Backdoor bailout: AIG paid out more to get more

E-mails between the New York Fed and AIG officials during bailout negotiations showed that the company paid out $13 million more than necessary to settle outstanding credit default swaps. Was it part of a plot to play the TARP program?

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• AIG
• New York Fed
• darrell issa
• timothy geithner
• bailout
• TARP
• marina portnaya
• rt
• russia today

[rorrimruoY]

You ALL had been warned a long time ago about this coming but people don't want to hear "conspiracy theories".

This government is not set up for the people or by the people. This government is set up as a means to control the majority and enhance the lives of the minority at the EXPENSE of the majority. If you think you are in the minority then think again, you are a slave and you have a master that is disguised as your "savior".

You want change? Dismantle the system enslaving you all

[oc5nsli341nforce4]

Few things would please me more at this time than to see this casino economy implode before my eyes and seeing the greedy elite go from riches to rags.

[sirellyn]

Really? Namecalling and baiting? You do hate fox news right? Why do you respond with similar tactics?

And again you talk about two different things. Rule of law is literal rule of law. Again 10 commandments, a priest saying it's ok to kill doesn't make it so. Rule of tribunal, group interpreting killing ok, does make it so (despite written rule).

No matter how a system is setup, you agree to one thing, and then it's flipped, people get angry. When its bad enough things break down.

[averageworkinggal]

@sirellyn - yep, you've been smoked out.

You just showed utter disdain for the US Constitution because you are only concerned with your warped political agenda (Ron Paul's Campaign for Lunacy) and not with the Rule of Law which requires adherence to the decisions made by the Branch of Government authorized by the Constitution to interpret the laws.

The Constitution says the SCOTUS gets to interpret the laws, not you Bubba, and not Ron Paul.

[sirellyn]

This has nothing to do with not liking it. You argue that once a judge rules they cannot be incorrect in interpretation. This is rule by tribunal, not law. As long as there was not enough political will to overturn the judge. With this there's no need for constitutional amendments

Consider any law. Thou shall not kill, could have meant family members. The wording means nothing. What you describe would imply tyranny.

That may be the case, as its taught in law. Just maybe not correct.

[averageworkinggal]

@sirellyn - your comment shows that you clearly don't know what the Constitution says because you don't care what the SCOTUS decisions that you don't like say.

That clearly shows that you don't care a thing about the rule of law.

And not caring about the rule of law means that you have no respect for the Constitution.

You're just one of those Ron Paul kooks.

[kennyconga]

you are correct NosceTeIpsum9 about obama outright lying about his pre inauguration promises, but my point was that I feel that people aren't seeing the bigger picture

[sirellyn]

I didn't realize it was my constitution. And yes that was the start of that. Which again raises the point, are you for obeying the constitution or ignoring parts that don't suit you?

I know even the supreme court has unfortunately taken the later stance, more recent issues like the patriot act and FISA bills shows complete disregard.

[averageworkinggal]

@sirellyn - Your "constitution" died during the New Deal when FDR intimidated the SCOTUS with the threat of Court Packing in 1937 to get them to cave in on their Limited Government Enumerated Powers Constitution.

The SCOTUS said "let the people decide" what the Constitution says.

Anyway, for example, the FDIC, created in the New Deal, nationalizes Non-Too Big To Fail banks all the time when they fail.

[sirellyn]

The obligation of contracts is a key point of the constitution. Does that mean you are actually following the constitution? Because if you are, you've glossed over a whole lot of it. 

Specific powers were enumerated to congress and the government. They could do those things and nothing else. There is nothing about being able to nationalize a business for any reason.

[sirellyn]

Says the same people who have zero credibility.

Same news pundits who said everything was rosy in 2007. Same federal reserve that saw prices may be a bubble but wasn't worried at all about it.

Sorry I actually listen to people who were right back then and continue to be correct now. Pretty much every piece of news coming from the government has been far from correct.

[Tischencko]

Paulson & Geithner wrote themselves waivers and personal checks from tax payers money in billions. It makes Bernard Madoff look like an amateur with pocket change.