Reply With Quote
since when is that mine and your problem?
Dude, nice to know you can't get your head around the issue and resort to one word arguments. I can declare victory.
since when is that mine and your problem?
You're poor?
argument? are you re ed? THE GOVERNMENT GAVE OUR MONEY THAT COULD FEED THE ING STARVING FOR HUNDREDS OF YEARS TO EUROPE.
jesus what does it take to get that the money could have been used BETTER.
let me be fair: couldn't they have used this money for anything other than bailing out european banks?
surely you can understand.
in terms of money yes, in terms of spirit, I try not to be but this makes me sick to my stomach.
im sure there is smaller players out there who could expand with some govt package, swallow up AIGs employees and market share....no need to buy AIG debt.
So me giving my money to banks in europe helps the other struggling Americans how?
Last edited by z0sa; 03-16-2009 at 06:42 PM.
use that money buy more american bonds?
By not having the world economy melt down.
I agree that the governments of those countries should be pitching in -- some are, some aren't -- but we're all in this together.
But what about that debt?
When/if you have kids, do you expect them to pay you back for all the food, bills, etc they consumed as soon as they move out despite the fact they have no viable means of doing so, at least for some time -- and even if you yourself has fallen on hard times?
I understand, within a certain margin.
We are talking tens of billions of American dollars here, and dollars that were meant for Americans.
And, I apologize for saying you are re ed. I just don't see how your opinion can differ so greatly.
the debt has nothing to do with the new player in the market whose over expanding and eating up market share, the consumers will vote with their feet and move to the new player...
as for AIGs mountain of debt? them....just look at fanny may and who has gone bankrupt, you dont see anyone buying their debt, so why should the new player/tax payer buy AIG debt? just go bankrupt damn it.
http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.co...ial-upheavals/
I read this back in September and it remains the best explanation as to why we had to bail out AIG. Ignoring what is contained in this link simply points out to me those who either can't comprehend the collapse of the world financial system and the havoc that would cause and those who simply try to make political gain by saying we shouldn't have bailed them out.A.I.G. had to raise money because it had written $57 billion of insurance contracts whose payouts depended on the losses incurred on subprime real-estate related investments. While its core insurance businesses and other subsidiaries (such as its large aircraft-leasing operation) were doing fine, these contracts, called credit default swaps (C.D.S.’s), were hemorrhaging.
Furthermore, the possibility of further losses loomed if the housing market continued to deteriorate. The credit-rating agencies looking at the potential losses downgraded A.I.G.’s debt on Monday. With its lower credit ratings, A.I.G.’s insurance contracts required A.I.G. to demonstrate that it had collateral to service the contracts; estimates suggested that it needed roughly $15 billion in immediate collateral.
A second problem A.I.G. faced is that if it failed to post the collateral, it would be considered to have defaulted on the C.D.S.’s. Were A.I.G. to default on C.D.S.’s, some other A.I.G. contracts (tied to losses on other financial securities) contain clauses saying that its other contractual partners could insist on prepayment of their claims. These cross-default clauses are present so that resources from one part of the business do not get diverted to plug a hole in another part. A.I.G. had another $380 billion of these other insurance contracts outstanding. No private investors were willing to step into this situation and loan A.I.G. the money it needed to post the collateral.
In the scramble to make good on the C.D.S.’s, A.I.G.’s ability to service its own debt would come into question. A.I.G. had $160 billion in bonds that were held all over the world: nowhere near as widely as the Fannie and Freddie bonds, but still dispersed widely.
In addition, other large financial firms — including Pacific Investment Management Company (Pimco), the largest bond-investment fund in the world — had guaranteed A.I.G.’s bonds by writing C.D.S. contracts.
Given the huge size of the contracts and the number of parties intertwined, the Federal Reserve decided that a default by A.I.G. would wreak havoc on the financial system and cause contagious failures. There was an immediate need to get A.I.G. the collateral to honor its contracts, so the Fed loaned A.I.G. $85 billion.
I don't care which category of those people fall into, but when they fall into one of those categories I simply find it easier to tune them out because they've got nothing constructive to say.
I wonder what a world with Citi, BoA, AIG, GM and many other bellweather ins utions going bankrupt would look like?
I'm sure many posters on this thread know exactly what that world would like, and they seem to like what they see . . .
If we got to go back to the dark ages just to get our heads out of our asses, so be it. I could give a being a texas guy barely making it as it is.I wonder what a world with Citi, BoA, AIG, GM and many other bellweather ins utions going bankrupt would look like?
I'm sure many posters on this thread know exactly what that world would like, and they seem to like what they see . . .
Ok, cool, I see I am not the only one... I think they should go through reorganization... ..why not?
an alternative would have been to let AIG die, and all their blow-dried, fat-ass fat cats with it, and then payoff AIG's obligations directly to the counter-parties, keeping our tax dollars out of AIG's filthy, corrupt hands.
The Repugs, Whott, WC and other righties have NO alternative solution.
The Repugs voting against the bailout and then doing and saying everything to make the bailout fail is typical rotten will we know so well.
The problem is that Americans didn't get a choice in the matter. We're being forced to use our dollars to bail banks out who just shouldn't have loaned the money out. Like my earlier analogy demonstrated.
Honestly, I think letting AIG collapse then using the tax money directly to help, equally, those struggling foreign en ies would have been a slightly better option...
or we could have started paying off the national debt my kids are going to be liable for.
Here we go again . . .
Americans had nothing to do with the mess America is in.
If you repeat it loud enough, it might just turn out to be true . . .
Emphasis on "Texas guy"!
explain exactly where I said or implied this.Here we go again . . .
Americans had nothing to do with the mess America is in.
If you repeat it loud enough, it might just turn out to be true . . .
The problem is that Americans didn't get a choice in the matter. We're being forced to use our dollars to bail banks out who just shouldn't have loaned the money out.
you do understand I'm talking about the european banks, don't you?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
