"If you don't return it on your own, we will do it for you"...with a 100% tax rate.

[RobMoney$]

In the House, Reps. Steve Israel, D-N.Y., and Tim Ryan, D-Ohio, introduced a bill that would that would tax at 100 percent bonuses above $100,000 paid by companies that have received federal bailout money.


New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo said Tuesday that American International Group (http://online.wsj.com/public/quotes/main.html?type=djn&symbol=aig) Inc. granted retention bonuses of $1 million or more to 73 people in its AIG Financial Products subsidiary, including 11 persons who no longer work at the company.
In a letter to House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank on Tuesday, Mr. Cuomo said the top 10 bonus recipients combined received $42 million, with the top recipient getting more than $6.4 million.
Meanwhile, House and Senate Democrats were crafting separate bills to tax all or most of the big bonuses awarded by companies that were rescued by taxpayer money. "Recipients of these bonuses will not be able to keep all of their money,'' declared Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada.
"If you don't return it on your own, we will do it for you,'' added Sen. Charles Schumer (D., N.Y.).
Rep. Frank told reporters in Washington that the U.S. government, which now controls an 80% equity stake in AIG, should assert its ownership of the insurer in order to block the retention payments. He said the government had a better chance of prevailing in court if it acted as an owner, rather than as a regulator intervening in the private sector.
Mr. Cuomo has blamed the unit for the insurer's near collapse last year. The attorney general said 11 persons who have left the company received retention bonuses of $1 million or more, with one person getting more than $4.6 million. Mr. Cuomo didn't release the names of the recipients.
"Again, these payments were all made to individuals in the subsidiary whose performance led to crushing losses and the near failure of AIG," Mr. Cuomo said in the letter. "Thus, last week, AIG made more than 73 millionaires in the unit which lost so much money that it brought the firm to its knees, forcing taxpayer bailout. Something is deeply wrong with this outcome."
House Financial Services Committee Chairman Rep. Barney Frank on Capitol Hill Tuesday, where he joined the torrent of criticism aimed at AIG.



AIG Bonuses

New York Attorney General Cuomo provided details of bonuses awarded at AIG. Here are the details he provided. See the letter. (http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/CuomoHouseCommitteeLetter3172009.pdf)

The top recipient received more than $6.4 million;
22 individuals received bonuses of $2 million or more, and combined they received more than $72 million;
73 individuals received bonuses of $1 million or more; and
Eleven of the individuals who received "retention" bonuses of $1 million or more are no longer working at AIG, including one who received $4.6 million

"We understand the Attorney General's concerns, are in ongoing contact with the Attorney General and will respond appropriately to the subpoena," AIG spokesman Mark Herr said in a statement. "In the meantime, the Financial Products unit continues to work diligently to unwind operations and has made significant progress in doing so."
AIG has said it is contractually obligated to pay the bonuses and will make efforts to reduce the retention payments by at least 30% in 2009. In his letter Tuesday, Mr. Cuomo said AIG was able to bargain with some of its financial-products employees, with those employees taking salaries of $1 in 2009 in exchange for their retention bonus packages.
"The fact that AIG engaged in this negotiation flies in the face of AIG's assertion that it had no choice but to make these lavish multimillion dollar bonus payments," Mr. Cuomo said. "It appears that AIG had far more leverage than they now claim."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123730459869257121.html


WHAT A FUCKING JOKE! THIS^^ is exactly why the government should stay out of private business.
These are the same people howling that signed the bill in the first place. It must be embaressing to them to have signed off on the insertion order of Chris Dodd that allowed these payouts in the stimulus package. That's the only thing I can think of, either that or none of them actually read the bill they signed.

I know I'm completely biased, but wouldn't it have been more efficient to NOT HAVE GIVEN THEM THE MONEY IN THE FIRST PLACE!? Talk about taking a problem and making it completely worse.
Stay tuned for next week: When they pass the bill to close the loopholes in this week's bill.

I can't fucking wait for Government-Run Healthcare.

[checkyourprez]

i think its a great idea. and about damn time our government stopped the common man from taking it in the ass.

someone has to stand up to these AIG scumbags (not just AIG but all of those taking advantage of their situation at the expense of the tax payers). not one of us can do anything about it, but uncle sam can. this is a big victory for the little man.

no way in hell george bush would ever do anything like this.


i think for most economic things the government should stay out of it. but this is different. WE, as in every single American poster on this board, have contributed to AIG getting this money so that their company didn't collapse and burn. there is no reason why any of these assholes should be getting millions of dollars in bonuses for being shit at their job. I damn proud to say my government is doing something about that.

[Bob]

one thing i keep hearing about re: the bonuses is that the problem is that they can't stop the payment of the bonuses because the employees are contractually entitled to them, the contracts were signed a year ago or something like that...my question is, what the hell is the provision in the contract which entitles an employee to such a huge bonus when they screw things up so badly?

it's like, if i'm a chef at a restaurant, and i make a meal that's so bad that it crashes the stock market and forces the restaurant to beg for hundreds of billions of dollars from the federal government, what part of my contract entitles me to a massive bonus? who wrote that contract?

not that i'd have a contract as a chef or anything

[RobMoney$]

Let's use sports as an analogy.

Let's say the NY Yankees are teetering on bankruptcy and recieve a bailout from the federal government to keep them in business.

But

Derek Jeter has a contract that says if he's elected to the all-star game, or he hits 30 homers (insert whatever performance incentive you like here) then he recieves a million dollar bonus. The Yankees would be obligated to pay that bonus regardless of their financial relationship with the federal government.


The problem is, the info about the bonuses was all included in the financial documents from AIG that were provided to Congress as part of this bill. Now Congress is acting surprised that bonuses are being paid.

READ THE BILL BEFORE YOU SIGN IT MR. FRANK!

[Bob]

Let's use sports as an analogy.

Let's say the NY Yankees are teetering on bankruptcy and recieve a bailout from the federal government to keep them in business.

But

Derek Jeter has a contract that says if he's elected to the all-star game, or he hits 30 homers (insert whatever performance incentive you like here) than he recieves a million dollar bonus. The Yankees would be obligated to pay that bonus regardless of their financial relationship with the federal government.

right, but the derivative traders didn't hit 30 homers or get elected to the all-star game, they destroyed the world economy. who wrote this contract such that it entitles them to a bonus? what kind of contract incentivizes this kind of performance?

[saz]

I can't fucking wait for Government-Run Healthcare.

this is what stood out to me the most, and what really is incredibly perplexing about the attitudes of reactionary americans.

every western nation has a universal system, which doesn't result in approximately 18,000 (http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/healthcare/2002-05-22-insurance-deaths.htm) annual deaths because they can't afford to pay for healthcare.

access to doctors and hospitals, and your health is just as vital as having access to police and fire services. the fact that many americans don't receive coverage and are therefore dumped on the streets is a total disgrace.


ode to government: the people are the government (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_K1kClwG7Js)

Bill Maher ended his show Friday with a humorous and also impassioned segment on why government is important in light of recent attacks on its place in American life. Pointing to Bobby Jindal's suggestion last week during his response to Obama's speech that government was at odds with the American people, as well as attacks on the stimulus plan as typical 'tax and spend,' Maher responded by explaining that "the people are the government": "the first responders who put out your fires, that's your government. The ranger who shoos pedophiles out of the park restroom."

Instead of wanting less government involvement, Maher said that "recent years have made me much more wary of government doing the opposite--of stepping aside and letting unregulated private enterprise run things it is plainly to greedy to trust with."

[RobMoney$]

right, but the derivative traders didn't hit 30 homers or get elected to the all-star game, they destroyed the world economy. who wrote this contract such that it entitles them to a bonus? what kind of contract incentivizes this kind of performance?


Retention Bonuses, I assume are paid if you are retained by the company after the fiscal year.
All they had to do was be retained past Jan. 1, I assume.
Also, I guess it's possible that some of those traders did meet their goals, and therefore expect to be paid for their achivement.

It's what's known as a Roster Bonus, in the sports world.

[RobMoney$]

this is what stood out to me the most, and what really is incredibly perplexing about the attitudes of reactionary americans.

every western nation has a universal system, which doesn't result in approximately 18,000 (http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/healthcare/2002-05-22-insurance-deaths.htm) annual deaths because they can't afford to pay for healthcare.

access to doctors and hospitals, and your health is just as vital as having access to police and fire services. the fact that many americans don't receive coverage and are therefore dumped on the streets is a total disgrace.


ode to government: the people are the government (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_K1kClwG7Js)

Bill Maher ended his show Friday with a humorous and also impassioned segment on why government is important in light of recent attacks on its place in American life. Pointing to Bobby Jindal's suggestion last week during his response to Obama's speech that government was at odds with the American people, as well as attacks on the stimulus plan as typical 'tax and spend,' Maher responded by explaining that "the people are the government": "the first responders who put out your fires, that's your government. The ranger who shoos pedophiles out of the park restroom."

Instead of wanting less government involvement, Maher said that "recent years have made me much more wary of government doing the opposite--of stepping aside and letting unregulated private enterprise run things it is plainly to greedy to trust with."


Show me one thing the US "government" runs, that is run well.

[checkyourprez]

if this was money the company made, i would have no problem with AIG paying out these bonuses. i think they are completely and utterly ridiculous, although that is not the point.

however, when the government is giving them tax payer money because their company was headed for non existence, (as in none of those people would even have a job) because of their crappy business practices, and then they turn around and reward those same people who got their company in that situation, it is sickening. if the company has no common decency to put a freeze on bonuses or suspend them until they are back making profits then i think the government has a right to do something about it.

[Bob]

you really like sports!

Retention Bonuses, I assume are paid if you are retained by the company after the fiscal year.
All they had to do was be retained past Jan. 1, I assume.
Also, I guess it's possible that some of those traders did meet their goals, and therefore expect to be paid for their achivement.

It's what's known as a Roster Bonus, in the sports world.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/03/17/raw-data-cuomo-letter-aig-bonuses/

AIG also claims that retention of individuals at Financial Products was vital to unwinding the subsidiary's business. However, to date, AIG has been unwilling to disclose the names of those who received these retention payments making it impossible to test their claim. Moreover, as detailed below, numerous individuals who received large "retention" bonuses are no longer at the firm. Until we obtain the names of these individuals, it is impossible to determine when and why they left the firm and how it is that they received these payments.

If AIG were confident in its claim that those who received these large bonuses were so vital to the orderly unwinding of the unit, one would expect them to freely provide the names and positions of those who got these bonuses. My Office will continue to seek an explanation for why each one of these individuals was so crucial to keep aboard that they were paid handsomely despite the unit's disastrous performance.

As you may know, my Office yesterday subpoenaed AIG for the names of those who received these bonuses, and we plan to do everything necessary to enforce compliance. American taxpayers deserve to know where their money is going, and AIG's intransigence and desire to obscure who received these payments should not be tolerated. Already my Office has determined that some of these bonuses were staggering in size. For example:

-- The top recipient received more than $6.4 million;

-- The top seven bonus recipients received more than $4 million each;

-- The top ten bonus recipients received a combined $42 million;

-- 22 individuals received bonuses of $2 million or more, and combined they received more than $72 million;

-- 73 individuals received bonuses of $1 million or more; and

-- Eleven of the individuals who received "retention" bonuses of $1 million or more are no longer working at AIG, including one who received $4.6 million;

Again, these payments were all made to individuals in the subsidiary whose performance led to crushing losses and the near failure of AIG. Thus, last week, AIG made more than 73 millionaires in the unit which lost so much money that it brought the firm to its knees, forcing a taxpayer bailout. Something is deeply wrong with this outcome. I hope the Committee will address it head on.

We have also now obtained the contracts under which AIG decided to make these payments. The contracts shockingly contain a provision that required most individuals' bonuses to be 100% of their 2007 bonuses. Thus, in the Spring of last year, AIG chose to lock in bonuses for 2008 at 2007 levels despite obvious signs that 2008 performance would be disastrous in comparison to the year before. My Office has thus begun to closely examine the circumstances under which the plan was created.

Show me one thing the US "government" runs, that is run well.

the military (compared to blackwater), every single agency (compared to AIG)

[Documad]

Show me one thing the US "government" runs, that is run well.
The U.S. Mail. Bill Maher mentioned it in his rant but he's right. It's fucking amazing.

By the way, I don't have a problem with the concept behind that suggested legislation. I would probably make the amount higher though. I don't want to cry for bankers and financial analysts but I'd need to know more about the people who got the bonuses. If they're making less than say $200,000 I'd be hard pressed to take away their whole bonus.

[RobMoney$]

if this was money the company made, i would have no problem with AIG paying out these bonuses. i think they are completely and utterly ridiculous, although that is not the point.

however, when the government is giving them tax payer money because their company was headed for non existence, (as in none of those people would even have a job) because of their crappy business practices, and then they turn around and reward those same people who got their company in that situation, it is sickening. if the company has no common decency to put a freeze on bonuses or suspend them until they are back making profits then i think the government has a right to do something about it.


I don't think you're seeing the point I'm trying to make.
The Government should not have given them taxpayer money in the first place, but they did.

My point is, how in the hell can the Harry Reid, Chuck Schumer, and the rest of the House Dems cry foul over these bonuses when AIG provided the details of the bonuses before the stimulus bill was even voted on?

Now the House wants AIG to disobey contracts and not pay bonuses?
It's called breach of contract and AIG would surely be sued by those employees who didn't recieve those bonuses.
Bob's a lawyer, I'm sure he's taken a Grants and Contracts class or two.

[Bob]

Bob's a lawyer, I'm sure he's taken a Grants and Contracts class or two.

i have. let me see if i can explain it to you. it's kind of like basketball...

[valvano]

you need to take look at Dem Sen. Dodd, largest receipient of AIG political cash, who set up the protection for this AIG bonus system...of course now, he's trying to cover his ass:

http://www.foxbusiness.com/story/markets/industries/finance/dodd-cracks-aig---time/

http://moderateinthemiddle.wordpress.com/2009/03/17/aig-who-let-the-dogs-out-chris-dodd-thats-who/

Of course, Geitner is equally to blame...you know the Treasury Sec who got busted for not paying some major taxes during his nomination process. Yep, dont pay your taxes, approve tax payor financed bonuses for a bunch of Wall St fuck ups...and then claim " I had no clue" ..

Obama.....Hope...Change.............Total Fuck Up...

[RobMoney$]

The U.S. Mail. Bill Maher mentioned it in his rant but he's right. It's fucking amazing.

By the way, I don't have a problem with the concept behind that suggested legislation. I would probably make the amount higher though. I don't want to cry for bankers and financial analysts but I'd need to know more about the people who got the bonuses. If they're making less than say $200,000 I'd be hard pressed to take away their whole bonus.


Taxes are supposed to be equitable and fair. I think targetting not only specific companies, but specific people in those specific companies would be a quick way to end up in court.
I thought Obama was supposed to be about restoring our faith in Government and the Constitution.

Funny how we're not hearing anything about the politicians that took money from any federal bailout recipients about returning the money now. Like the $40,000 that Barney Frank got from Frannie and Freddie and the tens of thousands that Chris Dodd received from AIG as well.

Seems like all they're trying to do is drum up the populist morons and turn them on businesses like AIG to avoid anyone looking into the idiocy that is Congress.


Now maybe when Jon Stewart is done wasting his time blaming Jim Cramer for this mess he can move on and expose some real crooks like Chris Dodd and Barney Frank.

[checkyourprez]

I don't think you're seeing the point I'm trying to make.
The Government should not have given them taxpayer money in the first place, but they did.

My point is, how in the hell can the Harry Reid, Chuck Schumer, and the rest of the House Dems cry foul over these bonuses when AIG provided the details of the bonuses before the stimulus bill was even voted on?

Now the House wants AIG to disobey contracts and not pay bonuses?
It's called breach of contract and AIG would surely be sued by those employees who didn't recieve those bonuses.
Bob's a lawyer, I'm sure he's taken a Grants and Contracts class or two.


i get your point.

are you propsing they didnt give them, or any of these companies money in the first place?

or

that they put in a stipulation that they shouldn't be able to give out bail out money on bonuses when they wrote the bill initially? (which considering you are saying they were already contractually obligated to in the first place make them somehow do something to make them postpone or freeze those bonuses)

[RobMoney$]

Yeah, I'm contending that the Stimulus Bill was a monumentally bad idea.



...and they did put in a stipulation, Sen Dodd added an amendment to the Stimulus bill that all bonuses contractually obligated before Feb 11, 2009 be paid!


http://www.foxbusiness.com/story/markets/industries/finance/dodd-cracks-aig---time/

Senator Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) on Monday night floated the idea of taxing American International Group (AIG: 0.933, 0.1529, 19.6%) bonus recipients so the government could recoup some or all of the $450 million the company is paying to employees in its financial products unit. Within hours, the idea spread to both houses of Congress, with lawmakers proposing an AIG bonus tax.

The move represents somewhat of an about-face for the Senator.

While the Senate was constructing the $787 billion stimulus last month, Dodd added an executive-compensation restriction to the bill. That amendment provides an “exception for contractually obligated bonuses agreed on before Feb. 11, 2009” -- which exempts the very AIG bonuses Dodd and others are now seeking to tax.

The amendment made it into the final version of the bill, and is law.

Separately, Sen. Dodd was AIG’s largest single recipient of campaign donations during the 2008 election cycle with $103,100, according to opensecrets.org.

Dodd’s office did not immediately return a request for comment.

One of AIG Financial Products’ largest offices is based in Connecticut.

Can you say "Populist Grandstanding"?

Where's your hero Jon Stewart at now?

[RobMoney$]

you really like sports!

i have. let me see if i can explain it to you. it's kind of like basketball...

Why the sarcasm?
You asked for an example because you failed to grasp this issue, I gave you one.

Why the smart-ass remarks?

[checkyourprez]

Yeah, I'm contending that the Stimulus Bill was a monumentally bad idea.



...and they did put in a stipulation, Sen Dodd added an amendment to the Stimulus bill that all bonuses contractually obligated before Feb 11, 2009 be paid!


http://www.foxbusiness.com/story/markets/industries/finance/dodd-cracks-aig---time/



Can you say "Populist Grandstanding"?

Where's your hero Jon Stewart at now?


in the end its still the american government. there is going to be pork on bills. is dodd looking like a shitbox? you bet. once again though, is it the american tax payers fault? not a chance in hell.

Paul Kanjorski (D) (PA-11), in mid-September of 2008, the United States of America came just three hours away from the collapse of the entire economy.

http://peterrost.blogspot.com/2009/02/us-was-3-hours-away-from-economic.html

that is not a situation that is going to correct itself. it needed outside help. and just because it was averted in September doesnt mean the problem was suddenly fixed. the stimulus package was a necessity. it had to be passed with the swiftness. would obama liked to have the thing passed with no pork? i am fairly certain he would have. so you would you and i. but thats unrealistic.

it doesnt change where we are now. and it doesnt make the AIG'ers of this world any more warrenting of those bonuses just because Dodd was acting like a selfish dick himself.

[Bob]

Why the sarcasm?
You asked for an example because you failed to grasp this issue, I gave you one.

Why the smart-ass remarks?

no, i didn't ask for an example, what i asked was "what the hell is the provision in the contract which entitles an employee to such a huge bonus when they screw things up so badly?"

what you gave me was an irrelevant sports metaphor, when the answer turned out to be something like "provision[s] that required most individuals' bonuses to be 100% of their 2007 bonuses. Thus, in the Spring of last year, AIG chose to lock in bonuses for 2008 at 2007 levels despite obvious signs that 2008 performance would be disastrous in comparison to the year before"

i don't think i did "fail to grasp this issue", i seem to be struggling with the same troubling questions that the new york attorney general appears to be struggling with; maybe a sports metaphor would help them too (for example, in 2007, derek jeter has a contract in which the yankees agree to pay him a bonus if he hits 30 homers or gets elected to the all star game, and in 2008, they agree to pay him the same bonus unconditionally as well as a retention bonus so long as he stays on the team until 1/1/09; he plays so badly that he crashes the stock market and fucks thousands of uninvolved citizens out of their jobs and he quits on 1/2/09)

it also wasn't a personal attack, it was genuinely just an observation that you really enjoy making tenuous sports analogies, but i accept full responsibility for denying you common courtesy and you have total amnesty to be a dick so go nuts, i definitely started this one

[Schmeltz]

It's just the legislation correcting itself, Rob. It's got nothing to do with human error or failure. Just like the market!

[Schmeltz]

Seriously though, check this out: Obama steps up (http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/afp/090319/usa/us_politics_insurance_public_aid_aig_obama):


"Listen, I'll take responsibility. I'm the President... We didn't draft these contracts. We've got a lot on our plate -- but it is appropriate when you're in charge to make sure that stuff doesn't happen like this.

"So we're going to do everything we can to fix it."


Here we have a ready admission of an error on the part of the government, the assumption of wider responsibility for its correction by the executive branch, and a general sense of accountability and transparency that has been totally lacking in American politics for the past eight years. If that doesn't constitute progressive change, I don't know what does. If that doesn't at least give you the sense of a renewed trust in the process of government and the mechanisms of the Constitution, I don't know what else will.

This is what gives the Democrats license to "cry foul" over these bonuses: they are willing to admit when they are wrong, and take steps to correct their errors. Something these greedy, bumbling CEOs and incompetent elitist businessmen have so far proven largely unwilling to do. Unlike Bush, and unlike the grasping robber barons who have brought the world to this sorry state of financial affairs, Obama seems willing to admit when he's made a mistake, isntead of demanding concessions and even rewards for his transgressions. Seems like just the kind of change the world's been looking for, if you ask me.

[saz]

^thank you

[valvano]

^ incorrect

what we have here is govt stepping into private enterprise, an arena where it has a proud tradition of failure, and screwing things up even more at taxpayor expense.

but more scary, is that our country and its economic base is based on the principle of contract law. we now have the govt enter itself into parties to a contract and punish those parties that it feels has "wronged" other parties and correct that "wrong" with targeted tax burdens, public humility, and pompass actions.

What next, Bill Gates makes too much money from his contract with Microsoft?
Steve Jobs makes too much with his contract with Apple?
Jenna Jameson makes too much with her contract with Vivid?
Matt Goening makes too much with his contract with Fox?

This is more scary than anything George W Bush, Bill Clinton, or any other president has been accused of by his critics. Contract law, the foundation of our freedom and economy, has now been assaulted by the US Congress.

[Bob]

^ incorrect

what we have here is govt stepping into private enterprise, an arena where it has a proud tradition of failure, and screwing things up even more at taxpayor expense.

but more scary, is that our country and its economic base is based on the principle of contract law. we now have the govt enter itself into parties to a contract and punish those parties that it feels has "wronged" other parties and correct that "wrong" with targeted tax burdens, public humility, and pompass actions.

What next, Bill Gates makes too much money from his contract with Microsoft?
Steve Jobs makes too much with his contract with Apple?
Jenna Jameson makes too much with her contract with Vivid?
Matt Goening makes too much with his contract with Fox?

This is more scary than anything George W Bush, Bill Clinton, or any other president has been accused of by his critics. Contract law, the foundation of our freedom and economy, has now been assaulted by the US Congress.

contract law's been subject to regulation for some time now; lochner was a while ago, and america's still here

[RobMoney$]

Constitution? We don't need no stinking Constitution!

I wonder if AIG can ask for their campaign contributions back from these grandstanding politicians. Might as well set a good example, right?

Dodd, Christopher J (D-CT) Senate $104,300
Obama, Barack (D-IL) Senate $45,111
McCain, John (R-AZ) Senate $41,200
Clinton, Hillary (D-NY) Senate $36,831
Baucus, Max (D-MT) Senate $24,750
Biden, Joseph R Jr (D-DE) Senate $19,975
Romney, Mitt ® Pres $19,950
Sununu, John E (R-NH) Senate $15,950

[valvano]

contract law's been subject to regulation for some time now; lochner was a while ago, and america's still here

there's a distinct difference between regulatory measures BEFORE a contract is enacted and then retroactively attempting to change the outcome of a contract based transaction after the terms of the contract have been completed...

[Bob]

there's a distinct difference between regulatory measures BEFORE a contract is enacted and then retroactively attempting to change the outcome of a contract based transaction after the terms of the contract have been completed...

no, we've been doing that too

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Williams_v._Walker-Thomas_Furniture_Co.

[valvano]

no, we've been doing that too

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Williams_v._Walker-Thomas_Furniture_Co.

tell it to me in your own words please....link doesnt refer to anything...

[Bob]

tell it to me in your own words please....link doesnt refer to anything...

screwed up the link, my bad

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Williams_v._Walker-Thomas_Furniture_Co.

it's a 1965 court case that says that contracts can be made unenforceable when they're unfair (based on lack of bargaining power and unfair terms)

i'm not saying that specific doctrine applies here, i'm just saying that it's an example of how contracts being made legally unenforceable even after parties have entered them and carried out their terms isn't the new and devastating thing that you seem to think it is. we've been doing it since at least 1965 (maybe earlier, i'm not digging out my contracts outline for you) and the country isn't dead yet

[valvano]

screwed up the link, my bad

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Williams_v._Walker-Thomas_Furniture_Co.

it's a 1965 court case that says that contracts can be made unenforceable when they're unfair (based on lack of bargaining power and unfair terms)

i'm not saying that specific doctrine applies here, i'm just saying that it's an example of how contracts being made legally unenforceable even after parties have entered them and carried out their terms isn't the new and devastating thing that you seem to think it is. we've been doing it since at least 1965 (maybe earlier, i'm not digging out my contracts outline for you) and the country isn't dead yet

^ was it one of the parties to the contract that came and in said it was unfair OR was the the US Congress who tried to undo the contract ???

[Bob]

^ was it one of the parties to the contract that came and in said it was unfair OR was the the US Congress who tried to undo the contract ???

like i said, i'm not saying the doctrine applies here, i'm just saying that the government's abrogated contracts before, obama didn't invent the idea

and besides, why does that make a difference to you? the doctrine of unconscionability protects poor people, you hate those guys

[Schmeltz]

what we have here is govt stepping into private enterprise, an arena where it has a proud tradition of failure

That's a very debatable assertion, which we could probably take up elsewhere. But I think what you are persistently refusing to recognize is that private enterprise has in this instance necessitated government intervention through its own profound and catastrophic failures. Unfettered and unregulated markets have over the past few years created a disaster scenario in which the entire economy has a very real potential for collapse, with all the attendant social consequences that we should all be very anxious to avoid (unless, like yourself, you just don't give a shit about anyone but you). The only way to realistically correct this situation is for the government to intervene - which is the very reason we have elected representatives in the first place: to safeguard our interests for the sake of the common good, and not to sacrifice them for the sake of empty ideology.

You are bitching and moaning about government intervention for the sake of principle, when the daily news shows us every day why your principles do not work in practice. You are making a fool of yourself.


I wonder if AIG can ask for their campaign contributions back from these grandstanding politicians.


Maybe they can, but now that they have led their company to such a state of ruin that the government has been forced to buy 80% of it, they might not get too far. Politicians are only people, after all. Maybe they should look at the bright side: for an investment of just a few grand in both sides of the political divide, they've reaped a windfall of billions of dollars! And all they had to do was fuck up their jobs so badly that the government had to step in and save their employees!

[Documad]

The media circus has caused me to change my mind. I'm opposed to any of this silly legislation. It appears that there was some fraud, but there are officials with authority to handle that already. We're taking our eye off the ball.

[saz]

That's a very debatable assertion, which we could probably take up elsewhere. But I think what you are persistently refusing to recognize is that private enterprise has in this instance necessitated government intervention through its own profound and catastrophic failures. Unfettered and unregulated markets have over the past few years created a disaster scenario in which the entire economy has a very real potential for collapse, with all the attendant social consequences that we should all be very anxious to avoid (unless, like yourself, you just don't give a shit about anyone but you). The only way to realistically correct this situation is for the government to intervene - which is the very reason we have elected representatives in the first place: to safeguard our interests for the sake of the common good, and not to sacrifice them for the sake of empty ideology.

You are bitching and moaning about government intervention for the sake of principle, when the daily news shows us every day why your principles do not work in practice. You are making a fool of yourself.

thank you :)

[RobMoney$]

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/25/opinion/25desantis.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=Dear%20AIG..%20I%20quit%20&st=cse

The following is a letter sent on Tuesday by Jake DeSantis, an executive vice president of the American International Group’s financial products unit, to Edward M. Liddy, the chief executive of A.I.G.




DEAR Mr. Liddy,

It is with deep regret that I submit my notice of resignation from A.I.G. Financial Products. I hope you take the time to read this entire letter. Before describing the details of my decision, I want to offer some context:

I am proud of everything I have done for the commodity and equity divisions of A.I.G.-F.P. I was in no way involved in — or responsible for — the credit default swap transactions that have hamstrung A.I.G. Nor were more than a handful of the 400 current employees of A.I.G.-F.P. Most of those responsible have left the company and have conspicuously escaped the public outrage.

After 12 months of hard work dismantling the company — during which A.I.G. reassured us many times we would be rewarded in March 2009 — we in the financial products unit have been betrayed by A.I.G. and are being unfairly persecuted by elected officials. In response to this, I will now leave the company and donate my entire post-tax retention payment to those suffering from the global economic downturn. My intent is to keep none of the money myself.

I take this action after 11 years of dedicated, honorable service to A.I.G. I can no longer effectively perform my duties in this dysfunctional environment, nor am I being paid to do so. Like you, I was asked to work for an annual salary of $1, and I agreed out of a sense of duty to the company and to the public officials who have come to its aid. Having now been let down by both, I can no longer justify spending 10, 12, 14 hours a day away from my family for the benefit of those who have let me down.

You and I have never met or spoken to each other, so I’d like to tell you about myself. I was raised by schoolteachers working multiple jobs in a world of closing steel mills. My hard work earned me acceptance to M.I.T., and the institute’s generous financial aid enabled me to attend. I had fulfilled my American dream.

I started at this company in 1998 as an equity trader, became the head of equity and commodity trading and, a couple of years before A.I.G.’s meltdown last September, was named the head of business development for commodities. Over this period the equity and commodity units were consistently profitable — in most years generating net profits of well over $100 million. Most recently, during the dismantling of A.I.G.-F.P., I was an integral player in the pending sale of its well-regarded commodity index business to UBS. As you know, business unit sales like this are crucial to A.I.G.’s effort to repay the American taxpayer.

The profitability of the businesses with which I was associated clearly supported my compensation. I never received any pay resulting from the credit default swaps that are now losing so much money. I did, however, like many others here, lose a significant portion of my life savings in the form of deferred compensation invested in the capital of A.I.G.-F.P. because of those losses. In this way I have personally suffered from this controversial activity — directly as well as indirectly with the rest of the taxpayers.

I have the utmost respect for the civic duty that you are now performing at A.I.G. You are as blameless for these credit default swap losses as I am. You answered your country’s call and you are taking a tremendous beating for it.

But you also are aware that most of the employees of your financial products unit had nothing to do with the large losses. And I am disappointed and frustrated over your lack of support for us. I and many others in the unit feel betrayed that you failed to stand up for us in the face of untrue and unfair accusations from certain members of Congress last Wednesday and from the press over our retention payments, and that you didn’t defend us against the baseless and reckless comments made by the attorneys general of New York and Connecticut.
My guess is that in October, when you learned of these retention contracts, you realized that the employees of the financial products unit needed some incentive to stay and that the contracts, being both ethical and useful, should be left to stand. That’s probably why A.I.G. management assured us on three occasions during that month that the company would “live up to its commitment” to honor the contract guarantees.

That may be why you decided to accelerate by three months more than a quarter of the amounts due under the contracts. That action signified to us your support, and was hardly something that one would do if he truly found the contracts “distasteful.”

That may also be why you authorized the balance of the payments on March 13.

At no time during the past six months that you have been leading A.I.G. did you ask us to revise, renegotiate or break these contracts — until several hours before your appearance last week before Congress.

I think your initial decision to honor the contracts was both ethical and financially astute, but it seems to have been politically unwise. It’s now apparent that you either misunderstood the agreements that you had made — tacit or otherwise — with the Federal Reserve, the Treasury, various members of Congress and Attorney General Andrew Cuomo of New York, or were not strong enough to withstand the shifting political winds.

You’ve now asked the current employees of A.I.G.-F.P. to repay these earnings. As you can imagine, there has been a tremendous amount of serious thought and heated discussion about how we should respond to this breach of trust.

As most of us have done nothing wrong, guilt is not a motivation to surrender our earnings. We have worked 12 long months under these contracts and now deserve to be paid as promised. None of us should be cheated of our payments any more than a plumber should be cheated after he has fixed the pipes but a careless electrician causes a fire that burns down the house.

Many of the employees have, in the past six months, turned down job offers from more stable employers, based on A.I.G.’s assurances that the contracts would be honored. They are now angry about having been misled by A.I.G.’s promises and are not inclined to return the money as a favor to you.

The only real motivation that anyone at A.I.G.-F.P. now has is fear. Mr. Cuomo has threatened to “name and shame,” and his counterpart in Connecticut, Richard Blumenthal, has made similar threats — even though attorneys general are supposed to stand for due process, to conduct trials in courts and not the press.

So what am I to do? There’s no easy answer. I know that because of hard work I have benefited more than most during the economic boom and have saved enough that my family is unlikely to suffer devastating losses during the current bust. Some might argue that members of my profession have been overpaid, and I wouldn’t disagree.

That is why I have decided to donate 100 percent of the effective after-tax proceeds of my retention payment directly to organizations that are helping people who are suffering from the global downturn. This is not a tax-deduction gimmick; I simply believe that I at least deserve to dictate how my earnings are spent, and do not want to see them disappear back into the obscurity of A.I.G.’s or the federal government’s budget. Our earnings have caused such a distraction for so many from the more pressing issues our country faces, and I would like to see my share of it benefit those truly in need.

On March 16 I received a payment from A.I.G. amounting to $742,006.40, after taxes. In light of the uncertainty over the ultimate taxation and legal status of this payment, the actual amount I donate may be less — in fact, it may end up being far less if the recent House bill raising the tax on the retention payments to 90 percent stands. Once all the money is donated, you will immediately receive a list of all recipients.

This choice is right for me. I wish others at A.I.G.-F.P. luck finding peace with their difficult decision, and only hope their judgment is not clouded by fear.

Mr. Liddy, I wish you success in your commitment to return the money extended by the American government, and luck with the continued unwinding of the company’s diverse businesses — especially those remaining credit default swaps. I’ll continue over the short term to help make sure no balls are dropped, but after what’s happened this past week I can’t remain much longer — there is too much bad blood. I’m not sure how you will greet my resignation, but at least Attorney General Blumenthal should be relieved that I’ll leave under my own power and will not need to be “shoved out the door.”

Sincerely,

Jake DeSantis


Way to go Congress! Thanks for standing up and "protecting the common man from taking it in the ass", right CYPrez?

This should serve to illustrate my point that these folks recieving the AIG bonuses aren't necessarily greedy, evil people. If anyone should be getting public backlash it's Congress for turning this into a giant circus.

[saz]

well yeah, they are protecting them rob, by finally holding these greedy bastards accountable, and congress is elected by the people, who are furious over these greed mongers rewarding themselves with tax payer money for their failures due to their greed. accountability was next to non-existent when the republicans ran congress, with who knows just how many tens of millions of dollars that disappeared into the deregulated, corrupt reconstruction of iraq, with a billion dollars being spent on the occupation every month.

this is only one individual, granted he might be sincere but this by no means excuses AIG. the only ones who are generally opposed to holding AIG accountable are most republicans and rush limbaugh, who of course drool over and worship corporate greed.

[RobMoney$]

Am I misunderstanding you, or are you characterizing someone who's responsible for handling millions, and perhaps billions of dollars on a daily basis and does so for $1 a year as a "greedy bastard"?

Would YOU be willing to work for $1 a year, sazi?

The "bonus" was in fact his compensation for that year (unless you want to count the $1 salary he was working for). It sounds like the portion of the company he was heading up was profitable and successful in getting sold to another company.
This is Washington choosing to play politics and grandstand rather than honoring contracts, contracts which BTW make sense if you want qualified people to effectively liquidate the assets of a major company. That's the ugly truth, and it's shameful for our elected officials to try to use the execs at AIG as the scapegoats.

Being paid for work you performed according to a contract that you and your employer voluntarily agreed upon isn't greedy, and if Obama has one shred of a Constitutional lawyer left in him he'll veto that bill if it comes before him. I can't imagine anything more damaging to the future economy than the thought that the US Government can impose retroactive taxation on anyone it chooses.

[Bob]

Am I misunderstanding you, or are you characterizing someone who's responsible for handling millions, and perhaps billions of dollars on a daily basis and does so for $1 a year as a "greedy bastard"?

Would YOU be willing to work for $1 a year, sazi?

The "bonus" was in fact his compensation for that year (unless you want to count the $1 salary he was working for). It sounds like the portion of the company he was heading up was profitable and successful in getting sold to another company.
This is Washington choosing to play politics and grandstand rather than honoring contracts, contracts which BTW make sense if you want qualified people to effectively liquidate the assets of a major company. That's the ugly truth, and it's shameful for our elected officials to try to use the execs at AIG as the scapegoats.

Being paid for work you performed according to a contract that you and your employer voluntarily agreed upon isn't greedy, and if Obama has one shred of a Constitutional lawyer left in him he'll veto that bill if it comes before him. I can't imagine anything more damaging to the future economy than the thought that the US Government can impose retroactive taxation on anyone it chooses.

exactly. let's not forget who the real victims in this whole mess are

[RobMoney$]

This isn't about who the victims are, we're all the victims.
I watched more than 50% of my co-workers get laid off on Monday.
No one posting here has seen who the victims are this week more than I have.

This discussion is about who's to blame.

[kaiser soze]

whoa 50%, I bet you were holding on for dear life

[RobMoney$]

1$ a year is slave wages in any country.
Here I thought liberals were advocates against slave labor?
I guess it's tolerable as long as they're "Conservative" Wall St. brokers, right?

[kaiser soze]

I don't think anyone could survive off of $1 salary. But this isn't slave labor compared to how hard people work and how horrible working conditions are for those working for slave wages.

This guy may only get $1, but I guarantee that he'll still live quite comfortably. I don't agree with this arangement because I think it's a slap in the face of many hard working people trying to get by on their "reasonable" wages

[RobMoney$]

whoa 50%, I bet you were holding on for dear life


It's been a rough week, personally.
I've been fielding phone calls from a lot of people I've grown pretty close with who are in a state of shock and pretty much have no answers on what to do next.
If those prospects don't scare the hell out of you, then you're a better man than me.

[Bob]

1$ a year is slave wages in any country.
Here I thought liberals were advocates against slave labor?
I guess it's tolerable as long as they're "Conservative" Wall St. brokers, right?

it's true, the plight of the wall street fatcat is an oft overlooked one, it's one of the things i learned about in my liberal-american studies class. they selflessly tire from dusk till dawn shuffling money around with no regard for personal gain, with the threat of the government's whip upon their back at any moment. where's their voice? who will stand up for them? lead us in the fight rob, i'm beside you brother

[RobMoney$]

For once, I'd like to see an honest to god impartial opinion out of just one of you.

Are you guys that much in denial that you can't admit that maybe, just maybe your democratic leadership might have fucked this thing up?

[Bob]

For once, I'd like to see an honest to god impartial opinion out of just one of you.

Are you guys that much in denial that you can't admit that maybe, just maybe your democratic leadership might have fucked this thing up?

i'm not expressing any opinion about that, i'm still making up my mind about it. i'm expressing an opinion about how melodramatic you're being about the suffering of the AIG execs

slave labor? really?

[RobMoney$]

it's true, the plight of the wall street fatcat


Consider for a minute that this "fatcat" could have left his employer of 11 years who's ship was taking on massive amounts of water in the previous year, and could have easily found a job elsewhere trading against AIG, and made far more than the million dollars he's due in compensation from AIG if he was such a greedy "fatcat".

[RobMoney$]

I can admit that maybe I'm getting a bit emotional about it.
Like I said, it's been a rough week so far for me.

I'm sick of seeing economic ruin everywhere I look.
The shit's getting to me.

[checkyourprez]

Consider for a minute that this "fatcat" could have left his employer of 11 years who's ship was taking on massive amounts of water in the previous year, and could have easily found a job elsewhere trading against AIG, and made far more than the million dollars he's due in compensation from AIG if he was such a greedy "fatcat".

yea and he didnt. not out of loyalty or any of that, but because he knew he had a $750,000 dollar bonus coming his way. poor baby doesnt get his almost million dollar bonus, how sad.


maybe now he knows how 50% of your former coworkers feel. but probably not.

[RobMoney$]

poor baby doesnt get his almost million dollar bonus, how sad.

Umm, yes he does.
Maybe if you'd have read the entire resignation you'd know that.

And he's donating every dollar to charities that will benefit the poor slobs who are being victimized by this economic mess.

[checkyourprez]

Umm, yes he does.
Maybe if you'd have read the entire resignation you'd know that.

And he's donating every dollar to charities that will benefit the poor slobs who are being victimized by this economic mess.


seriously roberto?

i read the whole thing.

yea i know he technically "gets it". but with a 90% tax, hes not really getting it.

[RobMoney$]

Yeah, well that 90% tax thing has a long way to go before it's a reality.

Unbelievable that no one seems to have a problem with such a proposal except for me.

Hooray for class warfare and the redistribution of wealth.

[checkyourprez]

this is not going to be a staple, dont worry rob, they wont be taking your money and giving it to poor people. those companies made their own beds with crappy business practices. not every single person in them, no, it sucks for some of those good people that worked at a place like that. but life sucks sometimes, just like for your coworkers. they are getting laid of in part because of the backlash of this whole economic downturn which AIG was a major part of. i dont get what you dont see about that.

[RobMoney$]

maybe now he knows how 50% of your former coworkers feel. but probably not.

The people that I know were actually paid for every minute of work they did for my company. Not only that, they were also given very handsome severance packages.

So no, this guy doesn't know how my co-workers feel. He's actually got it a lot worse because he's getting nothing (well, he's getting 1$) for his previous years' labor.

[checkyourprez]

The people that I know were actually paid for every minute of work they did for my company. Not only that, they were also given very handsome severance packages.

So no, this guy doesn't know how my co-workers feel. He's actually got it a lot worse because he's getting nothing (well, he's getting 1$) for his previous years' labor.

again technicalities. i can almost say with absolute certainty this man has not made a total of $11.00 in his 11 years with AIG. I am sure he has been compensated handsomely in his time there.

and if your coworkers received such good packages why are they so worried at the moment?

[RobMoney$]

Seriously?

Probably because they're concerned for their families' stability beyond just a few months?
Don't be a douche.

[Documad]

yea and he didnt. not out of loyalty or any of that, but because he knew he had a $750,000 dollar bonus coming his way. poor baby doesnt get his almost million dollar bonus, how sad.


maybe now he knows how 50% of your former coworkers feel. but probably not.

That was his after tax amount. The "bonus" itself must have been over $1 million. So if I'm reading his letter correctly, he agreed to work for a year for over a million dollars in compensation, it's just that he had to wait for the compensation. And since the bonus isn't tied to performance it's a joke to call it a bonus. I'll call it his salary. It's not his fault (if his letter is truthful, which I'll assume). His bosses were morons to sign a contract agreeing to pay everyone million dollar plus salaries under the circumstances. If the company had gone bankrupt, he wouldn't have gotten the million. The only reason he got the million is because we taxpayers paid his salary. I can see why people are upset, even with people like this guy who apparently was doing his best at his job.

Personally, I'm far more upset at the idea that some of the money went to things that weren't bonuses. And if all these agreements to pay out all the money were made while financial problems were looming, it's possible that the company was doing it on purpose and then the NY AG is correct to investigate.

But I am troubled by this media circus. That's why I wrote my last post. The media and congress are focusing on the AIG thing as if it's the reason for the recession. It isn't. I don't know whether the media ran away with stoking up the story and congress is following, or whether congress is intentionally misleading us so that we'll forget how everyone who has been in power since the 90s at least has been failing to regulate -- ie failing to do their jobs. Whether it's the media or congress, we're taking our eye off the ball and that needs to stop.

I'm also troubled by the fact that this legislation will scare off the more stable bankers who won't want to touch stimulus money because they don't want the strings to be attached. I'd like legislation/regulation. That's fair because these industries take our money and they should be regulated. I have no problem with future legislation that prohibits public corporations from paying out large salaries (or bonuses) unless they meet financial benchmarks. But we shouldn't do it out of retribution. And we should do it to the whole category of banks and other funds.

[Documad]

I'm also a bit disgusted at some of my fellow americans. People who don't know anything about finance thought they had a right to make money year after year. They never even considered the risks. We're fucking morons.

And the way the "money magazines" covered the markets, they made you feel like a fool if you weren't in a risky investment. You were a fool if you weren't making a fairly high return. People who work with me who know NOTHING about finance were telling me what I should be doing with my money, and their advice always involved me putting my trust in some kind of fund without doing any research.

About a year ago, I was opening up a new savings account at a new bank. While I was waiting for the paperwork, I listened to a bank employee talk to an old woman for about 5 minutes at the next desk. She was talking the woman into what sounded like a fairly risky investment. It made me feel icky at the time but it was none of my business. I didn't know anything about the woman's situation. Maybe she had loads of money and this was her mad money account. My mom had a small mad money account. But I think about that old lady sometimes now.

[yeahwho]

If you want to be pissed about something fucked up about the economy, why not be pissed that even though President Reagan (wrongly) stated we defeated communism, China, a communist country makes just about every fucking thing you purchase and own.

How about that Wal-Mart shoppers?

[RobMoney$]

If Congress only wanted the bail-out money spent on loans to the private sector, they easily could have made that a condition of the loan. They didn't, and it's 100% their fault, not AIG's.
I'm not saying AIG isn't partly responsible, they are, but trusting them to behave like angels when they had the financial mess that they did was just criminally dumb. The only reason that Congress keeps trotting out the execs is to (apparently successfully) distract the bleating masses from the fact that it was their screw up.

Think about it, all this media uproar over $160 million in bailout/salary when you just gave away over 700 BILLION?
That's like buying a $7,000 piece of art and bitching because you had to pay another $1.60 for a few screws to hang it.
Grandstanding much?

[Documad]

If you want to be pissed about something fucked up about the economy, why not be pissed that even though President Reagan (wrongly) stated we defeated communism, China, a communist country makes just about every fucking thing you purchase and own.

How about that Wal-Mart shoppers?
And we mortgaged our country to them to pay for the Iraq war (among other things).

[checkyourprez]

Seriously?

Probably because they're concerned for their families' stability beyond just a few months?
Don't be a douche.


they weren't financially responsible in the mean time?
they didnt save enough?
are they afraid they wont be able to pay their mortgage?

bunch of deadbeats...

[checkyourprez]

If you want to be pissed about something fucked up about the economy, why not be pissed that even though President Reagan (wrongly) stated we defeated communism, China, a communist country makes just about every fucking thing you purchase and own.

How about that Wal-Mart shoppers?

and that is possible one of the biggest problems in this country. its always short sighted.

the profit margins of all those banks and AIGs out there was about their bottom line the next quarter. they knew what they were doing was shiesty but they didnt care. and the bubble popped. we went into iraq and within a couple months we had "won", really? we have a big deficit now, republican induced, and we need to spend some more to get out of it and to build for the future, but no they want it fixed now. they dont get the fact that china is producing more honor students than america has students. this shit is really going to bit us in the ass in the coming decades if we dont invest heavily, now. in 2002 Nintendo spent $140 million dollars on research and development. the US government has spent less than half as much on research and innovation in education. a lot of obama's spending plan is education. while republicans cut education the first time anything needs to be cut. its that short sighted thinking that will eventually be the downfall of this country. obama is trying to plan for the future, by spending more now, and hes getting lambasted because of partisan politics. short sighted.

[saz]

Am I misunderstanding you, or are you characterizing someone who's responsible for handling millions, and perhaps billions of dollars on a daily basis and does so for $1 a year as a "greedy bastard"?

Would YOU be willing to work for $1 a year, sazi?

The "bonus" was in fact his compensation for that year (unless you want to count the $1 salary he was working for). It sounds like the portion of the company he was heading up was profitable and successful in getting sold to another company.
This is Washington choosing to play politics and grandstand rather than honoring contracts, contracts which BTW make sense if you want qualified people to effectively liquidate the assets of a major company. That's the ugly truth, and it's shameful for our elected officials to try to use the execs at AIG as the scapegoats.

Being paid for work you performed according to a contract that you and your employer voluntarily agreed upon isn't greedy, and if Obama has one shred of a Constitutional lawyer left in him he'll veto that bill if it comes before him. I can't imagine anything more damaging to the future economy than the thought that the US Government can impose retroactive taxation on anyone it chooses.

no, not at all. as i stated the guy who wrote that letter probably was being sincere, and is probably one of the few exceptions to the greed mongers on wall street.

i know exactly where you're coming from in terms of honoring contracts, however an overwhelming majority of the population is outraged that their tax payer money is going to reward corrupt, greedy aig fatcats who are partly responsible for this economic disaster. and the execs at aig aren't scapegoats, they fucked up large. anyways, obviously we'll have to keep watching and see where this story goes.

btw, where was all of this outrage when it came to light just how many millions of tax payer dollars were being wasted and stolen throughout the (and ongoing) deregulated reconstruction of iraq?

[RobMoney$]

Would there be the same public outrage if this money was being titled as "salary" instead of "bonus"?

I doubt it.


I'm sure the American public doesn't expect the employees of AIG to work for free.
I don't understand why so many are getting hung up on the term "bonus" and are incapable of understanding that this money is essentially salary.