AIG gave GOLDMAN-SACHS $12.9 BILLION....

[wgadget]

But don't tell anyone...We're all supposed to OUTRAGED at employees earning bonuses.


http://www.campaignforliberty.com/wire.php?view=3464

[jclay2]

Man it really makes you wonder how many commercial and investment banks would have been toppled by the derivatives chain reaction if AIG just went bankrupt.

[HOLLYWOOD]

The Real AIG Scandal

It's not the bonuses. It's that AIG's counterparties are getting paid back in full.
By Eliot Spitzer
Posted Tuesday, March 17, 2009 - 11:01am


http://www.thebigmoney.com/articles/...al-aig-scandal

this simple scandal is obscuring the real disgrace at the insurance giant: Why are AIG's counterparties getting paid back in full, to the tune of tens of billions of taxpayer dollars? For the answer to this question, we need to go back to the very first decision to bail out AIG, made, we are told, by then-Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, then-New York Fed official Timothy Geithner, Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein, and Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke last fall. Post-Lehman's collapse, they feared a systemic failure could be triggered by AIG's inability to pay the counterparties to all the sophisticated instruments AIG had sold. And who were AIG's trading partners? No shock here: Goldman, Bank of America, Merrill Lynch, UBS, JPMorgan Chase, Morgan Stanley, Deutsche Bank, Barclays, and on it goes. So now we know for sure what we already surmised: The AIG bailout has been a way to hide an enormous second round of cash to the same group that had received TARP money already.
It all appears, once again, to be the same insiders protecting themselves against sharing the pain and risk of their own bad adventure. The payments to AIG's counterparties are justified with an appeal to the sanctity of contract. If AIG's contracts turned out to be shaky, the theory goes, then the whole edifice of the financial system would collapse.


"Why did Goldman have to get back 100 cents on the dollar? Didn't we already give Goldman a $25 billion capital infusion, and aren't they sitting on more than $100 billion in cash? Haven't we been told recently that they are beginning to come back to fiscal stability? If that is so, couldn't they have accepted a discount, and couldn't they have agreed to certain conditions before the AIG dollars—that is, our dollars—flowed?"

[ILUVRP]

I don't the AIG bailout will ever end.

AIG insured the big banks--investment banks---brokeage firms so the could get involved with the bundleing of mtg's at ratios of about 30:1.

Now we are giving AIG hundards of BILLIONS $$ so they can give it to the ones they were insuring.

We should have let AIG go belly up---gave the ones insured about 20 cents on the dollar ( if that )

AIG now is nothing more than the middle man to shield the big losers.