Home › Forums › Financial Markets/Economics › Bloomberg story: Feds loaned $7.77 Trillion to banks
- This topic has 29 replies, 11 voices, and was last updated 13 years ago by
briansd1.
-
AuthorPosts
-
November 1, 2006 at 10:17 PM #733586November 28, 2011 at 10:52 AM #19320
UCGal
ParticipantIf TARP was upsetting, consider that the Fed lent out $7.77 Trillion to banks in 2008 & 2009. All while those banks lobbied against regulation saying they didn’t need help.
It’s a long article, but worth the read.
November 28, 2011 at 11:53 AM #733481briansd1
GuestWhat’s beyond comprehension to me is that many of those who are upset about TARP and Fed bailout, feel that, now that we are faced with a fait accompli, the banks should not be regulated or taxed in return for what we, as a country, did for them.
The banks essentially got a free ride.
November 28, 2011 at 12:42 PM #733482markmax33
GuestIf you leave the FED unaudited and unregulated and 12 guys get to sit around the table and make decisions on which friends to bail out it’s always going to end up a mess. The poor people are just going to lose jobs, homes, commit suicide because they think it’s their fault, etc. It’s really sad. It is such an evil institution
At a minimum we should legalize gold and silver as forms of currency and let the fiat currency handle itself.
November 28, 2011 at 1:13 PM #733483Anonymous
GuestFor those that are brave enough to remove their tinfoil hats for a moment, here’s a short article explaining why the Fed did the right thing:
Bloomberg Report Exposes the Federal Reserve Doing Its Job
November 28, 2011 at 2:24 PM #733484Guest[quote=pri_dk]For those that are brave enough to remove their tinfoil hats for a moment, here’s a short article explaining why the Fed did the right thing:
Bloomberg Report Exposes the Federal Reserve Doing Its Job
[/quote]
I agree that the Fed did the right thing.
The banks got the benefits, and it’s only fair that they pay back some of our country’s largess towards them.
Saving the country’s financial system could have been done differently, but at this time, it’s water under the bridge.
We are left with the fact that the banks have been bailed out, but they have yet to pay any dues.
November 28, 2011 at 2:46 PM #733485Allan from Fallbrook
Participant[quote=briansd1]What’s beyond comprehension to me is that many of those who are upset about TARP and Fed bailout, feel that, now that we are faced with a fait accompli, the banks should not be regulated or taxed in return for what we, as a country, did for them.
The banks essentially got a free ride.[/quote]
Brian: This is a combination of a strawman (“many of those who are upset about TARP… should not be regulated…”: Who, exactly are you speaking of?) and what appears to be willful ignorance of the fact that regulations do in fact exist and that additional regulations (post-fall 2008), such as Dodd-Frank have not been implemented with any vigor.
It appears you’re trying to toe the populist/Progressive line, while at the same time trying to ignore the fact that both Dems and GOP are complicit in not only the looting of America, but in the cover-up as well.
I’m especially interested in the deafening silence surrounding Jon Corzine and the implosion of MF Global (ever wonder what the “MF” stands for?), which includes $1.2B of missing funds.
Here’s a nifty YouTube clip of Joe Biden with Jon Corzine, wherein Biden references he and Obama calling Corzine for economic advice and touting Corzine as one of the “smartest guys he knows”: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xm3VMrKqJSA
All politicians, regardless of stripe or affiliation, are lying shitbags. What further proof do you need?
November 28, 2011 at 2:57 PM #733486Guest[quote=pri_dk]For those that are brave enough to remove their tinfoil hats for a moment, here’s a short article explaining why the Fed did the right thing:
Bloomberg Report Exposes the Federal Reserve Doing Its Job
The fed has never done anything right, the fed was illegal to begin with, the founding fathers warned against the fed. The fed just creates another bubble everytime they try to correct something. Mark the tape, the next crisis is our currency which will make it a debt crisis because we won’t be able to afford the interest when the rates go up. Get it right.
November 28, 2011 at 2:58 PM #733487Guest[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=briansd1]What’s beyond comprehension to me is that many of those who are upset about TARP and Fed bailout, feel that, now that we are faced with a fait accompli, the banks should not be regulated or taxed in return for what we, as a country, did for them.
The banks essentially got a free ride.[/quote]
Brian: This is a combination of a strawman (“many of those who are upset about TARP… should not be regulated…”: Who, exactly are you speaking of?) and what appears to be willful ignorance of the fact that regulations do in fact exist and that additional regulations (post-fall 2008), such as Dodd-Frank have not been implemented with any vigor.
It appears you’re trying to toe the populist/Progressive line, while at the same time trying to ignore the fact that both Dems and GOP are complicit in not only the looting of America, but in the cover-up as well.
I’m especially interested in the deafening silence surrounding Jon Corzine and the implosion of MF Global (ever wonder what the “MF” stands for?), which includes $1.2B of missing funds.
Here’s a nifty YouTube clip of Joe Biden with Jon Corzine, wherein Biden references he and Obama calling Corzine for economic advice and touting Corzine as one of the “smartest guys he knows”: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xm3VMrKqJSA
All politicians, regardless of stripe or affiliation, are lying shitbags. What further proof do you need?[/quote]
Except for the guy who warned all this was coming, numerous times, Ron Paul.
November 28, 2011 at 3:42 PM #733489patientrenter
Participant[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
…..All politicians, regardless of stripe or affiliation, are lying shitbags. What further proof do you need?[/quote]
All of what he said. Good for you, Allan.
(Can we get rid of the single-theme Ron Paul poster? I actually like Ron Paul, but I get tired listening to anyone who only shows one thought.)
November 28, 2011 at 5:43 PM #733493scaredyclassic
ParticipantWhat are the minimum number of thoughts a person should have?
I was planning to put a bunch of right wing bumperstickers on my left side bumper and a bunch of left wing stickers on my right bumper.
November 28, 2011 at 9:57 PM #733501Guest[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
All politicians, regardless of stripe or affiliation, are lying shitbags. [/quote]I wouldn’t say all politicians are shitbags, but I agree that there are shitbags on all sides.
Shitbags aside, it’s not an all or nothing situation where we can’t rein in the banks and make them pay a fair share of the economic costs of the bailouts unless we get rid off all the shitbags all at once.
One thing at a time.
[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
Brian: This is a combination of a strawman (“many of those who are upset about TARP… should not be regulated…”: Who, exactly are you speaking of?)
[/quote]I’m referring to the Tea Party types who, despite vociferously complaining about the bailouts, won’t allow any restraints on the banks.
[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
and what appears to be willful ignorance of the fact that regulations do in fact exist and that additional regulations (post-fall 2008), such as Dodd-Frank have not been implemented with any vigor.
[/quote]At least the Dodd-Frank regulations are a step in the right direction.
At least Elizabeth Warren at the Consumer Protection Agency would have exacted a price from banks. Tell me which side opposed Elizabeth Warren’s nomination. Only by nominating and electing decent people like Elizabeth Warren can we improve the system.
The banks got the bailouts already. The bailouts were arguably necessary and could have arguably been implemented differently. That’s past.
Now, do we make the banks pay a fair price for the bailouts they already got; or do we let them have a free ride?
One thing at a time, Allan. We can’t move mountains in a day.
November 29, 2011 at 6:02 AM #733510Participant[quote=briansd1]
At least Elizabeth Warren at the Consumer Protection Agency would have exacted a price from banks. Tell me which side opposed Elizabeth Warren’s nomination. Only by nominating and electing decent people like Elizabeth Warren can we improve the system.
[/quote]
Brian… this is an example of why people get frustrated arguing with you. I’m a liberal. I voted for Obama. But even I can see that Obama and most of the dems did NOT back Warren. Obama never put her name in the hat. Hard to say he backed her…. he killed her chances, blocked her completely, by refusing to put her name in.Obama and most of the dems are just as much entrenched in maintaining the status quo. Just as beholden to corporatism. Open your eyes, dude.
November 29, 2011 at 9:12 AM #733520ParticipantAnother Bloomberg story out – how Paulson was telling the Hedgies about the Fannie/Freddie take over, before the fact.
I have to say – Bloomberg news is using the FOIA requests to uncover some serious muck.
November 29, 2011 at 10:10 AM #733525Guest[quote=UCGal][quote=briansd1]
At least Elizabeth Warren at the Consumer Protection Agency would have exacted a price from banks. Tell me which side opposed Elizabeth Warren’s nomination. Only by nominating and electing decent people like Elizabeth Warren can we improve the system.
[/quote]
Brian… this is an example of why people get frustrated arguing with you. I’m a liberal. I voted for Obama. But even I can see that Obama and most of the dems did NOT back Warren. Obama never put her name in the hat. Hard to say he backed her…. he killed her chances, blocked her completely, by refusing to put her name in.Obama and most of the dems are just as much entrenched in maintaining the status quo. Just as beholden to corporatism. Open your eyes, dude.[/quote]
I undertand the frustration with Obama and the Democrats and the status quo.
The status quo is the establishment, the money, the power. It takes times to change and reform.
I look at the world with an idealism that is very tempered with pragmatism.
Just like compound interest builds principal, change and reforms do add up over time. Even at 1% annual interest, the compounding effect will produce results over decades. Better than nothing and much better than steps backwards.
Obama didn’t nominate Elizabeth Warren to head the Bureau she setup because of he didn’t want a fight with Republicans. There is only so much political capital. You cannot fight every political battle just like a prosecutor cannot prosecute every crime. But that doesn’t mean that justice and the greaer good isn’t being served.
Obama had not made Elizabeth Warren a special assistant to the president, and put her in charge of setting up the Consumer Protection Bureau, her career would not be where it is. She might not be running for the senate where she might do even more good. Perhaps the opposition to Warren’s nomination to the consusumer protection bureau strenghtened her political support for the senate and increased donations to her campaign.
Sometimes the opportunities that open up are better then those you give up. We will see if she wins next year.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.