Stay the Course©!

I never thought I’d see a website designed so poorly that the guy behind timecube.com would say, “Damn that’s a mess”.

FTW

You must be new here. We’ll overlook your rookie errors.

This time.

Are you sure you weren’t wearing the sunglasses from that John Carpenter movie They Live?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/They_Live

You’ve got the wrong goggles, then. I tried it with 3D Specs and it all makes sense, now!

My eyes! Ze goggles do nothing!

This is off topic and not responding to any of News Reference’s points, but I gots to agree with Duros. Good Lord, but that does look like a sample of “Things not to do on your website”.

Yes, you are.

Mr. Reference, you didn’t pay someone to do that to you, did you?

To be clear “they’re [AIG]” not paying it. American taxpayers are.

Quaker: “Should the counterparties be taking something less than the contracted amount?”

That’s the funny thing in capitalism, if you make bad bets, like insuring yourself with a fraudulent insurance company, then you take your lumps when it fails. No payouts to you, sir.

But Republicans Reagan/Bush/Clinton/Bush force fed America right wing corporatism, the through the looking glass opposite of socialism. Taxpayers still pay (just like socialism) but it goes to millionaire and billionaire banksters instead of the recently out of work single mom next door trying to pay her rent and feed her kids.

Quacks like Quaker aren’t interested in a “debate,” they’re in the business of defending highway robbery.

Quaker: “For a fee, AIG assumes the risk of default on a loan agreement.”

FALSE. AIG didn’t have the assets to cover their bets (the ‘risks’). AIG wasn’t in the “insurance” business so much as it was in the fraudulent gambling business. AIG PRETENDED to cover the “risks” but never had the capital to cover it’s gambles.

In a “real” capitalist system, everyone that gambled with them would be out of luck (technically: S.O.L.). In the movies, a thug would show up at the AIG executives mansions and “explain” that covering your gamble is part of the game.

Quacker, it sounds like you’re trying to defend the fraudulent system the right wingers called the “free market.”

It was never a “free market.” “Freedom” implies that I would have the “freedom” from being held hostage by banksters like AIG (and Goldman Sachs) from they’re bad gambles. Instead, they’ve got a gun to the head of every American and are saying that if they don’t get trillions of dollars immediately then they’ll pull the trigger and the entire global financial system will collapse.

And Quacker, you are defending that theft.

Funny, right wingers go ballistic if a lefty defends someone who stole a loaf of bread to feed their children. We have more people in prison in America than any country on the planet because of right wing intolerance for such infractions.

But right wingers can defend banksters stealing trillions and even defend those same banksters who are threatening the financial well-being of every American in the country.

Right wingers have pretended that in the con they mislabel the “free market” that bad business people would be punished. That means that everyone at AIG would be financially wiped out and would have to compete with the unemployed mom next door for a loaf of bread.

Instead, the right wing gamed the system, and their buddies, the bad business people who robbed the country, are walking away with, literally, trillions of US taxpayer dollars.

And right wing Quacks, either because of predaciousness or cognitive dissonance, defend the con.

CDSs are insurance contracts. For a fee, AIG assumes the risk of default on a loan agreement. If you want to define CDSs as something separate from insurance, fine. But they were an ordinary part of AIGs ongoing business. That the company uses bailout money to pay out their obligations shouldn’t surprise anyone.

The counterparties for the most part are the other financial institutions, corporations and municipalities that were on the other end of the credit default swaps AIG had outstanding, not as much the insurance contracts I believe.

I mean, what do you think an insurance company’s operating expenses are? Of course they’re paying out money to counterparties. That’s what insurance companies do.

Should the counterparties be taking something less than the contracted amount? Well, that’s something to debate. But the idea that an insurance company is doing something wrong by redeeming the insurance contracts it wrote is just dumb.

Like Marcia Brady in a pickle because she has committed to two dates to the same prom.

A CLASSIC BY DENNIS!!!!!!!!!
I’m not easily impressed………………BUT I’M IMPRESSED!!

Like Marcia Brady in a pickle because she has committed to two dates to the same prom.