RE: RE: 165 million bonus anger by ObamaThey knew from day one. The mainstream media reported back in January.
The AIG bailout has been a way to hide an enormous second round of cash to the same groups that had received TARP money already.
The AIG bonus was hush money until AIG decided publicly named their counter parties during the g-20 weekend which angered the government to sick the media after AIG.
The questions that the mainstream media and government are avoiding are the questions you really should be asking yourself and the media really should be reporting but do not.
Why weren't the counterparties immediately and fully disclosed?
Why are AIG's counterparties getting paid back in full, to the tune of tens of billions of taxpayer dollars?
Remember these were bets that they lost that the US is picking up the tab for.
In the meantime I continue to own FRE FNM AIG C and BAC knowing that Goldman Morgan JPM and Wells are the real winners as they were given money thru TARP and thru the side door at AIG.
Research how hard Paulson and the government when out of their way to protect GS and Morgan and JPM.
When they say too big to fail they are meaning they will pick up all the gambling debts for Morgan and Goldman and all other countries who hit the casino and lost.
This isn't a liberal or a conservative issue, it's a common sense issue.
Everybody is involved in this disaster they either helped along the fraud or looked away when it came to their attention.
The bonus story is to enrage and forget that billions of dollars went out AIG's back door to the same companies that the government gave TARP money to. Now these "banks" are publically stating they do not need anymore TARP or government support.
The only answer thus far from Goldman under oath this week is as follows:
"We are not disclosing the amount of collateral we received from AIG before the government bailout nor after the end of 2008. We can say that our notional exposure to AIG is a fraction of what it was at the time of the September bailout. And as has been the case, our exposure remains collateralized and hedged.".
Now ask yourself this...if you owned 80% of a company would this be the response you would want or accept from your customer?
If you gave money thru the front and back door to someone is this the way you would wished to be thanked?
Heck if you gave someone a loan would you not want to know what it was going towards.
Mr. Obama was angered that AIG no longer wanted to play by his rules and they went out of their way to tick him off during the G-20 meeting. A meeting that was about pouring money into the world wide banking systems.
H