Bank Payments

Issa requested the e-mails from AIG Chief Executive Officer Robert Benmosche in October after Bloomberg News reported that the New York Fed ordered the crippled insurer not to negotiate for discounts in settling the swaps. The decision to pay the banks in full may have cost AIG, and thus taxpayers, at least $13 billion, based on the discount the insurer was seeking.

The e-mail exchanges between AIG and the New York Fed over the insurer's disclosure of the transactions show that the regulator pressed the company to keep details out of the public eye. Issa's comments add to criticism from Republican lawmakers, including Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa and Representative Roy Blunt of Missouri, who wrote letters in the past two months demanding information from Geithner, 48, about the costs of the AIG bailout.

thanks LOD

I was going to post this.

only a liberal dem can go gaga over a TAX cheat running the irs and a CROOKED fed chairman over a bank like aig,......

BUT with rangle STILL chair of ways and means...are you REALLY surprised????????

Afk, I can't think of any liberal dems here who are gaga over Geithner. Gaga over the president who selected him to oversee the financial crisis, maybe. (brilliant choice, O-man)

you HAVE to indict the republicans who voted for him in as well...
but remember the democrat word was that he was the ONLY man in the world who could do this job now...

Whatsamatta, Deflec, country not failing fast enuff fer ya?

Lettuce,

I am hoping for an agrarian society by the end of 2012 ;)

This is why Ron Paul's bill for auditting the Federal Reserve is so important---you think this info is important wait until you see the shenanigans of the fed---the American people should go ballistic and hopefully, there will be major changes in how we run the monetary system of this country in the future.

Whatsamatta, Deflec, country not failing fast enuff fer ya?

#5 | Posted by LetUsPrey

I would say it's about right on schedule considering when this incompetent was elected--I don't think we can go back in history and find another elected president that had the dearth of experience that this one had---how does this guy say no/yes to policy decisions or any other decisions when you have no executive or other experience to draw from let alone no idea about economics.

I remember last year our genious president referred to AIG as the American Insurance Group.

Big deal. So he'll give another the Buck Stops with Me speech and the Left will rave what a helluva guy he is.

I remember last year our genious president referred to AIG as the American Insurance Group.

#9 | Posted by bph320

Made my point--no economics or business experience background---jobs report this morning came out for Dec. and disappointed after everybody was hoping after the improvement in Nov.(lost 80,000+)---the really bad news was the drop in the houshold survey---down 661,000---the folks LEAVING the workforce. In other words, layoffs have pretty much stopped but noone is hiring---when Obama did his favors for wallstreet (guess who runs the guy) and turned his back on mainstream, this is the result.

#8

You forgot about W. Well, he had lots of failed experiences. And then there was his presidency. I'm sure all presidents have made mistakes with position appointments. Geitner sucks and is sucking us.

Of course one must remember the AIG bailout occurred under Bush not Obama. The Treasury Dept has been run by Goldman Sachs through several administrations now. While not an Obama supporter the constant it's Obama's fault rant fails to recognize the problem that the US Government has been sold to big business over every administration for at least the last 30yrs if not longer.
Private funding of elections and lobbying must be done away with, while we still do have a representational republic it only represents the moneyed interests. The free market canard and the profit only motive are destroying the US as global corporations become the new world government everyone is afraid of.

#13

You should have just said "yea, but Bush....."

Tim Geithner's days are numbered in his present position.

Say bye bie TimGee

Who's he going to appoint next? Ricardo Fernndez Barruecos?

Of course one must remember the AIG bailout occurred under Bush not Obama. The Treasury Dept has been run by Goldman Sachs through several administrations now. While not an Obama supporter the constant it's Obama's fault rant fails to recognize the problem that the US Government has been sold to big business over every administration for at least the last 30yrs if not longer.
Private funding of elections and lobbying must be done away with, while we still do have a representational republic it only represents the moneyed interests. The free market canard and the profit only motive are destroying the US as global corporations become the new world government everyone is afraid of.

#13 | Posted by kingcuke

Excellent post---except would disagree with one point---you're contradicting yourself when on one hand you talk about big business's influence on many administrations over the last number of years (TRUE) and the free market canard---the point is when you have control of allocation of capital by big business and government that inherently is not a free market--it's a contrived market and some would argue a socialistic system for the wealthy and "big".

Tim Geithner's days are numbered in his present position.

#15 | Posted by danni

Couldn't agree more and it should happen--but afraid it'll take awhile.

thanks LOD
I was going to post this.
only a liberal dem can go gaga over a TAX cheat running the irs and a CROOKED fed chairman over a bank like aig,......
BUT with rangle STILL chair of ways and means...are you REALLY surprised????????
#2 | Posted by afkabl2 at 2010-01-07 01:33 PM

Support your "aspersions" with any data?:]

Someone on yesterdays Washington Journal stated there is evidence of AIG money laundering the bailout. He implored that it's going to go public. Like some old loon.

Today they got a guy who asked "Why hasn't the tape been released from the guy who paid for The Nigerians plane ticket?" to which Peter Jedi moderates "But what does that have to do with how well intelligence performed?"

And Michael Steele is charming! He did very well, imo - no fuck-up's or immediate insincerity. He has the eyes of a murderous dictator.

Check the thread title retard and make some sense.

#8

You forgot about W. Well, he had lots of failed experiences. And then there was his presidency. I'm sure all presidents have made mistakes with position appointments. Geitner sucks and is sucking us.

#12 | Posted by Scrumplet

The two things that bugged me about W was the marketting ploy on WMDs to justify the Iraq war and his and congress's unmitigated spending.

Tim Geithner's days are numbered in his present position.
#15 | Posted by danni at 2010-01-08 10:16 AM

Say bye bie TimGee
#16 | Posted by oldwhiskeysour at 2010-01-08 10:21 AM

Or would a hypothetical firing of Geithner come from Congress?

Check the thread title retard and make some sense.

#23 | Posted by wisgod

Wisgod, a little forgiveness, please, after all, he is a ROBOT.

Has the Obama admin shown any interest in taking Geithner to the shed? I haven't seen anything of the sort.

#25 | Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE

No, Obummer likes the guy.

Wisgod, a little forgiveness, please, after all, he is a ROBOT.

#27 | Posted by matsop

I think he needs a shot of oil in his ear holes.

One would think that Geitner would have made sure the "bonuses" were not made public. Of course that would prove the lawmakers who drafted the bailout were either clueless or on the take. Which we now know is both.

The flow of money has been so wrong. It makes no sense in terms of helping our economy to recover.

The only way to make sense out of it is to recognize that it was necessary in order for the USA to continue to participate in the world economy. What I mean by that is the American Financial System cheated foriegn investors who could and would do something about it. Goldman-Sachs, Morgan-Stanley and others would have been sued for fraud in 20 years of Civil litigation and lost and gone bankrupt. During this period the system would have completely frozen up, which would be unacceptable. This is a real legitimate reason for the bailout. In light of these events, however, any of these crooks keeping their jobs or getting bonuses is outrageous and legally absurd. So a cover story was invented to keep the public in the dark about what was happening to their money.

Obama's financial team should at least be fired. The people they have doled money out to who have committed fraud should be indicted, imprisoned and disgorged of their ill gotten gains. Anything less is unacceptable.

"The two things that bugged me about W was the marketting ploy on WMDs to justify the Iraq war and his and congress's unmitigated spending."

Did you vote for him? How many times?
Did you vote again for Republicans in Congress?

Whoa Nellie!! You can't mean Tiny Tim would be a party to something, well... underhanded? Not our favorite tax cheater. How dare you sully his reputation as a master tax cheater and confuse the public that he might be unethical as well as criminal. Can he be both? I doubt he is smart enough to handle both of those labels. OK then, let's settle on underhanded so Obumbles can do his daily preening before the fawning TV networks and defend Timmy again, as the only person in the universe that can handle Treasury. I'll be sure to believe that, won't you...?

Obumbles handlers have realized that if you expose the incompetance or criminal behavior of a handful of Obumbles appointees one at a time, the dumbass public will forget which one is the biggest danger to the Republic and the lamestream media will take off on another tangent to confuse the public. What's up next, cheatin' Charlie Rangel to replace cheatin' Tiny Tim. Problem solved!! Brilliant!!!

Where is the buck going to stop regarding this mess, Obama? Maybe you can schedule another speech and explain this massive fuckup.

The flow of money has been so wrong. It makes no sense in terms of helping our economy to recover.

The only way to make sense out of it is to recognize that it was necessary in order for the USA to continue to participate in the world economy. What I mean by that is the American Financial System cheated foriegn investors who could and would do something about it. Goldman-Sachs, Morgan-Stanley and others would have been sued for fraud in 20 years of Civil litigation and lost and gone bankrupt. During this period the system would have completely frozen up, which would be unacceptable. This is a real legitimate reason for the bailout. In light of these events, however, any of these crooks keeping their jobs or getting bonuses is outrageous and legally absurd. So a cover story was invented to keep the public in the dark about what was happening to their money.

Obama's financial team should at least be fired. The people they have doled money out to who have committed fraud should be indicted, imprisoned and disgorged of their ill gotten gains. Anything less is unacceptable.

#31 | Posted by nutcase

Nut, very accurate posting re: your second paragraph.

Where the hell are Corky and Sarvis? I'm sure they'll provide a reasonable explanation.

I won't defend Geithner nor Summers but I also would not necessarily fire either of them. Stability is very important right now and it is very important that investors have some degree of confidence that economic policies will not change dramatically in the near future. Firing the Sec. of the Treasury could have the effect of undermining confidence in the ongoing recovery. I am not saying he shouldn't be fired but that it is not a simple decision and must be considered with much more than just emotional resentments about the bailouts.

#37 | Posted by danni at 2010-01-08 12:13 PM

And I can't believe so many Obamatards defended that decision when it was made.

#38 | Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE

lol FF

I won't defend Geithner nor Summers but I also would not necessarily fire either of them. Stability is very important right now and it is very important that investors have some degree of confidence that economic policies will not change dramatically in the near future. Firing the Sec. of the Treasury could have the effect of undermining confidence in the ongoing recovery. I am not saying he shouldn't be fired but that it is not a simple decision and must be considered with much more than just emotional resentments about the bailouts.

#37 | Posted by danni

Rational point.

very rational...how's the ufo front doing these days?

Rational point.

#40 | Posted by matsop
"Stability" and "undermining confidence in the ongoing recovery" in a post about Timmy? LOL!

He shouldn't have been nominated in the first place. Obama inherited a crisis caused in large part by the Goldman Sachs and Paulson types, and what does he do? Appoint one of them to head the recovery. And I can't believe so many Obamatards defended that decision when it was made.

#38 | Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE

A young Paul Volcker would have been great--there aren't many in Washington that command the respect he has---he has never (in my knowledge) benefitted financially in an extreme way from his former position(s).

""Stability" and "undermining confidence in the ongoing recovery" in a post about Timmy? LOL!"

Whatever you think about him the stock market has climbed steadily with him at Treasury. I know that doesn't replace jobs, etc. but by the same token turning the bull market into a bear would just make things worse.

Stability" and "undermining confidence in the ongoing recovery" in a post about Timmy? LOL!

#42 | Posted by wisgod

Confidence like many things is a variable as shown by polls---you might think that "undermining confidence in the ongoing recovery" is an oxymoron and are probably correct but for Obama to make changes now in a weak and fledgling recovery would send out a neon light message that things are indeed as bad as many people think---is there a lot of confidence in this recovery--NO, but you'll have much less confidence (if it can go any lower) and a negative impact on markets (unless someone is selected that is not tied to wallstreet or the fed but has a record of being knowledgeable about small business).

he has never (in my knowledge) benefitted financially in an extreme way from his former position(s).

#43 | Posted by matsop

ah, he knows a wee bit about karma perhaps?

"Whatever you think about him the stock market has climbed steadily with him at Treasury."

As much as it pains me to say danni was right about the market when it hit 15,000 during the Bush term as being smoke and mirrors, I am curious how the numbers today are any more of a reflection of the actual economic situation?

but by the same token turning the bull market into a bear would just make things worse.

#44 | Posted by danni

We're in a "cyclical" bull market which is in a "secular" bear market---most of the improvement is from the quantitative easing and money printing by the fed--the problem is the ill-fated decision to spend the "stimulous money" on mostly pork and earmarks which will come back to haunt us by helping to increase deficits--they should have focussed on small business early on and now are belatedly talking about it. This market is not based on a good foundation and will ultimately fail and remain in the grips and paws of the bear that began in 1999. I would say we'll see a deterioration just about the time Obama (if he does) runs for re-election--the dems will try to keep stimulous going until then to prop up the markets and kick the can down the road.

"I am curious how the numbers today are any more of a reflection of the actual economic situation?"

No more so than I.

As much as it pains me to say danni was right about the market when it hit 15,000 during the Bush term as being smoke and mirrors, I am curious how the numbers today are any more of a reflection of the actual economic situation?

#47 | Posted by crispee_oc

It hit about 14,400 on the dow---you're right Crispee, the numbers are more reflective today of the unlimited printing of money by the fed and not anything sound in the economy--as I've said many times on threads, Bush and Greenspan kicked the can down the road and now Obama and Bernanke are trying to kick that increasingly "unkickable" can down the road but the endgame is accelerating.

You get rid of deadbeats, cheats and people not open to transperency. Rangle should be gone, Geithner should be gone just like any other politician or government run agency/contractor. It is calld accountability. I thought the big "O" promised this, but he is worse then many, so he too needs to go. But the Dannis' of the world think their heroes can fix all the past idiots troubles and will not take their support awayor hold them responsible. They blame others and have no anwers. Just spend more and hide you bribe that allow you to do so.
Why can't they say their people shown to be bad must go???

The numbers are so screwed up, everyone is just guessing as they have little place else to put it.

But the post is clear that Obama and many of his appointees are clearly chicago politics and no better than the preceding republican hacks at best. Was it suppsed to be change for the better or change for the worse. So far its not better and everyone I deal with on a business basis is not really looking for it to get better with the give aways and government thievery planned. He lies...

Big deal. So he'll give another the Buck Stops with Me speech and the Left will rave what a helluva guy he is.

#10 | Posted by wisgod

yes and let me make a football analogy

several times gary kubiak would tell us after a loss that it was all on him...it was all coaching decisions and his specifiacally...thus ADMIRABLY taking the heat away from his players and we thought..
hey this is a standup guy... BUT then towards the end of the 4 game losing streak that kept the texans from the playoffs, people all over the city were saying....ENOUGH....we dont want to hear you take the blame and tell us the buck stops with you.
WE WANT YOU GONE if thats the best you can do..

so we may see the same thing here...I mean, you would think that this White house will get to the limit of its FUCKUPS with the media and liberal whores and pimps making excuses for his incompentece......

"I am curious how the numbers today are any more of a reflection of the actual economic situation?"

No more so than I.
#49 | Posted by danni at 2010-01-08 12:53 PM

That's OK. Matsop answered for you. It all has to do with your political leanings.

Another reason for showing this guy the door.

Why is mainstream media avoiding this front page ass raping of America lead story???

The swaps were held by Morgan Stanley and they wanted the full value. What's the big mystery.

Thimmy the Rat-Man Geithner--

Geez does this guy need to go or what??

"Wisgod, a little forgiveness, please, after all, he is a ROBOT.
#27 | Posted by matsop

I think he needs a shot of oil in his ear holes.
#29 | Posted by wisgod at 2010-01-08 11:05 AM

Damned. I presumed afkabl2 was referring to DR's rather than any particular officials at the AIG bailout conferences! But seriously, the "two party system" is being seen for what is is - one vulgar sham. Every Fed employee must be audited if we can't do the "institution" itself.

The stock market recovery is meaningless. Banks are not lending to consumers whose credit worthiness has been cut in half.

Instead they are using their free money to churn Treasury Notes, speculate in Stocks & Bonds and as if we haven't learned anything, trying to have it both was in the secret unregulated derivatives market.

Bank CEOs are no different than our politicians. They aren't interested in sound economic policy which will provide the greatest prosperity to the greatest number of people. They just want the biggest fucking bonus they can game from the system today. It all flows from a morally vacuus position of power, preserved with bullshit.