15
   

U.S. Taxpayers Risk $9.7 Trillion on Bailouts as Senate Votes

 
 
Woiyo9
 
Reply Mon 9 Feb, 2009 07:56 am
U.S. Taxpayers Risk $9.7 Trillion on Bailouts as Senate Votes

By Mark Pittman and Bob Ivry

Feb. 9 (Bloomberg) -- The stimulus package the U.S. Congress is completing would raise the government’s commitment to solving the financial crisis to $9.7 trillion, enough to pay off more than 90 percent of the nation’s home mortgages.

The Federal Reserve, Treasury Department and Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation have lent or spent almost $3 trillion over the past two years and pledged to provide up to $5.7 trillion more if needed. The total already tapped has decreased about 1 percent since November, mostly because foreign central banks are using fewer dollars in currency-exchange agreements called swaps. The Senate is to vote early this week on a stimulus package totaling at least $780 billion that President Barack Obama says is needed to avert a deeper recession. That measure would need to be reconciled with an $819 billion plan the House approved last month.

Only the stimulus package to be approved this week, the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program passed four months ago and $168 billion in tax cuts and rebates approved in 2008 have been voted on by lawmakers. The remaining $8 trillion in commitments are lending programs and guarantees, almost all under the authority of the Fed and the FDIC. The recipients’ names have not been disclosed.

“We’ve seen money go out the back door of this government unlike any time in the history of our country,” Senator Byron Dorgan, a North Dakota Democrat, said on the Senate floor Feb. 3. “Nobody knows what went out of the Federal Reserve Board, to whom and for what purpose. How much from the FDIC? How much from TARP? When? Why?”

Financial Rescue

The pledges, amounting to almost two-thirds of the value of everything produced in the U.S. last year, are intended to rescue the financial system after the credit markets seized up about 18 months ago. The promises are composed of about $1 trillion in stimulus packages, around $3 trillion in lending and spending and $5.7 trillion in agreements to provide aid.

Federal Reserve lending to banks peaked at a record $2.3 trillion in December, dropping to $1.83 trillion by last week. The Fed balance sheet is still more than double the $880 billion it was in the week before Sept. 17 when it agreed to accept lower-quality collateral.

The worst financial crisis in two generations has erased $14.5 trillion, or 33 percent, of the value of the world’s companies since Sept. 15; brought down Bear Stearns Cos. and Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc.; and led to the takeover of Merrill Lynch & Co. by Bank of America Corp.

The $9.7 trillion in pledges would be enough to send a $1,430 check to every man, woman and child alive in the world. It’s 13 times what the U.S. has spent so far on wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, according to Congressional Budget Office data, and is almost enough to pay off every home mortgage loan in the U.S., calculated at $10.5 trillion by the Federal Reserve.

‘All the Stops’

“The Fed, Treasury and FDIC are pulling out all the stops to stop any widespread systemic damage to the economy,” said Dana Johnson, chief economist for Comerica Inc. in Dallas and a former senior economist at the central bank. “The federal government is on the hook for an awful lot of money but I think it’s needed to help the financial system recover.”

Bloomberg News tabulated data from the Fed, Treasury and FDIC and interviewed regulators, economists and academic researchers to gauge the full extent of the government’s rescue effort.

Commitments may expand again soon. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner postponed an announcement scheduled for today that was to focus on new guarantees for illiquid assets to insure against losses without taking them off banks’ balance sheets. The Treasury said it would delay the announcement until after the Senate votes on the stimulus package.

Program Delay

The government is already backing $301 billion of Citigroup Inc. securities and another $118 billion from Bank of America. The government hasn’t yet paid out on any of the guarantees.

The Fed said Friday that it is delaying the start a $200 billion program called the Term Asset-Backed Securities Loan Facility, or TALF, to revive the market for securities based on consumer loans such as credit-card, auto and student borrowings.

Most of the spending programs are run out of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, where Geithner served as president. He was sworn in as Treasury secretary on Jan. 26.

When Congress approved the TARP on Oct. 3, Fed Chairman Ben S. Bernanke and then Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson acknowledged the need for transparency and oversight. The Federal Reserve so far is refusing to disclose loan recipients or reveal the collateral they are taking in return. Collateral is an asset pledged by a borrower in the event a loan payment isn’t made.

Fed Sued

Bloomberg requested details of Fed lending under the Freedom of Information Act and filed a federal lawsuit against the central bank Nov. 7 seeking to force disclosure of borrower banks and their collateral. Arguments in the suit may be heard as soon as this month, according to the court docket. Bloomberg asked the Treasury in an FOIA request Jan. 28 for a detailed list of the securities it planned to guarantee for Citigroup and Bank of America. Bloomberg hasn’t received a response to the request.

The Bloomberg lawsuit is Bloomberg LP v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 08-CV-9595, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York (Manhattan).

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=washingtonstory&sid=aGq2B3XeGKok


WAY TO GO. CONGRATULATIONS TO THE STEWARDS OF OUR TAX DOLLARS!!!
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 15 • Views: 5,202 • Replies: 105
No top replies

 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 Feb, 2009 08:49 am
@Woiyo9,
How do we know who to trust any more when it comes to figuring out the best way to help our economy?

We can find an "expert" on almost every side of the issue.

How do we choose which expert we want to believe?
Woiyo9
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 Feb, 2009 08:55 am
@rosborne979,
The only truth I see is that we will NEVER EVER be able to trust this US Congress, to either understand the depth of the problem, pass responsible spending/stimulus programs to re-energize the economy, nor oversee their plan to insure it is working.

Yet, one can expect that the majority of the Congress will be re-elected to office, many unopposed.

The voters only have to look at themselves as to the real cause of the problem.
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 Feb, 2009 08:56 am
Quote:
The Federal Reserve, Treasury Department and Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation have lent or spent almost $3 trillion over the past two years and pledged to provide up to $5.7 trillion more if needed.


Over the last two years, huh? I guess those dipshits in the Bush administration dug a pretty deep hole for us. In addition, of course, the to trillions in debt (mostly held by China) which they ran up for their stupid little war games.
0 Replies
 
maporsche
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 Feb, 2009 09:01 am
Jesus, my generation and those that follow are FUCKED.
Frank Apisa
 
  2  
Reply Mon 9 Feb, 2009 09:02 am
@Woiyo9,
Quote:
The only truth I see is that we will NEVER EVER be able to trust this US Congress, to either understand the depth of the problem, pass responsible spending/stimulus programs to re-energize the economy, nor oversee their plan to insure it is working.


Damn. If only they had you there. You'd straighten it out.


Quote:
Yet, one can expect that the majority of the Congress will be re-elected to office, many unopposed.


Damn. If only that wouldn't happen...and if only people like you were elected. Then it would all get straightened out.


Quote:
The voters only have to look at themselves as to the real cause of the problem.


Well they certainly were the problem in the two presidential elections prior to this last one...I'll give you that.
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 Feb, 2009 09:04 am
@Woiyo9,
Woiyo9 wrote:
The voters only have to look at themselves as to the real cause of the problem.

I blame myself.
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 Feb, 2009 09:11 am
@maporsche,
maporsche wrote:
Jesus, my generation and those that follow are FUCKED.

At least my generation will all be dead. You guys are on your own. Wink
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 Feb, 2009 09:14 am
@maporsche,
Quote:
Jesus, my generation and those that follow are FUCKED.


You have no idea!
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 Feb, 2009 09:15 am
@maporsche,
Quote:
Jesus, my generation and those that follow are FUCKED.


You might want to try reading what Thomas Jefferson said about the idea of passing debts forward to future generations; i.e. that the future generations in question never contracted such debts, that the debts are in no wise legitimate, and that in actual fact they are not owed. Somewhere in this picture, something will have to give, sooner or later.
BigTexN
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 9 Feb, 2009 09:16 am
Quote:
...enough to pay off more than 90 percent of the nation’s home mortgages.


WOOHOO! I'm not sending another check to that damned mortgage company!

When people were saying they were voting for Obama because he was going to pay their mortgage and their gas bills, I thought they were full of it.

I admit here and now (and I'm man enough to admit it)...I was obviously wrong!

Go Obama!
Gimme money!
Its my birthday!
Gimme money!

I BELIEVE MR. OBAMA!
I DO BELIEVE!
HALLELUJAH!


oops, sorry...I forgot that I'm not suppose to pray anymore either.
Please forgive my mistake Oh King of Change....
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 Feb, 2009 09:32 am
To put it into perspective, despite the heavy criticism of the Bush Administration deficits, the deficit going into 2007 was between 1 and 2% of the GDP against a historical average of about 2.3% of GDP. This was not due to reduced spending of course but we were enjoying steady economic growth and tax revenues into the national treasury were soaring.

But in the last two years--and you're going to have to allow the Democrats to take some lumps too as they had control of Congress and the President could pass or spend nothing without their consent--our government has managed to saddle us with debt already acquired plus what is in the works that with interest and mandatory future obligations will total between 8 and 10% of the GDP. We haven't seen anything even close to that since WWII.

According to the CBO, we will see some modest growth in the next year or two due to massive government spending, but because it is government and not private sector, it will quickly level out and produce no more growth but we'll still be saddled with a debt too big to wrap your mind around. The the huge number of any new jobs created will be government jobs.

I understand that petitions are flying all over the internet targeted at getting our lawmakers to wise up and stop this now and I saw this morning that protesters are beginning to gather in person in Washington. Each and every one of us should have contracted our elected representatives by now and said an emphatic NO to this.

Any provision that doesn't put people back to work in the private sector should be stripped from this bill.
Woiyo9
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 Feb, 2009 10:28 am
@Frank Apisa,
Your sarcasm is symbolic of the lame brain voters who blindly follow these Congress people and their parties like little sheep.

I suppose you could offer some success stories from you experience with this current US Congress?

How was their oversight if the financial markets over the past 10 years?

How was their voting record on the war which made you so proud of their efforts?


They really did a great job with the SEC. Good thing they caught Madam Stewart. To bad about Madoff though. You MUST be proud of that one!!

Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 Feb, 2009 10:33 am
@Woiyo9,
Quote:
Your sarcasm is symbolic of the lame brain voters who blindly follow these Congress people and their parties like little sheep.

I suppose you could offer some success stories from you experience with this current US Congress?

How was their oversight if the financial markets over the past 10 years?

How was their voting record on the war which made you so proud of their efforts?


They really did a great job with the SEC. Good thing they caught Madam Stewart. To bad about Madoff though. You MUST be proud of that one!!


Like I said...if only they had you there...our problems would be over.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 Feb, 2009 10:39 am
@Foxfyre,
The bottom line is: During the Reagan administration, the greatest increase in the national debt occurred. He tripled our national debt.

And during the Bush II administration...the greatest increase in the national debt since the Reagan administration occurred.

Reagan and Bush II were abject failures at that level.

0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 Feb, 2009 10:53 am
Reagan did not triple our national debt. The Democrats had huge majorities in the House during Reagan's term and a majority in the Senate during some of it. Further it is Congress who authorizes every dime that is spent. The President cannot spend a dime nor obligate the US government for a single dime that is not authorized by Congress.

Reagan agreed to tax increases on Congress's promise to cut spending $3 for every $1 in new taxes. We got the taxes, but no cuts in spending. There is some question that since the Constitution gives the Congress authority to authorize the Federal budget whether a President can veto the budget. I don't believe any President has presumed to do so. The President can of course veto any and all of the subsequent authorization bills that releases the money to be spent, but should he do so, it shuts down the government. But it is there where the spending battles occur and Clinton's refusal to accommodate Congress in 1995--he wanted more than Congress wanted--did shut down a big chunk of the government for several days.

Congress gave Reagan what he wanted to rebuild the military in return for Reagan accommodating social spending. Did we get our money's worth? I don't know. We did the get the longest sustained period of prosperity in peace time that we had yet seen and we broke the economic back of the Soviet Union and removed it as a threat to world peace. So it wasn't all bad.

But whatever one thinks of the Reagan era, this is now, and what our Congress is about to do to us is unprecedented, it is irresponsible, it is destructive, and every responsible American patriot regardless of their political affiliation or ideology should be saying NO.
Woiyo9
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 Feb, 2009 11:14 am
@Frank Apisa,
Your non answer typifies your indifferent attitude towards the so called leaders you elected.

Don't complain about anything Frank, you got the government you deserve.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 Feb, 2009 11:43 am
@Foxfyre,
Quote:
Reagan did not triple our national debt.


Yeah, he really did.

If it makes you feel any better, though, I'm willing to state it: The national debt tripled while Reagan was at the helm supposedly steering us away from increased debt.

Quote:
The Democrats had huge majorities in the House during Reagan's term and a majority in the Senate during some of it.


Reagan had a majority in the Senate for 6 of his 8 years...and the Dems did not have a veto proof majority in the other 2.

He could have vetoed EVERY spending bill...and been sustained.

This happened on his watch.


Quote:

Further it is Congress who authorizes every dime that is spent. The President cannot spend a dime nor obligate the US government for a single dime that is not authorized by Congress.



Reagan had a majority in the Senate for 6 of his 8 years...and the Dems did not have a veto proof majority in the other 2.

He could have vetoed EVERY spending bill...and been sustained.

This happened on his watch.


Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 Feb, 2009 11:44 am
@Woiyo9,
Jeez, Woiyo...I did answer you.

If only you were there running things....we'd be out of trouble. Obviously you know how to deal with our problems.
georgeob1
 
  2  
Reply Mon 9 Feb, 2009 12:22 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Well the details of the bailout package do make interesting reading.

Most of the $100 billion or so grants to state governments come with many strings attached. In the main this is the Democrat program for things like K thru 12 education, welfare, infrastructure and environmental policy masquerading as a stimulus package. The specified funds are for two years only - what will happen after that? How will the states wean themselves of the new source?

While the bank bailouts are justifiable only to the extent they protect others from worse cascading effects, the rest is just governments (and politicians) taking care of themselves. If their real intent is to stimulate consumer confidence, bank lending and capital investment there are far simpler and more direct ways to accomplish that -- corporate tax cuts (we have one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world) ; accelerated depreciation of new plant & equipment & the creation of a new banking entity to manage the "toxic' securities, somewhat like the resolution Trust Company with which we managed the Savings and loan crisis of two decades ago.

Democrats are engaging in fear mongering to facilitate the legislative enactment of programs the country would otherwise reject.

 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » U.S. Taxpayers Risk $9.7 Trillion on Bailouts as Senate Votes
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/19/2024 at 12:43:20