Posted on 03/29/2008 1:26:20 PM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach
I NEVER spoke to the Fed buying bonds.You have the gall to ask what's the difference between you making up and concocting utter fabrications and lies, which you attribute to someone else who never stated anything of the kind vs. asking someone a question based upon what they actually said?
I NEVER stated that the Fed buys bonds to “boost the money supply.”
I NEVER stated from where the Fed “gets the money to boost the supply of money.”
I NEVER made any statement concerning “the general tax fund.”
I NEVER stated that “the Fed gets the money to increase its supply of money from the general tax fund.”You made each one of those statements up and attributed them to me. You LIED and continue to lie.
That you can't tell the difference between a lie and the truth is YOUR problem, not mine. And, now, as to your latest claim:
I NEVER SAID "the taxpayers are paying for the BSC deal" and neither did I say "the taxpayers are paying for the FOMC operations."
One of several rhetorical questions I posted, that should be addressed to Paulson, stated: "Why shouldn't Bear Stearns' Chief Executive Jimmy Cayne be forced to rescind his stock to US taxpayers who will be footing $29 billion?"
Concerning how taxpayers will likely be footing the bill for this nifty transaction, that is exactly one of the questions to be asked during the April 3 hearings....by Grassley and Baucus apparently. Beyond that, there have been numerous posts speaking to that in FR previously, not just on this thread, but others. But, you already know that. Googling that on the internet would yield even more discussions concerning it elsewhere. Bloomberg addresses it as well (the latest is post #198).
You have shown yourself to be nothing more than a pathological liar and are beneath contempt.
But it could very well be that Bear had plenty of cash around. Lack of cash isn't what blew it up. It was lack of credit. If they had 10 billion of cash on hand and 40 billion of repo receivables due in less than a week that sounds pretty liquid, doesn't it?
It sounds like to me that the street all at once cut off Bear's credit.
What we don't know is how many repo liabilities they had coming due in less than a week, or Auction Rate Preferred's, or DVP's, etc, etc.
Do you realize what my post meant? You certainly didn't address it.
As concerns "the Treasury giving, or not giving, money to the Fed," seeing as how I never entered into any sort of discussions concerning that, nor previously EVER posted any articles and/or made comments thereafter concerning that, your "OMG" and "Congratulations" remarks are inappropriate and foolish, at best.
I'm sure you'll seek out whomever it is that may have made comment concerning the Treasury/theFed and money and let them know.
So do you still claim that the taxpayer is on the hook for FOMC operations? Do you? Inquiring minds would like to know.
It means you found a third party that knows that taxpayers do not fund the Federal Reserve. So taxpayers are not on the hook for the $29 billion investment in the portfolio that we've been discussing.
Grassley and Baucus.
Hearing on April 3, 2008.
Be there.
Great, now he’ll post another page (with red letters even) and not answer the question.
Cite the post where I ever stated that “taxpayers fund the Federal Reserve.”
As to how taxpayers may, indeed, have liability for the Bear Stearns transaction, the April 3, 2008 hearing may shed some light on that.
Tell ya what.....since you two think you’re gods and have godlike wisdom...you “must” have a direct line to Grassley/Baucus.
So.........call them up, “explain it all” to them, and have them cancel the hearings....cuz you both already “know it all.” Tell them they have no need to ask questions about these transactions. The taxpayers aren’t and could never be on the hook. You said so.
However, as it’s likely the hearing(s) will go forward, it can be justifiably believed that:
a) you didn’t call either Grassley or Baucus;
b) you don’t have a direct line to either one of them;
c) they didn’t know who the heck you were so refused your call;
d) if they took your call, they refused to believe what you had to say; or
e) they refused to solely rely upon your pronouncements, assurances and “godlike” wisdom that would allow them to cancel the hearings.
FOFLOL
Why don't you send them another list of your stupid questions? LOL!
Is that your way of admitting that you don’t have a direct line to the senators? or are you admitting that you are a nobody that the senators would even take your call, much less listen to what you have to say?
I already called Grassley and Baucus. They now have their instructions. <p
Okay. First, toddster and I have offices on the 10,000th floor of the Planetary Finance Center where we regularly meet with our cronies the Fed Chairman, the owners of all the major NY banks and the Jooooze. Aside from plotting to take over the interplanetary financial system we spend most of our time underwriting Kingdom of Heaven general obligation municipal bonds which we sell to global investors who don't know that they are only backed by the full faith and credit of angels and lost souls.
You may not recall, and I'm not surprised, but those "obvious" lies? Those are the same ones you refused to identify when I asked, with an offer to apologize if I had stated one of your positions incorrectly. I stated then, and I'll remind you now, you are so full of crap your eyes are brown.
You and your buddies are so full of it....it reeks.
Oh, really? Then I’ll ask you again now: what did I lie about? Spin that, you pansy.
What was your take on that stupid question, the one regarding the taxpayers footing the $29B? Was it his, or did he just post something he found on the 'net?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.