Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The real AIG rip-off (in case you don't know)
3 21 2009 | vanity

Posted on 03/21/2009 3:16:16 AM PDT by dennisw

We are really bailing out Goldman Sachs, Merrill Lynch, UBS, Deutsche Bank etc etc with tens of billions of taxpayers dollars
AIG is simply the intermediary through which these thieves are being made whole on idiotic gambles

I despise the AIG bonuses but this is a smokescreen covering up the real crime which is Goldman Sachs getting 10 billion dollars of bailout direct through the AIG bailout.

And not just GS but European banks and other parties totaling 60 billion dollars who got bail out money via AIG. Because they bought credit default swaps from AIG. How is it the taxpayers problem that these "geniuses" bought credit default swaps from AIG?

http://www.slate.com/id/2213942/

Everybody is rushing to condemn AIG's bonuses, but this simple scandal is obscuring the real disgrace at the insurance giant: Why are AIG's counterparties getting paid back in full, to the tune of tens of billions of taxpayer dollars?

For the answer to this question, we need to go back to the very first decision to bail out AIG, made, we are told, by then-Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, then-New York Fed official Timothy Geithner, Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein, and Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke last fall. Post-Lehman's collapse, they feared a systemic failure could be triggered by AIG's inability to pay the counterparties to all the sophisticated instruments AIG had sold. And who were AIG's trading partners? No shock here: Goldman, Bank of America, Merrill Lynch, UBS, JPMorgan Chase, Morgan Stanley, Deutsche Bank, Barclays, and on it goes. So now we know for sure what we already surmised: The AIG bailout has been a way to hide an enormous second round of cash to the same group that had received TARP money already.

It all appears, once again, to be the same insiders protecting themselves against sharing the pain and risk of their own bad adventure. The payments to AIG's counterparties are justified with an appeal to the sanctity of contract. If AIG's contracts turned out to be shaky, the theory goes, then the whole edifice of the financial system would collapse.

 

AIG bailout: plunder by the plutocracy
Posted: March 19, 2009, 9:00 AM by Diane Francis

The controversy over the US$180-billion bailout of AIG is over the fact that it includes US$165 million in bonuses to the traders who brought it to the brink. But that is only the tip of the iceberg.
What is scandalous is only not the US$165 million. It’s the US$180 billion which has been shoveled into AIG by taxpayers to date, funds which have mostly gone toward paying off AIG’s creditors, or counterparties. These include banks, brokers, pension funds and other gamblers who paid premiums to AIG in order to insure the value of their bond portfolios against calamitous losses.
I agree these counterparties must get something in order to prevent a disastrous cascade-effect, but they should, like AIG employees, be forced to take dramatic haircuts. This is what Washington has forced autoworkers and others to do. This is what the world has had to do.



TOPICS: Business/Economy; News/Current Events; Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS: aig

1 posted on 03/21/2009 3:16:16 AM PDT by dennisw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: dennisw
You got it, pretty much "Bingo," amigo.

So, just how do we impeach Congress?

2 posted on 03/21/2009 3:20:08 AM PDT by Prospero (non est ad astra mollis e terris via)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dennisw
the real crime which is Goldman Sachs getting 10 billion dollars

If I filed an insurance claim against an insured legitimate loss, I'd expect to be paid.

AIG should not have been bailed out in the first place.

Nobody should have.
3 posted on 03/21/2009 3:20:14 AM PDT by HEY4QDEMS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dennisw

Elections have consequences....


4 posted on 03/21/2009 3:20:16 AM PDT by BigMacGOP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dennisw

Warren Buffet (or rather Berkshire Hathaway) gets practically every penny of that 10 billion.


5 posted on 03/21/2009 3:31:11 AM PDT by agere_contra (So ... where's the birth certificate?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dennisw

Well done.

It’s pretty plain to me that things have gone horribly wrong and there is no way to put it back in the bottle.

Are they even trying to do the math? Is there some grand equation that assures the people in charge that anything they try will work? It appears to me that there are a lot of people padding their personal balance sheet ahead of an unmitigated disaster. But that would make me a cynic, wouldn’t it?


6 posted on 03/21/2009 3:31:14 AM PDT by Glenn (Free Venezuela!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: agere_contra
That is what I have been asking for two days now. Did not Warren Buffett sits in with with Paulson and Geithner in the early going?

What did he know and when did he know it?


7 posted on 03/21/2009 3:41:27 AM PDT by nathanbedford ("Attack, repeat attack!" Bull Halsey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: HEY4QDEMS
the real crime which is Goldman Sachs getting 10 billion dollars

If I filed an insurance claim against an insured legitimate loss, I'd expect to be paid.

If my house burns down and my insurer goes bankrupt three days later I'm not getting any money

Goldman Sachs and other parties knew all about AIGs notorious credit default swap division in London England and that AIG was issuing insurance (these swaps) they could not cover

8 posted on 03/21/2009 3:41:41 AM PDT by dennisw (0bomo the subprime president)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: nathanbedford

That is what I have been asking for two days now. Did not Warren Buffett sits in with with Paulson and Geithner in the early going?..........

Warren Buffet has a hobby of insurance and risk. Berkshire Hath owns General Re.

Believe it or not last year Florida took out hurricane insurance direct from Berkshire Hathaway for 200 million or so. There were no hurricanes so Warren came out good on that bet


9 posted on 03/21/2009 3:44:51 AM PDT by dennisw (0bomo the subprime president)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: dennisw
be paid. If my house burns down and my insurer goes bankrupt three days later I'm not getting any money

That is correct, but if the government gave the insurance company a bailout to continue operating as an insurer, you will get your money. That was the purpose of the bailout to begin with, to cover claims.

Had AIG not been bailed out as they shouldn't have been, GS and the other policy holders would not be collecting anything.
10 posted on 03/21/2009 3:58:11 AM PDT by HEY4QDEMS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: dennisw

“If my house burns down and my insurer goes bankrupt three days later I’m not getting any money

Goldman Sachs and other parties knew all about AIGs notorious credit default swap division in London England and that AIG was issuing insurance (these swaps) they could not cover.”

Precisely, d!

What all this demonstrates is that the system has been run, whether by Rs or Ds, for and by the plutocrats. In the meantime we’re all suckered by the politicians and exploding heads of the talk, print and TV media who work for or actually are them!


11 posted on 03/21/2009 4:01:53 AM PDT by Kolokotronis (Christ is Risen, and you, o death, are annihilated!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Kolokotronis

THIS IS CRIMINAL! CLEAN HOUSE AND SENATE IN 2010!


12 posted on 03/21/2009 4:03:32 AM PDT by ronnie raygun (LONG LIVE THE REPUBLIC!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: dennisw

BTW, I just read your same post on bostonherald.com.


13 posted on 03/21/2009 4:04:06 AM PDT by HEY4QDEMS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: HEY4QDEMS

BTW, I just read your same post on bostonherald.com.......

How so? I only posted here


14 posted on 03/21/2009 4:06:44 AM PDT by dennisw (0bomo the subprime president)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: HEY4QDEMS
“That was the purpose of the bailout to begin with, to cover claims.”
Partly true. But the part that is lie is that the whole bailout process is unconstitutional and grossly immoral.
While the AIG bonus payments are only a tiny fraction of the pie, the whole pie is not the responsibility of the U.S. taxpayer. AIG issued insurance on shaky debts fraudulently packaged and sold at inflated risk ratings. AIG’s insurance wasn't guaranteed by the U.S. government at the time it was sold, and the whole “too big to let fail” argument is a scam from Congress Critters plundering any pretense of wealth they can pry out of our nation. The whole purpose is to line the pockets of “fat cats” so they can continue to line the pockets of politicians. Government caused the crisis, government is stealing from us using the crisis as the excuse, and government is ignoring the will of the people in the process. It's time to demand the resignations of not only Obama, but the entire Congress.
15 posted on 03/21/2009 4:18:46 AM PDT by bitterohiogunclinger (America held hostage - day 156)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: dennisw
You posted this as a vanity.

If it wasn't you, then you are a plagiarist.

From the Herald comments:

Bumbling Barney, Obambi, Chris Dodd and the rest of Congress are putting on these fakey fake outrages because they don't want you to know about this................................ We are really bailing out Goldman Sachs, Merrill Lynch, UBS, Deutsche Bank etc etc with tens of billions of taxpayers dollars AIG is simply the intermediary through which these thieves are being made whole on idiotic gambles ................................... I despise the AIG bonuses but this is a smokescreen covering up the real crime which is Goldman Sachs getting 10 billion dollars of bailout direct through the AIG bailout. .................................... And not just GS but European banks and other parties totaling 60 billion dollars who got bail out money via AIG. Because they bought credit default swaps from AIG. How is it the taxpayers problem that these "geniuses" bought credit default swaps from AIG? ................

Sound familiar?

Link: the Boston Herald
16 posted on 03/21/2009 4:19:53 AM PDT by HEY4QDEMS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: dennisw

That depends on whether you want AIG to survive as a going concern or whether you are liquidating it. By forcing it to break its insurance contracts with the trading partners, you would in effect be slitting its throat. As to whether that would be better, I can’t really say because I’m not that savvy in exotic financial instruments but at least someone said AIG “was too big to fail”. This is how I understand the situation:

If AIG is the major player in the investment insurance game, then perhaps it is too big to fail. In other words, if AIG goes, the willingness of trading partners to purchase U.S. financial instruments may significantly lessen. If it lessens, then banks and other financial organizations will have less market for their riskier instruments and must alter their current operating rules on liquidity and risk in the first place, which means less money to loan out to businesses and individuals. This, in turn, means stagnation at every level of the economy. In other words, the whole system is a house of cards threatening to collapse at any point.

Now, it is easy to point at AIG and other financial instrument marketers to say they took too many risks in the first place. Perhaps. But you have to go back to political correctness, affirmative action and Clinton to see how its insistence that every person be given a loan, regardless of how creditworthy, created an intolerable lack of security and income for the banks forced into making these loans. Financial institutions came to the banks’ rescue by bundling lots of loans—some good, some bad—into negotiable paper which could be sold to other investors and thus restore banks’ liquidity. The problem was when the investors went to purchase the negotiable instruments, they had no way of investigating the level of risk they were undertaking because the loans and their probability of default were no longer traceable due to the bundling. Thus, before agreeing to purchase these instruments, the investors wanted some type of insurance on their risk. This is where I think AIG came in. It was to cover losses by those defaults as they trickled in over the years.

Now go back to last summer when gas prices, loud-mouthed politicians and other factors touched off a slew of defaults and threats of defaults. What was supposed to be a slow, steady stream of defaults became a torrent and as the strain grew on AIG and others, the investors began getting nervous. The market fell for these bundled mortgages and banks got strained. Insurance companies make their money by assessing the normal risks of whatever they are insuring and maintain enough liquidity to handle those normal risks. The run on AIG was far beyond normal.

So now AIG gets bailout money and it pays its insurance contract liabilities to the big banks. Why? There may be some nepotism there but I also suspect it is because these are the big buyers of risky U.S. instruments and if that market completely collapses, so does our economy. Government should at this point find a way to get rid of the community reinvestment act (which forces banks to loan money to unacceptable risks) and other things which defy natural economic rules and ease everyone back to the real world. But that is not what the Obama Administration is doing. If anything, it is further eroding confidence in U.S. debt instruments by fueling inflation and pushing even more regulation to benefit bad risks.

So, while you are right to be angry, I’m not sure either AIG or its trading partners are the proper target. Sure, there was a lot of money made there and it seems like the fatcats are getting away with it again, but if the fatcats go away and invest in, say, China or Russian or Singapore, you and I are in a world of hurt far beyond this bailout. The liquidity simply won’t be there for cars, mortgages, capital improvements, business expansion, education grants, and people won’t be able to buy our homes at even the price we paid for them, let alone a profit. It isn’t fair but once the government started distorting the credit market, it was all pretty predictable.

One of the problems with a notion of American exceptionalism is that it often goes beyond the idea that we have a destiny as a city on a hill. Some believe that we don’t have to follow normal rules in economy and that we can, by virtue of our exceptionalism, try the same idiotic socialist tactics that have sunk other countries without failing ourselves. We deal a lot in fantasies nowadays: Look at American Idol, at legal fictions like two daddies, unborn baby not human, men and women identical and so forth. We as a society are divorcing ourselves from reality and American economics is no different.

Now I’m sure I have not adequately stated the situation. As I wrote above, I’m no financial expert but it seems to me that the problems are so systemic that no one party or groups of parties to this house of cards bears the full blame. We certainly should resist demonizing a middleman, especially if that middleman is vital to our continued viability as a nation. We can start by demanding Congress get itself out of the social engineering by financial fiat business. The people thinking up these social engineering ideas are the ones getting caught now cheating on their taxes, abusing privileges, lying through their teeth, and pointing fingers at anyone but themselves. Most businesses don’t trust incompetents to handle their finances and we taxpayers need to do the same. We need to find ways to get Congress out of the business of micromanaging the country, of meddling everywhere and of confiscating taxpayer funds to further their personal agenda instead of the nation’s. I’m hoping we can do this without calling a Constitutional Cenvention but even that may be necessary to rein in this profligate Congress with our all-too-willing president. We need to sue and sue again to define Congressional authority. We need to find ways to impose term limits on those professional politicians who brought us this mess. We need to find ways to make Congressmen and Senators answerable to the nation as a whole rather than to their specific constituents. The political system is broken right now because the Founding Fathers envisioned an educated, honorable electorate choosing its best people from among them to hold office for a limited period while taking a break from their “real careers”. We have strayed so far from that standard that the trust given to Congress is no longer warranted. Now we have elections of media creatures fueled by millions of special interest dollars with little or no accountability to the people as a whole.

What can we do to control this behemoth? A lot probably. We can hold politicians’ feet to the fire. We can use the internet to expose hypocrisy and corruption. The President is writing a book for kids. We can write books for kids. We can counter bad education with good education at home and in the public fora. We can stop being cowed into silence by the liberal furies. We can speak of our faith in the country, its people and God at every opportunity we can. We can, perhaps, hold hearings in the form of forums or panel discussions on the behavior of our politicians. We can write letters to the editor, have our own pithy bumper stickers which teach more than insult. We can educate ourselves about the values that make this country work. We can find and fund true conservative voices willing to speak out and create organizations to help them move further to the right like MoveOn.org is doing to move Dems to the left. There’s lot to do and it will take a long time but it might come faster as more Dem chickens come home to roost and we help the public see they are Dem chickens. The next election isn’t far away and we can help people see the Dem complicity in all this between now and then.

Okay, rant off. I must get a little more sleep before the usual Saturday marathon begins or this normally sane person might blow a fuse. Sitting on my desk here at home right now is a WW2 Japanese bomb detonator. My nerdy husband found it this week at a secondhand electronics joint and thought it would make a nice decoration or paperweight. I’m going to use it to help remind me that getting mad and blowing up isn’t very constructive. ;o)


17 posted on 03/21/2009 4:21:56 AM PDT by caseinpoint (Don't get thickly involved in thin things)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bitterohiogunclinger
AIG’s insurance wasn't guaranteed by the U.S. government at the time it was sold, and the whole “too big to let fail” argument is a scam

My point exactly. AIG should have been left to fail.
18 posted on 03/21/2009 4:22:40 AM PDT by HEY4QDEMS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Prospero
What is so depressing is that even the "good guys" voted for this Hugo Chavez-style junk. Even Eric Cantor and Rob Wittman. It is an "Et Tu, Brute" moment.

Even if the punitive surcharge would be allowed to stand based on a tradition of judicial deference to Congress on tax matters, it is clearly in the nature and the spirit of a bill of attainder. Just listen to the demogagues talking about it. It may as well be the French Revolution.

One of the most important themes I picked up in law school is that American judges can look past the names people give things and perceive what they really are (when they choose to do so). Whether this is a Bill of Attainder, it is exactly the sort of thing the clause about Bills of Attainder and Ex Post Facto laws was intended to prohibit. The founders probably never imagined that we would have an income tax that would provide an umbrella for this kind of punitive seizure from a small and well defined class of targets.

19 posted on 03/21/2009 4:26:20 AM PDT by Montfort
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: dennisw

include banks, brokers, pension funds and other gamblers who paid premiums to AIG in order to insure the value of their bond portfolios against calamitous losses.

.
If the ‘bond portfolios’ were such a big risk, banks, brokers, pension funds should have stayed out of them.


20 posted on 03/21/2009 4:38:55 AM PDT by Son House (National Disasters Will Be Devastating Since Mr. Ă˜bama's Spending Will Erode First Response Funding)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Son House
If the ‘bond portfolios’ were such a big risk, banks, brokers, pension funds should have stayed out of them.

True but at the very least, AIG should not have insured them for the very same reason.
21 posted on 03/21/2009 4:55:30 AM PDT by HEY4QDEMS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: dennisw

Goldman Sachs is bailing itself out. All the finance men in the government are/were Goldman Sachs people.


22 posted on 03/21/2009 5:39:03 AM PDT by arthurus ( H.L. Mencken said, "Every election is a sort of advance auction sale of stolen goods.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: caseinpoint; dennisw
So now AIG gets bailout money and it pays its insurance contract liabilities to the big banks. Why? There may be some nepotism there but I also suspect it is because these are the big buyers of risky U.S. instruments and if that market completely collapses, so does our economy.

"Too big to fail" means that small investors and taxpayers fail. I personally will never again buy any stock, because Warren Buffet is going to win and I am going to lose, thanks to "our" government.

People who own small businesses won't be bailed out. If they fail, they fail. Knowing that the casino is crooked, who wants to play?

Does anybody really know where all the AIG money goes?

23 posted on 03/21/2009 6:00:35 AM PDT by ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas (I want to "Buy American" but the only things for sale made in the USA are politicians)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: HEY4QDEMS

THANKS!LOL LOL

That was not posted by me at the Boston Herald. But someone (not me) copied and pasted it there 10 minutes after I posted my vanity at Free Republic. If it was me I would say so.


24 posted on 03/21/2009 6:21:10 AM PDT by dennisw (0bomo the subprime president)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas
"Too big to fail" means that small investors and taxpayers fail. I personally will never again buy any stock, because Warren Buffet is going to win and I am going to lose, thanks to "our" government.

Wait  a minute!
Warren Buffet is also flummoxed by this market and crisis.
Berkshire Hathaway is down 34%

25 posted on 03/21/2009 6:23:23 AM PDT by dennisw (0bomo the subprime president)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: dennisw
Link: Warren Buffett stake in Goldman Sachs earns $783 million return
26 posted on 03/21/2009 6:34:38 AM PDT by ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas (I want to "Buy American" but the only things for sale made in the USA are politicians)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: caseinpoint

Maybe they are too big to fail and maybe they aren’t. More and more these bailout look like one big scam to get more billions more dollars into the hands of those who created this mess. And I don’t mean bonuses. They are a small part

My bet is their failure will not drag down the financial system. If you asked me two months ago I thought the opposite.

Goldman gets 10 billion more dollars for free. Warren Buffet lent them 10 billion at high interest rate for ten years. But the AIG money that Goldman got was FREE MONEY from you and me and the taxpayers and our grandchildren who will be saddled with these mega-debts!

You (taxpayers) are not bailing out AIG. You are bailing the uber wealthy scum of Wall Street and European banks who loaded up on AIG credit default swaps......

Which contrary to what you wrote have very little to do with foolish government policies except that derivatives need to be regulated and traded in transparent markets


27 posted on 03/21/2009 6:35:10 AM PDT by dennisw (0bomo the subprime president)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas

Warren Buffet loaned Goldman Sachs 10 billion at very good rate for Berkshire Hathaway


28 posted on 03/21/2009 6:38:00 AM PDT by dennisw (0bomo the subprime president)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Prospero

But why did they have to do these insruments in the First Place? That is what I would like to Know . Were they doing it to insure themselves against losses from Mortgages forced on them from Govenment Policy? Community investment act and so on?


29 posted on 03/21/2009 6:41:02 AM PDT by ballplayer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Prospero

But why did they have to do these insruments in the First Place? That is what I would like to Know . Were they doing it to insure themselves against losses from Mortgages forced on them from Govenment Policy? Community investment act and so on?


30 posted on 03/21/2009 6:41:21 AM PDT by ballplayer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas

“Does anybody really know where all the AIG money goes?”

I doubt it. And it is an important point from another poster that by funneling the money through AIG, AIG gets restrictions put on itself but the final recipient has no accountability at all to us. It is curious that Congress feels it should micro-manage the American society but this bill basically gave carte blanc to AIG.


31 posted on 03/21/2009 9:30:44 AM PDT by caseinpoint (Don't get thickly involved in thin things)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: caseinpoint; dennisw

I agree with you that AIG should not have been bailed out in the first place, at least not the way it happened. Wouldn’t bankruptcy forced AIG to prove exactly what money they owed to whom? If that had happened, there would be time to consider how urgent it was to give AIG billions. The way it happened, Paulson went to the senate and said, “Give me $700B now, and just trust me.... or else!” And a solid majority from both parties did what he said.

And AFAIK, we still don’t know how much AIG is going to owe.

BTW, as I understand it, Obama’s deficit estimates assume that they recover 100% of the bailout money (TARP + other payments from the treasury). I don’t know if they are stupid or dishonest, or both.


32 posted on 03/21/2009 10:29:41 AM PDT by ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas (I want to "Buy American" but the only things for sale made in the USA are politicians)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas
I agree with you that AIG should not have been bailed out in the first place, at least not the way it happened. Wouldn’t bankruptcy forced AIG to prove exactly what money they owed to whom?

Exactly! We have a good list now months after the fact but only after public pressure and some leaking of info. For example Goldman Sachs was made 100% whole on about 12 billion in credit default swaps it took out from AIG. In an AIG bankruptcy Goldman Sachs would have gotten only partial restitution. Say 40%

 If that had happened, there would be time to consider how urgent it was to give AIG billions. The way it happened, Paulson went to the senate and said, “Give me $700B now, and just trust me.... or else!” And a solid majority from both parties did what he said.

Paulson the ex-GS chairman stampeded everyone. It was half scam and half real

33 posted on 03/21/2009 11:47:08 AM PDT by dennisw (0bomo the subprime president)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: agere_contra
Buffet got a tax break worth billions from Paulson, as a favor for Wells Fargo taking Wachovia.

Buffet is the largest shareholder in Moody's, which knowingly aided and abetted the ratings fraud that underpinned the entire structured finance debacle.

Buffet shorted puts on global stocks, and would undoubtedly be nearly insolvent, if he was forced to mark his position to market and post collateral as folks do on the exchanges.

Buffet has an enormous stake in the Washington Post, so he ONLY gets favorable press coverage.

These are all indisputable facts.

34 posted on 03/21/2009 11:47:10 AM PDT by NativeNewYorker (Freepin' Jew Boy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Prospero
So, just how do we impeach Congress?

It can easily be done come November 2010 ... oust each and every one of them.

35 posted on 03/21/2009 11:51:18 AM PDT by TheRightGuy (I want MY BAILOUT ... a billion or two should do!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas

I think this Administration has demonstrated it can multitask: it’s both stupid and dishonest, though not necessarily within the same member of the Administration.


36 posted on 03/21/2009 12:03:00 PM PDT by caseinpoint (Don't get thickly involved in thin things)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: caseinpoint

I didn’t like the previous administration’s economic team either. I took all my money out of the stock market 4 years ago, and I don’t plan on getting back in unless they (free market and gov.) can convince me that the game is not fixed.


37 posted on 03/21/2009 5:07:14 PM PDT by ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas (I want to "Buy American" but the only things for sale made in the USA are politicians)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas

You know, it’s probably a smart move right now. Invest in something you can use, if necessary, to survive or sell because it is a necessity for others. Obama is swiftly destroying both the stock market and the currency market so we’d better have things we can eat, wear or use to protect ourselves.


38 posted on 03/21/2009 5:12:53 PM PDT by caseinpoint (Don't get thickly involved in thin things)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: caseinpoint

Thanks, sounds good to me.


39 posted on 03/21/2009 5:51:41 PM PDT by ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas (I want to "Buy American" but the only things for sale made in the USA are politicians)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson