Alan Greenspan

They lowered interest rates. They intentionally gave loans to people who could not pay back the loans. They inflated real estate values by having more buyers chase the supply. They heated up the construction industry and all the associated industries. They repackaged the loans and sold them as securities. The interest rates reset higher on the loans. The borrowers defaulted. The properties went into foreclosure. The institutions that invested heavily in the junk loans are insolvent (bankrupt).

The workers of the U.S. and the world really (the economy has been globalized for this reason to pit the poorest against other workers around the world) are being asked to bailout the rich (corporate socialism). This was planned from the start.

What is more, they lowered taxes on the rich. They increased deficit spending. Now they are saying there is not enough money coming in to pay for entitlements such as Social Security and Medicare. Rather than raise the taxes back up on the rich, those same workers who are being asked to transfer their earnings to the rich are being told that their benefits (entitlements) will have to be cut and/or privatized so the rich can get a cut on the privatized investments. Also, the increases in the minimum wage have been eaten by inflation. The workers are being told they will have to be prepared to live on less.

What is more, when the Federal Reserve cut interest rates and increased lending, it did it without having to undergo an audit. It is supposed to have reserves that are ultimately supposed to be backed by gold (even though we aren't on the gold standard anymore).

The U.S. government doesn't know how much the Federal Reserve has in reserves, if anything. The U.S. government doesn't know how much gold there is in Fort Knox or anywhere else where the U.S. gold reserves are supposedly held. At least the U.S. government isn't saying.

What is more, speculation has moved from real estate to oil and food commodities. It's another bubble causing artificial scarcity.

This is smoke and mirrors. This is voodoo economics.

All the so-called wealth that was built up during the inflation of the bubble is unreal. Once all the air has been let out, the economy will be smaller than it was before they started blowing up the balloon. The common people will be willing to work longer for less and do dirty work for less (murder; fight wars) while the rich will be taking a bigger piece of the pie.

This is the economy from the economists from Hell who don't know how to run the household accounts, the household here being the global economy.

Remember, Alan Greenspan is a libertarian capitalist. He's a disciple of Ayn Rand. He wants you to believe that he didn't know that the real estate bubble would do what it's done. This is the same Greenspan who warned everyone about the "irrational exuberance" of the dot coms. He did nothing but live, eat, breathe, and sleep this stuff after the dot com bust, but you're supposed to believe him that he didn't know the same thing was happening in real estate. What really happened was he figured it out even more.

Also, after leaving the Federal Reserve, he went to work for the guy who made billions shorting on the information about what was going to be the results of all this smoke Alan created for those who had handpicked him to begin with. If Alan wasn't smart enough to know what was going on, why did a guy, John Paulson, who runs the hedge fund Paulson & Co., who was smart enough to make billions on the crash hire Alan, to give him bad information? Why do you need an advisor who knows less than you do about the subject and who made a huge mistake?

It's called the revolving door. It's called reward for services rendered.


The following should appear at the end of every post:

According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":

Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.

Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.

Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.

Political Campaign Intervention

Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.

Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.

Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:

  • Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
  • Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
  • Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
  • Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
  • Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office

Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:

  • The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
  • Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
  • We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
  • When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
  • It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
  • We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
  • We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
  • When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
  • We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
  • It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.

And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)

  • Subscribe

  • Tom Usher

    About Tom Usher

    Employment: 2008 - present, website developer and writer. 2015 - present, insurance broker. Education: Arizona State University, Bachelor of Science in Political Science. City University of Seattle, graduate studies in Public Administration. Volunteerism: 2007 - present, president of the Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project.
    This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.
    • They will mask the failure as much as possible by transferring pieces of it around like hot potatoes.

      They will keep lifting certain sectors while depressing others, all to throw everyone on the outside off balance.

      They will continue globalizing the debts so that they can mask the crash in the U.S.

      It will though all catch up with them.