Monday, January 10, 2011

Fed pays US Treasury record $78.4B last year

The Fed has returned a record amount of balances to the US Treasury in the past reporting year. Story over at Yahoo!

Excerpt:"Critics in Congress have expressed concerns that the Fed's
purchases could put taxpayers at risk by reducing the amount turned over to
The Fed is funded from interest earned on its portfolio of
securities. It is not funded by Congress. After covering its expenses, the Fed
gives what is left over to the Treasury Department."
Congress is apparently concerned that 'the taxpayer is on the hook' for balances that Congress themselves have temporarily placed with the Fed (via payment of interest on US Treasury securites, interest on US Agency bonds, interest on US GSE MBS, etc....that the Fed holds) until the end of the year when the Fed has to just give it back, minus a few $billion for the expenses of the Fed staff and operations (nice!).

Apparently no one here stops to think about where the taxpayers would get the funds to 'get the Treasury off the hook', as if they ever would have to.

We may be at an all-time high as far as Fed remittances, but sadly at an all-time low as far as economic leadership in western civilization.


googleheim said...

Why doesn't any one request tax payer savings for the 3 unfunded liabilities of war currently going on ?

RE: Giffords Asassination attempt -
Tea Party vitriolic rhetoric has gone too far, and Mike Norman predicted this since 2008.

Where is Schiff on this ?

Schiff is part of the problem !! that's what side he is on : deficit terrorist hawk gawk tax-payer-on-the-hook stimulus for no one side.

Austrian economics coincides with Sara Palin know nothingness - so the real death panel is the Tea Party - they talk and talk about their nazi immigration stuff and their deficit fighting mor-assineness, but they need to be stopped.

Matt Franko said...

This accused guy Loughner really looks like scrambled eggs imo.

Hard to tell if there is a pure economic connection, I cant see one so far (job loss?). Perhaps just idealogical.

I saw a you-tube of his that was linked at NewDeal2.0, the last two lines of his presentation there said:

"No, I won't pay debt with a currency that's not backed by gold and silver!"


"No! I won't trust in God!"


Here is the link you can paste it, but it looks like a bunch of ramblings by a confused/angry person.



googleheim said...

Hi Matt

Yes, I am talking in large scale hand waiving, but scrambled eggs don't have to do this ...

look at the sixties, there was a heck of a lot more scrambled eggs out there and though the times were changing and tumultuous proportionately there should be less now.

What I mean is that deficit terrorism purports there is not enough to go around - that the common white boy is disenfranchised because of liberal jewish stuff.

Of course he's off kilter to a significant exponential degree higher, but Palin's target analogy and deficit terrorism's shoring up of "there not enough, so let's go get them ( immigrants, liberals, etc ) " is just as wacko.

Yes, you don't have to lose a job to be morally bankrupt.

Matt Franko said...


Ive been trying to catch up with some of the coverage and it's looking more like this accused gunman has severe mental issues that probably overrule any other explanation.

Perhaps if we had better funded and available health care this young man could have had some sort of diagnosis and if there was a treatment available he could have received it (if it turns out he has treatable severe mental issues) we'll have to wait and see.

It could turn out that our country could have the treatment for this guy but he just never received it because he/his family 'couldnt afford it'.... that would big a big shame here.

googleheim said...

How about educating the public how real economics works ?

"couldn't afford it" ... that sounds familiar - we cannot afford to educate, to heal, and to restore our people with healthcare and infrastructure

The kid picked up bits and pieces of right wing vitriolic crude with a broken mind.

googleheim said...


i leave it to krugman's monday column to expand upon this issue if not explain it better.

Mike Norman said...

Nor is there any mention of the fact that the $75 billion is income that the public could have earned. It should be pretty clear that lowering interest rates unleashes deflationary forces, in that it cuts incomes, in this case significantly! The $75 billion probably offsets nearly all the benefit of the payroll tax reduction.

Bob said...

I have taken the Chris Martenson
crash course on his website,

I have to admit he explains the
fed, treasury and money creation
and definition of money in such
a way that it is easily understood. He points to the relationship between the fiat system and the early stages of oil industry development at the sametime. I have to agree with the conclusion of mankind's inablility to realize the exponential effects in nature, and economics. We are doomed, unless a better system is designed as the cops on the block will never police the dogs of power. Power to the people.

I would like to read Mike's thoughts on this crash course, to me the end is unavoidable. We need to lower our standard of living or reduce the population of the world, which will it be?