Origins of the Tea Party

[Sooner5030]

Folks,

Based on all the ignorant stereotyping on the Militia post I thought I’d share a little history on how the Tea Party came to be what it is today. I welcome disagreements as it has become such a large organization with more causes than what was ever intended that the original folks no longer own the party.

Sometime prior to 2007 a group of investors started a knowledge sharing website called the “ticker forum”. The forum grew in popularity and it also consisted of the same type of investors: those that don’t like banks. Then on their free time these motivated folks started picking apart our central banking system and attempting to understand why it has so much power and is protected by so many folks and how does it really work.

As time went on anti-fiat system groups started being attracted to the site and many other sites started popping up claiming the ultimate failures of a fiat system.

Sometime after this the Ron Paul type supporters (who also support gold backed dollars) started joining the group. Also note that the group is still not called the “Tea Party” yet.

What had happened is that all three groups started predicting on when we would reach a tipping point where printing money would not solve our problems since the increase in printed dollars cannot keep the pace that new debt was needed to pay off old debt. In simple terms if there are only 900 billion physical dollars in circulation and the total amount of all current debt and interest due is more than 900 billion than more money will have to be printed/borrowed to pay that debt.

The problem is you have a newly printed $ that cost 4 cents to print but the fed loans it as $1 with interest due back to the fed.

The Federal Reserve is not a government entity nor is it a private corporation. It is a central bank and its stakeholders are its 12 regional banks. The problem is that the 12 regional banks are owned (thru stock) by private member banks. These banks receive a 6% dividend on their equity by law. So private banks receive a dividend for money printed at 4 cents a note and loaned out with interest while printed money devalues our dollar and I need to borrow more to buy the same amount of capital goods.

Next came TARP. This is what exploded the movement and eventually fell under one umbrella later called the Tea Party. Some of the member institutions that own equity in the federal reserve where also bailed out by money our treasury does not have but will have the federal reserve print for 4 cents a note, loan out and then make the citizens pay the interest by running though our government’s income statement.

After TARP came the auto bailouts and the movement kept on growing and at some point got some much needed media support from a cable news network. The problem with the growing support is we took on every cause that when added together we look like one big anti-government movement when that is not really the case.

Now it’s grown into something that is not a known quantity which makes all the players nervous. Ideologs, politicians, reporters all who need to be able to predict or make inferences about the future to make decision cannot because no one knows how big this is. This is why efforts are made to paint it as wacky.

Just understand that the initial movement was anti-federal reserve. Some of us truly believe that currency should not be managed by a private bank and that the profits from printing and loaning that currency to the government and should not be supported by the taxpayers that have to pay the interest.

[Harry Beanbag]

Thomas Jefferson strikes again.

"I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around [the banks] will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs."

[delhalew]

****in A right.

[GKeeper316]

you mean fractional reserve banking is a flawed system?

wow thats a revelation. ive never heard anyone ever say that before...

im only kidding. ive been saying it for years.

the federal reserve is the most diabolically evil (yet genius) organization in the world.

the application of interest by banks on loans insures that there will always be more money owed than is in existence. i really cant figure out why people think im a loony for actually looking at the fed for what it is... a modern institution of slavery.

[yermom]

the problem is, you let the wackjobs in AND let them talk to the media

[Sooner5030]

I didn't let them in as I have no right to exclude them. That's the problem with the T-Party. There are no universally accepted ideals except "now" sucks.

But as people learn where the movement started they may take the time to educated themselves on how we finance our government services and then we'll all be better off with a more informed electorate.

[TopDawg]

I didn't let them in as I have no right to exclude them. That's the problem with the T-Party. There are no universally accepted ideals except "now" sucks.

Do you think the "membership explosion" has been good or bad for the Tea Party? It's obviously made it more visible, but also seems to have compromised the original intent of that group.

[jkjsooner]

you mean fractional reserve banking is a flawed system?


Actually, that's not what he's saying at all.

Should banks hold 100% of my deposits and charge me a fee for doing so? (Afterall, if they can't loan it out then they can't pay me interest on it.)

If they can loan it out then we have a fractional reserve system. It's as simple as that. If they loan out my money someone uses that money to buy services which in turn get deposited back into a bank which is loaned out again, etc.

And, by the way, that is true whether or not we're on the gold standard.

[JohnnyMack]

Out of curiousity, what would you recommend resetting the gold standard to?

[tommieharris91]

Out of curiousity, what would you recommend resetting the gold standard to?

It doesn't matter. As long as the PRICE OF GOLD IS FIXED (in caps for all you posters that jizz over anything free market) we get a monetary base that can't be increased or decreased without changing the amount of gold backing money.

[JohnnyMack]

OK. I happen to think that the global economy is a bit too large to be handled by the gold standard, but I'm not all that smart.

[tommieharris91]

OK. I happen to think that the global economy is a bit too large to be handled by the gold standard, but I'm not all that smart.

It was tried once. It worked until 1971.

[delhalew]

OK. I happen to think that the global economy is a bit too large to be handled by the gold standard, but I'm not all that smart.

It doesn't have to be just gold. It could be a variety of precious metals with uses in technology and manufacturing. Copper, silver, platinum, paladium, ect.
I've also heard the idea floated that certain commodities could fit the bill...ie oil.

[tommieharris91]

It doesn't have to be just gold. It could be a variety of precious metals with uses in technology and manufacturing. Copper, silver, platinum, paladium, ect.
I've also heard the idea floated that certain commodities could fit the bill...ie oil.

A gold-silver standard was tried in the US before.

[Frozen Sooner]

Using a consumable as a store of value is a really really bad idea.

[delhalew]

Using a consumable as a store of value is a really really bad idea.
Not my idea. However, I like it better than a currency based absolutly nothing.
Three cheers for madmen with a printing press.

[Frozen Sooner]

What makes gold valuable?

[delhalew]

What makes gold valuable?

I'm seriously afraid you are just ****ing with me...but...
Demand. Just floating that one out there.

[Frozen Sooner]

But why is it in demand? Your response is circular in nature. It's valuable because people demand it. People demand it because it's valuable.

Serious question that goes to the philosophical underpinnings of money: why do we assign value to gold so that people demand it?

And c'mon, reading your posts you understand economics enough to understand why demand alone doesn't create value.

[yermom]

well, it's rare, it's purdy and it doesn't oxidize

[delhalew]

I believe supply and demand is all you need.
To dig further...the supply is limited, it is used in manufacturing and its beauty has made it a status symbol from the time the first caveman decided he could get laid without a club.
All that seems like enough to me.

[Frozen Sooner]

But not all societies have valued gold, have they?

Your answer is sort of correct-not supply, but limited supply (or scarcity) and demand creates a market, and the market then assigns price as a representation of value. But yeah, in a nutshell.

Gold wasn't really used in manufacturing until fairly recently, and it's been considered valuable since well before that, so that's probably not the reason we consider it a great store of value.

The "beauty" argument is one I've heard a bunch, but I still have a hard time accepting something that arbitrary as much better than fiat.

[tommieharris91]

And c'mon, reading your posts you understand economics enough to understand why demand alone doesn't create value.

You're talking to a guy who once wrote "Economics is VERY VERY simple."

[delhalew]

I consider the manufacturing use as more of a backstop as far as losing worth than an actual cause.
I know of no society that was aware of gold, in which gold had no value. I believe gold will have value until such time as science can reproduce gold. Even then historical coins and artifacts will have value.

[Frozen Sooner]

http://blogs.ft.com/maverecon/2009/11/gold-a-six-thousand-year-old-bubble/

This guy encapsulates some of what I'm talking about, though I don't necessarily agree with him on all points.

No, not all societies who were aware of gold considered it valuable. At least my understanding of pre-Columbian South American economy was that they didn't consider it of particular value (which led to some pretty massive misunderstandings.) I might be wrong.

[homerSimpsonsBrain]

I believe supply and demand is all you need.
To dig further...the supply is limited, it is used in manufacturing and its beauty has made it a status symbol from the time the first caveman decided he could get laid without a club.
All that seems like enough to me.

If you use it to back your money (gold, copper, paladium, etc), how will you use it to manufacture semiconductors, wires, etc.? Why not use neodymium? Its really rare.

I guess the idea is that if the exchange rate of the dollar gets out of whack, you sell / buy gold to get it back into whack. How is that different from buying or selling yen, pesos, yuan, marks, etc? Not being a smart ***, just dont see the value in having gold back the dollar. If the dollar goes to hell in a handbasket because the govt. totally fubars the economy, is having a bunch of gold really going to fix it? Couldn't they just as easily pull $$$ out of the money supply and make the dollar scarce that way? Essentially working directly on the dollar rather than indirectly on the dollar via gold?

Having gold back the dollar didnt seem to help a lot in 1929 but maybe thats apples to studibakers.

Mike, care to enlighten us? ***

[Frozen Sooner]

If you use it to back your money (gold, copper, paladium, etc), how will you use it to manufacture semiconductors, wires, etc.? Why not use neodymium? Its really rare.

I guess the idea is that if the exchange rate of the dollar gets out of whack, you sell / buy gold to get it back into whack. How is that different from buying or selling yen, pesos, yuan, marks, etc? Not being a smart ***, just dont see the value in having gold back the dollar. If the dollar goes to hell in a handbasket because the govt. totally fubars the economy, is having a bunch of gold really going to fix it? Couldn't they just as easily pull $$$ out of the money supply and make the dollar scarce that way? Essentially working directly on the dollar rather than indirectly on the dollar via gold?

Having gold back the dollar didnt seem to help a lot in 1929 but maybe thats apples to studibakers.

Mike, care to enlighten us?

Nah. That sounds like a lot of work, really. And your questions kind of mirror mine.

[JohnnyMack]

If you use it to back your money (gold, copper, paladium, etc), how will you use it to manufacture semiconductors, wires, etc.? Why not use neodymium? Its really rare.

I guess the idea is that if the exchange rate of the dollar gets out of whack, you sell / buy gold to get it back into whack. How is that different from buying or selling yen, pesos, yuan, marks, etc? Not being a smart ***, just dont see the value in having gold back the dollar. If the dollar goes to hell in a handbasket because the govt. totally fubars the economy, is having a bunch of gold really going to fix it? Couldn't they just as easily pull $$$ out of the money supply and make the dollar scarce that way? Essentially working directly on the dollar rather than indirectly on the dollar via gold?

Having gold back the dollar didnt seem to help a lot in 1929 but maybe thats apples to studibakers.

Mike, care to enlighten us?

And conversely couldn't a foreign market trash the dollar by dumping it all on us and taking back gold leaving us with a bunch of paper anyway?

[homerSimpsonsBrain]

Nah. That sounds like a lot of work, really. And your questions kind of mirror mine.

You did help out. I didn't see the link in your response till after I posted.

[delhalew]

You're talking to a guy who once wrote "Economics is VERY VERY simple."

And I still stand by that. That's not to say @sshats can't make it complicated. Read Haslet's "Economics in one lesson" it will change your life.
Now then...the gold standard works. That said, we would be OK if Congress had retained their responsibility to print money instead of allowing the FED to keep us in an artificial economic environment. This is when economics is no longer simple. When you **** it up.

[homerSimpsonsBrain]

So you're really saying the gold standard is a way to impose fiscal responsibility on the government. Because they cant just print the money unless they have the gold to back it up.

Personally I think its a panacea. If the leadership of the country doesn't have the long term interests of the country as their first priority, gold or no gold, we're screwed.

[Bourbon St Sooner]

So 5030, do you have some good literature about the positions of the original tea party types? I've heard a lot about abolishing the Fed, but I'm just not sure what would replace it. There was a time in this country when banks issued their own notes, but I'm not sure how you value those notes. It's hard enough to facilitate an exchange rate between the dollar and the euro much less an note from Citibank vs a note from BNP. Actually, I don't think I'd have any confidence in a note from Citibank, except that Citi is basically the US gov.

[GKeeper316]

Actually, that's not what he's saying at all.

Should banks hold 100% of my deposits and charge me a fee for doing so? (Afterall, if they can't loan it out then they can't pay me interest on it.)

If they can loan it out then we have a fractional reserve system. It's as simple as that. If they loan out my money someone uses that money to buy services which in turn get deposited back into a bank which is loaned out again, etc.

And, by the way, that is true whether or not we're on the gold standard.

well if banks just loaned out money they already had in deposit, it would work just fine.

but that aint how fractional reserve banking works.

[delhalew]

So you're really saying the gold standard is a way to impose fiscal responsibility on the government. Because they cant just print the money unless they have the gold to back it up.

Personally I think its a panacea. If the leadership of the country doesn't have the long term interests of the country as their first priority, gold or no gold, we're screwed.

Well, these things are cumulative. Fix that plus another hundred problems we have and we'd be in pretty good shape.
Just electing people willing follow the oath they take when sworn in would solve half of our issues.

[Frozen Sooner]

well if banks just loaned out money they already had in deposit, it would work just fine.

but that aint how fractional reserve banking works.

Seriously, where do you come up with this nonsense?

Fractional reserve banking is the practice of keeping a fraction of deposits in reserve then lending out the remainder. By definition a fractional reserve banker cannot lend out more than depository balances.

[Sooner5030]

So 5030, do you have some good literature about the positions of the original tea party types? I've heard a lot about abolishing the Fed, but I'm just not sure what would replace it.

By law the government could take it back for a price but this usually fails in committee. Most support required to get to the committee is just to require the fed to be more transparent and require them to go through the same scope of financial statement audit that any private firm should go through.

If the government (through an executive agency not legislature) owned the fed then they would earn the interest and the dividends. This would require giving greater power to the legislature to spend but keep them away from having any say in printing. This way you still segregate the borrowers from the lenders/printers. The lender needs a natural motivation to say no to the borrower or else it'll be worse than now.

[Frozen Sooner]

By law the government could take it back for a price but this usually fails in committee. Most support required to get to the committee is just to require the fed to be more transparent and require them to go through the same scope of financial statement audit that any private firm should go through.

The problem with that, though, is it severely limits the ability of the Fed to act independently. Every time they raised interest rates, they'd get audited. There's also the problem that if you make the meeting minutes available instantly, you'd get people pilloried in the press for talking about the natural unemployment rate and tradeoffs between inflation and unemployment.

[GKeeper316]

Seriously, where do you come up with this nonsense?

Fractional reserve banking is the practice of keeping a fraction of deposits in reserve then lending out the remainder. By definition a fractional reserve banker cannot lend out more than depository balances.

from modern money mechanics (dept of treasury publication)




Of course, they do not really pay out loans from the money
they receive as deposits. If they did this, no additional
money would be created. What they do when they make

loans is to accept promissory notes

in exchange for credits to the borrowers' transaction accounts.

[Frozen Sooner]

My goodness gracious, you don't have any kind of comprehension of what you read, do you?

No, the literal, physical dollars that someone hands the bank isn't handed back to borrowers. Regardless, banks do not lend out more money than they have on deposit. You seriously need to stop talking about things you clearly don't know a damn thing about. You sound like someone who took a hammer to the middle of your forehead then watched a Ron Paul speech on a TV that'd been switched to the SAP mode.

By the way, the pamphlet Modern Money Mechanics was published by the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, not the Treasury Department.

Here's the link to the actual pamphlet, by the way: here (http://www.rayservers.com/images/ModernMoneyMechanics.pdf)

Read it and try to have someone explain the big words to you. The information in the pamphlet is correct, and in no way backs up some notion that banks lend out more money than they have on deposit. Expansion of the money supply by fractional reserve occurs because multiple banks lend out a significant fraction of the money they have on deposit. It does not occur because one bank lends out, say, 120% of what they have on deposit.

[GKeeper316]

banks have to loan out money they dont have in deposit. thats how new money is created. they can loan up to 9 times what they have in reserve.

if there was no new money being added to the current circulation, there wouldnt be inflation.

[Chuck Bao]

This discussion and the origins of the Tea Party still leads me to conclude yet again that they are just a bunch of crackpots.

If I am reading this correctly, the key thing is that the origins of the Tea Party is simply based in the mistrust of politicians. I believe that they simply want limitations to deficit spending and they want to go back to an era that deficit spending is limited to a very arcane system where government debt, essentially dollar notes issued, are backed by gold or other asset classes.

The idea is noble and I love some of these crackpots for pushing for fiscal responsibility. Still, I have yet to read one article or opinion on a change in the Federal Reserve system that I think would be practical and not further exacerbate our current economic nightmare.

A time to change should be during a period of strength and not weakness or desperation.

[Frozen Sooner]

banks have to loan out money they dont have in deposit. thats how new money is created. they can loan up to 9 times what they have in reserve.

if there was no new money being added to the current circulation, there wouldnt be inflation.

AH, now you're almost there. Yes, they lend out money that the BANK doesn't have on reserve. That's a tautology-if it's lent out, then it's not on reserve. That's what reserve means (on a very basic level.)

You've conflated two concepts-money on deposit at the bank and money the bank has on deposit with the Federal Reserve.

[Ike]

AH, now you're almost there. Yes, they lend out money that the BANK doesn't have on reserve. That's a tautology-if it's lent out, then it's not on reserve. That's what reserve means (on a very basic level.)

You've conflated two concepts-money on deposit at the bank and money the bank has on deposit with the Federal Reserve.

Just so we are clear. I (the depositor) give you (the bank) $100. You are then free to lend $90 to GKeeper for magic beans, and you have to keep $10 in reserve.

Of course, when I learn what you lent the money out for, Imma come after you with a torches and pitchforks.

[Frozen Sooner]

Yes, if the required reserve ratio is 10%. I'm pretty sure it's less than that right now.

Then GKeeper spends his $90 on magic beans while you have a balance of $100 in your account which is available on demand. The bank that the bean seller uses receives your $90 deposit, and lends out $81 for SicEm to buy Ron Paul t-shirts. At this point, there's $271 out there (and of course it continues as the Ron Paul clothier deposits his sales receipts, etc.)

At no point does any individual bank loan more than people have deposited, which is what it looked to me like GKeeper was claiming happens. That could be a function of a lack of clarity.

[Sooner5030]

At no point does any individual bank loan more than people have deposited, which is what it looked to me like GKeeper was claiming happens. That could be a function of a lack of clarity.

Who deposits into our central bank so that they can loan out money?

[Frozen Sooner]

Who deposits into our central bank so that they can loan out money?

I'm sorry, but I don't know that I understand what you're asking me. Are you talking about Fed Funds loans to member institutions? Discount window loans?

[Sooner5030]

deposits just like a regular bank. They usually are listed on the liabilities side of the balance sheet. They naturally limit how much you can loan (assets) out.

It's a rhetorical question anyway as their lending is not naturally limited by its deposits. Think accounting not economics.

[Frozen Sooner]

deposits just like a regular bank. They usually are listed on the liabilities side of the balance sheet. They naturally limit how much you can loan (assets) out.

Yesssssss.....deposits are a liability of a bank.....


It's a rhetorical question anyway as their lending is not naturally limited by it's deposits. Think account not economics.

Your first sentence is correct, the Federal Reserve's lending isn't limited by depository balances. Not really germane to the discussion at hand-the Fed can raise money to lend through open market operations. This still isn't your corner bank lending more than it has on deposit, nor is it really an issue with fractional reserve banking-it's a monetarism deal.

I'm not sure what your second sentence means.

[Sooner5030]

I'm not sure what your second sentence means.

Everyone takes an econ or finance view of things and forgets the accounting viewpoint sometimes.

[Frozen Sooner]

Oh, gotcha. I didn't pick up that "account" stood for "accounting."

[Chuck Bao]

Unless some of you are bank accountants or bank auditors, you are probably missing the boat here. Bank balance sheets and loan-to-deposit ratios have changed dramatically with the disintermediation and growth of the derivative markets. These are not the banks of you father or grandfather. Regulations have fallen way behind and I am not sure how they can improve stability of the system. That is why I support President Obama's move to seperate the banks from investment banking activities again. In my opinion, Tea Party activitists should focus on this instead of namby pamby ideas about the Federal Reserve.

[Frozen Sooner]

Unless some of you are bank accountants or bank auditors, you are probably missing the boat here. Bank balance sheets and loan-to-deposit ratios have changed dramatically with the disintermediation and growth of the derivative markets. These are not the banks of you father or grandfather. Regulations have fallen way behind and I am not sure how they can improve stability of the system. That is why I support President Obama's move to seperate the banks from investment banking activities again. In my opinion, Tea Party activitists should focus on this instead of namby pamby ideas about the Federal Reserve.

This is also true. CMO in particular really skew reserves, particularly when banks are allowed to keep sub-mezzanine tranches and consider them non-loan assets.

[GKeeper316]

Who deposits into our central bank so that they can loan out money?

nobody. it buys treasury bills from the federal government. it sends the appropriate amount of federal reserve notes (money, that it has just had printed... well not really. the paper dollars in existence account for only 3% of the actual money supply. its all done digitally now) to the federal government, who then deposits the money in a commercial bank, beginning the cycle.

the new money is being created by the central bank, the fed. its value is determined by devaluing the existing money supply... inflation.

banks then apply interest to the loans, which guarantees that there will always be more owed than is in existence.

this is what ive been saying.

if there was no debt, there wouldnt be any money.

[jkjsooner]

nobody. it buys treasury bills from the federal government. it sends the appropriate amount of federal reserve notes (money, that it has just had printed... well not really. the paper dollars in existence account for only 3% of the actual money supply. its all done digitally now) to the federal government, who then deposits the money in a commercial bank, beginning the cycle.

the new money is being created by the central bank, the fed. its value is determined by devaluing the existing money supply... inflation.

banks then apply interest to the loans, which guarantees that there will always be more owed than is in existence.

this is what ive been saying.

if there was no debt, there wouldnt be any money.

So we're back to my question. Do you think banks should hold 100% in reserve, charge you for safeguarding your money, and essentially do nothing productive with the money?

Or do you just have a problem with the 10% we chose for our reserve value.

You know, you and I can trade deposits and loans back and forth ad infinitum and "create" an unlimited amount of money (and debt). Big deal.

[tommieharris91]

Yes, if the required reserve ratio is 10%. I'm pretty sure it's less than that right now.


I'd be shocked if the RR changed from 10% in my lifetime.

[tommieharris91]

nobody. it buys treasury bills from the federal government. it sends the appropriate amount of federal reserve notes (money, that it has just had printed... well not really. the paper dollars in existence account for only 3% of the actual money supply. its all done digitally now) to the federal government, who then deposits the money in a commercial bank, beginning the cycle.

the new money is being created by the central bank, the fed. its value is determined by devaluing the existing money supply... inflation.

banks then apply interest to the loans, which guarantees that there will always be more owed than is in existence.

this is what ive been saying.

if there was no debt, there wouldnt be any money.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Reserve_System

Read this like 10 times, then come back and ask questions.

[Sooner5030]

Read this like 10 times, then come back and ask questions.

I’ve read it plenty (it’s wiki) but it doesn’t give me a warm and fuzy.

Corporate governance and the relationship between managers, owners, all stakeholders and the contracts, required reports and audits in between tells me that the Federal Reserve is one Charlie Foxtrot of an organization.

This “not a private entity” not owned by the public organization can print money, change the required reserve %, charge interest on the $ it printed (or added electronically) and then pay its private regional shareholders (banks) a 6% dividend by law?

Then it can purchase $2 trillion in US Debt (some this debt is used to bailout the equity owners (banks) of the Federal Reserve), $1 trillion in mortgage-backed securities (albeit at the ‘market value’ at the time of purchase). All this and the interest on the US debt is paid for through the gubments income statement (the taxpayer)?

We’re fu$$ed

[Frozen Sooner]

I'd be shocked if the RR changed from 10% in my lifetime.

The RR on demand deposits above the first $55mm in institutional liability is 10%. It's much lower on all other deposits.

[Bourbon St Sooner]

Then it can purchase $2 trillion in US Debt (some this debt is used to bailout the equity owners (banks) of the Federal Reserve), $1 trillion in mortgage-backed securities (albeit at the ‘market value’ at the time of purchase). All this and the interest on the US debt is paid for through the gubments income statement (the taxpayer)?


And untold $billions in stock? This stock market rally has some legs doesn't it?

[TopDawg]

By law the government could take it back for a price but this usually fails in committee. Most support required to get to the committee is just to require the fed to be more transparent and require them to go through the same scope of financial statement audit that any private firm should go through.

If the government (through an executive agency not legislature) owned the fed then they would earn the interest and the dividends. This would require giving greater power to the legislature to spend but keep them away from having any say in printing. This way you still segregate the borrowers from the lenders/printers. The lender needs a natural motivation to say no to the borrower or else it'll be worse than now.

Most of this discussion is way over my head, but this got my attention. Am I right in understanding that the originators of the Tea Party supported a government takeover of something?

[Sooner5030]

Most of this discussion is way over my head, but this got my attention. Am I right in understanding that the originators of the Tea Party supported a government takeover of something?

Only in a sense that it allow the tax payers rather than a cartel of banks to benefit from the Federal Reserves profits. Right now the money the fed pays to the treasury for it's operations is after a 6% (by law) dividend is paid to this cartel of member banks.

[TopDawg]

Oh, yeah, I mean I get the reason why they/you wanted it...I just find it ironic given the rally cry of so many of its newer members.