Quantcast
Feeds: Email, RSS & Twitter

Get Our Videos By Email

 

8,300 Unique Visitors In The Past Day

 

Powered by Squarespace

 

Search The Archive Of 15,000 Videos

SEARCH THE DAILY BAIL

 

 

Hank Paulson Is A Criminal - Pass It On

"The Federal Reserve Is A Ponzi Scheme"


Get Our Videos By Email

THE FED UNDER FIRE: Must See Clip

Bernanke's Replacement: Happy Hour In Santa Cruz

Must See: National Debt Road Trip

"Of Course We're Not Going To  Payback the Chinese."

Dave Chappelle On White Collar Crime

Carlin: Wall Street Owns Washington

SLIDESHOW - Genius Signs From Irish IMF Protest

SLIDESHOW - Airport Security Cartoons - TSA

Most Recent Comments
Cartoons & Photos
SEARCH
« Matt Taibbi Eviscerates Henry Paulson And The WSJ's Evan Newmark | Main | NYT: Tim Geithner Convinced NY AG Andrew Cuomo To Back Off Wall Street Prosecutions »
Saturday
Oct012011

True Cost Of The Wall Street Bailout - PBS VIDEO

Watch just a few minutes of this clip.  It is outstanding.

     Email to a Friend

---

Special report from Bloomberg -- Adding It All Up

Allison Stewart from Need to Know with Bloomberg reporter Bob Ivry.  None of this is new to Bail readers, though the details might surprise you.  The Bloomberg total is $12.8 trillion.

We all know about TARP, the Troubled Asset Relief Program, which spent $700 billion in taxpayers’ money to bail out banks after the financial crisis. That money was scrutinized by Congress and the media.

But it turns out that that $700 billion is just a small part of a much larger pool of money that has gone into propping up our nation’s financial system. And most of that taxpayer money hasn’t had much public scrutiny at all.

According to a team at Bloomberg News, at one point last year the U.S. had lent, spent or guaranteed as much as $12.8 trillion to rescue the economy. The Bloomberg reporters have been following that money. Alison Stewart spoke with one, Bob Ivry, to talk about the true cost to the taxpayer of the Wall Street bailout.

##

 

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

EmailEmail Article to Friend

Reader Comments (43)

I actually watch this new show on PBS. It is a good show. I hope it does not get corrupted like the other PBS news shows. It was a great summary.
Sep 7, 2010 at 4:53 PM | Unregistered CommenterZ
Allison Stewart is a pretty good journalist...
Sep 7, 2010 at 5:00 PM | Registered CommenterDailyBail
Obama says they are talking about him like a dog...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0-7XNfZDczs

Why a dog??? Was it a shout-out?

[...]

Let me know what you think??? I find it interesting.
Sep 7, 2010 at 5:14 PM | Unregistered CommenterZ
It's a funny clip...i might post if if i get time...
Sep 7, 2010 at 10:38 PM | Registered CommenterDailyBail
Very good clip.
Sep 7, 2010 at 11:06 PM | Unregistered Commentermark mchugh
FS, FG!
Sep 7, 2010 at 11:13 PM | Unregistered CommenterZ
I made a very good point and you deleted it...hmmm.
Sep 7, 2010 at 11:13 PM | Unregistered CommenterZ
Is it a cultural bias?
Sep 7, 2010 at 11:18 PM | Unregistered CommenterZ
Why a dog??? Was it a shout-out?

[...]

What is that??? I put a paragraph there.
Sep 7, 2010 at 11:24 PM | Unregistered CommenterZ
Z, your gratuitous racial innuendo is what got removed (how old are you?). But the clip wasn't touched. Are you trying to sabotage the site, or just looking for attention?
Sep 7, 2010 at 11:27 PM | Registered CommenterDr. Pitchfork
So, Dr. P. says no to the possibility of a shout-out. Do you think it is beneath Obama?
Sep 7, 2010 at 11:35 PM | Unregistered CommenterZ
DB...I didn't know that Dr. P. had control of your site.
Sep 7, 2010 at 11:36 PM | Unregistered CommenterZ
I am a level three thinker, perhaps that can be a bit perplexing to some.
Sep 7, 2010 at 11:45 PM | Unregistered CommenterZ
Dr. P. has full authority to pull posts when he deems fit...

I thought at first you said, you were a level-3 drinker...that would certainly explain a lot...
Sep 7, 2010 at 11:48 PM | Registered CommenterDailyBail
So Dr. P. is now in charge, cha ching.
Sep 7, 2010 at 11:51 PM | Unregistered CommenterZ
No Z...you're obviously the one in charge...so bright, so witty, always thinking clearly...you're such a solid contributor...

I missed your comment...were you being racist?
Sep 7, 2010 at 11:58 PM | Registered CommenterDailyBail
I sense some sarcasm out of the gate but as for the rest…true, true, very true…true…and spot on. Yes, I have even drunk dialed but not very often, trust me.
Sep 8, 2010 at 12:07 AM | Unregistered CommenterZ
Thanks to Patrick of http://patrick.net for posting this story tonight...

check out his site...
Sep 8, 2010 at 12:23 AM | Registered CommenterDailyBail
My comment had nothing to do with the following but he is picking up on what I was picking up. I would have posted this article with my original link but I had not found it.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/tobyharnden/100052622/self-described-mutt-barack-obama-dont-talk-about-me-like-a-dog/

"The comment makes him look ridiculous. First off, there are inevitable racial overtones to it. To be treated “like a dog” is to be treated as something less than human. In the Muslim world, to call someone a dog is a pretty serious insult (and no, I’m not suggesting Obama is a Muslim)."
Sep 8, 2010 at 12:43 AM | Unregistered CommenterZ
My point in making my comment was to point out that Obama said dog for a reason, he is very calculating.
Sep 8, 2010 at 12:45 AM | Unregistered CommenterZ
Free Gobias, Free Speech!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Sep 8, 2010 at 1:38 AM | Unregistered CommenterZ
Photographing Fallen Soldiers

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IlUsV-1_lVQ
Sep 8, 2010 at 1:46 AM | Unregistered CommenterZ
Lovely, I get: " This video contains content from PBS, who has blocked it in your country on copyright grounds."

Hahahaha, like I am not an American that paid taxes to fund their silly asses. Like where I am now is "my country", and not America. Like anyone would want to PIRATE PBS!!! Bwahahahahaha.

Whatever, they've been a shill for Zionists/Neocons the last 15 years anyway.

Good thing everyone ridiculed farang in the early 80s when I stated in newspaper comments sections Reagan's insane tax cuts and borrowing, along with his huge increase in S.S. benefits to people that NEVER PAID INTO the Trust fund would lead us to oblivion....how's it feelin' now, America? Still feeling "good about yourself" again???

Obama said his critics talk about him like a dog: that's right, boy. Here boy, here boy.......go find gay little male cheerleader Dubya, atta BOY!!!
Sep 11, 2010 at 2:04 AM | Unregistered Commenterfarang
Congressional bailout supporters should be prosecuted for treason.
Feb 9, 2011 at 2:59 AM | Unregistered CommenterBenny and the Talibanks
You want to know why "no on seems to care" about Wall Street's Bailout? Why no one was even charged with any crimes?

Half of ALL home loans (27 Million) were forced on lenders by government to redistribute wealth and racial “reparations” behind America’s back": http://bit.ly/fHJFVZ Don’t sign off before you see part 2 which plays after a commercial.
Feb 9, 2011 at 12:10 PM | Unregistered CommenterWinghunter
Wow, Winghunter. Let me politely suggest that you are either being fooled by the banks and their apologists or you must be (even if inadvertantly) one of them. Regardless of what stupid Dems like Barney Frank or Andrew Cuomo have done in regards to Fannie and Freddie, it did NOT CAUSE the financial crisis. It did NOT cause Lehman to lie about asset values and cash on hand, or to lever up 80-1, or to rely so heavily on overnight loans backed by crap collateral. That's just for instance.

This whole fake controversy between D's and R's on the FCIC is a smokescreen. People on Wall St. committed crimes, including fraud. Yves Smith wrote a book about how one hedge fund, Magnetar, deliberately constructed mortgage-backed securities that would fail, so that they could then bet on that failure by shorting them / buying credit default swap protection on them.

That FCIC guy on Fox news clearly doesn't understand what he's even talking about. Notice how he lumps Alt-A in with sub-prime. Most sub-prime wasn't even written by banks covered under the CRA, and CRA wasn't about sub-prime anyway.
Feb 9, 2011 at 1:13 PM | Registered CommenterDr. Pitchfork
Fûçk Beȑnanke, Geithneȑ, Diamoȵd, Blankfeiȵ's wife or their assholes.
Feb 9, 2011 at 1:47 PM | Unregistered CommenterDailybailor
I can't help but wonder what would have been the cost for the government to simply "buy up" all these mortages and given the homes to the home owner. This would have eliminated the foreclosure mess and put a lot of fresh money in to the system rather than a bankers pocket. The banks would have their money and the government would reap piles of tax money.
Feb 9, 2011 at 4:24 PM | Unregistered CommenterCranford
RIP, Mark Pittman. I hope Bloomberg continues this fight for us all. The TARP is a sham, as most DB readers know, and even now, some regionals are finding it hard to pay TARP back because they suck so bad, e.g., 5/3 bank.

The crux here, imho, is the Fed and Treasury guaranty. The Fed has allowed greater and more dangerous TBTF (just ask TARP cop Barofsky, or read his report), created a greater concentration of bank power, and institutionalized moral hazard. The banksters must be laughing their asses off, with over-stuffed wallets. Gamble, gamble, gamble. It matters not. The Fed has your back. You lost how much, Mr. TBTF Banker? No worries. We'll just lend you more at 0% interest so you can do it again...and again...and again...

I feel like Neo after he takes the red pill and sees that he's been living in The Matrix. Tumbling down the rabbit hole..."He's gonna pop!" PUKE...
Feb 9, 2011 at 5:46 PM | Unregistered Commenterjosie
Cranford, I have wondered the same thing many times.
Feb 9, 2011 at 8:00 PM | Unregistered CommenterDave
"I can't help but wonder what would have been the cost for the government to simply "buy up" all these mortages and given the homes to the home owner."

Really? Really? I'm dumber for having read this statement.

1: They signed for the loan because they wanted to gamble and make money... GREED!
2: Many of these foreclosures are cash out refis where they bought/borrowed against other houses, and spent the money they stole.
3: They are NOT "home owners", they are home debtors.

Most of the people in this country knew not to borrow money they couldn't afford to pay back.

In fact, these criminals should be held responsible for paying back the money they gained. Their Mercedes SUV's should be repossessed, their pictures of their trips to Europe should be burned and they should have to work in a government job cleaning the National Parks until they pay the money back.


And yes, the bankers should just be executed.
Feb 10, 2011 at 12:21 AM | Unregistered CommenterBenny and the Talibanks
IS Wall Street already operating Under Shariah Law , it has to so it can keep the Arabian Investors invested under their set of Shariah Law rules of Compliance according too Screens for Shari´ah compliance ?? http://www.djindexes.com/islamicmarket/

Is this why we see these kinds of things going on in foreign & economic Relations that threaten USA sovereignty , but We the People get stuck with the DEBTS ??? The citizens of America are supposed to be protected from such people and groups by law. That law, titled the Logan Act, prohibits United States citizens, without the authority of their office, from interfering in relations between the United States and foreign governments .

That law, titled the Logan Act http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL33265.pdf
http://homelandsecurityus.com/archives/4583
United States has partnered with Canada to use biometric software to track North American citizens.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/02/04/declaration-president-obama-and-prime-minister-harper-canada-beyond-bord

Do we the people even have a clue as to what we bailout and why ?? This is Important to price the fixed asset markets as well as the reflection on debt allocations and the relationship this accounting would have in dollar valuations allocations . We the people deserve to Know if this is what caused hank Paulson to demand the bailout TARP money , which he first said was for Toxic asset relief , and then switched the bailout to certain Financial Firms that I bet held Arabian Investors who Demanded their holdings be guaranteed 33 % equity solvency or they pull out of Wall Street ??

This is Why the FEDERAL RESERVE needs to be Audited .

Ok , heres another question for the Cronies Capitalism thats failing the US Economic Recovery , Did Hank Paulson switch gears with the TARP on who he bailed out due to these Shariah Law Compliance rules to keep this Fund invested in the US Dow Top 30 ??

http://dailybail.com/home/bloombergs-jonathan-weil-citis-vikram-pandit-may-have-violat.html . I bet the Citi Group and other widely held investments by Arab investors in Wall Street Demanded this 33 % solvency guarantee be put in place or they would pull out their Investments in Wall Street , and so this forced the Federal Reserve to start bailing out these positions up to the point that with fanny and Freddy holding Key asset investment that the Federal Reserve could not bailout without causing major conflicts of Interest in the securities and other asset classes that would have caused major conflicts to rise up in firms across the sector , this forced Bush and Paulson at the Treasury to come to Congress for the Bailout money to then bailout the Firms that held Arab investments and this was why Paulson baited Congress and then switched the bailout , is my opinion .
in your video The Goldman Ex CEO had a cozy relationship with the Arabs , so you got to wonder is this Shariah Law Compliance demand was what caused the economic crisis to unfold ;
http://dailybail.com/home/the-hammer-gets-hit-by-a-tree.html - this talks about Hank Paulson switching TARP funds Allocations .
and in your video here the Official dodges simple questions , is it because of this Arab bailout possibility that forced the Federal Reserve to Cash the Arab Investors a ## % guarantee or Wall Street Loses the Investors from Arabia ?? I bet this is what Happened .
http://dailybail.com/home/there-are-no-words-to-describe-the-following-part-ii.html - This is an interview where the Official responsible for finding out where the Federal Reserve Money is allocated towards has No Idea where any of the funds go , very strange , seems there could be some of the funds went to this Investor group to guarantee their Minimum required 33% solvency rate in any of their holdings don't you think ?? Read their requirements for Compliance page under
Screens for Shari´ah compliance

In this link Bernanke talks about bailout foreign investors starting in 2007 so maybe this Islamic Board demanded they be secured under Shariah rules they formulated , if so the US Investors have a right to know these things don't you think ???
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-RAugiQsTR0&feature=related

Overview The Dow Jones Islamic Market Index℠
http://www.djindexes.com/islamicmarket/

family includes thousands of broad-market, blue-chip, fixed-income and strategy and thematic indexes that have passed rules-based screens for Shari´ah compliance. The indexes are the most visible and widely-used set of Shari´ah-compliant benchmarks in the world.
To determine their eligibility for the indexes, stocks are screened to ensure that they meet the standards set out in the published methodology. Companies must meet Shari´ah requirements for acceptable products, business activities, debt levels, and interest income and expenses. The screening methodology is subject to input from an independent Shari´ah supervisory board. By screening stocks for consistency with Shari´ah law, the indexes help to reduce research costs and compliance concerns Muslim investors would otherwise face in constructing Islamic investment portfolios.

Shari´ah supervisory board
Screens for Shari´ah compliance
Feb 26, 2011 at 12:52 AM | Unregistered Commenterhungry4food
I don't think we will ever know the true cost, it is after all more than money.
Mar 4, 2011 at 9:09 PM | Unregistered CommenterS. Gompers
Right on, Gomp. How do we tabulate the cost of passively accepting a system that arbitrarily rewards some but not all losers at the expense of real winners? Numbers are a poor proxy for the reality of what's happened over the last 3 years.

The U.S. has been exposed as a kakistocracy. The Bailout Party crushed the Slave Party with television.

Carry on.
Apr 5, 2011 at 6:53 AM | Unregistered CommenterCheyenne
Cranford you nailed it !
Jul 9, 2011 at 1:03 AM | Unregistered Commentermick
What would the cost of *NOT* having a bailout have been?
Jul 9, 2011 at 11:50 AM | Unregistered CommenterTLNL
@ TLNL

Good question! We'll never know, however. My guess is that our "Republic" survives and the parasitic "financial services" area dwindles to a resolute equilibrium, like all of us do at some point.

But, if you ask Sheila Bair, even though she had no real power in the fight, she would say, FINALLY, let them (I-banks) go...

http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2011/07/fdics-sheila-bair-a-regulator-scorned/
Jul 9, 2011 at 12:33 PM | Unregistered CommenterJosie
Karl and Whalen separately computed the real cost of the bailouts using wholly unrelated methodologies and arrived at a figure between $2.3 and $2.7 trillion. That's a reasonable person's confidence interval, IMHO.

That said, each man warned that the figure did not and could not reflect the future.
Jul 10, 2011 at 4:30 AM | Unregistered CommenterCheyenne
josie...i've seen that piece on sheila bair...i've always liked her relative to other regulators...but that's not saying much...
Jul 11, 2011 at 1:19 AM | Registered CommenterDailyBail
What would the cost of *NOT* having a bailout have been?

---

Less than you think...
Jul 11, 2011 at 1:20 AM | Registered CommenterDailyBail
"What would the cost of *NOT* having a bailout have been?"

Good question. Let's get down to brass tacks. The bailout involved the transfer of $700B from the Treasury and $2T from the Fed from Main Street to Wall Street. That means Wall Street gained and Main Street lost. Let's focus on the latter first, and particularly on jobs. Here's a graph of the labor force participation rate. The blue section is post-bailout:

http://www.google.com/imgres?q=number+people+labor+force&um=1&hl=en&sa=N&biw=1225&bih=604&tbm=isch&tbnid=LfZMd6gG1JQcEM:&imgrefurl=http://reflectionsofarationalrepublican.com/2011/05/07/bush-vs-obama-unemployment/&docid=102a5Ibr6oQgxM&w=482&h=290&ei=hD1QTvqwHevD0AHI98CrBA&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=904&vpy=270&dur=306&hovh=144&hovw=239&tx=155&ty=61&page=1&tbnh=118&tbnw=196&start=0&ndsp=15&ved=1t:429,r:9,s:0

So that's 2% down, which translates to 8.5 million jobs lost. That is, by the way, why the headline unemployment rate is 9.1 rather than 11.1%.

Other metrics include food stamps, which have risen from 34 million users to 46 million since the bailout. That's about 30% up. JP Morgan controls that program, so again: Wall Street wins, Main Street loses.Seeing the pattern yet, Hondo?

If not, take a look at real estate prices, food prices, energy prices, medicine prices, contemporary art prices, bankruptcy filings, foreclosure filings, insider stock sales vs. buys, taxes, municipal filing fees, toll-way charges, gas pump prices, pink slips, hours worked, wages per worker, Wall Street bonuses, Manhattan and D.C rents vs. everywhere else, credit card interest rates, credit card fees and surcharges, savings and checking account interest rates, retail banking fees, parking meter rates, metropolitan subway and bus fares, automobile accessory prices, and local taxes--to name but a few--and you'll see the same pattern that's emerged ever since TARP was passed, namely, that when Wall Street is rewarded for its degenerate gambling losses, you--my clueless friend--lose, and you lose big.

Are we clear?
Aug 20, 2011 at 10:28 PM | Unregistered CommenterCheyenne
And even wurse, if you simply gave free bussride for everybody, sice the gov already suports it, and al the "privat" byrocracy, That you actualy pays for, ranging from colecting fees from the sales and keep track on the automatic systems, and maintaining a coustly electronics system. Take al that away and your comunety may save a substancial amount of(well it relativ, but anyway there) Taxpayers money.
Self cost.
In so far al the practical experiments have been a posetiv one, for all the citisences of a comunety, and lesser caruse, ease the presure on the sorounding envirioment.

The second aspect is,
what is the suma sumarium, the total cost of a bailout.
In reality, what if the goverment of USA gave away to any breathing american(no matter where and who) a deasent housing, a deasent live, because housing(no dept at all, only practical maintenens and thats on you) was free. How can that be mutch wurse that pilipng money upon a litle click that controls everything, anyway.
And on topp of that they push a hugh financial burden(tax cuts and no regulations in either finnance and/or envirioment, poisoning, hugh wages,and even more from stock) on ordinary people by rising prices in every fu... consivable way.
Its only, just for now I belive, we breath for free.
Where will it end.
The sulotions a simple, just eraze the problem.
Alterantives are already there, thats not the problem.
Its the present world of finnaces that are.
The robberbarons.
Sep 22, 2011 at 6:18 AM | Unregistered Commentermikael

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Post:
 
All HTML will be escaped. Hyperlinks will be created for URLs automatically.