FOLLOW BOREME
TAGS
<< Back to listing
Elizabeth Warren introduces 'Bank on Students Loan Fairness Act'

Elizabeth Warren introduces 'Bank on Students Loan Fairness Act'

(6:32) Senator from Massachusetts Elizabeth Warren introduces her first bill: the Bank on Students Loan Fairness Act. It aims to stop the doubling of student loan interest rates in July 2013 to 6.8%, and set the same rate as for big banks - less than 1%!

Share this post

You can comment as a guest, but registering gives you added benefits

Add your comment
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1658 days ago)
Nice video BoreMeEditor! Elizabeth Warren for president 2016!!
ReplyVote up (101)down (74)
Original comment
Nice video BoreMeEditor! Elizabeth Warren for president 2016!!
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: this is SPARTA (1658 days ago)
I wish we had a politician like Elizabeth Warren here in the UK. She seems to be genuinely on the peoples side and not servile to corporations like our government.
ReplyVote up (69)down (102)
Original comment
I wish we had a politician like Elizabeth Warren here in the UK. She seems to be genuinely on the peoples side and not servile to corporations like our government.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1657 days ago)
she's talking about these loans: The list of institutions that received the most money from the Federal Reserve can be found on page 131of the GAO Audit and are as follows.. Citigroup: $2.5 trillion ($2,500,000,000,000) Morgan Stanley: $2.04 trillion ($2,040,000,000,000) Merrill Lynch: $1.949 trillion ($1,949,000,000,000) Bank of America: $1.344 trillion ($1,344,000,000,000) Barclays PLC (United Kingdom): $868 billion ($868,000,000,000) Bear Sterns: $853 billion ($853,000,000,000) Goldman Sachs: $814 billion ($814,000,000,000) Royal Bank of Scotland (UK): $541 billion ($541,000,000,000) JP Morgan Chase: $391 billion ($391,000,000,000) Deutsche Bank (Germany): $354 billion ($354,000,000,000) UBS (Switzerland): $287 billion ($287,000,000,000) Credit Suisse (Switzerland): $262 billion ($262,000,000,000) Lehman Brothers: $183 billion ($183,000,000,000) Bank of Scotland (United Kingdom): $181 billion ($181,000,000,000) BNP Paribas (France): $175 billion ($175,000,000,000) . View the 266-page GAO audit of the Federal Reserve (July 21st, 2011) find it here LINK . "This is a clear case of socialism for the rich and rugged, you're-on-your-own individualism for everyone else."- Bernie Sanders (I-VT) another interesting article about the secret Loans given by the privately owned Federal Reserve can be found here LINK . About the federal reserve: [Lewis vs. U.S., 680 F. 2d 1239, 1241] """"E xamining the organization and function of the Federal Reserve Banks, and applying the relevant factors, we conclude that the Reserve Banks are not federal instrumentalities for purposes of the FTCA, but are independent, privately-owned and locally controlled corporations."" " Cary England aka cengland0 thinks this is socialist propaganda (he didn't say that but that's what i made of it after he stated that the 16trillion dollars in loans given to banks is an inflated number but refused to give me the correct number under the pretext that "it doesn't really matter what the real number is").
ReplyVote up (67)down (101)
Original comment
she's talking about these loans: The list of institutions that received the most money from the Federal Reserve can be found on page 131of the GAO Audit and are as follows.. Citigroup: $2.5 trillion ($2,500,000,000,000) Morgan Stanley: $2.04 trillion ($2,040,000,000,000) Merrill Lynch: $1.949 trillion ($1,949,000,000,000) Bank of America: $1.344 trillion ($1,344,000,000,000) Barclays PLC (United Kingdom): $868 billion ($868,000,000,000) Bear Sterns: $853 billion ($853,000,000,000) Goldman Sachs: $814 billion ($814,000,000,000) Royal Bank of Scotland (UK): $541 billion ($541,000,000,000) JP Morgan Chase: $391 billion ($391,000,000,000) Deutsche Bank (Germany): $354 billion ($354,000,000,000) UBS (Switzerland): $287 billion ($287,000,000,000) Credit Suisse (Switzerland): $262 billion ($262,000,000,000) Lehman Brothers: $183 billion ($183,000,000,000) Bank of Scotland (United Kingdom): $181 billion ($181,000,000,000) BNP Paribas (France): $175 billion ($175,000,000,000) . View the 266-page GAO audit of the Federal Reserve (July 21st, 2011) find it here LINK . "This is a clear case of socialism for the rich and rugged, you're-on-your-own individualism for everyone else."- Bernie Sanders (I-VT) another interesting article about the secret Loans given by the privately owned Federal Reserve can be found here LINK . About the federal reserve: [Lewis vs. U.S., 680 F. 2d 1239, 1241] """"E xamining the organization and function of the Federal Reserve Banks, and applying the relevant factors, we conclude that the Reserve Banks are not federal instrumentalities for purposes of the FTCA, but are independent, privately-owned and locally controlled corporations."" " Cary England aka cengland0 thinks this is socialist propaganda (he didn't say that but that's what i made of it after he stated that the 16trillion dollars in loans given to banks is an inflated number but refused to give me the correct number under the pretext that "it doesn't really matter what the real number is").
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1657 days ago)
Like I pointed out before, be sure to read how those numbers are calculated on page 131 by reading page 130 first.
ReplyVote up (101)down (100)
Original comment
Like I pointed out before, be sure to read how those numbers are calculated on page 131 by reading page 130 first.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1656 days ago)
Latest comment: so the secret bailout provided by the FED is not worth 16 trillion. what is the correct amount? is it 1 trillion? enlighten us, since the U.S. Governmental Accountability Office LINK is so obviously wrong to say that 16 trillion dollars is the total amount in loans provided to banks between 2007 and 2010? You must be so sure that the GAO did the calculations the wrong way because yo took the raw data and made the correct calculations and you got a different result. So please share your results with us in order to stop this ridiculous "16 trillion dollars in 0% interest loans" rumor. I mean... you sure take your time to argue with theists when they're wrong and you sure take it upon yourself to disprove their claims, surely you will do the same about the incorrect information provided by GAO, right? give us the correct figure Cary if you want to be taken seriously; i'm not the only one reading these comments. No more beating about the bush.
ReplyVote up (101)down (92)
Original comment
Latest comment: so the secret bailout provided by the FED is not worth 16 trillion. what is the correct amount? is it 1 trillion? enlighten us, since the U.S. Governmental Accountability Office LINK is so obviously wrong to say that 16 trillion dollars is the total amount in loans provided to banks between 2007 and 2010? You must be so sure that the GAO did the calculations the wrong way because yo took the raw data and made the correct calculations and you got a different result. So please share your results with us in order to stop this ridiculous "16 trillion dollars in 0% interest loans" rumor. I mean... you sure take your time to argue with theists when they're wrong and you sure take it upon yourself to disprove their claims, surely you will do the same about the incorrect information provided by GAO, right? give us the correct figure Cary if you want to be taken seriously; i'm not the only one reading these comments. No more beating about the bush.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1658 days ago)
cengland0, as Professor of Ethics, what is wrong with Elizabeth Warren's bill?
ReplyVote up (73)down (132)
Original comment
cengland0, as Professor of Ethics, what is wrong with Elizabeth Warren's bill?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1658 days ago)
Of course banks can get loans cheaper than students. Banks generally pay back their loans and students do not. It's called risk based pricing. The higher the risk, the higher interest rate you pay. Student loan default rates are very high when you look at other loan types. LINK If a student cannot afford their education without a loan, perhaps they shouldn't go to college or they can work and go to school at night time like I did. I paid my own way through school and never borrowed a single penny to do it so I'm positive others can do it as well. So, in summary, since too many students do not pay back their loans, it hurts it for other students. If everyone always paid back what they borrowed, the economy would be great right now and the interest rates for these loans would be low.
ReplyVote up (101)down (91)
Original comment
Of course banks can get loans cheaper than students. Banks generally pay back their loans and students do not. It's called risk based pricing. The higher the risk, the higher interest rate you pay. Student loan default rates are very high when you look at other loan types. LINK If a student cannot afford their education without a loan, perhaps they shouldn't go to college or they can work and go to school at night time like I did. I paid my own way through school and never borrowed a single penny to do it so I'm positive others can do it as well. So, in summary, since too many students do not pay back their loans, it hurts it for other students. If everyone always paid back what they borrowed, the economy would be great right now and the interest rates for these loans would be low.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: WTF I don't think so! (1658 days ago)
And it shows.... you have worked your ass of to the heady levels of "self made troll"... you do state some relevant points (sorry, not the ones about you,......frankly, no one gives a s h i t about you)... now, let's look at the big business failure to pay back the loan as opposed to student default, and add to that, multiple bailouts.... Oh hang on.....need to get the popcorn ready for your undoubtedly mammoth retort...... ok, sitting comfortably....you may begin (although I can't promise I won't fall asleep half way through!!! as I do with any troll/ hobbit/ elf / made up bollocks scenario) TTFN cenglllll yeah...whatever...!
ReplyVote up (101)down (80)
Original comment
And it shows.... you have worked your ass of to the heady levels of "self made troll"... you do state some relevant points (sorry, not the ones about you,......frankly, no one gives a s h i t about you)... now, let's look at the big business failure to pay back the loan as opposed to student default, and add to that, multiple bailouts.... Oh hang on.....need to get the popcorn ready for your undoubtedly mammoth retort...... ok, sitting comfortably....you may begin (although I can't promise I won't fall asleep half way through!!! as I do with any troll/ hobbit/ elf / made up bollocks scenario) TTFN cenglllll yeah...whatever...!
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1658 days ago)
What bank bailouts? Banks were forced to accept TARP money from the government at high interest rates to increase cash reserves. The banks were not going out of business and would have survived just fine without the TARP money. Most banks have paid back this money with interest so the American people have earned a huge profit off the banks because of the high interest rates the banks were forced to pay.
ReplyVote up (101)down (89)
Original comment
What bank bailouts? Banks were forced to accept TARP money from the government at high interest rates to increase cash reserves. The banks were not going out of business and would have survived just fine without the TARP money. Most banks have paid back this money with interest so the American people have earned a huge profit off the banks because of the high interest rates the banks were forced to pay.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1657 days ago)
what kind of banker are you?? do you know nothing at all? Excuse me but you stepped on my toes on this one. Please consider the following: ""In the United States, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) may assume deposits of banks or allow other banks to assume them. The largest banks to be acquired have been the presumed Merrill Lynch acquisition by Bank of America, the Bear Stearns acquisition by JPMorgan Chase, and the Countrywide Financial acquisition also by Bank of America. IndyMac Bank was also a large bank that was changed into a bridge bank by the FDIC, after its failure, until the funds can be disposed of. In addition, the investment bank Lehman Brothers has filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection."" source LINK For a definition of The Great Recession see the following source LINK . This other article presents Why the Bank Bailouts Were Necessary ; ""All of the banks would have gone bankrupt. Forget about fault for a second. (Was it the change in mark to market accounting rules in November 2007? Was it the aggressive subprime mortgage lending? Was it the shortsellers? Was it the run on the banks? Who knows.) Morgan Stanley (MS) would have definitely gone bankrupt. Then Wachovia. Then Citigroup. Then Goldman Sachs, Bank of America (BAC), etc. Would this have been a good thing or a bad thing? Very bad. Read on. Many major Fortune 100 companies would have gone bankrupt or had to scale back all of their operations drastically. General Electric (GE) is a prime example. They would have had zero access to the commercial paper and short-term financing that they had used to finance their business on a daily basis for decades. The entire commercial paper market was frozen and would have stayed frozen for months, too long for a company like GE to survive in its current form."" source LINK . Now i can understand you arguing about why the bailouts were necessary ... but to argue that """"T he banks were not going out of business and would have survived just fine without the TARP money. Most banks have paid back this money with interest so the American people have earned a huge profit off the banks because of the high interest rates the banks were forced to pay. """" is INSANE!! you are BAT SHIT CRAZY, my friend, and this time i don't care how rude you think my comment really is! it had to be said!
ReplyVote up (95)down (101)
Original comment
what kind of banker are you?? do you know nothing at all? Excuse me but you stepped on my toes on this one. Please consider the following: ""In the United States, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) may assume deposits of banks or allow other banks to assume them. The largest banks to be acquired have been the presumed Merrill Lynch acquisition by Bank of America, the Bear Stearns acquisition by JPMorgan Chase, and the Countrywide Financial acquisition also by Bank of America. IndyMac Bank was also a large bank that was changed into a bridge bank by the FDIC, after its failure, until the funds can be disposed of. In addition, the investment bank Lehman Brothers has filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection."" source LINK For a definition of The Great Recession see the following source LINK . This other article presents Why the Bank Bailouts Were Necessary ; ""All of the banks would have gone bankrupt. Forget about fault for a second. (Was it the change in mark to market accounting rules in November 2007? Was it the aggressive subprime mortgage lending? Was it the shortsellers? Was it the run on the banks? Who knows.) Morgan Stanley (MS) would have definitely gone bankrupt. Then Wachovia. Then Citigroup. Then Goldman Sachs, Bank of America (BAC), etc. Would this have been a good thing or a bad thing? Very bad. Read on. Many major Fortune 100 companies would have gone bankrupt or had to scale back all of their operations drastically. General Electric (GE) is a prime example. They would have had zero access to the commercial paper and short-term financing that they had used to finance their business on a daily basis for decades. The entire commercial paper market was frozen and would have stayed frozen for months, too long for a company like GE to survive in its current form."" source LINK . Now i can understand you arguing about why the bailouts were necessary ... but to argue that """"T he banks were not going out of business and would have survived just fine without the TARP money. Most banks have paid back this money with interest so the American people have earned a huge profit off the banks because of the high interest rates the banks were forced to pay. """" is INSANE!! you are BAT SHIT CRAZY, my friend, and this time i don't care how rude you think my comment really is! it had to be said!
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1657 days ago)
Your ignorant statement shows how much out of touch you really are. Merrill Lynch is not a bank, they were a brokerage firm (Did you ever see any local branches with a teller line?). Countrywide was not a bank, they were a mortgage company (Did you ever see any local branches with a teller line?). Lehman Brothers was not a bank, they were a brokerage firm (Did you ever see any local branches with a teller line?). GE is not a bank, they do almost everything else except banking (Did you ever see any local branches with a teller line?). None of those matter anyway because the capitalism system worked and when those companies were in trouble, larger companies bought them up for pennies on the dollar. They were good deals for many of the surviving companies. These mergers occurred before the TARP money. The TARP money was not intended to keep a bank from going bankrupt because it couldn't be spent by the bank. It was there in case customers wanted to withdraw more money than what the banks currently had on hand without the banks having to recall any loans. Banks had to keep the money as cash reserves because new regulations required banks to keep more cash on hand. Regarding the FDIC, no customer deposits insured by the FDIC has ever lost a single penny from a bank going out of business.
ReplyVote up (90)down (107)
Original comment
Your ignorant statement shows how much out of touch you really are. Merrill Lynch is not a bank, they were a brokerage firm (Did you ever see any local branches with a teller line?). Countrywide was not a bank, they were a mortgage company (Did you ever see any local branches with a teller line?). Lehman Brothers was not a bank, they were a brokerage firm (Did you ever see any local branches with a teller line?). GE is not a bank, they do almost everything else except banking (Did you ever see any local branches with a teller line?). None of those matter anyway because the capitalism system worked and when those companies were in trouble, larger companies bought them up for pennies on the dollar. They were good deals for many of the surviving companies. These mergers occurred before the TARP money. The TARP money was not intended to keep a bank from going bankrupt because it couldn't be spent by the bank. It was there in case customers wanted to withdraw more money than what the banks currently had on hand without the banks having to recall any loans. Banks had to keep the money as cash reserves because new regulations required banks to keep more cash on hand. Regarding the FDIC, no customer deposits insured by the FDIC has ever lost a single penny from a bank going out of business.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1657 days ago)
all the information you require is a couple of clicks away, but you insist in your craziness. """TARP allows the United States Department of the Treasury to purchase or insure up to $700 billion of "troubled assets," defined as "(A) residential or commercial mortgages and any securities, obligations, or other instruments that are based on or related to such mortgages, that in each case was originated or issued on or before March 14, 2008, the purchase of which the Secretary determines promotes financial market stability; and (B) any other financial instrument that the Secretary, after consultation with the Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, determines the purchase of which is necessary to promote financial market stability, but only upon transmittal of such determination, in writing, to the appropriate committees of Congress."[4] In short, this allows the Treasury to purchase illiquid, difficult-to-value assets from banks and other financial institutions. The targeted assets can be collateralized debt obligations, which were sold in a booming market until 2007, when they were hit by widespread foreclosures on the underlying loans. TARP is intended to improve the liquidity of these assets by purchasing them using secondary market mechanisms, thus allowing participating institutions to stabilize their balance sheets and avoid further losses.""" Furthermore """The Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) is a program of the United States government to purchase assets and equity from financial institutions to strengthen its financial sector that was signed into law by U.S. President George W. Bush on October 3, 2008. It was a component of the government's measures in 2008 to address the subprime mortgage crisis. The TARP program originally authorized expenditures of $700 billion. The Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act reduced the amount authorized to $475 billion.""" ; the TARP Money WAS intended to keep banks from Going Bankrupt, and it was instated on October 3rd 2008. Furthermore """The Act's criterion for participation states that "financial institutions" will be included in TARP if they are "established and regulated" under the laws of the United States and if they have "significant operations" in the United States. The Treasury will need to define what institutions will be included under the term "financial institution" and what will constitute "significant operations."[5] Companies that sell their bad assets to the government must provide warrants so that taxpayers will benefit from future growth of the companies.[6] Certain institutions seem to be guaranteed participation. These include: U.S. banks, U.S. branches of a foreign bank, U.S. savings banks or credit unions, U.S. broker-dealers, U.S. insurance companies, U.S. mutual funds or other U.S. registered investment companies, tax-qualified U.S. employee retirement plans, and bank holding companies.[5]"" " AND """The New York Times states: "The criteria being used to choose who gets money appears to be setting the stage for consolidation in the industry by favoring those most likely to survive" because the criteria appears to favor the financially best off banks and banks too big to let fail. Some lawmakers are upset that the capitalization program will end up culling banks in their districts.[35] However, The Wall Street Journal suggested that some lawmakers are actively using TARP to funnel money to weak regional banks in their districts.[36] Academic studies have found that banks and credit unions located in the districts of key Congress members have been more likely to win TARP money.[37]""&qu ot; you have no case here, but you keep on with your false rhetoric. As for Merrill Lynch = Merrill Lynch[2] is the investment banking and wealth management division of Bank of America. As for Countrywide = In 2006 Countrywide financed 20% of all mortgages in the United States, at a value of about 3.5% of United States GDP, a proportion greater than any other single mortgage lender. As for Lehman Brothers = Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. (former NYSE ticker symbol LEH) (pron.: /ˈliːmən/) was a global financial services firm. Before declaring bankruptcy in 2008, Lehman was the fourth-largest investment bank in the US (behind Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, and Merrill Lynch), doing business in investment banking, equity and fixed-income sales and trading (especially U.S. Treasury securities), research, investment management, private equity, and private banking. you forget about Citigroup. Want a list of bailed out banks and financial institutions? here you go : LINK . not the mention the removal of the uptick rule that was left out of the TARP deal... i don't know why you insist on this. It's probably a semantics thing i say bank you say "financial institution"... whatever man, nobody's buying what you have to sell anyway.
ReplyVote up (94)down (101)
Original comment
all the information you require is a couple of clicks away, but you insist in your craziness. """TARP allows the United States Department of the Treasury to purchase or insure up to $700 billion of "troubled assets," defined as "(A) residential or commercial mortgages and any securities, obligations, or other instruments that are based on or related to such mortgages, that in each case was originated or issued on or before March 14, 2008, the purchase of which the Secretary determines promotes financial market stability; and (B) any other financial instrument that the Secretary, after consultation with the Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, determines the purchase of which is necessary to promote financial market stability, but only upon transmittal of such determination, in writing, to the appropriate committees of Congress."[4] In short, this allows the Treasury to purchase illiquid, difficult-to-value assets from banks and other financial institutions. The targeted assets can be collateralized debt obligations, which were sold in a booming market until 2007, when they were hit by widespread foreclosures on the underlying loans. TARP is intended to improve the liquidity of these assets by purchasing them using secondary market mechanisms, thus allowing participating institutions to stabilize their balance sheets and avoid further losses.""" Furthermore """The Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) is a program of the United States government to purchase assets and equity from financial institutions to strengthen its financial sector that was signed into law by U.S. President George W. Bush on October 3, 2008. It was a component of the government's measures in 2008 to address the subprime mortgage crisis. The TARP program originally authorized expenditures of $700 billion. The Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act reduced the amount authorized to $475 billion.""" ; the TARP Money WAS intended to keep banks from Going Bankrupt, and it was instated on October 3rd 2008. Furthermore """The Act's criterion for participation states that "financial institutions" will be included in TARP if they are "established and regulated" under the laws of the United States and if they have "significant operations" in the United States. The Treasury will need to define what institutions will be included under the term "financial institution" and what will constitute "significant operations."[5] Companies that sell their bad assets to the government must provide warrants so that taxpayers will benefit from future growth of the companies.[6] Certain institutions seem to be guaranteed participation. These include: U.S. banks, U.S. branches of a foreign bank, U.S. savings banks or credit unions, U.S. broker-dealers, U.S. insurance companies, U.S. mutual funds or other U.S. registered investment companies, tax-qualified U.S. employee retirement plans, and bank holding companies.[5]"" " AND """The New York Times states: "The criteria being used to choose who gets money appears to be setting the stage for consolidation in the industry by favoring those most likely to survive" because the criteria appears to favor the financially best off banks and banks too big to let fail. Some lawmakers are upset that the capitalization program will end up culling banks in their districts.[35] However, The Wall Street Journal suggested that some lawmakers are actively using TARP to funnel money to weak regional banks in their districts.[36] Academic studies have found that banks and credit unions located in the districts of key Congress members have been more likely to win TARP money.[37]""&qu ot; you have no case here, but you keep on with your false rhetoric. As for Merrill Lynch = Merrill Lynch[2] is the investment banking and wealth management division of Bank of America. As for Countrywide = In 2006 Countrywide financed 20% of all mortgages in the United States, at a value of about 3.5% of United States GDP, a proportion greater than any other single mortgage lender. As for Lehman Brothers = Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. (former NYSE ticker symbol LEH) (pron.: /ˈliːmən/) was a global financial services firm. Before declaring bankruptcy in 2008, Lehman was the fourth-largest investment bank in the US (behind Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, and Merrill Lynch), doing business in investment banking, equity and fixed-income sales and trading (especially U.S. Treasury securities), research, investment management, private equity, and private banking. you forget about Citigroup. Want a list of bailed out banks and financial institutions? here you go : LINK . not the mention the removal of the uptick rule that was left out of the TARP deal... i don't know why you insist on this. It's probably a semantics thing i say bank you say "financial institution"... whatever man, nobody's buying what you have to sell anyway.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1657 days ago)
You probably quoted a non authoritative site like Wikipedia again. Here's a link to what the government says about TARP. LINK And notice this statement, "Treasury has already recovered an amount that is greater than what was invested in banks under TARP. Taxpayers began to see a positive return on their bank investments in March 2011. Every additional dollar that is recovered from TARP's bank investments represents an additional return for the taxpayers. ​​" So the taxpayers actually earned money on this deal. LINK Where's the problem?
ReplyVote up (78)down (101)
Original comment
You probably quoted a non authoritative site like Wikipedia again. Here's a link to what the government says about TARP. LINK And notice this statement, "Treasury has already recovered an amount that is greater than what was invested in banks under TARP. Taxpayers began to see a positive return on their bank investments in March 2011. Every additional dollar that is recovered from TARP's bank investments represents an additional return for the taxpayers. ​​" So the taxpayers actually earned money on this deal. LINK Where's the problem?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1657 days ago)
by taxpayers you mean the government, because life is getting worse every day for the American taxpayer. Those numbers between the brackets are hyperlinks that lead you to the source for the information in the article. If you want, i can find them for you, but you'll probably do like that time we had an argument about the supreme court ... and call me rude and not speak to me. Those links you gave me say the same thing that i copied from wikipedia. In addition to that they also say the following ""The authority to make new financial commitments under TARP ended on October 3, 2010. As of March 31, 2013, Treasury has recovered more than 94 percent of the funds disbursed through the program and is now winding down its remaining TARP investments. Treasury is also continuing to implement TARP initiatives to help struggling homeowners avoid foreclosure."" so 94% does not mean +100%, therefore i don't know where you got the idea that " the taxpayers actually earned money on this deal." You probably got this idea from the other link you posted that says ""TARP's bank programs earned significant positive returns for taxpayers. As of March 31, 2013, Treasury has recovered more than $270 billion through repayments and other income -- $25 billion more than the $245 billion originally invested."" SO the treasury department says 94%, and then it says they got an extra 25 billion? or is it the other way around? which ever way you put it, the American taxpayer did NOT earn anything on this whole cluster F . Here's how it actually is: """There is a direct relationship between declines in wealth, and declines in consumption and business investment, which along with government spending represent the economic engine. Between June 2007 and November 2008, Americans lost an estimated average of more than a quarter of their collective net worth.[citation needed] By early November 2008, a broad U.S. stock index the S&P 500, was down 45% from its 2007 high. Housing prices had dropped 20% from their 2006 peak, with futures markets signaling a 30–35% potential drop. Total home equity in the United States, which was valued at $13 trillion at its peak in 2006, had dropped to $8.8 trillion by mid-2008 and was still falling in late 2008. Total retirement assets, Americans' second-largest household asset, dropped by 22%, from $10.3 trillion in 2006 to $8 trillion in mid-2008. During the same period, savings and investment assets (apart from retirement savings) lost $1.2 trillion and pension assets lost $1.3 trillion. Taken together, these losses total a staggering $8.3 trillion.[185] Since peaking in the second quarter of 2007, household wealth is down $14 trillion.[186] Further, U.S. homeowners had extracted significant equity in their homes in the years leading up to the crisis, which they could no longer do once housing prices collapsed. Free cash used by consumers from home equity extraction doubled from $627 billion in 2001 to $1,428 billion in 2005 as the housing bubble built, a total of nearly $5 trillion over the period.[105][106][107] U.S. home mortgage debt relative to GDP increased from an average of 46% during the 1990s to 73% during 2008, reaching $10.5 trillion.[108] To offset this decline in consumption and lending capacity, the U.S. government and U.S. Federal Reserve have committed $13.9 trillion, of which $6.8 trillion has been invested or spent, as of June 2009.[187] In effect, the Fed has gone from being the "lender of last resort" to the "lender of only resort" for a significant portion of the economy. In some cases the Fed can now be considered the "buyer of last resort". In November 2008, economist Dean Baker observed: "There is a really good reason for tighter credit. Tens of millions of homeowners who had substantial equity in their homes two years ago have little or nothing today. Businesses are facing the worst downturn since the Great Depression. This matters for credit decisions. A homeowner with equity in her home is very unlikely to default on a car loan or credit card debt. They will draw on this equity rather than lose their car and/or have a default placed on their credit record. On the other hand, a homeowner who has no equity is a serious default risk. In the case of businesses, their creditworthiness depends on their future profits. Profit prospects look much worse in November 2008 than they did in November 2007... While many banks are obviously at the brink, consumers and businesses would be facing a much harder time getting credit right now even if the financial system were rock solid. The problem with the economy is the loss of close to $6 trillion in housing wealth and an even larger amount of stock wealth.[188] At the heart of the portfolios of many of these institutions were investments whose assets had been derived from bundled home mortgages. Exposure to these mortgage-backed securities, or to the credit derivatives used to insure them against failure, caused the collapse or takeover of several key firms such as Lehman Brothers, AIG, Merrill Lynch, and HBOS.[189][190][191]" ;"" those numbers in the brackets are hyperlinks to sources, so check them out, here's the article LINK
ReplyVote up (73)down (100)
Original comment
by taxpayers you mean the government, because life is getting worse every day for the American taxpayer. Those numbers between the brackets are hyperlinks that lead you to the source for the information in the article. If you want, i can find them for you, but you'll probably do like that time we had an argument about the supreme court ... and call me rude and not speak to me. Those links you gave me say the same thing that i copied from wikipedia. In addition to that they also say the following ""The authority to make new financial commitments under TARP ended on October 3, 2010. As of March 31, 2013, Treasury has recovered more than 94 percent of the funds disbursed through the program and is now winding down its remaining TARP investments. Treasury is also continuing to implement TARP initiatives to help struggling homeowners avoid foreclosure."" so 94% does not mean +100%, therefore i don't know where you got the idea that " the taxpayers actually earned money on this deal." You probably got this idea from the other link you posted that says ""TARP's bank programs earned significant positive returns for taxpayers. As of March 31, 2013, Treasury has recovered more than $270 billion through repayments and other income -- $25 billion more than the $245 billion originally invested."" SO the treasury department says 94%, and then it says they got an extra 25 billion? or is it the other way around? which ever way you put it, the American taxpayer did NOT earn anything on this whole cluster F . Here's how it actually is: """There is a direct relationship between declines in wealth, and declines in consumption and business investment, which along with government spending represent the economic engine. Between June 2007 and November 2008, Americans lost an estimated average of more than a quarter of their collective net worth.[citation needed] By early November 2008, a broad U.S. stock index the S&P 500, was down 45% from its 2007 high. Housing prices had dropped 20% from their 2006 peak, with futures markets signaling a 30–35% potential drop. Total home equity in the United States, which was valued at $13 trillion at its peak in 2006, had dropped to $8.8 trillion by mid-2008 and was still falling in late 2008. Total retirement assets, Americans' second-largest household asset, dropped by 22%, from $10.3 trillion in 2006 to $8 trillion in mid-2008. During the same period, savings and investment assets (apart from retirement savings) lost $1.2 trillion and pension assets lost $1.3 trillion. Taken together, these losses total a staggering $8.3 trillion.[185] Since peaking in the second quarter of 2007, household wealth is down $14 trillion.[186] Further, U.S. homeowners had extracted significant equity in their homes in the years leading up to the crisis, which they could no longer do once housing prices collapsed. Free cash used by consumers from home equity extraction doubled from $627 billion in 2001 to $1,428 billion in 2005 as the housing bubble built, a total of nearly $5 trillion over the period.[105][106][107] U.S. home mortgage debt relative to GDP increased from an average of 46% during the 1990s to 73% during 2008, reaching $10.5 trillion.[108] To offset this decline in consumption and lending capacity, the U.S. government and U.S. Federal Reserve have committed $13.9 trillion, of which $6.8 trillion has been invested or spent, as of June 2009.[187] In effect, the Fed has gone from being the "lender of last resort" to the "lender of only resort" for a significant portion of the economy. In some cases the Fed can now be considered the "buyer of last resort". In November 2008, economist Dean Baker observed: "There is a really good reason for tighter credit. Tens of millions of homeowners who had substantial equity in their homes two years ago have little or nothing today. Businesses are facing the worst downturn since the Great Depression. This matters for credit decisions. A homeowner with equity in her home is very unlikely to default on a car loan or credit card debt. They will draw on this equity rather than lose their car and/or have a default placed on their credit record. On the other hand, a homeowner who has no equity is a serious default risk. In the case of businesses, their creditworthiness depends on their future profits. Profit prospects look much worse in November 2008 than they did in November 2007... While many banks are obviously at the brink, consumers and businesses would be facing a much harder time getting credit right now even if the financial system were rock solid. The problem with the economy is the loss of close to $6 trillion in housing wealth and an even larger amount of stock wealth.[188] At the heart of the portfolios of many of these institutions were investments whose assets had been derived from bundled home mortgages. Exposure to these mortgage-backed securities, or to the credit derivatives used to insure them against failure, caused the collapse or takeover of several key firms such as Lehman Brothers, AIG, Merrill Lynch, and HBOS.[189][190][191]" ;"" those numbers in the brackets are hyperlinks to sources, so check them out, here's the article LINK
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1657 days ago)
Couple comments. First, you do not need to receive 100% back on the principle of a loan to get more than 100% back on your investment. So could it be possible that 6% principle still needs to be paid back but the majority of the revenue was derived by the outrageous interest rates the government forced the banks to pay? Second, copying and pasting an entire article may seem like a workaround for you when I said not to just post a link to a website but it's not. Again, make a claim and then post a link to backup your claim. So with all those words that you pasted, I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. The original question to me was about what I thought about the senator's opinion on lowering the interest rate charged to college students. This seems to have morphed into you copying and pasting Wikipedia articles unrelated to the subject.
ReplyVote up (97)down (101)
Original comment
Couple comments. First, you do not need to receive 100% back on the principle of a loan to get more than 100% back on your investment. So could it be possible that 6% principle still needs to be paid back but the majority of the revenue was derived by the outrageous interest rates the government forced the banks to pay? Second, copying and pasting an entire article may seem like a workaround for you when I said not to just post a link to a website but it's not. Again, make a claim and then post a link to backup your claim. So with all those words that you pasted, I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. The original question to me was about what I thought about the senator's opinion on lowering the interest rate charged to college students. This seems to have morphed into you copying and pasting Wikipedia articles unrelated to the subject.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1657 days ago)
you said """So the taxpayers actually earned money on this deal""" and i was trying to say that the cost of the financial crisis, generated by financial institutions dwarfed whatever earnings you think exist, and i copy pasted the entire loss of wealth. all the examples are listed above, but i'll copy paste one of them again ""savings and investment assets (apart from retirement savings) lost $1.2 trillion and pension assets lost $1.3 trillion"" so how on earth do you think that the American tax payer gained Anything out of this whole banking/financial sector generated mess?? the losses were colossal.
ReplyVote up (97)down (100)
Original comment
you said """So the taxpayers actually earned money on this deal""" and i was trying to say that the cost of the financial crisis, generated by financial institutions dwarfed whatever earnings you think exist, and i copy pasted the entire loss of wealth. all the examples are listed above, but i'll copy paste one of them again ""savings and investment assets (apart from retirement savings) lost $1.2 trillion and pension assets lost $1.3 trillion"" so how on earth do you think that the American tax payer gained Anything out of this whole banking/financial sector generated mess?? the losses were colossal.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1657 days ago)
The conversation was about bank bailouts and I was stating that there were no bailouts. What people are usually referring to when they say bailouts is the TARP loans the government forced banks to take even when they did not want the money. The tax payers have already received more money back than was paid out to the banks. The other economic crisis you're referring to is probably the real estate bubble. That is a different issue.
ReplyVote up (101)down (81)
Original comment
The conversation was about bank bailouts and I was stating that there were no bailouts. What people are usually referring to when they say bailouts is the TARP loans the government forced banks to take even when they did not want the money. The tax payers have already received more money back than was paid out to the banks. The other economic crisis you're referring to is probably the real estate bubble. That is a different issue.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1657 days ago)
are you going to deny this as well?????? """"& quot;"""Am ount in undisclosed loans the Federal Reserve made to struggling financial institutions, according to the new Bloomberg report. That "dwarf[s] the Treasury Department's better-known $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program [TARP]," say Bob Ivry, Bradley Keoun, and Phil Kuntz at Bloomberg""&quo t;"" LINK . Furthermore """"& quot;"The Federal Reserve and the big banks fought for more than two years to keep details of the largest bailout in U.S. history a secret. Now, the rest of the world can see what it was missing. The Fed didn’t tell anyone which banks were in trouble so deep they required a combined $1.2 trillion on Dec. 5, 2008, their single neediest day. Bankers didn’t mention that they took tens of billions of dollars in emergency loans at the same time they were assuring investors their firms were healthy. And no one calculated until now that banks reaped an estimated $13 billion of income by taking advantage of the Fed’s below-market rates, Bloomberg Markets magazine reports in its January issue. """"& quot; why do you continue this conversation? you have no case, and you knew that from the beginning. Are you a real banker or do you just pretend to be one on forums? are you going to honestly tell me that you have no idea about this? that this is the first time you've heard of this?? The Banks Bailout is more than TARP.
ReplyVote up (91)down (101)
Original comment
are you going to deny this as well?????? """"& quot;"""Am ount in undisclosed loans the Federal Reserve made to struggling financial institutions, according to the new Bloomberg report. That "dwarf[s] the Treasury Department's better-known $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program [TARP]," say Bob Ivry, Bradley Keoun, and Phil Kuntz at Bloomberg""&quo t;"" LINK . Furthermore """"& quot;"The Federal Reserve and the big banks fought for more than two years to keep details of the largest bailout in U.S. history a secret. Now, the rest of the world can see what it was missing. The Fed didn’t tell anyone which banks were in trouble so deep they required a combined $1.2 trillion on Dec. 5, 2008, their single neediest day. Bankers didn’t mention that they took tens of billions of dollars in emergency loans at the same time they were assuring investors their firms were healthy. And no one calculated until now that banks reaped an estimated $13 billion of income by taking advantage of the Fed’s below-market rates, Bloomberg Markets magazine reports in its January issue. """"& quot; why do you continue this conversation? you have no case, and you knew that from the beginning. Are you a real banker or do you just pretend to be one on forums? are you going to honestly tell me that you have no idea about this? that this is the first time you've heard of this?? The Banks Bailout is more than TARP.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1657 days ago)
"""Pages of federal documents, courtesy of the Freedom of Information Act, and central bank records that Bloomberg combed through to reveal a "fresh narrative of the financial crisis"""& quot; thank you FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT!!! thank you BLOOMBERG!! LINK
Original comment
"""Pages of federal documents, courtesy of the Freedom of Information Act, and central bank records that Bloomberg combed through to reveal a "fresh narrative of the financial crisis"""& quot; thank you FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT!!! thank you BLOOMBERG!! LINK
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1657 days ago)
And what claim are you making?
ReplyVote up (101)down (86)
Original comment
And what claim are you making?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1657 days ago)
i am just expressing my gratitude towards the people at Bloomberg who took 29,000 Pages of federal documents, courtesy of the Freedom of Information Act, and central bank records in which one can find More than 21,000 detailed transactions in order to establish that the secret loans given by the FED to the Banks, were worth more than 7 trillion dollars. You can check that out here LINK and here LINK
ReplyVote up (83)down (101)
Original comment
i am just expressing my gratitude towards the people at Bloomberg who took 29,000 Pages of federal documents, courtesy of the Freedom of Information Act, and central bank records in which one can find More than 21,000 detailed transactions in order to establish that the secret loans given by the FED to the Banks, were worth more than 7 trillion dollars. You can check that out here LINK and here LINK
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1657 days ago)
So all those sources refer to something bloomberg said but I have to claim that as hearsay because I haven't seen this by the source. If Bloomberg was able to find this in 29,000 pages of documents, where are those original documents that says this money was given away for free? 7.7 trillion supposedly given to banks exceeds our deficit LINK so where did that money come from?
ReplyVote up (66)down (101)
Original comment
So all those sources refer to something bloomberg said but I have to claim that as hearsay because I haven't seen this by the source. If Bloomberg was able to find this in 29,000 pages of documents, where are those original documents that says this money was given away for free? 7.7 trillion supposedly given to banks exceeds our deficit LINK so where did that money come from?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1657 days ago)
you're right! you got me! here's the official document LINK . the official document is a PDF file that contains the findings of the Audit made on the FED on july 2011. in it there is ""Audit of the Federal Reserve Reveals $16 Trillion in Secret Bailouts September 1, 2012"" The FED admitted to this and it referred to it as: "the Federal Reserve likes to refer to these secret bailouts as an all-inclusive loan program, but virtually none of the money has been returned and it was loaned out at 0% interest."" so you're right, it wasn't 7.7 trillion... it was 16 fu ck ing TRILLION DOLLARS IN LOANS AT ZERO INTEREST. here's the pdf file with the Audit report again, in cased you missed it LINK
ReplyVote up (101)down (97)
Original comment
you're right! you got me! here's the official document LINK . the official document is a PDF file that contains the findings of the Audit made on the FED on july 2011. in it there is ""Audit of the Federal Reserve Reveals $16 Trillion in Secret Bailouts September 1, 2012"" The FED admitted to this and it referred to it as: "the Federal Reserve likes to refer to these secret bailouts as an all-inclusive loan program, but virtually none of the money has been returned and it was loaned out at 0% interest."" so you're right, it wasn't 7.7 trillion... it was 16 fu ck ing TRILLION DOLLARS IN LOANS AT ZERO INTEREST. here's the pdf file with the Audit report again, in cased you missed it LINK
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1657 days ago)
Did you even read that document that you linked? Suppose not because you have it all wrong. Page 130 clearly says, "For example, an overnight PDCF loan of $10 billion that was renewed daily at the same level for 30 business days would result in an aggregate amount borrowed of $300 billion although the institution, in effect, borrowed only $10 billion over 30 days" So the 16 trillion dollar number is a cumulative number of how much was borrowed in total even though it has been returned and possibly borrowed again. This is an overly inflated number that makes absolutely no sense because our government doesn't even have 16 trillion dollars that they could loan out.
Original comment
Did you even read that document that you linked? Suppose not because you have it all wrong. Page 130 clearly says, "For example, an overnight PDCF loan of $10 billion that was renewed daily at the same level for 30 business days would result in an aggregate amount borrowed of $300 billion although the institution, in effect, borrowed only $10 billion over 30 days" So the 16 trillion dollar number is a cumulative number of how much was borrowed in total even though it has been returned and possibly borrowed again. This is an overly inflated number that makes absolutely no sense because our government doesn't even have 16 trillion dollars that they could loan out.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1657 days ago)
the fed is above the government LINK Greenspan Admits The Federal Reserve Is Above The Law & Answers To No One. so 16 is an inflated number, i'll give you that. what would be a non inflated number?
ReplyVote up (101)down (97)
Original comment
the fed is above the government LINK Greenspan Admits The Federal Reserve Is Above The Law & Answers To No One. so 16 is an inflated number, i'll give you that. what would be a non inflated number?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1657 days ago)
Since banks borrow money for very short terms like one day, there's no need to know how much that is cumulative. The TARP fund is widely used to determine how much the banks owe the government and it's very little.
ReplyVote up (101)down (69)
Original comment
Since banks borrow money for very short terms like one day, there's no need to know how much that is cumulative. The TARP fund is widely used to determine how much the banks owe the government and it's very little.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1657 days ago)
GAO (Government Accountability Office) said 16trillion. you say that the number is inflated, then i ask you what the real number is and then you say that it doesn't really matter...hmmm....who should i believe?? should i believe the GAO report for which you asked as proof. hmmm... let me think about it because this is a hard one. What i the real number Cary? are you still arguing that there were no bailouts?
ReplyVote up (76)down (101)
Original comment
GAO (Government Accountability Office) said 16trillion. you say that the number is inflated, then i ask you what the real number is and then you say that it doesn't really matter...hmmm....who should i believe?? should i believe the GAO report for which you asked as proof. hmmm... let me think about it because this is a hard one. What i the real number Cary? are you still arguing that there were no bailouts?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1657 days ago)
It is not my burden to prove your case. I say there is no bank bailout and if you're claiming there is then why am I the one that needs to tell you how much money a bank borrowed? Besides, borrowing money is not considered a bailout. A handout that does not require money to be paid back is a bailout. Do you have any evidence of that happening?
Original comment
It is not my burden to prove your case. I say there is no bank bailout and if you're claiming there is then why am I the one that needs to tell you how much money a bank borrowed? Besides, borrowing money is not considered a bailout. A handout that does not require money to be paid back is a bailout. Do you have any evidence of that happening?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1656 days ago)
you are proving my case by failing to provide a straight answer to a straight forward question. If the GAO report is wrong, then it is surely the duty of honest citizens to set the record straight, which is a thing you refuse to do because the record is straight from the beginning..16 trillion dollars in secret loans. your definitions are wrong, this is what bailout really means: A bailout is a colloquial pejorative term for giving a loan to a company or country which faces serious financial difficulty or bankruptcy. It may also be used to allow a failing entity to fail gracefully without spreading contagion. The term is maritime in origin being the act of removing water from a sinking vessel using a smaller bucket. source LINK . Besides, The Federal Reserve likes to refer to these secret bailouts as an all-inclusive loan program, but virtually none of the money has been returned and it was loaned out at 0% interest. Emphasis on 0% interest and on none of the money has been returned. Seeing that according to you the GAO and myself are providing false information about the correct figure, it seems only logical that a honest citizen such as yourself who knows so much about the subject, will take it upon himself to provide the correct figure in order to stop this nonsense that is being spread around by the GAO. You will provide the correct figure if you want to disprove what i have to say. Failing to do so will mean that the 16 trillion dollar figure provided by the GAO in their 2011 audit of the FED, is correct.
Original comment
you are proving my case by failing to provide a straight answer to a straight forward question. If the GAO report is wrong, then it is surely the duty of honest citizens to set the record straight, which is a thing you refuse to do because the record is straight from the beginning..16 trillion dollars in secret loans. your definitions are wrong, this is what bailout really means: A bailout is a colloquial pejorative term for giving a loan to a company or country which faces serious financial difficulty or bankruptcy. It may also be used to allow a failing entity to fail gracefully without spreading contagion. The term is maritime in origin being the act of removing water from a sinking vessel using a smaller bucket. source LINK . Besides, The Federal Reserve likes to refer to these secret bailouts as an all-inclusive loan program, but virtually none of the money has been returned and it was loaned out at 0% interest. Emphasis on 0% interest and on none of the money has been returned. Seeing that according to you the GAO and myself are providing false information about the correct figure, it seems only logical that a honest citizen such as yourself who knows so much about the subject, will take it upon himself to provide the correct figure in order to stop this nonsense that is being spread around by the GAO. You will provide the correct figure if you want to disprove what i have to say. Failing to do so will mean that the 16 trillion dollar figure provided by the GAO in their 2011 audit of the FED, is correct.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1657 days ago)
The Fed's below-market rates? That TARP money was at higher rates than what banks paid customers for their deposits so many banks, mine included, rushed to pay back that TARP money as quickly as possible. Regarding why I continue this conversation, I don't know. Perhaps I should stop again because you're running around in circles and dragging me with you. I work for a bank, so does that make me a banker?
ReplyVote up (92)down (101)
Original comment
The Fed's below-market rates? That TARP money was at higher rates than what banks paid customers for their deposits so many banks, mine included, rushed to pay back that TARP money as quickly as possible. Regarding why I continue this conversation, I don't know. Perhaps I should stop again because you're running around in circles and dragging me with you. I work for a bank, so does that make me a banker?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1657 days ago)
""The conversation was about bank bailouts and I was stating that there were no bailouts"" it's what you said. TARP wasn't the only bailout. Let me repeat myself ""The Fed didn’t tell anyone which banks were in trouble so deep they required a combined $1.2 trillion on Dec. 5, 2008, their single neediest day."" which means that they made a profit of 13billion on a combined 1.2 trillion dollar worth of secred FED loans. You claim that there were no bailouts, the rest of the world disagrees and i'm only pointing that out.
ReplyVote up (101)down (94)
Original comment
""The conversation was about bank bailouts and I was stating that there were no bailouts"" it's what you said. TARP wasn't the only bailout. Let me repeat myself ""The Fed didn’t tell anyone which banks were in trouble so deep they required a combined $1.2 trillion on Dec. 5, 2008, their single neediest day."" which means that they made a profit of 13billion on a combined 1.2 trillion dollar worth of secred FED loans. You claim that there were no bailouts, the rest of the world disagrees and i'm only pointing that out.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1657 days ago)
correction ""not the mention the removal of the uptick rule that was left out of the TARP deal"" . The uptick rule refers to a trading restriction that disallowed short selling of securities except on an uptick. For the rule to be satisfied, the short must be either at a price above the last traded price of the security, or at the last traded price if that price was higher than the price in the previous trade. The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) defined the rule, and summarized it: "Rule 10a-1(a)(1) provided that, subject to certain exceptions, a listed security may be sold short (A) at a price above the price at which the immediately preceding sale was effected (plus tick), or (B) at the last sale price if it is higher than the last different price (zero-plus tick). Short sales were not permitted on minus ticks or zero-minus ticks, subject to narrow exceptions."[1] The rule went into effect in 1938 and was removed when Rule 201 Regulation SHO became effective in 2007. In 2009, the reintroduction of the uptick rule was widely debated, and proposals for a form of its reintroduction by the SEC went into a public comment period on 2009-04-08.[2][3] A modified form of the rule was adopted on 2010-02-24.[4] , In 1938, the [U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission] (SEC) adopted the uptick rule, more formally known as rule 10a-1, after conducting an inquiry into the effects of concentrated short selling during the market break of 1937.[5] The original rule was implemented when Joseph P. Kennedy, Sr. was SEC commissioner.[6] In 1994, the NASD and Nasdaq adopted their own short sale price tests, known as NASD Rule 3350, based on the last bid rather than on the last reported sale.[7] In 1978, the purpose of the uptick rule was described in a standard text "To correct inequities that occurred on Stock Exchanges prior to 1934, the SEC implemented Rule 10a-1 and 10a-2. It was not unusual in those days to discover groups of speculators pooling their capital and selling short for the sole purpose of driving down the stock price of a particular security to a level where the stockholders would panic and unload their fully owned shares. This, in turn, caused even greater declines in value."[8]. Banks are not so saint after all. Excuse me, i meant to say "financial institutions".
ReplyVote up (62)down (101)
Original comment
correction ""not the mention the removal of the uptick rule that was left out of the TARP deal"" . The uptick rule refers to a trading restriction that disallowed short selling of securities except on an uptick. For the rule to be satisfied, the short must be either at a price above the last traded price of the security, or at the last traded price if that price was higher than the price in the previous trade. The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) defined the rule, and summarized it: "Rule 10a-1(a)(1) provided that, subject to certain exceptions, a listed security may be sold short (A) at a price above the price at which the immediately preceding sale was effected (plus tick), or (B) at the last sale price if it is higher than the last different price (zero-plus tick). Short sales were not permitted on minus ticks or zero-minus ticks, subject to narrow exceptions."[1] The rule went into effect in 1938 and was removed when Rule 201 Regulation SHO became effective in 2007. In 2009, the reintroduction of the uptick rule was widely debated, and proposals for a form of its reintroduction by the SEC went into a public comment period on 2009-04-08.[2][3] A modified form of the rule was adopted on 2010-02-24.[4] , In 1938, the [U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission] (SEC) adopted the uptick rule, more formally known as rule 10a-1, after conducting an inquiry into the effects of concentrated short selling during the market break of 1937.[5] The original rule was implemented when Joseph P. Kennedy, Sr. was SEC commissioner.[6] In 1994, the NASD and Nasdaq adopted their own short sale price tests, known as NASD Rule 3350, based on the last bid rather than on the last reported sale.[7] In 1978, the purpose of the uptick rule was described in a standard text "To correct inequities that occurred on Stock Exchanges prior to 1934, the SEC implemented Rule 10a-1 and 10a-2. It was not unusual in those days to discover groups of speculators pooling their capital and selling short for the sole purpose of driving down the stock price of a particular security to a level where the stockholders would panic and unload their fully owned shares. This, in turn, caused even greater declines in value."[8]. Banks are not so saint after all. Excuse me, i meant to say "financial institutions".
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1657 days ago)
Would the banks have survived if they didn't have revenue from all the illegal stuff they were (and most probably still are) doing? I don't often agree with Alex Jones, but I love his quote: "What we know is off the chart crazy, imagine what we don't know".
Original comment
Would the banks have survived if they didn't have revenue from all the illegal stuff they were (and most probably still are) doing? I don't often agree with Alex Jones, but I love his quote: "What we know is off the chart crazy, imagine what we don't know".
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1657 days ago)
My bank is not doing anything illegal so you must be referring to the bank that has it's headquarters in the UK called HSBC. They are even facing new charges as of April 2013. LINK
ReplyVote up (69)down (101)
Original comment
My bank is not doing anything illegal so you must be referring to the bank that has it's headquarters in the UK called HSBC. They are even facing new charges as of April 2013. LINK
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1657 days ago)
tell us what bank you work for so we can dig up the dirt on it.
Original comment
tell us what bank you work for so we can dig up the dirt on it.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1657 days ago)
I wasn't specifically referring to HSBC, but yes, they are one of the banks shown to have been meddling in illegal affairs. The fact that they are a British bank makes no difference to me. The concept of nations is quickly becoming outdated in a globalised world run by multinational corporations.
ReplyVote up (62)down (101)
Original comment
I wasn't specifically referring to HSBC, but yes, they are one of the banks shown to have been meddling in illegal affairs. The fact that they are a British bank makes no difference to me. The concept of nations is quickly becoming outdated in a globalised world run by multinational corporations.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1657 days ago)
Then what other illegal actions from banks that received TARP money are you referring to?
ReplyVote up (92)down (101)
Original comment
Then what other illegal actions from banks that received TARP money are you referring to?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1657 days ago)
"""an overwhelming majority saw the program as a no-strings-attached windfall that could be used to pay down debt, acquire other businesses or invest for the future."[66] The article cited several bank chairmen as stating that they viewed the money as available for strategic acquisitions in the future rather than to increase lending to the private sector, whose ability to pay back the loans was suspect. PlainsCapital chairman Alan B. White saw the Bush administration's cash infusion as a "opportunity capital", noting, "They didn't tell me I had to do anything particular with it." Moreover, while TARP funds have been provided to bank holding companies, those holding companies have only used a fraction of such funds to recapitalize their bank subsidiaries.[67] Many analysts speculated TARP funds could be used by stronger banks to buy weaker ones.[68] On October 24, 2008, PNC Financial Services received $7.7 billion in TARP funds, then only hours later agreed to buy National City Corp. for $5.58 billion, an amount that was considered a bargain.[69] Despite ongoing speculation that more TARP funds could be used by large-but-weak banks to gobble up small banks, as of October 2009, no further such takeover had occurred""" ; source LINK (check out the Controversy section). But probably Walter was referring to something else... idk
Original comment
"""an overwhelming majority saw the program as a no-strings-attached windfall that could be used to pay down debt, acquire other businesses or invest for the future."[66] The article cited several bank chairmen as stating that they viewed the money as available for strategic acquisitions in the future rather than to increase lending to the private sector, whose ability to pay back the loans was suspect. PlainsCapital chairman Alan B. White saw the Bush administration's cash infusion as a "opportunity capital", noting, "They didn't tell me I had to do anything particular with it." Moreover, while TARP funds have been provided to bank holding companies, those holding companies have only used a fraction of such funds to recapitalize their bank subsidiaries.[67] Many analysts speculated TARP funds could be used by stronger banks to buy weaker ones.[68] On October 24, 2008, PNC Financial Services received $7.7 billion in TARP funds, then only hours later agreed to buy National City Corp. for $5.58 billion, an amount that was considered a bargain.[69] Despite ongoing speculation that more TARP funds could be used by large-but-weak banks to gobble up small banks, as of October 2009, no further such takeover had occurred""" ; source LINK (check out the Controversy section). But probably Walter was referring to something else... idk
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1657 days ago)
My question was about illegal actions. What bank broke what law?
Original comment
My question was about illegal actions. What bank broke what law?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1657 days ago)
oh, in that case, i can only think of the recent ISDAfix scandal; what banks are involved in this "alleged" illegal price fixing scandal? Barclays, UBS, Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase and the Royal Bank of Scotland.. just to name a few...http://www.rollings tone.com/politics/news/ev erything-is-rigged-the-bi ggest-financial-scandal-y et-20130425 But you're probably referring to illegalities committed with the TARP money; well in that case, check out the SIGTRAP homepage LINK . Criminal charges filed against 119 individuals, including 82 senior officers Criminal convictions of 83 individuals, of whom 35 have been sentenced to prison (others are awaiting sentencing) Civil charges filed against 58 individuals, including 44 corporate or senior officers, and 47 companies. Bank of America is one of the Banks listed on the SIGTRAP site as being under investigation.
Original comment
oh, in that case, i can only think of the recent ISDAfix scandal; what banks are involved in this "alleged" illegal price fixing scandal? Barclays, UBS, Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase and the Royal Bank of Scotland.. just to name a few...http://www.rollings tone.com/politics/news/ev erything-is-rigged-the-bi ggest-financial-scandal-y et-20130425 But you're probably referring to illegalities committed with the TARP money; well in that case, check out the SIGTRAP homepage LINK . Criminal charges filed against 119 individuals, including 82 senior officers Criminal convictions of 83 individuals, of whom 35 have been sentenced to prison (others are awaiting sentencing) Civil charges filed against 58 individuals, including 44 corporate or senior officers, and 47 companies. Bank of America is one of the Banks listed on the SIGTRAP site as being under investigation.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1657 days ago)
Okay so you found a list of people charged with some kind of crime but it doesn't list any details about what those crimes were. The one regarding your example with Bank of America doesn't have as much to do with illegal activity as it does about a disagreement about a merger. The stockholders were not notified about the financial condition of Merrill Lynch before the merger was approved. WalterEgo was saying that banks do illegal activities to make huge profits. What huge profits did the bank make with this merger? If anything, it was a huge loss. The stock values plummeted after the merger.
Original comment
Okay so you found a list of people charged with some kind of crime but it doesn't list any details about what those crimes were. The one regarding your example with Bank of America doesn't have as much to do with illegal activity as it does about a disagreement about a merger. The stockholders were not notified about the financial condition of Merrill Lynch before the merger was approved. WalterEgo was saying that banks do illegal activities to make huge profits. What huge profits did the bank make with this merger? If anything, it was a huge loss. The stock values plummeted after the merger.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1657 days ago)
i am gonna paste one of my comments because it makes no sense to write the same thing in 2 different ways: """"T he conversation was about bank bailouts and I was stating that there were no bailouts"" it's what you said. TARP wasn't the only bailout. Let me repeat myself ""The Fed didn’t tell anyone which banks were in trouble so deep they required a combined $1.2 trillion on Dec. 5, 2008, their single neediest day."" which means that they made a profit of 13billion on a combined 1.2 trillion dollar worth of secred FED loans. You claim that there were no bailouts, the rest of the world disagrees and i'm only pointing that out. "" And i would also like to translate your comment for the rest of the readers: Okay! you got me! but technically I'm right because your example did not generate profit (never-mind the other people on the list, I'm just gonna focus on this because it's my best chance). LOL! if i were to list the other cases on the list in this comment you would still dis-consider them. Here it is again LINK , for the other readers
Original comment
i am gonna paste one of my comments because it makes no sense to write the same thing in 2 different ways: """"T he conversation was about bank bailouts and I was stating that there were no bailouts"" it's what you said. TARP wasn't the only bailout. Let me repeat myself ""The Fed didn’t tell anyone which banks were in trouble so deep they required a combined $1.2 trillion on Dec. 5, 2008, their single neediest day."" which means that they made a profit of 13billion on a combined 1.2 trillion dollar worth of secred FED loans. You claim that there were no bailouts, the rest of the world disagrees and i'm only pointing that out. "" And i would also like to translate your comment for the rest of the readers: Okay! you got me! but technically I'm right because your example did not generate profit (never-mind the other people on the list, I'm just gonna focus on this because it's my best chance). LOL! if i were to list the other cases on the list in this comment you would still dis-consider them. Here it is again LINK , for the other readers
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1657 days ago)
Can you provide me a link to the 1.2 trillion dollars that were given away to banks where the banks did not have to pay it back? Something authoritative like the government agency that gave out the money would be helpful.
Original comment
Can you provide me a link to the 1.2 trillion dollars that were given away to banks where the banks did not have to pay it back? Something authoritative like the government agency that gave out the money would be helpful.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1657 days ago)
i can give you a speech made by Gary H. Stern LINK who also said ""The amount of money the central bank parceled out was surprising even to Gary H. Stern, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis from 1985 to 2009, who says he “wasn’t aware of the magnitude.” It dwarfed the Treasury Department’s better-known $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP. Add up guarantees and lending limits, and the Fed had committed $7.77 trillion as of March 2009 to rescuing the financial system, more than half the value of everything produced in the U.S. that year. “TARP at least had some strings attached,” says Brad Miller, a North Carolina Democrat on the House Financial Services Committee, referring to the program’s executive-pay ceiling. “With the Fed programs, there was nothing.” End quote. I can also give you the following article LINK that states Audit of the Federal Reserve Reveals $16 Trillion in Secret Bailouts September 1, 2012 (holly sh it, and i was talking about 1.2 trillion and 7.7 trillion) here's the actual PDF file of the Audit LINK . Furthermore """he Federal Reserve likes to refer to these secret bailouts as an all-inclusive loan program, but virtually none of the money has been returned and it was loaned out at 0% interest. Why the Federal Reserve had never been public about this or even informed the United States Congress about the $16 trillion dollar bailout is obvious - the American public would have been outraged to find out that the Federal Reserve bailed out foreign banks while Americans were struggling to find jobs. """ Why are you asking me for sources? you should have left it at 1.2 trillion but you didn't, so instead i went searching vor that trillion of yours and i find that it was actually a 16trillion dollars worth in loans at ZERO interest. (i knew this at a certain point in the past but i must have forgot about it) anyway.... why are you doing this? you already knew these things? why are you asking me for evidence? you know that what i'm saying is true, so why do you do it? it makes no sense... unless you're trolling... but maybe there's a better explanation to why are you doing this.
Original comment
i can give you a speech made by Gary H. Stern LINK who also said ""The amount of money the central bank parceled out was surprising even to Gary H. Stern, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis from 1985 to 2009, who says he “wasn’t aware of the magnitude.” It dwarfed the Treasury Department’s better-known $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP. Add up guarantees and lending limits, and the Fed had committed $7.77 trillion as of March 2009 to rescuing the financial system, more than half the value of everything produced in the U.S. that year. “TARP at least had some strings attached,” says Brad Miller, a North Carolina Democrat on the House Financial Services Committee, referring to the program’s executive-pay ceiling. “With the Fed programs, there was nothing.” End quote. I can also give you the following article LINK that states Audit of the Federal Reserve Reveals $16 Trillion in Secret Bailouts September 1, 2012 (holly sh it, and i was talking about 1.2 trillion and 7.7 trillion) here's the actual PDF file of the Audit LINK . Furthermore """he Federal Reserve likes to refer to these secret bailouts as an all-inclusive loan program, but virtually none of the money has been returned and it was loaned out at 0% interest. Why the Federal Reserve had never been public about this or even informed the United States Congress about the $16 trillion dollar bailout is obvious - the American public would have been outraged to find out that the Federal Reserve bailed out foreign banks while Americans were struggling to find jobs. """ Why are you asking me for sources? you should have left it at 1.2 trillion but you didn't, so instead i went searching vor that trillion of yours and i find that it was actually a 16trillion dollars worth in loans at ZERO interest. (i knew this at a certain point in the past but i must have forgot about it) anyway.... why are you doing this? you already knew these things? why are you asking me for evidence? you know that what i'm saying is true, so why do you do it? it makes no sense... unless you're trolling... but maybe there's a better explanation to why are you doing this.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1657 days ago)
Again, re-read page 130 for a complete explanation to the document you linked. The 16 trillion number is not a real loan amount. Read about how it was calculated.
Original comment
Again, re-read page 130 for a complete explanation to the document you linked. The 16 trillion number is not a real loan amount. Read about how it was calculated.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1657 days ago)
what is the correct number, according to you? is it half that? is it 1 trillion?
Original comment
what is the correct number, according to you? is it half that? is it 1 trillion?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1657 days ago)
I don't know and don't care. The whole point of having a prime rate is so banks can borrow money at that specific rate for short terms. Banks care like any other company and can borrow money. Did you research how much GE borrowed when you mentioned GE earlier? I bet it's a lot of money because I loaned GE money before too by buying up one of their bonds.
Original comment
I don't know and don't care. The whole point of having a prime rate is so banks can borrow money at that specific rate for short terms. Banks care like any other company and can borrow money. Did you research how much GE borrowed when you mentioned GE earlier? I bet it's a lot of money because I loaned GE money before too by buying up one of their bonds.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1657 days ago)
how can you know that the number provided by GAO is inflated since you can't provide the real number? should i mention [Lewis vs. U.S., 680 F. 2d 1239, 1241] """"E xamining the organization and function of the Federal Reserve Banks, and applying the relevant factors, we conclude that the Reserve Banks are not federal instrumentalities for purposes of the FTCA, but are independent, privately-owned and locally controlled corporations."" " ?? what is the real number for the secret bailouts given to the banks by the privately owned FED??
Original comment
how can you know that the number provided by GAO is inflated since you can't provide the real number? should i mention [Lewis vs. U.S., 680 F. 2d 1239, 1241] """"E xamining the organization and function of the Federal Reserve Banks, and applying the relevant factors, we conclude that the Reserve Banks are not federal instrumentalities for purposes of the FTCA, but are independent, privately-owned and locally controlled corporations."" " ?? what is the real number for the secret bailouts given to the banks by the privately owned FED??
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
RELATED POSTS
What drives Elon Musk?
What drives Elon Musk?
How Brexit could make food prices skyrocket
How Brexit could make food prices skyrocket
Elon Musk on preventing hacking in self-driving cars
Elon Musk on preventing hacking in self-driving cars
Elon Musk unveils Tesla Semi dream truck
Elon Musk unveils Tesla Semi dream truck
Who's doing business with North Korea?
Who's doing business with North Korea?