Alerts are a great way for you to stay up-to-date on things you care about. We will email you a list of the new items that match your criteria at a time of your choosing.
I don't think they told us the truth about who gets the money and what benefit it will have to the economy. Paulson dumped 300 bil into the system last week, we got 750 bil for this bailout and then Bernanke is going to drop rates again all in an attempt to make it look like the economy is improving.
I don't have a million friends or anything, but I don't know a SINGLE person who supported this bail out, (Except one dude on this forum, (maybe two) and two people from a different forum) and I don't even really know them
Everyone in my office thinks it's a dumb move, everyone in my church thinks it's a dumb move, everyone in my class thinks it's a dumb move.
Who Brain Washed our Congress (BOTH PARTIES) into thinking this was an excellent needed bailout? I mean who the heck is sneaking the "bailout" drug into Obama and McCain's drink?
Nobody brain washed Congress. The ones 'in the know' KNOW the outcome and are PRETENDING this is important to the ones that don't know. The ones that figured it out voted no. lol
This whole thing saddens me. I have heard many of the consequences that have been thrown around the last few weeks but I cant put my finger on what part of this bothers me the most. Perhaps that I feel we have just changed history for the worse and that my children are that much worse of because of it. There seems to a pattern though history were “we” misdiagnose the symptom and instead of saying we were wrong we precede to prescribe yet another pill to counteract the new symptom. My biggest fear is what will the next pill look like.
aldereth the darn thing is 451 pages long, would you please give us a section # or page number?
so i pulled this from another site(although i verified within the mentioned docs these provisions.
Emergency Stabilization Act of 2008 (p. 84)
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 now section 203 of the FSRRA which corresponds to all of (title II) reads
The amendments made by this title shall take effect October 1, 2011(2008)
and part of title II reads
(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),
(the only copy of FSRRA 2006 i found)
but this summery pulled from a govt site does support the conclusion that this document is accurate.
then the federal reserve act of 1913 (section 19) goes a little something like this:
Reserve requirements.
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--
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*
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 is 19:2:b)
if you would like to follow the white rabit further, go here.
so i read this as "the federal reserve has the authoraty to reduce reserves from 100:3(30:1) to as low as 0 per 100."
if anyone disputes this, i welcome the chatter, perhaps space would care to comment. in the mean time i will assume that the federal reserve is not quite that stupid although i will point out that even allowing institutions to leverage out 2 per centum(50 : 1) is very (1) inflationary and (2) risky
aldereth how the hell did you expect anyone to find this? it is a completely different bill
I think they were smart enough to come up with another way to do this bailout and they specifically chose to ignore it.
So is this just an interum measure so that the Feds don't have to regulate if they don't want to, and so that they don't have to force a financial institution into foreclosure if there is a temporary run on the bank????
Without reserves, where is the "regulation"????
yes FRB sets the ratio, this measure grants them "flexibility" probably a bit too much flexibility imo, but when has a government agency ever in the hustory of the US abused their power or tried to get away with something that they shouldnt
* buys inflation hedges
Zillow® Advice depends on each member to keep it a safe, fun, and positive place. If you see abuse, flag it. More on our Good Neighbor Policy
What you didnt know was in the bailout, banks no longer need reserves.
Aldreth
Contributions: 4233
Zillow All-Star
Since August 2009
View full profile
Emergency Stabilization Act of 2008
Your Bailout...
Look under
Monetary Policy Provisions
If you find this content is in violation of our Good Neighbor Policy, please let us know and we will review it.
We will review this content. Thanks for helping make the site more useful to everyone. To learn more, read Zillow's Good Neighbor Policy.