Slashdot Mirror
Taxpayers Fund AIG Lawsuit Against US
AIG, now infamous for their executive bonuses, has decided that the $200 billion they received from the government is not nearly enough and is suing the government for the return of $306 million in tax payments. "AIG is effectively suing its majority owner, the government, which has an 80 percent stake and has poured nearly $200 billion into the insurer in a bid to avert its collapse and avoid troubling the global financial markets. The company is in effect asking for even more money, in the form of tax refunds. The suit also suggests that AIG. is spending taxpayer money to pursue its case, something it is legally entitled to do. Its initial claim was denied by the Internal Revenue Service last year."
Obama says "blame me", which is political-speak for "screw you, it's done, get over it". He won't be saying "blame me" when the honeymoon is over and this escalates to a full scale popular revolt.
We KNEW AIG were crooks long before we gave them this money. Why did they do it? Where the fuck was the outrage when these bailouts were first suggested? I've been outraged since the beginning, because the whole game plan has been obvious to me since they robbed us of that first $700B. And yet polls suggest that Americans STILL think this is going to work somehow.
These people: the Congress, the President, AIG, are all just a bunch of god damned frat boys, scratching each other's backs and doling out our tax money to each other in such staggering volumes that it WILL be the end of this country if we don't stop right now.
Did you all catch Chris Dodd saying he had nothing to do with the change in the bailout legislation to allow these bonuses, then the next day saying oops, that was me. "Somebody should have caught it sooner" - yeah, right, if the bill had any chance of being reviewed by the legislators themselves, let alone the public, before if slipped past Obama's desk quicker than a greased turd. What happened to those 5 days, huh?
Seriously people, at what point do we get off the couch and take back this country? Obama can stimulate my ass.
Today's XKCD seems particularly relevant. There's bigger things to worry about right now. This is a silly distraction -- like the whole "earmarks" thing.
We should set a new rule. When a company asks for .gov money to be bailed out, the top 5 layers of the company should be fired. No exceptions.
This is just beyond belief.
It shouldn't be. I was just thinking earlier that I was glad that media storms like AIG blow over slashdot, and I can get different news here then the stuff everyone else is talking about.
This has absolutely nothing to do with tech or nerdiness, and in the grand scheme of things, it isn't that important. I can see no redeeming value, and I hope in the future that /. manages to avoid being run over by "big" stories like this.
Sometimes bias is better than trying to be objective about something completely ridiculous. Call a spade a spade and get it over with.
Buckle your ROFL belt, we're in for some LOLs.
It's Stuff That Matters. I would presume that most of the people here to pay taxes, so I would presume they have a vested interest.
upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
Perhaps we should discuss rising income inequality in the US? Or the wars in Darfur? Lots of stuff is worth discussing, but I think having some focus on forums tends to make them a bit better.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Don't blame AIG for trying to get their tax money back (perhaps the only money here that is rightfully theirs), or for paying their employees what is contractually due to them. Blame our politicians for bailing them out instead of allowing their failure.
Sounds like a classic case of the Aesop: The Farmer and the Snake.
During the fridge winter months, a farmer happened upon a snake frozen upon his grounds. Taking pity on the creature, he took it into his home to warm it by the fireside. Perhaps he realized they eat the rodents who would dig up his crops, and thus provided a dire function. Perhaps it was just the plain goodness in his heart. As the snake warmed itself and became animate, it leapt to forth and bit the farmer. As the farmer lay in pain (perhaps poisoned) he cried out, "Why have you bitten me, snake?!" I do believe the obvious answer was "Duh, I'm a snake."
Demented But Determined.
Err hello, yes AIG is largely owned by the Govt, but does that mean it now must STOP being a responsible company?
You mean they were responsible up till this moment? Ok.
"Get over your Dem hatred, the "bonuses" were part of the deal Bush set up last year when the financial fallout was starting"
Hint: Bush did not give them the money, Congress did.
And Congress is and was controlled by... Democrats.
Most of the people I saw opposing the bailouts were Republicans: the Democrats in Congress were more than eager to hand over any amount of money so they could avoid taking the blame for pushing big financial companies into bankruptcy.
No matter what Bush wanted, the bailout would not have happened with Democrat votes.
First of all, it looks like it's happening anyway so saving AIG isn't worth it.
Second, AIG was to protect the mortgage originators from the borrowers defaulting. Well, that's happened. And instead of the mortgage originators taking the loss, AIG is. In other words, the systemic losses are being concentrated at AIG. What I'm saying is that letting AIG go bankrupt wouldn't harm the system. The losses would just be spread over the system and individual banks and partners would be taking the hit. It's a zero sum game right now. AIG is irrelevant; except for the bonus that tis executives say they deserve. I say let'em die. It will have no net effect on the economy. The damage is done.
Honestly, how did *anyone* not see this coming? For anyone that thought that the bailout was a good idea (and by anyone I mean anyone, regardless of political party or leanings), you're getting what you deserved. Unfortunately you're dragging the rest of us with you. What did anyone expect to happen? We took businesses with a *proven* failed operating plan, and gave them more money to "keep on keepin' on." We rewarded bad decisions and then all of a sudden, the still operating failure of a business (surprise!) keeps on making bad decisions and burning through capital faster than it takes it in. I know this is a logical fallacy, but damn! you had to be stupid to not see this coming. Anymore I just chuckle at the absurdity of this whole situation... we're getting what we asked for. I can't blame AIG for this, it is doing exactly what it has been doing-- f*ing up. But when we give them free money to keep on doing it, you can't blame them for thinking it might actually be good business.
So the gov't calls a shareholder meeting, replaces the board, and the new board quashes the lawsuit. They own 80% of the equity in the company. The government can do whatever it wants with AIG because it owns them.
Why is this lawsuit a big deal? Or rather, why does it still exist?
Advice: on VPS providers
"President Obama said Wednesday he'll "take responsibility" for AIG executives receiving controversial bonuses while the company took $173 billion in government bailouts."
I'm sure that since he has taken responsibility for the bonuses, Obama will personally repay the American taxpayer the $160+ million dollars.
Oh wait, this more like that other type of responsibility that Rumsfeld took for the crimes committed at Abu Ghraib, where the guy responsible doesn't face any consequences. Rumsfeld didn't do jail time for Abu Ghraib, low level soldiers did.
I agree that this is AIG actually trying to be a business that is responsible to its shareholders.
It is actually, now more then ever, in the government's best interest for AIG to make every attempt to go after any and all money it can, from all sources.
People were ticked off when they viewed AIG's actions as SPENDING money. Now they are ticked off when AIG is trying to GET money.
Public perception is a b*tch
[disclaimer: I am not a fan of AIG, and I believe that all upper management should have been fired without severance packages. I just think this particular uproar is a case of "everything the bad guy does is evil"]
If you took away the over-amped adjectives, that article would be about 30 words long. How can you take someone seriously who refers to people as "bald-headed Frankensteinian goon"? Then again, what do you really expect from Rolling Stone...
Advice: on VPS providers
You mean they were responsible up till this moment? Ok.
Lets not over-generalize here, looking at this whole issue unemotionally (yes that's hard I know, we're talking about accounting here, a very contentions topic) if you borrow money from someone you will use every method at your disposal to pay it back, including by offsetting previously unsettled amounts.
If you lent me $10 last week and now you borrow $20 from me am I wrong if I only pay you back $10?
Come on let's try for a moment to remove the emotion from this topic (yes that means you also moderator), and remember that the people working over at AIG are actually PEOPLE. Lets exclude that top few percent of (failed) execs who got the company into this position sure, but it could be my neighbor, your school mate, whoever who is left with the actual work of getting it out of this mess!
Anyone who has every worked in a big company knows exactly how hard it is to continue justifying those 50+ hour weeks you're pulling for your stupid manager when the company gets some bad press that reflects on your hard work! What needs to be advocated is more management change in AIG, not blaming Joe Plumber's neighbor because he's a good tax accountant working for AIG!
I gave up my mod points already assigned in this topic because it was clear nobody was willing to discuss the other side of this, hopefully some of the moderators left out there want to see some balance.
There's a known solution to this problem. In the 1980s S&L collapse, the Office of Thrift Supervision established the rule that S&Ls taken over by the Government couldn't sue each other or the Government. It just burned up legal fees, since the money came out of the same pocket. Congress needs to enact something like that this time.
Majority owners can't actually do "whatever they want" unless they actually own 100% of the company. The trouble here is that the 20% minority owners are something of an annoying fiction--- the company is by rights bankrupt and the shares worthless, but the government has unwound this mess somewhat ineptly and as a result on paper the company still exists and has value, and 20% of that value is owned in the private sector by people who technically the company has a fiduciary duty to.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Perhaps I don't understand what "ownership" means. If I "own" an 80% share in a gas station, and the gas station is suing someone, I have the right to call up the station and say "drop the lawsuit, and fire whoever thought of the lawsuit". By the same logic, a representative of the Federal government should be able to personally order the person who is responsible for this suit fired immediately.
By a similar reasoning, if I own 80% of the business, and there is some question over whether an employee is owed a large bonus, as owner I can say "nope, don't pay the bonus". Even if my order violates a written contract, the employee would have to sue to get their money. And there's unlikely to be a single jury in the United States that would allow AIG execs to collect a few million dollars in return for making financial decisions that have destroyed the savings of millions of people.
Why are U.S. taxes being handing money to foreigners?
May be because AIG owed them a buck or two?
...a stunned silence fell upon the hall.
That's really misapplying the term "gambling". Gambling is defined as money, or anything of value, that is risked for possible gain. The important thing here is the "gain" part. You are betting something, hoping to make an over all gain. That's not the case with insurance. When you insure your home, you are not hoping to make a gain on it. If your home burns down, they don't pay you a hundred million dollars, they pay you the value of the home and its contents (or the limits of the policy, whatever is less).
You aren't gaining anything, and you certainly aren't hoping that it'll happen. What you are doing is transferring risk. You cannot afford to pay out the cost of a new house. Thus the risk of losing it isn't acceptable. So you purchase insurance. They agree to assume the risk. Should the house be destroyed, they pay for it, you don't. In trade for that, they collect regular monies and get to keep them if nothing goes wrong. Your insurer may in fact then do the same thing. They might assume the risk for small things, but transfer the risk for a large event to another insurance company that specializes in that.
That's all insurance is. It isn't gambling, it is risk transfer. That is also why there are cases where it is advisable to NOT have insurance. For example if you have a car that is old and has a low book value, collision insurance is a waste of money. If you wreck the car, you can afford to replace it. Thus there's no reason to transfer the risk, just assume it yourself. Also the amount they charge is such that after awhile, you have already paid out anything you'd get.
So no, it isn't gambling. Gambling is what you do in a casino. If you don't see a difference between that and insurance, well then you need to do a bit more research.