Jon Stewart - Scott Walker tells teachers the gravy train is over

[The-Noid]

Haha, attack the source. Matt Taibbi/rolling stone has been the only one to really cover the story with any accuracy or regularity. That's one of the reasons why so many people only talk about TARP when there were other loan programs. Like i said, Matt had an article devoted to it, i'll try to find it. I'd like to see if that list encompasses ALL the loans.

In any case, what you're talking about is a BET on AIG which is ridiculous. No, that's just dumb, many of those counterparties received bailouts themselves, there was absolutely no reason NOT to negotiate a haircut. You'd still get the warrants.

Well if the source said 0% loans, he lied. Then you attack the source.

Just because it is in print doesn't mean it is right. There is the ACTUAL list of loans as documented by the organization that made them.

Again, find me the one at 0%...oh wait you can't and are full of shit.

Also his accuracy is suspect if he can't even understand how an overnight repo works. He is a sensationalist writer that distorts facts and you buy right into it.

 

[rudder]

Nothing is stopping anyone from opening their checkbook and paying more in taxes to support a teacher, or giving directly to a school for that matter. It seems that there's plenty of rich folks asking for the Bush tax cuts to be rescinded, that still refuse to pay a bigger share unless they are forced to by law. Here's the address for all those who are calling for higher tax rates:

You can write a check payable to the Bureau of the Public Debt, and in the memo section, notate that it's a Gift to reduce the Debt Held by the Public. Mail your check to:

Attn Dept G
Bureau of the Public Debt
P. O. Box 2188
Parkersburg, WV 26106-2188

Good post. I would bet anyone here that Micheal Moore itemizes his 1040 to the hilt. Can someone show me where he simply files a 1040EZ?

 

[fskimospy]

Good post. I would bet anyone here that Micheal Moore itemizes his 1040 to the hilt. Can someone show me where he simply files a 1040EZ?

No, it's a dumb post. It was a dumb post the first 1,000 times it was put up on here. It's called a collective action problem. A single person supporting the federal treasury is no more effective than a single soldier waging a war.

Can we please stop using that horrible argument now?

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

That's not fair, what kind of arguments are Republicans supposed to use if they can't use horrible ones?

 

[Phokus]

Well if the source said 0% loans, he lied. Then you attack the source.

Just because it is in print doesn't mean it is right. There is the ACTUAL list of loans as documented by the organization that made them.

Again, find me the one at 0%...oh wait you can't and are full of shit.

Also his accuracy is suspect if he can't even understand how an overnight repo works. He is a sensationalist writer that distorts facts and you buy right into it.

1) How do i know that your list is the entirety of the loans?

2) http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...ing-trillions-foreign-banks-financial-crisis/

Congressman Sanders also mentioned this after the fed disclosures, is this some sort of concerted conspiracy? And besides that, are you SERIOUSLY going to defend .5% as an interest rate in your link?

"We now know that the Fed loaned trillions of dollars at zero or near-zero interest rates not only to the largest financial institutions in the country, but also to many of our largest corporations -- including GE, McDonalds and Verizon," Sanders said in a statement released after the disclosure.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...foreign-banks-financial-crisis/#ixzz1GJJ2VQce

 

[Thump553]

This involves more than just teachers in Wisconsin. It covers all public employees. And the State of Wisconsin government is a totally different entity than the Federal government.

By reducing the budget and not having to rely on federal bailouts... the Wisconsin state government can govern the way they want to and the people can be governed locally.

Horseshit, pure and simple. This allegedly nonfiscal cut was done to fund the corporate tax giveaways Walker and the GOP passed TWO MONTHS AGO. The net result is next to no effect upon the budget, gutting of the civil service/middle class and a shifting of the tax burden to benefit the corporations. Class warfare in operation and it's sad to see so many people hoodwinked by the smoke and mirrors to not be able to see what has been done to them.

As GWB so famously crowed "Mission Accomplished."

 

[The-Noid]

1) How do i know that your list is the entirety of the loans?

2) http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...ing-trillions-foreign-banks-financial-crisis/

Congressman Sanders also mentioned this after the fed disclosures, is this some sort of concerted conspiracy? And besides that, are you SERIOUSLY going to defend .5% as an interest rate in your link?

Again a repurchase agreement is generally for overnight securities. You then roll the loan to the next day until you no longer need the repurchase agree anymore.

The list I sent is the actual list of loans. Most of the collateral as you can see the same loans continuing to roll. i.e. borrow $20B in daily repos for 5 days is 5 transactions. Lending $100B implies you lent $100B in a term. A more representative term is we lent $20B/day for 5 days.

And yes .5% is not 0%. If it were 0% you would borrow an unlimited amount at 0% and lend it at .5% and make money in every transaction, are you that stupid?

 

[Phokus]

Again a repurchase agreement is generally for overnight securities. You then roll the loan to the next day until you no longer need the repurchase agree anymore.

The list I sent is the actual list of loans. Most of the collateral as you can see the same loans continuing to roll. i.e. borrow $20B in daily repos for 5 days is 5 transactions. Lending $100B implies you lent $100B in a term. A more representative term is we lent $20B/day for 5 days.

And yes .5% is not 0%. If it were 0% you would borrow an unlimited amount at 0% and lend it at .5% and make money in every transaction, are you that stupid?

That's 2 people who say we've lent at 0%, one of them a senator commenting on Federal Reserve disclosures. Considering how secretive the Fed was and how they fought tooth and nail to not let certain disclosures out (like the AIG counterparty payment), i have a hard time believing that you're presenting everything we've loaned out.

 

[The-Noid]

That's two people that sensationalize topics and say that 0.5% = 0%. Or, like you they are conspiracy theoriests and then are sources that don't matter.

All we can go off is the actual document detailing all loans. Anything else is opinion.

Otherwise, I guess in your mind the Holocaust didn't happen? I can find lots of people that believe it didn't and even make a case citing numerous websites, although the overriding facts are what I would rather go off.

 

[wayliff]

Full Episode

Jon Stewart, I love you.

Thanks - I enjoyed that a lot.
6 stars!

 

[Phokus]

That's two people that sensationalize topics and say that 0.5% = 0%. Or, like you they are conspiracy theoriests and then are sources that don't matter.

All we can go off is the actual document detailing all loans. Anything else is opinion.

Otherwise, I guess in your mind the Holocaust didn't happen? I can find lots of people that believe it didn't and even make a case citing numerous websites, although the overriding facts are what I would rather go off.

Holy shit, yes, lets invoke Godwin.

The fact that you believe the released documents is idiotic, for one thing, how do we know that's all was loaned? The FED is secretive as fuck and that's one of the reasons why some people want them audited.

They even wanted to extend bailouts/loans to banks who didn't need them so the banks in trouble wouldn't get stigmatized. How's that for transparency?

 

[The-Noid]

They even wanted to extend bailouts/loans to banks who didn't need them so the banks in trouble wouldn't get stigmatized. How's that for transparency?

That's fairly standard central banking for any organization that is systematically important. You either obscure emergency borrowing or nationalize the organization before a bank run occurs.

It's become apparent you know absolutely nothing about banking and will post any source rather reputable or not, as long as they share the same view as yours, their opinion is "fact."

Everything you have posted has been opinion and when actual facts contradict your opinion you go back to a secret thing that no one an prove. Face it you have been proven wrong.

As far as the Central Bank being audited. I am completely fine with that as long as any disclosure made is kept private unless there are glaring inconsistencies. Central banks being audited is the first step in them losing Independence. The Fed is already on the cusp of being non-independent a public audit would push them over the edge and also cause a run on any discount window borrowers (that is the nature of central banking). The majority of people calling for an audit of the Fed have their own agendas either political or per usual the gold crowd who thinks the disclosures would cause gold to run.

 

[Phokus]

That's fairly standard central banking for any organization that is systematically important. You either obscure emergency borrowing or nationalize the organization before a bank run occurs.

It's become apparent you know absolutely nothing about banking and will post any source rather reputable or not, as long as they share the same view as yours, their opinion is "fact."

Everything you have posted has been opinion and when actual facts contradict your opinion you go back to a secret thing that no one an prove. Face it you have been proven wrong.

As far as the Central Bank being audited. I am completely fine with that as long as any disclosure made is kept private unless there are glaring inconsistencies. Central banks being audited is the first step in them losing Independence. The Fed is already on the cusp of being non-independent a public audit would push them over the edge and also cause a run on any discount window borrowers (that is the nature of central banking). The majority of people calling for an audit of the Fed have their own agendas either political or per usual the gold crowd who thinks the disclosures would cause gold to run.

Actually, you're factually wrong:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/01/wall-street-borrowed-from_n_790709.html

http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/files/tslf.xls

This is appears to be a different loan program, and annualized, it was .0078%, much lower than even the .5% in your file

Again, give me the full picture before commenting. I wouldn't be surprised if this isn't the only loan program either.

 

[The-Noid]

Actually, you're factually wrong:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/01/wall-street-borrowed-from_n_790709.html

http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/files/tslf.xls

This is appears to be a different loan program, and annualized, it was .0078%, much lower than even the .5% in your file

Again, give me the full picture before commenting. I wouldn't be surprised if this isn't the only loan program either.

That was the going rate in the Treasury lending market. That was securities lending not, you give me securities I give you cash. That is I will give you securities you give me cash while I lend it to you. You give me the securities back, I earn the interest on the securities.

Again, from your link: The program offered Treasury securities held by the System Open Market Account (SOMA) for loan over a one-month term against other program-eligible general collateral.

You are confusing concepts because you are uninformed and read biased sources, I mean honestly huffypost and rollingstone?

 

[Phokus]

That was the going rate in the Treasury lending market. That was securities lending not, you give me securities I give you cash. That is I will give you securities you give me cash while I lend it to you. You give me the securities back, I earn the interest on the securities.

You are confusing concepts because you are uninformed.

LAUGH, they were giving up the shit securities for treasuries, the only one uninformed is you:

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/03/11/sterilized-intervention-big-time/

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aRLWzHsF16lY&refer=home

Do you live in 2007 and believe in the "AAA" rating still?

Don't fucking present one loan program and present it as if that's the only thing, that's the exact same thing ProfJohn did.

Again, give me the whole fucking picture, it's apparent that the 'rolling stone' reporter and senator sanders are more informed than you are.

 

[The-Noid]

laugh, they were giving up the shit securities for treasuries, the only one uninformed is you:

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/03/11/sterilized-intervention-big-time/

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=arlwzhsf16ly&refer=home

do you live in 2007 and believe in the "aaa" rating still?

Don't fucking present one loan program and present it as if that's the only thing, that's the exact same thing profjohn did.

zomg the actual collateral wasn't disclosed how did you know it was those specific abs? Do you work for the federal reserve?????!?!??!?!?!

Also from your own link, look how overcollaterilized the AAA securities were when TSY's were borrowed against it.

Although you may think so the Fed is not stupid.

Also, still not 0%. I am awaiting the 0% i.e. no interest loan.

 

[Phokus]

zomg the actual collateral wasn't disclosed how did you know it was those specific abs? Do you work for the federal reserve?????!?!??!?!?!

So you're not even going to click the link:

will lend up to $200 billion of Treasury securities to primary dealers secured for a term of 28 days (rather than overnight, as in the existing program) by a pledge of other securities, including federal agency debt, federal agency residential-mortgage-backed securities (MBS), and non-agency AAA/Aaa-rated private-label residential MBS

bout those AAA-rated private-label MBS, Bloomberg reports:

Even after downgrading almost 10,000 subprime-mortgage bonds, Standard & Poor’s and Moody’s Investors Service haven’t cut the ones that matter most: AAA securities that are the mainstays of bank and insurance company investments.

None of the 80 AAA securities in ABX indexes that track subprime bonds meet the criteria S&P had even before it toughened ratings standards in February, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. A bond sold by Deutsche Bank AG in May 2006 is AAA at both companies even though 43 percent of the underlying mortgages are delinquent.

Call me crazy, but pledging crap as collateral is kind of a ripoff.

Again, give me the full fucking picture and not just part of a loan program.

 

[The-Noid]

So you're not even going to click the link:





Call me crazy, but pledging crap as collateral is kind of a ripoff.

Again, give me the full fucking picture and not just part of a loan program.

Show me 0% otherwise I can't take you seriously on anything you post.

Also just for the record the Federal Reserve collateral sheets in no way break out anything about the collateral they took on (except for if it was Agency or Non-Agency), only the credit rating. It is all subjective on what you think the non-agency RMBS used in the TSLF were. They could have all been prime non-agency for all you know.

You are way out of your understanding.

 

[Phokus]

Show me 0% otherwise I can't take you seriously on anything you post.

LAFF, .0078% doesn't exactly 'disprove' sander's and taibbi's thesis, if even that's the loan program they're talking about. Again, is there some collusion going on?

Give me the whole fucking picture and not lying about shit.

You gave me the primary dealer credit facility program and presented it as 'proof', when there was another program, the terms securities lending facility program also giving out money for garbage.

 

[The-Noid]

Securities lending is not what you think it is but even still, not 0%. Lowest rate was .10% on an annualized basis for securities lending.

 

[Phokus]

Yoxxy, sorry, but i'm going to believe a nobel economist, bloomberg, a sitting senator who saw the fed disclosures, and probably one of the leading journalists on the wall street collapse (among other wall street misdeeds) over you... you cynically hid the other loan programs involved to 'make your case'. Again, show me the whole fucking picture.

 

[The-Noid]

No I know what securities lending is, you don't that is the problem.

Where on any link that you gave me did it say the Fed took on sub-prime ABS you referenced as collateral? I will give you the answer, no where. There is no breakdown as to the type of borrower that made up the securities.

Show me 0%!

 

[Phokus]

No I know what securities lending is, you don't that is the problem.

Show me 0%!

You're the one who kept calling your 'list' the actual list and called me a liar based on the data you presented (despite the fact that you were leaving out other loan programs).

http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=31375349&postcount=15
http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=31375513&postcount=26

Here's the actual list. http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsev...eform_pdcf.htm
Find me the one at 0

No, that's not the actual list.

Show me the whole picture.

 

[The-Noid]

You're the one who kept calling your 'list' the actual list and called me a liar based on the data you presented (despite the fact that you were leaving out other loan programs).

http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=31375349&postcount=15
http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=31375513&postcount=26



No, that's not the actual list.

Show me the whole picture.

That's borrowing I posted, not securities lending. You are confusing terms.

You didn't say "how much did the counterparties use in securities lending?" and being that you have absolutely no idea what securities lending is you are actually trying to play that off as some how you are right, am I reading this correctly?

This is all circular anyway. There is a 0% loan somewhere, you are sure of it. So please prove it.

 

[Phokus]

That's borrowing I posted, not securities lending. You are confusing terms.

You didn't say "how much did the counterparties use in securities lending?" and being that you have absolutely no idea what securities lending is you are actually trying to play that off as some how you are right, am I reading this correctly?

This is all circular anyway. There is a 0% loan somewhere, you are sure of it. So please prove it.

When you borrow from someone, someone is lending to you. Do you understand the meaning of words? Obviously not.

If the banks were getting treasury securities, for liquidity, and they were allowed to post illiquid crap, that's a bad deal for the rest of us.