The Conservative Cave
Current Events => Breaking News => Topic started by: Chris_ on March 19, 2009, 07:49:00 AM
-
House sets up vote today on taxing AIG bonuses
(http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b293/aggie8387/liddy.jpg)
WASHINGTON (AP) - The House is scheduled to vote today on a bill that would levy a 90 percent tax on bonuses paid to employees with family incomes above $250,000 at companies that have received at least $5 billion in government bailout money.
"We figured that the local and state governments would take care of the other 10 percent," said Rep. Charles Rangel of New York, chairman of the tax-writing House Ways and Means Committee.
Rangel said the bill would apply to mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, among others, while excluding community banks and other smaller companies that have received less bailout money.
House Democratic leaders unveiled the bill as the head of embattled American International Group Inc., which has received $182 billion in bailout money, testified about $165 million in bonuses paid out in the past week to about 400 employees in its Financial Products unit.
Edward Liddy, who was brought in last year by the government to run AIG, told a House subcommittee Wednesday that the company was contractually obligated to pay the bonuses but that some of the recipients have begun returning all or part of them.
MORE (http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D97130L01&show_article=1)
If they can target this group with specific income taxes, they can target anyone and simply steal their money. :banghead:
-
I would like to see this challenged on Constitutional grounds.
http://www.techlawjournal.com/glossary/legal/attainder.htm
-
Another day, another attempt by the criminals in charge of congress to take the masses for fools. I suggest an hour session with each member of congress, individually, while he/she is under the influence of sodium pentathol. I understand it works good as a truth serum on simple minds.
Has anyone in the media brought up the constitutional aspects of this move? I doubt it.
-
I would like to see this challenged on Constitutional grounds.
http://www.techlawjournal.com/glossary/legal/attainder.htm
I've seen the bill of attainder mentioned and also ex-post facto mentioned as reasons why these tax laws would be unconstitutional. OTOH, when has a little thing like the US Constitution been more than a bump in the road for the left?
I have seen both of these mentioned on Fox News. Brit Hume brought up the "Bill of Attainder" either Monday or Tuesday as a guest of Brett Baier.
-
Another day, another attempt by the criminals in charge of congress to take the masses for fools. I suggest an hour session with each member of congress, individually, while he/she is under the influence of sodium pentathol. I understand it works good as a truth serum on simple minds.
Has anyone in the media brought up the constitutional aspects of this move? I doubt it.
Yes. Jonah Goldberg was on Glenn Beck last night talking about it. If I'm one of those AIG execs I sue and get legal fees paid as well. The government is shooting itself in the foot.
On another note, have any of the folks that took AIG's money publicly recused themselves from the vote?
-
Hi,
What an outrage! Those bonuses were EARNED, why the hell aren't the republicans screaming bloody murder.
regards,
5412
-
I'm a constitutional conservative, and I'm keenly following that angle wherever it's reported in the news, mostly on Fox.
Also, this spectacle yesterday and today is embarassing. Another knee-jerk reaction by the jerks, without a thought for unintended consequences or rule of law. They're acting like 8 year olds.
In the perfect world of my daydreams, the whole lot of house and senate would be thrown under the bus (thump-thump-thump) and replaced with wet behind the ears newbies. People with no slimy favors from the past to pay back. People who still had common sense and still believed in the original dads.
-
I would like to see this challenged on Constitutional grounds.
http://www.techlawjournal.com/glossary/legal/attainder.htm
Also, the Contract Clause (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contract_clause). These bonuses were part of a contract that was made over a year ago. By doing this, they are effectively nullifying that contract, and would lead to a dangerous precedent. I remember Boortz talking about this earlier this week.
-
I wish the republicans would scream about this but IT AIN'T GONNA HAPPEN. They don't want to be seen supporting these bonuses as the public is outraged and this would be bad politics. So they will go along knowing that Scotus ( if they get the chance) will knock this down and they can be seen as taking thepopulist position telling everyone that they tried
-
I would be happy if they just let this bonus thing go. Stop bailouts and create legislation, if necessary, that forces AIG into a receivership; break them up and put them back in the private sector under new management. No one should be too big to fail. The handling of this whole so-called crisis stinks out loud.
-
I would like to see this challenged on Constitutional grounds.
http://www.techlawjournal.com/glossary/legal/attainder.htm
What is to keep the Government from saying you know that income tax refund you got this year...we think it is way too much...you already make 80 K a year...we are going to tax that at 90% cuz we needs the money!!!! I don't give a crap what anyone says...AIG did what was legal and what the law told them to do...thanks to Chris DODD...If the Supreme Court allows this we ARE SCREWED...nothing will be safe...
-
I would be happy if they just let this bonus thing go. Stop bailouts and create legislation, if necessary, that forces AIG into a receivership; break them up and put them back in the private sector under new management. No one should be too big to fail. The handling of this whole so-called crisis stinks out loud.
Welcome to the CC Black Swan, and your first high five. :cheersmate:
Receivership is fine by me. Plus there is a huge history and set of legal precidents for bankruptcy of all kinds. The whole Eat the Rich/Statist philosophy ought to have died at the end of WWII.
-
Welcome to the CC Black Swan, and your first high five. :cheersmate:
Receivership is fine by me. Plus there is a huge history and set of legal precidents for bankruptcy of all kinds. The whole Eat the Rich/Statist philosophy ought to have died at the end of WWII.
Thank you. I have been a member for a while and drop in now and again to read mostly. These bailouts really have gotten under my skin. Too many Federal Reserve and Goldman Sachs people involved and the doors continue to revolve in Washington. My question is what to do about campaign contributions seemingly perpetuate this type of corruption against the very people who put them in office.
-
I was watching Fox News earlier during the house vote. Something funny there it seems. Merrill Lynch paid out over 3.6 BILLION in bonuses, but from what I understood, these won't be covered under this new attack law. Is this right, anyone?
-
What is to keep the Government from saying you know that income tax refund you got this year...we think it is way too much...you already make 80 K a year...we are going to tax that at 90% cuz we needs the money!!!! I don't give a crap what anyone says...AIG did what was legal and what the law told them to do...thanks to Chris DODD...If the Supreme Court allows this we ARE SCREWED...nothing will be safe...
Think campaign finance reform and eminent domain (Kelo).
Nothing is guaranteed with any court.
-
I was watching Fox News earlier during the house vote. Something funny there it seems. Merrill Lynch paid out over 3.6 BILLION in bonuses, but from what I understood, these won't be covered under this new attack law. Is this right, anyone?
yeppers...the tax only covers "bonuses" from 1/1/09 and on....Lynch got theirs in dec...
-
Hi,
What an outrage! Those bonuses were EARNED, why the hell aren't the republicans screaming bloody murder.
regards,
5412
I have mixed feelings on this...while, yes this may set a precedent to tax ANY bonuses...these particular one werent' exactly "earned" as this company was not exactly profitable and I've never heard of bonuses going to employees who did not PRODUCE.
These bonuses were scams to steal more money from investors.
-
Weren't they retention bonuses?
-
Im certain that this is political sabre-rattling and nothing more - the very concept of charging penalty taxes on legally earned income simply because it is 'unfavorable' is so unconstitutional that they would have better luck giving dogs (hearby known as Canine-Americans) the right to vote.
Just imagine what the administration can do with such a ruling ?
Right wing radio hosts ? 99.3% tax rates.
Work for Fox News ? 96.41% tax rates.
Make nongreen products ? 89.6% tax rate for you.
-
Im certain that this is political sabre-rattling and nothing more - the very concept of charging penalty taxes on legally earned income simply because it is 'unfavorable' is so unconstitutional that they would have better luck giving dogs (hearby known as Canine-Americans) the right to vote.
Just imagine what the administration can do with such a ruling ?
Right wing radio hosts ? 99.3% tax rates.
Work for Fox News ? 96.41% tax rates.
Make nongreen products ? 89.6% tax rate for you.
Paybacks will be a b*tch when the 'ol pendulum of power swings back the other way...and it will someday. They better be careful what they ask for.
-
Paybacks will be a b*tch when the 'ol pendulum of power swings back the other way...and it will someday. They better be careful what they ask for.
Not unless we replace a whole ton of Repubs currently in office it won't.
The current crop is largely spinless and lack the balls to actually stand up and fight for conservative values.
-
Problem is, a whole shitload of Republicans voted in favor of this, when they (along with everyone else) SHOULD know that this is purely for show.
-
I have mixed feelings on this...while, yes this may set a precedent to tax ANY bonuses...these particular one werent' exactly "earned" as this company was not exactly profitable and I've never heard of bonuses going to employees who did not PRODUCE.
These bonuses were scams to steal more money from investors.
I don't have any mixed feelings about this whatsoever, the government has exceeded it's authority. If it didn't want AIG paying bonuses it should have let them go bankrupt.
The hysteria was highly disturbing and passing this law evil and unconstitutional.
-
Thank you. I have been a member for a while and drop in now and again to read mostly. These bailouts really have gotten under my skin. Too many Federal Reserve and Goldman Sachs people involved and the doors continue to revolve in Washington. My question is what to do about campaign contributions seemingly perpetuate this type of corruption against the very people who put them in office.
My opinion is there is only one way to kill the corruption, kickbacks and locust swarm of lobbyist and it's simple as Hell. (not to be confused with easy) Stop the bailouts and cut the spending. You can't make ethics rules and new regulations and new laws every year and expect to even make a dent. They (lobbyist et al) are not the problem as they are simple minded sharks. Just stop throwing farking chum in the water and they will starve to death.
-
My opinion is there is only one way to kill the corruption, kickbacks and locust swarm of lobbyist and it's simple as Hell. (not to be confused with easy) Stop the bailouts and cut the spending. You can't make ethics rules and new regulations and new laws every year and expect to even make a dent. They (lobbyist et al) are not the problem as they are simple minded sharks. Just stop throwing farking chum in the water and they will starve to death.
I agree with stop the bailouts (they never should have occurred) and cut the spending. So how do you suggest we kill the corruption in Congress who receive kickbacks and campaign contributions which in turn demand special treatment. There is another revolving door. Washington is made up of revolving doors. I am all for term limits. I recognize lobbyists have a place but who is lobbying for us? What do you mean when you say stop throwing chum in the water and they will starve to death and who are you referring to?
-
I agree with stop the bailouts (they never should have occurred) and cut the spending. So how do you suggest we kill the corruption in Congress who receive kickbacks and campaign contributions which in turn demand special treatment. There is another revolving door. Washington is made up of revolving doors. I am all for term limits. I recognize lobbyists have a place but who is lobbying for us? What do you mean when you say stop throwing chum in the water and they will starve to death and who are you referring to?
Refering to the "pull peddlers" (http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/mixedeconomy.html), meaning the end of our "mixed economy". (part capitalist, part socialist) I suggest the answer is to make the governments job the protection of individual rights and only individual rights. (life, liberty, property) In other words total Laissez-faire capitalism.
If parasitism, favoritism, corruption, and greed for the unearned did not exist, a mixed economy would bring them into existence.
“The Pull Peddlers,†Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, 170
Corruption thrives because there is literally no possibility of justice, fairness or morality in a mixed economy. Who qualifies for a bailout and why? Which science projects get funded this year? Which art projects? Which "public" spaces can you smoke in? What constitutes a proper education? (you could ask a hundred questions of your own in this line) To make all the right calls, all the time, Congress would have to be filled with omnipotent geniuses. Even term limits can't do that. Only a free market can allow us all to be our best.
I believe in separation of church and State because they tend to corrupt eachother. We have separation of church and State and just look at the multitude of faith and non-faiths even living side by side and in peace like no where else on Earth. I believe in separation of State and economy too. And for the same reason.
/sry, end rant :-)
-
No need to be sorry. I enjoyed your rant and the information. I saved the link. I have not read any Ayn Rand but on the surface I agree with what you stated. If we could only move in that direction. I will have to pick up Atlas Shrugged. Man, my reading stack gets higher.
-
Hi,
What an outrage! Those bonuses were EARNED, why the hell aren't the republicans screaming bloody murder.
regards,
5412
I wouldn't say they where "earned" but they where legally obtained. Congress is going way out of line on this.
-
No need to be sorry. I enjoyed your rant and the information. I saved the link. I have not read any Ayn Rand but on the surface I agree with what you stated. If we could only move in that direction. I will have to pick up Atlas Shrugged. Man, my reading stack gets higher.
Atlas Shrugged is a great read and one of my all time favorites. (but man she is a wordy bitch, lol) Anyway, I can vouch for the fact that it is worth it as someone who has read it four times. Along with everything else she wrote including non-fiction at least once. I would not presume to recomend anything else until one has read AS.
I'm a pretty mild mannered dude but there are a handful of issues that get my dander up. Nationwide attacks on capitalism and Elian Gonzales to name just two. (those things make me see red, lol)
A great intro into Atlas Shrugged would be "Francisco's Money Speech" (http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=1826) but that is the last I will say about that. I fear I'm thread jacking and have too much beer and basketball in me to go further. Anyway, I hope you enjoy the ride once you take the plunge.
-
I wouldn't say they where "earned" but they where legally obtained. Congress is going way out of line on this.
Why are they unearned..............AIG is a large company with many different divisions. Some were making profits others were losing them. Also these are all retention bonuses for executives because the dumbasses in DC capped their pay many years ago, and bonuses/stock options are part of their salary to get get the best and brightest(so they hope).
aig SHOULD HAVE BEEN BROKEN UP INSTEAD OF BEING BAILED OUT
-
From everything I've heard, the majority of these bonuses went to the divisions that tanked. But I may be wrong. *shrugs*
-
From everything I've heard, the majority of these bonuses went to the divisions that tanked. But I may be wrong. *shrugs*
Yeah, okay, is there something you are implying or otherwise wish convey to the reader of your post?
-
Yeah, okay, is there something you are implying or otherwise wish convey to the reader of your post?
I was replying to CH, who had posted before me.
-
Yeah, okay, is there something you are implying or otherwise wish convey to the reader of your post?
Duke, so you think that taxpayers should foot the bill that the COMPANY promised?? Because we now own 80% of AIG and the company is not paying their "retention" bonuses, we are...thanks to this "non-stimulus" package "we the people" had no choice on.
-
From everything I've heard, the majority of these bonuses went to the divisions that tanked. But I may be wrong. *shrugs*
That may very well be true (and I don't know those facts either) but I think it is kind of not the point.
What I mean is, what government moves may have harmed a given divison? How much more would failing divisions have lost if not for good management? What have some individuals done to keep things from being worse than they were?
The point is, it's not the governments call. Even Adam Smith understood there was the "seen" and "unseen" in a free market. (so a rising tide lifts all boats) The problem is that destroyed weath is invisable and thus imesurable. The big problem is that we don't play in the "free market". The government is picking winners and losers. (and with no wisdom to make the right choice other than, "how do I look?" and "what are the political consequences?")
-
Duke, so you think that taxpayers should foot the bill that the COMPANY promised?? Because we now own 80% of AIG and the company is not paying their "retention" bonuses, we are...thanks to this "non-stimulus" package "we the people" had no choice on.
I would say, "yea" we have to pay. Not because it's right or remotely just, but because it's the law. That shit was in the bill that Obama signed into law.
"Freedom is it's own punishment" :p
Next time lets pick a better POTUS and Congress. (Con-gress being the opposite of Progress) *sigh*
-
The government is picking winners and losers.
That's it in a nutshell...and notice the "winners" are those that gave charitable contributions to a certain POS's presidential campaign.
-
That may very well be true (and I don't know those facts either) but I think it is kind of not the point.
What I mean is, what government moves may have harmed a given divison? How much more would failing divisions have lost if not for good management? What have some individuals done to keep things from being worse than they were?
The point is, it's not the governments call. Even Adam Smith understood there was the "seen" and "unseen" in a free market. (so a rising tide lifts all boats) The problem is that destroyed weath is invisable and thus imesurable. The big problem is that we don't play in the "free market". The government is picking winners and losers. (and with no wisdom to make the right choice other than, "how do I look?" and "what are the political consequences?")
I wholeheartedly agree. I was just saying that the bonuses may not have been truly "earned". Whether or not they where though, the government should not be doing what it is.
-
I wholeheartedly agree. I was just saying that the bonuses may not have been truly "earned". Whether or not they where though, the government should not be doing what it is.
Right on! (I don't know either)
Drunk March madness high fibe lol
-
That's it in a nutshell...and notice the "winners" are those that gave charitable contributions to a certain POS's presidential campaign.
Right on!
When Black Swan and I were talking about corruption I said "Corruption thrives because there is literally no possibility of justice, fairness or morality in a mixed economy." I meant the government was picking winners and losers as they must in a "mixed economy".
high "fibe" for you too. :-)
Are we all having a heated agreement? :rotf:
-
Duke, so you think that taxpayers should foot the bill that the COMPANY promised?? Because we now own 80% of AIG and the company is not paying their "retention" bonuses, we are...thanks to this "non-stimulus" package "we the people" had no choice on.
I don't think tax payers should have bailed out AIG in the first place but once that happened the company has to run itself. If the company has contractual obligations they have to be met otherwise what is the point of a contract?
Since the government took over 80% of AIG maybe Frank, Dodd, Et Al. should be running the company instead of being on the floor of the house and senate acting shocked.
Congress itself put in the legislation to protect AIG's bonuses and now they are acting shocked.
I am more upset about the 7 trillion in wealth that has been pissed away by the government than a few million a company the government bailed out was contractually obligated to pay and I am way more concerned about this over-reaching of the congress to punish private citizens with the full force of government.
This whole thing with these bonuses seems more like envy to me than the actual problem which the problem is AIG was bailed out in the first place, since we can't go back and fix that, then we have to move forward, if that means bonuses have to be paid then that is what that means.
-
I was replying to CH, who had posted before me.
Thanks, it is very difficult to tell who is replying to who without using the quote feature.
-
Are we all having a heated agreement? :rotf:
Yes, I suppose we are in-fighting... :evillaugh:
-
Duke, I think you are right on all counts. I also think that what people are pissed about is NOT necessarily bonuses but the bailout in general. MSM has ginned up the bonuses but the tea parties were going on before this occurred. In one sense, it might have helped as it may get more people out and about regarding the spending that is going on out-of-control in Washington.
I think Hawkgirl is correct in that the bonuses were predominately paid to the complex instrument unit (toxic assets) and if I am not mistaken also to foreign workers (seems to me in London). Still, since it was in the Porkulus Bill to pay the bonuses they should be paid. I want to know what they are gonna do with the toxic assets that keep sucking the funds. Oh, never mind FASB/SEC will change mark-to-market to mark-to-magic and that will solve it.
-
I don't think tax payers should have bailed out AIG in the first place but once that happened the company has to run itself. If the company has contractual obligations they have to be met otherwise what is the point of a contract?
Since the government took over 80% of AIG maybe Frank, Dodd, Et Al. should be running the company instead of being on the floor of the house and senate acting shocked.
Congress itself put in the legislation to protect AIG's bonuses and now they are acting shocked.
I am more upset about the 7 trillion in wealth that has been pissed away by the government than a few million a company the government bailed out was contractually obligated to pay and I am way more concerned about this over-reaching of the congress to punish private citizens with the full force of government.
This whole thing with these bonuses seems more like envy to me than the actual problem which the problem is AIG was bailed out in the first place, since we can't go back and fix that, then we have to move forward, if that means bonuses have to be paid then that is what that means.
You made good points....but doesn't mean I have to LIKE it....
The incompetent government/congress should have let AIG file Chapter 11. Yes, perhaps this is displaced anger..perhaps these executives, however incompetent they were, should receive their million dollar bonuses. Congress is creating a loophole to retrieve their money.
It's like a war of crooks.
-
Duke, I think you are right on all counts. I also think that what people are pissed about is NOT necessarily bonuses but the bailout in general. MSM has ginned up the bonuses but the tea parties were going on before this occurred. In one sense, it might have helped as it may get more people out and about regarding the spending that is going on out-of-control in Washington.
I think Hawkgirl is correct in that the bonuses were predominately paid to the complex instrument unit (toxic assets) and if I am not mistaken also to foreign workers (seems to me in London). Still, since it was in the Porkulus Bill to pay the bonuses they should be paid. I want to know what they are gonna do with the toxic assets that keep sucking the funds. Oh, never mind FASB/SEC will change mark-to-market to mark-to-magic and that will solve it.
You know, why they didn't change mark-to-market months ago is a huge mystery.
-
Yes, I suppose we are in-fighting... :evillaugh:
I'd be all over that comment but I'm too tipsy to have a clever response. :bawl:
Se la vie
Thank you EVERYONE for being as outraged as me on this topic.
I think we all agree that preventative medicine in this case would be not to get involved in the first place.
-
.
I think we all agree that preventative medicine in this case would be not to get involved in the first place.
Thanks to the transfer of power the Do-Nothing Congress has become the Do the Most Damage Congress.
I liked the former better.
-
You know, why they didn't change mark-to-market months ago is a huge mystery.
Maybe Hawkgirl is right. Wouldn't it give them greater loses every quarter thus more money from the taxpayer?
-
You made good points....but doesn't mean I have to LIKE it....
The incompetent government/congress should have let AIG file Chapter 11. Yes, perhaps this is displaced anger..perhaps these executives, however incompetent they were, should receive their million dollar bonuses. Congress is creating a loophole to retrieve their money.
It's like a war of crooks.
Yep, I don't like it either but that is the way it is and I see this AIG bonus thing as a side show. While people are getting angry and raging about a few million paid to private citizens, nobody is looking at the 7 trillion being stolen by elected officials.
It would like going to a doctor for a hangnail when there is a giant tumor growing out of my forehead.
-
Thanks to the transfer of power the Do-Nothing Congress has become the Do the Most Damage Congress.
I liked the former better.
Right. Wow. That Obama lie that those who opposed him prefered to do "nothing" seems to be making his fictional opponents much smarter than the POTUS himself.
:evillaugh:
-
These bonuses are like the icing on a cake.
I like my analogy better. :tongue:
-
much smarter than the POTUS himself.
:evillaugh:
My 17 year old calico is smarter than the POTUS :-)
-
Maybe Hawkgirl is right. Wouldn't it give them greater loses every quarter thus more money from the taxpayer?
My understanding is mark-to-market is what led to the greater losses because of how the toxic assets have to be reported since Enron. My simplistic understanding is under the old pre-Enron rules, a toxic asset might have no value today but 5 years down the line it could be profitable but under the post-Enron rules the assets have to be reported under their current market value. If the economy is doing well, the post-Enron rules don't hurt as much but once the housing bubble burst those assets became instantly worthless and caused the balance sheets of the financial institutions that hold them to crater which caused a huge sell off of their stocks which led to a devaluing of people's 401K's.
Other than changing the accounting rules, eliminating the capital gains tax for a while could get money flowing into the market again but right now we have seen fit to elect the exact people who hate tax cuts into office.
-
There's lots of toxic ass in Congress.
Sorry, I just wanted to use that term. :uhsure:
-
Duke, I think you are right on all counts. I also think that what people are pissed about is NOT necessarily bonuses but the bailout in general. MSM has ginned up the bonuses but the tea parties were going on before this occurred. In one sense, it might have helped as it may get more people out and about regarding the spending that is going on out-of-control in Washington.
I think Hawkgirl is correct in that the bonuses were predominately paid to the complex instrument unit (toxic assets) and if I am not mistaken also to foreign workers (seems to me in London). Still, since it was in the Porkulus Bill to pay the bonuses they should be paid. I want to know what they are gonna do with the toxic assets that keep sucking the funds. Oh, never mind FASB/SEC will change mark-to-market to mark-to-magic and that will solve it.
Some of the money AIG paid out was to Deutsche Bank ....which is making a lot of people angry because it's a German bank.
Deutsche is the trustee for the registered holders of Equifirst Mortgage Loan Trust, AIG insures the mortgages.
I have done several foreclosures here held by Deutsche. Equifirst is one of those companies that buys bundled mortgages from independent mortgage companies.
-
My understanding is mark-to-market is what led to the greater losses because of how the toxic assets have to be reported since Enron. My simplistic understanding is under the old pre-Enron rules, a toxic asset might have no value today but 5 years down the line it could be profitable but under the post-Enron rules the assets have to be reported under their current market value. If the economy is doing well, the post-Enron rules don't hurt as much but once the housing bubble burst those assets became instantly worthless and caused the balance sheets of the financial institutions that hold them to crater which caused a huge sell off of their stocks which led to a devaluing of people's 401K's.
Other than changing the accounting rules, eliminating the capital gains tax for a while could get money flowing into the market again but right now we have seen fit to elect the exact people who hate tax cuts into office.
Well, yea, that is how I understand them also. If I were going to invest in a bank wouldn't you want to know what the value of their holdings is? If some of their assets are valued to fantasy or off the books then who can believe they are solvent. These institutions didn't even believe each other. This is the reason I understood that they did not loan money. They didn't have it to loan and they didn't trust those who they could loan to. What was given to them plugged a hole that keeps returning every quarter. Naturally, there is gonna be a sell off if you don't think there will be any payoff. I don't know what triggered the 401K's but they surely had these toxic assets mixed in their portfolios and lost based on that.
Until the toxic assets are dealt with we are just spinning wheels I believe and I don't believe Mark-to-Market should be changed. Rather than do that I would like to see those who promoted and dealt in the CDS and those bet (unregulated) instruments that were created and sold as AAA called what they really were. Deceptive and fraudulent and those responsible dealt with accordingly. Including the rating agencies.
This is where the real scandal lies IMO.
-
There's lots of toxic ass in Congress.
Sorry, I just wanted to use that term. :uhsure:
:rotf: