First you get bailed out, then get million dollar incentives and stock options to leave while the government takes care of the mess and you want what?

Is the Teapublicans behind this?

Do these people understand what AIG did to the world economy? It's one of the biggest if not the biggest reason we are in a big hole...and will probably never recover...

By the way, why is this clown not in jail? A guy named Bubba wants some answers, he himself is doing time (20 years) for stealing 5 bucks from a 711 store while old scumbag stole billions and is out free and still lookin for more loot...Bubba's pissed

This will become more apparent as the Republicans line up to support him, offer their apologies for the disruption to his life, and suggest that Pres Obama personally offer his own apology.

it is likely that he is one more criminal, who, having escaped an investigation, now wants to see how much more he can gouge from the American public. His type are emboldened by seeing how stupid so many on the right are about the criminality of those who exploit and milk capitalism for all they can. He and his ilk will continue to grab for more . . . with the blessing of the conservatives. Ohhh, don't forget his tax break!

We are in this big hole because of sub-prime mortgages and interest-only loans, directed by HUD, after which the companies had to engage in risky fiscal behavior to cover their anticipated losses.

Uh, pardon me, boys, but I'm certainly not supporting this suit and I'm somewhere between right-wing capitalist and tea party purist. I'm afraid your characterizations are outdated. This guy strikes me as the sort of greedy individual who has taken advantage of the system to an extent that probably rises to the level of a crime. It's not the system that's truly messed up. It's just that the system is open to guys like Greenburg with no scruples.

However, despite the ridiculous basis of his suit, I will say that Greenburg was very smart to hang this on the "illegal taking" argument. Had the government not provided a bunch of money for AIG to pay off their debts and had AIG not paid out a bunch of absurdly high bonuses, he might actually have had a valid point. But, they did. So, this suit is roughly as silly as a home owner suing a mortgage company for accepting the house as collateral for a bail out loan.

He has a point - it was illegal unconstitutional seizure of private property. Isn't that what everybody is saying - the bailouts were wrong. He's a guy doing something about it besides freezing in the park.

haroldwolf

Pull your head out of your a@#. obama wasn't even in office when the economy crashed. That was the other guy with his head up his a@#. Try again.

Harold seems to be under the impression Obama was in office when the unemployment rate went from 5% to 7.5%. No wait, that was 2008.

Or, maybe it was Obama's fault that it went from 7.5% to 8.9% from January to April, his first 4 months in office. No, none of that is a result of the past administration.

And, was Obama in office in 2008 when the DOW went from 12800 to 8500? Nope, Bush again. Obama was put in a tough spot, so stop blaming him for this current demise.

@Haroldworf - Really? I didn't realize Obama came into office with the economy doing well. All I have to say is please wake up and see things for the way they really are. And stop fabricating lies.

Yeah, Obama pushed to better the medical industry. What did the RepubliCANTS (See how easy it is to change the name of a party to deface them) do to better the economy? When Obama tried to create jobs and fix the countries infrastructure what did the republicans do? They didn't do a damn thing, they just sat on their hands.

Here's the Republicans new bumper sticker for 1012: "Repeal the 20th century, vote Republican." Well, I guess they could add repeal 19th to the list too. lol The only things the republicans have done is hinder this economy, cause our ratings to drop, and cater to the rich lobbyists.

So please, keep your fox news knowledge to the fox web site.

And regarding to this article, man talk about greed to the Nth degree. This guys insane to want even more money then what he's already gotten. If anything, this guy should be thrown in jail for helping to bring AIG to the point of collapsing. After this bogus claim, I hope this buffoon is charged with court costs too.

And it has not improved since he has been in office. Time to kick the bum out.

You know why people continue posting partisan comments blaming one party or the other for everything under the sun? Because you people eat it up!

Greenberg should be filing this suit from a nice cold jail cell.

To those blaming the Tea Party for any of this, one of the issues they protested was TARP.

Note: I do not support either corrupt political party. Vote out the incumbents, for true term limits.

This page must have been hacked by the OWS movement. I could not have imagined a better example of corporate greed to help their movement.

If people like Hank Greenberg were not so commonplace in Wall Street, people would not be camping out all across the country.

Congress controls the purse strings in this country. Who controlled Congress starting in January 2007? They are to blame for the economy crashing in 2008.

LEAN FORWARD - this won't hurt a bit

Hank Greenberg left AIG in 2005. He is suing to get his investment money back that was lost due to the Federal Government screwing up. His investments were confirmed by a court ruling so they are legal investments. I hope he wins.

He's donated more to republicans than democrats, but he has made political donations to democrats, including Dodd, Baucus and Schumer.

HaroldRat...sit on a baseball bat big end up. Your comments are just plain stupid.

Once again the name Goldman Sachs pops up. They and the Federal Government are the two common denominators in this whole systemic collapse. Where is Henry Paulson today ?

Onesoul

How do you figure that Obama pushed to "better" the medical industry? Are you nuts? And you ask what did the Republicans do when Obama wanted to create jobs and fix the countries infrastructure. They asked him to please not waste the $700 billion. What did he do? He wasted the $700 billion. Now he wants to waste more and what are the Republicans doing? NOT sitting on their hands this time, which is exactly why the shellacking happened in 2010. Live with it.

1/20/2013 - the end of an error

Good for him!

I hope the GM stakeholders do the same! Their property was forced from them and just given to the unions.

Then there is Chrysler! Fiat did not even have to pay for their share! Yet those who owned it got nothing.

Their property was seized by the government and handed over to others. That is wrong, and i hope they prevail in court!

Bush could have vetoed anything 2007 and 2008 and didn't. As the leader of his party, this happened on his watch.

Americans know who is to blame for the financial crisis look at any poll.

Then there's Ford, maker of the truck I drive to work every day, which said "No, thanks" to TARP bailout money and is doing just fine!

Harold seems to be under the impression Obama was in office when the unemployment rate went from 5% to 7.5%. No wait, that was 2008.

unbiased, like many dummy Americans, seems to be under the impression that the POTUS is somehow more in charge than legislators who pass laws related to fiscal (ir)responsibility. Rarely look at the White House. ALWAYS look at the Capitol.

By reading the totally ignorant comments which show the complete lack of knowledge of how we arrived to where we are ... it is very clear to see how the population was robbed blind!!!

When you don't know high finance ... it's so easy to point the finger at the small entities that you think you know something about ... or ... have been spoon fed!!!

Master Link is correct, the only way to even start to get things done is by putting a term on these political crooks. Until they have a reason to make good decisions, they wont. What is funny to me is that so many people will just continue to whine and complain and vote for the best of the worst. Why? Don't give them your vote at all.

Kayner, I've been torn on this issue of term limits for legislators. Congress is supposed to serve their constituents. The ONLY way they are held accountable is through re-election. They must serve their districts as they were elected to do. If they are one and done, what do they care about anything?

Can somebody please:

"Pack This Mummy" into a Sarcophagus, and throw it in the middle of the Ocean like Bin Laden!

That would be more than a well deserved Honors Funeral for this Financial Rat !!!

SYMPATHY FOR THE DEVIL

(article) Greenberg filed a lawsuit in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims asserting that the government bailout and takeover of the insurance giant was an unconstitutional seizure of private property.

* * *

Do tell ??? Does Hank "Red Square" Paulson and W. "Socialist" Bush concur?

Hank Greenberg is actually CORRECT. The U.S. gov't had ZERO BUSINESS in mettling in the banking sector AND believe it or not, the correct thing for the U.S. to do was NOTHING and LET THEM FAIL.

Thank you Hank Greenberg.

Now is the time for all REAL CAPITALISTS to rise up and join Hank in this lawsuit. This mettling and unwanted inferference in the capital markets actually worsened The Great Recession and dissuaded the bankers on Wall Street from CORRECTLY ASSESSING THEIR LEVELS OF RISK.

Thank you Hank Greenberg.

Your kind actions restore our faith that NOT EVERY BANKER FAVORS THE EUROSOCIALIST MODEL.

Thank you Hank Greenberg, most sincerely.

JH, you are so clueless that it borders on comedy.

They asked him to please not waste the $700 billion. What did he do? He wasted the $700 billion.

I'll take your tax cut back please. That is where the vast majority of the 700 billion stimulus went. Tax cuts for everyone and to pay unemployment benefits for those who cannot work, oh, and don't forget so Governor Perry could balance his budget in Texas. What a bunch of hypocrites. YOU benefited. You're also part of the party of idiots that wouldn't allow the stimulus to be big enough to actually move the economy. Instead you bought into the false issue of national debt. Maybe instead of posting drivel on here you could take the time to stop by an economics class and ask about Monetary Sovereignty. You might come away enlightened.

And you are not alone, you and "Really" should spend some time together and maybe you can come up with a brain.

I hope the GM stakeholders do the same! Their property was forced from them and just given to the unions.

The GM "stakeholders" had nothing but worthless paper. The company was bankrupt and the first people who get nothing when they allow their company to go bankrupt are the shareholders. You see, they voted in the board who oversaw the company and ran it into the ground. Unions received a little bit of stock in return for giving back some people's pensions, for cutting their own wages, and giving back part of their benefit package. But you wouldn't know that since you plainly get all of your "information" from Fox. If I were as misinformed as you two are I would find myself an island somewhere and try and stay out of everyone's way.

Shilock:

A jewish pawn broker, desperate to make money. willing to go to far lengths for short sighted monetary success. no sanctity in his trade, willing to sell his mother. fm: Wm. Shakespeare

Instead of placing a bunch of bankers in jail, US has bailed them out. Now these crooks and criminals have the balls to sue people who saved their rear end? Only in America!

Hank is an old Buddy and Major contributor to the Bush Dynasty, well, that is why he received the bailout in the first place. I am sure there are Republicans behind the scenes that will make this go away under the table. After all that is what they are there for, to serve the Rich!

Property can be seized if it is in the public interest to do so. See "eminent domain", which by the way the SCOTUS made a lot easier for government in 2005 while the Shrub was in office. So, this dog isn't going to hunt.

Mr Greenburg---Phuque

I'm pretty sure the Tea Party is against government bailouts, so I'm sure they are against this stupid lawsuit.

You have to hand it to this guy . He has a huge set of brass balls !!!

bob

when the credit bubble bursts, it's going to hurt 10x more than the housing bubble did.

it turns out a nation can not survive pushing numbers around on a computer and calling that "hard work" worth millions - like wall street does.

the reality is, people couldnt rack up credit debt...if banks didnt give them credit cards. Im not saying a person doesnt bear some responsibility for racking up credit debt, what im saying is that they simply COULDNT if a bank never gave them the money.

as someone who's trying to dig myself out of credit debt, and there's no reason in hell why any bank should send me a credit card begging me to borrow some of their money...I wonder why the credit card offers have been just been ROLLING IN lately, as if these banks weren't aware there was an economic crisis happening?

People need to pay off their debts, and in order to do that...they need jobs...but the "JOB CREATORS" would rather gamble their money on wall street, asking banks to loan that money out so they can make money on the interest...than to PUT SOMEONE TO WORK MAKING SOMETHING.

They are not job creators, they are debt creators...and its going to blow up in all our faces, and if we do what we just did...the only people who'll get bailed out, yet again...will be the rich people.

YOu and I, will be forced into servitude to pay off any and all of our debts, history proves this will happen. It's not some boogeyman fear tactic, it's reality...and dont be delusional into thinking you'll be able to work a job that pays well so you can get out of debt fast by working hard, uh no...you'll be working really hard to pay off pennies at a time...

hope everyone who thinks they got it so together, has their mortgages paid off...or their cars...cuz it isnt going to be pretty!

This guy is a millionaire who thinks he should have gotten billions? CRY ME A F*CKING RIVER!

Hank Greenberg is actually CORRECT. The U.S. gov't had ZERO BUSINESS in mettling in the banking sector AND believe it or not, the correct thing for the U.S. to do was NOTHING and LET THEM FAIL.

Thank you Hank Greenberg.

Now is the time for all REAL CAPITALISTS to rise up and join Hank in this lawsuit. This mettling and unwanted inferference in the capital markets actually worsened The Great Recession and dissuaded the bankers on Wall Street from CORRECTLY ASSESSING THEIR LEVELS OF RISK.

Let's keep Europe from doing anything and see how things go. After all, it will tell us how America would have felt without TARP. Conservatives have no clue about the economy and how bad it would have gotten without TARP and how bad it'll be if Europe isn't handled correctly. The Teaparty are the biggest bunch of clueless people on the planet.

Go ahead, let Europe collapse...we'll see how it works out. Then STFU with the results.

BTW, when someone loans you money, they get to tell you to do all kinds of things.... It's called loan covenants...live with it.

There was no "Democratic controlled Congress", from 2007 on. The Dems had a 1 person majority, and they weren't in lockstep with each other. Liebermann changes his mind like the wind changes direction, according to his fear of being seen as "helping Obama" by those voters who hate Obama.

If AIG and GM and the rest didn't like the terms of the bailouts, they had the option to say no. No one forced them to take the money, now did they?

Makes a person wonder how in the hell this country can operate day to day. This guys ethics can truly be questioned. Let alone the morality. Typical american these days I guess. Greed rules and phuck the working people. Must be a republican.

Another Republican looking to the Government to ensure he can be rich.

Really drives me crazy, all the partisan bickering and blaming that masquerades as commentary on Newsvine. I cannot imagine any sensible Republican supporting this thief - most Republicans were AGAINST the AIG bailout, and for obviously good reasons! EVERYONE in Congress is either corrupt, inept or both, so VOTE THEM ALL OUT in 2012!!!

like...he worked for every dime of it...sure he did...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7FTQzxyj0KU&feature=related

@Amused In The Midwest

You mistook "shareholder" for "stakeholder."

Two different animals. Stakeholders are the FIRST to be paid in a bankruptcy.

What they did with GM was take the stakeholders property and give it to someone else without payment.

That should be wrong in anyone's book.

If AIG and GM and the rest didn't like the terms of the bailouts, they had the option to say no. No one forced them to take the money, now did they?

I think the CEO did say no.

Then Obama "fired" him.

Bailouts arent illegal or unusual...the government seizing a company and running it is not only unusual but goes against the way our capatism works...we should let them flounder and die..bailing and seizing their assets is more a socialist move than a capatalist one

(Todd) I'm pretty sure the Tea Party is against government bailouts, so I'm sure they are against this stupid lawsuit.

* * *

OTHER WAY AROUND ! ! ! This has nothing whatsoever to do with Greenberg and his money. It has everything to do with PRINCIPAL. He is rich with or without this lawsuit. What matters most is establishing the principal that:

FOR ALL FUTURE WALL STREET AND BIG BANK STUPIDITY, THE FOOLS TAKE IT ON THE CHIN AND GO THROUGH BANKRUPTCY COURT LIKE EVERYONE ELSE.

I wonder if the connection between Maurice "Hank" Greenberg with 9/11 and other 'interesting' ventures will also be brought out to light of full public scrutiny.

for those who think Republican are at fault I would like to remind them that the Dem's had control of both houses of Congress. and that it is unconstitutional for the government to participate in competition against Private business (IE: GM, Chrysler< Freddie and Fannie, AIG, others.) This is very similar to what happened in Venezuela. and Obama has said he wants to do thing with out congress involved just like the Communist dictator in Venezuela.

Re: Ed_an_American (#1.53)

I wish the administration would get more involved and implement a Marshall Plan to rebuild the ability of our country to produce products and pay people livable wages.

But, as you know, the plan to destroy the political, economic and social levels of the middle class within this country in order to create a New World Order takes precedence over any such idea.

As long as people are swayed by phoney party ideologies our fate will be sealed by our new masters.

I'll pay Greenberg what AIG is really worth. Here, here's a nickel.

AIG had a trillion dollars in credit default swaps that were backed by nothing but IOUs.

I wish to lodge a complaint and offer a suggestion to resolve it, thusly:

Henceforth, any articles involving, concerning, or even obliquely mentioning Maurice "Hank" Greenberg shall be removed from "The Bottom Line" and instead be rightfully place in a new category befitting this waste of human tissue; such category shall be named "The Bottom Feeder."

He shouldn't be allowed to collect a penny! If the government didn't step in, there would be no AIG left at this point in time. Just like any other company out there, goes broke, nothing left!

If he does get his money back, then I believe I will sue the government for all the money that I lost in the stock market. Isn't that about the same thing?

Is there anyway we can send this man to Prison?

Greenberg has donated to both parties, but an insignificant amount more to the Dems. What isn't insignificant is AIGs contributions while he was COB, and by far the largest single person donation was to Senator Dodd. Partisan bickering is ridiculous when both parties do the same thing.

Jesse, then an independent group should sue the government over the legitimacy of this action, not the guy that brought the company down and forced (in my opinion as an independent) the government to intervene. So first he scr*ws the company, than the US, and now wants to scr*w us again!

an independent group wouldnt have standing to sue.

And, what are you talking about bailouts and "liberal acceptance" of them. Do you honestly believe all liberals support bailouts? I lean liberal and I support common sense. I do NOT support lost accusations based on ideology which is the current makeup of every argument from the right. Where's the data and the proof of your claims. I watched Fox news yesterday for on hour and was amazed to learn the OWS is really a Communist, Socialist, uprising fully funded by liberals and Obama, and how the people are robbing each other, raping each other, and it's like the end of the world with no moral values at all. Isn't in AMAZING that the Right stands up and supports the constitution and all the freedoms it represents, but when a vast number of people assemble to protest, it's now repulsive and immoral? I vote for common sense, and unfortunately, not much of that is shining through on the Right these days.

I apologize peanut for I don't know the requirements for legal action, but given this action was taken by the federal government, and thus funded by taxpayer dollars, wouldn't any individual that pays taxes have standing to sue since they are ultimately affected? Also, if the government of the people, for the people and by the people are making decisions not aligned with current law, wouldn't that give anyone standing to bring suit as well? I am not a lawyer, but just a thought....

Many OWS participants do not support the bailouts.

If bailing out a company is "unconstitutional" we may have wanted to deal with it years ago... A good time to start would have been after Abraham Lincoln did it before the Civil War during a recession.

The concept of bailing out Corporations is not new. However...The concept of a helping hand being an evil deed is.

Thad You need to go re read your history lessons. There have been few times the federal government helped out a company before this and they have never taken over companies like they did this time. I rememeber when the feds loaned Chrysler money to get back on their feet and the it turned out to be a good deal in some ways but if they had failed it would have cost Chrysler the business. And it was to go bancrupt if it failed. This was true socialism or even communism and yes true liberals were against bailouts.

Wow Unbiased , you really believe what you hear on Faux Noise? I didn't know people that think there is factual news on that site were capable of typing, let alone figuring out how to get online.

The bailouts are something that the OWS and Tea Party supporters can back each other on.

The bailouts were not only forced upon those who did not want it (yes, including banks- not all banks needed the money. They were still forced to take some. If you doubt me, look it up.), there were rules passed after the money was given forced down their throats to control what those organizations could or could not do.

The gentleman in this story has a point (and was not at the helm of AIG for its collapse)...we should all do the same.

Wow, the misinformation just keeps flowing from Republican trolls.

there were rules passed after the money was given forced down their throats to control what those organizations could or could not do.

The were "forced" to take money because they were under capitalized, having nothing to do with "control". In other words, for the Republicans out there, under capitalized means that they had loaned out way more money than they could back if the loans went bad. All banks do this to a degree, but these banks threw caution and good sense to the winds and loaned away. And stow it, no one made them do it. Greed and nothing else made them do it. We could have just let our biggest banks fail. All at once. That would have created a disaster a lot worse than the one we have now. A lot worse. Saying "let them fail" is simplistic and only really advocated by those who have no understanding of the consequences of doing so.

If AIG and GM and the rest didn't like the terms of the bailouts, they had the option to say no. No one forced them to take the money, now did they?

The thing was AIG didn't set up anyway to monitor the bank loans, as the insurer of such loans they had every right to do so. The banks lent to anyone that could breathe because they new AIG would pay off on any defaults. When the bubble burst, AIG couldn't handle all the defaults from the premiums they collected from the banks and the government stepped in to cover the loans by banks instead of letting the banks default and causing a huge crisis. AIG paid bonus's to their employees saying they would go elsewhere for employment if they weren't paid. However if AIG went under they would have been out of a job anyway. Mr. Greenberg deserves nothing and should give every dime he owns back to the government.

Amused "That would have created a disaster a lot worse than the one we have now. A lot worse. Saying "let them fail" is simplistic and only really advocated by those who have no understanding of the consequences of doing so."

I used to think this, but the more and more i've thought about...the more and more I believe we are simply putting of the inevitable.

If that is the case (and you cant be certain it is or isnt)...how does it help us in the long term to kick the can down the road for as long as we can?

When republicans call for letting these banks/businesses fail and let the market correct itself...they are patially aware that things will get bad, they are completely in denial about how bad...and whether it will affect them or not (most believe not).

I believe, if we let this thing go bust - as it should (and will eventually) it's going to be ugly and awful...for everyone and for a long time, as we sort out in the aftermath what went wrong...what never ever to do again...and what we should do differently going forward.

Kicking the can down the road, and masking what happened and how it's affecting, gets us no closer to fixing this mess for long term...and actually delays it, because we sit here and bicker over whether it was the subprime loans (it was) or whether it was bad bundled default swaps (it was) or whether it was a flood of investment money encouraging banks to abandon sound business practices (it was) or whether it was lazy enforcement of regulations (it was) or too much regulation (not even possible) or whether regulations that had been stripped were responsible (they were)...or whether it was immoral business practices, such as putting people in subprime loans who qualified for conventional ones (they did, and it was part of the problem too)...or the ARM that blew up in every at-risk borrowers face (who didnt see that coming?)

in the end, there's so much that played a role in all this...that squabbling over which parts were worse, is pretty moot at this point.

We should be squabbling over when we'll just get it over with and rip the band aid off...and feel the subsequent pain.

one thing is for sure...the protesting/rioting we've seen will be a joke compared to the looting/rioting/unrest that will ensue and possibly in many nations lead to revolts/revolutions...govts will be toppled, blood will spill in the streets...

every day republicans talking about how responsible they are, unlike everyone else...will find themselves out of a job, out of a house and screwed like the rest of us and irate that they didnt see it coming...and the idea of "letting people screw each other over with no govt regulation" will become the most absurd idea they had ever accepted, because it ended up affecting them indirectly, through no fault of their own.

It turns out, greedy people and greedy businesses...cant self-police, or this is what happens...world-wide economic collapse.

HOpefully, when the dust settles - thats something we'll all agree on that we cant let greedy borrowers take more than they can afford...and we can't let greedy lenders screw customers over...and we cant let greedy super rich people create jobs simply by GAMBLING the money away with high priced bookies.

we all need to change, and the sooner the better.

Amused, not all banks were undercapitalized. There was a concern over creating a run on banks, so they made every bank take some money, whether it was needed or not.

The "control" aspect comes into play when the government applies rules retroactively. So in other words, it was not as if the Government said, "Hey, we want to prevent a run on banks. You need to help out and take some of this cash...you can pay us back later when things calm down." It was more like, "Hey, we want to prevent a run on banks, so you need to help out and take some of this cash. Thanks." (advance to when Obama takes office) "And you can't use that money for acquisitions. And you can't pay your employees more than X. And you can't pay us back until we say you can. And here's your interest rate."

BS it wasn't about control.

I am tired of dimwits like this poster.

I always ask the following questions:

(1) Did it work? Did it fix the problem? In the case of the auto companies, I think it did wonders. Given the dramatic improvements in their product lines and sizable drops in their operating costs, I think the bailout worked. The fact that the U.S. government provided DIP funds (just like any private bankruptcy) is irrelevant to me. The financial bailouts, on the other hand, have had mixed results. Yes, it stabilized lending and the markets but it left the country with a stalled economy and huge public debts while trillions of dollars sit around idle.

(2) Did it help the economy? Avoiding another million of direct and indirect job losses is a win to me. I remember (even if you don't) what it was like when it was reported that GLOBAL TRADE dropped 17% in the space of a SINGLE MONTH after Lehman collapsed. I never thought much of the design by committee or bean counters at the Big Three but they were in the process of reforming their lineups and processes when the economy caved due to the credit bubble bursting; the bailouts allowed them to complete the transition to being profitable businesses that make good products and employee a lot of people. The financial bailout was a mixed success here as well. If prevented the economy from becoming another Great Depression but the failure to force the banks to reform their bad practices and failure to re-instate Glass-Steagal is the reason that the economic recovery and confidence in the markets have been so low.

The old man has a good point. The Government take over of a private company is not something you want the Government doing. After it was Obama that fired the CEO of GMC and put his guy in there. Now the place is run by the unions because they are the majority shareholders. Obama just had to pay the unions back some kind of way, plus the unions retirement plans needed to be funded. Then we have the unions dropping $37 million dollars on elections? There is no common sense in that, not by the standards of the average American Tax Payer.

The tired, dried up old man has no point. He just wants to loot some more. Corporate greed blew it. Government stepped in to save. Now Corporate greed wants to loot more from us.

Smokie.

So bailing out GM was a bad move ? Funny, that is something all economist actually agree on, that is was the smart move.

And the other non-sense, if the government would not have intervened, it would be 10000000 times worse for everyone. Instead of nearly 10% unemployment, it would be 40 or 50%, the economy would have collapsed even worse.

I would also add that the bank bailouts happened under GWB. Seems like a lot of people have amnesia on this matter. Either way, it had to be done to keep another Great Depression from reoccurring.

Sean,

Not only is this lawsuit not frivilous, it is probably one of the more important lawsuits of our day. The outcome of this lawsuit will determine whether or not Socialist America spoon feeds corrupt bankers Tarp baby food OR whether rugged individualist corporations sink or swim on their own, and when stupid decisions are made, they go broke.

Not all economists agree that the GM bailout was a good thing. Many believe that "too big to fail" is wrong, and ultimately damaging to the economy. Many believe that violating the bankruptcy laws is wrong, and ultimately damaging to the economy. The secured investors were illegally screwed, and non-secured stakeholders were granted extraordinary benefits (assets that were legal property of the secured investors.)

Many economists believe that the best thing for GM was bankruptcy and orderly liquidation as directed by the bankruptcy court, using the bankruptcy laws.

Greg, the problem with your simplistic theory is that we cannot let them all go broke at one time if we expect to survive, eat, etc. That is what would have happened when you experience a systematic failure as we did. And as for "rugged individualism" that is a theory that failed miserably back in the early 20th century. I know you would love to reboot to that time, but I do not think it is going to happen. The country is about 4 or 5 times as large as it was then and people now have few if any morals. This country became great because of a common morality that is now lost. Nothing fixes that. There is no hope for people who think money is speech and corporations are people and want to run a society that way. Corporations are entities created by government solely to protect shareholders from liability. They are taxed at a high rate in return for that protection. If the board of directors does not feel the protection is worth the cost, then they should reform the company as a partnership. Republicans need to wake up to history and why some things are the way they are. It has nothing to do with socialism. That is just the word the right wing likes to toss about to scare old ladies.

"Socialist America" - how juvenile. Talking points...aren't they wonderful?

So some of you want to shift/SPIN the blame from Wall St., the banking/mortgage industry, auto and other big corporations, from the responsibility for our economy's downturn...........

and support one of the people who helped cause it, with your false "the government illegally took over" BS argument.

Nice little anti-Americans you are.

The government didn't "take over" any of those industries. They gave money in return for shares, and are now selling those shares back.

Again:

If AIG and GM and the rest didn't like the terms of the bailouts, they had the option to say no. No one forced them to take the money, now did they?

American Lobo, there were the handful of banks (and it really was a handful) that needed the bailout money. We all know that list. If you don't, you should.

Then there are the banks that did NOT need it (and believe it or not, there were plenty of those) but were forced- yes, FORCED- to participate. How? Because banks are regulated and the feds said that they had to. Period.

Now, you ask an important question with regard to the terms of the bailout. Those terms changed after the money was handed out. The Obama administration placed regulations and repayment terms AFTER TARP funds were distributed. So, I ask you, Lobo- how can someone NOT take money when they have no choice as a regulated industry if they don't like the terms? They had no say over the terms when they were forced to take the money. AND they had no say over the new terms that came into place later- some of those terms controlled when banks that could pay the money back COULD pay the money back.

As for GM and Chrysler, they needed the money. They aren't pissed- their shareholders and suppliers are pissed. They had an uber-fast bankruptcy happen that left their debt holders stuck with their bad decisions- all to save union votes.

@tambo-3087517

Another dim-wit.

A few of the results of the auto bailouts:

(1) The unions now have to pay for their own health insurance pool.

(2) The unions had to accept lower hourly wages and had to accept concessions on work rules.

(3) ONE THIRD of the American owned auto plants in the country were closed.

Still think it was a giveaway? If you don't know the facts, why bother wasting everyone else's time by posting?

Throw a side of racketeering in there too.

Unfortunately, the Corporate ... er, I mean Supreme Court will probably get the case some day.

Think you just did, Duane.

Maybe it's because I am in California, but payphones take two quarters here.

Would be nice to see him out panhandling for the other quarter though.

I am always fond of the idea of people getting put in positions they deserve...

I think you mis-spelled "biased" in your user name.

Typical response from an uneducated source. Thanks!

You just did it again.

Hmmm, let me try to respond on a level you may understand.

Micky Mac, Paddy Wack, go give a Dog a Bone. Your lame comments make us wish that you would just go home.

Is that better? Or, how about "I'm telling mom on you!"

Bias is an inclination to present or hold a partial perspective at the expense of (possibly equally valid) alternatives. Bias can come in many forms.

Micky...you are assuming the alternative being....that this guy had nothing to do with AIG screwing the world...and he was "innocent"

While I agree we may never know the real truth...but if this law suit goes through, we may find out how bad of a crook he really is. Not otherwise.

My opinion may be a bit "biased." Given the information available, the burden of proof is on the other side.

Thaddeus, "Unbiased American" is clearly biased, which your definition above backs up. His comments show him to be biased. His reaction to being called out on it show him to be guilty. If he was innocent of the acusation he would make his case as such. Instead he attacks and demonises.

I was merely pointing out the irony of his tag name.

mickymac, that was funny.

.........instead of debating the topic at hand, because I can't refute what Unbiased posted.

You forgot to finish the last sentence of your post micky, so I helped ya out.

Eh, isn't that xactly what you are doing yourself Lobo?

Lobo, in terms of refuting what our friend "Unbiased" said, that would be impossible as he didn't actually make an argument. He did however decide that Greenberg was:

A. A Piece of S**t

B. That he has disdain for 99% of the population

C. That he will never have enough money to be happy....NEVER.

D. That he will do anything to get that money.

Based on him knowing little to nothing about the facts of the case, and assuming he doesn't know Hank personally, it could only lead one to believe that he is biased against rich people in general - making his tagname "Unbiased American" very ironic.

I merely wanted to enlighten him to this irony. That I have also helped you too just makes it even more worthwhile.

Makes me feel all warm inside.

Even unbiased people have their limits. Unless you think blind adherence to a corrupt ideology is a good thing. I would be worried if everyone ignored the blatant arrogance and greed of this economy crasher.

Ubiased said:

"The government saves him and his company from backruptcy, and now he sues them for more money. This is an example of this man's disdain for the other 99% and how greedy he really is."

That is a fairly accurate assessment of the "POS" Greenberg, that is suing the government. Although not provable as "fact", it can still be successfully debated that his actions imply he is ungrateful, greedy, and doesn't give a crap about most Americans, since our tax $ will go to paying the costs of defending against his lawsuit.

Micky: You just "enlightened" everyone in here, that you still can't refute that Greenberg is greedy and only out for his own self worth. You've also "helped" highlight your superficial obsession with names.

I concur with the basic foundation of what Unbiased wrote.

You want to give your reasons for why my assessment of Greenberg is off the mark?

Didn't think so.

He's nothing but a troll and about 6 of you just swallowed his bait 100%. When the best a person can do is snark about someone's chosen moniker then just ignore them, they have absolutely nothing to contribute to discourse.

...and Amused makes it seven I guess.

I call it like I see it slick, and "Unbiased" struck me as as someone who hates rich people (or at least rich people who have a Conservative ideology).

You may want to practise what you preach Amused, and move on to defending some other poor unfortunate.

Or will you continue to "swallow the bait"?

yawn.

next.

Lobo,

A. How did The Government save Greenberg from bankruptcy? (you may want to do a little research before you answer this one).

B. Stating that his suing of the Government implies "he doesn't give a crap about most Americans", is juvenile. By your logic then, Obama doesn't give a crap about most americans if he raises their taxes.

C. If greed is a crime, we better all hire a good lawyer.

Listen, I don't know if Greenberg is an As*hole, bitter, ungrateful, angry old man. He might be for all I know. But "Unbiased" and a whole lot of others on this forum have decided he is simply because he is a wealthy CEO. Not because of the facts of his suit.

That's why I'm calling him out.

A. Greenberg still owned stock in AIG. By saving AIG, the government kept Greenbergs stock from becoming worthless.

Note: I never said Greenberg himself would become bankrupt if AIG went under.

B. You can't see the whole picture, and you love to ASSume, don't you. Show us where Obama is going to "raise taxes on most Americans". Try all you like, but you can't.

Obama has a job to do while trying to be fair to all Americans. Greenberg's only "job" is looking after Greenberg.

Greenberg is thinking about himself. win or lose, the court costs of defense(and any possible settlement) is going to come out of TAXPAYER $$.

C. Greed is a motive in a court of law. Greed is recognizable as a reason why some commit criminal acts(Madoff?).

Speak for yourself. I want a decent life for my family, with adequate shelter/clothing, healthy food, reliable economical vehicle, and a few extra $ left over for some recreational activities now and then(nothing over the top).

I wouldn't turn millions of $$ away if I won the lotto, but I'd never deliberately step on/harm others to live in luxury and be rich. Matter of fact, if I ever do become rich(not likely), I already know how I will share any extra $ I have beyond living comfortably.

I think Unbiased is correct in criticizing Greenberg, because Greenberg would have probably lost more money if AIG went under. He should be thanking the taxpayers who funded the bailout, not trying to screw them out of more.

Except it was Bush that bailed out of AIG. Obama bailed out US Auto who has repaid their loan and is now operating at a profit for the first time in a decade.

Make sure that if you are going to blame Obama for something, you blame him for something he actually did.

You are correct that Bush did bail out AIG but the auto industry has not paid back the government and last week they raised the amount of the losses due to GM stock going down

Jim, have you read a single report regarding the bailout?? Almost without exception, they say it kept us from a DEPRESSION. Not to mention we spent a fraction after all the profit we made from the investments. I'll also point out to you AGAIN since you tend to forget the little details, that is was your hero Bush who bailed out the auto and the banks. Obama continued, but it was Bush that did the big bank moves. Try again when you have some facts and not a Rove talking point.

Oh yeah! Obama is nationalizing EVERYTHING. Jeeez, gimmie a break. Is he really going to nationalize how I buy milk on Tuesdays? I doubt it. Did he cause me any hardache as I built and createdc a new business that I just started last year? No. Did any of "his new taxes that limit small business" affect me or the small business I started? No. I am really tired of the "same ole' BS" coming from the Right. Don't you guys ever have anything with data (you know, real numbers and statistics) that support your claim? I don't think I (a perveyor of free enterprise) is at war with Obama. I am totally fine with everything I did to create and run my business and actually had VERY limited intervention by the governement, which focused merely on the Tax ID for the federal and state registration. My taxes are not excessive. I just wish those guys making millions were paying the same % I pay!

Bush and Obama are both to blame! Bush for setting the stage, especially with his desire to take over Iraq. Obama for refusing to believe that spending our way out of the recession was a foolhardy venture! He created no private sector jobs but did increase the Fed by over 9%! Nice job Mr. community organizer!

Bill T - "He created no private sector jobs"

stay consistent on your talking points, the right says govt cant create jobs...that only the super rich can do that.

fact is - 50% of the money on wall street is owned by the top 1% - the JOB CREATORS. perhaps instead of gambling their money on wall street for fast returns, they could take that wealth and...i dont know, create businesses that employ people...so they can truly take the name JOB CREATORS seriously?

This is currently how the ultra rich create jobs:

bad news from europe on their debt - SELL, SELL, SELL!!

phew! that was a close one. but wait, how am i going to make money and create job? I have to buy more stock!

bad news from europe on their debt, again - SELL SELL SELL!!!

phew, that was a close one.

but, I have to create jobs...I have to buy more stock. hmmm...what shall I buy, everything is so RISKY these days...and nothing is really doing good.

I know, ill dump lots of money into technology - yeah, technology/internet is booming!

bad news about europe debt, bad outloook on technology/internet investments - SELL SELL SELL!

phew, what was I thinking...it's like I forgot all about the internet bubble of the 90's! but, how can I create jobs with this money just sitting here in MY POCKET? it must be on wall street in order for me to create jobs...what can I buy??? OOOOOOOOHHHH LOOK HOW SHINY GROUPON IS!

who cares that they havent actually turned a profit with their business model, or that the couple of people who started GROUPON are trying to cash out in the 300 million range...i'm sure they'll take my investment dollars and put it to good use and grow that business and make it magical...and of course, i'll get a handsome return for my hardwork.

....and on the game goes....

of course SOME jobs get created when the money first flows in, but how many jobs get lost when the JOB CREATORS cash out when they get spooked?

and that doesnt even touch the JOB CREATORS who are just speculators in the wall street casino

I think most of them are using their spare change to bid up the price of oil right now. Oil companies love it because while everyone is up in arms about the false debt/spending problem that republicans would like everyone to focus their attention on, oil companies are raking in boat loads of cash. Same with drug companies and the war mongers defense hawks like Northrop and Halliburton.

(Jessica, love your post). I am purplexed at the constant finger pointing that goes on here on this thread. As I had said on another topic yesterday, the problem with our country is reflected right here on this thread. Lets blame one another while no-one offers an answer. This is the same as our wonderful government. The dems dont like the repubs proposals and vice-versa.

Here is a news flash. The economy is not 'controlled' by the government. It is controlled by corporations and investors. The rich and powerful are to blame for the economic mess this country is in. The government can only intervene to a certain degree to try and progress the economy by tax cuts/increases, tax incentives, "bail-outs of critical US industries, job creation bills such as TARP, etc. The government got involved with AIG as AIG yielded such immense power in our economy that had it collapsed we might have been propelled into a serious recession or depression. But here we are, in a recession anyway. The economy is slightly 'improving' so they say. Large US multi-nationals are reporting record earnings again but have no intention on hiring as they have made progress without additional hiring by giving existing employees heavier workloads as labor is seen as an enemy to rich upper management, CEOs and affluent investors. I agree with your post, the wealthy are not interested in creating jobs but are obsessed with increasing their already high worth. The government can only 'assist' the people by providing job creation bills that are paid for with tax dollars that are borrowed from China and the jobs created SHOULD a job creation bill pass but will not as seen by the inept of our government playing the same game the people on this post are doing by pointing fingers at each other instead of coming to a suitable compromise.

If we continue down this path. If the government and it's representatives continue to be bought by special interests and the affluent, if compromises cant be reached, if the wealthy and the large corporations continue to slip by not paying their share, if deep cuts in federal spending without an increase in federal revenue are enacted we will see the end of the US as a major superpower in the world. China will replace the US as the world's major superpower.

I, along with a majority of others, have deviated from the topic of this article. This clown actually thinks that the US taxpayers should pay him and his interests 25 billion dollars is absurd and a slap in the face for all of us. This man and his associates made millions each by porpoused mismanagement of finances AIG held which is criminal. This lawsuit should be tossed right into the file 13 and maybe an investigation can be opened to put this man and his gang of looters right where they belong, in Club Fed instead of the multimillionaire club.

Why is it that some folks just can't get this: OBAMA WAS NOT PRESIDENT WHEN THE BANK BAILOUTS OCCURRED. Now, repeat after me -- OBAMA WAS NOT PRESIDENT WHEN THE BANK BAILOUTS OCCURRED. OBAMA WAS NOT PRESIDENT . . .

Bill T: There have been jobs created in the private sector since President Obama took office. And I know that there are fewer government jobs compared to President Bush's time in office. (Pres. Bush created the biggest new agency and bureaucracy ever -- Homeland Security.) Easy enough to check out . . .

I sure hope your tag name is not literal.

Sorry Sean, I didn't realise the professor was your boyfriend.

Having said that, don't you have a problem dating a guy who believes in executing people for being greedy?

And I'm going to assume your name is reflective of your parents fondness and respect for the great country of their ancestors. Try to do it proud would you?

By the way, I have plenty of women "Micky". What's the matter? You failed your ACT? Get a clue Old Irrelevant Irish Tax Sucker. Go back to Ireland you diseased oncogene of humanity. I hear the famine ended centuries ago. Why are you still here? The priest have his way with you? Have a little homophobia perhaps?

Sean, what do you see in this guy?

mickymac, take your trolling back over to Fox. Trolls are not welcome here. Not one post about the actual article, just moving from place to place criticizing people.

Amused, are you stalking me?

Imagine

Unrealistic

Realistic,

It's safe to assume that you wouldn't have the opportunity to post here.

Ever tried to barter your shoes for a ham? That is probably one of the less educated "deep thoughts" i have seen in a while. There is a reason why the alphabet was invented, numbers, and coinage. All of these had to do with civilization and cities. If you want to crawl back into a cave then yes, you don't need any of those.

Happy mammoth hunting!

Exactly, good point.

Why does he "clearly not deserve it"? He didn't lead AIG into potential bankruptcy. He had been gone for three years already.

It was his property. His wealth has nothing to do with it. The government illegally seized assets that did not belong to them. The man has a point.

You have to be careful with subjectivity here. If the government can choose to take over assets based upon what they deem to be an emergency, then they can do that to you as well. You may not think that anyone would want to take your split-level in the suburbs, but tell that to the homeless who do not even have that now.

Guys- he left the firm three years before the bailout. Stop.

You should be cheering this guy. He is on your side. How, you ask?

- AIG received a bailout. The resulting government takeover of 80% of the stock depleted his portfolio, let alone the value of it. Remember, by now he is NOT in charge of the company and had not been for years.

- AIG, despite getting bailout money, paid millions to executives in bonuses.

He is rightfully pissed. He was robbed the same way you all claim to be robbed. He got screwed out of his personal property by the government takeover of private property.

Wow. This is tantamount to raping people then suing them because you got herpes?.....sounds just as reasonable. How is this sh**head on MY side? He's suing the government, not the a**hats that ran AIG into the ground. He suing ME and YOU, schmuck, cause we are sure as heck going to pay for it.

He was there during the time that AIG decided to get cozy with the big banks and develop the insurance against the derivatives! So he was probably involved in that decision to insure financial elements that have been called "equal to atomic weapons" by many. Therefore, he should have no standing in court!