AIG bailout: Taxpayers profit $15.1 billion

[Oldguy]

It looks like we were all wrong. The taxpayers will make a profit off the AIG bailout after all.


"Taxpayers will soon shed their last holdings in the American International Group, more than four years after a rescue by the federal government during the most chaotic days of the financial crisis….

…..At the time, critics feared that the company would be forced into a fire sale of assets to repay those loans, a sale that would deeply shortchange taxpayers.
Instead, the federal government has said that it expects to walk away from A.I.G. with a profit — about $15.1 billion to date, by the Treasury Department’s reckoning. That has followed both a steady stream of stock sales over the last two years and a resurgence in the insurer’s core operations….."

Bailout Over, U.S. Treasury Plans to Sell A.I.G. Shares - NYTimes.com

 

[Mac1958]

.

Personally, I freakin' hate the idea of the federal government buying into a corporation, on multiple levels.

However, as a reasonable adult -- okay, the "reasonable" part is questionable, and the "adult" status may only be chronological, I get it -- I can't deny the fact that there were precious few options on the table at the time, and that the nation's economy was in literal collapse. This, and other measures taken, had to be done.

While some -- for transparently political reasons -- want to pretend that the Meltdown of 2008 was nothing more than the start of another typical recession from which we should have bounced back easily by now, the fact remains that it was not, it is not. It took us decades to get here, and it could be decades before its effects are gone.

So, while I hate this kinda shit, I'm glad the AIG bailout has worked out this way.

.

 

[Oldguy]

.

Personally, I freakin' hate the idea of the federal government buying into a corporation, on multiple levels.

However, as a reasonable adult -- okay, the "reasonable" part is questionable, and the "adult" status may only be chronological, I get it -- I can't deny the fact that there were precious few options on the table at the time, and that the nation's economy was in literal collapse. This, and other measures taken, had to be done.

While some -- for transparently political reasons -- want to pretend that the Meltdown of 2008 was nothing more than the start of another typical recession from which we should have bounced back easily by now, the fact remains that it was not, it is not. It took us decades to get here, and it could be decades before its effects are gone.

So, while I hate this kinda shit, I'm glad the AIG bailout has worked out this way.

.

I agree completely. Desperate times call for desperate measures.

 

[DiamondDave]

Yes.. by all means.. suspend the constitution whenever you 'feel' 'desperate'

 

[Mac1958]

Yes.. by all means.. suspend the constitution whenever you 'feel' 'desperate'

Define the suspension of the Constitution.

Describe what you would have done instead. AIG was in collapse, and did not have the capital to pay off around a trillion dollars in credit default swaps. If they didn't, a literal chain reaction would have taken place in banks across the country and around the world, all of whom held that paper.

Thanks.

.

 

[DiamondDave]

Yes.. by all means.. suspend the constitution whenever you 'feel' 'desperate'

Define the suspension of the Constitution.

Describe what you would have done instead. AIG was in collapse, and did not have the capital to pay off around a trillion dollars in credit default swaps.

Thanks.

.

Absolutely nothing... let the chips fall where they may in a free society.. you have the freedom to fail just as you have the freedom to succeed

If you feel something needs to be done.. amend the constitution... you need a link to the process??

 

[LogikAndReazon]

Imbeciles

Taxpayer funds should never be used to bailout any corporations........."Crisis", or not...

Thats what bankruptcy reorganization laws are for

 

[Mac1958]

Yes.. by all means.. suspend the constitution whenever you 'feel' 'desperate'

Define the suspension of the Constitution.

Describe what you would have done instead. AIG was in collapse, and did not have the capital to pay off around a trillion dollars in credit default swaps.

Thanks.

.

Absolutely nothing... let the chips fall where they may in a free society.. you have the freedom to fail just as you have the freedom to succeed

If you feel something needs to be done.. amend the constitution... you need a link to the process??

So you can't define how the Constitution was suspended, and you think that allowing a chain reaction of global bank failures at the same time the rest of the domestic financial system was in abject collapse would have been a good thing.

Nothing else to discuss, I reckon.

.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Yes.. by all means.. suspend the constitution whenever you 'feel' 'desperate'

Define the suspension of the Constitution.

Describe what you would have done instead. AIG was in collapse, and did not have the capital to pay off around a trillion dollars in credit default swaps. If they didn't, a literal chain reaction would have taken place in banks across the country and around the world.

Thanks.

.

Where does the Constitution authorize the federal government to use our tax dollars to rescue failed companies?

You also say it "had to be done." Why? You assume that propping up a failed company and stopping it from going under is a good thing. In the short term, that may be true with less people losing their jobs, etc., but what about the long term effects? We'll never know which new company or existing may have been risen up to fill the hole left by AIG with a better business model. The government's actions also sent a message to company executives everywhere that if you screw up and you're "too big to fail" don't worry about it, we'll be here to bail you out.

This set a very bad precedent.

 

[martybegan]

It looks like we were all wrong. The taxpayers will make a profit off the AIG bailout after all.


"Taxpayers will soon shed their last holdings in the American International Group, more than four years after a rescue by the federal government during the most chaotic days of the financial crisis….

…..At the time, critics feared that the company would be forced into a fire sale of assets to repay those loans, a sale that would deeply shortchange taxpayers.
Instead, the federal government has said that it expects to walk away from A.I.G. with a profit — about $15.1 billion to date, by the Treasury Department’s reckoning. That has followed both a steady stream of stock sales over the last two years and a resurgence in the insurer’s core operations….."

Bailout Over, U.S. Treasury Plans to Sell A.I.G. Shares - NYTimes.com

Somewhere else I saw 22.7 billion. In any event the return over 4 years is barely over the rate of inflation. Better than a loss, but all in all a bit "meh"

 

[DiamondDave]

Define the suspension of the Constitution.

Describe what you would have done instead. AIG was in collapse, and did not have the capital to pay off around a trillion dollars in credit default swaps.

Thanks.

.

Absolutely nothing... let the chips fall where they may in a free society.. you have the freedom to fail just as you have the freedom to succeed

If you feel something needs to be done.. amend the constitution... you need a link to the process??

So you can't define how the Constitution was suspended, and you think that allowing a chain reaction of global bank failures at the same time the rest of the domestic financial system was in abject collapse would have been a good thing.

Nothing else to discuss, I reckon.

.

In a free society, the chips fall where they fall...

I did not say it was suspended.. I said the constitution was not followed... the constitution grants very SPECIFIC powers.. there is no power granted to have the government bail out or take over a private business.... Index Page - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

 

[Mac1958]

Yes.. by all means.. suspend the constitution whenever you 'feel' 'desperate'

Define the suspension of the Constitution.

Describe what you would have done instead. AIG was in collapse, and did not have the capital to pay off around a trillion dollars in credit default swaps. If they didn't, a literal chain reaction would have taken place in banks across the country and around the world.

Thanks.

.

Where does the Constitution authorize the federal government to use our tax dollars to rescue failed companies?

You also say it "had to be done." Why? You assume that propping up a failed company and stopping it from going under is a good thing. In the short term, that may be true with less people losing their jobs, etc., but what about the long term effects? We'll never know which new company or existing may have been risen up to fill the hole left by AIG with a better business model. The government's actions also sent a message to company executives everywhere that if you screw up and you're "too big to fail" don't worry about it, we'll be here to bail you out.

This set a very bad precedent.

As I said in my first post, I hated it. But there were no better options.

Are you aware of the nature of the paper AIG held? Do you know who owned it? Do you understand what would have globally if they had defaulted on that paper?

.

 

[blastoff]

Well since WE the taxpayers made it all possible for OUR government to invest in AIG, how's about the government divvies up the profits equally and distributes them to ALL folks who've paid federal income taxes since the day WE bailed 'em out? Those who've paid no federal income taxes though are excused from participating in the distribution.

 

[GoneBezerk]

Compared to Obamination bailing out GM, I mean the UAW.....we lost money there.

Bailing out banks that will make money and repay it is better for the taxpayer, consumers and economy in general.

Bailing out the UAW under the disguise of bailing out GM is criminal activity.

 

[Mac1958]

Absolutely nothing... let the chips fall where they may in a free society.. you have the freedom to fail just as you have the freedom to succeed

If you feel something needs to be done.. amend the constitution... you need a link to the process??

So you can't define how the Constitution was suspended, and you think that allowing a chain reaction of global bank failures at the same time the rest of the domestic financial system was in abject collapse would have been a good thing.

Nothing else to discuss, I reckon.

.

In a free society, the chips fall where they fall...

I did not say it was suspended.. I said the constitution was not followed... the constitution grants very SPECIFIC powers.. there is no power granted to have the government bail out or take over a private business.... Index Page - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

You said:

Yes.. by all means.. suspend the constitution whenever you 'feel' 'desperate'

Your words.

I really don't think a lot of people understand what actually happened in late 2008.

.

 

[LilOlLady]

It looks like we were all wrong. The taxpayers will make a profit off the AIG bailout after all.


"Taxpayers will soon shed their last holdings in the American International Group, more than four years after a rescue by the federal government during the most chaotic days of the financial crisis….

…..At the time, critics feared that the company would be forced into a fire sale of assets to repay those loans, a sale that would deeply shortchange taxpayers.
Instead, the federal government has said that it expects to walk away from A.I.G. with a profit — about $15.1 billion to date, by the Treasury Department’s reckoning. That has followed both a steady stream of stock sales over the last two years and a resurgence in the insurer’s core operations….."

Bailout Over, U.S. Treasury Plans to Sell A.I.G. Shares - NYTimes.com

Somewhere else I saw 22.7 billion. In any event the return over 4 years is barely over the rate of inflation. Better than a loss, but all in all a bit "meh"

The US government is alway investing in corporations. All of Obama's bail out have had returns. Bush's investments in Iraq and Afghanistan had no returns. We lost billions. Way do you think Social Security and Medicare is still paying off. Until 2034?

 

[DiamondDave]

So you can't define how the Constitution was suspended, and you think that allowing a chain reaction of global bank failures at the same time the rest of the domestic financial system was in abject collapse would have been a good thing.

Nothing else to discuss, I reckon.

.

In a free society, the chips fall where they fall...

I did not say it was suspended.. I said the constitution was not followed... the constitution grants very SPECIFIC powers.. there is no power granted to have the government bail out or take over a private business.... Index Page - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

You said:

Yes.. by all means.. suspend the constitution whenever you 'feel' 'desperate'

Your words.

I really don't think a lot of people understand what actually happened in late 2008.

.

My bad...

You stated 'desperate times call for desperate measures'... I meant to show that the constitution is not something to be ignored or violated because of your subjective feeling of desperation

I don't care what was speculated to happen if AIG failed... it was not a power of government to bail out nor take over... the constitution was violated (better choice of word)

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Where does the Constitution authorize the federal government to use our tax dollars to rescue failed companies?

You also say it "had to be done." Why? You assume that propping up a failed company and stopping it from going under is a good thing. In the short term, that may be true with less people losing their jobs, etc., but what about the long term effects? We'll never know which new company or existing may have been risen up to fill the hole left by AIG with a better business model. The government's actions also sent a message to company executives everywhere that if you screw up and you're "too big to fail" don't worry about it, we'll be here to bail you out.

This set a very bad precedent.

As I said in my first post, I hated it. But there were no better options.

Are you aware of the nature of the paper AIG held? Do you know who owned it? Do you understand what would have globally if they had defaulted on that paper?

.

Yes, I'm very aware of the ramifications had AIG gone under, but again, you assume that because in the short term things would have been worse that somehow means we shouldn't have allowed it to happen. I disagree. I think people should have really felt the pain of what happened all across the economic spectrum and learned a very hard lesson of how not to do things in the future. I think you may also be under the assumption that we'd still be worse off today than we currently are and that's not necessarily true. The market will correct itself when allowed to do so. I would point to the crash of 1920 as evidence of that.

I also disagree with your point that it may take decades to fix the economy since it took decades to create the problem. That is a false connection. The economy could be back on its feet rather quickly with the right policies in place, which currently they are not and will not be under this administration, so yes, we will be on rocky ground for at least the next four years because we have the blind leading the blind in D.C. right now.

 

[LogikAndReazon]

It looks like we were all wrong. The taxpayers will make a profit off the AIG bailout after all.


"Taxpayers will soon shed their last holdings in the American International Group, more than four years after a rescue by the federal government during the most chaotic days of the financial crisis….

…..At the time, critics feared that the company would be forced into a fire sale of assets to repay those loans, a sale that would deeply shortchange taxpayers.
Instead, the federal government has said that it expects to walk away from A.I.G. with a profit — about $15.1 billion to date, by the Treasury Department’s reckoning. That has followed both a steady stream of stock sales over the last two years and a resurgence in the insurer’s core operations….."

Bailout Over, U.S. Treasury Plans to Sell A.I.G. Shares - NYTimes.com

Somewhere else I saw 22.7 billion. In any event the return over 4 years is barely over the rate of inflation. Better than a loss, but all in all a bit "meh"

The US government is alway investing in corporations. All of Obama's bail out have had returns. Bush's investments in Iraq and Afghanistan had no returns. We lost billions. Way do you think Social Security and Medicare is still paying off. Until 2034?

This mentally defecient tard most surely is referring to those profitable green energy investments the beggar in chief has presided over.........Bravo

 

[LilOlLady]

Paid in Full ... but Not in Cash

The federal government spent about $85 billion bailing out the auto industry during the economic crisis -- about $25 billion under President George W. Bush during his last days in office, the rest under President Obama.

Not all of that went to GM -- about $12 billion went to save Chrysler, and some went to Ally Financial, formerly GM's financing arm, and some other players -- but GM got the lion's share, just under $50 billion.

Technically, under the terms of the bailout, GM has in fact paid back its obligation to taxpayers. Its payments were a mix of cash and GM stock, which is exactly what was called for in the agreement.
Uncle Sam's GM Investment Is Still Coming Up Short - DailyFinance


Plus jobs were saved and revenue is coming in by way of taxes paid by employed.