'Enough is Enough' LA Times Editorial

[ZeroJunk]

Originally Posted by bobabode

You asked me to read all of that post you linked to, I have a question for you. Did you read the comments where his argument was destroyed by someone named FG?

BTW, where do you RWers find these idiotic examples, TownhallTipSheet.com? Breitbarts? Spill, dude.

No, I just wanted you to read the part about how much the Federal Reserve propped up the banks far in excess of TARP.

You shot the messenger, but you can find the same in Forbes etc.

I assumed from Daily Koss you might actually take a look at it.

$29 trillion

[donquixote99]

Originally Posted by ZeroJunk

No, I just wanted you to read the part about how much the Federal Reserve propped up the banks far in excess of TARP.

You shot the messenger, but you can find the same in Forbes etc.

I assumed from Daily Koss you might actually take a look at it.

$29 trillion

29 Trillion is wrong. Going to the source linked-to in your link takes us to GAO report here: https://www.scribd.com/doc/60553686/...outer_page_144

There we find two tables, table 8 and table 9, that sum up emergency borrowing from the Fed by banks. The text above table 8 explains the difference between the two tables:

Table 8 aggregates total dollar transaction amounts by adding the total dollar amount of all loans butdoes not adjust these amounts to reflect differences across programs inthe term over which loans were outstanding. For example, an overnight PDCF loan of $10 billion that was renewed daily at the same level for 30 business days would result in an aggregate amount borrowed of $300 billion although the institution, in effect, borrowed only $10 billion over 30 days. In contrast, a TAF loan of $10 billion extended over a 1-month period would appear as $10 billion. As a result, the total transaction amounts shown in table 8 for PDCF are not directly comparable to the total transaction amounts shown for TAF and other programs that made loans for periods longer than overnight.

In other words, if a bank borrowed 10 billion overnight, and then rolled the loan over for 30 total days, table 8 shows the total borrowed as 300 billion. Table 9 adjusts that to $10 billion. That's why table 8 totals $16.1 trillion, and table 9 totals $1.1 trillion.

Tables show 'top 20 borrowers,' I'll assume without digging further that
the 29 trillion figure is the 'table 8' type total for all borrowers.

I imagine there are uses for the table 8 figures in analysis, but a valid use would NOT be claiming the inflated figures in it represent how much money the Feds came up with in 'emergency assistance' for the banks.

And all this was borrowing, not giveaways. You understood that, right?

[Chicks]

Originally Posted by donquixote99

And all this was borrowing, not giveaways. You understood that, right?

Pretty clear that he doesn't understand much of anything .

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by Chicks

Pretty clear that he doesn't understand much of anything .

He understands what Rush tells him to understand. Feckin' ditto-head.

[ZeroJunk]

Originally Posted by donquixote99

29 Trillion is wrong. Going to the source linked-to in your link takes us to GAO report here: https://www.scribd.com/doc/60553686/...outer_page_144

There we find two tables, table 8 and table 9, that sum up emergency borrowing from the Fed by banks. The text above table 8 explains the difference between the two tables:



In other words, if a bank borrowed 10 billion overnight, and then rolled the loan over for 30 total days, table 8 shows the total borrowed as 300 billion. Table 9 adjusts that to $10 billion. That's why table 8 totals $16.1 trillion, and table 9 totals $1.1 trillion.

Tables show 'top 20 borrowers,' I'll assume without digging further that
the 29 trillion figure is the 'table 8' type total for all borrowers.

I imagine there are uses for the table 8 figures in analysis, but a valid use would NOT be claiming the inflated figures in it represent how much money the Feds came up with in 'emergency assistance' for the banks.

And all this was borrowing, not giveaways. You understood that, right?

Sure. My point was simply that there was a huge bailout of the banks, not the American people. Now, one could say they are both the same , or not.
Some economics scholars thought it would be better to let the banks fail and the system reset.
But, since Paulson and about everybody else in DC were ex Goldman Sachs you can imagine how likely that was to happen since the shareholders would have been killed.

You can't A/B things like this so you don't know what would have happened if the banks had not been propped up.

[bobabode]

Originally Posted by ZeroJunk

Sure. My point was simply that there was a huge bailout of the banks, not the American people. Now, one could say they are both the same , or not.
Some economics scholars thought it would be better to let the banks fail and the system reset.
But, since Paulson and about everybody else in DC were ex Goldman Sachs you can imagine how likely that was to happen since the shareholders would have been killed.

You can't A/B things like this so you don't know what would have happened if the banks had not been propped up.

We would still be living in the rubble of the Bush economy and bartering for the basic necessities of life, dolt.

[bobabode]

Originally Posted by ZeroJunk

No, I just wanted you to read the part about how much the Federal Reserve propped up the banks far in excess of TARP.

You shot the messenger, but you can find the same in Forbes etc.

I assumed from Daily Koss you might actually take a look at it.

$29 trillion

No, what I did was look at what that now banned DailyKOS member had to say and looked at some of his history on that site. He's a fucking rougie with no sense at all of what he was talking about.

Believe it or not, I'm a running dog capitalist to those low grade morons. (grin)
In other words, a liberal Democrat. Now, piss off.

[ZeroJunk]

Originally Posted by bobabode

No, what I did was look at what that now banned DailyKOS member had to say and looked at some of his history on that site. He's a fucking rougie with no sense at all of what he was talking about.

Believe it or not, I'm a running dog capitalist to those low grade morons. (grin)
In other words, a liberal Democrat. Now, piss off.

Poor old Bob. 31,000 and some stupid posts . May be a record. You should look in to it. Maybe you are actually good at something.

[bobabode]

Sad...

[ZeroJunk]

Originally Posted by bobabode

Sad...

That's actually a well written post for you.