PDA

View Full Version : Citigroup buying new $50M jet




UtahApocalypse
01-26-2009, 05:13 PM
disgusting:

http://www.upi.com/Business_News/2009/01/26/Struggling_Citigroup_purchasing_new_jet/UPI-16171233003259/

Though they claim it is not with any of the bailout money, what is the difference?? If they had 50M at all that should have went to what was needed instead of begging for a bailout

ClayTrainor
01-26-2009, 05:32 PM
Face it America,

you got robbed...

puppetmaster
01-26-2009, 05:33 PM
yea surprising eh....when do people get pissed off...I am wondering why we are so ignorant

idiom
01-26-2009, 06:19 PM
Maybe they need to demolish a building that is bleeding money?

tangowhiskeykilo
01-26-2009, 06:24 PM
the article later goes on to say they are also selling two jets totaling out to 54million....

4 million more than they paid for this jet

mczerone
01-26-2009, 06:26 PM
disgusting:

http://www.upi.com/Business_News/2009/01/26/Struggling_Citigroup_purchasing_new_jet/UPI-16171233003259/

Though they claim it is not with any of the bailout money, what is the difference?? If they had 50M at all that should have went to what was needed instead of begging for a bailout

This is a huge farce. Once that money hits their books, it is indistinguishable from any of their funds. It's called liquidity for a reason - it's fungible and mixes. Just as though I pour 50 gallons of wine into a tank, and take 25 gallons out of one nozzle and 25 gallons out of another nozzle: you can't claim either withdrawal is exclusively from the 50 gallons, nor can you claim that the inserted 50 gallons is no longer part of the contents of the tank - as soon as it hits the tank, it becomes indistinguishable from, and thoroughly mixed with, the rest of the contents.

Or a child that gets $5 from his mother to go to the store and buy a gallon of milk and plays video games with the specific $5, but pays for the milk with his allowance money - WTF does it matter where the arcade money "came from"? If he wasn't supposed to be playing games, he can't say that the $5 was allowance money just to get away with it.

But they only have to fool some of the people some of the time, I guess.

nullvalu
01-26-2009, 06:41 PM
Is the revolution beginning yet!?? For fucks sake!

zach
01-26-2009, 06:51 PM
I'm going to grace this milestone post with this:

What The Hell?!

It's time to revolt in more ways than one.

BeFranklin
01-26-2009, 06:53 PM
yea surprising eh....when do people get pissed off...I am wondering why we are so ignorant

When you get rid of "church", you get rid of the natural way a community organizes on moral principles. That includes ethics, like government.

The people are just a bunch of disorganized individuals.

Anti Federalist
01-26-2009, 07:15 PM
Meanwhile Pelosi is talking about bank "nationalization".

I'm with nullvalu, FFS, is it time yet?

idiom
01-26-2009, 07:17 PM
Still like five whole months till July 4th...

nullvalu
01-26-2009, 07:30 PM
Still like five whole months till July 4th...

Then what? We'll all still be sitting here bitching about another new bailout?

idiom
01-26-2009, 09:27 PM
No, if you really think it has gone far enough, then pick a date and blow stuff up.

I do however tend to think we are strongly conditioned against that today. Thats why when McVeigh got started there was no follow through.

Raul08
01-26-2009, 10:34 PM
the article later goes on to say they are also selling two jets totaling out to 54million....

4 million more than they paid for this jet

Why is everyone ignoring this little fact?

libertarian4321
01-27-2009, 09:41 AM
the article later goes on to say they are also selling two jets totaling out to 54million....

4 million more than they paid for this jet

They say they are TRYING to sell the older jets- that doesn't mean they will be sold.

Also, unless these "older" jets are so decrepit that they are unsafe to fly (highly unlikely), a new expenditure of $50M is outrageous even if you do sell "old" jets of roughly equal value.

Say I'm floundering in debt and have begged you for a loan that you aren't sure I can pay back.

I have an "old" 2005 Acura and an "old" 2005 Lexus, combined worth $60k in my driveway.

I then buy a new $60k Mercedes just because I MIGHT BE ABLE TO dump the older cars for roughly the same value.

Would this seem to be a smart financial move on my part, likely to make you feel secure about loaning me the money, or would you think it more likely to mean you're never going to get paid back?

A prudent move on my part would be to continue to drive ONE of the old cars, sell the other, and forget about the new Mercedes.

A prudent move on Citi's part would be to sell one old jet, keep flying the other, and forget about buying a new luxury jet.

dirknb@hotmail.com
01-27-2009, 02:40 PM
Those fuckers need to be taking buses.