A.I.G.

[Mad Dog]

I hate to stick up for Fat Cats but Congress is now seriously considering putting a 95% tax on a group of a few dozen individuals because they don't like the way they got paid. Couldn't they pull this trick on the rest of us poor folk? Are we going to have any money left too raise our family's once this greedy bunch of Congressmen figure out they can just take anyones money they want to? I'm convinced they will if they can create a new scandal to save the day for.

[-Jiggy-]

Something has to be done about A.I.G. spending the money foolishly. However, it scares me at the thought of the government controlling corporations like that. They can call it liberalism or whatever they want, to me it's communism.

[zdunklee]

I'd be more worried about it if the federal government didn't own 80% of A.I.G. already. The way I see it they are just taking back money they didn't authorize to be paid.

[Biff]

And yet no one is directing that anger at Barney Frank and Chris Dodd.............

[-Jiggy-]

It doesn't worry me about the gov't taking control of AIG's expenses. I'm worried about the ramifications of it. They are more than likely going to ask congress for "special immediate powers" to go in and seize control of records or whatever else they want.

I do not see the government giving up this power and it is one more step to our loss of freedom.

[zdunklee]

Personally I really wish they would let the whole damn company fail really, I can see saving banks and such, but AIG seems pretty worthless to me.

[Mad Dog]

Personally I really wish they would let the whole damn company fail really, I can see saving banks and such, but AIG seems pretty worthless to me.

Exactly!!!! +1 If they would have let that worthless company fail nobody would have been pissed that they were wasting tax payer money because they would have had none. And if they were in the throughs of failing, maybe there exec-ts wouldn't have gotten used to such a big pay day.

It is my belief that the government has no business propping up ANY company!! But Obama Inc. wants to take over the banking and insurance industry and this business about the bonus money is the smoke and mirrors that will allow them to put there foot in the door of socializing our money supply.

[zdunklee]

I just find it funny that they give a useless insurance company 170 billion with no questions asked and give the automakers that have 10 times the workforce here in the US the third degree about 30 billion.





....zdunklee/jiggy for president/vice president '12...

[professorpinasheep]

I do not see the government giving up this power and it is one more step to our loss of freedom.

That's the scary part no one wants to talk about or seems willing to recognize. The optimist in us wants to assume that things will eventually get right.. but when it does, then what? The governments now has its greedy mits in the biggest formerly-private businesses in the largest segments of our economy. Does anyone really believe they'll cede any authority back to the private sector when things get right?

[uhohspagettio]

And yet no one is directing that anger at Barney Frank and Chris Dodd.............

I just read that Dodd has admitted that he wrote part of the bill that authorizes them to pay out the bonuses.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/2009031...tico/30833

[zdunklee]

Yea, but when they wrote that bill I don't think they knew about these AIG bonuses, and at least they were smart enough to write it so they could get them back one way or another it sounds. I think it was written in response to the banks, and then AIG just happened to fit in a loophole in the bill after the latest bailout they recieved.

[speedbump]

It doesn't worry me about the gov't taking control of AIG's expenses. I'm worried about the ramifications of it. They are more than likely going to ask congress for "special immediate powers" to go in and seize control of records or whatever else they want.

I do not see the government giving up this power and it is one more step to our loss of freedom.

But if they essentially own 80% of A.I.G., why shouldn't they have full access to any records? If you have that much stake in a company, you want to know what is going on behind the curtain. (I'm not saying they should have bailed out A.I.G. in the first place, just arguing this point)

Isn't there a bit of a problem with saying you don't have a problem with an action but you do with the result? They're kinda linked.

EDIT:
This should get some people here wet:
"The two biggest Congressional recipients of bonuses from the A.I.G. are - Senators Chris Dodd and Senator Barack Obama. "
http://www.examiner.com/x-268-Right-Side...-from-AIG?

By the way, this is part of my campaign to make some people on here understand that I do not think Obama is Jesus.

[krystal]

By the way, this is part of my campaign to make some people on here understand that I do not think Obama is Jesus.

Come on, we all know Jesus was white.

[-Jiggy-]

Isn't there a bit of a problem with saying you don't have a problem with an action but you do with the result? They're kinda linked.

I fail to see the problem with this. A piece of me is happy that AIG is being called out on their unethical business but I'm more scared by the ramifications of it. How is this a problem?

On another note, yes, they (government) do have the right to look at records because of the stake they own. That is the problem in the first place. All the stones that were put in place for the gov't to obtain that position in the first place.

[Mad Dog]

I really despise the direction this government is taking our country. I'm in favor of freedom. Which I believe is what our country was founded on. When the Neo-cons want to legislate morality, I'm against that. When Neo-Commies want to "save us" from our evil capitalist system and punitively tax individual Americans for what ever reason, is Un-conscionable and Un-constitutional.

[professorpinasheep]

I fail to see the problem with this. A piece of me is happy that AIG is being called out on their unethical business but I'm more scared by the ramifications of it. How is this a problem?

http://blogs.wsj.com/wallstreetcrisis/20...rs-on-aig/
I don't know that AIG was unethical. Very probably, but that's not what got them into trouble. It was their poor business practices and bad habit of gambling on big risk/big reward situations. This is why the government bailouts aren't working.

In a sense, what the government is doing is comparable to giving an unemployed alcoholic junkie a fat wad of cash and telling him to go buy a suit and work on his resume. In a perfect world, the addict would improve himself and become a productive member of society. But we all know it's not a perfect world, and in all likelihood the junkie will go score his next quick fix and be back in the same boat he was before the cash infusion.

Am I the only one who heard today that 13 of the banks that received bailout funds are behind in paying their federal taxes? Jesus, they might as well be run by Obama nominees. Hell, two of them alone (weren't named as of yet) each owe over 100 million.. AND THE GOVERNMENT GAVE THEM MONEY.
[url=http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5g8P4ughR08ExR6YyMPc3SxIjglwg
]http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5g8P4ughR08ExR6YyMPc3SxIjglwg
[/url]

[zdunklee]

I fail to see the problem with this. A piece of me is happy that AIG is being called out on their unethical business but I'm more scared by the ramifications of it. How is this a problem?

http://blogs.wsj.com/wallstreetcrisis/20...rs-on-aig/
I don't know that AIG was unethical. Very probably, but that's not what got them into trouble. It was their poor business practices and bad habit of gambling on big risk/big reward situations. This is why the government bailouts aren't working.

In a sense, what the government is doing is comparable to giving an unemployed alcoholic junkie a fat wad of cash and telling him to go buy a suit and work on his resume. In a perfect world, the addict would improve himself and become a productive member of society. But we all know it's not a perfect world, and in all likelihood the junkie will go score his next quick fix and be back in the same boat he was before the cash infusion.

Am I the only one who heard today that 13 of the banks that received bailout funds are behind in paying their federal taxes? Jesus, they might as well be run by Obama nominees. Hell, two of them alone (weren't named as of yet) each owe over 100 million.. AND THE GOVERNMENT GAVE THEM MONEY.
[url=http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5g8P4ughR08ExR6YyMPc3SxIjglwg
]http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5g8P4ughR08ExR6YyMPc3SxIjglwg
[/url]

So you are saying this guy is more truthful than all the banks and A.I.G.?

[Mad Dog]

Which is why you don't give a drunk a fat wad of cash. Except in this case I believe they were given this cash so that congress could create a fake crisis and save the day with there right hand and to sneak through a big fat socialist agenda with their left.

[professorpinasheep]

So you are saying this guy is more truthful than all the banks and A.I.G.?

That's exactly what I'm saying.. and does it come as any surprise? The money you have, the less truth you tell.. or so it seems to be these days. Maybe I'm just jaded.

[professorpinasheep]

Which is why you don't give a drunk a fat wad of cash. Except in this case I believe they were given this cash so that congress could create a fake crisis and save the day with there right hand and to sneak through a big fat socialist agenda with their left.

I had the same sneaking suspicion, but it all smacks of a "conspiracy theory." The problem, though, is it's all too plausible given the way things are turning out.

[zdunklee]

http://gawker.com/5175745/aig-corporate-...-angry-mob

[lokizilla]

Actually this tax on them is against the constitution. It states you can't punish a person tax wise unless they are brought before a judge.

[Rock Monster]

Actually this tax on them is against the constitution. It states you can't punish a person tax wise unless they are brought before a judge.

so⋅cial⋅ism   /ˈsoʊʃəˌlɪzəm/ [soh-shuh-liz-uhm]

[krystal]

Actually this tax on them is against the constitution. It states you can't punish a person tax wise unless they are brought before a judge.

so⋅cial⋅ism   /ˈsoʊʃəˌlɪzəm/ [soh-shuh-liz-uhm]

[professorpinasheep]

If we are true capitalists we would have let everything fail. Which we should have.

Yes, we should have. Unfortunately, corporations have large amounts of PR toadies at their disposal. Do you really believe over one million people would lose their jobs if GM ceased to exist as it is/was? Yes, there would be job loss and restructuring.. but I don't believe GM would ever become defunct.. Bought and owned by a foreign entity, probably, but not completely gone. In any case, all people could focus on was that big number and not the good of the economy or long term picture. So now we're stuck in this mess, and the people who are leading the blind aren't only blind themselves, but deaf to good advice and too stupid to heed it.

[zdunklee]

I do believe that over a million people would lose thier jobs as a result of GM failing completely, not that it would happen if we left them to fail, but if it did I can easily see a million losing jobs. Think all the dealerships, suppliers (as most suppliers only supply one of the major auto companies for about 80% of their business), direct employees of GM, those of delphi who mostly depend on GM. It would be a pretty big mess, but I do realistically think it would happen. However like you said I can't see someone else not buying them up if it did happen.

[professorpinasheep]

Yes, people would lose their jobs. Some permanently, and a lot temporarily. That happens when major companies are forced to restructure to remain in business.. I've been a victim of that already, and hopefully it won't happen again. Don't think I'm completely biased against GM.. I work for an auto supplier. Fortunately, my employer was smart enough to diversify. Eight years ago, GM was 43% of our business.. in the last few years, even before the big downturn, it's been reduced to between 12% and 18%. My job is directly tied to how the auto industry is fairing, so it'd be more natural to be all in favor of whatever keeps them in business in the immediate future. However, by doing this our leaders have mortgaged the long term future and potential prosperity into simply prolonging the inevitable collapse.

Anyway, GM will never disappear. Ownership will probably change hands, but a worldwide force in the auto industry isn't likely to completely dissolve. The offshoots (Saturn, Buick, Pontiac, etc) are likely to be cut but Chevy/GM will always remain in one form or another and thereby directly and indirectly employ a great many people. It's sad that it's come to this, but I think a clean break, or as clean as bankruptcy/sale can be, would be a better way to keep our economy afloat than to keep manufacturing money to give GM.

[Mad Dog]

I have a question? How soon will it be before they let loose all of our current Club Gitmo guests and ship all the AIG employees ands exectutives down there?

[speedbump]

Actually this tax on them is against the constitution. It states you can't punish a person tax wise unless they are brought before a judge.

so⋅cial⋅ism   /ˈsoʊʃəˌlɪzəm/ [soh-shuh-liz-uhm]

[Mad Dog]

[quote="speedbump"]
[quote="Rock Monster"]

so⋅cial⋅ism   /ˈsoʊʃəˌlɪzəm/ [soh-shuh-liz-uhm]

[Biff]

The "imperfect implementation of collectivist principles" has been done by both parties, and it is nothing new. If you're going to say we're moving towards socialism, don't choose that point from the definition.

True, but guess who is in power now. The Far Left. And here is there chance to ram through every socialistic and communistic piece of legislation their little hearts have ever desired. :-[

George Bush was no saint when it came to limited government. Bush 43 put government growth into drive but Obama just hit the hyperdrive button.

[Mad Dog]

There is plenty of blame for both parties. It's just that The Dem's are un-abashedly seeking to grow government exponentially.

[Mad Dog]

Good News!!! Now there will be plenty of room to house rebel A.I.G employees!!
http://www.voanews.com/english/2009-03-22-voa3.cfm

[sunshyne]

It really all comes down to the government. These financial institutions that the government are "saving" with our money have their hands in the pockets of many of the politicians, our great president included.
http://www.blacklistednews.com/news-3692-0-14-14--.html

Oh not to mention the other countries that got a piece of pie
http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/03/15/AIG.ban...index.html

And we as americans are being suckered by the "blame game"
http://www.blacklistednews.com/news-3670-0-11-11--.html

I guess they're scared http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con...61_pf.html


This sort of brings some things to light
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?c...&aid=12787

[professorpinasheep]

This sort of brings some things to light
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?c...&aid=12787

Yeah.. it's kind of common sense. The problem is most people don't know, or don't care to know, the mechanics of the bailouts of these companies. The government now owns a huge chunk of AIG.. and they're saying they'll force AIG, in one way or another, to give them the bonus money back? That's like forcing yourself to reach into your wallet and put the money in your pocket. The money's in a different place, but it still belongs to the same person.

[Mad Dog]

So tell me again how I am over reacting to the Government take over of America?

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20090617-713345.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-200 ... 13345.html</a><!-- m -->

[Philly Mike]

well first of all I don't trust anything that says "at a glance" because it usually poorly conveys the idea of the matter and doesn't really give details about it and is usually worded to take the side of the bias of whatever company or person is presenting it. Shit they don't even usually go into detail when they say "Details" they still try to "simplify" it showing whatever side they want you to see.
now instead of

THE DETAILS: The Obama proposal, if enacted as law by Congress in unchanged form, would:

- Give the federal government power to take over and wind down a large financial company.

- Mandate that large financial institutions raise more capital and meet higher liquidity standards.

it could say

THE DETAILS: The Obama proposal, if enacted as law by Congress in unchanged form, would:

- The government will assist large companies in case of emergencies.

- Encourages large financial institutions to raise capital to bolster the strength of the economy.

Here is another article on the same thing, still a little skewed but it shows a little more of what ideas are really out there.

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.forbes.com/2009/06/17/banks-consumer-protection-business-washington-regulation.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.forbes.com/2009/06/17/banks- ... ation.html</a><!-- m -->

dude, mad dog, i like you and all, but you are starting to seem more like a conspiracy theory guy.

[sunshyne]

great, but why do the people have to pay to save big companies anyway? Because when they say "the government will save....." they really mean tax payers $. What's so wrong with survival of the fittest? All theses BIG companies started out as small companies, they've just gotten too big for their britches. If they can't figure out how to manage stuff on their own then they need to fold, or break u into smaller pieces. Giving them more money isn't going to suddenly make them good at what they do, they will just flounder a little longer, waste that money and then tank in the end anyway.
What about the small companies that are going under? NO ONE is going to bail them out. In fact, the government keeps passing more regulations to make their lives harder, with the false face of making things "safer". new regulations on small farming and producing (sorry Amish folks/ small town farmers, you're screwed), regulations on carbon emissions (power costs will skyrocket), regulations on medical (you don't want a vaccination? too bad, but your kid will get one regardless), regulations on fat in food (tax on the soda?)
I'm sorry, but I think its sad that people are being basically forced into a direction. I don't really need the government making my daily decisions for me. I'm a grown ass adult. People are acting like the thirty-eight year old living in his mom's basement. Not wanting to go out on their own and do things for themselves.
America was built on dreams of indiviuals coming here and building something better for themselves. Now people come here/ or are born here expecting the government or someone else to do it for them.

[zdunklee]

great, but why do the people have to pay to save big companies anyway? Because when they say "the government will save....." they really mean tax payers $. What's so wrong with survival of the fittest? All theses BIG companies started out as small companies, they've just gotten too big for their britches. If they can't figure out how to manage stuff on their own then they need to fold, or break u into smaller pieces. Giving them more money isn't going to suddenly make them good at what they do, they will just flounder a little longer, waste that money and then tank in the end anyway.
What about the small companies that are going under? NO ONE is going to bail them out. In fact, the government keeps passing more regulations to make their lives harder, with the false face of making things "safer". new regulations on small farming and producing (sorry Amish folks/ small town farmers, you're screwed), regulations on carbon emissions (power costs will skyrocket), regulations on medical (you don't want a vaccination? too bad, but your kid will get one regardless), regulations on fat in food (tax on the soda?)
I'm sorry, but I think its sad that people are being basically forced into a direction. I don't really need the government making my daily decisions for me. I'm a grown ass adult. People are acting like the thirty-eight year old living in his mom's basement. Not wanting to go out on their own and do things for themselves.
America was built on dreams of indiviuals coming here and building something better for themselves. Now people come here/ or are born here expecting the government or someone else to do it for them.

I agree with a lot of what you say sunshyne, but just so you know the amish are exempt from most of the regulations/rules the government sets anyway because it is part of their religion, so I highly doubt it will affect them.

[professorpinasheep]

I'm sorry, but I think its sad that people are being basically forced into a direction. I don't really need the government making my daily decisions for me. I'm a grown ass adult. People are acting like the thirty-eight year old living in his mom's basement. Not wanting to go out on their own and do things for themselves. America was built on dreams of indiviuals coming here and building something better for themselves. Now people come here/ or are born here expecting the government or someone else to do it for them.

I'd have to agree. It seems like right now, the government is attempting to legislate behavior. It's not as insidious as just outlawing something or decreeing certain things are punishable, or someone standing over you brandishing a club, saying "Oh no you don't!" It's being done in the quietest, most peaceful way possible. You can't choose something if it's no longer a choice, or not financially feasible. In a few years, you won't really have the option of buying that nice new truck to haul around your snowmobiles/ski-dos or horsetrailers thanks to the proposed emission standards. If you tax something heavily (ie fatty foods, soda, etc), people are certainly less likely to buy it. While improving the nation's health is a noble goal, doing it it by more or less removing the freedom of choice seems like the wrong way to go about it.