Federal Reserve Won't Say Who They Gave $2 Trillion To?

[Navy1960]

I do believe has you actually taken the time to read what I wrote rather than resort to name calling, you would have seen this "However if your talking about TARP then I stand corrected." . Willy I do not resort in any reasoned debate be they democrat or republican to name calling because it shows a lack of character on the part of the person resorting to it. As for your asertions that somehow the Bankers were given 2 Trillion Dollars or the FED was , I do notice you dont cite a source for this 2 Trillion dollars so let me help you.
The Congressional Budget Office released a report in January 2009 reviewing the transactions enacted through the TARP. The CBO found that through December 31, 2008, transactions under the TARP totaled $247 billion. According to the CBO's report, the Treasury had purchased $178 billion in shares of preferred stock and warrants from 214 U.S. financial institutions through its Capital Purchase Program (CPP). This included the purchase of $40 billion of preferred stock in AIG, $25 billion of preferred stock in Citigroup, and $15 billion of preferred stock in Bank of America. The Treasury also agreed to lend $18.4 billion to General Motors and Chrysler. The Treasury, along with the FDIC and the Federal Reserve, has also agreed to guarantee a $306 billion portfolio of assets owned by Citigroup.[31]

The CBO also estimated the subsidy cost for transactions under TARP. The subsidy cost is defined as, broadly speaking, the difference between what the Treasury paid for the investments or lent to the firms and the market value of those transactions, where the assets in question were valued using procedures similar to those specified in the Federal Credit Reform Act (FCRA), but adjusting for market risk as specified in the EESA. [32] The CBO estimated that the subsidy cost of the $247 billion in transactions before December 31, 2008 amounts to $64 billion. An updated analysis from the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget estimates a budgetary impact of $80 billion for all TARP spending as of 02/3/09.[30]

Troubled Asset Relief Program - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

TARP allows the United States Department of the Treasury to purchase or insure up to $700 billion of "troubled" assets. "Troubled assets" are defined as "(A) residential or commercial mortgages and any securities, obligations, or other instruments that are based on or related to such mortgages, that in each case was originated or issued on or before March 14, 2008, the purchase of which the Secretary determines promotes financial market stability; and (B) any other financial instrument that the Secretary, after consultation with the Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, determines the purchase of which is necessary to promote financial market stability, but only upon transmittal of such determination, in writing, to the appropriate committees of Congress."

While your correct that this happened under George W. Bush , I don't think my post had anything at all or should have led you to believe i was advocating that George W. Bush was somehow a financial wizzard.

 

[Sweet Willy]

Navy, has Obama quadrupled the debt in his short time in office or not?

Were you lying or do you have some hidden national debt numbers the rest of us aren't allowed to see?

 

[sealybobo]

I do believe has you actually taken the time to read what I wrote rather than resort to name calling, you would have seen this "However if your talking about TARP then I stand corrected." . Willy I do not resort in any reasoned debate be they democrat or republican to name calling because it shows a lack of character on the part of the person resorting to it. As for your asertions that somehow the Bankers were given 2 Trillion Dollars or the FED was , I do notice you dont cite a source for this 2 Trillion dollars so let me help you.
The Congressional Budget Office released a report in January 2009 reviewing the transactions enacted through the TARP. The CBO found that through December 31, 2008, transactions under the TARP totaled $247 billion. According to the CBO's report, the Treasury had purchased $178 billion in shares of preferred stock and warrants from 214 U.S. financial institutions through its Capital Purchase Program (CPP). This included the purchase of $40 billion of preferred stock in AIG, $25 billion of preferred stock in Citigroup, and $15 billion of preferred stock in Bank of America. The Treasury also agreed to lend $18.4 billion to General Motors and Chrysler. The Treasury, along with the FDIC and the Federal Reserve, has also agreed to guarantee a $306 billion portfolio of assets owned by Citigroup.[31]

The CBO also estimated the subsidy cost for transactions under TARP. The subsidy cost is defined as, broadly speaking, the difference between what the Treasury paid for the investments or lent to the firms and the market value of those transactions, where the assets in question were valued using procedures similar to those specified in the Federal Credit Reform Act (FCRA), but adjusting for market risk as specified in the EESA. [32] The CBO estimated that the subsidy cost of the $247 billion in transactions before December 31, 2008 amounts to $64 billion. An updated analysis from the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget estimates a budgetary impact of $80 billion for all TARP spending as of 02/3/09.[30]

Troubled Asset Relief Program - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

TARP allows the United States Department of the Treasury to purchase or insure up to $700 billion of "troubled" assets. "Troubled assets" are defined as "(A) residential or commercial mortgages and any securities, obligations, or other instruments that are based on or related to such mortgages, that in each case was originated or issued on or before March 14, 2008, the purchase of which the Secretary determines promotes financial market stability; and (B) any other financial instrument that the Secretary, after consultation with the Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, determines the purchase of which is necessary to promote financial market stability, but only upon transmittal of such determination, in writing, to the appropriate committees of Congress."

While your correct that this happened under George W. Bush , I don't think my post had anything at all or should have led you to believe i was advocating that George W. Bush was somehow a financial wizzard.

I like name calling. Sorry.

Here is your source.

http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/106443/why_won't_the_federal_reserve_say_who_they_gave_$2%20_trillion_to/

This is not TARP. This is above and beyond. Obama has a person overseeing the TARP. The Fed told the government they would not say who they gave teh $2 trillion to because it might cause a run on the banks.

The Fed did not go thru Congress when they gave the $2 trillion dollars to the bankers. The Feds are bankers. IE, they gave themselves $2 trillion dollars and didn't even have to ask.

 

[sealybobo]

Navy, has Obama quadrupled the debt in his short time in office or not?

Were you lying or do you have some hidden national debt numbers the rest of us aren't allowed to see?

Just like the Fed can't tell us who they gave $2 trillion dollars to before they even asked for the $750 billion because it might cause harm to those banks.

 

[sealybobo]

And this isn't a liberal source. They make fun of Barnie Frank:

Apparently Bernanke, that wonderful bipartisan soul who is so competent and wonderful that everyone in the village thinks Obama should leave him in charge is refusing to identify who got almost 2 trillion dollars of Fed cash. Bloomberg News is suing to find out. Personally I really, really, really want to know. What exactly is Bernanke hiding? Who got the money he doesn't want us to know got the money?

This is money that was loaned in exchange for "collateral", by which we mean "trash no one else but the Fed would buy for anything but cents on the dollar." Barney Frank, embarrassing himself yet again, claims the Fed should keep its clap shut because if people know how bad it is, well, there might be a run. I think Barney's missing the point, as long as people don't know how bad it is, they won't trust anyone who might be borrowing large amounts of money from the Fed with crap collateral, because they don't know how bad it is and they suspect it's really really really bad. As in 10 cents on the dollar bad.

More to the point, that 2 trillion is taxpayer money, and taxpayers have a right to know what sweetheart deals Bernanke's been giving out, and who's been getting what. This whole "this information is too scary for citizens to know" schtick is so Bush regime. I thought we were moving into a new era of openness? Perhaps Barney should get with the program?

As for Bernanke, this is yet another reason why Bernanke, a central banker so incompetent he lost complete control of LIBOR, his most basic job, should lose his position. Sure, his mandate runs for another year, but if Obama asks him to step down, I can't imagine he wouldn't. The idea that a central bank that has screwed up as badly as the Fed has under both Greenspan and Bernanke is so much better off independent than with the public having some control is ridiculous and fundamentally anti-democratic. Central bank independence has just led to a huge financial bubble and economic collapse, while Bernanke and Greenspan both acted as if they were virtual dictators.

Bernanke needs to go, and either before or after he goes, the Fed needs to come clean about who it has given 2 trillion in loans to, and what the collateral is.


http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/106443/why_won't_the_federal_reserve_say_who_they_gave_$2%20_trillion_to/

 

[Navy1960]

The short answer is yes and if Willy you take the team to read my sources which are hardly right wing or for that matter left wing sources you will see why. I did point out earlier that my posting did not say National debt had I intended to say that I would have. However. I will cite another source for you to hopefully clear this matter up.

As Barack Obama continues his mission to save the US economy it has been suggested that the US Federal deficit for 2009 will come in at around $1.75 trillion as opposed to $459 billion in 2008. This is due mainly to the $787 billion financial stimulus package, as well as the $250 billion set aside for the banking system and the ever-growing cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. While Pres Obama seems intent on spending his way out of trouble and dragging the US economy up by its boot straps this is very much a high-risk policy.
Tax News - Pres Obama set to quadrupled US debt this year

Now as you and I both know the stimulus bill as well as the auto-bail out as already passed and is in place. President Obama is already wanting to put in place before congress ajourns at the end of the summer a massive healthcare bill thus addiing to this. So if the number do not make sense to you , then I'm sorry but they are there for everyone to see.

 

[Navy1960]

Ona personal level sealy I'm not going to defend any actions by the Fed past or present. So if my postings are leading you to believe that the I'm somehow defending the Fed for bailing out banks then forgive me. I was in complete disagreement with that bailout as much as I was for the last one. The Fed as well as a LOT of members of congress both republican and democrat have much to do with the current economic situation. I am pointing out however adding massive debt and increasing the deficit to record levels is not helping the situation all in the name of social spending. Have you noticed all the new green jobs that are being created by the stimulus? or perhaps the massive number of car loans being given by the banks? because if you have I havn't.

 

[Sweet Willy]

You're full of it Navy.

When we get to 40 trillion you be sure to let me know.

 

[Navy1960]

I'm sorry the addtion disturbs you Willy and facts are facts. When the National Debt increases to that number I won't have to because this country will be well on the road to having a dollar equal to the peso in value. However, if the fact that the deficit has gone that high in such a short period of time bothers you I suggest you call the White House.

 

[sealybobo]

The short answer is yes and if Willy you take the team to read my sources which are hardly right wing or for that matter left wing sources you will see why. I did point out earlier that my posting did not say National debt had I intended to say that I would have. However. I will cite another source for you to hopefully clear this matter up.

As Barack Obama continues his mission to save the US economy it has been suggested that the US Federal deficit for 2009 will come in at around $1.75 trillion as opposed to $459 billion in 2008. This is due mainly to the $787 billion financial stimulus package, as well as the $250 billion set aside for the banking system and the ever-growing cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. While Pres Obama seems intent on spending his way out of trouble and dragging the US economy up by its boot straps this is very much a high-risk policy.
Tax News - Pres Obama set to quadrupled US debt this year

Now as you and I both know the stimulus bill as well as the auto-bail out as already passed and is in place. President Obama is already wanting to put in place before congress ajourns at the end of the summer a massive healthcare bill thus addiing to this. So if the number do not make sense to you , then I'm sorry but they are there for everyone to see.

I think you are completely missing my point. The 2 TRILLION has nothing to do with everything you are saying.

NOTHING!!!

Yet you keep bitching about the billions Obama is spending but you can't seem to get it thru your head that the bankers gave themselves $2 TRILLION before the TARP.

And who the fuck is Willie?

 

[sealybobo]

Ona personal level sealy I'm not going to defend any actions by the Fed past or present. So if my postings are leading you to believe that the I'm somehow defending the Fed for bailing out banks then forgive me. I was in complete disagreement with that bailout as much as I was for the last one. The Fed as well as a LOT of members of congress both republican and democrat have much to do with the current economic situation. I am pointing out however adding massive debt and increasing the deficit to record levels is not helping the situation all in the name of social spending. Have you noticed all the new green jobs that are being created by the stimulus? or perhaps the massive number of car loans being given by the banks? because if you have I havn't.

The point is, the bankers are in control. So while the media has you distracted with who's more wrong, the dems or the gop, keep in mind who they are serving. The Robber Barons.

The reason I blame the GOP more is because of their voters/supporters. You guys are too busy defending corporations to see that they are the problem. For example, you guys won't help us fix healthcare when it is out of control because you want to keep it in the corporations hands and not the government.

I have seen progress. Things are getting better. But they are going to get worse before they get better. And the fix won't happen overnight.

And you want Obama to fix in 5 months what the GOP created in 8 years?

And increasing the debt seemed to work for Reagan. They're unveiling a statue for him this week.

 

[Navy1960]

sealy thats someone else on the thread I'm addressing not you. As for as the 2 Trillion dollars what part of my post leads you to believe that i am supporting the Fed here ? I am simply pointing out that the Obama Administration is not helping the situation by piling on massive amonts of money to the deficit which in turn ends up as a debt owned by us all. While I'm sure to many his intentions are well meaning perhaps now is not the time to go on a wild spending spree when you dont have the money to spend regardless of how reckless the previous Administration spend the money.

 

[sealybobo]

sealy thats someone else on the thread I'm addressing not you. As for as the 2 Trillion dollars what part of my post leads you to believe that i am supporting the Fed here ? I am simply pointing out that the Obama Administration is not helping the situation by piling on massive amonts of money to the deficit which in turn ends up as a debt owned by us all. While I'm sure to many his intentions are well meaning perhaps now is not the time to go on a wild spending spree when you dont have the money to spend regardless of how reckless the previous Administration spend the money.

No. This spending is more stimulative than tax cuts.

And what are we spending the money on? Things we need? Yes.

Unemployment benefits? Sorry we don't have the money, but the GOP shouldn't have sent all the jobs overseas. Think it thru Navy.

And Biden is in charge of making sure there isn't waste/fraud. Hense him coming out with the Airport to Knowhere. Better to admit it first than to give the GOP that kind of ammo.

What you are saying is what you are hearing from the right wingers. We had to spend some money. If we didn't, things would have gotten much worse. And look, you're already blaming Obama for this and this is Bush's mess. This shit happened because of what the GOP did from 2000-2006 when they controlled all of government.

And where did the money they spend go? It disappeared. Obama's money will be spent in America, on Americans, and will eventually work its way back to the treasury.

Do I/we want to lower the debt? Of course. Would Obama have had a balanced budget if Bush didn't hand him this mess? I bet he would have. Look at Clinton. He had a surplus. I know he didn't really have a surplus, but based on how all presidents are judged, he did! And he came in with a big spending program too. Why? To get us out of HW's recession.

This is why we need a truth commission to look into exactly what happened the last 8 years. You are a perfect example of how you can not turn the page without first reading the page. You think you know why we are in this mess? My guess is you blame all the wrong people.

 

[sealybobo]

And look NAVY.

Obama cracks down on overseas tax loopholes
President’s two-part plan calls for hundreds of new federal tax agents

Obama cracks down on overseas tax loopholes - Stocks & economy- msnbc.com

And here come the corporate defenders

Obama ‘Offshore’ Tax Plan Will Cost U.S. Companies Business and Jobs

Obama ‘Offshore’ Tax Plan Will Cost U.S. Companies Business and Jobs | Cato @ Liberty

And my guess is you will take the corporate side of every issue.

How do you feel about single payer healthcare for all Americans? Sounds like it will work and cost less than what we pay now.

A lot of doctors even want to go to it.

WASHINGTON, March 31 (Reuters) - More than half of U.S. doctors now favor switching to a national health care plan and fewer than a third oppose the idea, according to a survey published on Monday.

US doctors support universal health care - survey | Reuters

But you'll believe the insurance companies and the GOP on this one too. BET.

 

[Navy1960]

sealy,
While, Joe is pretty good when it comes the entertainment there are many republicans that fit that bill as well. I give President Obama credit for being able to keep Joe in the background as much as he does. Let me explain my feelings this way, a Govt. that has massive debt and a massive deficit and has obligated itself to a country let's say, that is less that friendly to us at least in my humble opinion does not have our best interests at heart, regardless of who is power sealy be they Republican or Democrat. I believe that while it's a noble thing to want everyone to be able to be healthcare have have access to healthcare, to use the very Govt. that has mismanaged itself to the point where this nation is in the condition it's in is foolhardy. Want an exmaple of Govt. run healthcare take a look at the VA. A single payer system while a good idea on the surface will end up being a federally run insurance program because the Govt. run program will be in competition with private industry and private industry will be competing with the same entity that regulates it, understand? What the Govt. should do is regulate the cost structure that private industry provides . This they have the ability to do, it will result in making healthcare more affordable for those who wish to have it and not force those who dont to have it. I commend President Obama for his efforts on wanting to close offshore loopholes in the tax code and also will go you one better and say that I am encouraged that he wishes to reform DoD's purchasing arm as well. I just hope that in doing so that we do not sacrifice our defense for it.

No matter what the mistakes of the previous administration may be and trust me there are many, I for one have never been an advocate that you spend when you don't have the money to spend. Even Bill Clinton understood that you needed to reduce the deficit , and limit spending to have a thriving economy. I cannot envision any path that this nation will take to get there other than a massive tax bill heading to you and me and our children in order to pay for it all. If the recent Cali. vote is any indication of how people feel about higher taxes I'm afriad President Obama has his work cut out for him.

 

[DamnYankee]

WASHINGTON — Despite broad Republican opposition, the Democratic-controlled Congress gave final approval Friday night of President Obama's $787 billion stimulus bill designed to jumpstart the nation's economy.
The Senate voted 60-38, to pass the bill — the minimum needed for approval. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid held off the final vote until Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, could return from his mother's memorial services to cast the deciding vote.
Congress passes $787B economic stimulus bill - USATODAY.com

DENVER -- President Barack Obama signed his $787 billion economic stimulus package into law Tuesday, with an upbeat speech emphasizing the road to recovery.

Obama Signs Stimulus Into Law - WSJ.com

Funny thing I didnt see George Bush there at the signing ceremony, I could be wrong though he might have been lurking in the audience somewhere. the fact remains that the 750 billion your talking about here was an Obama led charge as was the Auto Bail-Outs and many others. However if your talking about TARP then I stand corrected.

The budget deficit this year is projected to reach $1.85 trillion, equivalent to 13 percent of the nation’s economy, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.
http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...rve-wont-say-who-they-gave-2-trillion-to.html

Given the fact that President Obama has nationalized GM and presided over the destrustion of two american car companies, and has forgiven more than 40 billion dollars in debt to them and is poised to give GM 50 billion more and couple that with the fact the debt has quadrupled under his short term in office. Still further he plans to institue an almost Trillion dollar healthcare plan. It sort of makes George W. Bush look like a financial titan. Which we all know is far from the truth as well.

Makes one wonder what all the pre-election fuss was about, since Obama had no clue how to handle "the mess". Only difference was, he didn't make a gaffe when the house of cards started falling.

 

[sealybobo]

sealy,
Massive debt and a massive deficit and has obligated itself to a country let's say, that is less that friendly to us at least in my humble opinion does not have our best interests at heart, regardless of who is power sealy be they Republican or Democrat. I believe that while it's a noble thing to want everyone to be able to be healthcare have have access to healthcare, to use the very Govt. that has mismanaged itself to the point where this nation is in the condition it's in is foolhardy. Want an exmaple of Govt. run healthcare take a look at the VA. A single payer system while a good idea on the surface will end up being a federally run insurance program because the Govt. run program will be in competition with private industry and private industry will be competing with the same entity that regulates it, understand? What the Govt. should do is regulate the cost structure that private industry provides . This they have the ability to do, it will result in making healthcare more affordable for those who wish to have it and not force those who dont to have it. I commend President Obama for his efforts on wanting to close offshore loopholes in the tax code and also will go you one better and say that I am encouraged that he wishes to reform DoD's purchasing arm as well. I just hope that in doing so that we do not sacrifice our defense for it.

No matter what the mistakes of the previous administration may be and trust me there are many, I for one have never been an advocate that you spend when you don't have the money to spend. Even Bill Clinton understood that you needed to reduce the deficit , and limit spending to have a thriving economy. I cannot envision any path that this nation will take to get there other than a massive tax bill heading to you and me and our children in order to pay for it all. If the recent Cali. vote is any indication of how people feel about higher taxes I'm afriad President Obama has his work cut out for him.

1. No crap a massive debt is bad. When we were saying that to Bush, Cheney said deficits don't matter. If you join us democrats when we see waste/corruption, we'll stop it everytime. But some of the things you don't want to fund, we do. And visa versa. That's the gist of it. So you don't tell Bush to stop and we don't tell Obama to stop. Believe it or not, a lot of the programs Obama funds are good and necessary. Not 100% of them, but they are not all sweetheart/no bid/pentagon waste/bridges to knowhere. I'd say HALF of Bush's were bad spending. But righties defended their spending because it was in the name of :defense". And you even said it. "I hope not at the expense of our safety". Yea, he's going to give the GOP ammo and do that. And the GOP will be able to make an argument over ANY cuts to defense. Its a no win situation.

So what is your solution to Obama? Is it Mitt Romney? Bob Barr? Who's your guy?

2. Clinton came as close to your dream as any of the GOP'ers. You even admit that. So, did you vote for Gore? I did.

3. Bush neglected America for 8 years. So this spending is overdue. Sorry its going to double the debt, but do you prefer they raise taxes? I do. ON THE RICH! And last night I heard Obama wants to extend permanently the Estate Tax thing??? I think that means he gave in to the rich.

4. No matter how bad Obama is, the GOP is worse. And together we can get the Dems to fix some of what is wrong with the system. But we can't get the GOP to fix what they made and what they benefit from. They benefit from sending jobs overseas, they benefit from tax breaks to the rich. They benefit from overspending on defense. They benefit from privatizing the profits and socializing the losses. They support big oil, insurance, bankers, etc. Sure the Dems take money from these things too. But they are more inclined to keep these robber barons in check.

But they have convinced you that you benefit with lower prices on goods. And they say if you give them all the tax breaks, it'll trickle down. HA! Trust me, its not worth it.

5. We/you spend more on healthcare than you would on single payer, and all the doctors and nurses say we need to go this route. Healthcare for profit is WORSE than government healthcare. FACT. The doctors aren't the ones getting the profits. The middle man is not worth the cost. FACT. And they won't change. Instead they will take down any blue dog democrat that votes for reform. We already know they have killed the single payer option. So we might just offer it as an option to citizens and make the for profits compete. I'll switch to the government program and you keep your expensive shit. And actually, the government program might lower your rates. Competition is good. Right now its a monopoly.

Healthcare will not get worse. It simply won't go thru the FOR PROFITS hands before it gets to the doctor. You've been bamboozled. Knock out all the ceo pay and profits to shareholders and we can save a lot of money. Doctors first turned this role over to healthcare providers so they could just practice medicine, but now the insurers are gobbling up all the profits and denying treatments to people so they can save a buck. The doctors want them gone. So should you.

 

[Baruch Menachem]

I think there is a bit of confusion here.

This sounds like normal operation of the fed, the way it was set up back in 1915. They are a bank, they lend money to other banks on collateral that they feel is adequate.

The TARP money is separate, and is being reported as it should be. The normal operations should continue.

I personally would like to see more independence of the Fed. Less government control. The central banks that perform best are the ones with the greatest independence. And this time the Fed is doing its job, as opposed to 1929 when it deliberately sent banks to the wall.

Folks jumping on this keep jumping on the verb "gave." It was loans. That is what the fed does. Most fed loans are zero collateral loans. Didn't anybody here pay attention in High School when they covered this?

 

[sealybobo]

I think there is a bit of confusion here.

This sounds like normal operation of the fed, the way it was set up back in 1915. They are a bank, they lend money to other banks on collateral that they feel is adequate.

The TARP money is separate, and is being reported as it should be. The normal operations should continue.

I personally would like to see more independence of the Fed. Less government control. The central banks that perform best are the ones with the greatest independence. And this time the Fed is doing its job, as opposed to 1929 when it deliberately sent banks to the wall.

Folks jumping on this keep jumping on the verb "gave." It was loans. That is what the fed does. Most fed loans are zero collateral loans. Didn't anybody here pay attention in High School when they covered this?

Yea, and it is you who is confused. Are you a rich banker? Or just a right winger who has no limit as to how far he will go to defend corporations.

You have no clue what you are talking about. You don't know what deal they made because they won't tell us.

Why is the TARP any different and why should it be reported and the initial $2 TRILLION should not?

And just remember that it is your tax dollars that the bankers are loaning out. So don't cry about the debt.

Are you a Bush Republican? Do you like Ron Paul? My guess is you are what we call a neo con. You defend Bush, right?

And we did find out that the initial $350 billion in tarp we got $60 for every $100 we loaned, and then the stock tanked and now we'll probably only get $50 back for every $100, if that! Why else do these bankers want to pay us back asap.

More independence?

I bet you don't think the oil companies and insurance companies are taking advantage of us either.

 

[sealybobo]

I think there is a bit of confusion here.

This sounds like normal operation of the fed, the way it was set up back in 1915. They are a bank, they lend money to other banks on collateral that they feel is adequate.

The TARP money is separate, and is being reported as it should be. The normal operations should continue.

I personally would like to see more independence of the Fed. Less government control. The central banks that perform best are the ones with the greatest independence. And this time the Fed is doing its job, as opposed to 1929 when it deliberately sent banks to the wall.

Folks jumping on this keep jumping on the verb "gave." It was loans. That is what the fed does. Most fed loans are zero collateral loans. Didn't anybody here pay attention in High School when they covered this?

Sometimes right wing posts really get to me and I stew about it. This is one of them. Thanks. I love debating/thinking/talking about this stuff.

You said, "the bankers are doing what they are supposed to be doing".

That's the problem. They were not. AIG fucked up, the banks didn't keep the required amount of cash on hand for such an emergency, the mortgage companies that pawned off those predatory sub prime loans were deregulated, and they knowingly gave out loans they knew could not be replaid, and they bundled them and sold them to the bankers.

Kramer admitted that Wallstreet lied to him. And John Stewart proved Kramer lied to us. So it is kind of obvious that they did all this on purpose, because they made money on the way up and at the bottom.

Or do you not think it was on purpose?

Just like you don't think Bush (oil) and Cheney (defense) purposely lied us into Iraq too? They just happen to be benefitting from it. And when I say Bush, I mean all those mega millioniares that run this country and own our politics.

Oh yea, I'm a conspiracy theorist. Meanwhile they are plotting and winning. Know why they are winning? Because people like you think you are one of them. Are you filty rich? Like, multi millionaire rich? If not, then you are a fool.

So basically you don't see the corruption, even when it is right in front of your face. You've spent so many years blaming gov and defending corporations that you can't even admit that the bankers are corrupt. To be so wrong and to benefit so greatly from it.

Where did all the money go? If we lost, who won? Where did all that money go? The CEO's made record profits the last 8 years. Labor took a pay cut still? Makes me think the GOP used the 2001 and this depression to socialize the losses and privatize all the profits.

So where you for the TARP? If the bankers are good, then the tarp really was necessary and you agree with giving the bankers what they need. And it is for our benefit. Right?