $10 million.

You think you can build more cars but you know the price will drop if it is less exclusive.

You build 2 cars per year and sell for $9 million each. Total value $18 million.
That wasn't so bad, you still increased the total value outstanding of your product.
You doubled production, but still brought in more money.

You build 3 cars per year and sell for $8 million each. Total value $24 million.
You build 4 cars per year and sell for $7 million each. Total value $28 million.
You build 5 cars per year and sell for $6 million each. Total value $30 million.
You build 6 cars per year and sell for $5 million each. Total value $30 million.
You build 7 cars per year and sell for $4 million each. Total value $28 million.
You build 8 cars per year and sell for $3 million each. Total value $24 million.
You build 9 cars per year and sell for $2 million each. Total value $18 million.
You build 10 cars per year and sell for $1 million each. Total value $10 million.

Because you were meeting previously unmet demand for your product, you were able to increase your revenue to $30 million at 5 cars. You added value. Using the strict ratio you imagine for money supply, you should get the same revenue, $10 million, no matter how many cars you build.

If you double the cars (or the money supply) you should be able to buy the same revenue (or goods bought with the money supply) because you've inflated the car (money) supply. But that's not the case.
At a certain point (hyperinflation), the prices start to increase much faster than new money can be printed.
That's where it is obvious new printing destroys value, instead of adding.

That there are other things going on in the economy doesn't mean there's a cause and effect with that and that you printed money. Seriously, Todd, the government prints money, takes it off the press, goes out and spends it and you see value created? Ridiculous and entirely contradicted by the field of economics

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The Fed's pumped billions of dollars into the markets through quantitative easing.

What did commodity prices do? Scrap prices? Energy prices?

Why don't you list an example of my dollars buying less in goods and services due to the expansion in the money supply through.Q.E.

Many people thought an increase in money supply would cause hyperinflation.
They bid up prices for oil and other commodities. QE ended with no jump in inflation.
Commodity prices tanked. They had ignored the increased demand for those QE dollars.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

no economic value is created by adding currency to an economy

So you claim.

it just reduces the nominal value of everything in the economy

If the Fed adds 20% to money supply and prices only increase 5%, they've added value.
If the Fed adds 20% to money supply and prices increase 20%, they've added no value.
If the Fed adds 20% to money supply and prices increase 50%, they've destroyed value.

I don't know how that makes sense to you, Todd. You're a smart guy. If the economy doesn't change, how does adding more paper to it create value for anyone?

If the economy doesn't change, how does adding more paper to it create value for anyone?

If demand for cash rises, adding cash adds value.
The same as any other good or service.

But the purchasing power of the cash dropped by the money you printed, so how does that help?

But the purchasing power of the cash dropped by the money you printed,

Sometimes, but not always.
If the economy grows by 10% does an increase in the money supply of 10% have to raise prices?

I'll try to give an example.

You're a specialty car manufacturer.
You build 1 car per year and sell for $10 million each. Total value $10 million.

You think you can build more cars but you know the price will drop if it is less exclusive.

You build 2 cars per year and sell for $9 million each. Total value $18 million.
That wasn't so bad, you still increased the total value outstanding of your product.
You doubled production, but still brought in more money.

You build 3 cars per year and sell for $8 million each. Total value $24 million.
You build 4 cars per year and sell for $7 million each. Total value $28 million.
You build 5 cars per year and sell for $6 million each. Total value $30 million.
You build 6 cars per year and sell for $5 million each. Total value $30 million.
You build 7 cars per year and sell for $4 million each. Total value $28 million.
You build 8 cars per year and sell for $3 million each. Total value $24 million.
You build 9 cars per year and sell for $2 million each. Total value $18 million.
You build 10 cars per year and sell for $1 million each. Total value $10 million.

Because you were meeting previously unmet demand for your product, you were able to increase your revenue to $30 million at 5 cars. You added value. Using the strict ratio you imagine for money supply, you should get the same revenue, $10 million, no matter how many cars you build.

If you double the cars (or the money supply) you should be able to buy the same revenue (or goods bought with the money supply) because you've inflated the car (money) supply. But that's not the case.
At a certain point (hyperinflation), the prices start to increase much faster than new money can be printed.
That's where it is obvious new printing destroys value, instead of adding.

That there are other things going on in the economy doesn't mean there's a cause and effect with that and that you printed money. Seriously, Todd, the government prints money, takes it off the press, goes out and spends it and you see value created? Ridiculous and entirely contradicted by the field of economics

Todd, the government prints money, takes it off the press, goes out and spends it

But that's not how they create money.

Ridiculous and entirely contradicted by the field of economics

The Fed increased their balance sheet from $800 billion to over $4 trillion.
Did prices get multiplied 5 times? Why not?

 

[kaz]

Todd, the government prints money, takes it off the press, goes out and spends it

But that's not how they create money

Of course it is, that's why it's stealing, that's what the thread is about

Ridiculous and entirely contradicted by the field of economics

The Fed increased their balance sheet from $800 billion to over $4 trillion.
Did prices get multiplied 5 times? Why not?

1) That isn't the entire economy, prices rise in percentage of the money printed versus the total economy, not the Fed's balance sheet

2) There were a myriad of other things happening in the economy, that is only one. But those things would have happened anyway

 

[eddiew]

Adding money to the money supply does not add value. Say the value of a pencil is $1. And the fed adds 10% to the money supply. The price of a pencil just goes up to $1.10. No value was created.

No one but the left should hate the Fed more. When the government adds taxes, every time, they disproportionately tax the rich. The Fed printing money is a regressive tax because the "rich" have investments which compensate for the reduction in the buying power of a dollar.

The "poor" take the full hit because they spend what they earn, and every new dollar created by the Fed hits them in proportion to spending, which is higher for them.

If leftists actually believe what you say, and you grasped what the Fed does, you'd be the first to demand it's abolished. The reality though is you don't give a shit about the poor, you care about government power. Which is why you are the Fed's biggest advocate.

Once again you support what you say you oppose and fuck the people you claim to defend

And here I thought it was the republican do nothing congress

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Todd, the government prints money, takes it off the press, goes out and spends it

But that's not how they create money

Of course it is, that's why it's stealing, that's what the thread is about

Ridiculous and entirely contradicted by the field of economics

The Fed increased their balance sheet from $800 billion to over $4 trillion.
Did prices get multiplied 5 times? Why not?

1) That isn't the entire economy, prices rise in percentage of the money printed versus the total economy, not the Fed's balance sheet

2) There were a myriad of other things happening in the economy, that is only one. But those things would have happened anyway

Of course it is, that's why it's stealing

But of course it isn't, and it's not.

That isn't the entire economy, prices rise in percentage of the money printed versus the total economy, not the Fed's balance sheet

The Fed multiplied their balance sheet by 500%. Prices did not rise 500%.
According to what you've posted here, that should be impossible.

Say the value of a pencil is $1. And the fed adds 10% to the money supply. The price of a pencil just goes up to $1.10.

They added 400%. How much did the price of a pencil rise?

There were a myriad of other things happening in the economy,

Like an increase in the demand for money?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Adding money to the money supply does not add value. Say the value of a pencil is $1. And the fed adds 10% to the money supply. The price of a pencil just goes up to $1.10. No value was created.

No one but the left should hate the Fed more. When the government adds taxes, every time, they disproportionately tax the rich. The Fed printing money is a regressive tax because the "rich" have investments which compensate for the reduction in the buying power of a dollar.

The "poor" take the full hit because they spend what they earn, and every new dollar created by the Fed hits them in proportion to spending, which is higher for them.

If leftists actually believe what you say, and you grasped what the Fed does, you'd be the first to demand it's abolished. The reality though is you don't give a shit about the poor, you care about government power. Which is why you are the Fed's biggest advocate.

Once again you support what you say you oppose and fuck the people you claim to defend

And here I thought it was the republican do nothing congress

And here I thought

I doubt that. I guess there's a first time for everything, but I'd need to see proof.

 

[Wilbur Right]

Many people thought an increase in money supply would cause hyperinflation.

Yea, kaz did.

Commodity prices tanked. They had ignored the increased demand for those QE dollars.

You and I, agreeing. What the hell is going on?

 

[eddiew]

Adding money to the money supply does not add value. Say the value of a pencil is $1. And the fed adds 10% to the money supply. The price of a pencil just goes up to $1.10. No value was created.

No one but the left should hate the Fed more. When the government adds taxes, every time, they disproportionately tax the rich. The Fed printing money is a regressive tax because the "rich" have investments which compensate for the reduction in the buying power of a dollar.

The "poor" take the full hit because they spend what they earn, and every new dollar created by the Fed hits them in proportion to spending, which is higher for them.

If leftists actually believe what you say, and you grasped what the Fed does, you'd be the first to demand it's abolished. The reality though is you don't give a shit about the poor, you care about government power. Which is why you are the Fed's biggest advocate.

Once again you support what you say you oppose and fuck the people you claim to defend

And here I thought it was the republican do nothing congress

And here I thought

I doubt that. I guess there's a first time for everything, but I'd need to see proof.

Can we start with their refusal to put up the dough for infrastructure and add their idiocy in not agreeing to tax deals to get our trillions back from overseas?? and before I forget, not wanting to raise taxes on those easily affording it ,,billionaires??

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Many people thought an increase in money supply would cause hyperinflation.

Yea, kaz did.

Commodity prices tanked. They had ignored the increased demand for those QE dollars.

You and I, agreeing. What the hell is going on?

So you're right for once. Congrats!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Adding money to the money supply does not add value. Say the value of a pencil is $1. And the fed adds 10% to the money supply. The price of a pencil just goes up to $1.10. No value was created.

No one but the left should hate the Fed more. When the government adds taxes, every time, they disproportionately tax the rich. The Fed printing money is a regressive tax because the "rich" have investments which compensate for the reduction in the buying power of a dollar.

The "poor" take the full hit because they spend what they earn, and every new dollar created by the Fed hits them in proportion to spending, which is higher for them.

If leftists actually believe what you say, and you grasped what the Fed does, you'd be the first to demand it's abolished. The reality though is you don't give a shit about the poor, you care about government power. Which is why you are the Fed's biggest advocate.

Once again you support what you say you oppose and fuck the people you claim to defend

And here I thought it was the republican do nothing congress

And here I thought

I doubt that. I guess there's a first time for everything, but I'd need to see proof.

Can we start with their refusal to put up the dough for infrastructure and add their idiocy in not agreeing to tax deals to get our trillions back from overseas?? and before I forget, not wanting to raise taxes on those easily affording it ,,billionaires??

We're talking about the Federal Reserve, snapperhead.

Obama's stimulus deal, passed by Dems only, didn't fix enough infrastructure?
What did he spend it on, blunts and 40s?

Which tax deal did Obama propose to get companies to repatriate overseas earnings?
Was it one that said, fuck you, the tax rate is 35%?

 

[Wilbur Right]

So you're right for once. Congrats!

That you know of. Pay more attention.