How Hundreds Of Lawmakers Ended Up Voting To Give Banks $17 Billion

How Hundreds Of Lawmakers Ended Up Voting To Give Banks $17 Billion

So, that happened. On Thursday, 354 members of the House of Representatives voted to give banks $17 billion, basically just to thank them for being banks.

I wish I could say that I am shocked that they represent the banks and not us.

Congressional negotiators have been scrambling for months to find potential spending cuts that could offset new funding to fix roads and bridges

That shouldn't be too hard right? We could cut foreign aid, military spending, or cooperate subsidies, after all, Americans pay tax so we can maintain something that is used by the whole of society right?

The Progressive Caucus had been studying the Federal Reserve and discovered that the central bank pays billions of dollars a year in dividends to banks in the U.S. It wasn't exactly a secret, but not many people on Capitol Hill knew it was going on, partly because the practice is so old -- dating back to the creation of the central bank. Cutting those dividend payments in half would shift $17 billion from banks to federal coffers. The measure disappeared for months after the Progressive Caucus released its budget. But this summer, the Senate picked up the proposal as a way to help pay for new highway funding.

I understand the average person not being aware, even though they should be, but our law makers? Granted, the title is a bit misleading, as it is money that they have been receiving since the creation of the Federal Reserve, but this speak volumes about who has the real power.

Slashing government payments to banks, of course, makes banks angry. But slashing the Fed's capital surplus is dangerous. Without the surplus, the Fed may be forced to focus more on turning a profit than on effectively managing the economy, driving up interest rates and unemployment in order to avoid taking political heat for being underfunded. But making banks angry is a no-no on Capitol Hill. So 241 Republicans and 113 Democrats voted to mess with monetary policy instead of trimming the amount of free money banks receive from the federal government.

For any naysayers, yes, I know that this is a left slanted article, but the facts remain. I was unable to find a less biased article. If any one finds more information about this, please feel free to link.

I understand the average person not being aware, even though they should be, but our law makers? Granted, the title is a bit misleading, as it is money that they have been receiving since the creation of the Federal Reserve, but this speak volumes about who has the real power.

Your very correct, people should be. Although,ignorance is what the financial elite who run these institutions count on. They don't want a public of people knowledgeable,educated about their affairs and operations. If that was the case people would lose faith in the system and it would come crashing down.

In essence it goes against their interests.

You gotta love a bit of wealth distribution. Those poor folks asking for free hand outs again. Always the poor demanding what is not theirs

Crony capitalism at its finest.

a reply to: woodwardjnr

You gotta love a bit of wealth distribution.

You know it, and the very vocal crowd on here will be silent now because giving to the rich because they exist is OK

It's not like the "Thank you" money will be put back into the economy anyway. It just means some banker fat cats will be getting a nice bonus for their bonus. Maybe open a few new banks, buy some yachts maybe a few mansions.


Meanwhile people can't get loans for a new car, or a house, small business owners can't grow, people can't even attempt to start a business. Its clear that the system is designed to keep commoners down at every turn. The only way you will become rich is if you were already rich.

Your thread made me curious to find out more and I found this article that was originally from 2008, but answered many of the questions I had. Most especially related to this thread:

The interest on bonds acquired with its newly-issued Federal Reserve Notes pays the Fed’s operating expenses plus a guaranteed 6% return to its banker shareholders. A mere 6% a year may not be considered a profit in the world of Wall Street high finance, but most businesses that manage to cover all their expenses and give their shareholders a guaranteed 6% return are considered “for profit” corporations.

In addition to this guaranteed 6%, the banks will now be getting interest from the taxpayers on their “reserves.” The basic reserve requirement set by the Federal Reserve is 10%. The website of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York explains that as money is redeposited and relent throughout the banking system, this 10% held in “reserve” can be fanned into ten times that sum in loans; that is, $10,000 in reserves becomes $100,000 in loans. Federal Reserve Statistical Release H.8 puts the total “loans and leases in bank credit” as of September 24, 2008 at $7,049 billion. Ten percent of that is $700 billion. That means we the taxpayers will be paying interest to the banks on at least $700 billion annually – this so that the banks can retain the reserves to accumulate interest on ten times that sum in loans.

The banks earn these returns from the taxpayers for the privilege of having the banks’ interests protected by an all-powerful independent private central bank, even when those interests may be opposed to the taxpayers’ — for example, when the banks use their special status as private money creators to fund speculative derivative schemes that threaten to collapse the U.S. economy. Among other special benefits, banks and other financial institutions (but not other corporations) can borrow at the low Fed funds rate of about 2%. They can then turn around and put this money into 30-year Treasury bonds at 4.5%, earning an immediate 2.5% from the taxpayers, just by virtue of their position as favored banks. A long list of banks (but not other corporations) is also now protected from the short selling that can crash the price of other stocks.

Who really owns the Federal Reserve?

I found this extremely informative and did not want to quote overload my post. Check out the link, apparently Congress can only change statutes with the way it has been established.

would I be right to say that the coins are minted by the treasury and have no link whatsoever to the federal reserve really, only the paper does? ya if so, we should all hord those coins, hold onto them. keep as much money as we can out of the banking system, in coin form as much as possibly, and well, just shun the paper as much as we can. it's the treasury dept that should be issuing our money! we should be paying more respect to those minted dollars, half dollars, quarters, dimes, nickels and pennies I think. since, if I am right, they are the true currency in the country not the federal reserve notes.

I am so sick of this crap...... Why can't we hang these people as traitors? Because we are too busy triying to hunt down snowden? Argh.

That 17 billion could have been used elsewhere. Yet they are whining about needing to cut programs for extensive spending. The banks don't suck up enough fees from people that end up having to use them? Need any more evidence that the banks control the show?

a reply to: dreamingawake

The banks control all, and I am sick of it. I haven't kept money in banks in a long ass time. They decided to take my house, not work with me, even though it was more than 3/4 paid for when disaster struck. Screw them, almost ten years later they are still sitting on the house lol. I wish I had the brains to bulldoze it when I left. I did strip it of as much as I could, I renovated it like crazy while I was paying it off.

originally posted by: TKDRL
a reply to: dreamingawake

The banks control all, and I am sick of it. I haven't kept money in banks in a long ass time. They decided to take my house, not work with me, even though it was more than 3/4 paid for when disaster struck. Screw them, almost ten years later they are still sitting on the house lol. I wish I had the brains to bulldoze it when I left. I did strip it of as much as I could, I renovated it like crazy while I was paying it off.

The sad truth is, unless you can pay your house off within 2 years, you simply don't make enough money to afford that house. When disaster strikes, as it did in your case you're left with nothing while the bank gets your home, all the work you did on it, and still keeps a portion of your payments. And, they get to sell your property.

originally posted by: TKDRL
a reply to: dreamingawake

The banks control all, and I am sick of it. I haven't kept money in banks in a long ass time. They decided to take my house, not work with me, even though it was more than 3/4 paid for when disaster struck. Screw them, almost ten years later they are still sitting on the house lol. I wish I had the brains to bulldoze it when I left. I did strip it of as much as I could, I renovated it like crazy while I was paying it off.

Why did they take your house?

a reply to: Scorpiogurl
I had a construction business, when the real estate bubble imploded, it took me down with it lol. Went through all the savings, cashed out life insurance, did anything possible to stay afloat until it recovered.

The bank didn't want to make any deals, they just wanted to take the house, believing they would be able to sell it again fast. I guess they didn't think we would take most of our renovations and shiny new appliances with us. The "value" of my house more than doubled since we bought it, along with the taxes. Town went and build a new high school which made the town jack everyone's property value up to pay for it. I guess they got greedy, would have been cheaper to just give us the house.

The first winter we were gone, they didn't drain the pipes, basement flooded. That resulted in a black mold problem. I guess karma bit them in the ass. I talk to my old neighbor on facebook sometimes, he says whenever someone comes to look at the house, he moseys on over and acts like a lunatic. Not that many people even go looking at it. No one in their right mind is gonna buy a raised ranch for 500,000. Only hope they have is if a rich person decides they want the property, so they can knock the house down and build a mcmansion.

a reply to: calstorm
I want names and personal contact info, these bastards won't even give you an Unemployment extension after they let the Banks destroy the Economy. F''ers!

a reply to: ugmold
I saw red and then checked the article that contained this list of names.
clerk.house.gov...

Global overlords are the banks.

When banks can tell countries what to do, see the entire on going debacle of the Greek economy, the real power is in the hands of whom holds the debt.

Now my thoughts are this, take all their money via loans but don't spend it. Stiff them on their loans so they have no $ to lend out/power to exert and then you start lending out the money you hoarded! :-D

Derek

Typical

plu·toc·ra·cy - rule by the wealthy, or power provided by wealth