AIG. Conspiracy Theories of the World Unite, page 3
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 47 times


reply posted on 18-9-2008 @ 04:57 PM by Alora
reply to post by grimreaper797



Thank you for the explaination. It does settle some of my fears.


reply posted on 18-9-2008 @ 07:30 PM by slouden
reply to post by Alora



Isn't that 85 billion of our tax payers money....so we the people own 80% of the company. Shouldn't we get insurance for free then. Just a thought.


reply posted on 18-9-2008 @ 07:43 PM by Alora
Originally posted by slouden
reply to
post by Alora



Isn't that 85 billion of our tax payers money....so we the people own 80% of the company. Shouldn't we get insurance for free then. Just a thought.


In a (more) perfect world, friend. And only then....


reply posted on 18-9-2008 @ 08:53 PM by TXMACHINEGUNDLR
reply to post by dbates



One of the best if not THE BEST threads I have read on here. Amazing info, and thanks.



reply posted on 19-9-2008 @ 10:03 AM by grimreaper797
reply to post by sdrawkcabII



So you are saying, for the next two years, AIG won't be able to sell 85 billion dollars of assets (plus 8.5% interest) even though they have over 1 trillion dollars in assets? Unless it is because the market is still so bad nobody will buy their assets, that won't happen. I seriously doubt that for 2 years the market is going to be that bad as to where people won't look to acquire some valuable assets from AIG for a deal.

(edit for a spelling error)

[edit on 19-9-2008 by grimreaper797]


reply posted on 19-9-2008 @ 11:00 AM by dariousg
Originally posted by mybigunit
reply to
post by grimreaper797




Question if the government makes money on these deals are they going to send the taxpayer a check for putting their money up to bailout AIG or any of these other conglomerates? The idea of the government assuming more liabilities from mismanaged financial outfits, whether secured or not, is not a comforting thought and yes it does put the FED in control of a private company.

[edit on 18-9-2008 by mybigunit]


The answer. No. Because they are technically required to first pay off OUR national debt. So, if they do make money on this they will (cough, likely story) pay down that debt first. By then AIG will probably have paid off their debt (hopefully). So in the end, we will see nothing but a paydown on the mismanaged debt that this administration has sent into the stratasphere.



reply posted on 19-9-2008 @ 03:53 PM by eric89
reply to post by basejumper



As I understand, the World Bank’s primary function is reducing poverty and improving people's living standards. I do not see what business they would have producing America’s currency.

To Answer your question, According to the Federal Reserve's website www.federalreserve.gov... The President appoints the board members who will be in charge and then is confirmed by the senate. After being appointed the members serve a fourteen year term. So therefore, I assume that the President would have to let them take control. As I started earlier, I don’t see why they would want to.

According to the site:

The Federal Reserve System is not "owned" by anyone and is not a private, profit-making institution. Instead, it is an independent entity within the government, having both public purposes and private aspects.


If the world bank did take over and received profit they probably just help out some third world country.

I am not completely sure of this so feel free to correct me if im wrong . I got all my information from the link above and www.usatoday.com...


[edit on 19-9-2008 by eric89] would'nt let me paste the link at the bottom so i had to write "the link above"


[edit on 19-9-2008 by eric89]


reply posted on 20-9-2008 @ 02:13 AM by rhw007
If the BANKERS stay in power...the POLICE will follow their orders and these things will happen frequently:

www.alternet.org...

It is TIME for the FED to be restructered...period.

When the FED was set up the problem was that the US Treasury was CHARGED interest on the money printed for use as charged by Congress which Constitutionally is the ONLY branch who has power of the purse.

It SHOULD have been set up that the treasury printed money and LENT it to the Fed at a .5% interest rate for government budget items and another amount printed at 1% interest to be used in the private sector.

THUS…when printing money and operating the government we would EARN money as a society as the GDP grew. Insted our national debt has RISEN since Reagan vis-a-vis the GDP. Clinton lowered it but…King Gorgie Jr has expotentially rised it to the point of this collapse we are seeing and the loss of our precious treasure of human lives in needless wars.

I think the Declaration of Independance needs to be looked at seriously again:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. ”

Robert H. Williams
www.commonsensecentral.net...
www.mycommonsensepolitics.com...


reply posted on 20-9-2008 @ 09:38 AM by sdrawkcabII
Originally posted by grimreaper797
reply to
post by sdrawkcabII



So you are saying, for the next two years, AIG won't be able to sell 85 billion dollars of assets (plus 8.5% interest) even though they have over 1 trillion dollars in assets? Unless it is because the market is still so bad nobody will buy their assets, that won't happen. I seriously doubt that for 2 years the market is going to be that bad as to where people won't look to acquire some valuable assets from AIG for a deal.

(edit for a spelling error)

[edit on 19-9-2008 by grimreaper797]


LOL...you're missing something. That's 87 Billion, plus interest. What the interest is? We don't know. The FED NEVER loans money without interest.

Then, we have to take into account that, for 2 years...or maybe 1 year, the FED own AIG. What can happen in that amount of time you ask? Use your imagination. All the higher ups need is to run the place, whether it be for a day or 2 years...I am certain they won't be losing hold of AIG any time soon...if ever.
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4  >>    ^^TOP^^



Did Carl Sagan know something?
  Posted 17 days ago with 276 member flags
Earthly coincidences...or not.
  Posted 13 days ago with 122 member flags
STOP....Take a STEP BACK....and look at the BIG PICTURE!!
  Posted 19 days ago with 115 member flags
Was this the real reason why Megaupload was closed down?
  Posted 18 days ago with 96 member flags
The Mysterious Death of Marilyn Monroe
  Posted 16 days ago with 85 member flags

Newest topics getting replies, in real-time:

Stop Bashing Us Military Folks.
  Rant, Posted 17 hours ago, 190 replies
Anonymous hacks CIA
  Breaking Alternative News, Posted 12 hours ago, 107 replies
Free Psychic Readings
  General Chit Chat, Posted 8 hours ago, 80 replies