If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Marketwatch)   In a rare display of empathy and humility, AIG pulls back from an epic troll opportunity   (marketwatch.com) divider line 18
    More: Followup, AIG, Wall Street Journal  
•       •       •

11333 clicks; posted to Main » on 09 Jan 2013 at 6:31 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2013-01-09 06:33:23 PM
4 votes:
alleges that the rescue provided by the U.S. government in September 2008 to AIG was made on unfavorable terms to the insurer.

Nobody made you take it, asshats.

World's tiniest violin, etc.
2013-01-09 07:24:27 PM
3 votes:

Indubitably: meat0918: Indubitably: Um,

My outrage cannot be contained with just letting them off anymore, man.

It's time to prosecute these fukers and put some of them in jail for devaluing the American economy, house, retirement, and savings by a third with their chicanery.

And that's that.

P.S. Thank you in advance, Mr. President.

The most amazing thing I've seen in my life is how Wall Street managed to deflect the public outrage at their shenanigans.

Even I'm wondering how much of the immoral, corrupt, and lowdown actions done by Wall Street were actually against the law. A huge chunk of it was stuff that wasn't even regulated properly, wasn't it?

Yeah, it wasn't regulated properly, and it still isn't, really. That doesn't mean we can't and shouldn't be able to bury them in class action lawsuits with the entire American people as plaintiffs, no? Let's do this.


P.P.S. Wait. NVM. I prefer jail time for some bankers. Fines and monetary loss won't "effect change," but jail time for bankers in regular pens will. Let's do this squared.
2013-01-09 07:21:21 PM
2 votes:

meat0918: Indubitably: Um,

My outrage cannot be contained with just letting them off anymore, man.

It's time to prosecute these fukers and put some of them in jail for devaluing the American economy, house, retirement, and savings by a third with their chicanery.

And that's that.

P.S. Thank you in advance, Mr. President.

The most amazing thing I've seen in my life is how Wall Street managed to deflect the public outrage at their shenanigans.

Even I'm wondering how much of the immoral, corrupt, and lowdown actions done by Wall Street were actually against the law. A huge chunk of it was stuff that wasn't even regulated properly, wasn't it?


Yeah, it wasn't regulated properly, and it still isn't, really. That doesn't mean we can't and shouldn't be able to bury them in class action lawsuits with the entire American people as plaintiffs, no? Let's do this.
2013-01-09 07:03:20 PM
2 votes:
So, realizing it would hurt their bottom line constitutes empathy and humility now?
2013-01-09 06:57:24 PM
2 votes:
Um,

My outrage cannot be contained with just letting them off anymore, man.

It's time to prosecute these fukers and put some of them in jail for devaluing the American economy, house, retirement, and savings by a third with their chicanery.

And that's that.

P.S. Thank you in advance, Mr. President.
2013-01-09 06:46:10 PM
2 votes:
In my opinion, they had a legal responsibility to consider it as it was raised by share-holders. I knew it wouldn't happen, but there are some lawyers that live for this crap.
2013-01-09 06:05:56 PM
2 votes:
Some board directors at AIG are worried about the potential damage to the firm's reputation Elizabeth Warren will hand them their ass if the insurer joined the lawsuit.

FTFTA
2013-01-10 10:35:09 AM
1 votes:

Debeo Summa Credo: Blaxabbath: I still think Warren should push to repeal all these tax breaks, etc (what were her words - phantom bailout or something?) that AIG is receiving. Even without them suing the US, why are they even receiving them?

This is a chance for Warren to let her true colors shine -- a big talker who is looking for symbolic victories or a true representative of the people? With AIG even considering this (stockholder suggested or not -- they shouldn't have such greedy farking ownership then, I say), Warren would have the public support to go at all the perks AIG is receiving from the government. If she considers this a fair solution (that a company who farks the American people only 98% of the time gets to continue on with business as usual) then I think that is a very bad sign for those who believe in her to really shake things up.

What are they receiving? What are the perks and special tax breaks that have you so worked up? I'd hate to think that you'd state an opinion on it without any knowledge of the details, merely harrumphing the grandstanding words of a politician of your party.


First off, not my party. If I was a (D) shrill, I would blame it on AIG making money and not paying their share (morally, not legally, since the laws are written by big corp lobbyists). Instead, I am taking my position based on the additional preferential treatment that AIG is receiving beyond TARP simply because of their political influence. Specifically, I am talking about tax breaks to the company that are used to pump up the value of the stock and pay dividends at the expense of the US tax revenue stream.

Below is a link to the original article where Warren called it a "Stealth Bailout" when the laws went into place last year -- yes, new laws for AIG as recently as 2012!

Link

These are the specific breaks she mentioned recently and they are the ones I believe need to go, lawsuit or not. I would post further details but you have enough information here to know that what I am talking about is an actual specific benefit to AIG.
2013-01-10 10:32:10 AM
1 votes:
As usual, whenever something like this happens, I turn to Matt Taibbi over at Rolling Stone to explain it to me.

The general idea? This lawsuit is alleging that the Fed stuck its hand up AIG's ass and wiggled it like a puppet to "stealth" bail out every company on the Street that had done business with AIG, carving up AIG like "the helpless fat guy in the lifeboat who got eaten when the rest of the survivors ran out of food".

Of course, the reason they were shipwrecked in the first place was because Hank Greenberg, as head of AIG, had allowed his company to bet so completely wrong on the credit default swap market that they owed everybody on the street a pile of cash when a) the swaps didn't work or b) AIG's credit started slipping. So, the swaps start not working (hello, Countrywide!) and to add a cherry on top, Greenberg's own malfeasance in some shady accounting starts costing his company billions, their credit rating starts slipping, AIG is heading down the tubes and pulling all the people they owe money with them. Hence the hand-up-the-ass puppet trick.

So, while there are a few points to this lawsuit, oh my god, Hank Greenberg is not the one to be bringing it. Anyway, read Taibbi to get a better outline of what's going on. He's consistently the savviest dude on this Wall Street bullshiat.
2013-01-09 08:34:36 PM
1 votes:

Dinjiin: cards fan by association: I can't believe they were even thinking about this - oh wait, no, I guess I'm no surprised it was on the table. Bottom line is the bottom line. shiatheads haven't learned a thing from all this.

I can. They were worried that if they didn't join the lawsuit, that their shareholders would sue them in response. I figure they were waiting to see how bad the media fallout would be after announcing their intention to join. Obviously, they found out. But they still have to deal with their shareholders.


Guess we should take back the money and let them go bankrupt then.
2013-01-09 07:57:38 PM
1 votes:

Blaxabbath: I still think Warren should push to repeal all these tax breaks, etc (what were her words - phantom bailout or something?) that AIG is receiving. Even without them suing the US, why are they even receiving them?

This is a chance for Warren to let her true colors shine -- a big talker who is looking for symbolic victories or a true representative of the people? With AIG even considering this (stockholder suggested or not -- they shouldn't have such greedy farking ownership then, I say), Warren would have the public support to go at all the perks AIG is receiving from the government. If she considers this a fair solution (that a company who farks the American people only 98% of the time gets to continue on with business as usual) then I think that is a very bad sign for those who believe in her to really shake things up.


If she gets the perks removed, I'll vote for her for president. No lying.
2013-01-09 07:12:08 PM
1 votes:

Indubitably: Um,

My outrage cannot be contained with just letting them off anymore, man.

It's time to prosecute these fukers and put some of them in jail for devaluing the American economy, house, retirement, and savings by a third with their chicanery.

And that's that.

P.S. Thank you in advance, Mr. President.


The most amazing thing I've seen in my life is how Wall Street managed to deflect the public outrage at their shenanigans.

Even I'm wondering how much of the immoral, corrupt, and lowdown actions done by Wall Street were actually against the law. A huge chunk of it was stuff that wasn't even regulated properly, wasn't it?
2013-01-09 06:58:45 PM
1 votes:
I still think Warren should push to repeal all these tax breaks, etc (what were her words - phantom bailout or something?) that AIG is receiving. Even without them suing the US, why are they even receiving them?

This is a chance for Warren to let her true colors shine -- a big talker who is looking for symbolic victories or a true representative of the people? With AIG even considering this (stockholder suggested or not -- they shouldn't have such greedy farking ownership then, I say), Warren would have the public support to go at all the perks AIG is receiving from the government. If she considers this a fair solution (that a company who farks the American people only 98% of the time gets to continue on with business as usual) then I think that is a very bad sign for those who believe in her to really shake things up.
2013-01-09 06:47:06 PM
1 votes:
Please. Wall Street doesn't know the meaning of either of those two words.
2013-01-09 06:40:26 PM
1 votes:
Cause Senator Warren would have handed them their dick on a silver platter. That Democrat, from Massachusetts no less, is what ever Senator should strive to be.
2013-01-09 06:37:45 PM
1 votes:
I can't believe they were even thinking about this - oh wait, no, I guess I'm no surprised it was on the table. Bottom line is the bottom line. shiatheads haven't learned a thing from all this.
2013-01-09 06:34:30 PM
1 votes:
In a rare display of empathy and humility

No, subby. If anything, they didn't go through with it because they knew the backlash would be far too great. Other elements of Wall Street probably leaned on them not to go through with the lawsuit for the same reason. That doesn't require empathy or humility.
2013-01-09 04:40:49 PM
1 votes:

Weaver95: huh. go figure.  I thought for sure they'd go for it.



You and me both.
Maybe Senator Warren had an effect.
 
Displayed 18 of 18 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report