• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

AIG: Thank You America, But We May Sue You

justabubba

long standing member
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 22, 2005
Messages
66,079
Reaction score
47,027
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
AIG: Thank You America, But We May Sue You - Forbes
un****ingbelievable
AIG would be nothing but a memory had the government not (wrongly) chosen to shore it up so that it could pay out the extensive claims due during the meltdown
but now it is contemplating joining in a lawsuit filed by its former CEO (the one responsible for its financial quagmire) against the USA
and here is the basis:
the bailout provided funds so it could pay out is obligations 100 cents on the dollar (when it was over extended by Trillions)
and
AIG was forced to sell some of its prized assets

how dare we make a loan to a company and also condition that loan such that AIG was required to sell something of its own to be able to afford to pay its just obligations!

if AIG enjoins this suit against our nation, it will exhibit more gall than even charles degaulle
 
time to take a close look at "too big to fail, too big to exist" arguments. they seem to have some merit.
 
AIG: Thank You America, But We May Sue You - Forbes
un****ingbelievable
AIG would be nothing but a memory had the government not (wrongly) chosen to shore it up so that it could pay out the extensive claims due during the meltdown
but now it is contemplating joining in a lawsuit filed by its former CEO (the one responsible for its financial quagmire) against the USA
and here is the basis:
the bailout provided funds so it could pay out is obligations 100 cents on the dollar (when it was over extended by Trillions)
and
AIG was forced to sell some of its prized assets

how dare we make a loan to a company and also condition that loan such that AIG was required to sell something of its own to be able to afford to pay its just obligations!

if AIG enjoins this suit against our nation, it will exhibit more gall than even charles degaulle

People always talk about entitlement culture in the US but no one exhibits it like the corporate world. Financial/Insurance Firms even more so than the rest.
 
I wonder how big of a bonus the CEO will get if the suit is successful?
 
The fact is this is what happens when you do things like this. Get over it.
 
I say we don't give them squat.
 
It would be interesting to see if the people that decry 'corporate welfare' also gave a kneejerk endorsement to the presidents bailout plans, especially for union strongholds like the auto industry.
 
It would be interesting to see if the people that decry 'corporate welfare' also gave a kneejerk endorsement to the presidents bailout plans, especially for union strongholds like the auto industry.

Kneejerk endorsement to an unpopular Conservative President like Bush?
 
It would be interesting to see if the people that decry 'corporate welfare' also gave a kneejerk endorsement to the presidents bailout plans, especially for union strongholds like the auto industry.

There have been enough threads about the bailouts already for anyone to have determined the answer to your question.

Looking back over them, it would appear that the answer is "no".
 
time to take a close look at "too big to fail, too big to exist" arguments. they seem to have some merit.

Exactly. When any single business entity rises to the point of being so large (monoply?) as too "require" government (profit?) protection then that entity is dangerous to a "free" society. When a business is allowed to privatize its profits, yet spread its losses among the public it has, in essence, become part of the government in the form of crony capitalism.
 
He laid the ground work but the bulk of the bailouts happened under his watch and were the policies of Bush and Paulson.
And you...were personally disgusted by the Bush bailouts of the auto industry which in reality 'saved' the auto industry?
 
Exactly. When any single business entity rises to the point of being so large (monoply?) as too "require" government (profit?) protection then that entity is dangerous to a "free" society. When a business is allowed to privatize its profits, yet spread its losses among the public it has, in essence, become part of the government in the form of crony capitalism.

No to mention beyond the spreading of losses the "too big to fail" entities generally receive lower borrowing costs due to the implicit government guarantee and resulting lower risk of default.
 
It would be interesting to see if the people that decry 'corporate welfare' also gave a kneejerk endorsement to the presidents bailout plans, especially for union strongholds like the auto industry.

As long as the political slant of the administration is correct, it can be successfully "explained" by the MSM as "protection of the workers" or "saving the environment" rather than simply being more crony capitalism or corporate subsidies.
 
And you...were personally disgusted by the Bush bailouts of the auto industry which in reality 'saved' the auto industry?

Of course not...I was challenging your "knee jerk support" assertion as if there was anything "knee jerk" about it. The first passage of the bailouts in September of 2008 was defeated and the markets went down 7% (778 points). The support of the bailouts were a realization something had to be done. I don't understand why you split the auto-bailouts from the bank bailouts. They are generally one and the same. One stabilized our financial industry the other stabilized the largest employer of American jobs. Both were passed to stem the downward spiral of the US economy. The string of bailouts were passed by two different administrations but were definately related.
 
Exactly. When any single business entity rises to the point of being so large (monoply?) as too "require" government (profit?) protection then that entity is dangerous to a "free" society. When a business is allowed to privatize its profits, yet spread its losses among the public it has, in essence, become part of the government in the form of crony capitalism.

Agreed, and the Solyndra debacle (as the flagship example of "green" subsidies) illustrates your point.
 
AIG: Thank You America, But We May Sue You - Forbes
un****ingbelievable
AIG would be nothing but a memory had the government not (wrongly) chosen to shore it up so that it could pay out the extensive claims due during the meltdown
but now it is contemplating joining in a lawsuit filed by its former CEO (the one responsible for its financial quagmire) against the USA
and here is the basis:
the bailout provided funds so it could pay out is obligations 100 cents on the dollar (when it was over extended by Trillions)
and
AIG was forced to sell some of its prized assets

how dare we make a loan to a company and also condition that loan such that AIG was required to sell something of its own to be able to afford to pay its just obligations!

if AIG enjoins this suit against our nation, it will exhibit more gall than even charles degaulle

Talk about ungrateful. :shock: I'd rather see corporations fail if they can't get it together.
 
Agreed, and the Solyndra debacle (as the flagship example of "green" subsidies) illustrates your point.

ADM, GE and Lockheed Martin do as well yet they are supported, constantly, by both parties. We have long heard the "reason" (excuse?) is that since farming croporations, defense corporations and fossil fuel corporations get "subsidies" then it is only "fair" to give them to "green energy" corporations as well. Politicians (in both parties) always say that they are against these crony capitalism deals, yet make more of them instead of getting rid of any. Since we the sheeple re-elected 94% of these congress critters and the president in 2012, what could possibly make any of them feel the need for "change"? Pork and crony capitalism = jobs and votes; any questions?
 
Of course not...I was challenging your "knee jerk support" assertion as if there was anything "knee jerk" about it. The first passage of the bailouts in September of 2008 was defeated and the markets went down 7% (778 points). The support of the bailouts were a realization something had to be done. I don't understand why you split the auto-bailouts from the bank bailouts. They are generally one and the same. One stabilized our financial industry the other stabilized the largest employer of American jobs. Both were passed to stem the downward spiral of the US economy. The string of bailouts were passed by two different administrations but were definately related.
Actually...I dont split the bailouts. I was against all of them. I was against the Bush spending back when it wasnt 'cool' to be against deficit spending. However there are many that are very selective with their upset and outrage. Bank bailouts...bad, auto bailouts...good. Outrage over bank exec pay and bonuses, excuses and justification over auto industry bonuses. You know the drill.
 
time to take a close look at "too big to fail, too big to exist" arguments. they seem to have some merit.

No, Its WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY past time to have looked the "too big to fail" arguements and called them what they are, Bull****. With a capital B and a capital S.
 
ADM, GE and Lockheed Martin do as well yet they are supported, constantly, by both parties. We have long heard the "reason" (excuse?) is that since farming croporations, defense corporations and fossil fuel corporations get "subsidies" then it is only "fair" to give them to "green energy" corporations as well. Politicians (in both parties) always say that they are against these crony capitalism deals, yet make more of them instead of getting rid of any. Since we the sheeple re-elected 94% of these congress critters and the president in 2012, what could possibly make any of them feel the need for "change"? Pork and crony capitalism = jobs and votes; any questions?

"This is Congresscritter Lotsabucks, speaking to the voters of my district. Don't forget, folks, in the next election, who it was that brought you job security through government subsidies of United Widgets, the main industry in my district.

Moreover, I stand foursquare for a balanced budget amendment, cutting government spending, and the continued subsidies of United Widgets.

This is Congresscritter Lotsabucks, and I approve this message (as do most of the voters who depend directly or indirectly on the continued pork... I mean bailouts of United Widgets. "
 
And you...were personally disgusted by the Bush bailouts of the auto industry which in reality 'saved' the auto industry?
Huge difference between AIG deal and GM/Chrysler; The later involved haircuts to all involved.

Notice that part of the argument of the plaintiff here involves the fact that AIG debts [to other firms] were being paid off at 100 cents on the dollar.
 
Actually...I dont split the bailouts. I was against all of them. I was against the Bush spending back when it wasnt 'cool' to be against deficit spending. However there are many that are very selective with their upset and outrage. Bank bailouts...bad, auto bailouts...good. Outrage over bank exec pay and bonuses, excuses and justification over auto industry bonuses. You know the drill.

Sure that definately would be a case of hypocrisy.
 
Back
Top Bottom