"It is hard to take seriously Goldman's claim that the program was not motivated by its public relations problems. The money will be welcomed by the recipients, but if Goldman wants to make a meaningful contribution, it would have to be in the billions and aimed more dirctly at taxpayers", NYT rejects VS's apology on 22 November 2009, link: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/22/opinion/22sun1.html.
"Gethner and the Fed have proferred a series of spurious reasons for their willingness to pay AIG's counterparties--the leading Wall Street banks--in full while demanding concessions from every other entity with whom the Treasury or the Fed dealt. ... Pressuring Goldman and the other counterparties to offer concessions would have forced them to absorb the consequences of making suspect deals with an insurance company that was essentially a Ponzi scheme", my emphasis, Eliot Spitzer (ES) at Slate, 23 November 2009, link: http://www.slate.com/toolbar.aspx?action=print&id=2236460.
"Because there is no accountability for the high rollers of finance, no matter who happens to be president", Robert Scheer (RS) at the Nation, 25 November 2009, link: http://www.thenation.com/doc/20091214/scheer/print.
ES, remember him? ES calls AIG a "Ponzi scheme". Why didn't PriceWaterhouseCoopers figure that out? Why did the monolines ever exist? See my 27 September 2009 post: http://skepticaltexascpa.blogspot.com/2008/09/michael-savage-on-crisis.html. Why did the SDNY US attorneys office investigate ES? You don't suppose VS put a "hit" on ES?
No RS, Lord Rothschild was correct, my 30 March 2008 post: http://skepticaltexascpa.blogspot.com/2008/03/yves-smith-on-paulson.html.