Use access key #2 to skip to page content.

TARP Inspector: Bailout Could Cost $23.7 TRILLION

Recs

12

July 20, 2009 – Comments (9)

http://www.youtube.com/user/DavidKretzmann

9 Comments – Post Your Own

#1) On July 20, 2009 at 9:25 PM, eddietheinvestor (< 20) wrote:

Yes, it could hit 23 TRILLION or more--but of course Obama says that it can't be true because it doesn't help the passage of his partisan health care experiment.    I don't think that Obama's health care plan is good for America if it bankrupts the nation.  It's time for him to put the United States ahead of his agenda and image.

Report this comment
#2) On July 20, 2009 at 10:51 PM, russiangambit (29.25) wrote:

It just kills me when I hear a ridiculous number like 23.7 trillion. How did they come up with that, why not 23.8999 or 23.45 trillion? Does so much money even exists. I think all of China's treasury holdings are just about couple trillion?

Esterlin, this is not an Obama issue, this is FED issue. Remember TARP? Treasury had to go through the full circus show with the Congress approvals to authorize just $700 bil. But FED can provide trillions in financing without ever having to get any kind of approval for it, and nobody knows about it either. Because FED is independent, in toher words, FED is not accountble.

So after they  (government officials, FED, Treasury and bankers) figured out that it is so much easier to get money from the FED, they are not bothering going through Congress anymore.So, nobody knows about it  and all the banks are suddenly solvent and have record earnings. 

Report this comment
#3) On July 20, 2009 at 11:01 PM, silverminer (30.74) wrote:

You don't need to hear it from the kid in that video, read the article yourself with a grown-up analysis here:

http://caps.fool.com/Blogs/ViewPost.aspx?bpid=231401&t=01006124249416869148

Report this comment
#4) On July 20, 2009 at 11:18 PM, TMFPencils (99.81) wrote:

Lol thank you silverminer for your kind comment. :-) But hey, any advertising for truth is more than welcome here.

Report this comment
#5) On July 21, 2009 at 1:55 AM, SuperPicks (28.97) wrote:

Thank you for getting the news out.  Though it did hit Google News frontpage today while I was checking through the news to kickstart the week!

It is ridiculous to see the the outright collusive, & fraudelent-like behaviour when the big banks & federal government are up to....well just about anything! 

That's why to keep things fair in your own life (including your family, friends, children, community) - we should favor competition and patronize only LOCAL, small institutions.

IE the most POWERFUL thing you and anyone here can do is: withdraw deposits from any large financial institution and put that money instead into a local community/commercial bank OR credit union.  

What that does will shake up representation seats within the Federal Reserve itself with more local voices having power and in turn will shakeup government at the federal level.

More powerful than a vote if you and one other person does it & spreads the word.  Anyone reading this, feel free to spread the message & copy this. 

 

Report this comment
#6) On July 21, 2009 at 2:11 AM, starbucks4ever (97.15) wrote:

23.7 is a nonsensican number. That would be the cost of all residential and commercial RE in America. It is just physically impossible for banks to lose that much. It's another matter that Bernanke could, fof course, print another 23.7 trillion and give it to GS. I wouldn't be surprized if he did.

Report this comment
#7) On July 21, 2009 at 2:12 AM, starbucks4ever (97.15) wrote:

a nonsensical number (where is that Caps spellchecker?)

Report this comment
#8) On July 21, 2009 at 9:38 AM, XMFSinchiruna (27.46) wrote:

Was that you in the video? If so, I certainly apologize about my tongue-in-cheek comment above (silverminer). :)

Report this comment
#9) On July 21, 2009 at 3:42 PM, TMFPencils (99.81) wrote:

Haha don't worry about it. :-)

Report this comment

Featured Broker Partners


Advertisement