The reason you can not document that the Fed gave anything to banks is because they didn't. Anything credited to their reserve accounts was in exchange for assets. That is not a giveaway, it is being smart on how to handle the worst recession since the Great Depression. Some banks did not have enough assets. they either went under, there were many, or were bought out.
you are now just making crap up. I don't know if the money was paid back... but that is not the point... this article said it was not... but the issue is the money was created at will and no one at the Fed told us about it for years. The FED does whatever it wants... it is private and releases only the info it wishes to release most of the time. I read accounts like the one below in bloomberg in the past... and linked to it for you. so if you don't like this source... read that one. (the underline below is mine...) http://www.sott.net/article/250592-...eserve-Reveals-16-Trillion-in-Secret-Bailouts $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. To place $16 trillion into perspective, remember that GDP of the United States is only $14.12 trillion. The entire national debt of the United States government spanning its 200+ year history is "only" $14.5 trillion. The budget that is being debated so heavily in Congress and the Senate is "only" $3.5 trillion. Take all of the outrage and debate over the $1.5 trillion deficit into consideration, and swallow this Red pill: There was no debate about whether $16,000,000,000,000 would be given to failing banks and failing corporations around the world. In late 2008, the TARP Bailout bill was passed and loans of $800 billion were given to failing banks and companies. That was a blatant lie considering the fact that Goldman Sachs alone received 814 billion dollars. As is turns out, the Federal Reserve donated $2.5 trillion to Citigroup, while Morgan Stanley received $2.04 trillion. The Royal Bank of Scotland and Deutsche Bank, a German bank, split about a trillion and numerous other banks received hefty chunks of the $16 trillion.
my dad got a new truck every few years.. played a fair bit of golf and had a nice house. overall he lived fairly modestly... my mom spent a bit but nothing over the top for retirees with money. my dad's love was trading... so he really did not spend the money. he died with his accounts returning to all time highs after getting a bit smashed during the banking crisis. that made him happy but the stress probably contributed to his esophageal cancer. my mom is now in a retirement home. her mom lived to 99 years old. My mom really does not understand money. So the money may or may not spent by her. so the answer to your question was the 800 thousand he turned into 5 million did not get spent (at least most of it) ... but it was a source of a great deal of satisfaction. he was fricken great at making money during a bull run.
Jem, the TARP account is given in Detail on the Treasury web site (if I remember correctly). I have looked at it in detail, some time ago now, and I assure you that it is all there for you to examine. It is part of the public record, for god sake. You owe it to yourself to take the time to examine the TARP accounting personally and ease your troubled mind. I don't have time at the moment, but when I do I'll see if I can find a direct link for you. I am only asking that you use your head here. None , absolutely none, of these transactions are secret! If they were you wouldn't know about them. Not only were they evident in the public record of the GAO audit, but they were part of the public record long before that audit. [Don't forget the Fed is redundantly audited, there is not just one auditor.] As I have pointed out over and over, nowadays everything the Fed and Treasury does is put on the web for you, ad nauseum, most of it in virtually real time. Some transactions, of course, have to be delayed as far as announcing them, to prevent traders or others with a financial interest from taking unfair advantage. For example FOMC decisions, are reviewed internally, and then the public is told exactly when the decisions will be announced. This is so everyone gets the news at the same time. You can understand the necessity of that I'm sure. The Fed is absolutely anal about leaks, and nowadays responding to fair criticism of the Greenspan Fed, they are positively anal about letting the public know everything that is going on.
Sanders health plan would be more generous than Medicare "WASHINGTON — Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders says his plan for a government-run health care system from cradle to grave is like Medicare for all. But with full coverage for long-term care, most dental care included, no deductibles and zero copays, the Sanders plan is considerably more generous. Think of it as Medicare on growth hormones. Setting aside ideological issues, the scope of Sanders' plan and its lack of detail have raised questions about its seriousness. Some health care experts see it mainly as a political document to distinguish Sanders' revolutionary ideas from Hillary Clinton's incremental approach. Sanders runs the risk of looking "like he is living in a fantasy land, for putting forward an idea he can't possibly deliver during his term in office," said Drew Altman, president of the nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation. Last Sunday, the Vermont senator released an 8-page outline of his "Medicare For All" plan, an idea he's long advocated. The campaign estimates it would cost $1.38 trillion a year, paid for with new taxes that would take the place of private health insurance premiums. Here's a look at some things Sanders left out: NOT LIKE MEDICARE Medicare doesn't cover long-term care, not to mention dentures, and seniors face deductibles and cost-sharing when they go to the doctor. Many buy an additional private insurance policy to cover Medicare gaps. "BernieCare," as it is being called, would be above and beyond..." http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...-generous-than-medicare/ar-BBove4n?li=BBnb7Kz
There is only one small issue with the Sanders health care plan: it's a complete fantasy... Here’s One Big Problem With The Bernie Sanders Plan For Health Care Utopia It sounds great, but there's no way he can deliver. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/bernie-sanders-health-plan_us_569ff110e4b076aadcc50807
the only problem with Bernies healthcare plan is that he is running against Hillary. If something happened and he got the nomination, then suddenly his healthcare plan would start making sense.
Why can't you deal in facts here instead of misdirection. The Fed did not give out information about the "emergency loans in the 7 to 16 trillion dollar range until Bloomberg battled them in court over a freedom of information act request. here are the details at the bloomberg link below. I have asked you to read this stuff... do you? you now have this from multiple sources. This proves the Fed does not provide information about all its money creation. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...d-to-congress-gave-banks-13-billion-in-income ... The size of the bailout came to light after Bloomberg LP, the parent of Bloomberg News, won a court case against the Fed and a group of the biggest U.S. banks called Clearing House Association LLC to force lending details into the open. The Fed, headed by Chairman Ben S. Bernanke, argued that revealing borrower details would create a stigma -- investors and counterparties would shun firms that used the central bank as lender of last resort -- and that needy institutions would be reluctant to borrow in the next crisis. Clearing House Association fought Bloomberg’s lawsuit up to the U.S. Supreme Court, which declined to hear the banks’ appeal in March 2011. $7.77 Trillion
Get ready to experience a steady stream of negatives from the unbelievably profitable U.S. Healthcare industry. For many years, Vanguard's Health Fund has been, on average, their most profitable mutual fund. There is of course a reason, U.S. health care isn't just a little more expensive than the same and mostly better care in other countries, it is at minimum 100% more expensive. Swiss costs, which are half ours, are most comparable. In fact the Heritage Foundation Plan, on which both Obamacare and Romneycare are based, seems closely modeled after the Swiss system (without of course any of the tight cost controls and insurance regulation present in the Swiss system.) As you ratchet the comparisons down through the panoply of other civilized countries of the world, you'll find that U.S. healthcare quickly mushrooms to multiple times as expensive as those in other countries. During the political discussion of Obamacare I heard a representative of the Mayo Clinic comment that the U.S. did not really have a health care system, and that was the crux of the problem. I believe this is a most cogent observation. The U.S. approach to health is a piñata of badly flavored, very expensive, unattractive choices rapped in colorful, insurance speak obfuscations. You grab a baseball bat and hope that your piece of health candy is less bitter than another. The candy is all gone by the time the folks at the back of the crowd can reach the piñata. But they were a fool if they thought just because there was a piñata they had any right to a piece of the candy.
What percent of health care costs could be eliminated by taking out the health insurance companies and with centralizing record keeping, prescription paperwork etc. A large part of health care costs is just due to the absurd paperwork. This could be streamlined under single payer.