What was the real cost of the Bankster Bailout ?

[Toddsterpatriot]

[


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.

So the Fed bought MBS from toxic tranches

Nope.

and handed well connected banksters capital as if those MBS were legitimate assets?

The Fed bought guaranteed MBS, very legitimate assets, paying 4%-6% in exchange for reserves paying 0.25%.

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

Since they bought these guaranteed MBS , the Fed paid over half a trillion in profits to the US Treasury.
So, yes, the American public made out okay.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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?

Who said that?
Was it someone who doesn't understand the Federal Reserve?

 

[Uncensored2008]

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.

That those same banks had made with no documentation or credit to entirely unqualified buyers, bundled and sold as securities. It was fraud and a con job from top to bottom. These crooks should have never been bailed out. I see no difference between the BofA or Goldman execs and Bernie Maddoff. They are all crooks.

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

Wells took $25 billion.

For the most part, Wells stayed out of the TARP pit.

http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/blog/2012/06/wells-fargo-dick-kovacevich-occupy-tarp.html

 

[CrusaderFrank]

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?

At the end of 2007 they had under $1T in assets, in 2016 they had almost $5T. Did they issue stock? Go Public?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

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

TARP did increase the national debt. The US Treasury borrowed money and used it to buy preferred bank shares. In 2009 and 2010, the banks bought back that stock and the TARP portion of the debt was erased. Of course Obama spent the repaid funds and all the profits as soon as it came in.

That the assets in question were utterly worthless

Nope. The bank portion of TARP was very profitable.

Look here.........Bailout List: Banks, Auto Companies, and More | Eye on the Bailout | ProPublica

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

That those same banks had made with no documentation or credit to entirely unqualified buyers, bundled and sold as securities. It was fraud and a con job from top to bottom. These crooks should have never been bailed out. I see no difference between the BofA or Goldman execs and Bernie Maddoff. They are all crooks.

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

Wells took $25 billion.

For the most part, Wells stayed out of the TARP pit.

http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/blog/2012/06/wells-fargo-dick-kovacevich-occupy-tarp.html

That those same banks had made with no documentation or credit to entirely unqualified buyers

Some of them, you bet. When the government pressured banks to lend to poor risks and then forced Fannie and Freddie to buy huge chunks of those crappy mortgages, corners got cut.

For the most part, Wells stayed out of the TARP pit.

Right. Except for the $25 billion they took.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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?

At the end of 2007 they had under $1T in assets, in 2016 they had almost $5T. Did they issue stock? Go Public?

At the end of 2007 they had under $1T in assets, in 2016 they had almost $5T. Did they issue stock?

You know what they did? They created money out of thin air!!!
Central banks can do that.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

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?

At the end of 2007 they had under $1T in assets, in 2016 they had almost $5T. Did they issue stock? Go Public?

At the end of 2007 they had under $1T in assets, in 2016 they had almost $5T. Did they issue stock?

You know what they did? They created money out of thin air!!!
Central banks can do that.

You might want to check the Fed balance sheet, they have $4.5T in liabilities as well.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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?

At the end of 2007 they had under $1T in assets, in 2016 they had almost $5T. Did they issue stock? Go Public?

At the end of 2007 they had under $1T in assets, in 2016 they had almost $5T. Did they issue stock?

You know what they did? They created money out of thin air!!!
Central banks can do that.

You might want to check the Fed balance sheet, they have $4.5T in liabilities as well.

Yup. Bank reserves currently paying 0.75% and FRNs currently paying 0%.

 

[Uncensored2008]

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?

I don't agree, here is why.

As I initially stated, the fed provided funds to the banks to cover the bad management

{Term Asset-Backed Securities Loan Facility (TALF).
The program was
operated by the Federal Reserve to support the asset-backed security market,
8
with TARP funds committed to support the program and absorb initial losses.
$0.1 billion in funds were disbursed to cover expenses but no funds were
disbursed to cover losses. While TALF loans extend to 2015, the earnings from
the program were deemed sufficient to cover any possible losses in January 2013.
Thus, the TARP commitment was cancelled and the disbursement of $0.1 billion
was repaid.}

Now the funds were repaid, but the fact that we should cover these toxic MBS is the epitome of private profit and public risk.

I see this as further exasperated by;

{Section 7(a) Securities Purchase Program.
This program supported the Small
Business Administration’s (SBA’s) Secti
on 7(a) loan program through purchases
of pooled SBA guaranteed securities to increase credit availability for small
businesses. It is now closed with none of the $0.37 billion in disbursed funds
outstanding.}

Again, this was repaid, but again was earmarked to cover toxic MBS.

Then the final outrage;
{
AIG Assistance (Systemically Significant Failing Institution Program).
9
TARP preferred share purchases supplemented and ultimately supplanted
assistance to AIG previously provided by the Federal Reserve. The AIG
assistance was restructured in January 2011 with the Treasury’s peak
disbursement equaling $67.84 billion and the government’s ownership totaling
92% of AIG’s common equity. The Treasury sold its equity over time, with the
final equity sold in December 2012. In total, Treasury recognized $13.5 billion in
losses from the TARP equity sales.}

http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/blog/2012/06/wells-fargo-dick-kovacevich-occupy-tarp.html

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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?

I don't agree, here is why.

As I initially stated, the fed provided funds to the banks to cover the bad management

{Term Asset-Backed Securities Loan Facility (TALF).
The program was
operated by the Federal Reserve to support the asset-backed security market,
8
with TARP funds committed to support the program and absorb initial losses.
$0.1 billion in funds were disbursed to cover expenses but no funds were
disbursed to cover losses. While TALF loans extend to 2015, the earnings from
the program were deemed sufficient to cover any possible losses in January 2013.
Thus, the TARP commitment was cancelled and the disbursement of $0.1 billion
was repaid.}

Now the funds were repaid, but the fact that we should cover these toxic MBS is the epitome of private profit and public risk.

I see this as further exasperated by;

{Section 7(a) Securities Purchase Program.
This program supported the Small
Business Administration’s (SBA’s) Secti
on 7(a) loan program through purchases
of pooled SBA guaranteed securities to increase credit availability for small
businesses. It is now closed with none of the $0.37 billion in disbursed funds
outstanding.}

Again, this was repaid, but again was earmarked to cover toxic MBS.

Then the final outrage;
{
AIG Assistance (Systemically Significant Failing Institution Program).
9
TARP preferred share purchases supplemented and ultimately supplanted
assistance to AIG previously provided by the Federal Reserve. The AIG
assistance was restructured in January 2011 with the Treasury’s peak
disbursement equaling $67.84 billion and the government’s ownership totaling
92% of AIG’s common equity. The Treasury sold its equity over time, with the
final equity sold in December 2012. In total, Treasury recognized $13.5 billion in
losses from the TARP equity sales.}

http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/blog/2012/06/wells-fargo-dick-kovacevich-occupy-tarp.html

I don't agree, here is why.

What portion(s) of my post are you disagreeing with?

{Term Asset-Backed Securities Loan Facility (TALF).
The program was
operated by the Federal Reserve to support the asset-backed security market,

AFAIK, the Fed didn't buy any securities under TALF.

Now the funds were repaid, but the fact that we should cover these toxic MBS is the epitome of private profit and public risk.

This was about ABS, not MBS.

This program supported the Small
Business Administration’s (SBA’s) Secti
on 7(a) loan program through purchases
of pooled SBA guaranteed securities

Guaranteed.

Again, this was repaid, but again was earmarked to cover toxic MBS.

Don't know what you mean by this claim.
The Fed didn't buy toxic MBS.

Then the final outrage;

Why is that an outrage?

The Treasury sold its equity over time, with the
final equity sold in December 2012. In total, Treasury recognized $13.5 billion in
losses from the TARP equity sales.

I don't see how they came up with that number.
Unless they added up all the cases where money was lost, while ignoring all the profitable sales.
The AIG portion of TARP made over $5 billion.

 

[CultureCitizen]

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?

Well, it sounds like they might ... It is not exactly that I opose government intervention, but opaque government intervention is something I really despise.

Subscribe to read

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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?

Well, it sounds like they might ... It is not exactly that I opose government intervention, but opaque government intervention is something I really despise.

Subscribe to read

Well, it sounds like they might

Bail out a profitable company?
Where did you read that?

 

[CultureCitizen]

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?

Well, it sounds like they might ... It is not exactly that I opose government intervention, but opaque government intervention is something I really despise.

Subscribe to read

Well, it sounds like they might

Bail out a profitable company?
Where did you read that?

Financial times ... ah , now I see it asks for subscription. It's probably a cookie tracker.
Here's another link from bloomberg

Fannie and Freddie Will Be Profitable After Their Next Bailouts, Too

 

[danielpalos]

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.

Yet, the right wing blames bloated pensions for Persons who actually worked an ethic, from the Age of Iron.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

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?

given that it was paid back and prevented a Depression it was $0 big. If you think there was a secret $16trillion loan say why or admit you have no idea what you are talking about as usual.

 

[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?

given that it was paid back and prevented a Depression it was $0 big. If you think there was a secret $16trillion loan say why or admit you have no idea what you are talking about as usual.

dear, it is because socialism had to bailout Capitalism with our Peoples Central Bank, that we know, capitalism died, officially, in 1929.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

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?

Well, it sounds like they might ... It is not exactly that I opose government intervention, but opaque government intervention is something I really despise.

Subscribe to read

Well, it sounds like they might

Bail out a profitable company?
Where did you read that?

Financial times ... ah , now I see it asks for subscription. It's probably a cookie tracker.
Here's another link from bloomberg

Fannie and Freddie Will Be Profitable After Their Next Bailouts, Too

so you want to get rid of Fan /Fred because they bought or guaranteed 75% of Alt A and sub prime mortgages and restore Republcan capitalism???