But I had to look it up, the following is extremely pertinent
from the Federal Reserve website off its own web pages:
Table 1A. Memorandum Items
Table 1A presents selected items that do not directly affect the Federal Reserve's assets and liabilities but are related to important roles that the Federal Reserve plays. The Federal Reserve Bank of New York acts as a custodian in holding securities on behalf of foreign official and international institutions. Market participants often look for trends in these data to gauge foreign demand for U.S. Treasury and agency securities. This table also presents information on the securities lent by the Federal Reserve under its securities lending programs. As noted in more detail in Lending to primary dealers, the Federal Reserve lends securities from its portfolio of Treasury securities and federal agency debt securities to foster efficient and liquid trading in the market for these securities. When securities are lent, they continue to be listed as assets of the Federal Reserve because the Federal Reserve retains ownership of the securities."
So basically we have some semantics here. Many who support everything that happens in this nation, as long as it happens at the behest of someone with a supposed "D" after their name (Though I don't know that Geithner or Bernanke are really Dems) will argue that putting up the Federal Reserve money as securities to the Biggest Banks doesn't count as a loan.
But the fact of the matter is that once the Biggest Banks lose the money they are fond of placing into exotic trades, they will certainly have no reservations about glomming on to those security funds. Of course, with the exception of people like Kucinich, Ron Paul, Grayson and one or two others, no one seems to talk about this out loud. The American middle class is now so firmly entrenched in fear and exhaustion, they no longer can think straight.
So sins that our fathers and mothers' generation would have never let come to pass are continuing.
Strait of Hormuz: Threats exchanged, U.S. carrier tracked
Iran and the U.S. continued to trade words Thursday over an Iranian threat to close the Strait of Hormuz to oil tanker traffic. Meanwhile, Iran said it had tracked a U.S. aircraft carrier in the Persian Gulf.
Full article is at:
Strait of Hormuz: Threats exchanged, U.S. carrier tracked
The action by an Iranian surveillance plane showed that Iran had "control" over moves by foreign forces in the region, the Associated Press quoted from an official Islamic Republic News Agency report.
Tehran is currently holding a 10-day military exercise in international waters near the Strait of Hormuz.
On Wednesday, Iran's top naval commander expounded on the issue of control to the nation's English-language Press TV. Habibollah Sayyari said Iran could close the strait but did not need to do so at this time because "we have the Sea of Oman under control, and we can control the transit." Chief Pentagon spokesman George Little said Wednesday that any interference by Iran in the strait would "not be tolerated," stressing that the region was "an economic lifeline for countries in the gulf."
Thursday morning, Iranian officials struck back. Their basic message: You can't tell us what to do.
Moving quickly on Christmas Day after the US Senate voted 86 - 14 to pass the National Defense Authorization Act of 2011 (NDAA,) which allows for the indefinite military detention of American citizens without charge or trial, Montanans have announced the launch of recall campaigns against Senators Max Baucus and Jonathan Tester, who voted for the bill.
Montana is one of nine states with provisions that say that the right of recall extends to recalling members of its federal congressional delegation, pursuant to Montana Code 2-16-603, on the grounds of physical or mental lack of fitness, incompetence, violation of oath of office, official misconduct, or conviction of certain felony offenses.
I think this effort on the part of Montana's citizens rocks.
I just wanted to point out that I think it is a totally worthwhile activity to use DU to attempt to correct what appear to be lies about candidates, be they Republican, Democratic or Indie politicians.
Should DU remains free of such corrections, then those who step away from the keyboard long enough to engage in clever repartee with relatives, friends and neighbors, might find themselves at a loss when discussions about candidates come up. You cannot win a political argument if you are devoid of facts.
Case in point - the other night, Jay Leno had Ron Paul, R candidate for the Presidency, come to his show. Mr Leno then allowed Paul to engage in discussion for a good fifteen minutes.
One thing that surprised me was that Ron Paul admitted to total willingness for people in this nation to be participants in a gay marriage. He considers marriage to be personal business, and he thinks government(s) should keep away from marriage issues of any kind.
On this very board, I had heard repeatedly that Paul is anti-gay rights. Maybe so, but I couldn't find anything in his remarks on that particular night to justify such statements.
I have a fondness for the Hon. Paul, as he has stuck to his conviction that our nation should remain free from entanglements in foreign wars. He has held to this belief from back in the days of Iraq I, circa 1991.
However, if the record needed to be set straight against Mr Gingrich, a man I hold in contempt, I would do so as well. Not because I have a fondness for him, but because people need the truth to be effective both as voters and as people who are attempting to persuade/dissuade others. When a person doesn't have the truth at their disposal, they end up looking foolish.
BTW, one of the people who has given some very gracious "props" to Mr Paul is none other than Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. So if she can be gracious to Mr Paul, I see no reason why I cannot be.
"My account" "My profile" and couldn't do it there.
The lesson to be learned from 1968 is not that Nixon won the election.Rather, it is that the actions and ideals taken to heart by the street demonstrators ended up becoming embedded in the hearts and minds of average Americans.
In short, the side that has more fun wins.
Richard Nixon really and truly did not win. He ended up being ousted, in part because of the growth of the entire consciousness of the nation. The real result of the demonstrations of 1968 happen to be how we ousted Nixon, and had Jimmy Carter in the Presidency, with the years of the Carter Presidency representing an era that was more truly American than any other time the nation has existed.
During the Carter Presidency, We weren't fighting any bogus wars under Carter, we were starting to move towards solar energy, in one huge and massive boom! and we were becoming an integrated society. In fact the gains society was making under Carter made it imperative that Kissinger (now one of Obama's trusted advisers!) manipulate how the UAE nations withheld the oil, and then came the hostage taking in Iran. All those carefully manipulated events caused Carter to lose the 1980 election.
Last year I was getting beaten up by my fellow users for "my marijuana use." Which is really beyond the pale - i cannot use the stuff as it puts me to sleep for like a week. (Not saying i didn't smoke it a lot when younger, but cannot do that now.)
But in doing resarch for an article I wrote for the indie press, way back in the summer of 2000, I found out that the War on Marijuana is really a war on women.
I was amazed to find all the hundreds of photos of women in California's prisons, whose stories were tragic.
Often these were women in their fifties and sixties, whose crime had been using medical marijuana for Multiple Sclerosis. Seeing these women sitting in their wheel charis, with the minumum cost of their stay in jail and/or prison being $ 135 a day, I couldn't help but think that in a compassionate society, the money would be spent on research and not jailing people.
The saddest story of all was that of a yong African American woman. She had inherited some money from her granma's estate, and she used it to go to college, and also for the purchase of her condo.
But at some point, this thug started approaching her in her parking lot. He wanted to date her. He scared her, and so her response was a polite but definite "No, thank you. I have a boyfriend."
Some time later, this thug (who happened to be living in a condo in her association) got popped for major drug dealing. But all he had to do to get his sentence reduced down to three or four years was to snitch on people. So he reported her as being one of his "business partners." He immediately became a favorite of the local police, as they needed a snitch with his connections.
Then the police (or someone connected to the police) had cocaine planted in her appartment. She then got busted and at the point when I was reading her story, she was going to be serving twenty years. She would be serving the full sentence, as she had no one to snitch on.
Profile InformationName: Carol
Gender: Do not display
Hometown: Northern California
Home country: USA
Current location: Office chair
Member since: Sun May 15, 2005, 01:28 PM
Number of posts: 32,324
About truedelphiI joined DU following the election melt down that produced the second George the Lesser Term of Office. I am outraged by war, by out-sourcing of jobs, by Corporate control of both parties, and enheartened by my fellow citizens who are bravely part of "Occupy!"
- 2016 (45)
- 2015 (43)
- 2014 (147)
- 2013 (146)
- 2012 (110)
- 2011 (5)
- December (5)