We as America need to talk about the $16 trillion theft that Bernie Sanders discovered.

[Zalatix]

No more distractions. We need to address this fraud, this THEFT of $16 million taxpayer dollars, and talk about who needs to be punished.

Letters need to be written. Protests need to occur.

http://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/news/?id=9e2a4ea8-6e73-4be2-a753-62060dcbb3c3

The first top-to-bottom audit of the Federal Reserve uncovered eye-popping new details about how the U.S. provided a whopping $16 trillion in secret loans to bail out American and foreign banks and businesses during the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. An amendment by Sen. Bernie Sanders to the Wall Street reform law passed one year ago this week directed the Government Accountability Office to conduct the study. "As a result of this audit, we now know that the Federal Reserve provided more than $16 trillion in total financial assistance to some of the largest financial institutions and corporations in the United States and throughout the world," said Sanders. "This is a clear case of socialism for the rich and rugged, you're-on-your-own individualism for everyone else."

[dipsydoodle]

1. Federal Reserve

[TreasonousBastard]

2. This bullshit again? The 16 trillion was...

essentially a revolving loan-- if you borrow a billion, pay it back and borrow it again, you took out two billion in loans, but really borrowed only a billion. Stretch that out to the trillions.

Few passing this along, including, apparently, Senator Sanders, have thought about 16 trillion being our entire GDP and impossible to steal without someone noticing.

[Trillo]

32. If an employer pays a worker $100 gross income for a day of labor,

the worker spends it, and the next day the employer pays another $100 to the same worker for more work, by your logic, the worker only made $100, but it certainly seems the IRS feels the worker made $200 total, and that seems to be what the employer is required to report to government.

Thus, it makes sense that if a bank borrows $100, pays it back, then reborrows "the same" $100 a second time, they have borrowed, in total, $200.

[A HERETIC I AM]

35. Your first analogy is complete bollocks

Your second one is more accurate, but under that scenario, the bank never had more than $100 exposure at any time

[TreasonousBastard]

41. Bad analogy- the employer actually paid the $200 and is out the total, but...

in a revolving loan the money keeps going back and forth. It would be as if the worker gave back the hundred every day to get it again the next.

The Fed gives a bank a billion on Monday and the bank pays it back on Friday. Then, next Monday the Fed gives it another billion, which gets paid back. Over a year, the Fed gives out 52 billion, but it's the samebillion it gave out 52 times.

[Trillo]

48. Yes, some of what you write is basically correct

It would be as if the worker gave back the hundred every day to get it again the next.

That is one of the things that seems to be wrong with the flow of money. When wealthy people and entities pass money to each other, they do not wish to be taxed on those exchanges, and have all sorts of 'legalized' mechanisms to do so. But, when workers take some "federal reserve notes" in the form of a check from corporate, and pass it back to corporate (spending it on bills), then corporate pays them again in the next pay period with the same "federal reserve notes", somehow that's different, and deserves all sorts of taxes, witholdings, etc., including the gross accumulation from day to day or pay period to pay period.

It's quite a rigged game, continually screwing the average citizen compared to the special treatment for bankers, some larger corporations with negative income taxes, and extremely wealthy folks like Romney with his fancy zillion corporate shells and offshore accountings.

[TreasonousBastard]

53. It is rigged, and has been since the dawn of history...

the rich and powerful make the rules, and the rules they make benefit them.

However, we could exercise some control over things. The teabaggers were successful because they go to a congressman with a thousand votes and tell him what they want. Usually, the rich and powerful want the same thing so it's an easy choice, but if we went with a thousand organized votes they would at least have to think about it. Two thousand and they might do it.

[Egalitarian Thug]

42. You know what's bullshit? Pretending that this doesn't matter. Yes, the details are a bit obscure,

but that's not because it is all hunky-dory, it's because this system has been working exactly as it was designed to for a century.

As that old Communist Henry Ford observed, "It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning." - Henry Ford

[TreasonousBastard]

43. Been working longer than that, since the Fuggers, actually, and...

the stock market was invented by the Dutch when nobody had enough money to finance new ventures.

Nobody but the sharks at the top of the food chain will tell you the system is a great one, but it's the one that financed you car, your house, the computer you're working on, and everything else you own or do. Even if you personally paid cash, none of this would be possible without banks somewhere in the chain.

Alternatives have been tried-- know of any that actually worked well enough for a nation of 350 million people?

You have no hope of overturning the system, so your best bet might be to work to reform it.

[Zalatix]

50. "You have no hope of overturning the system"? It will likely overturn itself.

And sorry, I don't subscribe to the concept of giving up.

[TreasonousBastard]

52. It hasn't so far, and even if it does what would replace it besides anarchy?

[Zalatix]

64. Anarchy is better than what we'll have if we stay the course.

If we stay the course it'll be anarchy for the 99% while the Plutocrats watch from their gated paradises.

And "it hasn't so far"? It's in the process of falling apart now. This type of society is unsustainable.

[patrice]

78. I mostly agree with you up to this point. There are some VERY Utopian assumptions about anarchy

floating around.

I don't see anyone mentioning anything about what it will cost in TIME and human potential, not to mention assumptions about the validity and reliability of (the) whatever(s) it produces.

Our place on Earth may not have the kind of time it will take for all of that to work out most equitably for Earth and for us to preserve whatever human potential we need to actually change in the ways that are most needed.

Yes, the non-anarchy path is also imperfect, so the cost-benefit ratios between the two paths could be assumed to be a toss up, but I personally do not assume that due to the matter of lost human potential alone, which is why I hope for something that allows anarchy, while cultivating the best regulation possible for the various general contexts in which that is to occur.

[Zalatix]

88. There is no hope of utopia whatsoever.

Take a look at Mexico, where the rich live above a land of absolute squalor and crime. That's what we are headed for.

Anarchy costs a lot in human potential and time, not to mention suffering and death. But the Plutocracy intends that for us anyway, while they live in their safe gated paradises.

We have two ways out of this - stop society's descent into a Plutonomy, which is anarchy for the 99%, or force the Plutocrats to be mired in the mess they made. The former is the most ideal way out but his name is Slim and his bags are packed...

[patrice]

96. Some of us don't need Utopia, so we don't hope for that. But the difference between

the imperfections people do hope for and those that anarchy implies is not an insignificant matter, not only to people who do not choose, but to anarchy itself, so what's the point? Struggle? for struggle's sake? We can have that with or without anarchy, the one being a master I/we know, the other being a master that cannot be known and, thus, a greater master.

I think we agree about the essence of corruption and, therefore, the NECESSITY of fighting it, but I think we disagree about what that costs each person. You may know and have chosen your own personal cost:benefit ratio, but I have a problem telling others that what/who/where/when/why they lose does not matter. Yes, in theory, their necessity will cause them to build what does matter, but not everyone will have what it takes to do that, not to mention the luck by means of which whatever they do have is optimized to the result that matters to them and if that's not why "we" are doing this, then why do it, unless only the ones who can "succeed" in anarchy matter. Perhaps you see my point here: meet the "new" boss same as the old boss; I guess I don't mind that too much, since it appears unavoidable in our current condition and circumstances, as long as all of us are admitting that fact up front and, thus, allowing people to choose.

[Zalatix]

97. Analogy: When the boat is sinking, I'm not going to watch the rich take the lifeboats from us.

Either we all get on, or burn the lifeboats. I'm not going down in the icy Atlantic while the people who condemned me to die, get out safely.

[Egalitarian Thug]

51. Yeah, that's the point. n/t

[rhett o rick]

91. So what's your point? That this story is exagerated? Or that nothing is really wrong here?

Simply saying that it's bullshit, isnt quite enough. How do you think the Fed works.

[TreasonousBastard]

94. Both, and I do have some idea how the Fed works.

[rhett o rick]

99. You are certainly making me work for this. Do you think the Fed is working fine as is?

If so, what do you base it on.

[econoclast]

100. If I may try a little clarity...

No, the Fed is not working fine as it is

But

Invoking this mythical 16 Trillion dollar theft HINDERS a coherent discussion about the real issues because it is simple to demonstrate that there was NO 16 Trillion dollars in the first place. The number is VASTLY exaggerated by the double and triple etc counting that others on this thread have correctly identified. ( don't believe them? Check the footnotes of the original report and you'll see that they are indeed correct. The 16 Trillion dollar figure is bogus)

Because the 16 trillion is farcical, the rest of your argument - however accurate it might be - falls on deaf ears.

[TreasonousBastard]

104. Work harder-- this thread is full of answers from me and others...

but you seem to have no interest in learning from any of us.

The story is bullshit-- proven in a bunch of posts up and down this thread and others. The Fed has problems, but it is performing its function appropriately, although its functions are limited. The discount window is there for a purpose and tight money policies in a recession have been proven to make the situation worse. Allowing banks to fail not only causes huge Federal expenses from the FDIC and other agencies, but disrupts the parts of the system that are working.

I'm not here to give a complete macroeconomics course-- take one and get back to me with your grade.

[fasttense]

3. Just think what you could have done with an almost 0% interest loan

of any huge amount, while everyone else was crashing? You could have gone to some fireside sales and be making big bucks right now. But of course those sweet deals are only for Wall Street criminals and Banks Robber Barons.

Not to mention that while the Fed was doing this, the TARP was handing out bailouts too. But none of those bailouts went to We the People.

Yes, everyone noticed that the banksters were making out while we all suffered. How could you not notice? We just didn't know the cause of it all was being helped by the Fed.

By the way, when was the last time We The People got revolving credit, like a credit card, with 0% interest like the banks? And what happens if oops you can't pay that bill back to the Fed? Oh, I know, We The People pay it.

[Sanity Claws]

17. good points

[woo me with science]

36. And we are the ones who pay with concrete assets.

This is the real theft in the system. It is designed to create debt in the people until they can no longer keep up. When the bankers owe, they push a computer key and shift or create money. When the people owe, they come for our very real assets....our homes and cars and possessions.


The game is finally revealed. Now it is time to stop it.

[patrice]

80. To me, that is the MAIN point, not that "money" was "stolen", especially since that money

didn't exist in the first place, nor that, apparently we will never have to "make up for" these loans with our taxes.

The main point of this is, as you observe, fasttense, WHO gets this kind of service from the Fed and who doesn't. If the Fed can do this for these FOREIGN mystery banks, why can't they do it for universal single payer health care, or universal child- and/or long-term care here in the U.S.?

Maybe the answer to that question has to do with the fact that these foreign banks needed this money, in the first place, because of a social financial disease that the Fed and Wall Street gave to the rest of the world and, I guess, I can see that, but we're also pretty familiar with a little phenomenon known as plausible deniability, or something like LIHOP - letting it happen on purpose - or enabling bad behaviors of various kinds for the benefits that one derives from them.

I don't know the answers to any of this, but I am mostly concerned with questions about, if the Fed is going to do this sort of thing, manufacture n value of somesort out of absolutely nothing, WHY can't the people of the USA get in on some of that for some stuff that is going to help us adjust to what the Fed and Wall Street did to us???: Mass transit, Single Payer Health Care/Child&Elder Care, Student Debt Abatement, Alternative energy development, Infrastructure . . . . ?

[cali]

4. OK. I'm an idiot when it comes to this but how does that make sense?

Here are numbers for fiscal year 2010:

otal revenue $2.381 trillion (requested)
$2.165 trillion (enacted)[1]
Total expenditures $3.552 trillion (requested)
$3.721 trillion (enacted)[1]

[dipsydoodle]

6. It may well be

that the overall credit lines extended were not necessarily used , the importance in this situation, lying in their existence. Their existence would've created the illusion of underlying strength thus enabling the banks to do business they may otherwise have found to be unobtainable. When the situation stabilised , assuming it did in fact so ,the lines were no longer necessary. Cost to the banks would only have been interest at low rate against funds actually used maybe even on occasions for days at a time.

Yes - its leaves individuals on their own.

[cali]

9. thank you!

I even kind of understand what you explained.

Really appreciate it. A lot.

[Cobalt Violet]

5. and some here are worried about a poor person having a beer.

[quaker bill]

7. Two words are critical

the first is "loans". Borrowing is not theft.

The second is 16 trillion "taxpayer dollars". There never was or is 16 trillion "taxpayer dollars". We, as taxpayers, never had that kind of money.

BTW, the 0 to 0.25% interest overnight loan rate deal is still going strong.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

15. The 0 / 0.25 % overnight loan rate is necessary to keep money flowing for the recovery. nt

[quaker bill]

16. I have no problem with it

I just wanted to point out that the FED is still making 0% loans to big banks, and will do so again tomorrow.

[Zalatix]

18. Two other words are critical:

"in secret".

What do you call money that is moved in secret, for which you must pay?

That's called fraud.. theft.

[quaker bill]

25. The money

was not borrowed from the taxpayer and the taxpayer does not need to repay it. That is the magic of the FED, the "16 trillion" did not exist before it was loaned, it was not borrowed from anyone. It was made from scratch, or thin air if you prefer. For something to be "stolen" , it had to exist in someone's possession and then be secretly removed. No one can steal anything which did not exist.

[Zalatix]

47. $16 trillion out of nowhere devalues all dollars, everywhere. It's called inflation.

On the plus side, dollar devaluation drives up the price of imports... making offshoring of jobs less palatable.

[girl gone mad]

61. The Federal Reserve doesn't have $16 trillion in assets to cover its exploding spreadsheet.

Taxpayers backstop the Federal Reserve. Without taxpayers, the Federal Reserve holds a lot of worthless paper and little else.

It's absolutely correct to say that taxpayer money was put at risk by the Federal Reserve when it made these decisions.

Because it's our money at risk, we should ask if the actions the Fed took were responsible and appropriate. Based on the results of the these actions, how could anyone conclude the Fed acted appropriately?

The loans should have been proffered at penalty rates and the government should have demanded equity stakes and receivership for insolvent institutions. That didn't happen so now we're now stuck with these zombie banks and the concomitant debt overhang and stagnant economy. It's only a matter of time before we are faced with a new financial crisis and still more extortion by these institutions which were not properly resolved in 2008.

[rudycantfail]

26. Exactly.

The two controlling parties don't want America to have this conversation. They want to maintain the illusion that the private banking industry (and the overall economy) is stable and standing on its own without big government help on a massive scale. This has to be a red flag to every thinking American that the financial system is too powerful, totally corrupt and extremely dangerous to the world economy and that our political system is acting as if it doesn't know this.

[patrice]

82. I agree, but isn't part of this also the fact that if our political entities act on this, reprisals

will fall on the most vulnerable, especially those of the least powerful who are involved in mortgage crises, but certainly also to include job "creation" and wages?

They don't want us to know that someone has their hands around our necks and there's nothing that THEY can do about it.

Or, even if they do something about it, some of us are going to be throttled anyway.

[penndragon69]

8. Sorry,

but i trust Senator Sanders to know what he is talking about on this issue!

Forget about all the Reich wing federal reserve apologists out there because
they hope to be part of the 1% someday.

Can't kill the Golden Goose until they get THEIR CUT.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

14. The Right Wing wants to get RID of the Fed. Not apologize; that's backwards. nt

[pampango]

24. Certainly the libertarians and teabaggers want to get rid of the Fed. Sanders wants to reform it.n/t

[Zalatix]

49. This is a rare moment of agreement between us.

[Zorra]

33. +1

[Warren DeMontague]

10. It's not even just "16 Trillion", it's SIXTY-NINETY THIRTYTWELVE BAJILLION!!!!!!!!

I mean, as long as we're just making numbers up, why not go whole hog.

[Zalatix]

19. So the GAO is making up numbers? Really?

Of course you can't answer that.

[cthulu2016]

31. Do you honestly not understand this?

The GAO is quite up front in explaining the numbers. You are willfully misstating what the numbers mean.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021252951

[Zorra]

39. There is a good reason why these numbers are not what they seem.

However, it is easy to see why any reasonable person would become suspicious under these circumstances. And, *sigh*, of course Senator Sanders means well...

But there really are good reasons why these numbers are widely misunderstood, and there is a very simple alternative, a third way of explaining this apparent mathematical/logical anomaly.

You see, my dear Zalatix, the dichotomy between two spheres within the Friedman-Smith parabellum cannot be reconciled within the chrono-simplastic infundibulum, which automatically negates the equation that 1 + 1 = 2. Therefore, no action can (constitutionally) be taken under a premise that any financial institutions committed a crime. The appearance of what seems like an obvious crime regarding the missing $457.06 (Senator Sanders is only a US Senator and obviously has no real grasp of the financial affairs of the global corporate/finance system, and subsequently therefore should not be throwing around this ridiculously inflated figure of $16 million) is simply a binary refraction of the quantum basis for the seeming incompatibility between the Rimini protocol and the Calmfors–Driffill hypothesis.

(At this point, from my authoritative POV as spokeswoman for the Director of Global Astrology at the prestigious Wall St. firm of Dewey, Cheatem, & Howe, I am compelled to interject that Glass Steagall can not be reinstated as it has been proven to be un-Constitutional by the Robert's Court re-interpretation of the Khazzoom–Brookes postulate of 1863).

Now, I know that you believe you understand what you think I wrote, but I'm not sure you realize that what you read is not what I meant, and that is not the case. You must realize that there are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns.

Consequently, we are forced to conclude that there are things we don't know we don't know, and these are not things we know right now.

Therefore, under these conditions, 1 + 1 does not equal two, and Senator Sanders is completely mistaken in his assumptions about the missing $447.05.

I hope this clears things up for you, and that you now fully understand why auditing the Fed is bad for Bank of America.

So, please, don't worry about these insignificant issues Senator Sanders has erroneously exposed, be a good citizen, and move along now...there's nothing to see here.

[Warren DeMontague]

57. So if I loan you 10 bucks on monday and you pay it back, 10 bucks on tuesday, you pay it back

10 bucks on wed., you pay it back, etc. for 10 consecutive days, that means I've given you 100 bucks?

[Zorra]

63. No, of course not! Nobody actually "stole" anything, apparently.

Thanks btw, I've always enjoyed your friendship while working with you in the past, and the low interest "friendship" loans you made with other people's money without their consent enabled me to make a killing on the heroin I bought with the loans. Of course, the outrageous profits I made with the dope were diversified into several other enterprises, and you'll be pleased to know that I now own booming businesses in "human commodities" and other profitable enterprises.

I've now gotten so filthy rich and powerful from those loans that I am now, for all practical purposes, in control of several governments and populations of several small countries.

This is, as we know, just between you and me; after all, we're untouchable, masters of the universe, and have now consolidated our wealth and power over the peasants - they are literally ours to do whatever wish to do with them. Ownership has its privileges.

You'll get a look of disdain for giving me the loans, and no one will ever even know why you gave me the loans, or what I did with the money you loaned me.

What a beautiful scam! We steal their money, and reduce them to powerless poverty, and then we come right back and borrow their money so that we can grind their pathetic peasant faces further into the mud, and there's not a damn thing they will ever be able to do about it, or even want to do about it, because there is no way most of them will ever be able to figure out what we are actually doing. That hedge fund thing - bwaahaahaaa! We've got something even better in the works.

We have pulled off the ultimate fraud; I love this game.

We are truly, invincible my friend; invincible masters of the universe. Cigar? Brandy?

Only the finest.

We are the 1%. We own the world.

Oh, btw, I could use another $100 bucks...can you hit up the fed again?

Consequently, we are forced to conclude that there are things we don't know we don't know, and these are not things we know right now.

[Zalatix]

66. Montie is only here to stop discussions about punishing the thieves. Leave him be.

[Warren DeMontague]

70. "Montie" is still waiting for you to quote the exact part of the GAO report which contains your

Oft-touted "16 Trillion" figure.

[Zalatix]

74. We're here to discuss how to punish these thieves. Your questions can wait forever.

[Warren DeMontague]

86. Yeah, I know

math is hard, right?

[Agony]

73. you rock!

cheers

[patrice]

77. +1000

[rhett o rick]

90. What the good Sen Sanders must realize

is that many Americans live in carefully craft denial. Exposure of the wizard may well be more than they can handle.

[Warren DeMontague]

58. Quote me the exact place in the GAO report where the 16 Trillion dollar figure comes from.

Of course you can't answer that.

[cthulu2016]

72. I can answer it

Table #8 - on or near Page 131

Of course, on page 130 of the GAO report the GAO patiently explains precisely why the $16 trillion figure in Table #8 does not mean there were anywhere near $16 trillion in loans.

[99Forever]

20. If you can't make a facted based retort..

... you're stuck with a lame attempt at a belittling lie, eh Montie?

[Warren DeMontague]

56. So you really believe that "16 Trillion Dollars" was "stolen from the US Taxpayers"

Do you understand that's technically impossible, given that's a good chunk of the ENTIRE GNP?

[99Forever]

68. I just love anal retentive ..

... lies. How about instead, let's argue about how the deck chairs were arranged on the Titantic. "Technically" these mo**erfuckers ripped us off for more fucking money than any of us can imagine AND are still doing it as I type this. You want argue details? Fuck that, I ain't interested pal. I don't buy a fucking thing that comes from 1%ers OR their lackeys. Fucking criminals in $5000 suits are still fucking criminals.

[Warren DeMontague]

69. Then why not just say that? Why make up numbers? Speaking of lies.

The reponse seems to be "yes its not true, but doesn't it piss you off anyway?"

Sorry, facts matter.

[99Forever]

79. And you "seem to be" ...

.. incapable of understanding basic English. I didn't even speak a number, let alone "make one up." I'll leave making shit up to you, you "seem to be" quite well versed in doing it.

[Warren DeMontague]

87. What'd I make up?

Show me.

[Warren DeMontague]

60. By the way, this thread is full of "facted based retorts", because the number is bullshit.

And that's just from the people supporting the argument made in the OP: i.e., the "details are a bit obscure", (to say the least) the "figure may be inflated", and (my new favorite) this "issue isn't how the number is tabulated"

(translation: okay, the number is bullshit, yes, but the OUTRAGE IS REAL!)

Look, if people want to be angry about the bailouts or TARP or any of it, sure, that's reasonable from a certain perspective. I mean, to my mind, they were difficult choices made to avoid a much worse outcome, i.e. total collapse of the global financial system. But I also think a solid argument can be made that Main Street - like people being foreclosed upon- could have been helped more, along with the banks.

But then, let's not concoct completely bogus alarming hyperbolic figures to try to advance those sorts of arguments.

Oh, and my name's not "Monty". I am a highly trained Shakespearean actor, thank you very much.

[rhett o rick]

93. The best way to convince us of your point is for you to advance an

alternate argument. Simply saying it's all bullshit is as bad as those that exaggerate (per you) the problem.

Do you believe the TARP bailout was necessary to prevent a global economic collapse? Did you take the word of the banksters that made millions personally?

[Zalatix]

98. His argument is that we should let these banksters get away with stealing $16T

At some point Warren has to understand no one except the Plutocracy and the Third Way people are interested in that argument. Not today, not tomorrow, not ever.

[econoclast]

101. No ....

I think that the argument is that the 16 Trillion dollar figure is nonsense.

Invoking this mythical 16 Trillion dollar theft HINDERS a coherent discussion about the real issues because it is simple to demonstrate that there was NO 16 Trillion dollars in the first place. The number is VASTLY exaggerated by the double and triple etc counting that others on this thread have correctly identified. ( don't believe them? Check the footnotes of the original report and you'll see that they are indeed correct. The 16 Trillion dollar figure is bogus)

Because the 16 trillion is farcical, the rest of your argument - however accurate it might be - falls on deaf ears.

[Zalatix]

102. Wrong. I've got 92 recs that say my argument is NOT falling on deaf ears.

Recs aren't everything, but they are certainly solid proof that my sentiment isn't falling on deaf ears.

Please try again.

[econoclast]

106. 92 recs does not a cogent discussion make

It is an embarrassing contrary indicator about the level of understanding about a vital issue facing the American economy.

You have deployed The Big Lie theory and seem quite proud to have done so. It's sad actually.

[Zalatix]

107. You claimed my argument falls on deaf ears. Your claim was soundly refuted.

And my argument is not a BIG LIE. American taxpayers were defrauded out of $16 trillion by the banks.

Someone is GOING to pay for that, and it won't just be the taxpayers. We'll get that money back from those fucking Banksters whether you live in denial about it or not.

This ain't going away. Stop trying to make it go away.

[econoclast]

109. 16 trillion dollars = Big Lie

Sorry ... I clearly have mistaken you for someone who wanted a serious discussion. I was wrong. You are just a propagandist.

Moving along. No serious discussion here.

[Zalatix]

110. The only propagandist here is the corporate apologist trying to lowball what the banks stole from us

And that, sir, ain't me.

[Zalatix]

65. Let's talk about punishing these bastards who stole our money. Let Montie deny, deny in his corner.

America has no time for that.

[dmosh42]

11. Now we understand what an oligarchy stands for!

We thought we learned that the USA operated as a democratic form of government in a republic, but that was only for the peasants to believe!

[Zalatix]

75. Can't have a democratic government when everything important is done in secret.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

12. The number is grossly inflated, since they do things like count the same loan 30 times. nt

[pampango]

13. The report itself (particularly its conclusions and recommendations) is interesting reading.

What GAO Recommends: GAO makes seven recommendations to the Federal Reserve Board to strengthen policies for managing noncompetitive vendor selections, conflicts of interest, risks related to emergency lending, and documentation of emergency program decisions.

...the Federal Reserve Board’s emergency lending programs included multiple loss-protection features and have not incurred losses to date, opportunities exist for the Federal Reserve System to improve its risk management practices related to crisis lending.

Recommendations for Executive Action

Going forward, to further strengthen policies for selecting vendors, ensuring the transparency and consistency of decision making involving the implementation of any future emergency programs, and managing risks related to these programs, we recommend that the Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board direct Federal Reserve Board and Reserve Bank staff to take the following seven actions:

http://www.sanders.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/GAO%20Fed%20Investigation.pdf

What the GAO report recommends deal with improving the amount of competition in contract awarding, conflict of interest policies and more specific guidance on how to "exercise discretion and document decisions".

Sanders is right. While no money may have been lost, this is a great example of "socialism for the rich" but not for the rest of us. ""The Federal Reserve must be reformed to serve the needs of working families, not just CEOs on Wall Street." It is worth noting that Sanders is pushing reform of the Fed, not its death which is a favorite goal of the libertarian and tea party wings of the republican party.

[ProSense]

22. Exactly. n/t

[ProSense]

21. Talk about how

An amendment by Sen. Bernie Sanders to the Wall Street reform law passed one year ago this week directed the Government Accountability Office to conduct the study.

...Romney wants to repeal the Wall Street reform law, and demand he release his tax returns. Americans need more information about his UBS Swiss bank accounts.

[RB TexLa]

23. LOL So they added a bunch of overnight loans to say $16B was stolen

Too funny.


So if you deposit $5000 in a CD for a year. $5000 times the money being deposited 365 days by this math you would say you deposited $1,825,000 and they stole it even though they gave it back to you. Just like they gave the over night loans back to the federal researve. But they stole $1.8M from you.

[Warren DeMontague]

71. Math is just another TOOL OF THE MAN!!!!

And you, with your piddling technical harping on "facts" are merely trying to divert the American People from their fully justified if not anything even close to correct from a numerical standpoint rage.

[rudycantfail]

27. Interesting that this attempt to get the truth out

comes from an Independent. More people will be able to see the big picture with this key piece of the puzzle handed to them by one lonely Senator with no party affiliation (aside from whom he caucuses).

[Zalatix]

67. Thank God he's an independent LEFTIST who is trying to pull the Dem Party to the Left.

[Octafish]

28. Millions of American families lost their homes...

...THERE WERE NO LOANS, BAILOUTS OR REAL HELP FOR THEM. Swiss banks, though...

[woo me with science]

37. Thank you. nt

[cthulu2016]

29. Since the $16 trillion figure is bullshit I'm not sure why you are pushing this

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021252951

[cali]

34. oh, c'mon. I know why and

I know how smart you are so I can't imagine you don't know why.

[girl gone mad]

76. Okay, but you also believe that taxpayers don't backstop the Fed..

for some odd reason.

$16 trillion in interest free loans will always add up to $16 trillion in interest free loans, even on Tuesdays. (Math, bitchez.)

Total Fed commitments to the banks during the crisis was some $29 trillion.

Imagine what we could have accomplished if this money had been used to rescue homeowners, help struggling students, save small businesses... anything other than propping up insolvent, corrupt financial institutions.

[Zalatix]

105. Because it's not bullshit and I intend to push this. Forever.

Obviously you don't understand my resolve here...

[cthulu2016]

108. You are resolved to peddle false claims... forever?

There was no theft of $16 trillion.

And saying there is, in the face of all evidence, does not make you more morally dedicated than anyone else... not any more than claiming that it is 143 degrees in Seattle today would make you a hero of global climate change awareness.

[Zorra]

30. tl;dnr. Sorry, but I'm much too busy watching TV to bother wasting my constipated mind

on thinking about and acting on things of critical importance to me and everyone else in the world.

Stop bothering me with things I know I should do something about!

Trending now! Blue Eyed Blondes of the Jersey Shore! Don't miss it, right after Dumbass Republican Shopping Spree!

(Thanks, Zalatix, really great post, please pardon my cynicism)

[Zalatix]

89. I swear there has to be some mass hypnosis involved behind all this apathy.

[woo me with science]

38. K&R

[smokey nj]

40. How can we talk about this when there are people on welfare and food stamps buying beer and getting

tattoos and manicures?! Somewhere out there, someone might be buying a cokes and candy bars with food stamps!!

[k2qb3]

44. Missing the point...

The issue isn't that it isn't taxpayer money or that the loans get paid back or even how the total is tabulated, the issue is that some market participants have access to an unlimited supply of zero-cost credit while others do not.

Imagine a poker game in which one player had an infinite chipstack and the other player a finite one, it's a mathematical certainty the infinite stack player will eventually hold all the chips, it doesn't matter that both players are playing by the same rules, or that the odds are even in any given hand.

It's a license to steal and a perpetual moral hazard machine. That's why there has to be oversight.

BTW the right doesn't want to end the fed, the libertarians do but the GOP loves the fed.

[smokey nj]

45. You missed my point. Totally.

[pampango]

46. The Texas and Iowa GOP's don't love the Fed. Which GOP's love the Fed.

Texas GOP Party platform: Federal Reserve System – We believe Congress should repeal the Federal Reserve Act of 1913. In the interim, we call for a complete audit of the Federal Reserve System and an immediate report to the American people.

http://s3.amazonaws.com/texasgop_pre/assets/original/2012Platform_Final.pdf

Iowa GOP Party platform: 12.18 The Federal Reserve must be transparent, fully audited, and accountable to Congress. We demand the elimination of the Federal Reserve Act and the implementation of a sound commodity-backed currency. We support returning to the gold and/or silver standard.

http://www.iowagop.org/about#platform

By the way, both of those platforms include a bunch of really 'out there' proposals, including the US withdrawing from "FEMA, EPA, UN, NAU (which does not even exist), WTO and NAFTA" and a bunch of other 'gems': (These are from the Iowa platform, but Texas' is about the same.)

11.3 The US should drop out of the United Nations and eliminate UN funding.
11.4 We reject the “1972 World Heritage Treaty”, which sets up 20 heritage sites within the United States to be governed by a United Nations’ mandate.
11.5 We oppose the proposed North American Union, which would do away with our borders and sovereignty, and we are opposed to the Amero, which would do away with our currency.
11.6 We oppose any treaty that would regulate the use of Iowa lands and waters such as the UN Agenda 21 plan, which is being implemented throughout the United States and which restricts or destroys the property rights of Americans under the guise of environmentalist initiatives such as Sustainable Development, Smart Growth, Wildlands Project, Resilient Cities, Regional Visioning Projects, and others with similarly “Green” sounding names. United Nations Agenda 21 policy deems America’s national sovereignty a social injustice and Agenda 21 concludes “the only way to make the future sustainable is to reduce America’s living standards and transfer their wealth to developing nations”.
11.7 We believe that the United States should abandon “land for peace” pressure from any party or parties against Israel in regards to the Middle Eastern crisis.
11.8 We support the elimination of foreign aid.
11.9 We oppose so-called “World Government” and support full constitutional sovereignty of the U.S.A.
11.10 We absolutely reject any order, mandate, edict, regulation, treaty or law that requires any level of U. S. governance to give up its sovereign power to non-U.S. organizations such as the United Nations, NGOs or Climate Control Conventions.

[k2qb3]

59. IA isn't a good example of establishment republicanism.

IA GOP is run by Paulbots, TX is his home state and Perry was an outlier on the issue. The national party is a completely different brand of crazy than the states where the Paul people ended up writing the platform.

I do apologize I didn't mean to respond to Smokey but to the entire thread.

[patrice]

83. +100

[rhett o rick]

92. EXACTLY! Now that I can understand. nm

[ArcticFox]

54. Tough love, as Chomsky says

Love for the rich.

Tough for everyone else.

[bhikkhu]

55. If it weren't such a BS talking point for the chronic hair-on-fire fringe...

then it would be worth some serious breaking down and analysis of the numbers here. But, at this point, anyone who didn't figure out or recognize where the baloney is in this sandwich the first few times it was served up probably doesn't really want to see an explanation.

If you are looking to get all fired up and don't care how or why, this should be the ticket!

[Fire Walk With Me]

62. Far more importantly, why did it take so very much to get this to happen in the first place

and why aren't any of the candidates making anything resembling an issue of it, regardless of semantics and the need for further summation? There is a severe problem here and it's been the elephant sitting in the middle of the room and only the hair on fire types have managed to bring it into anything resembling a conversation, much less as a problem to be solved. And it must.

[patrice]

84. I don't understand why it isn't a concern that if it is brought into anything "as a problem to be

solved" by those who could approach those tasks, the nature of all of the secret contracts and their arcane details can make it possible for this oligarchy to do even more harm to us, ergo those who could approach those conversations and problem solving have not done so.

Our Occupy met with a mortgage assistance attorney, a professional working for state legal aid all of his life, a subject matter expert, who explained to us the legal mechanics of the mortgage crisis. One point that struck me was that there are many, most?, of these troubled mortgages that are quite literally being held in legal-limbo, because the lending institutions have the legal power to do that. What happens to that real-estate "paper" if certain moves are made on the systems that supported the lending? What are the different scenarios that could play out here and how many of them would likely lead to something more overt, and possibly violent, than one form or another of the possible legal show-downs?

Yes, there are those who are on the side of the oligarchy amongst those political entities you mention who should be bringing this into something resembling a responsible conversation, or into problem solving, but there are also those who know that there are horrible moves, there are bad moves and good moves and best moves and it is possible that they don't know enough about these very secret legal relationships (yet? or ever?) to take further risks with people's homes and jobs and everything else that those two factors would affect. Is this possible? or not?

[cthulu2016]

81. 81 Recommendations and counting for something everyone knows is false?

This thread is surreal.

[Nye Bevan]

85. If it's the Fed's fault, for giving out these cheap loans, I guess the banks are blameless.

Perhaps this is why there have been so few prosecutions?

[taught_me_patience]

95. It wasn't $16T and it wasn't "theft"

Many DUers have debunked this exaggeration.

[inchhigh]

103. Not true. Fuzzy math.

There are plenty of real problems for us to fix without making them up. Borrowing $1 Billion 16 times is not the same as borrowing $16 billion. If you don't believe my try charging 16 times your credit limit on a credit card. Bernie is a good guy and the Fed is a criminal enterprise but this issue is just a smokescreen that hides a real fire.