AIG considers joining suit against the Fed for bailout...

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

MooseNSquirrel

Platinum Member
Feb 26, 2009
2,587
318
126
They should of gone out of business along with every other rotten bank and wall street firm who bet big on the housing bubble because capitalism needs failure to flush out the turds like AIG. This was one of the main arguments being made by those who were AGAINST the bailouts to begin with and wanted the market to sanitize itself by allowing FAILURE rather then have government move in and bail these assholes out using tax payer dollars.


And guess what that bailout was pretty much a nice little money making racket for banks as reported by Matt Tabi.



http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/secret-and-lies-of-the-bailout-20130104



However this news item is a great piece of irony for those like yourself who supported government intervention. I can see why you're so upset about AIG potentially turning around and biting the hand that kept it alive at tax payer expense because it demonstrates how flawed that course of actions was to begin with and how unintended consequences are evolving do because of government bailing these firms out.

Only fringe wackos believe letting the banks fail would have accomplished anything good.

Seriously, this has been debated and debunked to no end.

The problem has nothing to do with the bailout and everything to do with the lack of change after.
 

MooseNSquirrel

Platinum Member
Feb 26, 2009
2,587
318
126
This case shows why we shouldn't have big government and government getting involved with corporations. The banks should never have been bailed out but allowed to fail, they made risky decisions and the government played a huge role in forcing them to give out loans. By bailing out these banks they wont learn anything and they will just do it again and it will be even worse. The government is not suppose to be picking winners and losers, that is the job of the market.

As well bailing out the banks only made the situation worse because the debt was dumped on the American taxpayers.

Its funny how supporters of big government are angry at this case, this was bound to happen and I am not surprised by this, when the government gets involved with this then they make it worse.

As well where is the blame for the people who took on mortgages they knew they couldn't afford and then ditched them, these people need to be responsible which they clearly weren't.

See this kind of BS posting exemplifies empty rhetoric about pre-conceived biases.

Incorruptible (and other of his ilk) has no way of proving that the bailout made things worse but states his opinion as if it is proven fact.

But of course it is not.
 

DucatiMonster696

Diamond Member
Aug 13, 2009
4,269
1
71
Only fringe wackos believe letting the banks fail would have accomplished anything good.

Seriously, this has been debated and debunked to no end.

The problem has nothing to do with the bailout and everything to do with the lack of change after.


And this is why the mega banking firms can do what they please and only get a slap on the wrist. They have idiots like the poster above paralyzed with fear and echoing their own bullshit propaganda about how they are "Too Big to Fail" and like a sucker the poster eats it up and is more than willing to allow the tax payer to get reamed. Yet it is equally hilarious when the fraud is exposed and they still cling to the lie with even more veracity.
 
Last edited:

tweaker2

Lifer
Aug 5, 2000
14,478
6,901
136
Another fine argument against deregulating businesses whose only purpose is to maximize profit any way possible, legal or otherwise.

Greed knows no bounds.
 
Nov 8, 2012
20,828
4,777
146
This is where me and the general stance of "You can do anything" with our government systems comes to a screeching hault. Our lawmakers, judges, and lawyers should have a blank stare on their face when someone comes to the court with nonsense like this.


The amount of money that costs the court for shit like this - the steroids trial on baseball player - spilling hot coffee on your lap from McDonalds - and shit like this... is astronomical. For once I want our government to have some power to laugh at them and then say "No seriously, GTFO dumbass". Then make them pay fees for even wasting a second of their time.
 

Thump553

Lifer
Jun 2, 2000
12,651
2,394
126
I highly doubt AIG will join the suit.

Greenberg is just an angry old man who would have complained about the substandard accommodations of the last life raft leaving the Titanic.

You hit the nail right on the head. I presume this is a federal lawsuit, federal judges are a bit more willing than state judges to impose sanctions for frivilous litigation-like this sure appears to be. Ingrate is too mild a term for these leeches.
 
Nov 8, 2012
20,828
4,777
146
Only fringe wackos believe letting the banks fail would have accomplished anything good.

Seriously, this has been debated and debunked to no end.

The problem has nothing to do with the bailout and everything to do with the lack of change after.

Only fringe wackos believe they know what would have happened if the government didn't bail out corporations or didn't make a deal before the fiscal cliff.

Seriously, this has been debated and debunked to no end
 
Apr 27, 2012
10,086
58
86
See this kind of BS posting exemplifies empty rhetoric about pre-conceived biases.

Incorruptible (and other of his ilk) has no way of proving that the bailout made things worse but states his opinion as if it is proven fact.

But of course it is not.

So your going to support the big banks, That must be nice for them to have someone willing to shill for them for free.

Taking money from poor people to give to rich people is suppose to help fix the banks and the economy?:confused:
 

wetech

Senior member
Jul 16, 2002
871
6
81
He's also the man who let AIGFP get so out of control. The people running AIG now have no interest in persuing this but they're obligated to look at it. The odds that he'll prevail in court are pretty slim.

FP didn't get heavily into the CDO business until after Spitzer ousted Greenberg.
 

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
45,896
32,695
136
FP didn't get heavily into the CDO business until after Spitzer ousted Greenberg.

It was involved enough for him to have the swaps reviewed by another group in the company and he found excessive risk but did nothing because the money was rolling in and he had Spitzer to deal with. He at least bears some of the blame.
 

RightIsWrong

Diamond Member
Apr 29, 2005
5,649
0
0
Huh.....and here I thought that investing carried some risk that you might actually lose money.

I guess if you have enough invested, that isn't a concern in the world of private profits and public losses that America has become.
 

MooseNSquirrel

Platinum Member
Feb 26, 2009
2,587
318
126
Only fringe wackos believe they know what would have happened if the government didn't bail out corporations or didn't make a deal before the fiscal cliff.

Seriously, this has been debated and debunked to no end

Actually, people who study financial markets have a pretty good idea what would have happened, even if you pretend they don't.
 

DucatiMonster696

Diamond Member
Aug 13, 2009
4,269
1
71
Another fine argument against deregulating businesses whose only purpose is to maximize profit any way possible, legal or otherwise.

Greed knows no bounds.

Actual deregulation would remove protections from these entities and allow these banks to fail based on their own decisions and no bail outs would be guaranteed. What you have no is our government protecting its loan shark from its own actions at our expense.
 

JTsyo

Lifer
Nov 18, 2007
11,709
871
126
Actual deregulation would remove protections from these entities and allow these banks to fail based on their own decisions and no bail outs would be guaranteed. What you have no is our government protecting its loan shark from its own actions at our expense.

Deregulation would actually result in banks getting bigger and taking bigger risk. When they do fail it would cause even bigger ripples since there would only be a few big banks.
 

Phokus

Lifer
Nov 20, 1999
22,995
776
126
LOL @ this bullshit AIG suit, AIG was worth negative when they crashed, what argument could they possibly have in court? The investors would have been the first to be wiped out in bankruptcy.