Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 01-05-2012, 02:32 PM
 
Location: the very edge of the continent
89,677 posts, read 45,338,803 times
Reputation: 13909

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyTexan View Post
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.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-05-2012, 02:40 PM
 
3,457 posts, read 3,635,612 times
Reputation: 1549
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest View Post
Is AIG a private, or public entity?
you tell me; which is it?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-05-2012, 02:43 PM
 
Location: The Brightest City On Earth
1,282 posts, read 1,912,313 times
Reputation: 581
Quote:
Originally Posted by Motion View Post
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.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-05-2012, 02:53 PM
 
69,368 posts, read 64,334,211 times
Reputation: 9383
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cletus Awreetus-Awrightus View Post
you tell me; which is it?
You dont know? There goes your credibility on the subject..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-05-2012, 03:46 PM
 
3,457 posts, read 3,635,612 times
Reputation: 1549
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest View Post
You dont know? There goes your credibility on the subject..
Credibility on what subject, AIG? You're the one who brought it up.. I can only assume you had some point?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-05-2012, 05:36 PM
 
Location: Maryland
18,630 posts, read 19,493,599 times
Reputation: 6463
Quote:
Originally Posted by Motion View Post
First the SEC and now California. What's going on with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac? What should Obama do about this?
Loony libs doing what they do best, blaming someone else for their problems.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-05-2012, 06:25 PM
 
Location: Alameda, CA
7,605 posts, read 4,865,469 times
Reputation: 1438
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest View Post
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 Reassures Investors About Subprime Mortgage Loan Exposure

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.”


AIG
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-05-2012, 07:33 PM
 
69,368 posts, read 64,334,211 times
Reputation: 9383
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cletus Awreetus-Awrightus View Post
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?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-05-2012, 08:04 PM
 
69,368 posts, read 64,334,211 times
Reputation: 9383
Quote:
Originally Posted by WilliamSmyth View Post
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.”

AIG
AIG's risk was considered small because of the guarantees by government.

And if AIG's was $527B, imagine what the total liability was world wide..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-05-2012, 10:15 PM
 
Location: Chandler, AZ
5,800 posts, read 6,593,978 times
Reputation: 3151
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.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top