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

[Chris0nllyn]

AIG, the US insurer, which received the biggest of all the government bailouts during the financial crisis, may sue the US government over the terms of the deal.

The company's board will on Wednesday consider joining a lawsuit launched in 2011 by Hank Greenberg, AIG's former chief executive, which demands $25bn in compensation for the dilution inflicted on shareholders when the Federal Reserve Bank of New York took a 79.9 per cent stake in return for $182bn in loans and guarantees.

AIG weighs action against government - CNN.com

[itsbob]

Originally Posted by Chris0nllyn

AIG weighs action against government - CNN.com

It sounds, again, like Obama overstepped his bounds, and seems to me this is a legitimate argument.

They did something similar to the car companies didn't they? Where stocks weren't honored, and contracts were nullified?

I would suggest they know this, and why they are trying to convince them NOT to pursue legal action.

[Chris0nllyn]

Originally Posted by itsbob

It sounds, again, like Obama overstepped his bounds, and seems to me this is a legitimate argument.

They did something similar to the car companies didn't they? Where stocks weren't honored, and contracts were nullified?

I would suggest they know this, and why they are trying to convince them NOT to pursue legal action.

We should have NEVER bailed them out.

Our freaking tax money went to pay for their bad business practices, and huge bonuses.

Now they want to sue because it wasn't generous enough?

[itsbob]

Originally Posted by Chris0nllyn

We should have NEVER bailed them out.

Our freaking tax money went to pay for their bad business practices, and huge bonuses.

Now they want to sue because it wasn't generous enough?

Doesn't matter how generous Obama was, if he extorted them in taking the money it was wrong.

[Chris0nllyn]

Originally Posted by itsbob

Doesn't matter how generous Obama was, if he extorted them in taking the money it was wrong.

Judging by the article, it seems they are suing because they need to make back money they lost during the deal.

$25bn in compensation for the dilution inflicted on shareholders when the Federal Reserve Bank of New York took a 79.9 per cent stake in return for $182bn in loans and guarantees.

[tommyjo]

Originally Posted by itsbob

It sounds, again, like Obama overstepped his bounds, and seems to me this is a legitimate argument.

They did something similar to the car companies didn't they? Where stocks weren't honored, and contracts were nullified?

I would suggest they know this, and why they are trying to convince them NOT to pursue legal action.

AIG was bailed out in Sept 2008.

In Sept 2008, Mr. Bush (43) was President. Mr. Paulsen was Treasury Secretary. Mr. Bernanke was Chairman of the Federal Reserve.

In Sept 2008, Mr Obama was a Senator from Illinois and the Democratic Nominee for President. The election was not held for almost 2 months after the AIG decision and the inaugural was not held until more than 4 months later. But you contend that Mr. Obama, "overstepped his bounds"?

Mr. Bush, Mr. Paulsen and Mr. Bernanke made the only realistic choice that was available to them. The choice was terrible...but correct on the grounds of avoiding Great Depression 2.0. Even hindsight shows that decsision to be regrettable but correct.

[itsbob]

Originally Posted by tommyjo

Mr. Bush, Mr. Paulsen and Mr. Bernanke made the only realistic choice that was available to them. The choice was terrible...but correct on the grounds of avoiding Great Depression 2.0. Even hindsight shows that decsision to be regrettable but correct.

There is Absolutely NO way to say that. In fact I'd say just the opposite would be true. Let them fail, let them file bankruptcy and all this would be behind us already. The economy possibly recovered already.

Doesn't matter who "made the deal" illegal is illegal, and if it wasn't illegal the current Admin wouldn't be begging them NOT to go to court. If they had no legal standing why would they care if they sued or not?

[GURPS (Premo)]

Originally Posted by tommyjo

The choice was terrible...but correct on the grounds of avoiding Great Depression 2.0. Even hindsight shows that decsision to be regrettable but correct.

that is CRAP ....... bailouts and Gov. interference have only prolonged the issue

[Beta84]

Originally Posted by itsbob

There is Absolutely NO way to say that. In fact I'd say just the opposite would be true. Let them fail, let them file bankruptcy and all this would be behind us already. The economy possibly recovered already.

Doesn't matter who "made the deal" illegal is illegal, and if it wasn't illegal the current Admin wouldn't be begging them NOT to go to court. If they had no legal standing why would they care if they sued or not?

For the sake of your argument, let's say the deal was illegal. The deal, as stated above, was made by Bush and his cronies. The current administration, who you say is begging AIG not to go to court, is Obama and his confederates. Why would the current President not want AIG to sue the federal government over a deal that's either legal, or illegal but hatched by Bush? Maybe because regardless of who hatched it, it's the current tax payers that would lose money and be responsible for paying AIG, should they win in court? How can that possibly be good news for Obama, his administration, or the country? If what you're saying is true, any reasonable citizen should be happy that Obama is trying to spare this country from a law suit that could cost additional millions or billions, like we have any money to spare.

Should Obama throw up his hands and say "I don't care if it's illegal, Bush made it happen so go ahead and sue us, what do I care?" How does that make any sense? Or should Obama somehow repeal the already agreed upon bailout? I don't see how that could happen either. Sometimes it seems like you guys just want to nail him because you don't like him instead of taking a second to think about his options.

[itsbob]

Originally Posted by Beta84

For the sake of your argument, let's say the deal was illegal. The deal, as stated above, was made by Bush and his cronies. The current administration, who you say is begging AIG not to go to court, is Obama and his confederates. Why would the current President not want AIG to sue the federal government over a deal that's either legal, or illegal but hatched by Bush? Maybe because regardless of who hatched it, it's the current tax payers that would lose money and be responsible for paying AIG, should they win in court? How can that possibly be good news for Obama, his administration, or the country? If what you're saying is true, any reasonable citizen should be happy that Obama is trying to spare this country from a law suit that could cost additional millions or billions, like we have any money to spare.

Should Obama throw up his hands and say "I don't care if it's illegal, Bush made it happen so go ahead and sue us, what do I care?" How does that make any sense? Or should Obama somehow repeal the already agreed upon bailout? I don't see how that could happen either. Sometimes it seems like you guys just want to nail him because you don't like him instead of taking a second to think about his options.

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.