Comments on: Details of AIG bonuses aren’t very soothing

By: Sandra

Sandra — Thu, 19 Mar 2009 19:33:16 +0000

Of course both parties are involved. The deregulation of Wall Street I wrote of in ‘99 and 2000 involved legislation passed by a GOP majority Congress and signed by Clinton. If Clinton hadn’t signed it (but he did) Bush would have most certainly revisited and signed it. So, if you tell Wall Street firms which…uh….are investment companies which are in the business of making money–when you tell them, hey guys, no regulations, don’t worry about it, no one checking up on you, it’s the law now, no oversight–go ahead and make money for the rich (and the upper middle class and even, at times, the middle class, really for anyone who owns a 401-K for that matter)…go ahead and do your think. What? CDS? Yep, legal as they have been—only now, no regulations, no oversight. Even Greenspan, the darling of all administrations recently, said, yes, this is a great idea. What? Yes, yes, you heard correctly. Thanks for checking though.
Hmm. Rugby on Wall Street played by mostly alpha males (and a few females who ape the alpha males because that’s how we do it here in America. In fact the percentage of female representative in high gov’t office in the U.S. is the same as that in Pakistan. But that’s another issue altogether.)
Watching the hearing yesterday, Liddy looked like the only sane person in the room. How the man remained so calm, I have no idea (with so much rudeness flying his way, so much posturing–from both sides–and so many truly ignorant comments.) Comments like–”what is a credit default swap?”
Remediation needed and our representatives that ask questions like that need to take a test first before they’re allowed to be involved in the hearing. It was a circus. If all the circus surrounding AIG from the beginning hadn’t occurred (and I refer to the congressional committee, the media–big problem–and the public with so many mix-ups, misunderstanding and erroneous assumptions and reporting) then many of AIG’s solid companies (and tightly regulated ones) would already be sold and for good prices (and gee, the taxpayers would have huge chunks of their money back and with interest!), but all this insanity has devalued the really good companies, the regulated ones, and scared off buyers. Yeah, short-term thinking all the way around.

By: Caveman

Caveman — Thu, 19 Mar 2009 00:52:49 +0000

Senator Dodd is just to conservative to be trusted to serve his country. Boot him and all the other “no strings attached”, “deregulate everything”, corporate bootlicking conservatives out of office.
They DO NOT represent the American people.

By: pat

pat — Wed, 18 Mar 2009 20:57:28 +0000

Obama signed those bonuses into LAW with the stimulus. Perhaps he should have actually read it before putting his horny little pen to it.

The stimulus says this:

From page H1412 of the Final Stimulus Bill, “SEC. 111. EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION AND CORPORATE GOVERNANCE:

‘(iii) The prohibition required under clause (i) shall not be construed to prohibit any bonus payment required to be paid pursuant to a written employment contract executed on or before February 11, 2009, as such valid employment contracts are determined by the Secretary or the designee of the Secretary.”

So, obama cannot do diddly. Oh he can whine, but it was his pan that made those bonuses 100% legal. The buck stops with him…I think the bonuses suck, those “executives” drove that company into the ground, but obama allowed them to receive bonuses.

Mean while he wants to make soldiers carry private health insurance into battle while we the tax payer will provide free health care and abortion on demand for low life’s and illegal aliens. What a great guy.

By: The middle ground

The middle ground — Wed, 18 Mar 2009 19:29:18 +0000

I don’t like the bonuses any more than anyone else but I will look at this in three different areas.

I found it interesting that so many of the comments in the area ignore the fact, as I understand, that there were legal contracts that the employee and the employer signed. So what people are really saying is that because they don’t like the contract that everyone signed, they should be void. That is a very scary road we will all travel if we say that is the case. Since the money was there, the contracts should be considered binding. This is not to say that the money could not be returned but hey would you return any bonus you received (I am guessing that most of you will be saying no right now).

Second, most of the comments also center around greed but only the greed at the top level of management. Just for fun, put yourself in the AIG executive position. What would you do with the bonus? I am sure you would feel like you deserved the bonus and what fight to keep what you felt was owed to you. But everyone in this country at this time is at fault for “our” problem. Everyone involved from Congress to the people of this republic (we are not yet a democracy) are to blame. And the general idea that someone else must be at fault for our own shortcoming is a disturbing tread that will lead us nowhere good.

Lastly, why is everyone picking on the C level officer of corporations? Where is the public outrage about a baseball player that gets paid several thousand dollars for every time he steps up to the plate? Or the actor that gets paid millions for doing their job. Or the golfer that gets paid millions for working three days aweek. Or the person that lied on the application that got loans they could not afford. These are OK but not if you run a company or are an executive in one. The double standards are incredible and I feel they will only get worse.

By: The Voice

The Voice — Wed, 18 Mar 2009 18:27:02 +0000

Jay you mean your boy obama let these funds go without any oversight as to what they would be spent on????? Isn’t that what you howled about with Bush….huh huh huh hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

By: williebkind

williebkind — Wed, 18 Mar 2009 18:09:48 +0000

Wow! Why am I hearing Bush and Cheney? OMG! King Obama, Prince Harry, and Prime Mistress Pelosi are in charge and the democrates have rule congress for than two years!

So if Mrs G makes a deal and is replaced by Midori that makes Midori responsible for the deal. Right? To add injury, Midori knew it was a bad deal, did nothing, but bet it would change the environment to add fame and fortune to her clan.

Midori’s clan now attacks a small group she dislikes, protects the other small group that promotes her socialist ideals, and points a finger at the previous leadership.

Well G sits by the “puter” keyboards messages announcing how bad Bush and Cheney were while his lover, King Obama floods the socialist programs with huge amounts of tax payer dollars and increasing government. AND you thought the republicans are hilarious!

Thank God I am not a liberal but simply a conservative.

By: radiowxman

radiowxman — Wed, 18 Mar 2009 16:35:33 +0000

Anyone here bother to look up the definition of “retention bonus?”

By: catlady

catlady — Wed, 18 Mar 2009 16:22:47 +0000

It seems clear to me: they can’t give bonuses with money they don’t have. AIG doesn’t have money of its own. It cannot give bonuses with other people’s money. Until the company has become solvent and repaid the taxpayer money, there is no money to pay the bonuses. They will just have to take AIG’s IOU.

By: neo-Carlinist

neo-Carlinist — Wed, 18 Mar 2009 16:11:13 +0000

That’s right, Taxpayer. I forgot to mention the little known “had to sign” Amendment to the Constitution. And as we all know, the “had to sign” Amendment trumps the more commonly known veto power of the Chief Executive (President). Instead of trying to lay blame with one side or the other, why not say BOTH Clinton and Gramm have blood on their hands? And consider this; if Clinton “had to sign” Futures Moderinzation Act in order “to keep the government running” than we should all just relax, because the de-regulation (foxes watching hen house, as it were) of the derivatives, credit default swaps and collateralized mortgage markets was obviously deemed (by both Gramm AND Clinton) necessary to “keep the government running”. Gee, why didn’t I think of that? These things snowball. Clinton made if very clear that he wanted to eliminate the private sector’s nasty habit of actually checking before extending credit. The private sector then did what private sector’s do; it said, how can we benefit (financially) from this. It then (via lobbyists) approached Dood, Frank, Gramm and the other pimps on the various Banking and Finance Committees and said; “if you’re going to put a gun to our head and make us loan to high risk customers, you need to allow use to ‘hedge’ our bets by selling insurance on these iffy loans (and packaging and selling the loans themselves).” The money changed hands, the snowball started rolling down the hill and everyone in Washington crossed his/her fingers. It’s been said before (on this blog and elsewhere), is it not interesting that the very architects of this mess (politicians) are now making the biggest stink. This is “good cop/bad cop”, but neither has any interest in solving the crime because the criminals are the ones leading the investigation.

By: Taxpayer

Taxpayer — Wed, 18 Mar 2009 15:55:09 +0000

Ah, yes. Swami and his opinion that he magically transforms into fact by merely saying “Make it so”.