Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

TROJAN HORSE Embedded & BURIED In The Back Of The BAILOUT Document

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
kpete Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-03-08 04:44 PM
Original message
TROJAN HORSE Embedded & BURIED In The Back Of The BAILOUT Document
Edited on Fri Oct-03-08 04:47 PM by kpete
Here’s something I had missed:

“But the most duplicitous and frightening aspect of the plan, as always, was to found, buried in the back of the document, located there in the hopes everyone would have fallen asleep from the legalese before they made it that far. There’s the innocuous sounding Section 128, which was in both the original and amended versions, and says simply:

“Section 203 of the Financial Services Regulatory Relief Act of 2006 (12 U.S.C. 461 note) is amended by striking ‘October 1, 2011’ and inserting ‘October 1, 2008.’”

What would this effectively do? It was intended to speed up the enactment of this section of the law from 2011 to this week.

And what is the impact of the change in this law? (Take a moment to let this sink in.) This wonderful bipartisan bailout proposal, negotiated into the wee hours of the morning by sleep-deprived members of Congress was designed to come with a furtive Trojan Horse embedded by Wall Street lawyers. Banks already in trouble for lack of capital would get to hold as little as “zero” capital for transactions. “

much more:
From http://www.counterpunch.org/martens09302008.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Ian David Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-03-08 04:45 PM
Response to Original message
1. I don't get it. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TomInTib Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-03-08 04:48 PM
Response to Original message
2. Wow. They would be operating on "air".
In this scenario, would the dollar have any value at all?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Leopolds Ghost Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-04-08 10:34 AM
Response to Reply #2
32. Why not start a DU bank? Doesn't this bill now allow the little guy to set up banks again?
After all, that's supposed to be the value of this deregulated system, right?

No checks (such as the capitalization or existing deposits requirement) on us
opening our own banks and taking our money out of corrupt Wall Street entities.

DU CREDIT UNION!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ixion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-03-08 04:49 PM
Response to Original message
3. well, of course, there've been many who've made it clear this was a robbery
so this comes as no great surprise. I guess it was easier than a signing statement.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
girl gone mad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-03-08 04:50 PM
Response to Original message
4. Yes, this is the helicopter money provision.
It's disturbing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
elocs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-03-08 04:52 PM
Response to Original message
5. Here is what Obama said about the bill here in La Crosse on Wednesday:
http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/amandascott/gGxjYr

From the moment I take office, my top priority will be to do everything I can to make sure that your tax dollars are protected. I will demand a full review of this financial rescue plan to make sure that it is working for you. If you – the American taxpayer – are not getting your money back, then we will change how this program is being managed. If need be, we will send new legislation to Congress to make sure that taxpayers are protected in line with the principles that I have put forward. You should expect nothing less from Washington.


The bill has been passed and signed and our only hope is in Obama. That is unless any think McCain would be a better choice? There has seemed to have been more Republicans against this bill than Democrats. As for me, I'll trust Obama.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tismyself Donating Member (501 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-03-08 05:57 PM
Response to Reply #5
11. how is that?
How is he or anyone going to be able to go through a review process? What happened to "Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency." ?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
elocs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-03-08 06:10 PM
Response to Reply #11
14. So, Obama is either uniformed, naive, or just plain lying? Which is it?
Is Congress a court of law or an administrative agency?

Damn, that avatar looks familiar.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tismyself Donating Member (501 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-03-08 07:23 PM
Response to Reply #14
17. hard to say
Studying congress is a hobby of mine, and I'll be damned, I can't answer that question about it being a court of law or an administrative agency. I suppose it's a little of both, in their broadest senses. And I say court of law due to the power to wage war... I mean, if that decision isn't the result of passing judgment, I don't know what is.

At any rate, it really bothers me that for the most part, no one is paying attention to this fantastic but quiet part of the event that both alone and combined with other recent events are moving us closer to the definition and state of fascism.

For the first time in my life, I am truly afraid of putting things like that in writing. My ancestors would be ashamed of me for being a chicken, but there it is. I am afraid, of many things.

By the way, I guess we just have good taste in avatars.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
elocs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-03-08 07:59 PM
Response to Reply #17
18. Actually I had wanted to use my own avatar, but could never get it to work.
Finally I chose Snoopy on his doghouse because it was so nonpolitical and I always liked Snoopy. There is one Peanuts strip that I always remember. Snoopy was sitting on his doghouse and Linus said to him, "I would think it would be boring sitting on your doghouse all day". Snoopy replied, "On the contrary...who could be bored at the controls of..." In the last panel Snoopy says, "the starship Enterprise"? Life is what you make of it.

To get back on topic, I believe that Obama means that we he becomes president if this rescue or bailout is not going well, then another bill can be passed to remedy the problem. When he was here in La Crosse on Wednesday he did address what he would do to make sure the taxpayers would be repaid. That $700 billion was not immediately flushed down the toilet and is gone forever into some Swiss bank account.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eomer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-04-08 07:37 AM
Response to Reply #11
26. What happened to it? I believe it was removed.
That's from the original Paulson plan. I don't believe it is part of the legislation that was passed.

Here is the http://media.npr.org/documents/2008/sep/bailout/senate_bill.pdf">Senate bill. I searched and don't find that phrase in it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MsLeopard Donating Member (717 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-04-08 08:58 AM
Response to Reply #5
29. I don't understand
If he is that concerned about this bogus rip off of the American taxpayer, why did he twist arms for votes for it? I'm a big Obama supporter, but I find it very disheartening that he alone, according the the Congressional Black Caucus, called all the Monday no votes and convinced them to change to yes. Why did he do that, and now says, oh I'll fix it when I get in. By that time we'll be on Bailout 2.0.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Leopolds Ghost Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-04-08 10:32 AM
Response to Reply #5
31. Um, I hate to break it to you but this bill specifically exempts the agencies from review.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
anigbrowl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-03-08 04:52 PM
Response to Original message
6. Well, you might want to look at the existing legislation before jumping to conclusions
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode12/usc_sec_12_00000461----000-.html#
I don't think the counterpunch writer is giving a meaningful picture of what's going on here. Such waivers of deposit requirements are only temporary and have to be rewed on a biannual basis by a majority of fed governors.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MadrasT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-03-08 04:52 PM
Response to Original message
7. It's still there. It's on page 82 of the Senate bill.
:wtf:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bluestateguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-03-08 04:57 PM
Response to Original message
8. Trojan Horse? I am opposed to condoms in school
Disgusting

:sarcasm:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kip Humphrey Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-03-08 05:10 PM
Response to Original message
9. Margin with which to bet the farm (and lose): 2.5%. Bank margin for cashing your paycheck: 0%!
This will solve it! :sarcasm:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
4 t 4 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-03-08 05:52 PM
Response to Reply #9
10. kpete can I just say you
have the Greatest posts. I learn so much from them you are a real asset to DU.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kpete Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-03-08 06:05 PM
Response to Reply #10
13. a humble
thanks,

and peace, kp
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
4 t 4 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-03-08 06:12 PM
Response to Reply #13
15. That's so sweet that you replied but I mean it !
just check you own record. You are part of the reason I even stick around here, I learn so much! I'm not really into message boards but here I learn!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KamaAina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-03-08 06:00 PM
Response to Original message
12. Remember the House "check-kiting" scandal?
in which a number of reps, including several good Dems, ended up losing their seats because they inflated checks drawn on the House bank?

Well? Anyone losing his/her seat now?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gopbuster Donating Member (715 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-03-08 06:21 PM
Response to Original message
16. Congress can pull this with a vote...it will only be enacted as long as needed
There will be consolidation and the winners will be chosen.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hatfield Donating Member (33 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-03-08 08:19 PM
Response to Original message
19. This Site Goes Into a Bit More Detail
Although much of which I still do not understand. I hesitate to post it considering its origin, but there is no bias involved with this research. If you must insult or flame, then so be it, I feel this information is relevant regardless of where it came from.

http://www.dailypaul.com/node/66109

Hidden in the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008
Posted October 2nd, 2008 by OFallonBrent

In yesterday’s Senate bailout bill, also known as the ‘‘Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008’’ is the following, seemingly innocent section.

SEC. 128. ACCELERATION OF EFFECTIVE DATE.
Section 203 of the Financial Services Regulatory Relief Act of 2006 (12 U.S.C. 461 note) is amended by striking ‘‘October 1, 2011’’ and inserting ‘‘October 1, 2008’’.

So they moved the date of the Financial Services Regulatory Relief Act of 2006 up by 3 years. Big deal you say, and what the heck is the FSRRA of 2006? It was a series of amendments to 12 U.S.C. 461 of course! Well, okay, I don’t expect you to know what that is, so here it is (and the other related documents).

The bailout bill - http://money.cnn.com/2008...

Financial Services Regulatory Relief Act of 2006 - http://www.govtrack.us/co...

12 U.S.C. 461 - http://www.law.cornell.ed...

You may want to open those in new tabs, we’ll be bouncing around them a bit.

Okay, lets follow the trail.

They changed the effective date from 2011 to yesterday!

The Financial Services Regulatory Relief Act of 2006 made changes to the United States Code TITLE 12 - BANKS AND BANKING, CHAPTER 3 - FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM, SUBCHAPTER XIV - BANK RESERVES.

The changes do a few things, none of which seem to be good for us citizens.

The changes eliminated the requirement for banks to keep reserves of cash on hand to cover deposits, they abolished the Federal Reserve’s Earnings Participation Account, they granted the ability for the Fed to create their own rules for distributing their earnings, and they granted the ability to make payments to foreign banks.

These things were not scheduled to go into effect for 3 more years. Unclear is why they needed these changes at all, the other is why they need them now.

Okay, there it is, the conclusion. You can take my word for it and stop now and have some disgust at the whole thing, or you can continue on and get really mad about how convoluted and cryptic things in Washington are.

Fair warning. Continue at your own risk.

Still here? You really are brave. Actually you probably have no idea the mess you are in for. Don’t say I didn’t warn you.

Okay, I gave you the conclusion, now here is how to get there. I’ll go fast now, try to keep up, it gets complicated.

‘‘Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008’’
SEC. 128. ACCELERATION OF EFFECTIVE DATE.
Section 203 of the Financial Services Regulatory Relief Act of 2006 (12 U.S.C. 461 note) is amended by striking ‘‘October 1, 2011’’ and inserting ‘‘October 1, 2008’’.

Okay, we know the date has moved. Let’s look at what moved.

Section 203 is a part of the following Title. It states when the entire title goes into effect. So they made the entire Title go into effect yesterday.

TITLE II--MONETARY POLICY PROVISIONS
SEC. 201. AUTHORIZATION FOR THE FEDERAL RESERVE TO PAY INTEREST ON RESERVES.
(a) In General- Section 19(b) of the Federal Reserve Act (12 U.S.C. 461(b)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
`(12) EARNINGS ON BALANCES-
`(A) IN GENERAL- Balances maintained at a Federal Reserve bank by or on behalf of a depository institution may receive earnings to be paid by the Federal Reserve bank at least once each calendar quarter, at a rate or rates not to exceed the general level of short-term interest rates.
`(B) REGULATIONS RELATING TO PAYMENTS AND DISTRIBUTIONS- The Board may prescribe regulations concerning--
`(i) the payment of earnings in accordance with this paragraph;
`(ii) the distribution of such earnings to the depository institutions which maintain balances at such banks, or on whose behalf such balances are maintained; and
`(iii) the responsibilities of depository institutions, Federal Home Loan Banks, and the National Credit Union Administration Central Liquidity Facility with respect to the crediting and distribution of earnings attributable to balances maintained, in accordance with subsection (c)(1)(A), in a Federal Reserve bank by any such entity on behalf of depository institutions.
`(C) DEPOSITORY INSTITUTIONS DEFINED- For purposes of this paragraph, the term `depository institution', in addition to the institutions described in paragraph (1)(A), includes any trust company, corporation organized under section 25A or having an agreement with the Board under section 25, or any branch or agency of a foreign bank (as defined in section 1(b) of the International Banking Act of 1978).'.
(b) Conforming Amendment- Section 19 of the Federal Reserve Act (12 U.S.C. 461) is amended--
(1) in subsection (b)(4)--
(A) by striking subparagraph (C); and
(B) by redesignating subparagraphs (D) and (E) as subparagraphs (C) and (D), respectively; and
(2) in subsection (c)(1)(A), by striking `subsection (b)(4)(C)' and inserting `subsection (b)'.
SEC. 202. INCREASED FLEXIBILITY FOR THE FEDERAL RESERVE BOARD TO ESTABLISH RESERVE REQUIREMENTS.
Section 19(b)(2)(A) of the Federal Reserve Act (12 U.S.C. 461(b)(2)(A)) is amended--
(1) in clause (i), by striking `the ratio of 3 per centum' and inserting `a ratio of not greater than 3 percent (and which may be zero)'; and
(2) in clause (ii), by striking `and not less than 8 per centum,' and inserting `(and which may be zero),'.
SEC. 203. EFFECTIVE DATE.
The amendments made by this title shall take effect October 1, 2011.

Okay, so we can see here that 201 and 202 amend 12 U.S.C. 461. If we take 12 U.S.C. 461 section 19 (b) in the order of the amendments, the first is Section 19(b)(2)(A).

(2) (A) Each depository institution shall maintain reserves against its transaction accounts as the Board may prescribe by regulation solely for the purpose of implementing monetary policy—
(i) in the ratio of 3 per centum for that portion of its total transaction accounts of $25,000,000 or less, subject to subparagraph (C); and
(ii) in the ratio of 12 per centum, or in such other ratio as the Board may prescribe not greater than 14 per centum and not less than 8 per centum, for that portion of its total transaction accounts in excess of $25,000,000, subject to subparagraph (C).

this section is amended—
(1) in subsection (b)(2)(A), by striking “the ratio of 3 per centum” and inserting “a ratio of not greater than 3 percent (and which may be zero)” in clause (i) and by striking “and not less than 8 per centum,” and inserting “(and which may be zero),” in clause (ii);

Notice the change from a set percentage to a percentage “not greater than” and “which may be zero”. So depository institutions no longer have to maintain reserves against their transaction accounts. What is a depository institution? What is a transaction account?

(1) The following definitions and rules apply to this subsection, subsection (c) of this section, and
sections 248–1, 248a, 342, 360, and 412 of this title:
(A) The term “depository institution” means—
(i) any insured bank as defined in section 3 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act <12 U.S.C. 1813> or any bank which is eligible to make application to become an insured bank under section 5 of such Act <12 U.S.C. 1815>;
(ii) any mutual savings bank as defined in section 3 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act or any bank which is eligible to make application to become an insured bank under section 5 of such Act;
(iii) any savings bank as defined in section 3 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act or any bank which is eligible to make application to become an insured bank under section 5 of such Act;
(iv) any insured credit union as defined in section 1752 of this title or any credit union which is eligible to make application to become an insured credit union pursuant to section 1781 of this title;
(v) any member as defined in section 1422 of this title;
(vi) any savings association (as defined in section 3 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act
<12 U.S.C. 1813>) which is an insured depository institution (as defined in such Act <12 U.S.C. 1811 et seq.>) or is eligible to apply to become an insured depository institution under the Federal Deposit Insurance Act; and (vii) for the purpose of sections 248–1, 342 to 347, 347c, 347d, and 372 of this title any association or entity which is wholly owned by or which consists only of institutions
referred to in clauses (i) through (vi).

So pretty much any place that handles deposits, most people just call them banks.

(C) The term “transaction account” means a deposit or account on which the depositor or account holder is permitted to make withdrawals by negotiable or transferable instrument, payment orders of withdrawal, telephone transfers, or other similar items for the purpose of making payments or transfers to third persons or others. Such term includes demand deposits, negotiable order of withdrawal accounts, savings deposits subject to automatic transfers, and share draft accounts.

This basically means bank accounts.

So there it is, banks no longer have to keep even a small amount of peoples bank accounts available as cash. They don’t have to fail, they can just say they are out of cash today. Your money is still there, FDIC does not kick in, but they just stop giving out money.

Okay, what else does the date change put into effect 3 years early?

(2) in subsection (b)(4), by striking subparagraph (C) and redesignating subparagraphs (D) and (E) as subparagraphs
(C) and (D), respectively

What was subparagraph (C)? In order to understand subparagraph (C) we need to see the whole paragraph (4).

(4) (A) The Board may, upon the affirmative vote of not less than 5 members, impose a supplemental reserve requirement on every depository institution of not more than 4 percentum of its total transaction accounts. Such supplemental reserve requirement may be imposed only if—
(i) the sole purpose of such requirement is to increase the amount of reserves maintained to a level essential for the conduct of monetary policy;
(ii) such requirement is not imposed for the purpose of reducing the cost burdens resulting from the imposition of the reserve requirements pursuant to paragraph (2);
(iii) such requirement is not imposed for the purpose of increasing the amount of balances needed for clearing purposes; and
(iv) on the date on which the supplemental reserve requirement is imposed, except as provided in paragraph (11), the total amount of reserves required pursuant to paragraph
(2) is not less than the amount of reserves that would be required if the initial ratios specified in paragraph (2) were in effect.
(B) The Board may require the supplemental reserve authorized under subparagraph (A) only after consultation with the Board of Directors of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation,
the Director of the Office of Thrift Supervision, and the National Credit Union Administration Board. The Board shall promptly transmit to the Congress a report with respect to any exercise
of its authority to require supplemental reserves under subparagraph (A) and such report shall state the basis for the determination to exercise such authority.
(C) The supplemental reserve authorized under subparagraph (A) shall be maintained by the Federal Reserve banks in an Earnings Participation Account. Except as provided in subsection (c)(1)(A)(ii) of this section, such Earnings Participation Account shall receive earnings to be paid by the Federal Reserve banks during each calendar quarter at a rate not more than the rate earned on the securities portfolio of the Federal Reserve System during the previous calendar quarter. The Board may prescribe rules and regulations concerning the payment of earnings on Earnings Participation Accounts by Federal Reserve banks under this paragraph.
(D) If a supplemental reserve under subparagraph (A) has been required of depository institutions for a period of one year or more, the Board shall review and determine the need for continued maintenance of supplemental reserves and shall transmit annual reports to the Congress regarding the need, if any, for continuing the supplemental reserve.
(E) Any supplemental reserve imposed under subparagraph (A) shall terminate at the close of the first 90-day period after such requirement is imposed during which the average amount of reserves required under paragraph (2) are less than the amount of reserves which would be required during such period if the initial ratios specified in paragraph (2) were in effect.

So they make every bank pay into a reserve fund. It is maintained in an Earnings Participation Account. By deleting subparagraph (C) they abolished that account. They no longer have to maintain the account or pay the earnings. They can still impose a supplemental reserve requirement, they just don’t have to pay any earnings. I wonder what happened to the funds in that account. Remember, this went into effect yesterday.
Okay, what’s next? Ah yes, they added a whole new paragraph 12!

“(12) Earnings on balances.—
“(A) In general.—Balances maintained at a Federal Reserve bank by or on behalf of a depository institution may receive earnings to be paid by the Federal Reserve bank at least once each calendar quarter, at a rate or rates not to exceed the general level of short-term interest rates.
“(B) Regulations relating to payments and distributions.—The Board may prescribe regulations concerning—
“(i) the payment of earnings in accordance with this paragraph;
“(ii) the distribution of such earnings to the depository institutions which maintain balances at such banks, or on whose
behalf such balances are maintained; and
“(iii) the responsibilities of depository institutions, Federal Home Loan Banks, and the National Credit Union Administration Central Liquidity Facility with respect to the crediting and distribution of earnings attributable to balances maintained, in accordance with subsection (c)(1)(A), in a Federal Reserve bank by any such entity on behalf of depository institutions.
“(C) Depository institutions defined.—For purposes of this paragraph, the term ‘depository institution’, in addition to
the institutions described in paragraph (1)(A), includes any trust company, corporation organized under section 25A
<12 U.S.C. 611 et seq.> or having an agreement with the Board under section 25 <12 U.S.C. 601 et seq.>, or any branch
or agency of a foreign bank (as defined in section 3101 of this title).”;
(4) in subsection (c)(1)(A), by striking “subsection (b)(4)(C)” and inserting “subsection (b)”.

So paragraph 12 deals with earnings on balances. So basically any money the Federal Reserve bank has from other banks can make earnings and the Fed can decide how and if those earnings are paid out.

Remember the definition of depository institutions? Of course you do, but we have an additional definition just for this paragraph, everything you already know with the addition of foreign banks. So what you ask, if they deposit money in the Fed bank, shouldn’t they make money. Well, maybe, but yesterday they did not.

Remember, this entire paragraph 12 was not supposed to go into effect until 2011.

Foreign banks were not in the definition of depository institutions until they changed the effective date from October1, 2011 to October 1, 2008.

If we rewrite the opening of the paragraph to use the words “foreign banks” it reads

Balances maintained at a Federal Reserve bank by or on behalf of a foreign banks may receive earnings to be paid by the Federal Reserve bank at least once each calendar quarter, at a rate or rates not to exceed the general level of short-term interest rates.

So, to summarize, by changing the effective date the following is now in effect.

Banks don’t have to have cash on hand.

The Fed does not have to maintain an Earnings Protection account for the supplemental reserve fees they charge banks which means they don’t have to give any of the money back to those banks.

They now include foreign banks as institutions they can pay earnings to. Let’s not forget, earnings is really just more American debt. Federal Reserve Notes are really debt, but that’s a topic for another monster blog entry.

Anyway, all of this from one puny and innocuous section in the ‘‘Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008’’.

If you read this whole thing you deserve a gold star, or at least an attaboy.

Attaboy!







Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
magellan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-03-08 08:45 PM
Response to Reply #19
20. I don't get it either
...but thank you for posting it and welcome to DU.

This conclusion is worrying:

"So there it is, banks no longer have to keep even a small amount of peoples bank accounts available as cash. They don’t have to fail, they can just say they are out of cash today. Your money is still there, FDIC does not kick in, but they just stop giving out money."

:wtf:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RoyGBiv Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-03-08 08:54 PM
Response to Original message
21. Ohdearlord ...
Edited on Fri Oct-03-08 08:55 PM by RoyGBiv
Ya know ... I posted about this a week ago. I noted at the time it was troublesome and that I didn't understand it. Everyone else who posted in that thread said the same thing .. I don't understand it.

What does one do when they don't understand something?

Well, apparently there are at least two options: attempt to understand it or make up your mind that you do understand it even if you don't.

Up front, I *still* don't entirely understand the purpose here entirely. I can admit that. Apparently those that scream and holler in their denouncement of it can't because I certainly have not seen a rational explanation of why they are screaming and hollering.

Here's a few things, though.

Canada and the UK run on a zero reserve system and have for awhile. So far, their citizens haven't been sent to the gas chambers, and as far as I know, no plans are in place to do that.

The US has the highest reserve rate of any G7 economy and also has the most volatile economy in the G7.

Finally, here's some actual analysis from, ya know, people who know something about economics:

The move is aimed at reducing volatility in the federal funds actual rate. While the Fed sets a target for the fed funds rate, at which banks lend to each other overnight, the actual rate is set in open market operations overseen by the New York Fed, which aims to keep the rate near the Fed’s target. During normal times, this system operates smoothly, but amid the credit crisis, the actual rate has fluctuated. With banks reluctant to lend to one another, the Fed has often stepped in to boost liquidity, but such moves can drive the actual rate below the target, blunting the effects of the Fed’s main monetary policy tool. Such has been the case in recent days, as the actual rate has come in below the Fed’s 2% target amid major infusions this week. On Friday, the effective rate was 1.08%. A sustained rate below the Fed’s target has the potential to boost inflation and undermine the central bank’s long-term policy goals.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RedLetterRev Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-03-08 08:59 PM
Response to Original message
22. Woah, woah, woah
I thought that Congress couldn't legislate retroactively. Wouldn't that automatically invalidate the whole thing? Or just the section?

Or am I totally dis-remembering?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RoyGBiv Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-03-08 09:02 PM
Response to Reply #22
24. This is not a retroactive legislation ...

It's an amendment to a law already passed.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RedLetterRev Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-04-08 06:05 AM
Response to Reply #24
25. Well, there y'go.
It's hard to keep up when one has three jobs. Thanks for the clarification. If it weren't for DU I wouldn't get the right of it at all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RoyGBiv Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-04-08 08:24 AM
Response to Reply #25
27. Dearlord ...

Yeah, three jobs can kinda take you out of the loop. :-)

Don't feel bad, though. Hardly anyone noticed the original law, which passed in 2006 and was itself an amendment to a previous law ... 1986, I think. It passed *unanimously* without a whimper of debate.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
moodforaday Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-03-08 08:59 PM
Response to Original message
23. K&R
:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SpiralHawk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-04-08 08:46 AM
Response to Original message
28. Republicons = sleaze & corruption
Why do republicons HATE America?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
earth mom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-04-08 10:01 AM
Response to Original message
30. K & R! nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Uncle Joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-04-08 10:34 AM
Response to Original message
33. Kicked and recommended.
Thanks for the thread, kpete.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gristy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-04-08 01:16 PM
Response to Original message
34. That bill was defeated. It did not pass.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri May 03rd 2024, 04:38 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC