• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

$16 Trillion dollar bailout revealed from Fed Audit

yhelothar

Lifer
Dec 11, 2002
18,403
36
91
The fact that you didn't get a penny while the crooks at Wall St. are getting trillions only makes it more outrageous.

But then again, who cares right? It's not like we can do anything but vote for the same two faced candidates that are bought by the same crooks on Wall St.
 
Oct 16, 1999
10,490
3
0
This dollar amount is really only half the problem. The other half is these reckless too big to fail corporations that if had gone down would have taken the entire global economy with them. It would have been a worldwide catastrophe. As screwed up as it is, it was necessary given the amount of power we allow these corporations to hold over our economy under the guise of being "a free. Fucking. Country."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/13/jamie-dimon-free-fucking-country_n_1772433.html
 

Smoblikat

Diamond Member
Nov 19, 2011
5,184
107
106
Well, this sucks and shouldnt happen. But in the end what can we do? We can vote for the obama version of wall street corruption, or venture into the romney flavor of corporation buyouts. In the end it really doesnt matter and if America wasnt so fucking stupid we would have a revolution.
 

Fern

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
First, the first link (Beforeitsnews) claims the audit was just recently completed, the second is from over a year ago and appears to have the same data. I don't see how that can be.

I would think this would be a issue we'd hear a lot about.

I don't feel I know enough about the fed reserve to be confident about drawing conclusion if this $16T 'loan program' is true. However, it seems to me a couple of things must eventually happen:

1) The banks repay the $16T. Given the global liquidity problems this doesn't seem possible, not even remotely.

2) The fed writes these loans off. I have to believe that somehow this would be a major problem for us. It seems to me that the fed had to come up with the $16T to loan it; did they just print a shizz ton of money? If so, it seems that would show up in the money supply numbers, but I haven't seen it.

If this was true I'd to think the financial publications, or at least some journalists would be reporting on this.

Fern
 
Last edited:

mshan

Diamond Member
Nov 16, 2004
7,868
0
71
I also only have a very, very superficial understanding of the workings of the Fed, but my guess, based upon things I've read on internet and seen on tv, is that when the shadow banking system (http://www.zerohedge.com/news/verge-historic-inversion-shadow-banking) suddenly and unexpectedly imploded post-Lehman collapse, the Fed had the only balance sheet strong enough that could temporarily take on toxic waste debt that all of these financial firms had accumulated during bubble years as collateral for newly "printed" electronic dollars so those firms could be stabilized and not go out of business and start a daisy chain of collapses because of the murky interconnectedness of whole system.

So basically printing electronic dollars as temporary loan in exchange for taking on some of their toxic waste debt (probably still have actual value, just that you could only get pennies on the dollar if you had to sell them during a forced fire sale) put it onto balance sheet can withstand it. Unpalatable, but probably necessary at the time to stop the bleeding and buy precious time to implement more definitive treatment and hopefully eventual cure.

"And there you have it: in this world where distraction and diversion often times is the only name of the game, while banks were pretending to have issues with their traditional liabilities, it was really the shadow liabilities where the true terrors were accumulating. Because in what has become a veritable daisy chain of linked shadow exposure, we are now back where we started with the AIG collapse, only this time the regime is decentralized, without the need for a focal, AIG-type center. What this means is that the collapse of the weakest link in the daisy-chain sets off a house of cards that eventually will crash even the biggest entity due to exponentially soaring counterparty risk: an escalation best comparable to an avalanche - where one simple snowflake can result in a deadly tsunami of snow that wipes out everything in its path. Only this time it is not something as innocuous as snow: it is the compounded effect of trillions and trillions of insolvent banks all collapsing at the same time, and wiping out the developed world and the associated 150 years of the welfare state as we know it."

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/why-uk-trail-mf-global-collapse-may-have-apocalyptic-consequences-eurozone-canadian-banks-jeffe








Perhaps similar to the crisis that we saw unfold in Europe last winter: http://video.cnbc.com/gallery/?video=3000058830, except that adult supervision was ultimately in place (LTRO), not George "Nero" Bush, chopping wood on his ranch or riding his bike contently as the world burns down around him:
http://video.cnbc.com/gallery/?video=3000060287 (start around 10:15 mark; John Allison, the commentator, was former chairman of BB&T, and most definitely not a fan of Obama)

Popping of bubble might have been inevitable, but it did not have to pop as spectacularly as it did if competent leadership had been in place (former Wells Fargo CEO has also said that it should not have happened, too).

:mad:
 
Last edited:

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
6
0
No it means you fail at understanding what the federal reserve actually did.

The GAO did figure out what the total would look like if you accounted for this churn of dollars. That’s in Table 9, which the Paul campaign did not cite. The grand total there is about $1.1 trillion which is a lot of money but much less than $15 trillion.

The other missing piece is the current status of those loan programs. Also not cited by the Paul campaign, the GAO reported that after all that lending, the total amount still outstanding is $13 billion dollars.
Basically the accounting used would be the same as chopping a 30 year mortgage into 30 different 1 year mortgage and then counting the total loan on a $100,000 house as $3,000,000.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
67,187
3,878
126
Some other stories of note from the first link:

First Audit Results In The Federal Reserve's Nearly 100 Year History Were Posted Today, They Are Startling!
Chemtrails; When You Read This, You Will Become a Believer Too!
Suzanne Barr Takes It In The ... Resignation
Extraterrestrials: Namibian Villagers Allege Alien Activity (Picture)
“16 Facts About Members Of Congress And Federal Workers You Probably Didn’t Know”
The Dark Economy Rises
What The Heck Is Going On Up There?
7 Reasons Washington's Grand Counter-Terrorism Myths Persist In The Face of Evidence
Illuminati Clock Counting Down to Sept 9th, 2012
FEMA Camps For Fools, Locking Away The Morons
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
30,057
3,603
126
Some other stories of note from the first link:
...Chemtrails ... Alien Activity...The Dark Economy Rises ...Illuminati... FEMA Camps...
Right, the nutters see $16 trillion and think that's all deficit / spent / gone, they've no notion of what loans are or how the banking system can get away with much of it.

Still, there's a greater message to be found here. The Feds had to shuffle $29 trillion (at least) in order to repair the economy to where it is today. To illustrate the truth of it, in light of your examples from the OP's link, I submit:

huffingtonpost
cnbc
dailykos

I assume you'll trust one of those.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,872
4,212
126
Why is anyone complaining? You have your parties you back, blaming the other and still continue to replace reality with platitudes. You asked for this. Maybe you don't want it, but when you embraced whatever party or group without thinking, you certainly asked for it. Next- faith based healthcare. Not religious faith, but faith in those who are responsible for the 29 trillion.

I have my popcorn and fiddle. Burn it down.
 

wirednuts

Diamond Member
Jan 26, 2007
7,121
1
0
so its exactly like i thought the whole time. the united states of america is nothing more then the world's bank. no wonder we can afford a multi billion dollar army... thats peanuts to what we actually have.

but we should lower the minimum wage and eliminate welfare:':)'(
 

wirednuts

Diamond Member
Jan 26, 2007
7,121
1
0
In the end it really doesnt matter and if America wasnt so fucking stupid we would have a revolution.
its scary how many guys im hearing this from in the last decade. older guys as well, people whove worked their entire lives and have nothing to show for it. there is a massive swell of the population that is just sick of this crap.
 

wirednuts

Diamond Member
Jan 26, 2007
7,121
1
0
ugh you know i think im with r paul on this one idea. eliminate the federal reserve. oh yeah, and i think we can afford to reduce our military by 50% or so, without putting our "#1" status in jeopardy.
 

LegendKiller

Lifer
Mar 5, 2001
18,256
68
86
One of the Fed's mandates is to be the lender of last resort. This is not a surprise and has been known for years. Bloomberg had a breakdown by entity last year.

The knock-on effects of the mortgage crisis were huge. SIVs destroyed the ABCP market which destroyed the CP market and also destroyed the securitization market. In order to get ABCP going they created CPFF which created short-term, usually monthly, loans. In order to get the securitization market going again they created TALF. They also used other facilities for the banks to pledge assets, usually better known/liquid and highly structured/rated assets to keep liquidity going.

Had this not been done the ripple effects would have been huge.
 
Last edited:

piasabird

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
17,168
60
91
Instead of giving all those foreign banks money the American banks could have taken some of them over. This is communism. What probably happens is the stupid ass American Banks invested in some foreign banks and federal govt helped out foreign banks to protect our bank's investment's to keep the American banks from failing. American banks that invest in foreign investments should not be allowed insurance protection from the FDIC for that portion of their investments. The federal government should not be protecting foreign investments or bailing out foreign banks.

Next thing you know China banks will start to fail and the federal govt will be bailing out china. Lets dont go down that road. We need more audits of the Federal Govt to start identiftying this bullshit.
 

piasabird

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
17,168
60
91
Make all these foreign banks pay us FDIC insurance!

Banks that invest overseas should have to pay a higher rate of FDIC!
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,872
4,212
126
One of the Fed's mandates is to be the lender of last resort. This is not a surprise and has been known for years. Bloomberg had a breakdown by entity last year.

The knock-on effects of the mortgage crisis were huge. SIVs destroyed the ABCP market which destroyed the CP market and also destroyed the securitization market. In order to get ABCP going they created CPFF which created short-term, usually monthly, loans. In order to get the securitization market going again they created TALF. They also used other facilities for the banks to pledge assets, usually better known/liquid and highly structured/rated assets to keep liquidity going.

Had this not been done the ripple effects would have been huge.
What should have been done was due diligence. That a mortgage crisis was inevitable based on how business was done and the painfully obvious fact that the taxpayer was ultimately the one to get screwed does not in any way mitigate subsequent actions. The ripple effects may be less but we're on the hook and the only ones who get a pass are the financial institutions and their lapdog politicians on both sides. I find I must accept the unacceptable, and that does not sit well.

This election cycle we're going to put right back into power those who failed their duty regardless who wins. That sucks.
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
61,994
14,167
136
The bailout was the necessary result of the players in financial markets becoming grossly over-leveraged under the free market self regulated rah-rah of the Bush years & Admin, and because of the interlocking nature of their operations.

Everybody was playing everybody else on the basis of imaginary value in the housing market, and when that fell down, there was insufficient liquidity to cover all the bets, even though it was a zero sum game anyway.

The players depended strongly on the Repo market for liquidity- borrowing short term against the value of paper assets, and when investors saw the risk as too large, that source of cash disappeared.

What the bailout accomplished was providing enough liquidity for the bets to be paid and the balance sheets to balance. Yes, enormous sums were moved around in circles, which was what needed to happen to preserve the system. The FRB went even further, paying cash for long term securities, as well, to enable those payoffs.

And now what? How do we protect ourselves from future occurrences of the same thing? According to Repubs, nothing at all, because the bad boys of Wall St have seen the light, come to Jesus, promised to be good... Honest!

And if you believe that, then you're ready for the idea that cutting spending to force layoffs of govt workers & contractors will create jobs, too... along with all of the other Repub blather that can easily destroy this country if implemented.
 

JKing106

Platinum Member
Mar 19, 2009
2,193
0
0
First, the first link (Beforeitsnews) claims the audit was just recently completed, the second is from over a year ago and appears to have the same data. I don't see how that can be.

I would think this would be a issue we'd hear a lot about.

I don't feel I know enough about the fed reserve to be confident about drawing conclusion if this $16T 'loan program' is true. However, it seems to me a couple of things must eventually happen:

1) The banks repay the $16T. Given the global liquidity problems this doesn't seem possible, not even remotely.

2) The fed writes these loans off. I have to believe that somehow this would be a major problem for us. It seems to me that the fed had to come up with the $16T to loan it; did they just print a shizz ton of money? If so, it seems that would show up in the money supply numbers, but I haven't seen it.

If this was true I'd to think the financial publications, or at least some journalists would be reporting on this.

Fern
"Corporate Crusader the rescue! Corporations are people. They have feelings, too, you meanie heads."
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY