Adrienne Gonzalez's  Instablog

Oh this is just too hilarious.

In case you missed Bernanke's first go around on the economic pain train, let us take a look at his personal experience with the housing bubble his predecessor was so nice to inflate for him, shall we?

Bloomberg:

Bernanke lives in Washington's Capitol Hill area in a four- bedroom, 2,600-square-foot house he bought new in May 2004 for $839,000. Almost four years later, it may not be worth any more, according to real estate records and local agents.

Bernanke's timing wasn't the best -- values in the area peaked a year later -- and he is hardly alone among Americans living in an investment that's turned cold. His situation shows that the slump that began with distress in the subprime market is now engulfing wealthier neighborhoods, including some in the nation's capital.

"Even though he's the Fed chairman, he's going to get hit -- but I think lot of people will in Washington,'' said William Wheaton, an economist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. The value of Bernanke's home "probably went up to $1.1 million and it's probably back down to $840,000,'' because prices in Washington just a couple years ago "got out of control,'' Wheaton said.

And now Bernanke's at it again, this time frittering away his textbook royalties in mutual funds. WTF, Zimbabwe Ben?! Don't you know when to pull out?? If there is one man in a position to know which direction the market will turn, it is this guy and you are telling me he's down 29% on the year? Oh we are truly screwed, people.

Bloomberg:

Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke lost money in the stock market last year as his holdings in annuities and other assets tumbled by as much as 29 percent, according to his annual financial disclosure forms.

The filings, released by the Fed today, show Bernanke and his family owned $852,000 to $1.9 million in financial assets in 2008, down from $1.2 million to $2.5 million in 2007. The forms, published by the Office of Government Ethics, require officials to report only a range in the value of holdings.

read the rest at Jr Deputy Accountant

Thanks due to Open Secrets for this useful little tidbit. Useful? Maybe that's not the right word. F---ing OUTRAGEOUS, now that might be more appropriate.

How would you like to see a 258,449% return on investment in the most bizarre, under-performing, disgustingly perverted market in human history? I know I would probably appreciate performance like that.


OS:

The companies that have been awarded taxpayers' money from Congress's bailout bill spent $77 million on lobbying and $37 million on federal campaign contributions, Center finds. The return on investment: 258,449 percent.


WASHINGTON--(This release has been corrected to reflect that Bank of America has received $45 billion, not $55 billion, from the TARP program. The $45 billion includes $10 billion that Merrill Lynch received before being acquired by Bank of America. An earlier version of this release incorrectly added Merrill Lynch's $10 billion to Bank of America's $45 billion. Adjustments to the figures in the original release are in bold below. In addition, the total number of TARP recipients that lobbied in 2008 is 26, rather than 25 as originally stated.) The struggling companies whose freewheeling business practices have contributed to the country's economic woes are getting a lucrative return on at least one of their investments. Beneficiaries of the $700 billion bailout package in the finance and automotive industries have spent a total of $114.2 million on lobbying in the past year and contributions toward the 2008 election, the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics has found. The companies' political activities have, in part, yielded them $295.2 billion from the federal government's Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), an extraordinary return of 258,449 percent.

 

More »

Via Jr Deputy Accountant

You cannot start any post on auditing, dismantling, poking at or otherwise ending the Fed without mentioning Ron Paul. I did an extensive Google search and discovered as much. And since that's what kicked all of this off in the first place (this blog, and this angry girl who writes it day in and day out), the shared goal of exposing the Fed, it just makes sense to give him his due.

So let's finally discuss that all-important issue of HR 1207 to Audit the Fed that I've been promising for weeks. Sorry, had some life to go do.

According to @xtapol (noted Fedbasher - I hope they're watching this display because we're about to put on one hell of a show), all House Republicans (even the RINOS) are now on board with HR 1207. Good show, but how many of them are there? 12? And what happens if this passes?

Well I guess first we've got to figure out why we want this. And that starts with this guy:
 

More »

Via Jr Deputy Accountant

Goldman! Oh Goldman, Goldman, Goldman. What happened? Fissures in the pristine armor of Government Sachs? (ht reader BK for this, and I will have you know I wrote this first and then ran outside to the street in front of my office to do the Thriller zombie dance of joy)

Also, I would like to note that I never suggested anyone f--k with the quants. No way. You'll end up unleashing the 9th unknown dimension of hell, and the worst part? It's all automated!

Reuters:

More »

Via Jr Deputy Accountant

Someone please help me, I can't stop writing about deliciously awesome Fedgate (yeah, I said it. "Bank of America/Merrill/Fed" just doesn't have the same ring to it. Gotta let it roll right off your tongue. Say it with me now, kids: FEDGATE!) and strangely I'm entirely okay with that.

If only you knew how excited this makes me. Seriously. SERIOUSLY.

Again, see my June 26th: Next Up on the Hill for Bank of America/Merrill/Federal Reserve BS Part 64: Hank Paulson! for a not so brief refresher on the situation. And as we prepare for Hank Paulson to hit the Hill to discuss his part in this debacle, I remind dear reader of this King Henry winner from last fall (remember last fall? Yeah, I don't want to think about it either): "If you've got a squirt gun in your pocket, you may have to take it out. If you've got a bazooka and people know you've got it, you may not have to take it out."

 

More »

 

Via Jr Deputy Accountant

More »