Why Can't we Borrow from the Federal Reserve?

What a brilliant idea! Why didn't anyone think of this before?

Why not cut out the middle-man? Instead of the Federal Reserve > Big commercial banks > Small community banks > us. Why not Federal Reserve > us? The Federal Reserve can open up a whole bunch of small branch offices around the country and make low-interest loans directly to the people (taxpayers), who end up guaranteeing these loans anyway. If the money supply is backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. government (which is us, the taxpayers), then why do we have go through private banking enterprises (Bank of America, Wells Fargo, Citigroup, etc.) to have access to our fiat currency (cash)? If the federal Reserve actually prints the money based on economic policies set by our elected and appointed officials in government, why are we being held hostage to the commercial banks? Who made them the arbitrators? Does Ben Bernanke run the U.S. government, or do we elect others to represent our interests?

Instead of the government getting out of the home mortgage business, why not go all in?

Why does our central bank (federal reserve / the government / taxpayers) loan money to commercial banks (private businesses) at ¼% interest to loan to the taxpayers at 5% over 30 years for a mortgage, and then have the central bank (federal reserve / the government / taxpayers) "guarantee" that loan to the commercial banks (private businesses) in case of default on the loan?

If a mortgage goes into default, the central bank (federal reserve / the government / taxpayers) takes all the losses while the owners of commercial banks (private businesses) take no losses at all.

Why not have our central bank (federal reserve / the government / taxpayers) make mortgage loans at 5% over 30 years, which interest is paid to our central bank (federal reserve / the government / taxpayers)?

And if there is a default on a loan, and if the taxpayers are "guaranteeing" that loan, the taxpayers are only losing that much less than they would be earning from all the other viable loans.

EXAMPLE: If our central bank (federal reserve / the government / taxpayers) makes 5 loans at 5% and 1 loan defaults, our central bank (federal reserve / the government / taxpayers) will still be earning 5% on the other 4 viable loans.

Why must the a few individuals who sit on the boards of directors of the commercial banks (private businesses) receive guaranteed mortgage revenues of 5% if they aren't risking anything themselves?

Why does our central bank (federal reserve / the government / taxpayers) loan money to commercial banks (private businesses) at ¼% interest to loan to homeowners at 5% interest, when instead our central bank (federal reserve / the government / taxpayers) can loan to homeowners at 5% interest?

Get it? Why do we need a middle man (commercial banks / private businesses) reaping in all the "guaranteed" profits, if we (our central bank / federal reserve / the government / taxpayers) are only "guaranteed" to absorb all the losses?

IN A NUTSHELL: Why are we loaning money to banks so that THEY can make money when we can be loaning money so that WE can make money? Let's call our new bank The People's Bank. This whole we-lend-banks-low-then-they-loan-us-high scheme has been ass-backwards all along!

Relegate the commercial banks (private businesses) to holding our savings and checking accounts and have THEM take risks by loaning THEIR money for interest to businesses. We (our central bank / federal reserve / the government / taxpayers) can accept collateral from these "investment banks" if they wish to borrow money from us at ¼% interest. (Maybe we'll even give them a toaster if they're polite to us!)

And if you don't like that idea, then just nationalize the entire banking industry. That would be even better!!!

"A government of the people, by the people, for the people..." - Abraham Lincoln, Thursday, November 19, 1863

We Should Run the Banks for Profits!