So far the Fed has Bailed Out Banks $3.6Trillion and yet we can't raise the Minimum Wage

[FreakinDJ]

I ask you - "Now What in the Fuck is Wrong with that Picture"

Bernanke and his policy-making colleagues are contemplating how to finish a third round of so-called quantitative easing that has swelled the Fed’s balance sheet to a record $3.59 trillion. The unprecedented bond buying is aimed at combating unemployment and bolstering an economy that expanded by only 1.4 percent in the 12 months through June.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-08-13/fed-seen-slowing-qe-in-september-by-65-of-economists-in-survey.html

I see an Administration that sits by watching the working class suffer while pumping $Trillions into Wall St and the Wealthy 1%

Minimum Wage Raise Essential To Fixing Our Economy



The Walton (Walmart) heirs now have as much wealth as up to 40 percent of all Americans combined, and Walmart’s sales have been slowing down. What does the first fact have to do with the second? (Hint: Sign this petition for raising the minimum wage.)

The top 1 percent now rakes in 20 percent of the nation’s income and holds one-third of the country’s wealth. Meanwhile the economy remains stagnant because the incomes of regular people are stagnant and falling – meaning they can’t buy stuff and can’t invest in their own futures.

“40% Of Americans Now Make Less Than 1968 Minimum Wage”:

http://ourfuture.org/20130419/minimum-wage-raise-essential-to-fix-our-economy?gclid=CLCi4o7B07sCFURcfgodqXMArw

THIS IS WHY DEMOCRATS WILL LOSE HEAVILY IN THE 2014 MID-TERMS

We throw Free Money to the Wealthy Elite and Surrender on issues for the Working Class

[Jackpine Radical]

1. To do anything else is to give in to the Fringe Left--You know,

that small minority of Americans who think Social Security should be saved at the expense of Wall Street, who don't see the need to lower the Minimum Wage to maintain productivity, and who think we ought to subsidize the unemployed out of Wall Street's Emergency Fund the public coffers.

[FreakinDJ]

2. Congress needs to PAY Back the Money they STOLE from Social Security

Show me the Congress Critter with enough Honesty and Fortitude to submit a Bill requiring reimbursement of Social Security Funds taken by Congress complete with interest compatible to those paid on US Treasury Bonds - and I'll show you the next President

[valerief]

4. Or a dead congress critter. nt

[Igel]

29. Interest rate info

"Special-issue securities bear a nominal rate of interest determined by a formula in the law. The current formula was established by the 1960 amendments to the Social Security Act. The formula sets the rate applicable in a given month to the average market yield on marketable interest-bearing securities of the Federal government which are not due or callable until after 4 years from the last business day of the prior month (the day when the rate is determined). The average yield must then be rounded to the nearest eighth of 1 percent. This formula became effective with the October 1960 rate."

For 2012 it was over 1%. T-bill interest was lower.

Treasury Bonds are for a long-term fixed rate and we see the average rate. The SS special interest bonds are callable at any time, so they're far from equivalent.


The SS is part of the government. It's prohibited from having unnecessary cash reserves; as a branch of the federal government, it can only loan and borrow from the government. Treasury is the government's in-house banker. And, like any bank, once the money's in the general fund it can be expensed. And has been, like any other general-fund revenue. (The only thing keeping the FICA tax from being general fund revenue in the first place is Congress' decision to keep the money segregated on the government's ledgers. Congress has authority to impose taxes, not insurance premiums.)

If all the money were reimbursed to the SSA tomorrow, not only would the rest of government shut down but the SSA would suddenly find a lot of money not earning any interest that it would have to put someplace.

Currently the Treasury has to honor the bonds. It would take an act of Congress to refuse to honor them, although that act may be relatively passive. If a large call for the bonds is issued and Treasury has to cough up $50 billion for it, Congress may have to raise the debt ceiling or do something else to make the funds available to avoid default.

[ConservativeDemocrat]

27. Still blaming Democrats for what the Republicans do, I see

So you give kudos to a gleeful little post hoping that Democrats lose in 2014, so that you can continue to whine about how Democrats don't change anything.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[RC]

30. It is not so much Democrats against the Republicans.

As it is our own government against the populous. Being not as bad does not mean working against the opposition.

[villager]

55. +1

Exactly. Snarky apologias for Democratic sell-outs of their base do nothing to help the problem of low voter turnout as a result of those sell-outs...

[FreakinDJ]

35. Are Dems not the ones to go mum when the issues favor the working class

Did not Obama attempt to rally support for closing the loopholes that outsource American Jobs and what - Maybe 1 or 2 Democrats spoke up in support of the Presidents ideas

And when we had a Majority in the House, a Majority in the Senate, and the White House itself, We still could not pass a Democratically sponsored bill to close the loopholes that Outsource American Jobs

Do you have selective memory issues

[ConservativeDemocrat]

66. Maybe you need to actually go see what individual members of Congress are saying...

...rather than rely on FOX who, or who isn't, supporting the President on an issue. Loudly. Vocally.

The reason why bills did not pass in 2010 was because the GOP filibustered everything. There was about 2 months where the Democrats had a filibuster proof majority after Al Franken was finally seated, which included people like Senator Lieberman of the "Lieberman for Connecticut" party, and that time was spent passing the ACA.

I'm not the one with selective memory issues. Rather, I actually pay attention.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[FreakinDJ]

73. I don't get my news from Fux Noise - nor do I turn a Blind Eye towards Democrat inaction

I bill I am referring to never made it out of a Democrat controlled sub committee

Duh ....

[davidthegnome]

40. I suspect the poster hopes nothing of the sort.

We're not just dealing with the actions of republicans here. A great many democrats support the present status quo - and with reason - they ARE some of those wealthy people we're talking about. Our children and grandchildren will reap the "benefits" of these bail outs. We are reaping them now, with wages remaining stagnant for the majority - and with the political and economic power of the wealthy being so well beyond where it should be that it's ridiculous.

Revolutions have begun over far less. I expect the primary issue is that most of the populace has no clue how badly we're being screwed - and it's not just by the republicans, though I will say that they are definitely the worst of the two parties. Democrats do indeed suck somewhat less. The majority of them pretend to give a damn - and a few of them, a rare few, actually do. Most though, are concerned more with campaign financing, private jets, whether they'll get an invitation to join the yacht club...

I'll give kudos to a post that points out how badly screwed we are. Notice the productivity, and notice the hourly compensation depicted in the chart. Point me to a popular democrat in the Obama administration who is prepared to address this, who speaks of it, who has any logical plan of action to balance the scales.

I do not want my children, or my grandchildren, to work for minimum wage as I do. I don't want them to have to give up on higher education because life has become too expensive for anyone NOT wealthy. I really don't want them to be forced to live with their parents or their grandparents when they become grown. Why do we do anything, if not for a better tomorrow?

I'm angry, sure. Anyone who's paying attention should be. Democracy hasn't failed here - it's been purchased by the likes of the Koch Brothers, with the aid of the supreme court, and both political parties.

[CrispyQ]

47. "We don't have a democracy, we have an auction."

A bumper sticker I saw once & honked in agreement.

[L0oniX]

46. Not this shit again! pffft

a gleeful little post hoping that Democrats lose in 2014

[valerief]

3. If you're not part of the ruling class, you're entirely disposable. That's how we're viewed. nt

[Jackpine Radical]

38. To riff on a malapropism in a post above,

The 1% find the populace to be entirely too populous.

[ProSense]

5. More than one million people

lost uemployment benefits today.

Bernie Sanders: Supporting the Unemployed (updated)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024240453

[thesquanderer]

6. There is a difference

The bank bailout came from government money. A raise in minimum wage comes from private sector money.

Although I agree with the sentiment, the two situations are entirely different.

[jtuck004]

8. Collaborating with and paying off thieving bankers vs supporting working people who

make up the 70% of our economy based on consumption, throwing our future in the toilet by assisting them while watching the suicide rate climb among those 50-65 as they replace their dreams with despair...

Difference...

[FreakinDJ]

12. Public Money was given to the Wealthy Elite

[thesquanderer]

34. Right. That's why there is no contradiction between the two policies in the headline.

Government money given to corporations = more profit for private companies.

Keeping min. wage low to reduce costs for corporations = more profit for private companies.

[FreakinDJ]

36. Yet the GOP seeks to cut taxes on the Wealthy so the Working Class pays the debt

and the Dems knuckled under several times allowing the Bush Tax Cuts to be extended several times before finally disallowing them only for families earning over $250K

[HoosierCowboy]

7. Instead of a raise...

...the GOP plans to hand out bootstraps to minimum wage workers. Finally the Dems are using election timing to bring their economic issues and contrast them to the Republicans.

Somebody's thinking at last! Define the issues ahead of the GOP and get grip on the talking points that matter. Extending unemployment compensation, minimum wage, food stamps, early childhood education all cut by the Republicans and effecting millions of underserved voters are the issues that need to be at the head of discussion. In war, that's called choosing the ground that you will stand and fight on.

The Battle of Waterloo: Napoleon should have easily overrun the Brits in one morning, but the battle went to the Duke Of Wellington because he managed to snooker Napoleon into fighting on the ground that the Duke had chosen. The Duke, it seems had considerable experience on the ground around Waterloo in his youth and knew it well.

The Keys to Victory from Sun Tsu:
Know your enemy, chose the ground upon which to confront your adversary.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

9. Banks paid back bailout funds

[FreakinDJ]

13. That was TARP - this is QE1, QE2, and QE3

3.6 Trillion

[Egalitarian Thug]

24. Exactly as predicted by the "extremist kooks". You know, the ones that also predicted the collapse.

The parasite class stole trillions and somebody has to pay the bill and we know it isn't going to be them.

[FreakinDJ]

37. ^^^ THIS ^^^

[cthulu2016]

10. The Fed has not Bailed Out Banks $3.6T, but we should raise the minimum wage

Raising the minimum wage is the most important policy issue right now, IMO.

But the Fed has not bailed out banks to the tune of $3.6T. The purpose of QE is, as your link notes, "aimed at combating unemployment and bolstering the economy"

[FreakinDJ]

14. Buying $3.6 Trillion of those "Toxic Assets" has not created 1 fucking job

but it sure paid off well for the Ruling Wealthy Elite who enjoyed a 17% increase in Wealth for 2013

[A HERETIC I AM]

42. What "Toxic Assets" exactly?

US Treasury Bonds?

If you answer yes to that, then it is clear you have no idea what you are talking about.

[FreakinDJ]

48. Mortgage Derivatives - is that toxic enough for you

I don't know why people are so clueless on this issue

Oh I know why - Because the GOP has not opposed it and therefore they are not talking about it and slinging mud on the weekend press talk shows

[A HERETIC I AM]

74. "I don't know why people are so clueless on this issue "

Perhaps it's because the people you are referring to don't take a term denoting a SPECIFIC CLASS of bonds in popular usage 4 years ago to mean every single mortgage backed security still in existence today.

I'm wondering FreakinDJ, if you can actually describe what you THINK you are referring to and then describe what an "Agency Backed MBS" is and means.

For you to suggest that every single mortgage backed security (bond) is "Toxic" means that you are of the opinion that the overwhelming majority of mortgages currently written will default.

That is hardly the case.
http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/chargeoff/delallsa.htm
Residential mortgage defaults are falling, from a high of 11.28% in the 1st quarter of 2010 to 8.59% in the 3rd quarter of last year (2013).

This is, in fact, not news at all, as this article from Bloomberg.com written back in May illustrates;

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-05-06/housing-crash-fades-as-defaults-decline-to-2007-levels.html


Ever since you (And I am sure you are not alone, as in "I don't know why people are so clueless on this issue&quot first heard about failing mortgages being bundled into new bonds and being offered for sale, I'm betting you automatically have assumed that every MBS out there was toxic and continues to be.

It's bullshit and indicates to me again, that you don't understand completely what it is you are talking about. You used the term "Mortgage Derivatives" in your response to me above. Tell me, oh sage of the derivatives market, what EXACTLY is the derivative being bought by the Treasury? The article says nothing in that regard. What it says is;

Thus, Federal Reserve purchases of mortgage-backed securities (MBS), for example, should raise the prices and lower the yields of those securities; moreover, as investors rebalance their portfolios by replacing the MBS sold to the Federal Reserve with other assets, the prices of the assets they buy should rise and their yields decline as well. Declining yields and rising asset prices ease overall financial conditions and stimulate economic activity through channels similar to those for conventional monetary policy.

A security that is based on mortgages is NOT a "derivative". A derivative of such a security would be a futures contract or similar.

I know it must give you some sort of smug satisfaction to impugn the vast majority of US homeowners who regularly pay their mortgages on time, but that does not change the facts. The overwhelming number are paid on time and that in turn keeps the securities based on those mortgages far from being toxic.

I apologize for taking so long in my response, but I have been under the weather for the last 48 hours.

[FreakinDJ]

75. A "Pig with Lipstick" - Big Fucking Deal

The Money is STILL Flowing to the Wealthiest 1%

Glad to see all the Fucking Wall St Apologist - this thread struck a nerve

[A HERETIC I AM]

76. LOL

" Fucking Wall St Apologist"

Hmmmm...to alert? Or not to alert, THAT is the question.


No, I think not. Better to leave that there so others can see you indeed have no idea what you are talking about and just to prove it further, you stoop to name calling.

I'm no Wall street apologist, pal. It's just that I know a line of bullshit when I see one. If you really don't understand what an Agency Backed MBS is, why don't you just admit it?

That would be too easy I suppose, not to mention put a damper on your perspective of what a toxic asset is.

[cthulu2016]

57. US Treasuries are "toxic assets" now?

QE, the subject of the quote in the OP, is not about mortgage backed securities, it is primarily about the Fed buying up certain maturities of T-bills.

[FreakinDJ]

58. Your not being entirely truthful here are you

As the Fed expands its balance sheet, buying up apparently safe Treasuries, along with agency MBS (mortgage-backed securities), it is effectively pushing investors out of these asset classes

http://www.forbes.com/sites/afontevecchia/2012/08/31/bernanke-on-the-offensive-qes-added-more-than-2-million-jobs-pushed-up-gdp-by-3weve-added-more-than-2m-jobs-pushed-up-gdp-by-3/

[cthulu2016]

61. I am truthful at all times. (Can FORBES-freaking-magazine say that?)

[FreakinDJ]

64. So now your calling Ben Bernanke a liar and expect us to beleive you

LMAO

“Thus, Federal Reserve purchases of mortgage-backed securities (MBS), for example, should raise the prices and lower the yields of those securities; moreover, as investors rebalance their portfolios by replacing the MBS sold to the Federal Reserve with other assets, the prices of the assets they buy should rise and their yields decline as well. Declining yields and rising asset prices ease overall financial conditions and stimulate economic activity through channels similar to those for conventional monetary policy.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/afontevecchia/2012/08/31/bernanke-on-the-offensive-qes-added-more-than-2-million-jobs-pushed-up-gdp-by-3weve-added-more-than-2m-jobs-pushed-up-gdp-by-3/

I'm positive the stock markets hangs on your every breath

[cthulu2016]

67. You started with a lie, and cannot extricate yourself with nastiness

The OP states a $3.6T bailout, and provides a quote about QE.

You said that buying $3.6T of toxic assets, blah, blah.

You were saying that the entirety of the number in the OP was "toxic assets"

And now you are wriggling around with some nonsense about how SOME of it was something that YOU choose to call "toxic assets."

It would have been simpler to say, "I was WRONG," and moved on.

But you compound your initial falsehood with some game of moving the goal-posts to try to somehow repair what was a facially FALSE claim.

And your method of defending your indefensible initial claim is to call everybody a liar?

Whatever. I have no patience with dishonesty.

[FreakinDJ]

71. No - you call them "Treasury Certificates" - YOU would be the liar

moving the goal post

Funny how RATpuibliCONs always accuse others of what they are doing - isn't it

[Demeter]

20. The bailout exceeded $14T over 5 years ago

It's MUCH larger, now.

[cthulu2016]

56. False, and was fully debunked the first day that absurd claim was made

The $14T number is not real. The Fed "overnight window" squares its books daily by counting each loan as paid back and then re-lent as a new transaction.

A capitalization of $500M for 30 days is counted as $15 billion in transactions.

And if the sophisticated debunking of that embarrassingly false figure certain innumerate journalists threw out there a while back is not enough, there is always the less sophisticated mode of analysis...

How much money do you think there is in the word?

When someone claims the Fed gave banks a sum of money that is 50% of all the money in the world, shouldn't it be obvious to any thoughtful reader that the claim is FALSE?

Which it is.

[Demeter]

60. The true cost of the bank bailout

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/need-to-know/economy/the-true-cost-of-the-bank-bailout/3309/

DEBUNK THIS

OR THIS

The total cost of the Bank Bailout 2013

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/02/20/1188374/-The-true-cost-of-the-Bank-Bailout

OR THIS

2008 Bailout Costs As Much As Several Large And Famous Government Projects Combined

http://consumerist.com/2008/12/03/2008-bailout-costs-as-much-as-several-large-and-famous-government-projects-combined/

[cthulu2016]

63. You made a bogus claim

I pointed out that it was bogus.

Rather than learning form the experience, you are defiant.

Whatever.

Believe whatever you want. I obviously cannot stop you.

[FreakinDJ]

65. NO - that would be a lie

Your "Claims" hold No weight without at least minimal documentation

[AlbertCat]

11. Not unlike the late 1800's.... and the late 1920's

We learn nothing.

[FreakinDJ]

15. At least during the 1930s we bought up ther troubled properties

and sold them back to home owners instead of banksters

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

16. But, we can waste $700bn a year on a bloated and useless military which produces nothing.

Other than a platform that politicians can look tough on and shout "Support Our Troops" while bleeding us for more money.

[AlbertCat]

18. The military is not THAT useless

But it sure ain't $700bn worth of anything.

It is the perfect example of what happens if things go unwatched and unregulated. I believe we still make bombers to bomb the USSR...with an extra engine each. Somewhere in the dusty desert there must be a warehouse full of extra engines for bombers to fight the USSR....that's still filling up.

I'm SURE we could cut the military budget in half and still be over-prepared.

All those contractors can go buff up our infrastructure or something. It's not like there's nothing to do around here.

[Uncle Joe]

17. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, FreakinDJ.

[rhett o rick]

19. The largest transfer of wealth the world has ever seen, from the middle class

to the 0.01%. Whose side will Clinton-Sachs be on? Duh!

[L0oniX]

45. Don't worry. I've been reassured by centrists that are smarter than me that voting (D) will fix it.

[rhett o rick]

62. The tougher things get, the more determined they are to stick to their denial bubble.

added on edit: I suggest that we call them "the Leiberman Wing" of the Party, or Zell Miller Wing. Centrist doesnt accurately describe them. They are conservatives that call themselves Democrats.

[liberal_at_heart]

21. K&R

[City Lights]

22. The US is FUBAR.

Sadly, I don't see it changing anytime soon.

[whatchamacallit]

23. "Hey but how about that stock market!"

Love seeing metrics for the 1% bandied about DU

[TBF]

25. Excellent OP. K&R nt

[xchrom]

26. du rec.

[Coyotl]

28. K&R .... raise the minimum wage = best economic stimulus of all.

[blkmusclmachine]

31. DC: By and for the 1%. No one else need apply.

[blkmusclmachine]

32. And the 1% is doing just fine, thank you very much.

[Jackpine Radical]

39. Not yet.

They need more.

You can't be too rich, too psychopathic, or own too big a yacht.

[grahamhgreen]

33. It's 16 trillion, according to Bernie Sanders, and the Fed audit.

[L0oniX]

44. You don't need Miss Cleo to know they are low balling it!

[questionseverything]

69. that is a point people seem to forget

during the one time fed audit we found out that over 13 trillion was sent to banks around the world..it was nearly as much as the entire US debt at the time

[grahamhgreen]

72. Right. We could have just paid off the debt.

[tecelote]

41. Can anyone do the math?

How much has each working American contributed to this bailout?

'Bet 3.6 trillion refunded to tax payers and put back in to the economy would have helped America to a much greater extent.

[L0oniX]

43. Damn it! No bail outs for mom and pop businesses!

[FreakinDJ]

49. Which would have actually grown the economy

But from the very inception the Bailout funds were flawed as they used the same "Trickle Down" approach that caused the melt down in the first place

[L0oniX]

50. Free market theology: You fail ...you go out of business.

I guess they have exceptions to that.

[FreakinDJ]

54. NO - the Dems failed their electorate

They talked a good game in the beginning chiding RATpubliCONs of televised legislative sessions on TV for even mentioning or alluding to "Trickle Down Economics"

but in the end in the name of "Bipartisanship" they caved

[CrispyQ]

51. What does 1 trillion dollars look like?

http://www.pagetutor.com/trillion/index.html

One million dollars in hundreds:



One hundred million dollars in hundreds on a pallet:



One billion dollars in hundreds on a pallet:



One trillion dollars in hundreds on a pallet:

[FreakinDJ]

52. EXCELLENT Graphic

[CrispyQ]

53. I just read the page & it says the bottom graphic the pallets are double stacked.

[FreakinDJ]

59. Even better

[Coyotl]

68. K&R

[Prophet 451]

70. Politicis is ultimately about the rich versus the rest

If you remember that, and never get distracted from it, everyuthing makes sense. The ambition of teh corporates has always been to have a population so desperate and downtrodden that they will work for pennies and to whom the employers owe nothing.

[FatBuddy]

77. the criminal political class will move heaven and earth for their 1% bribers

but for "we the people" to expect them to use OUR tax money to benefit US is heresy.