JFK was attempting to duplicate Lincoln policy that had saved taxpayers $4 billion

despite all your nut case, ass-hattery

the federal reserve hash't paid any multimillion dollar bonuses

 

non sequiturs are not very convincing.

How do you account for the bailout monies that were used to pay bonuses as well; are you claiming they got their bonuses in some manner external to the money supply of the United States?

If not, then my assertion must be correct because the monetary authority must have been controlling the supply of money according to laws enacted as fiscal policy by our federal Congress when legislating a bailout that included multimillion dollar bonuses to be processed by the Fed.

 

what a nut case

the fact is that the federal reserve doesn't pay multimillion dollar bonuses

they discourage it

 

ohh, look. nothing but fallacy for your Cause.

The Fed, as a mostly autonomous organ of the executive branch, is charged with controlling the money supply of our economy through monetary policy that is commuted from fiscal policy as enacted by our federal Congress.

We already know our federal Congress enacted an increase in the money supply that included, multimillion dollar bonuses. Why do you believe the sloth you claim?

 

show me what you think is a fallacy

 

The Fed, as a mostly autonomous organ of the executive branch, is charged with controlling the money supply of our economy through monetary policy that is commuted from fiscal policy as enacted by our federal Congress.

We already know our federal Congress enacted an increase in the money supply that included, multimillion dollar bonuses. Why do you believe the sloth you claim?

 

stop being ridiculously looney

once the fed issues currency, they don't control what private entities spend it on

absolute verifiable fact: the federal reserve doesn't pay multimillion dollar bonuses

in fact the fed discourages institutions from making excessive compensation payments


“Compensation practices at some banking organizations have led to misaligned incentives and excessive risk-taking, contributing to bank losses and financial instability.” — Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke, October 22, 2009

http://research.stlouisfed.org/pageone-economics/uploads/newsletter/2010/201002.pdf


The Federal Reserve Board under Chairman Ben S. Bernanke is taking steps to ensure that the incentive compensation policies of banks and bank holding companies do not undermine the safety and soundness of those institutions. We also welcome the Fed's solicitation of additional recommendations on enhancing transparency beyond the proposal.

http://www.federalreserve.gov/SECRS/2009/December/20091214/OP-1374/OP-1374_112509_25301_531488789799_1.pdf

 

your red herring argument is telling.

We already know our federal Congress enacted an increase in the money supply that included, multimillion dollar bonuses. Why do you believe the sloth you claim?

 

that same money supply funded ron paul's campaign

does that mean the federal reserve paid ron paul's employees?

you're projecting your own agenda of deception

i've supported my arguments with references to verifiable facts

you're claiming that because private banks paid multimillion dollar bonuses with currency, the federal reserve is responsible for those bonuses

which is just plain ignores reality, the fed didn't pay bonuses, private institutions did that

the fed tells banks not to pay big bonuses, but it's not illegal in most cases

 

From my perspective, you are merely resorting to your red herring argument because you refuse to distinguish between macroeconomic actions by a public Firm and microeconomic actions by a private sector Firm; why is that?

 

because it's bs and just an attempt to obfuscate the lies you've been posting

 

Which lies are those?

It is your red herring argument and line of reasoning that claims my position and argument involves cutting checks by Fed to individual CEOs on corporate welfare. We have argued enough for you to know that is not what I meant when wrote what I did, since I do understand there must be a difference between the Acts of a public Firm and the Acts of a private Firm.

 

the federal reserve hasn't paid any multimillion dollar bonuses

in all this time you still have been able to show any bonuses paid by the fed

 

It is your red herring argument and line of reasoning that claims my position and argument involves cutting checks by Fed to individual CEOs on corporate welfare. We have argued enough for you to know that is not what I meant when wrote what I did, since I do understand there must be a difference between the Acts of a public Firm and the Acts of a private Firm.

Where did I write that the Fed cut checks to CEOs on corporate welfare?

 

nothing about my argument is misleading

the facts show that the federal reserve hasn't paid any multimillion dollar bonuses

you can keep trying to obfuscate your lie if you want, but your ridiculous claims are obviously bogus

 

Where did I write that the Fed cut checks to CEOs on corporate welfare? If you can't produce that post, then it must be your very own, red herring argument and line of reasoning. Why go to such lengths merely to have to resort to fallacy.

That line of reasoning (by analogy) is why only the chics that are doing me the most have dibs on any serious relationship in modern times.

 

your backpedaling is amusing

of course you know you lied

 

simply claiming that without any post of mine to substantiate that, isn't any better.

Where did I write that the Fed cut checks to CEOs on corporate welfare? If you can't produce that post, then it must be your very own, red herring argument and line of reasoning. Why go to such lengths merely to have to resort to fallacy.

 

you know the fed doesn't pay multimillion dollar bonuses

you know you haven't been able to substantiate that claim

you're lying and throwing all the bs at the wall you can come up with

it's not going to work

 

Where have I stated the Fed cut checks for CEOs on corporate welfare? You still don't have a point or an argument regarding why the Fed wouldn't commute fiscal policy into monetary policy as directed by our federal Congress when legislating the bailout, which we all know, included multimillion dollar bonuses.

 

what a bunch of bs

 

It is your red herring. I have abstained from as much fallacy as I can, as a moral and ethic in these modern times.

 

i have no red herring

and your lies were refuted

 

Which lies were those? I never claimed the Fed cut multimillion dollar bonus checks to CEOs on corporate welfare. It is your red herring argument that you can't defend nor manufacture a good argument for, your Cause.

 

you can wiggle and squirm, like a little worm

but you won't obfuscate your way out of the lie you posted

the fed doesn't pay multimillion dollar bonuses