Editorial
Are U.S. Taxpayers Bailing Out Greece?
Last week we were reminded that ours is not the only country suffering from severe economic turmoil. The Greek government is the latest to come close to default on their massive public debt. Greece has insufficient funds in their treasury to make even the minimum payments that are now coming due. Their debt level is about 120 percent of their gross domestic product and their public sector absorbs what amounts to 40 percent of GDP. Any talk of cutting costs and spending is met with violent protests from the many Greeks heavily dependent on government payments. Mounting fears of default have sent shockwaves through their creditors and all of the eurozone countries.
But there have been statements made by the European Central Bank to calm fears and give assurances that Greece will get the aid it needs. Details of agreements are not forthcoming.
Is it possible that our Federal Reserve has had some hand in bailing out Greece? The fact is, we don't know, and current laws exempt agreements between the Fed and foreign central banks from disclosure or audit.
Greece is only the latest in a series of countries that have faced this type of crisis in recent memory. Not too long ago the same types of fears were mounting about Dubai, and before that, Iceland. Several other countries (Spain, Portugal, Ireland, Latvia) are approaching crisis levels with public debt as well. Many have strong ties to Goldman Sachs and the case could easily be made that default could have serious implications for big US banking cartels. Considering the ties between the Fed and these big banks, it is not outlandish to wonder if the US taxpayer is secretly bailing out the entire world, country by country, even as our real unemployment tops 20 percent. Unless laws are changed to allow a complete and meaningful audit of the Federal Reserve, including its agreements with foreign central banks, we might never know if this is occurring or not.
This global financial crisis is a predictable result of secretive central banking and unsound fiat currency. Governments are entirely committed to this system of fiat money and fractional reserve banking for obvious reasons: it enables them to do what they love most, namely, spend hoards of money with near impunity. Without the limitations of sound money, governments will spend without limit. They will spend money to hire their cronies, pay off special interests, give out favors, create dependence and generally distract from the terrible job they do at their chief mandate, which is to protect the liberties of the people. Fiat money is a blank check to government, which is very dangerous, and we are witnessing the death throes of the system as the bills come due and the underlying capital is squandered away.
Because of our globe-straddling empire and lingering reserve currency status, perhaps no one has a more vested interest in keeping this system cobbled together than our own government and the Federal Reserve. The agreements that Iceland and Dubai and Greece have negotiated can amount to little more than kicking the can down the road, as their overall spending habits remain largely intact, fiat currencies are still legal tender and more debt is issued on top of unsustainable debt. The American people have the right to know if they are going to be the ones holding the bag in the end because the Federal Reserve secretly put them on the hook for it. This knowledge would be a key factor in peacefully dismantling this immoral and unconstitutional system.
l Latest Daily Bell Articles
Feedback
 |
Posted by Puzzled on 04/23/10 03:29 AM
|
Posted by Bowman on 02/28/10 05:39 PM
|
Posted by J. Murphy on 02/24/10 03:10 PM
Of course, Bernake said no, but what was interesting was your (Ron Paul's) smile as you seemed to think he caught Bernake in something. Is this correct? Also Congress.
Franke added he would support investigating the Fed possibly bailing out other countries in years past which caused another reaction from you...Very funny!
Reply from The Daily Bell
Ron Paul has written - here and elsewhere - of his suspicions regarding the Fed and Greece. If he were smiling, it may be he simply thinks Bernanke is not telling the truth.
 |
Posted by Watcher on 02/22/10 09:41 PM
|
Posted by Bob Pastor on 02/21/10 05:36 PM
|
Posted by Bowman on 02/21/10 01:28 PM
Reply from The Daily Bell
Yes, we noticed some mainstream journos didn't seem to quite know how to report on it ...
|
Posted by James Downey on 02/21/10 10:26 AM
I only wish that he added the live and let die aspect of our bailout policy. We save the losers at the expense of those with new innovations and management techniques that will eliminate waste and create jobs.
|
Posted by Duane Bass on 02/21/10 07:10 AM
|
Posted by Charles In Florida on 02/21/10 01:02 AM
|
Posted by Bruce on 02/20/10 10:38 PM
There is a new movement to reassert the authority of the Sheriff over all agents of government, including the fed. It's about time.
A republic in control of public utilities (roads etc.) and charged with the duty of protecting private rights is probably the best form of official government. However, when there no longer is private property (truly free untaxed property) and private individuals (ones who have no duty to the state [tax service or otherwise] as they are not on the dole somehow --U.S. Supp. Ct. Hale v Henkel), it really doesn't matter what you call the form of government because as a matter of function they are all the same -- tyrannical.
|
Posted by Bruce on 02/20/10 07:50 PM
It describes property held in trust for the common good. It implies that there is also property which is not public. Said property would be private. When most of the property is held privately, and little is held in common as public property, you have a free society.
When most or all property is held in the public realm you have dictatorship regardless of the form of administering the property.
Private property is not within the public realm, it is not within the republic. Property held in the public domain is "within" the republic.
In the context of what is held in common within the public domain, a republic, a monarchy, and a democracy are nearly identical.
All rely upon an oligarchy to administer the property held in public trust.
Enter the citizen. Citizen = subject.
Free people are not citizens. Citizens are property of the public trust.
No constitution, or enactment of Congress for that matter, can change a nation.
People make up a nation. What people believe determines their actions. When most people believe the documents and decrees of others will change their lives and behavior, it does.
A free society will emerge when people begin to think for themselves about the fundamentals of law, and stop relying upon perceptions and opinions which have been painstakingly taught them for the purpose of controlling their behavior.
Reply from The Daily Bell
So you don't believe the form of government matters. It is all about what the individual perceives. OK. But anarcho-libertarian, or not, we might tend to believe that a form of minimalist republican government is the best that can be hoped for.
|
Posted by Snowman on 02/20/10 05:29 PM
The Bell's question regarding a Republic is of course on spot, and our founding fathers knew this. A Republic requires an alert and knowledgeable citizenry in order to assure its continued existence through a constitution that effectively defines and separates the necessary duties/powers of government.
The year 1913 was the year of infamy for the USA and much of our citizenry understands the problem with the IRS (Amendment XVI in Feb.) and the relinquishment of the portion of Section. 8 in Article. 1 that deals with the coinage and value of money to a cartel of international bankers known as The Federal Reserve in Dec. of that year.
What is not referred to, or correlated by the populace, was the passage of Amendment XVII in April of that year that effectively ripped the heart out of The Constitution. This move fundamentally transformed us into a Democracy, eliminated States Rights, and gave complete control of our government to the cartel.
Reply from The Daily Bell
"Coincidence?"
|
Posted by Georgia Hamblin on 02/20/10 04:52 PM
Goldman Sachs being in bed with the Federal Government should give us some real cause for concern!!!
|
Posted by Klaus Engelmann on 02/20/10 04:15 PM
What that means is the government will do far less than it does now. Our government has been bastardized and distorted so much that the founding fathers would not recognize it.
|
Posted by Norm on 02/20/10 04:03 PM
|
Posted by Joe D on 02/20/10 12:22 PM
|
Posted by Bowman on 02/20/10 11:54 AM
Reply from The Daily Bell
Well put.
|
Posted by Floyd on 02/20/10 09:17 AM
He said something to the effect that if the taxpayers knew what the Fed was doing it would derail consumer confidence.
P.S.(If indeed there's any left)
|
Posted by Gul on 02/20/10 09:03 AM
|
Posted by Jj on 02/20/10 08:51 AM
Personal Rule by a Monarch has always been the best protection from Bankers.
Democracy is prone to easy manipulation and control in contrast. This is why the Bankers insist on Democracy where ever they invade.
Ron Paul is sophisticated, but he still insists that 9/11 was done by Al Qaeda.
Reply from The Daily Bell
Very good! Your point about monarchy vs democracy is most controversial and most insightful. It is an unresolved argument that lurks at the heart of modern libertarian thought.
In a democracy, much is "public" or unowned. Not so, perhaps, in a monarchy. (Thus, the tragedy of the commons is avoided.) A better question to consider might be whether a REPUBLICAN (limited) form of government is superior to a monarchy. And which is more sustainable.
|
|
