Bloomberg News poursuit la FED

Pourquoi donc voudriez-vous que les gouvernements cessent de prendre les gens pour des cons (à commencer par les talking heads qui sont les premiers à tomber dans le panneau), puisque à pratiquement tous les coups, ca marche !!

En France, c'est exactement pareil :
Tout le monde s'est offusqué (et continue encore aujourd'hui !) sur le fait que "Sarko va maintenant nommer les dirigeants du service public", ce qui a été l'écran de fumée pour faire oublier le fait à tous ces cons qui sont tombés dans le panneau à pieds joints que le No de claquette sur "la fin de la pub sur France Télé" était en réalité destinée à augmenter le CA de Bouygues, copain de Sarko...

Il a quand-même pas de bol non plus, Sarko :
Ce plan lui-même était en réalité destiné à ce que Bouygues puisse vendre très cher TF1, pour pouvoir financer un pôle "nucléaire" ... dans lequel Sarko lui-même aurait eû un gros morceau à titre perso.

Non seulement ça a lamentablement foiré, mais en plus les Chinois lui expliquent depuis les Jeux que ses centrales nucléaires, il peut se les tailler en pointe, et que les Airbus, ils veulent bien en acheter quelques-uns si Airbus construit des usines en Chine... (pour ensuite, bien sûr, faire leurs propres avions, en mieux et en moins cher)...

Le monde est vraiment ingrat avec le nain...

En attendant, re-numéro de claquette à Saint Quentin, re-bullshit, re-démagogie & Co...

Indécrottable il est !

Aug. 25 (Bloomberg) -- The Federal Reserve must for the first time
identify the companies in its emergency lending programs after losing a
Freedom of Information Act lawsuit.
Manhattan Chief U.S. District Judge Loretta Preska ruled against the
central bank yesterday, rejecting the argument that loan records aren’t
covered by the law because their disclosure would harm borrowers’
competitive positions.
The Fed has refused to name the financial firms it lent to or disclose
the amounts or the assets put up as collateral under 11 programs, most
put in place during the deepest financial crisis since the Great
Depression, saying that doing so might set off a run by depositors and
unsettle shareholders. Bloomberg LP, the New York-based company
majority-owned by Mayor Michael Bloomberg, sued on Nov. 7 on behalf of
its Bloomberg News unit.
“The Federal Reserve has to be accountable for the decisions that it
makes,” said U.S. Representative Alan Grayson, a Florida Democrat on
the House Financial Services Committee, after Preska’s ruling. “It’s
one thing to say that the Federal Reserve is an independent
institution. It’s another thing to say that it can keep us all in the
dark.”
‘Inadequate Search’
the judge said the central bank “improperly withheld agency records” by
“conducting an inadequate search” after Bloomberg News reporters filed
a request under the information act. She gave the Fed five days to turn
over documents it told the reporters it located, including 231 pages of
reports, and said it must look for more at the Federal Reserve Bank of
New York, which runs most of the loan programs.

The central bank “essentially speculates on how a borrower might enter
a downward spiral of financial instability if its participation in the
Federal Reserve lending programs were to be disclosed,” Preska wrote.
“Conjecture, without evidence of imminent harm, simply fails to meet
the Board’s burden” of proof.

David Skidmore, a Fed spokesman who said the board’s staff was
reviewing the 47-page ruling, declined to comment on whether the
central bank would appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals in New York.

Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke, who led the biggest expansion
of the central bank’s power in its 95-year history, was nominated to a
second term today by President Barack Obama.

Banks Worried

Obama promised a new era of government openness when he took office in
January, issuing a statement telling agencies “to adopt a presumption
in favor of disclosure” in responding to requests under FOIA.

Banks are worried that the disclosure of borrowers’ identities by the
Fed, the lender of last resort, would cause customers to empty their
bank accounts in a run on the bank, said Scott Talbott, vice president
of governmental affairs at the Washington-based Financial Services
Roundtable, a lobbying group.

“This issue is: ‘This bank borrowed X billion from the Fed, therefore
they must be in trouble, therefore I’m going to pull my money out,”
said Talbott. “That’s the type of danger that we’re worried about.
That’s the risk.”
Bloomberg LP said in the suit that U.S. taxpayers need to know the
terms of Fed lending because the public became an “involuntary
investor” in the nation’s banks as the financial crisis deepened and
the government began shoring up companies with capital injections and
loans. Citigroup Inc. and American International Group Inc. are among
those who have said they accepted Fed loans.

‘Unprecedented Ways’

“When an unprecedented amount of taxpayer dollars were lent to
financial institutions in unprecedented ways and the Federal Reserve
refused to make public any of the details of its extraordinary lending,
Bloomberg News asked the court why U.S. citizens don’t have the right
to know,” said Matthew Winkler, the editor-in-chief of Bloomberg News.
“We’re gratified the court is defending the public’s right to know what
is being done in the public interest.”

The Fed’s balance sheet about doubled after lending standards were
relaxed in the wake of the collapse of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. on
Sept. 15, 2008. For the week ended Aug. 19, Fed assets rose 2.3 percent
to $2.06 trillion as it continued to buy mortgage-backed securities
under a program allowing the central bank to purchase non-government
securities for the first time.

Fed Audits

The U.S. House may vote as soon as next month on a bill to require the
Fed to submit to audits by the Government Accountability Office, said
Representative Scott Garrett, a New Jersey Republican on the Financial
Services Committee.

The judge’s ruling “is strikingly good news,” Garrett said. “This is what the American people have been asking for.”
The Freedom of Information Act obliges federal agencies to make
government documents available to the press and public. The Bloomberg
suit, filed in New York, didn’t seek money damages.

“The public deserves to know what’s being done with the money,” said
Lucy Dalglish, executive director of the Arlington, Virginia-based
Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press. “This ought to be a
wake-up call for the public that they need to be far more educated
about this.”

http://bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20670001&sid=a7CC61ZsieV4

la plainte de Bloomberg arrive en appel à la cour de Manhattan...

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a4PnUdySIink&pos=7

Federal Reserve Must Disclose Bank Bailout Records

........March 19 (Bloomberg) -- The Federal Reserve Board must disclose documents identifying financial firms that might have collapsed without the largest ever U.S. government bailout, a federal appeals court said.
The U.S. Court of Appeals in Manhattan ruled today that the Fed must release records of the unprecedented $2 trillion U.S. loan program launched primarily after the 2008 collapse of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. The ruling upholds a decision of a lower-court judge, who in August ordered that the information be released.
The Fed had argued that it could withhold the information under an exemption that allows federal agencies to refuse disclosure of "trade secrets and commercial or financial information obtained from a person and privileged or confidential."
The U.S. Freedom of Information Act, or FOIA, "sets forth no basis for the exemption the Board asks us to read into it," U.S. Circuit Chief Judge Dennis Jacobs wrote in the opinion. "If the Board believes such an exemption would better serve the national interest, it should ask Congress to amend the statute."
The opinion may not be the final word in the bid for the documents, which was launched by Bloomberg LP, the parent of Bloomberg News, with a November 2008 lawsuit. The Fed may seek a rehearing or appeal to the full appeals court and eventually petition the U.S. Supreme Court…


http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a2rzjENZQV5k

Je parie que la FED va faire appel de l'appel devant une cour complète pui sensuite aller devant la cour suprême, laquelle étant composée de vieux chnocks ultrs-conservateurs se rangera de son coté.

en attendant et au sénat, ça avance .. le fameux amendement d'audit de la FED (sur la période couvrant la crise financière ) est voté !


Senate passes amendment for one-time audit of Fed
Submitted by cpowell on 12:11PM ET Tuesday, May 11, 2010. Section: Daily Dispatches
By Victorial McGrane and Michael R. Crittenden
The Wall Street Journal
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870425010457523813070723058.html

WASHINGTON -- The Senate adopted an amendment Tuesday to the financial-overhaul bill that would boost transparency of the Federal Reserve's emergency lending actions during the financial crisis.
Lawmakers voted 96-0 to incorporate the modified amendment offered by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I., Vt.), who scaled back his original language last week to overcome White House objections.
"This amendment begins the process of lifting the veil of secrecy of perhaps the most powerful federal agency," Mr. Sanders said at a news conference after the vote. Once the audit is completed, Mr. Sanders said he hopes it will unveil so many "back-room deals" that people will push for even more disclosure…

article complet ici :
http://www.gata.org/node/8635

m'étonne pas, vu la source : la WS journal !

l'amendement de Sanders, le 1er, effectivement voté, avec le support de Dodd est la version émasculée.

un second amendement a ensuite été rejeté, celui de Vitter, avec le support de Ron Paul : c'est celui-là qui était le bon.

Ainsi, comme on le voit déjà avec cet article du WSJ, "ils" (les sénateurs voulant être réélus et tout ce système mafieux) pourront dire "nous avons voté l'audit de la FED" alors que le-dit audit ne sera que du vent.

Tant que la populace "croit" et continue de regarder Télé-Propagande, d'écouter Radio-Mensonge et de lire Journal-Manipulation ( Armand), tout cela continuera, mais la populace ne comprendra pas pourquoi elle a toujours mal au Q.

merci Dup !
heuresement que tu es là, pour démeler les échevaux de cette succession d'amendements, compliquée à suivre

merci !



disons que cet audit édulcoré, pourrait ouvrir la boite de Pandore .. on peut réver .. et que le combat ( de Ron Paul ) continue ..

Selon ZH, la FED commencera a publier le détail de ses opérations d'aide au 1er décembre (bénéficiaires, montants, dates et autres modalités) puis continuera cette publication en respectant un délai.

La cours Suprême US déboute la FED et ses amis et lui donne 5 jours pour publier la liste des bénéficiaires de ses largesses en 2008 avec les montants.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-03-21/fed-must-release-bank-loan-data-as-high-court-rejects-appeal.html

Morgan Stanley a emprunté à la fed 3.5 milliards de $ en pleine " crise des subprimes"

Citation :

La cour Suprême US déboute la FED et ses amis et lui donne 5 jours pour publier la liste des bénéficiaires de ses largesses en 2008 avec les montants.

et voilà ... les résultats tombent !
et c'est pas fini, puisque Fox News entame une procédure similaire pour la période aout2007-nov2008

le 24-09-2008, Morgan Stanley a emprunté à la FED , 3.5 $ milliards

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-03-23/morgan-stanley-s-deep-secret-now-is-revealed-commentary-by-jonathan-weil.html

contrairement aux allégations de son patron devant le congrès, Goldman Sachs a eu 5 fois accès à la discount window, mise en place par la fed,
5 fois depuis sept 2008 !

Citation :

Goldman Sachs Bank USA, a unit of the company, took overnight loans from the Federal Reserve on Sept. 23, Oct. 1, and Oct. 23 in 2008 as well as on Sept. 9, 2009, and Jan. 11, 2010, according to the data released today. The largest loan was $50 million on Sept. 23 and the smallest was $1 million on the most recent two occasions.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-03-31/goldman-borrowed-from-fed-s-discount-window-at-least-five-times-data-show.html/

Prenez un ogre qui double de taille tous les 5-7 ans, sa consommation devient très vite gigantesque et il va sécuriser sa "nourriture" en détruisant ses ogres concurrents et en noyautant des "régulations" à son avantage. Vous ne pouvez pas le vaincre en le combattant de façon frontale car vous n'avez pas assez de "munitions" pour ça, par contre il suffit de quelques grammes de nourriture en moins (chair humaine = argent réel du travail) et il crève de faim...

entre autres choses rigolottes, l'action de Bloomberg contre la Fed nous révéle que :

la FED a prété 5 milliards de $ à l'arab banking Corp, détenue par la BC de Lybie et à 25% par l'état lybien

Citation :

<H1>Libya-Owned Arab Banking Corp. Drew at Least $5 Billion From Fed in Crisis

By Donal Griffin and Bob Ivry -

document.write(dateFormat(new Date(1301630904000),"mmm d, yyyy h:MM TT Z"));

Mar 31, 2011 9:08 PM PT

Arab Banking Corp., the lender part- owned by the Central Bank of Libya, used a New York branch to get 73 loans from the U.S. Federal Reserve in the 18 months after Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. collapsed.
The bank, then 29 percent-owned by the Libyan state, had aggregate borrowings in that period of $35 billion -- while the largest single loan amount outstanding was $1.2 billion in July 2009, according to Fed data released yesterday. In October 2008, when lending to financial institutions by the central bank’s so- called discount window peaked at $111 billion, Arab Banking took repeated loans totaling more than $2 billion. ......

.....

“It is incomprehensible to me that while creditworthy small businesses in Vermont and throughout the country could not receive affordable loans, the Federal Reserve was providing tens of billions of dollars in credit to a bank that is substantially owned by the Central Bank of Libya,” Senator Bernard Sanders of Vermont, an independent who caucuses with Democrats, wrote in a letter to Fed and U.S. officials.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-03-31/libya-owned-arab-banking-corp-drew-at-least-5-billion-from-fed-in-crisis.html

</H1>

source

on apprend également que la FED a prété 77.49 $ miiliards aux banques étrangéres soit 70% des montants prétés à la 97 years discount window de la Fed durant la fameuse semaine d'oct 2008 où ces préts ont atteint des records absolus
dont :
33.5$ milliards de $ pour Dexia
24.5 milliards de $ pour Defca bank , banque irlandaise saisie depuis par l'état allemand.

bien entendu, on n'a pas oublié jpm,bac,citigroup et morgan stanley ... mais c'est pas eux qui ont eu le plus gros morceau ..

autant dire que les autres banques us n'ont rien eu !

Citation :

Those programs also loaned hundreds of billions of dollars to the biggest U.S. banks, including JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPM), Bank of America Corp. (BAC), Citigroup Inc. and Morgan Stanley. (MS)

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-04-01/foreign-banks-tapped-fed-s-lifeline-most-as-bernanke-kept-borrowers-secret.html

le GAO vient de sortir les résultatsde l'enquête sur les montants excats versés pour le renflouement des banques, tant aux USA quà l'étranger.

vu les résultats édifiants, on comprend pourquoi la FED n'a pas voulu rendre ces chiffres et leurs bénéficiaires, officiels

http://blog.alexanderhiggins.com/2011/07/21/fed-audit-reveals-eyepopping-details-16-trillion-secret-banker-bailout-loans-37651/

Citation :

Moi, j'ai la réponse : les mafieux de JPM et les truands de GS. Ce
sont leurs hommes qui passent de ces deux banques au Trésor et en
reviennent. Les Américains de base ont beau être des bourrins pas très
fins, je suis de plus en plus persuadé que cette histoire va très mal
finir là-bas ...

Bah, oui, et à ce stade, c'est même à souhaiter car, bien que je postule que le citoyen de base soit excédé, l'image que les médias corrompus et la "grande"(?) presse nous renvoient, reste celle de jane et Joe 6 packs, toujours aussi serviles, candides, addicts à la consommation à crédit et confiants dans le rêve amérloquain...

Je ne doute pas que la réalité soit (au moins un peu) moins tranchée et que Jane et Joe commencent à écarquiller leurs "eyes wide shut", mais bon, dans le genre bourrins, faut quand même avouer qu'ils se posent un peu là...

Bill H s'énerve à juste titre

16 trillions de $ de prêts secrets de la FED , envolés dans les poches des banksters, c'est plus que le PIB annuel des USA, d'où vient cet argent et combien de trillions de $ crées à partir de rien seront nécéssaires pour "sauver "ce systéme à l'agonie?

autrement dit, combien de pognon va t'il encore être extorqué pour cette escroquerie?


www.lemetropolecafe.com


Bill H:

$16,000 Billion!

http://sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/news/?id=9E2A4EA8-6E73-4BE2-A753-62060DCBB3C3



To all; a report out of Bernie Sanders office (Senator, Vermont) came out Friday which I missed until the end of the day. An audit of the Fed which of all things was mandated by Dodd-Frank legislation turned up over $16 Trillion of secret loans to some of "the largest institutions in the U.S. and throughout the world". Well, well, well, now we know don't we! $16 Trillion! This amount is larger than the entire GDP of the U.S. in one year, it is larger than all the debt accumulated in more than 200 years ...and just exactly where did this money come from? Uh, it did not show up on the Fed's already bloated balance sheet that has been the topic of conversation as of late. Do I even need to ask where it came from? $16 Trillion!

And to think the U.S. taxpayers were all in an uproar and so pissed off in late 2008 when Hank Paulson told us he needed the PALTRY sum of $700 Billion with no strings attached so he could "save us". Can you imagine the PANIC if people knew that $16 Trillion was just conjured up out of thin air and passed out all over the planet? After the shock that this number brought me I started thinking to myself that if it took THIS MUCH money to save the system, how close were we really to a complete implosion? I'll tell you, this number really put the whole thing in perspective for me, $16 Trillion, 16,000,000,000,000, or $16,000 BILLION. Sixteen Thousand Billion Dollars! I mean this is a number that some 5 year old kid would make up when they mean a "really really lot"!

Let's think this through, where did the money come from? Does The Fed have a little piggybank sitting in their back office where they have an extra $16,000 Billion laying around? Where did it go? Who benefited? How much was stolen and "graffed" away? Did The Fed get paid back everything it was owed? And then to put this in perspective, Citigroup needed over $2 Trillion to survive? Merrill Lynch needed $1.9 Trillion and they didn't survive? What the hell is this? And we were told that the crappy little sum of $700 Billion is what saved the entire system? As usual, I'm sorry but have to call BULLSHIT again at the top of my lungs!

Do you realize what this means folks? Yep, WE (the entire planet) ARE SCREWED! Do you want to know what the scariest part (at least to me anyway) is? We are screwed AT LEAST 10 to 20 times worse than I thought we were and as you know I thought we were "pretty much screwed" before this latest revelation! Now, let me pose another little question for you to ponder. If The Fed can secretly create $16,000 Billion out of thin air, how much exactly is that crisp new $100 bill worth that you have in your pocket? Or better yet, what is the true purchasing power of that Jumbo CD you have sitting in the bank that has given you so much comfort? Or scariest of all, how much is your entire life savings worth if you have been a "good little financial citizen" and saved the fruits from your life's labor in Wall St. and Washington's paper? So at a moments notice The Fed can "spawn" $16 Trillion, why don't they just "spawn" another $14 Trillion and GIVE it to the Treasury to pay off the debt? Or even $100 Trillion to fund all the "unfunded liabilities"!

Wait, I have an even better idea! Why not kust print up a THOUSAND TRILLION DOLLARS (a really big number even for a five year old to invent!) to settle and satisfy all the derivatives outstanding? In case you were wondering $1,000 Trillion equals $1 Quadrillion. While they are at it they could throw in a few "spare" Trillion Dollars so everyone could pay off their cars, mortgages and credit cards and we could all be debt free! How cool would this be? We could all start over with no debt and keep the "things" we already have! Folks, I'm not sure but I may have really stumbled on to something here. If The Fed can do all of these wonderful things (which they have already shown us they can) they can surely just send checks out each month and none of us anywhere on the planet will ever have to work again! WOW, I wish I could have afforded tuition at Princeton because it's a shame I didn't figure this out earlier, better late than never as the old saying goes.

Seriously, and just how long do you think it will be until people figure out that the whole system from top to bottom is a complete scam based on fake and fraudulent paper monies? Maybe I am giving John Q. Public too much credit here, I have long wondered what it would take to wake him up and have been amazed for several years now that it has taken as long as it did. I don't know how long it will take but the common man will eventually get around to understanding that if The Fed can create $16,000 Billion out of thin air without one ounce (pun intended) of sweat, they are making FAKE MONEY! The common man will come to understand that ounces of Gold and Silver ARE real money and will stampede into them unlike anything ever seen on this planet!

I do have another couple of questions. If it took more than $20 Trillion to "fix" the markets (notice I didn't say "economy") then how much will it take next time? And if the cat is out of the bag on this $16,000 Billion, "next" time won't Wall St. be jumping up and down screaming for even more? Where does it end? How much IS "enough"? Logically, if The Fed can "fix" ANY financial problem by just conjuring up more money, then does "risk" even exist? Theoretically if what Washington and Wall St. were correct in what they want you to believe then there can be no such thing as risk but we know that there is. The "risk" is in the currency itself and this is what the audit has now exposed to anyone and everyone to see. The concept that "if it cost's nothing to produce then it is worth NOTHING" is now staring everyone in the face. It is staring at those who have saved in this medium of "nothings" like a spotlight!

I know this is getting long so let me finish. We all wanted an audit of The Fed and would also like an audit of Ft. Knox, I wonder though whether or not "we can handle the truth"? What is in store for The United States is unfathomable if it turns out that Ft. Knox is empty or if the Gold is otherwise "encumbered". If we have the Gold then it's price can be marked up to a very and "unthinkably" high level to "reliquify" the banking system and make good on debts. If we do not have the Gold then we are truly broke and will not be able to import anything at all. We will be forced to live on goods produced within our borders at a time when all manufacturing has already been shipped overseas. We will be flat broke with no means of production. In this case, a 25-35% decrease in our standard of living will feel like "heaven on Earth" because the combination of no means to produce and no currency to purchase with will cause a drop of more than 50% in our standard of living. NOT a good combination and one that will take decades to repair! Regards, Bill H.

Bloomberg sort de nouvelles révélations







http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-11-28/secret-fed-loans-undisclosed-to-congress-gave-banks-13-billion-in-income.html