More socialism for the rich: Taxpayers own AIG now, too

[Spats]

More socialism for the rich, and capitalism for the poor:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/17/business/17insure.html?_r=2&hp&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

I wonder what's on AIG's books that the big boys are so desperate to keep from coming to light? (Note: this is a rhetorical question.)

It's interesting to see who's getting bailed out by taxpayers, who's getting married with a shotgun present, and who's dying and getting picked over by buzzards.

[timvwcom]

Anyone want to guess how many millions, perhaps billions, of dollars of bonuses and stock options were paid out to the wunderkind inventors of all this crap that us tax payers are now "buying" to save them???

[Rasputin]

Yeah, how does anyone know about finding out the compensation for their top executives. Methinks they aren't scraping by.

[enlosandes]

Each day that goes by, makes me sicker to see what is happening. How can the government just float another 85 billion and expect the dollar to remain a real, hard currency?

[Crud's Uncle]

Executive compensation is public information for publicly reporting companies.

It is a difficult situation, however my guess is that the Treasury is just delaying a crash. I hope I am wrong, but it is hard to see a scenario that the economy does not go through a very painful adjustmetnt.

Greenspan, Bernacke, Bush, Clinton, Reps, Dems, the SEC and the excessive greed in the financial sector all are to blame.

[Trackhead]

But the bailout is likely to prove controversial, because it effectively puts taxpayer money at risk while protecting bad investments made by A.I.G. and other institutions it does business with.

Thanks you FUCKING RETARDS! Please raise my fucking taxes now, and then give me the reach-around.

[splat]

Talk about picking everyone's pocket for the next 20 years...

Change? Why?

This oughta push the per household cost of the national debt over half a mil.

[Hutch]

Bear, Fannie, Freddie, AIG = Tip of the Iceberg (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/17/business/17resolution.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin)

http://londoncoder.files.wordpress.com/2007/12/iceberg.jpg

[Rubicon]

This is getting ridiculous.


When did we fall down the rabbit hole?

[basinbeater]

about seven years ago when the bushies began letting the fox guard the henhouse and began loosening banking regulations in an effort to create an ownership society.

[f2f]

http://tetongravity.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=46362

[Hugh Conway]

http://tetongravity.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=46362

that is awesome.

[Rubicon]

about seven years ago when the bushies began letting the fox guard the henhouse and began loosening banking regulations in an effort to create an ownership society.


Ohhh, there is plenty of blame to go around. This is far from a partisan issue.

* OPINION
* DECEMBER 18, 2007

The Clinton Housing Bubble
By VERNON L. SMITH


"Thank you President Bill Clinton for your 1997 action, applauded by the banks, the realtors and all citizens in search of half-millionaire status from an investment they could understand and self deceptively believe to be low risk; thank you for fueling the mother of all housing bubbles; thank you for enabling so many of us who bought second or third homes, and homes before construction began, which we then sold to someone else who dreamed of riches from owning homes long enough to sell to another fool."

Mr. Smith, a professor of law and economics at George Mason University, is the 2002 Nobel Laureate in economics.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119794091743935595.html


"The Tax Relief Act of 1997 was sponsored by Rep John Kasich (R-OH) and that replaced a similar senate Bill sponsored by Senator Roth (R-DE). Although the Bill was Republican sponsored, it passed the Senate 92 - 8 and the House 389 - 43 and was signed into law by President Clinton. Obviously the Act had widespread bipartisan support and was veto proof."

http://calculatedrisk.blogspot.com/2007/12/clinton-housing-bubble.html




We can argue about politics all day but that isn't going to get us anywhere. The question now is, what can we do about it, if anything.



f2f delivers again :fm:

[f2f]

f2f delivers again :fm:

not my photochop.

[Lizhnik]

not my photochop.

Well, whoever did it made me LMAO. So thanks for posting it!

[Rubicon]

Well, whoever did it made me LMAO. So thanks for posting it!


2nd'd



..............

[SiSt]

It´s all an effort to remove the US foreign debt. Five minutes before leaving office, GW will be able to buy all of it from the saudis and chinese using the 5 yuan bill in his pocket.

Seriously though, any responsible (socalist?) government would have taken over control of F&F, B and AIG a long time ago, making it cheaper for the tax payers and infinitely more probable that a crash would be avoided. Now, you´ll be dragging the rest of the west along in this shitshow.

Edit: Yuan was a bad choice of currency, as it it tied to the US dollar. Still, it makes you wonder what will happen if the chinese decide to cut it loose?

[timvwcom]

Ohhh, there is plenty of blame to go around. This is far from a partisan issue.

* OPINION
* DECEMBER 18, 2007

The Clinton Housing Bubble
By VERNON L. SMITH

"Thank you President Bill Clinton for your 1997 action, applauded by the banks, the realtors and all citizens in search of half-millionaire status from an investment they could understand and self deceptively believe to be low risk; thank you for fueling the mother of all housing bubbles; thank you for enabling so many of us who bought second or third homes, and homes before construction began, which we then sold to someone else who dreamed of riches from owning homes long enough to sell to another fool."

Mr. Smith, a professor of law and economics at George Mason University, is the 2002 Nobel Laureate in economics.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119794091743935595.html

"The Tax Relief Act of 1997 was sponsored by Rep John Kasich (R-OH) and that replaced a similar senate Bill sponsored by Senator Roth (R-DE). Although the Bill was Republican sponsored, it passed the Senate 92 - 8 and the House 389 - 43 and was signed into law by President Clinton. Obviously the Act had widespread bipartisan support and was veto proof."

http://calculatedrisk.blogspot.com/2007/12/clinton-housing-bubble.html

We can argue about politics all day but that isn't going to get us anywhere. The question now is, what can we do about it, if anything.

Rubicon... R U serious my friend???

IMHO quoting ANYTHING that calls this the "Clinton Housing Bubble" should be laughed off the pages of TGR. :nonono2:

I'll start with this; the second link you provide here reads in FULL. (Adding back in what you've snipped from the end.)


It had to happen. Law and economics professor Vernon L. Smith, of George Mason University, writes in the WSJ: The Clinton Housing Bubble


"Besides being fueled by housing purchases and repackaged loans, each with inadequate equity -- doubling down with other people's money -- at the end of the capital-gains rainbow was the right to take up to $500,000 of profit, tax free.

Thank you President Bill Clinton for your 1997 action ..."

Here are the facts for the 2002 Nobel Laureate in Economics (and everyone else):

The Tax Relief Act of 1997 was sponsored by Rep John Kasich (R-OH) and that replaced a similar senate Bill sponsored by Senator Roth (R-DE). Although the Bill was Republican sponsored, it passed the Senate 92 - 8 and the House 389 - 43 and was signed into law by President Clinton. Obviously the Act had widespread bipartisan support and was veto proof.

Blaming it on Clinton makes Mr. Smith look very partisan (and very wrong). The WSJ should correct Smith's inaccurate commentary.

I also disagree with Mr. Smith's views on the impact of the tax changes. I believe other factors, such as mortgage innovation, mortgage fraud, lax supervision, and real low interest rates (in no particular order) all were much greater factors in the housing bubble than the tax change.

Again, let's remember 1997;
The 105th United States Congress. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/105th_United_States_Congress)

Senate: Republicans = 55 seats, Democrats = 45 seats
Congress: Republicans = 228 seats, Democrats = 206 seats, Independent = 1

The REPUBLICANS ran both the Senate and the Congress. They controlled what legislation came up or didn't. This was the Trent Lott, Newt Gingrich and Tom Delay era... they weren't known for being bi-partisan as you'll recall. Then add that as YOUR article notes, that legislation was VETO PROOF. Lastly, AGAIN as YOUR article states... it's idiotic to think this was the cause of our current mess in the first place.

Funny how conservatives and Republicans always claim that ANY success that occurs during their term is to their credit, and ANY failures are the result of the previous Democratic Administration. Then when the Republicans are NOT in charge... they'll still claim any credit for success as stemming from the prior Republican Administration, but all failures are due to the current Democratic one...



I can testify... from personal experience as a full-time real estate agent for 23+ years now, and of course being limited to observations in MY local market. There were periods of better appreciation and lesser appreciation, running in several year intervals for decades... But it was directly after 9/11/2001 that something seemed to change. The appreciation numbers started to move out beyond the range of the prior normal... The amount of a persons net wealth (perhaps better stated as size of debt for most) they were willing to have tied up in real estate jumped. I've always equated it with 2 types of responses to 9/11. 1) I know I'll die some day, I need to enjoy it now, spending quality time with the family in our "nest". and 2) I see there is risk in the stock markets too, I might as well live in my investment, much nicer to have a bigger nicer home -vs- a thicker envelope that arrives from my retirement fund each month... Again, that is just a first person observation from years worth of interactions with clients and customers and my perception of a change in their actions.

All that said and done... I'd quickly throw out 2 general factors I see as cause of the crash without thinking too hard. 1) Credit/Lending rules relaxed by the non Fannie/Freddie subprime lenders who gave people loans who had no business having them, and parallel over spending consumerism including big screen TVs and Hummers etc. and 2) Government taxing/regulating policies that favored the rich and squeezed the middle class to the point of their not being able to make ends meet. When these two points converged, the shit hit the fan.

Enough late night rambling... g'night.

[Dexter Rutecki]

Ohhh, there is plenty of blame to go around. This is far from a partisan issue.

* OPINION
* DECEMBER 18, 2007

The Clinton Housing Bubble
By VERNON L. SMITH


"Thank you President Bill Clinton for your 1997 action, applauded by the banks, the realtors and all citizens in search of half-millionaire status from an investment they could understand and self deceptively believe to be low risk; thank you for fueling the mother of all housing bubbles; thank you for enabling so many of us who bought second or third homes, and homes before construction began, which we then sold to someone else who dreamed of riches from owning homes long enough to sell to another fool."

Mr. Smith, a professor of law and economics at George Mason University, is the 2002 Nobel Laureate in economics.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119794091743935595.html


"The Tax Relief Act of 1997 was sponsored by Rep John Kasich (R-OH) and that replaced a similar senate Bill sponsored by Senator Roth (R-DE). Although the Bill was Republican sponsored, it passed the Senate 92 - 8 and the House 389 - 43 and was signed into law by President Clinton. Obviously the Act had widespread bipartisan support and was veto proof."

http://calculatedrisk.blogspot.com/2007/12/clinton-housing-bubble.html




We can argue about politics all day but that isn't going to get us anywhere. The question now is, what can we do about it, if anything.



f2f delivers again :fm:

Yeah, that's pretty much a bunch of bullshit. If you're still with the Republicans and their Greenspan engineered anti-regulation agenda, you're more of a fool than even I gave you credit for.

But you McSame people would like for it not to be a partisan issue.


Any of you guys still pushing to privatize social security? What a great fucking idea that is...

[Buster Highmen]

Banking deregulation was started by Reagan with the S&L deregulation. See where that got us. It was continued by Clinton and the Bushes as well as our congress who are all sold out to big money.

This is yet another opportunity for partisan divisiness. By all means, have at it.

But it's also an opportunity to point out that deregulation doesn't work for most of us.

It's an argument that government could have played a role if you assholes had bitched about it at the time. But you're mostly just a bunch of lazy fucks who grouse about it after the henhouse has been raided.

During the stock bubble, interest rates should have been raised.

[GoldMember]

AIG got drug into this as well, through their own greed and now we're all stuck with the bill. Unfortunately, the only way to slow this crash down is through government support. Too bad enough people weren't paying attention to McCain at the time. He foretold our current situation. To say he will simply continue the Bush path regarding regulation seems out of line with his statements just three years ago:


Sen. John McCain [R-AZ]:

Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, S. 190

Mr. President, this week Fannie Mae’s regulator reported that the company’s quarterly reports of profit growth over the past few years were “illusions deliberately and systematically created” by the company’s senior management, which resulted in a $10.6 billion accounting scandal.
The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight’s report goes on to say that Fannie Mae employees deliberately and intentionally manipulated financial reports to hit earnings targets in order to trigger bonuses for senior executives. In the case of Franklin Raines, Fannie Mae’s former chief executive officer, OFHEO’s report shows that over half of Mr. Raines’ compensation for the 6 years through 2003 was directly tied to meeting earnings targets. The report of financial misconduct at Fannie Mae echoes the deeply troubling $5 billion profit restatement at Freddie Mac.
The OFHEO report also states that Fannie Mae used its political power to lobby Congress in an effort to interfere with the regulator’s examination of the company’s accounting problems. This report comes some weeks after Freddie Mac paid a record $3.8 million fine in a settlement with the Federal Election Commission and restated lobbying disclosure reports from 2004 to 2005. These are entities that have demonstrated over and over again that they are deeply in need of reform.
For years I have been concerned about the regulatory structure that governs Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac–known as Government-sponsored entities or GSEs–and the sheer magnitude of these companies and the role they play in the housing market. OFHEO’s report this week does nothing to ease these concerns. In fact, the report does quite the contrary. OFHEO’s report solidifies my view that the GSEs need to be reformed without delay.
I join as a cosponsor of the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, S. 190, to underscore my support for quick passage of GSE regulatory reform legislation. If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole.
I urge my colleagues to support swift action on this GSE reform legislation.

Sponsor:Sen. Charles Hagel [R-NE] (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/person.xpd?id=300050)hide cosponsors (javascript:DHTML_ToggleVisible('cosponsors', 'dhtmlbuttonMonoElementm0m1m0m1m0m1m0m0m0m9m3m0m', 'hide cosponsors', 'show cosponsors (3)'))
Cosponsors [as of 2007-01-08]
Sen. Elizabeth Dole [R-NC] (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/person.xpd?id=300035)
Sen. John McCain [R-AZ] (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/person.xpd?id=300071)
Sen. John Sununu [R-NH] (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/person.xpd?id=300095)

The bill died after introduction in a Democratically controlled Senate.

[Cono Este]

I think the govt is nearly out of bullets too.

[rideit]

McCain today is but a shell of the McCain from three years ago...he sold his soul for this opportunity.

[Buster Highmen]

I'm not so sure that McCain has an edge over Obama in this regard.

From a party standpoint, it's Republicans who are constantly yammering on about the government not meddling in economic affairs. This is tantamount to bitching about Santa Claus wearing red.

The government will always meddle in economic affairs if only by allowing shit to go on on Wall Street and the banks and the oil companies like it has. Or by not allowing it.

We're just going to relearn the lessons of the 1920s.

[GoldMember]

McCain today is but a shell of the McCain from three years ago...he sold his soul for this opportunity.

Maybe, maybe not. But the more pertinent question with regard to S. 190 is what happened to it? It was killed in committee, which was overseen by the Democrats. Their concern? That people who were marginally qualified for loans wouldn't be able to get the funds to purchase homes. So, where was Obama on this bill? Nowhere to be seen so far as I can discern. Take everyone's spin on this as just that: Spin. But when you get into it, look at the records and try and determine the facts away from the spin.

[Tippster]

The Clinton Housing Bubble
By VERNON L. SMITH


"Thank you President Bill Clinton for your 1997 action, applauded by the banks, the realtors and all citizens in search of half-millionaire status from an investment they could understand and self deceptively believe to be low risk; thank you for fueling the mother of all housing bubbles; thank you for enabling so many of us who bought second or third homes, and homes before construction began, which we then sold to someone else who dreamed of riches from owning homes long enough to sell to another fool."

Mr. Smith, a professor of law and economics at George Mason University, is the 2002 Nobel Laureate in economics.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119794091743935595.html


"The Tax Relief Act of 1997 was sponsored by Rep John Kasich (R-OH) and that replaced a similar senate Bill sponsored by Senator Roth (R-DE). Although the Bill was Republican sponsored, it passed the Senate 92 - 8 and the House 389 - 43 and was signed into law by President Clinton. Obviously the Act had widespread bipartisan support and was veto proof."

http://calculatedrisk.blogspot.com/2007/12/clinton-housing-bubble.html
Explain to me again how a veto-proof piece of legislation drawn up by republicans is somehow Clinton's fault, Mr. Nobel Laureate guy.

[GoldMember]

Explain to me again how a veto-proof piece of legislation drawn up by republicans is somehow Clinton's fault, Mr. Nobel Laureate guy.

Maybe not Clinton's fault but it wasn't filibuster proof had the D's chosen to block it; and enough D's went along that it became veto-proof. Clinton's people either weren't willing to lobby their party to filibuster or avoid veto-proofing it or were in support of it. Therefore, there was some level of complicity implicated.

[Buster Highmen]

So are we going to whinge on about people and partisan crap or the underlaying issue of regulation? Fuckall, people...

[Adolf Allerbush]

Maybe not Clinton's fault but it wasn't filibuster proof had the D's chosed to block it and enough D's went along that it became veto-proof. Clinton's people either weren't willing to lobby their party to filibuster or avoid veto-proofing it or were in support of it. Therefore, there was some level of complicity implicated.

Who knows where most of the blame should lie...with the repubs or the dems...the problem is here...so what's the solution? WWIII? WWII seemed to help get the US out of the Depression...that and a ton of (conservatives prepare to shit yourselves) social programs. I'm not advocating WWIII, but maybe pulling out of Iraq sooner rather than later and taking some of that 10 billion a month to put towards infrastructure and whatnot would help.

[GoldMember]

Adolf, I hate the Iraq war. I understand the sentiment. However, once in, do we simply pull out everyone immediately and let the country fall into total disarray? Our withdrawal has to be measured against the risks of having Iraq fall into the control of the mullahs or other fringe elements that are a continuing threat to the region and to us. Additionally, we need to step up our efforts in Afghanistan to try and get that situation under control, ironically adding more credence to the draw-down in Iraq in order to have the resources to step up the Afghan efforts. Al Qaida is still active and in an active war to harm us, like it or not. Beyond that, if we pull out of Iraq and it falls, what does that say to the rest of the world? It acts to confirm Bin Laden's statements that the U.S. no longer has the resolve to be the power we once were. Perhaps it's true....

[David Witherspoon]

Vote Adult.
Vote Obama.


"So, if we get to the point, in the middle of the week when AIG might have to file for bankruptcy, they're on their own?"
McCain replied, "Well, they're on their own. We cannot have the taxpayers bail out AIG or anybody else."
...
[one day passes - and one more bailout]
...
"I didn't want to do that. ... But there are literally millions of people whose retirement, whose investment, whose insurance were at risk here," ...
"They were going to have their lives destroyed because of the greed and excess and corruption," McCain said.
Great. Let's elect a Monday-morning quarterback to run last Friday's game.

Leave that flip-flopping fish in his barrel. (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/5050/story?id=5821886&page=1) Shoot later, if you must.

[Adolf Allerbush]

Adolf, I hate the Iraq war. I understand the sentiment. However, once in, do we simply pull out everyone immediately and let the country fall into total disarray? Our withdrawal has to be measured against the risks of having Iraq fall into the control of the mullahs or other fringe elements that are a continuing threat to the region and to us. Additionally, we need to step up our efforts in Afghanistan to try and get that situation under control, ironically adding more credence to the draw-down in Iraq in order to have the resources to step up the Afghan efforts. Al Qaida is still active and in an active war to harm us, like it or not. Beyond that, if we pull out of Iraq and it falls, what does that say to the rest of the world? It acts to confirm Bin Laden's statements that the U.S. no longer has the resolve to be the power we once were. Perhaps it's true....

Totally, there in lies the problem. What should we concentrate on more for the time being? I agree we can't simply bail on Iraq...but then again, it's hard to justify spending that kind of cash abroad when we're having serious economic problems at home. Perhaps the timing will be right to pull out of Iraq at a point later in time when the US economy hits rock bottom? Just sort of thinking out loud here.

[Rubicon]

slurp, slurp, slurp...<swallow>


Tim, you and Tippster need to take off the blue dress and read my post again. My point is that bipartisan actions have gotten us to where we are and both parties are to blame.

[Hugh Conway]

So are we going to whinge on about people and partisan crap or the underlaying issue of regulation? Fuckall, people...

who do you pick in the gladiator match this afternoon?

[timvwcom]

Tim, you and Tippster need to take off the blue dress and read my post again. My point is that bipartisan actions have gotten us to where we are and both parties are to blame.

So... to find a label for that "bipartisan action" you cut and pasted an article defining it as the "Clinton Bubble?"

http://www.lovespeaks.net/images/confused-chimp-chimpanzee-monkey1.jpg

[Rubicon]

So... to find a label for that "bipartisan action" you cut and pasted an article defining it as the "Clinton Bubble?"



That was the first part of my post. The second part showed that even if the Nobel laureate was 100% correct in pointing to that bill as having a part in causing the current mess, it still had wide bipartisan support and so the blame couldn't be placed only on the person who signed it into law.

You have to focus and keep reading even after your partisan knee jerk reaction causes you to kick yourself in the face:p

[timvwcom]

That was the first part of my post. The second part showed that even if the Nobel laureate was 100% correct in pointing to that bill as having a part in causing the current mess, it still had wide bipartisan support and so the blame couldn't be placed only on the person who signed it into law.

You have to focus and keep reading even after your partisan knee jerk reaction causes you to kick yourself in the face:p

Well... fine. But ya need to work on your editing skillz, I wasn't the only one who took your post as an attempt to try and label it the "Clinton Bubble." :p

http://www.groovythemes.com/animals/confused_monkey-med.jpg

[Dexter Rutecki]

Tim, you and Tippster need to take off the blue dress and read my post again. My point is that bipartisan actions have gotten us to where we are and both parties are to blame.

That's a nice line for the Republicans to use now, but there were plenty of people advising against drinking the Greenspan kool aid when the banking regulations guarding against such risky lending/buying of debt were made weaker. Sure, the Democrats who didn't want to go along with it could have filibustered--and then they'd have been tarred as obstructionist, socialist, 'angry left' regulators. Certainly Democrats, and even Clinton, deserve some of the blame. But saying the Dems are equally to blame simply because they didn't filibuster is really, really reaching.

And even today, one of the big McCain/Palin applause lines is when they attack regulation as unnecessary government interference. It's idiotic, but the Republican crowds eat it up.

Then again, the McSame economic plan is overseen by Phil Gramm, who basically engineered much of the banking deregulation (with McCain's support). It was that deregulation that removed the walls between the banking, insurance, and investment companies and made possible the current crisis. In contrast, Obama has consistently been in favor of sensible regulatory devices and has talked about the dangers posed by weakening banking regulations since at least last year.

Seriously, you tell me who is more likely to push for and pass sensible regulation--and not just in banking, but environmental, energy, workplace policy, etc. Vote McSame in and the oil companies execs will be writing energy policy again, while the White House continues to attack necessary regulation.

Actually, here's what Obama had to say about all this (or issues related to it) last year. Implicit in it all is a rejection of Clinton's emphasis on deregulation:

Unfortunately, instead of establishing a 21st century regulatory framework, we simply dismantled the old one – aided by a legal but corrupt bargain in which campaign money all too often shaped policy and watered down oversight. In doing so, we encouraged a winner take all, anything goes environment that helped foster devastating dislocations in our economy.

Deregulation of the telecommunications sector, for example, fostered competition but also contributed to massive over-investment. Partial deregulation of the electricity sector enabled market manipulation. Companies like Enron and WorldCom took advantage of the new regulatory environment to push the envelope, pump up earnings, disguise losses and otherwise engage in accounting fraud to make their profits look better – a practice that led investors to question the balance sheet of all companies, and severely damaged public trust in capital markets. This was not the invisible hand at work. Instead, it was the hand of industry lobbyists tilting the playing field in Washington, an accounting industry that had developed powerful conflicts of interest, and a financial sector that fueled over-investment.

A decade later, we have deregulated the financial services sector, and we face another crisis. A regulatory structure set up for banks in the 1930s needed to change because the nature of business has changed. But by the time the Glass-Steagall Act was repealed in 1999, the $300 million lobbying effort that drove deregulation was more about facilitating mergers than creating an efficient regulatory framework.



So again, go ahead and try to paint this as base partisanship, but there's a real choice on this and most of the other important issues. Do you want to go with the same shit you've swallowed for at least the past seven years, or is it time to wake up? Not to mention the fact that neither McCain nor Palin seem very intellectually interested in any of this....

[whatcomridaz]

More socialism for the rich, and capitalism for the poor:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/17/business/17insure.html?_r=2&hp&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

I wonder what's on AIG's books that the big boys are so desperate to keep from coming to light? (Note: this is a rhetorical question.)

It's interesting to see who's getting bailed out by taxpayers, who's getting married with a shotgun present, and who's dying and getting picked over by buzzards.

We're just being prepped to accept the socialization of health care, energy, and the rest of the financial system...


Vote for Change.....Obama 08:FIREdevil

[Hugh Conway]

We're just being prepped to accept the socialization of health care, energy, and the rest of the financial system...

At least the taxpayer would get something out of that deal - instead of staring at a Greenwich mansion :yourock:

[whatcomridaz]

At least the taxpayer would get something out of that deal - instead of staring at a Greenwich mansion :yourock:

If enslavement to the gubberment is getting something, you're more then welcome to sign up for that.


Perhaps with a little more work and less posting on TGR, it could be you in the Greenwich mansion. Whether you're a serf for a corporation or the govt does it really matter?

[Dexter Rutecki]

And a good comparison of the candidates, from Kiplinger:


FINANCIAL MARKET REGULATION
Comments (0) | Permalink

McCAIN has long been an opponent of regulation, telling the Wall St. Journal as recently as six months ago that he was "fundamentally a deregulator," but he has shifted his stance recently to call for more transparency in the balance sheets of financial institutions, with the government holding firms accountable for shortcomings. Like McCAIN, OBAMA favors strengthening the Securities & Exchange Commisssion to increase transparency at investment banks.

OBAMA has been calling for more regulation of financial institutions since March of 2006 when he was prompted to speak out by the start of the mortgage crisis.

Both candidates favor a more streamlined approach to financial regulation, consolidating the many offices involved into a single entity.

Neither McCAIN nor OBAMA favors bailouts of debt-laden investment banks that became overextended in mortgage backed securities, though they've accepted some bailouts as a last resort to avoid market chaos.

OBAMA wants to extend commercial banking regulations to investment banks, mortgage brokers and hedge funds.

Both candidates aim to combine and streamline overlapping federal agencies that have oversight, investigative powers and enforcement authority over financial markets. OBAMA also wants a permanent commission to review financial market activity and practices and warn of emerging dangers. OBAMA also would tighten rules on credit-scoring groups, Standard & Poor's and Moody's. McCAIN wants an investigative commission at the outset to propose specific fixes.

McCAIN would rely less than OBAMA on new regulation. As chairman of the Commerce Committee, for instance, McCAIN often aimed to ease business regulation, such as on the telecommunications and media broadcast industry. His closest economic advisors are well connected with the financial industry and would advise him away from heavy regulation, except to use it as a threat if banks don't adopt stricter rules on their own.

McCAIN has also called for creation of a blue-ribbon panel to determine what went wrong with the markets and to recommend a course of action. OBAMA has derided that as passing the buck, saying we already know what went wrong.

[Hugh Conway]

Perhaps with a little more work and less posting on TGR, it could be you in the Greenwich mansion.

ahh, yes, we all aspire to a mansion in greenwich. you are neither orginal, amusing nor insightful but you do kill time!

[splat]

http://tetongravity.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=46362

I knew I should have hit the Inaugural Ball. Dubya got all the sheeat.

[splat]

So are we going to whinge on about people and partisan crap or the underlaying issue of regulation? Fuckall, people...

To change the regulations requires a CHANGE of the status quo inept leadership.

OBAMA.

[Rubicon]

Well... fine. But ya need to work on your editing skillz,


Ya maybe. I'll try typing slower and putting more spaces between the words.

[Tippster]

Tim, you and Tippster need to take off the blue dress and read my post again.But it's so slimming and matches my underwear!


That was the first part of my post. The second part showed that even if the Nobel laureate was 100% correct in pointing to that bill as having a part in causing the current mess, it still had wide bipartisan support and so the blame couldn't be placed only on the person who signed it into law.

My point was he didn't have a choice in the matter... he HAD to sign it into law. Admittedly he probably did so quite happily.

See Buster's feelings on Bubba Clinton's economic policies.

[Buster Highmen]

See Buster's feelings on Bubba Clinton's economic policies.
What's the most significant is that to which people don't respond. Especially while face down in deregulation pie.

[Spats]

To change the regulations requires a CHANGE of the status quo inept leadership.

OBAMA.

You're still not seeing the elephant in the room. Look at Obama's donor list.

#1 donor to Obama: Goldman Sachs.
Secretary of the Treasury: Hank Paulson, ex-chairman and CEO of...Goldman Sachs.

Donors that gave more to Obama than any donor at all gave to John McCain:
Goldman Sachs $691,930
Citigroup Inc $448,599
JPMorgan Chase & Co $442,919
UBS AG $404,750
Lehman Brothers $370,524
Morgan Stanley $318,070

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?cycle=2008&cid=N00009638

Wall Street owns both parties. Sorry to disillusion you of the idea that electing Obama will make a real difference on these issues, but those are the facts.

[FrankZappa]

I appreciate what you're sayin spats, but I just don't see any other option in this day besides the lessor of TWO evils.

[David Witherspoon]

The proportion of funds is telling: far more funds from far more smaller donors in Obama's campaign. Wall Street money is much more diluted there.

Small steps in the right direction are better than none - and much better than scrambling at random.

[timvwcom]

You're still not seeing the elephant in the room. Look at Obama's donor list.

#1 donor to Obama: Goldman Sachs.
Secretary of the Treasury: Hank Paulson, ex-chairman and CEO of...Goldman Sachs.

Donors that gave more to Obama than any donor at all gave to John McCain:
Goldman Sachs $691,930
Citigroup Inc $448,599
JPMorgan Chase & Co $442,919
UBS AG $404,750
Lehman Brothers $370,524
Morgan Stanley $318,070

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?cycle=2008&cid=N00009638

Wall Street owns both parties. Sorry to disillusion you of the idea that electing Obama will make a real difference on these issues, but those are the facts.

Edit: I'm gonna make this FUCKIN HUDGE so maybe it sinks in this time? :nonono2:

Just to remind everyone AGAIN; it is illegal for any corporation or company to donate to any Federal campaign. These are totals from PERSONAL donations from employees (and their families) of these companies. No single donor can give more than $2,300 for the primary and the same for the general election.

[Rubicon]

What's the most significant is that to which people don't respond.

You are right, it is significant. But what it signifies is not what you might think. When a host of inaccurate assumptions have to be corrected before any conversation can take place, it's normally not worth the effort. You express a lot of assumptions about the people you are talking to.


I guess you feel your arguments aren't strong enough to stand on their own without being buttressed by personal assumptions made about the person you are responding to( <---note the gratuitous personal assumption).





Especially while face down in deregulation pie.


^^^case in point.

What you don't know you don't know is more misleading than what you don't know but know you don't know it.

[David Witherspoon]

Edit: I'm gonna make this FUCKIN HUDGE so maybe it sinks in this time? :nonono2:
Too complicated. It'll never sink in to some people's heads. You're fighting a combination of hard-wired paranoia (see instinctive cheater detection (http://www.rotman.utoronto.ca/~evans/evol/altruis2.htm) ability, combined with hypersensitive agent and motive inference, all dialed up beyond the normal range) and stupidity (witness the ~25% of Americans still saying "heckuvajobdubya!").

Yer gonna hafta live with that fact of the battlefield and work around it.

You know how.

[Rubicon]

Edit: I'm gonna make this FUCKIN HUDGE so maybe it sinks in this time? :nonono2:

Just to remind everyone AGAIN; it is illegal for any corporation or company to donate to any Federal campaign. These are totals from PERSONAL donations from employees (and their families) of these companies. No single donor can give more than $2,300 for the primary and the same for the general election.


...and if you think there isn't a corporate culture in each of these companies that encourages support of a certain candidate, you are high, or naive, or both.



Do you believe that it is coincidence that Obama was number two on the list of recipients of campaign contributions from FM & FM and now Franklin Raines and Jim Johnson are Obama's economic advisor's? That's just coincidence, right?

[Spats]

Just to remind everyone AGAIN; it is illegal for any corporation or company to donate to any Federal campaign. These are totals from PERSONAL donations from employees (and their families) of these companies. No single donor can give more than $2,300 for the primary and the same for the general election.

So you and DW contend that there's a difference between the people who run Wall Street writing a check on the corporate account, versus being paid $millions from the corporate account and writing a personal check for the same money?

That's so touchingly naive I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

[Tippster]

What you don't know you don't know is more misleading than what you don't know but know you don't know it.

I think I need a bromide... or a Bong hit.

[timvwcom]

YEA!!!

Making it hudge got it some attention for once. Here's a couple more points, regular sized this time.

-Review the lists of the employers for the donors for both candidates. You'll see many/most of the firm names on both lists. The fact is that people who make a shit ton of money who are affected by the government make a lot of donations. If you don't like it, try and get the amount they can donate lessened I guess?

-Part of the money coming in to the candidates from each of these companies listed comes from secretaries, lower level managers, etc. It's not all from the top honchos and meant as some kind of legal bribe.

-Obama, by his status as the top money raiser of all time in all elections... is likely to be the #1 recipient in nearly every category of types of employers for those donors. That's just simply a fact.

-Just as an example... Obama raised 66 million dollars in August. That works out to $2.12 million PER DAY... Do you really think that donations of $691,930 from employees of any one company total in the time since he started his campaign a couple years ago... is going to be enough for him to abandon some core belief he has and risk losing his chance at the presidency. Really? Just to make it clear; ALL the donations from Goldman Sachs ends up equaling ($66,000,000 / 31 = $2.12 million per day / 24 hours = $88,709 per hour. Then $691,930 / $88,709 = ) a total of 7.8 HOURS of his funding. Again, this is in a period of what, nearly 2 years?

I'm not arguing for one position for the other here in this post... just trying to make sure it's not blown out of proportion or used erroneously.

[neck beard]

Storm in a tea cup. Those bank donations are utterly paltry. They spend more of entertaining clients at a one-off event.

If banks want to swing their support for a party, they will do it in other ways. Half a million from one bank is so trivial it needn't be even noticed.

[Rubicon]

Storm in a tea cup. Those bank donations are utterly paltry. They spend more of entertaining clients at a one-off event.

If banks want to swing their support for a party, they will do it in other ways. Half a million from one bank is so trivial it needn't be even noticed.

Is there anything that is a part of the public record that would show which institutions have a preference for one candidate over another?

I'm thinking, no. But would be interested to hear your thoughts on it.

[Buster Highmen]

You are right, it is significant. But what it signifies is not what you might think. When a host of inaccurate assumptions have to be corrected before any conversation can take place, it's normally not worth the effort. You express a lot of assumptions about the people you are talking to.
I'm not talking to anyone. I'm merely listing the data and gathering information about the responses to the data or lack thereof.



I guess you feel your arguments aren't strong enough to stand on their own without being buttressed by personal assumptions made about the person you are responding to( <---note the gratuitous personal assumption).

They are quite strong. I still haven't read any reasonable responses aside from goldmember.








^^^case in point.

What you don't know you don't know is more misleading than what you don't know but know you don't know it.

One thing I do know is that so far you haven't levied a reasonable argument and only wallow in the mode you critique.

Self loathing's a bitch, huh?

[neck beard]

Is there anything that is a part of the public record that would show which institutions have a preference for one candidate over another?

I'm thinking, no. But would be interested to hear your thoughts on it.

I really wouldn't know, but I would also think there is no public record. That is not to assume banks are making meaningful contributions behind the scenes. However anything seems possible these days.

Wild swing in the dark: banks pay Bill Clinton for speaking engagements (I think Morgan Stanley was one big payer. Rusty memory). Bill donates to Hill's fund. That was years ago though, and of no benefit to BO here and now.

Perhaps look for banks that donated large funds to domestic disaster relief efforts: that may be construed as helping the repubs?

[timvwcom]

Is there anything that is a part of the public record that would show which institutions have a preference for one candidate over another?

I'm thinking, no. But would be interested to hear your thoughts on it.

Try here; http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/index.php


Industry Profiles

Which candidates is the computer industry giving to? What are the patterns in tobacco contributions over the last ten years? Where is the political money coming from within the agribusiness industries? You can answer this kind of question effortlessly here, with this one-of-a-kind resource.

For each industry, we offer:

* Totals: A summary of political giving dating back to 1990, including breakdowns by type of contribution and political party
* Top contributors: A list of organizations (usually U.S. companies) that have given the most from that industry
* Top recipients: A list of candidates that have received the most from that industry

[pull down menu with the following choices]

Abortion: Pro-Life
Abortion: Pro-Choice
Accountants
Casinos/Gambling
Commercial Banks
Computer Equipment & Services
Gun Rights
Gun Control
Education
Health Professionals
Hedge Funds
Insurance
Lawyers/Law Firms
Lobbyists
Oil & Gas
Pharmaceuticals
Telephone Utilities
Tobacco
TV/Movies/Music

[Then the sub-menus have further break downs (in upper right corner) - This is the sub-menu for Commercial Banks]

Savings & Loans Credit Unions
Finance/Credit Companies
Securities & Investment
... Venture Capital
... Hedge Funds
... Private Equity & Investment Firms Insurance Real Estate
... Mortgage Banking
Accountants

Here is a screen shot for Commercial Banks; again it can be broken down further...

http://www.timvw.com/whooohooo/political_donors_grab.jpg

[neck beard]

But did you not arlier say that these types of figures are of no value as they represent individual employee contributions, not cash from the strategic corporate account? I agreed with you. Why is the color yellow on my mind?

[timvwcom]

So you and DW contend that there's a difference between the people who run Wall Street writing a check on the corporate account, versus being paid $millions from the corporate account and writing a personal check for the same money?

That's so touchingly naive I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

Spats... here is a factcheck.org (from about 2 months ago) on the size of contributions to Obama and McCain; http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/what_is_the_average_size_of_obamas.html



Q: What is the average size of Obama's contributions and what is the average size of McCain's contributions?

A: We can't calculate a precise average for either candidate, but we can say that persons giving less than $200 account for 47 percent of Obama's donations and 26 percent of McCain's.


As of July 14, Obama’s campaign has raised a total of $287,397,945, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonprofit, nonpartisan research group that keeps track of money in U.S. politics. McCain’s campaign has raised a total of $119,594,596.

Where Does the Money Come From?

The vast majority of the funds raised by the two campaigns has come from individual donors. The 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act and Federal Election Commission rules limit individual contributions to a maximum of $2,300 per candidate, per election for 2007-2008. The primary election and general election are considered to be two separate elections, which means an individual can donate up to $4,600 to a single candidate (half of that to the primary election and half to the general).

Individual contributions make up 88 percent of the total amount raised by the McCain campaign and 100 percent of the money raised by the Obama campaign.

The CRP says the rest of McCain's money has come from political action committees (just 1 percent of his donations) and from "other" sources, which include interest from campaign bank accounts and loans from outside sources (11 percent). McCain's "other" sources also include funds transferred from his Senate bank account, according to Massie Ritsch, communications director for the CRP. Obama has also received a small amount of money from "other" sources, though not enough to account for even 1 percent of his donations.

What's a Typical Donation?

For Obama, 47 percent of money raised has come from individuals who have donated $200 or less, while 27 percent has come from persons who have donated $2,300 or more.

For McCain, the numbers are nearly the opposite, with 26 percent of donations coming from people who have donated $200 or less and 49 percent from individuals who have donated $2,300 or more.
The CRP also classifies the donors, including individual donors, by industry or occupation. Lawyers and law firms have been the industry most generous to Obama, contributing more than $18 million to his campaign. Retirees have given the most to McCain, donating more than $15 million. In terms of gender, men make up the majority of donors to both campaigns, but the percentage of Obama’s funds that comes from women, 41.8 percent, is higher than that of McCain, 28.3 percent.

*Many of the numbers cited in this article will change, as the FEC updates its reports throughout the campaign.

-by Rachel Weisel

[David Witherspoon]

It's not all from the top honchos and meant as some kind of legal bribe.

-Obama, by his status as the top money raiser of all time in all elections... is likely to be the #1 recipient in nearly every category of types of employers for those donors.

ALL the donations from Goldman Sachs ends up equaling a total of 7.8 HOURS of his funding. Again, this is in a period of what, nearly 2 years?
Thanks for laying out the reasons & doing the numbers.

[tromano]

Reaganism is to blame here. All I can say is that conservatives had better hope that the bail outs actually avert disaster enough that Americans don't fully freemarket idealogy. If they do and the repubs have to either capitulate or loose a filibuster proof majority either now or in 2 years, its over for Reaganism.

[timvwcom]

But did you not arlier say that these types of figures are of no value as they represent individual employee contributions, not cash from the strategic corporate account? I agreed with you. Why is the color yellow on my mind?

Assume this was for me? If so, I was simply answering Rubi's question on where he could get more of the public information on which industries donate to who.

Same with the intent for the data with Spats quote. Trying to show that not all the money is from "big wigs". It shows that nearly 50% of Obamas donations are $200 or smaller in size, and about 25% from those who donated $2,300 or more. For McCain the numbers about reversed.

[Rubicon]

If so, I was simply answering Rubi's question on where he could get more of the public information on which industries donate to who.



I asked that?

I thought I was asking if there was anything that is a part of the public record that would show which institutions have a preference for one candidate over another.

Hohes did a good job of answering what I thought I was asking. :wink:

[timvwcom]

I asked that?

I thought I was asking if there was anything that is a part of the public record that would show which institutions have a preference for one candidate over another.

Hohes did a good job of answering what I thought I was asking. :wink:

So... by "institutions" you meant specific individual financial corporations, instead of institutions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institution)? :the_finge

[tromano]

The reason we get for the bail out of these companies is that they are institutions that are vital to the country and are too big to fail. The fact is that any company or institution that is bankrupt has failed and should be dismantled in favor of new perhaps more well run group. The bailout of these institutions is supporting and subsidizing failure. This is exactly the wrong tactic. If we are going to subsidize anything it should be success, not failure. If we (taxpayers) are going to buy lets buy one that is successful and that maybe actually makes money.

[Tippster]

HEY SPATS -- HE'S NOT GETTING ANY CORPORATE MONEY!

It needs repeating for the thick.

[David Witherspoon]

If we (taxpayers) are going to buy lets buy one that is successful and that maybe actually makes money.
Uh, no, can't do that. See, that's called "socialism for the poor." Or, more commonly, just "socialism."

Socialism for the rich = absolute necessarity, because otherwise all catastrophic Armageddons and dire apocalyptic Götterdämmerungen come true.

So you're saddled with a few more trillion dollars of debt (don't worry, though; ever seen a 1993 Yugoslavian 500 billion dinar note?) but as all good sheep know, "What's Good for Wall Street is Good for the Country."

Socialism for the poor = absolute evil which will cause all catastrophic Armageddons and dire apocalyptic Götterdämmerungen come true.

So the only acceptable (even desirable) socialism is the sort where the little people are guaranteed to lose their shirts.



How 'bout we put someone in charge of the SEC who actually wants the SEC to do its job?
How 'bout we elect a President who gives enough of a damn to try to understand why it matters?

[Tippster]

Lookit Witherspoon whippin' out the umlauts!

[13]

spats,

no ron paul plug? you're slipping.

[doughboyshredder]

...and if you think there isn't a corporate culture in each of these companies that encourages support of a certain candidate, you are high, or naive, or both.





So, do you work as an executive in a banking firm?

Didn't think so. Normally you don't talk out of your ass. This surprises me.

A good friend is a very high level banking executive and I can tell you that politics and discussions of political affiliation and backing are completely off limits at that level.

This doesn't mean that the secretaries, clerks, etc.. don't discuss politics, but if you think that there is an actual corporate culture that supports Obama, then you are either high, or naive, or both.

[Rubicon]

So, do you work as an executive in a banking firm?

Didn't think so. Normally you don't talk out of your ass. This surprises me.

A good friend is a very high level banking executive and I can tell you that politics and discussions of political affiliation and backing are completely off limits at that level.

This doesn't mean that the secretaries, clerks, etc.. don't discuss politics, but if you think that there is an actual corporate culture that supports Obama, then you are either high, or naive, or both.

That last line made me laugh.

Tim referenced corporations in general, not just banks. That was what I was responding to and this is what I had in mind:

In addition to PAC donations, employees of the Top 100 companies also are giving to presidential candidates on their own — sometimes in large amounts. IBM Corp. employees, for example, have given more than $150,000 to Sen. Barack Obama’s (D-Ill.) presidential campaign this year, $83,000 to Sen. Hillary Clinton’s (DN. Y.) campaign and $17,000 to Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.). In contrast, AT&T employees have given $116,000 to McCain; $70,000 to Obama and $62,000 to Clinton.

GETTING INVOLVED
Such high levels of giving typically reflect a corporate culture in which being politically involved and building political networks and connections are regarded as virtues, Krumholz said.

“Some companies have a strong culture of political participation,” she added. Such a culture tends to begin at the top — at or near the chief executive suite — and is manifested by key players at a firm having strong political ties and relationships, she said.

http://www.washingtontechnology.com/print/23_08/32774-1.html

[Lizhnik]

C'mon, Rubicon! When you were quoting this article, you must have assumed that nobody would actually go and read it. The next 2 lines after the one you quoted are:

"At the same time, individual gifts by contractor employees to candidates — separate from the PACs — often are not strategic, some observers say.

Employees’ contributions to presidential campaigns are personal and do not necessarily reflect corporate views or priorities, said Larry Allen, president of the Coalition for Government Procurement, whose members are government contractors."

I, myself, never really understood the fundraising process until I actually went and did it. I always looked at the lists of individual donations from corporate employees and made the incorrect assumption that it was an organized process. But, the fact of the matter is, that you have to disclose your employer when you donate so that rules can be enforced to dissuade pressure by employers on employees. I'm sure people donate for all kinds of reasons, some of which, illogically, are not in their own best economic interests. However, it seems to me that it would be a ridiculous endeavor for a large investment bank to try and systematically force emplyees to donate for one candidate or the other.

By all means though, Spats and whoever else, keep posting that list from opensecret, it is very effective on uneducated fools like me! But, like many on here have said it is disingenuous and distracting from the real issues. Sadly, that tactic is not confined to one particular side.

[timvwcom]

C'mon, Rubicon! When you were quoting this article, you must have assumed that nobody would actually go and read it. The next 2 lines after the one you quoted are:

"At the same time, individual gifts by contractor employees to candidates — separate from the PACs — often are not strategic, some observers say.

Employees’ contributions to presidential campaigns are personal and do not necessarily reflect corporate views or priorities, said Larry Allen, president of the Coalition for Government Procurement, whose members are government contractors."

I, myself, never really understood the fundraising process until I actually went and did it. I always looked at the lists of individual donations from corporate employees and made the incorrect assumption that it was an organized process. But, the fact of the matter is, that you have to disclose your employer when you donate so that rules can be enforced to dissuade pressure by employers on employees. I'm sure people donate for all kinds of reasons, some of which, illogically, are not in their own best economic interests. However, it seems to me that it would be a ridiculous endeavor for a large investment bank to try and systematically force emplyees to donate for one candidate or the other.

By all means though, Spats and whoever else, keep posting that list from opensecret, it is very effective on uneducated fools like me! But, like many on here have said it is disingenuous and distracting from the real issues. Sadly, that tactic is not confined to one particular side.

http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film/G/posters/dfmp_0056_from_russia_with_love_1963.jpg

[Rubicon]

C'mon, Rubicon! When you were quoting this article, you must have assumed that nobody would actually go and read it. The next 2 lines after the one you quoted are:

"At the same time, individual gifts by contractor employees to candidates — separate from the PACs — often are not strategic, some observers say.

Employees’ contributions to presidential campaigns are personal and do not necessarily reflect corporate views or priorities, said Larry Allen, president of the Coalition for Government Procurement, whose members are government contractors."




And that's relevant to this conversation, why?

[Dexter Rutecki]

And that's relevant to this conversation, why?

Because as usual you don't know what the fuck you're talking about. I've never heard any banker, in person or the press, refer to feeling institutionally pressured to make a donation to a candidate of either party. They talk politics to the extent that any group of people does, but no one is courting favor with their bosses by making contributions. It is possible that some of them see Obama as being more sound on the economy and donate accordingly.

Most of the investment types I've spoken with over the past few years recognize the Bush years to be the disaster that everyone else does, and don't want more of the same.

[Spats]

Employees’ contributions to presidential campaigns are personal and do not necessarily reflect corporate views or priorities, said Larry Allen, president of the Coalition for Government Procurement, whose members are government contractors."

The naivete on this board is stunning.

Do you realize that you just parroted a news release from a giant lobbying organization of defense contractors? ("The single most effective voice for commercial service and product companies selling in the federal market" -- as per their website, www.thecgp.org)

Gee, what do you think that a lobbyist group for huge defense contractors like Northrop Grumman and Booz Allen Hamilton, with lots of highly-paid executives, would say?

Also note that the really big money is donated to 527 groups, which have no donation limits and which are not publicly tracked. ("Swift Boat Veterans For Truth" was a 527, FYI.)

[ArmadaBC]

The naivete on this board is stunning.


I can't speak for every business because i haven't worked at all of them, that said my current employer is very active in encouraging people to be politically involved.

It is 100% crystal clear that no one including the chairman of firm is allowed for any reason to endorse or promote a particular candidate or party.

For example, get your ass out and vote e-mails are popular, one mid level associate last year made the mistake of mentioning that she was working with a particular candidates campaign. No vote for him or hey he's a good guy rather a simple I've been busy working for so and so, so get your ass out an vote and she got the axe.

Firms don't fuck around with this kind of shit at all, your clients come from a wide variety of political backgrounds and you don't exactly want them feeling like you play for the other side.

[Rubicon]

Because as usual you don't know what the fuck you're talking about. I've never heard any banker...

And as usual your reading comprehension isn't worth shit.

I'll highlight the relevant parts for you.



Tim referenced corporations in general, not just banks. That was what I was responding to and this is what I had in mind:

[Dexter Rutecki]

You might have a point, if you hadn't originally posted the following:


...and if you think there isn't a corporate culture in each of these companies that encourages support of a certain candidate, you are high, or naive, or both.


Which is what everyone was responding to.

Again, it's your reading comprehension, and general intelligence, that is lacking. But that's hardly news.

[Rubicon]

You might have a point, if you hadn't originally posted the following:

Which is what everyone was responding to.

Again, it's your reading comprehension, and general intelligence, that is lacking. But that's hardly news.

I probably should have said "a lot of companies" instead of "these companies". Is this issue real that important to you? Are you just looking for something to fight about?

[doughboyshredder]

Dex calling Rubicon stupid! Now that is fucking hillarious. I may not agree with rubi on everything, but he has more intelligence in his pinky then Dex has in his whole fucking body.

I stand by my statements previously that these donor lists are largely irrelevant and can easily be used by either side to persuade someone to believe their argument.

[Lizhnik]

The naivete on this board is stunning.

This is coming from someone who supports a third party candidate in a two party political system and doesn't understand the very basic function of commercial banks in a market economy. Well, genius, you can't have it both ways. If you discount that quote, then I guess everything else in the article about PACs is also untrue.

My point was that there is a big difference between PACs, 527s and the like, and individual employee contributions. So keep posting those meaningless lists from opensecret if you think that is going to help your cause. But, even those of us not as smart and well informed as you, can probably guess that the dirty money is circulated to the candidates via very different means.

[Spats]

This is coming from someone who supports a third party candidate in a two party political system

Apparently you failed to notice that Ron Paul is a Republican! You have no standing to call anyone out if you can't remember basic facts.


and doesn't understand the very basic function of commercial banks in a market economy.

I understand it very well; I oppose it. Furthermore, everything I said was going to happen is happening right now, with the just-announced plan for the Fed to buy ALL THE BAD MORTGAGE DEBT IN THE ENTIRE COUNTRY, at a cost which may well exceed the Iraq war. That's what your "basic function of commercial banks" has done for us.

Peter Schiff, Mike Shedlock, Ron Paul...notice how the people who warned us about this crash before it happened are Austrian School? They were right about the Great Depression, and they're right about this one.

[splat]

Anybody around here old enough to remember the pyramid parties of the '70s?
Just like those. And when the pyramid imploded, the ones who started it had everybody's money.

Since there is a theoretical amount of money that exists, and all of the sudden there is none, where did that money go, specifically?

Or is just a matter that everyone called in for their redemptions about the time the banks had themselves leveraged to the hilt in paper that was worth jack shit after extending themselves and their credit at a 50 to 1 ratio?

Anyone catch the story about the German bank that wired like a $50 billion loan to Lehman Bros the morning they filed bk?

edit:
I love how Bush wanted to drop the Social Security fund in the stock market.
Not that the fund might even exist.

[Rubicon]

edit:
I love how Bush wanted to drop the Social Security fund in the stock market.
Not that the fund might even exist.

That reminds me of the plan back in the late 70's to dust the ice caps with coal dust in order to heat the earth and stave off the impending ice age.

[Dexter Rutecki]

Dex calling Rubicon stupid! Now that is fucking hillarious. I may not agree with rubi on everything, but he has more intelligence in his pinky then Dex has in his whole fucking body.

When a guy who's dumber than rocks says something like that, I take it for what it's worth. Rubicon basically just admitted that his point was wrong, but I wouldn't expect you to be able to understand that either.

[Jer]

When a guy who's dumber than rocks says something like that, I take it for what it's worth. Rubicon basically just admitted that his point was wrong, but I wouldn't expect you to be able to understand that either.

Ohhh - goodonya Dex! You win at tha TGR forumz!! Too bad you suck so horribly at real life.

Seriously - post just a teensy something that doesn't have to do with politics or calling somebody a dickbag moron. When was your last post that had anything even remotely to do with skiing (or having fun, for that matter)? 2006?

[Spats]

Bump because Geithner and the Fed just dumped another $30 billion down the AIG rathole, with no end in sight.

I've said it for years, I'll keep saying it: the bankers own both parties, and Obama is their creature just as much as Bush was.

[Jer]

NOOOO!!! THE DEMO-RATS ARE AS PURE AS THE DRIVEN SNOW!!!! ONLY THE NASTY REPUBLICANS SUCK!!! THE US ISN'T REALLY A DELUSIONAL DEMOCRACY!!!!

Spats - you need to be sent away to some kind of camp where you can concentrate on how to be nicer to the current regime.

[Benny Profane]

March 2, 2009, 5:46 PM
Who’s Really Being Propped Up in the A.I.G. Bailout?
By JOE NOCERA
It is a simple enough question: who bought the credit default swaps that American International Group sold during the housing bubble? And at this point — after Bailout No. 4, with the government handing A.I.G. another $30 billion to go with the previous $150 billion — you would think that the taxpayers would have the right to know that information. Is it Goldman? Royal Bank of Scotland? The Irish banks that are on the verge of collapse? What happened to all that transparency the new administration keeps talking about?

In the wake of my column on Saturday, I received a number of comments here at Executive Suite along the lines of this one:

Joe, I’m trying to find info re: what percentage of these credit default swaps are “owned” by foreign investors, what percent owned by banks, what percent owned by pension funds. (And if banks are owning them, as your column suggests, which ones?)
Seems to me … it’d be helpful to know as A.I.G. continues to be bailed out where exactly the $$$ is going. I’m assuming much of it (most? all?) is going to cover their CDSs.
Why this is important? To keep the spin machines honest.
Thanks.

This strikes me as a completely legitimate question. After all, the reason A.I.G. is being propped up is that the government fears that if the company defaulted the counterparties would suddenly be faced with tens of billions of dollars worth of unacknowledged losses — and they would go bust. It would make the Lehman fiasco look like a garden party. As Nouriel Roubini put it on CNBC recently (I’m paraphrasing): It’s not a bailout of A.I.G.; it’s a bailout of the counterparties?

What’s more, a fair amount of what A.I.G. was doing was pretty sleazy behavior, using credit default swaps to help banks evade regulatory capital requirements. And yet when newspapers like this one have requested the information, they have been ignored or turned down.

The answer, as I understand it, is that A.I.G. views these as “confidential transactions,” and the government (as per usual?) is going along with that rationale. One government official told me that if the federal government divulged the names of the counterparties it would amount to a violation of the Trade Secrets Act — unless the counterparties agreed to it, which they never will.

Pretty unsatisfying, isn’t it? Gobs of tax money is going to bail out unnamed companies — and yet we aren’t allowed to know who they are, and are supposed to take it all on faith. You know those awful cases you read about every once in a while where a child dies in a troubled home — and then the state health department won’t divulge any information out of “privacy concerns”? This strikes me as the financial equivalent of those cases. As excuses go, it sure is convenient.

[Rubicon]

^^^There is so much incest going on between Washington and Wall Street right now, the next generation is going to need massive reconstruction surgery just to be able to show their face in public without making babies cry and the dog run under the table.

[Hugh Conway]

^^^There is so much incest going on between Washington and Wall Street right now, the next generation is going to need massive reconstruction surgery just to be able to show their face in public without making babies cry and the dog run under the table.

You actually think the spend time with the little people?

[Crud's Uncle]

How about demanding the names of the counterparties before handing over a check? Unfortunately, the governement knows who they are bailing out, they don't want us to know.

[Hugh Conway]

How about demanding the names of the counterparties before handing over a check? Unfortunately, the governement knows who they are bailing out, they don't want us to know.

http://kara.allthingsd.com/files/2008/05/oz-wizard-behind-the-curtain-769602.jpg

[Benny Profane]

This is for all that are blaming this on some poor schmuck who borrowed his way into a way too expensive house.



A.I.G., Where Taxpayers’ Dollars Go to Die

By GRETCHEN MORGENSON
“DERIVATIVES are dangerous.”

That simple sentence, written by Warren Buffett, begins an enlightening discussion in Berkshire Hathaway’s most recent annual report. Mr. Buffett’s views on derivatives, gleaned from his own unhappy encounters with them, should be required reading for all United States taxpayers.

Why? Because we own almost 80 percent of the American International Group, the giant insurer whose collapse was a direct result of derivatives it sold during the late, great credit boom.

A.I.G. nearly barreled off the cliff last September, when it couldn’t meet its obligations to customers who had bought a version of derivatives called credit default swaps. Such swaps are like insurance policies; bondholders buy them to protect themselves from default on various forms of debt.

When A.I.G. couldn’t meet the wave of obligations it owed on the swaps last fall as Wall Street went into a tailspin, the Federal Reserve stepped in with an $85 billion loan to keep the hobbled insurer from going bankrupt; over all, the government has pledged a total of $160 billion to A.I.G. to help it meet its obligations and restructure operations.

So is A.I.G. the taxpayer gift that keeps on taking? Sure looks that way. And while no one can say with certainty whether more money will be needed, the sheer volume of derivatives engineered by a small London unit of A.I.G. suggests that taxpayers haven’t seen the bottom of this money pit.

Some $440 billion in credit default swaps sat on the company’s books before it collapsed. Its biggest customers, European banks and United States investment banks, bought the swaps to insure against defaults on a variety of debt holdings, including pools of mortgages and corporate loans.

Because of the way A.I.G. wrote its swaps, and because the company had a double-A credit rating at the time, it did not have to put up collateral to assure its customers that it would be able to pay on the insurance if necessary. Collateral would be required only if A.I.G.’s credit rating were cut or if the debt underlying the swaps declined.

Both of these “unthinkable” events occurred in 2008. Suddenly, A.I.G. had to cough up collateral it didn’t have.

SO, you see, the rescue of A.I.G. also involved a bailout of its many customers, none of whom the insurer or the government is willing to identify.

Nevertheless, Edward M. Liddy, the chief executive of A.I.G., explained to investors last week that “the vast majority” of taxpayer funds “have passed through A.I.G. to other financial institutions” as the company unwound deals with its customers.

On Wall Street, those customers are known as “counterparties,” and Mr. Liddy wouldn’t provide details on who the counterparties were or how much they received. But a person briefed on the deals said A.I.G.’s former customers include Goldman Sachs, Merrill Lynch and two large French banks, Société Générale and Calyon.

All the banks declined to comment.

How much money has gone to counterparties since the company’s collapse? The person briefed on the deals put the figure at around $50 billion.

Unfortunately, that is likely to rise.

According to its most recent financial statements, A.I.G. had $302 billion in credit insurance commitments at the end of 2008. Of course, the company is not going to have to make good on all that insurance: the underlying securities are not all going to zero.

But as the economy deteriorates, A.I.G.’s insurance bets certainly become more perilous. And because most of A.I.G.’s swaps are known as the “pay as you go type,” collateral must be supplied when the underlying debt declines in value. Swap arrangements made by other insurers require payments only if a default occurs.

So the meter is constantly running at A.I.G. Just as quickly as taxpayer funds flow into the firm, chunks of it go right out the door to settle derivatives claims.

A.I.G.’s insurance commitment stood at “only” $302 billion in part because the government has already voided $62 billion of the protection A.I.G. had written on pools of especially toxic securities. The underlying collateral on those contracts, valued at about $32 billion or so, now sits in a facility that the Federal Reserve Bank of New York oversees and which we, the taxpayers, own.

In order to rip up those contracts, the taxpayers had to make A.I.G.’s counterparties whole by buying the debt that A.I.G. had insured and paying out — in cash — the remaining amount owed to the counterparties.

Of the $302 billion in insurance outstanding at A.I.G., about $235 billion was sold to foreign banks and covers prime home mortgages and corporate loans. The banks that bought this insurance did so to reduce the money they must set aside for regulatory capital requirements.

A.I.G. also wrote $50 billion of insurance on pools of corporate loans. These contracts are performing O.K. for now, the company has said.

But there’s yet another complication that will probably force A.I.G. to cough up cash more quickly than it otherwise might have had to. That’s because it didn’t simply write insurance protection on debt; it also entered into yet another derivative contract — known as an interest rate swap — with counterparties buying the protection.

The reason A.I.G. entered into the second contract was that banks feared they were also exposed to interest rate risks on the loans bundled into debt pools. Presto! A.I.G. was happy to remove that risk by writing another complicated swap.

Now, however, A.I.G. not only has to meet collateral calls as the value of the debt it insured withers, but also has to post collateral related to the interest rate swaps.

Another troubling aspect of these deals is how long it takes to untangle them when they go awry. Back to Mr. Buffett’s recent shareholder letter: when Berkshire acquired the insurance company General Re in 1998, he wrote, General Re had 23,218 derivatives contracts that it had struck with 884 counterparties.

Mr. Buffett wanted out from under the contracts and he began unwinding them. “Though we were under no pressure and were operating in benign markets as we exited,” he said, “it took us five years and more than $400 million in losses to largely complete the task.”

When you look back with the benefit of hindsight, it is truly amazing how outsized A.I.G.’s insurance commitment was, at $440 billion. After all, in 2005, when A.I.G. put many of these swaps on its books, the market value of the entire company was around $200 billion.

That means the geniuses at A.I.G. who wrote the insurance were willing to bet more than double their company’s value that defaults would not become problematic.

That’s some throw of the dice. Too bad it came up snake eyes for taxpayers.

[Moeghoul]

Socialism for the rich; capitalism for the rest of us.

[Downbound Train]

Socialism for the rich; capitalism for the rest of us.

As the great liberal intellectual Bertrand Russell explained while scoffing at the idea that he would give his money to charity: "I'm afraid you've got it wrong. (We) are socialists. We don't pretend to be Christians."

[Rubicon]

...and if you think there isn't a corporate culture in each of these companies that encourages support of a certain candidate, you are high, or naive, or both.


So you[timvwcom] and DW contend that there's a difference between the people who run Wall Street writing a check on the corporate account, versus being paid $millions from the corporate account and writing a personal check for the same money?

That's so touchingly naive I don't know whether to laugh or cry.


"EXCLUSIVE: AIG chiefs pressed to donate to Dodd

As Democrats prepared to take control of Congress after the 2006 elections, a top boss at the insurance giant American International Group Inc. told colleagues that Sen. Christopher J. Dodd was seeking re-election donations and he implored company executives and their spouses to give."

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/mar/30/aig-chiefs-pressed-to-donate-to-dodd/

[Hugh Conway]

rubicon = republican Hercules

[uncle crud]

When you look back with the benefit of hindsight, it is truly amazing how outsized A.I.G.’s insurance commitment was, at $440 billion. After all, in 2005, when A.I.G. put many of these swaps on its books, the market value of the entire company was around $200 billion.

That means the geniuses at A.I.G. who wrote the insurance were willing to bet more than double their company’s value that defaults would not become problematic.

That’s some throw of the dice. Too bad it came up snake eyes for taxpayers.

It wasn't a gamble. AIG knew precisely how volatile those vehicles were.

Imagine the unimaginable. This was intentional. This is something other than what it appears to be.

Ask yourself -- what does AIG possess that would be valuable to people in power.

Ask yourself -- does the world's largest commercial liability insurer, insuring businesses around the world, businesses with huge operational portfolios... does such an insurer's underwriting process give it access to business secrets that would be valuable to a competitor?

Ask yourself -- as the biggest liability insurer on Earth, and one which insured the shell corporation fronts for the CIA's foreign "off the books" operations, would AIG have dirt on how the American Fed Govt does its dirty work under the radar?

Ask yourself.

[splat]

richalism

a system based on making sure the wealthiest stay that way at the expense of everyone else.

[uncle crud]

Because as usual you don't know what the fuck you're talking about. I've never heard any banker, in person or the press, refer to feeling institutionally pressured to make a donation to a candidate of either party. They talk politics to the extent that any group of people does, but no one is courting favor with their bosses by making contributions. It is possible that some of them see Obama as being more sound on the economy and donate accordingly.

Most of the investment types I've spoken with over the past few years recognize the Bush years to be the disaster that everyone else does, and don't want more of the same.

Disaster to whom?

Shareholders in, and directors and high-level employees of, the following firms did extraordinarily well under Bush/Cheney:

Halliburton/KBR
Aegis
DynCorp
Custer Battles
Blackwater

and then there's the obvious military hardware contractors

and the obvious military logistical and functional support contractors

and the construction contractors hired under the manifold KBR contracts

the oil people who are getting the Iraqi oil reserves under their own grubby paws' control, thanks to Iraq Study Group Report Recommendations 62 and 63

and Donald Rumsfeld's pals in the Big Pharma world, who got huge contracts for govt supply of Rx pharma especially psychoactives to battle victims

Anyone who fared poorly in the Bush/Cheney era did so out of ignorance. It was clear where Bush/Cheney were putting the federal spending dollar. Smart investment bankers would have followed the Bush/Cheney agenda closely. Those who didn't deserve to be gulled and gutted.

[OSECS]

Damn, This would make a great movie !!!

[Rubicon]

rubicon = republican Hercules

hugh conway = white noise

[Hugh Conway]

hugh conway = white noise

are you so fucking retarded you think anyone gives a shit what you think? you cut and paste talking points. you are a talking head. stfu and ski or something

[Rubicon]

are you so fucking retarded you think anyone gives a shit what you think?

You apparently do because you keep commenting on it.



you cut and paste talking points.

It must be a bitch when the people you don't like use facts as their talking points.[/prick]



Do you have any opinions of your own? You are obviously interested in the topics in this forum. You come here, open the threads and read the posts. Why don't you join in the discussions?

[Smokey McPole]

are you so fucking retarded you think anyone gives a shit what you think? you cut and paste talking points. you are a talking head. stfu and ski or something

Just one question - has Rubi ever had to change his screen name because he was such a pompous douchebag?

Really ceej - back away from yourself just a tad.

[Adolf Allerbush]

Just one question - has Rubi ever had to change his screen name because he was such a pompous douchebag?

Pot kettle black

[Smokey McPole]

Pot kettle black

Big difference - I have three different references to Smokey McPole actually being Jer. I had no idea Hugh was CJ until I connected the douche-dots after a few months.

Plus, I'm not actually a "pompous douchebag". I'm much more of a "jackass douchebag".

[OSECS]

Plus, I'm not actually a "pompous douchebag". I'm much more of a "jackass douchebag".

So you've got that goin' for ya' !! ;)

[Smokey McPole]

Which is nice.

[Adolf Allerbush]

Which is nice.

You jackass douchebag.

[Hugh Conway]

I had no idea Hugh was CJ until I connected the douche-dots after a few months.

I had no idea you cared!

If I gave a shit I would have emailed the suit or retreived my lost password. this place wasn't worth that effort :rolleyes:

[Tippster]

Just one question - has Rubi ever had to change his screen name because he was such a pompous douchebag?

I wouldn't say that was the cause, but there must've been some reason for changing his username, just like CJ/Hugh did.

[Smokey McPole]

Wait - Rubi used to be somebody else???

Man - people really need to put more clues in their sig or location or title. This place is waaayyy too confusifying.

[Hugh Conway]

This place is waaayyy too confusifying.

YOU ARE GAY!

[mock vomit]

Heh... Looking like the AIG mess might have some big time Bush Administration connections. Republicans are crapping themselves trying to keep the prior CEO Greenberg from talking to Congress. Seems that there was a Bush Administration lacky at all the AIG meetings starting back in 2004? Could be some interesting news on this tomorrow.

[Rubicon]

Heh... Looking like the AIG mess might have some big time Bush Administration connections. Republicans are crapping themselves trying to keep the prior CEO Greenberg from talking to Congress. Seems that there was a Bush Administration lacky at all the AIG meetings starting back in 2004? Could be some interesting news on this tomorrow.

Well they have to do something to take the heat off of Dodd. I mean the heat that guy is feeling from the media has got to be unbearable.

[splat]

The thought that we, the sheeple, own AIG is so ludicrous. The fukking corp was rescued by a Federal Reserve loan wasn't it? If so, then that just means the private company that prints dollars just printed more dollars out of thin air and will get the interest on the loan from who????????
You. And the next 20 generations of your blood.
What's the interest on $13 trillion?
That's $13 trillion on top of the national debt we couldn't pay the interest on.

Who gets the interest?
The richest motherfuckers in the world who have now systematically enslaved everyone.
Interest on money created from paper.

[Benny Profane]

It wasn't a gamble. AIG knew precisely how volatile those vehicles were.



I understand your paranoia, the conspiracy theory angle you're pushing, but, dude, you have way too much faith in the smarts and abilities of the people who run large multinational corporations. "AIG" was a massive thing (still is, for now), and, I'll bet that when the history of all this is written, a common refrain will be "I didn't have a clue what was going on in that darn derivative room, but, damn, they made me a shitload of money. A shitload!" Fuld and Weill have already said as much. I really doubt they could understand it all if you sat them down daily for two weeks and explained it to them. Christ, both Greenspan and Buffet have admitted they didn't understand them. Those two guys are real smart.

The bottom line for those guys was a sweet little quarterly report and obscene year end bonuses. The Hell with anything or anybody else. Oh, and maybe their eighth home they were building designed by Gehry up on that mountain somewhere........

[Stu Gotz]

JnX-D4kkPOQ

[Benny Profane]

holy crap, WTF! "IF you love America, you throw money in it's hole!"