Would AIG be more stable if it was under government control? - Politics and War Forum

Forum Post / Reply
You must log in before you can post or reply to messages.
Would AIG be more stable if it was under government control?
Thursday, March 26, 2009 3:48 PM on j-body.org
...at least temporarily.
People are complaining the government is throwing money at it without any real oversight, or actionable consequences, but realize something needs to be done- due to the potential repercussions of its failure.
People are pissed off at how the money is being spent internally by AIG.
The government 'owns' AIG at this point. Would it be worse for the company to continue down its current path, or for Big Brother to take the reigns?





fortune cookie say: better a delay than a disaster

Re: Would AIG be more stable if it was under government control?
Thursday, March 26, 2009 5:49 PM on j-body.org
no. the government cant run anything correctly. the less interference, the better.




Re: Would AIG be more stable if it was under government control?
Thursday, March 26, 2009 7:11 PM on j-body.org
Last numbers I heard said that medicare/medicade had a 33% fraud rate. Social security will be gone by the time I can collect, thanks to it being used for programs it was never inteneded to. Do we really need to let the government run anything else?



Re: Would AIG be more stable if it was under government control?
Thursday, March 26, 2009 7:15 PM on j-body.org
its called survival of the fittest. if we just let AIG die on its own, another company would've rose up to take its place.

if a company goes under, obviously it was being run poorly and needed to go under.




Check out my build thread!

Re: Would AIG be more stable if it was under government control?
Friday, March 27, 2009 12:14 AM on j-body.org
i will burn AIG to the ground... bonuses... really?



Re: Would AIG be more stable if it was under government control?
Friday, March 27, 2009 2:56 AM on j-body.org
Let's just look at this logically for a second:

The government can't run anything without a deficit, and has never run anything that it hasn't ruined. What do you think would happen if they ran AIG?







Re: Would AIG be more stable if it was under government control?
Friday, March 27, 2009 3:37 AM on j-body.org
No, the treasury will take control and slowly “unwind” it out of existence. At great expense mind you, but not at the expense of collapsing the global financial system.

I watch CNBC and the like every morning, and seen the whole debacle unfold. Mind numbing at times.... the greed and outright stupidity

I just googled "aig credit default swaps" and it comes back with some decent hits.

This from last year before we knew what we know now. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=94748529



.
.
Project S-Bird
Re: Would AIG be more stable if it was under government control?
Friday, March 27, 2009 5:25 AM on j-body.org
Sunb1rd(missed teh org) wrote:

i will burn AIG to the ground... bonuses... really?


You sir, are just another mob rule fool believing everything you hear on your "news".

THEY WERE NOT BONUSES. It's called deferred payment. When you work for a year at $1 salary with the promise and CONTRACT that the GOVT signed as well, saying your salary will be payed at such and such a date, its not a bonus. And to even thing being retro-active and passing a law to tax 90% after the fact is unconstitutional on multiple levels.

Jesus people make me sick.

Your post makes me think you're an ACORN member.





Re: Would AIG be more stable if it was under government control?
Friday, March 27, 2009 6:30 AM on j-body.org
J03Y wrote:

Sunb1rd(missed teh org) wrote:

i will burn AIG to the ground... bonuses... really?


Your post makes me think you're an ACORN member.


LOLZ

I read this on another forum I frquent.

From the New York Times, March 25, 2009 Op-Ed Contributor

PY Forums wrote:


Dear A.I.G., I Quit!
The following is a letter sent on Tuesday by Jake DeSantis, an executive vice president of the American International Group’s financial products unit, to Edward M. Liddy, the chief executive of A.I.G.

DEAR Mr. Liddy,

It is with deep regret that I submit my notice of resignation from A.I.G. Financial Products. I hope you take the time to read this entire letter. Before describing the details of my decision, I want to offer some context:

I am proud of everything I have done for the commodity and equity divisions of A.I.G.-F.P. I was in no way involved in — or responsible for — the credit default swap transactions that have hamstrung A.I.G. Nor were more than a handful of the 400 current employees of A.I.G.-F.P. Most of those responsible have left the company and have conspicuously escaped the public outrage.

After 12 months of hard work dismantling the company — during which A.I.G. reassured us many times we would be rewarded in March 2009 — we in the financial products unit have been betrayed by A.I.G. and are being unfairly persecuted by elected officials. In response to this, I will now leave the company and donate my entire post-tax retention payment to those suffering from the global economic downturn. My intent is to keep none of the money myself.

I take this action after 11 years of dedicated, honorable service to A.I.G. I can no longer effectively perform my duties in this dysfunctional environment, nor am I being paid to do so. Like you, I was asked to work for an annual salary of $1, and I agreed out of a sense of duty to the company and to the public officials who have come to its aid. Having now been let down by both, I can no longer justify spending 10, 12, 14 hours a day away from my family for the benefit of those who have let me down.

You and I have never met or spoken to each other, so I’d like to tell you about myself. I was raised by schoolteachers working multiple jobs in a world of closing steel mills. My hard work earned me acceptance to M.I.T., and the institute’s generous financial aid enabled me to attend. I had fulfilled my American dream.

I started at this company in 1998 as an equity trader, became the head of equity and commodity trading and, a couple of years before A.I.G.’s meltdown last September, was named the head of business development for commodities. Over this period the equity and commodity units were consistently profitable — in most years generating net profits of well over $100 million. Most recently, during the dismantling of A.I.G.-F.P., I was an integral player in the pending sale of its well-regarded commodity index business to UBS. As you know, business unit sales like this are crucial to A.I.G.’s effort to repay the American taxpayer.

The profitability of the businesses with which I was associated clearly supported my compensation. I never received any pay resulting from the credit default swaps that are now losing so much money. I did, however, like many others here, lose a significant portion of my life savings in the form of deferred compensation invested in the capital of A.I.G.-F.P. because of those losses. In this way I have personally suffered from this controversial activity — directly as well as indirectly with the rest of the taxpayers.

I have the utmost respect for the civic duty that you are now performing at A.I.G. You are as blameless for these credit default swap losses as I am. You answered your country’s call and you are taking a tremendous beating for it.

But you also are aware that most of the employees of your financial products unit had nothing to do with the large losses. And I am disappointed and frustrated over your lack of support for us. I and many others in the unit feel betrayed that you failed to stand up for us in the face of untrue and unfair accusations from certain members of Congress last Wednesday and from the press over our retention payments, and that you didn’t defend us against the baseless and reckless comments made by the attorneys general of New York and Connecticut.

My guess is that in October, when you learned of these retention contracts, you realized that the employees of the financial products unit needed some incentive to stay and that the contracts, being both ethical and useful, should be left to stand. That’s probably why A.I.G. management assured us on three occasions during that month that the company would “live up to its commitment” to honor the contract guarantees.

That may be why you decided to accelerate by three months more than a quarter of the amounts due under the contracts. That action signified to us your support, and was hardly something that one would do if he truly found the contracts “distasteful.”

That may also be why you authorized the balance of the payments on March 13.

At no time during the past six months that you have been leading A.I.G. did you ask us to revise, renegotiate or break these contracts — until several hours before your appearance last week before Congress.

I think your initial decision to honor the contracts was both ethical and financially astute, but it seems to have been politically unwise. It’s now apparent that you either misunderstood the agreements that you had made — tacit or otherwise — with the Federal Reserve, the Treasury, various members of Congress and Attorney General Andrew Cuomo of New York, or were not strong enough to withstand the shifting political winds.

You’ve now asked the current employees of A.I.G.-F.P. to repay these earnings. As you can imagine, there has been a tremendous amount of serious thought and heated discussion about how we should respond to this breach of trust.

As most of us have done nothing wrong, guilt is not a motivation to surrender our earnings. We have worked 12 long months under these contracts and now deserve to be paid as promised. None of us should be cheated of our payments any more than a plumber should be cheated after he has fixed the pipes but a careless electrician causes a fire that burns down the house.

Many of the employees have, in the past six months, turned down job offers from more stable employers, based on A.I.G.’s assurances that the contracts would be honored. They are now angry about having been misled by A.I.G.’s promises and are not inclined to return the money as a favor to you.

The only real motivation that anyone at A.I.G.-F.P. now has is fear. Mr. Cuomo has threatened to “name and shame,” and his counterpart in Connecticut, Richard Blumenthal, has made similar threats — even though attorneys general are supposed to stand for due process, to conduct trials in courts and not the press.

So what am I to do? There’s no easy answer. I know that because of hard work I have benefited more than most during the economic boom and have saved enough that my family is unlikely to suffer devastating losses during the current bust. Some might argue that members of my profession have been overpaid, and I wouldn’t disagree.

That is why I have decided to donate 100 percent of the effective after-tax proceeds of my retention payment directly to organizations that are helping people who are suffering from the global downturn. This is not a tax-deduction gimmick; I simply believe that I at least deserve to dictate how my earnings are spent, and do not want to see them disappear back into the obscurity of A.I.G.’s or the federal government’s budget. Our earnings have caused such a distraction for so many from the more pressing issues our country faces, and I would like to see my share of it benefit those truly in need.

On March 16 I received a payment from A.I.G. amounting to $742,006.40, after taxes. In light of the uncertainty over the ultimate taxation and legal status of this payment, the actual amount I donate may be less — in fact, it may end up being far less if the recent House bill raising the tax on the retention payments to 90 percent stands. Once all the money is donated, you will immediately receive a list of all recipients.

This choice is right for me. I wish others at A.I.G.-F.P. luck finding peace with their difficult decision, and only hope their judgment is not clouded by fear.

Mr. Liddy, I wish you success in your commitment to return the money extended by the American government, and luck with the continued unwinding of the company’s diverse businesses — especially those remaining credit default swaps. I’ll continue over the short term to help make sure no balls are dropped, but after what’s happened this past week I can’t remain much longer — there is too much bad blood. I’m not sure how you will greet my resignation, but at least Attorney General Blumenthal should be relieved that I’ll leave under my own power and will not need to be “shoved out the door.”

Sincerely,

Jake DeSantis

Copyright 2009 The New York Times Company




KevinP (Stabby McShankyou) wrote:


and I'm NOT a pedo. everyone knows i've got a wheelchair fetish.


Re: Would AIG be more stable if it was under government control?
Friday, March 27, 2009 11:23 AM on j-body.org
I pretty much agree with what the others said. I really don't trust our elected officials to do anything other than what is in their best intrest nor am I pleased with any of the programs they run. Medicare and social security were great examples.



FORGET GIRLS GONE WILD WE HAVE GOVERNMENT SPENDING GONE WILD!

Re: Would AIG be more stable if it was under government control?
Friday, March 27, 2009 5:43 PM on j-body.org
HELL NO!!!!

Would social security be more stable if it was under government control?

would welfare be more stable if it was under government control?

Would the Mexican border be more stable if it was under government control?


The government can not control anything

IMO,
The job of the president and the government is to protect our constitution and they can't even do THAT!!!

LOL

Social security is gone, welfare is out of control, the Mexican border is out of control, and they're destroying our constitution now can you imaging if AIG was under government control?

those who think government is the answer.... WAKE THE HELL UP!!

Re: Would AIG be more stable if it was under government control?
Monday, March 30, 2009 10:39 AM on j-body.org
gm is now under govt. control
yay

it begins........




Re: Would AIG be more stable if it was under government control?
Monday, March 30, 2009 10:51 AM on j-body.org
Dont worry, they will run GM like they do the USPS.



Re: Would AIG be more stable if it was under government control?
Monday, March 30, 2009 11:08 AM on j-body.org
Obama wrote:

Let me be clear: the United States government has no interest or intention of running GM. What we are interested in is giving GM an opportunity to finally make those much-needed changes that will let them emerge from this crisis a stronger and more competitive company.


How does firing the CEO of GM not = the govt running the company?


Say what you mean, and mean what you say.







Re: Would AIG be more stable if it was under government control?
Monday, March 30, 2009 2:34 PM on j-body.org
J03Y wrote:

Obama wrote:

Let me be clear: the United States government has no interest or intention of running GM. What we are interested in is giving GM an opportunity to finally make those much-needed changes that will let them emerge from this crisis a stronger and more competitive company.


How does firing the CEO of GM not = the govt running the company?


Say what you mean, and mean what you say.

The phrase in bold italic is one that Obama uses to indicate that the following words are a complete lie.






Re: Would AIG be more stable if it was under government control?
Monday, March 30, 2009 2:45 PM on j-body.org
Quiklilcav wrote:

J03Y wrote:

Obama wrote:

Let me be clear: the United States government has no interest or intention of running GM. What we are interested in is giving GM an opportunity to finally make those much-needed changes that will let them emerge from this crisis a stronger and more competitive company.
How does firing the CEO of GM not = the govt running the company?
Say what you mean, and mean what you say.
The phrase in bold italic is one that Obama uses to indicate that the following words are a complete lie.
Lol. Invite him to play poker, you know his tell




fortune cookie say: better a delay than a disaster
Re: Would AIG be more stable if it was under government control?
Monday, March 30, 2009 4:13 PM on j-body.org
The new 2010 model year fender badge:









Re: Would AIG be more stable if it was under government control?
Tuesday, March 31, 2009 5:07 AM on j-body.org
I just want to post my official resignation as a member of this country. After 8 years in the Marines and countless hours of community services, Obama has in 2 months dismantled everything I loved about this country. When America is not socialist anymore and the desires of the minority intrest groups cease to run her, you can join me in what is left of the real america. This country is going to hell in a hand basket and the govt seems to think it is their right to allow it instead of follow the guidelines of their constituency.



Re: Would AIG be more stable if it was under government control?
Tuesday, March 31, 2009 5:48 AM on j-body.org
^^^^ Check out the 9/12 project.



FORGET GIRLS GONE WILD WE HAVE GOVERNMENT SPENDING GONE WILD!

Re: Would AIG be more stable if it was under government control?
Tuesday, March 31, 2009 5:49 AM on j-body.org
Wade Jarvis wrote:

^^^^ Check out the 9/12 project.


word.

www.the912project.com






Re: Would AIG be more stable if it was under government control?
Tuesday, March 31, 2009 5:53 AM on j-body.org
What's up with that site? Everytime I have tried to get on it, I get the 404 error.







Re: Would AIG be more stable if it was under government control?
Tuesday, March 31, 2009 6:20 AM on j-body.org
Works for me. Also the national tea party site is also a good place to visit. These sites and tea parties are only the beginning.




Re: Would AIG be more stable if it was under government control?
Tuesday, March 31, 2009 6:55 AM on j-body.org
Quiklilcav wrote:

What's up with that site? Everytime I have tried to get on it, I get the 404 error.


I think it's because it has so much traffic all the time. try hitting refresh a few times. I usually get thru after 2 or 3 refreshes






Re: Would AIG be more stable if it was under government control?
Tuesday, March 31, 2009 7:18 AM on j-body.org
I am listening to Beck right now actually, I loved how he ripped that lib bastard Blumenthal a new one, that man has 2 kids through ivy league schools and a mansion in Greenwich. I actually worked with both of his sons, makes me vomit.

Nothing the government runs is efficient. When I was in the Corps we were the most efficient and I do not think we cracked teh 60 cents on the dollar being used gainfully.

Liberals blind themselves to everything but what they think is right, it makes me sad that they believe the dreck the media is spewingout.



Re: Would AIG be more stable if it was under government control?
Tuesday, March 31, 2009 7:37 AM on j-body.org
Mike Demo (Civic Eater) wrote:

I am listening to Beck right now actually, I loved how he ripped that lib bastard Blumenthal a new one, that man has 2 kids through ivy league schools and a mansion in Greenwich. I actually worked with both of his sons, makes me vomit.

Nothing the government runs is efficient. When I was in the Corps we were the most efficient and I do not think we cracked teh 60 cents on the dollar being used gainfully.

Liberals blind themselves to everything but what they think is right, it makes me sad that they believe the dreck the media is spewingout.


that was hilarious yesterday on the show when he blasted Blumenthal.






Forum Post / Reply
You must log in before you can post or reply to messages.

 

Start New Topic Advanced Search