Full report at the link. Enjoy!

http://sanders.senate.gov/n...e2-a753-62060dcbb3c3

July 21, 2011

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."

Loans=repayment with interest as far as I know.
Not really much of a secret either. The Fed (Bernake) publicly announced early in the recession that they would be shoring up financial and even insurance companies around to world to prevent the recession from becoming a global depression thru the use of the overnight window as well as other "tools", some implemented specifically for this time period. It was these moves by the Fed that made the much discussed "stress tests" neccessary back in late 2008, into 2009 and thru mid 2010.

The real question, is "Where did that loaned money came from to begin with?" The article leads one to believe that $16 trillion was "your" (the taxpayer's) money. Was it--or was it at least in part--from deposits from the banking and financial industry? One has to look at where the fed actually gets it's assets, and no where near all of it is from the US Treasury.

Welcome to Socialism and it's funny that it is coming from Bernie Sanders, who is a socialist.

The government has had the BAD habit of forgiving loans when the lender cannot repay them. The taxpayer gets fracked twice.

So, has the money been payed back?

The Federal Reserve Bank should be abolished. It is Congress' Constitutional responsibility to create and regulate our monetary system. They dodged that responsibility when they created the Fed which is governed by an unelected board. When the Fed screws up, like they did in the recent credit crisis, who is held responsible? Who is there to vote out of office?

This is just more reasons to get rid of the Fed. They act in their own best interest which is not always in the best interest of the country. They also do things without approval from Congress like make these loans.


https://www.fiero.nl/forum/Forum6/HTML/086828.html#p5Click to show

[This message has been edited by Doug85GT (edited 07-22-2011).]

quote Originally posted by Wichita: Welcome to Socialism and it's funny that it is coming from Bernie Sanders, who is a socialist.

Bernie Sanders is one of the few decent representatives in DC - and - yes - being he is paid by g'ment check - of course he is a socialist, like all other g'ment employees. which includes EVERY democrat & every republican representative in DC. and all others who cash a US Taxpayer provided check.

quote Originally posted by Pyrthian: Bernie Sanders is one of the few decent representatives in DC - and - yes - being he is paid by g'ment check - of course he is a socialist, like all other g'ment employees. which includes EVERY democrat & every republican representative in DC. and all others who cash a US Taxpayer provided check.

That's the thing. I've been telling people that the USA is a socialist country. Why leftist cry that we are under some anarchy capitalism is beside me. The question remains that do you continue to rely more on the government or the private sector to grow our economy and how intrusive should the government be (the more intrusive the less freedom) and how much of our citizens should rely exclusively on government assistance.


Bernie might be a nice guy but he's a bit of a crack pot. But that's just a personal opinion.

quote Originally posted by Wichita: That's the thing. I've been telling people that the USA is a socialist country. Why leftist cry that we are under some anarchy capitalism is beside me. The question remains that do you continue to rely more on the government or the private sector to grow our economy and how intrusive should the government be (the more intrusive the less freedom) and how much of our citizens should rely exclusively on government assistance. Bernie might be a nice guy but he's a bit of a crack pot. But that's just a personal opinion.

it is a mix. it is impossible to be exclusively one "ISM". and, we ALL rely on g'ment. you CANNOT do business without it. who would enforce a contract? who would enforce property ownership? the more you have to protect - the more you need the g'ment to protect it. enforcing patents/copyrights. it is endless how much capitalism NEEDS socialism in order to function. what is the "business atmosphere" like in Somalia? you have free reign to do things ANY way you want. yet, are there businesses running over to setup shop? NOPE. because it would be WAY to expensive to try and do all the things g'ment provides to do business. And, in the end - we create these governing structures for THE PEOPLE. All of them. But, yes - it sure does seem "the people" do really well with lightly controlled capitalism.

quote Originally posted by Pyrthian: it is a mix. it is impossible to be exclusively one "ISM". and, we ALL rely on g'ment. you CANNOT do business without it. who would enforce a contract? who would enforce property ownership? the more you have to protect - the more you need the g'ment to protect it. enforcing patents/copyrights. it is endless how much capitalism NEEDS socialism in order to function. what is the "business atmosphere" like in Somalia? you have free reign to do things ANY way you want. yet, are there businesses running over to setup shop? NOPE. because it would be WAY to expensive to try and do all the things g'ment provides to do business. And, in the end - we create these governing structures for THE PEOPLE. All of them. But, yes - it sure does seem "the people" do really well with lightly controlled capitalism.

I'm not auguring against it at all. Like I said, we are a socialist country. Sanders is a European Socialist and wants more government input into our lives.

Sure, you are using the business regulation model, but you mention nothing about how many people should receive direct government payments and how much. As it sits right now, about 50% of adults in the USA pay no taxes and are net recipients of government tax income to boot.

If you want to keep it strictly business and forget the social net, then should government force businesses to hire certain people or make it impossible to fire them and should government dictate their wages? Sure government sets a "minimum wage", but should they apply price controls, wage controls, who and how to receive basic necessities of life? Hell, we have long adopted the Soviet Union model for government schools. Why not apply that to grocery stores, barber shops, restaurants and etc?

Why not apply food ration cards to receive food staples to every one? We need government right? So why not just have government run everything. That would be great, right?

quote Originally posted by Wichita: I'm not auguring against it at all. Like I said, we are a socialist country. Sanders is a European Socialist and wants more government input into our lives. Sure, you are using the business regulation model, but you mention nothing about how many people should receive direct government payments and how much. As it sits right now, about 50% of adults in the USA pay no taxes and are net recipients of government tax income to boot. If you want to keep it strictly business and forget the social net, then should government force businesses to hire certain people or make it impossible to fire them and should government dictate their wages? Sure government sets a "minimum wage", but should they apply price controls, wage controls, who and how to receive basic necessities of life? Hell, we have long adopted the Soviet Union model for government schools. Why not apply that to grocery stores, barber shops, restaurants and etc? Why not apply food ration cards to receive food staples to every one? We need government right? So why not just have government run everything. That would be great, right?

good stuff

it all gets wacky when taken to extremes, dont it?

The governments job is to regulate and tax Corporate entities and Capital Gains and to use those funds for the common good/defense, it is not to interfere in personal affairs, tax, or regulate individuals!


http://youtu.be/lUpZhhbKUBo

------------------
Dealing with failure is easy: work hard to improve. Success is also easy to handle: you've solved the wrong problem, work hard to improve.

Watched this documentary the other night. Very telling about who runs countries and what the business people think of the rest of the public. And better yet they were given a bailout and went right back to the same ol same old. Huge bonuses for people who were overseeing failing companies, no prosecutions for illegal actions. Governments cowering to their master($).



I suspect some might immediately discount it because they see a democrat (Spitzer) on the screen but the documentary actually lays equal blame on the administrations of the U.S. from as far back as Reagan to Obama for deregulating and letting Corporations/Wall street have carte blanche for the most part.

[This message has been edited by newf (edited 07-22-2011).]