Tell us again why we need to give $700 Billion of taxpayer money to Wall Street?
The report attached references the 'investment banks.' We hear that Goldman and Morgan are the only remaining investment banks while they are in the five day 'waiting period' to be bank holding companies.
While we obviously cannot be sure the implication is that they are both insolvent in the hundreds of billions of dollars, and without support would be bankrupt.
Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley and the other investment banks are among the prime actors that caused the problems that have been plaguing us since the 1990's.
They devastated multiple industrial sectors in the US through the distortions of asset bubbles while stuffing hundreds of millions of dollars into their pockets.
They corrupted the financial and political systems with their unbridled greed and shameless pursuit of excess and ego.
And now they need three quarters of a trillion dollars to maintain the lifestyle to which they have become accustomed.
Their spokespuppets tell us if we don't give it to them, they will crash the global economy.
The deal on the table is that they sell us nearly worthless assets and derivatives for $700 Billion dollars, and then they loan that money back to us at interest.
Would you like to buy a vowel?
We'd rather give the money to every family that made less than five million dollars on a sliding scale last year. what would that be, about $36,000? And let you wait for it to trickle up.
Oh no, we couldn't do that, it would be inflationary. It would be socialism. But if we give it to the Bush crony capitalists that is good business.
The best Wall Street should hope for is a head start, if there is any justice left in this land.
American Banker
Discount Window Borrowing Jumps to $262 Billion
By Steven Sloan
September 26, 2008
WASHINGTON — During another turbulent week on Wall Street, lending through the Federal Reserve Board's discount window skyrocketed to $262.3 billion on Wednesday, thanks to new lending programs unveiled during the week.
It was the second record in as many weeks and more than double from the previous high water mark.
The heaviest lending was centered on the primary dealer credit facility, which was established in March to give investment banks access to the discount window. The Fed eased terms on the facility on Sunday when it approved requests from Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley to convert to bank holding companies.
The Fed said Goldman and Morgan, the last of the major investment banks, could borrow on the same terms as commercial banks and with the same collateral. In response, lending through the PDCF totalled $105.662 billion on Wednesday, from $59.8 billion a week earlier.
Commercial banks were also very active at the discount window. Loans to banks increased 17.7%, to $39.9 billion, a new record.
Meanwhile, the Fed issued loans to weak banks for the second week in a row. These loans increased 5.6%, to $19 million on Wednesday.
The Fed's efforts to backstop the market for money market mutual funds appears to have been met with initial success. The Fed said Friday it would lend against asset backed commercial paper held by the funds. It distributed $72.7 billion by Wednesday.
The central bank also said American International Group Inc., the insurance giant the Fed bailed out on Sept. 16, drew $44.6 billion of its $85 billion government loan by Wednesday. A week earlier, the company had tapped $28 billion of the loan.
As the Fed continues to boost and widen its lending programs, concern has grown that too much of its balance sheet is being dedicated to helping banks survive the credit crunch. With these concerns in mind, the Fed grew its balance sheet by 22%, to $1.2 trillion.
The Fed was helped in these efforts by the Treasury Department, which began a program earlier this month to sell Treasury bills and send the cash generated to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. The central bank said it received $159.8 billion from the Treasury through this program.
“Thus, it should be understood that when pro-US figures use the term, 'rules-based international order,' they are not referring to anything analogous to the rule of law. Quite the opposite, they are using Orwellian language to describe a system in which essentially no rules can be established and/or observed, given that the dominant state has the prerogative to violate and/or rewrite “rules” at its whim.” Aaron Good, American Exception