My Great Awakening Moment #TheGreatAwakening

 I had been researching beyond the mainstream gatekeepers since 2011 when I finally followed up on a friend’s question, “Have you watched ‘Loose Change 911′? That movie was an eye opener but I still didn’t understand what it all meant.

After that, I randomly came across a Doug Casey book, I thought the guy looked like  a jerk so I decided to see what this jerk was talking about. What started as a joke became an actually interesting read, and some of what he said actually stuck.

Looking things up and watching YouTube videos led to me subscribing to YouTube channels. What I found on YouTube was so compelling that I couldn’t get enough… an unfiltered, self-directed learning platform where you can find experts on any subject, reporting out of their own drive to share the truth and interact with others.

After a while I started to follow news topics and events on my favorite YouTube channels as much as I followed everyday mainstream outlets so that I was able to compare the two.

I was bemused to find that the mainstream media and alternative media’s reports on topics and events were sometimes totally opposite.

I listened to NPR and the BBC all day sometimes but they started to become boring because they repeated themselves so much, and I started to notice that they didn’t go very in depth compared to the channels on YouTube, where you could find much more detailed reporting on anything you wanted to know about.

After hearing interviews with John Perkins who wrote a book called Confessions of an Economic Hit Man and also being aware of another book called The Big Short, I had started to become skeptical of mainstream media’s take on current events, especially since the 2008 economic shakeup that eventually led to my own layoff.

It was the expatiated FED meeting in Washington D.C. in April 2016 when my understanding abut everything fully switched.

That moment was when the red pill hit me.

I became fully aware that the media was controlled, or colluding, because that entire weekend and that entire day, not a word was mentioned about it on any mainstream site. Only around 8pm, on that day, did NPR include a brief mention of it in their hourly news update, and said nothing of substance about it or mention it’s historic nature.

I don’t know what happened at that meeting because it’s all secret, but one thing was clear, the alternative media was reporting about it as soon as it was announced and the mainstream media didn’t mention it until after it was over, and they didn’t given any details or information even compared to independent people on YouTube channels.

Over the following days weeks and months my perception changed. I went from believing in the goodness of the media and the government, and their willingness to report and act to protect me and every other citizen, to understanding that all of history and everything every taught to me and almost every political belief I had ever had was wrong. I realized that my grandparents’ and parents’ generations went to WW2 and Vietnam because of corporate interests. I realized that the same people that killed JFK were probably connected to the same people that carried out 911 and even in the time of Obama were still in places of power. I realized that the war in Syria and the entire Arab Spring were just more engineered regime change schemes to give more power to international corporations with the full protection and participation of the Pentagon… etc. etc. etc.

That day that the FED meeting wasn’t mentioned in the media was the day that changed my life forever.

Below are links to blog stories about that day.

Kermit's The Great Awakening
Kermit’s Great Awakening
Emergency at the Fed?

ainsliebullion.com 13/04/2016

Mike Maloney released yesterday some interesting analysis of this week’s Federal Reserve activity and is hypothesising that something ominous may be occurring behind closed doors.

On Monday of this week, the Federal Reserve Board of Governors held an impromptu meeting using expedited (some use the vernacular “emergency”) procedures. The purpose was to discuss monetary policy. Thereafter, Chairwoman Yellen visited the President at the White House for another irregular meeting. Interestingly, both meetings were closed door in nature and passed largely under the mainstream media radar.

A google search of the Yellen-Obama meeting produces many largely identical articles containing what Mike refers to as “fluff”; meaning simply that they lack substances and convey only the simple idea that the two discussed the economy.

Fed Meeting April 2016

What the White House meeting overshadowed was the actual Federal Reserve Board of Governors meeting on the 11th, held under expedited procedures as indicated on the Fed’s website above. The purpose of that meeting was stipulated as being to review and determine advance and discount rates to be charged by the Federal Reserve Banks – or in other words, set monetary policy. The press always reports on these meetings. As indicated on the Federal Reserve’s website, this meeting was scheduled last Thursday, April 7th. Again however, an attempt to google this board meeting largely produces results about the White House meeting. Googling “Fed Governor Meeting” produces largely results about the April 6th Federal Reserve Board of Governors meeting and notably, more information about the White House meeting again. As a consequence, we do not know what was said at these meetings – in particular the board meeting of the 11th. One thing that is known however is that the invocation of “expedited procedures” is unusual.

Moving over to the White House website one can find a one paragraph press release pictured below. The release generically describes the Yellen-Obama meeting to be about “near and long-term growth outlook, the state of the labour market, inequality and potential risks to the economy” which seems to be the only information that the press has reported on.

Read More: https://www.ainsliebullion.com.au/gold-silver-bullion-news/emergency-at-the-fed-/tabid/88/a/1213/default.aspx
Federal Reserve Logo
WHAT’S UP WITH THAT EMERGENCY FED MEETING?

Joseph P. Farrell  April 17, 2016

You probably heard that last week, President Obama and Vice-President Biden met with Federal Reserve Chairman Janet Yellen behind closed doors. That fact alone should have raised eyebrows and for those in-the-know it probably did, for as a matter of normal security protocols, meetings or appearances both of the President and Vice-President in one place and at the same time are strictly limited for security purposes. From this one fact alone one may deduce that the meeting was about “serious matters” but the question is: what exactly?

A number of regular readers here have shared various articles addressing this various question, and thus I share them with the wider readership here for your consideration.

First of all, there is the admission of Goldman Sachs and Wells Fargo to having comitted some deep financial “improprieties”:

Goldman and Wells Fargo FINALLY Admit They Committed Fraud

Here are the two admissions of fact in a nutshell:

Read More: https://gizadeathstar.com/2016/04/whats-emergency-fed-meeting/

What in the World is Going on with Banks this Week? Emergency Meetings, Banker Summits, Crashing European Banks, and the Worst Bank Reports Since the Great Recession

By David Haggith

Just about every major banker and finance minister in the world is meeting in Washington, DC, this week, following two rushed, secretive meetings of the Federal Reserve and another instantaneous and rare meeting between the Fed Chair and the president of the United States. These and other emergency bank meetings around the world cause one to wonder what is going down. Let’s start with a bullet list of the week’s big-bank events:

  • The Federal Reserve Board of Governors just held an “expedited special meeting” on Monday in closed-door session.
  • The White House made an immediate announcement that the president was going to meet with Fed Chair Janet Yellen right after Monday’s special meeting and that Vice President Biden would be joining them.
  • The Federal Reserve very shortly posted an announcement of another expedited closed-door meeting for Tuesday for the specific purpose of “bank supervision.”
  • A G-20 meeting of finance ministers and central-bank heads starts in Washington, DC, on Tuesday, too, and continues through Wednesday.
  • Then on Thursday the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund meet in Washington.
  • The Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta just revised US GDP growth for the first quarter to the precipice of recession at 0.1%.
  • US banks are widely expected this week to report their worst quarter financially since the start of the Great Recession.
  • The European Union’s new “bail-in” procedures for failing banks were employed for the first time with Austrian bank Heta Asset Resolution AG.
  • Italy’s minister of finance called an emergency meeting of Italian bankers to engage “last resort” measures for dealing with 360-billion euros of bad loans in banks that have only 50 billion in capital.

Read More: https://www.activistpost.com/2016/04/banks-this-week-emergency-meetings-summits-crashes-and-terrible-bank-reports.html

 

The 2008 Financial Crisis Never Ended: Program to Destroy Independent Middle Class Continues

Which Do you Prefer? End the FED

15 Signs That The Middle Class In The United States Is Being Systematically Destroyed

#1 78 million Americans are participating in the “gig economy” because full-time jobs just don’t pay enough to make ends meet these days.

#2 In 2011, the average home price was 3.56 times the average yearly salary in the United States.  But by the time 2017 was finished, the average home price was 4.73 times the average yearly salary in the United States.

#3 In 1980, the average American worker’s debt was 1.96 times larger than his or her monthly salary.  Today, that number has ballooned to 5.00.

#4 In the United States today, 66 percent of all jobs pay less than 20 dollars an hour.

#5 102 million working age Americans do not have a job right now.  That number is higher than it was at any point during the last recession.

#6 Earnings for low-skill jobs have stayed very flat for the last 40 years.

#7 Americans have been spending more money than they make for 28 months in a row.

#8 In the United States today, the average young adult with student loan debt has a negative net worth.

#9 At this point, the average American household is nearly $140,000 in debt.

#10 Poverty rates in U.S. suburbs “have increased by 50 percent since 1990”.

#11 Almost 51 million U.S. households “can’t afford basics like rent and food”.

#12 The bottom 40 percent of all U.S. households bring home just 11.4 percent of all income.

#13 According to the Federal Reserve, 4 out of 10 Americans do not have enough money to cover an unexpected $400 expense without borrowing the money or selling something they own.

#14 22 percent of all Americans cannot pay all of their bills in a typical month.

#15 Today, U.S. households are collectively 13.15 trillion dollars in debt.  That is a new all-time record.

Read More: http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/15-signs-that-the-middle-class-in-the-united-states-is-being-systematically-destroyed

Welcome To The Third World, Part 28: The “Bottom Half” “Bolsters” The Economy By Going Into Debt

the rich already have all the stuff they need and are now just letting the cash accumulate as it comes in from stock dividends and executive salaries, while everyone else is borrowing to hold onto what they have.

This of course doesn’t work in the long run because interest payments eventually eat whatever raises the working-class borrower gets in even a strong economy. When the inevitable recession hits, the debt remains while income falls, pushing millions of people over the edge.

This happened in 2008 with mortgages and will soon happen with the mini-bubbles of auto, credit card and student loans. At which point the rich will re-deploy all the cash they’ve accumulated to buy up the assets the rest will have to sell at deep discounts.

This kind of “harvesting” sounds more like pre-revolution France than the modern society outlined in economics textbooks. Which means the eventual reaction of the harvested might not fit the relatively docile patterns of the recent past.

Read More: https://www.dollarcollapse.com/bottom-half-bolsters-economy-depleting-savings/

 

Elite Corporate Intel Website Quietly Displays Prediction of Drastic Western World Depopulation

UN Agenda 2030

We know that the Luciferian elites like to project what they plan for the world. It’s called signalling or predictive programming. They use it for a number of reasons, and all of them have to do with mass mind control aimed at global domination.

That’s why more people have been taking notice of this nondescript, military-intel insider’s website that casually predicts a population reduction in the US of 230 million people in the next seven years by 2025.

http://www.deagel.com/country/United-States-of-America_c0001.aspx
Deagel 2025 USA Population Prediction
http://www.deagel.com/country/United-States-of-America_c0001.aspx

The website itself claims to be “Guide to Military Equipment and Civil Aviation.”

The same website is sited in a report from Texas headquartered “global intelligence” company, Stratfor, in Wikileaks documents:

“the inner workings of a company that fronts as an intelligence publisher, but provides confidential intelligence services to large corporations, such as Bhopal’s Dow Chemical Co., Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, Raytheon and government agencies, including the US Department of Homeland Security, the US Marines and the US Defence Intelligence Agency. The emails show Stratfor’s web of informers, pay-off structure, payment laundering techniques and psychological methods.”

Read More: https://wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/26/2655808_dprk-marko-p-.html

Deagel, a real intelligence organization for the U.S. government, predicts massive global depopulation (50-80%) by 2025

rebelskum  •  last year

Deagel’s reports, in particular the aforementioned research on North Korea, were also provided to the President during Presidential Dialy Briefings. Deagel thus provides information which is subsequently used by global intelligence communities and governments.

Here is a partial list of known Deagel partners and clients, according to their own website:

  • National Security Agency
  • North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO – OTAN)
  • Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)
  • OSCE
  • Russian Defense Procurement Agency
  • Stratfor
  • The World Bank
  • United Nations (UN)

This highly regarded intelligence organization has a grim outlook for the United States in the coming years including a 78% decrease in population. In fact, it predicts a similar, cataclysmic fate for the United Kingdom, Australia, Germany, Japan, and Denmark, and more U.S. allied nations:

Year: 2013, Population: 316 million, Forecast 2025: Population: 69 million

Source: Deagel

I know many Austrailian readers will be curious as well, and for their reference their population will be cut in from 22 million to 11 million.

To make matters even stranger a statement on Deagel’s forecast page can found be which was made by the authors on October 26, 2014 which apparently claims the population shifts are due to suicide and dislocation and assure us they are “not a death or satanic cult”:

Historically a change in the economic paradigm has resulted in a death toll that is rarely highlighted by mainstream historians. When the transition from rural areas to large cities happened in Europe many people unable to accept the new paradigm killed themselves. They killed themselves by a psychological factor. This is not mainstream but it is true. A new crisis joins old, well known patterns with new ones.

We are not a death or satanic cult or arms dealers as some BS is floating around the internet on this topic. Take into account that the forecast is nothing more than a model whether flawed or correct. It is not God’s word or a magic device that allows to foresee the future.

Source: Deagel’s note from Deagel forecast page

More research on Deagel and their associates can be found at the Pizzagate Wiki.

This topic and more were also discussed by me on the Higherside Chats podcast.

Read More From Rebel Scum: https://steemit.com/news/@rebelskum/deagel-a-real-intelligence-organization-for-the-u-s-government-predicts-massive-global-depopulation-50-80

 

How the U.S. Government Turned College Students into Debt Slaves

We Don't Need No Education

Why the Government is to Blame for High College Costs

Federal student loans are driving up college costs and adding to the deficit

Mary Kate Cary Nov. 23, 2011

Last month President Obama, facing increasingly violent Occupy Wall Street protests nationwide, announced executive action to help alleviate the heavy burden of student debt faced by many of the young, unemployed protesters. Although many of the protesters are blaming private banks and corporate “fat cats” for the financial pickle they’re in, the president thought he’d calm them down by easing the terms of repayment and forgiveness. What Obama didn’t tell them is that it’s really the federal government they should blame.

A year ago, the president signed legislation ending subsidies for private banks giving federally guaranteed student loans—making the federal government, not banks, the lender of choice for most students. You can still get private bank loans for your college education, but since they no longer are backed by the U.S. government, private loans aren’t as good a deal anymore; most are variable rate loans that require a co-signer and are difficult to qualify for. So it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see why most kids take out federal student loans from the Department of Education now, and leave the bank loans as a last resort.

Back in the mid-1980s when I went to college, there was a $2,500 limit on the amount of federal student loans you could take out in a year. I graduated with $10,000 of debt and worked three jobs to pay it off. That’s all changed. The limit on federal loans for most students is now $31,000 for four years. These days, the average college senior who had loans graduates with $25,250 in student debt, a new record, with some high-tuition colleges averaging double that, at over $55,000 per student. Unemployment has hit a new high among young people, and their median incomes are falling. Many of them are having trouble finding a job and making their loan payments. A whole generation of middle-class students is being crushed by student debt.

It all goes back to two well-intentioned federal goals: first, that a college education should be within the reach of every American, and second, that if students borrow money from the federal government, they should repay it. Most of us would agree that both are noble goals. But the consequences of both have been stunning.

As a result of the first, the money began to flow; over the last 30 years, inflation-adjusted federal financial aid has quadrupled. Total student debt has now reached the $1 trillion mark, more than the credit card debt of every American combined. The federal deficit in the recently ended fiscal year totaled $1.3 trillion; the debt load carried by college grads now stands at more than two thirds of our nation’s massive budget shortfall. According to the College Board, over half of all full-time undergrads at public colleges and universities are now full-time borrowers. At private nonprofit schools, a whopping two thirds have loans.

The more money the federal government pumps into financial aid, the more money the colleges charge for tuition. Inflation-adjusted tuition and fees have tripled over those same 30 years while aid quadrupled; the aid is going up faster than the tuition. Thanks to the federal government, massive sums of money are available to pay for massive tuitions.

This has nothing to do with costs. According to Neal McCluskey’s research at the Cato Institute, it costs roughly $8,000 a year to educate an undergraduate at an average residential college. Yet the average college bill—including room and board—charged at a private four-year university is $37,000, and $16,000 at a public one. For a long time, college tuition has been rising faster than the inflation rate, which certainly has hurt middle-class families. Colleges can raise tuition with impunity because colleges know they’ll get paid no matter what.

That brings us to that second well-intentioned federal goal, that all student loans must be repaid. In 1976 federal law was changed to state that student loans would no longer be “dischargeable,” or covered by bankruptcy. Along the way, the federal government also removed the requirement that college students have parents or grandparents co-sign for federal loans, making young students solely responsible for payment in full.

This means that if you owe the government money for college and don’t pay it back, filing bankruptcy isn’t going to help you. You will still owe the government. All you can do is default on the loan or seek early forgiveness. And that’s exactly what’s happening. According to the Department of Education, the national default rate has increased every year for the last four years, and has nearly doubled since 2005. As the administration forgives more loans and defaults keep climbing, the cost to taxpayers keeps going up.

Read More: https://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2011/11/23/why-the-government-is-to-blame-for-high-college-costs

They Hate Tax Cuts Because They Lose Power and Money When You Keep More of Your Own Wealth

federal taxes fund wars

Tax Cuts Work

Deficits rise only because governments keep spending too much
July 5, 2018

It happened again. Tax receipts soared in the United States after the recent tax cuts.

Although it will take a while for the full effect of the 2017 tax reform to kick in, U.S. state and local government tax revenue climbed to $350.2 billion in the first quarter of 2018, a rise of 5.8 percent compared with the same time period in 2017. Individual income tax collections had big gains for a second-straight quarter with a 12.8 percent increase to $107.4 billion in 2018’s first quarter.

But the evidence of the positive impact on growth, jobs, and wages of lower corporate taxes has been published in many studies over time. The example of more than 200 cases in 21 countries shows that tax cuts and expenditure reductions are much more effective in boosting growth and prosperity than increasing government spending.

Multiple studies conclude that in more than 170 cases, the impact of tax cuts has been much more positive for growth.

In Denial

However, some commentators continue to deny the positive impact of tax cuts using the argument that deficits rise.

The fallacy that “deficits rise” has nothing to do with tax cuts, but with increases in government spending on top of the tax cuts.

The deficit excuse is very simple. It says taxes should not be cut because governments will spend all revenues, even if these increase, and more. But this excuse is wrong.

The mistake of pointing at deficits as proof that tax cuts don’t work is debunked by looking at the proposals of the same economists that argue against tax cuts. Economist Paul Krugman is one example. He argued against tax cuts in his New York Times article “Time to Borrow” after the Obama administration increased debt by $10 trillion. These demand-side economists defend deficit spending, yet consider tax cuts as negative … because deficits may increase. Only Keynesian economists manage to pull off such mindbending logic.

Deficits need not rise or exist at all if governments spend in line with revenue growth. And the evidence points to rising revenues from lower taxes and higher growth.

Deficit Spending

While analyzing the deficits of the G-20 economies during the past 15 years, we found that more than 80 percent come from higher spending. Even in the 2008–2010 crisis, European government deficits were explained more by the “stimulus” plans and government spending increases than any loss of revenues.

Spain, for example, lost 40 billion euros of tax revenues from the bursting of the real estate bubble but deficits rose by 300 billion euros, driven by stimulus and automatic “stabilizers.” The European Union spent almost 1.5 percent of its GDP on stimuli and increased taxes, sending deficits and debt to GDP to all-time highs.  The United States increased taxes by $1.5 trillion under the Obama administration but the average deficit was 5 percent of GDP. The final tally was a $10 trillion increase in national debt.

During the Obama administration and the massive expansionary monetary policies of three rounds of quantitative easing (QE) and ultra-low interest rates, economic growth on average was only 1.4 percent and 2.1 percent if we exclude the crash year of 2009. That compares to an average of 3.5 percent during the Reagan administration, 3.9 percent during Clinton’s, and 2.1 percent during Bush Jr.’s.

Positive Effects

The evidence of the positive effects of tax cuts on jobs and growth is clear.

The 2018 “Economic Report of the President” shows that tax cuts generated more federal revenues even after adjusting for inflation and population growth.

President John F. Kennedy’s major tax cut, which included chopping the top marginal rate to 70 percent from 91 percent, became law in early 1964. The economy grew at an average 5.5 percent, and unemployment fell to 3.8 percent. In turn, the annual deficit shrank to $1 billion from $7 billion as individual income-tax receipts nearly doubled.

President Ronald Reagan cut the top personal rate from 70 percent all the way down to 28 percent. Between 1982, when the first round of Reagan’s across-the-board tax cuts went into effect, and 1990, when President George H.W. Bush broke his no-new-taxes pledge, individual tax receipts jumped 57 percent to $467 billion.

And even President Bill Clinton’s budget surpluses didn’t materialize until after the president in 1997 signed a GOP tax bill that cut the capital-gains rate to 20 percent from 28 percent. Tax receipts from capital gains soared as capital investment more than tripled. Between 1996 and 2000, “the increase in capital gains revenues accounted for a little over 20 percent of the total increase in federal revenues,” former Treasury official Bruce Bartlett said. For the first time, individual tax receipts hit $1 trillion.

After President George W. Bush in 2003 signed the largest tax cut since Reagan—including dropping the top marginal rate to 35 percent from 39.6 percent—government receipts from individual income taxes rose from $794 billion to a peak of $1.2 trillion in 2007, when the mortgage crisis began—a jump of 47 percent.

Stronger economic growth expanded the tax base and brought in so much revenue that Bush more than halved the deficit over that period.

There are plenty more examples globally. Professor Juan Manuel Lopez-Zafra from CUNEF in Madrid points to a few:

  • Russia introduced a 13 percent flat tax in 2001. Revenues rose 25 percent in 2002, and a further 24 percent and 15 percent in 2003 and 2004 respectively. Revenues rose 80 percent in three years. Russia is a country where government deficit spending is limited and the excuse of deficits does not mask the revenue improvement.
  • In 2012, Hungary implemented a 16 percent flat tax. Tax revenues soared 7.6 percent despite a decline in GDP of 1.6 percent. In its 2016 report, the OECD showed that the key to Hungary’s recovery was its tax system.
  • Ireland cut taxes to corporates to 12.5 percent from 50 percent and reduced the value-added tax, and tax revenues soared 67 percent. Between 2010 and 2017, Ireland’s tax revenues increased 21 percent and thanks to an attractive tax policy, Ireland is one of the few Eurozone countries that left the crisis with growth, lower unemployment and cutting deficits. Because spending did not soar.
  • Spain finally decided to cut taxes in 2015 and in 2016 and tax revenues grew 4.3 percent, more than nominal GDP, a level of increase that accelerated in 2017. Unfortunately, governments took the opportunity to increase expenditure, so deficits remained.
  • UK corporation tax receipts surged to a record high in 2017, up 21 percent rise from 2016 and an all-time high, despite the main rate falling from 30 percent in 2008 to 19 percent. The United Kingdom cut the corporate tax rate and did not lose any revenue. It paid for itself.
  • Corporate tax and marginal income tax have been reduced in the Nordic countries since the 2000s, and revenues have increased well above nominal GDP.

The evidence is clear. Tax cuts boost jobs, growth, and, in most cases, revenues. Those who choose to ignore it tend to do so because of a misguided view that governments need to spend more and that private individuals and companies make too much money.

But there is no public sector without a thriving private sector. Taxes cannot be a burden for growth and job creation because governments decide they want to spend more.

Deficits are no excuse for tax cuts. Deficits need to be addressed by curbing spending. Tax cuts are a necessary tool to keep an ever-expanding bureaucratic system from destroying the economy.

Read More: https://www.theepochtimes.com

Open Borders Libertarians are Globalist Pawns

His idea that a border is the initiation of violence is assuming it’s initiating violence to have defensive protection of your people, resources and interests.

If only we had a Utopian world where everyone sought to share and contribute equally…. but with the welfare state and economic realities like labor availability versus wages, it’s just as easy to see illegal residents as having initiated violence against me, by breaking our laws to unlawfully break our borders and take our resources.

The argument is ridiculous. Do you call locking your door at night an initiation of violence against the people that would illegally enter and take your possessions or rape your wife or daughter?

As a libertarian you still contribute to a greater organization of people that we call our society, and involves government even if you want to call it another name, there is some organization for common defense required in any organization of people. It’s not violence to defend what you have built and the resources you’ve collected.

The people entering our country illegally are not here to share their resources, they’re here to take our resources. That, in itself violates the NAP.

 

Truth: The Economy hasn’t Improved since the Recession

Plantation Economies

Opinion: If the economy is so great, why are 78 million hustling for dimes?

By REX NUTTING June 4, 2018

The Federal Reserve has just published a study that sheds some light on this hidden part of the economy. The Survey of Household Economics and Decisionmaking delves into how people feel about their economic lives and why they make the decisions they do. Surveys like this add shadings that the regular data miss.

The SHED found that about 31% of adults participate in what the Fed called “the gig economy” — work done outside of regular employment structures. That looks huge — about 78 million people. However, most of these people are working five hours a month or less on their side hustles, and the kinds of activities this survey considers to be “gigs” is far broader than what other researchers consider, including selling goods and services online or in real life, or picking up a few hours of babysitting.

Read More: https://www.marketwatch.com/story/if-the-economy-is-so-great-why-are-78-million-hustling-for-dimes-2018-06-01?link=sfmw_tw&ns=prod/accounts-mw

 

The FED’s QE4: printing money out of thin air, $11 billion giveaway to Banksters

Selling out our children’s future one QE at a time.

The-Count-Says-4-QEs

Did The Fed Save Wall Street With A Temporary QE4?

The stock market suffered one of its most drastic falls on February 5, 2018. The price of gold rose but as equities started rebounding after the selloff, gold trended lower.

Gold has enacted a portfolio hedge when markets rapidly swing and the recent pullback was no different. However, something was quite bizarre with regards to the Fed’s balance sheet a week after the market meltdown. Recently published data shows that the Fed’s balance sheet increased by 14.1 billion during the week ending February 14th, 2018.

By the looks of it, the Fed had reverted back to “quantitative easing” by printing money out of thin air by injecting $11 billion into the banking system by purchasing mortgage-backed securities. It’s important to realize, that the cash injected can be leveraged 10x. In other words, the $11 billion injected is $110 billion of leverage for the banks to use for activities such as propping up the stock market.

However, most recently, the Fed’s balance sheet was reduced by $23.2 billion. By the looks of things, the Federal Reserve is serving Wall Street by providing a safety net around volatility.  Which, of course, is driven by this ridiculous “wealth effect” policy that it has tried to achieve and preserve the last decade. It’s no surprise though, central banks are going to be central banks and continue to compound on disastrous and failed policy errors by repeating their old ones.

Read More: http://www.goldtelegraph.com/federal-reserve-save-wall-street-temporary-qe4/

Our National Debt And Government Spending Are A Moral Abomination

Federal Debt

Congress has returned to doing what it loves most: spending money we don’t have. Increased spending in the latest bipartisan budget deal, along with the recent Republican tax cuts, will vastly increase the deficit.

Principled conservatives objected, but were ignored in the scramble to give the American people what they want: more government spending without having to pay for it. Both parties are happy to deliver. With some worthy exceptions, Republicans who had bitterly criticized the “Obama deficits” are now eagerly embracing enormous Trump deficits.

This is sinful, but few people think of government deficits in such terms. This is not due to any reticence about political moralizing per se. Much of our political discourse now consists of dismissing our opponents as moral monsters and declaring “I’m better than you.” Why, in this atmosphere, is deficit spending one of the few issues about which more moralizing might be in order?

There seem to be two main factors behind our disinclination to describe persistent deficit spending—and the massive national debt it produces—as a moral wrong. The first is that the national debt doesn’t seem real to us; it is just numbers somewhere in the ether. Even people who consistently oppose reckless deficit spending tend to treat it abstractly. The second is that both parties are thoroughly guilty of contributing to the problem, so partisans have a strong incentive to be indulgent on the subject.

The National Debt Steals People’s Futures

Nonetheless, this is a moral problem. Our national debt steals from other people’s futures in a way that mere personal debt does not. For instance, if I borrow money, whether for a house, a car, an education, or a shiny new cell phone, I am the one who will have to pay it back or suffer the consequences (harassment by collection agencies, repossession, bankruptcy, and so on). The debt is mine, and so are the consequences if I borrow more than I can repay.

But while the money we’re borrowing as a nation will have to be paid back, those doing so will not be the people who get it. Federal deficit spending is not like going into personal debt. It is like grandma going on a binge with her grandchildren’s credit cards. It is parents signing away their children’s future for some government handouts now.

It is wrong to place our children and grandchildren under enormous debt. It is a sin against them. But we don’t think of deficit spending that way. Parents and grandparents who otherwise work hard to help their children and grandchildren succeed have no compunction about burdening them with endless budget deficits resulting in a crushing national debt.

This is not only because the deficit and debt seem remote in a way that personal credit card bills are not, but also because many people are unaware that the sources of the deficit are some of the federal government’s most popular programs: Social SecurityMedicare and Medicaid, and military spending. Few people want to cut these, and the next largest expense is paying the interest on our nation’s existing debt, which can’t be cut without causing a global financial crisis.

There is no easy solution, though voters enjoy being lied to and told that one exists (if only the other party weren’t obstructing it). As ridiculous as some federally funded programs can be (e.g., Harry Reid’s cowboy poetry), they aren’t the real problem. The deficit cannot be fixed by cutting foreign aid or the National Endowment for the Arts, or by taxing the rich just a bit more. It cannot be fixed by addressing “waste, fraud and abuse.” The real money is spent on the military and middle-class welfare programs.

Yes, Your Favorite Government Programs Are Welfare

And they are welfare programs, even if that appellation makes many beneficiaries uncomfortable. Social Security is a not a retirement account the government maintains for you. It is a transfer program, in which today’s workers are taxed to pay today’s retirees and the disabled. The amount someone pays in is not what he or she will get out, and many people receive far more in benefits than they paid in.

Likewise, Medicare is not a health savings account administered by the government. It is an incredibly expensive welfare program in which those currently working pay for the health care of the elderly and disabled, with lifetime costs for beneficiaries usually far in excess of what they paid into the program.

That these are welfare programs does not mean they should be eliminated. Wealthy societies with strong economies can afford some welfare spending, or even a lot of it. However, honesty about what these programs are and what they are for is necessary if we are to keep from being bankrupted by them. We must face the reality that the typical welfare queen isn’t a black mother in the inner city, but a middle-class white retiree.

Refusing to Pay for This Welfare Is Immoral

If we want generous middle-class benefits, we will need to drastically cut defense spending and raise taxes, including on the middle class. If we are not willing to do that, then we need to reform our entitlement programs to be sustainable. Either way, the sooner we address these problems, the less painful the adjustment will be. The more indebted and dependent our nation is, the more it will hurt when we run out of easy credit.

But right now, politicians (who are well aware of the problems of endless deficits) are terrified of voters punishing them for any changes. Both parties have campaigned on protecting entitlements, and both have attacked the other for attempting reform. Young voters, who will lose the most on our current trajectory, are often disengaged and besotted with adolescent socialist fantasies.

Meanwhile, retirees and near-retirees vote. They aren’t keen on politicians who raise taxes or cut military spending, and they will annihilate any politician who threatens their government checks and health care. The youth are checked out or feeling the Bern, while their elders are selling them down the river.

The electoral math suggests that there will be no reform or restraint except what will eventually be forced on us by the pitiless math of accounting and economics. That will be a painful reckoning. The consequences will be severe, and those who oppose putting our national finances in order are sinning against their children and grandchildren.

Nathanael Blake has a PhD in political theory. He lives in Missouri.

 

Read More: http://thefederalist.com/2018/02/12/national-debt-government-spending-moral-abomination/

Our National Debt And Government Spending Are A Moral Abomination

Federal Reserve Logo

Parents and grandparents who otherwise work hard to help their kids have no compunction about burdening them with endless budget deficits resulting in a crushing national debt.

Congress has returned to doing what it loves most: spending money we don’t have. Increased spending in the latest bipartisan budget deal, along with the recent Republican tax cuts, will vastly increase the deficit.

Principled conservatives objected, but were ignored in the scramble to give the American people what they want: more government spending without having to pay for it. Both parties are happy to deliver. With some worthy exceptions, Republicans who had bitterly criticized the “Obama deficits” are now eagerly embracing enormous Trump deficits.

This is sinful, but few people think of government deficits in such terms. This is not due to any reticence about political moralizing per se. Much of our political discourse now consists of dismissing our opponents as moral monsters and declaring “I’m better than you.” Why, in this atmosphere, is deficit spending one of the few issues about which more moralizing might be in order?

There seem to be two main factors behind our disinclination to describe persistent deficit spending—and the massive national debt it produces—as a moral wrong. The first is that the national debt doesn’t seem real to us; it is just numbers somewhere in the ether. Even people who consistently oppose reckless deficit spending tend to treat it abstractly. The second is that both parties are thoroughly guilty of contributing to the problem, so partisans have a strong incentive to be indulgent on the subject.

The National Debt Steals People’s Futures

Nonetheless, this is a moral problem. Our national debt steals from other people’s futures in a way that mere personal debt does not. For instance, if I borrow money, whether for a house, a car, an education, or a shiny new cell phone, I am the one who will have to pay it back or suffer the consequences (harassment by collection agencies, repossession, bankruptcy, and so on). The debt is mine, and so are the consequences if I borrow more than I can repay.

But while the money we’re borrowing as a nation will have to be paid back, those doing so will not be the people who get it. Federal deficit spending is not like going into personal debt. It is like grandma going on a binge with her grandchildren’s credit cards. It is parents signing away their children’s future for some government handouts now.

It is wrong to place our children and grandchildren under enormous debt. It is a sin against them. But we don’t think of deficit spending that way. Parents and grandparents who otherwise work hard to help their children and grandchildren succeed have no compunction about burdening them with endless budget deficits resulting in a crushing national debt.

This is not only because the deficit and debt seem remote in a way that personal credit card bills are not, but also because many people are unaware that the sources of the deficit are some of the federal government’s most popular programs: Social SecurityMedicare and Medicaid, and military spending. Few people want to cut these, and the next largest expense is paying the interest on our nation’s existing debt, which can’t be cut without causing a global financial crisis.

There is no easy solution, though voters enjoy being lied to and told that one exists (if only the other party weren’t obstructing it). As ridiculous as some federally funded programs can be (e.g., Harry Reid’s cowboy poetry), they aren’t the real problem. The deficit cannot be fixed by cutting foreign aid or the National Endowment for the Arts, or by taxing the rich just a bit more. It cannot be fixed by addressing “waste, fraud and abuse.” The real money is spent on the military and middle-class welfare programs.

Yes, Your Favorite Government Programs Are Welfare

And they are welfare programs, even if that appellation makes many beneficiaries uncomfortable. Social Security is a not a retirement account the government maintains for you. It is a transfer program, in which today’s workers are taxed to pay today’s retirees and the disabled. The amount someone pays in is not what he or she will get out, and many people receive far more in benefits than they paid in.

Likewise, Medicare is not a health savings account administered by the government. It is an incredibly expensive welfare program in which those currently working pay for the health care of the elderly and disabled, with lifetime costs for beneficiaries usually far in excess of what they paid into the program.

That these are welfare programs does not mean they should be eliminated. Wealthy societies with strong economies can afford some welfare spending, or even a lot of it. However, honesty about what these programs are and what they are for is necessary if we are to keep from being bankrupted by them. We must face the reality that the typical welfare queen isn’t a black mother in the inner city, but a middle-class white retiree.

Refusing to Pay for This Welfare Is Immoral

If we want generous middle-class benefits, we will need to drastically cut defense spending and raise taxes, including on the middle class. If we are not willing to do that, then we need to reform our entitlement programs to be sustainable. Either way, the sooner we address these problems, the less painful the adjustment will be. The more indebted and dependent our nation is, the more it will hurt when we run out of easy credit.

But right now, politicians (who are well aware of the problems of endless deficits) are terrified of voters punishing them for any changes. Both parties have campaigned on protecting entitlements, and both have attacked the other for attempting reform. Young voters, who will lose the most on our current trajectory, are often disengaged and besotted with adolescent socialist fantasies.

Meanwhile, retirees and near-retirees vote. They aren’t keen on politicians who raise taxes or cut military spending, and they will annihilate any politician who threatens their government checks and health care. The youth are checked out or feeling the Bern, while their elders are selling them down the river.

The electoral math suggests that there will be no reform or restraint except what will eventually be forced on us by the pitiless math of accounting and economics. That will be a painful reckoning. The consequences will be severe, and those who oppose putting our national finances in order are sinning against their children and grandchildren.

Nathanael Blake has a PhD in political theory. He lives in Missouri.