The Fed audit - $16 trillion in secret loans

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

chucky2

Lifer
Dec 9, 1999
10,016
36
86
Not that I necessarily agree with Jhhnn or LK, but you aren't offering anything other than inane bullshit in this thread.

I really wasn't trying to offer anymore than what Jhhnn234 provided, so based on your comment, I have succeeded in my goal.
 
May 11, 2008
20,138
1,149
126
It's pretty clear that people who believe that only Greenspan's FRB, the Bush Admin & the Republican Congress of 2003-2005 brought us to this point have nothing BUT vague ideas. Well, vague ideas and foaming, ankle-biting rage.

There is something i would like to know.
Ever since the US attacked Iraq, how many people warned it would take decades before the US could pull out of Iraq because the of political relations (The saudi's). The US companies that are contracted by US defense, how much do these earn each year ? How much from the defense budget ends up with these companies ? How many of these companies are closely related to the former Bush administration ? How much of these companies also sell arms, ammunition or supporting material to the US army ?

IMHO The reason why i ask this is because it would seem the Iraq war was about oil for the US. But that is just a side convenience and not the main reason. A stable region controlled by the Saudi's is much more important for the whole oil depending world.
Now to come back on earning money, as long as the USA is at war or providing military services in (any country but as these days in ) Iraq a large part from the defense (i assume this is the complete military budget) budget will be transferred to the contractors who sell weapons and support material to the US military. Thus i would think these companies have decades of income in the amount of billions of dollars a year. It is not a coincidence that the preemptive strike strategy is very lucrative to the very same people who actually promoted the preemptive strike strategy. It is making sure that for decades billions of dollars come in. And the best way is to keep the USA in a long lasting war. If you look at the spending, it is pretty clear. Selling old stock material (ammunition) and making money and making sure that there are "long term" contracts. In a free market, you do that by making sure that there is a market...
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
We have the best government that money can...and does...buy.

A GOOD politician is one who stays bought.
QFT I think one thing that would help immensely is term limits. Right now legislators pretty much live in the D.C. area, coming "home" only to press the flesh for reelection. How many of them don't even return to their home district or state when leaving or being forced out of Congress? We've established a Brahman caste of professional politicians, federal government workers, and lobbyists, and that's a very bad thing for America as the folks politicians for which they look out rapidly become these people rather than their constituents.

Hey, those corporate lobbyists are there to protect shareholder value!
LOL Agreed, but there are ways to protect shareholder value that are good for America and ways to protect shareholder value that are good only for the corporation.
 

brandonbull

Diamond Member
May 3, 2005
6,338
1,215
126
The OP is a LIE!

"
Its not some sort of secret, it has been disclosed by the Fed in their annual reports as required by law.

FORTUNE -- The bailout of the financial system is roughly as popular as Wall Street bonuses, the federal budget deficit, or LeBron James in a Cleveland sports bar. You hear over and over that the bailout was a disaster, it cost taxpayers a fortune, we didn't really need it, it didn't work, it was a failure. It has become politically toxic, which inhibits reasoned public discussion about it.

But you know what? The bailout, by the numbers, clearly did work. Not only did it forestall a worldwide financial meltdown, but a Fortune analysis shows that U.S. taxpayers are coming out ahead on it -- by at least $40 billion, and possibly by as much as $100 billion eventually. This is our count for the entire bailout, not just the 3% represented by the massively unpopular Troubled Asset Relief Program. Yes, that's right -- TARP is only about 3% of the bailout, even though it gets about 97% of the attention.

http://finance.fortune.cnn.com/2011/07/08/surprise-the-big-bad-bailout-is-paying-off/ [cnn.com] Fortune Magazine Article
"
Source:
http://politics.slashdot.org/story/...dot+(Slashdot)&utm_content=Google+Feedfetcher

So taxpayers should be happy about a $40Billion - $100Billion profit off of what? Loans made to people that directly cost those same taxpayers 10 times that in losses? So we can expect a check in the mail from the government?
 

airdata

Diamond Member
Jul 11, 2010
4,987
0
0
I love how people defend the fed for obvious shady dealings.

They have no idea where they sent alot of that make believe money to begin with.