Go Back   Club Conspiracy Forums > Current events > Latest News
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 02-23-2009, 06:00 PM
BlueAngel BlueAngel is offline
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 3,708
Default Re: The Bailout

I was just reading an article about the ongoing debate regarding nationalizing the banks.

The article mentions GOVERNMENT ownership of these banks; however, the FEDERAL RESERVE is not a part of the government, but a private entity and I assume it is the FEDERAL RESERVE and not the government who is looking to swallow up the remaining banks in our country that are PRIVATE and not owned by them.

One must understand that our President is beholden to the Federal Reserve (Banksters) and that the Federal Reserve is not a government entity, but is privately owned and operated and that they call the shots.

Our President, our CONGRESS are merely conduits for the BANKSTER'S.

Do you think the banking crisis was orchestrated for this reason?

You know.

Cause and effect!

Feds explore taking bigger stakes in shaky banks - Yahoo! News

Last edited by BlueAngel : 02-24-2009 at 09:37 PM.
Reply With Quote
Old 03-05-2009, 08:28 AM
BlueAngel BlueAngel is offline
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 3,708
Default Re: The Bailout

First of all, I could care less that there are seven Merrill Lynch executives who are going to be questioned about the BONUSES they paid to themselves from the bail-out money.

Way to go, New York Attorney General.

WE know they're thieves.

The evidence proves that they are guilty.

It's public knowledge.

Children are sent away to WILDNERNESS CAMPS for stealing a jar of peanut butter, but these thieves will be questioned.

I think the judges who sentenced the over 2,500 children in Pennsylvania alone for PETTY crimes, such as stealing lose change from cars and the executives of financial institutions who paid themselves bonuses from the BAILOUT money should serve time in WILDERNESS CAMPS.

NY AG to question 7 Merrill execs about bonuses

NY AG to question 7 Merrill execs about bonuses

AP Business Writers Stephen Bernard And Ieva M. Augstums,
Ap Business Writers – Thu Mar 5, 7:01 am ET

NEW YORK – The New York attorney general's office on Wednesday subpoenaed seven former Merrill Lynch & Co. executives as part of its ongoing investigation into the timing of year-end payments made to executives at the investment bank.

New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo subpoenaed Andrea Orcel, David Sobotka, Peter Kraus, Thomas Montag, David Gu, David Goodman and Fares Noujaim. The seven were identified in a Wall Street Journal report Wednesday as executives who received some of the largest bonuses at Merrill just days before it was taken over by Bank of America Corp. and weeks ahead of announcing the company lost more than $15 billion in the fourth quarter.

Merrill paid out $3.6 billion in bonuses to top executives in December, with 14 employees receiving bonuses of $10 million or more. Cuomo's office has been investigating the timing of those bonuses to determine if proper disclosure of the size and timing of the bonuses was made to Merrill and Bank of America shareholders.

The attorney general's office is expected to question the former executives — some of whom took positions at Charlotte, N.C.-based Bank of America after the deal was completed — about their work; their individual bonuses; communications they had with former Merrill CEO John Thain about the bonuses; the size of the bonus pool; and the timing of the payments, a person familiar with the investigation said. The person asked to remain anonymous because of the ongoing nature of the investigation.

Cuomo's office has been stonewalled in recent weeks in its attempts to get details about individual bonuses. Last week, Bank of America CEO Ken Lewis testified about what he knew about the bonuses, but did not provide specifics on individual bonuses.

Lewis' testimony came just days after Thain completed a second deposition with the attorney general's office. Thain initially refused to provide information about individual bonuses, saying Bank of America had instructed him not to disclose the information. Cuomo's office then forced Thain, through a court order, to return for a second round of testimony and provide additional details. It is unclear if Thain provided such details during that round of questioning.

Additionally, information requested from Bank of America in a separate investigation by the North Carolina's Attorney General's office about the bonuses was received by a Wednesday deadline.

North Carolina's Attorney General Roy Cooper made a request for documents from Bank of America about the bonuses. The state's Department of Justice last month issued an "investigative demand" seeking records, including a list of Merrill employees who received bonuses. Bank of America was required to respond by Wednesday, according to the 11-page demand.

Attorney general spokeswoman Noelle Talley said Bank of America has been responsive to the request and "is cooperating with the Attorney General's investigation."

"Attorneys in our office are reviewing the information provided as part of our ongoing investigation," she said.

Bank of America spokesman Scott Silvestri said the company is cooperating with the N.C. attorney general's office and will continue to provide information "as requested to that office."

Bank of America has repeatedly said Merrill Lynch was an independent company last year, and its board of directors had ultimate approval over how much to pay employees.

But the bonuses apparently were a point of contention for Bank of America. The initial reports of the bonuses came just days after Bank of America received an additional $20 billion from the government that it said it needed to help offset the losses it was absorbing from the Merrill acquisition. The additional support was provided to Bank of America as Lewis showed trepidation about completing the deal to acquire Merrill.

Thain resigned from his position as head of global wealth management at the combined company in January just as news of the bonuses first broke.

The government helped orchestrate the acquisition of Merrill by Bank of America over the same weekend in September that another investment bank, Lehman Brothers, went under, setting off the most intense period of the financial crisis.


AP Business Writer Ieva M. Augstums in Charlotte, N.C. contributed to this report.

Last edited by BlueAngel : 03-16-2009 at 09:19 PM.
Reply With Quote
Old 03-05-2009, 08:37 PM
BlueAngel BlueAngel is offline
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 3,708
Default Re: The Bailout

The FDIC says they'll be BROKE in six months.


That ought to make the American people feel real good, eh?

Calling OBAMA!

Since YOU and the FED had no problem printing up money to bail-out their bankrupt BANKS, I suggest you and the FED fire up the printing presses, like now, to insure that the American people, the depositors, in the corrupt banks that you and the FED just gave millions to; who made a fortune for the BANKSTERS while dishing out fradulent loans, and the BONUSES you paid to the executives of these institutions for their unethical business practices, aren't robbed of their life's savings when more financial institutions declare BANKRUPTCY.

Afterall, you have said, time and time again, that you work for the American people.

Last edited by BlueAngel : 03-06-2009 at 06:52 AM.
Reply With Quote
Old 03-05-2009, 10:34 PM
BlueAngel BlueAngel is offline
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 3,708
Default Re: The Bailout

Obviously, the FDIC does not have a bank account that is equal to or exceeds the amount of deposits in every financial institution across our country.

But, they should, because every sign in every window in every financial institution across our country declares that our deposits are insured up to $250,000.00

They can print millions to bail-out the banks, but they can't print millions to bail-out the American people if more banks collapse and, obviously, more banks will collapse, because the FDIC is predicting they'll be broke in six months.

I assume they would prefer to ROB us blind.

Can we have an accounting please of just exactly how much money the FDIC has had to pay to depositors of failed banks and how much they had in their bank account to begin with?

Well, Obama.

You work for the American people.

You fired up the printing presses to bail-out the failed banks and the executives who helped to bring them to destruction, and paid them big bonuses in the process, so, I guess it's time for you to bail-out the FDIC and protect the American people and their assets.

After all, you've declared you work for us time and time again.

Last edited by BlueAngel : 03-06-2009 at 06:51 AM.
Reply With Quote
Old 03-15-2009, 08:16 PM
BlueAngel BlueAngel is offline
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 3,708
Default Re: The Bailout

Excuse me, but why don't you just spit in our faces?

Insurer AIG to make $165 million in bonus payments

Is there a stipulation in the contract's of the executives of the various financial institutions and insurance companies that the taxpayer's of this country were forced to bail-out of bankruptcy, which states that if the company becomes insolvent and the taxpayer's are FORCED by the powers that be to bail them out, that bonuses shall still be paid?

If not, I would say that another FRAUD by the these companies has been perpetrated upon the American people and the President/Congress have allowed this fraudulent activity to take place.

So, as per usual, the President/Congress are not interested in protecting the interests of the American people, but more concerned with protecting wealthy elitists.


What a shock!


Insurance giant AIG to pay $165 million in bonuses

Economics Writer Martin Crutsinger, Ap Economics Writer – 1 hr 44 mins ago

WASHINGTON – American International Group is giving its executives tens of millions of dollars in new bonuses even though it received a taxpayer bailout of more than $170 billion dollars.

AIG is paying out the executive bonuses to meet a Sunday deadline, but the troubled insurance giant has agreed to administration requests to restrain future payments.

The Treasury Department determined that the government did not have the legal authority to block the current payments by the company. AIG declared earlier this month that it had suffered a loss of $61.7 billion for the fourth quarter of last year, the largest corporate loss in history.

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner has asked that the company scale back future bonus payments where legally possible, an administration official said Saturday.

This official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue, said that Geithner had called AIG Chairman Edward Liddy on Wednesday to demand that Liddy renegotiate AIG's current bonus structure.

Geithner termed the current bonus structure unacceptable in view of the billions of dollars of taxpayer support the company is receiving, this official said.

In a letter to Geithner dated Saturday, Liddy informed Treasury that outside lawyers had informed the company that AIG had contractual obligations to make the bonus payments and could face lawsuits if it did not do so.

Liddy said in his letter that "quite frankly, AIG's hands are tied" although he said that in light of the company's current situation he found it "distasteful and difficult" to recommend going forward with the payments.

Liddy said the company had entered into the bonus agreements in early 2008 before AIG got into severe financial straits and was forced to obtain a government bailout last fall.

The large bulk of the payments at issue cover AIG Financial Products, the unit of the company that sold credit default swaps, the risky contracts that caused massive losses for the insurer.

A white paper prepared by the company says that AIG is contractually obligated to pay a total of about $165 million of previously awarded "retention pay" to employees in this unit by Sunday, March 15. The document says that another $55 million in retention pay has already been distributed to about 400 AIG Financial Products employees.

The company says in the paper it will work to reduce the amounts paid for 2009 and believes it can trim those payments by at least 30 percent.

Bonus programs at financial companies have come under harsh scrutiny after the government began loaning them billions of dollars to keep the institutions afloat. AIG is the largest recipient of government support in the current financial crisis.

AIG also pledged to Geithner that it would also restructure $9.6 million in bonuses scheduled to go a group that covers the top 50 executives. Liddy and six other executives have agreed to forgo bonuses.

The group of top executives getting bonuses will receive half of the $9.6 million now, with the average payment around $112,000.

This group will get another 25 percent on July 14 and the final 25 percent on September 15. But these payments will be contingent on the AIG board determining that the company is meeting the goals the government has set for dealing with the company's financial troubles.

The Obama administration has vowed to put in place reforms in the $700 billion financial rescue program in an effort to deal with growing public anger over how the program was operated during the Bush administration.

That anger has focused in part on payouts of millions of dollars in bonuses by financial firms getting taxpayer support.

In his letter, Liddy told Geithner, "We believe there will be considerably greater flexibility to reduce contractual payments in respect of 2009 and AIG intends to use its best efforts to do so."

But he also told Geithner that he felt it could be harmful to the company if the government continued to press for reductions in executive compensation.

"We cannot attract and retain the best and brightest talent to lead and staff the AIG businesses, which are now being operated principally on behalf of the American taxpayers — if employees believe their compensation is subject to continued and arbitrary adjustment by the U.S. Treasury," Liddy said.


Sorry, but since these companies had NO MONEY and were bankrupt until the taxpayers were forced to bail them out, than there is NO money available for bonuses.

The money for bonuses should NOT have been included in the funds, but, conveniently it was.

This is the desire of WE, the people, who bailed them out.

Just in case anyone gives a HOOT.

Last edited by BlueAngel : 03-15-2009 at 08:25 PM.
Reply With Quote
Old 03-16-2009, 08:48 PM
BlueAngel BlueAngel is offline
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 3,708
Default Re: The Bailout

What's the point in Obama chastising AIG for paying bonuses to their executives using taxpayer money?

Obama berates AIG and vows to try to block bonuses

As is quite obvious, the FED is in control and not OBAMA.

It really isn't taxpayer money.

This is an illusion.

It's FED money.

The FED prints money out of thin air and funds whatever they desire and, in the process, tells the taxpayers that they're paying for it and that we will be in debt for the rest of our lives; our children; our grandchildren, etc.


The FED causes the deficit which creates the illusion that funding for the critical elements within our local and state governments in order to provide for the health and welfare of its' citizens is unavailable.

They'd rather keep the wealth all in the family and we ain't family, folks.


Text from link:

Obama berates AIG and vows to try to block bonuses

Print By TOM RAUM, Associated Press Writer
Tom Raum, Associated Press Writer – 44 mins ago

AP - Obama blisters AIG; joins public outrage

AP – President Barack Obama speaks about AIG bonus payments as he makes remarks to small business owners, … WASHINGTON – Joining a wave of public anger, President Barack Obama blistered insurance giant AIG for "recklessness and greed" Monday and pledged to try to block it from handing its executives $165 million in bonuses after taking billions in federal bailout money. "How do they justify this outrage to the taxpayers who are keeping the company afloat?" Obama asked. "This isn't just a matter of dollars and cents. It's about our fundamental values."

Obama aggressively joined other officials in criticizing American International Group, the company that is fast becoming the poster boy for Americans' bailout blues.

The bonuses could contribute to a backlash against Washington that would make it tougher for Obama to ask Congress for more bailout help — and jeopardize other parts of the recovery agenda that is dominating the start of his presidency. Thus, the president and his top aides were working hard to distance themselves from the insurer's conduct, to contain possible political damage and to try to bolster public confidence in his administration's handling of the broader economic rescue effort.

Obama had scheduled a speech Monday to announce new help for recession-pounded small businesses. But first, he said, he had a few words to say about AIG. He lost his voice at one point and ad-libbed, "Excuse me, I'm choked up with anger here." It was just a light aside, but he meant the sternness of his remarks to come through.

"This is a corporation that finds itself in financial distress due to recklessness and greed," Obama declared.

He said he had directed Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner to "pursue every legal avenue to block these bonuses and make the American taxpayer whole."

Later, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said the administration would modify the terms of a pending $30 billion bailout installment for AIG to at least recoup the $165 million the bonuses represent. That wouldn't rescind the bonuses, just require AIG to account for them differently.

Gibbs said the tough talk from Obama and other administration officials was aimed in part at pressuring bonus recipients to turn them down. Anyone accepting the money should "think long and hard" about whether keeping it was appropriate "given the performance of the company," he said.

On a separate track, New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo said Monday he would issue subpoenas for information on the bonuses after AIG missed his deadline for providing details. Cuomo said his office would investigate whether the employees were involved in AIG's near-collapse and whether the $165 million in bonus payments were fraudulent under state law.

AIG spokeswoman Christina Pretto told The Associated Press, "We are in contact with the attorney general and will of course respond to his request."

One reason that the AIG bonus giveaway is such a compelling story — and a politically troubling one for Obama if not neutralized — is that it offers a simple story line that appears to sum up ways in which the federal bailouts have gone awry.

"This is just the kind of issue that galvanizes public outrage," said Paul C. Light, professor of public service at New York University. "It's always the tangible stuff, the things that ordinary Americans can relate to. They don't know the first thing about credit default swaps. But they do know about bonuses. And it's just the sort of thing that will undermine any future bailout activity."

Bailout steps for AIG totaling over $170 billion since September have effectively left the federal government with an 80 percent stake in the faltering insurance giant.

Obama's comments came on the same day a new poll showed slippage in his approval rating. The poll by the Pew Research Center showed it dropped from 64 percent in February to 59 percent this month amid divisions of opinions over his economic proposals and what the pollsters said was a growing perception that the president is listening more to his party's liberals than to its moderates.

Still, those surveyed generally gave the president favorable marks for doing as much as he can to try to fix the economy, and few blame him for making the economy worse.

Andrew Kohut, Pew's director, said in an interview that people are most angry with banks and companies but there's also "pushback against Washington generally. And, of course, the buck stops with Barack Obama these days."

Obama's sharp words continued an insistent administration drumbeat over the past few days designed to pressure the bonus recipients to forgo them. Thus far, American International Group officials have refused to rescind the payments.

In a letter to Geithner over the weekend, the government-appointed chief executive of AIG, Edward Liddy, said the bonuses were legally binding obligations and the firm's "hands are tied."

Still, pressure was building on that issue — and on the government to rework its AIG bailout to make sure the company repays as much of the $170 billion as possible.

So far, the company has been honoring its contracts with U.S. and foreign banks, paying out more than $90 billion in economic bailout funds to big banks and others. The government agreed to uphold those contracts when it seized control of AIG in September, contending that failure would bring even worse global economic problems.

However, Obama officials made the rounds of Sunday talk shows to denounce the insurer. And even Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke weighed in, saying on CBS' "60 Minutes" that the AIG bailout angered him the most and that he "slammed the phone more than a few times on discussing AIG." Still, he said a collapse of AIG would have wreaked havoc on the global economy.

Obama was planning an appearance later in the week on Jay Leno's NBC talk show, perhaps to add a lighter touch to his efforts to show himself in command of efforts to resuscitate the economy.

The AIG bonuses were revealed over the weekend. It also was disclosed that AIG used $90 billion-plus in federal aid to pay foreign and domestic banks, some of which had received their own multibillion-dollar U.S. government bailouts.

The recipients included Goldman Sachs, at $12.9 billion, and three European banks — France's Societe Generale at $11.9 billion, Germany's Deutsche Bank at $11.8 billion, and Britain's Barclays PLC at $8.5 billion. Merrill Lynch, which also is undergoing federal scrutiny of its bonus plans and which is now part of Bank of America, had received $6.8 billion as of Dec. 31.

The money went to banks to cover their losses on complex mortgage investments, as well as for collateral needed for other transactions.

AIG reported this month that it had lost $61.7 billion for the fourth quarter of last year, the largest corporate loss in history.

Outcries against the company have also come from congressional leaders.

"I call upon the executives at AIG to right the wrong they have done to American taxpayers, who are footing the bill for the most expensive government rescue in history," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said Monday.

Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell called the bonuses "appalling" and said he hoped "the administration gets the message from the taxpayers on this issue."


AP White House Correspondent Jennifer Loven and Business Writers Stevenson Jacobs, Ieva M. Augstums and Daniel Wagner contributed to this report.

Last edited by BlueAngel : 03-16-2009 at 09:17 PM.
Reply With Quote
Old 03-16-2009, 09:25 PM
BlueAngel BlueAngel is offline
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 3,708
Default Re: The Bailout

AIG was paying out bonuses to meet a SUNDAY deadline.

So, did they meet it?

Was it Sunday, the 15th of March?

Obama is going to try to block the bonuses.

If the deadline was the the 15th of March for the pay-out of these bonuses, I would surmise that Obama missed his opportunity to block the pay out of these bonuses and, just in case, he wasn't notified by the Treasury Department, I've posted the following excerpt from an article on this thread.

"The Treasury Department determined that the government did not have the legal authority to block the current payments by the company."
Reply With Quote
Old 03-18-2009, 06:02 PM
BlueAngel BlueAngel is offline
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 3,708
Default Re: The Bailout

Dodd facing fresh political firestorm

For inserting a loophole in the bailout for AIG to provide executives of the company with bonuses which he previously denied.

The legislation was passed unanimously by the US Senate.

Obama knew about it, as well.

So, why the public outcry?

Dog and pony show, no doubt.


Dodd facing fresh political firestorm

AP – Scorecard – 1 hr 46 mins ago

March 18, 2009

Dodd just admitted on CNN that he inserted a loophole in the stimulus legislation that allowed million-dollar bonuses to insurance giant AIG to go forward – after previously denying any involvement in writing the controversial provision. .

“We wrote the language in the bill, the deal with bonuses, golden parachutes, excessive executive compensation that was adopted unanimously by the United States Senate in the stimulus bill,” Dodd told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer this afternoon.

“But for that language, there would have been no language to deal with this at all.”

Dodd had previously said that he played no role in writing the controversial language, and was not a part of the conference committee that inserted the language in the bill. As late as today, Dodd’s spokeswoman denied the senator’s involvement.

The AIG bonuses have caused a political firestorm, with Republicans and Democrats alike looking to lay blame for who’s responsible, and leading lawmakers looking to revoke the bonuses.

Dodd’s role in the legislation will likely come up as he faces the likelihood of a tough re-election. Former GOP congressman Rob Simmons announced he was running this week, and has already taken issue with Dodd’s stewardship as chairman of the Senate Banking Committee.

Last edited by BlueAngel : 03-18-2009 at 06:14 PM.
Reply With Quote
Old 03-18-2009, 06:19 PM
BlueAngel BlueAngel is offline
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 3,708
Default Re: The Bailout

Freddie Mac is next.

Will their executives receive outrageous bonuses, as well?

Inasmuch as the executives of other failed companies such as AIG and Merrill Lynch, to name a few, who were bailed out and rewarded with bonuses that were approved by our US Senate and President in AIG's case, I suspect more of the same.

Did the automakers who received bailouts also pay themselves extravagant bonuses?

I suppose you have to be in the business of MONEY, to be compensated by the FED.

Freddie Mac: The Government's Next Black Hole?

Freddie Mac: The Government's Next Black Hole?

Print By STEPHEN GANDEL Stephen Gandel – Tue Mar 17, 5:05 pm ET AFP/File

AIG is to date the most expensive corporate bailout in American history, requiring $180 billion of government funds. But it may soon have competition. Last week, mortgage giant Freddie Mac said that it had lost $50 billion in 2008 alone. A look at the company's books suggests the government will have to spend at least triple that much to save the financial firm from collapse. If the housing market worsens, the tab could even be larger.

"Freddie's portfolio of [mortgage] insurance is more risky than the market was led to believe," says Paul Miller, an analysts at FBR Capital Markets. Sister company Fannie Mae lost even more last year, with $58.7 billion of red ink. But Fannie was better capitalized than Freddie going into the credit crunch. So even though Freddie by many measures is smaller than Fannie, the problems at Freddie will probably end up costing more.

Citigroup and other banks have also lost money, and will need more capital to survive. But in those cases it's not clear who will take the hit - shareholders, bondholders or the government. In the case of AIG, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, however, there is no question where the money will come from. Freddie and Fannie were taken over by the government and put into conservatorship last fall. AIG is now 80% owned by the government. The losses at those companies are now taxpayer losses. (See 25 people to blame for the financial crisis.)

And like AIG, Freddie has had to come back to the government a number of times with cup in hand. The mortgage giant has already received $14 billion in government aid. After the fourth quarter loss of $24 billion, the company said it needs an additional $31 billion from the government to keep the lights on.

Freddie's business, which in part comes from a government mandate, is insuring mortgages. So when borrowers lose their jobs, as many now are, Freddie is going to lose money. But only a quarter of Freddie's red ink, or about $13 billion, comes from mortgage insurance woes. The firm took a larger hit from its investment in mortgage-backed securities tied to subprime, adjustable-rate or jumbo mortgages. By law, Freddie isn't allowed to insure against losses on those types of mortgages, in part because they are riskier. But it bought securities tied to those home loans anyway - which it is allowed to do - in order to capture the higher rates of return that those mortgage bonds offered. Unfortunately, the bets didn't pay off. Freddie lost $16 billion on those investments. (See pictures of Americans in their homes.)

Another bet that didn't pay off for Freddie was on interest rates. The firm's managers bought derivatives that would pay out if interest rates rose. Instead, a global financial meltdown has caused interest rates to plummet. That resulted is a $15 billion loss for Freddie from its hedges.

Freddie lost another $1 billion on bonds tied to short-term loans made to Lehman Brothers. Like Lehman, that investment went belly up. Then there are all the houses it now has to repossess as people stop paying their mortgages. The company now owns about 30,000 homes. Maintaining these houses cost about $3,300 a month each, and that comes on top of the loan loss, which is typically about one-third of the size of the mortgage. Wave goodbye to another billion.

When will the red ink at Freddie stop? It's hard to say. In its most recent annual report, the company said that if it had to mark all of its assets to the price similar bonds are trading for in the market, the company's net worth would sink by another $65 billion. But Freddie's bottom line woes may run deeper even than that. Freddie has $38 billion in losses it has yet to acknowledge in its investment portfolio. The firm also has additional $48 billion in non-performing loans that it either holds or has guaranteed against. In a painful stroke of irony, there is a $15.4 billion line item on the asset side of Freddie's balance sheet for deferred taxes. That means Freddie is still hoping to claim $15 billion in write-offs against future profits. But since Freddie continues to lose money, and because it is now part of the government, the likelihood that the company will have to pay taxes anytime soon is probably nil. Add all those items up, and it becomes apparent that the government will likely spend more than $100 billion in additional funds cleaning up the mess at Freddie.

"The losses at Freddie show the pressure the banking system as a whole is under," says Fred Cannon, chief equity strategist at Keefe, Bruyette & Woods. "Freddie is going to need more capital, but they are not alone."

Last edited by BlueAngel : 03-18-2009 at 06:27 PM.
Reply With Quote
Old 03-18-2009, 09:53 PM
BlueAngel BlueAngel is offline
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 3,708
Default Re: The Bailout

First, DODD states the following in a previous article on this thread:

“We wrote the language in the bill, the deal with bonuses, golden parachutes, EXCESSIVE executive compensation that was adopted unanimously by the United States Senate in the stimulus bill,” Dodd told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer this afternoon.

Now, he states the following in a more recent article (below):

His staff wrote the Bill with diluted executive bonus payments and it was changed after it passed the Senate at the request of the Administration (OBAMA).

Print By JIM KUHNHENN, Associated Press Writer Jim Kuhnhenn,
Associated Press Writer – 1 hr 33 mins ago

AP – WASHINGTON – For a while, the disappearance of an executive bonus restriction from last month's economic stimulus looked like sleight of hand worthy of a Las Vegas stage. No one could explain how the provision faded into thin air.

On Wednesday, Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., acknowledged that his staff agreed to dilute the executive pay provision that would have applied retroactively to recipients of federal aid. However, Dodd said he was not aware of any American International Group Inc. bonuses at the time the change was made.

The provision was the subject of new attention this week because, had it survived, it would have prevented AIG from granting $165 million in bonuses to employees of its financial products division.

"I'm the one who has led the fight against excessive executive compensation, often over the objections of many," said Dodd, the chairman of the Senate Banking Committee. "I did not want to make any changes to my original Senate-passed amendment, but I did so at the request of administration officials, who gave us no indication that this was in any way related to AIG."

He added: "Let me be clear: I was completely unaware of these AIG bonuses until I learned of them last week."

Dodd did not name the administration officials in his statement, which came a day after he told CNN that he had nothing to do with the change in the provision. In his statement Wednesday, Dodd said he was referring to action to protect AIG.

"When I saw that my comments had been misconstrued, I felt it was important to set the record straight — that this had nothing to do with AIG," he said.

Over the years, Dodd has been the top recipient of campaign contributions from AIG employees. During 2007-2008, when he ran for president, he received nearly $104,000 from AIG employees and their families, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan group that monitors money in politics.

While the House and Senate reconciled their different stimulus bills last month, the Treasury Department expressed concern with a Senate restriction on bonuses, noting that if it applied to existing compensation contracts it could face a legal challenge.

Dodd told CNN on Wednesday that rather than lose the entire section on executive excessive compensation, he reluctantly agreed to modify the legislation.

An administration official said Treasury made Dodd's staff aware of the potential for litigation but did not demand that the provision be removed from the final bill. The official spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to discuss the matter in public.

The legislation does include a provision that allows Treasury to examine past compensation payments to determine if they were "contrary to the public interest." Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner on Tuesday said he was using that provision to determine whether the government could somehow recoup the AIG bonuses.

DODD said the following:

"I did not want to make any changes to my original Senate-passed amendment, but I did so at the request of administration officials, who gave us no indication that this was in any way related to AIG."

Apparently, the Bill was changed after the Senate passed it at the request of the Administration (OBAMA) to provide for exorbitant bonuses to AIG executives.

He's also saying that he had no clue that executives of AIG would be the recipients of the bonuses.

Who did he think the recipients of the bonuses would be?


I suggest you watch the news, read the newspaper, speak with your constituents.

In other words.

Get with it.

Last edited by BlueAngel : 03-18-2009 at 10:23 PM.
Reply With Quote

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:59 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.12
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.