Boils down to this: The FED handed out $16 trillion interest free to failing banks and failing corporations that can't pay it back on the pretext of saving the economy. But the economy is still in the toilet, people have lost & continue to lose jobs, homes and some probably their lives as a direct result of the actions of the same people getting this money and the current debt-ceiling debate over a $1.5 trillion deficit has Republicans threatening to force more hardships on the homeless, the sick, the unemployed, & the least wealthy citizens while, again, the wealthiest, a group which most certainly includes those bailed out, are being protected from sharing this burden and even given more breaks.
Boils down to this: The FED handed out $16 trillion interest free to failing banks and failing corporations that can't pay it back on the pretext of saving the economy. But the economy is still in the toilet, people have lost & continue to lose jobs, homes and some probably their lives as a direct result of the actions of the same people getting this money and the current debt-ceiling debate over a $1.5 trillion deficit has Republicans threatening to force more hardships on the homeless, the sick, the unemployed, & the least wealthy citizens while, again, the wealthiest, a group which most certainly includes those bailed out, are being protected from sharing this burden and even given more breaks.
And of course by "wealthiest" you mean anyone with a private sector job. And when you say "share the burden" you mean pay for the whole thing.
Boils down to this: The FED handed out $16 trillion interest free to failing banks and failing corporations that can't pay it back on the pretext of saving the economy. But the economy is still in the toilet, people have lost & continue to lose jobs, homes and some probably their lives as a direct result of the actions of the same people getting this money and the current debt-ceiling debate over a $1.5 trillion deficit has Republicans threatening to force more hardships on the homeless, the sick, the unemployed, & the least wealthy citizens while, again, the wealthiest, a group which most certainly includes those bailed out, are being protected from sharing this burden and even given more breaks.
And of course by "wealthiest" you mean anyone with a private sector job. And when you say "share the burden" you mean pay for the whole thing.
I thought it was the public employees union members who were over paid. Now your telling me it is the kid at the theater concession counter.
I don't think taxing the capitol gains of the kid at the concession counter at the same rate as her income is the same as "pay for the whole thing".
So, they didn't get $16 trillion? Or 0% interest isn't "interest free"? Or they can pay it back? If they can pay it back, why don't they?
If these were short-term "overnight" loans then I'm woefully misinformed, because everything I've read about this audit says virtually none of the loans have been repaid.
If it's no big thing to give $16 trillion to a bunch of white-collar criminals, what's the big deal about a $1.5 trillion deficit? Why is every Republican cut proposed prefaced with "there's just no $ for_____"?
I do admit I understand very little about "economics" but I'm trying to wrap my head around this. Maybe SS isn't the best place to look for answers, since this thread isn't helping. And, as you can tell by my prose style, I am also quite illiterate..
So, they didn't get $16 trillion? Or 0% interest isn't "interest free"? Or they can pay it back? If they can pay it back, why don't they?
If these were short-term "overnight" loans then I'm woefully misinformed, because everything I've read about this audit says virtually none of the loans have been repaid.
If it's no big thing to give $16 trillion to a bunch of white-collar criminals, what's the big deal about a $1.5 trillion deficit? Why is every Republican cut proposed prefaced with "there's just no $ for_____"?
I do admit I understand very little about "economics" and, as you can tell by my prose style, I am also quite illiterate..
Those are short-term loans. Many of them were for as little as eight hours. They were secured by collateral and they were repaid.
You will not find a single reputable news source reporting otherwise. You will, however, find plenty of goldbugs, Ron Paul supporters and stormfront posters ringing their hands over it.
You can also read the GAO report for yourself, rather than relying upon such people to misinterpret it for you:
I am trying to keep on this.
I have looked at Larry Moe and Bob and Stan's link.
I have looked at the Washington Post.
I have looked at the Wall Street Journal.
I have not read the report.
From what I am seeing all sources agree there was 16 trillion in what these sources call "bailouts/rescue".
The 9 trillion in overnight loans, according to cnn, was paid back.
No source I have seen suggests that the other 7 trillion has been paid back.
In fact, none called them loans.
I am not saying it hasn't, but it was given as a bailout/rescue, according to mainstream, non-right-wing-nut-ron-paul sites and non-left-wing-communist-bernie-sanders-sites.
Can anyone provide a link stating that the other 7 trillion has been paid back?
What the WP and WSJ both agree upon is that the audit is news.
That it is an unprecedented level of transparence in the Feds workings.
That conflict of interest is rife at the Fed. And they are SHOCKED!
Thanks WhoIsSDtanPapi and faux_rillz for those last two posts.Why didn't you say that in the first place? I apologize for ruffling any feathers with my ignorance.
I got riled up by a FB post linking the Unelected article. Had no idea that was a Ron Paul/Libertarian deal there. I'm no Ron Paul fan or Libertarian.
As regards my misunderstanding of this audit, the main culprit was that one sentence in the Unelected article which stated:
"The Federal Reserve likes to refer to these secret bailouts as an all-inclusive loan program, but virtually none of the money has been returned and it was loaned out at 0% interest."
I saw versions of that same sentence in almost every article that came up when I googled "FED $16 trillion audit".
And I could go on and on.
Every single major news outlet has covered this and only a nutjob would say otherwise.
Many of them mention 16 trillion in bailout or rescue.
The only mention of payback I could find is the 9 trillion you linked to.
I can understand why you think bailing out financial institutions is more important than putting people to work and keeping people in their homes. But please don't pretend that there is no scandal here. The scandal is that there are unlimited funds for the wealthiest and there aint shit for people in my neighborhood. And the day that the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times tells that story will be a new day in America.
In the funny pages today:
The CBO said in a Tuesday night letter to Boehner that the speaker???s plan would achieve about $850 billion in deficit savings over the next decade, not the $1.2 trillion touted by House GOP leadership since the proposal was unveiled Monday night.
And I could go on and on.
Every single major news outlet has covered this and only a nutjob would say otherwise.
Many of them mention 16 trillion in bailout or rescue.
The only mention of payback I could find is the 9 trillion you linked to.
I can understand why you think bailing out financial institutions is more important than putting people to work and keeping people in their homes. But please don't pretend that there is no scandal here. The scandal is that there are unlimited funds for the wealthiest and there aint shit for people in my neighborhood. And the day that the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times tells that story will be a new day in America.
Dude, the GAO report uncovered a lot of shady schitt--nobody disputes that.
But nowhere in the report is there any support for the idea that the Fed has 16 trillion in bad loans hanging out there.
None of this is about "routine business transaction".
I take that back. "Bailing out" and "rescuing" financial institutions is "routine business".
The 16 trillion that is referenced is not normal overnight loans. I know you want to protect the banks, but with out the bailouts that Federal Reserve, and Treasury, and Congress gave to them they all would have failed. Do you really believe that Lehman Brothers paid back every penny the Fed loaned them?
Do you remember the TARP bailout? 3 trillion dollars, right? The reason for TARP was that the Fed and Treasury had already given the big banks and insurance companies every dime they had. Now if the the banks had paid that money back the next morning, as you claim they did, there would have been no crisis and no need for TARP.
I know you remember all that, what I don't know is why you keep saying it never happened.
In fact you quoted about it:
Do you understand what "This is, however, a fair representation of the level of aid the banks needed during the financial crisis." means? It means they needed aid. I know you're not familiar with the language of finance, but that's what it means. I have never, ever seen a news story about "Citibank did not need to be bailed out" and I don't suppose I ever will, because they needed billions to stay open while they moved their loses off their books and onto others.
The news here, is that the Fed has never before opened it's books. It is just starting to now, and it is news. Big news and every single news outlet is covering it. What is being reveled is that the amount of money that was given to financial institutions during the melt down is much larger than had been revealed before. We have also "learned" Fed is rife with conflict of interest, which is not news to nutjobs, but is news to the readers of WSJ, NYT, WP.
And I could go on and on.
Every single major news outlet has covered this and only a nutjob would say otherwise.
Many of them mention 16 trillion in bailout or rescue.
The only mention of payback I could find is the 9 trillion you linked to.
I can understand why you think bailing out financial institutions is more important than putting people to work and keeping people in their homes. But please don't pretend that there is no scandal here. The scandal is that there are unlimited funds for the wealthiest and there aint shit for people in my neighborhood. And the day that the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times tells that story will be a new day in America.
Dude, the GAO report uncovered a lot of shady schitt--nobody disputes that.
But nowhere in the report is there any support for the idea that the Fed has 16 trillion in bad loans hanging out there.
Your poast is the worst sort of strawmanning.
I'm not sure what you are talking about. I never said there was 16 trillion in bad loans.
I don't suppose it occurred to any of the folks outraged by this that the Fed doesn't have 16 trillion to lend out at any given time. If it did, we wouldn't be in debt.
I can't speak for any of the others outraged to some degree by this, but it's been explicitly stated numerous times in all the articles linked here that the loans were made over a period of 3 years and the $16 trillion was cumulative over that period, not one time. No one ever said otherwise to my knowledge.
OK, the Bailout, which Bush signed and Obama supported was a huge bailout of financial institutions.
The Obama Stimulus had nothing to do with financial institutions. It was a comparatively small amount that was sold as a jobs and infrastructure package and mostly went to state governments so that they would not have to make as severe budget cuts as they would have with out the money.
To me that is a significant difference.
If your point is that Obama supported the bank bailout and continues to support welfare for large financial institutions then yes, I agree.
I don't suppose it occurred to any of the folks outraged by this that the Fed doesn't have 16 trillion to lend out at any given time.
If it did, we wouldn't be in debt.
I'm blinded by a shroud of secrecy....and I'm ascared Norton.
HarveyCanal"a distraction from my main thesis." 13,234 Posts
sakedelic said:
Horseleech said:
I don't suppose it occurred to any of the folks outraged by this that the Fed doesn't have 16 trillion to lend out at any given time. If it did, we wouldn't be in debt.
I can't speak for any of the others outraged to some degree by this, but it's been explicitly stated numerous times in all the articles linked here that the loans were made over a period of 3 years and the $16 trillion was cumulative over that period, not one time. No one ever said otherwise to my knowledge.
I'm looking for a balance sheet in the report and not finding it, only peak loan amounts outstanding by borrowing entity. But considering all involved: a. that the report calls many of the loans at least initially "secret", b. that the loans had compromised hands all over them, c. that the loans weren't necesssarily used to achieve the stated and mutually agreed upon goal of the loans, and d. that if $16 trillion is going to be loaned to anyone, it shouldn't be to the greediest, shadiest, non-producing sector of our economy/society. Why people on this site feel the need to defend any of this as routine business practice is beyond me.
I don't suppose it occurred to any of the folks outraged by this that the Fed doesn't have 16 trillion to lend out at any given time. If it did, we wouldn't be in debt.
I can't speak for any of the others outraged to some degree by this, but it's been explicitly stated numerous times in all the articles linked here that the loans were made over a period of 3 years and the $16 trillion was cumulative over that period, not one time. No one ever said otherwise to my knowledge.
I'm looking for a balance sheet in the report and not finding it, only peak loan amounts outstanding by borrowing entity. But considering all involved: a. that the report calls many of the loans at least initially "secret", b. that the loans had compromised hands all over them, c. that the loans weren't necesssarily used to achieve the stated and mutually agreed upon goal of the loans, and d. that if $16 trillion is going to be loaned to anyone, it shouldn't be to the greediest, shadiest, non-producing sector of our economy/society. Why people on this site feel the need to defend any of this as routine business practice is beyond me.
I guess you missed this part:
Horseleech said:
Should the Fed be audited? Sure. Are they shady as fuk? Absolutely.
They're not actually going to let it get that far, are they?
What's the point in having a debt ceiling, if it's raised every time the ceiling is reached. The US debt is unsustainable, so a default is inevitable. If i were a US citizen, i'd rather have the government default on the $1.6 trillion owed to the Fed (fictional debt), than default on it's own citizens by devaluing the dollar to make it easier to pay off debt.
Comments
Does it fucking matter at this point whether Bush or Obama did it?
Did what?
My point is simply that the Stimulus package is not the Bailout. Some fools seem to think they are the same thing.
Boils down to this: The FED handed out $16 trillion interest free to failing banks and failing corporations that can't pay it back on the pretext of saving the economy. But the economy is still in the toilet, people have lost & continue to lose jobs, homes and some probably their lives as a direct result of the actions of the same people getting this money and the current debt-ceiling debate over a $1.5 trillion deficit has Republicans threatening to force more hardships on the homeless, the sick, the unemployed, & the least wealthy citizens while, again, the wealthiest, a group which most certainly includes those bailed out, are being protected from sharing this burden and even given more breaks.
Sorry but I'm in smack-on-site mode when it comes to anyone addressing the current universal situation along party lines.
And of course by "wealthiest" you mean anyone with a private sector job. And when you say "share the burden" you mean pay for the whole thing.
What are you--illiterate? That. Never. Happened.
I thought it was the public employees union members who were over paid. Now your telling me it is the kid at the theater concession counter.
I don't think taxing the capitol gains of the kid at the concession counter at the same rate as her income is the same as "pay for the whole thing".
No and no. You probably won't need to rely on your extraordinary ability to read minds to tell me what I'm thinking right now though.
So, they didn't get $16 trillion? Or 0% interest isn't "interest free"? Or they can pay it back? If they can pay it back, why don't they?
If these were short-term "overnight" loans then I'm woefully misinformed, because everything I've read about this audit says virtually none of the loans have been repaid.
If it's no big thing to give $16 trillion to a bunch of white-collar criminals, what's the big deal about a $1.5 trillion deficit? Why is every Republican cut proposed prefaced with "there's just no $ for_____"?
I do admit I understand very little about "economics" but I'm trying to wrap my head around this. Maybe SS isn't the best place to look for answers, since this thread isn't helping. And, as you can tell by my prose style, I am also quite illiterate..
Those are short-term loans. Many of them were for as little as eight hours. They were secured by collateral and they were repaid.
You will not find a single reputable news source reporting otherwise. You will, however, find plenty of goldbugs, Ron Paul supporters and stormfront posters ringing their hands over it.
You can also read the GAO report for yourself, rather than relying upon such people to misinterpret it for you:
http://sanders.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/GAO Fed Investigation.pdf
I have looked at Larry Moe and Bob and Stan's link.
I have looked at the Washington Post.
I have looked at the Wall Street Journal.
I have not read the report.
From what I am seeing all sources agree there was 16 trillion in what these sources call "bailouts/rescue".
The 9 trillion in overnight loans, according to cnn, was paid back.
No source I have seen suggests that the other 7 trillion has been paid back.
In fact, none called them loans.
I am not saying it hasn't, but it was given as a bailout/rescue, according to mainstream, non-right-wing-nut-ron-paul sites and non-left-wing-communist-bernie-sanders-sites.
Can anyone provide a link stating that the other 7 trillion has been paid back?
What the WP and WSJ both agree upon is that the audit is news.
That it is an unprecedented level of transparence in the Feds workings.
That conflict of interest is rife at the Fed. And they are SHOCKED!
I got riled up by a FB post linking the Unelected article. Had no idea that was a Ron Paul/Libertarian deal there. I'm no Ron Paul fan or Libertarian.
As regards my misunderstanding of this audit, the main culprit was that one sentence in the Unelected article which stated:
"The Federal Reserve likes to refer to these secret bailouts as an all-inclusive loan program, but virtually none of the money has been returned and it was loaned out at 0% interest."
I saw versions of that same sentence in almost every article that came up when I googled "FED $16 trillion audit".
I'm not seeing that at all.
Washington Post:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/federal-reserve-audit-highlights-possible-conflicts-of-interest/2011/07/21/gIQAJbbnSI_story.html
Bloomberg:
Removed by soulstrut administrator
And:
Removed by soulstrut administrator
Wall Street Journal:
http://online.wsj.com/article
And:
/SB10001424053111903461104576460071684093668.html?KEYWORDS=reserve+audit
NBC:
http://www.cnbc.com/id/43856550
And I could go on and on.
Every single major news outlet has covered this and only a nutjob would say otherwise.
Many of them mention 16 trillion in bailout or rescue.
The only mention of payback I could find is the 9 trillion you linked to.
I can understand why you think bailing out financial institutions is more important than putting people to work and keeping people in their homes. But please don't pretend that there is no scandal here. The scandal is that there are unlimited funds for the wealthiest and there aint shit for people in my neighborhood. And the day that the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times tells that story will be a new day in America.
The CBO said in a Tuesday night letter to Boehner that the speaker???s plan would achieve about $850 billion in deficit savings over the next decade, not the $1.2 trillion touted by House GOP leadership since the proposal was unveiled Monday night.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/2chambers/post/budget-office-says-boehner-plan-falls-short-leaders-vow-to-re-work-plan/2011/07/26/gIQAVPnYbI_blog.html
Dude, the GAO report uncovered a lot of shady schitt--nobody disputes that.
But nowhere in the report is there any support for the idea that the Fed has 16 trillion in bad loans hanging out there.
Your poast is the worst sort of strawmanning.
I take that back. "Bailing out" and "rescuing" financial institutions is "routine business".
The 16 trillion that is referenced is not normal overnight loans. I know you want to protect the banks, but with out the bailouts that Federal Reserve, and Treasury, and Congress gave to them they all would have failed. Do you really believe that Lehman Brothers paid back every penny the Fed loaned them?
Do you remember the TARP bailout? 3 trillion dollars, right? The reason for TARP was that the Fed and Treasury had already given the big banks and insurance companies every dime they had. Now if the the banks had paid that money back the next morning, as you claim they did, there would have been no crisis and no need for TARP.
I know you remember all that, what I don't know is why you keep saying it never happened.
In fact you quoted about it:
Do you understand what "This is, however, a fair representation of the level of aid the banks needed during the financial crisis." means? It means they needed aid. I know you're not familiar with the language of finance, but that's what it means. I have never, ever seen a news story about "Citibank did not need to be bailed out" and I don't suppose I ever will, because they needed billions to stay open while they moved their loses off their books and onto others.
The news here, is that the Fed has never before opened it's books. It is just starting to now, and it is news. Big news and every single news outlet is covering it. What is being reveled is that the amount of money that was given to financial institutions during the melt down is much larger than had been revealed before. We have also "learned" Fed is rife with conflict of interest, which is not news to nutjobs, but is news to the readers of WSJ, NYT, WP.
I'm not sure what you are talking about. I never said there was 16 trillion in bad loans.
If it did, we wouldn't be in debt.
I'm blinded by a shroud of secrecy....and I'm ascared Norton.
I can't speak for any of the others outraged to some degree by this, but it's been explicitly stated numerous times in all the articles linked here that the loans were made over a period of 3 years and the $16 trillion was cumulative over that period, not one time. No one ever said otherwise to my knowledge.
OK, replace 'stimulus' with 'bailout'. It doesn't change my post, or anything else, at all.
The audit includes the first year and a half of Obama's term, btw.
Do you actually think there is a difference between the 'Bush Bailout' and the 'Obama Bailout'?
If you do, it's your turn to be the fool.
Hint: Obama appointed the main architect of the "Bush Bailout' to be our current Secretary of the Treasury.
The Obama Stimulus had nothing to do with financial institutions. It was a comparatively small amount that was sold as a jobs and infrastructure package and mostly went to state governments so that they would not have to make as severe budget cuts as they would have with out the money.
To me that is a significant difference.
If your point is that Obama supported the bank bailout and continues to support welfare for large financial institutions then yes, I agree.
I'm looking for a balance sheet in the report and not finding it, only peak loan amounts outstanding by borrowing entity. But considering all involved: a. that the report calls many of the loans at least initially "secret", b. that the loans had compromised hands all over them, c. that the loans weren't necesssarily used to achieve the stated and mutually agreed upon goal of the loans, and d. that if $16 trillion is going to be loaned to anyone, it shouldn't be to the greediest, shadiest, non-producing sector of our economy/society. Why people on this site feel the need to defend any of this as routine business practice is beyond me.
I guess you missed this part:
Yeah, stunning defense.
I do. One was a "bailout", the other wasn't. That's a big difference.
HAHA. But the Fed well lend $220 million at 0% interest (Or close to) and no risk to rich wives for investment purposes.
Damn ???free-market??? and socialism...
Once again. My argument isn't so much as to how much was lent and how many times. But transparency and oversight.
Embarrassment for Congress speaker John Boehner after budget office finds $350bn hole in his original proposal. What is it with Republicans and their aversion to facts? Whether or not he cries again, why is Boehner risking default for political point-scoring?
They're not actually going to let it get that far, are they?
What's the point in having a debt ceiling, if it's raised every time the ceiling is reached. The US debt is unsustainable, so a default is inevitable. If i were a US citizen, i'd rather have the government default on the $1.6 trillion owed to the Fed (fictional debt), than default on it's own citizens by devaluing the dollar to make it easier to pay off debt.