First Audit of the Federal Reserve Reveals $16 Trillion in Secret Bailouts

[Lamarr]

Ron Paul Was Right!

Source

The first ever GAO(Government Accountability Office) audit of the Federal Reserve was carried out in the past few months due to the Ron Paul, Alan Grayson Amendment to the Dodd-Frank bill, which passed last year. Jim DeMint, a Republican Senator, and Bernie Sanders, an independent Senator, led the charge for a Federal Reserve audit in the Senate, but watered down the original language of the house bill(HR1207), so that a complete audit would not be carried out. Ben Bernanke(pictured to the left), Alan Greenspan, and various other bankers vehemently opposed the audit and lied to Congress about the effects an audit would have on markets. Nevertheless, the results of the first audit in the Federal Reserve’s nearly 100 year history were posted on Senator Sander’s webpage earlier this morning.

What was revealed in the audit was startling: $16,000,000,000,000.00 had been secretly given out to US banks and corporations and foreign banks everywhere from France to Scotland. From the period between December 2007 and June 2010, the Federal Reserve had secretly bailed out many of the world’s banks, corporations, and governments. 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. 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.

To place $16 trillion into perspective, remember that GDP of the United States is only $14.12 trillion. The entire national debt of the United States government spanning its 200+ year history is “only” $14.5 trillion. The budget that is being debated so heavily in Congress and the Senate is “only” $3.5 trillion. Take all of the outrage and debate over the $1.5 trillion deficit into consideration, and swallow this Red pill: There was no debate about whether $16,000,000,000,000 would be given to failing banks and failing corporations around the world.

In late 2008, the TARP Bailout bill was passed and loans of $800 billion were given to failing banks and companies. That was a blatant lie considering the fact that Goldman Sachs alone received 814 billion dollars. As is turns out, the Federal Reserve donated $2.5 trillion to Citigroup, while Morgan Stanley received $2.04 trillion. The Royal Bank of Scotland and Deutsche Bank, a German bank, split about a trillion and numerous other banks received hefty chunks of the $16 trillion.

“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)

When you have conservative Republican stalwarts like Jim DeMint(R-SC) and Ron Paul(R-TX) as well as self identified Democratic socialists like Bernie Sanders all fighting against the Federal Reserve, you know that it is no longer an issue of Right versus Left. When you have every single member of the Republican Party in Congress and progressive Congressmen like Dennis Kucinich sponsoring a bill to audit the Federal Reserve, you realize that the Federal Reserve is an entity onto itself, which has no oversight and no accountability.

Americans should be swelled with anger and outrage at the abysmal state of affairs when an unelected group of bankers can create money out of thin air and give it out to megabanks and supercorporations like Halloween candy. If the Federal Reserve and the bankers who control it believe that they can continue to devalue the savings of Americans and continue to destroy the US economy, they will have to face the realization that their trillion dollar printing presses can be stopped with five dollars worth of bullets.

The list of institutions that received the most money from the Federal Reserve can be found on page 131 of 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)
and many many more including banks in Belgium of all places

View the 266-page GAO audit of the Federal Reserve(July 21st, 2011): Right Here

 

[Osca Lee]

Why isn't this all over the news?



Sent from mobile suit XXXG-012D using Evo-Zero Custom System

 

[Majestic Lion]

It won't be unless people online take it up and spread it around.

 

[Cruise]

16 TRILLION????

Trillion, with a T???

These numbers are beyond mind-boggling.

The New York Dollar strikes again.

Reading that list of bailed-out losers makes me sick. It almost makes me want to go out and...

 

[TruDat]

No surprise! Just think of how long this been going on for almost a century since its creation of December 23, 1913. This Federal Reserve(central bank) act also the Glass-Owen bill was finagled through the Senate. U.S. taxpayers have been getting raped for years. I am glad that some of the information about the Federal Reserve is coming out. The Fed has no American national sovereignty whatsoever. Not to seem to conspiratorial but the Rothschilds/Morgans/Rockefellers international bankers have been controlling the money supply of the U.S. and other nations for centuries. More Americans should be pissed the fukk off!!

 

[Upgrade Dave]

It won't be unless people online take it up and spread it around.

 

[QueEx]

Lemarr,

I went to the GAO website and found very little there on the audit. I downloaded a 266 page PDF but I haven't come close to having time, yet, to look it over. Curiously, the the summary to that 266 page report contains an introductory summary which states:

Summary

The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act directed GAO to conduct a one-time audit of the emergency loan programs and other assistance authorized by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Federal Reserve Board) during the recent financial crisis. This report examines the emergency actions taken by the Federal Reserve Board from December 1, 2007, through July 21, 2010. For each of these actions, where relevant, GAO's objectives included a review of (1) the basis and purpose for its authorization, as well as accounting and financial reporting internal controls; (2) the use, selection, and payment of vendors; (3) management of conflicts of interest; (4) policies in place to secure loan repayment; and (5) the treatment of program participants. To meet these objectives, GAO reviewed program documentation, analyzed program data, and interviewed officials from the Federal Reserve Board and Reserve Banks (Federal Reserve System).

On numerous occasions in 2008 and 2009, the Federal Reserve Board invoked emergency authority under the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 to authorize new broad-based programs and financial assistance to individual institutions to stabilize financial markets. <SPAN style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffff00">Loans outstanding for the emergency programs peaked at more than $1 trillion in late 2008.</span> The Federal Reserve Board directed the Federal Reserve Bank of New York (FRBNY) to implement most of these emergency actions. In a few cases, the Federal Reserve Board authorized a Reserve Bank to lend to a limited liability corporation (LLC) to finance the purchase of assets from a single institution. In 2009 and 2010, FRBNY also executed large-scale purchases of agency mortgage-backed securities to support the housing market. The Reserve Banks' and LLCs' financial statements, which include the emergency programs' accounts and activities, and their related financial reporting internal controls, are audited annually by an independent auditing firm. These independent financial statement audits, as well as other audits and reviews conducted by the Federal Reserve Board, its Inspector General, and the Reserve Banks' internal audit function, did not report any significant accounting or financial reporting internal control issues concerning the emergency programs. The Reserve Banks, primarily FRBNY, awarded 103 contracts worth $659.4 million from 2008 through 2010 to help carry out their emergency activities. A few contracts accounted for most of the spending on vendor services. For a significant portion of the fees, program recipients reimbursed the Reserve Banks or the fees were paid from program income. The Reserve Banks relied more extensively on vendors for programs that assisted a single institution than for broad-based programs. Most of the contracts, including 8 of the 10 highest-value contracts, were awarded noncompetitively, primarily due to exigent circumstances. These contract awards were consistent with FRBNY's acquisition policies, but the policies could be improved by providing additional guidance on the use of competition exceptions, such as seeking as much competition as practicable and limiting the duration of noncompetitive contracts to the exigency period. To better ensure that Reserve Banks do not miss opportunities to obtain competition and receive the most favorable terms for services acquired, GAO recommends that they revise their acquisition policies to provide such guidance. FRBNY took steps to manage conflicts of interest for its employees, directors, and program vendors, but opportunities exist to strengthen its conflict policies. In particular, FRBNY expanded its guidance and monitoring for employee conflicts, but new roles assumed by FRBNY and its employees during the crisis gave rise to potential conflicts that were not specifically addressed in the Code of Conduct or other FRBNY policies. For example, FRBNY's existing restrictions on its employees' financial interests did not specifically prohibit investments in certain nonbank institutions that received emergency assistance. To manage potential conflicts related to employees' holdings of such investments, FRBNY relied on provisions in its code that incorporate requirements of a federal criminal conflict of interest statute and its regulations. GAO makes seven recommendations to the Federal Reserve Board to strengthen policies for managing noncompetitive vendor selections, conflicts of interest, risks related to emergency lending, and documentation of emergency program decisions. The Federal Reserve Board agreed that GAO's recommendations would benefit its response to future crises and agreed to strongly consider how best to respond to them.
​

http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-696


This summary just can't be one and the same as the audit you're talking about.

 

[QueEx]

Ron Paul Was Right!

<SPAN style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffff00">The list of institutions that received the most money from the Federal Reserve can be found on page 131 of the GAO Audit and are as follows..</span>

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)
and many many more including banks in Belgium of all places

View the 266-page GAO audit of the Federal Reserve(July 21st, 2011): Right Here

Lamarr,

Something is just not right here.

I followed the highlighted instructions above and went to page 130 of the Audit. Of course, I found the list of institutions just as the instructions stated. But, I found this too:

Several of the programs saw greater use by large global institutions thatwere significant participants in the funding markets targeted by theFederal Reserve Board. Tables 8 and 9 rank the largest borrowinginstitutions according to aggregate borrowing (irrespective of differencesin term to maturity) and total borrowing after adjusting for differences inloan terms. For both tables, we show transaction amounts for AMLF andTALF, but do not factor these amounts into the rankings as entitiesparticipating in these programs served as intermediary borrowers whosepurchases provided liquidity support to other market participants. Weaggregated dollar transaction amounts for borrowing entities at the parentcompany level. For each parent company, total amounts borrowedinclude amounts borrowed by the parent company, its subsidiaries,branches or agencies, and in the case of CPFF, dollar amounts of ABCPissued by entities sponsored by the holding company or one of itssubsidiaries. In cases where we identified an acquisition that took placeduring the operation of a program, we consolidated transaction amountsfollowing the completion of the acquisition. <SPAN style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffff00">Table 8 aggregates total dollar transaction amounts by adding the total dollar amount of all loans butdoes not adjust these amounts to reflect differences across programs inthe term over which loans were outstanding. 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.</span> In contrast, a TAF loan of $10 billion extended over a 1-month period would appear as $10 billion. As a result, the total transaction amounts shown in table 8 for PDCF are not directly comparable to thetotal transaction amounts shown for TAF and other programs that madeloans for periods longer than overnight.​

? ? ?

You might want to "splain" this, before I argue it before the jury -- LOL --

Because I'm writing my closing argument right now, and I'm debating whether to tell the jury that somebody has tried to pull a 15 Trillion Dollar fraud on us.

 

[Lamarr]

The Fed Audit - Bernie Sanders

The first top-to-bottom audit of the Federal Reserve uncovered eye-popping new details about how the U.S. provided a whopping $16 trillion in secret loans to bail out American and foreign banks and businesses during the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. An amendment by Sen. Bernie Sanders to the Wall Street reform law passed one year ago this week directed the Government Accountability Office to conduct the study. "As a result of this audit, we now know that the Federal Reserve provided more than $16 trillion in total financial assistance to some of the largest financial institutions and corporations in the United States and throughout the world," said Sanders. "This is a clear case of socialism for the rich and rugged, you're-on-your-own individualism for everyone else."

Among the investigation's key findings is that the Fed unilaterally provided trillions of dollars in financial assistance to foreign banks and corporations from South Korea to Scotland, according to the GAO report. "No agency of the United States government should be allowed to bailout a foreign bank or corporation without the direct approval of Congress and the president," Sanders said.

The non-partisan, investigative arm of Congress also determined that the Fed lacks a comprehensive system to deal with conflicts of interest, despite the serious potential for abuse. In fact, according to the report, the Fed provided conflict of interest waivers to employees and private contractors so they could keep investments in the same financial institutions and corporations that were given emergency loans.

For example, the CEO of JP Morgan Chase served on the New York Fed's board of directors at the same time that his bank received more than $390 billion in financial assistance from the Fed. Moreover, JP Morgan Chase served as one of the clearing banks for the Fed's emergency lending programs.

In another disturbing finding, the GAO said that on Sept. 19, 2008, William Dudley, who is now the New York Fed president, was granted a waiver to let him keep investments in AIG and General Electric at the same time AIG and GE were given bailout funds. One reason the Fed did not make Dudley sell his holdings, according to the audit, was that it might have created the appearance of a conflict of interest.

To Sanders, the conclusion is simple. "No one who works for a firm receiving direct financial assistance from the Fed should be allowed to sit on the Fed's board of directors or be employed by the Fed," he said.

The investigation also revealed that the Fed outsourced most of its emergency lending programs to private contractors, many of which also were recipients of extremely low-interest and then-secret loans.

The Fed outsourced virtually all of the operations of their emergency lending programs to private contractors like JP Morgan Chase, Morgan Stanley, and Wells Fargo. The same firms also received trillions of dollars in Fed loans at near-zero interest rates. Altogether some two-thirds of the contracts that the Fed awarded to manage its emergency lending programs were no-bid contracts. Morgan Stanley was given the largest no-bid contract worth $108.4 million to help manage the Fed bailout of AIG.

A more detailed GAO investigation into potential conflicts of interest at the Fed is due on Oct. 18, but Sanders said one thing already is abundantly clear. "The Federal Reserve must be reformed to serve the needs of working families, not just CEOs on Wall Street."

 

[xcluesiv]

damn good drop op

 

[QueEx]

The Fed Audit - Bernie Sanders

Yeah bro, I read the article from Sanders' website and I read the article this morning from what I believe was the source of your original post above from what looked like it might be a right-wing website, Elected, but neither seems to make mention of the way the loans/assistance were counted.

What do you make of it ? ? ?

 

[Lamarr]

What do you make of it ? ? ?

It's f*ckin complicated bruh, but this is my take (anybody else feel free to chime in)

The 16T in question is just the total loan amount. It's just been double-counted a few times over.

For example, the FED might have lent 500B in emergency loans. Then got that paid back. Then lent 500B again. Got paid back. That totals 1Trill - but is actually only 500B in new money.

So there is no way of knowing, just from the 16T, how much of that was re-lent many times over. It could only be a trillion in net loans.

I think Sanders is ticked for the simple reason that no agency of the United States government should be allowed to bailout a foreign bank or corporation without the direct approval of Congress and the President. (I've made the case many times, Bernanke isn't accountable to the Pres)

Ron Paul's position is How did this extra Trillion come into existence? Many of us make the argument that it was "printed" into existence, counterfeit. And why does this unelected body have authority to issue money & credit? QueEx, it's true Ron Paul wants to End the Fed, but the truth of the matter is that the Fed will simply end itself.

 

[QueEx]

It might be complicated but the GAO article provided what looks like the most logical explanation: "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."

From there it looks like that right-wing website that you got the article from blew shit way out of proportion and, LOL, you chimed in with the Ron Was Right.

But on the real, I'm with you on auditing the fed -- but, not with the zealots lying in an attempt to make the right and Librarians look good.

`

 

[thoughtone]

It's f*ckin complicated bruh, but this is my take

It might be complicated but the GAO article provided what looks like the most logical explanation...

Logical? It's HIS take!

 

[Lamarr]

Logical? It's HIS take!

I meant complicated as in how they lent & re-lent $$$

Regardless, We want a FULL audit instead of that watered-down, one-time version that came out of the Senate

 

[nittie]

The money is being embezzled but its going on thru various wars the U.S is involved in. The wars on terror, drugs, and most charities are just ways to transfer money.

 

[Lamarr]

The money is being embezzled but its going on thru various wars the U.S is involved in. The wars on terror, drugs, and most charities are just ways to transfer money.

Nittie, its waaay more sinister than embezzlement. The Bernank & The Fed Reserve is simply creating money & credit "out of thin air", and giving it to their Wall Street buddies (JP Morgan Chase, Morgan Stanley, Wells Fargo etc) so they can buy up all the REAL assets of the world and bailout their Globalist friends like AIG & GE. To add to the deception, this "cheap" money is being used to "speculate" in the market, which drives up the costs of food & energy.

This should prove, once & for all, this is NOT a "right vs. left" issue. The shit don't get any more obvious than this. We've been hoodwinked by the Banks! And when I say "We", I mean every person/nation that is in debt......black/white/hispanic/asian/arab/greek/irish/italian/portuguese etc.

Pres Obama, Do we really need another "commission" to hide the fact that the enablers at the Fed are responsible for the "greedy speculators"?

 

[QueEx]

Nittie, its waaay more sinister than embezzlement. The Bernank & The Fed Reserve is simply creating money & credit "out of thin air", and giving it to their Wall Street buddies (JP Morgan Chase, Morgan Stanley, Wells Fargo etc) so they can buy up all the REAL assets of the world and bailout their Globalist friends like AIG & GE. To add to the deception, this "cheap" money is being used to "speculate" in the market, which drives up the costs of food & energy.

This should prove, once & for all, this is NOT a "right vs. left" issue. The shit don't get any more obvious than this. We've been hoodwinked by the Banks! And when I say "We", I mean every person/nation that is in debt......black/white/hispanic/asian/arab/greek/irish/italian/portuguese etc.

Pres Obama, Do we really need another "commission" to hide the fact that the enablers at the Fed are responsible for the "greedy speculators"?

Bro, you're trying to quantify the problem, which certainly needs to be down, but don't you think the first thing to clear up is this big-ass discrepancy in amount that was loaned ???

You've called it too complicated to explain, yet, you're busy explaining everything but that huge discrepancy, which to me, is germane to understanding what happened.

Maybe it just me, but I would like to know how much was doled out; to whom it was doled AND for what purpose.

 

[nittie]

Nittie, its waaay more sinister than embezzlement. The Bernank & The Fed Reserve is simply creating money & credit "out of thin air", and giving it to their Wall Street buddies (JP Morgan Chase, Morgan Stanley, Wells Fargo etc) so they can buy up all the REAL assets of the world and bailout their Globalist friends like AIG & GE. To add to the deception, this "cheap" money is being used to "speculate" in the market, which drives up the costs of food & energy.

This should prove, once & for all, this is NOT a "right vs. left" issue. The shit don't get any more obvious than this. We've been hoodwinked by the Banks! And when I say "We", I mean every person/nation that is in debt......black/white/hispanic/asian/arab/greek/irish/italian/portuguese etc.

Pres Obama, Do we really need another "commission" to hide the fact that the enablers at the Fed are responsible for the "greedy speculators"?

You are right it's more than embezzlement and it is not a right vs left issue. I always say we need to think in terms of social class instead of political party but Que makes a good point it would be nice to have exact numbers and names without them not much can done about this.

 

[Lamarr]

Bro, you're trying to quantify the problem, which certainly needs to be down, but don't you think the first thing to clear up is this big-ass discrepancy in amount that was loaned ???

It all depends on what you deem the problem to be. On the surface I see 2 issues. 1) secret loans or "bailouts" to foreign banks & multi-national corps 2) conflict of interest waivers to employees and private contractors so they could keep investments in the same financial institutions and corporations that were given emergency loans.

Where did the $$$ come from, to loan it out? Also, without congressional approval

You've called it too complicated to explain, yet, you're busy explaining everything but that huge discrepancy, which to me, is germane to understanding what happened.

I'm arguing the principle but that 16 Trillion did get our attention. Even if I made the "concession" that it should only be quantified as 1 Trillion outstanding, the principles of the argument are still intact.

Maybe it just me, but I would like to know how much was doled out; to whom it was doled AND for what purpose.

But you admit that the total is atleast $1 Trillion, right?

The 16 Trillion represents a "rolling" total of $$$ loaned out without congressional approval

A more detailed GAO investigation is due on Oct. 18

 

[QueEx]

But you admit that the total is atleast $1 Trillion, right

Nope. I'm not admitting any such thing. What I would like to know is what are the "FACTS". It could be way more or way less.

You jumped out there without knowing the facts, quoting a right-wing webpage and trumpeting the virtues of Ron Paul with numbers you've yet to digest or understand . . .

and you want ME to ADMIT

 

[Lamarr]

<SPAN style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffff00">Loans outstanding for the emergency programs peaked at more than $1 trillion in late 2008.</span>

from your own post, you know atleast 1 Trill is outstanding.

Nope. I'm not admitting any such thing. What I would like to know is what are the "FACTS". It could be way more or way less.

You failed to comment on;
1) the money was given to foreign govts, multi-national corps etc.
2) the conflict of interest waivers to employees and contractors.
3) It was all done without congressional approval (it should show you this debt ceiling debate is a "manufactured" crisis)

QueEx, just admit the cracka was right in trying to bring some transparency to their operations. A more detailed GAO investigation into potential conflicts of interest at the Fed is due on Oct. 18 We'll learn a lot more in roughly 90 days

 

[QueEx]

No, you can't goad me into your position.

I know what I posted and I know that the record is hazy as to what was actually loaned out. I actually looked over the report and the "funny acccounting" jumped out at me. But before I would say what was/wasn't loaned, there needs to be a reconcilliation of the ledger.

After the accounting is reconciled, then it would be good to know why sums were loaned as they were. There could be good reason - - and there may not be any reason at all, but before I pass judgment on it, I'd like to know the rationale.

In the meantime, you keep overlooking it -- but you jumped all over that right-wing webpage's opinions when you thought they were Kudo's for your boy Ron -- but, LOL, as I've noticed you're quite adept at, ever since you've tried to change the subject to what I need to agree or admit to. LOL.

Maybe I'll start admitting -- when you start admitting -- that you chased that right-wing article that has just not panned out as you thought - - LOL - - as you await what you hope is vindication in October!

C'mon, fess up !

LOL

 

[Lamarr]

Apparent Conflicts Show Why More Transparency Needed At the Fed

Love him or hate him, Ron Paul, a Republican congressman from Texas and a candidate for the GOP nomination, deserves commendation for his determination to put the Federal Reserve Board under the national political microscope. Largely as a result of Paul's persistence in the House and an amendment offered by Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., the General Accounting Office was directed in the Dodd-Frank financial reform bill to examine the extent to which conflicts of interest were involved in Fed decisions during the financial crisis of 2008. The results of the GAO examination were made public last week, and they make clear that there is indeed a great need for more transparency in the operations of the U.S. central bank.

The most troublesome revelation in the GAO audit is the extent to which insiders benefited from their positions and access during the crisis. The GAO found 18 instances in which current and former members of the Fed affiliated with banks and other companies received emergency loans from the board, including General Electric, Goldman Sachs, Lehman Brothers, and JP Morgan Chase. In the case of General Electric, its CEO Jeffrey Immelt served on the New York Fed, which loaned his corporation $16 billion in emergency funding during the crisis. Those loans were made after the New York Fed consulted with General Electric officials concerning creation of a Commercial Paper Funding Facility, according to Sanders.

One of Goldman Sachs' directors, Stephen Friedman, was chairman of the board of the New York Fed. Friedman also owned substantial stock in Goldman Sachs during the same period in 2008 when the New York Fed voted to allow Goldman to operate as a commercial bank as well as an investment bank. That approval meant Goldman got access to loans from the Fed at highly favorable rates. Fed ethics guidelines prohibit a Fed governor from owning stock in a firm being considered for commercial status, but Friedman received a waiver and continued buying Goldman stock.

As for JP Morgan Chase, its chief executive officer, Jamie Dimon, was on the New York Fed board when the company got $29 billion in emergency loans. In addition, Dimon was able to secure approval from the New York Fed for an 18-month exemption for his firm from risk-based leverage and capital requirements, as well as removal of certain high-risk investments on Bear Stearns' balance sheet before JP Morgan Chase's acquisition of the troubled investment bank.

It is not necessary to agree with Paul's demand that the Fed be abolished entirely to recognize the necessity for maximum transparency in its operations that is highlighted by these conflicts of interest exposed by GAO. As presently structured, the Fed operates with virtually no oversight by Congress or the president. Even if, as its defender claim, the Fed needs to be independent to accomplish its purpose of stabilizing the U.S. economy, greater transparency will help reassure Americans that the board is operating to benefit the entire country and not just a few insiders.

 

[QueEx]

<IFRAME SRC="http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-11-28/secret-fed-loans-undisclosed-to-congress-gave-banks-13-billion-in-income.html" WIDTH=780 HEIGHT=1500>
<A HREF="http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-11-28/secret-fed-loans-undisclosed-to-congress-gave-banks-13-billion-in-income.html">link</A>

</IFRAME>


Interestingly, these guys were helped (bailed) by taxpayer funds; those taxpayer funds then allowed them to earn billions in interest; AND, these same S.O.B's turned around and lobbied/fought against regulation aimed at preventing this fiasco from re-occuring.

 

[Lamarr]

Interestingly, these guys were helped (bailed) by taxpayer funds; those taxpayer funds then allowed them to earn billions in interest; AND, these same S.O.B's turned around and lobbied/fought against regulation aimed at preventing this fiasco from re-occuring.

But........But.........But..........Ron Paul told us all this would happen!

Not only did they earn interest on that money, they used it to speculate in the commodities markets, (oil, wheat, cotton, gold, sugar etc) they also used the money to buy up smaller banks. Not only that but they had to reward themselves with fat-azz bonuses for their nefarious activities.

There is some overlap between the "Occupy" movement and the Tea Party in this regard.

 

[QueEx]

But........But.........But..........Ron Paul told us all this would happen!

Not only did they earn interest on that money, they used it to speculate in the commodities markets, (oil, wheat, cotton, gold, sugar etc) they also used the money to buy up smaller banks. Not only that but they had to reward themselves with fat-azz bonuses for their nefarious activities.

There is some overlap between the "Occupy" movement and the Tea Party in this regard.

Except, you keep omitting the "regulation" part, aren't you? - opting instead for the free market to prevent/correct the abuses.

 

[Lamarr]

Except, you keep omitting the "regulation" part, aren't you? - opting instead for the free market to prevent/correct the abuses.

Thats my point; The 'free market' can solve most of the "greed" issues today but we don't have a "free market" as long as the Fed has monopolistic control of the issuance of currency & credit. They create the $$$, with zero oversight, and give it to their bankster friends for political favors, speculation, bonuses etc.

I've advocated "intelligent" regulation but if the people truly want regulation, for whatever purpose, it must start with regulation of the Fed / money supply!

Who regulates the Fed?

 

[thoughtone]

Thats my point; The 'free market' can solve most of the "greed" issues today but we don't have a "free market" as long as the Fed has monopolistic control of the issuance of currency & credit. They create the $$$, with zero oversight, and give it to their bankster friends for political favors, speculation, bonuses etc.

I've advocated "intelligent" regulation but if the people truly want regulation, for whatever purpose, it must start with regulation of the Fed / money supply!

Who regulates the Fed?

Reimposing Glass-Steagall is less regulation and creating the free market?

 

[Lamarr]

Reimposing Glass-Steagall is less regulation and creating the free market?

Glass-Steagall? In my lifetime, we've managed to remain a productive society in spite of the regulation. Of course, reimposing G-S would lead to a more regulated market. Would it lead to a more stable financial climate? Maybe. We got comfortable in trusting the banks were doing the 'right thing' and the people got burned. We can't neglect our responsibilities as citizens. We have to do our own due diligence and question what the banks are doing with their deposits.

Who regulates the Fed?

 

[thoughtone]

Glass-Steagall? In my lifetime, we've managed to remain a productive society in spite of the regulation. Of course, reimposing G-S would lead to a more regulated market. Would it lead to a more stable financial climate? Maybe. We got comfortable in trusting the banks were doing the 'right thing' and the people got burned. We can't neglect our responsibilities as citizens. We have to do our own due diligence and question what the banks are doing with their deposits.

Who regulates the Fed?

Glass-Steagall? In my lifetime, we've managed to remain a productive society in spite of the regulation

More of your nonsensical bullshit.

 

[Lamarr]

More of your nonsensical bullshit.

So which is it Thought1, Did you support Clinton's repeal of G-S?

Who regulates the Fed?

 

[thoughtone]

So which is it Thought1, Did you support Clinton's repeal of G-S?

Who regulates the Fed?

Did you support Reagan's deregulation of the financial industry?

 

[Lamarr]

Did you support Reagan's deregulation of the financial industry?

Bruh, I was 2

Who regulates the Fed?

 

[thoughtone]

Bruh, I was 2

Who regulates the Fed?

No one.