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."
Are these guys intentionally trying to force Congress to shut them down? Too much more of this, and economy or no economy, lawmakers are just going to say "Fuck you, die die die" and let the international banking system take a nosedive.
I have been (somewhat) onside for giving Wall Street a helping hand, but between the sheer incompetence of the Democrats and the sense of entitlement of these guys, I think it's time to say "Screw it", let them all sink, and then rebuild it properly, with laws requiring all bonuses be voted on by shareholders, all executives and managers be forced to convert their stock to non-voting, requiring complete replacement of any company's board and senior executives the second they take a single penny of taxpayer money, and putting their legal departments under direct Treasury control.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
I don't think you understand the term "systematic danger". Lets do it in computer science speak:
You have a run away critical process somewhere in your critical system. It is eating memory like mad. It will take down the whole system when you run out of memory. Do you
1: Try to expand the memory for it, even at the cost of less critical applications, while you sort out the problem.
2: Do nothing and wait for the whole thing to come crashing down.
3: Begin looking for who ever wrote the crap to take away his bonus for successfully completing the project last year.
Basicly, letting AIG fail would not just crash the American economy. It would crash the world economy. As in NO MONEY IN THE ATM crash. As in NO FUEL FOR YOUR CAR crash. It might cost billions, but the alternative is far worse. Think Zimbawe. They have been allowed to grow too large to fail, and there is no way out of it except to keep them alive until they can be split up and sold.
What you should be asking is why the Republican party is still against nationalization of banks... Because currently, the taxpayers get to enjoy all the risk, while the owners of the banks gets the profits. And that is not a matter of a few million dollars to the executives. That's a matter of many billions. Being too large to fail is very very profitable.
Look at the Swedish bank crash of 1992. Notice that the Swedish taxpayers actually came out of it with a profit, after nationalizing several failing banks. But that is not what the US is doing. While you are busy arguing about a few millions billions are being pulled from under you.
Please stop being a sheep.
You are right - it reminds me of when folks were rejecting the entire budget because it was 2% earmarks. 2%.
In any case, this lawsuit seems very strange. If AIG "wins" the lawsuit, then the IRS pays AIG - but since AIG is 80% owned by the government, then 80% of that money would essentially go to support the government's investment in AIG (and could conceivably be used to pay dividends back to the entity from which the money was taken!).
I suspect that the lawsuit is really about specific business practices that AIG would like to continue using in the future (assuming AIG continues to operate in the future) and would like to establish the tax-free status of those practices.
$410,000,000,000*.02=8,200,000,000
Or about 20 bridges to nowhere
>>>Which will either head off deflation (never in history been successful) or cause hyperinflation
I wish economists would call this phenomenon with a better description. If a government starts printing tons of paper money, it doesn't cause inflation of prices. It causes *devaluation* of the paper until soon people are walking around with wheelbarrows to buy a loaf of bread.
To use the word "inflation" is akin to a doctor claiming illness is caused by a runny nose. No, the nose and the price inflation is the symptom. The cause is the bacteria and the devaluation of the paper, respectively.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall