AIG wants to sue the US....for the bailout

[Larry Gude (Premo)]

Originally Posted by Tilted

The question remains whether that should have been the goal. I for one am a purist when it comes to government, and when it comes to the Universe's ultimate control of our fates - its ultimately unyielding intent to impose righteousness on the behavior of all its inhabitants. That being the case, I think the goal should have been otherwise and, thus, I don't think the government should have done the things that it did. It should have let the delusion crumble under its own weight, it should have let the devastating correction happen. It would have been painful - painful enough that most people, perhaps even purists such as myself (and yourself, as I take you), would have reconsidered their conclusions that inaction was proper. But the storm would have cleaned the air and the ground on which new, hopefully longer lasting, prosperity might be built.

:

I have never advocated doing nothing. If I gave that impression, again, I wish I could express myself better. I wanted, as Paulson walked out, day after day and said "Forget what I said yesterday. Today, we're gonna focus on..." to come up with a master piece that addressed the issue, bridged us past the raging flood AND landed us on reinforced ground that created the strength and security the system needs be it leverage issues, size, scope of operations, reserves, etc. THAT is what maddens me.

This man, this brilliant man went behind closed doors with some more brilliant minds, THE smartest SOB's on the planet when it come to money and how it ALL works, all it's flaws, all it's pro's, and had the US congress at their service, standing by to bless whatever they came up with AND, that same congress had NO time nor opportunity to #### it all up and they came out with, with...

...the greatest polished turd of all time.

THAT is my issue with TARP.


To this day, that is what I want; not an inert government that watches the whole thing burn down but, a brilliant moment in time that fixes the thing and then...goes away. Much like the resolution trust corp gig. Set up shop, come up with a good solution, make it happen and close up shop.

I believe in the cavalry. I believe in the fix it team that shows up in an emergency that you don't want out running loose UNLESS there is an emergency. I believe in golden opportunities.

[itsbob]

Originally Posted by philibusters

Then AIG should have done bankruptcy rather than accept the bailout money.

I don't know the details or the specifics, so I am guessing a little bit, but impression is that the AIG board met and voted to accept the bailout money. There was probably some pressure by their creditors to accept the bailout (the creditors would get paid in full if the bailout money was accepted, whereas they would receive less than a dollar for dollar payment if AIG went into bankruptcy) and possibly their stock holders too, but I don't think the gov't strong armed AIG into voting to accept the deal.

Doesn't matter who voted on it, or who approved it, or how great a deal it was for whomever.. If it didn't follow the law, it didn't follow the law.

[itsbob]

Originally Posted by BigBlue

itsboob,wasn't Obama ,it was Bush.They could have said no,when you buy a car or a house you might not like the terms ,you can walk away,well so can they.Move on.

Hey, it's dumboass I think I already said that, and admitted that I was wrong..


I WAS wrong, you're still a dumbass..


I win.

[philibusters]

Originally Posted by Tilted

As for the rationalization of TARP and other various bailouts, it's warranted (i.e. not just rationalization for rationalization's sake) depending on what the goal was / should have been. If the goal was / should have been to preserve some semblance of the society (particularly the economic aspect of it) that we had and the prosperity that we had enjoyed, then the actions by our government - or some other similarly substantial actions - were 'needed'. I've little doubt about that. Though many people do doubt that, I think they do so with the benefit of not having had to endure, confront, or accept the fate which they personally - whether they shared significantly in the blame or not - would likely have met had the government not taken the actions it did. We were all saved from a situation that would almost surely have been far worse than what we have collectively endured. It's easy to say that you didn't need someone to violently pull you back from the roadway you were walking into after they did so and you thusly weren't run over by a 5-ton truck. For most people I suspect that their complaints about the government's actions during that time pale in comparison to the complaints they would have voiced in the wake of government inaction. Ignorance is sometimes bliss and, unfortunately, unhealthily emboldening.

The question remains whether that should have been the goal. I for one am a purist when it comes to government, and when it comes to the Universe's ultimate control of our fates - its ultimately unyielding intent to impose righteousness on the behavior of all its inhabitants. That being the case, I think the goal should have been otherwise and, thus, I don't think the government should have done the things that it did. It should have let the delusion crumble under its own weight, it should have let the devastating correction happen. It would have been painful - painful enough that most people, perhaps even purists such as myself (and yourself, as I take you), would have reconsidered their conclusions that inaction was proper. But the storm would have cleaned the air and the ground on which new, hopefully longer lasting, prosperity might be built.

Excellent posts.

When it comes to philosphy we differ a little bit. For the most part we are similar, but you have a little bit more Plato/metaphysical element to your thinking then I do. Of the two paragraphs quoted I would have stopped at the end of the first one and said, "thus it is self-evident TARP was the right thing to do". I would consider myself a pure rationalist in some regards when it comes to philosophy, so its hard for me to understand the universe having normative values. For example, when it comes to legal philosophy which I know a little, I am a pure legal realist---I never understood natural law. I do believe in math which seems to exist outside the observed world, but that is more of an exception to rule in my philosophy.

Larry is a smart guy, but I have sparred with him before on what would have happened if TARP had not happened. The sentiment I see from Larry is things would have been worse without TARP, but it would have been a needed correction and now things would be better. And that is something I don't buy. I believe if TARP does not occur we go into a full blown economic depression---and it would literally take decades to get back to where we were in 2008, not years. Four years later we still be experiencing only the misery that went along with the correction not any of the benefits that comes with a correction. In fact, my whole generation probably would not experience the benefits of the correction (I am about 30) and I would be retiring right when things likely really got humming again.

In some ways Larry position is easier for me to understand. To me it seems rational, he opposes TARP because he was estimating the correction to be much much smaller than I am estimating the correction would have been. So its easy to rationalize the difference. I can think well, we'd probably have the same opinion if we estimated the size of the correction at the same level. Your position is a bit harder for me to rationalize because you are not estimating the correction as smaller than me, if anything perhaps even larger than I think it would have been. Ultimately we have different philosophys on the matter because even if we agreed on teh same facts and likely outcomes we are reaching different conclusions.

[GURPS (Premo)]

Originally Posted by Tilted

If our government violated the Constitution or our established laws in its handling of the AIG situation, I think it is important that it is punished for that violation (even though I realize that punishing the government means, in effect, punishing society's members -

stop right there ........ since the LAW will single out 'people' in charge at the top in a company if a law is broken and Police or SEC decides prosecution is warranted for an offense ...... so to in the Gov. should the people in charge of a division or Cabinet head or the even the President - if the directive to do X came down from the top ....... with so many people involved, someone besides a pundit or journalist should have said


'This Is The WRONG Procedure' - the Gov does not have the authority to do this'

[Beta84]

Originally Posted by itsbob

Obama isn't concerned about us so much as he is worried about the Pandora's Box being opened if AIG sues and wins..

Obama did almost the identical deals with the car companies.. If AIG takes the lead, sues and wins, you can bet Chrysler and GM will follow..

Granted it will cost the taxpayers Billions, but if it was wrong it was wrong, let the courts decide. Maybe prevent the same sort of crap happening again in the future.

I guess that's my point -- Obama is trying to prevent Pandora's Box from being opened at the cost of the taxpayers.

If the deal wasn't legal, why didn't the court strike it down or why didn't the recipient decline the deal? Both sounds like things I would expect to happen instead of this.

[Larry Gude (Premo)]

Originally Posted by Beta84

I guess that's my point -- Obama is trying to prevent Pandora's Box from being opened at the cost of the taxpayers.

If the deal wasn't legal, why didn't the court strike it down or why didn't the recipient decline the deal? Both sounds like things I would expect to happen instead of this.

This is NOTHING. What Obama did to Chrysler and their shareholders was way, way out of bounds but, this is the problem; TARP set the stage for ANYTHING goes. TARP distorted everyone's understanding of even the simplest of reasoning and set the stage for the simple political argument 'But we have to do something!' to become the measure of legality.

The GOP is so deep in all of this, there's your silence.

1984

[BigBlue]

Originally Posted by itsbob

Hey, I think I already said that, and admitted that I was wrong..


I WAS wrong,.

Well that's not new,you're always wrong,we just like hearing you say it.

[BigBlue]

Originally Posted by mamatutu

Hey, Blue! Why are you worried about what Bush did, or Buchanan, Garfield, or any other prez, for that matter? Obama's agenda is to change our country as we have known it for the last couple centuries. He is part of the New World Order. I am sorry you are blind, but we will take care of you, if we can. And, please, work on your sentence structure. I thought it was Lance at first glance.

You really are JPC wife.

[MMDad]

Originally Posted by BigBlue

You really are JPC wife.

Did that hurt?