AIG to pay $165 million in bonuses this year

[Sheogorath]

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/15/business/15AIG.html?_r=1

u gib moni plz?

Seriously, anybody else want to join me in storming AIG headquarters and demanding a 'not murdering everybody' bonus? I feel that's a much nicer bonus than the 'screwing everybody' bonus?

[Fragony]

Tars and feathers. Ain't their money. Paint their buts red and throw them in the monkey-cage.

[rasoforos]

Oh well...

...on the other hand...


...they secured a huge bailout...


...so they are worth a bonus :freak:

[KukriKhan]

Q: Which insurance/assurance company backs the (very generous) Congressional Retirement Plan?

[Proletariat]

The demonization of all things banking related is probably one of the most massive movements of ignorant mob mentality seen recently and distances us from recovering from this mess by leaps and bounds.

But it's fun and we all get to enjoy some disingenuous outrage by focusing solely on the banks alone and letting all the other contributing factors in this mind bogglingly complex recession go ignored.

[LittleGrizzly]

Without such bonuses how would these companies mantain such excellent performance ?

[Proletariat]

Good point. Let's kill every banker and solve this problem for good.

:skull:

[Lemur]

The demonization of all things banking related [...]
AIG is an insurer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aig). If you're going to heap abuse on the angry villagers, at least get the monster right.

[Gregoshi]

AIG is an insurer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aig). If you're going to heap abuse on the angry villagers, at least get the monster right.
AIG is a witch! (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrzMhU_4m-g)

[Fisherking]

I have a plan! Lets just put a varmint bounty on them! $50 for an investment banker $100 for a lawyer, who knows…that way you can do like Shakespeare said…and start over.

[LittleGrizzly]

The thing is its hard to criticise the bonuses without looking at the people the money is going to and thier performance...

For all we know there's some super guy working there that single handedly stopped them being in a far far worse position and is deserving of every single penny he gets and maybe more...

Thats a slight exageration obviously but even in a failing company there may be individuals who performed well despite the conditions and made/saved the company a lot of money...

Just out of fear as coming across as some capitalist loving conservative... Down with the insurers/bankers and moneymen! Take thier ill deserved bonuses for destorying the world and put them towards helping the people who lost thier homes and possessions for thier greed!

[KukriKhan]

The thing is its hard to criticise the bonuses without looking at the people the money is going to and thier performance...


Just out of fear as coming across as some capitalist loving conservative... Down with the insurers/bankers and moneymen! Take thier ill deserved bonuses for destorying the world and put them towards helping the people who lost thier homes and possessions for thier greed!

Whew! Ya had me scared there for a moment LittleGrizzly.

[Askthepizzaguy]

There is the problem that some people in these companies with corrupt leadership did hard work all year and, if anyone is going to turn those companies around, they need to be rewarded for their hard work.

The blame goes to the top. Fire the CEO's, fire anyone responsible. But don't punish the worker.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

I was just going to comment that $165M seems pretty restrained. :sweatdrop: What was it previously?

Anyway, +1 Prole

[Hosakawa Tito]

Pay them their bonus in AIG stock...

[Askthepizzaguy]

Whoever turns AIG around does deserve huge amounts of stock in that company, in fact, the present leadership needs to have their stock stripped from them, and given to all the workers, and then it needs to be under new management.

[LittleGrizzly]

in fact, the present leadership needs to have their stock stripped from them, and given to all the workers

ATPG you commie you!

Hosa wins best post of the thread!

[Askthepizzaguy]

Heh, I might be a commie, but until you start really rewarding the workers with some kind of capitalist incentive, and punish bad management, your capitalist system will continue to hit new lows.

It takes a little bit of the left wing to keep the right wing functional.

[Xiahou]

The demonization of all things banking related is probably one of the most massive movements of ignorant mob mentality seen recently and distances us from recovering from this mess by leaps and bounds.

But it's fun and we all get to enjoy some disingenuous outrage by focusing solely on the banks alone and letting all the other contributing factors in this mind bogglingly complex recession go ignored.Well said. :yes:
For a company the size of AIG, that much money is a drop in the bucket and when it's spread over all their divisions and what's probably thousands of executives. I was sympathetic to some of the more outrageous stories early on, but it's really getting out of hand now. If you want someone to get mad at, start with your elected representatives who forked over hundreds of billions of dollars of your money to this companies with no restrictions whatsoever.


It takes a little bit of the left wing to keep the right wing functional.Outright property seizure for the purposes of redistribution is more than a little left wing....

[Askthepizzaguy]

Who's property has been seized?

Sorry, I am not really paying attention, I'm juggling a bunch of mafia games at the moment.

[Xiahou]

Who's property has been seized?

Sorry, I am not really paying attention, I'm juggling a bunch of mafia games at the moment.You advocated stripping the stocks from the executives that own them and distributing them among the workers.


Whoever turns AIG around does deserve huge amounts of stock in that company, in fact, the present leadership needs to have their stock stripped from them, and given to all the workers, and then it needs to be under new management.

[Askthepizzaguy]

Sorry, I meant to say those who had committed crimes, falsified documents and reports, interfered with investigations, perpetrated fraud, and so on and so forth. Surely we can get some people indicted. I do not advocate stripping property from the law-abiding, nor even do I support an income tax. I'd prefer a sales and property tax bump, and the elimination of most of the functions of the IRS, but that's a different topic.

[Husar]

If you want someone to get mad at, start with your elected representatives who forked over hundreds of billions of dollars of your money to this companies with no restrictions whatsoever.

WHAT? That would be government intervention! Are you a commie?!

[Banquo's Ghost]

WHAT? That would be government intervention! Are you a commie?!

The above would benefit from a smiley so that readers knew you were joking.

Having said that, I'm not quite sure how Xiahou's comment could be interpreted that way, even in friendly jest. :inquisitive:

[Hosakawa Tito]

For a company the size of AIG, that much money is a drop in the bucket and when it's spread over all their divisions and what's probably thousands of executives. I was sympathetic to some of the more outrageous stories early on, but it's really getting out of hand now. If you want someone to get mad at, start with your elected representatives who forked over hundreds of billions of dollars of your money to this companies with no restrictions whatsoever.


From what I have read, the bonuses are a contractual obligation from before the actual financial meltdown, Spring of 2008. So refusing to pay = lawsuit. Xiahou is correct. The Bush & Obama Administrations, and Congress, have dropped the ball on this by not tying bailout money to amendments to these obligations. AIG is an insurance company that was run like a hedge fund. Combined with the elimination of the Uptick Rule (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uptick), this has left them and other financial institutions open to bear raiders.

[KukriKhan]

... this has left them and other financial institutions open to bear raiders.

Yeah. Nobody wants even semi-bare raider(ettes) running the show:

insert: gratutitous photo of an Oakland Raiderette cheerleader

I'll be gettin' me coat.

-----------------

Let's not forget that the very first bailout bill failed to pass because of public outcry. The second version passed when we (citizens) didn't re-apply the same pressure. Sadly, now they (congress critters) are encouraged and re-energized by our apparent apathy.

[Husar]

The above would benefit from a smiley so that readers knew you were joking.
That may be right, I probably thought it was obvious.


Having said that, I'm not quite sure how Xiahou's comment could be interpreted that way, even in friendly jest. :inquisitive:

Well, the government restricts the actions of the comany and intervenes with company policy, as the article says, this could have direct impact on the company which would lose it's very best workers due to the government forbidding the company to pay them huge bonuses. Without it's best workers the company could not compete anymore and would go bankrupt and all the taxpayer bailout money would be lost.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Yeah. Nobody wants even semi-bare raider(ettes) running the show:

https://jimcee.homestead.com/raiders_cheerleader.jpg

I'll be gettin' me coat.

-----------------

Let's not forget that the very first bailout bill failed to pass because of public outcry. The second version passed when we (citizens) didn't re-apply the same pressure. Sadly, now they (congress critters) are encouraged and re-energized by our apparent apathy.


Nice point. Twain had it right in describing our legislative institution, no?

Oh, btw, I'm not sure that your post will pass Pappy's "No Babes in the Backroom" dictum, though I did, personally, appreciate her double Laffer Curves.

[KukriKhan]

Nice point. Twain had it right in describing our legislative institution, no?

Oh, btw, I'm not sure that your post will pass Pappy's "No Babes in the Backroom" dictum, though I did, personally, appreciate her double Laffer Curves.


"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself."

Of course, I cheerfully comply with any and all backroom protocols. HosakawaTito's "bear raiders" remark (well-said, I must say) tempted me a little too much (at least I didn't post a bare Oakland Raider player).

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

And now the President (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0309/20054.html) is getting in on the mob fury.




Before I talk about the new steps we’re taking to get credit flowing to small businesses across our country, I want to comment on the news about executive bonuses at AIG.

This is a corporation that finds itself in financial distress due to recklessness and greed.

Under these circumstances, it’s hard to understand how derivative traders at AIG warranted any bonuses, much less $165 million in extra pay. How do they justify this outrage to the taxpayers who are keeping the company afloat?

In the last six months, AIG has received substantial sums from the US Treasury. I’ve asked Secretary Geithner to use that leverage and pursue every legal avenue to block these bonuses and make the American taxpayers whole.

I know he’s working to resolve this matter with the new CEO, Edward Liddy, who came on board after the contracts that led to these bonuses were agreed to last year.

This isn’t just a matter of dollars and cents. It’s about our fundamental values.

All across the country, there are people who work hard and meet their responsibilities every day, without the benefit of government bailouts or multi-million dollar bonuses. And all they ask is that everyone, from Main Street to Wall Street to Washington, play by the same rules.

That is an ethic we must demand.

What this situation also underscores is the need for overall financial regulatory reform, so we don’t find ourselves in this position again, and for some form of resolution mechanism in dealing with troubled financial institutions, so we have greater authority to protect the American taxpayer and our financial system in cases such as this. We will work with Congress to that end.

I imagine attempts to block the bonuses would be ex post facto if terms weren't set at the beginning, no?

[Prince Cobra]

Well, this might have been avoided if a contract has been concluded with the recipients before the bail out... Two ideas

1) The bureacracy failed to notice it.

2) The government was more interested than the upper managers to keep the company. As far as I can remember, the upper managers of Lehman Brothers were not quite poor when the company went bankrupt...

Anyway, in the both cases the law shall be abided and the money paid. Government has not put any additional conditions on this aspect therefore it has agreed on this. As I already said somehwhere, life is unfair.

Yes, it is amoral (you know, the recipients can always decline the money), it is unfair (rich getting richer) but it is a fact. Reality. :stars:

[Gregoshi]

Would AIG still be in business without the bailout money? (not a rhetorical question)

If the answer is "no", then those execs would not be getting their bonus anyway, contract or no. Even if the answer is "yes", contracts can be renegotiated when there is incentive to do so (like keeping ones job). Considering the situation the company is in, shouldn't upper management be thinking about forgoing those bonus to help the company? Companies in general don't seem to have any problem going to the workers in tough times and ask them to accept pay freezes or cuts to help the company. Why can't the execs suck it up too?

[KukriKhan]

Fine idea, Gregoshi, and one floated. Also rumored in the works is simply adding the bonus money to the Bailout money already rendered (http://www.cnbc.com/id/29724707). Kind of a service-fee. Gov't knows all about those.


Bonus payments ranged from $1,000 to $6.5 million, CNBC has learned. Only seven employees will receive a bonus of more than $3 million.

Although some suspect pressure may be growing for those employees who received bonuses to return them on their own free will, many of the employees who received bonuses are not American and may not care that American taxpayers are outraged over the incident.

[HoreTore]

Considering the situation the company is in, shouldn't upper management be thinking about forgoing those bonus to help the company?

If they had any decency at all and cared about anything other than the size of their home, cars and trophy wife boobs; yes.

But according to some, that's a left-wing idealist illusion.

[Gregoshi]

But according to some, that's a left-wing idealist illusion.
"Better (in the) Red than dead", eh? :laugh4:

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Seeing as we don't know the performance record of anyone who is set to receive bonuses (I mean, the nerve of that jerk collecting $1000) I can't really see how we should assume they're being paid to destroy AIG.

[Xiahou]

Isn't $165 million something like a tenth of a percent of the bailout money that AIG has already received? Yet one more reason not to waste your outrage....

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Aren't the bonuses being paid retention bonuses and not merit bonuses? Essentially they're part of the workers salary.

[KukriKhan]

Aren't the bonuses being paid retention bonuses and not merit bonuses? Essentially they're part of the workers salary.

Teh Guv is mad cuz AIG did like we did with our $600 stimulus checks: pay down debt & meet obligations - instead of buying a flatscreen TV.

They cudda sent us a 600 dollar computer, and they cudda directed AIG et al on how to spend the money. They didn't. They wrote bad law. And now they're PO'd.

Moral: write better law. Don't jump on bandwagons. Quit inflaming the public. Sasaki is always guilty.

:)

[Askthepizzaguy]

Sasaki is always guilty, except when he's innocent. Then he's even guiltier.

[Prince Cobra]

Maybe I will have to repeat myself... you, people are just idealists. Bureacracy is always absent minded when making important decisions + why should the upper managers reduce their bonus when there is somebody (the government) that is forced to bail out in order to save the economy??? In the worst possible case AIG goes bankrupt, more instability and the upper managers disappear with sad expressions and full pockets... This is the bad side of the system...

And yet, nothing can be done for the past but what about the future? Shall this continue when the next crisis strike?



Well, this might have been avoided if a contract has been concluded with the recipients before the bail out... Two ideas

1) The bureacracy failed to notice it.

2) The government was more interested than the upper managers to keep the company. As far as I can remember, the upper managers of Lehman Brothers were not quite poor when the company went bankrupt...

Anyway, in the both cases the law shall be abided and the money paid. Government has not put any additional conditions on this aspect therefore it has agreed on this. As I already said somehwhere, life is unfair.

Yes, it is amoral (you know, the recipients can always decline the money), it is unfair (rich getting richer) but it is a fact. Reality. :stars:

[Xiahou]

I happened to catch some excellent commentary on the topic today from Brit Hume (http://www.foxnews.com/video/index.html?playerId=videolandingpage&streamingFormat=FLASH&referralObject=3833560&referralPlaylistId=playlistl). Good stuff. It's too bad that he retired from anchoring Special Report.

[Don Corleone]

Confirmed capitalista speaking here, no left-wing namby pamby...

If you're solvent and can run your business AND pay yourself 10k times what you pay your average employee, Booyah... (I wouldn't invest in you, but hey, your right).

If you believe in rewarding incompetence, and your shareholders do too, and you insist on paying lying, stupid thieves 1M bonuses a year, again, good on you. Remind me to short your stock.

But when you take TAX MONEY that is, I can't short you, I can't divest of you, I HAVE to give you money...then you will *** **** WELL refrain from such assininity. And suggesting we should just shut up and take it, or the amount isn't that big, sounds like the advice rape victims get.

For Christ's sake. These clowns should be broke. BROKE! They paid $17M in retention bonuses to PEOPLE WHO NO LONGER WORK THERE!!!!

And if one more person says "Well, these are the guys who know how to dismantle the bomb..." You know what? I'll do a 24 on their :daisy:. If they want to to hold our economy hostage, something by the way the clowns on 9/11 did, we do the same thing... fly their :daisy: off to Afghanistan, and start taking digits off their fingers and toes with bolt-cutters until they talk.

I can't believe the number of apologists the rich have. Good on them for being rich, I don't hate them. But they sure as :daisy: don't need my money, or at least they don't if they deserve to be there.

Let us all vote on bailing out AIG or the rest of these rotting piles of fecal matter that call themselves corporations, and I'll speak differently. Force me to take money out of Jillian's college savings account to bail :daisy: out? You'll get more of this...

I'm glad they have armed guards outside their doors. Knowing that keeps me from driving to CT and doing something stupid....

ARGH!!!! ::furious3:

[Major Robert Dump]

It's not the total, so much as the principle, and what that kind of money means to people who are losing the farm over this. Besides, AIGs situation doesn't begin or end with this latest round of bonuses...


hey check out this guy, fired in March

http://www.nydailynews.com/money/2009/03/17/2009-03-17_pin_aig_woes_on_brooklyn_boy_joseph_cass-1.html

So has this always gone on? Because it seems like a fairly simple thing to do, negotiate a huge compensation plan than torpedo your own company either intentionally (corporate espionage) or unintentionally (negligence, callousness, ignorance, apathy).

I've heard about this stuff happening all my life, I guess more people just learned to do it, and then more and more and more, and eventually it was happening so much and to so many people and kapow.

It is hard for us, without being flippant, to even see a scenario within any kind of [rhyme] or reason that would see us losing one dollar in any of those transactions,"

[Strike For The South]

Good for AIG. Its there money. Im glad they are doing this.

[Major Robert Dump]

:laugh4:

[Don Corleone]

Good for AIG. Its there money. Im glad they are doing this.

I swear to God in heaven, if you spew that bull again to me or my family, I will become vexed.

Sorry, I've been waiting for this moment. Dude, what the hell are you saying? Look, it's St. Paddy's Day, and perhaps I've had a bit more of the dew than I should have, but you WANT them taking your tax money to go piss it away? Glad you're not worried about kids yet. Newsflash, I am. You can't have mine. Give them your piggy bank and tell them to leave me the :daisy: alone.

[Strike For The South]

I swear to God in heaven, if you spew that bull again to me or my family, I will cave in your head with a sledghammer!!!!

Sorry, I've been waiting for this moment. Dude, what the hell are you saying? Look, it's St. Paddy's Day, and perhaps I've had a bit more of the dew than I should have, but you WANT them taking your tax money to go piss it away? Glad you're not worried about kids yet. Newsflash, I am. You can't have mine. Give them your piggy bank and tell them to leave me the :daisy: alone.

You reap what you sow my friend. The American people wanted a piece of populist legislature with more holes in it than a French battleship and that's what they got. Maybe we will learn next time before we do this again.

The guys in this company are not stupid , they no AIG isn't salvageable and there just taking what they can.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Let us all vote on bailing out AIG or the rest of these rotting piles of fecal matter that call themselves corporations, and I'll speak differently. Force me to take money out of Jillian's college savings account to bail fatass out? You'll get more of this...
If you accept the validity of our democratic republic, you must simply accept such things as these.

People were democratically elected and then they - acting in good faith on behalf of the voters and taxpayers - decided that AIG deserved a terms-free check. Isn't our system awesome? :2thumbsup:

More power to AIG. Best to make out with as much government money while you can before the whole system goes under. :yes:

EDIT: lol SFTS is reading my mind

[Don Corleone]

As much as the "thumb in your eye" aspect of your arguments appeals to me, I can't listen to either of you. It's a very different matter when it's YOUR money they're pissing away, or more to the point, YOUR CHILDREN'S. As far as I know, neither of you actually pays taxes nor receives cards on the 3rd Sunday of June, so your opinion, while entertaining, weighs as rather irrelevant to me.

Send 33% of your graduation gifts off to AIG, then we'll talk.

P.S. By the way ATPG, are you TRYING to encourage me towards a National Socialist movement?

[Strike For The South]

As much as the "thumb in your eye" aspect of your arguments appeals to me, I can't listen to either of you. It's a very different matter when it's YOUR money they're pissing away, or more to the point, YOUR CHILDREN'S. As far as I know, neither of you actually pays taxes nor receives cards on the 3rd Sunday of June, so your opinion, while entertaining, weighs as rather irrelevant to me.

Send 33% of your graduation gifts off to AIG, then we'll talk.

P.S. By the way ATPG, are you TRYING to encourage me towards a National Socialist movement?


They take money out of my paycheck. AIG is doing nothing illegal, simply because the American people are finding out these politicians are not the knight in white armor they thought there were doesn't me you can tell these AIG people to commit suicide

Capiche?

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

You think my parents don't pay taxes? My dad might lose his job come May, so I don't think personal financial situations really have much sway in this debate.

This little outrage is just a tiny drop in the bucket. If you haven't gotten shootin' mad yet I don't see why you'd start now.

And no, I'd prefer you reject authority altogether. You'll still have bastards in Washington pissing away money under National Socialism, and they'll probably discard the few pretenses of legality the current crowd uses.

[Whacker]

I was talking to dear ol' Mah on the phone a week or so ago, she had two ideas that I found absolutely BRILLIANT.

First, every corporate exec of a firm that failed this year or was "fired" should be taxed at about a 90% income tax rate, absolutely no kind of tax shelters or deductions permitted. Suddenly that 30 million dollar severance package isn't so great anymore, is it?

Second, ALL executive level bonuses paid out this year should be paid ONLY in common company stock. No cash, no Learjets, no BMW's, no trips to Brasil to sleep with ladyboys, etc etc. Stock only. AND. AND. They can't sell it for a year.

I love it.

[Askthepizzaguy]

P.S. By the way ATPG, are you TRYING to encourage me towards a National Socialist movement?

Capitalism is awesome when it is honest. This is dishonest.

A little government intervention when the entire system is one big porkfest and corruption fest and bailout fest would be nice. I don't want the economy to go down in flames, and having a little control over what happens to our money they stole would be lovely.

I don't want to nationalize the entire economy, but when big businesses are too big to fail, then they need to be regulated when they do, and we bail them out. Point blank, if you loan someone money, you have a right to ask them not to piss it away on BS.

I'd prefer any bonuses be given to the workers who were NOT responsible for the mess, and I'd prefer to let the fat cat CEO's get nothing for their horrendous blunders which have nearly ruined this country and left thousands unemployed.

Edit: 165 million is not a lot, to be honest. But if it is coming from the taxpayer, it needs to be spent with our approval, or refunded to us. PERIOD.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

I don't want the economy to go down in flames, and having a little control over what happens to our money they stole would be lovely.
AIG stole nothing; we gave it to them.


Point blank, if you loan someone money, you have a right to ask them not to piss it away on BS.

No you don't. You can only expect to be repaid the loan. If you loan someone money without stipulation, you can't suddenly expect them to follow new terms you suddenly came up with.



I'd prefer any bonuses be given to the workers who were NOT responsible for the mess, and I'd prefer to let the fat cat CEO's get nothing for their horrendous blunders which have nearly ruined this country and left thousands unemployed.
How do you know that's not the situation? AIG isn't exactly a mining company.

[Askthepizzaguy]

I don't know, for sure. But that is the whole point. Unless I do know, I don't want the money being spent. I don't mind it spent, I just want to know WHERE it is spent. The Federal Government, funded by taxpayers, should not be handing out blank checks. That's why people hate the Fed, it does things with our money irresponsibly.

Why is more responsibility and accountability a bad thing?

[Don Corleone]

You think my parents don't pay taxes? My dad might lose his job come May, so I don't think personal financial situations really have much sway in this debate.

This little outrage is just a tiny drop in the bucket. If you haven't gotten shootin' mad yet I don't see why you'd start now.

And no, I'd prefer you reject authority altogether. You'll still have bastards in Washington pissing away money under National Socialism, and they'll probably discard the few pretenses of legality the current crowd uses.

Are both you of you yet so noble, idealist yet foolishly naive that you think somehow this whole mess will lead to the population to wean itself off the government teat? Oh, you poor, honorable, dimwitted fools.

Here's what happens... AIG execs get rich. Congress bitches and explains AIG is the reason why taxes have to go up to 40%.

End of story. No mass evolution of thought. No trends to libertarianism.

We're past all that.

Aside from which, can either of you explain to me WHY AIG should receive bonuses when 1) they turned in false books and 2) they're paying retention bonuses to people who have left the company.

If you want to social engineer, do it with your own money. Not with mine, and not with Daddy's, ATPG. Your own. Watch your own kids go without, so that some fat rich criminal bastard pads his offshore accounts.

Until then, the two of you are pissing in the wind.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Why is more responsibility and accountability a bad thing?
It's not, but that's not being discussed here. AIG was given a blank check, and now we're demanding - without knowing anything about the actual situation - that the bonuses be returned. Is a "one size fits all" approach to demanding the bonuses be rescinded responsible?


Are both you of you yet so noble, idealist yet foolishly naive that you think somehow this whole mess will lead to the population to wean itself off the government teat? Oh, you poor, honorable, dimwitted fools.

Here's what happens... AIG execs get rich. Congress bitches and explains AIG is the reason why taxes have to go up to 40%.

End of story. No mass evolution of thought. No trends to libertarianism.

We're past all that.
I agree. This isn't about your kids future or mine. This is about getting what you can from the government while you can. We decided we weren't going to play ball with a free market. Fine. Hand me my welfare check.

Aside from which, can either of you explain to me WHY AIG should receive bonuses when 1) they turned in false books and 2) they're paying retention bonuses to people who have left the company.
AIG isn't as a whole, they're merely compensating employees (who may not have had anything to do with AIG falling apart).

Were you this full of vinegar when they were bailed out to begin with? Because that's where the real outrage belongs. Not here. Like you said, the story ended right there.

I'm not social engineering anything.

[Devastatin Dave]

Sorry, I meant to say those who had committed crimes, falsified documents and reports, interfered with investigations, perpetrated fraud, and so on and so forth. Surely we can get some people indicted. I do not advocate stripping property from the law-abiding, nor even do I support an income tax. I'd prefer a sales and property tax bump, and the elimination of most of the functions of the IRS, but that's a different topic.

Are we talking about AIG or Barney Frank and Chris Dodd?

[Major Robert Dump]

If we didn't give bailouts in the first place none of these silly arguments would be getting tossed around. But what's done is done, and giving bailout money with no strings attached as to how it will be spent is simply ludicrous, considering the companies mismanagement and failure is why they needed a bailout in the first place. Equally as ludicrous are the people who try to attach the strings, what with their ineptness, politics and outright corruption.

It's really a lose, lose, lose situation, and I can honestly argue that the best-case scenario in situations like this is to just let the companies fail and what happens happens. How is paying 3000 people unemployment for a few months from a closed factory any different than spending a few million to keep it open? The taxes from the continuation of work don't exist because they are being spent on the bailout.

It's called employment extortion: give us money or we will have to fire people, and gosh you don't want that. It's not unlike what North Korea does every few years with their alleged nuclear program when countries cut their aid levels.

Let them fail. The vacuum will be filled by new businesses, people will move on to other jobs, and essentially the same concept of social welfare reform (you can teach a man to fish etc) applies to businesses. If there is always a safety net with no repurcussions, it will be abused, it's simple human nature.

But what's done is done. This whole thing is a circus, and we are the monkeys

[Askthepizzaguy]

Are we talking about AIG or Barney Frank and Chris Dodd?

I hope you know Devastatin Dave, that I hate those guys. I hate anyone who steals from the middle class and gives to the undeserving. I am struggling my way through college and I refuse to suck on the teat of government intervention.

This welfare state is big enough. That's another reason I hate these big bailouts. That's corporate welfare, not to mention an unregulated form of welfare.

I just want to know who gets the money. that's all. Is it really so much to ask?

[Major Robert Dump]

I don't think us knowing who gets the money matters to a certain extent because we can't do anything about it. Yeah, I know, democracy blah blah vote them out of office i2 2 years assuming we actually remember or they don't figure out a way to convince us that they weren't responsible because they were taking care of workers, or had to vote with the party, or needed to vote for it to get something else passed because it was attached to the bill or a quid pro quo on a future issue.

At this point, I'd honestly rather not know. The money is gone. And all this talk of paying back loans is comedic, because if the company still fails -- and many of them will -- guess what, the loan only gets repaid to the extent of liquid company assets and employees 401k plans, and the company executives are not liable, no way, no how.

What we are seeing now are corporations using the same budgeting, borrowing and spending techniques that our federal government has been using for the last half century. I just want to know when I get my turn.

[Devastatin Dave]

I hope you know Devastatin Dave, that I hate those guys. I hate anyone who steals from the middle class and gives to the undeserving. I am struggling my way through college and I refuse to suck on the teat of government intervention.

This welfare state is big enough. That's another reason I hate these big bailouts. That's corporate welfare, not to mention an unregulated form of welfare.

I just want to know who gets the money. that's all. Is it really so much to ask?

Sorry for my flippent remark, I'm glad to see you are not only looking at this thing from one angle. As my dear friend MRD said, they should have been allowed to fail. The government are simply prolonging the death. AIG is Terri Shiavo and the government keeps shoving a feeding tube back down the throat of a corpse. Let it die and allow someone else to take its place.

This whole bailout thing is not a way to "help" these companies and survive, its a way for the government to have more and more control over everything and to transfer more wealth from the private sector to the likes of Shummer, Pelosi, Reid, and Dodd. Scary stuff.

[Askthepizzaguy]

At this point, I'd honestly rather not know. The money is gone.

That's your emotional disgust talking, not your logical side. It is never a good move to become more ignorant of the facts, nor shoot oneself in the foot when we have already made a mistake.


Sorry for my flippent remark, I'm glad to see you are not only looking at this thing from one angle. As my dear friend MRD said, they should have been allowed to fail. The government are simply prolonging the death. AIG is Terri Shiavo and the government keeps shoving a feeding tube back down the throat of a corpse. Let it die and allow someone else to take its place.

Never apologize for being yourself, Devastatin Dave. This place would be awfully boring without you.

[Don Corleone]

It's not, but that's not being discussed here. AIG was given a blank check, and now we're demanding - without knowing anything about the actual situation - that the bonuses be returned. Is a "one size fits all" approach to demanding the bonuses be rescinded responsible?

I agree. This isn't about your kids future or mine. This is about getting what you can from the government while you can. We decided we weren't going to play ball with a free market. Fine. Hand me my welfare check.

AIG isn't as a whole, they're merely compensating employees (who may not have had anything to do with AIG falling apart).

Were you this full of vinegar when they were bailed out to begin with? Because that's where the real outrage belongs. Not here. Like you said, the story ended right there.

I'm not social engineering anything.

Okay, you must have missed me screaming in large, bold letters "LET THEM FAIL".

Dude, I'm old-forest/new-forest capitalism. I want them going belly-up. I wanted them belly-up last year. I want a dozen smaller insurance companies feasting on their remains.

What I don't want is $.02 coming out of my pocket, keeping these zombies alive.

If THAT'S what you and Strike are getting at, that "pay bailouts, may as well pay bonuses", we sort of agree there. But the money we gave AIG was supposed to be sort of a loan... keep them solvent long enough to break them up, then pay government back first. Don't see how executive bonuses fits into all that, especially given that the bonuses are going directly to the guys that caused all the trouble in the first place.

[Askthepizzaguy]

I love that part about high end capitalism where they say the market should determine who lives and who dies, and thus they are opposed to bailing out the poor. But when they need help, it's a double standard.

Hypocrisy.

[Xiahou]

Why does this whole story remind me of the same overheated rhetoric that swirled around the Dubai Ports World (DPW) deal not to long ago? Just replace "terrorists will be running our ports" with "fat cat crooks are stealing our money".

I never thought the 165M was a big deal- like I said, its about a tenth of a percent of the bailout money that AIG received. Be mad about that if you must be outraged. The 165M is small change, in fact, it barely even rates as small change.

AIG is finished, there should be no doubt about that. The government's role should be to ensure a soft landing instead of an outright cratering. The employees of AIG have to know they're on a sinking ship- and I'm sure their natural instinct would be to jump ship and look for a new job before the labor market is completely flooded. However, if the government wants to liquidate AIG, they going to need to keep on some staff, managers, and yes, even the "evil" executives who know the business of selling assets. The only way they're going to get people to be willing to go down with the ship is by offering financial incentives for them to do so.

[Askthepizzaguy]

I never thought the 165M was a big deal- like I said, its about a tenth of a percent of the bailout money that AIG received. Be mad about that if you must be outraged. The 165M is small change, in fact, it barely even rates as small change.

How many people could be sent to college with that money? How many doctor's bills could be paid? How many abandoned children could be fed?

I object to wasting 10 dollars, let alone 165 million of them. Forgive the moral outrage, as I am sure it sounds like grandstanding, but it's a fact. There is no reason to waste 165 million dollars on unaccountable expenditures when we have higher priorities.

Gosh, Xiahou, it seems like we never agree. It's nothing personal man. :bow:

[Major Robert Dump]

well thats the inherent problem with american politics as it is......

If they get this, I want that. How can you be against social welfare but for gratuitous corporate welfare or vice versa? How can you spend money on this but not on that? I'm voting against this bill knowing full well it will pass so I'm gonna stick my own pork in it anyway because if they get a piece I want a piece, too. How can you spend money on prevention but not punishment or vice versa....

goes on and on. very few in office have balls, and the ones who do usually get castrated by their party or their constituents for not bringing home the bacon.

I voted against the bill because it had 489 expenditures unrelated to the primary bill intent

He voted against police/education/military/disaster funding!!! throw him to the wolves!!!!

[Askthepizzaguy]

I voted against the bill because it had 489 expenditures unrelated to the primary bill intent

He voted against police/education/military/disaster funding!!! throw him to the wolves!!!!

THAT is the primary dishonesty that goes on. Over and over again the accusation was that the Dems, for example, didn't support the troops because they disagreed with things they added to the bill unrelated to the bill.

The rule should be: you pass one law at a time. Don't pile a bunch of things in one bill if it is an expenditure bill, and it's unrelated expenses. Wait 5 minutes and pass a second bill. Vote for each bill, not all at once.

That kind of slimy :daisy: has to end immediately.

[Devastatin Dave]

Over and over again the accusation was that the Dems, for example, didn't support the troops because they disagreed with things they added to the bill unrelated to the bill.
.

This is how the democrats "support" the troops...

http://hotair.com/archives/2009/03/17/flashback-video-obama-on-sacred-trust/

This could start another thread but you have to understand I'm a vet from 95 (Clinton years) till 2005 and I can tell you, the democrats are not big fans of the troops.

Any Carter Vets out there like to back me up?

Anyway, back on topic, should the government now dictate companies to void contracts they have already entered with people? Would you like the government to come into your job and tell your boss that you are underserving for a raise our your Christmas bonus? This has many legal implications that could cause serious damage to all business and industries as we know it.

[Major Robert Dump]

Man if the government showed up and told my boss my contract was void and I had to start paying for my own nipple pasties I would so totally quit the gay bar

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Man if the government showed up and told my boss my contract was void and I had to start paying for my own nipple pasties I would so totally quit the gay bar

DevDave, you should sig this....



Don C:

I agree with you. It really is galling that they're doing this all on the public nickel. I DO work for an insurance company. We not only didn't leverage our debt -- we never have HAD any debt. All of our members (we function like a mutual in most respects) can rely on us to honor our contracts without having to beg the taxpayers for the money. Is that old-fashioned of us? Did we miss the chance to increase profits by leveraging debt? Yes, and thank God for the foresight of our officers in doing so.

Yes, of the amount they were given, 165M is but a small percentage. What's really annoying is that, had these companies been allowed to fail as their decisions warranted, they'd have been in chapter eleven and able to bypass those contracts. Instead, the taxpayers have "saved" these companies -- for now -- but must pay out contractual promises to the very leadership cadre that screwed things up in the first place. I VERY much understand Don's anger.

[Askthepizzaguy]

Anyway, back on topic, should the government now dictate companies to void contracts they have already entered with people? Would you like the government to come into your job and tell your boss that you are underserving for a raise our your Christmas bonus? This has many legal implications that could cause serious damage to all business and industries as we know it.

If the government bailed out my company, it would have a right to do so.

That's the difference. Private businesses; no right to do so. If the Fed just bailed out your company and it now owns 80% of your company's assets (or whatever the case may be) then it's basically an arm of the government until it pays the government back for its investment.

Look, I'm no expert, so if I am ignorant of something here, please educate me

[Major Robert Dump]

well....a contract is a contract.....

if the fed is gonna step in and void contracts that were perfectly legal then we may be setting a bad precedent. i believe hugo chavez just did something similar down south but with a different intent. whats happening is the legislative branch is trying to do after-the-fact legislation when they find out they got duped, and any harsh punishment at this poitn vould arguably hamper the company's ability to pay back the loan......its extortion i tell ya

[Xiahou]

Well, I can certainly tell you that the threats from some blowhards in congress to tax the bonuses at 99 or 100% is completely unconstitutional. :yes:

[Askthepizzaguy]

I don't like it I tells ya! But since I can't counter the argument, being an amateur, and because I wouldn't be able to convince you anyway, I'll bow out, courteously.

:bow:

[Strike For The South]

We gave AIG the money
We told them that all there contracts still held weight.

What AIG is doing is a unethical but not illegal. Nor can we do anything about it. So we are simply going to have to accept it. It sucks but our reps should've payed more attention.

I'm no idealist, a fool maybe, but certainly not an idealist.

[Diana Abnoba]

First of all, I just want to state my opinion, I don't wish to argue with anyone over this. I am upset that these CEOs and executives get these huge bonuses when they didn't do anything which merits a bonus, while the hard working employee gets little or no bonus for doing all the actual constructive work. At my work, I save lives every day and I have to work two jobs to pay my bills and I get no benefits. However, our new CEO which just got hired was given a $500,000 sign-on bonus plus $500,000 stock option sign on bonus. At the same time we are all getting our salaries reduced, no raises, fewer people per shift, so people's health and lives are on the line. This is much more important than CEO bonuses. We skimp on supplies and run out of supplies constantly, this is to save money, but it doesn't save any money because when a patient needs something, we cannot just shrug and say sorry, we are trying to cut back on expenses. I have done everything right, I have an impeccable credit rating, I've paid on time, and I am covering my mortgage the best I can. However, due to other people's bad decisions, my home has lost 50-100K in value and I cannot get it refinanced for a lower interest rate because the new loan won't cover the value of the home currently due to the loss of equity, and due to local foreclosures, and the bad loans given out by all these companies such as banks. Innocent hard working people are getting shafted and irresponsible people are getting rewarded with taxpayer dollars. My dollars. I should have a say in how that money is spent, and frankly, I want it back. Also these people who got some of these retention bonuses weren't even retained, they no longer work at AIG.

Don't mean to start an argument, but I feel firmly that there should be oversight, and since the government now owns 80% of AIG, they should assert their right reject the irresponsible bonuses being handed out to people who may not have earned it and don't deserve it. I believe they are the ones who tanked us anyway. But I don't know for sure, that's why I want the government to find out for sure who is getting these bonuses.

Ok I think that's all I wanted to say. :wall:

[Askthepizzaguy]

I think that at least being able to publicly vent frustration is a small form of catharsis. So even if we disagree we can vent our frustrations without directing it at people.

:medievalcheers:

[a completely inoffensive name]

First of all, I just want to state my opinion, I don't wish to argue with anyone over this. I am upset that these CEOs and executives get these huge bonuses when they didn't do anything which merits a bonus, while the hard working employee gets little or no bonus for doing all the actual constructive work. At my work, I save lives every day and I have to work two jobs to pay my bills and I get no benefits. However, our new CEO which just got hired was given a $500,000 sign-on bonus plus $500,000 stock option sign on bonus. At the same time we are all getting our salaries reduced, no raises, fewer people per shift, so people's health and lives are on the line. This is much more important than CEO bonuses. We skimp on supplies and run out of supplies constantly, this is to save money, but it doesn't save any money because when a patient needs something, we cannot just shrug and say sorry, we are trying to cut back on expenses. I have done everything right, I have an impeccable credit rating, I've paid on time, and I am covering my mortgage the best I can. However, due to other people's bad decisions, my home has lost 50-100K in value and I cannot get it refinanced for a lower interest rate because the new loan won't cover the value of the home currently due to the loss of equity, and due to local foreclosures, and the bad loans given out by all these companies such as banks. Innocent hard working people are getting shafted and irresponsible people are getting rewarded with taxpayer dollars. My dollars. I should have a say in how that money is spent, and frankly, I want it back. Also these people who got some of these retention bonuses weren't even retained, they no longer work at AIG.

Don't mean to start an argument, but I feel firmly that there should be oversight, and since the government now owns 80% of AIG, they should assert their right reject the irresponsible bonuses being handed out to people who may not have earned it and don't deserve it. I believe they are the ones who tanked us anyway. But I don't know for sure, that's why I want the government to find out for sure who is getting these bonuses.

Ok I think that's all I wanted to say. :wall:

Dang, I am sorry that it has gotten so bad for you and your coworkers.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

hmm. Retention bonuses for employees were were actually retained don't bother--if I were in that situation and had been supposed to get that amount I'd want it. The 17 million other, if we didn't have bigger fish to fry I'd have something to say about.

But from where I'm sitting we have three parties responsible for the current mess:

The finance people who knowingly drove a bubble for short term profit
The government people who relaxed regulations that allowed that
The media peopl who didn't report on what was going on (see the thread on cramer et al)

With the AIG thing it seems like the media and congress are jumping all over the finance people while ignoring their own faults...they're the last people I care to hear complain about 17 million in bonuses.

[HoreTore]

Hah!

You certainly are my favourite capitalist pig-dog, Don Corleone ~:)

I think I'll spare you and your family when the revo-lotion comes... And it's never to late to join us, ya know ~;)

[Devastatin Dave]

If the government bailed out my company, it would have a right to do so.

That's the difference. Private businesses; no right to do so. If the Fed just bailed out your company and it now owns 80% of your company's assets (or whatever the case may be) then it's basically an arm of the government until it pays the government back for its investment.

Look, I'm no expert, so if I am ignorant of something here, please educate me

The problem is Chris Dodd did tell them they could gove bonuses BEFORE the firestorm hit. So the government did ok this BEFORE the outrage. Again, this is why the government should have not jumped into this mess to begine with...


MRD and Seamus Fermanagh, the government can peel my pasties off on my cold dead nipples!!!:laugh4:

[Devastatin Dave]

Don't mean to start an argument,

:laugh4:

Welcome to the Backroom. :2thumbsup:

[Major Robert Dump]

The outrage by the administration at this point is completely misguided considering the deals that were brokered beforehand. This is a typical example of politicians feigning outrage over something they had a large hand in. Outrage should be focused not only at AIG, but also at the politicians who allowed this to happen, but for the most part the media machine ignores this because its just too goshdarned deep for the average person to comprehend.

I have no love for AIG, but this posturing and OMGZ HOWDAREUZ stuff is really hilarious

[drone]

It sucks, and if the employees had any sense of decency they would turn down the bonuses (but they work for AIG Financial Services, so we all know they don't). The problem here is that the bailout money had no strings attached. The blame here lies solely with Congress for writing and passing a bad law, and W for signing it. It doesn't take a genius to figure out what is going to happen when obviously failing companies full of greedy finance gurus are given gobs of taxpayer dollars without any real restrictions.

Raid on the Treasury. Easier to pull off than taking Fort Knox. Every congressman and senator that voted for these bailouts should lose their jobs next election as they are either incompetent or in on the scam.

[Lemur]

If the employees had any sense of decency they would turn down the bonuses (but they work for AIG Financial Services, so we all know they don't).
Not only are they not willing to turn them down, but gosh darn it, they deserve them (http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/staff-uh-uh-we-deserve-this-money-2009-03-17.html).


AIG’s new management team last year proposed that its employees give up their “retention” bonuses, or at least reduce them. The response from the 370 or so employees set to rake in $450 million in bonuses through 2010? Take a hike. “We suggested that early on, but there are people who feel this money was due them,” a source close to the company told The Hill.

And anybody bellyaching about the financial services idiots at AIG taking home $6 million dollar bonuses is just a stooge for Obama Antichrist. So sayeth the Rushbo (http://mediamatters.org/items/200903180001?f=h_latest):


A lynch mob is expanding: the peasants with their pitchforks surrounding the corporate headquarters of AIG, demanding heads. Death threats are pouring in. All of this being ginned up by the Obama administration. [...] And the president's own teleprompter is telling him to say that these executive are greedy and selfish and this is inciting people to behavior that could lead to violence if their threats are acted out. This whole thing is a boondoggle. It is a mess brought to you by the United States government led by Democrats.

Strange, I thought the current Administration was behind the curve on this issue, and reacting more than instigating. Maybe it's part of their super-secret plot ....

-edit-

On a more serious note, here's the best summary/analysis of the AIG fiasco (http://www.acredittrader.com/?p=65) that I have yet read:


My basic points are the following


1. From comments made by AIG executives it appears that the company fundamentally misunderstood the nature of risks that it was underwriting. Those risks were


a) much more highly correlated than they assumed (due to the nature of bonds in CDO structures as well as the likely performance of super-senior tranches in event of impairment)

b) actually mark-to-market risk, not default risk which made AIG’s business much riskier than it thought. This is because long before super-senior tranches became impaired (the only risk AIG was worried about), AIG will have had to post more collateral than the cash it had on hand effectively guaranteeing its bankruptcy.

2. The logical consequence of the previous point is that buying protection from AIG on ABS CDO’s is horribly wrong-way (discussed below) or, to use an analogy, akin to buying deep out-of-the-money puts from a company on its own stock. In other words, that protection is worthless.

[KukriKhan]

Liddy (AIG Chief, being grilled by Congress) says The Fed knew about these bonuses for months. And the SEC, and the GAO, all of whom receive monthly and quarterly mandatory filings from AIG. And Fed rep's sit on all board meetings.

So: The Fed never told Geithner (Sec Treas) about them? Or Giethner didn't tell POTUS, so that POTUS and he went on nat'l TV to express outrage, about something they either knew about, or should have known about?

What the.....?

I say again: bad law, passed in the middle of the night, coming back to bite the lawmakers, and they're trying to deflect blame.

With all this heat being generated, it just makes me more determined to watch the magician's hands more closely, for surely, our attention is being mis-directed by this faux outrage, to draw our attention away from something much bigger and more sinister.

[Don Corleone]

Liddy (AIG Chief, being grilled by Congress) says The Fed knew about these bonuses for months. And the SEC, and the GAO, all of whom receive monthly and quarterly mandatory filings from AIG. And Fed rep's sit on all board meetings.

So: The Fed never told Geithner (Sec Treas) about them? Or Giethner didn't tell POTUS, so that POTUS and he went on nat'l TV to express outrage, about something they either knew about, or should have known about?

What the.....?

I say again: bad law, passed in the middle of the night, coming back to bite the lawmakers, and they're trying to deflect blame.

With all this heat being generated, it just makes me more determined to watch the magician's hands more closely, for surely, our attention is being mis-directed by this faux outrage, to draw our attention away from something much bigger and more sinister.

They're lowering the tolerance threshold for direct government intervention. Swing back to August, 2008. Barney Frank and Chris Dodd announce that in an effort to bolster solvency, they're going to start directing strategic actions at some large financial services companies. Imagine the reaction.

Now, however, after playing up the outrage factor for a while, not many people are that opposed to just such a scenario. There are broad calls for the government to DO exactly that. Therefore, if it comes up as an election issue in 2010, they can simply state "We only intervened because the American public insisted we do".

We should not be paying bailouts. Hank Paulson, Timothy Geitner, Ben Bernanke and the crew from both administrations should be answering to a grand jury for gross misappropriation of public funds. AIG and other financial instutitions that were caught standing when the music stopped SHOULD topple. And my money should be in my pocket, not AIG's vice-president of sleaze's bonus check.

[Lemur]

It's good to see people can still find humor (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CZjh5Vb41mw) in this mess.

[Xiahou]

After vehement denials, Dodd says "Yeah, I did write the language into the bill allowing the bonuses. (http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20090318/pl_politico/30833)"

It gets better though... Conspicuously absent from the Politico's coverage was the part of Dodd's statement where he says that the administration pressured him to include the provision. To see that, you can go straight to the source of his comments, CNN (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/03/18/official-obama-aides-pushed-for-bonus-loophole/).


Dodd acknowledged his role in the change after a Treasury Department official told CNN the administration pushed for the language.

Both Dodd and the official, who asked not to be named, said it was because administration officials were afraid the government would face numerous lawsuits without the new language.And you know what? They're probably write. Those bonus contracts were legally binding and trying to retroactively change them would've likely spurred numerous lawsuits.

However, what really chaps me is the dishonesty involved in this. Instead of just explaining why the bonuses could not be blocked, the administration pleads ignorance and feigns shock out outrage over the bonuses that they pushed to be protected. I can tell that many here would've pitched a fit regardless, but I could have accepted a rational explanation. But instead, we got more amateurish lies and finger pointing from the administration. You can hear Obama himself explain (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k6Sb9bL7uLg) how he's choked up with anger. This leaves me wondering if Geithner is going to be thrown under the bus for this one in the end. Time will tell....

In the meantime, Obama finds the time to give an interview to ESPN (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/ESPNSports/story?id=7110802&page=1) about his NCAA picks and is in California to make an appearance on the tonight show. :shrug:

Edit:
Speaking of picks, anyone want to predict Dodd's reelection chances? :clown:

[KukriKhan]

... the administration pleads ignorance and feigns shock out outrage over the bonuses that they pushed to be protected

I'm shocked, SHOCKED!... (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nw-Xgpulf64)

Latest street noise (from watching CNN, CSNBC & Fox) is: "OK, take the bonuses back; then go after the mortgage defaulters, who the taxpayers are also subsidizing. Get all the money back!"

[Fragony]

Is Obama going to give back the 100.000 dollar he got from AIG?

[Strike For The South]

They want to make the names public? I've got news for them. The names are already public all 535 of them.

This has to be the biggest deflection and witch hunt I've ever seen.

[Hosakawa Tito]

Is Obama going to give back the 100.000 dollar he got from AIG?

Remember, campaign donation $$$ = free speech.

[Major Robert Dump]

then you must not be familiar with Bill Clinton, Janet Reno, the ATF and Waco Texas.:laugh4:

[drone]

They want to make the names public? I've got news for them. The names are already public all 535 of them.

This has to be the biggest deflection and witch hunt I've ever seen.

:yes:

The vitriol coming from Congress is just CYA outrage, they got duped into funding this mess. I've said it before, if there is ever a true accounting of where all the TARP and AIG bailout money actually went, there will be blood.

Edit -> Pelosi plays dodgeball (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/capitol-briefing/2009/03/pelosi_dont_blame_us_for_aig_m.html?hpid=topnews)
The House is set to vote soon on a bill to tax millions of dollars in bonuses paid by AIG to its employees. At her weekly press conference this morning, Pelosi said the measure would "bring some justice to the situation and get taxpayers' money back." A reporter then told the Speaker that "you and your members are being blamed for these excessive bonuses," and asked where the fault should properly be assigned.

"I think you go right back to Sept. 16, when the announcement was made by the Fed ... that they would be making this big infusion of cash into AIG without any prior notification to us," Pelosi said. "That's when it all started."

As for her own culpability, the Speaker said: "You're the first person to tell me that I'm being blamed for this because I've missed that."

Pelosi said that House Democrats had been out front for months on the idea of cracking down on bonuses and executive compensation at firms that take federal money. "The CEO compensation issues were completely resisted by the Bush administration, so we are sweeping up after them," she said.

But what about the economic stimulus bill, which included language that permitted the AIG bonuses to be paid? Sen. Christopher Dodd (D-Conn.) is in hot water after admitting that he amended the bill to allow the bonuses, though he says he did so at the request of the Obama administration. The point, Pelosi said, is that the House had nothing to do with it.

"This is Senate-White House language. ... This was never brought to conference," Pelosi said, even though the final language on bonuses was in fact in the conference report on which House conferees (including Pelosi) signed off and that the House approved.
Nice question from the reporter, wonder who it was.

[KukriKhan]

So now (today) the US House of Reprehensibles... er Representatives passed a bill (http://www.reuters.com/article/americasRegulatoryNews/idUSN1944443520090319) to retrieve the AIG Bonus money by means of taxing it at 90%.

More bad law, sez I. If you're gonna pass a bill that patently and blatantly violates The Constitution of the US, and will not ever stand up in court, why go only 90% ?

If you're gonna pass an unenforceable, illegal law to show your mad-as-hell constituants that you've "done SOMETHING", and that what they're mad about wasn't your fault - hell, go 100% confiscation, and slap punitive fines on them as well.

Wimps. And what's worse: stupid wimps.

I see that Home Depot (http://www.homedepot.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ProductDisplay?storeId=10051&langId=-1&catalogId=10053&productId=100466176&N=10000003+90012+502411) still sells pitchforks (though they call them "Forged Manure Forks" nowadays)... but where can a citizen get a good, sturdy, burn-for-hours Torch?

[seireikhaan]

So now (today) the US House of Reprehensibles... er Representatives passed a bill (http://www.reuters.com/article/americasRegulatoryNews/idUSN1944443520090319) to retrieve the AIG Bonus money by means of taxing it at 90%.

More bad law, sez I. If you're gonna pass a bill that patently and blatantly violates The Constitution of the US, and will not ever stand up in court, why go only 90% ?

If you're gonna pass an unenforceable, illegal law to show your mad-as-hell constituants that you've "done SOMETHING", and that what they're mad about wasn't your fault - hell, go 100% confiscation, and slap punitive fines on them as well.

Wimps. And what's worse: stupid wimps.

I see that Home Depot (http://www.homedepot.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ProductDisplay?storeId=10051&langId=-1&catalogId=10053&productId=100466176&N=10000003+90012+502411) still sells pitchforks (though they call them "Forged Manure Forks" nowadays)... but where can a citizen get a good, sturdy, burn-for-hours Torch?
Question: How is taxing the money 90% unconstitutional?

[Xiahou]

So now (today) the US House of Reprehensibles... er Representatives passed a bill (http://www.reuters.com/article/americasRegulatoryNews/idUSN1944443520090319) to retrieve the AIG Bonus money by means of taxing it at 90%.

More bad law, sez I. If you're gonna pass a bill that patently and blatantly violates The Constitution of the US, and will not ever stand up in court, why go only 90% ?

If you're gonna pass an unenforceable, illegal law to show your mad-as-hell constituants that you've "done SOMETHING", and that what they're mad about wasn't your fault - hell, go 100% confiscation, and slap punitive fines on them as well.

Wimps. And what's worse: stupid wimps.Yeah, I agree. They should at least have the cojones to go for 110% if they're going to waste the time. Better still, why not just call for their beheading? It'd have just about as much chance has happening as their stupid tax law does. Or they could stop whipping people into a frenzy over something that's totally insignificant in the great scheme of things and try to take up some legislation that isn't completely pointless... ~:handball:


I see that Home Depot (http://www.homedepot.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ProductDisplay?storeId=10051&langId=-1&catalogId=10053&productId=100466176&N=10000003+90012+502411) still sells pitchforks (though they call them "Forged Manure Forks" nowadays)... but where can a citizen get a good, sturdy, burn-for-hours Torch?
CNN actually aired a caller today who advocated killing (http://www.breitbart.tv/?p=301343) the AIG executives. Yeah, I know that the news channels are all ratings whores, but this is completely irresponsible. I hope an AIG employee sues them over this. Manipulating outrage is really all TV news shows do, but even still, there are lines that shouldn't be crossed.

Of course, they're probably just taking their lead from the Senate, where Iowa senator Grassley recently said that AIG executives should kill themselves (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/03/16/iowa-senator-says-aig-executives-resign-commit-suicide/). :no:

edit:

Question: How is taxing the money 90% unconstitutional?
For one, it would be an ex post facto (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_post_facto_law#United_States) law, which is unconstitutional, and it also sounds a lot like a bill of attainder (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_attainder), which is also prohibited by the constitution.

[KukriKhan]

Meanwhile, while the smoke-and-mirrors act went on in D.C., The Fed printed 1.2 Trillion more Dollars (http://abcnews.go.com/Business/Economy/wireStory?id=7108108) out of thin air.


Question: How is taxing the money 90% unconstitutional?

Taxing it at any % above the normal IRS rules, retroactively, and directed at one individual, or small groups of individuals (rather than the citizenry at large) amounts to a "Bill of Attainder".

A bill of attainder (also known as an act or writ of attainder) is an act of legislature declaring a person or group of persons guilty of some crime and punishing them without benefit of a trial. Bills of attainder are forbidden by Article I, section 9, clause 3 of the United States Constitution.

Wiki Article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_attainder). Man, do we need brother Pindar now.

-edit-
credit where credit is due: Xiahou explained quicker than I. :bow:

[Askthepizzaguy]

I don't like the bonuses, and even I will admit it's a Bovine Secretion-filled tactic to tax it that high, after the fact. More legitimate is to assert the government's right as the majority stakeholder and simply cancel the bonuses.

to the Congress:
Don't give me that sleazy politician nonsense. Either the money is ours or it is not. Don't tax it back to us when it's ours to begin with, I say.

[Hosakawa Tito]

So now (today) the US House of Reprehensibles... er Representatives passed a bill (http://www.reuters.com/article/americasRegulatoryNews/idUSN1944443520090319) to retrieve the AIG Bonus money by means of taxing it at 90%.

More bad law, sez I. If you're gonna pass a bill that patently and blatantly violates The Constitution of the US, and will not ever stand up in court, why go only 90% ?

If you're gonna pass an unenforceable, illegal law to show your mad-as-hell constituants that you've "done SOMETHING", and that what they're mad about wasn't your fault - hell, go 100% confiscation, and slap punitive fines on them as well.

Wimps. And what's worse: stupid wimps.

I see that Home Depot (http://www.homedepot.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ProductDisplay?storeId=10051&langId=-1&catalogId=10053&productId=100466176&N=10000003+90012+502411) still sells pitchforks (though they call them "Forged Manure Forks" nowadays)... but where can a citizen get a good, sturdy, burn-for-hours Torch?

Nothing like a nice piece of hickory.

The only legal way to compel giving back the bonuses is to prove a fraud was committed. But you have to admit this faux rage ploy certainly is a nice distraction from the Congress & Senate taking their own 2009 cost of living raises... yeah, they feel your pain.

[drone]

In all fairness, it's not just AIG bonuses. The bill goes for any bonuses from companies receiving massive federal aid:

The measure would apply to people who meet three key conditions: they received a bonus this year, their family income is $250,000 or more and they are employed by a company that has received more than $5 billion in the government bailout program. That could include at least a dozen of the largest banks on Wall Street. The tax wouldn't apply to commissions or fringe benefits.

Since this changes the 2009 tax year code, it probably passes the ex post facto smell test. Not sure about the bill of attainder effect, this will target bonuses from Freddie/Fannie, BoA, Citi, et al. However, since the bill was passed through the House quickly, I will guarantee 2 things. 1) it will hit unintended individuals, and 2) the financial whizzes this targets will find a loophole.


The only legal way to compel giving back the bonuses is to prove a fraud was committed. But you have to admit this faux rage ploy certainly is a nice distraction from the Congress & Senate taking their own 2009 cost of living raises.
I thought they decided that was political suicide and voted it down this year. :inquisitive:

[Lemur]

AIG corporate security's tips for surviving an angry mob. (http://gawker.com/5175745/aig-corporate-securitys-tips-for-surviving-an-angry-mob?skyline=true&s=x) Strangely, this is legitimate.

[KukriKhan]

This comment to Lemur's article - allegedly made by a former AIG employee, was illuminating:


This is actually totally enraging. I worked at AIG for a year (yeah yeah, stone me later, I didn't get any of the money), and the cubicleland drones have been wigging out since last September. Everyone keeps getting fired, no one knows what's going on, work is both sporadic and overwhelming (they give you a demanding task, and when it's 80% complete the project gets axed)...

Most of us never met the :daisy:'s getting the big money, considering there are about 500 of the selfish bastards throughout the enormous company. And I'm now hearing from old coworkers who are literally shaking as they go to work in the morning, worried that some nutbar will show up with an uzi. Colbert's pitchfork seems to have been a turning point in the "we're :daisy:" stakes.

Oh, and resignation won't help much either -- AIG's turning out to be the kiss of death on a resume. Also, if they leave, then the company collapses and takes all of the public's money with it.

[seireikhaan]

Alright, thanks for the explanation Xiahou and Kukri.

So I'm assuming, then, that I'm not the only wishing there was a way to enforce term limits and IQ requirements for congress-folks? What an utter debacle on pretty much every level.

[KukriKhan]

Alright, thanks for the explanation Xiahou and Kukri.

So I'm assuming, then, that I'm not the only wishing there was a way to enforce term limits and IQ requirements for congress-folks? What an utter debacle on pretty much every level.

With you on term limits; how many terms, you think? 2? 3? I think 2 should do it. With a mandatory 2 year break between levels of office (for example: 2 four-year terms as a Representative, a 2-year break, then it's possible to achieve 2 six-year terms as Senator, another 2 year break, then 2 4-year terms as POTUS). A favorite son (and gifted public servant) from Kansas, say, could still build a successful 28 year career of political service, if he can attract broad enough support.

I hear your call for IQ requirments, and sympathize. :laugh4: But I'd rather see campaign spending limits. Not contribution limits - that's 'free speech' we're told. Spending limits. Not unlike our totalwar multiplayer games: wanna spend all your allowable cash on TV ads/warrior monks? Fine. Rather try for a balanced approach of TV, radio, mailers & town halls/cavalry, guns, swords and peasants? Fine too.

[Askthepizzaguy]

In my experience, you get a lot more selfish, vain, corrupt, and power-hungry people with a superiority complex when you have a high IQ.

Mine is 144. I have self esteem issues, and that's what keeps me moderately in check. I've observed people with high IQ's be very snobby towards those who do not, and they have a feeling of deserved superiority and it's NOT deserved.

People of average or even below average "quotient" intelligence can be happy, well-adjusted, hard-working, moral and decent people, and THAT is more important than raw intelligence. Just be sure to ask a panel of experts with a diverse background and diverse political leanings before you make a decision you're not sure of.

IQ means nothing except potential for intelligence. That potential is often wasted or used counter-productively.

[Strike For The South]

I don't like the bonuses, and even I will admit it's a Bovine Secretion-filled tactic to tax it that high, after the fact. More legitimate is to assert the government's right as the majority stakeholder and simply cancel the bonuses.

to the Congress:
Don't give me that sleazy politician nonsense. Either the money is ours or it is not. Don't tax it back to us when it's ours to begin with, I say.

Cancel them after they signed the contract? What good will that do?

Congress knew very well what was going on and now are shredding the constitution to save face. I'm happy for these AIG guys at least that made some money off of this clusterintercourse.

[Askthepizzaguy]

Well perhaps we disagree that it should have been done, and if there's any legal way around it.

I will say this:

There is a :daisy: of a lot more waste going on in this government than just 165 million measly dollars. And both Republicans and Democrats are responsible for it. Bush's bailouts, then Obama's no balanced budget... don't get me started, it angries up the blood.

165 million is a lot of money, but the billions we waste is of far greater numerical importance.

[seireikhaan]

With you on term limits; how many terms, you think? 2? 3? I think 2 should do it. With a mandatory 2 year break between levels of office (for example: 2 four-year terms as a Representative, a 2-year break, then it's possible to achieve 2 six-year terms as Senator, another 2 year break, then 2 4-year terms as POTUS). A favorite son (and gifted public servant) from Kansas, say, could still build a successful 28 year career of political service, if he can attract broad enough support.
For Senators, I think two terms suffices, but I would cut it to 5 year terms. HoR I would give a max of 3 terms, since theirs are 2 years in length by comparison.


I hear your call for IQ requirments, and sympathize. :laugh4: But I'd rather see campaign spending limits. Not contribution limits - that's 'free speech' we're told. Spending limits. Not unlike our totalwar multiplayer games: wanna spend all your allowable cash on TV ads/warrior monks? Fine. Rather try for a balanced approach of TV, radio, mailers & town halls/cavalry, guns, swords and peasants? Fine too.
Ya, I was semi-joking with the IQ thing. My only problem with spending limits is that I have a strong inclination to believe that the same people will be giving the same money, and it would just be pocketed instead of spent. In exchange, of course, for the AIG treatment.

[HopAlongBunny]

165 million is a lot of money, but the billions we waste is of far greater numerical importance.

Therein lies the beauty of media focus outrage over the bonuses. The magician or hawker always deflects attention from the real action.

[HoreTore]

Therein lies the beauty of media focus outrage over the bonuses. The magician or hawker always deflects attention from the real action.

Not really. What caused this financial crisis? I'm extremely tempted to say short-term business deals motivated by bonus payments. Leaders were told that if they could increase the stock price quickly, they'd get a big sack of cash. And the way to achieve that, is to stop caring about long-term plans, and start thinking about the short-term, the riskier the better.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

People of average or even below average "quotient" intelligence can be happy, well-adjusted, hard-working, moral and decent people
And none of them stand a chance in politics.

[HopAlongBunny]

I agree HoreTore

It just seems disingenuous to wail about bonuses they (Congress) approved and knew about; to me the real story ought to focus on accountability for, and oversight of, of the trillions of dollars flowing out of gov't at present.

[a completely inoffensive name]

I don't think term limits are the answer because it won't correct the problem of corruption and ******** except to limit it to a different person every X many years before rotating to another corrupted official.
If you want to end corruption and abuse, ban lobbyists and special interests groups from having any sort of say in government. Also, ban any sort of gift accepting for Senators and Representatives.

[seireikhaan]

I don't think term limits are the answer because it won't correct the problem of corruption and ******** except to limit it to a different person every X many years before rotating to another corrupted official.
If you want to end corruption and abuse, ban lobbyists and special interests groups from having any sort of say in government. Also, ban any sort of gift accepting for Senators and Representatives.
You can't ban donations, that would impose unconstitutional limits upon money, power, greed, corruption, bias free speech.

[Askthepizzaguy]

And none of them stand a chance in politics.

That's not true. George W. Bush got into office on apparently average intelligence at best. All you really need is money.

[a completely inoffensive name]

You can't ban donations, that would impose unconstitutional limits upon money, power, greed, corruption, bias free speech.

I am not saying banning donations, I am saying banning anything else other then donations, which would be a gift. I am talking about those "free dinners" here or there a day or two before a bill is going to be signed.

EDIT: I would like to see only individuals not corporations be able to donate, because I think that corporations should not have any influence on government and likewise little-mod gov. regulation in the market. I know this is probably a pipe dream though.

[Crazed Rabbit]

This is getting ridiculous.

We have the contemptible congress trying divert attention from their own serious failings by manufacturing outrage over the bonuses - which were parts of the contracts signed and recognized under the bailout money. If congress wanted to do something about it they had leverage with the bailout money they just gave out.

This retroactive tax plan is also bad. It is nothing but a populist, fascist plan to enforce the government's whim over passing outrage on a company. It is antithetical to the idea of a free country.

And this isn't an isolated thing; what other company will want to accept money from the government when the see this? Already announcements have been made about companies working to pay off the bailout money ASAP without regard for the best economic course.

Finally, I present an xkcd comic (http://xkcd.com/558/) that gives an honest comparison of this incident.


That's not true. George W. Bush got into office on apparently average intelligence at best.
We need a smiley that moons you and has a text bubble coming from it.
Because that's simply (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Presidents_IQ_hoax)false (http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/columnist/benedetto/2005-06-10-benedetto_x.htm).

CR

[a completely inoffensive name]

C.R. is now awesome in my book for using latest xkcd comic in his argument.

[Askthepizzaguy]

The fact that a hoax exists which suggests Bush is marginally retarded does not therefore mean he is a genius.

It's simply an assessment of the man, that in my opinion, he is not retarded, but his IQ (not that meaningful a number) would be slightly more than 100, or average. The number itself is less important, his behavior and judgment to date suggests he has an uninspired mind.

I don't see why that's a controversial assessment. The man doesn't like to read, is uncurious about the world, did not perform well academically, and was a drunken loser most of his life. That said, he is not retarded. He's smart enough to pass the sniff test of over half the country, and that's why he managed to get elected a few times to public office.

[Lord Winter]

Well it looks like the tax could be consitional. (http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2009/03/18/would-an-aig-bonus-tax-pass-constitutional-muster-a-tribe-calls-yes/) Not to say that it should still be passed, but atleast there not going against the consitution.

[CountArach]

This retroactive tax plan is also bad. It is nothing but a populist, fascist plan to enforce the government's whim over passing outrage on a company. It is antithetical to the idea of a free country.
I expect better than that from you :no:

[Fragony]

Conspiracy theory goodness :2thumbsup:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7886780711843120756&hl=en

[Husar]

And none of them stand a chance in politics.

Yes, because that requires an even lower IQ. ~;p

[Major Robert Dump]

Thanks for the video. Those guys have made some decent documentaries, and some of the stuff in the above post I believe is credible and some of it true. Central Banking will be the ruin of the nation.

[Strike For The South]

We need Andrew Jackson. He'll settle this the old fashioned way....with firearms!


Edit: And for the record Bush was much more inspired than his father or Clinton. Of course that is all subjective

[Crazed Rabbit]

I expect better than that from you :no:

I lost my thesaurus. Authoritative? Communist? Surely you get my meaning.


The fact that a hoax exists which suggests Bush is marginally retarded does not therefore mean he is a genius.

Do we have a scarecrow smilie? This is a strawman argument - I never said he was a genius. But the analysis I referenced showed he is of above average intelligence. The rest about being 'inspired' is tangential at best, irrelevant to your false claim that Bush is of barely average intelligence, and really just a new way to claim Bush is stupid now that your first reason (IQ) has been debunked.

CR

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I lost my thesaurus. Authoritative? Communist? Surely you get my meaning.


Do we have a scarecrow smilie? This is a strawman argument - I never said he was a genius. But the analysis I referenced showed he is of above average intelligence. The rest about being 'inspired' is tangential at best, irrelevant to your false claim that Bush is of barely average intelligence, and really just a new way to claim Bush is stupid now that your first reason (IQ) has been debunked.

CR

:strawman3: :strawman2: :strawman1: under generic

[Lemur]

You really can't make this up (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/20/business/20aig.html?_r=1). Nobody would believe you:


While the American International Group comes under fire from Congress over executive bonuses, it is quietly fighting the federal government for the return of $306 million in tax payments, some related to deals that were conducted through offshore tax havens.

A.I.G. sued the government last month in a bid to force it to return the payments, which stemmed in large part from its use of aggressive tax deals, some involving entities controlled by the company’s financial products unit in the Cayman Islands, Ireland, the Dutch Antilles and other offshore havens.

A.I.G. is effectively suing its majority owner, the government, which has an 80 percent stake and has poured nearly $200 billion into the insurer in a bid to avert its collapse and avoid troubling the global financial markets. The company is in effect asking for even more money, in the form of tax refunds. The suit also suggests that A.I.G. is spending taxpayer money to pursue its case, something it is legally entitled to do.

[Gregoshi]

AIG...is quietly fighting the federal government for the return of $306 million in tax payments...

Let me correct that figure: $306MM - $165MM = $141MM

While $165 million seems to be "peanuts" to some in the overall picture, $306 million doesn't seem to be peanuts to AIG.

This whole episode has pretty much snuffed out that candle of hope I had lit after the November election. While the outrage over the AIG bonuses may be misdirected, a spark that yet lives from my snuffed candle hopes the outrage is not lost on all parties and they wake up to realize business-as-usual is going the way of smoking and public drunkeness. :shame:

[Hosakawa Tito]

I want to see an investigation into AIG's past accounting and securities disclosures. As the bottom was falling out of its derivatives trading, AIG was reporting healthy profits. That's fraud. Meanwhile, the company created a short-term bonus system for top execs, what a coincidence.

AIG also failed to put in appropriate loss reserves should something go wrong with their risky contracts. These are required under GAAP rules for preparing financial statements that all publicly traded companies must follow. Establish that there is accounting fraud and losing their bonus will also include jailtime for those involved.

[Crazed Rabbit]

:strawman3: :strawman2: :strawman1: under generic

Thank you good sir.


You really can't make this up. Nobody would believe you:

Okay, now I'm starting to get upset.

CR

[Gregoshi]

Okay, now I'm starting to get upset.

Was that the last "straw" CR? :laugh4:

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

We should put to death anyone who voted to bail these people out.

/how do you like them apples

[Xiahou]

Okay, now I'm starting to get upset.I still have a hard time caring. What's the point in the federal government trying to squeeze a few hundred million in back taxes out of a company that's getting close to 200 billion in bailouts? They're already determined (apparently) that AIG can't be allowed to fail and that the only way to save it is by throwing buckets of cash at it. Why are they mad about taxes? :shrug:

[Hosakawa Tito]

I still have a hard time caring. What's the point in the federal government trying to squeeze a few hundred million in back taxes out of a company that's getting close to 200 billion in bailouts? They're already determined (apparently) that AIG can't be allowed to fail and that the only way to save it is by throwing buckets of cash at it. Why are they mad about taxes? :shrug:

Well for one, that's not the government's money, that's the taxpayer's money. Maybe AIG isn't accountable to taxpayers, but the politicians are. Take care of the pennies and the dollars tend to take care of themselves.

What I don't understand is why they don't split AIG's financial unit off of the conventional insurance business and let it file for bankruptcy.

[Xiahou]

So, when Geithner says the first he heard of the benefits I guess it means he's either hard of hearing, or just very forgetful... I guess the latter would help explain his tax problems too.

Here's a CSPAN clip where Geithner is asked directly about AIG bonuses by a congressman- on March 3rd. Interestingly, he seems to be saying that that bonuses may be necessary for AIG to business. I'll point out again that a cool, level-headed response like this, where you lament the bonuses, but say they are an unfortunate necessity would've been a lot more productive and responsible than jumping on the rage-out, class-warfare bandwagon like the administration ultimately decided to do. :no:

[KukriKhan]

Well for one, that's not the government's money, that's the taxpayer's money. Maybe AIG isn't accountable to taxpayers, but the politicians are. Take care of the pennies and the dollars tend to take care of themselves.

What I don't understand is why they don't split AIG's financial unit off of the conventional insurance business and let it file for bankruptcy*.

When Liddy (the $1 per year,no bonus, volunteer, hired-by-congress, CEO of AIG) testified, he said that what you suggest was exactly his plan, and that after their work was done unwinding the bad bets AND repaying the gov't/taxpayer, AIGFP (financial products) would not exist anymore, either through bankruptcy or sale.

Most of the details of what he put forward has gotten overshadowed my the SHOCK! OUTRAGE! congi-critterz had to display before they went home for their 3-day weekend.

-edit-
*He also intimated that the AIGFP guys who made the bets insurance policies on the Credit Default Swaps and other tricky instruments, used the Ratings Agencies AAA ratings for the overall AIG corporation to sell their unit's products. That might be fraud, and both criminally and civilly prosecutable. But Liddy hinted that he wanted those bad guys to do their "unwinding" work first, so bailout bucks could get paid back as quickly as possible. Hence his reluctant support of 'retention bonuses' (kinda a 'keep your enemies closer' approach).

Maybe he was just blowing smoke. But, if so, I don't see his motivation. At $1 per year, pulled out of retirement as Allstate CEO, this guy seems to be doing a Yeoman's task well. I'm ashamed of the way he was treated on the Hill. He deserved better. And so did we.

[Askthepizzaguy]

I would agree that Congress deserves about 100 times more outrage directed at them than AIG.

I would use certain words to describe my feelings about Congress, but they are illegal in 37 states, and I believe at least five of them could bring about the Ragnarök (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ragnaroc), and I won't be responsible for deaths on such a massive scale.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

:strawman3: :strawman2: :strawman1: under generic

Awesome.

[Lemur]

A good point made by a blogger about Congress' latest silly law:


It's stupid, and probably unconstitutional, sure. But it's great because it gets us past what is, in the big picture, a trivial issue. If the bill becomes law, Americans can feel like the government did something to get their money back and we can move on to dealing with real problems. A lawsuit challenging the bill will follow, and in a year or two, it will get struck down, and no one will care, because we'll either be on our way to a recovery, or so deep in :daisy: that we'll have much bigger problems on our mind.

-edit-

Apologies for the overlooked daisy. My bad.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

A good point made by a blogger about Congress' latest silly law:


It's stupid, and probably unconstitutional, sure. But it's great because it gets us past what is, in the big picture, a trivial issue. If the bill becomes law, Americans can feel like the government did something to get their money back and we can move on to dealing with real problems. A lawsuit challenging the bill will follow, and in a year or two, it will get struck down, and no one will care, because we'll either be on our way to a recovery, or so deep in :daisy: that we'll have much bigger problems on our mind.

A very apt comment.