Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
But when it implodes, like it did, the banks are to blame.
The logic of that is lost on me.
There is no logic. They don't think; they "feel."
The "feel" angry at the banks for making a profit, but they fail to think it through and understand that the reason for that profit is that the government guarantees it for the banks.
First the SEC and now California. What's going on with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac? What should Obama do about this?
Obama should CLOSE Freddie and Fannie. If he does not, Romney should do it. The Federal Government has NO business in the real estate or mortgage business. That should be a PRIVATE business between buyers, sellers and banks.
Almost, AIG was the buyer of mortgages, but that is why AIG was deemed too big to fail. If AIG failed, then the federal government would have had to buy all of the mortgages from them that defaulted, and not even the US Government could afford to do that. Hell, TARP was cheap compared to the liability of the mortgage debt.
AIG got bailed out because the government guaranteed their debt. They blamed AIG and other companies for the bailout, because it distracted the taxpayer from the total debt obligations the US Government is holding.
They got bailed out because "the notional value of the entire swaps portfolio [was] $527 billion". Numerous entities were relying on AIG being able to pay off on their risky investments and AIG had not set aside anywhere near enough collateral to pay off. The attitude at AIG is best portrayed by their risk officer in Aug 2007.
“The risk actually undertaken is very modest and remote,” said AIG’s chief risk officer. Joseph Cassano, who oversaw the unit that dealt in the swaps, was even more emphatic: “It is hard for us with, and without being flippant, to even see a scenario within any kind of realm of reason that would see us losing $1 in any of those transactions…. We see no issues at all emerging. We see no dollar of loss associated with any of that business.”
Credibility on what subject, AIG? You're the one who brought it up.. I can only assume you had some point?
I brought it up because you said public entities bought the mortgages.
AIG bought mortgages, so I asked if they were public. Still waiting for you to admit that PRIVATE entities are buying the mortgages. How long will I need to wait?
They got bailed out because "the notional value of the entire swaps portfolio [was] $527 billion". Numerous entities were relying on AIG being able to pay off on their risky investments and AIG had not set aside anywhere near enough collateral to pay off. The attitude at AIG is best portrayed by their risk officer in Aug 2007.
“The risk actually undertaken is very modest and remote,” said AIG’s chief risk officer. Joseph Cassano, who oversaw the unit that dealt in the swaps, was even more emphatic: “It is hard for us with, and without being flippant, to even see a scenario within any kind of realm of reason that would see us losing $1 in any of those transactions…. We see no issues at all emerging. We see no dollar of loss associated with any of that business.”
There's no reason for either of them to exist, and the sooner they go away forever, the better.
Another reason to despise Obama, Barney, Jim Johson, Slick Willie, Cuomo, Cisneros 'Kerosene Maxine' and all the rest of them.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.