Hot Carl To Go: jheard: Cubansaltyballs: Wow. I never knew about the Wall Street Housewives getting $220mil in free govt money.

It's hard for me to believe these are the same people every Republican worships and says cannot afford a 3% tax increase.

Before I used to think it was fair to raise their taxes a few percentage points. Now.... f*ck em. I say crank up the tax rate on incomes of $1mil plus to 60% and remove every single loophole, deduction, everything, that these f*ckers use.

So, we should punish every hard-working successful person because of a few corrupt wall street types?

It's class warfare. So yes.

They will move their money elsewhere, dumbass. We will be even more uncompetitive in the global market, moron.

so the lesson here is apparently "fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on you; talk to me behind closed doors where we discuss you contributing large sums of money to political causes that benefit me and my party, then I go along with it under the guise of being fooled by you, and we pretend to point the finger at you again and nobody gets shamed"?

Got it.

It's a lot more complicated than it sounds. Banks are required to deposit money in the Federal Reserve, as a "reserve". Banks then "borrow" back the money at a low interest rate. And in turn they can buy treasuries that pay lots of interest. The Fed makes money on this, and the banks lose.

The Fed is extremely profitable, mostly on holding these reserves and charging interest on money that isn't theirs. I don't know why the article isn't going into that part in more detail.

Even the deal that they're talking about probably isn't as crooked as it sounds. In order to keep the securities market from collapsing, the Fed is "lending" money to people using those "securities" as "collateral". I put all those in quotes because that's not what's really happening. In fact, the Fed giving these people a sell option on those securities, in return for those people not selling those securities right now.

Let's say that you bought securities for $500 million. After the crisis, they're worth maybe $100 million right now. If you tried to sell them, however, there wouldn't be enough buyers. You might get $50 million, and the whole securities market would collapse because there'd be more securities for sale than people would be willing to buy at any price (these are derivatives, so their value can be less than zero).

So the Fed says "We'll take the securities for $220 million. In a few years, either you can buy them back for $250 million, or we'll just keep the securities and sell them ourselves". The Fed is likely to win on this, because after all of this mess is untangled those securities will be worth more than $250 million. The owner of the securities wins, because they can sell something that right now is almost unsellable. And the Securities market wins, because it stays open. The only people who lose are the people who were planning to bottom feed the Securities market, and they only lose in potential.

Likewise, I'm not shocked about huge loans. How long were the loans for? The Fed is one of the very few places that can offer "bridge loans" of billions of dollars for a few days. Businesses may find themselves with an unexpected cost, and it can take a week to get "normal" loans. The Fed can offer extremely short term loans so that those businesses can pay their employees and keep their checks from bouncing. This is a well known purpose of the Fed, and isn't isolated to American businesses. Now, if that's not what these were, then that's different. But the article doesn't present any evidence.

jheard: Cubansaltyballs: Wow. I never knew about the Wall Street Housewives getting $220mil in free govt money.

It's hard for me to believe these are the same people every Republican worships and says cannot afford a 3% tax increase.

Before I used to think it was fair to raise their taxes a few percentage points. Now.... f*ck em. I say crank up the tax rate on incomes of $1mil plus to 60% and remove every single loophole, deduction, everything, that these f*ckers use.

So, we should punish every hard-working successful person because of a few corrupt wall street types?

Because every wealthy person is there because of their own hard work and not because they inherited the money or benefited from shiat like this, right?
Oh wait, except there isn't a single one of them like that.

jheard: Government power corrupts.

Limited government corrupts less than big government.

Same could be said for the banking industry, which would actually make sense unline your tired rhetoric.

Bad_Seed: That word you keep using.... There are many different types of socialism, but none of them involve screwing over the masses for the benefit of the rich.

I am focusing on the economic aspect, not the political aspect. And that definition is clear: government control over the means of production and distribution. While, from a political standpoint, this is often done for the sake of helping the many at the expense of the few, there is no ingrained definition that says it has to be done that way.

so·cial·ism[soh-shuh-liz-uhm]
-noun
1.
a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.

Cubansaltyballs [TotalFark] 2011-04-13 04:12:01 AM
Elvis_Bogart: Cubansaltyballs: Are you a retard? Did your parents have any children that lived?

Hey, don't get mad at me because your hero is in bed with these guys and letting them run wild.

Yeah. That's it. As you can see I'm totally thrilled with this whole thing.

Also, it was your hero George Bush that appointed Bernanke, and the loan program was started under his administration.

So don't get mad at me because you were happy with when it was started by one your heroes, and now that a black man is in office you can't handle it.

ROTFLMAO. I knew coming in here some moon-bat would be raving "blameee booooosh". Your trash has been in office how many years now? When is it time for him to be responsible?

Regulation will always fail where there is that much money on the line. We need to deregulate, and then- this is the tricky part- let people suffer consequences from bad decisions. The world won't end. I promise.

I believe the official Republican Party answer to the question is like this:

Giving corporations free money: Good for America! Helping America by giving the wealthy more money to pump into the economy and helping raise stock prices which of course benefits the economy.

Giving the wealthy free money in the form of generous tax cuts: Letting a man have "the sweat of his brow" (even if he's never sweated a day in his life, aside from the indictment he dodged), Good for America because it lets our most productive and best citizens be rewarded for achievement.

Giving the poor financial assistance with housing/medicine/basic living needs: SOCIALISM! EVIL!! BAD!!!!

Meanwhile back at the ranch...










♫ America, America, God shed his grace on thee... ♫

Cubansaltyballs: Wow. I never knew about the Wall Street Housewives getting $220mil in free govt money.

It's hard for me to believe these are the same people every Republican worships and says cannot afford a 3% tax increase.

Before I used to think it was fair to raise their taxes a few percentage points. Now.... f*ck em. I say crank up the tax rate on incomes of $1mil plus to 60% and remove every single loophole, deduction, everything, that these f*ckers use.

I'm with you on the latter, mostly because at that point the 60% is probably unnecessary. Focusing solely on the tax rate, which seems to captivate most people, doesn't do much good. You could make the tax rate 99% but when there are volumes of the tax code dedicated to providing exemptions, who cares?

I'm not sure the whole "flat tax" thing is the way to go (there's probably still some room for progressive rates) but some basic flattening the tax system would have tremendous benefits. Tax income at the same rate, regardless of whether it's wages or capital gains. Get rid of most deductions and credits; the government shouldn't be using tax policy to drive social goals (see home ownership). You could reduce rates for everyone and still bring in more revenue; 20% of $1,000,000 in taxable income is going to bring in more than 40% after taking $600,000 in deductions.

Streamlining the system would also reduce the "hidden tax" of compliance costs. Spending $100,000 on accountants and tax lawyers to avoid paying $150,000 in taxes makes individual sense but taken as a whole that's an awful lot of money going to activities which do nothing to increase production or our standard of living.

Anyway, the point is that there are a lot of ways to increase revenue and make the system fairer without having to resort to a populist "eat the rich" approach. Just getting rid of subsidies and special treatments would do the lion's share of it.

Cubansaltyballs: Elvis_Bogart: Cubansaltyballs: Are you a retard? Did your parents have any children that lived?

Hey, don't get mad at me because your hero is in bed with these guys and letting them run wild.

Yeah. That's it. As you can see I'm totally thrilled with this whole thing.

Also, it was your hero George Bush that appointed Bernanke, and the loan program was started under his administration.

So don't get mad at me because you were happy with when it was started by one your heroes, and now that a black man is in office you can't handle it.

This goes back further than Bush, Jr and, honestly, the ruling class is greatly pleased that you two are arguing about it.

It keeps them strong.

It keeps us down.

EatHam: stryker4526: Because every wealthy person is there because of their own hard work and not because they inherited the money or benefited from shiat like this, right?
Oh wait, except there isn't a single one of them like that.

Somewhere in the neighborhood of 80% of people with over a million dollars in liquid net worth did not inherit any of their money.

A million dollars in liquid net worth is nothing.
It costs two million just to raise a kid to 18, on average.
Those are not wealthy people.

Thunderpipes: Hot Carl To Go: jheard: Cubansaltyballs: Wow. I never knew about the Wall Street Housewives getting $220mil in free govt money.

It's hard for me to believe these are the same people every Republican worships and says cannot afford a 3% tax increase.

Before I used to think it was fair to raise their taxes a few percentage points. Now.... f*ck em. I say crank up the tax rate on incomes of $1mil plus to 60% and remove every single loophole, deduction, everything, that these f*ckers use.

So, we should punish every hard-working successful person because of a few corrupt wall street types?

It's class warfare. So yes.

They will move their money elsewhere, dumbass. We will be even more uncompetitive in the global market, moron.

I'm glad you want to be held hostage and are willing to give into any demand laid on you. Fantastic.

I like Weavers idea. If they pull up stakes and go overseas, they forfeit any patents and any copyrights they have. You don't do business here, you don't get protections here.

Jackson Herring: Super Chronic: only about 40 percent of the budget gap.

Gosh only 40%? That's like way less than Planned Parenthood and NPR

I'm not saying it's not going to help or it shouldn't be done. It will help and it should be done. I was quoting an economist, David Leonhart, while asking about a statement that said that it would eliminate the deficit BY ITSELF, which seemed like an extreme claim.

Gary Aguirre, the former SEC guy they quote on page 3, was the one who first started asking questions about Pequot Capital, Art Samberg's now defunked hedge fund. That was also a really fascinating case: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aUWgX4WDZLrI (new window)

Its no surprise that a large government slush fund was so badly abused but it is still depressing to hear the extent of it. Bernie Maddoff's mistake was in ripping off the rich. If he had simply ripped off millions of poor people he would still be a hero on Wall Street.

baggins2000: It's kind of funny how they are able to twist things around and say socialism is bad , when they take advantage of it everyday. It's kind of like if Charlie Sheen came out against hookers.

Social programs =/= Socialism. If you think what we're in now is Socialism and you think that Socialism is a good thing because of it, you're going to be REALLY pissed off if real Socialism comes and your promises of chickens in pots and everyone having a job they want evaporates into the stagnation that will follow.

Socialism, at its heart, can only work on small scales and when everyone opts in. This is why Marx said that Socialism must lead to Communism, where the state forces everyone who doesn't opt in to either "opt in and like it" or get shot. Americans as a whole will never opt in, so Socialism would fail in the US.

miss diminutive: The more I read about the Federal Reserve and how it conducts business the more I'm convinced that it has become something far different than what was originally intended.

You mean like how Social Security was NEVER intended to be the ONLY source of income for people in retirement but only as some extra cash to help the retired who were supposed to be smart during their careers and save, but has now morphed into many individual's sole source if income?

adamgreeney: Super Chronic: adamgreeney: See, letting the Bush cuts expire would put us in surplus WITHOUT ANY SPENDING CUTS in about a decade.

Citation needed? Because my morning reading (new window) told me something quite different:

This change, by itself, would solve about 75 percent of the deficit problem over the next five years. The rest could come from spending cuts, both for social programs and the military.

Over the longer term - 20 years - letting all of the Bush cuts lapse would close only about 40 percent of the budget gap. But 40 percent is a great start. No one is seriously suggesting that all deficit reduction should come from higher taxes. Much of it will have to come from slowing the growth rate of medical spending, which is the main cause of the long-term deficit.

All Things Considered. Listen to Mondays program.

I don't mean to be argumentative, but can you point me to the segment I should listen to? I listened to the first two, which were national-debt-related.

All Things Considered, Monday (new window).

The Jami Turman Fan Club: Let's say that you bought securities for $500 million. After the crisis, they're worth maybe $100 million right now. If you tried to sell them, however, there wouldn't be enough buyers. You might get $50 million, and the whole securities market would collapse because there'd be more securities for sale than people would be willing to buy at any price

Not an economist, but I thought that the value of a security would be precisely what people were willing to pay for it. You know, Invisible Hand and all that.

But rich people are rich cause they are more productive and have lots of conservative "character".

Jeffrey Skilling, 55, Enron's former chief executive, was sentenced in October 2006 to more than 24 years in prison for his role in the company's collapse. The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in January ordered a re-sentencing hearing, ruling that a district judge improperly applied a sentencing guideline that resulted in a longer prison term. Skilling is yet to be resentenced.

Andrew Fastow, 47, Enron's former chief financial officer, pleaded guilty to conspiracy in 2004 and was sentenced to six years. The federal Bureau of Prisons lists his projected release date as Dec. 17, 2011. Fastow's wife, Lea, pleaded guilty in 2004 to a misdemeanor tax crime and served a year in prison for helping him hide ill-gotten gains from his schemes.

Bernard Ebbers, 67, former chief of WorldCom, was imprisoned in September 2006 on a 25-year sentence for his role in an $11 billion accounting fraud that toppled his telecommunications company. The federal bureau of prisons lists his projected release date as July 4, 2028.

Dennis Kozlowski, 62, CEO of Tyco International, was convicted in June 2005 and is serving 81/3 to 25 years on charges including conspiracy, grand larceny and securities fraud. His earliest parole date is in 2014.

Joseph Nacchio, 60, former Qwest CEO, was sentenced to six years after being convicted in 2007 of 19 counts of insider trading. He reported to a minimum-security prison in Minersville, Pa., in April. His projected release date is July 4, 2014, according to the Bureau of Prisons.

John Rigas, 84, founder of cable television company Adelphia Communications, was convicted in 2004 of charges including securities and bank fraud. He is serving 12 years in prison. His projected release date is Jan. 23, 2018.

Timothy J. Rigas, 53, Adelphia's former CFO, was convicted of the same charges as his father and is serving 17 years. His projected release date is June 3, 2022.

Conrad Black, 64, former newspaper mogul and member of the House of Lords, was convicted in July 2007 on charges that he siphoned off millions of dollars belonging to Hollinger International when he was chief executive of the media company. He is serving a 6 ½ -year prison term in Coleman, Fla. His projected release date is Oct. 30, 2013.

Walter Forbes, 66, former chairman of Cendant Corp., was sentenced in January 2007 to 12 years and seven months and ordered to pay $3.275 billion in restitution for leading accounting fraud at the travel and real estate company. His projected release date is July 21, 2018.

Martin Frankel, 54, was ordered by a federal judge in 2006 to serve the sentence he got in 2004 for stealing $200 million from insurance companies - nearly 17 years in a federal prison. Frankel's projected release is Sept. 7, 2015.

Shaggy_C: Bad_Seed: That word you keep using.... There are many different types of socialism, but none of them involve screwing over the masses for the benefit of the rich.

I am focusing on the economic aspect, not the political aspect. And that definition is clear: government control over the means of production and distribution. While, from a political standpoint, this is often done for the sake of helping the many at the expense of the few, there is no ingrained definition that says it has to be done that way.

so·cial·ism[soh-shuh-liz-uhm]
-noun
1.
a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.

Looks like you beat me to it.

YixilTesiphon: A Fark Handle: //how do we not have real banking regulation now?

What banking regulation do we need? All that's needed to fix this problem is to stop giving the banks free money.

clearly to solve this issue we just have to stop giving out money. however, there's plenty more to do; regulation of the derivatives market, a return of glass-steagall separation, better accounting standards, limited leverage, etc. also i would like to see some sort of "too big to fail, too big to exist" solution.

Shaggy_C: I am focusing on the economic aspect, not the political aspect. And that definition is clear: government control over the means of production and distribution. While, from a political standpoint, this is often done for the sake of helping the many at the expense of the few, there is no ingrained definition that says it has to be done that way.

so·cial·ism[soh-shuh-liz-uhm]
-noun
1.
a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.

The community as a whole does not mean "the banking community". It is not about government control of the means of production, it is about collective control. The goal and defining feature of socialism is to ensure a fair an equitable distribution of resources, government is simply a mechanism for acheiveing that, a means to an end. It is not the only way of achieving socialism, other methods have been proposed.

What you are descibing is state capitalism.

Super Chronic: adamgreeney: Super Chronic: adamgreeney: See, letting the Bush cuts expire would put us in surplus WITHOUT ANY SPENDING CUTS in about a decade.

Citation needed? Because my morning reading (new window) told me something quite different:

This change, by itself, would solve about 75 percent of the deficit problem over the next five years. The rest could come from spending cuts, both for social programs and the military.

Over the longer term - 20 years - letting all of the Bush cuts lapse would close only about 40 percent of the budget gap. But 40 percent is a great start. No one is seriously suggesting that all deficit reduction should come from higher taxes. Much of it will have to come from slowing the growth rate of medical spending, which is the main cause of the long-term deficit.

All Things Considered. Listen to Mondays program.

I don't mean to be argumentative, but can you point me to the segment I should listen to? I listened to the first two, which were national-debt-related.

All Things Considered, Monday (new window).

My bad!

http://www.npr.org/player/v2/mediaPlayer.html?action=1&t=1&islist=false&id=1353 2 0197&m=135320193

If you took it at $250,000, as was the proposal last year, that would bring in enough revenue to either offset some of these cuts, make them less necessary, or make a real dent in the deficit over the years, especially as you go out five years, 10 years, 15 years, 20 years. That's where it really explodes, those tax cuts do.

internutthead: Tell me again why the US Government didn't press charges against these people?

And to be fair - the financial services sector money involved in buying and selling politicians has been around since the '50s..

Because people who investigate suddenly wind up fired or perhaps even dead if they dig too far. The wealthy in this county (who is not the doctor earning $350,000 a year) are f***ing us all over big time. It's really not a Dem/Rep issue, that is just a smoke screen used by the real thieves. Keep us all fighting and distracted so they can do whatever they want.

/For some strange reason, I would actually be interested to know what a Glen Beck type would say about this article?? Probably call it a lie I suppose...

Although I shouldn't have been, I was shocked and horrified when I found out that the bailout money was given without extremely strict conditions for the robber barons' future conduct.

KIA: Regulation will always fail where there is that much money on the line. We need to deregulate, and then- this is the tricky part- let people suffer consequences from bad decisions. The world won't end. I promise.

Yes... deregulate so we allow those greedy bankers to get even richer! You're backwards logic is exactly what's wrong with this country. Are you a regulation expert, or did you just hear some rant on TV about regulations gone wrong? Regulations are just a derivative of a law.

A Fark Handle: YixilTesiphon: A Fark Handle: //how do we not have real banking regulation now?

What banking regulation do we need? All that's needed to fix this problem is to stop giving the banks free money.

clearly to solve this issue we just have to stop giving out money. however, there's plenty more to do; regulation of the derivatives market, a return of glass-steagall separation, better accounting standards, limited leverage, etc. also i would like to see some sort of "too big to fail, too big to exist" solution.

And this regulation, somehow, would be the first not written by the people we are told it is meant to control?

Bridge in Brooklyn, etc.

A Fark Handle: i would like to see some sort of "too big to fail, too big to exist" solution.

Oh hell yes.

Free money!!!

Farker T: Meanwhile back at the ranch...

♫ America, America, God shed his grace on thee... ♫

SOCIALIST!!

/the free market will build the safest bridge around

adamgreeney: Thunderpipes: Hot Carl To Go: jheard: Cubansaltyballs: Wow. I never knew about the Wall Street Housewives getting $220mil in free govt money.

It's hard for me to believe these are the same people every Republican worships and says cannot afford a 3% tax increase.

Before I used to think it was fair to raise their taxes a few percentage points. Now.... f*ck em. I say crank up the tax rate on incomes of $1mil plus to 60% and remove every single loophole, deduction, everything, that these f*ckers use.

So, we should punish every hard-working successful person because of a few corrupt wall street types?

It's class warfare. So yes.

They will move their money elsewhere, dumbass. We will be even more uncompetitive in the global market, moron.

I'm glad you want to be held hostage and are willing to give into any demand laid on you. Fantastic.

I like Weavers idea. If they pull up stakes and go overseas, they forfeit any patents and any copyrights they have. You don't do business here, you don't get protections here.

It's not like they haven't already moved their money out of the U.S. economy, anyway.

miss diminutive: The more I read about the Federal Reserve and how it conducts business the more I'm convinced that it has become something far different than what was originally intended.

Sadly, whenever you mention anything about the Federal Reserve you get lumped in with those truther/illuminati/New World Order/Jews-control-everything crowd.

But seriously, how can you read an article like this and not think that the system is broken?

This is what happens when you put Randians in charge of of a bureau meant to manage a field for the common weal. An ethics of self-regard isn't exactly conducive to communal benefit. Of course, Robert Rubin's no Objectivist, and he's just as responsible for this madness as Greenspan is.

oribiasi: miss diminutive: The more I read about the Federal Reserve and how it conducts business the more I'm convinced that it has become something far different than what was originally intended.

You mean like how Social Security was NEVER intended to be the ONLY source of income for people in retirement but only as some extra cash to help the retired who were supposed to be smart during their careers and save, but has now morphed into many individual's sole source if income?

To be fair, the vast majority of the elderly before Social Security had essentially nothing in savings when they lost whatever job they had (not much in the way of retirement back then) with a large portion of the elderly population dying destitute and homeless.

It would be interesting to see a comparison of how Social Security has changed investment habits though; I'm sure there is plenty of literature, but I am too lazy to look for it now that I've been out of college a while and don't have free access to a lot of the databases.

Bob16: But rich people are rich cause they are more productive and have lots of conservative "character".

Jeffrey Skilling, 55, Enron's former chief executive, was sentenced in October 2006 to more than 24 years in prison for his role in the company's collapse. The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in January ordered a re-sentencing hearing, ruling that a district judge improperly applied a sentencing guideline that resulted in a longer prison term. Skilling is yet to be resentenced.

Andrew Fastow, 47, Enron's former chief financial officer, pleaded guilty to conspiracy in 2004 and was sentenced to six years. The federal Bureau of Prisons lists his projected release date as Dec. 17, 2011. Fastow's wife, Lea, pleaded guilty in 2004 to a misdemeanor tax crime and served a year in prison for helping him hide ill-gotten gains from his schemes.

Bernard Ebbers, 67, former chief of WorldCom, was imprisoned in September 2006 on a 25-year sentence for his role in an $11 billion accounting fraud that toppled his telecommunications company. The federal bureau of prisons lists his projected release date as July 4, 2028.

Dennis Kozlowski, 62, CEO of Tyco International, was convicted in June 2005 and is serving 81/3 to 25 years on charges including conspiracy, grand larceny and securities fraud. His earliest parole date is in 2014.

Joseph Nacchio, 60, former Qwest CEO, was sentenced to six years after being convicted in 2007 of 19 counts of insider trading. He reported to a minimum-security prison in Minersville, Pa., in April. His projected release date is July 4, 2014, according to the Bureau of Prisons.

John Rigas, 84, founder of cable television company Adelphia Communications, was convicted in 2004 of charges including securities and bank fraud. He is serving 12 years in prison. His projected release date is Jan. 23, 2018.

Timothy J. Rigas, 53, Adelphia's former CFO, was convicted of the same charges as his father and is serving 17 years. His projected release date is June 3, 2022.

Conrad Black, 64, former newspaper mogul and member of the House of Lords, was convicted in July 2007 on charges that he siphoned off millions of dollars belonging to Hollinger International when he was chief executive of the media company. He is serving a 6 ½ -year prison term in Coleman, Fla. His projected release date is Oct. 30, 2013.

Walter Forbes, 66, former chairman of Cendant Corp., was sentenced in January 2007 to 12 years and seven months and ordered to pay $3.275 billion in restitution for leading accounting fraud at the travel and real estate company. His projected release date is July 21, 2018.

Martin Frankel, 54, was ordered by a federal judge in 2006 to serve the sentence he got in 2004 for stealing $200 million from insurance companies - nearly 17 years in a federal prison. Frankel's projected release is Sept. 7, 2015.

Wealthy people tend to be dicks and/or criminals, "rich" people who might gross a couple million bucks or so a year actively managing a business may have legitimacy and good character.

/Point being, wealth is almost always different from earned income.

EatHam: stryker4526: It costs two million just to raise a kid to 18, on average.

bs, that's over $100,000 per year. That would mean that, on average, people spend 200% of their income on one kid, even though, on average, they have two, so they are spending 400% of their income before they have bought housing or food.

I think that figure is counting paying for college expenses AND the other two people. Since, you know, most people don't raise children without two parents.
One of my professors said it during a class, he could be wrong. It's probably more like $1 mil.
Still, point is, $1 mil in liquid net worth ain't shiat. It certainly isn't wealth.

miss diminutive: But seriously, how can you read an article like this and not think that the system is broken?

Weeellll... It's the Rolling Stone, for starters.

But this shiat SHOULD be investigated. I want to see more stories from other outlets. Since this is my first introduction to the matter, I'm gonna keep my outrage on hold until I know how much is true and how much is not.

No offense to Rolling Stone, of course. I just find their reporting to be... A little sensationalist.

The Jami Turman Fan Club: It's a lot more complicated than it sounds. Banks are required to deposit money in the Federal Reserve, as a "reserve". Banks then "borrow" back the money at a low interest rate. And in turn they can buy treasuries that pay lots of interest. The Fed makes money on this, and the banks lose.

This isn't a bank.


The Jami Turman Fan Club: Even the deal that they're talking about probably isn't as crooked as it sounds. In order to keep the securities market from collapsing, the Fed is "lending" money to people using those "securities" as "collateral". I put all those in quotes because that's not what's really happening. In fact, the Fed giving these people a sell option on those securities, in return for those people not selling those securities right now.

Ok why not have the fed just buy them directly? Why is it set up so the fed will see none of the profit if the commercial and student loans they buy up pan out but they will be stuck with all the defaults?

The Jami Turman Fan Club: So the Fed says "We'll take the securities for $220 million. In a few years, either you can buy them back for $250 million, or we'll just keep the securities and sell them ourselves". The Fed is likely to win on this, because after all of this mess is untangled those securities will be worth more than $250 million. The owner of the securities wins, because they can sell something that right now is almost unsellable. And the Securities market wins, because it stays open. The only people who lose are the people who were planning to bottom feed the Securities market, and they only lose in potential.

You are missing out on the tax payer losing because they miss out on the piece of the pie that Waterfall TALF gets.

Grungehamster: It would be interesting to see a comparison of how Social Security has changed investment habits though; I'm sure there is plenty of literature, but I am too lazy to look for it now that I've been out of college a while and don't have free access to a lot of the databases.

I think it would be incredibly hard to find. Because of changes in credit AND culture, our savings level is now... Half a percent? Back when SS started, wasn't it in the 40s, percent-wise? I'm not sure how you could control for other variables to find how SS alone has changed saving habits, although I agree that it's highly likely that it did.

oribiasi: miss diminutive: The more I read about the Federal Reserve and how it conducts business the more I'm convinced that it has become something far different than what was originally intended.

You mean like how Social Security was NEVER intended to be the ONLY source of income for people in retirement but only as some extra cash to help the retired who were supposed to be smart during their careers and save, but has now morphed into many individual's sole source if income?

Social Security was always meant to be a pension. That's what they campaigned for it as; a way to take care of our seniors so none of them would be dying old and alone in the streets. Go listen to FDR's speeches instead of getting your talking points from Republican chain mails.