Secret Fed Loans Gave Banks $13 Billion ($7.7 TRILLION)

LadyJazzer wrote: Oh, I keep forgetting... 60 days should have been enough time to be briefed on ALL of the disasters that Bush created, (including the ones that the Fed was doing its best to hide), and turn the battleship on a dime...

Yeah, I know who the empty-suit was... And he'd already screwed-the-pooch by December of 2008. You want to stand by that? Good, then let's talk about Bush's failure to respond to the intelligence that Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda were planning an attack on New York City....

You're funny... Thanks for the laugh... rofllol

You left out some important facts.

1. Bush did not respond cause there was not that much intel that he had gotten that said alot about it. The CIA including the director knew two of the leaders were in the US and did not inform the FBI. The report put out by the CIA investigator even stated that certain agents and the director of the CIA should face disciplinary actions for their lack of acting on the intel they had.

2. Clinton had a chance to nab the usama bin laden, and refused to deal with it.

3. Why is it with Obama he should allow to be in office for a couple of years before he should get blame for things, but for Bush it was oh well, he's the President its his watch and what happens on his watch is his problem.

No, he didn't "know it"...because the whole point of the article is that the $7.7 TRILLION under-the-table transaction information is just now coming out and "Lawmakers knew none of this." Seems pretty clear to me.

LadyJazzer wrote: No, he didn't "know it"...because the whole point of the article is that the $7.7 TRILLION under-the-table transaction information is just now coming out and "Lawmakers knew none of this." Seems pretty clear to me.

Ok I guess the second reading of it, sounds like none knew what the Fed was doing and Congress should have been informed and was not.

LadyJazzer wrote:

FredHayek wrote: And President Obama didn't bother mentioning it or pursue any actions against the bankers. OWS clearly needs to distance themselves from Barack Hussein, corporate stooge.

Or more likely, Bernanke and Geithner thought that the President wouldn't be able to understand finances at this level.

Gee, since it all took place in 2008, and was already signed, sealed & delivered by BUSH, perhaps Obama didn't know yet? I'll wait for the dates to sink in...

Hmmm...

And then there was the secrecy. Bush administration officials who managed the TARP program were unaware of what the Fed was doing. So were top aides to then-Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson. So was Congress, including Judd Gregg, former New Hampshire senator who was a lead Republican negotiator on TARP, and Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA), who chaired the House Financial Services Committee. Cryptically both men claim they were unaware of the “specifics,” although Frank admitted both men “were aware emergency efforts [by the Fed] were going on.” Even Gary H. Stern, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis from 1985 to 2009, said he “wasn’t aware of the magnitude” of Federal Reserve lending taking place.

http://frontpagemag.com/2011/11/29/a-ba ... nstrosity/

And in 2010 the Obama Administration had a chance to keep this from happening again...

Another piece of legislation undoubtedly influenced by the secrecy was the Safe Banking Act of 2010. Introduced by Senator Sherrod Brown (D-OH) and former Senator Ted Kaufman (D-DE), the bill was about placing hard caps on the leveraging abilities and size of financial institutions, aimed primarily at the aforementioned Big Six banking institutions. “The amount of pain that people, through no fault of their own, had to endure–and the prospect of putting them through it again–is appalling,” Kaufman said. “The public has no more appetite for bailouts. What would happen tomorrow if one of these big banks got in trouble? Can we survive that?” he asked.

Bank lobbyists weren’t about to give up without a fight. From 2006 to 2010, spending to defeat the bill increased from $22.1 million to $29.4 million. The Financial Stability Board (FSF) sent a letter to Congress November 13, 2009, touting the “stability of large banks” and citing the “irreparable economic harm to the growth and job-creating capacity of the U.S. economy” if such a bill were to pass. Top Obama administration officials sided with the FSF, including Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner who, according to Kaufman, told the ex-senator that issue was “too complex for Congress and that people who know the markets should handle these decisions.” The bill was defeated 60-31. Kaufman believes support for the bill would have been much greater if Congress knew the extent of the Fed’s intervention.

Bush had his hand in it in 2008, Obama had his turn in 2010. Same sh*te, another administration.

I highly recommend the viewing of Inside Job, released in 2010 and winner of the Oscar©. Everyone in this country should see this very well done documentary. It explains, quite well, how we got into this position of bailing out the banksters and screwing the taxpayers. And it was a bipartisan effort. As has been said: 'The best way to rob a bank is to own one'. I would add that the best way to screw over the taxpayer is to be part of the government and write the "laws", gut the regulations and then get rewarded magnificently regardless the results.

When you take the overview of the past 10 years,here's what you find.......the SAME financial names(players)keep showing up,time and
time again. Benny,Timmy,Paulson Geithener,ect. You name ANY financial crisis over the last decade and the same group of individuals
continue to be players in the round table. ANOTHER word for this COULD be collusion.....THIS latest piece of information (LJ post) is
NO surprise when you have been paying CLOSE attention. The swamp needs to be drained so the entire slimy,slick and secretive set of
scum can slither away and die. OF COURSE,jmo.

I would add a few more extremely important players: Rubin, Summers and most importantly Alan Greenspan, Chairman of the Fed for almost 20 years.

I will post it AGAIN......read my sig line(which has been my sig line for a VERY long time)......"The problems we face will NOT be solved
by the minds that created them." PRETTY PROFOUND in it's simplicity......JMO

One can only wonder why both of you choose not to include the elected officials who make a career out of holding political office in your laundry list of those who should be blamed. It is, after all, the desire to wield the virtual plenary power of a corrupt to the core general government that motivates the elected representatives to seek the collusive efforts of the financial sector in grabbing and exercising ever expanding power of governance in exchange for a federal promise to privatize gains and socialize losses. A corrupt financial sector has not corrupted the general government, it is a corrupt general government that has corrupted the financial sector. Financial institutions didn't get to be "too big to fail" all by themselves after all, that required a government willing to protect them in exchange for the extortion money necessary to keep them in office. Those not willing to pay the protection money were regulated into oblivion. Those that paid the protection money got to get bigger and make more and more money as the general government grew larger and larger. It's still happening. Small banks are being closed down by the regulators and sold to others, making them larger and helping them on their way to being include in those that are "too large to fail".

Our system of governance was set up to be layered levels of republican governing with each layer holding only a portion of the power necessary to govern. You want to talk about too big to fail? Look at the modern day general government. You tell me what will happen to this union of States when it is unable to sustain the "mandatory" charity decreed in modern federal law. From this point forward it will essentially extort as much as it wants from the populace under the guise of "protecting" them and using a climate of fear to achieve the acquiescence of the citizens of the States to that extortion. Think this is what the founding generation had in mind for their posterity? Me neither. That's why we have to get rid of the "mandatory" responsibility for individual welfare the general government has claimed for itself by having the 3 branches of the federal government forming their own racketeering organization and using it to justify their usurpation of power from the States and the citizens of those States.

PrintSmith wrote: One can only wonder why both of you choose not to include the elected officials who make a career out of holding political office in your laundry list of those who should be blamed. It is, after all, the desire to wield the virtual plenary power of a corrupt to the core general government that motivates the elected representatives to seek the collusive efforts of the financial sector in grabbing and exercising ever expanding power of governance in exchange for a federal promise to privatize gains and socialize losses. A corrupt financial sector has not corrupted the general government, it is a corrupt general government that has corrupted the financial sector. Financial institutions didn't get to be "too big to fail" all by themselves after all, that required a government willing to protect them in exchange for the extortion money necessary to keep them in office. Those not willing to pay the protection money were regulated into oblivion. Those that paid the protection money got to get bigger and make more and more money as the general government grew larger and larger. It's still happening. Small banks are being closed down by the regulators and sold to others, making them larger and helping them on their way to being include in those that are "too large to fail".

Our system of governance was set up to be layered levels of republican governing with each layer holding only a portion of the power necessary to govern. You want to talk about too big to fail? Look at the modern day general government. You tell me what will happen to this union of States when it is unable to sustain the "mandatory" charity decreed in modern federal law. From this point forward it will essentially extort as much as it wants from the populace under the guise of "protecting" them and using a climate of fear to achieve the acquiescence of the citizens of the States to that extortion. Think this is what the founding generation had in mind for their posterity? Me neither. That's why we have to get rid of the "mandatory" responsibility for individual welfare the general government has claimed for itself by having the 3 branches of the federal government forming their own racketeering organization and using it to justify their usurpation of power from the States and the citizens of those States.

Er... can you say "blind partisanship." Or just call them "stupid" if you want a simpler concept.