AIG won't join ex-CEO Maurice "Hank" Greenberg's lawsuit against the U.S. government over the insurance giant's financial crisis bailout, the Wall Street Journal is reporting.

AIG’s board met Wednesday to hear a pitch from Greenberg, asking the company to join his $25 billion lawsuit accusing the government of violating shareholders’ rights by bailing out the company.

Greenberg filed the suit in 2011, and it claims that the terms of the bailout -- including giving billions to AIG’s clients, the government taking a more than 90 percent stake in the company and the deal’s steep interest rates, stripped shareholders of tens of billions of dollars -- according to The New York Times. Despite the complaints, the government weakened the terms of the deal shortly after the bailout, perhaps to the benefit of shareholders, according to a separate NYT report.

After the NYT reported Monday night that the insurance giant was considering joining Greenberg's suit, Washington policymakers lashed out at AIG. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke were "furious" about the possibility of an AIG lawsuit, according to Politico. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) said in a statement on Tuesday that "it would be outrageous for this company [AIG] to turn around and sue the federal government because they think the deal wasn't generous enough."

And Austan Goolsbee, a former top economic adviser to President Barack Obama, lashed out on Twitter. "Dear AIG, Hi, I'm one of the 300m Americans whose $ saved you. I think I speak for all of us (incl your moms) when I say GO SCREW YOURSELVES," he wrote.

The U.S. Treasury Department sold its last stake in AIG in December, ending the bailout. Earlier this month, the company launched an ad campaign thanking America for its help.

Also on HuffPost:

Loading Slideshow...
  • Workers are not reaping the gains of their extra productivity.

    Worker productivity grew 11 times more quickly than worker pay between 1979 and 2011: While <a href="http://stateofworkingamerica.org/fact-sheets/key-findings/" target="_blank">worker productivity rose 69 percent</a>, median hourly compensation rose just 6.5 percent, according to the Economic Policy Institute. [Chart credit: <a href="http://stateofworkingamerica.org/chart/swa-wages-figure-4u-change-total-economy/" target="_hplink">Economic Policy Institute</a>]

  • CEO pay has skyrocketed.

    Maybe it's time to consider your CEO's massive pay package as a cut out of your own paycheck. <a href="http://stateofworkingamerica.org/wages/" target="_hplink">CEO pay is more than 200 times</a> that of a typical worker, up from 30 times that of a typical worker in the late 1970s, according to the Economic Policy Institute.

  • There aren't enough jobs.

    At its current rate of job creation, the U.S. will not return to its pre-recession unemployment rate of around 5 percent before 2020, according to the Economic Policy Institute.

  • Job growth was slow even before the recession.

    From the Economic Policy Institute: "The business cycle from 2000-2007 is the weakest full business cycle on record for job creation, due to the fact that demand was insufficient to drive overall GDP gains that were robust enough to generate strong job growth." It appears that the middle class squeeze has hurt job creation and economic growth.

  • We are poorer than we could be.

    Households in the middle fifth of income distribution would have been making $18,897 more per year as of 2007 if their incomes had grown as quickly as overall average incomes between 1979 and 2007, according to the Economic Policy Institute. (The sizable income growth for top earners since 1979 skewed the overall average.)

  • The rich have captured most income growth.

    The top one percent captured 60 percent of total income growth between 1979 and 2007, while the bottom 90 percent was left with just 9 percent of the total, according to the Economic Policy Institute. Moreover, the top one percent's incomes rose 241 percent, in contrast to 11 percent growth for the bottom fifth and 19 percent growth for the middle fifth. [Chart credit: <a href="http://stateofworkingamerica.org/chart/swa-income-figure-2a-real-median-family/" target="_hplink">Economic Policy Institute</a>]

  • Wages have grown more quickly for the rich.

    Wages for the top one percent spiked 131 percent between 1979 and 2010, while wages for the bottom 90 percent of workers rose just 15 percent over that same period, according to the Economic Policy Institute. [Chart credit: <a href="http://stateofworkingamerica.org/chart/swa-wages-figure-4h-change-real-annual-wages/" target="_hplink">Economic Policy Institute</a>]

  • The poorest Americans are earning less than in 1979.

    Americans in the bottom tenth of the wage distribution earned less last year than the lowest earners did in 1979, accounting for inflation, according to the Economic Policy Institute. Meanwhile, the real wages of the median worker rose only 6 percent between 1979 and 2011.

  • The American Dream is eroding.

    "Families headed by early baby boomers (born between 1945-1954) are the last generation (on average) to achieve higher living standards than the one that preceded them," the Economic Policy Institute says. Among families with incomes below $28,000 in 1994, less than 1 percent made it to the top fifth of incomes 10 years later, according to the Economic Policy Institute.

  • This has been a lost decade.

    On average, hourly pay has not grown at all since 2002 for workers with a college degree or with only a high school degree, according to the Economic Policy Institute. Wages have not grown for college graduates in nearly every occupation, and college graduates in the 70th income percentile or lower have had stagnant or falling wages since 2000. [Chart credit: <a href="http://stateofworkingamerica.org/chart/swa-wages-figure-4a-change-total-economy/" target="_hplink">Economic Policy Institute</a>]