AIG Bits the hand that feeds it.

AIG Bits the hand that feeds it. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Nosathro -> AIG Bits the hand that feeds it. (1/9/2013 7:43:20 AM)
AIG the company that claimed to be "Too big to fail" and got $182 million dollar bail out is now thinking of sueing the government for bailing them out. The bail out money that was to keep the company from going bankrupt, known for it lavish corperate excutive spending, bonus, trips, etc, in fact some if not most of the bail money was spent that way, some of the money was never accounted for, they claimed it was no one business what they did with taxpayers money, is now thinking of sueing the government for bailing them out and they are not the only company who benifited from the bail out. The reason for sueing they claim the terms were unfair....the poor things....[sm=Groaner.gif] http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/01/09/lawmakers-outraged-after-aig-announces-it-is-weighing-joining-suit-against-us/

RacerJim -> RE: AIG Bits the hand that feeds it. (1/9/2013 8:03:05 AM)
Truth be told AIG is not suing the the government for bailing them out per se but, rather, because the terms of the government bailout violated legacy government loan guarantee terms and, therefore, the authority/power granted to the government under the U.S. Constitution. From the FOX News article: "The complaint, filed in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims and the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, asserts that the government didn't provide shareholders fair compensation when it took a nearly 80 percent stake in the insurer as part of its bailout. As a result, the government violated the Constitution, Starr claims." The government did the same thing with the GM bailout...illegally screwed GM stockholders while rewarding the UAW.

Aylee -> RE: AIG Bits the hand that feeds it. (1/9/2013 8:04:10 AM)
It looks like AIG is not sure it wants to be part of this. quote: Starr International Co. Inc., the investment firm of former AIG CEO Maurice Greenberg, filed the lawsuit in November 2011 on behalf of the firm and AIG shareholders. quote: AIG said that, by law, its board must consider three options: take over the lawsuit and pursue the claims on its own; attempt to prevent the claims from being pursued by Starr; or allow Starr to continue to pursue the complaint on AIG's behalf. The insurer noted that, should it elect not to let Starr pursue its claims on the company's behalf, Starr would likely challenge the move. In such a scenario, should Starr prevail in the case, AIG would not receive any damages or portion of a potential settlement.

tazzygirl -> RE: AIG Bits the hand that feeds it. (1/9/2013 8:43:47 AM)
So, if I am understanding that correctly, the only decision is if AIG actually wants to be a part of the suit... not if the suit itself will be made?

Nosathro -> RE: AIG Bits the hand that feeds it. (1/9/2013 10:09:24 AM)
Well, AIG as well as the other companies involved in the bail out, went to the government, the government did not go to them. There was no gun put to their heads to sign and they have alot lawyers reviewing the documents, if they did not like the terms, then they should not have signed. Caveat emptor...Let the Buyer beware

Moonhead -> RE: AIG Bits the hand that feeds it. (1/9/2013 12:15:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Nosathro AIG the company that claimed to be "Too big to fail" and got $182 million dollar bail out is now thinking of sueing the government for bailing them out. The bail out money that was to keep the company from going bankrupt, known for it lavish corperate excutive spending, bonus, trips, etc, in fact some if not most of the bail money was spent that way, some of the money was never accounted for, they claimed it was no one business what they did with taxpayers money, is now thinking of sueing the government for bailing them out and they are not the only company who benifited from the bail out. Has anybody who has an issue with welfare recipients spending money for X on Y complained about this, I wonder?

DesideriScuri -> RE: AIG Bits the hand that feeds it. (1/9/2013 12:34:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead quote: ORIGINAL: Nosathro AIG the company that claimed to be "Too big to fail" and got $182 million dollar bail out is now thinking of sueing the government for bailing them out. The bail out money that was to keep the company from going bankrupt, known for it lavish corperate excutive spending, bonus, trips, etc, in fact some if not most of the bail money was spent that way, some of the money was never accounted for, they claimed it was no one business what they did with taxpayers money, is now thinking of sueing the government for bailing them out and they are not the only company who benifited from the bail out. Has anybody who has an issue with welfare recipients spending money for X on Y complained about this, I wonder? As a matter of fact, some of us have griped about these bailouts. I remember hearing on the radio that Congress was passing legislation to bail out the banks. I went to bed knowing Bush would veto that shit as it wasn't even close to being a Conservative policy. I thought I had woken up in Bizarro World when I found out he signed that shit. I was stunned. The good news of all that was that I finally figured out what Ron Paul actually stood for, and gained an understanding of it. I'm significantly more harsh in my views on the bailed out Wall Streeters, compared to individual Welfare recipients. Even though it may not seem like it as I discuss Welfare reform and express my dissatisfaction with the individual Welfare program, I'm far less tolerable towards Corporate Welfare, across the board. All of it. Every business. Cut Gov't. funding. If it can't stand on it's own, then perhaps it isn't necessary, or, at least, it isn't viable in current form.

Moonhead -> RE: AIG Bits the hand that feeds it. (1/9/2013 12:37:40 PM)
You're not the poster I had in mind with that specific leading question, old boy, but thanks for that.

tazzygirl -> RE: AIG Bits the hand that feeds it. (1/9/2013 3:17:38 PM)
I didnt like any of it.... and was thinking at the time "We are treating these companies like children who need to be bonded out of jail when they knew better!" I wanted no part of this. But, after policy is started, especially how THIS one was started, it would be political suicide to slam on the breaks... especially when the driver's changed.

fucktoyprincess -> RE: AIG Bits the hand that feeds it. (1/9/2013 3:53:40 PM)
FR I thought the government is actually expected to break even or possibly turn a profit on their investment in AIG....and on their investments in the banking industry generally....http://www.forbes.com/sites/steveschaefer/2012/10/11/cbo-updates-tarp-tally-24b-cost-to-taxpayers-14b-from-aig-bailout/ So I'm curious. If the TARP payments to certain groups end up not actually costing the government very much at all, in the grand scheme of things was in not better to prevent AIG from going under? Consider that AIG, as one of the world's largest insurers, has business in the following areas: general life, auto, home, business and travel insurance, as well as retirement products like fixed and variable annuities. In other words, if it failed, a lot of regular, average people would stand to lose a lot of money because they would lose life insurance policies, retirement funds, etc. For example, most mutual funds own AIG stock (and most retirement funds are invested in mutual funds). Also, because of certain types of investments that AIG had, if it went bankrupt, it would have triggered the bankruptcy of many smaller financial institutions - thereby again, affecting many regular, average people through loss of various investment instruments. I'm not a fan of helping the "rich". But I have to be honest. I see this bailout in a very different light. Many average people had their investment instruments avoid bankruptcy because of this bailout. The benefits did not just go to AIG as an institution, but to all the people who had assets insured by the company - and that includes people like me, most members of my extended family, etc. If you have any kind of retirement funds, mutual fund investments, pension funds through work, etc. these would have all been affected - and by affected, I essentially mean wiped out in most cases. So while I realize on its face it looks like a case of the government just helping a large, rich company, I really think because this is the insurance industry we are talking about all of us here. I can't say for sure how far the cascading effects of AIG failing would have been. But I don't want to think about it. I don't like the idea of hard-working people losing pension money because their pension funds were invested in AIG and we allow AIG to fail. Someone explain to me why it would have been better to let AIG fail, and let all the regular folk like me just lose money? Because that is what would have happened to me. And I would have no way of getting that money back. And it is actually possible that the government will make a profit from its investment in AIG. The government still has shares in the company. In contrast money that has gone to the auto industry, or to help the housing market is not likely to see any return for the government. Not saying the government should or should not have done those bailouts. Just saying, interestingly in AIG's case, the government might make money.

LookieNoNookie -> RE: AIG Bits the hand that feeds it. (1/9/2013 4:00:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Nosathro AIG the company that claimed to be "Too big to fail" and got $182 million dollar bail out is now thinking of sueing the government for bailing them out. The bail out money that was to keep the company from going bankrupt, known for it lavish corperate excutive spending, bonus, trips, etc, in fact some if not most of the bail money was spent that way, some of the money was never accounted for, they claimed it was no one business what they did with taxpayers money, is now thinking of sueing the government for bailing them out and they are not the only company who benifited from the bail out. The reason for sueing they claim the terms were unfair....the poor things....[sm=Groaner.gif] http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/01/09/lawmakers-outraged-after-aig-announces-it-is-weighing-joining-suit-against-us/ ("Bites")

LookieNoNookie -> RE: AIG Bits the hand that feeds it. (1/9/2013 4:02:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RacerJim Truth be told AIG is not suing the the government for bailing them out per se but, rather, because the terms of the government bailout violated legacy government loan guarantee terms and, therefore, the authority/power granted to the government under the U.S. Constitution. From the FOX News article: "The complaint, filed in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims and the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, asserts that the government didn't provide shareholders fair compensation when it took a nearly 80 percent stake in the insurer as part of its bailout. As a result, the government violated the Constitution, Starr claims." The government did the same thing with the GM bailout...illegally screwed GM stockholders while rewarding the UAW. YAAAAAY!!!! Someone who actually reads!!!! (But will be excoriated by those who don't).

tj444 -> RE: AIG Bits the hand that feeds it. (1/9/2013 4:06:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead quote: ORIGINAL: Nosathro AIG the company that claimed to be "Too big to fail" and got $182 million dollar bail out is now thinking of sueing the government for bailing them out. The bail out money that was to keep the company from going bankrupt, known for it lavish corperate excutive spending, bonus, trips, etc, in fact some if not most of the bail money was spent that way, some of the money was never accounted for, they claimed it was no one business what they did with taxpayers money, is now thinking of sueing the government for bailing them out and they are not the only company who benifited from the bail out. Has anybody who has an issue with welfare recipients spending money for X on Y complained about this, I wonder? there is apparently a fairly new law about that.. "If welfare recipients want to dole out the dollar bills at a strip club, they'd better make sure it's not government money ... at least if a bill in Congress becomes law. The House last week overwhelmingly passed legislation that would require states to ban the ability to access government benefits at strip clubs, liquor stores and casinos. The benefit program in question is Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), formerly known as welfare. TANF provides cash assistance to working poor families -- often through an electronic benefit transfer card that can be used like a debit card. The money is meant to be spent on food, rent and other necessities. Some recipients' use of their TANF benefits were called into question after media reports found the cards were being swiped at ATMs in strip clubs, liquor stores and casinos. Some recipients were also accessing their benefits out of state, including in Las Vegas casinos, at shops in Hawaii and on cruise ships, according to the reports." http://money.cnn.com/2012/02/06/news/economy/strip_club_welfare/index.htm

tazzygirl -> RE: AIG Bits the hand that feeds it. (1/9/2013 4:12:57 PM)
quote: So I'm curious. If the TARP payments to certain groups end up not actually costing the government very much at all, in the grand scheme of things was in not better to prevent AIG from going under? Consider that AIG, as one of the world's largest insurers, has business in the following areas: general life, auto, home, business and travel insurance, as well as retirement products like fixed and variable annuities. In other words, if it failed, a lot of regular, average people would stand to lose a lot of money because they would lose life insurance policies, retirement funds, etc. For example, most mutual funds own AIG stock (and most retirement funds are invested in mutual funds). I, as well as many other people, saw it as a prime example of businesses expecting to be bailed out after they ran their own company recklessly. In the wake of all these corporate bailouts, we witnessed many, many people lose their homes. The mantra... they should have known better than to make such loans. And that pissed me the fuck off. Here we are bailing out companies, yet telling citizens who were at the mercy of such corporations that they should have known better? Hypocrisy at its finest. Then we move to the "personal responsibility" mantra. Take responsibility... if you dont have insurance, its your own fault. Get a better job, get more education. Dont want to pay the cost of an education? Tough, its going up more. Cant afford your insurance premiums? Tough, they are going up too. 3 tops auto exes went to congress, hats in hand, to beg money, and went their on private planes. I understand, completely, what you are saying... how AIG going under would have caused a domino effect. Same with the car companies, same with the banks and every other industry out there. Yet this didnt all start with AIG... but with Lehman Brother's in 2007. They all knew at that point they were in trouble... it was just too late. What I cannot seem to get across to people is that, during this time period, those execs were still getting bonuses. Where were the criers of "personal responsibility" then? They were silent. They didnt come out until citizens started to bitch. Its another extremely obvious example of the stupidity of the income disparity in this country. At the time, my favorite posts was.. "Let them eat cake" Nothing was more obvious of that fact that the people drinking champagne at Wall Street while the protests were going on. And yet all the layoffs and high employment had a direct link to the troubles many of these companies were facing... and no one wants to admit that. A plant closes... omg... problems! The financial network is failing! Someone bail them out! We rushed in, bailed them out.... for them to pay exes raises and not reopen plants. No one gave a damn that the people layed off had just as big effect on that companies, and other companies' bottom line. A big enough lay off and a community can fold. Personal responsibility... in the face of small businesses being forced to close because BIG business couldnt financially keep their own houses in order... and no one wants to mention that part. Why didnt anyone call for the "personal responsibility" of big business? Dividends.

tj444 -> RE: AIG Bits the hand that feeds it. (1/9/2013 4:14:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Nosathro the poor things....[sm=Groaner.gif] what???... here i have been seeing their wonderful, heartfelt tv ads thanking America.. all those smiling AIGers telling us how they paid back the money and even made taxpayers $22 billion on their investment.. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GwTMUVYrCuU you mean.. they lied and they really arent thankful after all??? I'm shocked, I tell ya! [:-]

tazzygirl -> RE: AIG Bits the hand that feeds it. (1/9/2013 4:19:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie quote: ORIGINAL: RacerJim Truth be told AIG is not suing the the government for bailing them out per se but, rather, because the terms of the government bailout violated legacy government loan guarantee terms and, therefore, the authority/power granted to the government under the U.S. Constitution. From the FOX News article: "The complaint, filed in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims and the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, asserts that the government didn't provide shareholders fair compensation when it took a nearly 80 percent stake in the insurer as part of its bailout. As a result, the government violated the Constitution, Starr claims." The government did the same thing with the GM bailout...illegally screwed GM stockholders while rewarding the UAW. YAAAAAY!!!! Someone who actually reads!!!! (But will be excoriated by those who don't). They certainly didnt give a damn about the terms when this was going on.... Less than a week after the federal government offered an $85 billion bailout to insurance giant AIG, the company held a week-long retreat for its executives at the luxury St. Regis Resort in Monarch Beach, Calif., running up a tab of $440,000, Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) said today at the the opening of a House committee hearing about the near-failure of the insurance giant. Showing a photograph of the resort, Waxman said the executives spent $200,000 for rooms, $150,000 for meals and $23,000 for the spa. "Less than a week after the taxpayers rescued AIG, company executives could be found wining and dining at one of the most exclusive resorts in the nation," Waxman said. "We will ask whether any of this makes sense. " http://voices.washingtonpost.com/livecoverage/2008/10/after_bailout_aig_executives_h.html

Aylee -> RE: AIG Bits the hand that feeds it. (1/9/2013 4:34:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead quote: ORIGINAL: Nosathro AIG the company that claimed to be "Too big to fail" and got $182 million dollar bail out is now thinking of sueing the government for bailing them out. The bail out money that was to keep the company from going bankrupt, known for it lavish corperate excutive spending, bonus, trips, etc, in fact some if not most of the bail money was spent that way, some of the money was never accounted for, they claimed it was no one business what they did with taxpayers money, is now thinking of sueing the government for bailing them out and they are not the only company who benifited from the bail out. Has anybody who has an issue with welfare recipients spending money for X on Y complained about this, I wonder? Moonhead, my issues with welfare recipients spending money for X has little to do with "OMG!! How DARE they buy a TV dinner" and more to do with being able to stretch a dollar further for healthier things. And that feeling goes beyond welfare to people NOT on welfare as well. My issue with this case is that I do not completely understand all of the ins and outs. Hence the comment I made.

Aylee -> RE: AIG Bits the hand that feeds it. (1/9/2013 4:44:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl quote: ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie quote: ORIGINAL: RacerJim Truth be told AIG is not suing the the government for bailing them out per se but, rather, because the terms of the government bailout violated legacy government loan guarantee terms and, therefore, the authority/power granted to the government under the U.S. Constitution. From the FOX News article: "The complaint, filed in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims and the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, asserts that the government didn't provide shareholders fair compensation when it took a nearly 80 percent stake in the insurer as part of its bailout. As a result, the government violated the Constitution, Starr claims." The government did the same thing with the GM bailout...illegally screwed GM stockholders while rewarding the UAW. YAAAAAY!!!! Someone who actually reads!!!! (But will be excoriated by those who don't). They certainly didnt give a damn about the terms when this was going on.... Less than a week after the federal government offered an $85 billion bailout to insurance giant AIG, the company held a week-long retreat for its executives at the luxury St. Regis Resort in Monarch Beach, Calif., running up a tab of $440,000, Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) said today at the the opening of a House committee hearing about the near-failure of the insurance giant. Showing a photograph of the resort, Waxman said the executives spent $200,000 for rooms, $150,000 for meals and $23,000 for the spa. "Less than a week after the taxpayers rescued AIG, company executives could be found wining and dining at one of the most exclusive resorts in the nation," Waxman said. "We will ask whether any of this makes sense. " http://voices.washingtonpost.com/livecoverage/2008/10/after_bailout_aig_executives_h.html Not making excuses, but that may have already been paid for and it was a use it or lose it kind of thing. (that does not address why they planned it when their profits were tanking, however.)

fucktoyprincess -> RE: AIG Bits the hand that feeds it. (1/9/2013 4:45:20 PM)
Tazzy, sorry, my post wasn't meant as reply to yours - have edited to correct that. But will respond to your post. I don't agree with the auto industry bailout. I don't feel it was the same thing at all, and I don't feel the government should have spent the money to keep the industry afloat - I feel it is a dying industry badly in need of restructuring. I also don't agree with the Lehman bailout. But I feel differently about AIG and about what the cascading effect would have been. I am suggesting that the cascading effect would have been unlike anything we could imagine. Take the mortgage crisis and multiply it by millions. That's what I'm suggesting. So at the end of the day, I guess I am saying some things are too big to fail. And I think that it is legitimate for government to step in if it really is facing a crisis with a true cascading effect. If the government hadn't bailed out AIG, those same people facing mortgage foreclosures would have also been facing other threats to their financial situation. Their personal situation would have been even worse. Should the government have done more for the mortgage market? Perhaps. But that doesn't change whether they should have bailed out AIG. I really don't think we had a choice with that one. I think almost every American would have been affected, and the international markets, too. That puts it at a level completely different from the foreclosure crisis. One in 54 homes went into foreclosure in 2008 (I believe one of the worst years) in a market where around 70% of Americans owned homes (so we are talking 2% or fewer of homes). Trust me, way more people would have been affected if AIG had gone under. In fact, other than homeless people with no assets, I'm hard pressed to think of who would not have been affected. Almost every employed person would have been affected through pension funds, etc. Most self-employed have money invested in private funds. And even unemployed people might have pensions/savings from previous jobs, or life insurance policies, etc. all of which would have taken a big hit or disappeared entirely. So other than homeless people with no assets or those who keep all their money in cash stuffed in their mattress, we are talking huge numbers of people both within the U.S. and then globally. And once that hit, the repercussions from that would have been very bad - a downward spiral that I'm not sure we could have controlled. From my understanding, I feel it was necessary. And yes, I am also one of those who feel government could do more to help private individuals and I do agree executive compensation in the U.S. is not properly aligned to the wages of the average worker and needs to be rethought. But neither of these issues actually changes my opinion of the AIG bailout at the moment in time that it happened. That really was a fiscal cliff....[sm=2cents.gif]

tazzygirl -> RE: AIG Bits the hand that feeds it. (1/9/2013 4:52:31 PM)
quote: Not making excuses, but that may have already been paid for and it was a use it or lose it kind of thing. (that does not address why they planned it when their profits were tanking, however.) Oh, I do agree with you, it may have been a use it or lose it scenario. However, they didnt wake up in 2008 and realize they were in trouble. They knew when Lehman Brother's and Bear Sterns' started ringing their bells. Those occurred in last 2007. AIG got a bailout from the Federal Reserve late 2008. They knew a year before. I see no excuse for this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aig#Post-bailout_expenditures

Page: [1] 2 3 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875