U.S. TAXPAYERS GIVE MEGA-BANKS $83 BILLION YEARLY

THE LARGEST U.S. BANKS ARE NOT 'PROFITABLE' AT ALL, BUT EXIST ON SUBSIDIES FROM AMERICAN TAXPAYERS TO PAY THEIR SHAREHOLDERS 'EARNINGS' FOR THE PAST MANY YEARS! THOSE FAKE 'EARNINGS' HAVE BEEN A GIFT TO BANK STOCKHOLDERS FROM YOU, Y-O-U, THE STRUGGLING AMERICAN TAXPAYER!
WE, THE PEOPLE, HAVE BEEN SUPPORTING THE SUPERBANKS WITH AN AVERAGE ANNUAL GIFT, A SUBSIDY, AN ENTITLEMENT, OF ABOUT $83 BILLION EVERY SINGLE YEAR, AND SOME ECONOMIC GURUS SAY THAT FIGURE IS CLOSER TO $300 BILLION IN AT LEAST  ONE YEAR, FISCAL 2008-2009.
LEFT UNCHECKED [AS ONE VERY OBVIOUS 'PARTY' IS FIGHTING HARD TO DO FOR THEIR BANKER PALS!] THE SUPERBANKS COULD ULTIMATELY REQUIRE MORE BAILOUTS THAT EXCEED THE GOVERNMENT'S RESOURCES!
PICTURE A MELTDOWN IN WHICH THE TREASURY IS HELPLESS TO STEP IN AS IT DID IN 2008 AND 2009!
AND NOW, PICTURE THIS:
Taking the $100 Billion estimate of taxpayer subsidies (see below) by Warburton and Deniz Anginer, dividing that by 313 MILLION U.S. citizens, WE COULD HAVE BEEN "SUBSIDIZED"  $319.49 each IN 2009....EACH PERSON! TAKING THE HIGH END ESTIMATE OF ED KANE, $300 BILLION FOR 2009 (also see below), EACH OF US COULD HAVE BEEN "SUBSIDIZED" $958.47 EACH! BUT WHO GOT SUBSIDIZED? THE SUPERBANKS! AND DID ANYONE GET A THANK YOU NOTE FROM ANY BANK OR OUR GOVERNMENT FOR THE SACRIFICES AMERICANS MAKE TO PAY BANK SHAREHOLDERS? HELL NO!
THINK ABOUT THAT!
2008-2009 WERE REALLY ROUGH YEARS FOR ALL OF US! WE COULD HAVE USED A BREAK OURSELVES, BUT BANKERS DIDN'T CARE, OUR GOVERNMENT DIDN'T CARE, NOR DO THEY NOW! 
THEY ARE "THE TAKERS", NOT US!
WAKE UP, AMERICANS!
LEARN, OR PERISH!

Found the following at:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-02-20/why-should-taxpayers-give-big-banks-83-billion-a-year-.html
You can find the stats, the revelation on many "business" websites, but this one simplifies it, and Bloomberg's guys have PROVEN this is NO bull!
<<On television, in interviews and in meetings with investors, executives of the biggest U.S. banks -- notably JPMorgan Chase & Co. Chief Executive Jamie Dimon -- make the case that size is a competitive advantage. It helps them lower costs and vie for customers on an INTERNATIONAL scale. Limiting it, they warn, would impair profitability and weaken the country’s position in global finance.

["'THEY WARN'"??? NO, THAT'S BLACKMAIL! THAT'S NOT A WARNING, THAT'S A THREAT! GIVE US THE MONEY OR WE'LL WRECK YOUR SHAKY ECONOMY!]

Banks have a powerful incentive to get big and unwieldy. The larger they are, the more disastrous their failure would be and the more certain they can be of a government bailout in an emergency. The result is an implicit subsidy: The banks that are potentially the most dangerous can borrow at lower rates, because creditors perceive them as too big to fail.
In one relatively thorough effort, two researchers -- Kenichi Ueda of the International Monetary Fund and Beatrice Weder di Mauro of the University of Mainz -- put the number at about 0.8 percentage point. The discount applies to all their liabilities, including bonds and customer deposits.

Small as it might sound, 0.8 percentage point makes a BIG difference. Multiplied by the total liabilities of the 10 largest U.S. banks by assets, it amounts to a TAXPAYER SUBSIDY OF  $83 BILLION A YEAR! 
To put the figure in perspective, it’s tantamount to the government giving the banks about 3 CENTS OF EVERY TAX DOLLAR COLLECTED!

The top five banks -- JPMorgan, Bank of America Corp., Citigroup Inc., Wells Fargo & Co. and Goldman Sachs Group Inc. - - account for $64 billion of the total subsidy, AN AMOUNT ROUGHLY EQUAL TO [WHAT THEY REPORT AS] THEIR TYPICAL ANNUAL PROFITS!
In other words, the banks occupying the commanding heights of the U.S. financial industry -- with almost $9 TRILLION in 'assets', MORE THAN HALF THE SIZE OF THE U.S. ECONOMY -- WOULD JUST ABOUT BREAK EVEN IN THE ABSENCE OF CORPORATE WELFARE! [THERE ARE NO REAL "PROFITS"!] In large part, the profits they report are essentially TRANSFERS FROM TAXPAYERS TO THEIR SHAREHOLDERS! [THEY AREN'T REALLY PAYING OUT ANYTHING, AMERICA! THAT'S YOUR MONEY!]

Neither bank executives nor shareholders have much incentive to change the situation. On the contrary, THE FINANCIAL INDUSTRY SPENDS HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS EVERY ELECTION CYCLE ON CAMPAIGN DONATIONS AND LOBBYING, MUCH OF WHICH IS AIMED AT MAINTAINING THE SUBSIDY!THE RESULT IS A BLOATED FINANCIAL SECTOR AND RECURRING CREDIT GLUTS.
LEFT UNCHECKED [AS ONE VERY OBVIOUS 'PARTY' IS FIGHTING HARD TO DO FOR THEIR BANKER PALS!] THE SUPERBANKS COULD ULTIMATELY REQUIRE [MORE] BAILOUTS THAT EXCEED THE GOVERNMENT'S RESOURCES!
PICTURE A MELTDOWN IN WHICH THE TREASURY IS HELPLESS TO STEP IN AS IT DID IN 2008 AND 2009!

Regulators can change the game by paring down the subsidy. One option is to make banks fund their activities with more equity from shareholders, a measure that would make them less likely to need bailouts (we recommend $1 of equity for each $5 of assets, far more than the 1-to-33 ratio that new global rules require). Another idea is to shock creditors out of complacency by making some of them take losses when banks run into trouble. A third is to prevent banks from using the subsidy to finance speculative trading, the aim of the Volcker rule in the U.S. and financial ring-fencing in the U.K.

Once shareholders fully recognized how poorly the biggest banks perform without government support, they would be motivated to demand better. This could entail anything from cutting pay packages to breaking down financial juggernauts into more manageable units. The market discipline might not please executives, but it would certainly be an improvement over paying banks to put us in danger. >>  <END BLOOMBERG QUOTE>

THE SUBSIDY HAS GOTTEN TOO BIG, IT'S VERY DANGEROUS AND BAD FOR AMERICAN ECONOMY, IT'S INSANITY REDEFINED TO KEEP IT UP! IT CAN ONLY BE DEALT WITH THROUGH MEASURES SUCH AS INCREASED CAPITAL REQUIREMENTS, BUT WITH THAT THREAT, THAT BLACKMAIL HANGING OVER AMERICA'S HEAD, WHO IS GOING TO BREAK THE NEWS TO THE SUPERBANKS THAT THE TAXPAYERS WILL NO LONGER PAY INTO THE MEGA-BANKS' COFFERS? WHO HAS THE BRASS TO DO THAT? NOT CONGRESS! NOT WASHINGTON D.C.!

The subsidy HANDS these banks lower borrowing costs, BUT ONLY FOR THE SUPERBANKS, which THOSE FEW enjoy because GLOBAL creditors expect the government to bail them out in ANY emergency. THEY HAVE HUNG A SWORD OF DAMOCLES OVER US AND WE HAVE ALLOWED IT TO HANG THERE FOR DECADES!
BUT WHICH FIGURES ARE CORRECT? ECONOMIC WIZARDS ACROSS THE GLOBE HAVE MADE DIFFERENT ASSESSMENTS OF THIS AND MANY SAY IT'S MUCH WORSE THAN WE THINK!
Andy Haldane, a senior official at the Bank of England, put the subsidy at a low end of $60 billion a year for JUST THE FIVE LARGEST global banks, from 2007 through 2009.
A. Joseph Warburton and Deniz Anginer, respectively of Syracuse University and Virginia Tech, found that the subsidy for the largest U.S. banks WENT FROM LESS THAN $10 BILLION IN 2004, TO MORE THAN $100 BILLION IN EARLY 2009.  Ed Kane of Boston College put it at $300 BILLION FOR 2009 ALONE!

The repercussions of TAXPAYER SUPPORT for banks are far- reaching.
MANY scream that if you subsidize corn farmers, you get too much corn. Well, if you subsidize banks, you get too much CREDIT! 
As of September 2012, the TOTAL DEBTS of households, companies and governments in the U.S. stood at 2.5 TIMES THE ANNUAL ECONOMIC OUTPUT!
HOW CAN WE PAY BACK ALMOST THREE TIMES MORE DEBT THAN WE CAN EVER HOPE TO RAKE IN ?
WHAT SHOULD AMERICA'S RECENT CREDIT DEVALUATION AND CRISES TELL US? WE HAVE PUSHED THE OUTER LIMITS AND NEXT TIME THESE BANKS NEED A BAILOUT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT WILL NOT BE ABLE TO HAND IT TO THEM...  UNLESS THEY ROB US ALL OF EVERYTHING WE HAVE!

The most effective subsidy-reducing tool is CAPITAL, i.e., REAL MONEY, and DEMANDING THAT SHAREHOLDERS, NOT TAXPAYERS, PAY INTO THE 'ENTERPRISE' FOR A CHANGE! STOP BANKS FROM INDISCRIMINATELY 'BORROWING' WITH THE IDEA THAT UNCLE SAM WILL BAIL THEM OUT IF THEY SCREW IT ALL UP YET AGAIN!
EQUITY WOULD THEN ABSORB LOSSES, NOT TAXPAYER SUPPORT! NOT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT WHICH HAS THEIR OWN MONSTER TO FEED, THE DAMNABLE FEDERAL RESERVE! 

Research from the Bank of England suggests that if banks had JUST $1 of shareholder equity for each $5 in assets, the benefits would outweigh the costs. Current global rules require just $1 in equity for each $33 in assets! WISH WE COULD GET A DEAL LIKE THAT!  In their new book, “The Bankers’ New Clothes,” economists Anat Admati and Martin Hellwig explain in detail how higher levels of equity would benefit the financial system and the economy.
Another subsidy curb, already used in Ireland and Spain, is to REQUIRE SOME CREDITORS TO JUST TAKE LOSSES WHEN THEIR BANK GETS INTO TROUBLE...NO BAILOUTS! IMAGINE THAT! Investors would then DEMAND a higher yield to compensate for the added risk of lending to big banks, removing some of the funding advantage. Also, the pending Volcker rule in the U.S. and financial ring-fencing measures in the U.K. pare down the subsidy by preventing large universal banks from using it to finance SPECULATIVE (READ AS CARELESS) trading.

The largest 'global banks', THE TOP 5 OR 6, DO receive a big taxpayer subsidy. EVEN THE FED'S CHAIRMAN OLD BEN BERNANKE AGREES. THAT'S OBVIOUS IN THE STATEMENTS HE MADE TO CONGRESS THIS PAST WEEK! TO ADMIT IT DOES NOTHING! THERE MUST BE A SOLUTION TO THIS HEIST! SOMEONE HAS TO STOP THE THEFT OF TAXPAYER FUNDS!

YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT ENTITLEMENTS? WELL, ENTITLE THIS AS YOU ARE BEING USED, AMERICAN TAXPAYERS, AND YOU GET NOTHING BACK FOR ALL THOSE BILLIONS! YOU JUST KEEP PAYING IN!
WHAT WILL YOU DO? EAT IT AND SMILE WHILE YOU WHINE ABOUT THOSE OTHER ENTITLEMENTS, THE ONES THAT ALL AMERICANS HAVE PAID INTO FOR THEIR OWN BENEFIT, THE ONES THAT CREATE 37-39% OF GOVERNMENT'S INCOME, THE MONEY-MAKING ONES?
WELL, HALF THE NATION WILL PERHAPS FIGHT TO KEEP THIS IN PLACE, SO THE BANKERS PAY LESS TAXES, SO THE SHAREHOLDERS PAY LESS TAXES, SO THE ONLY ONES WHO LOSE, WHO PAY OUT ARE THE "LITTLE MAN", THE EXPENDABLES WHO HAVE ALWAYS BEEN THE EXPENDABLE IN AMERICA, INC!