Presenting The $303 Trillion In Derivatives That US Taxpayers Are Now On The Hook For

OK my ATS Family, Now this doesn't sound too good to me, So this seems like one of the main reason this Spending Bill was pushed through so quickly. Just another Huge Bailout of Our Bankster Friends.

So what do you Guys and Gals think, haven't these Greed Bags had enough? Ut just seems to me that this is never-ending, ir's a permanent state that we are in of Bailing Out the most reckless of risk takers/fraudsters in our society, whilst being constantly under the threat that if we don't do it again that thew whole financial system will implode.

Mods, I have pit this in US Political Madness Section as this is a spending Bill. If for any reason you should find a reason to move this then No Pronlema.

Thanks All for taking a Peek at this and as always, Your Replies, Comments and General Thoughts on this issue are most appreciated. Thanks Again All and Peace Arjunanda.

Haven
Courtesy of the Cronybus(sic) last minute passage, government was provided a quid-pro-quo $1.1 trillion spending allowance with Wall Street's blessing in exchange for assuring banks that taxpayers would be on the hook for yet another bailout, as a result of the swaps push-out provision, after incorporating explicit Citigroup language that allows financial institutions to trade certain financial derivatives from subsidiaries that are insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp, explicitly putting taxpayers on the hook for losses caused by these contracts. Recall:

Five years after the Wall Street coup of 2008, it appears the U.S. House of Representatives is as bought and paid for as ever. We heard about the Citigroup crafted legislation currently being pushed through Congress back in May when Mother Jones reported on it. Fortunately, they included the following image in their article:


Unsurprisingly, the main backer of the bill is notorious Wall Street lackey Jim Himes (D-Conn.), a former Goldman Sachs employee who has discovered lobbyist payoffs can be just as lucrative as a career in financial services.
We say explicitly, of course, because taxpayers have always been on the hook implicitly for the next Wall Street meltdown.

Why?

Exhibit A: US banks are the proud owners of $303 trillion in derivatives (and spare us the whole "but.. but... net exposure" cluelessness - read here why that is absolutely irrelevant when even one counterpaty fails):

www.zerohedge.com...


www.zerohedge.com...

Oh don't you worry. The big banks know what they're doing. I mean it's not like anything they've done in the past has resulted in a financial collapse or anything. They'd all be afraid they'd go to jail if they screwed-up.

If everyone wakes up and sees what is happening, everything will collapse. Making money out of thin air doesn't work forever. Don't invest more than you can afford in the Stock market. Make sure insurers of your fund or financial institution can withstand a moderately large crash without going bankrupt themselves. It is questionable whether our governments FDIC insurance program is even reasonably solvent.

So it's socialism to subsidize health care but capitalism to subsidize banks and energy companies?

That's odd...

I'm not surprised any of this happened. After all, he has to do it before the next congress takes power and the Senate knows this too so even with all the flak these guys are taking now, the Senate will pass this thing. They have to because of the shift of seats in the house and the senate. Don't be shocked to see more stuff get pushed through before the recess either. Boehner has to make sure what Obama has set up so far goes through before the switch. For the record, I think Boehner and his partner in crime in the Senate are both a bunch of idiots.

When you get into absurd amounts of money, I forget where exactly that is, it's all illusion. It's an unending game of Monopoly where people just keep making stuff up in order to keep playing. It's just a bunch of absurdly rich people assigning value to everything in the world but only in a way in which it serves them.

originally posted by: olaru12
So it's socialism to subsidize health care but capitalism to subsidize banks and energy companies?

That's odd...

Talking about Fanny and Freddy there, and the SOLYNFDA's ?

Wall Street didn't cause the GD financial crisis these guy did:

originally posted by: neo96

originally posted by: olaru12
So it's socialism to subsidize health care but capitalism to subsidize banks and energy companies?

That's odd...

Talking about Fanny and Freddy there, and the SOLYNFDA's ?

Wall Street didn't cause the GD financial crisis these guy did:

As usual Neo's running in to protect the wealthy just to show he doesn't know what he is talking about. The person to blame for all this crap is none other than Alan Greenspan. It was this bag of filth that sat in front of Congress when he was head of the Fed Reserve and told them not to pass laws that would regulate derivatives.
Greenspan Concedes Error on Regulation

Now 82, Mr. Greenspan came in for one of the harshest grillings of his life, as Democratic lawmakers asked him time and again whether he had been wrong, why he had been wrong and whether he was sorry.

Critics, including many economists, now blame the former Fed chairman for the financial crisis that is tipping the economy into a potentially deep recession. Mr. Greenspan’s critics say that he encouraged the bubble in housing prices by keeping interest rates too low for too long and that he failed to rein in the explosive growth of risky and often fraudulent mortgage lending.

“You had the authority to prevent irresponsible lending practices that led to the subprime mortgage crisis. You were advised to do so by many others,” said Representative Henry A. Waxman of California, chairman of the committee. “Do you feel that your ideology pushed you to make decisions that you wish you had not made?”

Mr. Greenspan conceded: “Yes, I’ve found a flaw. I don’t know how significant or permanent it is. But I’ve been very distressed by that fact.”

I don't think he has been distressed enough he will be distressed enough when he is hanging from a limb of a tall tree.

a reply to: buster2010

As usual people proved Mencken right.

Liberty and democracy are eternal enemies, and every one knows it who has ever given any sober reflection to the matter. A democratic state may profess to venerate the name, and even pass laws making it officially sacred, but it simply cannot tolerate the thing. In order to keep any coherence in the governmental process, to prevent the wildest anarchy in thought and act, the government must put limits upon the free play of opinion. In part, it can reach that end by mere propaganda, by the bald force of its authority — that is, by making certain doctrines officially infamous. But in part it must resort to force, i.e., to law. One of the main purposes of laws in a democratic society is to put burdens upon intelligence and reduce it to impotence. Ostensibly, their aim is to penalize anti-social acts; actually their aim is to penalize heretical opinions. At least ninety-five Americans out of every 100 believe that this process is honest and even laudable; it is practically impossible to convince them that there is anything evil in it. In other words, they cannot grasp the concept of liberty. Always they condition it with the doctrine that the state, i.e., the majority, has a sort of right of eminent domain in acts, and even in ideas — that it is perfectly free, whenever it is so disposed, to forbid a man to say what he honestly believes. Whenever his notions show signs of becoming "dangerous," ie, of being heard and attended to, it exercises that prerogative. And the overwhelming majority of citizens believe in supporting it in the outrage. Including especially the Liberals, who pretend — and often quite honestly believe — that they are hot for liberty. They never really are. Deep down in their hearts they know, as good democrats, that liberty would be fatal to democracy — that a government based upon shifting and irrational opinion must keep it within bounds or run a constant risk of disaster. They themselves, as a practical matter, advocate only certain narrow kinds of liberty — liberty, that is, for the persons they happen to favor. The rights of other persons do not seem to interest them. If a law were passed tomorrow taking away the property of a large group of presumably well-to-do persons — say, bondholders of the railroads — without compensation and without even colorable reason, they would not oppose it; they would be in favor of it. The liberty to have and hold property is not one they recognize. They believe only in the liberty to envy, hate and loot the man who has it. "Liberty and Democracy" in the Baltimore Evening Sun (13 April 1925), also in A Second Mencken Chrestomathy : New Selections from the Writings of America's Legendary Editor, Critic, and Wit (1994) edited by Terry Teachout, p. 35

en.wikiquote.org...

a reply to: arjunanda

If prices fall any further (and what’s going to stop them?), it would seem that most of the entire shale edifice must of necessity crumble to the ground. And that will cause an absolute earthquake in the financial world, because someone supplied the loans the whole thing leans on. An enormous amount of investors have been chasing high yield, including many institutional investors, and they’re about to get burned something bad.

Will Crude Oil Kill The Zombies?

West Texas Intermediate Crude Oil - Weekly-Chart

-
OPINION: That's Probably More-Correct Than Not.
.

Great Reply Farleywayne, Yeah, It's all based on High YIELD JUNK BONDS WHICH ARE RE HYPOTHECATED OVER AND OVER AGAIN!!! IN OTHER WORDS, IT'S THE SAME SMALL SLIVER OF CAPIAL HOLDING UP THE WHOLE EDIFICE. IF JUST ONE OR TWO BORROWERS FAIL TO REPAY, THEN THE WHOLE THING CAN COME A TUMBLIN' DOWN. A BIG STAR FOR YOU. YOU GET IT!!! Peace Arjunanda. a reply to: FarleyWayne

a reply to: olaru12

That's basically how a fascist economy works. I don't mean "fascism" in the pedandic sense of the word. Rather, when you have a collaboration between gov't and private capital to plan the economy, that's economic fascism.
fee.org...

a reply to: arjunanda

Record Oil Tankers Sailing to China Amid Stockpiling Signs

I have the opinion that many oil-tankers have been turning into rust since the U.S. has HAD a Boom-Supply AND that should have caused a bit of shortage-of-oil-tankers ... (or fewer tankers than current-demand). This shortage-of-oil-tankers should throttle OPEC's Oil Output for some unknown-time.

AND

I also have the opinion that there is a limit to "OPEC's Oil Output" THEN Crude-Oil will Spike-Faster-Than-It-Dropped.

HOWEVER

The Damage(s) ... will have already been done.

-
OPINION: Series of Planned-Events.

( where the biggest players will be the winners )
.

a reply to: arjunanda

Ill stop paying taxes for this. Civil disobedience has to start somewhere.

They wouldn`t pass something like this if they didn`t feel that it would be needed in the near future,now that it`s an option you can be sure that they will use it.
It`s probably a good idea to not keep large amounts of money in a bank only keep as much in the bank as you can afford to lose, kind of like gambling.

Not sure if anyone has yet mentioned it... but in that same bill they raised the cap on political donations 10-fold so the big banks can show their appreciation by contributing up to $324,000 each.

nope no way negatory.
instead of paying let's exchange recipes..
I think slowroasted banker would taste pretty good.

Something about this may start on page 615...

The HR 83 Amendments to the Amendments to

I don't get why people are ACTING like this is a 'big issue'.

Frank Dodd does a hell of alot more than that 'slice' taken out of it.

THAT STILL has to go through the SENATE, and the Potus has to sign off on.

What ends up the the presidents desk will be a FAR CRY from what entered in to the Senate.

The regulators got more money.

The Consumer 'Protection' Bureau it created is still in place.

All I see is fake outrage.

a reply to: neo96

I don't get why people are ACTING like this is a 'big issue'.

Did you ever stop to think it might be that the people don't think the tax payers should bail out the banks when the pyramid schemes they run collapse? Like before when the people complained so much to Congress that they stopped it then little Georgie and his buddies went behind closed doors and passed it.