• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Employers add no net jobs in Aug.; rate unchanged

Status
Not open for further replies.
Here is the list of PDCF transactions ... amounts and collateral.



saupload_pdcf_borrowers.png


You convinced me to term the amount to a year ... so it could be appreciated relative to a more representational thought.

How is it in black and white you have a problem with the black and white.

16 trillion has been dragged out to table 9 ... a years term. How is it not that way, when it clearly states it is?

Are you basing on a longer term? What evidence do you have that Table 8 is not the term adjusted data for table 9, and that it may or may not have been calculated erroneously.





The Use and Abuse of the Primary Dealer Credit Facility - Seeking Alpha

As stated earlier, you have no idea what you are talking about, and there is little point in continuing this conversation because you simply do not understand the material.
 
As stated earlier, you have no idea what you are talking about, and there is little point in continuing this conversation because you simply do not understand the material.

So you build credibility and throw it away with an attack ... no answer. What happened to honesty? It's in black and white ... do you not understand the data?
 
So you build credibility and throw it away with an attack ... no answer. What happened to honesty? It's in black and white ... do you not understand the data?

I have already outlined my point, and still you do not understand what the GAO report states. On a term adjusted basis, in the span of those three years, banks received $1.39 trillion in loans... period. This is truth. None the less, it is beyond the scope of this topic. If you feel so strongly about this, make a thread in the Econ section and let us see what other posters have to say on the matter.
 
Obama voted for the Bush budget, had 8 months to change it or request lowering the spending but didn't. He put his people in charge of the spending and thus the deficit is his
What a pity you have no concept of how our government functions. For your edification, it's the Congress which spends money, not people put in charge by Obama. Secondly, the president cannot tell Congress how to spend money from the previous budget. Why you persist with that nonsense even though you know that is beyond me, but if the president could do as you suggest, you would have shown where the Constitution grants the president such a power over the Congress by now. You haven't because you know the notion that the president controls the purse strings is completely absurd.

You only read the part of the report that you wanted to read, read the entire report.
Well you're free to copy & paste the part you believe shows that 9.11 cost $1 trillion but you dont. And the reason you don't is because you can't and the reason you can't is because it's not in there. You are making that up.

Now I could prove it but suffice it to say, I could do what you do all the time, round the direct costs up
More BS. If you could have proven it, you would have. You haven't proven it because you can't. Don't you even understand that everyone here reading this knows that?

And claiming you are rounding only serves to expose more of your lies. Explain how $639B rounds up to "
more than 1 trillion dollars?"

With liberals it is always easier using percentages because that ignores real people. Numbers matter more than percentages. Obama will add more debt in 4 years than Bush did in 8 yet you think that is a good thing because the percentage is less. That is liberal logic
Numbers are useless in terms of comparison because they don't factor in workforce growth. You know this but you pretend like it doesn't matter because you like the numbers better without factoring in workforce growth.
 
I have already outlined my point, and still you do not understand what the GAO report states. On a term adjusted basis, in the span of those three years, banks received $1.39 trillion in loans... period. This is truth. None the less, it is beyond the scope of this topic. If you feel so strongly about this, make a thread in the Econ section and let us see what other posters have to say on the matter.

The GAO report is clear. This isn't Okun's, Say's, Chicago, Keynes, Global labor Arbitrage, ... it's black and white.

Table 25 ranks the primary dealers by the total dollar amount of their
borrowing through PDCF.


Table 25.jpg
 
Last edited:
What a pity you have no concept of how our government functions. For your edification, it's the Congress which spends money, not people put in charge by Obama. Secondly, the president cannot tell Congress how to spend money from the previous budget. Why you persist with that nonsense even though you know that is beyond me, but if the president could do as you suggest, you would have shown where the Constitution grants the president such a power over the Congress by now. You haven't because you know the notion that the president controls the purse strings is completely absurd.


Well you're free to copy & paste the part you believe shows that 9.11 cost $1 trillion but you dont. And the reason you don't is because you can't and the reason you can't is because it's not in there. You are making that up.


More BS. If you could have proven it, you would have. You haven't proven it because you can't. Don't you even understand that everyone here reading this knows that?

And claiming you are rounding only serves to expose more of your lies. Explain how $639B rounds up to "
more than 1 trillion dollars?"


Numbers are useless in terms of comparison because they don't factor in workforce growth. You know this but you pretend like it doesn't matter because you like the numbers better without factoring in workforce growth.

Sheik, you don't have a clue, Congress appropriates the money, individuals spend it, ie. Defense Secretary and his staff, Commerce Secretary and staff, and so on. Congress does not run the departments. I can see you never ran anything. I gave my managers a budget to spend, didn't require them to spend it all, but they spent the money and were accountable for the results at the end of the year. Accountability is something you don't understand among other things.

Read the article but regardless, you don't want to believe it, then believe I rounded up

Numbers to a liberal are worthless regardless of what they show as feelings matter more than results. Obama's results will be on the ballot in 2012, live with it
 
Goldenboy219;1059784270]Did they put more of what people earn, back in their pocket? I would like you to answer this.

Yep, just like a rebate check you get from an electronics store. Great, wasn't it? How long did it last?


Based on what, gut feeling, so called street smarts, common sense?

Actual results, suggest you consider them next time. Amazing how you can buy a chart about Household budget debt but not results from the stimulus spending

3.8% of GDP. However the Reagan recession was manufactured by Paul Volker, as a means of reducing inflation expectations. Reagan did not inherit the worst financial crisis since 1929. There was not a 25% loss in household net worth, credit contraction (even though mortgages were expensive, people still were able to take them because their wages were being impacted upward due to the same inflation you site), mortgage meltdown, banking collapse, corporate bankruptcies whose assets were more than 10% of GDP, total shutdown of the commercial paper credit market, insolvency of the worlds largest insurance company, insolvency of Fannie and Freddie, 2 of the 3 largest U.S. auto manufactures collapse, a housing crisis that has left millions of homes vacant and millions of homeowners underwater on their mortgage, massive bank failures, more than 600,000 job losses per month, etc....

The recession may have been manufactured in part by Volcker but the Carter economic policy made it worse. Doubt you were around during that period of time so all your information came from textbooks. Textbooks combined with street smarts makes you well rounded. With you I see the book smarts, but nothing dealing with street smarts dealing with human behavior.

But hey, there was 10.8% unemployment and inflation of 11% in the 1980's. :shock: WOW. You might want to use your head for something other than hanging a hat.

and mortgage rates at 17.5% with no bailouts and no two years of unemployment benefits for the unemployed. Homeowners were throwing the keys at the banks and the govt. wasn't there to bail them out like today. You really need to talk to someone who lived during that period of time and ask them how bad the economy was.


Obama and his administration underestimated the size and magnitude of this financial crisis, much in the same way as you continue to do.

Bull****, what they did is what liberals always do, try to get the govt. more involved in solving economic problems but what they did was bail out his constituent group. With Obama there are no consequences for failure and with you it is just reward poor economic stewardship not realizing that the private sector is what will bring us out of this mess. Private sector doesn't create public debt, govt. does.


Charts and graphs? I used a basic macro model to illustrate why the stimulus package was too small. How on earth does talking to people and seeing how real people live give me insight into the adequacy of the ARRA? Please explain this.....

Charts and graphs can be made to show whatever you want to show. What was the sample, what was the context, what was the criteria?


You're resorting to semantics. The Obama administration made no reference to the U-6 unemployment rate, so it is irrelevant to consider given my previous statement.

Until 1994 there was no such thing as discourged workers just like the current unemployment rate ignores them as well. That may make liberals and politicians feel better with 9.1% unemployment but tell that we have 9.1% unemployment to the 25 plus million unemployed, discouraged workers, and under employed.

None the less, the federal debt as a % of GDP skyrocketed to 144%. That was the greatest generation, they paid their debts with blood and hard work. It was your generation, the pass the buck generation, that has created this disaster.

War spending was required just like it is required during any war, that is when you go to war to win it. The greatest generation created people like you who don't have a clue as to how hard they worked but I assure you they weren't looking for a taxpayer funded bailout for failures.


How have i displayed any of that given we are discussing the macro economy, fiscal stimulus, business cycle behavior, and political economy? What specifically have i said that shows i do not understand human behavior? You continue to make these accusations on a consistent basis, yet are never able to exhibit exactly what lead you to this conclusion. In reality, this is really just a defense mechanism you've created when you cannot keep up with the discussion. How do you prove street smarts on an internet discussion about U.S. job creation?:roll:

charts and graphs never show human behavior and feelings which impact economic growth. Malaise and negativity was everywhere in the early 80's due to poor leadership. Reagan changed the tone and the attitude by unleashing incentive and empowering the entreprenuer. Instead of DOA programs he bypassed the Congress and went to the American people who forced their representatives to adopt the Reagan economic model. You don't understand what role attitude plays in economic growth. People who see opportunity will go after it. Giving something for nothing creates more dependence and destroys incentive.


Ok then prove it. What exactly is fallacious and lacks common sense? You seem to want to discuss me and what you perceive me to know rather than the topic at hand. I make a statement, and you call me into question without even acknowledging that very statement.

Simple logic and common sense show that people keeping more of what they earn need less govt. and provide more to charities than having the middleman take administrative costs and channelling that money to areas they want.


The private sector has more liquidity, capital, and short term assets than they have ever had! EVER! In fact, there has never been this sort of short term assets and cash on corporate balance sheets during any time in history. They are sitting on $1.93 trillion in cash and short term assets!

The private sector operates on a 5 year plan and doesn't print money. They aren't going to invest money with the uncertainties presented by this Administration and the potential increases in cost.

I agree. But when nobody is willing to spend money, it is the role of government to step in and provide a necessary jolt to prevent a depression. Did the great depression teach you anything?

Taught me a lot, personal responsibility and use more of my own income that I get to keep with tax cuts to pay off debt and then personally help others. I had great parents who taught me that there are consequences for poor choices.


The Federal Reserve Bank and the Bureau of Economic Analysis.

I prefer individual bank accounts, investment accounts, and savings.



Exactly who was not measured?

I don't know who was measured, I wasn't

How is this relevant to the discussion? I was not making any judgement calls.

Personal responsibility is always relevant. Liberals never accept the fact that people fail and that there are consequences for failure. Instead everyone is given total benefit of doubt and those that fail always do so due to circumstances beyond their control which is BS. Failure is a learning experience and until you let people fail you do nothing but create more dependence.

This is a red herring argument (a fallacy Mr. Logic), and in no way addresses my last point. People are so indebted, they will spend little of their tax proceeds from a tax cut, which is why it is a suboptimal was to stimulate the economy. Does this model human behavior correctly? If you were in debt nearly 90%, and got some money back from a tax cut, would you go out and buy a new car, or pay down your debt? How about actually answering one my my many points instead of hitting the reply button before you make it past 5 sentences....

What people do with their money is none of your business and you cannot interject your values into anyone else. Tax cuts mean more take home pay and reward taxpayers. Higher taxes reward the politicians that wasted our money. It is never used to pay down debt.
 
Old news, and something anyone discussing it should know. But sure, no problem:

NEW YORK — As speakers at the GOP convention trumpet Bush administration successes in the war on terrorism, an NBC News analysis of Islamic terrorism since Sept. 11, 2001, shows that attacks are on the rise worldwide — dramatically.

Terrorism deaths on increase - US news - Security - msnbc.com

As nihilistic as it may be, al-Qaeda, from a business point of view, is a major success: three years after September 11, it is a global brand and a global movement. The Middle East, in this scenario, is just a regional base station. This global brand does not have much to do with Islam. But it has everything to do with the globalization of anti-imperialism. And the empire, whatever its definition, has its center in Washington. Bin Laden is laughing: Bush's crusade has legitimized an obscure sect as a worldwide symbol of political revolt. How could bin Laden not vote for Bush?

Asia Times - Asia's most trusted news source for the Middle East

In addition to rebuilding its organization and enhancing its capacity to attack the United States homeland, as Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell reported in the 2008 Annual Threat Assessment, al Qaeda also has significantly expanded its worldwide operational and ideological reach over the past few years. New terrorist organizations have emerged and many existing networks have gained renewed strength, from al Qaeda affiliates in North Africa and Southeast Asia to "homegrown" extremists operating in many parts of Europe and even in the United States. While these organizations often draw resources and inspiration from al Qaeda, they primarily operate independently, making them more difficult to identify and defeat

The Bush-Republican Record of Failure in Combating Global Terrorism

One of the many sad ironies of the Bush era that is rapidly and mercifully drawing to a close is that after the president created a �central front in the war on terror� by invading Iraq, the amount of �terrorism� in the world skyrocketed. I call it the Bush Bubble:

The Raw Story | White House: Increase in terror attacks since 9/11 a success

Wednesday, April 27, 2005

The number of serious international terrorist incidents more than tripled last year, according to U.S. government figures, a sharp upswing in deadly attacks that the State Department has decided not to make public in its annual report on terrorism due to Congress this week.

U.S. Figures Show Sharp Global Rise In Terrorism


I do have to leave for a awhile, but any search would show you much more than I've listed.

:coffeepap

I said list actual attacks and details of each, not a bunch of hack pieces, one from MSNBC that blames global terrorism on Bush. Did you even read your own links? One of them speaks about deaths in Russia and Israel. I specified attacks against the US at home or overseas where Americans died and American interests were attacked. Every attack I listed specified Americans that died. You can't POSSIBLY be blaming an attack in Russia on Bush?

No, on second though, you could. Only you could, but you could.

So I remain correct, more attacks on Americans where Americans died occurred while Clinton was getting his dick sucked by Monica than while Bush was in office. The number of actual people dead was more under Bush only because they told people to stay inside the twin towers after the planes hit. Of course that's Bush's fault too, right?

So in other words, NICE FAIL.
 
Last edited:
WTF, it's September and we're still arguing about August. Quick, someone start a new thread for September. :mrgreen:
 
I said list actual attacks and details of each, not a bunch of hack pieces, one from MSNBC that blames global terrorism on Bush. Did you even read your own links? One of them speaks about deaths in Russia and Israel. I specified attacks against the US at home or overseas where Americans died and American interests were attacked. Every attack I listed specified Americans that died. You can't POSSIBLY be blaming an attack in Russia on Bush?

No, on second though, you could. Only you could, but you could.

So I remain correct, more attacks on Americans where Americans died occurred while Clinton was getting his dick sucked by Monica than while Bush was in office. The number of actual people dead was more under Bush only because they told people to stay inside the twin towers after the planes hit. Of course that's Bush's fault too, right?

So in other words, NICE FAIL.
You're talking out of both sides of your mouth. On one hand you're saying more Americans died at the hands of terrorism while Clinton was president, but then you admit more died while Bush was president.
 
I said list actual attacks and details of each, not a bunch of hack pieces, one from MSNBC that blames global terrorism on Bush. Did you even read your own links? One of them speaks about deaths in Russia and Israel. I specified attacks against the US at home or overseas where Americans died and American interests were attacked. Every attack I listed specified Americans that died. You can't POSSIBLY be blaming an attack in Russia on Bush?

No, on second though, you could. Only you could, but you could.

So I remain correct, more attacks on Americans where Americans died occurred while Clinton was getting his dick sucked by Monica than while Bush was in office. The number of actual people dead was more under Bush only because they told people to stay inside the twin towers after the planes hit. Of course that's Bush's fault too, right?

So in other words, NICE FAIL.

A bit early for your daily drive by isn't it Brandon?:roll:
 
I said list actual attacks and details of each, not a bunch of hack pieces, one from MSNBC that blames global terrorism on Bush. Did you even read your own links? One of them speaks about deaths in Russia and Israel. I specified attacks against the US at home or overseas where Americans died and American interests were attacked. Every attack I listed specified Americans that died. You can't POSSIBLY be blaming an attack in Russia on Bush?

No, on second though, you could. Only you could, but you could.

So I remain correct, more attacks on Americans where Americans died occurred while Clinton was getting his dick sucked by Monica than while Bush was in office. The number of actual people dead was more under Bush only because they told people to stay inside the twin towers after the planes hit. Of course that's Bush's fault too, right?

So in other words, NICE FAIL.

Be serious jr. The links speak to the numbers. And they are from a variety of sources. You're just trying to find a way to ignore the facts. But you can do it by year:

List of terrorist incidents, 2004 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

List of terrorist incidents, 2005 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

List of terrorist incidents, 2006 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

List of terrorist incidents, 2007 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

List of terrorist incidents, 2008 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You can also search and read news stories on them individually:

Major terrorist attacks since 9/11 | World news | guardian.co.uk

Or search for some analysis:

Nine years after the attacks of 9/11, how safe is America? - CSMonitor.com


But, you can't honestly argue that terrorism has been quelled in any way.
 
Yea, not to mention how many terrorist attacks did we, and our allies, suffer during the Clinton 8 years vs the Bush 8? That'll be a list you won't see a liberal post, but I'll be happy to post it. Let's compare:

Clinton:
1993
Feb. 26, New York City: bomb exploded in basement garage of World Trade Center, killing 6 and injuring at least 1,040 others. In 1995, militant Islamist Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman and 9 others were convicted of conspiracy charges, and in 1998, Ramzi Yousef, believed to have been the mastermind, was convicted of the bombing. Al-Qaeda involvement is suspected.
1995
April 19, Oklahoma City: car bomb exploded outside federal office building, collapsing wall and floors. 168 people were killed, including 19 children and 1 person who died in rescue effort. Over 220 buildings sustained damage. Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols later convicted in the antigovernment plot to avenge the Branch Davidian standoff in Waco, Tex., exactly 2 years earlier. (See Miscellaneous Disasters.)
Nov. 13, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: car bomb exploded at U.S. military headquarters, killing 5 U.S. military servicemen.
1996
June 25, Dhahran, Saudi Arabia: truck bomb exploded outside Khobar Towers military complex, killing 19 American servicemen and injuring hundreds of others. 13 Saudis and a Lebanese, all alleged members of Islamic militant group Hezbollah, were indicted on charges relating to the attack in June 2001.
1998
Aug. 7, Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania: truck bombs exploded almost simultaneously near 2 U.S. embassies, killing 224 (213 in Kenya and 11 in Tanzania) and injuring about 4,500. 4 men connected with al-Qaeda 2 of whom had received training at al-Qaeda camps inside Afghanistan, were convicted of the killings in May 2001 and later sentenced to life in prison. A federal grand jury had indicted 22 men in connection with the attacks, including Saudi dissident Osama bin Laden, who remained at large.
2000
Oct. 12, Aden, Yemen: U.S. Navy destroyer USS Cole heavily damaged when a small boat loaded with explosives blew up alongside it. 17 sailors killed. Linked to Osama bin Laden, or members of al-Qaeda terrorist network.

Bush
Sept 11

Yep, considering that attack was 8 months into Bush's term and there was zero evidence pointing to a specific attack (meaning Bush couldn't do anything about it) I'd say we fared better under Bush.
Interestingly enough, the list you provide seems to come from here:

Terrorist Attacks in the U.S. or Against Americans

Yet the list goes on into the Bush years, even though you didn't include them in your post:

2001
Sept. 11, New York City, Arlington, Va., and Shanksville, Pa.: hijackers crashed 2 commercial jets into twin towers of World Trade Center; 2 more hijacked jets were crashed into the Pentagon and a field in rural Pa. Total dead and missing numbered 2,9921: 2,749 in New York City, 184 at the Pentagon, 40 in Pa., and 19 hijackers. Islamic al-Qaeda terrorist group blamed. (See September 11, 2001: Timeline of Terrorism.)

2002
June 14, Karachi, Pakistan: bomb explodes outside American consulate in Karachi, Pakistan, killing 12. Linked to al-Qaeda.

2003
1 May 12, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: suicide bombers kill 34, including 8 Americans, at housing compounds for Westerners. Al-Qaeda suspected.

2004
May 29–31, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: terrorists attack the offices of a Saudi oil company in Khobar, Saudi Arabia, take foreign oil workers hostage in a nearby residential compound, leaving 22 people dead including one American.

June 11–19, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: terrorists kidnap and execute Paul Johnson Jr., an American, in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. 2 other Americans and BBC cameraman killed by gun attacks. Dec. 6, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia: terrorists storm the U.S. consulate, killing 5 consulate employees. 4 terrorists were killed by Saudi security.

2005
Nov. 9, Amman, Jordan: suicide bombers hit 3 American hotels, Radisson, Grand Hyatt, and Days Inn, in Amman, Jordan, killing 57. Al-Qaeda claimed responsibility.

2006
Sept. 13, Damascus, Syria: an attack by four gunman on the American embassy is foiled.

2007
Jan. 12, Athens, Greece: the U.S. embassy is fired on by an anti-tank missile causing damage but no injuries.

Dec. 11, Algeria: more than 60 people are killed, including 11 United Nations staff members, when Al Qaeda terrorists detonate two car bombs near Algeria's Constitutional Council and the United Nations offices.

2008
May 26, Iraq: a suicide bomber on a motorcycle kills six U.S. soldiers and wounds 18 others in Tarmiya.

June 24, Iraq: a suicide bomber kills at least 20 people, including three U.S. Marines, at a meeting between sheiks and Americans in Karmah, a town west of Baghdad.

June 12, Afghanistan: four American servicemen are killed when a roadside bomb explodes near a U.S. military vehicle in Farah Province.

July 13, Afghanistan: nine U.S.soldiers and at least 15 NATO troops die when Taliban militants boldly attack an American base in Kunar Province, which borders Pakistan. It's the most deadly against U.S. troops in three years.

Aug. 18 and 19, Afghanistan: as many as 15 suicide bombers backed by about 30 militants attack a U.S. military base, Camp Salerno, in Bamiyan. Fighting between U.S. troops and members of the Taliban rages overnight. No U.S. troops are killed.

Sept. 16, Yemen: a car bomb and a rocket strike the U.S. embassy in Yemen as staff arrived to work, killing 16 people, including 4 civilians. At least 25 suspected al-Qaeda militants are arrested for the attack.

Nov. 26, India: in a series of attacks on several of Mumbai's landmarks and commercial hubs that are popular with Americans and other foreign tourists, including at least two five-star hotels, a hospital, a train station, and a cinema. About 300 people are wounded and nearly 190 people die, including at least 5 Americans.
 
I done been ****in' had. I couldn't find a list and I googled the ****. **** google. The poor man's search engine.

And Don, I don't do drive bys. I have no issues with stopping the car to shoot down any bull**** you post. Since most of the **** posted on this site isn't even worth a bullet, a drive by would be more than adequate.
 
Last edited:
So I remain correct, more attacks on Americans where Americans died occurred while Clinton was getting his dick sucked by Monica than while Bush was in office. The number of actual people dead was more under Bush only because they told people to stay inside the twin towers after the planes hit. Of course that's Bush's fault too, right?

So in other words, NICE FAIL.

Go back and read what you said, but you would be wrong about this new claim as well. 9/11 was under Bush. You have to add those. You also have to add those who died in Iraq and Afghanistan. Not to mention any Americans in the attacks around the world. Any way you add it, Bush lost more lives period.
 
Go back and read what you said, but you would be wrong about this new claim as well. 9/11 was under Bush. You have to add those. You also have to add those who died in Iraq and Afghanistan. Not to mention any Americans in the attacks around the world. Any way you add it, Bush lost more lives period.

The deadlist month on record in the middle east was under Obama.

You can't include deaths in a war as terrorist deaths. Clinton didn't go to war, he didn't have the balls (Monica was still busy with them).

Let's get this thread back on topic. The title has nothing to do with Monica sucking Bills dick or anything else of the like.
 
Last edited:
The deadlist month on record in the middle east was under Obama.
It was?

Are you talking just American deaths? Because there were 138 Americans killed in a single month while Bush was president.

Or are you talking all deaths? Because there were some months in which thousands were killed.
 
Well I'm in good company ... Paul Krugman is just as confused as me.

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

Audit of the Federal Reserve Reveals $16 Trillion in Secret Bailouts « Parker County Blog
What was revealed in the audit was startling: $16,000,000,000,000.00 had been secretly given out to US banks and corporations and foreign banks everywhere from France to Scotland. From the period between December 2007 and June 2010, the Federal Reserve had secretly bailed out many of the world’s banks, corporations, and governments. The Federal Reserve likes to refer to these secret bailouts as an all-inclusive loan program, but virtually none of the money has been returned and it was loaned out at 0% interest. Why the Federal Reserve had never been public about this or even informed the United States Congress about the $16 trillion dollar bailout is obvious — the American public would have been outraged to find out that the Federal Reserve bailed out foreign banks while Americans were struggling to find jobs

GAO Audit: Fed’s $16 Trillion in Aid | The Big Picture

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) said “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. This is a clear case of socialism for the rich and rugged, you’re-on-your-own individualism for everyone else.”

Sibel Edmonds' Boiling Frogs Post | Home of the Irate Minority

On pages 131-133 of their report, the GAO provided two tables listing the largest borrowing institutions under the emergency programs. They are ranked in the first table by the total borrowed amount irrespective of maturity length, and in the second table adjusting for the term of the borrowing. Some loans were for relatively brief intervals, even overnight, and others for longer time frames. Both perspectives are valuable, but the amounts adjusted for borrowing terms tend to do a better job of capturing a comparable read on the simple magnitude of lending. Total borrowing on this basis totaled $1.1 trillion, according to the GAO’s “Table 9,” while two-thirds of the 15 largest institutions listed were from outside the United States.


The Fed Audit - Newsroom: U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders (Vermont)
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.


Who got what from Fed bailout | Loren Steffy | a Chron.com blog

As the culmination of almost two years of legal wrangling, which included a U.S. Supreme Court decision and a special provision of the Dodd-Frank reform law, Bloomberg News is sifting through the Federal Reserve’s unprecedented lending program from 2007 to 2010. The Fed has been forced to reveal the banks and other institutions that got money and the amounts they received, and Bloomberg has compiled this handy interactive chart for tracking the flow of money. It’s a shame that Bloomberg’s Mark Pittman didn’t live to the see the results of his efforts, but the stories now being written about the Fed’s $1.2 trillion bailout effort stand as a tribute to his work.

The Fed’s loan program aimed to ease cash shortfalls at the banks and prevent credit markets from freezing as the financial crisis worsened. Most interesting is the big banks on the list have have insisted they never needed government help: Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan Chase, for example.

Texas banks on the list include Comerica, Zions Bancorporation, parent of Houston-based Amegy Bank, and Texas Capital Bancshares. Among the more curious recipients of the Fed’s largesse: Harley-Davidson and McDonald’s. Just think how much worse the crisis would have been if the market for Big Macs had shut down.

Federal Reserve Emergency Loans: Liquidity for Banks - Bloomberg
The Fed’s Secret Liquidity Lifelines
 
Last edited:
It was?

Are you talking just American deaths? Because there were 138 Americans killed in a single month while Bush was president.

Or are you talking all deaths? Because there were some months in which thousands were killed.

Americans man, Americans.

August brought worst death toll of Afghan war, lightest of Iraq war - KansasCity.com

April was the deadliest month in two years Iraq war:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R0wnYyhPExo

Both wars have their deadliest months under a president who vowed to get them out. Good job, Mr. President.
 
Last edited:
The deadlist month on record in the middle east was under Obama.

You can't include deaths in a war as terrorist deaths. Clinton didn't go to war, he didn't have the balls (Monica was still busy with them).

Let's get this thread back on topic. The title has nothing to do with Monica sucking Bills dick or anything else of the like.

Which has nothing to do with your claim.

And yes, you can admit you were wrong and we can let it be. I have no problem with that.


(BTW, a war of choice does count towards total deaths.)
 
Last edited:
Anybody find it ironic that the anti-government types are bitching about the government not doing enough to add jobs?
 
Anybody find it ironic that the anti-government types are bitching about the government not doing enough to add jobs?

Oh, yes. I keep trying to point that out to them, but they just can't seem to see it. It's somewhat funny, . . and sad.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom