you know the more i look at this, the more i read that other things are happening we are not supposed to know. if it were a big organization causing the move or bailout and all these things happening, we’d think that the mob or money laundering was being done. yet, we have the feds doing the same thing almost w/this company and problem is that it’s my taxpayer dollars they are using. you used my money to pay off a bank?! WOW! and yet, we are supposed to keep letting you have money for that and then money for bonuses…
folks, if your eyes have not opened, then it should. we should be letting congress get FIRED! replaced with new rookies who can look at this with a newer set of eyes… we need to finally get our money back and have this company finally fold and go bankrupt or whatever. there is nothing wrong with companies failing anytime… we panic because this was a big company but how many small companies could have been saved instead? the mom and pop companies could have been saved and kept that american dollar as an american dollar.
They (Fed or Gov’t) can’t let these banks fail- who else would hand them millions? What would happen to the GS stock that most of them have due to having worked there before being handed their current appointments?
Mom and Pop companies couldn’t begin to afford the kind of money our Gov’t stands to make from their Friends @ the Fed.
I love the way words are twisted, mangled and misaligned by expert wordsmiths so that we witless taxpayers can get bamboozled.
Let’s see if I can follow their logic. AIG wanted an “even playing field” so that it could attract unwary investors into participating in or purchasing their shaky financial products? And the federal reserve and Congressional representatives actually went along with this under some kind of finacial crisis guise (even using an official “secrets act” of some nature to try to hide that they agreed to collude with AIG to defraud customers?
Do we have any Attorney General or Federal Prosecutor gutsy enough to arrest everyone involved in this deal and its cover up?
Even if the U S atty Gen looked into this case how could get past the security to serve the suponea at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. It would appear that the more you look the higher the deal making actually went.
RIGHT ON!!!!!!!!!
iF YOU OR I TRIED TO DO WHAT THEY DID, WE WOLD BE IN JAIL FOR YEARS AND EYARS AND YARS!
TIME TO FIRE ALL CONGRESSMAN AND START OVER. THEN IF THE NEW ONES START DOING THE SAME THING, THEN FIRE THEM TOO. oNE TERM CONGRESSMEN IS OK WITH ME!!!mAYBE NEW ONES WOULD NOT HAVE THEIR HANDS IN EVERYONE’S POCKETS AND HAVE TO VOTE THE WAY THE BIG ONES WANT THEM TO VOTE.
IT’S MY MONEY AND I AM AS MAD AS HELL AS TO THE WAY IT IS BEING SPENT!!!!
As usual, the investors that took the risk get paid in full, by us, the taxpayers. Market discipline won’t work unless there is discipline..which means they take the hit if the “investment” doesn’t work out.
All this under the cover of “we’re just trying to protect the financial sytem” or something. I’m pretty tired of it.
would this be like any investor (bernie madoff situation), whereas they can’t get any of the money? can the government bail those investors out? wow! too many similarities of how things are being treated and yet the taxpayer has to pay taxes this year. so, where’s my dividend? and i don’t want the congressional folks to get it…
It’s worst than you think. while they steal from us, they put rules in place to monitor and punish us if we question the banks’ authority to abuse us. I took a cashier’s check to US Bank to deposit into my trust account. They wanted to put a 10 day hold on the check. I took the check back and questioned their procedures. And they cancelled my account and put me on their watch list. They said they were not required to explain their actions under the patriot act. Beware my friends. They have destroyed our bill of Rights and our Constitution. We are at their mercy, unless we stop them now.
They steal our money and give it to their buddies and at the same time they give the banks dominion over us.
This is why I agree with Ron Paul that the Fed needs to be audited, knowing where every penny is going. When Geitner said he had no knowledge of this, and especially since he was the NY Fed President at the time, had to have complete knowledge of the goings on of everything.
Didn’t Geithner work for Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and Goldman Sachs Group Inc received the biggest part of the bail out money of AIG. Also AIG wrote these contracts that had the credit rating early payout triggers. So if we put the full faith and credit of these AIG credit default swaps behind AIG no trigger and no Goldman Sachs Group Inc pay off. Oh, no hugh profit for Goldman Sachs Group Inc in 2009. Makes you wonder
It’s kind of interesting that they use the word redacted. I guess they hope that some readers don’t know that it simply means edited. And in some cases the meaning of “edited document” is synonymous with “crooked document”. The only security that was in danger was the careers of the crooked financial geniuses who are destroying the American economy.
I am very much aware that the Patriot Act was enacted under the Bush Administration.
“They” refers to anyone and/or any U S Governmental Agency that refuses to uphold our constitution. Anyone with a vested interest and intent to destroy or subvert our Republic. Anyone through deception, duplicity or corruption who tries to steal or deprive the people or our freedom/property is an enemy of the People. “They” is party neutral. We must judge each individual by his support of our form of government.
Read this (posted below in italics), it’s the DemonRatic Party that’s beholdened to Wall Street, big business, and the trial liars. The DemonRats don’t like the SCOTUS decision, because it breaks up the party’s monopoly to big bucks from big business. Now, other corps that oppose the DemonRats bailouts of Wall Street will be able to take to the public their point of view.
So, read (I’ve bolded some of the more important excerpts for the truly drunk on DemonRatic kool-aid:
“Can’t We At Least Get a Toaster? Ann Coulter
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
In the wake of the Massachusetts Miracle last week (“The other Boston Massacre”), President Obama adopted a populist mantle, claiming he was going to “fight” Wall Street. It was either that or win another Nobel Peace Prize.
Now the only question is which Goldman Sachs crony he’ll put in charge of this task.
If Obama plans to hold Wall Street accountable for its own bad decisions, it will be a first for the Democrats.
For the past two decades, Democrats have specialized in insulating financial giants from the consequences of their own high-risk bets. Citigroup and Goldman Sachs alone have been rescued from their risky bets by unwitting taxpayers four times in the last 15 years.
Bankers get all the profits, glory and bonuses when their flimflam bets pay off, but the taxpayers foot the bill when Wall Street firms’ bets go bad on — to name just three examples — Mexican bonds (1995), Thai, Indonesian and South Korean bonds (1997), and Russian bonds (1998).
As Peter Schweizer writes in his magnificent book “Architects of Ruin”: “Wall Street is a very far cry from the arena of freewheeling capitalism most people recall from their history books.” With their reverse-Midas touch, the execrable baby boom generation turned Wall Street into what Schweizer dubs “risk-free Clintonian state capitalism.”
Apropos of the Clintonian No-Responsibility Era, Goldman Sachs and Citibank became heavily invested in Mexican bonds after a two-day bender in Tijuana in the early ’90s. Any half-wit could see that “investing” in the dog track would be safer than investing in a corrupt Third World government controlled by drug lords.
But precisely because the bonds were so risky, bankers made money hand-over-fist on the scheme — at least until Mexico defaulted.
With Mexico unable to pay the $25 billion it owed the big financial houses, Clinton’s White House decided the banks shouldn’t be on the hook for their own bad bets.
Clinton’s Treasury Secretary, Robert Rubin, former chairman of Goldman, demanded that the U.S. bail out Mexico to save his friends at Goldman. He said a failure to bail out Mexico would affect “everyone,” by which I take it he meant “everyone in my building.”
Larry Summers, currently Obama’s National Economic Council director, warned that a failure to rescue Mexico would lead to another Great Depression. (Ironically, Summers’ current position in the Obama administration is “Great Depression czar.”)
Republicans in Congress said “no” to Clinton’s Welfare-for-Wall-Street plan.
It’s not as if this hadn’t happened before: In 1981, Reagan allowed Mexico to default on tens of billions of dollars in debt — Mexico claimed the money was “in my other pair of pants” — leaving Wall Street to deal with its own bad bets.
As Larry Summers expected, this led like night into day to the Great Depression we experienced during the Reagan years … Wait, that never happened.
At congressional hearings on Clinton’s proposed Mexico bailout a decade later, Republicans Larry Kudlow, Bill Seidman and Steve Forbes all denounced the plan to save Goldman Sachs via a Mexican bailout.
So the Clinton administration did an end run around the Republicans in Congress and rescued improvident Wall Street bankers by giving Mexico a $20 billion line of credit directly from the Treasury’s Exchange Stabilization Fund.
Relieved of any responsibility for their losing bets, Wall Street firms leapt into buying other shaky foreign bonds. Soon the U.S. taxpayer, through the International Monetary Fund, was propping up bonds out of South Korea, Thailand, Indonesia, then Russia — all to save Goldman Sachs.
The IMF could have saved itself a lot of paperwork by just sending taxpayer money directly to Goldman, but I think they’re saving that for Obama’s second term.
Throughout every bailout, congressional Republicans were screaming from the rooftops that this wasn’t capitalism. It was “Government Sachs.” As Rep. Spencer Bachus (R-Ala.) put it, the same rules that apply to welfare mothers “ought to apply to rich Greenwich, Conn., investors who are multimillionaires.”
But Wall Street raised a lot of money for the Democrats, so Clinton bailed them out, over and over again.
Before you knew it, once-respectable Wall Street institutions were buying investment products even more ludicrous than Mexican bonds: They were buying the mortgages of Mexican strawberry-pickers.
Why shouldn’t Wall Street trust in suicidal loans no sane person would ever imagine could be paid back? Time after time, when their bets paid off, they pocketed huge fees; when their bets failed, they sent the bill to the taxpayers.
With nothing to fear, the big financial houses bought, repackaged and resold investment products that included loans like the one issued by Washington Mutual to non-English-speaking strawberry pickers earning a combined $14,000 a year to purchase a $720,000 house.
But the financial wizards on Wall Street were trading these preposterous loans as if they were bars of gold. They may as well have bet the entire U.S. economy on a dice game in an alley off 44th Street.
Every mortgage-backed security bundle was infected with suicidal, politically correct loans that had been demanded by community organizers such as Barack Obama — as is thoroughly documented in Schweizer’s book.
On the off chance that mammoth mortgages to people who could barely afford food somehow went bad, Wall Street firms could be confident that their Democrat friends would bail them out.
Even the Republicans would have to bail them out this time: They had strapped the dynamite of toxic loans onto the entire economy and were threatening to pull the clip. Wall Street had infected every financial institution in the country, including completely innocent banks.
But now Obama says he’s going to “fight” Wall Street, which is as plausible as claiming he’ll “fight” the trial lawyers.
As Schweizer demonstrates, whenever the Democrats “regulate” Wall Street, the innocent pay through the nose, while Wall Street swine lower than drug dealers and pornographers end up with multimillion-dollar bonuses so they can run for governor of New Jersey and fund lavish Democratic fundraisers in the Hamptons.
Republicans should respond the way they always have: Support the free market, not looters and welfare recipients on Wall Street, especially the Democrats’ friends at Goldman.”
you know the more i look at this, the more i read that other things are happening we are not supposed to know. if it were a big organization causing the move or bailout and all these things happening, we’d think that the mob or money laundering was being done. yet, we have the feds doing the same thing almost w/this company and problem is that it’s my taxpayer dollars they are using. you used my money to pay off a bank?! WOW! and yet, we are supposed to keep letting you have money for that and then money for bonuses…
folks, if your eyes have not opened, then it should. we should be letting congress get FIRED! replaced with new rookies who can look at this with a newer set of eyes… we need to finally get our money back and have this company finally fold and go bankrupt or whatever. there is nothing wrong with companies failing anytime… we panic because this was a big company but how many small companies could have been saved instead? the mom and pop companies could have been saved and kept that american dollar as an american dollar.
They (Fed or Gov’t) can’t let these banks fail- who else would hand them millions? What would happen to the GS stock that most of them have due to having worked there before being handed their current appointments?
Mom and Pop companies couldn’t begin to afford the kind of money our Gov’t stands to make from their Friends @ the Fed.
I love the way words are twisted, mangled and misaligned by expert wordsmiths so that we witless taxpayers can get bamboozled.
Let’s see if I can follow their logic. AIG wanted an “even playing field” so that it could attract unwary investors into participating in or purchasing their shaky financial products? And the federal reserve and Congressional representatives actually went along with this under some kind of finacial crisis guise (even using an official “secrets act” of some nature to try to hide that they agreed to collude with AIG to defraud customers?
Do we have any Attorney General or Federal Prosecutor gutsy enough to arrest everyone involved in this deal and its cover up?
Even if the U S atty Gen looked into this case how could get past the security to serve the suponea at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. It would appear that the more you look the higher the deal making actually went.
Wish I had friends in the loop.
RIGHT ON!!!!!!!!!
iF YOU OR I TRIED TO DO WHAT THEY DID, WE WOLD BE IN JAIL FOR YEARS AND EYARS AND YARS!
TIME TO FIRE ALL CONGRESSMAN AND START OVER. THEN IF THE NEW ONES START DOING THE SAME THING, THEN FIRE THEM TOO. oNE TERM CONGRESSMEN IS OK WITH ME!!!mAYBE NEW ONES WOULD NOT HAVE THEIR HANDS IN EVERYONE’S POCKETS AND HAVE TO VOTE THE WAY THE BIG ONES WANT THEM TO VOTE.
IT’S MY MONEY AND I AM AS MAD AS HELL AS TO THE WAY IT IS BEING SPENT!!!!
As usual, the investors that took the risk get paid in full, by us, the taxpayers. Market discipline won’t work unless there is discipline..which means they take the hit if the “investment” doesn’t work out.
All this under the cover of “we’re just trying to protect the financial sytem” or something. I’m pretty tired of it.
would this be like any investor (bernie madoff situation), whereas they can’t get any of the money? can the government bail those investors out? wow! too many similarities of how things are being treated and yet the taxpayer has to pay taxes this year. so, where’s my dividend? and i don’t want the congressional folks to get it…
It’s worst than you think. while they steal from us, they put rules in place to monitor and punish us if we question the banks’ authority to abuse us. I took a cashier’s check to US Bank to deposit into my trust account. They wanted to put a 10 day hold on the check. I took the check back and questioned their procedures. And they cancelled my account and put me on their watch list. They said they were not required to explain their actions under the patriot act. Beware my friends. They have destroyed our bill of Rights and our Constitution. We are at their mercy, unless we stop them now.
They steal our money and give it to their buddies and at the same time they give the banks dominion over us.
This is why I agree with Ron Paul that the Fed needs to be audited, knowing where every penny is going. When Geitner said he had no knowledge of this, and especially since he was the NY Fed President at the time, had to have complete knowledge of the goings on of everything.
Now if we could just find three honest judges!
Didn’t Geithner work for Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and Goldman Sachs Group Inc received the biggest part of the bail out money of AIG. Also AIG wrote these contracts that had the credit rating early payout triggers. So if we put the full faith and credit of these AIG credit default swaps behind AIG no trigger and no Goldman Sachs Group Inc pay off. Oh, no hugh profit for Goldman Sachs Group Inc in 2009. Makes you wonder
It’s kind of interesting that they use the word redacted. I guess they hope that some readers don’t know that it simply means edited. And in some cases the meaning of “edited document” is synonymous with “crooked document”. The only security that was in danger was the careers of the crooked financial geniuses who are destroying the American economy.
I am very much aware that the Patriot Act was enacted under the Bush Administration.
“They” refers to anyone and/or any U S Governmental Agency that refuses to uphold our constitution. Anyone with a vested interest and intent to destroy or subvert our Republic. Anyone through deception, duplicity or corruption who tries to steal or deprive the people or our freedom/property is an enemy of the People. “They” is party neutral. We must judge each individual by his support of our form of government.
Which “they” are you talking about? Do you remember who enacted the Patriot Act?
Read this (posted below in italics), it’s the DemonRatic Party that’s beholdened to Wall Street, big business, and the trial liars. The DemonRats don’t like the SCOTUS decision, because it breaks up the party’s monopoly to big bucks from big business. Now, other corps that oppose the DemonRats bailouts of Wall Street will be able to take to the public their point of view.
So, read (I’ve bolded some of the more important excerpts for the truly drunk on DemonRatic kool-aid:
“Can’t We At Least Get a Toaster? Ann Coulter
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
In the wake of the Massachusetts Miracle last week (“The other Boston Massacre”), President Obama adopted a populist mantle, claiming he was going to “fight” Wall Street. It was either that or win another Nobel Peace Prize.
Now the only question is which Goldman Sachs crony he’ll put in charge of this task.
If Obama plans to hold Wall Street accountable for its own bad decisions, it will be a first for the Democrats.
For the past two decades, Democrats have specialized in insulating financial giants from the consequences of their own high-risk bets. Citigroup and Goldman Sachs alone have been rescued from their risky bets by unwitting taxpayers four times in the last 15 years.
Bankers get all the profits, glory and bonuses when their flimflam bets pay off, but the taxpayers foot the bill when Wall Street firms’ bets go bad on — to name just three examples — Mexican bonds (1995), Thai, Indonesian and South Korean bonds (1997), and Russian bonds (1998).
As Peter Schweizer writes in his magnificent book “Architects of Ruin”: “Wall Street is a very far cry from the arena of freewheeling capitalism most people recall from their history books.” With their reverse-Midas touch, the execrable baby boom generation turned Wall Street into what Schweizer dubs “risk-free Clintonian state capitalism.”
Apropos of the Clintonian No-Responsibility Era, Goldman Sachs and Citibank became heavily invested in Mexican bonds after a two-day bender in Tijuana in the early ’90s. Any half-wit could see that “investing” in the dog track would be safer than investing in a corrupt Third World government controlled by drug lords.
But precisely because the bonds were so risky, bankers made money hand-over-fist on the scheme — at least until Mexico defaulted.
With Mexico unable to pay the $25 billion it owed the big financial houses, Clinton’s White House decided the banks shouldn’t be on the hook for their own bad bets.
Clinton’s Treasury Secretary, Robert Rubin, former chairman of Goldman, demanded that the U.S. bail out Mexico to save his friends at Goldman. He said a failure to bail out Mexico would affect “everyone,” by which I take it he meant “everyone in my building.”
Larry Summers, currently Obama’s National Economic Council director, warned that a failure to rescue Mexico would lead to another Great Depression. (Ironically, Summers’ current position in the Obama administration is “Great Depression czar.”)
Republicans in Congress said “no” to Clinton’s Welfare-for-Wall-Street plan.
It’s not as if this hadn’t happened before: In 1981, Reagan allowed Mexico to default on tens of billions of dollars in debt — Mexico claimed the money was “in my other pair of pants” — leaving Wall Street to deal with its own bad bets.
As Larry Summers expected, this led like night into day to the Great Depression we experienced during the Reagan years … Wait, that never happened.
At congressional hearings on Clinton’s proposed Mexico bailout a decade later, Republicans Larry Kudlow, Bill Seidman and Steve Forbes all denounced the plan to save Goldman Sachs via a Mexican bailout.
So the Clinton administration did an end run around the Republicans in Congress and rescued improvident Wall Street bankers by giving Mexico a $20 billion line of credit directly from the Treasury’s Exchange Stabilization Fund.
Relieved of any responsibility for their losing bets, Wall Street firms leapt into buying other shaky foreign bonds. Soon the U.S. taxpayer, through the International Monetary Fund, was propping up bonds out of South Korea, Thailand, Indonesia, then Russia — all to save Goldman Sachs.
The IMF could have saved itself a lot of paperwork by just sending taxpayer money directly to Goldman, but I think they’re saving that for Obama’s second term.
Throughout every bailout, congressional Republicans were screaming from the rooftops that this wasn’t capitalism. It was “Government Sachs.” As Rep. Spencer Bachus (R-Ala.) put it, the same rules that apply to welfare mothers “ought to apply to rich Greenwich, Conn., investors who are multimillionaires.”
But Wall Street raised a lot of money for the Democrats, so Clinton bailed them out, over and over again.
Before you knew it, once-respectable Wall Street institutions were buying investment products even more ludicrous than Mexican bonds: They were buying the mortgages of Mexican strawberry-pickers.
Why shouldn’t Wall Street trust in suicidal loans no sane person would ever imagine could be paid back? Time after time, when their bets paid off, they pocketed huge fees; when their bets failed, they sent the bill to the taxpayers.
With nothing to fear, the big financial houses bought, repackaged and resold investment products that included loans like the one issued by Washington Mutual to non-English-speaking strawberry pickers earning a combined $14,000 a year to purchase a $720,000 house.
But the financial wizards on Wall Street were trading these preposterous loans as if they were bars of gold. They may as well have bet the entire U.S. economy on a dice game in an alley off 44th Street.
Every mortgage-backed security bundle was infected with suicidal, politically correct loans that had been demanded by community organizers such as Barack Obama — as is thoroughly documented in Schweizer’s book.
On the off chance that mammoth mortgages to people who could barely afford food somehow went bad, Wall Street firms could be confident that their Democrat friends would bail them out.
Even the Republicans would have to bail them out this time: They had strapped the dynamite of toxic loans onto the entire economy and were threatening to pull the clip. Wall Street had infected every financial institution in the country, including completely innocent banks.
But now Obama says he’s going to “fight” Wall Street, which is as plausible as claiming he’ll “fight” the trial lawyers.
As Schweizer demonstrates, whenever the Democrats “regulate” Wall Street, the innocent pay through the nose, while Wall Street swine lower than drug dealers and pornographers end up with multimillion-dollar bonuses so they can run for governor of New Jersey and fund lavish Democratic fundraisers in the Hamptons.
Republicans should respond the way they always have: Support the free market, not looters and welfare recipients on Wall Street, especially the Democrats’ friends at Goldman.”
Forever educatin’ simple-minded, DemonRatic fools,
Joe