FedUpUSA

Archive for the ‘Ben Bernanke’ Category

As if we aren’t already there….from The Hill this morning:

The Federal Reserve is turning its attention to reviving the ailing housing market, calling on policymakers to provide a boost to the sector and lift the broader economy. 

The Fed on Wednesday sent a 26-page white paper to Congress, providing a framework — including several steps that are already in the works within the Obama administration — designed to provide greater stability for the sector and the overall economy.

Uh huh.  As if there is something wrong with asset values correcting to come back into line with incomes. 

And here’s the blatant return to feudalism:

The Obama administration is examining ways to reduce the number of vacant, foreclosed homes by putting together properties to sell to investors for rental units. 

Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.) is pushing legislation that would convert hundreds of thousands foreclosed properties into rentals as demand rises for those types of properties. 

Isn’t that nice?  Subsidize investors (neo-Lords, many of the same culprits who caused this mess in the first place) so they can rent us (the serfs) back our own foreclosed homes without the banks taking a loss.

It goes on to explain:

“We caution, however, that although policy action in these areas could facilitate the recovery of the housing market, economic losses will remain, and these losses must ultimately be allocated among homeowners, lenders, guarantors, investors and taxpayers,” the paper said.

Here is an idea, why don’t we remove taxpayers from the line above and insert — banksters, congressmen, senators, legislative aides, lobbyist and employees of the Federal Reserve system. That way we can stick the losses onto the back of the people who caused the losses.

Now that would create real improvement in the economy.

Well look what we have here….

America’s central bank, the Federal Reserve, is engaged in a bailout of European banks. Surprisingly, its operation is largely unnoticed here.

The Fed is using what is termed a “temporary U.S. dollar liquidity swap arrangement” with the European Central Bank (ECB). There are similar arrangements with the central banks of Canada, England, Switzerland and Japan. Simply put, the Fed trades or “swaps” dollars for euros. The Fed is compensated by payment of an interest rate (currently 50 basis points, or one-half of 1%) above the overnight index swap rate. The ECB, which guarantees to return the dollars at an exchange rate fixed at the time the original swap is made, then lends the dollars to European banks of its choosing.

…

The two central banks are engaging in this roundabout procedure because each needs a fig leaf. The Fed was embarrassed by the revelations of its prior largess with foreign banks. It does not want the debt of foreign banks on its books. A currency swap with the ECB is not technically a loan.

Actually, The Fed claimed it was not bailing Europe out in direct conversations with Senators at a closed-door meeting.

It’s convenient that Bernanke wasn’t under oath in recorded testimony when he made those comments isn’t it?

The reality of the so-called “bailout”, however, is small.  We’re talking about $60 billion, more or less, which is tiny in the grand scheme of things.

This makes one wonder “why”?  If it’s just year-end shenanigans, well then it is.  But what if it’s a trial balloon — to see if Congress — or anyone else — calls Bernanke on it?

If so then we better pay attention eh?

Ben Bernanke and his Fed mates’ secret letterhead: “destroying capitalism from within.”

After four years of disastrously wrong policies, let’s declare stubborn, hubris-soaked wrongheadedness a virtue and saint Ben Bernanke and his Federal Reserve mates.  If we had to distill down the Fed Chairman and the Federal Reserve’s policies since the wheels came off the Fed’s “shadow banking” system of fraud, collusion, embezzlement  and free-floating leverage, we’d have to start with a systems-analysis perspective.

Any system which separates risk from results (gain/loss) is doomed to implode,as the lack of feedback from the real world (also known as consequences) enables the self-reinforcing feedback known as “moral hazard”: losses by those who took the risk to reap a gain are made good by those who did not take the risk and who do not stand to gain from the risk they are covering.

In this case, the  mortgage origination and  packaging “industry” and the investment banks’ origination and marketing of fraudulent-from-inception derivatives “industry” took the risks to reap outsized gains from the financialization of mortgages and other debt instruments via leverage, commodifying debt and  arcane derivatives, all of which were sold as “low-risk.”

Capitalism’s primary characteristic is that capital is put at risk for a gain/loss.If risk is off-loaded onto the Fed’s bottomless balance sheet and the taxpayer via government-funded bailouts and guarantees, then capital is not actually at risk. Thus what we have isn’t capitalism, but cartel crony-capitalism, a phony version of the real thing which guarantees private banking profits and socializes banking losses.

The Fed was recently revealed as having arranged billions in private gain via secretly backstopping the banks with $7.7 trillion.This highlights Bernanke and his buds’ second catastrophically wrong policy, that of systemic opacity.

The acme of open markets is transparency. Without transparency, markets are not free or open, they are manipulated–both to hide those who are benefitting from the destruction of transparency (monopolies, cartels, fiefdoms, kleptocracies, oligarchies, etc.) and to manipulate the market as part of a permanent propaganda campaign to  “manage perceptions:” the market’s up, everything’s dandy.

Bernanke and his faithful banking-sector lackeys have destroyed transparency at every turn, refusing an audit (an audit smacks of–sniff–democracy–how distasteful), masking the $7.7 trillion in backstopping, and hiding the toxicity of the Fed balance sheet, which is loaded with over $1 trillion in distressed mortgage securities that the Fed lovingly took off the bankrupt balance sheets of its craven masters, the banks.

In other words, the Fed has massively rewarded the reckless and rescued the incompetent from the consequences of their actions.If that isn’t the perfection of wrongheadedness, what is?

Then there’s the disastrously destructive ZIRP–zero interest rate policy.The Fed’s idea here is childishly simple, and childishly ignorant: if we lower interest rates to zero, then everyone who is over-leveraged and over-indebted will be able to borrow more, but for less interest, and that will buy the system time to magically heal itself.

The Fed cannot dare grasp that “healing” in capitalism means writing off uncollectable debt and sending insolvent lenders and debtors to bankruptcy court. Capitalism would quickly dispense with their cronies in the banking sector, and so capitalism must be destroyed. That is the Fed’s raison-d’etre: destroying capitalism from within.Lenin would be envious.

ZIRP has myriad pernicious consequences.  Let’s say you have some capital that you want to apply such that it earns a fair return. If interest rates are near-zero, then a fair return has been rendered impossible by Fed policy.

The Fed leaves you only two choices:either put your capital into “risk-on” assets that are inherently risk-laden, or loan the capital out at low rates in an opaque market  and hope you’ll actually get the principal back.

Imagine being in charge of issuing mortgages which weren’t guaranteed by the Federal government agencies of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and FHA–that is, imagine you actually lived and worked in a capitalist system, instead of a kleptocratic crony-capital haven.

You might hesitate to loan out large sums of money (jumbo mortgages) in a market where the  risk of a decline in the asset (real estate) is obvious but official manipulation means you can only receive a very paltry return on the capital you’re putting at risk.

Since the market isn’t able to price real estate, risk or credit transparently, then prudent investors would be forced to shun the market: how can you invest wisely when assets, debt and risk can’t be priced by the market?

Prudent lenders would withdraw from such a rigged, risky market, which is precisely what has happened.Literally 99% of the mortgage market is now guaranteed by the Federal fiefdoms, all of which are losing tens of billions of dollars and require monumental taxpayer bailouts to keep underwriting the banking sectors’ private profits.

Private mortgage lending has simply vanished, and no wonder: if you can’t price assets, risk or debt, then only the reckless would enter the market, and even they would only do so if the Fed guaranteed the profits would be theirs to keep but losses could be transferred to the Fed or taxpayers.

The only way to restore trust and clear the market of uncollectable debt is to let the market transparently price, risk and credit–precisely what the Fed’s policies are designed to stop.  The Fed’s knees are chafed from kow-towing to their banker masters, and worshipping the “magic” of their Keynesian Cargo  Cult and  Lenin (“destroying capitalism from within” should be stenciled on the Fed letterhead).

Separate risk from gain, obliterate transparency and choke the market  with zero interest rates, and you’ve not only destroyed capitalism, you’ve also destroyed the economy by rewarding the most venal, corrupt, fraudulent and  capital-destroying players while stranding the prudent on an island of opacity where the true price of assets, credit and risk cannot be discovered.

Charles Hugh Smith – Of Two Minds

There is probably nobody in the political/government scene that I detest more than Ben Bernanke.  But this does not mean that politicians showing the mental acuity of a 2-year old should feel free to take false shots at his policy actions and those of The Fed generally.

Yet they have. 

Bernie Sanders, for example, has been screaming about “$16 trillion in secret loans” for a while.  He can probably technically defend his claim, but to do so he has to perform some rather interesting mathematical gymnastics.  For example, if I loan you $100, and the next day you pay me back and then borrow it again, doing this 10 times, how much did I loan you?  A reasonable man would say that $100 was lent repeatedly.  A media whore looking for headlines would say it was $1,000.  The latter is Bernie.

Nor is he alone.  Alan Grayson, who started out a very reasonable politician and then went off into the weeds with hard-left socialism (which he couldn’t pay for) has made the same sort of charge and sadly, Yves over at Naked Capitalism has given him ink:

Page 131 – The total lending for the Fed’s “broad-based emergency programs” was $16,115,000,000,000. That’s right, over $16 trillion. The four largest recipients, Citigroup, Morgan Stanley, Merrill Lynch and Bank of America, received over a trillion dollars each. The 5th largest recipient was Barclays PLC. The 8th was the Royal Bank of Scotland Group, PLC. The 9th was Deutsche Bank AG. The 10th was UBS AG. These four institutions each got between a quarter of a trillion and a trillion dollars. None of them is an American bank.

Again, if I borrow the same $100 over and over again…. 

Alan, you ignorant ass (or mendacious bastard — pick one.)

It continues, of course, but once you find the first intentional (or ignorant) distortion you no longer need to keep looking.

Bernanke, for his part, appears to be rather annoyed and has written a rebuttal aimed at Congress’ Financial Services Committee.  He’s right in many areas, but in being right he intentionally glosses over where the real devil-style acts are and have been within The Fed.

Let’s pick on a couple of things:

“The article also fail to note that the lending directly helped support American businesses by providing emergency fuding so they could meet weekly payrolls and on-going expenses.  The commercial paper funding facility, for example, provided support to businesses as diverse as Harley-Davidson and National Rural Utilities, when the usual market mechanism for their day-to-day funding completely dried up.“

Notice what’s missing here: Any exposition or explanation on exactly why a firm like Harley-Davidson needs to borrow money to make payroll.

Perhaps most of America (and most of Congress) has never run a business.  I have — since I was much younger, both as either a near single-person show, one with a couple of employees, and then one with a bunch.  You never, ever borrow to make payroll – if you actually have to do that you’re on the brink of bankruptcy and only through pure luck do you avoid it.

Bloomberg printed their own rebuttal to Bernanke’s screed and within the scope of their original article and the rebuttal spot-on correct.  The problem is that they, like Ben, intentionally and studiously avoid the actual issues, save one: The “lender of last resort” function which is a proper central bank function, is supposed to always be at a penalty and yet it is flatly impossible to argue that a 0.01% interest rate is at a “penalty” to a market that is demanding much higher interest rates (or refusing to lend at all) because it believes the entities seeking to borrow are lying.

That, at its core, is the problem, and that is a problem The Fed has been facilitating for a very long time — and is facilitating today.

The real scandal in the 2008 crisis, which has not been stopped, is the fact that there was then and still is now an unknown number of financial institutions that are factually bankrupt and hiding it. 

One example will make this clear — Colonial Bank, which blew up.

The bank’s last-filed 10Q, dated March 31st 2009, showed $14.1 billion in alleged “assets” (loans held for sale and investment) with $450 million in loss reserves (expected losses), or about 3% of expected loss.  That’s not great, but it’s also not catastrophic.

Here’s the problem – In August, five months later, the bank detonated and was closed.  BB&T “acquired” the bank.  Their internal “deal book” which was published showed a nearly-identical $14.3 billion in loan assets but $5 billion – not $450 million – in expected losses.

In other words when BB&T came in they found eleven times the losses claimed by Colonial’s 10Q just five months earlier.  Put another way 35% of the bank’s “assets” were worthless.

This is the underlying scam that nobody’s talking about: The carrying of alleged “assets” on balance sheets at entirely-unrealistic valuations, which is why credit locked up in 2008 and why it always threatens to do so — the person who you wish to borrow from doesn’t believe he’ll get paid, and the so-called “collateral” you intend to post is worthless.

Everyone talks about “market confidence” but in point of fact there are two sorts of “confidence” — the confidence that the market will remain “orderly” and thus you’ll get paid (in which case the so-called collateral is a formality and nobody really cares if its used dogfood) and the confidence that the claimed asset values you post via that collateral actually has the value claimed so the loan you’re taking out is really secured.

Why am I banging on this drum?  Because it’s still going on.

There is no way you are ever going to get me to believe that Colonial lost 35% of its asset value in five months’ time post the collapse itself — if you remember, “mark to lie” became legal post Kanjorski’s hearing and thinly-veiled threat to FASB, which folded like a cheap suit.

Indeed it was that hearing that effectively “made legal” what Colonial and every other firm was doing and must be presumed to still be doing, as even a cursory examination discloses that these same sorts of games are almost-certainly still occurring to this day.

Earlier this year CreditSights claimed that US banks have $147 billion in outstanding home equity lines behind underwater firsts — that is, entirely unsecured borrowing as a HELOC gets zero recovery should an underwater first default.  Bank of America has some $47 billion, JP Morgan $41 billion, Wells $39 billion and so on. 

Note that Wells’ latest 10Q shows $88 billion in total second-line exposure – in other words according to CreditSights 44% of that total is impaired and in a default is worth zero.  Yet Wells claims just $893 million in reserves against this portion of their portfolio – or 1/43rd of the unsecured and thus, if the first defaults, worthless loan balance. 

That is ridiculously inadequate and yet this is today — not 2005, 2006, 2007 or 2008.  It is going on right here, right now, in the present tense.

Wells is not alone — they’re just easy to analyze as their 10Q isn’t cluttered with a hundred different subsidiaries and similar things that make analysis difficult.  You can look at any of the big banks and you will see the same sort of game being played — and it’s entirely legal under current US law.

This is why the market locked up in 2008 and the problem has not been fixed.   Until it is there is no actual solution and any demand for actual good collateral that arises will result in an immediate resumption of the credit lockup of 2008 and a “new” financial crisis.

If you want to know why the banks and government are so desperate to try to stop the inexorable decline of home prices, this is the reason.  But there’s no way to fix this problem in the main other than through defaults as the loans that were made had no foundation in the actual ability to pay.  Defaults, however, expose the truth of these balance sheets — the loans in question are worthless behind an underwater first and that $39 billion is more than a quarter of Wells’ equity value in home equity lines alone!

Note that we’ve not dug into the commercial real estate lending, which is a problem as well — all the strip malls and other commercial property that was built out during the bubble and yet has no realistic lease-out prospect at anything that comes close to amortizing construction and operating costs.  Some are managing to roll due to ridiculously suppressed interest rates but that will and must eventually end, and when it does the fact that these loans are deeply impaired will float to the surface and start stinking up the financial system as the dead fish that they are.

The Fed claims that it lent only to “sound” financial institutions that were “solvent.”  On any sort of objective analysis this must be declared a bald lie — only through the making of utterly fanciful marks could such a claim be sustained and that was the entire point of the spring 2009 hearing — bludgeoning FASB with the full force of Congressional threat.

But making the telling of lies legal does not change the fact that they’re lies; all it does is prevent you from being thrown in the slammer for telling them.  As we saw with Colonial the fact is that the claimed “asset values” were fantasies and just a few short months later that fantasy detonated.  The truth – a monstrous loss for the FDIC and BB&T’s examination and publication of their “deal book” for the acquisition — then became apparent and what I and a few others had been saying for more than two years at that time was vindicated as factually correct.

The problem is that this same dynamic and set of facts must be assumed to be in place at all of the existing large financial institutions and it is an utter impossibility for the FDIC to cover 35% losses against the balance sheet of even one large financial institution, say much less all of them in a cascade failure.

The politicians on both sides of the aisle are demagoguing Bernanke and The Fed — on one side we have those claiming that Ben loaned out wild multiples of what was actually outstanding at any point in time (a lie) and on the other we have people claiming (including Bernanke himself) that Ben loaned only to sound institutions and that doing so “prevented a Depression” but that is a lie as well as there is absolutely no reason to believe that the claimed “asset values” on these balance sheets in any way reflects reality.  The so-called “aversion” of a Depression and chain-reaction collapse is due to nothing more than backstopping liars — a temporary condition that amounts to doubling down every time you lose at the Blackjack table in the hope that you’ll get good cards before you run out of money.

Unfortunately the housing market shows no signs of actually bottoming — and it won’t until we get back to much lower prices, perhaps as low as 1x annual incomes on an average basis.  The collapse of the tax base on a municipal and state basis along with the lies on these balance sheets will eventually be exposed.  We have built a debt pyramid that requires ever-increasing amounts of debt to keep the balls in the air but the ability to service more new debt has been exhausted. 

This is not supposition — it is a fact that cannot be argued against as we reached the point in 2007 where more than $6 in new debt was being put into the economy for every $1 of “growth”; returning to this state of affairs is mathematically impossible and attempting to evade the inevitable consequences futile.

For four and a half years I have pointed this out and have called for the truth to be exposed and the results accepted.  Our government had to shrink by some 20% in 2007 in order to accomplish this, along with dealing with the resolution of the large financial institutions in the United States. Instead of doing so we have “doubled down” on deficit spending and lies on balance sheets, and people like Bernanke and Paulson have repeatedly claimed that their actions have “avoided” a Depression.  Today, four years into the lie parade, we have now managed to pile up a need to shrink the size of government by half to restore balance and that required shrinkage grows each and every day that we refuse to accept that which must occur.

Unfortunately for those who argue otherwise there have been repeated examples in actual realized bank failures that have validated my position — that these balance sheets are lies and that the firms involved are all deeply underwater, remaining operational only through intentional and willful aversion of lawfully-required regulatory oversight.

I’m no fan of Bernanke and in fact have plenty of ugly things to say about him in this regard, but we do nobody any good in attacking him on a false premise.  Go after him on the actual sins he has committed and the intentional and willful lies of regulators and executives — there’s plenty of “red meat” there and on that foundation you will find solid support in both history and fact.

What you are about to read should absolutely astound you.  During the last financial crisis, the Federal Reserve secretly conducted the biggest bailout in the history of the world, and the Fed fought in court for several years to keep it a secret.  Do you remember the TARP bailout?  The American people were absolutely outraged that the federal government spent 700 billion dollars bailing out the “too big to fail” banks.  Well, that bailout was pocket change compared to what the Federal Reserve did.  As you will see documented below, the Federal Reserve actually handed more than 16 trillion dollars in nearly interest-free money to the “too big to fail” banks between 2007 and 2010.  So have you heard about this on the nightly news?  Probably not.  Lately Bloomberg has been reporting on some of this, but even they are not giving people the whole picture.  The American people need to be told about this 16 trillion dollar bailout, because it is a perfect example of why the Federal Reserve needs to be shut down.  The Federal Reserve has been actively picking “winners” and “losers” in the financial system, and it turns out that the “friends” of the Fed always get bailed out and always end up among the “winners”.  This is not how a free market system is supposed to work.

According to the limited GAO audit of the Federal Reserve that was mandated by the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, the grand total of all the secret bailouts conducted by the Federal Reserve during the last financial crisis comes to a whopping $16.1 trillion.

That is an astonishing amount of money.

Keep in mind that the GDP of the United States for the entire year of 2010 was only 14.58 trillion dollars.

The total U.S. national debt is only a bit above 15 trillion dollars right now.

So 16 trillion dollars is an almost inconceivable amount of money.

But some other dollar figures have been thrown around lately regarding these secret Federal Reserve bailouts.  Let’s take a look at them and see what they mean.

$1.2 Trillion

A recent Bloomberg article made the following statement….

The $1.2 trillion peak on Dec. 5, 2008 — the combined outstanding balance under the seven programs tallied by Bloomberg — was almost three times the size of the U.S. federal budget deficit that year and more than the total earnings of all federally insured banks in the U.S. for the decade through 2010, according to data compiled by Bloomberg.

The $1.2 trillion figure represents the peak outstanding balance on these loans, not the total amount of all the loans.  On December 5, 2008 the “too big to fail” banks owed this much money to the Federal Reserve.  Many of them could not pay these short-term loans back right away and had to keep rolling them over time after time.  Each time a short-term loan got rolled over that represented a new loan.

$7.7 Trillion

Bloomberg is reporting that the Federal Reserve had made a total of $7.77 trillion in financial commitments to the big banks by the end of March 2009….

Add up guarantees and lending limits, and the Fed had committed $7.77 trillion as of March 2009 to rescuing the financial system, more than half the value of everything produced in the U.S. that year.

But as mentioned above, a one-time limited GAO audit of the Federal Reserve that was mandated by the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act covered an even broader time period and revealed even more bailout loans.

According to the GAO audit, $16.1 trillion in secret loans were made by the Federal Reserve between December 1, 2007 and July 21, 2010.  The following list of firms and the amount of money that they received was taken directly from page 131 of the GAO audit report….

Citigroup – $2.513 trillion
Morgan Stanley – $2.041 trillion
Merrill Lynch – $1.949 trillion
Bank of America – $1.344 trillion
Barclays PLC – $868 billion
Bear Sterns – $853 billion
Goldman Sachs – $814 billion
Royal Bank of Scotland – $541 billion
JP Morgan Chase – $391 billion
Deutsche Bank – $354 billion
UBS – $287 billion
Credit Suisse – $262 billion
Lehman Brothers – $183 billion
Bank of Scotland – $181 billion
BNP Paribas – $175 billion
Wells Fargo – $159 billion
Dexia – $159 billion
Wachovia – $142 billion
Dresdner Bank – $135 billion
Societe Generale – $124 billion
“All Other Borrowers” – $2.639 trillion

This report was made available to all the members of Congress, but most of them have been totally silent about it.  One of the only members of Congress that has said something has been U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders.

The following is an excerpt from a statement about this audit that was taken from the official website of Senator Sanders….

“As a result of this audit, we now know that the Federal Reserve provided more than $16 trillion in total financial assistance to some of the largest financial institutions and corporations in the United States and throughout the world”

So where is everyone else?

Why aren’t leading Republicans and leading Democrats crying bloody murder over this report?

This scandal should have been front page news for months when it was revealed.

But it wasn’t.

And Guess what?

Not only did the Federal Reserve give 16.1 trillion dollars in nearly interest-free loans to the “too big to fail” banks, the Fed also paid them over 600 million dollars to help run the emergency lending program.  According to the GAO, the Federal Reserve shelled out an astounding $659.4 million in “fees” to the very financial institutions which caused the financial crisis in the first place.

In addition, it turns out that trillions of dollars of this bailout money actually went overseas.  According to the GAO audit, approximately $3.08 trillion went to foreign banks in Europe and in Asia.

So why were our dollars being used to bail out foreign banks while tens of millions of American families were deeply suffering?

That is a very good question.

Also, it is important to remember that many of these bailout loans were made at below market interest rates, and this enabled many of these financial institutions to rake in huge profits.

According to a recent Bloomberg article, the big banks brought in an estimated $13 billion by taking advantage of the Fed’s below-market rates….

While the Fed’s last-resort lending programs generally charge above-market interest rates to deter routine borrowing, that practice sometimes flipped during the crisis. On Oct. 20, 2008, for example, the central bank agreed to make $113.3 billion of 28-day loans through its Term Auction Facility at a rate of 1.1 percent, according to a press release at the time.

The rate was less than a third of the 3.8 percent that banks were charging each other to make one-month loans on that day. Bank of America and Wachovia Corp. each got $15 billion of the 1.1 percent TAF loans, followed by Royal Bank of Scotland’s RBS Citizens NA unit with $10 billion, Fed data show.

So once the financial crisis was over, were adjustments made to the financial system to make sure that this type of thing would never happen again?

Of course not.

Today, the “too big to fail” banks are larger than ever.  The total assets of the six largest U.S. banks increased by 39 percent between September 30, 2006 and September 30, 2011.

So now they are more “too big to fail” than ever.

But this is what happens when we allow unelected central bank bureaucrats to run our financial system.

Most Americans do not realize this, but the truth is that the Federal Reserve is not part of the government.  In fact, it is about as “federal” as Federal Express is.  The Federal Reserve has admitted that they are a privately owned institution in court many times, and you can see video of a Federal Reserve employee admitting that the Federal Reserve is privately owned right here.

The Federal Reserve is an out of control monster that is throwing around trillions of dollars whenever it wants to.  Nobody should be allowed to do this.  Nobody should be allowed to give bailouts to banks and corporations without the express permission of the U.S. Congress and the president of the United States.

This is a point that I made in my article yesterday.  The Federal Reserve decided this week that it is going to provide “liquidity support” to Europe.  If the American people do not like this move, that is just too bad.  We do not get a say in the matter.

Are you starting to understand why I keep pushing the idea that it is time to shut down the Federal Reserve?

Please share this information about the secret 16 trillion dollar Federal Reserve bailout with your family and your friends.

If we can get enough people to wake up, perhaps there is still time to change the direction that this country is headed.

The Economic Collapse