What was the real cost of the Bankster Bailout ?

[CultureCitizen]

So , some conservative figures say it was 700 b, and former president Obama said it had all been paid back.

Barack Obama says banks paid back all the federal bailout money

But I keep reading articles citing figures of 16 T and upward of which only 4 T have been paid.

The Big Bank Bailout

This seems to give the frase "bank robery" a whole new meaning.

So, how big was the bailout really?

In my opinion, this has more to do with class warfare and those with the most gold making the most rules, to benefit themselves.

We have a Commerce Clause.

Does the fiscal exigency of real times of War exist or not; only our federal Congress can declare it so, for the Union.

In consideration of the monstrous sacrifice in property and blood that each war demands of the people, personal enrichment through a war must be designated as a crime against the people. Therefore, we demand the total confiscation of all war profits.
​

The People have a need to know.

Daniel,
I am sory to say this but your posts make little sense and little to the discussion.
Point 1 : In my opinion, this has more to do with class warfare and those with the most gold making the most rules, to benefit themselves.
Granted, it is related, but it is also related to the perception people have of banks and the process of money creation which is inaccurate even in the textbooks. But , so far , so good.

Then you add:

We have a Commerce Clause.
Does the fiscal exigency of real times of War exist or not; only our federal Congress can declare it so, for the Union.

This two sentences seem completely unrelated? What does the commerce clause have to do with the Fed, the bailout and the banking system at all ? And war, how is this related to the bailout?

Finally
In consideration of the monstrous sacrifice in property and blood that each war demands of the people, personal enrichment through a war must be designated as a crime against the people. Therefore, we demand the total confiscation of all war profits.

Yes , war is awful and yes, the military complex and its cronies should be judged. My problem here is that all this is completely unrelated to the thread!!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Well, then what about this:


The Big Bank Bailout

"In fact, $7.7 trillion of the secret emergency lending was only disclosed to the public after Congress forced a one-time audit of the Federal Reserve in November of 2011. After the audit the public found out the bailout was in trillions not billions; and that there were no requirements attached to the bailout money - the banks could use it for any purpose."

That would certainly explain the debt spike from 10 T to 18 T under Bush / Obama.

Hmm ,
well , according to this document there was still an outstanding amount of nearly 1 Trillion . As far as I know there isn't any newer audit. So it's hard to tell if has been fully paid.

http://www.sanders.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/GAO Fed Investigation.pdf?

well , according to this document there was still an outstanding amount of nearly 1 Trillion .

What page do you think says that?

Sory , the document is a bit large, I should've specified the page. That would be page 4. I am looking at the column "balance as of 6 / 29 / 11"

Purchased agency mortgage-backed securities to provide support to mortgage and housing markets and to foster improved conditions in the financial markets more generally

That's the guaranteed MBS they owned at that point.
All the other bank loans they made were $0, except TALF, $13 billion.

Well, it is not pennies for sure , and I can't find another more recent audit from the GAO that says that they have been paid.

If you ever find one let me know , I'll be more than glad to know that trillion has been paid ... with interests.

Well, it is not pennies for sure , and I can't find another more recent audit from the GAO that says that they have been paid.

$7.7 trillion down to $13 billion means it's pretty well been paid back by July 2011.

Look here for more info if you'd like.....

Bailout Scorecard | Eye on the Bailout | ProPublica

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

So , some conservative figures say it was 700 b, and former president Obama said it had all been paid back.

Barack Obama says banks paid back all the federal bailout money

But I keep reading articles citing figures of 16 T and upward of which only 4 T have been paid.

The Big Bank Bailout

This seems to give the frase "bank robery" a whole new meaning.

So, how big was the bailout really?

In my opinion, this has more to do with class warfare and those with the most gold making the most rules, to benefit themselves.

We have a Commerce Clause.

Does the fiscal exigency of real times of War exist or not; only our federal Congress can declare it so, for the Union.

In consideration of the monstrous sacrifice in property and blood that each war demands of the people, personal enrichment through a war must be designated as a crime against the people. Therefore, we demand the total confiscation of all war profits.
​

The People have a need to know.

Daniel,
I am sory to say this but your posts make little sense and little to the discussion.
Point 1 : In my opinion, this has more to do with class warfare and those with the most gold making the most rules, to benefit themselves.
Granted, it is related, but it is also related to the perception people have of banks and the process of money creation which is inaccurate even in the textbooks. But , so far , so good.

Then you add:

We have a Commerce Clause.
Does the fiscal exigency of real times of War exist or not; only our federal Congress can declare it so, for the Union.

This two sentences seem completely unrelated? What does the commerce clause have to do with the Fed, the bailout and the banking system at all ? And war, how is this related to the bailout?

Finally
In consideration of the monstrous sacrifice in property and blood that each war demands of the people, personal enrichment through a war must be designated as a crime against the people. Therefore, we demand the total confiscation of all war profits.

Yes , war is awful and yes, the military complex and its cronies should be judged. My problem here is that all this is completely unrelated to the thread!!

Don't waste your time with him.
He's either an idiot or a random phrase generator.

 

[CultureCitizen]

So , some conservative figures say it was 700 b, and former president Obama said it had all been paid back.

Barack Obama says banks paid back all the federal bailout money

But I keep reading articles citing figures of 16 T and upward of which only 4 T have been paid.

The Big Bank Bailout

This seems to give the frase "bank robery" a whole new meaning.

So, how big was the bailout really?

In my opinion, this has more to do with class warfare and those with the most gold making the most rules, to benefit themselves.

We have a Commerce Clause.

Does the fiscal exigency of real times of War exist or not; only our federal Congress can declare it so, for the Union.

In consideration of the monstrous sacrifice in property and blood that each war demands of the people, personal enrichment through a war must be designated as a crime against the people. Therefore, we demand the total confiscation of all war profits.
​

The People have a need to know.

Daniel,
I am sory to say this but your posts make little sense and little to the discussion.
Point 1 : In my opinion, this has more to do with class warfare and those with the most gold making the most rules, to benefit themselves.
Granted, it is related, but it is also related to the perception people have of banks and the process of money creation which is inaccurate even in the textbooks. But , so far , so good.

Then you add:

We have a Commerce Clause.
Does the fiscal exigency of real times of War exist or not; only our federal Congress can declare it so, for the Union.

This two sentences seem completely unrelated? What does the commerce clause have to do with the Fed, the bailout and the banking system at all ? And war, how is this related to the bailout?

Finally
In consideration of the monstrous sacrifice in property and blood that each war demands of the people, personal enrichment through a war must be designated as a crime against the people. Therefore, we demand the total confiscation of all war profits.

Yes , war is awful and yes, the military complex and its cronies should be judged. My problem here is that all this is completely unrelated to the thread!!

Don't waste your time with him.
He's either an idiot or a random phrase generator.

Arg... he kind of reminds me of Special Ed, when he gets in spambot mode... They both make me think of spambots.

 

[oldfart]

So , some conservative figures say it was 700 b, and former president Obama said it had all been paid back.

Barack Obama says banks paid back all the federal bailout money

But I keep reading articles citing figures of 16 T and upward of which only 4 T have been paid.

The Big Bank Bailout

This seems to give the frase "bank robery" a whole new meaning.

So, how big was the bailout really?

In my opinion, this has more to do with class warfare and those with the most gold making the most rules, to benefit themselves.

We have a Commerce Clause.

Does the fiscal exigency of real times of War exist or not; only our federal Congress can declare it so, for the Union.

In consideration of the monstrous sacrifice in property and blood that each war demands of the people, personal enrichment through a war must be designated as a crime against the people. Therefore, we demand the total confiscation of all war profits.
​

The People have a need to know.

Daniel,
I am sory to say this but your posts make little sense and little to the discussion.
Point 1 : In my opinion, this has more to do with class warfare and those with the most gold making the most rules, to benefit themselves.
Granted, it is related, but it is also related to the perception people have of banks and the process of money creation which is inaccurate even in the textbooks. But , so far , so good.

Then you add:

We have a Commerce Clause.
Does the fiscal exigency of real times of War exist or not; only our federal Congress can declare it so, for the Union.

This two sentences seem completely unrelated? What does the commerce clause have to do with the Fed, the bailout and the banking system at all ? And war, how is this related to the bailout?

Finally
In consideration of the monstrous sacrifice in property and blood that each war demands of the people, personal enrichment through a war must be designated as a crime against the people. Therefore, we demand the total confiscation of all war profits.

Yes , war is awful and yes, the military complex and its cronies should be judged. My problem here is that all this is completely unrelated to the thread!!

Don't waste your time with him.
He's either an idiot or a random phrase generator.

Arg... he kind of reminds me of Special Ed, when he gets in spambot mode... They both make me think of spambots.

Actually the various government loans have all been paid back in full, including AIG etc. The loss estimates of $4 to $12 trillion are estimates of the permanent damage done the economy structurally by the last ten years. They are based on the fact that prolonged periods of underutilization of resources (unemployment is a good proxy for this) reduces potential GDP. Even if, as appears to be happening now, we get closer to full utilization of resources (measured by approaching the non-accelerating inflation level of unemployment), that level of potential GDP is lower than it would have been if the economy had not sustained the structural damage, i.e. if potential GDP had continued to grow at the same rate it would have absent the event.

Specifically, levels of private and public investment have fallen below even replacement levels, our labor force had deteriorated in both size and training, research has declined, and a lot of the social infrastructure has degraded. The longer governments follow policies to reduce deficits, deregulate financial markets, and gut the social safety net; the wider this gap will be in the future.

 

[CultureCitizen]

Arg... he kind of reminds me of Special Ed, when he gets in spambot mode... They both make me think of spambots.

Actually the various government loans have all been paid back in full, including AIG etc. The loss estimates of $4 to $12 trillion are estimates of the permanent damage done the economy structurally by the last ten years. They are based on the fact that prolonged periods of underutilization of resources (unemployment is a good proxy for this) reduces potential GDP. Even if, as appears to be happening now, we get closer to full utilization of resources (measured by approaching the non-accelerating inflation level of unemployment), that level of potential GDP is lower than it would have been if the economy had not sustained the structural damage, i.e. if potential GDP had continued to grow at the same rate it would have absent the event.

Specifically, levels of private and public investment have fallen below even replacement levels, our labor force had deteriorated in both size and training, research has declined, and a lot of the social infrastructure has degraded. The longer governments follow policies to reduce deficits, deregulate financial markets, and gut the social safety net; the wider this gap will be in the future.

Paid in full is something I have a hard time believing. According to this document ( see page 4) there was 1 trillion in outstanding debt as of 2012. Since the GAO hasn't made another report I consider that trillion to be outstanding debt.

http://www.sanders.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/GAO Fed Investigation.pdf?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Arg... he kind of reminds me of Special Ed, when he gets in spambot mode... They both make me think of spambots.

Actually the various government loans have all been paid back in full, including AIG etc. The loss estimates of $4 to $12 trillion are estimates of the permanent damage done the economy structurally by the last ten years. They are based on the fact that prolonged periods of underutilization of resources (unemployment is a good proxy for this) reduces potential GDP. Even if, as appears to be happening now, we get closer to full utilization of resources (measured by approaching the non-accelerating inflation level of unemployment), that level of potential GDP is lower than it would have been if the economy had not sustained the structural damage, i.e. if potential GDP had continued to grow at the same rate it would have absent the event.

Specifically, levels of private and public investment have fallen below even replacement levels, our labor force had deteriorated in both size and training, research has declined, and a lot of the social infrastructure has degraded. The longer governments follow policies to reduce deficits, deregulate financial markets, and gut the social safety net; the wider this gap will be in the future.

Paid in full is something I have a hard time believing. According to this document ( see page 4) there was 1 trillion in outstanding debt as of 2012. Since the GAO hasn't made another report I consider that trillion to be outstanding debt.

http://www.sanders.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/GAO Fed Investigation.pdf?

According to this document ( see page 4) there was 1 trillion in outstanding debt as of 2012.

That's not debt. The Fed created money and bought MBS with it. That isn't money they lent to a bank, so it isn't money we're waiting to get repaid. Is that clear enough?

 

[CultureCitizen]

Arg... he kind of reminds me of Special Ed, when he gets in spambot mode... They both make me think of spambots.

Actually the various government loans have all been paid back in full, including AIG etc. The loss estimates of $4 to $12 trillion are estimates of the permanent damage done the economy structurally by the last ten years. They are based on the fact that prolonged periods of underutilization of resources (unemployment is a good proxy for this) reduces potential GDP. Even if, as appears to be happening now, we get closer to full utilization of resources (measured by approaching the non-accelerating inflation level of unemployment), that level of potential GDP is lower than it would have been if the economy had not sustained the structural damage, i.e. if potential GDP had continued to grow at the same rate it would have absent the event.

Specifically, levels of private and public investment have fallen below even replacement levels, our labor force had deteriorated in both size and training, research has declined, and a lot of the social infrastructure has degraded. The longer governments follow policies to reduce deficits, deregulate financial markets, and gut the social safety net; the wider this gap will be in the future.

Paid in full is something I have a hard time believing. According to this document ( see page 4) there was 1 trillion in outstanding debt as of 2012. Since the GAO hasn't made another report I consider that trillion to be outstanding debt.

http://www.sanders.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/GAO Fed Investigation.pdf?

According to this document ( see page 4) there was 1 trillion in outstanding debt as of 2012.

That's not debt. The Fed created money and bought MBS with it. That isn't money they lent to a bank, so it isn't money we're waiting to get repaid. Is that clear enough?

Well , donation, debt condonation or whatever you want to call it. So back to the question , why not give it directly to the home owners? ... I mean , by your own accounts it is money for which we are not expecting to get repaid.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Arg... he kind of reminds me of Special Ed, when he gets in spambot mode... They both make me think of spambots.

Actually the various government loans have all been paid back in full, including AIG etc. The loss estimates of $4 to $12 trillion are estimates of the permanent damage done the economy structurally by the last ten years. They are based on the fact that prolonged periods of underutilization of resources (unemployment is a good proxy for this) reduces potential GDP. Even if, as appears to be happening now, we get closer to full utilization of resources (measured by approaching the non-accelerating inflation level of unemployment), that level of potential GDP is lower than it would have been if the economy had not sustained the structural damage, i.e. if potential GDP had continued to grow at the same rate it would have absent the event.

Specifically, levels of private and public investment have fallen below even replacement levels, our labor force had deteriorated in both size and training, research has declined, and a lot of the social infrastructure has degraded. The longer governments follow policies to reduce deficits, deregulate financial markets, and gut the social safety net; the wider this gap will be in the future.

Paid in full is something I have a hard time believing. According to this document ( see page 4) there was 1 trillion in outstanding debt as of 2012. Since the GAO hasn't made another report I consider that trillion to be outstanding debt.

http://www.sanders.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/GAO Fed Investigation.pdf?

According to this document ( see page 4) there was 1 trillion in outstanding debt as of 2012.

That's not debt. The Fed created money and bought MBS with it. That isn't money they lent to a bank, so it isn't money we're waiting to get repaid. Is that clear enough?

Well , donation, debt condonation or whatever you want to call it. So back to the question , why not give it directly to the home owners? ... I mean , by your own accounts it is money for which we are not expecting to get repaid.

Well , donation, debt condonation or whatever you want to call it

None of the above. It was a purchase, by the Fed, of guaranteed mortgage backed bonds.

So back to the question , why not give it directly to the home owners? ...

Why would you? To what end?

I mean , by your own accounts it is money for which we are not expecting to get repaid.

You misunderstand. It's not a loan. They bought bonds which will pay interest (and principal) as the homeowners who had mortgages bought by Fannie and Freddie and turned into MBS, pay off their homes.
The Fed will get back every dollar and turn over the profits to the US Treasury.
Billions of dollars annually, reducing the debt.

 

[danielpalos]

So , some conservative figures say it was 700 b, and former president Obama said it had all been paid back.

Barack Obama says banks paid back all the federal bailout money

But I keep reading articles citing figures of 16 T and upward of which only 4 T have been paid.

The Big Bank Bailout

This seems to give the frase "bank robery" a whole new meaning.

So, how big was the bailout really?

In my opinion, this has more to do with class warfare and those with the most gold making the most rules, to benefit themselves.

We have a Commerce Clause.

Does the fiscal exigency of real times of War exist or not; only our federal Congress can declare it so, for the Union.

In consideration of the monstrous sacrifice in property and blood that each war demands of the people, personal enrichment through a war must be designated as a crime against the people. Therefore, we demand the total confiscation of all war profits.
​

The People have a need to know.

Daniel,
I am sory to say this but your posts make little sense and little to the discussion.
Point 1 : In my opinion, this has more to do with class warfare and those with the most gold making the most rules, to benefit themselves.
Granted, it is related, but it is also related to the perception people have of banks and the process of money creation which is inaccurate even in the textbooks. But , so far , so good.

Then you add:

We have a Commerce Clause.
Does the fiscal exigency of real times of War exist or not; only our federal Congress can declare it so, for the Union.

This two sentences seem completely unrelated? What does the commerce clause have to do with the Fed, the bailout and the banking system at all ? And war, how is this related to the bailout?

Finally
In consideration of the monstrous sacrifice in property and blood that each war demands of the people, personal enrichment through a war must be designated as a crime against the people. Therefore, we demand the total confiscation of all war profits.

Yes , war is awful and yes, the military complex and its cronies should be judged. My problem here is that all this is completely unrelated to the thread!!

dear, Banks operate under a Commerce Clause not a Defense Clause.

 

[CultureCitizen]

Arg... he kind of reminds me of Special Ed, when he gets in spambot mode... They both make me think of spambots.

Actually the various government loans have all been paid back in full, including AIG etc. The loss estimates of $4 to $12 trillion are estimates of the permanent damage done the economy structurally by the last ten years. They are based on the fact that prolonged periods of underutilization of resources (unemployment is a good proxy for this) reduces potential GDP. Even if, as appears to be happening now, we get closer to full utilization of resources (measured by approaching the non-accelerating inflation level of unemployment), that level of potential GDP is lower than it would have been if the economy had not sustained the structural damage, i.e. if potential GDP had continued to grow at the same rate it would have absent the event.

Specifically, levels of private and public investment have fallen below even replacement levels, our labor force had deteriorated in both size and training, research has declined, and a lot of the social infrastructure has degraded. The longer governments follow policies to reduce deficits, deregulate financial markets, and gut the social safety net; the wider this gap will be in the future.

Paid in full is something I have a hard time believing. According to this document ( see page 4) there was 1 trillion in outstanding debt as of 2012. Since the GAO hasn't made another report I consider that trillion to be outstanding debt.

http://www.sanders.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/GAO Fed Investigation.pdf?

According to this document ( see page 4) there was 1 trillion in outstanding debt as of 2012.

That's not debt. The Fed created money and bought MBS with it. That isn't money they lent to a bank, so it isn't money we're waiting to get repaid. Is that clear enough?

Well , donation, debt condonation or whatever you want to call it. So back to the question , why not give it directly to the home owners? ... I mean , by your own accounts it is money for which we are not expecting to get repaid.

Well , donation, debt condonation or whatever you want to call it

None of the above. It was a purchase, by the Fed, of guaranteed mortgage backed bonds.

So back to the question , why not give it directly to the home owners? ...

Why would you? To what end?

I mean , by your own accounts it is money for which we are not expecting to get repaid.

You misunderstand. It's not a loan. They bought bonds which will pay interest (and principal) as the homeowners who had mortgages bought by Fannie and Freddie and turned into MBS, pay off their homes.
The Fed will get back every dollar and turn over the profits to the US Treasury.
Billions of dollars annually, reducing the debt.

Ok got it. I think what is missing are the actual credit ratings of the MBS bought by the Fed.
Even more: as I understand Fredie and Fannie have to back the MBS regardless of whether the credit holder pays or not.

"While there has been some credit risk associated with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac’s ability to guarantee the principal and interest payments on agency MBS, the federal government has taken actions to greatly lessen such concerns by providing financial assistance to the enterprises after they were placed in conservatorship"
page 152.

So it all comes down to how much it will be needed to bailout Freddie and Fannie ( I speak in future as this seems to be an ongoing operation which has not yet ended).

 

[Uncensored2008]

So , some conservative figures say it was 700 b, and former president Obama said it had all been paid back.

Barack Obama says banks paid back all the federal bailout money

But I keep reading articles citing figures of 16 T and upward of which only 4 T have been paid.

The Big Bank Bailout

This seems to give the frase "bank robery" a whole new meaning.

So, how big was the bailout really?

Let's take the position that it really was "only" $780 billion.

Think about this now, if given $780 billion to lend out, could you pay the principle back?

Well, yes! Even on it's face this is the biggest bit of corruption in recent history. Taxpayers "lent" the insider banks $780 billion that those same banks "loaned" back to the taxpayers at 28% APR.

Bush should be shot, Obama drawn and quartered, and all the banks other than Wells Fargo (who refused the public funds) seized and liquidated to pay down the national debt.

 

[Uncensored2008]

[

What about it? Short term loans, repaid in 2009.

That would certainly explain the debt spike from 10 T to 18 T under Bush / Obama

The 2 are completely unrelated.
The Fed creates money out of thin air, lends it to a bank, the bank repays it, the money is extinguished.

The increase from $10.6 trillion to $19.9 trillion during Obama's tenure was money borrowed by the US Treasury to fund government spending. Nothing to do with the Fed's short term loan programs.

Other than physical currency, of which there was little or none involved with TARP, I would love to see evidence that the created money was "extinguished?"

The money supply was expanded, There is no evidence that it has since been contracted. You also seem to be understating the relationship of T Bills and the creation of money by the fed. Before creating this money, the fed must buy bonds from the Treasury department or assets of some form from the commercial banks. Bonds must be repaid, this is a form of debt, both an asset and an obligation.

.

 

[Uncensored2008]

[


Purchased agency mortgage-backed securities to provide support to mortgage and housing markets and to foster improved conditions in the financial markets more generally

That's the guaranteed MBS they owned at that point.
All the other bank loans they made were $0, except TALF, $13 billion.

So the Fed bought MBS from toxic tranches and handed well connected banksters capital as if those MBS were legitimate assets?

Sweet deal for the banksters, not so much for the American public.

 

[Bleipriester]

Obama bin Lying

The Fed alone racked up over $4 Trillion in new debt to bailout the economy.

The Fed alone racked up over $4 Trillion in new debt to bailout the economy.

The Fed borrowed money? Are you sure?
Central banks can create money, why would they need to borrow?

So America has no debt?

 

[Uncensored2008]

Obama bin Lying

The Fed alone racked up over $4 Trillion in new debt to bailout the economy.

The Fed alone racked up over $4 Trillion in new debt to bailout the economy.

The Fed borrowed money? Are you sure?
Central banks can create money, why would they need to borrow?

So America has no debt?

TARP did not openly increase the national debt, because supposed assets were purchased in return for the capital provided.

That the assets in question were utterly worthless is the basis of the fraud involved.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Actually the various government loans have all been paid back in full, including AIG etc. The loss estimates of $4 to $12 trillion are estimates of the permanent damage done the economy structurally by the last ten years. They are based on the fact that prolonged periods of underutilization of resources (unemployment is a good proxy for this) reduces potential GDP. Even if, as appears to be happening now, we get closer to full utilization of resources (measured by approaching the non-accelerating inflation level of unemployment), that level of potential GDP is lower than it would have been if the economy had not sustained the structural damage, i.e. if potential GDP had continued to grow at the same rate it would have absent the event.

Specifically, levels of private and public investment have fallen below even replacement levels, our labor force had deteriorated in both size and training, research has declined, and a lot of the social infrastructure has degraded. The longer governments follow policies to reduce deficits, deregulate financial markets, and gut the social safety net; the wider this gap will be in the future.

Paid in full is something I have a hard time believing. According to this document ( see page 4) there was 1 trillion in outstanding debt as of 2012. Since the GAO hasn't made another report I consider that trillion to be outstanding debt.

http://www.sanders.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/GAO Fed Investigation.pdf?

According to this document ( see page 4) there was 1 trillion in outstanding debt as of 2012.

That's not debt. The Fed created money and bought MBS with it. That isn't money they lent to a bank, so it isn't money we're waiting to get repaid. Is that clear enough?

Well , donation, debt condonation or whatever you want to call it. So back to the question , why not give it directly to the home owners? ... I mean , by your own accounts it is money for which we are not expecting to get repaid.

Well , donation, debt condonation or whatever you want to call it

None of the above. It was a purchase, by the Fed, of guaranteed mortgage backed bonds.

So back to the question , why not give it directly to the home owners? ...

Why would you? To what end?

I mean , by your own accounts it is money for which we are not expecting to get repaid.

You misunderstand. It's not a loan. They bought bonds which will pay interest (and principal) as the homeowners who had mortgages bought by Fannie and Freddie and turned into MBS, pay off their homes.
The Fed will get back every dollar and turn over the profits to the US Treasury.
Billions of dollars annually, reducing the debt.

Ok got it. I think what is missing are the actual credit ratings of the MBS bought by the Fed.
Even more: as I understand Fredie and Fannie have to back the MBS regardless of whether the credit holder pays or not.


"While there has been some credit risk associated with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac’s ability to guarantee the principal and interest payments on agency MBS, the federal government has taken actions to greatly lessen such concerns by providing financial assistance to the enterprises after they were placed in conservatorship"
page 152.

So it all comes down to how much it will be needed to bailout Freddie and Fannie ( I speak in future as this seems to be an ongoing operation which has not yet ended).

I think what is missing are the actual credit ratings of the MBS bought by the Fed.

Guaranteed by the US Treasury, highest quality therefore.

as I understand Fredie and Fannie have to back the MBS regardless of whether the credit holder pays or not.

Yup.

So it all comes down to how much it will be needed to bailout Freddie and Fannie

They were bailed out. Paid it all back. Why are they getting bailed out again?

 

[Bleipriester]

Obama bin Lying

The Fed alone racked up over $4 Trillion in new debt to bailout the economy.

The Fed alone racked up over $4 Trillion in new debt to bailout the economy.

The Fed borrowed money? Are you sure?
Central banks can create money, why would they need to borrow?

So America has no debt?

TARP did not openly increase the national debt, because supposed assets were purchased in return for the capital provided.

That the assets in question were utterly worthless is the basis of the fraud involved.

Same in Europe.

The Federal Reserve Act of 1913, aka privatization of America´s central bank and issuing bank, has turned the country into a playground for the few rich families that- with that act - further tightened their grip on the country.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

So , some conservative figures say it was 700 b, and former president Obama said it had all been paid back.

Barack Obama says banks paid back all the federal bailout money

But I keep reading articles citing figures of 16 T and upward of which only 4 T have been paid.

The Big Bank Bailout

This seems to give the frase "bank robery" a whole new meaning.

So, how big was the bailout really?

Let's take the position that it really was "only" $780 billion.

Think about this now, if given $780 billion to lend out, could you pay the principle back?

Well, yes! Even on it's face this is the biggest bit of corruption in recent history. Taxpayers "lent" the insider banks $780 billion that those same banks "loaned" back to the taxpayers at 28% APR.

Bush should be shot, Obama drawn and quartered, and all the banks other than Wells Fargo (who refused the public funds) seized and liquidated to pay down the national debt.

Taxpayers "lent" the insider banks $780 billion that those same banks "loaned" back to the taxpayers at 28% APR.

The banks needed the money because taxpayers defaulted on their mortgages.

and all the banks other than Wells Fargo (who refused the public funds)

Wells took $25 billion.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

[

What about it? Short term loans, repaid in 2009.

That would certainly explain the debt spike from 10 T to 18 T under Bush / Obama

The 2 are completely unrelated.
The Fed creates money out of thin air, lends it to a bank, the bank repays it, the money is extinguished.

The increase from $10.6 trillion to $19.9 trillion during Obama's tenure was money borrowed by the US Treasury to fund government spending. Nothing to do with the Fed's short term loan programs.

Other than physical currency, of which there was little or none involved with TARP, I would love to see evidence that the created money was "extinguished?"

The money supply was expanded, There is no evidence that it has since been contracted. You also seem to be understating the relationship of T Bills and the creation of money by the fed. Before creating this money, the fed must buy bonds from the Treasury department or assets of some form from the commercial banks. Bonds must be repaid, this is a form of debt, both an asset and an obligation.

.

Other than physical currency, of which there was little or none involved with TARP, I would love to see evidence that the created money was "extinguished?"

Created money wasn't used for TARP.
There is a difference between the Fed (central bank, creates money out of thin air) and the US Treasury (had to sell bonds to get the money for TARP).

Bonds must be repaid, this is a form of debt, both an asset and an obligation.

Yes, bonds are debt whether the Fed buys them or you do.