Black Hole Debt - 16 Trillion Dollars

Discussion in 'Economics' started by Mvector, Dec 27, 2011.

  1. Mvector

    Mvector

    http://www.infowars.com/have-you-he...-reserve-handed-to-the-too-big-to-fail-banks/

    http://www.infowars.com/the-federal...on-in-secret-loans-to-their-bankster-friends/

    Many Americans have a hard time grasping just how large 16.1 trillion dollars is. It is an amount of money that is almost inconceivable. It is more than the GDP of the United States for an entire year. It is more than the U.S. government has spent over the last four years combined.

    The Federal Reserve was just creating gigantic piles of cash out of thin air and throwing them around with wild abandon.

    One of the only members of Congress that has wanted to talk about the GAO audit has been U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders. The following is a statement about this audit that was taken from his official website….

    “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”
     
  2. Mvector

    Mvector

    Ron Paul has been exactly correct all these years targeting the federal reserve as our prime economic problem - he called it.

    Ron Paul 2012 - Americas last chance to get it right
     
  3. I still want Ross Perot for President. He would be able to fix it. DC is not in control of the country anymore anyways they are just he check cutters. There is no culpabilty in DC the place is a joke. If they don't spend it they lose it, WTF guess they never heard of saving anything?

    Welcome to Planet Misery,

    Akuma

    BUY GOLD!!!
     
  4. Mvector

    Mvector

    lets see how many denialists think these reports are wrong - I am finding some of the best info on the real details of our problems at infowars - i see why drudgereport and others are adding so many infowars reports day to day.
     
  5. Mvector

    Mvector

    ross perot was made from government contracts - he was a tool used by elites.



    Hypocrite: Got Rich Off Exorbitant Government Contracts

    Perot got rich off government money -- Medicare and Medicaid, to be exact, two of the programs contributing the most to the deficit he talks about so much.

    How much does his company (EDS) make off the government? Consider this; in 1980, EDS won a contract that paid over $390 million per year for administering Medicare -- just in Texas! That's not the cost of the actual health care -- it's purely administrative expense for doing the paperwork. Medicaid is separate, and EDS has similar contracts with states around the country -- using software that they charged the federal government for developing, but kept the rights to.

    EDS barely turned a profit before it began government work. In 1964, its fourth year, the company made $4,100 on revenue of $400,000. In 1965, when it started government work, that rose to just $26,487 on revenues of $865,000. By 1968, EDS grossed $7.5 million, and made a profit of $2.4 MILLION - nearly 30% profit.

    Ever since, the company has faced critical audits, congressional investigations, and charges of poor quality work and exorbitant fees. But they built a dominant position in a new industry by investing heavily in political connections, notably with the Nixon Administration, and by personal contacts (Perot himself was a consultant for EDS' first Medicare client, Texas Blue Cross.) They have maintained profits from government work with their near-monopoly power and, in part, with vicious, sleazy attacks on any potential competitors. (See Posner, chapter 4, "Welfare Billionaire")
     


  6. Deep down todays version of Capitalism is another form of Marxism. The heaving over worked collective of serfs funding the lifestyles of their wealthy masters. The result of Democracy on sale to the highest bidders.
     
  7. the1

    the1

    Someday there will be a day like this in the US but that day is probably far off.<hr></hr>

    <b><font color = "green">Why Iceland Should Be in the News, But Is Not</font color></b>
    Monday 15 August 2011
    <font color = "red">Lby: Deena Stryker, The South Africa Civil Society Information Service | News Analysis</font color>

    An Italian radio program's story about Iceland’s on-going revolution is a stunning example of how little our media tells us about the rest of the world. Americans may remember that at the start of the 2008 financial crisis, Iceland literally went bankrupt. The reasons were mentioned only in passing, and since then, this little-known member of the European Union fell back into oblivion.

    As one European country after another fails or risks failing, imperiling the Euro, with repercussions for the entire world, the last thing the powers that be want is for Iceland to become an example. Here's why:

    Five years of a pure neo-liberal regime had made Iceland, (population 320 thousand, no army), one of the richest countries in the world. In 2003 all the country’s banks were privatized, and in an effort to attract foreign investors, they offered on-line banking whose minimal costs allowed them to offer relatively high rates of return. The accounts, called IceSave, attracted many English and Dutch small investors. But as investments grew, so did the banks’ foreign debt. In 2003 Iceland’s debt was equal to 200 times its GNP, but in 2007, it was 900 percent. The 2008 world financial crisis was the coup de grace. The three main Icelandic banks, Landbanki, Kapthing and Glitnir, went belly up and were nationalized, while the Kroner lost 85% of its value with respect to the Euro. At the end of the year Iceland declared bankruptcy.

    Contrary to what could be expected, the crisis resulted in Icelanders recovering their sovereign rights, through a process of direct participatory democracy that eventually led to a new Constitution. But only after much pain.

    Geir Haarde, the Prime Minister of a Social Democratic coalition government, negotiated a two million one hundred thousand dollar loan, to which the Nordic countries added another two and a half million. But the foreign financial community pressured Iceland to impose drastic measures. The FMI and the European Union wanted to take over its debt, claiming this was the only way for the country to pay back Holland and Great Britain, who had promised to reimburse their citizens.

    Protests and riots continued, eventually forcing the government to resign. Elections were brought forward to April 2009, resulting in a left-wing coalition which condemned the neoliberal economic system, but immediately gave in to its demands that Iceland pay off a total of three and a half million Euros. This required each Icelandic citizen to pay 100 Euros a month (or about $130) for fifteen years, at 5.5% interest, to pay off a debt incurred by private parties vis a vis other private parties. It was the straw that broke the reindeer’s back.

    What happened next was extraordinary. The belief that citizens had to pay for the mistakes of a financial monopoly, that an entire nation must be taxed to pay off private debts was shattered, transforming the relationship between citizens and their political institutions and eventually driving Iceland’s leaders to the side of their constituents. The Head of State, Olafur Ragnar Grimsson, refused to ratify the law that would have made Iceland’s citizens responsible for its bankers’ debts, and accepted calls for a referendum.

    Of course the international community only increased the pressure on Iceland. Great Britain and Holland threatened dire reprisals that would isolate the country. As Icelanders went to vote, foreign bankers threatened to block any aid from the IMF. The British government threatened to freeze Icelander savings and checking accounts. As Grimsson said: “We were told that if we refused the international community’s conditions, we would become the Cuba of the North. But if we had accepted, we would have become the Haiti of the North.” (How many times have I written that when Cubans see the dire state of their neighbor, Haiti, they count themselves lucky.)

    In the March 2010 referendum, 93% voted against repayment of the debt. The IMF immediately froze its loan. But the revolution (though not televised in the United States), would not be intimidated. With the support of a furious citizenry, the government launched civil and penal investigations into those responsible for the financial crisis. Interpol put out an international arrest warrant for the ex-president of Kaupthing, Sigurdur Einarsson, as the other bankers implicated in the crash fled the country.

    But Icelanders didn't stop there: they decided to draft a new constitution that would free the country from the exaggerated power of international finance and virtual money. (The one in use had been written when Iceland gained its independence from Denmark, in 1918, the only difference with the Danish constitution being that the word ‘president’ replaced the word ‘king’.)

    To write the new constitution, the people of Iceland elected twenty-five citizens from among 522 adults not belonging to any political party but recommended by at least thirty citizens. This document was not the work of a handful of politicians, but was written on the internet. The constituent’s meetings are streamed on-line, and citizens can send their comments and suggestions, witnessing the document as it takes shape. The constitution that eventually emerges from this participatory democratic process will be submitted to parliament for approval after the next elections.

    Some readers will remember that Iceland’s ninth century agrarian collapse was featured in Jared Diamond’s book by the same name. Today, that country is recovering from its financial collapse in ways just the opposite of those generally considered unavoidable, as confirmed yesterday by the new head of the IMF, Christine Lagarde to Fareed Zakaria. The people of Greece have been told that the privatization of their public sector is the only solution. And those of Italy, Spain and Portugal are facing the same threat.

    They should look to Iceland. Refusing to bow to foreign interests, that small country stated loud and clear that the people are sovereign.

    That’s why it is not in the news anymore.
     
  8. Mvector

    Mvector

    According to the GAO audit, $16.1 trillion in secret loans were made by the Federal Reserve between December 1, 2007 and July 21, 2010. The following list of firms and the amount of money that they received was taken directly frompage 131 of the GAO audit report….

    Citigroup – $2.513 trillion
    Morgan Stanley – $2.041 trillion
    Merrill Lynch – $1.949 trillion
    Bank of America – $1.344 trillion
    Barclays PLC – $868 billion
    Bear Sterns – $853 billion
    Goldman Sachs – $814 billion
    Royal Bank of Scotland – $541 billion
    JP Morgan Chase – $391 billion
    Deutsche Bank – $354 billion
    UBS – $287 billion
    Credit Suisse – $262 billion
    Lehman Brothers – $183 billion
    Bank of Scotland – $181 billion
    BNP Paribas – $175 billion
    Wells Fargo – $159 billion
    Dexia – $159 billion
    Wachovia – $142 billion
    Dresdner Bank – $135 billion
    Societe Generale – $124 billion
    “All Other Borrowers” – $2.639 trillion
     
  9. ammo

    ammo

    they will conjure up a similar story for ron paul before election,,they want to put their man in ,not the people's choice
     
  10. nitro

    nitro

    Fascinating doesn't even come close to describing this. I have to do far far more research.

    Thanks for posting it!

    http://www.infowars.com/why-iceland-should-be-in-the-news-but-is-not/

     
    #10     Dec 27, 2011