quote:

We did reward their bad behavior, and their whiny asses aren't being punished. Think of how much fucking money those asshats have made with our tax dollars. The issue I have is the "toxic assets" are still toxic, and still int he system. If they were toxic then, how are they better now? And, not only did W piss me off signing TARP, but then when they - like 2 fucking days later - switched it from Toxic Assets to pretty much just paying the banks off, I was even more pissed.

quote:

And, what have we gotten for it? I still maintain that we'd have been better off now had we let them go under. We'd have hit the bottom and rebuilt. There would have been a lot of shit to wade through, like who owned what, etc. and the smaller banks that hadn't taken the massive risks the big guys took would have been able to come in and get sweetheart deals on all those failing bank assets. Now, that would have been rewarding those banks for their good behavior.

quote:

Harassed?!? LMAO!! The only thing anyone should feel entitled to is the freedom to choose their own life, and to make the most of their life as they see fit, using their personal property the way they choose, so long as it isn't infringing on another's same rights.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

quote:

We did reward their bad behavior, and their whiny asses aren't being punished. Think of how much fucking money those asshats have made with our tax dollars. The issue I have is the "toxic assets" are still toxic, and still int he system. If they were toxic then, how are they better now? And, not only did W piss me off signing TARP, but then when they - like 2 fucking days later - switched it from Toxic Assets to pretty much just paying the banks off, I was even more pissed.

I meant that was their excuse. I would have preferred the whole top been fired and replaced.

quote:

And, what have we gotten for it? I still maintain that we'd have been better off now had we let them go under. We'd have hit the bottom and rebuilt. There would have been a lot of shit to wade through, like who owned what, etc. and the smaller banks that hadn't taken the massive risks the big guys took would have been able to come in and get sweetheart deals on all those failing bank assets. Now, that would have been rewarding those banks for their good behavior.

Oh no... if it had been a US based bank... I would agree. AIG is global. It going under would have been felt by every economy. We had enough problems without that capping the cake.

quote:

Harassed?!? LMAO!! The only thing anyone should feel entitled to is the freedom to choose their own life, and to make the most of their life as they see fit, using their personal property the way they choose, so long as it isn't infringing on another's same rights.

Yes, harassed.
harassed past participle, past tense of ha·rass (Verb)
Verb
Subject to aggressive pressure or intimidation.
Make repeated small-scale attacks on (an enemy).

Seems an apt usage to me.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

No, really?!? And - this is going to shock you, so you might want to sit down and just take your socks off before going further because they're going to get knocked off anyway - I completely disagree. It sounds more like those at the top are harassed.

Where is the aggressive pressure or intimidation? Where is the repeated small-scale attacks?

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

quote:

No, really?!? And - this is going to shock you, so you might want to sit down and just take your socks off before going further because they're going to get knocked off anyway - I completely disagree. It sounds more like those at the top are harassed.
Where is the aggressive pressure or intimidation? Where is the repeated small-scale attacks?

Pressure/intimidation/small scale attacks.... pay... taxes... trickle down that doesnt...crappy insurance...... being told to their faces that they matter, then find out behind their backs they are being laughed at... as a whole segment of the population.... decrease of services at higher costs.... suits showing up to beg money, then laughing and toasting champagne at those who want something for themselves... policies made in back room deals for corporate greed vs public need.
Its there in so many ways.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nosathro

Remember AIG stated "We're too big to Fail" and Greenburg thinks he has a case.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/100369044

Beginning in 2005, AIG became embroiled in a series of fraud investigations conducted by the Securities and Exchange Commission, U.S. Justice Department, and New York State Attorney General's Office. Greenberg was ousted amid an accounting scandal in February 2005.

AIG announced the same day that its board accepted the terms of the Federal Reserve Bank's rescue package and secured credit facility.

Frankley their problems were brought on by their own Board Members...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_International_Group

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

No one should be pandered too.

Yet the high and mighty will condemn welfare and SS as being the sole ills of the economy... and then bargain for their own welfare in the back rooms.

They line politicians pockets to get theirs so they can fuck the rest of us in the bargain.

When their fuck ups hit their bottom line, its not them payng for their mistakes.

Demands to lower minimum wage.... if you dont like what we pay you, fuck you, we will ship someone in from overseas.

Lowering insurance coverage while raising rates... dont like that? find somewhere else to work.

Collectively bargain, and they line politicans pockets to get rid of collective bargaining.

I cant help that your narrow view of the world doesnt allow you to see the systematic harassment... but not everyone is blind to it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl
No one should be pandered too.

quote:

Yet the high and mighty will condemn welfare and SS as being the sole ills of the economy... and then bargain for their own welfare in the back rooms.

quote:

They line politicians pockets to get theirs so they can fuck the rest of us in the bargain.

quote:

Lowering insurance coverage while raising rates... dont like that? find somewhere else to work.

quote:

Collectively bargain, and they line politicans pockets to get rid of collective bargaining.

quote:

I cant help that your narrow view of the world doesnt allow you to see the systematic harassment... but not everyone is blind to it.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

Sorry, I don't see them fucking the rest of us, really. I think you're stretching there.

quote:

You are saying this as if the companies rates aren't rising, too. Hilarious. Every job I've had, I only paid a share of the premiums. When premiums went up, my part went up too, though it was always the same rate. Unless you can show that premium percentages paid for by the employees is also rising, then you have something to stand on. But, if you can't do that, then you're just whining.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

quote:

You are saying this as if the companies rates aren't rising, too. Hilarious. Every job I've had, I only paid a share of the premiums. When premiums went up, my part went up too, though it was always the same rate. Unless you can show that premium percentages paid for by the employees is also rising, then you have something to stand on. But, if you can't do that, then you're just whining.

As insurance premiums rise, employees pay a bigger share
http://www.ama-assn.org/amednews/2010/10/11/bisb1011.htm

2004 $7,110 (29.80%)
2005 $7,850 (31.02%)
2006 $8,513 (32.07%)
2007 $9,000 (33.80%)
2008 $9,603 (34.82%)
2009 $10,182 (34.96%)
2010 $10,962 (35.58%)
2011 $11,998 (36.56%)

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

quote:

Sorry, I don't see them fucking the rest of us, really. I think you're stretching there.

AIG, Lehman's, Sterns, The Big 3, how many small businesses went under as a result?
And why did that mess occur?
In a HUGE part to the subprime loans....
Which was allowed by Congress...

quote:

Thats not jaded... thats reality...... Thats fact.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

Premium share has risen from 17.62% to 22.49%.

quote:

The burden on the employee has still increased, as a %, but to think the employer isn't paying more, would be wrong. From 2004 to 2011, the employee's costs have risen $2,267, and the employer's costs have risen $2,679.

quote:

Please. Allowed? How about pushed by Congress? That's more realistic. Gee, I wonder what would have happened had Congress not pushed for more lending?

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

quote:

Premium share has risen from 17.62% to 22.49%.

And premium share is not the only cost associated with insurance that has risen with time.

quote:

The burden on the employee has still increased, as a %, but to think the employer isn't paying more, would be wrong. From 2004 to 2011, the employee's costs have risen $2,267, and the employer's costs have risen $2,679.

And if the percentage of what an emplyee had paid was the same as what an employer had paid, it would be be a moot point.
Instead, employers offer less and charge more.
employees cost of having insurance include their out of pocket expences. Cant use that insurance if you dont pay that portion, which is why its included.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

And, "employers offer less" has to do with....?

quote:

What no one is willing to actually determine is why cost of care is rising so dramatically. Why are services so much more expensive here? And, it's not simply because the government pays for them.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl
Hewitt's survey was the second released in September that showed an increase in employees' share of health costs. Early in the month, the Kaiser Family Foundation reported that employers' premium costs increased 3% in 2010 but that their employees' costs went up 14%. The survey of about 3,000 employers, as well as Hewitt, noted that employers were passing more premium costs to workers.

quote:

And, "employers offer less" has to do with....?

Goes back to my point...
Lowering insurance coverage while raising rates... dont like that? find somewhere else to work.
If it were just a few that would be one thing... but this is across the board.

quote:

quote:

What no one is willing to actually determine is why cost of care is rising so dramatically. Why are services so much more expensive here? And, it's not simply because the government pays for them.

Why?

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

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.

quote:

ORIGINAL: fucktoyprincess

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.