Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: When Will People Wake Up and Realize the Federal Reserve is the Fucking Problem?

Posted 2 years ago on June 19, 2012, 2:01 p.m. EST by TrevorMnemonic (5827)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Citigroup, Morgan Stanley, Merrill Lynch and Bank of America, received more than a TRILLION dollars each from the Federal Reserve.

Zero Media Coverage. OVER 16 trillion in bailouts! THIS IS A FACT

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d11696.pdf

Page 131 - The total lending for the Fed's "broad-based emergency programs" was $16,115,000,000,000. That's right, more than $16 trillion. The four largest recipients, Citigroup, Morgan Stanley, Merrill Lynch and Bank of America, received more than a trillion dollars each. The 5th largest recipient was Barclays PLC. The 8th was the Royal Bank of Scotland Group, PLC. The 9th was Deutsche Bank AG. The 10th was UBS AG. These four institutions each got between a quarter of a trillion and a trillion dollars. None of them is an American bank.

Pages 133 & 137 - Some of these "broad-based emergency program" loans were long-term, and some were short-term. But the "term-adjusted borrowing" was equivalent to a total of $1,139,000,000,000 more than one year. That's more than $1 trillion out the door. Lending for these programs in fact peaked at more than $1 trillion.

Pages 135 & 196 - Sixty percent of the $738 billion "Commercial Paper Funding Facility" went to the subsidiaries of foreign banks. 36% of the $71 billion Term Asset-Backed Securities Loan Facility also went to subsidiaries of foreign banks.

Page 205 - Separate and apart from these "broad-based emergency program" loans were another $10,057,000,000,000 in "currency swaps." In the "currency swaps," the Fed handed dollars to foreign central banks, no strings attached, to fund bailouts in other countries. The Fed's only "collateral" was a corresponding amount of foreign currency, which never left the Fed's books (even to be deposited to earn interest), plus a promise to repay. But the Fed agreed to give back the foreign currency at the original exchange rate, even if the foreign currency appreciated in value during the period of the swap. These currency swaps and the "broad-based emergency program" loans, together, totaled more than $26 trillion. That's almost $100,000 for every man, woman, and child in America. That's an amount equal to more than seven years of federal spending -- on the military, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, interest on the debt, and everything else. And around twice American's total GNP.

Continued... Read more specifics here - written by Alan Grayson - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rep-alan-grayson/the-fed-bailouts-money-fo_b_1129988.html

65 Comments

65 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 3 points by doitagain (234) from Brooklyn, NY 2 years ago

BRAVO

[-] 2 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

OWS did, before it went to went downhill.

Tea did, before it went downhill.

Many do, but its the holy grail of the establishment, and they will stop at nothing to protect it.

[-] 1 points by nomdeguerre (1775) from Brooklyn, NY 2 years ago

Don't forget, the Fed to the States: drop dead.

"Ben Bernanke announced that the Fed had ruled out a central bank bailout of state and local governments. “We have no expectation or intention to get involved in state and local finance,” he said in testimony before the Senate Budget Committee. The states “should not expect loans from the Fed.” http://markcrispinmiller.com/2011/01/fed-to-main-street-drop-dead/

However the Fed did illegally bail out European banks and participate in the illegal "AIG bailout" passthrough to derivative swindle counterparties, at a dollar on a dollar.

The Fed: unAmerican criminals.

[to hchc, I hope you don't mind my hitchhiking on your comment.]

[-] 2 points by LeoYo (5878) 2 years ago

JPMorgan Derivatives Prop Up US Debt: Why the Senate Won't Touch Jamie Dimon

Tuesday, 19 June 2012 14:33 By Ellen Brown, Truthout | News Analysis http://truth-out.org/news/item/9876-the-jpmorgan-derivatives-propping-up-us-debt-why-the-senate-wont-touch-jamie-dimon

When Jamie Dimon, CEO of JPMorgan Chase Bank, appeared before the Senate Banking Committee on June 13, he was wearing cufflinks bearing the presidential seal. "Was Dimon trying to send any particular message by wearing the presidential cufflinks?" asked CNBC editor John Carney. "Was he ... subtly hinting that he's really the guy in charge?"

The groveling of the senators was so obvious that Jon Stewart did a spoof news clip on it, featured in a Huffington Post piece titled "Jon Stewart Blasts Senate's Coddling Of JP Morgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon," and Matt Taibbi wrote an op-ed called "Senators Grovel, Embarrass Themselves at Dimon Hearing." He said the whole thing was painful to watch.

"What is going on with this panel of senators?" asked Stewart. "They're sucking up to Jamie Dimon like they're on JPMorgan's payroll." The explanation in a news clip that followed was that JPMorgan Chase (JPM) is the biggest campaign donor to many of the members of the Banking Committee.

That is one obvious answer, but financial analysts Jim Willie and Rob Kirby think it may be something far larger, deeper and more ominous. They contend that the $3 billion-plus losses in London hedging transactions that were the subject of the hearing can be traced, not to European sovereign debt (as alleged), but to the record low interest rates maintained on US government bonds. The national debt is growing at $1.5 trillion per year. Ultra-low interest rates MUST be maintained to prevent the debt from overwhelming the government budget. Near-zero rates also need to be maintained because even a moderate rise would cause multitrillion dollar derivative losses for the banks and would remove the banks' chief income stream, the arbitrage afforded by borrowing at 0 percent and investing at higher rates.

The low rates are maintained by interest rate swaps, called by Willie a "derivative tool which controls the bond market in a devious artificial manner." How they control it is complicated and is explored in detail in the Willie piece here and Kirby piece here.

Kirby contended that the only organization large enough to act as counterparty to some of these trades is the US Treasury itself. He suspected the Treasury's Exchange Stabilization Fund, a covert entity without oversight and accountable to no one. Kirby also noted that if publicly traded companies (including JPM, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley) are deemed to be integral to US national security (meaning protecting the integrity of the dollar), they can legally be excused from reporting their true financial condition. They are allowed to keep two sets of books.

Interest rate swaps are now over 80 percent of the massive derivatives market and JPM holds about $57.5 trillion of them. Without the protective JPM swaps, interest rates on US debt could follow those of Greece and climb to 30 percent. CEO Dimon could, then, indeed be "the guy in charge": he could be controlling the lever propping up the whole US financial system.

Hero or Felon?

So, should Dimon be regarded as a national hero? Not if past conduct is any gauge. Besides the recent $3 billion in JPM losses, which look more like illegal speculation than legal hedging, there is JPM's use of its conflicting positions as clearing house and creditor of MF Global to siphon off funds that should have gone into customer accounts and its responsibility in dooming Lehman Brothers by withholding $7 billion in cash and collateral. There is also the fact that Dimon sat on the board of the New York Federal Reserve when it lent $55 billion to JPM] in 2008 to buy Bear Stearns for pennies on the dollar. Dimon then owned nearly three million shares of JPM stock and options, in clear violation of 18 USC Section 208, which makes that sort of conflict of interest a felony.

Financial analyst John Olagues, a former stock options market maker, pointed out that the loan was guaranteed by $55 billion of Bear Stearns assets. If Bear had that much in assets, the Fed could have given it the loan directly, saving it from being swallowed up by JPM. But Bear did not have a director on the board of the New York Fed.

Olagues also noted that JPM received an additional $25 billion in TARP payments from the Treasury, which were evidently paid off by borrowing from the New York Fed at a very low 0.5 percent; and that JPM executives received some very large and highly suspicious bonuses called Stock Appreciation Rights and Restricted Stock Units (complicated variants of employee stock options and restricted stock). In 2009, these bonuses were granted on the day JPM stock reached its lowest value in five years. The stock quickly rebounded thereafter, substantially increasing the value of the bonuses. This pattern recurred in 2008 and 2012.

Olagues has evidence of systematic computer-generated selling of JPM stock immediately prior to and on the dates of the granted equity compensation. Collusion to manipulate the stock to accommodate the grant of options is called "spring-loading" and is a violation of SEC Rule 10 b-5 and tax laws, with criminal and civil penalties.

All of which suggests we could actually have a felon at the helm of our ship of state.

There is a movement afoot to get Dimon replaced on the board, on the grounds that his directorship represents a clear conflict of interest. In May, Massachusetts Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren called for Dimon's resignation from the New York Fed board and Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders has used the uproar over the speculative JPM losses to promote an overhaul of the Federal Reserve. In a release to reporters, Warren said:

"Four years after the financial crisis, Wall Street has still not been held accountable and that lack of accountability has history repeating itself - huge, risky financial bets leading to billions in losses. It is time for some accountability.... Dimon stepping down from the New York Fed would be at least one small sign that Wall Street will be held accountable for their failures."

But what chance does even this small step have against the gun-to-the-head persuasion of a nightmare collapse of the entire US debt scheme?

Propping Up a Pyramid Scheme

Is there no alternative but to succumb to the Mafia-like Wall Street protection racket of a covert derivatives trade in interest rate swaps? As Willie and Kirby observed, that scheme itself must ultimately fail and may have failed already. They pointed to evidence that the JPM losses are not just $3 billion, but $30 billion or more and that JPM is actually bankrupt.

The derivatives casino itself is just a last-ditch attempt to prop up a private pyramid scheme in fractional-reserve money creation, one that has progressed over several centuries through a series of "reserves" - from gold, to Fed-created "base money," to mortgage-backed securities, to sovereign debt ostensibly protected with derivatives. We've seen that the only real guarantor in all this is the government itself, first with FDIC insurance and then with government bailouts of too-big-to-fail banks. If we, the people, are funding the banks, we should own them; and our national currency should be issued, not through banks at interest, but through our own sovereign government.

Unlike Greece, which is dependent on an uncooperative European Central Bank for funding, the US still has the legal power to issue its own dollars or borrow them interest-free from its own central bank. The government could buy back its bonds and refinance them at 0 percent interest through the Federal Reserve - which now buys them on the open market at interest like everyone else - or it could simply rip them up.

The chief obstacle to that alternative is the bugaboo of inflation, but many countries have proven that this approach need not be inflationary. Canada borrowed from its own central bank effectively interest-free from 1939 to 1974, stimulating productivity without creating inflation; Australia did it from 1912 to 1923; and China has done it for decades.

The private creation of money at interest is the granddaddy of all pyramid schemes; and like all such schemes, it must eventually collapse, despite a quadrillion dollar derivatives edifice propping it up. Willie and Kirby think that time is upon us. We need to have alternative, public and cooperative systems ready to replace the old system when it comes crashing down.

[-] 0 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

Finally a comment in here that isn't defending the Federal Reserve and the big banks on Wall Street.

It's hard to believe with information like this going public that people still defend the Federal Reserve and the big banks.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

How would monetary policy work, without the Fed? I'm just curious what your alternative vision is?

Would you prefer if monetary policy were set by a Congressional office? So that corporate lobbyists could directly influence it?

Would you prefer if monetary policy were handled by the executive branch instead? So that financial markets would brace for uncertainty once every four years during election cycles?

Would you prefer an inelastic system, where no agency anywhere had any control over the money supply? Maybe we go back to using gold coins or something?

[-] 0 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

I agree with Dennis Kucinich's idea in HR 2990

read it here - http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/hr2990/text

Currently there is only one certainty with the federal reserve: Unlimited resources for the banks and almost nothing for the people. The Federal Reserve has trillions of dollars created out of nothing, gives it to the banks, banks keep it on deposit, gain interest, pays high CEO bonuses, fat cat city... all while the rest of America falls apart.

It's time we had a monetary policy that worked for the American people and not just for the big banks.

Do you think creating inflation is a good thing? What do you like so much about the current flawed and corrupt system?

First we need to get money out of politics.

[-] 1 points by LeoYo (5878) 2 years ago

The formation of a Union Reserve Bank can begin the process of replacing the Fed without reliance upon Congress.

[-] 0 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

Okay, so that bill would create a "Monetary Authority" under the Treasury Department, which is an executive department. So under this proposal, monetary policy would no longer be independent. That bill would bring monetary policy under direct control of the President.

Does that really seem like an improvement? To have market uncertainty every four years while we wait to see who will be in charge of monetary policy for the next four years?

[-] 0 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

The current system is fucked and is not working for the people it's working for the banks. So far what Dennis has presented here is the best solution I've seen. I'm open to ideas still. But the current system does not work and until something better than Dennis's idea comes along, I'm with Dennis.

You're leaving out huge elements of the bill.

To create a Monetary Authority which shall pursue a monetary policy based on the governing principle that the supply of money in circulation should not become inflationary nor deflationary in and of itself, but will be sufficient to allow goods and services to move freely in trade in a balanced manner. The Monetary Authority shall maintain long run growth of the monetary and credit aggregates commensurate with the economy’s long run potential to increase production, so as to promote effectively the goals of maximum employment, stable prices, and moderate long-term interest rates.

(2) To create a full employment economy as a matter of national economic defense; to provide for public investment in capital infrastructure; to provide for reducing the cost of public investment; to retire public debt; to stabilize the Social Security retirement system; to restore the authority of Congress to create and regulate money, to modernize and provide stability for the monetary system of the United States, and for other public purposes.

(3) To abolish the creation of money, or purchasing power, by private persons through lending against deposits, by means of fractional reserve banking, or by any other means.

(4) To enable the Federal Government to invest or lend new money into circulation as authorized by Congress and to provide means for public investment in capital infrastructure.

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

The Fed has similar goals: maximum employment, stable prices, and moderate long-term interest rates.

What you're missing here is that the Fed is independent. It's not part of the executive branch and it's not part of the legislative branch. That's what we want, because we don't want lobbyists and the entrenched political corruption in Washington to directly corrupt our monetary policy, and we don't want market uncertainty every four years during election cycles.

What would have happened to our country if monetary policy had become a campaign issue during the financial crisis that started right before the 2008 presidential campaign? Markets would have been paralyzed for months. The uncertainty would have assured a meltdown.

[-] 0 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

you said - "The Fed has similar goals: maximum employment, stable prices, and moderate long-term interest rates."

They're failing at these goals. Prices of everything is going up and we do not have maximum employment and wages are stagnant in the job market for a majority of people.

The current system does not work for the people, it works for the banks. And I think what Dennis has come up with here is the best solution I've seen so far.

What is your solution? You can't honestly think the current system is okay.

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

Before the Fed, there was a financial crisis every couple of years. And I pointed out why I don't think that monetary policy should be controlled by either the executive or the legislative branches. So yes, I do think that the current system is better than any alternative proposal that I've seen so far.

[-] -1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

Agree to disagree.

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

What do you think would have happened if Obama had promised the electorate during the 2008 campaign that he would not print another dollar if he were elected president? Are we agreeing to disagree about that?

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

What if the federal reserve created trillions of dollar from nothing causing massive inflation and propping up fraudulent banks and failing at their job of maximum job creation?

My situation is real. Amendments could be made to avoid your situation. That's why HR 2990 needs to be seen in Congress. That's an easy one to solve. That and congress is in control of the budget.

[-] 2 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

HR2990 Nation Bank? House of Representative bill

Official Summary

The following summary was written by the Congressional Research Service, a nonpartisan arm of the Library of Congress, which serves Congress. GovTrack did not write and has no control over these summaries. 9/21/2011--Introduced.

National Emergency Employment Defense Act of 2011 - Replaces Federal Reserve notes with United States Money. Instructs the Secretary of the Treasury to originate United States Money to address any negative fund balances resulting from a shortfall in available government receipts to fund government appropriations. Subjects to criminal and civil penalties any person who creates or originates United States Money by lending against deposits through "fractional reserve banking." Prohibits borrowing by the Secretary or by any federal agency or department, independent establishment of the executive branch, or any other instrumentality of the United States (other than a national bank, federal savings association, or federal credit union) from any source other than the Secretary. Requires the Secretary to begin to retire all outstanding instruments of U.S. indebtedness by payment in full of the amount legally due the bearer in United States Money. Prescribes requirements for the entry of United States Money into circulation. Directs the Secretary to purchase all net assets in the Federal Reserve System, including the Federal reserve banks. Requires return to any member bank in the form of United States Money of any reserves held by any Federal reserve bank. Establishes: (1) the Monetary Authority to establish monetary supply policy and monitor the nation's monetary status, (2) the Bureau of the Federal Reserve to administer the origination and entry into circulation of United States Money, (3) the Emergency Board to recommend to Congress when a national emergency requires the President to issue a certification of emergency for the exercise of authority by the Monetary Authority as lender of last resort, and (4) a revolving loan fund in the Treasury for relending to banking institutions. Sets forth a conversion process to replace fractional reserve banking with the lending of United States Money. Sets a ceiling on interest rates. Requires the Monetary Authority to instruct the Secretary to disperse monetary grants to states for public infrastructure, education, health care and rehabilitation, pensions, and paying for unfunded federal mandates. Directs the Secretary to make recommendations to Congress for payment of a tax-free Citizens Dividend to all U.S. citizens residing in the United States in order to provide liquidity to the banking system at the commencement of this Act, before governmental infrastructure expenditures have had a chance to work into circulation. Prescribes requirements for federal funding of education programs, coverage of any deficits in Social Security Trust Fund account, a universal health care plan, resolution of aspects of the mortgage crisis, and a program of interest-free lending of United States Money to state and local governmental entities.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/hr2990

looks like national banking system

[-] 2 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

why is this bill called "the emergency jobs act" ?

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

Through this conversation, I've been trying to feel you out to see if you even understand what the Fed does in the first place. I'm not really convinced. Most of the anti-Fed people seem to be driven by paranoia fueled by not understanding what it is.

[-] 0 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

All you've really done is ask me if I think the president should be allowed to "print" money. You haven't done anything to feel out what I know about the federal reserve.

I don't need to feel you out. I already know you come here to disagree with ideas in OWS. Not that's there is anything wrong with that... at least you do it respectfully and you seem to know quite a lot on many issues. We've had conversation in the past. I'd say around november last year.

I believe your solutions are everything is okay. Or do I have you confused with someone else?

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

The question of whether the president should be allowed to print money is the question that matters, when people are proposing giving control over monetary policy to the president. No? Not seeing that is part of why I suspect that you don't understand what the Fed does.

I don't see this as "disagreeing with ideas in OWS" but maybe you do: http://occupywallst.org/forum/common-ground-one-way-forward-there-should-be-no-c/ It sort of depends on how you define "ideas in OWS". Different people here have different ideas. Is 'end the Fed' an OWS idea? Depends on who you ask. I think it's an idea that comes more from associating terms like "quantitative easing" with voodoo and witchcraft. It's natural to fear something that you don't understand.

[-] 0 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

I've never said the president should have 100% control. All I said is you've asked me that.

Nothing in the bill from HR 2990 would give absolute control to the president.

Big part of the bill to remember - To enable the Federal Government to invest or lend new money into circulation as authorized by Congress

I'm a huge Dennis Kucinich supporter. You're not going to get me off this idea. The Fed is working for the banks... not the people. And we need a change. Until I see a better solution to an obvious problem... I am supporting this idea.

You're jumping to conclusions on this bill... I think it is you who is fearing something you do not understand. HR 2990. You saw the word executive and freaked out.

And like I said... before anything like this can actually happen... we need huge advances in campaign finance reform.

[-] 2 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

Gaddafi nationalized banks

and was moving to nationalize oil

[-] 0 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

The bill puts monetary policy under the authority of the White House, not Congress. That would eliminate the Fed's independence, which would politicize decisions about currency and interest rates. That's obviously a bad thing, but I won't bother to talk to you any more about it since you have announced that you have already made up your mind regardless.

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

"the____ Problem"? Maybe if you took your shoes off you could count better.

[-] 0 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

What are you talking about? What I posted here is undeniable fact.

"Unlimited resources for the banks and nothing for the people. Does there exist a more graphic example of how thoroughly rotten this financial system is? The Federal Reserve has trillions of dollars created out of nothing, gives it to the banks, banks keep it on deposit, gain interest, pays high CEO bonuses, fat cat city... all while the rest of America falls apart.

There's another game going on way over our heads. The people are struggling... while the banks with the help of the federal reserve have captured control of our government. Could the threat to our nation's sovereignty be any clearer?"

  • quote Dennis Kucinich
[-] 0 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

"The " is singular. I submit that it is not a fact that there is only one problem. Of course the financial system is thoroughly corrupt. The threat to our national sovereignity et al is the corrupting influence of money on all aspects of governance. The issue you cite is one among many and the whole spectrum pervades every branch of government, every level of government and near government (the Fed) and NGO's, corporations and wealthy individuals acting upon government. You can fix the Fed and still have a government corrupt in every respect except one, and will the problem be solved? Noooooooooo! It isn't that I disagree with you, it is that I don't agree with you.

Why limit your scope needlessly? "The problem" is corrupted governance.

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

Of course. Although, you're way over analyzing the title, pointlessly really. If you've read any of my other posts you'd know I very often criticize Congress for their failures.

End the Fed! We need a monetary policy that works for the middle class and the people of America, not the banks.

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

And that is still too limited. See above.

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

once again you're really over analyzing the title of this post. It is worded the way it is to grab attention. Obviously the banks needing massive loans lays out the fact that there is a problem with the bank. The fact that this is all done with no congressional over sight and they had to fight to get an audit should show another problem. and there are indeed so many more problems in the corrupt system.

No one is arguing with you that there are a fuck ton of problems in the world.

Also problem is singular. There can be more than one problem creating the word PROBLEMS. Semantics games are boring though.

I don't really care to argue anymore about the title of this post.

Good day.

[-] 0 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

See, that is the difference between PR and the truth. Sometimes you get what you advertize for. I have read your complaints about this and that, but you have never indicated that you understood the scope of the problem. You understand that you oversimplified the problem to attract attention. Now you admit it is bigger than to stated, but if you had the power, would you really know all that needs to be fixed?

If you don't, you will be a sucker for unintended consequences and THE problem will never be fixed. Only the symptoms will change occasionally. How is that different? The crisis of the week? Adrenalin won't fix it, even though you seem to have plenty of that.

Good day.

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

Once again you're really over analyzing the word "the" from the title of my post.

You took the word "the" and crafted an entire theory which is factually inaccurate and serves no purpose.

The federal reserve is the problem. Congress is the problem. Many things are a problem.

Get past the word "the" and calm down.

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

There is no such thing as over analysis. If further analysis changes the conclusion, the problem was previously under analyzed. If not, the confidence level that it was previously adequately analyzed, goes up.

Some are in love with problems, others seek real solutions.

Good bye,

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

No, you really did over analyze my use of the word "the."

You can't seek a solution until you know what the problem is.

Just like how you can't seek solutions until you know what the problems are.

I said good day.

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

No, I really didn't. You stated it incorrectly to get attention. Mis stating the problem may be good PR but does not facilitate a solution. Mis stating the problem and giving an incorrect solution is what Fox does. If you really want solutions, you need to "know what the problems are" not what someone mis stated them to be.

[-] 0 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

What did I state incorrectly?

That the federal reserve is the fucking problem? The fucking problem with what? It's open ended and could be in regards to a lot of things or just one issue.

I never once said the federal reserve is responsible for all the problems in the world. Had I said that, you would have a point. But I didn't say that.

Your semantics game is annoying. You're really just freaking out over the article "a" not being used in a title. Sorry... I mean "the" title. Typo. None of what you're saying here is in anyway productive.

You're just being pointlessly argumentative.

No more response for you.

[-] 0 points by Misaki (893) 2 years ago

From print page 130 (just before that chart):

Table 8 aggregates total dollar
transaction amounts by adding the total dollar amount of all loans but
does not adjust these amounts to reflect differences across programs in
the term over which loans were outstanding. For example, an overnight
PDCF loan of $10 billion that was renewed daily at the same level for 30
business days would result in an aggregate amount borrowed of $300
billion although the institution, in effect, borrowed only $10 billion over 30
days.

You probably want to look at Table 9 instead, which lists total loans at $1,139b.

Edit: Oh, I guess you do mention it. So what kind of profits did the US government see from these loans?

And what part of "the accelerated work week would reduce Wall Street's profits" do people not understand..?

[-] -1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years ago

Using the $16 trillion figure is misleading. The "term adjusted borrowing" figure of $1 trillion is more accurate.

If a person borrowed $1000 a day and paid it back that night, then repeated the same for 365 days in a row, the total borrowed would be $365,000, but the average loan was really just $1000 over the period of one year.

One figure grabs attention, but it does not represent the truth, it distorts it.

[-] 3 points by minhaalma (28) 2 years ago

Senator Bernie Sanders also stated that the bailout was $16 trillion. You can find the information on his website.

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

Read the audit. This is factual information.

[-] -1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years ago

I did read it. What was the average amount of money on loan to the various banks? It was not two different amounts.

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

Read the audit and post the info here. I'm not here to answer your questions. I am here to share information about this audit. Nothing on this post is my opinion. It is from Alan Grayson when he wrote an article after the audit came out.

So your discrepancy is with him, not me. If you feel you know more than Alan Grayson, you should write him a letter and have him answer your question.

[-] -1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years ago

Anything you post here you should be able to defend. If you don't understand it, don't post it.

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

You're arguing that the 16 trillion number is misleading. I'm sticking with Alan Grayson on this one and standing by the numbers.

This audit is factual information.

"The total lending for the Fed's "broad-based emergency programs" was $16,115,000,000,000."

There's not much to defend on this issue. You're saying one thing, I'm saying another. Can't really do much more than say what is already in my post when it comes to the topic of the 16 trillion number.

If you can't understand that...

[-] -1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years ago

I read the $16 trillion figure on page 131 and was shocked. That is more than the U.S. GDP. Then I searched the internet to confirm and found that on page 133 that the $1 trillion figure actually gave a more accurate picture.

If we visited the fed on an average day in 2008 and asked how much money was on loan to the various banks mentioned, they would say, "just over a trillion dollars".

The $16 trillion figure is technically true if you add up all the individual loans, most of which were for very short periods. So which figure, $16 trillion or $1 trillion, is accurate and which is misleading?

A 200 Lb. person could lose 500 Lbs in a lifetime of dieting. Sounds impossible, but technically true. It does not paint an accurate picture.

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

They keep the money on deposit gain high interest yada yada yada. Fat cat city.

The total lending for the Fed's "broad-based emergency programs" was $16,115,000,000,000."

So which is more accurate way to keep track of the total in loans? The actual number or something else?

"Average day" ? Why leave out the "abnormal" days?

[-] 0 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years ago

Person A currently weighs 200 Lb. Person B says Person A lost 500 Lbs. From that description you would expect that Person A weighed 700 Lbs. previously.

Person C says person A lost 50 Lbs. From that description you would expect that Person A weighed 250 Lbs. previously.

Who is correct? They both are.

Over the last 10 years Person A continually lost and gained weight, see sawing between 200 and 250 Lbs. Person B neglected to add that in addition to losing 500 Lbs, Person A also gained back 450 Lbs.

Which person gives a more accurate view of Person A's weight loss? Person B or C?

[+] -4 points by slizzo (-96) 2 years ago

You do know the fed isn't private, rIght?

I know the conspiritards LOVE to say it is, but it isn't.

Be honest, are you 100% certain it is, no matter what facts get in the way?

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

What the fuck are you talking about?

What I posted here is not a crack-pot theory... it is undeniable fact.

TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS.

Do you know how much 1 trillion is... yet alone 16 trillion?

[-] -2 points by slizzo (-96) 2 years ago

Settle down, Frances. I didn't say the story was false, I just asked a question.

But I can see just asking the question makes you lose the ability to read, think and comprehend, so I will assume you are 100% sure it is private.

Am I right?

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

You should never make assumptions about anything. You should always do research and stick with facts.

The Federal Reserve works in favor of the 1% and the big banks. Doesn't matter what they are... the system is corrupt and their powers are bullshit and have been abused time and time again making things worse for the American people.

End the Fed! We need a monetary policy that works for the middle class.

"Unlimited resources for the banks and nothing for the people. Does there exist a more graphic example of how thoroughly rotten this financial system is? The Federal Reserve has trillions of dollars created out of nothing, gives it to the banks, banks keep it on deposit, gain interest, pays high CEO bonuses, fat cat city... all while the rest of America falls apart. There's another game going on way over our heads. The people are struggling... while the banks with the help of the federal reserve have captured control of our government. Could the threat to our nation's sovereignty be any clearer?" - Dennis Kucinich

[+] -4 points by slizzo (-96) 2 years ago

You should hardly ever use absolute words like never.

Never assume? Really? So when I check score of the Yankee game on yahoo sports, I shouldn't assume they are correct? I should call someone who was at the game to verify? What about when a weatherman predicts the weather on tv? Should I know enough not to ever assume about that and buy some meteorological equipment so I don't have to assume they are doing their best to predict the weather?

As you can see, there are many times assuming is perfectly reasonable. Given my experience with truthers and conspiracy nuts, it is too easy to assume about them.

Now, for the third time, do you believe the fed is private? What is so hard about answering such a simple and straight-forward question? What are you so afraid of?

[-] 2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

Because you're an a-hole and it's more fun to just say what I've been saying.

the truth!

"Unlimited resources for the banks and nothing for the people. Does there exist a more graphic example of how thoroughly rotten this financial system is? The Federal Reserve has trillions of dollars created out of nothing, gives it to the banks, banks keep it on deposit, gain interest, pays high CEO bonuses, fat cat city... all while the rest of America falls apart. There's another game going on way over our heads. The people are struggling... while the banks with the help of the federal reserve have captured control of our government. Could the threat to our nation's sovereignty be any clearer?" - Dennis Kucinich

But please tell me more about your assumption history with "nuts"

[+] -4 points by slizzo (-96) 2 years ago

Third time's the charm.

You do think the Fed is private.

That's how stupid you are. Thanks for clearing that up, truther.

Now be on your way, Alex Jones' dick isn't going to suck itself, you know.

[-] 2 points by minhaalma (28) 2 years ago

Stop calling names & insulting! Improve your argument!

[-] -3 points by slizzo (-96) 2 years ago

Shaddap a-hole

[-] 0 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

Let me ask you a question...

If the federal reserve wanted 1 trillion dollars created for any reason like I've listed they've done previously... who outside of the federal reserve has the ability to stop that from happening?

While the fed is not privately owned by a trillion dollar tycoon man... it operates almost independently.

Until Congress passes laws reforming monetary policy... it's solely up to the fed.

You kept making an assumption without factual basis or any justification at all.

In the words of Jackie Chan - "I like to let people talk who like to talk. It lets me find out how full of shit they are."

[-] -1 points by slizzo (-96) 2 years ago

"Let me ask you a question," ask the clueless doofus who dodged 3 opportunities to answer whether the fed is private or not and still hasn't.

Listen, I know it's embarrassing to be challenged on what typically is accepted in the echo chamber you live in, but to dodge 3 times and then have the nerve to ask me a question and expect an answer...what a clown you are.

[-] 2 points by MattHolck2 (44) 2 years ago

currently,

most money is created by the FED loaning? money to private institutions that loan that money out ten fold

[-] -1 points by slizzo (-96) 2 years ago

you can twist so hard your medulla oblongata ties your cerebellum in a knot around your cerebral cortex and it still doesn't mean the Fed is private.

it isn't. the guy who wrote Jekyll Island (where all this nonsense comes from) was a total fruitcake who thought HIV deosn't exist, thinks cancer is a fraud and can be cured with food, believes he is an expert on noah's ark and that he found noah's ark with radar data no one else can duplicate, and thinks contrails are chem-trails.

why do you unwittingly put so much stock into the ravings of a lunatic? instead of accepting these silly conspiracy talking points, check the source. 9 out of 10 times you'll find a paranoid fraud with no expertise in any of the shit he's babbling about.

[-] 2 points by MattHolck2 (44) 2 years ago

people are convinced the can not understand

through convoluted explanations that make no sense

[-] 0 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

I did answer your question.

"While the fed is not privately owned by a trillion dollar tycoon man... it operates almost independently."

It is a system currently set up to profit huge for the banks and their CEO's and do nothing in comparison for the people in this country.

Now stop making assumptions and being so disrespectful toward others. That's what you've done since your initial comment.

If the federal reserve wanted 1 trillion dollars created for any reason like I've listed they've done previously... who outside of the federal reserve has the ability to stop that from happening? No one does because under law the Federal Reserve decides on this issue.

[-] -1 points by slizzo (-96) 2 years ago

so you think the Fed is private, but you can't quite get yourself to come out and plainly state it,

did you know the guy who wrote Jekyll Island (where all this nonsense comes from) was a total fruitcake who thought HIV deosn't exist, thinks cancer is a fraud and can be cured with food, believes he is an expert on noah's ark and that he found noah's ark with radar data no one else can duplicate, and thinks contrails are chem-trails?

why do you unwittingly put so much stock into the ravings of a lunatic?

[-] 0 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

it operates almost independently.

If the federal reserve wanted 1 trillion dollars created for any reason like I've listed they've done previously... who outside of the federal reserve has the ability to stop that from happening? No one does because under law the Federal Reserve decides on this issue.

Answer my question

Dennis Kucinich, Alan Grayson, Bernie Sanders... are they lunatics? I'm not talking about chem trails so what are you talking about?

If the federal reserve wanted 1 trillion dollars created for any reason like I've listed they've done previously... who outside of the federal reserve has the ability to stop that from happening?

[-] -3 points by slizzo (-96) 2 years ago

"it operates almost independently."

so it's "almost private"? is that what you are saying? why so elastic?

"Dennis Kucinich, Alan Grayson, Bernie Sanders... are they lunatics? "

for the most part, yes. but at least Kucinich seems to believe what he says. sanders is a joke and grayson is lying slime in human form. a despicable piece of shit.

chem trails is a belief held by the originator of this "the fed is private" nonsense. whether you know it or not, your source is shit.