Posted on 03/29/2008 1:26:20 PM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach
PAULSON DENIED ANY INVOLVEMENT IN THE DEAL!!! PAULSON NEEDS TO TAKE AN OATH THAT HE HAD NO INVOLVEMENT. Questions to be asked:In fact....I would like all of these questions to be asked at the April 3 hearings on this matter. The answers will be much more interesting when coming from Paulson, Bernanke, the Fed, and others.Why would anyone directly involved in the sub-prime fiasco at BSC get any compensation at all?
Why shouldn't they have to give back their compensation?
Why are they allowed to sell any stock at all?
Why shouldn't Bear Stearns' Chief Executive Jimmy Cayne be forced to rescind his stock to US taxpayers who will be footing $29 billion?
You explain....you’re the know-it-all, remember?
Maybe Travis can help, he's almost as confused as you are.
And, for the record, that question, at post #12, was never addressed to you for an answer to begin with. Furthermore, the question was never posed to any person on this forum to be answered. As it was posed, it was obvious, to any person with a brain, that it should be addressed, among other questions, to Paulson....who should be under oath when he makes statements concerning this matter.
Duh.
Travis already read the questions posted at #12.
The people making things up are you and groanup. I guess you’re the one who’s confused.
I would call it a rhetorical question, but I don't think the rhetoric is accurate. For one thing, Cayne was forced to rescind his stock, all but $2/share worth. He was forced to lose at least $8/share looking at post "agreement" market action.
To answer Toddster's question about "US taxpayers": The US taxpayers do not fund the Fed strictly speaking. But the Fed gets interest payments on the T-Bills it holds like anyone else who holds them, and the source of those payments is the US taxpayers. The Fed also gets money printed up at printing cost to "expand" or inflate the money supply. The electronic inflation is done in a variety of ways (e.g. lowering reserve requirements). That affects all dollar holders, not just US taxpayers. The actual "bill" from this debacle is still TBD, but it is a major departure from the past when junk debt was only collateral. Now it is owned by the Fed which means it was monetized which is also inflationary in the whole (inflated money being fungible).
I don't even think I've posted on this thread to this point, and I'm not going to do a forensic analysis because I don't put up with your crap any more. Here's the way your mind works:
1. You make up some BS (or just are wrong).This is an internet bulletin board. When someone accuses me of something I defend myself. When someone mischaracterizes my argument, as they do every day, I correct them. When someone attacks me I fight back. You need to MAN UP.
2. Someone asks you to elaborate, and you do not.
3. That person goes ahead and characterizes your argument the way he sees fit.
4. You complain that the characterization is a lie.
5. You are invited to explain yourself, and you do not.
As for you holding me in contempt? Who the eff cares? Your opinion is worthless to me.
I’m not making it up. I repeated what YOU said. You actually posed it as a question. So we all would like for you to expound on that claim. How do the taxpayers foot the 29 billion dollar tab?
So you pose a question with a false pre text and expect us all to agree? Or ignore it? Maybe you'd better stick to posting exact quotes from third parties.
It's an idiotic question. From an idiot.
For one thing, Cayne was forced to rescind his stock, all but $2/share worth. He was forced to lose at least $8/share looking at post "agreement" market action.
He sold it all at $10.84.
Now it is owned by the Fed which means it was monetized which is also inflationary in the whole (inflated money being fungible).
Only if they create new money to fund it, not if they use cash from maturing bonds or cash from bond sales to fund it.
This is the way you and your BUDDIES’ minds work:
You invent something out of thin air then attribute the statement to others.
When what is actually stated is reposted, you, and your buddies, continue to repeat your own invented statements made up out of whole cloth and continue to attribute them, not to yourselves...where it originated, but to others.
When you’re called on your fabrications.....you continue to deny you invented the statement and then, as you did on the last thread, say “you’ll get back to me” on it....but don’t.
When it repeats on yet another thread.....you deny you ever lied on previous threads.
For the record, the post to you in THIS thread NEVER stated you’d posted on THIS thread....it was a reminder to you of what one of your buddies does on threads to those who s/he disagrees with...because on a previous thread, which you were on, posting in a tag team fashion with one of your buddies, groanup did the same thing.
Your comment that "you're not making it up" is false. As I previously showed concerning the statement you invented, you did make it up. You claimed I stated the following:
groanup: The Fed buys bonds every time they want to boost the money supply. According to nic they get the money to do that out of the general tax fund. Right nic? I don't believe we ever heard your explanation about the mechanics of that.
You did NOT repost, then ask about, one of several rhetorical questions I posted....you lied about and fabricated a statement (the one above in red), and attributed that to me. You claim I said that in my post #12, which post actually states the following:
QUOTE:Therefore, you DID make up, out of whole cloth, the following: "The Fed buys bonds every time they want to boost the money supply. According to nic they get the money to do that out of the general tax fund. Right nic? I don't believe we ever heard your explanation about the mechanics of that.
Jamie Dimon, CEO of JPM, is a sitting director of the NY FED.
Question: Why did Bear Stearns' Chief Executive, Jimmy Cayne, get $50 million?
Grassely's interview with Kudlow last night. Grassely is the head of the Senate Finance Committee and will be grilling everyone involved in the JPM/BSC deal. MUST WATCH INTERVIEW.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/15840232?video=698522214&play=1
PAULSON DENIED ANY INVOLVEMENT IN THE DEAL!!!
PAULSON NEEDS TO TAKE AN OATH THAT HE HAD NO INVOLVEMENT.
Questions to be asked:
Why would anyone directly involved in the sub-prime fiasco at BSC get any compensation at all?
Why shouldn't they have to give back their compensation?
Why are they allowed to sell any stock at all?
Why shouldn't Bear Stearns' Chief Executive Jimmy Cayne be forced to rescind his stock to US taxpayers who will be footing $29 billion?
ENDQUOTE:
There is NO post, where I said that anything resembling anything like that.
There is NO POST where I ever spoke to the Fed buying bonds.
There is no post to where I ever stated that the Fed buys bonds to "boost the money supply."
There is NO post where I ever stated from where the Fed "gets the money to boost the supply of money."
And there is NO post where I ever made any statement concerning "the general tax fund."
Therefore, because the statement you concocted, and which you claim I said, is based upon words and content about which I NEVER made any actual statements, IT IS YOUR OWN WORDS and ideas.....not mine. If you were even able to find anything remotely close to my having said any such thing, on ANY THREAD, you and your tag team buddies would have been able to point to such a thing. But you are UNABLE to reprint where I said anything like it, because........it's they don't exist EXCEPT FOR YOUR OWN STATEMENT attributing them to me.
Rather than admit you've lied and lied repeatedly, or apologize........you continue to lie yet more. As I previously said, when you RUN OUT OF FACTS to discredit the truth, because you are no unable to have an honest debate, you resort to making up statements and pathologically lie, attributing your own words to others. You are, indeed, pathetic.
Hey dude, if it walks like a duck...
Yep.....you’re quite the liar.
After he agreed to sell at $2.
Only if they create new money to fund it, not if they use cash from maturing bonds or cash from bond sales to fund it.
The purchase of these junk securities makes it more likely that they will need to create new money to fund something else. The purchase of the securities is debt monetization which is inflationary. Mises will be proven correct when the dollar is ultimately destroyed but no doubt you will find some way in which he will be technically incorrect.
The officers agreed to sell the company at $2. The shareholders still haven't voted.
The purchase of these junk securities makes it more likely that they will need to create new money to fund something else.
Maybe.
The purchase of the securities is debt monetization which is inflationary.
Only if they use new money for the purchase.
He’s not an officer of the company?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.