FORUM QUICK LINKS > News | Economy | DP Liberty Forum | Activism | DIGG! | Books | Videos | Events | RP Repubs | Rand Paul 2010

   

Hidden in the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008

In yesterday’s Senate bailout bill, also known as the ‘‘Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008’’ is the following, seemingly innocent section.

SEC. 128. ACCELERATION OF EFFECTIVE DATE.
Section 203 of the Financial Services Regulatory Relief Act of 2006 (12 U.S.C. 461 note) is amended by striking ‘‘October 1, 2011’’ and inserting ‘‘October 1, 2008’’.

So they moved the date of the Financial Services Regulatory Relief Act of 2006 up by 3 years. Big deal you say, and what the heck is the FSRRA of 2006? It was a series of amendments to 12 U.S.C. 461 of course! Well, okay, I don’t expect you to know what that is, so here it is (and the other related documents).

The bailout bill - http://money.cnn.com/2008...

Financial Services Regulatory Relief Act of 2006 - http://www.govtrack.us/co...

12 U.S.C. 461 - http://www.law.cornell.ed...

You may want to open those in new tabs, we’ll be bouncing around them a bit.

Okay, lets follow the trail.

They changed the effective date from 2011 to yesterday!

The Financial Services Regulatory Relief Act of 2006 made changes to the United States Code TITLE 12 - BANKS AND BANKING, CHAPTER 3 - FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM, SUBCHAPTER XIV - BANK RESERVES.

The changes do a few things, none of which seem to be good for us citizens.

The changes eliminated the requirement for banks to keep reserves of cash on hand to cover deposits, they abolished the Federal Reserve’s Earnings Participation Account, they granted the ability for the Fed to create their own rules for distributing their earnings, and they granted the ability to make payments to foreign banks.

These things were not scheduled to go into effect for 3 more years. Unclear is why they needed these changes at all, the other is why they need them now.

Okay, there it is, the conclusion. You can take my word for it and stop now and have some disgust at the whole thing, or you can continue on and get really mad about how convoluted and cryptic things in Washington are.

Fair warning. Continue at your own risk.

Still here? You really are brave. Actually you probably have no idea the mess you are in for. Don’t say I didn’t warn you.

Okay, I gave you the conclusion, now here is how to get there. I’ll go fast now, try to keep up, it gets complicated.

‘‘Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008’’
SEC. 128. ACCELERATION OF EFFECTIVE DATE.
Section 203 of the Financial Services Regulatory Relief Act of 2006 (12 U.S.C. 461 note) is amended by striking ‘‘October 1, 2011’’ and inserting ‘‘October 1, 2008’’.

Okay, we know the date has moved. Let’s look at what moved.

Section 203 is a part of the following Title. It states when the entire title goes into effect. So they made the entire Title go into effect yesterday.

TITLE II--MONETARY POLICY PROVISIONS
SEC. 201. AUTHORIZATION FOR THE FEDERAL RESERVE TO PAY INTEREST ON RESERVES.
(a) In General- Section 19(b) of the Federal Reserve Act (12 U.S.C. 461(b)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
`(12) EARNINGS ON BALANCES-
`(A) IN GENERAL- Balances maintained at a Federal Reserve bank by or on behalf of a depository institution may receive earnings to be paid by the Federal Reserve bank at least once each calendar quarter, at a rate or rates not to exceed the general level of short-term interest rates.
`(B) REGULATIONS RELATING TO PAYMENTS AND DISTRIBUTIONS- The Board may prescribe regulations concerning--
`(i) the payment of earnings in accordance with this paragraph;
`(ii) the distribution of such earnings to the depository institutions which maintain balances at such banks, or on whose behalf such balances are maintained; and
`(iii) the responsibilities of depository institutions, Federal Home Loan Banks, and the National Credit Union Administration Central Liquidity Facility with respect to the crediting and distribution of earnings attributable to balances maintained, in accordance with subsection (c)(1)(A), in a Federal Reserve bank by any such entity on behalf of depository institutions.
`(C) DEPOSITORY INSTITUTIONS DEFINED- For purposes of this paragraph, the term `depository institution', in addition to the institutions described in paragraph (1)(A), includes any trust company, corporation organized under section 25A or having an agreement with the Board under section 25, or any branch or agency of a foreign bank (as defined in section 1(b) of the International Banking Act of 1978).'.
(b) Conforming Amendment- Section 19 of the Federal Reserve Act (12 U.S.C. 461) is amended--
(1) in subsection (b)(4)--
(A) by striking subparagraph (C); and
(B) by redesignating subparagraphs (D) and (E) as subparagraphs (C) and (D), respectively; and
(2) in subsection (c)(1)(A), by striking `subsection (b)(4)(C)' and inserting `subsection (b)'.
SEC. 202. INCREASED FLEXIBILITY FOR THE FEDERAL RESERVE BOARD TO ESTABLISH RESERVE REQUIREMENTS.
Section 19(b)(2)(A) of the Federal Reserve Act (12 U.S.C. 461(b)(2)(A)) is amended--
(1) in clause (i), by striking `the ratio of 3 per centum' and inserting `a ratio of not greater than 3 percent (and which may be zero)'; and
(2) in clause (ii), by striking `and not less than 8 per centum,' and inserting `(and which may be zero),'.
SEC. 203. EFFECTIVE DATE.
The amendments made by this title shall take effect October 1, 2011.

Okay, so we can see here that 201 and 202 amend 12 U.S.C. 461. If we take 12 U.S.C. 461 section 19 (b) in the order of the amendments, the first is Section 19(b)(2)(A).

(2) (A) Each depository institution shall maintain reserves against its transaction accounts as the Board may prescribe by regulation solely for the purpose of implementing monetary policy—
(i) in the ratio of 3 per centum for that portion of its total transaction accounts of $25,000,000 or less, subject to subparagraph (C); and
(ii) in the ratio of 12 per centum, or in such other ratio as the Board may prescribe not greater than 14 per centum and not less than 8 per centum, for that portion of its total transaction accounts in excess of $25,000,000, subject to subparagraph (C).

this section is amended—
(1) in subsection (b)(2)(A), by striking “the ratio of 3 per centum” and inserting “a ratio of not greater than 3 percent (and which may be zero)” in clause (i) and by striking “and not less than 8 per centum,” and inserting “(and which may be zero),” in clause (ii);

Notice the change from a set percentage to a percentage “not greater than” and “which may be zero”. So depository institutions no longer have to maintain reserves against their transaction accounts. What is a depository institution? What is a transaction account?

(1) The following definitions and rules apply to this subsection, subsection (c) of this section, and
sections 248–1, 248a, 342, 360, and 412 of this title:
(A) The term “depository institution” means—
(i) any insured bank as defined in section 3 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act [12 U.S.C. 1813] or any bank which is eligible to make application to become an insured bank under section 5 of such Act [12 U.S.C. 1815];
(ii) any mutual savings bank as defined in section 3 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act or any bank which is eligible to make application to become an insured bank under section 5 of such Act;
(iii) any savings bank as defined in section 3 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act or any bank which is eligible to make application to become an insured bank under section 5 of such Act;
(iv) any insured credit union as defined in section 1752 of this title or any credit union which is eligible to make application to become an insured credit union pursuant to section 1781 of this title;
(v) any member as defined in section 1422 of this title;
(vi) any savings association (as defined in section 3 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act
[12 U.S.C. 1813]) which is an insured depository institution (as defined in such Act [12 U.S.C. 1811 et seq.]) or is eligible to apply to become an insured depository institution under the Federal Deposit Insurance Act; and (vii) for the purpose of sections 248–1, 342 to 347, 347c, 347d, and 372 of this title any association or entity which is wholly owned by or which consists only of institutions
referred to in clauses (i) through (vi).

So pretty much any place that handles deposits, most people just call them banks.

(C) The term “transaction account” means a deposit or account on which the depositor or account holder is permitted to make withdrawals by negotiable or transferable instrument, payment orders of withdrawal, telephone transfers, or other similar items for the purpose of making payments or transfers to third persons or others. Such term includes demand deposits, negotiable order of withdrawal accounts, savings deposits subject to automatic transfers, and share draft accounts.

This basically means bank accounts.

So there it is, banks no longer have to keep even a small amount of peoples bank accounts available as cash. They don’t have to fail, they can just say they are out of cash today. Your money is still there, FDIC does not kick in, but they just stop giving out money.

Okay, what else does the date change put into effect 3 years early?

(2) in subsection (b)(4), by striking subparagraph (C) and redesignating subparagraphs (D) and (E) as subparagraphs
(C) and (D), respectively

What was subparagraph (C)? In order to understand subparagraph (C) we need to see the whole paragraph (4).

(4) (A) The Board may, upon the affirmative vote of not less than 5 members, impose a supplemental reserve requirement on every depository institution of not more than 4 percentum of its total transaction accounts. Such supplemental reserve requirement may be imposed only if—
(i) the sole purpose of such requirement is to increase the amount of reserves maintained to a level essential for the conduct of monetary policy;
(ii) such requirement is not imposed for the purpose of reducing the cost burdens resulting from the imposition of the reserve requirements pursuant to paragraph (2);
(iii) such requirement is not imposed for the purpose of increasing the amount of balances needed for clearing purposes; and
(iv) on the date on which the supplemental reserve requirement is imposed, except as provided in paragraph (11), the total amount of reserves required pursuant to paragraph
(2) is not less than the amount of reserves that would be required if the initial ratios specified in paragraph (2) were in effect.
(B) The Board may require the supplemental reserve authorized under subparagraph (A) only after consultation with the Board of Directors of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation,
the Director of the Office of Thrift Supervision, and the National Credit Union Administration Board. The Board shall promptly transmit to the Congress a report with respect to any exercise
of its authority to require supplemental reserves under subparagraph (A) and such report shall state the basis for the determination to exercise such authority.
(C) The supplemental reserve authorized under subparagraph (A) shall be maintained by the Federal Reserve banks in an Earnings Participation Account. Except as provided in subsection (c)(1)(A)(ii) of this section, such Earnings Participation Account shall receive earnings to be paid by the Federal Reserve banks during each calendar quarter at a rate not more than the rate earned on the securities portfolio of the Federal Reserve System during the previous calendar quarter. The Board may prescribe rules and regulations concerning the payment of earnings on Earnings Participation Accounts by Federal Reserve banks under this paragraph.
(D) If a supplemental reserve under subparagraph (A) has been required of depository institutions for a period of one year or more, the Board shall review and determine the need for continued maintenance of supplemental reserves and shall transmit annual reports to the Congress regarding the need, if any, for continuing the supplemental reserve.
(E) Any supplemental reserve imposed under subparagraph (A) shall terminate at the close of the first 90-day period after such requirement is imposed during which the average amount of reserves required under paragraph (2) are less than the amount of reserves which would be required during such period if the initial ratios specified in paragraph (2) were in effect.

So they make every bank pay into a reserve fund. It is maintained in an Earnings Participation Account. By deleting subparagraph (C) they abolished that account. They no longer have to maintain the account or pay the earnings. They can still impose a supplemental reserve requirement, they just don’t have to pay any earnings. I wonder what happened to the funds in that account. Remember, this went into effect yesterday.
Okay, what’s next? Ah yes, they added a whole new paragraph 12!

“(12) Earnings on balances.—
“(A) In general.—Balances maintained at a Federal Reserve bank by or on behalf of a depository institution may receive earnings to be paid by the Federal Reserve bank at least once each calendar quarter, at a rate or rates not to exceed the general level of short-term interest rates.
“(B) Regulations relating to payments and distributions.—The Board may prescribe regulations concerning—
“(i) the payment of earnings in accordance with this paragraph;
“(ii) the distribution of such earnings to the depository institutions which maintain balances at such banks, or on whose
behalf such balances are maintained; and
“(iii) the responsibilities of depository institutions, Federal Home Loan Banks, and the National Credit Union Administration Central Liquidity Facility with respect to the crediting and distribution of earnings attributable to balances maintained, in accordance with subsection (c)(1)(A), in a Federal Reserve bank by any such entity on behalf of depository institutions.
“(C) Depository institutions defined.—For purposes of this paragraph, the term ‘depository institution’, in addition to
the institutions described in paragraph (1)(A), includes any trust company, corporation organized under section 25A
[12 U.S.C. 611 et seq.] or having an agreement with the Board under section 25 [12 U.S.C. 601 et seq.], or any branch
or agency of a foreign bank (as defined in section 3101 of this title).”;
(4) in subsection (c)(1)(A), by striking “subsection (b)(4)(C)” and inserting “subsection (b)”.

So paragraph 12 deals with earnings on balances. So basically any money the Federal Reserve bank has from other banks can make earnings and the Fed can decide how and if those earnings are paid out.

Remember the definition of depository institutions? Of course you do, but we have an additional definition just for this paragraph, everything you already know with the addition of foreign banks. So what you ask, if they deposit money in the Fed bank, shouldn’t they make money. Well, maybe, but yesterday they did not.

Remember, this entire paragraph 12 was not supposed to go into effect until 2011.

Foreign banks were not in the definition of depository institutions until they changed the effective date from October1, 2011 to October 1, 2008.

If we rewrite the opening of the paragraph to use the words “foreign banks” it reads

Balances maintained at a Federal Reserve bank by or on behalf of a foreign banks may receive earnings to be paid by the Federal Reserve bank at least once each calendar quarter, at a rate or rates not to exceed the general level of short-term interest rates.

So, to summarize, by changing the effective date the following is now in effect.

Banks don’t have to have cash on hand.

The Fed does not have to maintain an Earnings Protection account for the supplemental reserve fees they charge banks which means they don’t have to give any of the money back to those banks.

They now include foreign banks as institutions they can pay earnings to. Let’s not forget, earnings is really just more American debt. Federal Reserve Notes are really debt, but that’s a topic for another monster blog entry.

Anyway, all of this from one puny and innocuous section in the ‘‘Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008’’.

If you read this whole thing you deserve a gold star, or at least an attaboy.

Attaboy!

output

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

And this bill began as a FOUR page document!

Thanks OFallonBrent for your investigation into this pile of crap. My knowing this makes me even more upset. So, anotherwords you put your money into a bank and when you need it, that bank can arbitrarily decide how much and when they give your money back to you. In the meantime, you could be thrown out of your home, or starve to death. What about automatic deductions for mortgage/credit card/health insurance? Could these payments be denied due to inadequate BANK funds on hand? Is this a correct interpretation?
What else in in this @#$%^&-ing "bill?"

bump

bump

$$$

$$$

WTF

WTF

bump

bump

These things were not

These things were not scheduled to go into effect for 3 more years. Unclear is why they needed these changes at all, the other is why they need them now.

compare credit card processing

still???

??

???

???

Irresponisble Posts

OFallonBrent

Please explain to me why I should believe anything that you post, when you post LIES about one of the very best constitutional conservatives in congress? Some democratic Operative's smear campaign against Congressman Kenny Hulshof, accussing him of voting for the second bail out bill before the second bail out vote even took place in the house. In this DISPICABLE post you forwarded someone's DISHONEST and REPREHENSIBLE FABRICATIONS, with the thinly veiled statement:

I received this in my email. I did not write it.
Press Release
--- Draft Copy - not for release until verified ---

Let's consider your ethics.
-1st you posted a draft copy that says it is not for release until verified.
-2nd you did not list the source.
-3rd the release declares that the Congressman has lost an election that will not take place for more than 30 days.
-4th the post is dated for Nov. 5th it was posted on Oct. 2nd the day before the vote.
-5th It declares that the defeat, 30 days from now, was stunning.
-6th Congressman Hulshof voted "NO" on the 2nd bail out bill just as he did the first time, and just as he said he would on Tuesday Sept. 30th.
-7th 12 hours after the vote the inaccurate post remains. It is now verifiable that Congressman Hulshof voted "NO", yet you have neglected to remove the post which could cause some to believe that he actually voted for this peice of crap legislation, thus potentially harming an innocent and honest Congressman.

I suggest you immediately remove the post and apologize for your actions. You have damaged your credibility and should consider such IRRESPONSIBLE and UNETHICAL actions more carefully in the future before you decide to make another post.

Get a clue

I responded to your post, which you cried to the moderator to delete, that it was a "mock" press release meant to show the potential repercussions of voting for the bill.

You can read my full response here http://www.dailypaul.com/...

If you really are a FACTCHECKER, I gave all of the references to the facts in this post. Check them for yourself.

You obviously work for the Hulshof campaign, good for you. I did my fact checking. Hulshof has voted with the Republican party 99.9 percent of the time. FACT! http://projects.washingto...

So this ONE time he voted against the party. I submit the ONLY reason he did so was because of the scenario presented in the mock press release.

So you join yesterday and a second ID called jonibaloney is created to bump the posts. The fact you call me a democratic operative is very telling.

I am a operative for Liberty..

.

.

Chips

Ok so no cash in banks. Everything goes digital and trackable. What's next, rifd chips? Woe to us. He causeth all men, rich or poor, free or bond to recieve a mark in his forehead or in his right hand. That no man might buy or sell except him who has the mark of the beast.

We talk. But do we act?

We cannot let this stand. We must take up the fight and win back our liberty and our country!

Liberty, not security. LIBERTY NOT SECURITY!

delete

.

this bill

was originally unanimously approved by both houses. A record of each representative's position was not kept.

Let that sink in. Something was behind that bill that no one dared defy in any way shape or form. Under suspension of the rules in the house 9/27/06...right close to recess no doubt.

I wouldn't say that everyone

I wouldn't say that everyone approved... rather, I would say that they made it a vote by voice so that it wouldn't go for a direct vote. This typically happens when a bill is considered straightforward and generally popular, but it has been happening with increasing frequency when the bill contains questionable content that they don't want discussed or examined.

my

point exactly...debate was not going to occur. Considering the details of the bill as pointed out by the original post, I assume this bill was a fait accompli despite the forward dating. And I wonder why the bill was not to take effect for 5 years to begin with. Perhaps a bill that does not take effect for years becomes a non-event, not news, just "regulatory relief"...I think they were slippin something by. Its almost like that bill was written with the current situation in mind...almost, I said.

thank you to the no's

One of My Senators voted against bill.
Senator Bill Nelson is receiving flack from our useless media. If you get a moment, please write and say Thank You for not supporting this bill. Or, please say thank you to whoever voted against. (thanks)

Senator Mel Martinez, on the other hand, voted in support. (need I say more?)
In truth,
ZigiMe.com

Even MORE goodies thrown in by the Senate! OH BOY!!!

This is from the LRC site and lists some of the other goodies that the Senate threw into this monstrosity.

http://www.lewrockwell.co...

http://www.youtube.com/wa...
"Not armies, not nations, have advanced the race; but here and there, in the course of ages, an individual has stood up and cast his shadow over the world."

Some in one hand but more out of the other

Amazing how they think that dipping into the trough of public money can be bought by offering the public (to whom the bill lands) some imaginary reward (they take even more in the guise that they are giving you something)

Cut out the middleman and keep what you earn to distribute to causes that you deem important, now that is true democracy.

Is it to be presumed that only Government could have correct moral guidance and you have none?

Well all I can say is LOOK AT THEIR RECORD!!!

Look at where we are now!!!

Ahh yesss!!

This is our time.

bumping for an update?

!!!Truth is treason in the EMPIRE OF LIES!!!

Thanks for this!

I faxed this info to my congressman this morning, along with jshowell's comments below.

Great!!

This is our time.

When...

are we going to see Dr. Paul realize this is the time for him to get back in the race?

I keep saying this but he is being vindicated every day and what better time than now to do the right thing?

This nonsense over all these other 3rd party candidates is just a distraction. I'm tired of feeling like no one seems to get this or think this way - but we do need Ron Paul to get back in it and give everyone the right choice in November!

He's even getting air time on MSM. It seems maybe he doesn't want the job any longer?

Ron Paul cured my Apathy - and then relapsed when he quit his bid for the Presidency :(

Let's get rid of those monkey's in Washington!

Now that would be a real

October surprise.

I want names!

I want to know the names of each sponsor who'll benefit from each section of this behemoth! I want to know who gets the bribes! These scum have their little insertions all ready to go in case something like this comes up...

A Capitol Hill Page emails the Senator's office, asks what he wants to vote "AYE, matey" and the intern mails back SECTION 220, IMPROVEMENTS TO RACEWAY or some nonsense like that.

Its bribery! Its been going on for ages!

And its about time this crap was flushed down the toilet with everyone who voted for it!!!!

I think I'm gonna email this to my Senators and Rep.

Daily Paul has been FARKED!

Farkers looking for more info on this and related subjects:

Welcome to the Daily Paul. Yep, you've made fun of Ron Paul for a long time, but look who's been correct on the economy all along. Please forgive us for saying, we told you so.

Look around; you'll find plenty of information here. Those of you asking about condensed versions of this and other bills, or asking about gold and silver? Yeah, you'll find that here at the Daily Paul.

To DP regulars: we have been listed (by ??) on one of my favorite sites, FARK.com (politics tab), under today's date. Clicking on the link (not the tag) next to the entry entitled, "I'll be in my bank"] leads directly to this post.

Michael, I hope your bandwidth is up to speed.

Dude, we're ALL farked now.

Dude, we're ALL farked now.

Read the FARK comments

Funny, isn't it?

Most folks on FARK have been dissing RP as a laughable kook for months on end. Now, having read OFallon's post, they have all these questions (look in the comments in that Fark entry) about precious metals, food gardening and storage, survival issues, and more, that we here on Daily Paul have been discussing for well over a year and a half, thanks to the insights of Dr. Paul and those in the r3volution movement.

Of course, there's also repeated comments there about not wanting to have to wade through all that legislation (it's tiring work, you know, so easier to just ignore it), and brilliant comments such as, "all this talk about trying to stock up in precious metals....does that still have any use now that our country no longer uses the gold standard?", and "Do what? I read all that and still got a big HUH at the end. Anyone want to translate that into Farkenese for me?" (I guess that last commenter couldn't be bothered to read the comments and links provided in this thread). There are some there that get it, but most just clearly don't.

Remember RP's famous line? "Keep laughing, buddy."

bump for liberty!

bump for liberty!

It would be nice to get this on C-span!!

This is our time.

bump

bump

sec. 116/117 is complete

sec. 116/117 is complete bullshit. how can you tax something that is essential for life, and something that is all around us. that is like taxing us to stand in the shade of a tree.

I agree

I'm going through the entire bill, and that is one that is on my list of reasons to vote this down.

Thanks...I'll admit I

Thanks...I'll admit I skimmed over a lot of what was written, but I appreciate your summary!

bump

bump

Bump.

find out if you have a local milita - http://www.uaff.us/

Excellent work, OFallon!

Kudos also to letushope for making sure we see this tidbit in the text.

Time and again, RP supporters prove to be diligent, hard working, dedicated and determined to find the truth in the details. I am humbled and honored to be among you.

Anyone have a summary?

Of the illegal things thisbill proposes (with references)
Here's my list:
-Put's the government under the Federal Reserve Board as only they can administer the funds and any subsequent funds to bailout their ponzi scheme,.
-No reserve is needed to deposit funds into banks (sec. 202)
-Sets up a program to tax us on the air we breathe (sec. 116)

I know there's other funny stuff in this bill.

Link, JS?

Tell me you're joking about sec. 116. Else, provide a link.

I really hope you're going to respond with, "Just kidding!"

Here's the text

SEC. 116. CERTAIN INCOME AND GAINS RELATING TO INDUSTRIAL SOURCE CARBON DIOXIDE TREATED AS QUALIFYING INCOME FOR PUBLICLY TRADED PARTNERSHIPS.

(a) IN GENERAL.—Subparagraph (E) of section 7704(d)(1) (defining qualifying income) is amended by inserting ‘‘or industrial source carbon dioxide’’ after ‘‘timber)’’.

(b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by this section shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act, in taxable years ending after such date.

SEC. 117. CARBON AUDIT OF THE TAX CODE.

(a) STUDY.—The Secretary of the Treasury shall enter into an agreement with the National Academy of Sciences to undertake a comprehensive review of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to identify the types of and specific tax provisions that have the largest effects on carbon and other greenhouse gas emissions and to estimate the magnitude of those effects.

(b) REPORT.—Not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of this Act, the National Academy of Sciences shall submit to Congress a report containing the results of study authorized under this section.

(c) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section $1,500,000 for the period of fiscal years 2009 and 2010.

If you can get through the psychotic lawyerese there's gonna be a tax on the air you breathe in 2010.

Of course there's many interpretations available....

But it looks like they want to impose a tax on anything that compromises the quality of air. ie' greenhouse gasses. Or anything that has an effect on the air we breathe, damn that could be anything. Say good-bye to aerosols altogether...but it still seems like it's related to "industrial" meaning business. Could someone with more legal knowledge correct me if i'm wrong please...

But...WHAT THE THELL DOES THIS HAVE TO DO WITH THE BANKING BAILOUT????

Today God Granted Me the Sense to Vote Third Party!

Well, they are after

ALL the freshwater here in the Great Lakes area - NY approved, PA still in committee; Michigan ???; Ohio - still in committee.

This includes all the fresh water in and surrounding the Great Lakes, including the lakes, watersheds, all other lakes, streams, ponds, wells, springs, rainwater, cisterns, and mud puddles.

The proposal and bill reads like Agenda 21 - a UN bill.

bump!

bump!

I commend you

for your effort. It becomes more and more obvious that the $700 bn has very little to do with this legislation. It's all about further compromising our banking and finance system. Thanks for the summary and sharing with us.

Actually....

Starting to feel pretty optimistic again... Is THIS what we have been waiting for? As Ron Paul and others have said, our problem is NOT a shortage of credit, it is a shortage of TRUST.

When this bill makes it obvious that it's all funny money in the banks, will those in the know start pulling out? Will it not just destroy the banks but also the dollar?

Unfortunately, I don't think

Unfortunately, I don't think this will destroy the bankers. This is their master plan. This is their golden parachute. This is the moment in which we either save our nation (at great cost) or we lose everything we have. This is the ultimate power grab which is why it is imperative that we get this word out to as many people as possible.

Here is a thread that I posted last night that approaches the same material in a different way:

http://www.dailypaul.com/...

Get the word out!

Call to Action!

Everyone, call your representative and give them the information in this post (as I just did... again). They need to be aware of what this bill is actually going to do. With the bill being hundreds of pages long, it is likely that many of them have not even read the bill in its entirety. This clause is so obscure that even if they did read it, they may not be aware of its implications.

Truth is on our side, and we must wield it effectively. Educate your congressman and show them that we are not the dumb, uneducated masses that they believe us to be. Be kind and courteous, but point them to the truth.

we really need a position paper with the bottom line.

Like

We The People,
do not support this bailout (for the obvious), but specifically because the language in the proposal provides for:

1) The Secretary may designate financial institutions as agents of the Federal Government and such institutions shall perform ALL shuch reasonable duties related to this Act as Financial Agents of the Federal Governement.

2) Eleminates any fractional reserve requirements to allow banks to loan against ZERO assets.

etc.

someone smarter than me could do it, and we should all send it in!
!!!Truth is treason in the EMPIRE OF LIES!!!