of the Banks, by the Banks, and for the Banks

[alexamenos]

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...efer=worldwide

Fed Defies Transparency Aim in Refusal to Disclose (Update1)

By Mark Pittman, Bob Ivry and Alison Fitzgerald

Nov. 10 (Bloomberg) -- The Federal Reserve is refusing to identify the recipients of almost $2 trillion of emergency loans from American taxpayers or the troubled assets the central bank is accepting as collateral.

Fed Chairman Ben S. Bernanke and Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson said in September they would comply with congressional demands for transparency in a $700 billion bailout of the banking system. Two months later, as the Fed lends far more than that in separate rescue programs that didn't require approval by Congress, Americans have no idea where their money is going or what securities the banks are pledging in return.

That's $2 trill, or $2,000,000,000,000, of our money doled out by an unelected institution...and it's none of our damned business who's on the receiving end.

A government of the people, by the people, and for the people????

[GermanDunk]

Must be 2 or 20 bn. $ - 2 tn. can´t be true. That´s to much.

[alexamenos]

I completely agree that $2,000,000,000,000 is too much, but I don't think the number quoted is in error.

[GermanDunk]

But the complete US bailout pack has a volume of 700 bn. $, or am i wrong ?

[Arne]

Originally Posted by GermanDunk

But the complete US bailout pack has a volume of 700 bn. $, or am i wrong ?

You're right, that's the rescue package these guys had to get through congress. But weeks before they had already nationalized Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac and put their 4-5 trillion in debt on their balance sheet, then their was the AIG bailout which up to now cost 150 billion, then there were other bailouts I can't really remember but they had one thing in common - congress had no say in it.

Thank you alexamos for posting this one.

[GermanDunk]

Originally Posted by Arne

You're right, that's the rescue package these guys had to get through congress. But weeks before they had already nationalized Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac and put their 4-5 trillion in debt on their balance sheet, then their was the AIG bailout which up to now cost 150 billion, then there were other bailouts I can't really remember but they had one thing in common - congress had no say in it.

Thank you alexamos for posting this one.

Uhm, dude. whole german debts are about 1,6 trn. € let´s say 2 trn. US-$.

Amounts as trn.´s can be printed but you can´t clip taxpayers.

btw.: though pers. US income tax-rates are not that high ... Obama offered a taxrelief. Outinflating will continue, i don´t think there´s another choice.

[DirkFTW]

[Underdog]

Originally Posted by alexamenos

A second installment from the Department of Things that Shouldn't Surprise Us....

Originally Posted by DirkFTW

This thread is awesome!

[alexamenos]

Anybody catch the front page article in the DMN today on Paulson's boondoggle? Seems Comrade Paulson has "scrapped" the plan he sold to congress a few short weeks ago, and is now redirecting your money and mine to things other than the repurchase of bad mortgages....which a few weeks ago was an absolute necessity according to Mr. Paulson.

This genius plan to save all of humanity is nothing more than an an adhoc redistribution of $700b from those who can manage their money to those who can't.

[FINtastic]

I like how the auto industry feels the need to get in on the free money. I guess if we are in the business of financing failures, we might as well give money to one of the biggest failures out there.

[Underdog]

I want free money!

Where do I sign up?

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by Underdog

I want free money!

Where do I sign up?

You either need to foolishly make a loan to someone who has no chance of repaying you, or you need to borrow money that far exceeds anything resembling living within your means. Then and only then will you be deemed worthy of receiving free money.

[DirkFTW]

Originally Posted by alexamenos

You either need to foolishly make a loan to someone who has no chance of repaying you, or you need to borrow money that far exceeds anything resembling living within your means. Then and only then will you be deemed worthy of receiving free money.

So basically, UD has to prove he's a monumental failure...

And I'll stop right there.

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by DirkFTW

So basically, UD has to prove he's a monumental failure...

And I'll stop right there.

in underdog's case the burden of proof is quite low. But in most cases, yes, the primary criteria for feeding at the mammoth money trough seems to be proving oneself to be a monumental failure at managing money.

[Underdog]

Originally Posted by alexamenos

You either need to foolishly make a loan to someone who has no chance of repaying you, or you need to borrow money that far exceeds anything resembling living within your means. Then and only then will you be deemed worthy of receiving free money.

Nice...

Anyone need to borrow any large sums of money?

Anyone want to loan me any large sums of money?

(I'm Jewish - you can trust me!)

[FINtastic]

Originally Posted by Underdog

Nice...

Anyone need to borrow any large sums of money?

Anyone want to loan me any large sums of money?

(I'm Jewish - you can trust me!)

If you really are Jewish, you don't need the money.

[Underdog]

Originally Posted by FINtastic

If you really are Jewish, you don't need the money.

I keep hearing that, but I must have mis-placed my Jewish gold or something...

(maybe Moses is punishing me for being raised Catholic!)

[FINtastic]

Did you check that little pouch around your neck? Unless TV has lied to me, that's where most Jews keep their gold.

[Underdog]

Originally Posted by FINtastic

Did you check that little pouch around your neck? Unless TV has lied to me, that's where most Jews keep their gold.

I think someone swiped it!

[alexamenos]

geez...who's right and who's wrong in this clip?

[alexamenos]

Art Laffer, famed for the Laffer curve, arguing in 2006....not so much arguing as laughing at Peter Schiff for saying that there were structural problems in our economy that were going to lead to a bust in housing and stock markets.

laffer then

Art Laffer now saying that the economy is in long term deep dodo, and that he can't be faulted for saying in 2006 that everything was dandy....

laffer now

The guy could not have been more wrong, and despite his protests that it's not fair that people take his prognistications seriously, prognosticating is what he does for a living and it's what he continues to do. Indeed, why should any buy his latest book which foretells the future if he claims that it is impossible to make any reasoned arguments about what may lie ahead?

Anyhoo...this is the famous Art Laffer, architect of Republican supply-side economics (really, supply side economics is just the flipside of the old Keynesian coin....)....the dude is in the same league as Krugman.

[DirkFTW]

Michelle.

HAHA, I wish they'd do an interview redux with these same people today.

[alexamenos]

George Bush, a man so stupid he doesn't realize what an idiot he is....

Bush Warns Against `Too Much' Government in Markets (Update2)

By Simon Kennedy and Holly Rosenkrantz

Nov. 13 (Bloomberg) -- President George W. Bush today urged leaders of the world's biggest economies not to abandon free- market capitalism as they seek an escape from the financial crisis, calling it the ``best system'' for delivering growth.

In a speech at the Manhattan Institute in New York before weekend talks among leaders from the Group of 20 nations, Bush said policy makers should resist the urge to meddle too much in markets as they seek to reverse the financial and economic turmoil now engulfing the world.

``History has shown that the greater threat to economic prosperity is not too little government involvement in the market, but too much,'' Bush said. ``Our aim should not be more government, it should be smarter government.''

....in other news George Delano Bush was the man at the helm of the single biggest government intervention in the history of all of human history.*

Republicans....bless their sweet little embicile heads....they are so reliably in favor of less government when they are out of power.

*ok, I added that line as a gentle reminder of his action versus his rhetoric.

[alexamenos]

Fed Pledges Top $7.4 Trillion to Ease Frozen Credit (Update1)

By Mark Pittman and Bob Ivry

Nov. 24 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. government is prepared to lend more than $7.4 trillion on behalf of American taxpayers, or half the value of everything produced in the nation last year, to rescue the financial system since the credit markets seized up 15 months ago.

The unprecedented pledge of funds includes $2.8 trillion already tapped by financial institutions in the biggest response to an economic emergency since the New Deal of the 1930s, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. The commitment dwarfs the only plan approved by lawmakers, the Treasury Department’s $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program. Federal Reserve lending last week was 1,900 times the weekly average for the three years before the crisis.

When Congress approved the TARP on Oct. 3, Fed Chairman Ben S. Bernanke and Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson acknowledged the need for transparency and oversight. Now, as regulators commit far more money while refusing to disclose loan recipients or reveal the collateral they are taking in return, some Congress members are calling for the Fed to be reined in....

ct'd --> link.

Alex's favorite quote: People get the government they deserve and they get it good and hard.

We're being raped, hard, in the butt, by a bunch of thugs in suits while they tell us it's for our own good....and we thank them for trying to help us.

I especially loved this snippet:

Most of the spending programs are run out of the New York Fed, whose president, Timothy Geithner, is said to be President- elect Barack Obama’s choice to be Treasury Secretary.

The man leading the charge is Obama's Treasury dude....here's a change I can believe in-->meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

[DirkFTW]

Originally Posted by alexamenos

Alex's favorite quote: People get the government they deserve and they get it good and hard.

The President in 24 used the Tocqueville version of this in her inauguration speech last night. Fitting variation.

[bobatundi]

Damn, I thought this was going to be a thread about Elizabeth Banks.

[Arne]

Dr. Paul's latest Texas Straight Talk:

As the printing presses for the bailouts run at full speed, those in power are no longer even pretending that the new giveaways will fix our problems. Now that we are used to rewarding failure with taxpayer-funded bailouts, we are being told that this is “just a start,” more funds will inevitably be needed for more industries, and that things would be much worse had we done nothing.

The updated total bailout commitments add up to over $8 trillion now. This translates into a monetary base increase of 75 percent over the last two months. This money does not come from some rainy day fund tucked away in the budget somewhere – it is created from thin air, and devalues every dollar in circulation. Dumping money on an economy, as they have been doing, is not the same as dumping wealth. In fact, it has quite the opposite effect.

One key attribute that gives money value is scarcity. If something that is used as money becomes too plentiful, it loses value. That is how inflation and hyperinflation happens. Giving a central bank the power to create fiat money out of thin air creates the tremendous risk of eventual hyperinflation. Most of the founding fathers did not want a central bank. Having just experienced the hyperinflation of the Continental dollar, they understood the power and the temptations inherent in that type of system. It gives one entity far too much power to control and destabilize the economy.

Our central bankers have had a tremendous amount of hubris over the years, believing that they could actually manage a paper money system in such a way as to replicate the behavior and benefits of a gold standard. In fact, back in 2004 then Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan told me as much. People talk about toxic assets, but the real toxicity in our economy comes from the neo-alchemy practiced by the Federal Reserve System. Just as alchemists of the past frequently poisoned themselves with the lead or mercury they were trying to turn to gold, today’s bankers are poisoning the economy with accelerated fiat money creation.

Throughout the ages, gold has stood the test of time as a consistently reliable medium of exchange, and has frequently been referred to as “God’s money”, as only God can make more of it. Seeking superhuman power over money in the way alchemists did in ancient times caused society to shun them as charlatans. In much the same way, free people today should be sending the message that this power and control over our money is no longer acceptable.

The irony is that even had the ancient practice of alchemy been successful, and gold was suddenly, magically made abundant, alchemists still would have failed to create real wealth. Creating gold from lead would have cheapened its status to that of rhinestones or cubic zirconia. It is unnatural and dangerous for paper to be considered as precious as a precious metal. Our fiat currency system is crumbling and coming to an end, as all fiat currencies eventually do.

Congress should reject the central bank as a failure for its manipulations of money that have brought our economy to its knees. I am hoping that in the 111th Congress my legislation to abolish the Federal Reserve System gains traction so that the central bank can no longer destroy our money.

[alexamenos]

The updated total bailout commitments add up to over $8 trillion now.

$8,000,000,000,000

It's like the numbers are so big that they don't even seem real.

Basically, we all work for Paulson's buddies....full time. Well, considering that $8 trillion is only about 70% of GDP I should say we work for Paulson's buddies 70% of the time....

....and the federal government the rest of the time.***




***when I say "we work for...", I don't mean we work for someone in the sense that we provide some service and they give us something in return, but more in the sense of a how a slave works for his master.

[alexamenos]

Somebody should hit this guy with a shoe.

Bush says sacrificed free-market principles to save economy

Bush 'Abandoned Free-Market Principles' To Save Economy

US President George W. Bush said in an interview Tuesday he was forced to sacrifice free market principles to save the economy from "collapse."

"I've abandoned free-market principles to save the free-market system," Bush told CNN television, saying he had made the decision "to make sure the economy doesn't collapse."

Bush's comments reflect an extraordinary departure from his longtime advocacy for an unfettered free market, as his administration has orchestrated unprecedented government intervention in the face of a dire financial crisis.

"I am sorry we're having to do it," Bush said.

But Bush said government action was necessary to ease the effects of the crisis, offering perhaps his most dire assessment yet of the country's economy.

"I feel a sense of obligation to my successor to make sure there is not a, you know, a huge economic crisis. Look, we're in a crisis now. I mean, this is -- we're in a huge recession, but I don't want to make it even worse."

At a G20 summit last month in Washington, Bush resisted some proposals for global financial regulation and argued free market principles still held true despite the global economic downturn.

And administration officials have also referred to the primacy of the free market when discussing a possible government bailout for the troubled US auto industry.

In the interview, Bush said that a "disorganized bankruptcy" of the carmakers could create "enormous" economic difficulties.

But the US president has yet to announce how his administration will proceed amid calls from Detroit automakers and Democrats for a bailout drawing on funds set aside for financial firms.

[DirkFTW]

Merry Christmas! Oh wait, you're not a banker? Uh... spare a dollar?

Bailing Out Bonuses

In any real crisis, everyone sacrifices to weather the storm. But the panicky $700 billion bailout that Congress approved for 116 banks in the fall shows an entirely different sense of urgency.

On Sunday, the Associated Press found that $1.6 billion of bailout cash was converted to gravy for 600 bankers. They got bonuses, club dues, financial planners, corporate jet travel, daily limousines and home security systems, courtesy of the taxpayers.

This is a bad sign of what's ahead if failure continues to be rewarded and government keeps propping up uncompetitive companies and industries in crisis.

It's obvious these banker bonuses had no correlation to productivity or performance. In the real world, enterprises provide such benefits only when executives produce results — that is, profits.

On Monday, for example, executives of Caterpillar gave up compensation to ensure that their firm would survive. The banks — especially investment banks — seem to play by different rules.

AP asked 21 bank spokesmen how their companies were spending their taxpayer money and got only evasive answers. Goldman Sachs told AP it needed to retain and motivate its talent to ensure its "continued success," not mentioning where this talent is threatening to migrate in a global and industry downturn.

To take bailout money, even a mere $1.6 billion, and blow it on bonuses is a violation of the public trust.

We reluctantly backed the bailout because banks' main product, money, is a critical medium of exchange. But to use it for perks makes voters distrustful and cynical, and far more reluctant to save cash for a real crisis.

It also makes other bailout mendicants far less willing to make necessary sacrifices. The United Auto Workers cite the bank bailout as reason to not give back bloated benefits that render the Big Three uncompetitive. Their argument has just been fortified by the bank bonuses.

But with unemployment rising fast, there's a real crisis and real sacrifice is necessary, especially from those who require the federal bailouts. Bank bonuses should wait until these banks are profitable; so should raises in inflated salaries.

Maybe Goldman's $600,000 earners can make do on the $400,000 salary of a U.S. president or the $200,000 salary of a senator to show some sort of leadership. At a time like this, they should be marshaling all their resources to invest in viable growth.

[alexamenos]

From the Department of Things That Really Shouldn't Surprise Us....

Bailout Is a Windfall to Bankers, if Not to Borrowers

At the Palm Beach Ritz-Carlton last November, John C. Hope III, the chairman of Whitney National Bank in New Orleans, stood before a ballroom full of Wall Street analysts and explained how his bank intended to use its $300 million in federal bailout money.

“Make more loans?” Mr. Hope said. “We’re not going to change our business model or our credit policies to accommodate the needs of the public sector as they see it to have us make more loans.”

ct'd...

As it turns out, giving $700 billion to a bunch of banks is alot like just giving $700 billion to a bunch of banks. Who could have imagined this?

[alexamenos]

A second installment from the Department of Things that Shouldn't Surprise Us....

Bank Bailouts are the Payback for Bankrolling Politicians

President Barack Obama and members of Congress are promising a lot more government regulatory oversight of the banking industry as part of their continuing bailout of the financial system. But many of those in the financial markets who face these new regulations are also campaign contributors who helped put these politicians in office.

The 2008 presidential and Congressional elections were the most expensive in history, in terms of campaign contributions collected and monies expended by the candidates running for office. Among the big spenders in helping these candidates win high office were the big names in the banking industry.

According to the Center for Responsive Government in Washington, D. C., over 161 financial companies that were approved for money under the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) passed by Congress last year also invested lots of money in the 2007-2008 election process. Candidates running for Federal office, as well as the political parties and committees supporting them, received $37.5 million dollars from the banks now on the government TARP gravy train.

...

Combined, the 161 financial institutions that have received $305 billion, so far, in TARP funds contributed about $37.5 million to candidates in last year’s election, and almost $76.7 million in lobbying expenditures in 2008. In total, therefore, these companies shelled out $114.2 million dollars to gain the ears of those running for or holding political office. In other words, these institutions, as a group, earned a more than 2,500 percent return on their “investment” in influencing the political process that resulted in a third-of-a-trillion dollar bank bailout thus far.

$114.2 million invested, $300 billion and counting returned...I should really stop suggesting that these guys don't know how ot invest their money, notwithstanding the fact that they've lost gazillions in home loans.

anyhoo, this is their sales pitch for the bankers' boondoggle: "drop your pants and bend over and grab your ankles, because if you don't you're gonna get raped in the hiney."

if you buy that sales pitch, then please send me your money so that I can save you from the ravages of a bad economy.

[alexamenos]

this is what democracy looks like....link

59% of voters nationwide believe the federal bailouts for banks and other financial institutions were a bad idea. The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that just 26% think they were a good idea.

The numbers are similar for the bailout loans given to General Motors and Chrysler: 60% say they were a bad idea, and just 26% hold the opposite view.

Public opposition to the bailouts has been strong right from the start. In September, right after Lehman Brothers collapsed, just seven percent (7%) of voters thought the federal government should use taxpayer funds to keep a large financial institution solvent. Sixty-five percent (65%) said the companies should file for bankruptcy. A week later, following Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson’s appeal for a $700 billion bailout, support increased a bit but only to 28%. The more voters learned about the plans, the more opposition grew.

But, in the end, the opinions of the Political Class mattered more than the opinions of voters. Today, by a 61% to 23% margin, the Political Class still believes the bailouts for the financial industry were a good idea. By a 64% to 23%, they say the same about the auto bailouts.

[alexamenos]

Friedman Resigns as Chairman of New York Fed

Stephen Friedman, the chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, abruptly resigned on Thursday, days after questions arose about his ties to Goldman Sachs.

Mr. Friedman was chairman of the New York Fed at the same time he was a member of Goldman’s board. He also had a substantial stake in the firm as the Fed was crafting a solution to keep Wall Street banks afloat. Denis M. Hughes, deputy chair of the board, will take over as the interim chairman, the New York Fed said in a statement. (Read Mr. Friedman’s letter after the jump.)

Because the New York Fed approved a request by Goldman to become a bank holding company, the chairman’s involvement in Goldman was a violation of Fed policy, The Wall Street Journal said in an article earlier this week.

The New York Fed asked for a waiver, which, after about two and a half months, the Fed granted, the newspaper said. During that time, Mr. Friedman bought 37,300 more Goldman shares in December, which have since risen $1.7 million in value.

In his resignation letter, Mr. Friedman said his public service on the board was being characterized as “improper” despite his compliance with the rules. “The Federal Reserve System has important work to do and does not need this distraction,” he said.

“With respect to Steve’s purchases of Goldman shares in December of 2008 and January of 2009, which have been the object of some attention lately, it is my view that these purchases did not violate any Federal Reserve statute, rule or policy,” Thomas C. Baxter, the general counsel of the New York Fed, said in a statement. “I enjoyed working with Steve, and will miss his contributions in the boardroom.”

so....Steve Friedman was on the board of directors of both the Federal Reserve and Goldman Sachs...

....while he helped craft the banker's boondoggle which handed gazillion's of dollars from the Federal Reserve to Wall Street Banks (wall street banks including Treas. Sec.'s former firm, Goldman Sachs)...

...but he probably hasn't broken any Federal Reserve rules.

Whew!!!! For a minute there i was a little concerned he might have broken a Federal Reserve rule. Thank goodness there is nothing shady or suspect about this.


-----------------

(what's really funny about this is that all attention is and will likely be over the purchase of 37k shares of stock by friedman, not the massive conflict of interest*** created by serving the Fed Res and Goldman Sachs)


***(it's only a conflict of interest if we pretend that the purpose of the Fed Res isn't to line the wallets of bankers....so really it isn't a conflict of interest)

[alexamenos]

I can't say it better than Glenn Greenwald:

...think about how this works. People like Rubin, Summers and Gensler shuffle back and forth from the public to the private sector and back again, repeatedly switching places with their GOP counterparts in this endless public/private sector looting. When in government, they ensure that the laws and regulations are written to redound directly to the benefit of a handful of Wall St. firms, literally abolishing all safeguards and allowing them to pillage and steal. Then, when out of government, they return to those very firms and collect millions upon millions of dollars, profits made possible by the laws and regulations they implemented when in government. Then, when their party returns to power, they return back to government, where they continue to use their influence to ensure that the oligarchical circle that rewards them so massively is protected and advanced. This corruption is so tawdry and transparent -- and it has fueled and continues to fuel a fraud so enormous and destructive as to be unprecedented in both size and audacity -- that it is mystifying that it is not provoking more mass public rage.

It is somewhat mystifying that there isn't more public outrage....this is a massive fucking we're taking...it's happening in plain view...the outrage will come, I suppose, when we feel the pain more accutely, probably just a bit too late to stop it.

Democrats are still like a bunch of giggly little school girls with regards to Obama so it will be quite some time (if ever) before they can acknowledge to themselves that he's abetting something this corrupt and Wall Street-centric. That 'the government must rescue Wall Street' fits quite neatly their world view hence they're content for now to revel in the need for government intervention in the market place. All any banker had to say was "Wallstreet failed" and silly and naive democrats were cheering wildly as the government handed fucking Wall Street a gazillion fucking dollars.

As for the Republicans....Republicans are just too stupid to see what's happening. They'll worry endlessly over an ugly old hag and a silly old fag but they won't notice that the biggest crimes have been and are being committed by Paulson and Bernanke and folks of their ilke.

sorry for the vulgarity. this shit pisses me off.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by alexamenos

It is somewhat mystifying that there isn't more public outrage....this is a massive fucking we're taking...it's happening in plain view...the outrage will come, I suppose, when we feel the pain more accutely, probably just a bit too late to stop it.

Democrats are still like a bunch of giggly little school girls with regards to Obama so it will be quite some time (if ever) before they can acknowledge to themselves that he's abetting something this corrupt and Wall Street-centric. That 'the government must rescue Wall Street' fits quite neatly their world view hence they're content for now to revel in the need for government intervention in the market place. All any banker had to say was "Wallstreet failed" and silly and naive democrats were cheering wildly as the government handed fucking Wall Street a gazillion fucking dollars.

As for the Republicans....Republicans are just too stupid to see what's happening. They'll worry endlessly over an ugly old hag and a silly old fag but they won't notice that the biggest crimes have been and are being committed by Paulson and Bernanke and folks of their ilke.

sorry for the vulgarity. this shit pisses me off.

uh, two words that pretty much shows all that bellyaching for the haughtiness it is:

lehman brothers.

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

uh, two words that pretty much shows all that bellyaching for the haughtiness it is:

lehman brothers.

A person would have to be even more silly and naive than the average Democrat to argue that the different treatment of Lehman Brothers by the Federal Reserve is some indication that this isn't a massive Wall Street boondoggle....

...as if it would never occur to a bunch of former (and current) Goldman Sachs guys to let a competitor go belly up.

So surely this isn't what you're suggesting.

The Democrat/Liberal brigade's defense of all this is just painfully silly....

In one breath they argue that we're having an economic crisis because greedy ole bankers weren't adequately regulated....

....and in the next breath they argue that we need to give these very same greedy ole bankers a blank check and carte blanch power so that they can save us.

It's too stupid.

[dude1394]

Republicans can't do a damn thing about it, brotha'.. It's all on barry...

[Mavdog]

uh, goldman sachs (and its partners) lost several $billion in the lehman liquidation....

only a naive person would actually believe that the financial system should be left on its own when it is falling rapidly towards disaster and complete paralysis.

[bobatundi]

Let's not forget that the Government is, on one hand, telling Banks they need to improve their capital positions, and lend more money to consumers--while simultaneously enacting legislation to take all the profits out of Credit Card, a major source of profit for many of the large banks. So raise more capital and lend more money, but do it without credit cards. Make up your mind.