17 March 2009

A.I.G. Bonuses

How do you feel about your tax dollars being applied to Million-dollar bonuses for A.I.G. Executives?
Are you outraged?
Is your anger missplaced?

Who's in control?
Who authorized that boondoggle?
Who gave them the money?
Who gave them the money with no strings attached?

CONGRESS, that's who!
This whole bailout is a fiasco.
Make sure your anger is directed where it belongs.

10 comments:

jinksto said...

I think a bit too much is being made of this. It's a distraction.

AIG was/is required to pay those bonuses. Or, at least, that's what they claim. Ok, it sucks and without the bailout those people would be out of jobs anyway but think about why it's on every... EVERY news channel every hour.

We're talking about less than 200 Million. I seem to remember someone the Obama organization commenting that only a few billion in the stimulus package was being applied to pork projects... "it's a small amount, tiny" he said.

So why are King Barrack and Co. so up in arms over less than 200M? Well, because it makes someone else the bad guy. AIG greed monsters or an under vigilant congress... anyone but BO because, well, he's hoppin, spittin mad about it too! He's on your side. He's the peoples president. He Won! Deal With It!! Loook! More bad guys! Over there!

Last month it was Bank Of America, Merrill and Subpoena's. This month it's AIG and 150MM or so in legally required bonuses.

What do you want to bet that within a month another "story" will break making someone at Citi an ultra-evil corporate greed machine.

I'm not justifying the AIG boondoggle at all but I AM saying that we know the democrats have a DAILY strategy call to work out how to make King Barrack more presentable to the cake eaters so anything that the entire main stream media covers with such rabid ferocity is, in my opinion, pure tripe and highly suspect.

The Old Man said...

Have heard that AIG is on the hook for Congressional retirement payouts. Just sayin' - haven't seen good evidence.

cary said...

This is why I was against the bailouts - if the companies who were bailed out were in such bad shape, then the economics of business indicate that they should have FAILED!

Another company, better run, would have sprung up in it's place, and probably bought the assets of the failed attempt to boot. And, if those assets happened to include separation pay for some, then so be it - but as the new company took over, I'm betting they wouldn't have bought those particular "assets"!

nec Timide said...

I have to wonder how they would be pay those bonuses if they had not gotten the bailout money.

cj said...

I agree with Jinksto - this is another Obama smoke screen to divert attention from Congress and the Oval Office.

The bonuses are a contractual issue. AIG can't simply dump its contracts, so the bonsuses had to be paid.

We need to somehow put the focus on Congress for being stupid enough to give AIG all that money in the first place.

cjh

jinksto said...

Cary: I've heard that argument and can counter it with one word. Merrill.

Just before they went under another company assumed the assets and was accused being "anti-american" when they tried to back out of a very bad deal. That company was then accused of being greedy when they continued with the buy at the "urging" of the Fed and with Federal assistance.

If Merrill HAD gone under the assets would have been sold at wholesale costs and the toxic debt would have been assumed by the federal government rather than Bank of America.

Again, I'm not saying that I agree with the shenanigans that are going on but if the government is going to force banks to accept bailouts, "urge" them to make purchases of toxic and failing companies then the government needs to be honest about doing that. No one from our government has ever clearly stated that the banks were forced to take money from the original TARP but we all know it happened. Too many banks from too many sectors have confirmed that they were coerced into taking the money whether they needed it or not.

Hell, some of them even tried to give it back and weren't allowed to. That's shady business under any terms but from your own government it's positively scandalous.

Some would argue that this is a "Bush Problem" and, ok, I can see that. The original TARP happened last fall. That doesn't change the fact that the only shift in policy has been to throw MORE money at it. If Bush was a failure because of TARP then Obama is a worse failure because of... err stimulus or whatever they're call it now.

Finally, remember that the TARP money given to banks directly was a loan... not a grant. TARP money spent on the many "social" programs and non-banking related stuff is pretty much all grants. The "big Evils One's" are, in truth, the only ones with any intention or requirement to pay the money back.

We need to get off of AIG's back and start looking at the Feds that forced us into this position. We need to leave Bank of America and Citi alone and start asking why we're throwing money away on crap projects. We need to hold Barrack Obama accountable for not "fixing the Bush disaster". That's what he's promised to do. All he's DONE though is follow in the Bush footsteps... so, maybe GWB was right after all?

Sorry for getting off topic Greybeard.

Greybeard said...

Not at all, Jinks.
The original post posited that Congress is asleep at the wheel.
Your comment reinforces that.

cj said...

There's far more to this story than is on the surface, guys. Go check out my post about what the media isn't focusing on in its myopic view.

cjh

cary said...

jinksto, from the point of view that you have used, I have to agree with you.

And, back to the subject, the common denominator here is the Congress - and they are the ones who, after all, can either pass or fail any program the President wants to enact, no matter who the President is.

Throw 'em all out, and let's start fresh.

the golden horse said...

Contractual or not, aren't bonuses supposed to be paid for those that preform to the advantage of their shareholders, not just because they were sitting at the table. ......and not for running the company into the ground?
This goes back to the old saying.
Too many chiefs and not enough Indians.
It seems to me when the farmer leaves so many foxes in charge of the henhouse, it is because he is distracted.