AIG & Government Bail Outs

[sidewinder101]

Folks I would like to here what you think about our lame duck congress bailing out all these Banks and AIG while at the same time they are Denying Veterans the care they need and what they owe them. When I retired from the AF in 05 and began collecting VA disability the government stopped paying my military retirement check Why because I did not serve 20 years of service (only 18 years 9 months and six days of active service) because of government laws I am not allowed to double dip and be paid my retirement pension. I can only collect a VA disability pension. Social security is also in jeopardy, Oh but we can bail out AIG and Citgroup and Chase etc and they can double dip and rip us off something’s got to stop so what do you think about it. If there is a thread already started on this please advise me.

 

[assholebythedoor]

They are running on a reliable basis. And that also has corruption on it. People get to sit back and do what they feel is neccisary. when what they feel is completely eurpt and is avoiding the subject manner. How ever they say it. I think, it hould of been taking care of when it first happen. If people cannot spot an terrorist. How can ever spot corruption.

 

[sidewinder101]

Very true.

 

[mrflexxx]

Folks I would like to here what you think about our lame duck congress bailing out all these Banks and AIG while at the same time they are Denying Veterans the care they need and what they owe them. When I retired from the AF in 05 and began collecting VA disability the government stopped paying my military retirement check Why because I did not serve 20 years of service (only 18 years 9 months and six days of active service) because of government laws I am not allowed to double dip and be paid my retirement pension. I can only collect a VA disability pension. Social security is also in jeopardy, Oh but we can bail out AIG and Citgroup and Chase etc and they can double dip and rip us off something’s got to stop so what do you think about it. If there is a thread already started on this please advise me.

I agree that the manner in which our veterans are treated is absolutely deplorable, and it's sad it has not become more of an issue in the public spotlight, the media has completely dropped the ball here.
As for the bailouts to AIG and the release of bonuses to their staff, nothing can be done because AIG wrote those "contracts" for their staff BEFORE the bailout. So the money(130 million) is on the tax payer. It's too bad they are not required to release the names of those who received the bonuses,perhaps if they were released public pressure may have lead them to return a portion of the money. The argument from AIG is that they have to pay big bonuses to their exec's or they will leave the company, its how the keep "the best and brightest" working at AIG. The funny things is that these are the same geniuses who drove the company into the ground,so i am confused.

 

[sidewinder101]

I totaly agree. Thanks

 

[Facetious]

I think that it's a crafty way for the government and their wall street buddies to wipeout the treasury and create perpetual debt for the U.S. taxpayer. People forget that these so called bailout expenditures will have to be paid via future increased tax rates.

Why in the hell won't Bernanke tell us where the fucking money is going ? Where is it being allocated, into their individual offshore accounts ? They won't tell us, therefor, it leaves us much to wonder.
In the end, every one of these "too big to fail" entities will ultimately end up as they would have had they not been bailed out, BANKRUPT, assets divided up and scaled down as they should have been long ago.

I thought that it was government business to prevent the formation of monopolies ? Chris Cox, former SEC chair should be indicted at once ! Why is there even an office of the SEC ? It's an absentee office. For why didn't the SEC snag Berny "Made - off" ten - fifteen years ago ?
This bureaucracy is like the government building a bunch of firehouses and Police stations and never staffing them ! :dunno:

Enemies from within :crash:

and then on 60 Minutes tonight, Bernanke says, during the interview, something to the effect of "The good times are over so get used to it".

I better go, I'm getting Pissed ! REAL PISSED !:flame:

Wait !

I can only collect a VA disability pension. Social security is also in jeopardy, Oh but we can bail out AIG and Citgroup and Chase etc and they can double dip and rip us off . . ]

and the government hast temerity to prosecute berny madeoff for running a ponzi scheme :wtf:

That's exactly what Medicare, social security is ! Theres no savings account ! all of the money that the people pay into the system today is spent tomorrow !

 

[calpoon]

What does this have to do with the Terminator? I'm really stumped on that one.

 

[assholebythedoor]

mind your own bussiness

 

[Facetious]

Thanks for your service to this nation to each and all that it may concern. :hatsoff:
I regret not saying it in the beginning. :o

Calps - I think that author gave us some much needed relief in the form of natural visual human female curvature, as we tally up the world's biggest bank heist in modern history.

 

[daddysal]

You know, I don't understand why we have bailouts!!???

I mean businesses fail, it's a fact of life!!
We're not gonna go bailout a mom-n-pop store are we?!?

 

[Roughneck]

We're not gonna go bailout a mom-n-pop store are we?!?

If this keeps up, we just might...

I wish more people read the "Parable of the Broken Window".

Bastiat's original parable of the broken window went like this:

Have you ever witnessed the anger of the good shopkeeper, James Goodfellow, when his careless son happened to break a pane of glass? If you have been present at such a scene, you will most assuredly bear witness to the fact, that every one of the spectators, were there even thirty of them, by common consent apparently, offered the unfortunate owner this invariable consolation—"It is an ill wind that blows nobody good. Everybody must live, and what would become of the glaziers if panes of glass were never broken?"

Now, this form of condolence contains an entire theory, which it will be well to show up in this simple case, seeing that it is precisely the same as that which, unhappily, regulates the greater part of our economical institutions.

Suppose it cost six francs to repair the damage, and you say that the accident brings six francs to the glazier's trade—that it encourages that trade to the amount of six francs—I grant it; I have not a word to say against it; you reason justly. The glazier comes, performs his task, receives his six francs, rubs his hands, and, in his heart, blesses the careless child. All this is that which is seen.

But if, on the other hand, you come to the conclusion, as is too often the case, that it is a good thing to break windows, that it causes money to circulate, and that the encouragement of industry in general will be the result of it, you will oblige me to call out, "Stop there! Your theory is confined to that which is seen; it takes no account of that which is not seen."

It is not seen that as our shopkeeper has spent six francs upon one thing, he cannot spend them upon another. It is not seen that if he had not had a window to replace, he would, perhaps, have replaced his old shoes, or added another book to his library. In short, he would have employed his six francs in some way, which this accident has prevented.

To wit:

* If "spending our way to prosperity worked" (just listen to some folks who claim 'war is good for the economy'); then why the hell don't we carpet bomb a US city each week? Surely the 'boom' fueled by the 'need' for the added construction projects (workers, materials etc.) should boost the economy, right? Not to mention that those workers who make/supply the bombs/airplanes/etc. would benefit because they'd have continuous source of income!

I mean, just think of 9/11. Wasn't it a great boon for us? All that destroyed property that needed to be rebuilt - worked out great for many industries!!

Oh wait! I wasn't the only one speaking of it. The current Messiah of Economics, His Excellency High Priest of Keynes Paul Krugman himself said:

"Ghastly as it may seem to say this, the terror attack—like the original "day of infamy" which brought an end to the Great Depression—could even do some economic good. [...] the driving force behind the economic slowdown has been a plunge in business investment. Now, all of a sudden, we need some new office buildings. As I've already indicated, the destruction isn't big compared with the economy, but rebuilding will generate at least some increase in business spending."

I like how Krugman blatantly lies by saying that WWII saved us from the Great Depression. If increased spending during WWII did 'save us' from the "Great Depression" - then why didn't we fall back into another depression once we cut back spending in 1946 and the following post war years?

In fact, it was the drastic cut in taxes AND spending that fueled the restoration of the economy.

* If "spending our way to prosperity worked" - why bother saving money at all? If everything ran on credit, then it only matters how well you manage your debt. Screw savings! What are you? "Old fashioned"?

* If "printing money to solve out problems worked" - why bother working at all? Just have the government print your salary and have it delivered to your doorstep - so that you can go out and "spend it to help the economy". I mean, after all - "spending" is what drives the economy, not "savings"... right?

I don't know who the idiots were who were blaming "free markets" or "capitalism" for our current woes - but they are woefully inaccurate.

The easiest defense I can provide against those who insist that the US is a 'free market economy' is the very existence of the "Federal Reserve" (and lest you be fooled by it's name - it is NOT an entity of the government). In an 'free market' - artificial entities don't get to regulate the monetary supply and interest rates (in other words - they don't get to regulate money and credit).

NONE of the critics of "the free market" question Alan Greenspan lowering interest rates to near ZERO post 9/11. The US was already reeling from the dot.com bust (which was brought about by the FedReserve but different day, different thread) at that point. Now put your common sense to use --- if you were a home owner in winter (for example) and your car was already on the fritz. Now your furnace starts to act strange. You now have two 'crises' on hand - your car and your furnace.

1. Would you rather: cut other household expenses/try to save money/earn more so that you can fix your car and furnace

OR

2. Spend money the way you always have and infact, borrow/spend more because interest rates are low?

If you chose 1 or 2, please tell me why...

cheers,

 

[Roughneck]

An addendum to my earlier post:

"Capitalism" denotes "capital".

"Capital" comes from savings.

Even if one were to 'borrow' "capital" (such as when you're applying for a car loan or a home loan) - that amount that you're 'borrowing' has to come from "somewhere". 'The Bank' (or 'Mortgage company" or whoever) is able to "lend" you the money because other folks have SAVINGS with the bank/institution.

SAVINGS come from productive work - i.e. You earned $200 instead of $100 this week. Instead of spending it all, you chose to save for rainy day/car purchase/house payment/buying jewelry for spouse/whatever. The idea is the same - you held onto your 'excess' income for anticipated future needs...

That's how a bank works - people deposit their savings in their account(s), the bank lends this money out (to home owners, car owners etc.) on interest. As interest payments come in, bank account holders are credited.

Based on prevalent market conditions, banks and individuals assess their own risk and consign their monies accordingly - some resort to keeping the bills under their mattress... some invest... some just chose to buy bonds etc.

THAT's how it works in a free market. The MARKET sets the "rate", the MARKET decides 'risk'... the 'Invisible Hand' affects it all.


HOWever,

We have not had a 'free market' in quite a while. In fact, ever since the Federal Reserve came into being, 'free markets' literally stopped to exist. The FED was "ostensibly" constituted to bring about 'stability in the economy'... but since it's inception, there have been more "booms and busts" (of greater magnitude no less) in one century than our entire history put together!

For those of you whole STILL think that the Government and the Federal Reserve "saved us" from the Great Depression - please listen to the words of Ben Bernanke himself:

Let me end my talk by abusing slightly my status as an official representative of the Federal Reserve. I would like to say to Milton and Anna (Friedman*): Regarding the Great Depression. You're right, we did it. We're very sorry. But thanks to you, we won't do it again.

Link


Ladies and gentlemen, "money" is more than just the 'paper' it's printed on. Just because you have a piece of paper saying "$100" doesn't mean it's 'worth 100 dollars' --- common sense, right?

So what is "money"? What does all them notes in your wallet signify?

In ancient times, money didn't exist. This is how the 'market' worked:

A corn grower said to a chicken farmer: "I'll give you 20 bales of corn for 10 chicken".
The chicken farmer in turn said: Nah. I'll give you 10 chickens for 15 bales of corn".
Usually, the two haggled the price to something both parties could accept.

As society advanced, simple barter became cumbersome. So men thought of a better system:
"I'll give you five pieces of bronze for your 2 chicken".
The chicken farmer then took the 5 pieces of bronze to the rice farmer and said "I'll give you 3 pieces of bronze for a bag of rice".
The rice farmer took the 3 pieces.... and so on and so forth.

Soon, bronze evolved to a more rare element - gold. Soon, the market place looked like this:
"10 chickens for one ounce of gold."
OR
"2 bags of rice for one ounce of gold".

Etc.

People were trading commodities but measuring the worth through a stable medium - gold. Why is it "stable" you ask? Because there is only a finite amount of gold... and it has always had it's own "value".

But soon, this too became a little cumbersome - carrying around large quantities of precious metal was difficult to do. So, man came up with another idea...

Banker: "You deposit your gold with me, I'll keep them safe and I shall issue notes guaranteeing them."
Customer: "Great. Here I have 100 ounces of gold."
Banker: "Here you go - I have issued you 100 notes, each worth 1 ounce of gold."

This brought about two things:
1. The "customer" no longer has to lug around his life savings/worth with him. He has a "promissory note" from the "Banker" (each worth 1 ounce of gold). So, if he goes to the market and decides to buy 5 chickens for 2 ounces of gold - rather than forking over the gold itself, he hands over the promissory note from the banker. The chicken farmer accepts the note - with the understanding that when he presents them to the Banker, he will receive his "2 ounces of gold".

That's what a "promissory note" means - and it's exactly what is implied by the expression on every Federal Reserve Note (a.k.a. paper dollars)... "This note is legal tender for all debts, public and private". Some countries and their central banks are even bolder - they state "I promise to pay the Bearer the sum of XYZ" (where XYZ is the amount and the currency stated on the note).

2. The Banker now has a 'surplus' amount of Gold (a.k.a. "savings" from his "customers"). So he decides to say: "Hey, anyone want to buy a home? I'll lend you a kilo of gold, so long as you promise to repay me a 'x rate/month'. And if you fail to repay me 4 months in a row, your property becomes mine.
Deal?"


This is how our "paper money" system started out. And it was dependent on the "Banker". Let me simplify it as I can:

You remember how the "Banker" started out by saying "you let me keep your gold and I'll issue you notes saying you have XYZ gold with me" ???

And also how the same Banker began using the savings to extend 'credit' ???

At this point, the system made sense. People worked hard, earned an income, deposited their savings with a bank; the bank subsequently lent the savings out at interest, and eventually 'spread' the earned interest amongst it's depositors.

Some folks were bold enough to invest their "savings" in the stock market. This was back in the days when stock investments actually PAID dividends ... (how many folks even know that term right now and the implication thereoff???)

But then came the FED and turned everything upside down.
"Spending" rather than "saving" was the 'new mantra' of the economy. How often have you heard it being expressed by politicians? "Go out and spend. It'll help the economy..." ???

Well, it DOES work, in the short term.
But what about the long term??

The US has been a net "debtor" nation for a long time now (since end of WWII) - and we're surviving on the sole reason that other nations are willing to purchase our Bonds/Debt.

To put it in more recognizable terms --- "We here in the US are currently enjoying the lifestyle we lead, because our currency and debt is being purchased through the savings of the millions of Chinese workers through their "Central Bank". In other words - we're enjoying our profligate lifestyle at the expense of Chinese savings... since we in the US have next to no 'savings' to speak off!!!

One just needs to ask - "what if the Chinese decide to stop funding our gluttony" ???

- R.

* Edited to add "Friedman" to provide context to the quote.

 

[sidewinder101]

Great responses from everyone Yes we should be told were the money is going.

 

[sidewinder101]

What does this have to do with the Terminator? I'm really stumped on that one.

Cuzz we may need to call on her for our protection one day hint hint.

 

[georges]

I am a bit lost here. Perhaps someone can I enlighten me?

 

[ChefChiTown]

I know this will probably offend some people here, but I don't think that anybody else will say it...

What makes you think that veterans should be automatically entitled to life long financial support from the US government?

 

[maildude]

So AIG used some bailout money to give their executives bonuses. Do you know how much money it takes to fuel a yacht?

 

[Embryoyo]

Take our tax money, from all of us hard-working motherfuckers, and give it to some executives who don't do shit for their "bonus"? FUCK YOU, AIG... Shoulda let them fuckers die. Shoulda let Ford and GM and Chevy suffer too.

 

[sidewinder101]

I know this will probably offend some people here, but I don't think that anybody else will say it...

What makes you think that veterans should be automatically entitled to life long financial support from the US government?

I dont know why do you think they should not ? Did you serve in the Miltiary ?

I served in Desert storm earned my retirement from the military I guess its like a company you work long enough you earn a retirement from it thus the military follows federal law and there are provsions in the US Code Of Federal regulations and public law that entitle veterans with service connected disablities to compensation Title 38 CFR.

Intresting you ask.

How is Chi Town these days ?

 

[ChefChiTown]

I dont know why do you think they should not ? Did you serve in the Miltiary ?

I served in Desert storm earned my retirement from the military I guess its like a company you work long enough you earn a retirement from it thus the military follows federal law and there are provsions in the US Code Of Federal regulations and public law that entitle veterans with service connected disablities to compensation Title 38 CFR.

Intresting you ask.

How is Chi Town these days ?

We started talking about this in another thread. I don't want to repeat everything I've said, so you can skim through this thread for my answer...

http://board.freeones.com/showthread.php?t=285241

Oh, and Chi Town kind of sucks right now. It's too hot and windy.