Fed Up - Federal Reserve Earned $45 Billion in 2009

Maybe some of our right-wing budget balancers can explain why this is bad policy.

Quote:

---

Wall Street firms aren't the only banks that had a banner year. The Federal Reserve made record profits in 2009, as its unconventional efforts to prop up the economy created a windfall for the government.

The Fed will return about $45 billion to the U.S. Treasury for 2009, according to calculations by The Washington Post based on public documents. That reflects the highest earnings in the 96-year history of the central bank. The Fed, unlike most government agencies, funds itself from its own operations and returns its profits to the Treasury.

---

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...l?hpid=topnews

The private secret bank within our country that controls our money. You couldn't have a more fucked up scenario.

Why is this bad? They just stole Trillions off of the American people. Some day you'll figure it out.

It would be difficult for right-wingers to defend budget balancing at all since their man, W, had a $345B deficit in his last year in office. That's horrible unless compared with Obama's $1.3T deficit the year after – and projections of continued annual $1T deficits. Obama increased federal spending by 24% in just his first year in office but rumor has it that he will call for a budget reduction of 3% from that in his State of the Union speech. Go Bamy!

I am with Bernie Sanders and Dennis Kucinich in wanting to audit the privately owned Federal Reserve [[S 603). You can cheerlead for the central bankers if you wish. The Fed is, in fact, owned by the nations largest banks although its directors, usually former employees of those same banks, are politically appointed by politicians who receive huge campaign contributions form those same banks. Referring to the Fed as a 'federal agency' in the article is a bit of a stretch. Banks that own the Federal Reserve, and direct its policy toward banks, do pay themselves 6%/year for their trouble. It is not the charity organization as described in the article. I liked the line in the article describing the Fed's job as, “charged by law with managing the nation's money supply to keep employment high and prices stable.� The Fed hasn't accomplished that but it has been pretty good at creating economic bubbles and resulting recessions and depressions although mosts of its owner banks manage to do ok even in those bad patches.

Reuters contradicts Mr. Irvins upbeat rah,rah article.

Quote:

---

WASHINGTON [[Reuters) - U.S. taxpayer profits from bank bailout investments are being offset by estimated losses from American International Group and automakers and mortgage payment cuts for struggling homeowners, a U.S. Treasury report showed on Monday.

The Treasury estimated net losses on its $700 billion bailout program at $68.5 billion for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2009.

The December report for the Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP, showed that the fiscal 2009 net loss included estimated losses of $30.4 billion for AIG and $30.4 billion for automakers, with $27.1 billion in losses from the Home Affordable Modification Program.
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE60A4XU20100111

---

And left leaning Mother Jones reports that the size of the bailout is about $14.4T of which half came from the Federal Reserve.
Article The Real Size of the Bailout
Detailed graph showing Federal Reserve's participation. http://motherjones.com/files/images/...of-bailout.jpg

So the Fed recovered $45B. That's good. What about the other $14T?

Oladub, why are you confusing the Federal Reserve's money with the money from the Treasury? They're two separate pools of cash.

I did write that , "Mother Jones reports that the size of the bailout is about $14.4T of which half came from the Federal Reserve" to make that distinction. This is from the surprisingly good Mother Jones special report The Accountability Deficit

Below is the Mother Jones graph I linked to.
http://motherjones.com/files/images/...of-bailout.jpg