Debunked: The Fed "gave away" $16 Trillion, and $2.5 Trillion to CitiGroup

Lots of things get "told" to congress - the fact that something gets told to congress does not mean it is true.

And they were NOT told "there will be martial law" - they were told there COULD be martial law - stop changing the story!!

Well whatever they were told, true or not and neither you or I was actually privvy to how it was phrased or delivered, it rattled them enough to pass the TARP. If a gang of youths tell you to give them your phone or you COULD wind up dead, I suspect you are likely to give them the phone! I suppose it could be defined as a THREAT or a WARNING, maybe even TERRORISM or BLACKMAIL, depending on how you choose to view it.


And it did not take a rocket scientist to be able to predict that things might degenerate that far - if the banking system collapsed there would be 10's of millions of unemployed Americans looking to take it out on someone.

that is called STATING THE BLEEDIN' OBVIOUS.

Or do you think the collapse of the US Banking system would have heralded a tiem of prosperity and peaceful co-existance among all mankind???

Actually, STATING THE BLEEDIN' OBVIOUS, there are 10's of millions of unemployed and homeless Americans, (millions without even basic sanitation or water, stuck in tent cities) looking to have people/Banksters/politicians held to account.

It is a matter of public record that the banking system did collapse, which is why we have the above scenario. The reason it collapsed was because Banksters robbed the people of their wealth through a complicated fraud. None of those guilty have been charged, despite syphoning off billions into shady accounts.

Also, AFAIK, congress had to authorise the $700 million because it involved the US Govt actually buying shares in the companies didn't it? teh Trilions of $$'s in loans did not invovle buying shares, and the increase in the money supply was already authorised by the QE legislation.

So, if the Fed, as evidenced by the 'imposed/forced Audit', only needed to loan the funds, which they had already been doing since 2007 at least and they could create the funds from thin air, why bother going to the huge trouble of buying shares through the highly tumultuous creation of TARP?

Sure the Feds didn't want the loans made public - but they were unable to keep them secret for very long at all. I don't know why they wanted them kept secret - but I find it ironic that you are blaming a Govt conspiracy for trying to keep the secret when it was a Govt ofice that revealed it!!

Without Ron Paul, this would still be entirely secret but fair enough you had the graciousness to accept they tried to keep it secret. Does that amount to a conspiracy? Can't be, this thread says clearly it is 'debunked'.

Haag said Wanta was arrested in Switzerland in 1993 for attempting an $81 million bank fraud. Wanta claimed diplomatic immunity in that case, contending he was the Somalian ambassador to Canada. The Swiss deported him to the United States, where he was arrested in New York on the Wisconsin tax fraud charge.

Sounds normal. Somalian ambassador to Canada arrested and deported to U.S. on his Somalian diplomatic passport, (being the only passport he possessed.) Nothing wrong here then??????? Wonder how it would pan out with the Swiss arresting and extraditing a U.S. diplomat to Somalia

http://wtsnb.blogspot.co.uk/

The Swiss said they didn't believe his story about being an American covert intelligence operative. They decided the Ambassador was living in a fantasy world and committed him for psychiatric evaluation where they proceeded to pump him full of drugs. That they "didn't believe his intelligence involvement" is impossible since the blue nylon bag Wanta carried was filled with communiques with the FBI. In their November 17, 2000 Tribunal Decision from the Lausanne Courts, the Swiss admit finding 73 messages between Wanta and the FBI. They knew. The Swiss denial is not credible.. but it provided a good excuse for them to keep Wanta behind bars while they examined and evaluated the intelligence data contained in that blue bag. Remember, Wanta was told to take those records to Switzerland with him by RAC William LeCates of Nashville, his supervisor when working within the U.S. Treasury Department.

Thus, the Swiss paved the way for the Wisconsin strategy to get Wanta committed to their mental institution.

Concurrently, Wisconsin gave the Swiss a payback when they put on this farce of a trial to find Wanta guilty of a non-existent crime. The Swiss Tribunal Decision, dated 17 November 2000 (strangely, seven years to the day the Swiss returned Ambassador Wanta to the United States to have all charges against hin dismissed in a New York Federal District Court), justified their imprisonment of Ambassador Wanta in 1993 by saying he was, after all, convicted of criminal tax matters in Wisconsin in 1995. What does that have to do with holding him in a Swiss prison in 1993? The Tribunal Decision (about which you'll hear more later) had no charges to justify holding Ambassador Wanta in prison for over four months. At the end of the Tribunal Decision they made a weak effort to justify their actions by saying "Well, Wisconsin found him guilty of non-payment of income taxes in 1995." Each court washed the other's hands.

As an aside but related, looks like Germany is about to try to exert its dominance at an unprecedented level:

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2012/oct2012/eusu-o18.shtml

Two days before the EU Summit, which started today in Brussels, German Finance Minister Wolfgang Schäuble unveiled a new plan for a political union of the euro zone countries. Schäuble explained his conception above the Indian Ocean, to a group of selected journalists accompanying him on his return from Singapore.

Central to his plan are wide-ranging powers for the European Commissioner for Monetary Affairs, an office presently held by the Finn Olli Rehn. In future, the Commissioner for Monetary Affairs must be “feared worldwide just as the Commissioner responsible for competition is today”, Schäuble said. He should have the power to overrule a country’s budget, even when it has been agreed by a national parliament and without needing to consult the other commission members.

According to Schäuble, the Commissioner for Monetary Affairs should also be able to unilaterally introduce deficit proceedings, or apply for sanctions for countries which overshoot EU debt limits.

Schäuble’s proposal means that euro zone members would give up their sovereignty on budget issues to Brussels, where a Commissioner for Austerity would lay down the law without any democratic control or legitimacy. All euro zone member countries would have to submit to strict austerity guidelines like Greece, Ireland and Portugal, who have applied for support from the euro rescue fund.

Since Germany sets the tone in Brussels on matters of finance and is the most insistent on the need for austerity measures, this amounts to Berlin dictating the budget policies of euro zone member states

For all the differences, Schäuble’s plan and the plan of the four presidents agree on the fundamental question: the crisis must be resolved on the backs of working people. Both plans mean handing over ever more massive sums to the banks and financial investors, which are then recouped through cutting back on social expenditure, layoffs and wage cuts.

Both plans also mean that the vision of French President Charles de Gaulle of a “united Europe from the Atlantic to the Urals” will be buried for good. They rely on a core group of members of the euro zone (plus perhaps Poland and the Czech Republic) grouped around Germany and France, while the non-euro countries, and especially Britain, will only play a peripheral role

Unregistered said:

Well whatever they were told, true or not and neither you or I was actually privvy to how it was phrased or delivered, it rattled them enough to pass the TARP. If a gang of youths tell you to give them your phone or you COULD wind up dead, I suspect you are likely to give them the phone! I suppose it could be defined as a THREAT or a WARNING, maybe even TERRORISM or BLACKMAIL, depending on how you choose to view it.

Click to expand...

Indeed - it could also be viewed as making a decision with all the available information as to the possible consequences should you not make it.
Possible consequences of not making a decision might be threatening, but not stating them because they are threatening seems liek a poor way to help ensure the best decision making!

And it did not take a rocket scientist to be able to predict that things might degenerate that far - if the banking system collapsed there would be 10's of millions of unemployed Americans looking to take it out on someone.

that is called STATING THE BLEEDIN' OBVIOUS.

Or do you think the collapse of the US Banking system would have heralded a tiem of prosperity and peaceful co-existance among all mankind???

Click to expand...

Actually, STATING THE BLEEDIN' OBVIOUS, there are 10's of millions of unemployed and homeless Americans, (millions without even basic sanitation or water, stuck in tent cities) looking to have people/Banksters/politicians held to account.

Click to expand...

And that is WITHOUT the banking system collapsing.

Howe many more would you be prepared to put in that position by allowing the banking system to collapse?

BTW I have not problem whatsoever holding people to account - be they bankers or politicians.

It is a matter of public record that the banking system did collapse, which is why we have the above scenario.

Click to expand...

It is a matter of public record that he banking system did NOT collapse, because it got bailed out.

The reason it collapsed was because Banksters robbed the people of their wealth through a complicated fraud. None of those guilty have been charged, despite syphoning off billions into shady accounts.

Click to expand...

that is arguably (if emotively) the reason it would have collapsed had it not been bailed out.

Also, AFAIK, congress had to authorise the $700 million because it involved the US Govt actually buying shares in the companies didn't it? teh Trilions of $$'s in loans did not invovle buying shares, and the increase in the money supply was already authorised by the QE legislation.

Click to expand...

So, if the Fed, as evidenced by the 'imposed/forced Audit', only needed to loan the funds, which they had already been doing since 2007 at least and they could create the funds from thin air, why bother going to the huge trouble of buying shares through the highly tumultuous creation of TARP?

Click to expand...

Because that was what was required to do the bailout. Short term loans were never going to achieve it.

Sure the Feds didn't want the loans made public - but they were unable to keep them secret for very long at all. I don't know why they wanted them kept secret - but I find it ironic that you are blaming a Govt conspiracy for trying to keep the secret when it was a Govt ofice that revealed it!!

Click to expand...

Without Ron Paul, this would still be entirely secret but fair enough you had the graciousness to accept they tried to keep it secret. Does that amount to a conspiracy? Can't be, this thread says clearly it is 'debunked'.

Click to expand...

What this thread has debunked is that the Feds "gave away $16 trillion", $2.5 trillion of it to Citigroup.

please try to get the basic facts right.

Also your posts will be easier to read if you use the quote function.

Unregistered said:

As an aside but related, looks like Germany is about to try to exert its dominance at an unprecedented level:

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2012/oct2012/eusu-o18.shtml

Click to expand...

Yep - something like this has to happen if there is to be a single curency - Europe has already shown that national and even state/provincial governments are too untrustworthy to retain sovereignty AND be part of a single currency. Even France and Germany broke the debt limits imposed as a requirement to join the Euro - and one of the reasons Greece, Portugal, Italy thought they could get away with it was that Germany and France were not held to account.

These days currencies are backed by the ability of a soverign entity to raise income to support them - with multiple sovereign entities, and incentives for the poorest of them to "fudge the books" the current European crisis is sure to happen again.

On a historical note, the term "Tsar" ultimately derives from "Caesar", as does the term "Kaiser". A better transliteration of the original Russian is Czar.

"Caeser" is the root for the word for Emperor and usually Empress in many languages all eth way from Iceland (Keisari & Keisaraynja) to Indonesia (Kaisar)!

Sorry about the quote function, I don't seem to be able to get the hang of it which is a bit of a nuisance.

However, to put it in a nutshell, it appears we are heading headlong for the NWO, World Government here. I was very sceptical of the NWO conspiracy theory at first but seems I was wrong.

I do not understand why anyone should welcome this as history shows the peoples/consumers/workers are used, abused and slaughtered on a massive scale. It is like Stalin, Hitler, Mao Tse Tung, Darth Vader all rolled into one.

People who deny this is the likely result are denying historical fact.

Please do not protest that you live in a Democracy, you clearly do not. You live in a Corprocracy where politicians are controlled by the Corporations who finance their Election Campaigns. Obama is hardly any different than Bush, Obama has virtually identical 'advisors' so the people in pwer are the same. Greenspan, Geitner, Bernanke, Goldman Sachs, Rothschild, JPM, HSBC etc to mention a few.

See also http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...tion-of-silver-markets-set-to-be-dropped.html

and http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2012/jul/21/global-elite-tax-offshore-economy

Lol. I don't see any of them in the dock like Wanta!

http://www.collegehumor.com/video/6633406/we-are-the-1

The above has it about right We Are The 1%.

The basis of the banking bailout was supposed to be a 'trickle down effect'. Instead we have seen a 'trickle up effect' where the rich get richer and richer and richer and everyone else gets poorer and poorer and poorer

Waging Nonviolence

http://www.occupy.com/article/vets-war-words-it-our-duty-dissent

Now as we head back to the heart of political corruption, Washington D.C., we will march with our brothers and sisters against this mockery of democracy that is the presidential election. As long as it takes millions of dollars to become a lawmaker, politicians can only represent the interests of millionaires. All roads lead to Wall Street, but they end in D.C. on November 5, 2012.

That day I will cast my vote, a vote for nobody. Voting is one of the most powerful tools we have, yet this election is a cruel joke on the American people; casting a vote for nobody allows you to participate in the electoral process while demonstrating your contempt for the system it embodies. Soon I will be arrested for standing up and speaking out.

I will go with them peacefully, but not quietly.

MikeC said:

Indeed - it could also be viewed as making a decision with all the available information as to the possible consequences should you not make it.
Possible consequences of not making a decision might be threatening, but not stating them because they are threatening seems liek a poor way to help ensure the best decision making!



And that is WITHOUT the banking system collapsing.

Howe many more would you be prepared to put in that position by allowing the banking system to collapse?

BTW I have not problem whatsoever holding people to account - be they bankers or politicians.




It is a matter of public record that he banking system did NOT collapse, because it got bailed out.



that is arguably (if emotively) the reason it would have collapsed had it not been bailed out.



Because that was what was required to do the bailout. Short term loans were never going to achieve it.



What this thread has debunked is that the Feds "gave away $16 trillion", $2.5 trillion of it to Citigroup.

please try to get the basic facts right.

Also your posts will be easier to read if you use the quote function.

Click to expand...

You are just playing with semantics, (which I agree is important but depending on 'intent' can be a very negative thing)

The banking system collapsed, along with other elements of the giant Ponzi Scheme. It was resurrected by the bailout but that does not mean it did not collapse because it did.

You say 'What else could have been done to save the economy but bail them out'. I say they should have been allowed to stay collapsed and the people who were behind it (and earned trillions from it) should have been prosecuted and their massive proceeds from the fraud confiscated.

Deregulation is a crock of shit. It simply means there are no laws or safeguards, which is why the people did not get prosecuted. Simply, they had lobbied away any laws which prevented them from engaging in what was used to be illegal. That is their power which is why you are governed by corporations and not the Government.

All that has happened is, the same people are empowered to do the same all over again which is precisely what they have continued and will continue to do. They do not even make a secret of it anymore, they are so full of themselves they flaunt what they do and gloat at how clever they are.

Mark my words: After the election, (it matters not who wins), there will be an even bigger crash than the last one.

Greece and Spain should pull out of the Euro and go it alone like Iceland, (who are now doing well).

Banks should be allowed to fail and charges should be brought where there is corruption. Libor, money laundering, false selling of products which are toxic =FRAUD.

The 99% should hold the 1% to account

Unregistered said:

Mark my words: After the election, (it matters not who wins), there will be an even bigger crash than the last one.

Click to expand...

If you knew that, then you could make a vast amount of money by shorting the market. Borrow everything you can and short the Dow. You'll double your money.

Unless you are wrong, of course. So few people will put their money where their mouth is.

Unregistered said:

You are just playing with semantics, (which I agree is important but depending on 'intent' can be a very negative thing)

The banking system collapsed, along with other elements of the giant Ponzi Scheme. It was resurrected by the bailout but that does not mean it did not collapse because it did.

Click to expand...

And you accuse me of playing with semantics??

How many people had their accounts frozen? How many banks went to the wall and people lost all their money that was deposited with them??

You say 'What else could have been done to save the economy but bail them out'. I say they should have been allowed to stay collapsed and the people who were behind it (and earned trillions from it) should have been prosecuted and their massive proceeds from the fraud confiscated.

Click to expand...

Well that WOULD have been a collapse - depositors would have lost their money - but it did not happen.

Deregulation is a crock of shit. It simply means there are no laws or safeguards, which is why the people did not get prosecuted. Simply, they had lobbied away any laws which prevented them from engaging in what was used to be illegal. That is their power which is why you are governed by corporations and not the Government.

Click to expand...

I agree

All that has happened is, the same people are empowered to do the same all over again which is precisely what they have continued and will continue to do. They do not even make a secret of it anymore, they are so full of themselves they flaunt what they do and gloat at how clever they are.

Mark my words: After the election, (it matters not who wins), there will be an even bigger crash than the last one.

Click to expand...

OK - we'll see.....

Greece and Spain should pull out of the Euro and go it alone like Iceland, (who are now doing well).

Click to expand...

Iceland are doing well because their banks were, ultimately, not important - when they collapsed it did not actually cause anything else to collapse.

Iceland was also never in the Euro, and the Krona took a hammering - losing about 2/3rds its value.

Leaving the Euro will not solve the problems that Greece, Portugal and Greece have - they spent more than they earned, and like you or me they now have to pay it back. If they leave the Euro they will have national currencies that no-one trusts - this may actually be good for trade in the short term, but it will not stop austerity. The Euro certainly has problems - but they are analogous to States in the USA being allowed to print $$'s without having to worry about the national situation.

Banks should be allowed to fail and charges should be brought where there is corruption. Libor, money laundering, false selling of products which are toxic =FRAUD.

Click to expand...

Indeed they are - but Govt's bailing out banks is not fraud - and saved millions and millions of ordinary people from losing their entire wealth.

The 99% should hold the 1% to account

Click to expand...

The 99% were very happy to take loans on property that did not make commercial sense.....

Mick said:

If you knew that, then you could make a vast amount of money by shorting the market. Borrow everything you can and short the Dow. You'll double your money.

Unless you are wrong, of course. So few people will put their money where their mouth is.

Click to expand...

I defo put my money where my mouth is and I'll do a lot better than doubling it as well. But its not a question of 'I'm all right Jack', its about what is right and wrong. About Governments being for the people and people not having to be suspicious of everything they do. People have better things to do than have to worry about conspiracies.

MikeC said:

And you accuse me of playing with semantics??

How many people had their accounts frozen? How many banks went to the wall and people lost all their money that was deposited with them??



Well that WOULD have been a collapse - depositors would have lost their money - but it did not happen.



I agree



OK - we'll see.....



Iceland are doing well because their banks were, ultimately, not important - when they collapsed it did not actually cause anything else to collapse.

Iceland was also never in the Euro, and the Krona took a hammering - losing about 2/3rds its value.

Leaving the Euro will not solve the problems that Greece, Portugal and Greece have - they spent more than they earned, and like you or me they now have to pay it back. If they leave the Euro they will have national currencies that no-one trusts - this may actually be good for trade in the short term, but it will not stop austerity. The Euro certainly has problems - but they are analogous to States in the USA being allowed to print $$'s without having to worry about the national situation.



Indeed they are - but Govt's bailing out banks is not fraud - and saved millions and millions of ordinary people from losing their entire wealth.



The 99% were very happy to take loans on property that did not make commercial sense.....

Click to expand...

Loads of people lost all there money. They shouldn't have had their money been properly segregated. Banks should segregate customer money so that even if they go to the wall, customer money is protected.

http://www.channel4updates.com/the-long-term-effects-of-mf-global-on-commodity-trading/

The collapse of MF Capital has familiar elements of a bad who-done-it mystery novel with an unsatisfactory ending that shouts “Don’t blame me!”

MF Capital taught commodity investors that their money is not safe when managed by Washington politicians and bureaucrats. A loophole allowed MF Capital to snatch about $1 billion of their customer’s money and use it in risky bets on Eurozone debts. The Commodity Futures Trading Commission, which is tasked with overseeing commodity and futures trading, claims to have reprimanded those taking advantage of the loophole. (REPRIMANDED?)

Commodity Trading
Segregation of Accounts Failed

The CME Group, the largest exchange for futures and commodities, told The New York Times business editor that it had warned four firms that it regulates about their use of the loophole, which allows firms to calculate an alternative sum of customer’s assets.

The Time’s editor wrote that rules in place since the Great Depression required that firms segregate customer assets. The dollars set aside would be equal to an amount necessary to pay off customers’ accounts if a brokerage firm closed or went under. Under law, customers would get back the total amount of their assets.

In 1987, however, the Commodity Commission wrote up a different set of rules that applied to foreign options and futures deals. One of these rules changed the amount of money required to be set aside on accounts of customers who were engaged in foreign exchange trades. This alternate rule allowed lower levels of segregated cash. In essence, this meant that segregating customer’s accounts held as cash and securities was no longer necessary.

How this new rule got slipped into the Federal Register remains a source of mystery and speculation.

You claim there was no 'Crash' because of the Bailouts. This is totally untrue, see:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o..._during_the_2007–2012_global_financial_crisis

http://www.senseoncents.com/2012/04/mf-global-update-the-black-hole-in-a-dark-cave/

In the final days of securities dealer MF Global — ultimately to the loss of $1.6 billion in customer funds.

http://www.heritage.org/index/country/iceland

Iceland’s economic freedom score is 70.9, making its economy the 27th freest in the 2012 Index. Its overall score is 2.7 points better than last year due to notable improvements in monetary freedom and the management of public finance. Iceland is ranked 13th out of 43 countries in the Europe region, and its overall score remains above the world and regional averages.

Achieving the third largest score improvement in the 2012 Index, Iceland is recovering strongly from its recent economic travail and has regained its status as one of the “mostly free” economies in the Index. The quality of the legal framework remains among the world’s highest, providing effective protection of property rights. The rule of law is well maintained, and a strong tradition of minimum tolerance for corruption is firmly in place.

Iceland already enjoys EU-related benefits that include free trade and movement of capital, labor, goods, and services within the EU, as well as membership in the Schengen zone (25 European countries with no internal travel barriers).

Private property is well protected. The constitution provides for an independent judiciary, and trials are generally public and fair. Iceland is one of the few countries with efficient, property rights–based fisheries management. Isolated cases of corruption are not an obstacle to foreign investment. Iceland’s 1,000-year history of parliamentary government has encouraged the institutionalization of accountability and transparency.

As for 99% were happy to take the money, well of course they were; it is the classic con trick, offer an amazing deal to lure the mark into the sting. You can expect this on the small scale on the streets by gangsters and con artists. This has moved up to dizzying heights where it is at at National Level and Government sanctioned. Also it uses National Advertising devised by highly skilled psychologists to draw the marks/public in.

It is 'legal' because it is Government sanctioned. That does not make it right or moral. Is that the society you want?

At least with the U.K banking system, which is entirely corrupt as well, legislation has allowed people to reclaim monies on mis sold products.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2010/sep/04/mis-sold-ppi-how-to-claim

http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/reclaim/bank-charges

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/investing/article-1680133/Mis-selling-What-need-do.html

HSBC has become the latest High Street name to become embroiled in a mis-selling scandal, with the bank fined a record £10.5million and ordered to pay £29.3million in compensation after mis-selling investment bonds to elderly customers in care.

Do you seriously think it ok to banks etc to mis sell complex schemes to people who have no idea what they are being sold and then claim it is 'their fault for buying it'?

Yet another example and there are loads more out there.

Irmgard Greiner, 92, trusted Commerzbank with all her savings for over six decades. Then the bank recommended a lucrative investment -- for a duration of 20 years. The retired teacher found out too late she can't access the money until she turns 108. Now she is waging a battle to regain control of her assets

http://www.spiegel.de/international...-pensioner-takes-on-commerzbank-a-815230.html

Was this ok too? I think not and I hope you do too.

Seems like some attempt at restitution are being made, although no criminal charges obviously. Kinda like a robber being caught and having to give back the money/watch/twinky/whatever and thats the end of the matter.

http://www.marketwire.com/press-rel...shore-havens-spire-law-officially-1647025.htm

NEW YORK, NY--(Marketwire - Apr 23, 2012) - In a lawsuit alleged to involve the largest money laundering network in United States history, Spire Law Group, LLP -- on behalf of home owners across the Country -- has filed a mass tort action in the Supreme Court of New York, County of Kings. Home owners across the country have sued every major bank servicer and their subsidiaries -- formed in countries known as havens for money laundering such as the Cayman Islands, the Isle of Man, Luxembourg and Malaysia -- alleging that while the Obama Administration was publicly encouraging loan modifications for home owners, it was privately ratifying the formation of these shell companies in violation of the United States Patriot Act, and State and Federal law. The case further alleges that through these obscure foreign companies, Bank of America, J.P. Morgan, Wells Fargo Bank, Citibank, Citigroup, One West Bank, and numerous other federally chartered banks stole hundreds of millions of dollars of home owners' money during the last decade and then laundered it through offshore companies. The complaint, Index No. 500827, was filed by Spire Law Group, LLP, and several of the Firm's affiliates and partners across the United States.

MikeC said:

What this thread has debunked is that the Feds "gave away $16 trillion", $2.5 trillion of it to Citigroup.

please try to get the basic facts right.

Also your posts will be easier to read if you use the quote function.

Click to expand...

The basic fact is that without the inclusion/preface of the word 'away', you could not legitimately attach 'debunked' to this thread. The 'away' implies/connotes it was never returned, when evidently it was.

However, every other aspect is proven true; the Feds "gave $16 trillion", $2.5 trillion of it to Citigroup, over a number of years in the form of short term loans which Citigroup and other banks earned trillions of dollars interest on and I may add senior execs paid themselves billions in bonus' as a result.

So once again we come down to semantics

But since the money was in form of loans that were paid back, and interest was paid on those loans, "gave" is not correct either.

I think YOU are down to semantics because your premise that this was illegal, or a cash giveaway of some sort are shot to pieces and you just can't let go and face the facts.

Unregistered said:

Loads of people lost all there money. They shouldn't have had their money been properly segregated. Banks should segregate customer money so that even if they go to the wall, customer money is protected.

Click to expand...

I agree that loads of people lost their money - through investments into brokerages and the like.

http://www.channel4updates.com/the-long-term-effects-of-mf-global-on-commodity-trading/

The collapse of MF Capital has familiar elements of a bad who-done-it mystery novel with an unsatisfactory ending that shouts “Don’t blame me!”

MF Capital taught commodity investors that their money is not safe when managed by Washington politicians and bureaucrats. A loophole allowed MF Capital to snatch about $1 billion of their customer’s money and use it in risky bets on Eurozone debts. The Commodity Futures Trading Commission, which is tasked with overseeing commodity and futures trading, claims to have reprimanded those taking advantage of the loophole. (REPRIMANDED?)

Commodity Trading
Segregation of Accounts Failed

The CME Group, the largest exchange for futures and commodities, told The New York Times business editor that it had warned four firms that it regulates about their use of the loophole, which allows firms to calculate an alternative sum of customer’s assets.

Click to expand...

Exactly - investment into trading companies - why do you introduce this, which occured AFTER teh credit crisis, and was NOT part of the bailout or the $16 trilion??

I am amazed that you thnik this supports your "case" - had there been no bail out this is what would have probably happened to every bank in het USA - and you seem to think that is a good idea??!!

You claim there was no 'Crash' because of the Bailouts.

Click to expand...

I do not claim there was no "crash" - why are you changing the words?

I said there was no COLLAPSE - if you do not understand the difference then you need to study more.

But I think you dio understand het difference and you are deliberately chaning my wording - playing your favourite semantics - because you do not like facing the facts again.

In the final days of securities dealer MF Global — ultimately to the loss of $1.6 billion in customer funds.

Click to expand...

MF Global - commodity trading - not a bank! That is why they weer able to offer higher returns - and with higher returns comes higher risks.

Iceland’s economic freedom score is 70.9, making its economy the 27th freest in the 2012 Index. Its overall score is 2.7 points better than last year due to notable improvements in monetary freedom and the management of public finance. Iceland is ranked 13th out of 43 countries in the Europe region, and its overall score remains above the world and regional averages.

Achieving the third largest score improvement in the 2012 Index, Iceland is recovering strongly from its recent economic travail and has regained its status as one of the “mostly free” economies in the Index. The quality of the legal framework remains among the world’s highest, providing effective protection of property rights. The rule of law is well maintained, and a strong tradition of minimum tolerance for corruption is firmly in place.

Iceland already enjoys EU-related benefits that include free trade and movement of capital, labor, goods, and services within the EU, as well as membership in the Schengen zone (25 European countries with no internal travel barriers).

Private property is well protected. The constitution provides for an independent judiciary, and trials are generally public and fair. Iceland is one of the few countries with efficient, property rights–based fisheries management. Isolated cases of corruption are not an obstacle to foreign investment. Iceland’s 1,000-year history of parliamentary government has encouraged the institutionalization of accountability and transparency.

Click to expand...

And your point? as I said - Iceland is a small country and what happens there is relatively unimportant on the global scale - THEY could afford their banks to fail and know that there were plenty of others who would take up the "slack". They still required hundreds of millions in loans - from Russia for example. Had the US banking system COLLAPSED where would the US economy have secured loans from to the tune of moer than 16 Trillion?? China? (because $16 Trillion was required when it did NOT collapse...)

As for 99% were happy to take the money, well of course they were; it is the classic con trick, offer an amazing deal to lure the mark into the sting. You can expect this on the small scale on the streets by gangsters and con artists.

Click to expand...

How about home owners?

This has moved up to dizzying heights where it is at at National Level and Government sanctioned. Also it uses National Advertising devised by highly skilled psychologists to draw the marks/public in.

It is 'legal' because it is Government sanctioned. That does not make it right or moral. Is that the society you want?

Click to expand...

Legal is, by definition, nthing more than in accordance with the law. It is nothing to do with "right or moral" except by conincidence. And there has never been any human society where it has been otherwise - dishonesty is rampant and endemic - to wit your own attempts to put words into my mouth on this page, and trying to introduce to demise of a private investment/brokerage company to a discussion about the banking crisis!

The only way to ensure everything is "right and moral" is to wipe out humanity.

MikeC said:

But since the money was in form of loans that were paid back, and interest was paid on those loans, "gave" is not correct either.

I think YOU are down to semantics because your premise that this was illegal, or a cash giveaway of some sort are shot to pieces and you just can't let go and face the facts.

Click to expand...

Are you seriously trying to argue that the term: "My bank gave me a short term loan" is in some way grammatically or semantically incorrect. If you bothered to read I could not have been clearer as I stated 'gave as a short term loan.

I have already stated it was not illegal. I.E If Government passes a law allowing the military to intern 50% of Americans in FEMA camps, it will not be illegal as the Government changed the law to make it legal.

Apparently it is not illegal for the CIA to have thousands of assassins roaming the world taking out 'terrorists' whatever they are, because GWB authorised it by identifying them generically as 'combatants'.

I said it was wrong, immoral, a conspiracy, (because 'they' tried to hide it and 'they' (it takes two or more people talking about something for it to be a conspiracy) and they would have succeeded in hiding it if it had not been for Ron Paul forcing it out into 'the public' lol on blogs, little discussion boards and don't forget the WSJ. Jeeez I bet Fox CNN BBC Bloomberg Reuters et al were chafing at the bit to get the story out... that's sarcasm so there is no misunderstanding

MikeC said:

I agree that loads of people lost their money - through investments into brokerages and the like.


Exactly - investment into trading companies - why do you introduce this, which occured AFTER teh credit crisis, and was NOT part of the bailout or the $16 trilion??

I am amazed that you thnik this supports your "case" - had there been no bail out this is what would have probably happened to every bank in het USA - and you seem to think that is a good idea??!!



I do not claim there was no "crash" - why are you changing the words?

I said there was no COLLAPSE - if you do not understand the difference then you need to study more.

But I think you dio understand het difference and you are deliberately chaning my wording - playing your favourite semantics - because you do not like facing the facts again.




MF Global - commodity trading - not a bank! That is why they weer able to offer higher returns - and with higher returns comes higher risks.



And your point? as I said - Iceland is a small country and what happens there is relatively unimportant on the global scale - THEY could afford their banks to fail and know that there were plenty of others who would take up the "slack". They still required hundreds of millions in loans - from Russia for example. Had the US banking system COLLAPSED where would the US economy have secured loans from to the tune of moer than 16 Trillion?? China? (because $16 Trillion was required when it did NOT collapse...)



How about home owners?



Legal is, by definition, nthing more than in accordance with the law. It is nothing to do with "right or moral" except by conincidence. And there has never been any human society where it has been otherwise - dishonesty is rampant and endemic - to wit your own attempts to put words into my mouth on this page, and trying to introduce to demise of a private investment/brokerage company to a discussion about the banking crisis!

The only way to ensure everything is "right and moral" is to wipe out humanity.

Click to expand...

Brokerages, insurance, mortgage lenders etc are all part of the 'Banking System' It is ALL CORRUPT and needs to be challenged and rectified.

After the crash? What are you talking about, don't you realise its ongoing?

Mortgages were mis-sold on a grand scale. People were misled and lied too to get them to take the money. People were cold called and enticed into taking loans on a MASSIVE SCALE, "wouldn't it be nice if....", "Don't worry about your credit rating we can get round that it will be fine..." "Leave it to us we can inflate the figures so you qualify..." Did you even bother reading the links I provided about how people were mis-sold complex financial stuff. The 'systemic fraud by banks and mortgage lenders falsifying incomes was well known and documented.

Here is just one of them again, I suggest you go back and read the rest: http://www.marketwire.com/press-rel...shore-havens-spire-law-officially-1647025.htm

NEW YORK, NY--(Marketwire - Apr 23, 2012) - In a lawsuit alleged to involve the largest money laundering network in United States history, Spire Law Group, LLP -- on behalf of home owners across the Country -- has filed a mass tort action in the Supreme Court of New York, County of Kings. Home owners across the country have sued every major bank servicer and their subsidiaries -- formed in countries known as havens for money laundering such as the Cayman Islands, the Isle of Man, Luxembourg and Malaysia -- alleging that while the Obama Administration was publicly encouraging loan modifications for home owners, it was privately ratifying the formation of these shell companies in violation of the United States Patriot Act, and State and Federal law. The case further alleges that through these obscure foreign companies, Bank of America, J.P. Morgan, Wells Fargo Bank, Citibank, Citigroup, One West Bank, and numerous other federally chartered banks stole hundreds of millions of dollars of home owners' money during the last decade and then laundered it through offshore companies. The complaint, Index No. 500827, was filed by Spire Law Group, LLP, and several of the Firm's affiliates and partners across the United States.

Millions of people have wound up losing their homes, many of which had been in the family for generations and which had hitherto been fully paid off until the owners were pressured into taking out loans which they could either not afford at the time or which after the collapse/crash, they could not afford. They were mis-sold mortgages!

2013 will very likely see a re run the way things are going

I mean... the links I have provided you with are horrendous and show corruption at the highest level and all you can say is ... 'it wasn't a collapse, it was a crash, everythings ok now because of the bailout and there was nothing criminal'. Have you any idea how dumb that sounds?

Unregistered said:

The basic fact is that without the inclusion/preface of the word 'away', you could not legitimately attach 'debunked' to this thread. The 'away' implies/connotes it was never returned, when evidently it was.

However, every other aspect is proven true; the Feds "gave $16 trillion", $2.5 trillion of it to Citigroup, over a number of years in the form of short term loans which Citigroup and other banks earned trillions of dollars interest on and I may add senior execs paid themselves billions in bonus' as a result.

So once again we come down to semantics

Click to expand...

Actually the OP misstates the case in the title: "given away"

The quote was: $16,000,000,000,000.00 had been "secretly given out" to US banks...

Which is correct. It was secret and it was given out.

So 'Debunk', Debunked.

Unregistered said:

Actually the OP misstates the case in the title: "given away"

The quote was: $16,000,000,000,000.00 had been "secretly given out" to US banks...

Which is correct. It was secret and it was given out.

So 'Debunk', Debunked.

Click to expand...

I guess I picked the wrong story to quote. There are plenty that say "gave away":

http://beforeitsnews.com/obama-birt...p-morgan-stanley-bofa-and-others-2445054.html
[bunk]Federal reserve secretly gave away 16 trillion $s. Largest recipients: Citigroup, Morgan Stanley, BofA and others[/bunk]

http://electnovak.com/Fiscal_Responsibility.html
[bunk]The Federal Reserve secretly gave away $16,000,000,000,000 (16 trillion) of our money to both domestic and foreign banks the world over between December 2007 and June 2010. The Federal Reserve (neither “federal” nor a “reserve” but instead a private organization) secretly bailed out many of the world’s banks, corporations and governments without any public oversight while we Americans were losing our jobs and homes.[/bunk]

http://thomasquinlan.com/forget-debt-ceilings-fed-gave-away-16-trillio
[bunk] Forget Debt Ceilings! Fed Gave Away $16 TRILLION![/bunk]

This is kind of an example of "headline creep" the same story, but as it gets passed around the headlines get more and more inaccurate.

Unregistered said:

Brokerages, insurance, mortgage lenders etc are all part of the 'Banking System'

Click to expand...

Only if you want to use semantics to make it so.

In the real world they are part of the FINANCIAL, but they are specifically NOT banks when it comes to legislation and hte powers they have, although it has to be said that many banks in the US had sub-entities that also carried out these activites and that was part of the problem there.

After the crash? What are you talking about, don't you realise its ongoing?

Click to expand...

You should try to separate the action from its downstream effects.

Mortgages were mis-sold on a grand scale. People were misled and lied too to get them to take the money. People were cold called and enticed into taking loans on a MASSIVE SCALE, "wouldn't it be nice if....", "Don't worry about your credit rating we can get round that it will be fine..." "Leave it to us we can inflate the figures so you qualify..." Did you even bother reading the links I provided about how people were mis-sold complex financial stuff. The 'systemic fraud by banks and mortgage lenders falsifying incomes was well known and documented.

Click to expand...

I as reading that stuff 5 years ago when it was happening - it did not actually go unnoticed at the time.

Millions of people have wound up losing their homes, many of which had been in the family for generations and which had hitherto been fully paid off until the owners were pressured into taking out loans which they could either not afford at the time or which after the collapse/crash, they could not afford. They were mis-sold mortgages!

2013 will very likely see a re run the way things are going

Click to expand...

I don't think so - I guess we'll know which of us is correct in about 15 months.

I mean... the links I have provided you with are horrendous and show corruption at the highest level and all you can say is ... 'it wasn't a collapse, it was a crash, everythings ok now because of the bailout and there was nothing criminal'. Have you any idea how dumb that sounds?

Click to expand...

And you dare to accuse me of not reading??

Where did I say there was nothing criminal???

and since the discussion was about the collapse why wouldn't I discuss the collapse? Now that your sematics have run out of steam you are changing the topic to "morality" because you are wrong about everythign else.

Typical.

Pehaps you might like to go back a couple of posts, read where I said "BTW I have not problem whatsoever holding people to account - be they bankers or politicians." and apologise profusely and in public!

Unregistered said:

Are you seriously trying to argue that the term: "My bank gave me a short term loan" is in some way grammatically or semantically incorrect. If you bothered to read I could not have been clearer as I stated 'gave as a short term loan.

Click to expand...

that is not what you said in the message I was replying to -in this post you wrote:

However, every other aspect is proven true; the Feds "gave $16 trillion", $2.5 trillion of it to Citigroup, over a number of years in the form of short term loans which Citigroup and other banks earned trillions of dollars interest on and I may add senior execs paid themselves billions in bonus' as a result.

Click to expand...

Yes they "gave loans" - no they did not "give $16 trillion" - which is, since you seem to have forgotten, the topic of the thread!

Even saying "they gave $16 trillion .....in the form of short term loans" is not true - the recipients did not end up with $16 Trillion.

You have shown your shameless dishonesty in several successive posts now.

I understand that you are angry about this - but to come here and lie and misrepresent is not a way to make a point - it just makes you look as bad as the peole you are angry at.

Please try to be more honest and stop with the semantics - make your points simply and I reckon most people here will actually agree with them - but when you do this nonsense you look like "just another mindless conspiracy nut"

Unregistered said:

Millions of people have wound up losing their homes, many of which had been in the family for generations and which had hitherto been fully paid off until the owners were pressured into taking out loans which they could either not afford at the time or which after the collapse/crash, they could not afford. They were mis-sold mortgages!

Click to expand...

How exactly is someone "pressured" into taking out loans or mortgages? If my home was paid off...why would I put it in jeopardy to a mortgage co or bank? The most I've ever had happen (even when my last home was 3 times the mortgage value) was to have a few calls about refinance. Of course the town I live in now, there were many people (a few years ago during the "boom") who were so gullible when their houses value went through the roof that they took out 2nd mortgages and home equity loans. What did they do? Bought fancy new trucks, motorcycles, and ORVs. Am I supposed to feel sorry that they gambled their future for some toys?

If I ever feel "pressured" to buy something, I walk away and in most cases never look back.

Actualy I have a lot of sympathy for those people - they were offered an opportunity to make a lot of money - "it's a sure thing - people have been doing it for years", and they were NOT financial experts so had a reasonable expectation that the actual experts did know what they weer talking about.

I recall a TV doco in New Zealand about 2006 or 2007 - just before the crash - of a young guy - less than 25 - who had leveraged himself into millionaire-hood in about 2 years with about 10 properties.

And it was not new - a friend of mine did exactly the same thing before the 1987 crash - he arbitraged stocks and bonds on a 10% deposit, bought a couple of houses, turned every room into a bedroom & let them out to students, bought a condemed property from the City Council - put up new interior linings, got the bank in to see that the value had increased - topped up his mortgage, used the funds to build a couple of townhouses, as they were completed went to the bank to get the increased value turned into cash.....

Come 1987 he ended up with 2 of his properties mortgaged to the hilt - now he owns just 1 house....

To some extent I have even joined "the race" - I bought a house to rent out in 2009 when values were low post crash by remortgaging my own home, and I expect to get some capital gain out of it over the medium term (~10 years). But I did not overextend myself to do so (my mortgages totlaed 80% of the combined value - less now ), and haven't gone around re-valuing and re-leveraging like my friend and many others.

It is basic human nature, and not enough of us really ascribe to "if it too good to be true then it isn't true"!

Mick said:

I guess I picked the wrong story to quote. There are plenty that say "gave away":

http://beforeitsnews.com/obama-birt...p-morgan-stanley-bofa-and-others-2445054.html
[bunk]Federal reserve secretly gave away 16 trillion $s. Largest recipients: Citigroup, Morgan Stanley, BofA and others[/bunk]

http://electnovak.com/Fiscal_Responsibility.html
[bunk]The Federal Reserve secretly gave away $16,000,000,000,000 (16 trillion) of our money to both domestic and foreign banks the world over between December 2007 and June 2010. The Federal Reserve (neither “federal” nor a “reserve” but instead a private organization) secretly bailed out many of the world’s banks, corporations and governments without any public oversight while we Americans were losing our jobs and homes.[/bunk]

http://thomasquinlan.com/forget-debt-ceilings-fed-gave-away-16-trillio
[bunk] Forget Debt Ceilings! Fed Gave Away $16 TRILLION![/bunk]

This is kind of an example of "headline creep" the same story, but as it gets passed around the headlines get more and more inaccurate.

Click to expand...

Ok, fair enough, so the whole 'Debunk' rests on the word 'away'. You appear to agree the rest is valid, (secret since 2007 until recently forced into the open by Ron Paul's pressure on congress for an audit). 16T albeit,given out' over a number of years, still factually 'given out'. To be honest, other than the graph going up and down it doesn't actually 'state' the money was repaid so easy mistake to make in not thinking it was paid back, thanks for making that clear.

Unfortunately you picked the wrong site to quote as your header but yep mistakes easily happen so no probs, but even accepting that some sites have sensationalised it by saying 'away', it seems a bit excessive to accuse them of 'lies'. Quote: "Now I'm not suggesting there's no problem here. But if we want to deal with the problems of financial corruption and wealth inequality in this country, then we need to do it honestly, and with a clear understanding of the facts. Conspiracy theories based on lies are not going to help."

Lets be honest about this, the whole thing stinks, billions were earned and no matter how you or anyone else tries to mitigate this, the whole system is demonstrably, clearly and unarguably fraudulent and designed, by the elite, richest and most educated to divest ordinary people of what little wealth and security they have by duping them.

Ahhh...well, a bit of a difference between your 2 examples and the "Millions of people have wound up losing their homes, many of which had been in the family for generations and which had hitherto been fully paid off until the owners were pressured into taking out loans which they could either not afford at the time or which after the collapse/crash, they could not afford".

Those folks were speculators/investors. I imagine they had an idea of the risks...even if they considered them minor. Unfortunately so many uneducated or at least uninformed people thought they could buy a $400K house on a $100K house budget utilizing adjustable rate loans, expecting to sell them in 2 years for a huge profit. Were mortgage lenders complicit in giving them the money? Yes, of course. But those same lenders AFAIK never went looking for people to suck in...they just waited for them to walk through the door. Sorry...I don't have a lot of sympathy for those that lost their shirts on speculation or those who pulled out false equity to live a lifestyle far beyond their means.

People that were desperate to get out of the rental cycle and had average income, but were suckered in....ok...those I feel sorry for and wish they had spoken to someone before hand.

In my limited experience of owning homes (only 2 over 25 yrs) and buying new cars (only 5 between my wife and I).....I have a basic revulsion for anyone trying to sell you something on which they make a commission. It's no better when the people are representing you apparently. They want a quick sale and are willing to take a few $$$ less, if they can move on quickly to the next sucker. Granted...some has been my fault for not informing myself about the market....but when you are paying someone $6-9K...you just sort of expect them to be on your side, don't you?

Land agents on the sellers side??? ROFL - it is actualy a legal responsiblity here that they are teh agent for the seller - but let's face it - they make money from teh sale - and any sale is better than no sale at all, so yeah - i've learned not to think of them as "my friend"!

I'm pretty sure I read reports that at the height of the mortgage frenzy in the USA they had signing parties didn't they??

Over here in New Zealand we had people who would tell you how to leverage your assets for "a small fee" and who cold-called - I eventually gave in to one, paid $200 for a day long one-on-one and detailed explaination....then wondered why I needed to pay them any more money (they wanted about $4000 to "arrange things") & "went private" with my investment. I still get occasional calls from simlar organisations.

MikeC said:

that is not what you said in the message I was replying to -in this post you wrote:



Yes they "gave loans" - no they did not "give $16 trillion" - which is, since you seem to have forgotten, the topic of the thread!

Even saying "they gave $16 trillion .....in the form of short term loans" is not true - the recipients did not end up with $16 Trillion.

You have shown your shameless dishonesty in several successive posts now.

I understand that you are angry about this - but to come here and lie and misrepresent is not a way to make a point - it just makes you look as bad as the peole you are angry at.

Please try to be more honest and stop with the semantics - make your points simply and I reckon most people here will actually agree with them - but when you do this nonsense you look like "just another mindless conspiracy nut"

Click to expand...

Are you all there? They gave loans totaling over 16Trillion. Its a fact, get over it. It is also a fact that they did not primarily give it to banks but the vast majority of it went to 'Financial Institutions' such as JP Morgan, G Sachs and banks heavily engaged in 'In The Markets'. Normal banks were low down on the pecking order.

The Fed were caught red handed but as usual have bluffed it out saying, 'nothing wrong here, it was in best interests of the economy'.

As a Conspiracist, (but by no means 'nutty'), I take a different view, which in the interests of 'debate', I have offered up here with supporting evidence. If you don't wish to debate and learn, as I do, then perhaps people who hold opposing but equally valid views should not be allowed to post. If someone wants to 'ban me', I am cool with that and you can get on with slapping each other on the back and 'debunking' to your hearts content.

The recipients had $16 T over a period of time, upon which they earned billions in interest. What is there not to understand and why keep dnying it?

At the end of the day you and I can debate all we like and not one jot will change. I simply hope that sufficient numbers of 'the people' become informed and active enough to force change. I think Occupy is the frontrunner at this time. Thats IMO.

Anyway you may, or may not, be interested in this analysis

http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article12507.html

Where, may we ask, did the balance of $2.3 trillion in purchasing power come from? Why the Federal Reserve of course, which directly and indirectly subsidized U.S. banks (and foreign ones through liquidity swaps) for roughly that amount. Apparently these banks promptly went on a buying spree to raise the all important equity market, so that the U.S. consumer who net equity was almost negative on March 31, could have some semblance of confidence back and would go ahead and max out his credit card. Alas, as one can see in the money multiplier and velocity of money metrics, U.S. consumers couldn't care less about leveraging themselves any more."

So, the magical "Green Shoots" stock market rally was fueled by a mere $400 billion from the money markets. The rest ($2.3 trillion) was main-lined into the market via Bernanke's quantitative easing (QE) program, of which Krugman and others speak so highly.

Wouldn't you like to know if Bernanke sat down with G-Sax and JPM executives and mapped out the details of this swindle before the printing presses ever started rolling?

So, how long can this kind of fakery go on before our creditors grow weary of dealing with chiselers and stop buying US Treasuries altogether? Here's a blurp from Friday's Wall Street Journal on that very topic:

"Shaky auctions of Treasury notes this week reignited concerns about whether the government can attract buyers from China and elsewhere to soak up trillions in new debt.

A fuse was lit this week when traders noted China's apparent absence from direct participation in two Treasury bond auctions. While China may have bought Treasurys just before the auctions, market participants read the country's actions as a worrying sign that China and other foreign investors may be ratcheting back purchases at a time when the U.S. is seeking to fund a $1.8 trillion budget deficit.

This week alone, the U.S. deluged the bond market with more than $200 billion in record-size sales. The U.S. has had little trouble finding buyers in recent months. But that demand is fading, and the Treasury market has become volatile."

Gunguy45 said:

Ahhh...well, a bit of a difference between your 2 examples and the "Millions of people have wound up losing their homes, many of which had been in the family for generations and which had hitherto been fully paid off until the owners were pressured into taking out loans which they could either not afford at the time or which after the collapse/crash, they could not afford".

Those folks were speculators/investors. I imagine they had an idea of the risks...even if they considered them minor. Unfortunately so many uneducated or at least uninformed people thought they could buy a $400K house on a $100K house budget utilizing adjustable rate loans, expecting to sell them in 2 years for a huge profit. Were mortgage lenders complicit in giving them the money? Yes, of course. But those same lenders AFAIK never went looking for people to suck in...they just waited for them to walk through the door. Sorry...I don't have a lot of sympathy for those that lost their shirts on speculation or those who pulled out false equity to live a lifestyle far beyond their means.

People that were desperate to get out of the rental cycle and had average income, but were suckered in....ok...those I feel sorry for and wish they had spoken to someone before hand.

In my limited experience of owning homes (only 2 over 25 yrs) and buying new cars (only 5 between my wife and I).....I have a basic revulsion for anyone trying to sell you something on which they make a commission. It's no better when the people are representing you apparently. They want a quick sale and are willing to take a few $$$ less, if they can move on quickly to the next sucker. Granted...some has been my fault for not informing myself about the market....but when you are paying someone $6-9K...you just sort of expect them to be on your side, don't you?

Click to expand...

I am definitely not talking about speculators/investors, I am talking about people suckered into mortgages/remortgages which they could either ill afford at the time, and which the lenders knew they could ill afford, which is why they are termed sub-prime, or that after the crash and resulting mass unemployment could no longer fund.

It seems that you want to place the blame for the crash on the people who are most hurt by it and tortaly ignore the instigators and architects who have earned billions out of it and got off scot free. I really cannot understand your mentality!

In case you missed it, which I doubt, here it is in all its glory:

Predatory lending (Countrywide being one of the prime movers via massive advertising and sales pitches)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_the_2007–2012_global_financial_crisis

Predatory lending refers to the practice of unscrupulous lenders, to enter into "unsafe" or "unsound" secured loans for inappropriate purposes.[44] A classic bait-and-switch method was used by Countrywide, advertising low interest rates for home refinancing. Such loans were written into mind-numbingly detailed contracts, and swapped for more expensive loan products on the day of closing. Whereas the advertisement might state that 1% or 1.5% interest would be charged, the consumer would be put into an adjustable rate mortgage (ARM) in which the interest charged would be greater than the amount of interest paid. This created negative amortization, which the credit consumer might not notice until long after the loan transaction had been consummated.

Countrywide, sued by California Attorney General Jerry Brown for "Unfair Business Practices" and "False Advertising" was making high cost mortgages "to homeowners with weak credit, adjustable rate mortgages (ARMs) that allowed homeowners to make interest-only payments.".[45] When housing prices decreased, homeowners in ARMs then had little incentive to pay their monthly payments, since their home equity had disappeared. This caused Countrywide's financial condition to deteriorate, ultimately resulting in a decision by the Office of Thrift Supervision to seize the lender.

Countrywide, according to Republican Lawmakers, had involved itself in making low-cost loans to politicians, for purposes of gaining political favors.[46]

Former employees from Ameriquest, which was United States's leading wholesale lender,[47] described a system in which they were pushed to falsify mortgage documents and then sell the mortgages to Wall Street banks eager to make fast profits.[47] There is growing evidence that such mortgage frauds may be a cause of the crisis.[47]

The U.S. Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission reported its findings in January 2011. It concluded that "the crisis was avoidable and was caused by: Widespread failures in financial regulation, including the Federal Reserve’s failure to stem the tide of toxic mortgages; Dramatic breakdowns in corporate governance including too many financial firms acting recklessly and taking on too much risk; An explosive mix of excessive borrowing and risk by households and Wall Street that put the financial system on a collision course with crisis; Key policy makers ill prepared for the crisis, lacking a full understanding of the financial system they oversaw; and systemic breaches in accountability and ethics at all levels.“[

Mick said:

The evidence that the loans were repaid is that the GAO audit linked above says that they were.

Click to expand...

So it's true ... because they said it was true? Well, by all means. This sounds eerily like a religious discussion where things are true "because the Bible says they're true." Where's the paper trail?

All of these banksters are in bed together. I don't think "they said it was repaid" is good enough, considering these loans were made illegally, under the table to begin with, a less than 1% interest, in violation of IMF policy (not that I agree with the concept of the IMF, but still). Call me a skeptic.

Unregistered said:

So it's true ... because they said it was true? Well, by all means. This sounds eerily like a religious discussion where things are true "because the Bible says they're true." Where's the paper trail?

All of these banksters are in bed together. I don't think "they said it was repaid" is good enough, considering these loans were made illegally, under the table to begin with, a less than 1% interest, in violation of IMF policy (not that I agree with the concept of the IMF, but still). Call me a skeptic.

Click to expand...

Well if you are going to start doubting everything, then how do you know they made the loans in the first place?

You think 16 trillion dollars could be created, and moved somewhere, and nobody noticed? The loans were audited, the auditors saw the paper trail.

Mick West said:

Well if you are going to start doubting everything, then how do you know they made the loans in the first place?

You think 16 trillion dollars could be created, and moved somewhere, and nobody noticed? The loans were audited, the auditors saw the paper trail.

Click to expand...

Mick

1) When the Federal Reserve increase the money supply through the purchase of Bonds where does the Fed get the money to pay for those Bonds?
2) When the Fed enagges in QE (Qunatitative Easing) where does the moeny come from that it uses to to make its purchases?
3) If the US dollar were to collapse or iof it simply lost its status as the World Reserve Currency who is liable for paying of the 'Money Owed' on the Feds Balance Sheet?

"You think 16 trillion dollars could be created, and moved somewhere, and nobody noticed? The loans were audited, the auditors saw the paper trail ~ Mick"
How can you seriously make this statment? Had Ron Paul not sucesfully pushed for the audit of teh Fed just how would the auditors have discovred the 16 trillion iin loans made by the Fed?

BlueCollarCritic said:

Mick

1) When the Federal Reserve increase the money supply through the purchase of Bonds where does the Fed get the money to pay for those Bonds?
2) When the Fed enagges in QE (Qunatitative Easing) where does the moeny come from that it uses to to make its purchases?
3) If the US dollar were to collapse or iof it simply lost its status as the World Reserve Currency who is liable for paying of the 'Money Owed' on the Feds Balance Sheet?

"You think 16 trillion dollars could be created, and moved somewhere, and nobody noticed? The loans were audited, the auditors saw the paper trail ~ Mick"
How can you seriously make this statment? Had Ron Paul not sucesfully pushed for the audit of teh Fed just how would the auditors have discovred the 16 trillion iin loans made by the Fed?

Click to expand...

The issue is not that the fed can increase the money supply. We all know that it can. The issue is the suggestion that that money can be siphoned off without anyone noticing. Money is not simply given away for free.

Mick West said:

The issue is not that the fed can increase the money supply. We all know that it can. The issue is the suggestion that that money can be siphoned off without anyone noticing. Money is not simply given away for free.

Click to expand...

But not all money is accounted for!
Remember the 911 topic about money 'missing' after 911 where it turns out the money wasn't missing, it just wasn't accounted for? Surely there are similar situations. Money comes and goes in some situations with few people knowing about it.

What "money" is not accounted for?

Mick West said:

Well if you are going to start doubting everything, then how do you know they made the loans in the first place?

You think 16 trillion dollars could be created, and moved somewhere, and nobody noticed? The loans were audited, the auditors saw the paper trail.

Click to expand...

The Federal Reserve has never had a full audit in its history. Ron Paul reported results of a soft audit a few years back and yes, $17T was "missing" as a loan to EU banks. The Fed doesn't have to report to Congress what it does on the private side of the ledger, since it's not part of the Federal budget.

thrival said:

Ron Paul reported results of a soft audit a few years back and yes, $17T was "missing" as a loan to EU banks.

Click to expand...

Please back this up with detailed quotes from the Ron Paul audit.