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.
If I were a US citizen, I'd rather have (income) taxes raised on the rich to pay off debt and more spending money for the poor, who tend to reinvest their money back into the economy faster than the rich who like to sit on interest.
But either way, I'd expect them to bury their differences to avert a second collapse.
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.
If I were a US citizen, I'd rather have (income) taxes raised on the rich to pay off debt and more spending money for the poor, who tend to reinvest their money back into the economy faster than the rich who like to sit on interest.
But either way, I'd expect them to bury their differences to avert a second collapse.
Why not balance the budget and try to live within your means? Having troops in 150 countries and fighting 6 wars at a time might not be the smartest thing to do when your country is virtually bankrupt.
I agree with your last point though.
HarveyCanal"a distraction from my main thesis." 13,234 Posts
Producing is how you keep an economy afloat. It's not done by propping up banks who are merely playing with Monopoly money anyway.
Yes, this practice has been routine. And those criticizing it now are simply saying it needs to be curbed, especially when done in such excess and without oversight.
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.
If I were a US citizen, I'd rather have (income) taxes raised on the rich to pay off debt and more spending money for the poor, who tend to reinvest their money back into the economy faster than the rich who like to sit on interest.
But either way, I'd expect them to bury their differences to avert a second collapse.
You live on Gumdrop Island if you think that will work. You could steal every dime from every millionaire in the United States and it still wouldn't be enough to pay down the debt. Tax cuts don't create a debt, spending create's debt.
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.
The US debt is not unsustainable.
It may be sustainable with a 7% inflation rate but that was kinda my point.
HarveyCanal"a distraction from my main thesis." 13,234 Posts
WhoIsStanPapi said:
DOR said:
WhoIsStanPapi said:
pissed because the Fed won't help your pal Freddy buy a used Kia...
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.
Um, what? Does this have anything to do with the Fed audit?
Obviously, you haven't read one word of the audit report as its opening summary alone comes right out the box citing conflict of interest issues.
Plus, engaging the audit in the first place had everything to do with transparency and oversight.
Not a surprise, but you seem to be using this audit as some grandstand to spout out your own preconceived venom toward those who merely want to see what the Fed has been up to and why.
HarveyCanal"a distraction from my main thesis." 13,234 Posts
You don't even make sense. One post you say you are good with the Fed being audited. And then in the next you say it only happened because you hold some sort of irrational hatred toward Ron Paul. Maybe you should change your name again to: He Ban Me.
Cobra. Called 'spitting', but I think that with no lips, no lung-function involved, 'spouting' the venom from their fangs would actually be more accurate.
HarveyCanal"a distraction from my main thesis." 13,234 Posts
Yeah, he's a complete nut for not wanting this criminal extraction of wealth and inevitable default/collapse to happen in the first place.
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 necessarily 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.
Producing is how you keep an economy afloat. It's not done by propping up banks...
Yes, this practice has been routine. And those criticizing it now are simply saying it needs to be curbed, especially when done in such excess and without oversight.
HarveyCanal"a distraction from my main thesis." 13,234 Posts
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.
It is routine business practice, and I'm having a hard time seeing why the fact that there was an unusually high volume of these short term loans during a time of extreme financial volatility makes it anything else.
I haven't seen one shred of evidence that there was any corruption or criminal behavior here.
Neither has anyone else. There have been vague political taunts about undue influence. I'm not impressed. At that level of finance EVERYONE has undue influence. But it still doesn't matter if the loans were being repaid.
People are confusing these short-term loans with long-term bailout funds, and they're just not remotely comparable. Banks have been buying funds short-term for decades. It's never been an issue running through several generations of banking scandals. It's just a task the Fed has dealt with as part of its overall goals of facilitating the economy.
Now if you have no idea how any of this works and you're pissed because the Fed won't help your pal Freddy buy a used Kia... I really don't know how to begin explaining any of this to you. Just go to Whole Foods and buy some pasta salad and some organic juice and feel better about your lives. Ride your bike uphill both ways.
I have endless problems with this society but complaining about this non-issue is less compelling than complaining about the Interstate Highway system.
You have read the news stories.
I have also read the news stories.
I think the Fed getting audited is a big deal, and I thank the original poster for pointing it out.
You think it is not a big deal and call anyone who does a nut. Fine, we disagree.
I think it is a big deal that the mainstream press is reporting about conflict of interest at the Fed.
You think it is not a big deal and call anyone who does a nut. Fine, we disagree.
I think the money pumped into Lehman Brothers and other financial institutions just before they collapsed was not paid back the next morning and I don't think it was a routine business loan.
You think it was and call anyone who disagrees a nut. Fine, we disagree.
You think you understand how all this works, but your posts leave me wondering.
As for Faux Rills, first you call me a nazi, then you call me a troll.
Fuck you, you asshole.
He voted for the Bush tax cuts. He doesn't support the Ryan plan to kill Medicare because he doesn't think it goes far enough. He wants to kill the social safety net off completely. No more welfare, public health care, or Social Security.
He wants to give people the opportunity to opt out and would direct the funds saved from overseas adventures to help those who became dependent on the system. You can't blame him for letting people op out with liabilities like this:
Bottom line: Taxpayers are now on the hook for a record $59.1 trillion in liabilities, a 2.3% increase from 2006. That amount is equal to $516,348 for every U.S. household. By comparison, U.S. households owe an average of $112,043 for mortgages, car loans, credit cards and all other debt combined.
Unfunded promises made for Medicare, Social Security and federal retirement programs account for 85% of taxpayer liabilities. State and local government retirement plans account for much of the rest.
(And of course he wants to ban abortion and he hates him some homos. Oh, and he thinks segregated lunch counters are A-OK. Some hero you've got there.)
He's against killing the unborn? That's horrible.
Oh, and he hates homos so much that he had an openly gay Campaign Chairman in the last campaign. Yeah, that makes sense.
And why would you, or anyone, want to eat at a segregated lunch counter? If a racist is serving food, don't you think people might want to know about his/her racial hatred to avoid eating food that's been messed with.
You have read the news stories.
I have also read the news stories.
I think the Fed getting audited is a big deal, and I thank the original poster for pointing it out.
You think it is not a big deal and call anyone who does a nut. Fine, we disagree.
I think it is a big deal that the mainstream press is reporting about conflict of interest at the Fed.
You think it is not a big deal and call anyone who does a nut. Fine, we disagree.
I think the money pumped into Lehman Brothers and other financial institutions just before they collapsed was not paid back the next morning and I don't think it was a routine business loan.
You think it was and call anyone who disagrees a nut. Fine, we disagree.
You think you understand how all this works, but your posts leave me wondering.
Your posts don't leave me wondering. I'm quite sure you don't know how any of this works.
We've both read the news stories, but I understand them and you don't.
I think the audit of the Fed isn't a big deal, but I don't call everyone who thinks otherwise a nut.
When you say, "I think the money pumped into Lehman Brothers and other financial institutions just before they collapsed was not paid back the next morning and I don't think it was a routine business loan, " what is the basis for your thinking? Surely you must have something beyond your profound knowledge of the banking system.
My thinking is like this. Besides you and Faux Rills I have never read or heard anyone say that Lehman Brothers and other failed institutions paid back every dime they borrowed from the Federal Reserve.
If you can show me a news article that says they did I might believe it.
The only ones you have pointed to say that 9tr out of 16tr loaned has been paid back. Those articles also called those loans bailouts and rescues.
Yet you continue to think they were routine overnight loans. What is the basis for your thinking? Surely you must have something beyond your profound knowledge of the banking system.
I have seen lots of articles that say that TARP funds were "paid back" with overvalued stock and toxic assets. Not US$s.
Now we are getting somewhere. Agreement. Except...
"These were short term "loans" that are the very foundation of our economic system. Banks borrow from the Fed and pay it back - it's how money circulates. To call these transactions "bailouts" or "secret" is some low level fringe nut shit worthy of Ron Paul's wackiest conspiracy-nut followers. "
^Here you say it was paid back.
You also say that calling it bailouts or secret is " low level fringe nut shit". The Federal Reserve called these loans "emergency Assistance" I hardly think you have to be a conspiracy-nut call emergency assistance a bailout.
And the details of this program were secret until an act of congress over the objections of the Fed forced the audit.
"The fact is that this "story" isn't getting much coverage because there's no real scandal here. None. And the money has been repaid."
^Here you repeat the money was repaid.
Finally, you repeatedly say this was business as usual. Then you to prove your point you point me to a report the first sentence of which says this was an EMERGENCY.
Anyway, seems we are both in agreement.
The Fed, was forced to loan trillions to failing institutions, some (even most) of that money was paid back, after those same institutions were loaned trillions by Treasury and then Congress.
The loans were not business as usual, they were emergency assistance.
This was done in secret, the size even surprised Fed watchers (as you posted earlier) until Congress forced the audit.
Much of the pay back that Treasury and Congress received (and perhaps the Fed too) was in the form of shares and toxic assets.
Oops, here we go from the first paragraph of the link you provided:
"In 2009 and 2010, FRBNY also executed large-scale purchases of agency mortgage-backed securities to
support the housing market."
So not only do we have what you would call "routine" but the fed calls "emergency" overnight loans but the "large-scale" purchases of toxic assets by the Fed.
I gotta read more of this report, this is getting good. I haven't even finished the first paragraph.
as much as i hate to admit it, lmj is kinda right on this stuff for the most part; at least for interpreting the facts. i do encourage laserwolf to use this thread as his blog for posting his findings every fifteen minutes while reading that tome of zzzzzzzzzz
Comments
If I were a US citizen, I'd rather have (income) taxes raised on the rich to pay off debt and more spending money for the poor, who tend to reinvest their money back into the economy faster than the rich who like to sit on interest.
But either way, I'd expect them to bury their differences to avert a second collapse.
So the auto industry bailout wasn't a bailout?
Do tell.
Why not balance the budget and try to live within your means? Having troops in 150 countries and fighting 6 wars at a time might not be the smartest thing to do when your country is virtually bankrupt.
I agree with your last point though.
Yes, this practice has been routine. And those criticizing it now are simply saying it needs to be curbed, especially when done in such excess and without oversight.
You live on Gumdrop Island if you think that will work. You could steal every dime from every millionaire in the United States and it still wouldn't be enough to pay down the debt. Tax cuts don't create a debt, spending create's debt.
I thought the wealth was supposed to trickle down?
So heavier taxation wouldn't help?
There's not going to be any quick-fixes, but you'd expect some of the issues of 'leaving everything to the markets' to be addressed.
Arguing probable/possible solutions aside, where is this going? Are the Repubs hoping for a vote of no confidence in Obama if things get rough enough?
Wait? Somebody still has confidence in Obama?
The um, audit was how they found out that this happened.
I'm not sure we're having the same argument. You're all for the government to be able to audit the fed right?
It may be sustainable with a 7% inflation rate but that was kinda my point.
Obviously, you haven't read one word of the audit report as its opening summary alone comes right out the box citing conflict of interest issues.
Plus, engaging the audit in the first place had everything to do with transparency and oversight.
Not a surprise, but you seem to be using this audit as some grandstand to spout out your own preconceived venom toward those who merely want to see what the Fed has been up to and why.
Cobra. Called 'spitting', but I think that with no lips, no lung-function involved, 'spouting' the venom from their fangs would actually be more accurate.
You made a mistake. You called a bailout a stimulus. They are not the same thing.
You could admit it, or you could keep arguing.
You have read the news stories.
I have also read the news stories.
I think the Fed getting audited is a big deal, and I thank the original poster for pointing it out.
You think it is not a big deal and call anyone who does a nut. Fine, we disagree.
I think it is a big deal that the mainstream press is reporting about conflict of interest at the Fed.
You think it is not a big deal and call anyone who does a nut. Fine, we disagree.
I think the money pumped into Lehman Brothers and other financial institutions just before they collapsed was not paid back the next morning and I don't think it was a routine business loan.
You think it was and call anyone who disagrees a nut. Fine, we disagree.
You think you understand how all this works, but your posts leave me wondering.
As for Faux Rills, first you call me a nazi, then you call me a troll.
Fuck you, you asshole.
He wants to give people the opportunity to opt out and would direct the funds saved from overseas adventures to help those who became dependent on the system. You can't blame him for letting people op out with liabilities like this:
He's against killing the unborn? That's horrible.
Oh, and he hates homos so much that he had an openly gay Campaign Chairman in the last campaign. Yeah, that makes sense.
And why would you, or anyone, want to eat at a segregated lunch counter? If a racist is serving food, don't you think people might want to know about his/her racial hatred to avoid eating food that's been messed with.
My thinking is like this. Besides you and Faux Rills I have never read or heard anyone say that Lehman Brothers and other failed institutions paid back every dime they borrowed from the Federal Reserve.
If you can show me a news article that says they did I might believe it.
The only ones you have pointed to say that 9tr out of 16tr loaned has been paid back. Those articles also called those loans bailouts and rescues.
Yet you continue to think they were routine overnight loans. What is the basis for your thinking? Surely you must have something beyond your profound knowledge of the banking system.
I have seen lots of articles that say that TARP funds were "paid back" with overvalued stock and toxic assets. Not US$s.
I already did. If it makes you feel better I'll admit it again.
Please explain how there were no bailouts under Obama, because I think Obama himself would be surprised to know that.
Now we are getting somewhere. Agreement. Except...
"These were short term "loans" that are the very foundation of our economic system. Banks borrow from the Fed and pay it back - it's how money circulates. To call these transactions "bailouts" or "secret" is some low level fringe nut shit worthy of Ron Paul's wackiest conspiracy-nut followers. "
^Here you say it was paid back.
You also say that calling it bailouts or secret is " low level fringe nut shit". The Federal Reserve called these loans "emergency Assistance" I hardly think you have to be a conspiracy-nut call emergency assistance a bailout.
And the details of this program were secret until an act of congress over the objections of the Fed forced the audit.
"The fact is that this "story" isn't getting much coverage because there's no real scandal here. None. And the money has been repaid."
^Here you repeat the money was repaid.
Finally, you repeatedly say this was business as usual. Then you to prove your point you point me to a report the first sentence of which says this was an EMERGENCY.
Anyway, seems we are both in agreement.
The Fed, was forced to loan trillions to failing institutions, some (even most) of that money was paid back, after those same institutions were loaned trillions by Treasury and then Congress.
The loans were not business as usual, they were emergency assistance.
This was done in secret, the size even surprised Fed watchers (as you posted earlier) until Congress forced the audit.
Much of the pay back that Treasury and Congress received (and perhaps the Fed too) was in the form of shares and toxic assets.
So now that we agree can we walk away?
That link doesn't work.
"In 2009 and 2010, FRBNY also executed large-scale purchases of agency mortgage-backed securities to
support the housing market."
So not only do we have what you would call "routine" but the fed calls "emergency" overnight loans but the "large-scale" purchases of toxic assets by the Fed.
I gotta read more of this report, this is getting good. I haven't even finished the first paragraph.
Here is the address:
http://sanders.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/GAO Fed Investigation.pdf
You have to cut and paste the whole thing.
Great read.
Ah. No moving the goalposts. You weren't referring to the auto bailout. You were referring the stimulus package. Nice try.
as much as i hate to admit it, lmj is kinda right on this stuff for the most part; at least for interpreting the facts. i do encourage laserwolf to use this thread as his blog for posting his findings every fifteen minutes while reading that tome of zzzzzzzzzz
There are people all around the world who would love to see that happen.
They sit on a pedestal of undistinguished life failure with nothing to lose and cheer for it to happen.
Some are American citizens, some are not.
Some claim to be socialists, some claim to be communists, some are just assholes.
I have personally spoken to people who think America and Americans deserve to suffer.
I unabashedly say Fuck Them.