Since 2009, 88 Percent Of Income Growth Went To Corporate Profits, 1% Went to Wages

[WatertheTree]

This is news that should thrill Republicans.

They think that the day Perry becomes president, business will pour two trillion dollars into the American economy and "create jobs". That's why I truly believe the right wing has become a party of fools with a fringe on top.

Its true, ive seen someone actually type out that mentality around here. Some people really are fucking sheep.

 

[Raoul_Duke]

In case you haven't been paying attention, the taxpayers are on the hook for Fannie and Freddie. It's been in all the papers.

The taxpayer is on the hook for all the bad debt and debt securities that was issued during the bubble years and has become bad due to the consequent recession.

All the bad debt and debt securities?
Are you sure?
If Merrill Lynch has some bad debt, how is the taxpayer on the hook?
How about Bear Stearns?
Lehman?
Bank of America?

How about you post some proof?
As far as I know, the only debt we're on the hook for is Fannie and Freddie.
Thanks liberals.

Remember all the bank bailouts? The government guaranteed all the bad debt at 100 cents on the dollar, whatever eventually goes bad has already been guaranteed at full price by the taxpayer :

Government loans, spending or guarantees to rescue the U.S. financial system total more than $12.8 trillion since the international credit crisis began in August 2007, according to data compiled by Bloomberg as of March 31.

Fed Shrouding $2 Trillion in Bank Loans in


Remember them suspending mark-to-market rules so the banks don't have to admit to all the bad debt they're carrying? Every financial institution you mentioned apart from Lehman and Bear is classified as too big to fail. JP Morgan bought Bear and assumed their debts, so their bad debt is still sitting in the system. Bank of America value their assets at over $200 billion. The markets value the entire company at around $70 billion so clearly they think a lot of those assets are worthless.

A few weeks ago thanks to a FOIA request by Bloomberg that's been delayed for a couple of years we found out that the Fed had secretly loaned $1.2 trillion to America's banks and securities firms to prevent them all from going bankrupt in 2008:

Wall Street Aristocracy Got $1.2 Trillion in Secret Loans - Bloomberg


Because of the opaqueness still surrounding exactly what the Fed is doing we have no idea how much they're currently lending to banks and securities firms and probably won't know the September 2011 picture for a couple of years when another FOIA request gets granted.

We're also discovering that in the meantime banks are dumping their bad debt and bad securities on Fannie and Freddie, the government giving the banks backdoor bailouts by getting F and F to pay full boat for worthless toxic crap :

NEW YORK (TheStreet) — The official bailout of the financial system may be over, but the government is apparently far from finished propping up big banks, as evidenced by the news that Bank of America has struck a deal to dump a bunch of near-worthless home loans on U.S. taxpayers.

According to a report in The Wall Street Journal Bank of America has sold the rights to process and collect payments on 400,000 home loans to Fannie Mae, the government-controlled mortgage giant. The loans have an unpaid principal balance of $73 billion, but are being sold for $500 million, according to the report.

Doesn’t sound like a bad deal for the government, unless that $500 million price tag will soon be too steep, which is what “a person familiar with the deal,” told the Journal.

Bank Of America’s Backdoor Bailout – Dumping Mortgage Trash Onto Taxpayers Via Fannie Mae « InvestmentWatch – The best source of news, analysis, and intelligent discussion


and

Backdoor Bank Bailout? Fannie And Freddie May be "Losing Money as a Matter of Policy"
Posted May 12, 2010 12:45pm EDT by Peter Gorenstein in Banking, Politics
Related: fre, fnm, xlf, ^dji, ^gspc, xhb, faz

The Senate on Tuesday rejected a Republican sponsored measure that would effectively cut off support to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in two years. The government-sponsored enterprises, now in conservatorship, have already cost the government about $145 billion.

And there's no limit to how much more they can ask for for the next two years!

Fannie Mae lost $11.5 billion in the first quarter while Freddie Mac lost more than $6.7 billion. After posting those massive losses, they asked for a combined additional sum of nearly $20 billion in government assistance.

"Are they losing money as a matter of policy or are they losing it as bad judgment?" asks Dean Baker, co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, who calls the Fannie and Freddie the elephant in the bailout room.

Baker and Fusion IQ's Barry Ritholtz are convinced the government is effectively sponsoring a backdoor bailout of the banks via the GSEs. "This is a conscious, willful decision," says Ritholtz, author of The Big Picture blog and Bailout Nation. "Fannie And Freddie act as a conduit for taking all this junk off the banks' balance sheets."


Backdoor Bank Bailout? Fannie : Tech Ticker, Yahoo! Finance

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The taxpayer is on the hook for all the bad debt and debt securities that was issued during the bubble years and has become bad due to the consequent recession.

All the bad debt and debt securities?
Are you sure?
If Merrill Lynch has some bad debt, how is the taxpayer on the hook?
How about Bear Stearns?
Lehman?
Bank of America?

How about you post some proof?
As far as I know, the only debt we're on the hook for is Fannie and Freddie.
Thanks liberals.

Remember all the bank bailouts? The government guaranteed all the bad debt at 100 cents on the dollar, whatever eventually goes bad has already been guaranteed at full price by the taxpayer :

Government loans, spending or guarantees to rescue the U.S. financial system total more than $12.8 trillion since the international credit crisis began in August 2007, according to data compiled by Bloomberg as of March 31.

Fed Shrouding $2 Trillion in Bank Loans in


Remember them suspending mark-to-market rules so the banks don't have to admit to all the bad debt they're carrying? Every financial institution you mentioned apart from Lehman and Bear is classified as too big to fail. JP Morgan bought Bear and assumed their debts, so their bad debt is still sitting in the system. Bank of America value their assets at over $200 billion. The markets value the entire company at around $70 billion so clearly they think a lot of those assets are worthless.

A few weeks ago thanks to a FOIA request by Bloomberg that's been delayed for a couple of years we found out that the Fed had secretly loaned $1.2 trillion to America's banks and securities firms to prevent them all from going bankrupt in 2008:

Wall Street Aristocracy Got $1.2 Trillion in Secret Loans - Bloomberg


Because of the opaqueness still surrounding exactly what the Fed is doing we have no idea how much they're currently lending to banks and securities firms and probably won't know the September 2011 picture for a couple of years when another FOIA request gets granted.

We're also discovering that in the meantime banks are dumping their bad debt and bad securities on Fannie and Freddie, the government giving the banks backdoor bailouts by getting F and F to pay full boat for worthless toxic crap :

NEW YORK (TheStreet) — The official bailout of the financial system may be over, but the government is apparently far from finished propping up big banks, as evidenced by the news that Bank of America has struck a deal to dump a bunch of near-worthless home loans on U.S. taxpayers.

According to a report in The Wall Street Journal Bank of America has sold the rights to process and collect payments on 400,000 home loans to Fannie Mae, the government-controlled mortgage giant. The loans have an unpaid principal balance of $73 billion, but are being sold for $500 million, according to the report.

Doesn’t sound like a bad deal for the government, unless that $500 million price tag will soon be too steep, which is what “a person familiar with the deal,” told the Journal.

Bank Of America’s Backdoor Bailout – Dumping Mortgage Trash Onto Taxpayers Via Fannie Mae « InvestmentWatch – The best source of news, analysis, and intelligent discussion


and

Backdoor Bank Bailout? Fannie And Freddie May be "Losing Money as a Matter of Policy"
Posted May 12, 2010 12:45pm EDT by Peter Gorenstein in Banking, Politics
Related: fre, fnm, xlf, ^dji, ^gspc, xhb, faz

The Senate on Tuesday rejected a Republican sponsored measure that would effectively cut off support to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in two years. The government-sponsored enterprises, now in conservatorship, have already cost the government about $145 billion.

And there's no limit to how much more they can ask for for the next two years!

Fannie Mae lost $11.5 billion in the first quarter while Freddie Mac lost more than $6.7 billion. After posting those massive losses, they asked for a combined additional sum of nearly $20 billion in government assistance.

"Are they losing money as a matter of policy or are they losing it as bad judgment?" asks Dean Baker, co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, who calls the Fannie and Freddie the elephant in the bailout room.

Baker and Fusion IQ's Barry Ritholtz are convinced the government is effectively sponsoring a backdoor bailout of the banks via the GSEs. "This is a conscious, willful decision," says Ritholtz, author of The Big Picture blog and Bailout Nation. "Fannie And Freddie act as a conduit for taking all this junk off the banks' balance sheets."


Backdoor Bank Bailout? Fannie : Tech Ticker, Yahoo! Finance

Bailouts?
You mean the loans that were repaid?
At a profit to the Treasury?
They were awful!

But the only money we actually lost was for Fannie and Freddie.
And the auto bailouts.
And the mortgage forgiveness program.

The taxpayer is on the hook for all the bad debt and debt securities that was issued during the bubble years and has become bad due to the consequent recession

Still funny!

 

[Raoul_Duke]

All the bad debt and debt securities?
Are you sure?
If Merrill Lynch has some bad debt, how is the taxpayer on the hook?
How about Bear Stearns?
Lehman?
Bank of America?

How about you post some proof?
As far as I know, the only debt we're on the hook for is Fannie and Freddie.
Thanks liberals.

Remember all the bank bailouts? The government guaranteed all the bad debt at 100 cents on the dollar, whatever eventually goes bad has already been guaranteed at full price by the taxpayer :

Government loans, spending or guarantees to rescue the U.S. financial system total more than $12.8 trillion since the international credit crisis began in August 2007, according to data compiled by Bloomberg as of March 31.

Fed Shrouding $2 Trillion in Bank Loans in


Remember them suspending mark-to-market rules so the banks don't have to admit to all the bad debt they're carrying? Every financial institution you mentioned apart from Lehman and Bear is classified as too big to fail. JP Morgan bought Bear and assumed their debts, so their bad debt is still sitting in the system. Bank of America value their assets at over $200 billion. The markets value the entire company at around $70 billion so clearly they think a lot of those assets are worthless.

A few weeks ago thanks to a FOIA request by Bloomberg that's been delayed for a couple of years we found out that the Fed had secretly loaned $1.2 trillion to America's banks and securities firms to prevent them all from going bankrupt in 2008:

Wall Street Aristocracy Got $1.2 Trillion in Secret Loans - Bloomberg


Because of the opaqueness still surrounding exactly what the Fed is doing we have no idea how much they're currently lending to banks and securities firms and probably won't know the September 2011 picture for a couple of years when another FOIA request gets granted.

We're also discovering that in the meantime banks are dumping their bad debt and bad securities on Fannie and Freddie, the government giving the banks backdoor bailouts by getting F and F to pay full boat for worthless toxic crap :

NEW YORK (TheStreet) — The official bailout of the financial system may be over, but the government is apparently far from finished propping up big banks, as evidenced by the news that Bank of America has struck a deal to dump a bunch of near-worthless home loans on U.S. taxpayers.

According to a report in The Wall Street Journal Bank of America has sold the rights to process and collect payments on 400,000 home loans to Fannie Mae, the government-controlled mortgage giant. The loans have an unpaid principal balance of $73 billion, but are being sold for $500 million, according to the report.

Doesn’t sound like a bad deal for the government, unless that $500 million price tag will soon be too steep, which is what “a person familiar with the deal,” told the Journal.

Bank Of America’s Backdoor Bailout – Dumping Mortgage Trash Onto Taxpayers Via Fannie Mae « InvestmentWatch – The best source of news, analysis, and intelligent discussion


and

Backdoor Bank Bailout? Fannie And Freddie May be "Losing Money as a Matter of Policy"
Posted May 12, 2010 12:45pm EDT by Peter Gorenstein in Banking, Politics
Related: fre, fnm, xlf, ^dji, ^gspc, xhb, faz

The Senate on Tuesday rejected a Republican sponsored measure that would effectively cut off support to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in two years. The government-sponsored enterprises, now in conservatorship, have already cost the government about $145 billion.

And there's no limit to how much more they can ask for for the next two years!

Fannie Mae lost $11.5 billion in the first quarter while Freddie Mac lost more than $6.7 billion. After posting those massive losses, they asked for a combined additional sum of nearly $20 billion in government assistance.

"Are they losing money as a matter of policy or are they losing it as bad judgment?" asks Dean Baker, co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, who calls the Fannie and Freddie the elephant in the bailout room.

Baker and Fusion IQ's Barry Ritholtz are convinced the government is effectively sponsoring a backdoor bailout of the banks via the GSEs. "This is a conscious, willful decision," says Ritholtz, author of The Big Picture blog and Bailout Nation. "Fannie And Freddie act as a conduit for taking all this junk off the banks' balance sheets."


Backdoor Bank Bailout? Fannie : Tech Ticker, Yahoo! Finance

Bailouts?
You mean the loans that were repaid?
At a profit to the Treasury?
They were awful!

But the only money we actually lost was for Fannie and Freddie.
And the auto bailouts.
And the mortgage forgiveness program.

The taxpayer is on the hook for all the bad debt and debt securities that was issued during the bubble years and has become bad due to the consequent recession

Still funny!

The initial money we paid out was paid back but we've suspended mark-to-market accounting rules so we have no idea how much bad debt banks are carrying, although if you look at how BOA values its assets compared to how the market values its assets then it's a vast amount of money overall. And we've guaranteed trillions of dollars of it at full value, so when it eventually emerges we'll find out how much it's going to cost. We also have the ongoing Fed loans to banks and the governments ongoing use of Fannie and Freddie as a dumping ground for the toxic debt and securities on banks' balance sheets.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

That says she was paying 30% of her income in taxes. You said she was paying 30% income tax. It's a shame we didn't bet any money on this.

"Mr Buffett said that he was taxed at 17.7 per cent on the $46 million he made last year, without trying to avoid paying higher taxes, while his secretary, who earned $60,000, was taxed at 30 per cent"

Feel free to prove she paid 30%.

Show all your work.

Here's the original post :

I asked you:

Who said she pays 30% in income taxes? Where did you get that from?

and you replied :


Buffett said it.


http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...e-profits-1-went-to-wages-10.html#post4158403

So you're now admitting that you can't find something that says she paid 30% in income taxes. Excellent.

Buffett said she does. The point is we are saying she does not.

Buffett blasts system that lets him pay less tax than secretary - Times Online

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Remember all the bank bailouts? The government guaranteed all the bad debt at 100 cents on the dollar, whatever eventually goes bad has already been guaranteed at full price by the taxpayer :

Government loans, spending or guarantees to rescue the U.S. financial system total more than $12.8 trillion since the international credit crisis began in August 2007, according to data compiled by Bloomberg as of March 31.

Fed Shrouding $2 Trillion in Bank Loans in


Remember them suspending mark-to-market rules so the banks don't have to admit to all the bad debt they're carrying? Every financial institution you mentioned apart from Lehman and Bear is classified as too big to fail. JP Morgan bought Bear and assumed their debts, so their bad debt is still sitting in the system. Bank of America value their assets at over $200 billion. The markets value the entire company at around $70 billion so clearly they think a lot of those assets are worthless.

A few weeks ago thanks to a FOIA request by Bloomberg that's been delayed for a couple of years we found out that the Fed had secretly loaned $1.2 trillion to America's banks and securities firms to prevent them all from going bankrupt in 2008:

Wall Street Aristocracy Got $1.2 Trillion in Secret Loans - Bloomberg


Because of the opaqueness still surrounding exactly what the Fed is doing we have no idea how much they're currently lending to banks and securities firms and probably won't know the September 2011 picture for a couple of years when another FOIA request gets granted.

We're also discovering that in the meantime banks are dumping their bad debt and bad securities on Fannie and Freddie, the government giving the banks backdoor bailouts by getting F and F to pay full boat for worthless toxic crap :

NEW YORK (TheStreet) — The official bailout of the financial system may be over, but the government is apparently far from finished propping up big banks, as evidenced by the news that Bank of America has struck a deal to dump a bunch of near-worthless home loans on U.S. taxpayers.

According to a report in The Wall Street Journal Bank of America has sold the rights to process and collect payments on 400,000 home loans to Fannie Mae, the government-controlled mortgage giant. The loans have an unpaid principal balance of $73 billion, but are being sold for $500 million, according to the report.

Doesn’t sound like a bad deal for the government, unless that $500 million price tag will soon be too steep, which is what “a person familiar with the deal,” told the Journal.

Bank Of America’s Backdoor Bailout – Dumping Mortgage Trash Onto Taxpayers Via Fannie Mae « InvestmentWatch – The best source of news, analysis, and intelligent discussion


and

Backdoor Bank Bailout? Fannie And Freddie May be "Losing Money as a Matter of Policy"
Posted May 12, 2010 12:45pm EDT by Peter Gorenstein in Banking, Politics
Related: fre, fnm, xlf, ^dji, ^gspc, xhb, faz

The Senate on Tuesday rejected a Republican sponsored measure that would effectively cut off support to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in two years. The government-sponsored enterprises, now in conservatorship, have already cost the government about $145 billion.

And there's no limit to how much more they can ask for for the next two years!

Fannie Mae lost $11.5 billion in the first quarter while Freddie Mac lost more than $6.7 billion. After posting those massive losses, they asked for a combined additional sum of nearly $20 billion in government assistance.

"Are they losing money as a matter of policy or are they losing it as bad judgment?" asks Dean Baker, co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, who calls the Fannie and Freddie the elephant in the bailout room.

Baker and Fusion IQ's Barry Ritholtz are convinced the government is effectively sponsoring a backdoor bailout of the banks via the GSEs. "This is a conscious, willful decision," says Ritholtz, author of The Big Picture blog and Bailout Nation. "Fannie And Freddie act as a conduit for taking all this junk off the banks' balance sheets."


Backdoor Bank Bailout? Fannie : Tech Ticker, Yahoo! Finance

Bailouts?
You mean the loans that were repaid?
At a profit to the Treasury?
They were awful!

But the only money we actually lost was for Fannie and Freddie.
And the auto bailouts.
And the mortgage forgiveness program.

The taxpayer is on the hook for all the bad debt and debt securities that was issued during the bubble years and has become bad due to the consequent recession

Still funny!

The initial money we paid out was paid back but we've suspended mark-to-market accounting rules so we have no idea how much bad debt banks are carrying, although if you look at how BOA values its assets compared to how the market values its assets then it's a vast amount of money overall. And we've guaranteed trillions of dollars of it at full value, so when it eventually emerges we'll find out how much it's going to cost. We also have the ongoing Fed loans to banks and the governments ongoing use of Fannie and Freddie as a dumping ground for the toxic debt and securities on banks' balance sheets.

They suspended mark to market?
Could you prove it?
Guaranteed?
You have any recent proof?
Or is your source 3 years old?
And if BAC goes belly up, how is the taxpayer on the hook?
The Fed has ongoing loans to banks? How much?

 

[Raoul_Duke]

"Mr Buffett said that he was taxed at 17.7 per cent on the $46 million he made last year, without trying to avoid paying higher taxes, while his secretary, who earned $60,000, was taxed at 30 per cent"

Feel free to prove she paid 30%.

Show all your work.

Here's the original post :

I asked you:

Who said she pays 30% in income taxes? Where did you get that from?

and you replied :


Buffett said it.


http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...e-profits-1-went-to-wages-10.html#post4158403

So you're now admitting that you can't find something that says she paid 30% in income taxes. Excellent.

Buffett said she does. The point is we are saying she does not.

Buffett blasts system that lets him pay less tax than secretary - Times Online

Buffet said she pays 30% of her income in taxes. She pays 15.something % in FICA taxes which is nearly as much as Buffett's 17% by itself. And then obviously there are taxes on top of that. Why is 30% so unbelievable? If you add up all the federal taxes you pay what percentage of your income does it come to?

 

[Wiseacre]

I do not believe secretaries who make 60K are taxed at 30%. Not even after you add in state and local taxes. Does she contribute to an IRA or a 401k? She doesn't get any capital gains or dividends? She doesn't deduct her mortgage interest, or her property taxes?


" Mr Buffett said that he was taxed at 17.7 per cent on the $46 million he made last year, without trying to avoid paying higher taxes, while his secretary, who earned $60,000, was taxed at 30 per cent. "

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Here's the original post :

I asked you:

Who said she pays 30% in income taxes? Where did you get that from?

and you replied :


Buffett said it.


http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...e-profits-1-went-to-wages-10.html#post4158403

So you're now admitting that you can't find something that says she paid 30% in income taxes. Excellent.

Buffett said she does. The point is we are saying she does not.

Buffett blasts system that lets him pay less tax than secretary - Times Online

Buffet said she pays 30% of her income in taxes. She pays 15.something % in FICA taxes which is nearly as much as Buffett's 17% by itself. And then obviously there are taxes on top of that. Why is 30% so unbelievable? If you add up all the federal taxes you pay what percentage of your income does it come to?

She only pays 7.65% in payroll taxes.
You could add the other taxes up and still not come close to 30%.
I could even explain how she doesn't pay a higher percentage than Buffett, but you wouldn't understand, based on your poor math skills and weak understanding in general.

 

[Raoul_Duke]

Bailouts?
You mean the loans that were repaid?
At a profit to the Treasury?
They were awful!

But the only money we actually lost was for Fannie and Freddie.
And the auto bailouts.
And the mortgage forgiveness program.

The taxpayer is on the hook for all the bad debt and debt securities that was issued during the bubble years and has become bad due to the consequent recession

Still funny!

The initial money we paid out was paid back but we've suspended mark-to-market accounting rules so we have no idea how much bad debt banks are carrying, although if you look at how BOA values its assets compared to how the market values its assets then it's a vast amount of money overall. And we've guaranteed trillions of dollars of it at full value, so when it eventually emerges we'll find out how much it's going to cost. We also have the ongoing Fed loans to banks and the governments ongoing use of Fannie and Freddie as a dumping ground for the toxic debt and securities on banks' balance sheets.

They suspended mark to market?
Could you prove it?
Guaranteed?
You have any recent proof?
Or is your source 3 years old?
And if BAC goes belly up, how is the taxpayer on the hook?
The Fed has ongoing loans to banks? How much?

April 2 (Bloomberg) -- The Financial Accounting Standards Board, pressured by U.S. lawmakers and financial companies, voted to relax fair-value accounting rules that Citigroup Inc. and Wells Fargo & Co. say don’t work when markets are inactive.

Changes to fair-value, or mark-to-market accounting, approved by FASB today allow companies to use “significant” judgment in gauging prices of some investments on their books, including mortgage-backed securities. Analysts say the measure may reduce banks’ writedowns and boost net income. Firms could apply the changes to first-quarter results.

“Good decision,” Citigroup Chairman Richard Parsons said of FASB’s move.

FASB Eases Fair-Value Rules Amid Lawmaker Pressure (Update5) - Bloomberg


If BOA goes belly up then it would set off a domino effect as the banking system is so interconnected. like what happened when Lehman Brothers went bust in 2008 and the government had to spend trillions of dollars bailing out the rest of the banking system and preventing it all going bust! So BOA wouldn't be allowed to go belly up.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The initial money we paid out was paid back but we've suspended mark-to-market accounting rules so we have no idea how much bad debt banks are carrying, although if you look at how BOA values its assets compared to how the market values its assets then it's a vast amount of money overall. And we've guaranteed trillions of dollars of it at full value, so when it eventually emerges we'll find out how much it's going to cost. We also have the ongoing Fed loans to banks and the governments ongoing use of Fannie and Freddie as a dumping ground for the toxic debt and securities on banks' balance sheets.

They suspended mark to market?
Could you prove it?
Guaranteed?
You have any recent proof?
Or is your source 3 years old?
And if BAC goes belly up, how is the taxpayer on the hook?
The Fed has ongoing loans to banks? How much?

April 2 (Bloomberg) -- The Financial Accounting Standards Board, pressured by U.S. lawmakers and financial companies, voted to relax fair-value accounting rules that Citigroup Inc. and Wells Fargo & Co. say don’t work when markets are inactive.

Changes to fair-value, or mark-to-market accounting, approved by FASB today allow companies to use “significant” judgment in gauging prices of some investments on their books, including mortgage-backed securities. Analysts say the measure may reduce banks’ writedowns and boost net income. Firms could apply the changes to first-quarter results.

“Good decision,” Citigroup Chairman Richard Parsons said of FASB’s move.

FASB Eases Fair-Value Rules Amid Lawmaker Pressure (Update5) - Bloomberg


If BOA goes belly up then it would set off a domino effect as the banking system is so interconnected. like what happened when Lehman Brothers went bust in 2008 and the government had to spend trillions of dollars bailing out the rest of the banking system and preventing it all going bust! So BOA wouldn't be allowed to go belly up.

Guaranteed? LOL!

The government spent trillions? Is that money gone?
Or are you whining about loans that were repaid?

Still no proof the taxpayer is on the hook for anything but Fannie and Freddie?

 

[Raoul_Duke]

They suspended mark to market?
Could you prove it?
Guaranteed?
You have any recent proof?
Or is your source 3 years old?
And if BAC goes belly up, how is the taxpayer on the hook?
The Fed has ongoing loans to banks? How much?

April 2 (Bloomberg) -- The Financial Accounting Standards Board, pressured by U.S. lawmakers and financial companies, voted to relax fair-value accounting rules that Citigroup Inc. and Wells Fargo & Co. say don’t work when markets are inactive.

Changes to fair-value, or mark-to-market accounting, approved by FASB today allow companies to use “significant” judgment in gauging prices of some investments on their books, including mortgage-backed securities. Analysts say the measure may reduce banks’ writedowns and boost net income. Firms could apply the changes to first-quarter results.

“Good decision,” Citigroup Chairman Richard Parsons said of FASB’s move.

FASB Eases Fair-Value Rules Amid Lawmaker Pressure (Update5) - Bloomberg


If BOA goes belly up then it would set off a domino effect as the banking system is so interconnected. like what happened when Lehman Brothers went bust in 2008 and the government had to spend trillions of dollars bailing out the rest of the banking system and preventing it all going bust! So BOA wouldn't be allowed to go belly up.

Guaranteed? LOL!

The government spent trillions? Is that money gone?
Or are you whining about loans that were repaid?

Still no proof the taxpayer is on the hook for anything but Fannie and Freddie?

Like the Bloomberg article says, the government guaranteed about eight trillion dollars of debt. We don't know how much they'll eventually have to pay out on that as it depends on economic growth, the recovery of the banking system and most of all on housing prices. But the best estimate at the moment of the costs of the bailout are currently about one and a half trillion dollars :

US government still owed $1.5 trillion in financial bailout money

But who knows how much the banks will eventually have in bad debt. They were all campaigning to have mark-to-market scrapped and as an example, Bank of America's balance sheet shows them to have $220 billion in assets but the market values the entire company at about $70 billion, at least the last time I looked. So the market clearly thinks that there's a lot of bad debt on these banks' balance sheets that they haven't admitted to yet.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

April 2 (Bloomberg) -- The Financial Accounting Standards Board, pressured by U.S. lawmakers and financial companies, voted to relax fair-value accounting rules that Citigroup Inc. and Wells Fargo & Co. say don’t work when markets are inactive.

Changes to fair-value, or mark-to-market accounting, approved by FASB today allow companies to use “significant” judgment in gauging prices of some investments on their books, including mortgage-backed securities. Analysts say the measure may reduce banks’ writedowns and boost net income. Firms could apply the changes to first-quarter results.

“Good decision,” Citigroup Chairman Richard Parsons said of FASB’s move.

FASB Eases Fair-Value Rules Amid Lawmaker Pressure (Update5) - Bloomberg


If BOA goes belly up then it would set off a domino effect as the banking system is so interconnected. like what happened when Lehman Brothers went bust in 2008 and the government had to spend trillions of dollars bailing out the rest of the banking system and preventing it all going bust! So BOA wouldn't be allowed to go belly up.

Guaranteed? LOL!

The government spent trillions? Is that money gone?
Or are you whining about loans that were repaid?

Still no proof the taxpayer is on the hook for anything but Fannie and Freddie?

Like the Bloomberg article says, the government guaranteed about eight trillion dollars of debt. We don't know how much they'll eventually have to pay out on that as it depends on economic growth, the recovery of the banking system and most of all on housing prices. But the best estimate at the moment of the costs of the bailout are currently about one and a half trillion dollars :

US government still owed $1.5 trillion in financial bailout money

But who knows how much the banks will eventually have in bad debt. They were all campaigning to have mark-to-market scrapped and as an example, Bank of America's balance sheet shows them to have $220 billion in assets but the market values the entire company at about $70 billion, at least the last time I looked. So the market clearly thinks that there's a lot of bad debt on these banks' balance sheets that they haven't admitted to yet.

Like the Bloomberg article says, the government guaranteed about eight trillion dollars of debt

Sounds like past tense. How much do they guarantee now?

Bank of America's balance sheet shows them to have $220 billion in assets

Ummmm......the last time I looked, they had $2.2 trillion.

Did you ever find the regulation that Bush eliminated?

You know, the one that forced banks to hold their mortgages until maturity?
Or do you realize how wrong your claim was?

 

[Raoul_Duke]

Guaranteed? LOL!

The government spent trillions? Is that money gone?
Or are you whining about loans that were repaid?

Still no proof the taxpayer is on the hook for anything but Fannie and Freddie?

Like the Bloomberg article says, the government guaranteed about eight trillion dollars of debt. We don't know how much they'll eventually have to pay out on that as it depends on economic growth, the recovery of the banking system and most of all on housing prices. But the best estimate at the moment of the costs of the bailout are currently about one and a half trillion dollars :

US government still owed $1.5 trillion in financial bailout money

But who knows how much the banks will eventually have in bad debt. They were all campaigning to have mark-to-market scrapped and as an example, Bank of America's balance sheet shows them to have $220 billion in assets but the market values the entire company at about $70 billion, at least the last time I looked. So the market clearly thinks that there's a lot of bad debt on these banks' balance sheets that they haven't admitted to yet.

Like the Bloomberg article says, the government guaranteed about eight trillion dollars of debt

Sounds like past tense. How much do they guarantee now?

Bank of America's balance sheet shows them to have $220 billion in assets

Ummmm......the last time I looked, they had $2.2 trillion.

Did you ever find the regulation that Bush eliminated?

You know, the one that forced banks to hold their mortgages until maturity?
Or do you realize how wrong your claim was?

They still guarantee all of the debt. Whatever eventually goes bad the taxpayer is on the hook for.

BoA have about $220 billion in capital, read back through my previous posts ans click the links and you'll be able to read all about it.

Again, I already explained to you all about Bush's deregulation. What part didn't you understand?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Like the Bloomberg article says, the government guaranteed about eight trillion dollars of debt. We don't know how much they'll eventually have to pay out on that as it depends on economic growth, the recovery of the banking system and most of all on housing prices. But the best estimate at the moment of the costs of the bailout are currently about one and a half trillion dollars :

US government still owed $1.5 trillion in financial bailout money

But who knows how much the banks will eventually have in bad debt. They were all campaigning to have mark-to-market scrapped and as an example, Bank of America's balance sheet shows them to have $220 billion in assets but the market values the entire company at about $70 billion, at least the last time I looked. So the market clearly thinks that there's a lot of bad debt on these banks' balance sheets that they haven't admitted to yet.

Like the Bloomberg article says, the government guaranteed about eight trillion dollars of debt

Sounds like past tense. How much do they guarantee now?

Bank of America's balance sheet shows them to have $220 billion in assets

Ummmm......the last time I looked, they had $2.2 trillion.

Did you ever find the regulation that Bush eliminated?

You know, the one that forced banks to hold their mortgages until maturity?
Or do you realize how wrong your claim was?

They still guarantee all of the debt. Whatever eventually goes bad the taxpayer is on the hook for.

BoA have about $220 billion in capital, read back through my previous posts ans click the links and you'll be able to read all about it.

Again, I already explained to you all about Bush's deregulation. What part didn't you understand?

They guarantee all bank's debt?
I'll have some of what you're smoking.

$220 billion in capital?
You said they have $220 billion in assets.
Do you understand the difference between the two?
Perhaps not.

Yes, I remember your claim that Bush deregulated and suddenly banks
no longer had to hold mortgages until maturity.
I've been waiting for you to prove your claim.
So why don't you prove your claim?
Instead of trying to change the subject?

 

[Raoul_Duke]

Like the Bloomberg article says, the government guaranteed about eight trillion dollars of debt

Sounds like past tense. How much do they guarantee now?

Bank of America's balance sheet shows them to have $220 billion in assets

Ummmm......the last time I looked, they had $2.2 trillion.

Did you ever find the regulation that Bush eliminated?

You know, the one that forced banks to hold their mortgages until maturity?
Or do you realize how wrong your claim was?

They still guarantee all of the debt. Whatever eventually goes bad the taxpayer is on the hook for.

BoA have about $220 billion in capital, read back through my previous posts ans click the links and you'll be able to read all about it.

Again, I already explained to you all about Bush's deregulation. What part didn't you understand?

They guarantee all bank's debt?
I'll have some of what you're smoking.

$220 billion in capital?
You said they have $220 billion in assets.
Do you understand the difference between the two?
Perhaps not.

Yes, I remember your claim that Bush deregulated and suddenly banks
no longer had to hold mortgages until maturity.
I've been waiting for you to prove your claim.
So why don't you prove your claim?
Instead of trying to change the subject?

Read the article I posted. The government guaranteed $8 trillion of bank, securities firms etc. debt. That's what helped to calm the markets down back in 2008. It's what all other major governments did. It's what governments normally do in financial crisises. It's what they've done almost without fail since the Bank of England guaranteed the debt in the British banking system back in 1825.

As for the assets/capital thing. Let's stick with your two and a half trillion number. So they have two and a half trillion in assets and you can buy every share of the company for less than sixty four billion dollars at the moment. So what does that tell you about how much bad debt the market thinks they have on their books?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

They still guarantee all of the debt. Whatever eventually goes bad the taxpayer is on the hook for.

BoA have about $220 billion in capital, read back through my previous posts ans click the links and you'll be able to read all about it.

Again, I already explained to you all about Bush's deregulation. What part didn't you understand?

They guarantee all bank's debt?
I'll have some of what you're smoking.

$220 billion in capital?
You said they have $220 billion in assets.
Do you understand the difference between the two?
Perhaps not.

Yes, I remember your claim that Bush deregulated and suddenly banks
no longer had to hold mortgages until maturity.
I've been waiting for you to prove your claim.
So why don't you prove your claim?
Instead of trying to change the subject?

Read the article I posted. The government guaranteed $8 trillion of bank, securities firms etc. debt. That's what helped to calm the markets down back in 2008. It's what all other major governments did. It's what governments normally do in financial crisises. It's what they've done almost without fail since the Bank of England guaranteed the debt in the British banking system back in 1825.

As for the assets/capital thing. Let's stick with your two and a half trillion number. So they have two and a half trillion in assets and you can buy every share of the company for less than sixty four billion dollars at the moment. So what does that tell you about how much bad debt the market thinks they have on their books?

Why should I read the article? If you think a portion of it proves your claim, post it.

The debt guarantees weren't forever. They have expired. The government never guaranteed all bad debt, as you originally claimed. And do not now.

Still waiting for your proof that Bush deregulated and allowed banks, for the first time, to sell mortgages instead of hold them forever. You haven't admitted your error so that makes you a liar.

As far as the assets of BOA, that's not "my number", that's the real number.

The fact that they have $2.2 trillion in assets and a market cap of only $64 billion doesn't tell you how much bad debt they have or how much bad debt the market thinks they have.

I could explain how a balance sheet works, but based on your weak understanding, it seems like it would be a waste of time.

 

[Raoul_Duke]

They guarantee all bank's debt?
I'll have some of what you're smoking.

$220 billion in capital?
You said they have $220 billion in assets.
Do you understand the difference between the two?
Perhaps not.

Yes, I remember your claim that Bush deregulated and suddenly banks
no longer had to hold mortgages until maturity.
I've been waiting for you to prove your claim.
So why don't you prove your claim?
Instead of trying to change the subject?

Read the article I posted. The government guaranteed $8 trillion of bank, securities firms etc. debt. That's what helped to calm the markets down back in 2008. It's what all other major governments did. It's what governments normally do in financial crisises. It's what they've done almost without fail since the Bank of England guaranteed the debt in the British banking system back in 1825.

As for the assets/capital thing. Let's stick with your two and a half trillion number. So they have two and a half trillion in assets and you can buy every share of the company for less than sixty four billion dollars at the moment. So what does that tell you about how much bad debt the market thinks they have on their books?

Why should I read the article? If you think a portion of it proves your claim, post it.

The debt guarantees weren't forever. They have expired. The government never guaranteed all bad debt, as you originally claimed. And do not now.

Still waiting for your proof that Bush deregulated and allowed banks, for the first time, to sell mortgages instead of hold them forever. You haven't admitted your error so that makes you a liar.

As far as the assets of BOA, that's not "my number", that's the real number.

The fact that they have $2.2 trillion in assets and a market cap of only $64 billion doesn't tell you how much bad debt they have or how much bad debt the market thinks they have.

I could explain how a balance sheet works, but based on your weak understanding, it seems like it would be a waste of time.

Government loans, spending or guarantees to rescue the U.S. financial system total more than $12.8 trillion since the international credit crisis began in August 2007, according to data compiled by Bloomberg as of March 31. The total includes about $2 trillion on the Fed’s balance sheet.

Fed Shrouding $2 Trillion in Bank Loans in

The government still guarantees all that money. If the euro blows up in the next few weeks and US banks get into trouble the government will guarantee anything they haven'y guaranteed already. That's to reassure the markets and prevent panic, bank runs, market panic etc. You may remember the Fed and the other big central banks recently provided unlimited dollar loans to any banks that might need them :

LONDON -- Five of the world's top central banks acted jointly Thursday to provide unlimited dollar loans to banks, a move aimed at easing the growing tensions in the eurozone's financial sector and shielding the global economy from its jitters.

The European Central Bank said it will coordinate with the U.S. Federal Reserve, the Bank of England, the Bank of Japan and the Swiss National Bank to offer three-month dollar loans to banks through the end of this year.

World's central banks flood market with dollars - Forbes.com

This was to calm markets and try and prevent the current euro crisis spiralling. So yes, they're guaranteeing everything they guaranteed back in 2008 and will continue to guarantee basically the entire financial system until the crisis is over, maybe a decade or two down the line. And when the next crisis happens, they'll do exactly the same thing again.

Looking at BOA's balance sheet is a waste of time because they're marking their assets to make-believe instead of to market. Looking at how the market values the bank is a better way to approximate BOA's situation. Markets are never wrong, right?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Read the article I posted. The government guaranteed $8 trillion of bank, securities firms etc. debt. That's what helped to calm the markets down back in 2008. It's what all other major governments did. It's what governments normally do in financial crisises. It's what they've done almost without fail since the Bank of England guaranteed the debt in the British banking system back in 1825.

As for the assets/capital thing. Let's stick with your two and a half trillion number. So they have two and a half trillion in assets and you can buy every share of the company for less than sixty four billion dollars at the moment. So what does that tell you about how much bad debt the market thinks they have on their books?

Why should I read the article? If you think a portion of it proves your claim, post it.

The debt guarantees weren't forever. They have expired. The government never guaranteed all bad debt, as you originally claimed. And do not now.

Still waiting for your proof that Bush deregulated and allowed banks, for the first time, to sell mortgages instead of hold them forever. You haven't admitted your error so that makes you a liar.

As far as the assets of BOA, that's not "my number", that's the real number.

The fact that they have $2.2 trillion in assets and a market cap of only $64 billion doesn't tell you how much bad debt they have or how much bad debt the market thinks they have.

I could explain how a balance sheet works, but based on your weak understanding, it seems like it would be a waste of time.

Government loans, spending or guarantees to rescue the U.S. financial system total more than $12.8 trillion since the international credit crisis began in August 2007, according to data compiled by Bloomberg as of March 31. The total includes about $2 trillion on the Fed’s balance sheet.

Fed Shrouding $2 Trillion in Bank Loans in

The government still guarantees all that money. If the euro blows up in the next few weeks and US banks get into trouble the government will guarantee anything they haven'y guaranteed already. That's to reassure the markets and prevent panic, bank runs, market panic etc. You may remember the Fed and the other big central banks recently provided unlimited dollar loans to any banks that might need them :

LONDON -- Five of the world's top central banks acted jointly Thursday to provide unlimited dollar loans to banks, a move aimed at easing the growing tensions in the eurozone's financial sector and shielding the global economy from its jitters.

The European Central Bank said it will coordinate with the U.S. Federal Reserve, the Bank of England, the Bank of Japan and the Swiss National Bank to offer three-month dollar loans to banks through the end of this year.

World's central banks flood market with dollars - Forbes.com

This was to calm markets and try and prevent the current euro crisis spiralling. So yes, they're guaranteeing everything they guaranteed back in 2008 and will continue to guarantee basically the entire financial system until the crisis is over, maybe a decade or two down the line. And when the next crisis happens, they'll do exactly the same thing again.

Looking at BOA's balance sheet is a waste of time because they're marking their assets to make-believe instead of to market. Looking at how the market values the bank is a better way to approximate BOA's situation. Markets are never wrong, right?

"Fed Shrouding $2 Trillion in Bank Loans"

Yeah, Fed loans have been repaid. Now what are you whining about?

"The government still guarantees all that money"

No they don't. Check this out.

The Debt Guarantee Program, part of the FDIC’s Temporary Liquidity Guarantee Program, backed almost $350 billion of debt at its peak. At the end of December, $267 billion was still guaranteed

FDIC warns on end of giant debt guarantees - MarketWatch

"Looking at BOA's balance sheet is a waste of time"

It's a waste of time for you, because you don't know the difference between asset and capital.

 

[boedicca]

April 2 (Bloomberg) -- The Financial Accounting Standards Board, pressured by U.S. lawmakers and financial companies, voted to relax fair-value accounting rules that Citigroup Inc. and Wells Fargo & Co. say don’t work when markets are inactive.

Changes to fair-value, or mark-to-market accounting, approved by FASB today allow companies to use “significant” judgment in gauging prices of some investments on their books, including mortgage-backed securities. Analysts say the measure may reduce banks’ writedowns and boost net income. Firms could apply the changes to first-quarter results.

“Good decision,” Citigroup Chairman Richard Parsons said of FASB’s move.

FASB Eases Fair-Value Rules Amid Lawmaker Pressure (Update5) - Bloomberg


If BOA goes belly up then it would set off a domino effect as the banking system is so interconnected. like what happened when Lehman Brothers went bust in 2008 and the government had to spend trillions of dollars bailing out the rest of the banking system and preventing it all going bust! So BOA wouldn't be allowed to go belly up.

Guaranteed? LOL!

The government spent trillions? Is that money gone?
Or are you whining about loans that were repaid?

Still no proof the taxpayer is on the hook for anything but Fannie and Freddie?

Like the Bloomberg article says, the government guaranteed about eight trillion dollars of debt. We don't know how much they'll eventually have to pay out on that as it depends on economic growth, the recovery of the banking system and most of all on housing prices. But the best estimate at the moment of the costs of the bailout are currently about one and a half trillion dollars :

US government still owed $1.5 trillion in financial bailout money

But who knows how much the banks will eventually have in bad debt. They were all campaigning to have mark-to-market scrapped and as an example, Bank of America's balance sheet shows them to have $220 billion in assets but the market values the entire company at about $70 billion, at least the last time I looked. So the market clearly thinks that there's a lot of bad debt on these banks' balance sheets that they haven't admitted to yet.

Let's have a gander at the link with the detail. Gee, most of the outstanding money is due to GSEs, Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac and the FHA: