F*%#ing greedy AIG execs

I'm surprised that no one has posted a thread about this yet. I was too busy to post anything yesterday so here we go:



Obama: AIG can't justify 'outrage' of exec bonuses

WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama declared Monday that insurance giant American International Group is in financial straits because of "recklessness and greed" and said he intends to stop it from paying out millions in executive bonuses.

"It's hard to understand how derivative traders at AIG warranted any bonuses, much less $165 million in extra pay," Obama said at the outset of an appearance to announce help for small businesses hurt by the deep recession.

"How do they justify this outrage to the taxpayers who are keeping the company afloat," the president said.

Obama spoke out in the wake of reports that surfaced over the weekend saying that financially strapped American International Group Inc. was paying substantial bonuses to executives.

Noting that AIG has "received substantial sums" of federal aid from the federal government, Obama said he has asked Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner "to use that leverage and pursue every legal avenue to block these bonuses and make the American taxpayers whole."

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

"This isn't just a matter of dollars and cents," he added. "It's about our fundamental values."

The $165 million was payable to executives by Sunday and was part of a larger total payout reportedly valued at $450 million. The company has benefited from more than $170 billion in a federal rescue.

AIG reported this month that it had lost $61.7 billion for the fourth quarter of last year, the largest corporate loss in history. The bulk of the payments at issue cover AIG Financial Products, the unit of the company that sold credit default swaps, the risky contracts that caused massive losses for the insurer.

Rep. Barney Frank, chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, earlier Monday charged that the move to pay bonuses amounted to "rewarding incompetence."

"These people may have a right to their bonuses. They don't have a right to their jobs forever," said Frank, a Massachusetts Democrat.

Frank noted that the Federal Reserve Board, using a Depression-era statute, was the institution that gave AIG its initial government bailout, before Congress passed legislation providing for additional assistance and said that not enough safeguards were built into the deal.

It also was revealed over the weekend that American International Group Inc. used more than $90 billion in federal aid to pay out foreign and domestic banks, some of whom had received their own multibillion-dollar U.S. government bailouts.

Some of the biggest recipients of the AIG money were Goldman Sachs at $12.9 billion, and three European banks — France's Societe Generale at $11.9 billion, Germany's Deutsche Bank at $11.8 billion, and Britain's Barclays PLC at $8.5 billion. Merrill Lynch, which also is undergoing federal scrutiny of its bonus plans, received $6.8 billion as of Dec. 31.

The money went to banks to cover their losses on complex mortgage investments, as well as for collateral needed for other transactions.

"We ought to explore everything that we can through the government to make sure that this money is not wasted," said Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Ala. "These people brought this on themselves. Now you're rewarding failure. A lot of these people should be fired, not awarded bonuses. This is horrible. It's outrageous."

Frank said he was disgusted, asserting that "these bonuses are going to people who screwed this thing up enormously."

"Maybe it's time to fire some people," he said. "We can't keep them from getting bonuses but we can keep them from having their jobs. ... In high school, they wouldn't have gotten retention (bonuses), they would have gotten detention."

AIG has agreed to Obama administration requests to restrain future payments. Geithner had pressed the president's case with AIG's chairman, Edward Liddy, last week.

"He stepped in and berated them, got them to reduce the bonuses following every legal means he has to do this," said Austan Goolsbee, staff director of President Barack Obama's Economic Recovery Advisory Board.

Obama did note in his remarks Monday that Liddy "came on board after the contracts that led to these bonuses were agreed to last year."

In an interview that aired Sunday on CBS' "60 Minutes," Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke did not address the bonuses but expressed his frustration with the AIG intervention.

"It makes me angry. I slammed the phone more than a few times on discussing AIG," Bernanke said. "It's — it's just absolutely — I understand why the American people are angry."

In a letter to Geithner dated Saturday, Liddy said outside lawyers had informed the company that AIG had contractual obligations to make the bonus payments and could face lawsuits if it did not do so.

Frank appeared on NBC's "Today" show and Shelby was interviewed on ABC's "Good Morning America."

LINK

Peregrine(Endangered) wrote:CALL THE LOANS IN AND LET THEM FAIL!!!

You're right on the money.

On a side note:

Grim, what did you think of Obama's little speech on the ordeal? Do you tink Bush would have reacted likewise?

I am very surprised that this is "shocking" news to anyone.

The only thing that surprised me was that the number was so low.

What's got me the most pissed off is that none of these pricks...and the others responsible are going to jail.

I can honestly say I was never for any bailout money. Let the bad businesses fail...a new entrepeneur will be ready to take their place. And this is the main reason. It isn't just greed...it's arrogance. Top execs feel they can get away with anything and do anything they want. Who is going to stop them.

And as I recall...there were no real strings attached to the bailout. And the reason for that is our idiot politicians. All of them. The only politician that I can name that has any kind of fiscal awareness and common sense is Ron Paul. The rest can rot...including the messiah.

Americanadian wrote:I was too pissed off for words when I heard the story. Complete unmitigated gall and flagrant disregard for the American people. Particularly the 12 million currently looking for work. God damn those greedy bastards all to hell!!!!!

Screw the "legal avenues" if AIG persists in "meeting its contractual obligations". The government bailed them out with $173[b] billion of taxpayer money. It will be a frosty day in fucking hell before I would acquiesce to giving a minority of 400 people $165 million in bonuses, while 12 million of the taxpayers whom kept AIG afloat to even think about paying the bonuses, are unemployed.

If AIG continues, I say everyone write your elected officials and demand that the government revoke or "call" the loan. If they want to play dirty, so can we. FUCK THEM!!

If anyone deserves that money, it's the 12 million unemployed Americans and the countless others currently struggling to make ends meet and certainly not the demented fuckers that caused the economic meltdown to begin with.

If the execs were wise, they would voluntarily renege on the bonus stipulation. How can anyone even think about taking bonus money when so many others are deprived of the basics? Oh yeah..GREED!

amen. this should be a prayer, ac, and you should be canonized as a saint.







i'll notify the pope.

Americanadian wrote:On a side note:

Grim, what did you think of Obama's little speech on the ordeal? Do you tink Bush would have reacted likewise?

The truth is, I have no idea how Bush would have reacted. Politically, he should have reacted much the same as Obama... But the the fact is, Obama has no right to be angry about this at all.

I'm likely to catch hell for this, but here I go anyway...

AIG was correct to pay out those bonuses. They signed contracts with those executives that promised them those bonuses, so in my opinion they are legally and morally obligated to honor them. Whether AIG should have offered their executives those contracts in the first place, is another matter entirely, and one which I don't know enough about to comment on. On the surface, I would say it wasn't a very smart thing to do, especially when they were already on the brink of bankruptcy.

This leads me into my next point...

Every single one of you who support the president, and are pissed off at AIG over this, need to take a step back for a second. Those contracts AIG made with their executives, were agreed upon a year ago. According to my math, that was several months before the government was even discussing bailing them out. In other words folks, these contracts were forged by AIG when they were a private company, and they had every right to do so... not when they were a government subsidized company, supported by the American tax payer.

The people you should be pissed off at are the Bozo's in senate and in congress, including the Obama administration, who either knew about these contracts before hand, did nothing, and are faking outrage now... or didn't known about these contracts, because they didn't take the time to investigate how the billions in bailout money would be spent, before dropping it in AIG's lap.

It is my opinion, that Obama's outrage is bullshit no matter how you slice it.

If the government knew about the bonuses before the bailout, then Obama and those on capitol hill are attacking AIG to cover up their complicity and score cheap political points... If they didn't know about those contracts before the bailout, then they are attacking AIG to cover up for their incompetence.

Either way, AIG was obligated to honor those contracts no matter where the money came from, and every single one of those idiots in Washington who are now attacking AIG, know this fact.

Either way you slice it Grim, the execs of the company are taking advantage of money that was not intended to go into their pockets and they know it. The fact that they are hiding behind the defense of "b-b-b-but it's in our contract" screams irresponsible and unethical and they should be held accountable. And if the government didn't know how the money would be paid out, then yes that was stupid on their part, but none of that really matters to me at this point. I just hope that all this grandstanding by Obama leads to something and I hope he actually has the balls to go through with it.

I was against this bailout to begin with, and not just for AIG, for everybody. The car companies, banks, mortgage companies, they should have let them all fail and let ambitious entrepeneurs pick up the peices.

Big Slick wrote:Either way you slice it Grim, the execs of the company are taking advantage of money that was not intended to go into their pockets and they know it.

They signed those contracts over a year ago, before the government had pledged any financial support for AIG. If they want to give that money back, that's fine... but they have every right to keep it. They signed an agreement to work for a specific amount of time, for a specific salary, which included bonuses based on performance. As long as they honored their end of that contract, and met those performance goals, they have every right to to be paid, no matter where AIG got the money.

Lets say you picked lettuce for a living, and had done so for 5 years. Then one day, your boss approaches you and offers you a deal. He says that instead of a pay raise, if you will pick 20% more lettuce this year and stay on your current salary, he will give you a $10,000 bonus at the end of the year. Let's say you accept the deal and sign a contract with your boss. Then 11 months later, the company is having financial problems, so your boss takes on an investor to help pay off the companies debt. It's now been a year, and after busting your ass to pick that extra lettuce, you realize you successfully reached your goal.

Do you deserve to be paid?
Do you give a shit where the company got the money to pay you?
Should anyone have the right to strip you of that money you earned?

Answer those questions honestly, then tell me again how those executives are taking advantage of anyone.

Nobody put a gun to AIG's head and made them offer those contracts to their executives. They offered bonuses in exchange for performance, and as long as those performance goals were met, those men deserve to be paid no matter where the money comes from, or what anyone thinks about it. Our government gave AIG that money to help pay off their debt, and part of that debt is honoring their financial commitments to their employees. If the government didn't want those executives to have any of it, they should have addressed the issue before they gave them all our money.

I don't totally disagree with you, but legal doesn't necessarily make it right. I wonder what was in those contracts though. Wouldn't you like to know what performance objectives they met to deserve the bonuses? I sure would. Your company basically goes belly up, but you did well enough to earn a bonus, doesn't seem like very stringent goals does it?

Big Slick wrote:I don't totally disagree with you, but legal doesn't necessarily make it right. I wonder what was in those contracts though. Wouldn't you like to know what performance objectives they met to deserve the bonuses? I sure would. Your company basically goes belly up, but you did well enough to earn a bonus, doesn't seem like very stringent goals does it?

You aint kidding. As it stands, given all we know is they had contracts, if the government does take that money back it could make most contracts mean no more than a oral agreement which is all but meaningless.

I don't totally disagree with you

So I take it, that your answers to my questions are:

1. No, you wouldn't deserve to be paid.
2. Yes, you do give a shit where the money that your boss pays you comes from.
3. Yes, the government has the right to take away the money you earned.

This class warfare shit has got to stop. I would love to make millions of dollars a year, but just because I don't, doesn't mean that nobody should, or that I'm getting screwed because others are successful.

Why is it, that so many of you on the left want to punish people for making money? That's what America is all about, and your obsession with destroying and vilifying people who become wealthy is just plain wrong.

This AIG thing is a classic example. You people should be angry primarily at the government, because they are the ones who gave them the money. Sure, AIG might have made a bad business decision in offering those bonuses in the first place, but they did so as a PRIVATE COMPANY, not a government subsidized one, so it was their choice to make. The ones who don't deserve this level of public scorn, are the executives. They were offered a job contract, and no matter how fucking jealous you all are of the money they made, they honored that contract.

If any one of you was offered 2 million dollars a year to work as a clerk at a 7-11, you wouldn't turn it down because you thought they were offering you too much money. You would take the deal, and expect to be paid. Who's fault would it be if 7/11 had to borrow money to pay you? It certainly wouldn't be yours.

Grim17 wrote: This AIG thing is a classic example. You people should be angry primarily at the government, because they are the ones who gave them the money. Sure, AIG might have made a bad business decision in offering those bonuses in the first place, but they did so as a PRIVATE COMPANY, not a government subsidized one, so it was their choice to make.

hi grim. in this post, you have pointed out the major question i have with this contract issue.

as you say, the execs bonuses were a part of contracts that were made when AIG was a PRIVATE COMPANY, yes?

that PRIVATE COMPANY went belly-up, yes?

well. it seems to me those contracts are NOW WORTHLESS, just like everything else was - yes or no??

if no... why not? please elaborate...

thanks.
CV

I agree with CV on her last post. I feel part of problem was when the bail out bill was passed, there was not enough oversight put into the bill.
So the thing is like CV said once the tax payers money was approved for this. It changed everything. My feeling is the execs who made poor choices should not get bonuses at all. If they wanted bonuses they should not have run their company into the ground. The only thing these execs deserve is to be fired. Of course taxpayers are going to upset when we are rewarding them with our money for abject failure. The only bonuses they should receive should be those they earned. Not bonuses paid because some contract said they deserved it. This is our money we are talking about. The money we had to go out and work hard for. They do not deserve the bonuses. They did not earn them. They failed. They are getting money they did not earn. An example would be if I was driving my truck and had a load worth a million dollars. I run the truck off the road and destroy the truck and the product, due to my own fault. I am told no worries. We are going to cover the cost of that loss, on top of that we are going to give you a million dollars. Oh and your truck don't worry we will get a new top of the line truck. All paid for by the taxpayers. Just our way of saying thanks for doing a "great job".

HotParadox wrote:

Americanadian wrote:I was too pissed off for words when I heard the story. Complete unmitigated gall and flagrant disregard for the American people. Particularly the 12 million currently looking for work. God damn those greedy bastards all to hell!!!!!

Screw the "legal avenues" if AIG persists in "meeting its contractual obligations". The government bailed them out with $173[b] billion of taxpayer money. It will be a frosty day in fucking hell before I would acquiesce to giving a minority of 400 people $165 million in bonuses, while 12 million of the taxpayers whom kept AIG afloat to even think about paying the bonuses, are unemployed.

If AIG continues, I say everyone write your elected officials and demand that the government revoke or "call" the loan. If they want to play dirty, so can we. FUCK THEM!!

If anyone deserves that money, it's the 12 million unemployed Americans and the countless others currently struggling to make ends meet and certainly not the demented fuckers that caused the economic meltdown to begin with.

If the execs were wise, they would voluntarily renege on the bonus stipulation. How can anyone even think about taking bonus money when so many others are deprived of the basics? Oh yeah..GREED!

amen. this should be a prayer, ac, and you should be canonized as a saint.







i'll notify the pope.

LOL! You're a cutie. You always make me laugh with a Pope thing.

Grim17 wrote:

Americanadian wrote:On a side note:

Grim, what did you think of Obama's little speech on the ordeal? Do you tink Bush would have reacted likewise?

The truth is, I have no idea how Bush would have reacted. Politically, he should have reacted much the same as Obama... But the the fact is, Obama has no right to be angry about this at all.

I'm likely to catch hell for this, but here I go anyway...

AIG was correct to pay out those bonuses. They signed contracts with those executives that promised them those bonuses, so in my opinion they are legally and morally obligated to honor them. Whether AIG should have offered their executives those contracts in the first place, is another matter entirely, and one which I don't know enough about to comment on. On the surface, I would say it wasn't a very smart thing to do, especially when they were already on the brink of bankruptcy.

This leads me into my next point...

Every single one of you who support the president, and are pissed off at AIG over this, need to take a step back for a second. Those contracts AIG made with their executives, were agreed upon a year ago. According to my math, that was several months before the government was even discussing bailing them out. In other words folks, these contracts were forged by AIG when they were a private company, and they had every right to do so... not when they were a government subsidized company, supported by the American tax payer.

The people you should be pissed off at are the Bozo's in senate and in congress, including the Obama administration, who either knew about these contracts before hand, did nothing, and are faking outrage now... or didn't known about these contracts, because they didn't take the time to investigate how the billions in bailout money would be spent, before dropping it in AIG's lap.

It is my opinion, that Obama's outrage is bullshit no matter how you slice it.

If the government knew about the bonuses before the bailout, then Obama and those on capitol hill are attacking AIG to cover up their complicity and score cheap political points... If they didn't know about those contracts before the bailout, then they are attacking AIG to cover up for their incompetence.

Either way, AIG was obligated to honor those contracts no matter where the money came from, and every single one of those idiots in Washington who are now attacking AIG, know this fact.

Excellent points Grim. And I concur. I misdirected my anger but much of that is due to not asking the right questions yet.

However, I will also state that the executives in question would have not received any bonuses whatsoever, had the government not bailed AIG out. They should willingly pass up the bonuses and save face.

If the government was cognizant of those bonus contracts, they should have informed AIG to ammend those contracts before giving AIG one penny.

Either way, something has to be done and the only way it will occur is massive protesting and threats, if need be.

Susan aka CV wrote:

Grim17 wrote: This AIG thing is a classic example. You people should be angry primarily at the government, because they are the ones who gave them the money. Sure, AIG might have made a bad business decision in offering those bonuses in the first place, but they did so as a PRIVATE COMPANY, not a government subsidized one, so it was their choice to make.

hi grim. in this post, you have pointed out the major question i have with this contract issue.

as you say, the execs bonuses were a part of contracts that were made when AIG was a PRIVATE COMPANY, yes?

that PRIVATE COMPANY went belly-up, yes?

well. it seems to me those contracts are NOW WORTHLESS, just like everything else was - yes or no??

if no... why not? please elaborate...

thanks.
CV

They didn't go "belly up" CV. That's what the bailout prevented. The government just became an investor, or partner in AIG. If the government would have left them alone and allowed them to file bankruptcy, chances are, those executives would not have gotten those bonuses.

The thing most people are overlooking here, is that the senate, congress, and both the Bush and Obama administrations knew about these performance bonuses months ago. Congress made the decision to give AIG the bailout money with "no strings attached", knowing that part of it would be used to pay those executive bonuses.

Now could someone please tell me how in the hell president Obama can get in front of the cameras and show that phony outrage toward AIG and those executives, and get away with it? That goes for both the democrats and republicans on Capitol Hill that are doing the same. Where in the hell is our media here?

Big Slick wrote:I don't totally disagree with you, but legal doesn't necessarily make it right. I wonder what was in those contracts though. Wouldn't you like to know what performance objectives they met to deserve the bonuses? I sure would. Your company basically goes belly up, but you did well enough to earn a bonus, doesn't seem like very stringent goals does it?

Causing the turbulence which started the whole economic conflagration hardly qualifies as a "performance objective", unless your name is Rush Limbaugh speaking about Obama's policies.

Grim17 wrote:

I don't totally disagree with you

So I take it, that your answers to my questions are:

1. No, you wouldn't deserve to be paid.
2. Yes, you do give a shit where the money that your boss pays you comes from.
3. Yes, the government has the right to take away the money you earned.

This class warfare shit has got to stop. I would love to make millions of dollars a year, but just because I don't, doesn't mean that nobody should, or that I'm getting screwed because others are successful.

Why is it, that so many of you on the left want to punish people for making money? That's what America is all about, and your obsession with destroying and vilifying people who become wealthy is just plain wrong.

This AIG thing is a classic example. You people should be angry primarily at the government, because they are the ones who gave them the money. Sure, AIG might have made a bad business decision in offering those bonuses in the first place, but they did so as a PRIVATE COMPANY, not a government subsidized one, so it was their choice to make. The ones who don't deserve this level of public scorn, are the executives. They were offered a job contract, and no matter how fucking jealous you all are of the money they made, they honored that contract.

If any one of you was offered 2 million dollars a year to work as a clerk at a 7-11, you wouldn't turn it down because you thought they were offering you too much money. You would take the deal, and expect to be paid. Who's fault would it be if 7/11 had to borrow money to pay you? It certainly wouldn't be yours.

For your consideration:

AIG wouldn't have had the ability to pay the bonuses to execs if it were not for the bailout, correct? Therefore, the execs would have received a pink slip and no bonus. Since the government DID bail them out, it should be acknowledged that the bailout money should not be going for bonuses but to prevent the company from going bankrupt.

Grim17 wrote:
They didn't go "belly up" CV. That's what the bailout prevented. The government just became an investor, or partner in AIG. If the government would have left them alone and allowed them to file bankruptcy, chances are, those executives would not have gotten those bonuses.

The thing most people are overlooking here, is that the senate, congress, and both the Bush and Obama administrations knew about these performance bonuses months ago. Congress made the decision to give AIG the bailout money with "no strings attached", knowing that part of it would be used to pay those executive bonuses.

Now could someone please tell me how in the hell president Obama can get in front of the cameras and show that phony outrage toward AIG and those executives, and get away with it? That goes for both the democrats and republicans on Capitol Hill that are doing the same. Where in the hell is our media here?

It should be up to the government to correct its error.

I agree with you about the phony outrage. They obviously didn't put enough fore thought into the bailout deal. They are going to have to be more careful with taxpayer funds. I believe they were a little too hasty on the whole ordeal.

I guess we will have to inquire if the government was aware of those bonuses. I do vaguely recall some articles previously that mentioned the bonuses. Do you have any on hand? If not, I guess google to the rescue.

Big Slick wrote:Either way you slice it Grim, the execs of the company are taking advantage of money that was not intended to go into their pockets and they know it. The fact that they are hiding behind the defense of "b-b-b-but it's in our contract" screams irresponsible and unethical and they should be held accountable. And if the government didn't know how the money would be paid out, then yes that was stupid on their part, but none of that really matters to me at this point. I just hope that all this grandstanding by Obama leads to something and I hope he actually has the balls to go through with it.

I was against this bailout to begin with, and not just for AIG, for everybody. The car companies, banks, mortgage companies, they should have let them all fail and let ambitious entrepeneurs pick up the peices.

How can the government hold someone as irresponsible and unethical? Isn't that the kettle calling the pot black? Should it supprise us that businesses would take advantage of us? But our outrage should be directed toward the politicians who SHOULD represent us, but instead serve themselves and there own greed. They knew of these contracts before or should have, that would be responsible, instead they act all suprised and outraged so people will buy there act. THAT is irresponsible and unethical, but everyones rage is toward the AIG people. Fuck them all, they should all be _ _ _ _ (fill in the blanks)

Oh and while Im on the rant here. We have a group of men who run this country in the hole, one which we will never climb out of, to the tune of 40 million dollars a day! YET they vote themselves a raise each year, fly around in there privates jets...sound familiar? And we show up and vote them into office

Americanadian wrote:

HotParadox wrote:

Americanadian wrote:I was too pissed off for words when I heard the story. Complete unmitigated gall and flagrant disregard for the American people. Particularly the 12 million currently looking for work. God damn those greedy bastards all to hell!!!!!

Screw the "legal avenues" if AIG persists in "meeting its contractual obligations". The government bailed them out with $173[b] billion of taxpayer money. It will be a frosty day in fucking hell before I would acquiesce to giving a minority of 400 people $165 million in bonuses, while 12 million of the taxpayers whom kept AIG afloat to even think about paying the bonuses, are unemployed.

If AIG continues, I say everyone write your elected officials and demand that the government revoke or "call" the loan. If they want to play dirty, so can we. FUCK THEM!!

If anyone deserves that money, it's the 12 million unemployed Americans and the countless others currently struggling to make ends meet and certainly not the demented fuckers that caused the economic meltdown to begin with.

If the execs were wise, they would voluntarily renege on the bonus stipulation. How can anyone even think about taking bonus money when so many others are deprived of the basics? Oh yeah..GREED!

amen. this should be a prayer, ac, and you should be canonized as a saint.







i'll notify the pope.

LOL! You're a cutie. You always make me laugh with a Pope thing.

i know! i didn't used to, but now i love the pope hate/love thing we've got going on with His Highness Holiness! it's our signature fight!

[quote="Grim17"]

Susan aka CV wrote:

Grim17 wrote: This AIG thing is a classic example. You people should be angry primarily at the government, because they are the ones who gave them the money. Sure, AIG might have made a bad business decision in offering those bonuses in the first place, but they did so as a PRIVATE COMPANY, not a government subsidized one, so it was their choice to make.

hi grim. in this post, you have pointed out the major question i have with this contract issue.

as you say, the execs bonuses were a part of contracts that were made when AIG was a PRIVATE COMPANY, yes?

that PRIVATE COMPANY went belly-up, yes?

well. it seems to me those contracts are NOW WORTHLESS, just like everything else was - yes or no??

if no... why not? please elaborate...

thanks.
CV

They didn't go "belly up" CV. That's what the bailout prevented. The government just became an investor, or partner in AIG. If the government would have left them alone and allowed them to file bankruptcy, chances are, those executives would not have gotten those bonuses.

okay grim, i'll accept that - thanks.

i have to agree with you that there is an obvious legal obligation for AIG to pay these bonuses. i guess it comes down to the contract details, and whether or not there's some kind of default clause that will keep the money out of their hands.

let me ask you this though... in light of financial disaster this company became, would you agree that the execs DO NOT DESERVE this money??

The thing most people are overlooking here, is that the senate, congress, and both the Bush and Obama administrations knew about these performance bonuses months ago. Congress made the decision to give AIG the bailout money with "no strings attached", knowing that part of it would be used to pay those executive bonuses.

Now could someone please tell me how in the hell president Obama can get in front of the cameras and show that phony outrage toward AIG and those executives, and get away with it? That goes for both the democrats and republicans on Capitol Hill that are doing the same. Where in the hell is our media here?

you know how i feel about bo. this type of grandstanding is a perfect example of what a smug prick he is, but it's nothing new. and neither is the media's lack of involvement - don't forget grim, the msm got this guy elected. i know you don't really expect them to knock him off that pedestal THEY put him on!

bottom line = if the news of these bonuses hadn't leaked out, bo & company wouldn't have said a word about it - the execs would have quietly been paid - end of story. but it didn't go that way, so now it's a mad rush to cover their ass. and they will, no doubt, be let off the hook at the end of the day. but hey - a presidency with no demand for accountability is nothing new either.

CV

Grim17 wrote:
This class warfare shit has got to stop. I would love to make millions of dollars a year, but just because I don't, doesn't mean that nobody should, or that I'm getting screwed because others are successful.

Why is it, that so many of you on the left want to punish people for making money? That's what America is all about, and your obsession with destroying and vilifying people who become wealthy is just plain wrong.

This AIG thing is a classic example. You people should be angry primarily at the government, because they are the ones who gave them the money. Sure, AIG might have made a bad business decision in offering those bonuses in the first place, but they did so as a PRIVATE COMPANY, not a government subsidized one, so it was their choice to make. The ones who don't deserve this level of public scorn, are the executives. They were offered a job contract, and no matter how fucking jealous you all are of the money they made, they honored that contract.

If any one of you was offered 2 million dollars a year to work as a clerk at a 7-11, you wouldn't turn it down because you thought they were offering you too much money. You would take the deal, and expect to be paid. Who's fault would it be if 7/11 had to borrow money to pay you? It certainly wouldn't be yours.

This has nothing to do with class warefare Grim. I don't want to punish people for making money or being successful but to take money as a bonus from a company who was in financial callapse and claiming you earned it is bullshit. The company I work for pays bonuses and yes, it is nice to get them, however, when the company does bad, we don't get them. I don't get mad, I understand that you make bonuses when the company prospers, AIG was anything but a prosperous company when those bonuses were paid.

And hell yes I'm upset with the government giving them money. I don't give a damn who is in office. I don't care if they are blue, red, right, left, conservative, liberal...whatever. They should have not paid any of these companies. Not AIG, Bear Stearns, GM, Chrystler...all of them. If the company was doing that bad then they should have let them fail. Isn't that what a free market economy is all about? You still want to label me as a liberal socialist? I don't give a shit about political parties, what I do care about is rich CEOs being insulated from taking any blame and getting richer off of failing companies while the rest of the country is getting F---ed and paying for it. I don't have a problem with high paid people taking their regular salaries but to say you earned a bonus when your company has all but completely collapsed, is wrong.

Grim, I just watched that Glen Beck video you posted but I'm responding to it here because it fits.

First of all, it may surprise you that this liberal socialst lefty likes Glen Beck. I like his opinions and I like watching his show.

He's right, it is fake outrage and if the government knew that all this money was going to go straight into the pockets of the higher ups at AIG then they're all responsible. They knew about this a year ago? Well then I blame Obama and Bush equally for letting this happen.

Susan aka CV wrote:let me ask you this though... in light of financial disaster this company became, would you agree that the execs DO NOT DESERVE this money??

It would appear that way, but I can't say for sure. We have no way of knowing what kind of job these people did, and I sure as hell am not going to take the word of anyone in Washington.

For all we know, they may have saved us an extra billion in bailout money during the last year.

Now that I know that Chris Dodd added the law to the last bailout that specifically allowed for these executives to receive those bonuses, whether they "earned" them or not became totally irrelevant to me.

Grim17 wrote:

Susan aka CV wrote:let me ask you this though... in light of financial disaster this company became, would you agree that the execs DO NOT DESERVE this money??

It would appear that way, but I can't say for sure. We have no way of knowing what kind of job these people did, and I sure as hell am not going to take the word of anyone in Washington.

For all we know, they may have saved us an extra billion in bailout money during the last year.

Now that I know that Chris Dodd added the law to the last bailout that specifically allowed for these executives to receive those bonuses, whether they "earned" them or not became totally irrelevant to me.

I just clicked on this thread to say exactly that. Was reading about people up in arms over the fact that executives at Fannie Mae are being paid retention bonuses. There's nothing in the article to indicate which executives are being paid. Maybe the guy in accounting did a fantastic job this year and saved the company $500 million. Maybe their top lawyer is going to leave for another job if he doesn't get paid his $200k bonus. These people aren't going to stay with the company if they're forced to give up their bonuses, and these institutes sure as hell can't afford to lose their best staff.

Now, if they were paying out extra money in dividends, everyone would be happy. "It's going to the little people, not those greedy execs". But that would be the stupidest thing in the world for the company to do.

Grim17 wrote:It would appear that way, but I can't say for sure. We have no way of knowing what kind of job these people did, and I sure as hell am not going to take the word of anyone in Washington.

For all we know, they may have saved us an extra billion in bailout money during the last year.

okay. just on the 10:00 news:

AIG's ceo says he is allowing the execs to keep the first $100K of their bonuses, but has asked them to return half of anything that exceeds that amount. according to him, some have already given back the entire thing and he is waiting from a response from others. he's not giving up any of their names though, which i personally think is a good thing.

Now that I know that Chris Dodd added the law to the last bailout that specifically allowed for these executives to receive those bonuses, whether they "earned" them or not became totally irrelevant to me.

yes, i know. my senator made the 6:00 news. check it out

TAKE NOTE of the top 5 receipients of AIG contributions... all are interesting, but the TOP TWO are very telling...

By the way CV, CNN interviewed Dodd and came to the conclusion that he lied, which was obvious to all of us anyway.

I also wanted to mention a few other things too...

First, this issue of Dodd writing in the language that allowed these bonuses to be handed out, was all over FOX News, CNN and talk radio from morning till night on Wednesday, yet as far as I know, has been overlooked for the most part by NBC, ABC, and CBS... Isn't that strange?

Second, I heard a talk show host describe this scandal in a partisan way I hadn't even thought of, but rings so true. He stated that "No matter how the Obama administration, the Congress, the Senate, or the main stream media spin this issue, they will not be able to escape the fact that this is a 100% Democratic scandal." He went on to point out how the republicans were completely shut out of the closed door meetings where the language in this bailout bill was written, and wonders if the media will simply ignore the Dodd issue, or just down-play it like it was no big deal.

The cartoons keep rolling 'em out....

the one with the kid is an eyeopener. teach your children well.