Obama needs to give him the boot ASAP.

Of course the problem with that is almost all of the top "economic advisers" in this country all come from the same school of thought/pool of corporate backgrounds. So it probably wouldn't make much difference.

The important thing is that Goldman Sachs didn't take any losses in the meltdown, and that's what was most important to Hank and Timmy.

Last year? Last year? Did the Bush administration fall asleep on EVERYTHING???? Isn't crap like this what caused the crash in the first place?

I would say the "first pillow" must have gotten lots of use the way that farker took a nap and ignored the problems or this country. What a bunch of dolts!

I can see it now

Bush, "I'm going to take a nap"
NYFED, "sir, we are having difficulty."
Bush, "What, are the brown skinned people attacking?"
NYFED, "Um...no sir, the economy is about to crash!"
Bush, "Cheney! Get this commie bastard out of here and call me if we're attacked."
Cheney, "Yes sir,"
Bush, "Oh, and Dick, one more thing."
Cheney, "Yes sir?"
Bush, "Where's my jammies?"

Ugh, why the fark do we keep using the word "negligence".

Look, I know about Hanlon's razor, but it's a goddamn fallacy. It's also the most overused excuse in the Beltway: "I didn't do it on purpose; I had no idea what was going on!" There are such things as malice and patterns of behavior. If you fail upwards by "falling asleep on the job", then do it again, you're most certainly doing it on purpose the second time around.

So, it's not negligence. The guy's not that stupid.

Why can't we just call people motherfarking liars anymore?

The dude is a liar, not negligent.

LIAR. Its not a dirty word.

Jensaarai: Obama needs to give him the boot ASAP.

Of course the problem with that is almost all of the top "economic advisers" in this country all come from the same school of thought/pool of corporate backgrounds. So it probably wouldn't make much difference.

Obama never should have hired a lying tax cheat. All we heard from Obama was how brilliant the man is and how he is the only one in the entire universe that understands economics.

Obama (and Bush and McCain and the Clintons) are owned by Goldman Sachs. All they cared about was protecting their masters.

Still, between Geithner, Rev. Wright, William Ayers and his assorted group of Mao-admiring Czars, Obama has horrible judgment of character. That or he is great at finding like-minded people. I'll leave you to decide the answer to that one.

Third Day Mark: Why can't we just call people motherfarking liars anymore?

The dude is a liar, not negligent.

LIAR. Its not a dirty word.

By admitting he is a liar, Total Farkers would have to concede that Obama is a liar as well. He is, but good luck getting people to admit that.

dragonchild: Ugh, why the fark do we keep using the word "negligence".


Negligence does not mean it was an accident. It just means you failed to act on a duty owed to a 3rd party.

IE he failed to protect the people because he's a crook.

All I know is, Wall street didn't exist in Shakespear's time. The bankers are slowly working their way above the lawyers on the "First, kill the ___" list.

Don't worry, he'll be held fully accountable just like he was for tax evasion.

/That is all
//Disagree with his politics, but loved the methodology

obvious tag needs to be bigger.

Geithner is a failure because George Bush something something....

Marcus Aurelius: The important thing is that Goldman Sachs didn't take any losses in the meltdown, and that's what was most important to Hank and Timmy.

Which is better: A military/oil industrialist conspiracy or a Wall Street/Investment Banker conspiracy running our government?

Do we prefer to be poor and dependent on the government at home or hated and invasive on the world stage?

FTA:

Among its notable findings, the report challenged Goldman's position that it should not have been forced to bear losses on its dealings with A.I.G. because it had successfully hedged away any exposure. Mr. Barofsky said that Goldman's hedges were unlikely to have held up amid the market turbulence of late last year.

No shiat. Because the counterparties to those trades would have gone bust as well, which would have then exposed those firms counterparties on other trades to losses, resulting in a catastrophic downward spiral swallowing the entire financial sector, and with it every other sector of the economy. That's why these idiots were 'bailed out' in the first place, to minimize the pain to the broader economy.

The Fed could have nickel and dimed the counterparties, but after the govt's decision to not back up Lehman and the horrific result of that decision, they acted quickly in the interest of the greater economy, thankfully.

We'll get back most of the TARP money we've invested. And those losses we do get saddled with are a small price to pay for avoiding the catastrophe that we were headed for.

Good job Messrs. Geithner, Paulson, Bush, Bernanke, and Obama for understanding this issue better than the general population.

Debeo Summa Credo: The Fed could have nickel and dimed the counterparties, but after the govt's decision to not back up Lehman and the horrific result of that decision, they acted quickly in the interest of the greater economy, thankfully.

C'mon... the optics of the thing means they should have gotten a haircut. My knowledge of bankruptcy law is quite limited, so I have no idea if "they" could have forced that outside of normal filings, but let's just say I am suspicious of that excuse.

Waiting for NewportBarGuy to swoop in and try to save Timothy Geithner from you guys.

Debeo Summa Credo: the govt's decision to not back up Lehman and the horrific result of that decision, they acted quickly in the interest of the greater economy, thankfully.


The problem wasn't that Lehman went bust, it was that it went bust quickly.

The Fed should have intervened by winding down Lehman like the FDIC would.

They should have done the same with AIG. Wind it down and let it go under.

Once you start bailing out, the rest of the industry knows you'll pay for everything. Just like with the auto bailouts. Ohh we're invested this much, so we have to keep it afloat.

MugzyBrown: The Fed should have intervened by winding down Lehman like the FDIC would.

I think it is a little bit before that: The problem is Fuld never thought he'd actually lose the thing after seeing Bear get shotgunned into Morgan. I still think they should have let Bear drown, and yeah good point about winding things down, but making a point about moral hazard came a wee bit too late.

Debeo Summa Credo: Good job Messrs. Geithner, Paulson, Bush, Bernanke, and Obama for understanding this issue better than the general population.

They did a fantastic job treating the heart attack, but I'm worried the economy is still addicted to fast food and they're not putting it on a proper diet.

Our nation is not so strong that we can endure catastrophic banking collapses every 20 years.

dragonchild: Debeo Summa Credo: Good job Messrs. Geithner, Paulson, Bush, Bernanke, and Obama for understanding this issue better than the general population.

They did a fantastic job treating the heart attack, but I'm worried the economy is still addicted to fast food and they're not putting it on a proper diet.

Our nation is not so strong that we can endure catastrophic banking collapses every 20 years.

Extending your analogy: The tools they currently have at hand means they cannot even diagnose patient and/or do something preventative until the disease has started shutting organs down.

Debeo Summa Credo: FTA:

Among its notable findings, the report challenged Goldman's position that it should not have been forced to bear losses on its dealings with A.I.G. because it had successfully hedged away any exposure. Mr. Barofsky said that Goldman's hedges were unlikely to have held up amid the market turbulence of late last year.

No shiat. Because the counterparties to those trades would have gone bust as well, which would have then exposed those firms counterparties on other trades to losses, resulting in a catastrophic downward spiral swallowing the entire financial sector, and with it every other sector of the economy. That's why these idiots were 'bailed out' in the first place, to minimize the pain to the broader economy.

The Fed could have nickel and dimed the counterparties, but after the govt's decision to not back up Lehman and the horrific result of that decision, they acted quickly in the interest of the greater economy, thankfully.

We'll get back most of the TARP money we've invested. And those losses we do get saddled with are a small price to pay for avoiding the catastrophe that we were headed for.

Good job Messrs. Geithner, Paulson, Bush, Bernanke, and Obama for understanding this issue better than the general population.

Careful. I think there is at least a question about what you say. The Goldman Sachs Group, Morgan Stanley and JPMorgan Chase & Co. had enough money left over to give $29.7 billion in bonuses, or a check for $250,400.00 to every one of their 119,000 employees. Some people might look at these ridiculous profits as evidence the goal was not to make sure that Goldman and Company remained solvent, but to make sure they realized extraordinary profits on the backs of the American taxpayers, after these companies had done so much to help get us into this mess.

Link (new window)

FTA:
The New York Fed, led then by Timothy F. Geithner, who is now the Treasury secretary
Fox in the hen house. Defense contractors running wars, banksters looting the treasury and a media completely owned by both.

Makes you wonder what we don't know.

Nemo's Brother: Obama (and Bush and McCain and the Clintons) are owned by Goldman Sachs. All they cared about was protecting their masters.

Still, between Geithner, Rev. Wright, William Ayers and his assorted group of Mao-admiring Czars, Obama has horrible judgment of character. That or he is great at finding like-minded people. I'll leave you to decide the answer to that one.


Well, the first part of that comment is strikingly accurate. The rest, maybe, not so much.

relcec: The Goldman Sachs Group, Morgan Stanley and JPMorgan Chase & Co. had enough money left over to give $29.7 billion in bonuses, or a check for $250,400.00 to every one of their 119,000 employees.

Those are this year's bonuses, the TARP funds were injected last year, and all the firms listed paid back their TARP funds.

relcec: Some people might look at these ridiculous profits as evidence the goal was not to make sure that Goldman and Company remained solvent, but to make sure they realized extraordinary profits on the backs of the American taxpayers, after these companies had done so much to help get us into this mess.

Some people might consider the profits that Halliburton and other defense industry contractors made after 9/11 as evidence that the attacks were an inside job. Some people might look at Obama's name and Kenyan father and conclude that he is secretly trying to turn the US into a caliphate, too.

Just because crackpots might look at things in a perverse way doesn't mean we should listen.

Bush Obama Bernanke Paulson Geithner et al, could potentially have done things better, and suboptimal decisions may have been made in the haste to alleviate the crisis, but it's foolish to believe that there was some sort of conspiracy among them to make sure bankers still got bonuses.

dragonchild: Debeo Summa Credo: Good job Messrs. Geithner, Paulson, Bush, Bernanke, and Obama for understanding this issue better than the general population.

They did a fantastic job treating the heart attack, but I'm worried the economy is still addicted to fast food and they're not putting it on a proper diet.

Our nation is not so strong that we can endure catastrophic banking collapses every 20 years.

I'd agree with this comment. Looking in the rearview mirror for the last 14 months, I think they all did a great job in handling the crisis.

How we restructure regulation to avoid future occurrences, while not over-regulating, is a longer term project that is just beginning.

Debeo Summa Credo: relcec: Some people might look at these ridiculous profits as evidence the goal was not to make sure that Goldman and Company remained solvent, but to make sure they realized extraordinary profits on the backs of the American taxpayers, after these companies had done so much to help get us into this mess.

Some people might consider the profits that Halliburton and other defense industry contractors made after 9/11 as evidence that the attacks were an inside job. Some people might look at Obama's name and Kenyan father and conclude that he is secretly trying to turn the US into a caliphate, too.

Just because crackpots might look at things in a perverse way doesn't mean we should listen.

Bush Obama Bernanke Paulson Geithner et al, could potentially have done things better, and suboptimal decisions may have been made in the haste to alleviate the crisis, but it's foolish to believe that there was some sort of conspiracy among them to make sure bankers still got bonuses.

Not true maybe, but foolish, no way.

Clarence Potter: relcec: The Goldman Sachs Group, Morgan Stanley and JPMorgan Chase & Co. had enough money left over to give $29.7 billion in bonuses, or a check for $250,400.00 to every one of their 119,000 employees.

Those are this year's bonuses, the TARP funds were injected last year, and all the firms listed paid back their TARP funds.

I was intimating that not all of those entities that were owed money needed full repayment to survive, which is what the previous poster said. Your not suggesting that Goldman had to pay back what they were paid by AIG with our money are you?

Last year Goldman still paid out $2.6 billion in bonuses and recorded profits of $2.32 billion. Link (new window)
Is it too much to suggest that the Fed's favorite bank might actually have to record a loss (like every other relatively unconnected company does at times) in the worst recession in 30 years? If they can pay $25.6 billion in bonuses over a 13 month span do they really need all that money from you and me? Link (new window)
Was the goal really to save us from a financial meltdown? Because it sure looks like it could have been done with a lot less money if that was the goal. They got richer while we got screwed again.

This is surprising for an ex Goldman-Sucks exec. I'm just blown away, bloooooooowwwn away George.

/GS is the anti-Christ

FTFA: They argued, with others, that it would be improper and perhaps even criminal to force A.I.G.'s trading partners to bear losses outside of bankruptcy court.

All these people need a good swift cock punch.

Sickening.. "we can't lose 2 cents on the dollar in our investments - thats criminal!!" -never mind if it weren't for the help you got you'd all be unemployed you farking thieves.

coffeeplease: Debeo Summa Credo: relcec: Some people might look at these ridiculous profits as evidence the goal was not to make sure that Goldman and Company remained solvent, but to make sure they realized extraordinary profits on the backs of the American taxpayers, after these companies had done so much to help get us into this mess.

Some people might consider the profits that Halliburton and other defense industry contractors made after 9/11 as evidence that the attacks were an inside job. Some people might look at Obama's name and Kenyan father and conclude that he is secretly trying to turn the US into a caliphate, too.

Just because crackpots might look at things in a perverse way doesn't mean we should listen.

Bush Obama Bernanke Paulson Geithner et al, could potentially have done things better, and suboptimal decisions may have been made in the haste to alleviate the crisis, but it's foolish to believe that there was some sort of conspiracy among them to make sure bankers still got bonuses.

Not true maybe, but foolish, no way.

And BTW, it doesn't take some far flung conspiracy. All this took was Geithner deciding they weren't going to negotiate.

Bigdogdaddy: Last year? Last year? Did the Bush administration fall asleep on EVERYTHING???? Isn't crap like this what caused the crash in the first place?

Hey Drew! If you're reading this I beg you, tweak the code on the comment pages so the thread locks instantly the first time the word "Bush" is posted on any thread tagged "bailout"!

/Guaranteed to end amusingly every time
//Slashies!

relcec: The Goldman Sachs Group, Morgan Stanley and JPMorgan Chase & Co. had enough money left over to give $29.7 billion in bonuses, or a check for $250,400.00 to every one of their 119,000 employees. Some people might look at these ridiculous profits as evidence the goal was not to make sure that Goldman and Company remained solvent, but to make sure they realized extraordinary profits on the backs of the American taxpayers, after these companies had done so much to help get us into this mess.

To recycle my heart attack analogy, we're looking at a greedy, entitled obese patient that basically tried to kill itself with excessive gluttony. The Bush and Obama administrations did a splendid job resuscitating the patient, and in these kinds of things you do not risk undershooting. Well, the first the patient does when it regains consciousness is roll over and paw for the morphine on the table with its grubby, sausage-like fingers.

Why the hell would anyone be shocked??

The (ex-)investment banks are just being themselves of the past thirty years. Greed won't leave Wall Street any more than greed will leave the world. The problem wasn't the greed so much as the short-sighted stupidity. What we can do as a society is not trust them, shun them, ridicule them and basically not let them put themselves in a position to ruin the economy again, but I have little hope for that. We've all gotten so short-sighted that I only see worthless punitive measures like salary caps combined with zero meaningful reform. Right, like killing the 2009 payouts to people who are greedy and crooked will turn them into altruistic citizens overnight.

I'm going crazy with the analogies, but basically people are blaming the cockroaches for the dirty kitchen. No, cockroaches will be cockroaches. Well, actually it's a bit of a vicious cycle, but the problem is that the kitchen is dirty, and it's gonna take a HELL of a lot of cleaning. But once the cockroaches realize there's nothing to eat in a clean kitchen, they'll go away and find other crap piles to feed off of. We can't eliminate them, but we sure can make them work for their garbage.

Basically, the endgame isn't to restrict pay, but to re-shape finance so that short-sighted idiots will never get hired in the first place. Unfortunately, I don't have any confidence Geithner will make any meaningful effort towards that.

Debeo Summa Credo: The Fed could have nickel and dimed the counterparties, but after the govt's decision to not back up Lehman and the horrific result of that decision, they acted quickly in the interest of the greater economy, thankfully.

It would have been pretty painful if AIG (and the rest) had been allowed to fall. I still would have preferred it to what we have now.

dragonchild: relcec: The Goldman Sachs Group, Morgan Stanley and JPMorgan Chase & Co. had enough money left over to give $29.7 billion in bonuses, or a check for $250,400.00 to every one of their 119,000 employees. Some people might look at these ridiculous profits as evidence the goal was not to make sure that Goldman and Company remained solvent, but to make sure they realized extraordinary profits on the backs of the American taxpayers, after these companies had done so much to help get us into this mess.

To recycle my heart attack analogy, we're looking at a greedy, entitled obese patient that basically tried to kill itself with excessive gluttony. The Bush and Obama administrations did a splendid job resuscitating the patient, and in these kinds of things you do not risk undershooting. Well, the first the patient does when it regains consciousness is roll over and paw for the morphine on the table with its grubby, sausage-like fingers.

Why the hell would anyone be shocked??

The (ex-)investment banks are just being themselves of the past thirty years. Greed won't leave Wall Street any more than greed will leave the world. The problem wasn't the greed so much as the short-sighted stupidity. What we can do as a society is not trust them, shun them, ridicule them and basically not let them put themselves in a position to ruin the economy again, but I have little hope for that. We've all gotten so short-sighted that I only see worthless punitive measures like salary caps combined with zero meaningful reform. Right, like killing the 2009 payouts to people who are greedy and crooked will turn them into altruistic citizens overnight.

I'm going crazy with the analogies, but basically people are blaming the cockroaches for the dirty kitchen. No, cockroaches will be cockroaches. Well, actually it's a bit of a vicious cycle, but the problem is that the kitchen is dirty, and it's gonna take a HELL of a lot of cleaning. But once the cockroaches realize there's nothing to eat in a clean kitchen, they'll go away and find other crap piles to feed off of. We can't eliminate them, but we sure can make them work for their garbage.

Basically, the endgame isn't to restrict pay, but to re-shape finance so that short-sighted idiots will never get hired in the first place. Unfortunately, I don't have any confidence Geithner will make any meaningful effort towards that.

Sometimes analogies can muddy the waters.
FTA, Goldman said "that the bank believed it had, in fact, successfully hedged its exposure to A.I.G. up until the point in November when the Fed was seeking a way to terminate all the trading partners' contracts with A.I.G."
Good, you won't need our money then. So you might take a loss this year, why the hell am I supposed to care again? Why not give them a loan instead of free money? Less than a month later it announced $2.6 billion in bonuses.

I refuse to believe that the only people in America qualified to run the fed are former Goldman employees.

relcec: I refuse to believe that the only people in America qualified to run the fed are former Goldman employees.

I agree, if only because our economy is run by ideologues. These people are too cozy with a "What's good for Goldman is good for America" mindset.

The problem with analogies isn't that they get muddy; their purpose is to clarify by association. The danger here is reading too much into what's supposed to be a simplification. Goldman's just being Goldman, and that's my point. Anyone who doesn't know by now that these guys don't have consciences is an idiot. Did the government give them too much money between the TARP loans and the AIG bailout? Possibly, but you don't undershoot a solution during a crisis. I didn't say they were perfect; I said they did a damn good job. Once.

The tricky part here is fighting the entitled patient/addict. They're fighting reform tooth and nail, which is no surprise. What we really need are reformers who A) understand finance, B) aren't interested in punishing Goldman Sachs and other banks but C) also don't care who feels pain as long as the endgame is long-term banking stability. Not harm, but pain. Like the ass-kicking you got for breaking Dad's binoculars. Basically, someone capable of "tough love". The likes of Tim Geithner easily meet criteria A & B, but I'm very worried that no one in D.C. meets condition C. Too many guys from the same fraternity, so to speak.

relcec: Your not suggesting that Goldman had to pay back what they were paid by AIG with our money are you?

Of course not.

relcec: Is it too much to suggest that the Fed's favorite bank might actually have to record a loss (like every other relatively unconnected company does at times) in the worst recession in 30 years?

Yes, it is.

relcec: If they can pay $25.6 billion in bonuses over a 13 month span do they really need all that money from you and me?

Nope, which is why they repaid the US Government.

relcec: Was the goal really to save us from a financial meltdown?

Yes, and in doing so with some banks the good Secretary overshot the mark. Comments from that October meeting indicate he is the one who told the banks what their TARP figure would be, not the other way around.

relcec: Because it sure looks like it could have been done with a lot less money if that was the goal.

Probably. I have long maintained that had these three horsemen of the financial apocalypse handled the bond markdowns, the ratings fiasco, and Bear's implosion better, that while Lehman and AIG still might have croaked (AIG was probably unsalvageable in early 2008), that we could have avoided TARP altogether.

relcec: They got richer while we got screwed again.

You got screwed again. Me, not so much. BTW -- Quiz Time: How much did the Federal Government lose with Goldman's TARP fund allocation?

Potter,
Why are you so fixated on TARP when the article is about the AIG transfer and Timothy's refusal to negotiate?
Why am I not surprised that if something is horrible for America and good for you your all for it?
Will you please set me to ignore?

relcec: Why are you so fixated on TARP when the article is about the AIG transfer and Timothy's refusal to negotiate?

The article is yes, and it is within the context of the bailout, the TARP funds, etc. Trying to isolate this one item out of context of the rest is very limiting. The US Government made 23% on Goldman's TARP share, and it looks like they may get their AIG injection back, something I never thought possible, but there it is.

relcec: Why am I not surprised that if something is horrible for America and good for you your all for it?

I do not see the TARP program as horrible for American, and you'll forgive me if I refuse to apologize for my success in seeing how things would shape and fall out once they distributed that chunk of money. The information was there, freely available, and just needed the age old combination of resources and initiative to capitalize on the situation.

relcec: Will you please set me to ignore?

No.

Jensaarai: Obama needs to give him the boot ASAP.

Of course the problem with that is almost all of the top "economic advisers" in this country all come from the same school of thought/pool of corporate backgrounds. So it probably wouldn't make much difference.

GOldman Sachs?

relcec: Waiting for NewportBarGuy to swoop in and try to save Timothy Geithner from you guys.

Why? I submitted this headline.

dragonchild: The (ex-)investment banks are just being themselves of the past thirty years. Greed won't leave Wall Street any more than greed will leave the world. The problem wasn't the greed so much as the short-sighted stupidity. What we can do as a society is not trust them, shun them, ridicule them and basically not let them put themselves in a position to ruin the economy again, but I have little hope for that.

Will you shun, ridicule, and distrust Fannie and Freddie and their supporters as well? Certainly the GSE's had a significant role to play in the inflation of the bubble whose bursting caused the crisis, and it's a good bet that our bailout of Fannie and Freddie will end up costing taxpayers more than the rest of the bailouts combined.

How about the Fed? Nobody would deny that excessive liquidity caused a great deal of bubble inflation.

And the consumers themselves? Anyone who bought a home they couldn't afford or bought a house for 2x what it was worth 4 years prior is certainly deserving of some scorn. Should we mandate minimum FICO scores for mortgages because the crisis proved that we can no longer trust homebuyers? Require basic reading comprehension and financial aptitude tests for anyone taking out a loan?

There is an awfully big blame pie to share, and though I'll agree that the banks deserve a healthy slice it is hypocritical to criticize them alone.

Debeo Summa Credo: Will you shun, ridicule, and distrust Fannie and Freddie and their supporters as well? . . . How about the Fed? . . . And the consumers themselves?

Yes, yes and yes. I'm shunning, ridiculing and distrusting an awful lot of people in this country right now. We all know this was a systemic clusterfark; we argued the hell out of it, remember? Now, this statement means two things:

One, it means we really could be farked as a falling empire. The problem with a democracy (not that any other system is any better) is that any reforms are driven by the culture, and our culture is short-sighted, greedy and anti-intellectual. (Greed is as old as history, but we used to be more patient and respectful of knowledge.) That means any policies enacted will reflect (and yes I'm serious) the will of the voters, in that they really do want meaningless punitive action as opposed to something meaningful, like bringing back Glass-Steagall. And that's at best. The bankers at Goldman Sachs are farkin' heroes among people I'm forced to deal with.

Two, can you please finally stop bringing up "the other guilty parties" as a means of deflecting the incredible amounts of blame the investment banks are culpable for? Consumers? They're already getting their due and then some. As soon as the credit crunch hit, banks wasted no time shoring up lending standards, if only to survive. If anything, it happened so quickly (and during a recession) that even those without severe problems and never signed onto a sub-prime mortgage (like small businesses) took a hit, which is why we got into a liquidity trap in the first place. I see no need to take action beyond what's already happening.

But TFA was about the AIG bailout and, by extension, the investment banks that made hedging bets with them. AIG was taken over by the government, GS is allowed to roam free -- unpunished, but far more importantly, unchecked.

Clarence Potter: relcec: Why are you so fixated on TARP when the article is about the AIG transfer and Timothy's refusal to negotiate?

The article is yes, and it is within the context of the bailout, the TARP funds, etc. Trying to isolate this one item out of context of the rest is very limiting. The US Government made 23% on Goldman's TARP share, and it looks like they may get their AIG injection back, something I never thought possible, but there it is.

Of course you find it limiting to stay on the topic at hand. It doesn't fit with your narrative that everything was done with in order to save the economy and that there was no way to know how much would be needed. This ignores the fact that we could have just given them a loan that they would have been required to pay back if it had become necessary. Instead Timmy gave them billions and billions of dollars for free and they paid out a couple billion in bonuses last year and 23 billion this year. That's why you deflect back to "what about the fact that Goldman has paid back everything else" whenever you can.

You bought a couple hundred shares and now you feel obliged to defend this BS. How noble of you Potter.

relcec: This ignores the fact that we could have just given them a loan that they would have been required to pay back if it had become necessary.

Uh. . . TARP was a loan. It was paid back, with interest.

AIG was taken over, with CDS obligations still on the books. As TFA says, the government looked into cancelling those obligations, but that would've sunk the banks. As much as the populist in me would've loved to see them drown, they really would have taken the economy with us. Now, instead of simply giving them money for free, as you're implying, they decided to simply honor the CDS obligations. That was a very painful moment of injustice in American history, but there really was no moment where we were denied an opportunity to screw the banks without killing ourselves. People still pretty much get that the banks were bailed out, but the upshot is the government can sell AIG whenever it wants. We won't get the CDS money back, but we can get a decent RoI on the sale of AIG itself.

dragonchild: Two, can you please finally stop bringing up "the other guilty parties" as a means of deflecting the incredible amounts of blame the investment banks are culpable for?

But TFA was about the AIG bailout and, by extension, the investment banks that made hedging bets with them. AIG was taken over by the government, GS is allowed to roam free -- unpunished, but far more importantly, unchecked.

Very well, but there seem to be a plethora of TFAs complaining about the banks, with the only ones blaming Fannie/Freddie seem to be coming from the perspective of right-wingers who just want an excuse to bash Barney Frank. And any article blaming consumers for getting in over their heads will be quickly swamped with posts claiming that the borrowers were merely duped by evil bankers!

dragonchild: The bankers at Goldman Sachs are farkin' heroes among people I'm forced to deal with.

May I ask what, in general terms, you do?

A different (IMO better reasoned) take on the report: Link (pops)