Fed Insider Herman Cain Caught In Brazen Debate Lie Paul Joseph Watson Infowars.com Wednesday, October 12, 2011 Establishment favorite claims he never opposed audit of Fed Establishment favorite and former Federal Reserve insider Herman Cain brazenly lied during last night’s Republican debate when he denied that he had opposed an audit of the Fed, a claim that was proven false within hours by Ron Paul’s campaign team. Herman Cain Lies to Ron Paul's Face About the Federal Reserve at GOP Debate video below http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5tUdkj80cA&fe ature= Pointing out that the majority of Americans want to see a full audit of the Federal Reserve, Congressman Ron Paul asked Cain if he stood by his position that it would be frivolous to audit the Fed on a regular basis, as well as his characterization of those who are calling for such measures as ignorant. Cain responded by claiming he never dismissed Ron Paul or his supporters as “ignorant” for asking about the Federal Reserve, and that the error was down to Paul believing what he read on the Internet. Technically Cain is correct, because he didn’t call Ron Paul supporters “ignorant,” worse still, in his own book Cain dismissed them as “stupid” and ludicrously suggested that the Paul campaign was deliberately sending out supporters to harass Cain with questions about the Federal Reserve. Cain brazenly lied in the next breath when he claimed, “I do not object to the Federal Reserve being audited, I simply said if someone wants to initiate that action go right ahead, it doesn’t bother me,” adding that he had been “misrepresented” and didn’t have a problem with the Fed being audited, before robotically repeating his “9,9,9? tax hike agenda. Within hours, the Paul campaign responded by pointing out precisely where Cain had expressed his opposition to auditing the Fed, with the aid of the very same Internet that Cain derided as an inaccurate source of information. Unfortunately for the former Godfather’s Pizza CEO, the world wide web turned out to be very accurate in documenting Cain’s deception. On December 29, 2010, Cain, former director and chairman at the Kansas City Federal Reserve, said the following.
“Some people say that we ought to audit the Fed. Here’s what I do know. The Federal Reserve already has so many internal audits it’s ridiculous. I don’t know why people think we’re gonna learn this great amount of information by auditing the Federal Reserve. I think a lot of people are calling for this audit of the Federal Reserve because they don’t know enough about it. There’s no hidden secrets going on in the Federal Reserve to my knowledge.”Not only has Cain been exposed as a liar on prime time television, but the controversy also throws fresh spotlight on his ridiculous claim that the Fed has not acted in secrecy. As we have since learned, most of the secret $16 trillion in Federal Reserve bailout funds between 2008 and 2010 went to foreign banks in places like Belgium, Japan and Libya. “The biggest borrowers from the 97-year-old discount window as the program reached its crisis-era peak were foreign banks, accounting for at least 70 percent of the $110.7 billion borrowed during the week in October 2008 when use of the program surged to a record,” reported Bloomberg. Before the Federal Reserve was legally forced to disclose the details of where the bailout money went, Chairman Ben Bernanke attempted to hide its destination by refusing to tell elected Congressmen like Alan Grayson and Ron Paul which financial institutions received bailout funds. No “hidden secrets,” then Herman? Cain’s total disregard for the truth and his transparent efforts to cover-up his sympathies for the Federal Reserve, the very source of America’s economic decline, by lying to the American people on national television, should torpedo any notion that Cain should even be considered as a Republican presidential candidate. Just like Rick Perry before him, expect Cain’s campaign, backed by his “9,9,9? gimmick, which would increase taxes for middle class Americans, to crash and burn as more spotlight is thrown on his Federal Reserve connections.
Ron Paul to Herman Cain at Bloomberg Debate: “Spoken Like a True Insider! YouTube Wednesday, October 12, 2011 Rep Ron Paul, champion of the message of liberty, the U.S. Constitution and his lifelong goal of exposing then eliminating through competition the Federal Reserve System, a private cabal of international bankers, calls out Presidential candidate Herman Cain, ex-Chairman of the Kansas City Federal Reserve Bank in the 1990?s, in response to Cain choosing Alan Greenspan as an example of what Cain’s appointment to Fed Chair would look like should he win the presidency. Here, Paul can be seen shaking his head and smiling to himself as Cain gives an answer that will be the impetus to the collapse of his campaign. Paul then accurately explains that Greenspan is personally responsible for the largest artificial bubbles ever perpetrated on the American economy and the middle class workers who comprise that economy, and therefore, he is responsible for the lowered standard of living, high unemployment, rising prices, housing collapse and the recessions / depessions that followed the collapse of each of Greenspan’s artificial bubbles (NASDAQ and Housing).Ron Paul to Herman Cain at Bloomberg Debate: "Spoken Like a True Insider! Greenspan was a Disaster!" video below http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hTEERUGKZuM&feature=
Goldman Sachs let off paying £10m interest on failed tax avoidance scheme David Leigh# guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 11 October 2011 11.46 EDT Britain's tax authorities have given Goldman Sachs an unusual and generous Christmas present, leaked documents reveal. In a secret London meeting last December with the head of Revenue, the wealthy Wall Street banking firm was forgiven £10m interest on a failed tax avoidance scheme. HM Revenue and Customs sources admit privately that the interest-free deal is "a cock-up" by officials, but refuse to say who was responsible. Documents leaked to Private Eye magazine and published in full by the Guardian record that Britain's top tax official, HMRC's permanent secretary Dave Hartnett, personally shook hands on a secret settlement last December. Hartnett is due to be questioned on Wednesday by the Commons public accounts committee. The leaked documents suggest that a previous PAC chairman, Edward Leigh, was misled when he was told it was illegal to reveal details of such cases to parliament. Leaked legal advice from James Eadie QC, which the Guardian also publishes today, says the opposite. Hartnett has discretion to reveal such facts to the parliamentary watchdog, according to the advice. Leigh said: "It just underlines the absurd culture of secrecy that still pervades Whitehall." Hartnett also refused to give the facts about Goldman Sachs to MP Jesse Norman on the Treasury committee last month, claiming disclosure would be illegal. He also refuses to brief ministers on the details. The £10m Christmas gift for Goldman was the culmination of a prolonged attempt by the US firm to avoid paying national insurance on huge bonuses for its bankers working in London. The sum was pocket change to Goldman, whose employees received $15.3bn (£9.5bn) in pay and bonuses last year. Its Wall Street head, Lloyd Blankfein, received $68m in 2008 and at the height of Britain's banking crisis 100 London partners set their bonuses at £1m each. This level was
considered a mark of restraint. In the 1990s, Goldman set up a company offshore in the British Virgin Islands. This entity, called Goldman Sachs Services Ltd, supposedly employed all of Goldman's London bankers, who were then "seconded" to work there. The device appears to have been designed to conceal the size of the bonuses. Judge David Williams said in 2009 that it was "a way of keeping information about the GS accounts and payroll out of the public domain and confidential". Goldman also begrudged paying its share of UK national insurance on the six-figure bonuses. Court judgments disclose that a typical Goldman bonus to a junior banker was £143,000 in 1998, and £191,000 the following year. The company, along with 21 investment banks and other firms, purchased blueprints for an avoidance scheme called an employee benefit trust (EBT). The bonuses were indirectly invested into elaborate share option schemes. It took the Revenue until 2005 to demonstrate in court that these EBTs were merely illegitimate tax avoidance devices. The 21 other firms surrendered, and handed over what they owed. But Goldman Sachs refused to pay its £30.81m bill. Instead the city firm Freshfields and the tax QC David Goldberg fought tooth and nail on Goldman's behalf through the courts. By 2010, according to a public judgment, the unpaid bill with accumulated interest had mounted to £40m. According to Revenue lawyers, in the leaked documents, Goldman's tactics were highly obstructive: they "resisted for five more years, raking up every conceivable point in the tribunal, and putting up a 'stooge' witness when Mr Housden [Goldman's tax director] was the obvious person to answer questions". In April 2010, the bankers lost a key point: a judge threw out the claim that their true employer was in the British Virgin Islands. In July, HMRC's own QC, Malcolm Gammie, gave "broadly positive" advice that the government was in a strong position to get all of its money. But on 30 November, a high-level HMRC committee handling the most aggressive banks heard troubling news. Their top expert, Hartnett, had met Goldman's tax director, Mike Housden, and as a result "a late submission had come in about a deal on which Dave Hartnett had 'shaken hands' with Goldman Sachs". The government was not going to get its full £40m, but only £30m.
HMRC's lawyers were dismayed. At a meeting a week later, on 8 October, chaired by general counsel Anthony Inglese, "he said he would always want to assist Dave Hartnett, but not if this were 'unconscionable'. He referred to the difficulty all those present at this meeting were having in justifying a settlement without an interest element." The minutes added: "It was â€Ś clear that the proposed settlement gave GS no additional penalty for having resisted for five more years." At a Treasury committee hearing last month, Hartnett refused to explain any of this to Jesse Norman, a Conservative MP. Hartnett claimed that it would be illegal to reveal any information about the Goldman deal. In fact, according to the leaked documents, HMRC has already received legal advice that says otherwise. Treasury counsel James Eadie QC advised the HMRC board in 2009 that Hartnett was free to disclose information to parliamentary committees, at his own discretion. Privately, HMRC sources say that ÂŁ10m of taxpayers' money was thrown away because of a "technical mistake" by an unidentified official, junior to Hartnett, who misinterpreted the law. They claim that the National Audit Office, which audits HMRC accounts, has accepted the situation. HMRC said in a statement: "The picture you have been given is incomplete and therefore fundamentally flawed but taxpayer confidentiality prevents us from correcting your story in detail. Dave Hartnett's long career in the tax service has been built on ensuring the right tax is paid by large businesses and individuals alike. HMRC does not do 'sweetheart' deals." Goldman Sachs declined to comment.