$13 Billion Here . . .

$200 million there . . .

Via Atrios, Bloomberg reports:

[The] chief financial officer for the AIG division that oversaw AIG Financial Products, the unit that had sold the swaps to the banks [wanted] to persuade the banks to accept discounts of as much as 40 cents on the dollar [. . .] Beginning late in the week of Nov. 3, the New York Fed, led by President Timothy Geithner, took over negotiations with the banks from AIG. [. . .] After less than a week of private negotiations with the banks, the New York Fed instructed AIG to pay them par, or 100 cents on the dollar. The New York Fedís decision to pay the banks in full cost AIG -- and thus American taxpayers -- at least $13 billion. [. . .] The deal contributed to the more than $14 billion that over 18 months was handed to Goldman Sachs.

(Emphais supplied.) Months later, Goldman Sachs gave $200 million to charity. Gee, thanks.

Speaking for me only

< Tuesday Morning Open Thread | Next Step On HCR: Burn The Trigger Ship >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    I wonder if there could ever come a time (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Oct 27, 2009 at 09:53:32 AM EST
    when an administration's chief financial advisors actually come out of highly regarded teaching jobs and not out of Goldman Sachs....the swankiest casino on earth.

    I am shocked, shocked to learn that (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by gtesta on Tue Oct 27, 2009 at 10:04:58 AM EST
    TARP was all about masking the banks' insolvency and didn't have a damn thing to do with resuming lending.
    Now I get it.
    Maybe someone can explain to me why, if the banks can borrow from the Federal Reserve at close to 0%, we aren't seeing 30-year fixed rate mortgages at 3% yet?!

    Mortgage rates are more closely tied to 'long-term (none / 0) (#9)
    by robrecht on Tue Oct 27, 2009 at 12:10:34 PM EST
    ' bonds and not to the overnight rate.  There's also the perception of risk.

    Well the hope part is at least (none / 0) (#1)
    by SOS on Tue Oct 27, 2009 at 09:46:19 AM EST
    the top 1% understands they just can't say . . "let's just close this wreck down we are rich we don't need the burden of the masses and their freaking pitiful problems"

    Hopefully they (none / 0) (#2)
    by SOS on Tue Oct 27, 2009 at 09:50:11 AM EST
    are not that cold and inhuman just to pull the plug.

    I can't help thinking that (none / 0) (#4)
    by Anne on Tue Oct 27, 2009 at 10:00:13 AM EST
    the 24/7 debate about health care has been a convenient distraction for the financial wheeler-dealers; not that we shouldn't be having the debate about health care, but who's minding the people who are allegedly minding the store?

    And when does the Treasury become the official Washington headquarters of Goldman Sachs?  Seems like they should at least have naming rights.

    I'd love to see a list of the charities (none / 0) (#6)
    by Inspector Gadget on Tue Oct 27, 2009 at 10:10:29 AM EST
    All too often I hear "charity" assigned to what would otherwise be called a Non-Profit organization. (i.e., art museums, symphony orchestras, etc.).

    But, the reality is that Goldman Sachs did NOT give $200 million to charity. The struggling gave to GS, and GS passed it on to the "charities."

    I guess that's true (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Steve M on Tue Oct 27, 2009 at 12:26:29 PM EST
    if when you say "the struggling" you mean China.  It's not as though taxes were increased to pay for the bailout.

    What in the world are you (none / 0) (#14)
    by Inspector Gadget on Wed Oct 28, 2009 at 09:35:42 AM EST
    talking about? Goldman Sachs and all the major bankers are charging ferocious interest rates, penalties and late fees from their customers. I never mentioned a word about tax increases.

    Not Even (none / 0) (#12)
    by The Maven on Tue Oct 27, 2009 at 03:14:09 PM EST
    Goldman Sachs didn't pass the $200 million to the charities, it provided the money to The Goldman Sachs Foundation, which hasn't bothered to issue an annual report detailing its grants since 2006.

    So color me even more skeptical.


    That is too much... (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by kdog on Tue Oct 27, 2009 at 05:26:42 PM EST
    The Foundation makes only a small number of large investments each year, providing significant resources for projects and organizations that demonstrate exceptional promise, strong leadership, distinguished records of accomplishment and the clear capacity to expend large grants wisely.

    Goldman Sachs is ineligible for a grant from the Goldman Sachs Foundation!  Luckily they're always pre-approved with us:)


    Government Sachs (none / 0) (#7)
    by Illiope on Tue Oct 27, 2009 at 11:02:45 AM EST
    arguably one of the key decisions to save AIG: ensure that Govt Sachs got their loot.

    hank paulson was making sure his boyz were well cared for. such as letting lehman bros go belly-up, while rescuing GS, and ensuring that AIG could still pay up.

    I love the term "government sachs" (none / 0) (#8)
    by cawaltz on Tue Oct 27, 2009 at 12:08:00 PM EST
    may I borrow it?

    oh, definitely (none / 0) (#10)
    by Illiope on Tue Oct 27, 2009 at 12:16:23 PM EST
    and i would love to take credit, but i didn't coin it...