AIG has a checkered history at best. They fleeced the American taxpayer to the tune of $182 Billion. Before that, got caught Bid Rigging with Marsh. What a thug outfit.
One of the all-time worst.I was glad when they changed their name to Chartis a few years back that it didn’t erase in the memory what they had done to the public at large.
At that point, they said, “Well, screw it, our ruse didn’t work, might as well just go back to being AIG again.”
Their death will be more ceremonious than Dallas National, Tower, Companion, and the likes due to their size, but hopefully they will be remembered for corruption run amok.
Rosenblatt, please wake up and smell the coffee up there in your cubicle. AIG has always been a thug outfit and were caught red handed. Progressives arranged the deal and some of it was paid back, not sure some of it was forgiven. The point was the American taxpayer bore the amount given which should never have happened in the first place. They should have been let go and the other markets pick up accounts they used to write. So what if they gave up some of their assets to pay back. They are still thugs.
I’m not arguing they should’ve been bailed out. I agree we shouldn’t have done that. But it happened. You called it fleecing, but my point is — if the bailout was paid back in excess of 100%, how did we get fleeced when we actually MADE money from bailing them out?
July 6, 2017 at 2:40 pm
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
Rosenblatt, If you really believe that taking $182 Billion out of the Federal Treasury is not fleecing, I feel sorry for you. I really don’t care how much they eventually paid back. Thugs are still thugs.
AIG is circling the drain and they give this guy a $9.6 million golden parachute?
Sounds about right for a company ran and supported by utter incompetence/greed.
AIG has a checkered history at best. They fleeced the American taxpayer to the tune of $182 Billion. Before that, got caught Bid Rigging with Marsh. What a thug outfit.
One of the all-time worst.I was glad when they changed their name to Chartis a few years back that it didn’t erase in the memory what they had done to the public at large.
At that point, they said, “Well, screw it, our ruse didn’t work, might as well just go back to being AIG again.”
Their death will be more ceremonious than Dallas National, Tower, Companion, and the likes due to their size, but hopefully they will be remembered for corruption run amok.
Agent, can you help me understand your comment a little better please?
You said AIG “fleeced” us for $182M yet I’m pretty sure you know AIG paid back that amount in full, and an extra $22M on top of it.
So if you loaned me $100 and I paid you back $112, do you honestly think you got “fleeced” in that deal?
sorry – typo: $182B and $22B (not M for million. my mistake.)
Rosenblatt, please wake up and smell the coffee up there in your cubicle. AIG has always been a thug outfit and were caught red handed. Progressives arranged the deal and some of it was paid back, not sure some of it was forgiven. The point was the American taxpayer bore the amount given which should never have happened in the first place. They should have been let go and the other markets pick up accounts they used to write. So what if they gave up some of their assets to pay back. They are still thugs.
I’m not arguing they should’ve been bailed out. I agree we shouldn’t have done that. But it happened. You called it fleecing, but my point is — if the bailout was paid back in excess of 100%, how did we get fleeced when we actually MADE money from bailing them out?
Rosenblatt, If you really believe that taking $182 Billion out of the Federal Treasury is not fleecing, I feel sorry for you. I really don’t care how much they eventually paid back. Thugs are still thugs.