Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Fed Releases Discount-Window Loan Records During Crisis Under Court Order - Bloomberg
With little more than a phone call to one of 12 Federal Reserve banks, a bank anywhere in the country can ask for cash from the discount window. Banks typically have already given the Fed a list of unencumbered collateral that they use to pledge against the loans. The Fed gives the banks less than 100 cents on each dollar of collateral to protect itself from credit risk.
Discount-window lending was not the largest source of the Feds backstop aid during the crisis. Bernanke also devised programs to loan to U.S. government bond dealers, and to support the short-term debt financing of U.S. corporations.
comment
Bail out my ass. The ones who destroyed our economy got 9 Trillion in loans from the Federal Reserve at pennies on the dollar, aka Derivatives basically, from the Federal Reserve. Then paid off the loans from the Gov't and said, SEE WE PAID IT BACK, using the loans from the Federal Reserve to pay it.
GIANT SMOKE SCREEN and America bought the BS.
Secret Fed Loans Gave Banks $13 Billion Undisclosed to Congress - Bloomberg
No Clue
Lawmakers knew none of this.
They had no clue that one bank, New York-based Morgan Stanley (MS), took $107 billion in Fed loans in September 2008, enough to pay off one-tenth of the countrys delinquent mortgages. The firms peak borrowing occurred the same day Congress rejected the proposed TARP bill, triggering the biggest point drop ever in the Dow Jones Industrial Average. (INDU) The bill later passed, and Morgan Stanley got $10 billion of TARP funds, though Paulson said only healthy institutions were eligible.
Mark Lake, a spokesman for Morgan Stanley, declined to comment, as did spokesmen for Citigroup and Goldman Sachs.
Getting Bigger
Instead, the Fed and its secret financing helped Americas biggest financial firms get bigger and go on to pay employees as much as they did at the height of the housing bubble.
Total assets held by the six biggest U.S. banks increased 39 percent to $9.5 trillion on Sept. 30, 2011, from $6.8 trillion on the same day in 2006, according to Fed data.
What is your point? That has nothing to do with the spending problem and the governments addiction to it. Your post is on another topic entirely and is not really connected to the discussion here. I bring up TARP as a spending item obscuring the 2009 overall numbers and the utter dishonesty in using those figures as Obamas baseline to spending are true no matter how much it was a smokescreen.
No, they dont because I have never made that claim.Quit trying to blame Bush's bank bailout on Obama. That's where your made up calculations start.
No, I am not. You are making that up. You mad a specific claim that spending peaked in 2009 and then continued to compare all Obamas spending against that peak. I have pointed out why that is entirely dishonest. NO WHERE have I claimed FY09 had anything to do with Obamas spending. Bush authorized 09. HOWEVER, the continual comparison between 09 spending and Obamas spending as though 09 has any connection with what spending was like under the Bush years is completely dishonest. 09 represented damn near 20 percent increase in government spending in what 2was supposed to be temporary measures combating a recession. Instead, we have maintained that level of spending over the last 4 years a level that should not have been maintained. All of the years after 09 are Obamas responsibility, period.FY2009 started in October 2008.
The bank bailout bill passed on Oct. 3, 2008.
What is your point? That is FY09 which is what we were discussing as that is the baseline that is used. The one that includes the bank bailouts.
It's simple:
You're trying to argue that Obama is bringing down government spending from a high baseline, namely FY2009, that Obama himself created.
That is not true.
1.6 trillion of the spending of the last 4 years was interest on the debt.
right, and as the debt gets larger the interest payments get larger. you do realize that we are ONLY paying the interest on the debt, nothing on the principal, right?
Do you libs think this can go on forever? Every time congress increases the debt ceiling, the problem gets worse. Why do you dem/libs support increasing the debt ceiling?
Adjusted for inflation, federal government spending PEAKED in FY 2009 (note that FY 2009 includes 3 months of 2008)
and has been lower than that peak year ever since.
No Republican president since Eisenhower has numbers like that.
Fed Releases Discount-Window Loan Records During Crisis Under Court Order - Bloomberg
With little more than a phone call to one of 12 Federal Reserve banks, a bank anywhere in the country can ask for cash from the discount window. Banks typically have already given the Fed a list of unencumbered collateral that they use to pledge against the loans. The Fed gives the banks less than 100 cents on each dollar of collateral to protect itself from credit risk.
Discount-window lending was not the largest source of the Feds backstop aid during the crisis. Bernanke also devised programs to loan to U.S. government bond dealers, and to support the short-term debt financing of U.S. corporations.
comment
Bail out my ass. The ones who destroyed our economy got 9 Trillion in loans from the Federal Reserve at pennies on the dollar, aka Derivatives basically, from the Federal Reserve. Then paid off the loans from the Gov't and said, SEE WE PAID IT BACK, using the loans from the Federal Reserve to pay it.
GIANT SMOKE SCREEN and America bought the BS.
Secret Fed Loans Gave Banks $13 Billion Undisclosed to Congress - Bloomberg
No Clue
Lawmakers knew none of this.
They had no clue that one bank, New York-based Morgan Stanley (MS), took $107 billion in Fed loans in September 2008, enough to pay off one-tenth of the countrys delinquent mortgages. The firms peak borrowing occurred the same day Congress rejected the proposed TARP bill, triggering the biggest point drop ever in the Dow Jones Industrial Average. (INDU) The bill later passed, and Morgan Stanley got $10 billion of TARP funds, though Paulson said only healthy institutions were eligible.
Mark Lake, a spokesman for Morgan Stanley, declined to comment, as did spokesmen for Citigroup and Goldman Sachs.
Getting Bigger
Instead, the Fed and its secret financing helped Americas biggest financial firms get bigger and go on to pay employees as much as they did at the height of the housing bubble.
Total assets held by the six biggest U.S. banks increased 39 percent to $9.5 trillion on Sept. 30, 2011, from $6.8 trillion on the same day in 2006, according to Fed data.
What is your point? That has nothing to do with the spending problem and the governments addiction to it. Your post is on another topic entirely and is not really connected to the discussion here. I bring up TARP as a spending item obscuring the 2009 overall numbers and the utter dishonesty in using those figures as Obamas baseline to spending are true no matter how much it was a smokescreen.
And you wonder why we call them TeaTards?
TARP was a spending program which increased the debt so it is fair game and on topic.
Everytime I see it as an example of Gov't Spending I simply remind everyone that it was utter BS.
You see politicians saying LOOK IT'S PAID OFF, you see others go LOOK IT'S GOV'T DEBT.
Both are right and both are wrong. Which is exactly why attack TARP and the Lies it really covered up.
They didn't fully pay it back, and they borrowed from peter to pay paul for the funds re-payed. They would have gotten the money from the Reserve anyway, so the DEBT PART OF THAT wasn't even needed.
I agree with a showdown with the Libs on the Budget. Our Gov't is out of control and needs to be put on a leash. But I simply don't like the use of BS TARP in the discussion at all.
What is your point? That is FY09 which is what we were discussing as that is the baseline that is used. The one that includes the bank bailouts.
The point is..that most of this stuff was "ordered" before Obama even took power.
And they left him with the check.
That is utterly false and blanket claim that the lefties like to make with nothing but lies to back them up. Things like the ‘Bush tax cuts’ are usually blamed for the massive deficits that we are running but then there are no more Bush tax cuts – they are now Obama tax cuts and have been for most of his tenure. The reality is that most programs are completely owned by Obama now and those that are from Bush he has made no effort to change. They are his.
That point was also never made in the posts that I was referring to so no; that was not the point given.
And you wonder why we call them TeaTards?
Actually no, no one wonders that
No, they dont because I have never made that claim.Quit trying to blame Bush's bank bailout on Obama. That's where your made up calculations start.
No, I am not. You are making that up. You mad a specific claim that spending peaked in 2009 and then continued to compare all Obamas spending against that peak. I have pointed out why that is entirely dishonest. NO WHERE have I claimed FY09 had anything to do with Obamas spending. Bush authorized 09. HOWEVER, the continual comparison between 09 spending and Obamas spending as though 09 has any connection with what spending was like under the Bush years is completely dishonest. 09 represented damn near 20 percent increase in government spending in what 2was supposed to be temporary measures combating a recession. Instead, we have maintained that level of spending over the last 4 years a level that should not have been maintained. All of the years after 09 are Obamas responsibility, period.What is your point? That is FY09 which is what we were discussing as that is the baseline that is used. The one that includes the bank bailouts.
It's simple:
You're trying to argue that Obama is bringing down government spending from a high baseline, namely FY2009, that Obama himself created.
That is not true.
right, and as the debt gets larger the interest payments get larger. you do realize that we are ONLY paying the interest on the debt, nothing on the principal, right?
Do you libs think this can go on forever? Every time congress increases the debt ceiling, the problem gets worse. Why do you dem/libs support increasing the debt ceiling?
Adjusted for inflation, federal government spending PEAKED in FY 2009 (note that FY 2009 includes 3 months of 2008)
and has been lower than that peak year ever since.
No Republican president since Eisenhower has numbers like that.
Assuming that's true (that spending peaked in FY2009) that's nothing special if one explodes spending early on just to be able to claim "I've cut spending" later.
And the Democrats never passed a single budget
Democrats are authorized to pass a budget?
Adjusted for inflation, federal government spending PEAKED in FY 2009 (note that FY 2009 includes 3 months of 2008)
and has been lower than that peak year ever since.
No Republican president since Eisenhower has numbers like that.
Assuming that's true (that spending peaked in FY2009) that's nothing special if one explodes spending early on just to be able to claim "I've cut spending" later.
The FY2009 budget was Bush's budget.
Adjusted for inflation, federal government spending PEAKED in FY 2009 (note that FY 2009 includes 3 months of 2008)
and has been lower than that peak year ever since.
No Republican president since Eisenhower has numbers like that.
Assuming that's true (that spending peaked in FY2009) that's nothing special if one explodes spending early on just to be able to claim "I've cut spending" later.
The FY2009 budget was Bush's budget.
No, they dont because I have never made that claim.Quit trying to blame Bush's bank bailout on Obama. That's where your made up calculations start.
No, I am not. You are making that up. You mad a specific claim that spending peaked in 2009 and then continued to compare all Obamas spending against that peak. I have pointed out why that is entirely dishonest. NO WHERE have I claimed FY09 had anything to do with Obamas spending. Bush authorized 09. HOWEVER, the continual comparison between 09 spending and Obamas spending as though 09 has any connection with what spending was like under the Bush years is completely dishonest. 09 represented damn near 20 percent increase in government spending in what 2was supposed to be temporary measures combating a recession. Instead, we have maintained that level of spending over the last 4 years a level that should not have been maintained. All of the years after 09 are Obamas responsibility, period.It's simple:
You're trying to argue that Obama is bringing down government spending from a high baseline, namely FY2009, that Obama himself created.
That is not true.
What is dishonest about stating the simple fact that adjusted for inflation spending has come down from the 2009 peak,
a peak that was not set by Obama?
No, they dont because I have never made that claim.
No, I am not. You are making that up. You mad a specific claim that spending peaked in 2009 and then continued to compare all Obamas spending against that peak. I have pointed out why that is entirely dishonest. NO WHERE have I claimed FY09 had anything to do with Obamas spending. Bush authorized 09. HOWEVER, the continual comparison between 09 spending and Obamas spending as though 09 has any connection with what spending was like under the Bush years is completely dishonest. 09 represented damn near 20 percent increase in government spending in what 2was supposed to be temporary measures combating a recession. Instead, we have maintained that level of spending over the last 4 years a level that should not have been maintained. All of the years after 09 are Obamas responsibility, period.
What is dishonest about stating the simple fact that adjusted for inflation spending has come down from the 2009 peak,
a peak that was not set by Obama?
key words, the math that one uses to adjust for inflation can derive any result that you want.
In actual dollars, govt spending has gone up every year. Don't know about you but my budget is based on actual dollars in and actual dollars out.
Assuming that's true (that spending peaked in FY2009) that's nothing special if one explodes spending early on just to be able to claim "I've cut spending" later.
The FY2009 budget was Bush's budget.
and that is the last government budget that the country has had. 5 obama years, no national budget. No budget votes in the senate, no house-passed budget bills allowed to be discussed in the senate, no conference committee on budgets.
its quite obvious that obama and the dems do not want a budget.
I also find it amusing that you libs continually use the logic that "bush did it, so its OK if obama does it". I did not realize that Bush was a role model for the left.
questions for RW and sallow:
what was the national debt when obama took over?
what is the national debt today?
how much has obama paid down on the principal of our debt?
who is going to pay our debt and when?
what are we going to do when the interest on the debt takes 100% of govt revenue?
why don't the democrats in DC care about the national debt?
And you wonder why we call them TeaTards?
Actually no, no one wonders that
Yeah..it's pretty self evident.
questions for RW and sallow:
what was the national debt when obama took over?
what is the national debt today?
how much has obama paid down on the principal of our debt?
who is going to pay our debt and when?
what are we going to do when the interest on the debt takes 100% of govt revenue?
why don't the democrats in DC care about the national debt?
Bush abandoned PAYGO, which was doing more towards getting us fiscally straightened out than any other plan.
