Suicide for AIG Execs? Don't Let Them Off That Easy

posted by John Nichols on 03/17/2009 @ 8:47pm

Email
Print
Share
- Buzzflash
- del.icio.us
- Digg
- Facebook
- Mixx it!
- Reddit
What is this?
Take Action
Comments (307)

Subscribe Now

Suddenly populist Iowa Senator Charles Grassley certainly stirred things up with his suggestion that AIG executives accept responsibility for the collapse of the insurance giant by resigning or committing ritual suicide.

The senior Republican senator was asked during a Monday interview on an Iowa radio station, WMT in Cedar Rapids, to comment on the news that American International Group, which has collected roughly $170 billion in federal bailout money is now arranging to distribute roughly $165 million in bonuses for various and sundry hangers on around the corporate offices.

"I suggest, you know, obviously, maybe they ought to be removed," responded Grassley. "But I would suggest the first thing that would make me feel a little bit better toward them if they'd follow the Japanese example and come before the American people and take that deep bow and say, I'm sorry, and then either do one of two things: resign or go commit suicide."

Grassley seemed to suggest a preference for the latter option when he added: "And in the case of the Japanese, they usually commit suicide before they make any apology."

The Iowan's proposal brought to mind an old anarchist t-shirt, which featured a gothic cemetery scene and the slogan: "We have found a new home for the rich."

But, while the senator's notion of burying CEOs and their associates might have some popular appeal these days, it's an unappealing "fix" -- on humanitarian and political grounds.

Better to follow the calmer counsel of Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, who has asked Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to expand the congressional review of how the $700 billion in Wall Street bailout funds are being spent to be expanded to investigate how the financial crisis started in the first place.

Put the crooks, er, executives, under oath and grill them before the television cameras. Then write a set of regulations designed to assure that their kind never again roams free on Wall Street.

That's what happened during the Great Depression, when Congress called bankers and brokers � including J.P. Morgan himself -- before investigative committees and forced them to come clean. Members of the House and Senate used the information gathered during those hearings to establish the rules and regulations that protected Americans until the insiders gave enough campaign contributions and hired enough lobbyists to get the restrictions removed.

Speaking of AIG contributions and lobbying, perhaps that would be a good place to begin the inquiry. Yes, we should want to know about who is getting bonuses. But we should also want to know who in Congress accepted campaign contributions from the bonus recipients.

True, that could be a bit embarrassing.

For instance, Senator Grassley accepted roughly $28,000 from AIG in recent election cycles. So, too, did other AIG critics, including President Obama and Senate Banking Committee chair Chris Dodd, D-Connecticut.

We really would not want to let any suicides prevent Congress from getting the details on those contributions-- and how they influenced regulatory decisions -- would we?

Comments (307)

"In response to expected bonus restrictions, officials at Citigroup Inc., Morgan Stanley and other financial institutions that got government aid are discussing increasing base salaries for some executives and other top-producing employees, people familiar with the situation said....."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB12372482658094918

7.html?mod=djemalertNEWS

Posted by frosty zoom at 03/17/2009 @ 9:15pm
from yves smith:

"Readers can correct me, but my recollection is that salaries for mid and senior level people in the mid-late 1980s were in the $100,000 to $125,000 range. Compound that forward by 3% inflation, you get around $200,000. And while bonuses were bigger than base comp in a lot of areas in most years, they were nowhere near as large as in recent years. AND BACK THEN, EVERYONE ACCEPTED THAT BONUSES WERE HEAVILY DEPENDENT ON OVERALL FIRM RESULTS. "

Posted by frosty zoom at 03/17/2009 @ 9:18pm
Can you imagine how nutty RIO/comanche, HAPPY, SJCHER, lvlib/anti-socks, MAASCH would get if a DEMOCRATIC Senator said that?

BTW, didn't it turn out that Grassley is a big time receipiant of campaign donations from AIG?

Posted by Mask at 03/17/2009 @ 9:20pm
well, mask, larry's gonna say, "they were just doing their job. they deserve the bonuses".

"AIG CAME OUT WITH THE LIST IN AN EFFORT TO HEAD OFF THE PROTEST OVER THE NEWS THAT THE COMPANY WAS PAYING BONUSES OF UP TO $165 MILLION FOR EXECUTIVES IN THEIR STRUCTURED FINANCE GROUP.

THAT WAS THE BUSINESS THAT WENT HEAVILY INTO COLLATERALIZED DEBT OBLIGATIONS AND GOT AIG INTO ITS FINANCIAL MESS TO BEGIN WITH."

Posted by frosty zoom at 03/17/2009 @ 9:26pm
It truly is a telling sign, that these executives are simply going to get away with robbing the USG of over 150 million dollars (that we know of). This economic crisis is showing us what the American economy (and the American political economy) are really all about.

Posted by syfriendly at 03/17/2009 @ 9:28pm
BTW, didn't it turn out that Grassley is a big time receipiant of campaign donations from AIG?

Posted by Mask at 03/17/2009 @ 9:20pm

you too lazy to go to opensecrets.com?

o.k., i'll cheque:

As long as everyone's talking today about AIG's payouts to its executives and foreign banks, let's remember the payouts AIG has made over the years to politicians. In the last 20 years American International Group (AIG) has contributed more than $9 million to federal candidates and parties through PAC and individual contributions. That's enough to rank AIG on OpenSecrets.org's Heavy Hitters list, which profiles the top 100 contributors of all time.

Over time, AIG hasn't shown an especially partisan streak, splitting evenly the $9.3 million it has contributed since 1989. In the last election cycle, though, 68 percent of contributions associated with the company went to Democrats. Two senators who chair committees charged with overseeing AIG and the insurance industry, Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) and Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.), are among the top recipients of AIG contributions. Baucus chairs the Senate Finance Committee and has collected more money from AIG in his congressional career than from any other company--$91,000. And with more than $280,000, AIG has been the fourth largest contributor to Dodd, who chairs the Senate's banking committee. President Obama and his rival in last year's election, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), are also high on the list of top recipients.

Posted by frosty zoom at 03/17/2009 @ 9:32pm
AIG has been a personal investment for lawmakers, too. Twenty-eight current members of Congress reported owning stock in AIG last year, worth between $2.5 million and $3.3 million. Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.), one of the richest members of Congress, was by far the biggest investor in AIG, with stock valued around $2 million.

Last year AIG and its subsidiaries spent about $9.7 million on federal lobbying, or about $53,000 for every day Congress was in session in 2008. The company's spending on advocacy last year was down from an all-time high of $11.4 million spent on lobbying in 2007.

Posted by frosty zoom at 03/17/2009 @ 9:33pm
Top Contributors

Senator Chuck Grassley 2003 - 2008

Election Cycle:

Contributor Total

DCI Group $49,800 (the comics people?)

Blue Cross/Blue Shield $45,250 (aren't they non-profit?)

Amgen Inc $35,800 (is this space corn?)

FPL Group $32,750 (free political license?)

Xcel Energy $26,500 (what a cheesy name)

American International Group $26,250 (boooo)

Wells Fargo $24,850 (do they still exist?)

Prudential Financial $24,000 (ever so prudent)

DaVita Inc $21,500 (don't they make spaghetti sauce?)

Level 3 Communications $21,050 (looks like they're on level 7, too)

Berkshire Hathaway $21,000 (isn't the buff� a demoncrat?)

Professional Employer Organization $20,250 (peo?)

Clark Consulting $19,850 (gotta problem? ask clark)

Alliant Energy $19,650 (oooh, clusterbombs and d.u.!)

CME Group $19,000 (cementos mexicanos de excelencia?)

Invacare Corp $18,750 (who thinks of these cheesy names?)

WPP Group $18,218 (mr. wipple group?)

PricewaterhouseCoopers $18,000 (lennonharrisonStarrmcCartney)

American Osteopathic Assn $17,500 (boners!)

Mylan Laboratories $17,000 (weren't these guys featured on the x-files?)

Posted by frosty zoom at 03/17/2009 @ 9:45pm
Frosty, after all that work, you left out the fact it was Chris Dodd who slipped in a late amendment that expressly allowed paying Bonuses so long as they pre-date the Bailout. Well covered in the WSJ!

Posted by Happy at 03/17/2009 @ 9:50pm
correction: ....so long as such Bonus agreements pre-date the Bailouts.

Posted by Happy at 03/17/2009 @ 9:51pm
people don't understand what has happened to the financial world.

they understand "debt" and "stock" and that's about it.

but they have no problem understanding "unemployment" and "bonus".

if mr. obama et al. don't stamp out these bonus shenanigans,

the hypocritical republicans are going to make a big mess of things in some phony display of populism.

then we'll really see the cliff-diving........

Posted by frosty zoom at 03/17/2009 @ 10:03pm
Chris Dodd

Posted by Happy at 03/17/2009 @ 9:50pm

the dumbocrats answer to phil gramm.

Posted by frosty zoom at 03/17/2009 @ 10:06pm
credit default swap: insurance not called insurance and thusly not needing any reserve requirements.

yep. these guys deserve bonuses.

Posted by frosty zoom at 03/17/2009 @ 10:14pm
About those bonuses. How about we let them keep the bonuses. If they do the IRS audits those persons books and all their relatives for the last 15- 20 years. The IRS can hire special investigators from oh I don't know Bear Sterns? Offer them a bonus of 1% of every fraudulent tax evaded dollar they find. I bet this would return many times the investment.

Posted by bascaville at 03/17/2009 @ 10:15pm
Frosy you are full of righteous fury at the execs. Rightly so. But you don't seem to have any hope whatsoever (not even the slightest iota) that anything can be done about it, and you think that all attempts to do so are just bunk with no chance of anything ever changing.

Is this an accurate assessment of your position?

Posted by FDR43 at 03/17/2009 @ 10:23pm
You are like that charactor in Animal farm, the one animal that never buys the revolution or any of its promises, insisting that life is nasty, brutish and short, and always will be, no matter who is in charge or what progam is implemented, or anything else, for that matter.

Posted by FDR43 at 03/17/2009 @ 10:28pm
Washington knew AIG was preparing to pay bonuses By JULIE HIRSCHFELD DAVIS � 1 hour ago WASHINGTON (AP) -- Cue the outrage. For months, the Obama administration and members of Congress have known that insurance giant AIG was getting ready to pay huge bonuses while living off government bailouts. It wasn't until the money was flowing and news was trickling out to the public that official Washington rose up in anger and vowed to yank the money back.

Posted by frosty zoom at 03/17/2009 @ 10:45pm
...republicans are going to make a big mess of things in some phony display of populism.

Posted by frosty zoom at 03/17/2009 @ 10:03pm

Kudos.....I didn't want to bring it up. I couldn't do what Grassley did or is doing since I don't agree with hyping populism for political ends.

But I admit, the Repubs could get some mileage out of this....know something, it sure is damned refreshing to see my side, once in a while, do what the Dems do as a matter of routine.

It ain't easy to defend these Bonuses...but it's the right thing to do for folks who honor contracts. Serves the Gubbers right for not doing the right thing: Bankruptcy for AIG, etc. while providing backstop guarantees to its creditors and taking the proper time to sort/unwind it all out.

Like John Kinderaker said at Power Line.....the Gubbers are making it up as they go on Bailouts. I know that in no shape, form or reason, could the Gubbers match up with the AIG executives in drawing up agreements. I did that for almost 10 years, including deals with GE Capital and Lehmans....there isn't a dull pencil, and all sides are advised by sharp transactional lawyers.

Posted by Happy at 03/17/2009 @ 10:51pm
Goldman Sachs got its bailout. Now some of its bankers, those aristocrats of Wall Street, apparently need a bit of a bailout too.

Doug Mills/The New York Times

Goldman, which accepted billions of taxpayer dollars last fall and, as learned Sunday, was also a big beneficiary of the rescue of the American International Group, is offering to lend money to more than 1,000 employees who have been squeezed by the financial crisis. The loans, offered via e-mail last week, could range from a few thousand dollars to hundreds of thousands.

Posted by frosty zoom at 03/17/2009 @ 10:59pm
oh, mr. obama:

AIG Employees Not Too Happy With Persistent Death Threats

Posted by Tyler Durden at 1:01 PM

AIG's Financial Products office at 50 Danbury Road, in Wilton, CT is not a happy place. Inside "death threats and angry letters flooded e-mail inboxes. Irate callers lit up the phone lines. Senior managers submitted their resignations. Some employees didn't show up at all." And as more employees leave(as soon as the bonus hits their bank account of course) and join the witness protection program, and nobody who understands the complexity of AIG FP's trades remains, the outcome can only be a horrendous one:

Posted by frosty zoom at 03/17/2009 @ 11:01pm
2003 Lawsuit Suggests AIG Wasn't Always So Careful To Honor Bonus Deals

By Zachary Roth - March 17, 2009, 6:35PM

Posted by frosty zoom at 03/17/2009 @ 11:02pm
.but it's the right thing to do for folks who honor contracts.

Posted by Happy at 03/17/2009 @ 10:51pm

these contracts were violated.

they get nothing.

<<<>>>

fdr, i'm just really pissed. i have faith in karma.

Posted by frosty zoom at 03/17/2009 @ 11:04pm
these contracts were violated.

they get nothing.

Posted by frosty zoom at 03/17/2009 @ 11:04pm

Lots of "Ifs".....good luck!

Say I'm in derivatives' sale and if I hit my hurdle of $10 Billion, my contractual Bonus is supposed to be $1 million + x% of amount over $10 Billion....if I hit $13 Billion, I get the Bonus....unless my employer is in bankruptcy....then I become an unsecured creditor and take a number.

Derivatives were/are legal...not crack cocaine.

Posted by Happy at 03/17/2009 @ 11:41pm
Nice summary of what's going on:

March 18, 2009

The AIG Outrage

By Lawrence Kudlow

This whole AIG fiasco -- where the entire political class is suddenly screaming over bonuses paid to derivative traders in AIG's financial-products division -- is just a complete farce. What it really shows is how the government has completely bungled the AIG takeover. Blame the Bush administration and the Obama administration. It also shows, once again, why the government shouldn't run anything, because it cannot run anything.

AIG should have been placed in bankruptcy last fall under some sort of government sponsorship. While in bankruptcy, all the salary contracts (and every other AIG contract) would have been nullified and voided. At the same time, there would have been an orderly liquidation and sale of AIG's assets and separate divisions.

But as things stand now, there still is no clear roadmap for the dissolution of AIG. There are ideas, but nothing is set in concrete.

And as for the $165 million or so in AIG bonus payments, the Obama administration -- including the president, Treasury man Tim Geithner, and economic adviser Larry Summers -- knew all about them many months ago. They were undoubtedly informed of this during the White House transition.

So there's no big surprise. Nobody should be shocked. But President Obama is doing his best play-acting ever. He knows full well that the nationwide outcry against federal bailouts and takeovers is only going to get worse on his watch. His poll numbers are already falling, and this AIG episode is going to pull them down more.

Incidentally, has anybody asked Team Obama why it is more than willing to break mortgage contracts with a bankruptcy-judge cram-down, but won't cram-down compensation agreements for AIG,...

Posted by Happy at 03/17/2009 @ 11:50pm
More of Larry, but not all of it, good news at the end of my paste:

....but won't cram-down compensation agreements for AIG despite the fact that the U.S. government owns the company? Kind of odd, don't you think?

The Wall Street Journal editors get it right when they ask: Who's in charge and what's the game plan? The whole AIG story is an outrage.

What's more, AIG is acting as a conduit for taxpayer money that is being sent to dozens of derivative counterparties, including foreign banks and American banks like Goldman Sachs. If we're going to bail out all these other firms, why not bail them out in full taxpayer view? Why is the money being laundered furtively through AIG? And where exactly is the end game for AIG? How are the taxpayers going to be repaid?

And what is Treasury man Geithner's role in all this? He appears to be the biggest bungler in what has become a massive bungling. My CNBC friend and colleague Charlie Gasparino thinks Geithner can't survive this. I am inclined to agree.

Nevertheless, behind the furor over AIG, there is some good news to report on the banking front. This week's decision by the Federal Accounting Standards Board (FASB) to allow cash-flow accounting rather than distressed last-trade mark-to-market accounting will go a long way toward solving the banking and toxic-asset problem.

Many experts believe mortgage-backed securities and other toxic assets are being serviced in a timely cash-flow manner for at least 70 cents on the dollar. This is so important.....

Posted by Happy at 03/17/2009 @ 11:53pm
What a bunch of TWO-FACED hypocites, the Obamanation admin. and the Demoncrat congress have KNOWN this for months! These are the idiots that WROTE the bailout and kept it FROM Republicans!

"Democratic Sen. Christopher Dodd on Monday criticized the bonuses given to executives of American International Group Inc. and suggested that the government could tax the recipients to recoup some or all of the payouts.

But it was Dodd who inserted language -- known as the Dodd amendment -- in the $787 billion stimulus bill that allowed all bonuses awarded before February 11, 2009, to be paid to AIG executives. That very amendment, which is now law, is now the chief hurdle to government officials who want to recover that money.

The amendment was meant to restrict executive pay for bailed-out banks, but it also included the exception for "contractually obligated bonuses agreed on or before Feb. 11, 2009."

Dodd is the largest single recipient of 2008 campaign donations from AIG, with $103,100, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. That was more than presidential candidates Barack Obama and John McCain got, and nearly three times the $35,965 Sen. Hillary Clinton received."

Now the nation and leftist are chasing strawmen trying to coverup their own stupidity or focus attention elsewhere!!!

Posted by comancheamerican at 03/18/2009 @ 12:02am
"it sure is damned refreshing to see my side, once in a while, do what the Dems do as a matter of routine"

it's hard to believe anyone can say this with a straight face.

Posted by darladoon at 03/18/2009 @ 12:19am
but then again, bernie madoff has an 8% approval rating, so i guess there are some non-thinkers out there..

Posted by darladoon at 03/18/2009 @ 12:20am
" It also shows, once again, why the government shouldn't run anything, because it cannot run anything"

kudlow's op-eds are so painful to read, it almost hurts. i wasn't aware, larry, that the government was "running" any of the financial giants, let alone trying to severely curtail economic growth.

as i understand it, the government has aquired the financial assets, taken a stake in these companies, as it were, and not necessarily "running them."

and, btw, if your premise, your ontological assumption, is that government "can't run anything," then it's almost impossible to take you seriously.

Posted by darladoon at 03/18/2009 @ 12:25am
the government is the only thing running. how does kudlow feel about that? what's kudlow's f*cking approval rating, the gas bag.

Posted by darladoon at 03/18/2009 @ 12:26am
Senator Grassley also said these companies receiving bailouts were

"sucking on the taxpayer's tit."

He said it, right on tv.

Posted by koroviev at 03/18/2009 @ 02:10am
Yeah, I heard them talking about that right when I switched on the TV. I wasn't sure who had said it at first. He sure caused a stir, didn't he?

<a href="http://angelasdiscountmarket.com/angela.html">Angela</a>

Posted by AngelaE8654 at 03/18/2009 @ 02:19am
Say I'm in derivatives' sale and if I hit my hurdle of $10 Billion, my contractual Bonus is supposed to be $1 million + x% of amount over $10 Billion....if I hit $13 Billion, I get the Bonus....unless my employer is in bankruptcy....then I become an unsecured creditor and take a number.

Derivatives were/are legal...not crack cocaine.

Posted by Happy

Derivatives may be leagal, but would the sale of such insurance be a breach of fiduciary duty since the deals bankrupt a billion dollar company?

Posted by koroviev at 03/18/2009 @ 02:28am
I thought that Senator Grassley's comment was the most appropriate American sentiment ever expressed, and the most entertaining. Can anyone imagine the problems we would be facing if those two financial giants, McCain/Palin, were in charge of this cluster f@#$k?

Posted by julien38 at 03/18/2009 @ 06:06am
Frosty, after all that work, you left out the fact it was Chris Dodd who slipped in a late amendment that expressly allowed paying Bonuses so long as they pre-date the Bailout. Well covered in the WSJ!

Posted by Happy at 03/17/2009 @ 9:50pm

Happy, What you missed from Frosty's posts were that people on both sides of the isle have had their hands in the cookie jar to the point where both presidential candidates were on AIG's payroll as well as the congressional seats overseeing the bailout money heading their way. It's a rigged game. Our government is bought off by the highest bidder and has been for some time.

I'd liken our the political leadership of this country over the last 30 or so years to an 8 cylinder engine firing on 3 cylinders and barely running. What goes on in D.C. is nothing more than a show to let the people of this country think they have a say in what goes on. We don't and haven't had any say probably since Woodrow Wilson's time or maybe even before that.

Posted by Wolfgang1 at 03/18/2009 @ 06:12am
Myth 1 - Chris Dodd is evil. NOT! Those contracts are legally defensible. Why expose Uncle Sam to even more embarrassment by getting his ass kicked in court?

Myth 2 � the government can't run anything. No, duh! Big Brother sets rules and occasionally enforces them, just enough to keep the neighborhood from going completely to hell. And occasionally drops other people's money out of the sky. Even though it essentially owns AIG, hell will freeze over before anyone there will let the government actually to tell them how to run their business.

Myth 3 � the WSJ and other commentators like the pinhead quoted above know what they're talking about. Read it and weep, folks � it's all pissing and moaning and no solutions proposed, except to do nothing.

Myth 4 � Happy has a straight face. No further comment.

Posted by MyParadigm at 03/18/2009 @ 06:48am
You're going to see a lot of bobbing and weaving from our resident ditto-heads, except maybe lvlib/antisoc, on the bonuses.

Limbaugh came out yesterday and defended them, endorsed them even, and then noted that HIS insurance is through AIG!

But it's a PR problem for the right-wing bloggers. The bonuses are MASSIVELY unpopular, even among conservatives (note Grassley) and defending them splits them viciously.

Sticking to their "principles" (as Limbaugh can be somewhat applauded for) keeps them honest....but it means that it puts them at odds with 80-90% of the country.

Which is why you see HAPP and RIO/comanche going off on Chris Dodd tangents instead of stepping up (as, again, Larry has) and just abiding by their right-wing beliefs and supporting the bonuses.

Note though: It STILL means that they're being hypocritical even unto their "principles", since the bonus money is coming from THE GOVERNMENT (from the bailout cash) and that means they're endorsing a form of "welfare for executives"!

Posted by Mask at 03/18/2009 @ 07:58am
Posted by frosty zoom at 03/17/2009 @ 11:04pm 

You're mistaken; the contracts were NOT violated. The bonuses were to be awarded for sticking around, not for performance. That criterion has been met, so if the company is capable of giving them the money (it is), it has a contractual obligation to do so.

Posted by Thrawn at 03/18/2009 @ 08:45am
Posted by Thrawn at 03/18/2009 @ 08:45am

But there'd be nothing preventing some legislation saying "If a company receives government bail-out money, any bonuses paid are taxed at a 70% rate"....right?

Posted by Mask at 03/18/2009 @ 08:51am
Posted by frosty zoom at 03/17/2009 @ 9:26pm

FZ

AIG has hundreds of executives. A handful work in the area of credit default swaps. The other executives kept the insurance operations running profitably. Others kept the firm afloat and responded to the new capital position by changing hedging strategies.

But in this instance you're in favor of collective punishment?

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 03/18/2009 @ 08:56am
This is fundamental to the discusion of collectivism so I keep bringing it up. New evidence shows intelligence has a stonger component of genetic determinism.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/03/090317142841.htm

More Evidence That Intelligence Is Largely Inherited: Researchers Find That Genes Determine Brain's Processing Speed

In a study published recently in the Journal of Neuroscience, UCLA neurology professor Paul Thompson and colleagues used a new type of brain-imaging scanner to show that intelligence is strongly influenced by the quality of the brain's axons, or wiring that sends signals throughout the brain. The faster the signaling, the faster the brain processes information. And since the integrity of the brain's wiring is influenced by genes, the genes we inherit play a far greater role in intelligence than was previously thought.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 03/18/2009 @ 08:59am
"but it's the right thing to do for folks who honor contracts."-HAPPY

you were against the workers at Republic Window and Door getting their CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATIONS last year.

What gives, classist?

----

But in this instance you're in favor of collective punishment?

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 03/18/2009 @ 08:56am |

You have punished the entire populace of Iraq and Afghanistan and have advocated for mass punishment of those you "feel" are a threat. I believe you have also advocated for the collective punishment of welfare recipients because some cheat the system.

Is this National Hypocrite Day?

Posted by crabwalk at 03/18/2009 @ 09:13am
You're mistaken; the contracts were NOT violated. The bonuses were to be awarded for sticking around, not for performance. That criterion has been met, so if the company is capable of giving them the money (it is), it has a contractual obligation to do so.

Posted by Thrawn at 03/18/2009 @ 08:45am

the company is broke.

IT'S YOUR MONEY.

Posted by frosty zoom at 03/18/2009 @ 09:16am
But in this instance you're in favor of collective punishment?

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 03/18/2009 @ 08:56a

the 165 million is bonuses for the FINANCIAL GOO DIVISION, not for other sectors.

Posted by frosty zoom at 03/18/2009 @ 09:17am
the 165 million is bonuses for the FINANCIAL GOO DIVISION, not for other sectors.

Posted by frosty zoom at 03/18/2009

I may be wrong on this, but isn't the division of AIG in question located in Great Britain?

Posted by Wolfgang1 at 03/18/2009 @ 09:23am
Posted by Happy at 03/17/2009 @ 11:50pm

Were would the stock mkt be if AIG went bust last November, along with CIT and BOA? I hate this bailout crap, but congress and DoJ let these companies get way to big for their own britches.

It was you guys that were against Anit-trust regs, you guys that wanted de regulation of the financial sector.

Look in the mirror HAP, you are as much to blame as Bush and Obama.

-----

Posted by Thrawn at 03/18/2009 @ 08:45am

I remember some cons making (virtual) noises about the top money earners "producing" and how they don't get paid unless they perform.

Now the shoe is in the other mouth.

Posted by crabwalk at 03/18/2009 @ 09:23am
"There is a strong argument the AIG executives responsible for designing and selling credit default swaps were grossly negligent (if not willful) in failing to perform due diligence on the risk of loss that the underlying bonds would default and setting aside sufficient resources for paying claims if defaults happened. Instead, they pocketed hundreds of millions of dollars in bonuses off of the premiums from prior-year's credit default swaps and made no provisions for setting aside funds for paying potential claims. This may not only have constituted gross negligence or willful misconduct--It may even have constituted criminal negligence or fraud."

Posted by frosty zoom at 03/18/2009 @ 09:29am
"The bonuses were to be awarded for sticking around"

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/18/business

/economy/18leonhardt.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss

"A few years ago, when the economy was still expanding, I looked into every large company that had changed chief executives over the previous six months. Not a single boss at any of them had left for another job.Such departures are so rare that Booz & Company's annual study of executive turnover doesn't even include a category for them. "

"Most amazingly, the A.I.G. bonuses haven't even accomplished their stated goal. Andrew Cuomo, New York's attorney general, said Tuesday that 52 employees who received bonuses had since left A.I.G. "

Posted by crabwalk at 03/18/2009 @ 09:32am
It may even have constituted criminal negligence or fraud."

Posted by frosty zoom at 03/18/2009 @ 09:29am

Orenthal James Simpson Regional Correction Facility is accepting applications for new residents.

They had a room ready for Scooter Libby, still has the fresh smell of new bed sheets.

Posted by crabwalk at 03/18/2009 @ 09:39am
For our hyphenated friend from down south:

"Congressional auditors estimated that the national missile defense programs could have cost overruns of $2 billion to $3 billion, reinforcing widespread expectations that they will be subject to cuts by the Obama administration.

The estimate was released by the Government Accountability Office on Monday, as Pentagon officials stepped up a review of the military's most expensive acquisition programs.

The G.A.O. said that the Pentagon's Missile Defense Agency has spent almost $56 billion since it began developing and fielding defense systems in 2002, and it is likely to spend $50 billion more over the next five years.

The auditors also said the agency's budgeting practices were not precise enough, and that 2008 was the sixth consecutive year they could not determine its actual costs. "

Posted by crabwalk at 03/18/2009 @ 09:44am
Posted by snowball666 at 03/18/2009 @ 09:45am

When your friends, Dodd included, write the regs for you...

Maybe that was Made Offs Big Mistake, he didn't have enough congress critters in his "fund".

Boy, I sure wish someone around here had posted the bribes paid to dems and repubs by the financial sector in elections years. Maybe someone that "wasted" his vote on Ralph Nader. : )

Posted by crabwalk at 03/18/2009 @ 09:51am
Which is why you see HAPP and RIO/comanche going off on Chris Dodd tangents instead of stepping up (as, again, Larry has) and just abiding by their right-wing beliefs and supporting the bonuses.

Note though: It STILL means that they're being hypocritical even unto their "principles", since the bonus money is coming from THE GOVERNMENT (from the bailout cash) and that means they're endorsing a form of "welfare for executives"!

Posted by Mask at 03/18/2009 @ 07:58am

You are misrepresenting my view on this.

I am not supporting the bonuses because of "right-wing" beliefs, unless you believe that honoring employment agreements is solely a right wing belief?

I am concerned with the prospect that the US govt might undo our entire history of the sanctity of contract law. That would place my contract along with millions of other Americans who work by contract in jeopardy.

I have said all along that this stuff would never happen if the govt hadn't poured money into these bailouts in the 1st place.

Also, it is very noticable that you and other Obama supporters are conveniently ignoring the complicity of the Obama Administration, the Democrats in Congress, and Geithner who all endorsed the provision in the bailout bill prohibiting the govt from barring these bonuses.

The outrage by the White House and the Congress (both Dems and Repubs) is pure hypocrisy designed to fool the public into thinking these folks are looking out for the American people. they knew about this and did nothing until they saw the public's outrage.

In fact they not only did nothing, they ensured the bonuses would be paid by codifying it into law.

Posted by antisocialist at 03/18/2009 @ 10:30am
Let's look at some more of the root cause

"The employment contracts became so complex, with pay packages consisting of stock options and other forms of deferred compensation, largely because of Congress' attempts to control soaring executive salaries. In 1993, Congress limited the tax deduction companies could take for cash payments to $1 million. The result was a cottage industry of lawyers, consultants and advisors who structure even bigger pay packages with creative legal strategies that now make the AIG bonuses difficult to rescind.

"Before Congress got involved we used to give them a $2 million salary and a corporate jet," said Lynn Stout, a UCLA professor who specializes in corporate governance and securities regulation. "And it was much cheaper and safer."

Congress played an even bigger role in the mess that forced the government into a taxpayer-funded bailout of AIG to stem a potential global financial meltdown.

In fact, it was a law approved by Congress in 2000 that allowed companies to place tens of trillions of dollars of these risky credit default swap bets. After the 1998 collapse of Long Term Capital Management, a giant hedge fund that pioneered the use of derivatives, the Fed engineered a rescue to prevent the unwinding of risky bets from spreading to the larger financial system. That brought calls for tighter regulation of derivatives, including a push for greater derivatives regulation at the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, led by a former Wall Street attorney named Brooksley Born."

continued

Posted by antisocialist at 03/18/2009 @ 10:45am
But strong opposition to the proposal from then-Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan and senior Clinton administration officials sank the idea. On Dec. 21, 2000, President Clinton signed into law the Commodity Futures Modernization Act, which further eased restrictions on derivatives like credit default swaps.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29724816/

The "Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000" (H.R. 5660) was introduced in the House on December 14, 2000 by Rep. Thomas W. Ewing (R-IL) and cosponsored by Rep. Thomas J. Bliley, Jr. (R-VA) Rep. Larry Combest (R-TX) Rep. John J. LaFalce (D-NY) Rep. Jim Leach (R-IA) and never debated in the House.[2]

The companion bill (S.3283) was introduced in the Senate on December 15, 2000 (The last day before Christmas holiday) by Sen. Richard Lugar (R-IN) and cosponsored by Sen. Peter Fitzgerald (R-IL) Sen. Phil Gramm (R-TX) Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE) Sen. Thomas Harkin (D-IA) Sen. Tim Johnson (D-SD) and never debated in the Senate.

The Republican leadership of the House incorporated "The Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000(H.R. 5660)" by reference, as Section 1(a)(7), in a long and complex conference report to the 11,000 page long "2000 omnibus budget bill" formally known as "The Consolidated Appropriations Act for FY2001(Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education Appropriations Bill) (H.R. 4577)." 157 Democrats and 133 Republicans voted for the appropriations bill. 51 Republicans and 9 Democrats opposed the appropriations bill vote results in the house. The Senate version passed by "Unanimous Consent." President Clinton signed it into Public Law (106-554) on December 21, 2000.

http://tinyurl.com/49ee62

Posted by antisocialist at 03/18/2009 @ 10:49am
Posted by antisocialist at 03/18/2009 @ 10:30am

And I notice that you "get the Gov't out of business" guys are sure keen on AIG execs getting a bonus paid for...by the tax-payers.

BTW, you'd have no problem if the contracts were upheld, the bonuses paid, and then a TAX of 80-90% on "bonuses paid by companies that received Federal bail-outs" was implemented, would you?

Posted by Mask at 03/18/2009 @ 10:58am
It wasn't until the money was flowing and news was trickling out to the public that official Washington rose up in anger and vowed to yank the money back.

Posted by frosty zoom at 03/17/2009 @ 10:45pm

You betcha.

Remember all the "moonbats" predicting the financial collapse would occur precisely in September 2008 months before?

More than a lucky guess going on here.

This financial collapse thing is the same as getting into the Iraq & Afghanistan war. Rush into it without a plan, and once you are there, you can't do much to extricate yourself. That is the plan. After the fact apologies don't stop the gravy train do they. Congress knows this all to well. What a charade.

Posted by OneVote at 03/18/2009 @ 11:09am
And I notice that you "get the Gov't out of business" guys are sure keen on AIG execs getting a bonus paid for...by the tax-payers.

BTW, you'd have no problem if the contracts were upheld, the bonuses paid, and then a TAX of 80-90% on "bonuses paid by companies that received Federal bail-outs" was implemented, would you?

Posted by Mask at 03/18/2009 @ 10:58am

1. Just the opposite of what I said. I'd rather they didn't get them, but the contract law principle which you care nothing about now that the Dems are in power is a greater principle.

2. yes I would as most constitutional lawyers including your buddy Jonathan Turley said they are clearly unconstitutional.

And as usual, you decide to keep coming back with your strawman rather than acknowledge the Democrats created this mess and now are being hypocrites about that which they knew ahead of time.

And you still didn't answer my questions from yesterday. I won't hold my breath as you seldom answer anyone's questions.

Posted by antisocialist at 03/18/2009 @ 11:21am
Buffett warns on investment 'time bomb' Excerpt from BBC; March 4, 2003

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/2817995.stm

'The derivatives market has exploded in recent years, with investment banks selling billions of dollars worth of these investments to clients as a way to off-load or manage market risk.

But Mr Buffett argues that such highly complex financial instruments are time bombs and "financial weapons of mass destruction" that could harm not only their buyers and sellers, but the whole economic system.'

Posted by OneVote at 03/18/2009 @ 11:25am
testing my internets.....

Posted by frosty zoom at 03/18/2009 @ 11:28am
Posted by snowball666 at 03/18/2009 @ 10:59am

You skipped over the information that I posted.

this was a bill pushed by the Clinton Admin with Gramm and others in support.

And read more on this.

It was a law created by Clinton and a Democratic Congress in 1993 that changed the whole compensation structure for these Financial Reps.

"Posted by antisocialist at 03/18/2009 @ 10:45am"

Posted by antisocialist at 03/18/2009 @ 11:30am
all this dumbocrats versus republican'ts........

doesn't the fact that you folks are able to counter any "they did this!" argument

with a

"oh, yeah, THEY did that!" argument

show you that perhaps it's more a case of us versus them and that when all is said and done they are rarely thinking of anything beyond dollaritos and the next big plan to bilk you out of your vote?

just replace dumbocrat with romulan

and

republican't with klingon.

Posted by frosty zoom at 03/18/2009 @ 11:37am
Posted by frosty zoom at 03/18/2009 @ 11:37am

If you look, Frosty, I said that both parties are complicit in this because of the bailout.

Posted by antisocialist at 03/18/2009 @ 11:40am
Senator Chris Dodd makes me embarrassed to say that I am from Connecticut.

Posted by abell12ct at 03/18/2009 @ 11:44am
Spitzer Sues AIG as Prelude to Settlement

By Dean Starkman Washington Post Staff Writer Friday, May 27, 2005; Page E01

NEW YORK, May 26 -- New York Attorney General Eliot L. Spitzer filed a civil fraud lawsuit against American International Group Inc., alleging that the insurance giant and its former top two officials manipulated the company's books to deceive investors and regulators and artificially pump up the company's stock price.

'The suit alleges that the deal was arranged to make investors believe that AIG was taking on some of General Re's risk, allowing AIG to improperly book premiums and boost reserves. Ferguson and Greenberg discussed the fact that AIG would "not bear real risk," the complaint says.

General Re is a unit of Warren E. Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway Inc. The suit doesn't mention Buffett, who in April was questioned about the deal by Spitzer's office, the SEC and federal prosecutors. Investigators have said Buffett isn't a target, though several former General Re executives are the subject of state and federal investigations. Buffett is an investor in, and a director of, The Washington Post Co.'

Posted by OneVote at 03/18/2009 @ 11:45am
Private mortgage insurance � also called mortgage guaranty insurance, mortgage insurance, or simply "MI" � enables borrowers to buy a house with only a modest down payment.

This is because MI protects lenders against the increased risk of borrower default related to high loan-to-value (LTV) mortgages. MI does this by spreading the risk � dispersing it across a large, geographic range. In short, mortgage insurance lets you lend more money to more people and sell those loans more easily in secondary markets.

It is most commonly used by lenders for loans towards which the borrower makes a down payment of less than 20%. These loans are generally considered more risky because the borrower has only minimal equity in the property and, therefore, is considered more likely to default. MI gives the lender added security to offset the risk of loans with smaller down payments. The borrower pays the mortgage insurance premiums, which are included in the monthly mortgage payments.

Compared with other forms of financing high-LTV loans, MI means lower payments for fewer years, putting your customers in a better long-term financial position. And, now that it's tax-deductible and cancelable, MI offers more predictability, more flexibility, more loan-to-value options, more refund possibilities, and more potential savings than any other alternative to a 20% down payment.

With mortgage insurance, you get a plan that suits your borrowers, no matter what their housing plans or financial situation may be! Also, with mortgage insurance, lenders know that loans with low down payments are covered in case of borrower default. That means your customers can get the home they want, with as little as zero down. Plus, new homeowners can reasonably count on an equity line of credit later.

Posted by OneVote at 03/18/2009 @ 11:47am
Rick: "How can you close me up? On what grounds?"

Captain Renault: "I'm shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here!"

[A croupier hands Renault a pile of money.]

Croupier: "Your winnings, sir."

Captain Renault: [sotto voce] "Oh, thank you very much."

Posted by theo51 at 03/18/2009 @ 11:47am
Senator Chris Dodd makes me embarrassed to say that I am from Connecticut.

Posted by abell12ct at 03/18/2009 @ 11:44am

you make me embarrassed to say that i am from earth.

Posted by frosty zoom at 03/18/2009 @ 11:47am
for home improvement, unexpected expenses, education, or other purchases. A piggyback second mortgage can jeopardize that possibility.

Build a relationship on a solid product that maximizes home-buying dollars. AIG United Guaranty offers coverage for special loan programs and targeted customer bases, Internet solutions, business-to-business options, and training and marketing support for lenders of all sizes."

From AIG United Guaranty - "Why Mortgage Insurance?"

Hmmmmm.....what happened to all those PMI premiums paid by homeowners.......

Posted by OneVote at 03/18/2009 @ 11:50am
President Barack Obama has called the bonuses that AIG paid its employees an "outrage," but Obama himself received a "bonus" of sorts from the insurance giant -- more than $100,000 in campaign contributions.

In fact, the $101,332 that the Obama campaign received was larger than the amount AIG donated to any other candidate except Sen. Chris Dodd, according to Opensecrets.org.

Newsmax reported on Tuesday that the Connecticut Democrat, who received $103,100 from AIG, inserted language in the $787 stimulus bill that allowed all bonuses awarded before February 11, 2009, to be paid to AIG executives.

AIG contributed to 18 Democratic members of the Senate in the last election cycle, including Hillary Clinton ($35,965) and Joe Biden ($19,975), and 34 Democratic House candidates.

Nope, no quid pro quo here!!!

Posted by comancheamerican at 03/18/2009 @ 11:52am
What I'm wondering is, will this teach us (or reteach us, as we learned it as a result of the Great Depression, then forgot it again) that we need strong government regulation of, and interference with, the free market economy? For years I thought the only thing that might make us relearn this (this being the United States of Amnesia) was in fact another Great Depression.

Posted by FDR43 at 03/18/2009 @ 11:55am
I...uh...uh...invested em with Bernie?!

Posted by snowball666 at 03/18/2009 @ 11:52am | ignore this person | warn this person

That I would believe. Alternatively, campaign contributions might be plausible too.

Posted by OneVote at 03/18/2009 @ 11:56am
We learned the hard way 70 years ago, it gave us 30 years of prosperity, then we forgot it, and now we have to relearn it again. Hopefully for the last time.

Posted by FDR43 at 03/18/2009 @ 11:57am
"And as usual, you decide to keep coming back with your strawman rather than acknowledge the Democrats created this mess and now are being hypocrites about that which they knew ahead of time. " Posted by antisocialist at 03/18/2009 @ 11:21am

The "Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000" (H.R. 5660) was introduced in the House on December 14, 2000 by Rep. Thomas W. Ewing (R-IL) and cosponsored by Rep. Thomas J. Bliley, Jr. (R-VA) Rep. Larry Combest (R-TX) Rep. John J. LaFalce (D-NY) Rep. Jim Leach (R-IA) and never debated in the House.[2]

The companion bill (S.3283) was introduced in the Senate on December 15, 2000 (The last day before Christmas holiday) by Sen. Richard Lugar (R-IN) and cosponsored by Sen. Peter Fitzgerald (R-IL) Sen. Phil Gramm (R-TX) Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE) Sen. Thomas Harkin (D-IA) Sen. Tim Johnson (D-SD) and never debated in the Senate. Posted by antisocialist at 03/18/2009 @ 10:49am

8r-3d.

Yep, the dems rolled over those poor helpless republicans...again.

Not saying they have not rewarded their bag men, but your partisan hackery will not fly if you post opposing comments within minutes of each other.

here ya go Larry, get ye one of these

http://www.newerspreader.com/details.htm

-----

Senator Chris Dodd makes me embarrassed to say that I am from Connecticut.

Posted by abell12ct at 03/18/2009 @ 11:44am |

Does Phil Gramm make you embarrassed that you voted in his Governor?

Posted by crabwalk at 03/18/2009 @ 11:57am
AIG got $170 billion of our taxpayer dollars and all the public outcry is on the $165 million being given as bonuses. Yes its a large chunk of money ($165M) but its only .1 percent of the bailout money. Where's the other 99.9% of the money going?

Posted by notsleepy at 03/18/2009 @ 11:58am
Government is the only means to moderate the excesses of capitalist development.

Posted by FDR43 at 03/18/2009 @ 11:58am
Posted by comancheamerican at 03/18/2009 @ 11:52am

duh, dope de dope de dope de dooo

Hey Commanche, check out the list of Palin/McCain donors

hoe de D'OH!

Posted by crabwalk at 03/18/2009 @ 12:00pm
romulans.....

klingons.....

Posted by frosty zoom at 03/18/2009 @ 12:01pm
klingon gramm versus romulan geithner!

Posted by frosty zoom at 03/18/2009 @ 12:02pm
back to the Ministry of Information with you!----Posted by snowball666 at 03/18/2009 @ 12:04pm

Actually that would be "MiniTrue", with Limbaugh as "O'Brien".

Posted by Mask at 03/18/2009 @ 12:06pm
romulans......

klingons.......

sure they hate each other, but i'm sure they don't mind making pacts to destroy the federation first.

Posted by frosty zoom at 03/18/2009 @ 12:10pm
What's your point, RIO?

Posted by snowball666 at 03/18/2009 @ 11:58am | ignore this person | warn this person

Who wrote the bailout bills McCain or did Obamanation signed it after the Demoncrats froze out the Republicans and wrote it? With NO input how could any Republican be responsible?

Posted by comancheamerican at 03/18/2009 @ 12:10pm
"Sens. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) and David Vitter (R-La.) will later this morning send a letter to Senate Banking Committee leaders demanding that they subpoena all records of bailed-out insurance giant AIG to find out how AIG executive bonuses were given unique and privileged treatment in the Obama stimulus bill.

According to a draft of the letter HUMAN EVENTS received last night, DeMint and Vitter say, "�the Senate Banking Committee must subpoena the relevant AIG contracts as well as any other documents that will help determine:

(1) What legal obligations did in fact exist to pay these bonuses;

(2) What awareness did then Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, then President of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York Timothy Geithner, and Federal Reserve Board Chairman Ben Bernanke have of these contracts when any of the government interventions in the company were contemplated; and

(3) Why was language inserted into H.R. 1, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, that seems to specifically exempt these AIG bonuses from executive compensation limits? [on page 404 of H.R. 1, D(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.]"

The last section apparently is aimed at the Banking Committee Chairman, Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) who authored the provision under which the AIG bonuses were exempted from the "stimulus" bill's limits on executive compensation. Dodd yesterday admitted that he had authored a provision relating to the AIG bonuses but insisted that the provision he had authored was changed to produce the

Posted by comancheamerican at 03/18/2009 @ 12:15pm
Which is why you see HAPP and RIO/comanche going off on Chris Dodd tangents instead of stepping up (as, again, Larry has) and just abiding by their right-wing beliefs and supporting the bonuses.

Posted by Mask at 03/18/2009 @ 07:58am

Posted by antisocialist at 03/18/2009 @ 10:30am

What's with MASK? He can't even understand plain English anymore!

Hey, MASK....my defending the bonuses here, mean somehow, I'm not "stepping up"? I absolutely defend them as a matter of Contract Law.

Crazy....now I know, next time I enter into an agreement, I'll ask if they are Libs/Leftists and be far more leery if they are....you know you guys aren't much different than your hero Hugo (down south busting agreements when oil prices are high)! But then again, look at your Messiah...how many promises has he broken AFTER the Election????

Posted by Happy at 03/18/2009 @ 12:16pm
AIG bonuses but insisted that the provision he had authored was changed to produce the result of allowing the AIG bonuses.

How can the Chairman of the Senate Banking Committee not know what is being done with a piece of legislation he authored? If not him, who is responsible?

Any bets Obamanationa and the Demoncrats WON'T hold those hearings?

Posted by comancheamerican at 03/18/2009 @ 12:16pm
Which is why you see HAPP and RIO/comanche going off on Chris Dodd tangents instead of stepping up (as, again, Larry has) and just abiding by their right-wing beliefs and supporting the bonuses.

Posted by Mask at 03/18/2009 @ 07:58am

Dodd and the Demoncrats missed their opportunity to alter the contractual law which would mandate payment of the bonuses legally by not addressing it legislatively on the bailout!

So if you want to take your stand AGAINST the "rule of american contract law" go ahead!!!!

Posted by comancheamerican at 03/18/2009 @ 12:23pm
So if you want to take your stand AGAINST the "rule of american contract law" go ahead!!!! Posted by comancheamerican at 03/18/2009 @ 12:23pm

The only "rule of american contract law." Or maybe, the only rule is who wins in the courtroom. That's been the rule for over 200 years now. And our system does not fall apart. I use to be an attorney, and did some commercial contract work.As I stated yesterday, every day in this country thousands of lawyers renegotiate, modify, recind, excise, abrogate, and sometimes sue over contract provisions. Issues such as misfeasance and malfeasance and fraud are all relevant. Boilerplate language includes "acts of war, god, natural disaster, government intervention, work stopages, unforeseen cirsumstances..." and more. WWII was the last time there was major government intervention with commercial contracts. In this case, we just have one company, and the government is 80% owner. If AIG did not have this boilerplate language in their contracts, they are even more incompetent than originally thought. To me, those who cite again and again this utopian myth of sacred contracts are either very ignorant and/or have some hidden ideological agenda.

Posted by theo51 at 03/18/2009 @ 12:42pm
So if you want to take your stand AGAINST the "rule of american contract law" go ahead!!!!

Posted by comancheamerican at 03/18/2009 @ 12:23pm | ignore this person | warn this person

We are talking the most outrageous swindle of the American taxpayer in history and you are talking the about the sanctity of contract law?

Just hilarious.

Posted by OneVote at 03/18/2009 @ 12:42pm
NO this is the rule of law that leftist are alway screaming for as it applies here!!! Lets restore it!

Under U.S. law, Chapter 11 bankruptcy allows a company to reorganize. Chapter 7 allows a company to dissolve itself.

The choices for AIG, as both an insurance and non-insurance company, are more complicated, but ultimately boil down to the same options. And for other companies either receiving or looking to receive a bailout from the taxpayers, the option should instead be bankruptcy.

Bankruptcy would send a needed message to U.S. investors: Don't assume the government will bail you out when you do something stupid.

And most importantly, bankruptcy would replace the rule of politicians over U.S. financial institutions with the rule of law.

Posted by comancheamerican at 03/18/2009 @ 12:50pm
To me, those who cite again and again this utopian myth of sacred contracts are either very ignorant and/or have some hidden ideological agenda.

Posted by theo51 at 03/18/2009 @ 12:42pm | ignore this person | warn this person

Well said Theo. Anybody who knows a lick about contract law realizes that contracts end up in court all the time. All the government has to do is to show that AIG made this bonus contracts knowing the corporation was insolvent and whammo.....you have got recission. Corporations on the verge of bankruptcy attempt to swindle shareholders all the time - loot before they scoot. And, we should also look to piercing the corporate veil for these characters where there is criminal intent and negligence. The "corporation" isn't sacrosanct either in the courtroom.

Posted by OneVote at 03/18/2009 @ 12:52pm
To commanchamerican: You stated the "rule of american contract law" to which I responded. Bankruptcy is a entirely separate division of law from commercial contracts. So, your response did not address my points concerning contract law. And in any case, I do agree with you that AIG should have been allowed to fail a long time ago. It is de facto insolvent. But there has been--and is--a very strong bipartisian effort to keep this near-dead monster on financial life-support.

Posted by theo51 at 03/18/2009 @ 12:59pm
'The Enron executives also face the possibility that they will have to give back some of these bonuses to Enron's creditors. Under bankruptcy law, payments made within 90 days of a declared bankruptcy may be subject to the demands of creditors. The creditors, however, were not subjected to the same abuse meted out to the Enron workers. The big commercial and investment banks such as J.P. Morgan Chase, Citibank, and UBS Warburg, together with other creditors, including Enron's former auditor Arthur Andersen, received almost $3.6 billion in payments just prior to the bankruptcy filing.

The phenomenon of CEOs and other executives walking away from their bankrupt companies with their pockets filled has become a common feature of modern American capitalism. After running an enterprise on the basis of fraud, criminality and cooked books, executives proceed to jump from the rickety and irreparably damaged planes that they have built with a so-called "golden parachute," leaving the workers to suffer the crash. All of this money is essentially stolen cash, reaped from the company's workers, those who invested in the criminally overvalued stocks and did not get out in time, and even from other companies. This phenomenon is part and parcel of an economic system that functions more and more through theft and wealth transfer than by the actual production of goods and services.'

Enron execs looted company prior to bankruptcy By Joseph Kay 22 June 2002 wsws.org

Posted by OneVote at 03/18/2009 @ 12:59pm
happy, rio, larry, et al.

now, ��the sanctity of contracts???

you guys sound like geithner.

truly pathetic.

Posted by frosty zoom at 03/18/2009 @ 1:06pm
That's a good point OneVote about the Enron bonus theft. They are not the only ones; looting the vault before bankruptcy is becoming more common, helped a lot by our age digital dealings. I suspect that this is what is going on at AIG. I would bet that many there have known for some time that emperor AIG has no funds. That's why their 208 bonus amount is tied to 2007 levels. That 90 day rule was language lobbied for by these same commercial interests, and it stinks, if you ask me.

Posted by theo51 at 03/18/2009 @ 1:13pm
'AIG chief says he asked execs to return bonuses

Chairman of AIG tells Congress he's asked executives to give back their bonuses

Jim Kuhnhenn, Associated Press Writer Wednesday March 18, 2009, 2:02 pm EDT Related:American International Group, Inc.

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The chairman of AIG has told Congress he's asked executives to give back their bonuses. The chief executive officer of the failed insurance conglomerate acknowledged Wednesday that the company's multimillion-dollar bonuses were "distasteful" to many and had provoked a firestorm of wrath. "I share that anger," Edward Liddy, chairman and CEO of the American International Group Inc., said in testimony prepared for Congress.'

Good move Mr. Liddy before you and your ilk get carted off to jai.

Posted by OneVote at 03/18/2009 @ 1:14pm
corrections: should read; "our age of digital dealings." should read: "2008 bonus" My apologies.

Posted by theo51 at 03/18/2009 @ 1:15pm
Posted by antisocialist at 03/18/2009 @ 11:21am

I answered your questions TWICE, Larry...and you keep ignoring my answers.

BTW, what's wrong with TAXING the bonuses after they are "contractually paid"?

Posted by Mask at 03/18/2009 @ 1:21pm
speaking of contracts:

http://harlanellison.com/heboard/visitors/startrekpressrelease.html

Posted by frosty zoom at 03/18/2009 @ 1:21pm
That 90 day rule was language lobbied for by these same commercial interests, and it stinks, if you ask me.

Posted by theo51 at 03/18/2009 @ 1:13pm | ignore this person | warn this person

No doubt about it. Should be way longer. But see note on "insider transactions" below.

U.S. Bankruptcy Code Section 547: The 90-Day "Preferential Payment" by William L. Porter, Attorney at Law

Many businesses are surprised to learn that there is a Bankruptcy Code provision, commonly referred to as the "Preferential Payment Rule," which generally provides that where a debtor makes a payment to a creditor and the debtor files bankruptcy within 90 days thereafter, the creditor can often be forced by the Bankruptcy Court to pay all the sums paid by the debtor back into the bankruptcy estate for distribution to general creditors. When the creditor is an "insider" with the debtor the time period increases from 90 days to one year. This Rule is found in U.S. Bankruptcy Code section 547. The impact of this rule is often devastating to those who have received payment and disbursed it to their own creditors and no longer have the funds to pay to the bankruptcy court.

Posted by OneVote at 03/18/2009 @ 1:22pm
klingons and romulans versus the invisiblemen.

Posted by frosty zoom at 03/18/2009 @ 1:23pm
BTW, okay, HAPP...RIO....Larry...try in clearer language.

So you support the "contract law"...fine.

But, are you think giving the bonuses to the AIG execs is ...a good idea? In general. If there were no contracts, would you favor it?

If "no"...please say so.

If "yes"...please say so.

If the answer is too embarassing because you know the contradiction it would entail for you (being both pro-corporate AND anti-Government hand-outs)....

please keep talking about Chris Dodd or "Obama knew!!!!" or contract law.

Posted by Mask at 03/18/2009 @ 1:25pm
And as usual, you decide to keep coming back with your strawman rather than acknowledge the Democrats created this mess and now are being hypocrites about that which they knew ahead of time.

And you still didn't answer my questions from yesterday. I won't hold my breath as you seldom answer anyone's questions.

Posted by antisocialist at 03/18/2009 @ 11:21am

Wasn't the bailout engineered by George Bush and his Republican administration?

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 03/18/2009 @ 1:28pm
Memo for those who insist that it's the "fault" of one party or the other. It's the system, stupid" Below is a list of "contributions by AIG to politicians.

Name Total Contributions

Dodd, Chris (D-Conn) $280,238 Bush, George W (R-Texas) $200,560 Schumer, Charles E (D-NY) $111,875 Obama, Barack (D-Ill) $107,332 McCain, John (R-Ariz) $99,249 Baucus, Max (D-Mont) $90,000 Kerry, John (D-Mass) $85,000 Johnson, Nancy L (R-Conn) $75,400 Sununu, John E (R-NH) $69,049 Clinton, Hillary (D-NY) $59,515 Lieberman, Joe (I-Conn) $57,900 Rangel, Charles B (D-NY) $53,582 Giuliani, Rudolph W (R-NY) $50,250 Lazio, Rick A (R-NY) $48,600 Ensign, John (R-Nev) $44,569 Bayh, Evan (D-Ind) $43,700 Larson, John B (D-Conn) $43,000 Biden, Joseph R Jr (D-Del) $41,350 Baker, Richard (R-La) $41,032 Torricelli, Robert G (D-NJ) $39,000 D'Amato, Alfonse M (R-NY) $38,750 Carper, Tom (D-Del) $37,213 Bush, George (R-Texas) $34,000 Roth, William V Jr (R-Del) $33,400 Lowey, Nita M (D-NY) $31,800 Smith, Bob (R-NH) $31,750 Shelby, Richard C (R-Ala) $31,250 Reed, Jack (D-RI) $30,600 Castle, Michael N (R-Del) $29,350 Ackerman, Gary (D-NY) $27,750 Grassley, Chuck (R-Iowa) $27,750 Specter, Arlen (R-Pa) $27,450 Gephardt, Richard A (D-Mo) $27,250 Hagel, Chuck (R-Neb) $27,250 Clinton, Bill (D-Ark) $27,000 Foley, Mark (R-Fla) $26,650 Nadler, Jerrold (D-NY) $26,000 Murkowski, Frank H (R-Alaska) $25,700 Zimmer, Dick (R-NJ) $25,397

Posted by theo51 at 03/18/2009 @ 1:33pm
Posted by OneVote at 03/18/2009 @ 11:47am

OneVote, I brought up the idea earlier of Obama appointing Spitzer as a DOJ investigator or working in some capacity similar to that in investigating this AIG situation. #1, He's familiar with AIG and their B.S. #2, He owes them one.

He was outted by these folks for his little problem of keeping little Elliot in his trousers, but the guy was a great attorney general for the state of New York. It was pay back time and they had Spitzer nailed for something 90% of the hypocrits in D.C. do.

Obama, if he's smart, would put Spitzer in a behind the scenes capacity in going after these guys....that is if Obama truly wants to get to the bottom of this.

Posted by Wolfgang1 at 03/18/2009 @ 1:46pm
For those who believe Obama and Congress want to "get to the bottom of this."

Obama Aides, Lawmakers Knew Of AIG Bonus Plan by Julie Hirschfeld Davis, Associated Press Writer

For months, the Obama administration and members of Congress have known that insurance giant AIG was getting ready to pay huge bonuses while living off government bailouts. It wasn't until the money was flowing and news was trickling out to the public that official Washington rose up in anger and vowed to yank the money back.

Why the sudden furor, just weeks after Barack Obama's team paid out $30 billion in additional aid to the company? So far, the administration has been unable to match its actions to Obama's tough rhetoric on executive compensation. And Congress has been unable or unwilling to restrict bonuses for bailout recipients, despite some lawmakers' repeated efforts to do so....

You can find the rest of the article on the NPR News website

Posted by theo51 at 03/18/2009 @ 2:00pm
please keep talking about Chris Dodd or "Obama knew!!!!" or contract law.

Posted by Mask at 03/18/2009 @ 1:25pm | ignore this person | warn this person

So why did Dodd and the Demoncrats include paying the bonuses in the bailout THEY wrote and Obamanation signed? You keep avoiding that!

Posted by comancheamerican at 03/18/2009 @ 2:05pm
I suspect that this is what is going on at AIG. I would bet that many there have known for some time that emperor AIG has no funds. That's why their 208 bonus amount is tied to 2007 levels. That 90 day rule was language lobbied for by these same commercial interests, and it stinks, if you ask me.

Posted by theo51 at 03/18/2009 @ 1:13pm

Yep, standard operating procedures. Make the company look like it is still profitable. If the company is an engineering company, for example, lay off as many workers as possible without reducing your present line output. Keep only parts needed for current designs in stock. Spend no money on R&D. Make sure to keep all skilled people so that the company appears to be actively designing things. Approve zero pay raises. Pay bonuses to those left to show that company earnings are increasing (basically off the laid off peoples' salaries and pay increases).

I saw this first hand at a place I worked at. Once I saw what they were doing, I left because I thought they were either going to liquidate the place, or sell it off to the highest bidder. They ended up selling the business.

Posted by Wolfgang1 at 03/18/2009 @ 2:08pm
You can find the rest of the article on the NPR News website

Posted by theo51 at 03/18/2009 @ 2:00pm

Thanks Theo. So much for getting Spitzer on the trail. He'd actually investigate this and nobody on the hill really wants this because all of them are in over their necks in this business.

Posted by Wolfgang1 at 03/18/2009 @ 2:10pm
Obama, if he's smart, would put Spitzer in a behind the scenes capacity in going after these guys....that is if Obama truly wants to get to the bottom of this.

Posted by Wolfgang1 at 03/18/2009 @ 1:46pm

Spitzer could put all these characters behind bars if we wanted to. The AIG settlement, along with the other characters such as Goldman Sachs, was a political coup for Spitzer....

'October 19, 2005

Spitzer's Settlement with Wall Street This months Institutional Investor has an interesting article by Justic Schack called "Settling for Nothing" about the aftermath of Elliot Spitzer's $1.5 billion settlement with Wall Street. The article is not freely available on the web, so here's some highlights:

Following the bust of the dotcom bubble, and in the wake of massive corporate scandal, ambitious prosecutor Elliot Spitzer attacked Wall Street in the name of the average Joe investor. Almost three years ago, Spitzer announced his grand achievement, a $1.5 billion dollar settlement with twelve of Wall Street's largest brokerage firms. "�Our objective throughout the investigation and negotiations has been to protect the small investor and restore integrity to the marketplace. . . We are confident that the rules embodied in this agreement will do so." Spitzer capitalized on his new found fame and has since taken to the campaign trail, seeking the Governor's office in the upcoming New York Elections.'

Many argue he could have done alot more, but for his poitical ambitions.

Posted by OneVote at 03/18/2009 @ 2:10pm
Republicans are in their right pocket. Democrats are down in the left pocket. Time to pants this deadbeat, empty the pockets and take the soiled pants to the cleaners.

Posted by theo51 at 03/18/2009 @ 2:13pm
"So why did Dodd and the Demoncrats include paying the bonuses in the bailout THEY wrote and Obamanation signed?"

why is this particular lie (especially the Dodd part) spreading like a southern california wildfire?

Posted by darladoon at 03/18/2009 @ 2:25pm
"Dodd's version prohibited TARP recipients from paying out bonuses, retention awards or incentive compensation to the 25 most highly compensated employees. It also prohibited any employee of a company receiving TARP funds from making more than the President. Both provisions would have been in effect so long as a company was receiving TARP funds. Since AIG just paid out $1 million in bonuses to 73 employees, Dodd's version limiting all employees to what the President made (roughly $500,000) would have substantially nipped that in the bud."

Posted by darladoon at 03/18/2009 @ 2:27pm
why is this particular lie (especially the Dodd part) spreading like a southern california wildfire?

Posted by darladoon at 03/18/2009 @ 2:25pm

It would be nice for a little transparency to clear this up. The public should see the actual signed bill so we can read the whole measure. Much better than to have to get it from Murdoch's Wall Street Journal which is the same as getting news from the Faux network.

Posted by Wolfgang1 at 03/18/2009 @ 2:31pm
Speaking of Spitzer:

'Global Settlement (2002): Spitzer sued several investment banks for inflating stock prices, using affiliated brokerage firms to give biased investment advice and "spin" initial public offerings of stock by offering them to CEOs and other influential members of the business community. In 2002, a settlement of these lawsuits was negotiated by Spitzer, federal regulatory bodies, stock exchanges, and the investment banks and brokerage houses in question. The result was $1.4 billion in compensation and fines paid by the brokerages and investment banks, new rules and enforcement bodies created to govern stock analysts and IPOs, and the insulation of brokerage firms from pressures by investment banks. Ten firms paid fines to settle the case: Bear Stearns, Credit Suisse First Boston, Deutsche Bank, Goldman Sachs, J.P. Morgan Chase, Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch, Morgan Stanley, Salomon Smith Barney, UBS Warburg.'

American International Group (2005): On May 26, 2005, Spitzer filed a civil complaint against Maurice R. "Hank" Greenberg (Chairman and CEO) and Howard I. Smith (ex-CFO of AIG), alleging fraudulent business practice, securities fraud, common law fraud, and other violations of insurance and securities laws. Despite tough talk on a television news show, Spitzer declined to bring any criminal charges against Greenberg, and two of the civil charges were dropped in September 2006.[1]

Source: Wikipedia.....

Recognize any of the above names as recipients of your taxpayer funded bailout? Amazing.

Posted by OneVote at 03/18/2009 @ 2:33pm
It's always fun to observe how our neocon friends here spare no draconian suggestions when blue-collar people are asked to "give back", like the UAW. Oh, but when it comes to corporate execs, none of that nasty Japanese stuff FOR THEM, oh no!

Posted by schnellerheinz at 03/18/2009 @ 2:39pm
Since we're on the subject of "contract law" and we're now all masquerading as contract lawyers now, did the UAW have a "contract" with ford?

Posted by schnellerheinz at 03/18/2009 @ 2:41pm
BTW, what's wrong with TAXING the bonuses after they are "contractually paid"?

Posted by Mask at 03/18/2009 @ 1:21pm

The equal protections clause doesn't allow selective taxation. If Obama wants to all all 2009 bonuses at 70% let him go a head and attempt that. To say that only the bonuses paid to the one unit of AIG is selective on the government's part is is unconsitutional. The Government will spend more than $165 million in lawyers feess defending it.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 03/18/2009 @ 2:55pm
You know, the analogy here is welfare payments. Yes, there are a number of poor people in this country who depend on welfare payments to exist.

I believe a small subset are spectacularly undeserving. Like single moms who have more children they can't afford while they are on welfare.

But I accept the fact that in order to help the majority of people who need help, there will be people that I don't think deserve the help, who will take advantage of the rules and get payments legally.

How is that any different here. We were not willing to cut off our noses to spite our faces. If we had let AIG go bankrupt, these guys wouldn't have gotten their bonuses, but tens of thousands of hourly workers would have lost thier jobs as well. So the Fed kept AIG out of bankruptcy and the guys got their bonuses.

Life isn't fair. Get used to it.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 03/18/2009 @ 2:59pm
So the Fed kept AIG out of bankruptcy and the guys got their bonuses.

Life isn't fair. Get used to it.

Posted by Darin_the_Masochist at 03/18/2009 @ 2:59pm

Posted by frosty zoom at 03/18/2009 @ 3:01pm
don't pay a cent.

if they balk, make 'em sue.

if they win, appeal.

if they win that, appeal again.

see you 2021.

Posted by frosty zoom at 03/18/2009 @ 3:02pm
I was going to offer up Octomom as an example.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 03/18/2009 @ 3:02pm
Memo for those who insist that it's the "fault" of one party or the other. It's the system, stupid" Below is a list of "contributions by AIG to politicians.

Posted by theo51 at 03/18/2009 @ 1:33pm

romulans....

klingons....

Posted by frosty zoom at 03/18/2009 @ 3:03pm
I was going to offer up Octomom as an example.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 03/18/2009 @ 3:02pm

maybe we should sick tmz on liddy....

Posted by frosty zoom at 03/18/2009 @ 3:04pm
$111,875 Obama, Barack (D-Ill) $107,332 McCain, John (R-Ariz)

Posted by theo51 at 03/18/2009 @ 1:33pm

SEE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

OBAMA GOT $4,543 MORE.

IT'S ALL THE ROMULANS FAULT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by frosty zoom at 03/18/2009 @ 3:06pm
Wasn't the bailout engineered by George Bush and his Republican administration?

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 03/18/2009 @ 1:28pm

SEE, IT'S ALL THE KLINGONS FAULT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by frosty zoom at 03/18/2009 @ 3:07pm
Posted by Darin_the_Masochist at 03/18/2009 @ 2:59pm

Posted by frosty zoom at 03/18/2009 @ 3:01pm

Isn't a "masochist" a person who enjoys pain, even to the point of seeking out pain?

How does these guys getting bonuses effect me in any way at all? What pain does it cause me personally? These guys don't effect me what-so-ever.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 03/18/2009 @ 3:07pm
Obama appointing Spitzer as a DOJ investigator

Posted by Wolfgang1 at 03/18/2009 @ 1:46pM

steal billions or fornicate with hookers?

hmmmm,

which will be the greater controversy?

Posted by frosty zoom at 03/18/2009 @ 3:09pm
How does these guys getting bonuses effect me in any way at all? What pain does it cause me personally? These guys don't effect me what-so-ever.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 03/18/2009 @ 3:07pm

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

wait till mask sees that. i'll let him do the dirty work. he likes that.

heheh.

Posted by frosty zoom at 03/18/2009 @ 3:11pm
What is today? Slacker Wednesday at The Nation? Not a single new blog post....

Frankly, fighting over a piddly $165 million in bonuses ought to have run its course.

Let's talk about the very immediate action of the dollar's dump when the Feds bought $300 BILLION in long-dated treasuries today.....as in pumping electronic money...with much more to come. There will be hell to pay!

Posted by Happy at 03/18/2009 @ 3:11pm
AIG wrote contracts that involved risk. What if it was a hurricane or other natural disacter that risked bankrupting AIG? A large enough disaster would have had the same effect on the economy that the subprime crisis would have.

I suppose you wouldn't be as pissed because you understand the risk involved in huricane insurance. But because you don't understand a CDS, that somehow makes the people who wrote them evil?

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 03/18/2009 @ 3:11pm
Yes, there are a number of extremely wealthy people in this country who depend on welfare payments to exist.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 03/18/2009 @ 2:59pm

Posted by frosty zoom at 03/18/2009 @ 3:13pm
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

Posted by frosty zoom at 03/18/2009 @ 3:11pm

Serioulsy, I even work in the insurance industry and will never encounter these guys. How do their bonuses effect me in any way?

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 03/18/2009 @ 3:15pm
Let's talk about the very immediate action of the dollar's dump when the Feds bought $300 BILLION in long-dated treasuries today.....as in pumping electronic money...with much more to come. There will be hell to pay!

Posted by Happy at 03/18/2009 @ 3:11pm

base money was doubled last year.

doubled.

it's all the klingons, er, romulans fault!

it won't the first time the dollar has been devalued.

Posted by frosty zoom at 03/18/2009 @ 3:15pm
How do their bonuses effect me in any way?

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 03/18/2009 @ 3:15pm

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

Posted by frosty zoom at 03/18/2009 @ 3:15pm
"The equal protections clause doesn't allow selective taxation"----Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 03/18/2009 @ 2:55pm

So a progressive income tax is un-Constitutional....same for AMT or even on the other side the EITC, right?

Posted by Mask at 03/18/2009 @ 3:17pm
tmz does not stick, it oozes.

The Free Market does produce some fine bottom feeders.

Posted by crabwalk at 03/18/2009 @ 3:17pm
"The equal protections clause doesn't allow selective taxation"----Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 03/18/2009 @ 2:55pm

So a progressive income tax is un-Constitutional....same for AMT or even on the other side the EITC, right?

Posted by Mask at 03/18/2009 @ 3:17pm

Come one councilor, don't play dumb with me. I didn't say that and you know it. Stop twisting my words.

I made a point about taxing the income of selected people differently from the income from identically situated people. You know that is unconstitutional.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 03/18/2009 @ 3:20pm
Darin, how does Octomom effect you?

How did Saddam effect you?

How does Hamas effect you?

Posted by crabwalk at 03/18/2009 @ 3:23pm
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

Posted by frosty zoom at 03/18/2009 @ 3:15pm

There is a Dibert cartoon for you.

In the first two pannels Dilbert just sits there minding his own busines while the "brittle feminist" looks on.

In the third pannel she volunteers, "Your success diminishes me."

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 03/18/2009 @ 3:24pm
....All the government has to do is to show that AIG made this bonus contracts knowing the corporation was insolvent and whammo.....

Posted by OneVote at 03/18/2009 @ 12:52pm

You better lay off here for a few days....take an AIG-free break. I think your emotion has won over your senses.

You seem to believe all the bonus contracts were executed at some single point in time. If this is so, then it should be no problem to check Insider Sales to see astronomical sale of exercised options around that point in time...of cashing in before the shit hit the fan. Think you can track down such `smoking gun'?

One consistent aid to prosecutions for corp. fraud has always been such sales or something similar: puts, options, etc.

Posted by Happy at 03/18/2009 @ 3:25pm
Let's talk about the very immediate action of the dollar's dump when the Feds bought $300 BILLION in long-dated treasuries today.....as in pumping electronic money...with much more to come. There will be hell to pay!

Posted by Happy at 03/18/2009 @ 3:11pm

Euro Shares up $4.76/share (3.66%) today - nobody buying our crappy paper anymore except "the Fed."

Crazy electronic transactions....we are off to see the wizard - follow the yellow brick road.

Posted by OneVote at 03/18/2009 @ 3:28pm
You know that is unconstitutional.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 03/18/2009 @ 3:20pm

Found an old, 1/2 shredded copy of that laying around, did you?

Where did you keep it the last 8 years?

Economic terrorism is the new threat to the USA. Why not give a nice plane ride to GITMO for those that put us here, "the producers".

Posted by crabwalk at 03/18/2009 @ 3:28pm
How does Hamas effect you?

Posted by crabwalk at 03/18/2009 @ 3:23pm

Since I will never convert to Islam by the sword, they have called for my extermination.

Did AIG execs call for my execution without my hearing of it?

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 03/18/2009 @ 3:31pm
Each UAW member should negotiate a retention bonus, each signed a different day.

OOPS, UAW is different than AIG execs.

silly me.

Posted by crabwalk at 03/18/2009 @ 3:32pm
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 03/18/2009 @ 3:31pm

BOO!

Scared of an announcement, are you?

Let us know when you reach manhood.

Posted by crabwalk at 03/18/2009 @ 3:35pm
Darin, how does Octomom effect you?

How did Saddam effect you?

How does Hamas effect you?

Posted by crabwalk at 03/18/2009 @ 3:23pm

Octomom doesn't effect me. But she does offend my sensibilities. Life isn't fair, and I'm used to it.

Saddam was part of a problem of denying political freedom to the inhabitants of the ME. This was a breeding ground for terrorists, some of whom killed Americans. As such he was a risk factor, abeit a small one.

Hamas has called for my extermination.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 03/18/2009 @ 3:35pm
Frosty, after all that work, you left out the fact it was Chris Dodd who slipped in a late amendment that expressly allowed paying Bonuses so long as they pre-date the Bailout. Well covered in the WSJ! Posted by Happy at 03/17/2009 @ 9:50pm ..............................

The accusation against Dodd is that there is nothing the Obama administration can do about the AIG bonus payments because Dodd inserted a clause into the stimulus bill which exempted executive compensation agreements entered into before February, 2009 from the compensation limits imposed on firms receiving bailout funds. Thus, this accusation asserts, it was Dodd's amendment which explicitly allowed firms like AIG to make bonus payments that were promised before the stimulus bill was enacted. That is simply not what happened. What actually happened is the opposite. It was Dodd who did everything possible -- including writing and advocating for an amendment -- which would have applied the limitations on executive compensation to all bailout-receiving firms, including AIG, and applied it to all future bonus payments without regard to when those payments were promised.

Posted by ficheye at 03/18/2009 @ 3:36pm
This just in: The Fed is printing up another 1 trillion dollars ($1,000,000,000,000) That's $4,500 for every adult in the USA. I'm trying to figure out what to spend it on. Maybe, I'll take Elliot Spitzer's route, and spend two hours with a "friend."

Posted by theo51 at 03/18/2009 @ 3:38pm
Posted by Happy at 03/18/2009 @ 3:25pm | ignore this person | warn this person

Last 6 months....5 insider transactions (sales) worth $272 billion. Last insider purchase August 2008 for $24/share, transaction about $725,000. March 08 to Aug 08 stock fell from about $50 to $25/share. Nothing going on here at all Happy. I know you got suckered, but there was quite a bit of information ought there to tell not to believe in AIG's financial statements. Maybe you start a class action?...lol

Posted by OneVote at 03/18/2009 @ 3:40pm
steal billions or fornicate with hookers?

hmmmm,

which will be the greater controversy?

Posted by frosty zoom at 03/18/2009 @ 3:09pm

Well we know that our puritanical 28% frown upon fornication of any sort....unless of course it's with page boys or in the men's restroom with under-cover cops or should I say the guy in the next stall? Then, it's alright.

As far as stealing billions, why that's just good old fashion business practice and those who were bilked deserved what they got. The constitution guarauntees the right to life, liberty and as much wealth (stolen or not) as one can acquire. LOL

Posted by Wolfgang1 at 03/18/2009 @ 3:41pm
Maybe, I'll take Elliot Spitzer's route, and spend two hours with a "friend."

Posted by theo51 at 03/18/2009 @ 3:38pm | ignore this person | warn this person

Spend while you can! When inflation hits, you will need a wheel barrow of cash to enter the den of inequity.

Posted by OneVote at 03/18/2009 @ 3:42pm
BBC reporting today says the AIG boss is suggesting that the recipients of the bonus payments give back half of it.... damage control?

My guess is the people who got the bonus payments will suddenly be unreachable by phone or email.

'On vacation'. They'll never give back the money. Not a dime. It's gonna go towards plastic surgery.

Posted by ficheye at 03/18/2009 @ 3:42pm
I read from several sources that Rep. Dodd claims he does not know how the bonus language "slipped" into the bill. Maybe it was the ghost of Christmas Bonuses Past.

Posted by theo51 at 03/18/2009 @ 3:43pm
Each UAW member should negotiate a retention bonus, each signed a different day.

OOPS, UAW is different than AIG execs.

silly me.

Posted by crabwalk at 03/18/2009 @ 3:32pm

Crabman, I suspect a UAW member wouldn't have much success. Any union memeber who demanded a bonus would be told, "no". So what are his options? Would he quit if he didn't get a bonus? Go ahead, with unemployment in Michigan the way it is, there'd be 100 people applying for his job before his locker was even cleaned out.

Everytime I've taken a job in the last 20 years, I've set a compensation expectation for myself. I won't take a job unless it pays X. Without exception, every job I have been offered in the last 20 years has had a base salary and a target bonus that has been a function of goals and objectives.

I would prefer an offer that met my expectations without a bonus, but it's never been offered.

So you are right, the AIG execs are very different from the UAW members. The union guys can be replaced in minutes. The execs can only be replaced after months of searching and an expensive recruiter fee.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 03/18/2009 @ 3:45pm
Spend while you can! When inflation hits, you will need a wheel barrow of cash to enter the den of inequity. posted by One Vote

But my "Little Theo" wants to be Happy now!

Posted by theo51 at 03/18/2009 @ 3:45pm
"Your success diminishes me."

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 03/18/2009 @ 3:24pm

and your disingenuousness diminishes you.

it's YOUR money.

Posted by frosty zoom at 03/18/2009 @ 3:47pm
'On vacation'. They'll never give back the money. Not a dime. It's gonna go towards plastic surgery.

Posted by ficheye at 03/18/2009 @ 3:42pm

nope, bodyguards.

Posted by frosty zoom at 03/18/2009 @ 3:48pm
Did AIG execs call for my execution without my hearing of it?

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 03/18/2009 @ 3:31pm

no, they've chosen to get you with another "sword".

Posted by frosty zoom at 03/18/2009 @ 3:51pm
Did AIG execs call for my execution without my hearing of it?

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 03/18/2009 @ 3:31pm

Nope, but your job may be eliminated due to their actions. I know quite a few people who recently lost their jobs due to the wreckless way these bozos have conducted themselves. In any other profession, they'd be kicked out on their asses.....and you know it or should know it. No other profession besides this would reward complete failure.

Posted by Wolfgang1 at 03/18/2009 @ 3:51pm
You better lay off here for a few days....take an AIG-free break. I think your emotion has won over your senses.

You seem to believe all the bonus contracts were executed at some single point in time......

Posted by Happy at 03/18/2009 @ 3:25pm | ignore this person | warn this person

From the perp's own mouth Happy.

'A.I.G. had set up a special bonus pool for the financial products unit early in 2008, before the company's near collapse, when problems stemming from the mortgage crisis were becoming clear and there were concerns that some of the best-informed derivatives specialists might leave. It locked in a total amount, $450 million, for the financial products unit and prepared to pay it in a series of installments, to encourage people to stay.'

A.I.G. Planning Huge Bonuses After $170 Billion Bailout Published: March 14, 2009 NY Times

Golly early 2008 - after near collaspe - hahahahahaha..................

Posted by OneVote at 03/18/2009 @ 3:53pm
The execs can only be replaced after months of searching and an expensive recruiter fee.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 03/18/2009 @ 3:45pm

well, the sooner you start looking, the better.

they are YOUR employees.

fire 'em.

or have they done a bang up job??@?@??@?

Posted by frosty zoom at 03/18/2009 @ 3:54pm
it's YOUR money.

Posted by frosty zoom at 03/18/2009 @ 3:47pm

$165 million? What would that be? changing the highest level tax bracket from 39.6% to 39.60000001%?

Seriously. The top 1% all make over $300,000. Say 1 million people have incomes of $3 million on average. $165 each is .000055 or the rate would be 39.6055%.

This after Obama spent $787 BILLION on a bullshit stimulous that won't work?

Get your perspective in order, dude.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 03/18/2009 @ 3:55pm
But my "Little Theo" wants to be Happy now!

Posted by theo51 at 03/18/2009 @ 3:45pm | ignore this person | warn this person

Let your conscience be your guide.....lol

Posted by OneVote at 03/18/2009 @ 3:56pm
Maybe it was the ghost of Christmas Bonuses Past.

Posted by theo51 at 03/18/2009 @ 3:43pm

You'll have to brush up on your Dickens. It was the ghost of Jacob Money!

Posted by Wolfgang1 at 03/18/2009 @ 3:56pm
Addendum to OneVote. And the bonus levels were locked into the 2007 amounts. I wonder why?

Posted by theo51 at 03/18/2009 @ 3:57pm
I shouldn't have granted your premise because the bonus money won't effect what the government ultimately recoups. AIG will repay the $170 billion , or they won't. If they do, the money will come from people who purchase the pieces of the company. What they purchase will ultimately have $165 million less in assets. So the shareholders will eat the $165, ultimately. Not me.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 03/18/2009 @ 3:58pm
klingons, romulans, bloods, crips, whatever...

Johnny was born on the wrong side of the tracks. He didn't do well in school and dropped out at age 16. Contemplating his options, in the immortal words of Elvis, Johnny's "hunger burns, So he starts to roam the streets at night, And he learns how to steal, And he learns how to fight." With no job skills or education, Johnny turns to the "underground" economy to make a living.

Q: Mr. Conservative, should we cut Johnny some slack?

A: No. He may have only been 8 years old when he stopped paying attention in class, but life is not fair, and it is not the role of government to make it fair.

Billy was born with star spangled eyes, silver spoon in hand, attended Wharton on a scholarship for Sons of the Parents of Billy, and landed in a plush office at AIG. Billy's financial practices were considered by many to be harmful and addictive, but it's hard to place legal restrictions on anything a swell guy like Billy does. Billy eventually hit rock bottom himself, but the government was there to make sure Billy didn't lose his job and his office.

Q: Mr. Conservative, should the government also pay Billy an added bonus for intoxicating the financial system with lethal "investments"?

A: Yes, it's not as if he did anything illegal, and it's in the contract. It's only fair.

C'mon y'all.

We should all be grateful to the International Brotherhood of the Ruling Class, US Local for allowing us non-members to elect union leadership, nominated and financed by the Brotherhood.

Now, for those of who lean towards the "con" tendency within the IBRC, what kind of future does that tendency have with these kinds of arguments?

Posted by gangpapist at 03/18/2009 @ 3:59pm
I read from several sources that Rep. Dodd claims he does not know how the bonus language "slipped" into the bill. Maybe it was the ghost of Christmas Bonuses Past.

Posted by theo51 at 03/18/2009 @ 3:43pm | ignore this person | warn this person

Yeah...he claims he had no idea about AIG bonuses, but yet apparently took pains to make sure that no bonuses from bailout would only apply going forward. This guy takes the cake for the day.

Posted by OneVote at 03/18/2009 @ 3:59pm
You'll have to brush up on your Dickens. It was the ghost of Jacob Money! Posted by Wolfgang1

No, I think it was the ArtLess Dodger who mysteriously inserted the bonus language into the legislation.

Posted by theo51 at 03/18/2009 @ 4:00pm
darin,

aig has received who knows how many BILLIONS.

OF YOUR MONEY.

AND YOU GET SQUAT!

NO, YOU GET INSULTED, THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

cds, what bullshit, and you know it.

it's your company.

develop some testicular fortitude and fire 'em.

as to obama, just another romulan.

here's a question i have received zero response to:

how would klingon gramm be doing at treasury right about now?

how would klingon palin handled this mess?

sheesh.

get a perspective, doodle.

Posted by frosty zoom at 03/18/2009 @ 4:01pm
Addendum to OneVote. And the bonus levels were locked into the 2007 amounts. I wonder why?

Posted by theo51 at 03/18/2009 @ 3:57pm | ignore this person | warn this person

hahahahahhaha.............

FRAUD - PREMEDITATED PURE AND SIMPLE.

2008 bonus based on an acknowledged collapsed division in early 2008? Even these crooks knew they would have a hard time at the shareholders meeting with that one.

Posted by OneVote at 03/18/2009 @ 4:05pm
you make me embarrassed to say that i am from earth.

Posted by frosty zoom at 03/18/2009 @ 11:

You're from Earth?

Posted by antisocialist at 03/18/2009 @ 4:06pm
No, I think it was the ArtLess Dodger who mysteriously inserted the bonus language into the legislation.

Posted by theo51 at 03/18/2009 @ 4:00pm

This is one thing I don't understand. One would think with legislation at this level of government, the writers of each section would have to sign and date their sections and any ammendments to that section. Any changes made to the original writing unless approved by the original author would be a form of forgery which could then be prosecuted as a crime.

Why is that any other binding contract has to be initialed, signed, dated and witenessed, but legislation such as this is handed from person to person, nobody reads it, and the presidents blindly sign it. What kind of people do we have representing us? Are they all illiterate?

Accountability should be first and formost on all of this stuff. Each and every passage written and inserted should be required by law to have it's author's signature there with a certified witness for some kind of accountability.

Posted by Wolfgang1 at 03/18/2009 @ 4:08pm
read mr. cuomo's letter:

http://www.businessinsider.com/henry-blodget-

cuomo-discovers-all-kinds-of-outrageous-aig-bonus-facts-2009-3

Posted by frosty zoom at 03/18/2009 @ 4:08pm
An appropriate cultural reference that preceeds Star Trek by about 30 years.

Rick: "How can you close me up? On what grounds?" Captain Renault: "I'm shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here!" [A croupier hands Renault a pile of money.] Croupier: "Your winnings, sir." Captain Renault: [sotto voce] "Oh, thank you very much." From: Casablanca

Posted by theo51 at 03/18/2009 @ 4:09pm
why is this particular lie (especially the Dodd part) spreading like a southern california wildfire?

Posted by darladoon at 03/18/2009 @ 2:25pm | ignore this person | warn this person

How about because HE ADMITTED IT! Can you wrap your head around that?

Posted by comancheamerican at 03/18/2009 @ 4:10pm
You're from Earth?

Posted by antisocialist at 03/18/2009 @ 4:06pm

if you think it's right to pay EXTRA to YOUR corrupt, incompetent employees,

then not only are you violent, heartless and cruel,

you are also dumb.

please say it isn't so.

Posted by frosty zoom at 03/18/2009 @ 4:11pm
Accountability should be first and formost on all of this stuff. Each and every passage written and inserted should be required by law to have it's author's signature there with a certified witness for some kind of accountability. Posted by Wolfgang1

Perhaps your "problem" is that you believe in logic and ethics. Don't you know that Congress has installed Ethics Detectors at each entrance?

Posted by theo51 at 03/18/2009 @ 4:13pm
But the Treasury Department isn't immune, even from Democrats.

"I'm outraged by this," said Baucus in a statement. "At one point the Treasury was in a position to stop these bonuses. Those were the terms of TARP, terms that I helped draft."

But talk of legislation only leads to more uncomfortable questions for Democrats.

Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, and Ron Wyden, D-Ore., won passage of a provision earlier this year that they said would have prevented the type of payments now at the center of a storm.

It was dropped without explanation in the final compromise on the economic stimulus measure, replaced by a less restrictive set of conditions backed by Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., and accepted by the White House.

"The president goes out and says this is not acceptable and then some backroom deal gets cut to let these things get paid out anyway," said Wyden.

http://tinyurl.com/df7sxr

And Sen Olympia Snow was shut down by Democrats for her amendment last month to prevent the bonuses

"Snowe chastised colleagues for expressing outrage about AIG's bonuses, when just last month they did away with her amendment intended to prevent it.

"We tried. It simply didn't happen, and that's a tragedy, given what's happened today," Snowe told CNN in an interview.

Majority Leader Reid would not directly answer a question from CNN about whether that was a mistake."

http://tinyurl.com/c6qv87

Obama and the Dems in Congress can fake outrage and ignorance all they want; but the fact is that they were in charge; they put through this bill; and Obama signed it.

Perhaps Obama will have to either admit that neither he nor his staff actually read the bill; or that they did and didn't understand the consequences.

Which option do you prefer Mask?

Posted by antisocialist at 03/18/2009 @ 4:20pm
if you think it's right to pay EXTRA to YOUR corrupt, incompetent employees,

then not only are you violent, heartless and cruel,

you are also dumb.

please say it isn't so.

Posted by frosty zoom at 03/18/2009 @ 4:11pm

it seems you also are suffering from the lack of reading comprehension that Mask suffers from.

I'd rather they didn't get the money; but I care more about the laws protecting the sanctity of employee contracts than I do this money, as much as they are getting.

If employee contracts are no longer valid in this country (except for as currently allowed under bankruptcy laws), then my employment contract and that of millions of other Americans are in jeopardy.

Perhaps you think that is fair? That employee contracts are meaningless; that law is meaningless?

Posted by antisocialist at 03/18/2009 @ 4:34pm
This just in Fannie and Freddie set to pay retention bonuses. Now watch the wiggle-worm logic begin on this blog.

Uh-Oh: Fannie And Freddie Set To Pay Retention Bonuses (FNM, FRE) Joe Weisenthal|Mar. 18, 2009, 1:49 PM|5

Here we go again. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are set to pay top execs retention bonuses ranging between $470,000 and $611,000.

The rest of the story writes itself, of course. The two firms have cost the taxpayers over $100 billion and are still burning piles of cash.

No doubt the firms will claim contractual obligation yadda, yadda, etc.

Bottom line: We need to come up with some guidelines on how nationalized (or de facto nationalized) institutions can deal with established compensation contracts, otherwise this will be the only thing politicians focus on and that's no good for anyone.

See: Businessinsider.com

Posted by theo51 at 03/18/2009 @ 4:34pm
All the government has to do is to show that AIG made this bonus contracts knowing the corporation was insolvent and whammo.....

Posted by OneVote at 03/18/2009 @ 12:52pm

A.I.G. had set up a special bonus pool for the financial products unit early in 2008, before the company's near collapse, when problems stemming from the mortgage crisis were becoming clear and there were concerns that some of the best-informed derivatives specialists might leave. It locked in a total amount, $450 million, for the financial products unit and prepared to pay it in a series of installments, to encourage people to stay.'

A.I.G. Planning Huge Bonuses After $170 Billion Bailout Published: March 14, 2009 NY Times

Golly early 2008 - after near collaspe - hahahahahaha..................

Posted by OneVote at 03/18/2009 @ 3:53pm

Nice mis-direction, relying on the NYT no less.

A year ago, AIG was trading in the $50 range. A year ago, the world was still on a growth path. A year ago, Obama wasn't yet Magical but was developing his trade.

A year ago, had the AIG bigshots knew the company's stock would dive to $0.33 on March 6, 2009, each and everyone would have sold ALL of their stocks.....and I wouldn't have bought my first batch at ~$6 in Sept. `08.

But hey, the good news is, since averaging down my cost with more batches......I can just about see the light at the end of the tunnel....to maybe, just maaaaaaybe, come close to breaking even...come on folks, BUY AIG! You already own it anyway! Let's get it to $2 first......then, what the heck, aim for $3!

Posted by Happy at 03/18/2009 @ 4:39pm
Antisocialist's utopian-apocalyptic vision of the "sanctity" of American contract law is just flat out wrong, historically and legally. I've explained this several times, without responses. It's tiring, and a diversion.

Posted by theo51 at 03/18/2009 @ 4:41pm
Failure of regulations....read and learn!

Drama on the Hill

March 18, 2009 Posted by John at 3:27 PM

Today the House Subcommittee on Capital Markets conducted a hearing on "AIG's impact....

One of the most significant exchanges....Scott Polakoff, Acting Director of the Office of Thrift Supervision. Part of the mythology that the Democrats are trying to create out of the financial crisis is that it is due to a lack of regulation (or, better yet, "deregulation"). In fact, the industries involved are heavily regulated....In general, what happened was that regulators and businessmen made the same mistake: they failed to foresee the decline in real estate values and, perhaps more important, failed to understand fully the consequences that would flow from such a decline. That is the context in which Polakoff's testimony was revealing:

HENSARLING: I believe I heard in an earlier answer to one of the questions, I believe I heard you say that OTS in 2004 should have stopped the book of business that I think you were alluding to to CDS and the AIG securities lending commitments. Did I understand you correctly?

POLAKOFF: Yes, sir.

HENSARLING: So if you said you should have stopped it in 2004, that implies you could have stopped it in 2004. Is that correct?

POLAKOFF: Yes, sir.

HENSARLING: So there were not limits on your power. Perhaps, there were limits on your knowledge or insight, but there was not limits on your power to stop what you cite, as I believe AIG's liquidity --I'm reading from your testimony -- was the result of AIG's business lines. So you did have the power to stop those business lines. Is that correct?

POLAKOFF: Yes, sir. ***

Posted by Happy at 03/18/2009 @ 4:58pm
Continued: Failure of regulations....read and learn!

Drama on the Hill

March 18, 2009 Posted by John at 3:27 PM

HENSARLING: Again, it appears, if this is correct, it was not a lack of supervisory authority that caused you not to take action with respect to these two lines. Is that correct?

POLAKOFF: Yes, sir.

HENSARLING: And I think I also heard you say in your testimony that you did not have [in]sufficient manpower and expertise. Is that correct?

POLAKOFF: Yes, sir.

HENSARLING: So, again, in retrospect, it wasn't the lack of authority. It wasn't the lack of resources. It wasn't the lack of expertise. You just flat made a mistake. Is that a correct assessment?

POLAKOFF: In 2004, we failed to assess how bad the mortgage economy, the real estate economy would become in 2008. Yes, sir.

It's never been clear why liberals have so much faith that regulators are smarter or better able to foresee the future than businessmen.

Posted by Happy at 03/18/2009 @ 4:59pm
Derivatives were/are legal...not crack cocaine.

Posted by Happy at 03/17/2009 @ 11:41pm

Nice comparison... because we all know that unchecked, crack cocaine would surely lead to the tanking of the world economy.

Posted by A.D.H.D. at 03/18/2009 @ 5:02pm
Perhaps you think that is fair? That employee contracts are meaningless; that law is meaningless?

Posted by antisocialist at 03/18/2009 @ 4:34pm

these people have milked you por el culo and you worry about fair??????

Posted by frosty zoom at 03/18/2009 @ 5:14pm
because we all know that unchecked, crack cocaine would surely lead to the tanking of the world economy.

Posted by A.D.H.D. at 03/18/2009 @ 5:02pm

Figures some ADHD type would think the world spaced out on crack would be bliss.....but then, you do worship The Messiah. Keep drinking...or is snorting or shooting or smoking....LOL!

Posted by Happy at 03/18/2009 @ 5:16pm
Posted by Happy at 03/18/2009 @ 5:16pm

c'mon happy, maybe you'll answer:

how would treasury secretary gramm be handling all this?

c'mon, lay it out.

please.

Posted by frosty zoom at 03/18/2009 @ 5:20pm
it seems you also are suffering from the lack of reading comprehension that Mask suffers from.

I'd rather they didn't get the money; but I care more about the laws protecting the sanctity of employee contracts than I do this money, as much as they are getting.

If employee contracts are no longer valid in this country (except for as currently allowed under bankruptcy laws), then my employment contract and that of millions of other Americans are in jeopardy.

Perhaps you think that is fair? That employee contracts are meaningless; that law is meaningless?

Posted by antisocialist at 03/18/2009 @ 4:34pm

Not to sound combative because I haven't fully looked into the bonus situation but didn't they already amend the contracts of the employees when they paid out to the companies? Couldn't they just amend them again?

And I think you are somewhat overinflating the issue. The issue isn't if one companies contracts aren't honored therefore ALL contracts no longer have to be honored. The issue is that a company that would have failed without government help is now being supported by tax payers THEREFORE the contracts that were there before are no longer valid.

I am for the rule of law and I agree with you that sadly we have to pay these people because that's the deal HOWEVER I think you are talking apples and oranges. Your contract is still valid as long as your company is not under tax payer control. If your company is for some reason taken over by the government then it's up to the folks who represent the shareholders to decide how the contracts are to be honored in a company that would otherwise be insolvent and who otherwise would have paid out 0 bonuses.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 03/18/2009 @ 5:25pm
Antisocialist's utopian-apocalyptic vision of the "sanctity" of American contract law is just flat out wrong, historically and legally. I've explained this several times, without responses. It's tiring, and a diversion.

Posted by theo51 at 03/18/2009 @ 4:41pm

Perhaps it's because you're wrong.

1. of all, there is no "out" that is relevant to this specific instance.

2. As I've previously stated, this is not an attempt to renogotiate their contracts as the contract compensation was already paid out.

3. Congress specifically codified an exemption to any attempt to prohibit their bonuses.

Posted by antisocialist at 03/18/2009 @ 5:27pm
I am for the rule of law and I agree with you that sadly we have to pay these people because that's the deal HOWEVER I think you are talking apples and oranges. Your contract is still valid as long as your company is not under tax payer control. If your company is for some reason taken over by the government then it's up to the folks who represent the shareholders to decide how the contracts are to be honored in a company that would otherwise be insolvent and who otherwise would have paid out 0 bonuses.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 03/18/2009 @ 5:25pm

CCC,

If they were in bankruptcy I would agree with you completely.

If the govt once they assumed majority control had renogotiated the contracts, then you also would have a valid point.

But all this is taking place after these employees have received their contractual compensation.

The problem is that the Obama Admin and the Dems in Congress passed and signed this legislation which specifically prohibits contractual bonuses not being paid.

Posted by antisocialist at 03/18/2009 @ 5:30pm
Perhaps you think that is fair? That employee contracts are meaningless; that law is meaningless?

Posted by antisocialist at 03/18/2009 @ 4:34pm

I don't understand how AIG employee contracts are more sacrosanct than those of anyone else. Many businesses have laid off employees or made their employees take a cut in hours or pay recently due to the economy, this is a change in their contracts. How is this just fine, but cutting bonuses of AIG employees illegal? Maybe teachers, state employees, contractors and construction workers just need better contracts?

I wish that both the Bush and Obama administrations had attached some strings to the bailout money that AIG recieved not allowing these bonuses. As their would have been no bonuses if AIG had gone bankrupt with out taxpayer dollars.

I think taxing the snot out of AIG employees who recieved these bonuses should be just fine. As AIG is allowed to complete their contract obligations, but the tax payers are also allowed to recoup some of our loss. Seems fair to me.

Posted by Extraneous at 03/18/2009 @ 5:35pm
Look, can I get an "Amen" that there is one constant, from the very, very beginning in this mess the country & the world is in? Now, where is Barney & Raines?

March 18, 2009

BREAKING: I was responsible for bonus loophole, says Dodd

Posted: 05:56 PM ET

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Senate Banking committee Chairman Christopher Dodd told CNN's Dana Bash and Wolf Blitzer Wednesday that he was responsible for adding the bonus loophole into the stimulus package that permitted AIG and other companies that received bailout funds to pay bonuses.

Watch: I'm responsible for bonus loophole, Dodd says

On Tuesday, Dodd denied to CNN that he had anything to do with the adding of that provision.

Posted by Happy at 03/18/2009 @ 5:48pm
Posted by Happy at 03/18/2009 @ 4:59pm

Which is why you regulate that company just can't leverage 35:1 on a loan. That way you don't have to work. It wasn't surprising what happened to these companies. Anyone with rudimentary knowledge of economics knows that a bubble like the housing one is going to pop sooner or later. It wasn't sustainable growth, it was growing to quickly. Same with oil. Same with any industry that has too rapid a growth in too short a time. The internet boom. Everything without fail will collapses if it suffers unsustainable growth.

An industry can grow infinitely but it has to do it at a steady pace. The question becomes how fast can a industry grow before imploding? How fast can you drive up prices before imploding? If you take these people at their word, which I don't, then they didn't see it coming. The reason I posit they didn't see it coming was because they were blinded by greed. They were so concerned with reaping as much cash out of the industry as possible that they didn't stop to think about the eventual results of their actions. Only an idiot and a gambler bets their shirt on a single industry. They didn't bother putting in backups. They didn't bother insuring that even if the mortgage industry went downhill that they could come out of it limping. Instead they bet the farm because of pure unadulterated greed.

If they didn't see it coming with as much knowledge of the industry as they have, then they are fools. If they did see it coming and did it anyway, they need to be strung up by their big toes.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 03/18/2009 @ 5:50pm
how would treasury secretary gramm be handling all this?

c'mon, lay it out.

please.

Posted by frosty zoom at 03/18/2009 @ 5:20pm

I won't speculate on what Gramm, Paulson or anyone else, would've handled it. I would not have proposed the first Bailout....big factor in the downfall of McCain...his one big chance to really stand apart from Bush AND Magic....instead, we got the Three Amigos of Bailouts and up to trillions will flow out into black holes.

Posted by Happy at 03/18/2009 @ 5:53pm
The problem is that the Obama Admin and the Dems in Congress passed and signed this legislation which specifically prohibits contractual bonuses not being paid.

Posted by antisocialist at 03/18/2009 @ 5:30pm

Wasn't this signed under Bush? Again I'm not completely sure which legislation your referring to but I was under the impression the bailout was pushed through under Bush.

Again I agreed with you that yes these people have to be paid their money, this should serve as a marking point though. Don't let these idiots not atone for their mistakes. I believe in responsibility for your actions. These people took actions that were monumentally stupid. Make them pay from now.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 03/18/2009 @ 5:54pm
Anyone with rudimentary knowledge of economics knows that a bubble like the housing one is going to pop sooner or later.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 03/18/2009 @ 5:50pm

You Lefties are amazing. You really, really, really think regulations are the answer.

Human beings will always push the envelopes on everything it does. Look at Extreme Sports or some of the really gross stuff on so-called Fear Factor garbage.

Regulators will NEVER be able to stop bubbles....they will ALWAYS be with us. Why? Regulators can always be persuaded to let the game go on....too much money is at stake and frankly, the regulators' future job prospect lie with the regulated.

As John Hinderaker said in my cut-n-paste, businessmen have far greater incentives to police themselves and still, they eventually screw up...call it greed or that typical "It will never happen to me" delusion.

I don't know if you were around when I last used this real-life story: I told my sis-in-law in San Jose to sell her Cisco stocks when it was around $200 (`99-early `00)...she had very nice gains...she didn't cause she didn't want to pay CG tax. She ended up selling for a loss long after the tech bubble burst. She did exactly the same thing w/her townhouse when I told her to sell, back in `05~`06, and lease for a while.... She didn't.

I am in this environment everyday...and I told you, I'm the best on this board. I have beaten the broad market all but one year in the past 12. It takes tremendous discipline to take your winning chips off the table and don't allow oneself to be eaten up by having left money, sometimes a lot of money, on the table. Never be overly greedy even though, if one is not greedy, one wouldn't invest at all!!

Posted by Happy at 03/18/2009 @ 6:03pm
But hey, the good news is, since averaging down my cost with more batches......I can just about see the light at the end of the tunnel....to maybe, just maaaaaaybe, come close to breaking even...come on folks, BUY AIG! You already own it anyway! Let's get it to $2 first......then, what the heck, aim for $3!

Posted by Happy at 03/18/2009 @ 4:39pm

Spoken like a true socialist. I hope so too comrade. Take heart - AIG up a whopping 45% ($0.45) today to $1.38/share. Market cap approximately $3.71 billion. June 2007 market cap approx $200 billion, with share price at $72.34. Save this one for a tax loss when you are able to make money in this market.

BTW - insider trading is against the law. Thats why insiders buy small lots when dumping big ones. Keeping up appearances don't ya know.

Posted by OneVote at 03/18/2009 @ 6:04pm
BTW - insider trading is against the law. Thats why insiders buy small lots when dumping big ones. Keeping up appearances don't ya know.

Posted by OneVote at 03/18/2009 @ 6:04pm

Nothing to prevent them from selling very large blocks during the window period after each quarterly announcements. If the blocks are too large, they can sell them at a discount to large institutional investors...which is exactly what happens when blocks exceed something like 10,000 or more shares traded across institutional desks and not retail desks.

Posted by Happy at 03/18/2009 @ 6:10pm
I just love Drudge!

SUPER PUMP: $1 TRILLION CREATED OUT OF THIN AIR

Posted by Happy at 03/18/2009 @ 6:18pm
Nothing to prevent them from selling very large blocks during the window period after each quarterly announcements. If the blocks are too large, they can sell them at a discount to large institutional investors...which is exactly what happens when blocks exceed something like 10,000 or more shares traded across institutional desks and not retail desks.

Posted by Happy at 03/18/2009 @ 6:10pm | ignore this person | warn this person

This assumes that the quarterly reporting is not fraudulent.

Posted by OneVote at 03/18/2009 @ 6:26pm
Posted by Extraneous at 03/18/2009 @ 5:35pm 

The problem is that most employers work at-will, not under contract, so many employers were fully within their rights to lay off the people they did. When you have a contract, there are only a limited set of circumstances under which you can justifiably renege on it. These bonuses weren't conditioned on performance, so as long as the money is there, the corporation has to pay them.

I agree, though, that an alternative way might have solved this. Had the government put this condition on the bailout money, the company could then have turned to the execs and said "listen, you can either give up your bonuses when we get bailout money or get nothing at all when we go bankrupt." Since no one wants to lose all their money, and everyone has to opt for the bailout money to come, you wouldn't have any free-rider problem.

Posted by Thrawn at 03/18/2009 @ 6:31pm
Never be overly greedy even though, if one is not greedy, one wouldn't invest at all!!

Posted by Happy at 03/18/2009 @ 6:03pm

I don't think regulators will solve the problem but you recognize that humans are fundamentally flawed when it comes to monetary gain. So you would rather expose the rest of our wallets to people who are fundamentally flawed rather than regulate them?

Your argument only bolsters the argument for more regulation because these people will do EVERYTHING they can to make the quick buck and the problem is their failings as CEO's don't only affect them and their company. Their failings as CEO's now affect the entire world. So why should we all be subject to a few people's greed? You can make the case that even without the government buying up AIG's failings that the loses were going to be socialized no matter what. Because if they didn't get bought up they would have taken down thousands of employees and industries across the globe.

So explain why should the rest of us be subject to a few greedy folks? So explain to me how this is a case AGAINST regulation? This situation and your argument proves only one thing, regulations need to be more strictly watched over otherwise everyone around the world can be subject to a few people's greedy intentions. I'm not for socialism, but I'm also not for completely unchecked capitalism. Unchecked capitalism is just as bad for the world as socialism.

Because like you said, greed and foolhardiness are inherent, there has to be some oversight in multiple stages to prevent that greed and foolhardiness from taking the world economy with it.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 03/18/2009 @ 6:39pm
businessmen have far greater incentives to police themselves and still, they eventually screw up

Happ,

Maybe small businessmen have that incentive. The bigwigs in finance don't. We bail them out every time. Remember S&L?

They blackmail the people with a scorched-earth campaign on the entire economy, and we give in... EVERY TIME.

Posted by gangpapist at 03/18/2009 @ 7:50pm
No bailouts isn't even on the table. The last occupant started this thing with zero oversight. The current one beat another bailer, a Keating Fiver with a long bailout resume, and has continued the bailout regime with no oversight, but with hysterical and hypocritical hindsight.

Hooray for hypocritical hindsight!

Posted by gangpapist at 03/18/2009 @ 7:58pm
....incentives to police themselves....bigwigs in finance don't. We bail them out every time. Remember S&L?

Posted by gangpapist at 03/18/2009 @ 7:50pm

You guys get all bent out of shape because the execs take (hindsight 20/20 BIG) chances.....that's the nature of the game......stockholders and lenders (all sorts) provide the money (OPM Finance).....rarely do you find a public corp. where the founder or largest investor owns a majority of the shares, which would of course, give outside minority holders some sense that the execs will do what is in the best interest of ALL shareholders and lenders.

The "bigwigs" main road to really serious riches lie in their options....while the appearances are their greed running a company into the ground, with or without Bailouts, the fact is they lose BIG. I'm not going to research it but I can make a safe assumption quite a few AIG heavyweights have, each of them, hundreds of thousands of option or grant shares...at $50 per share, would've been worth 9-figures.

Look at Lee Raymond, last Exxon CEO...his annual salary & bonuses were chump change barely over $1 million....but when he finally retired, his accumulated stock options were over $100 million! Fact is, million dollar bonuses sound excessive to the average person, it ain't much in the world of BIG. A-Rod gets over $100 million to play what, 7~8 yrs of baseball....shit, a fairly simple game! Oprah and Rush get even more just to talk.

Sorry, I know there are always exceptions....but in the big leagues, as in world-leading in AIG's case, I just don't believe what has happened is somehow willful....folks play with fire ALL THE TIME thinking they can control it. Most of the time, sure!

Posted by Happy at 03/18/2009 @ 9:08pm
Posted by Happy at 03/18/2009 @ 9:08pm |

I agree with everything you just said. I don't care if they take big chances. I just don't want to be their safety net.

If history is a predictor of the future, I will not get my wish, so why? shouldn't I want these guys to choose A) regulation, or B) bailouts come equipped with pay cuts, humiliation, chemical castration...

Posted by gangpapist at 03/18/2009 @ 9:25pm
Never be overly greedy even though, if one is not greedy, one wouldn't invest at all!!

Posted by Happy at 03/18/2009 @ 6:03pm

dagnabbit!

can't find that post. you we're going to be masked.

Posted by frosty zoom at 03/18/2009 @ 9:40pm
Sorry, I know there are always exceptions....but in the big leagues, as in world-leading in AIG's case, I just don't believe what has happened is somehow willful....folks play with fire ALL THE TIME thinking they can control it. Most of the time, sure!

Posted by Happy at 03/18/2009 @ 9:08pm

becoming an addict is rarely willfully committed.

nonetheless, an addict arrives at a juncture where the stark realization that her addiction is not only destroying herself, but the lives of those around her, too.

these "folks" were the first to feel the impacts of the fecal spray coming off the rotary blades, yet they chose to say, "HEHEH*, ONE MORE FIX!".

and they didn't care about YOU. they just wanted to keep mainlining the fiat.

some folks play with fire, others are arsonists.

Posted by frosty zoom at 03/18/2009 @ 9:49pm
I just love Drudge!

Posted by Happy at 03/18/2009 @ 6:18pm

wash your hands.

Posted by frosty zoom at 03/18/2009 @ 9:49pm
SUPER PUMP: $1 TRILLION CREATED OUT OF THIN AIR

Posted by Happy at 03/18/2009 @ 6:18pm

i hear cheney has a contract out on bernanke.

he's really peeved that the bubble wasn't kept inflated until president mccaingramm was elected.

Posted by frosty zoom at 03/18/2009 @ 9:51pm
SUPER PUMP: $1 TRILLION CREATED OUT OF THIN AIR

Posted by Happy at 03/18/2009 @ 6:18pm

dude, don't banks do that everyday?

Posted by frosty zoom at 03/18/2009 @ 9:52pm
the sage:

But John, the sub-$75kers & their employers pay the bulk of Social Security and quite amazingly, actually trusts the Gov't! Personal Accounts, even conservatively invested, can be such wealth builders!

Posted by Happy at 07/09/2007 @ 5:58pm

Posted by frosty zoom at 03/18/2009 @ 10:01pm
SUPER PUMP: $1 TRILLION CREATED OUT OF THIN AIR

Posted by Happy at 03/18/2009 @ 6:18pm

dude,

who is the largest holder of t-bills?

hint: it's not china.

Posted by frosty zoom at 03/18/2009 @ 10:04pm
For those that want no risks for their Personal Account, they can certainly choose actual US bonds which traditionally provide a real yield of 2 to 3%. And these bonds would be theirs and still worth more than SS payments from Uncle Sam!

Posted by Happy at 07/09/2007 @ 7:48pm

dude,

where do you think your ss money is already put?

you pay ss, the government "creates" more money cause you lend them some

and then we fractionally reserve.

the wheels on the bus go round and round......

Posted by frosty zoom at 03/18/2009 @ 10:08pm
*sorry, mask. different tone then you use.

Posted by frosty zoom at 03/18/2009 @ 10:13pm
"- 2004: AIG pays $80 million to settle criminal charges brought by the Justice Department against Cassano's unit, AIGFP. The unit had been charged with securities fraud for allegedly helping PNC Financial improve its reported financial results by shifting about $750 million in assets off PNC's balance sheet, in return for lucrative fees....

Posted by snowball666 at 03/18/2009 @ 10:03pm

Is that your smoking gun? Not even a pea-shooter. Take a look at the size of AIG,.....so, AIGFP pushed something to see they just might, get away with it. Remember the Big Eight accounting firms selling tax shelters? And they are THE WHITE SHOE ACCOUNTANTS

Hasn't every BIG company, say Lockheed or Haliburton, Fannie Mae (accounting fraud that enriched Demo buddy Raines), had a few tiny problems of one sort or another....Has any Gubbers even been snagged for taking kickbacks or quid pro quos (Boeing exec job for Air Force purchasing darling)......you ever had a traffic ticket (or worse)?

IF you expect perfection, even in small one-man companies like mine.....you need to see a shrink!

Posted by Happy at 03/18/2009 @ 10:28pm
The execs can only be replaced after months of searching and an expensive recruiter fee.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 03/18/2009 @ 3:45pm

check the new lines of unemployed Wall Street types. They are getting longer.

And we can see that they spent their recruitment money well, it only cost the country 400 billion so far. "Heckuva Job" Supermen! Ayn would be so proud.

Posted by crabwalk at 03/18/2009 @ 10:28pm
I just love Drudge!

Posted by Happy at 03/18/2009 @ 6:18pm

wash your hands.

Posted by frosty zoom at 03/18/2009 @ 9:49pm

Don't you mean.....my eyes or my mouse...LOL!

who is the largest holder of t-bills?

hint: it's not china.

Posted by frosty zoom at 03/18/2009 @ 10:04pm

Our kids, unborn grand kids and great grand kids?

The Social Security Admin. also loves to hold t-bills to show how well it's funded.....no problem here, move along, nothing to see!

Posted by Happy at 03/18/2009 @ 10:34pm
One reason this happens again and again...

people like HAppy excuse it.

Because they worship mammon.

Then they act outraged when they see their congressman in the pew next to them.

Posted by crabwalk at 03/18/2009 @ 10:36pm
....these bonds would be theirs and still worth more than SS payments from Uncle Sam!

Posted by Happy at 07/09/2007 @ 7:48pm

dude,

where do you think your ss money is already put?

you pay ss, the government "creates" more money cause you lend them some

and then we fractionally reserve.

the wheels on the bus go round and round......

Posted by frosty zoom at 03/18/2009 @ 10:08pm

Just make sure you're not the last one standing w/out a seat....

SS = Ponzi, and just happens to reminds of Nazis....coincidence? Hmmmm.....

Individual accounts are the key....Ayn Randian!

Posted by Happy at 03/18/2009 @ 10:38pm
it's extremely amusing witnessing the populist renaissance of the republican party. suddenly, republicans are so concerned about the rule of law, ethics, morality, and have even displayed an overt posture of righteousness with regards to civil discourse.

the republicans destroyed our country, and now they have the audacity to deceive the working class into believing that the democratic party is attempting to undermine democracy and the rule of law.

i think the republican party should start a theater company and perform the works of samual beckett.

Posted by darladoon at 03/18/2009 @ 10:46pm
come to think of it, the GOP should just produce porn.

Posted by darladoon at 03/18/2009 @ 10:52pm
darla,

ask the cons, "If 'contract law' is so important to you, will you revisit all the contracts broken with the Native people?"

I'm a con sympathethizer, but please do this for me. My people need this thrashing. Seriously, they do.

Posted by gangpapist at 03/18/2009 @ 11:03pm
the republicans destroyed our country, and now they have the audacity to deceive the working class into believing that the democratic party is attempting to undermine democracy and the rule of law.

Posted by darladoon at 03/18/2009 @ 10:46pm | ignore this person | warn this person

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

Knowing that your strong suit is baseless empty rhetoric filled with generalizations only betraying your biased unfounded hatred, it is troubling and no comfort to realize people such as you make up at least 52% of the voting public! Why is it such children always forget to flush!

Posted by comancheamerican at 03/18/2009 @ 11:04pm
IF you expect perfection, even in small one-man companies like mine.....you need to see a shrink!

Posted by Happy at 03/18/2009 @ 10:28pm

Perfection? Following the gd law is not perfection, it is an expectation of members of society. That is why we have jails.

Posted by OneVote at 03/18/2009 @ 11:29pm
Question 5. How prevalent are these bonuses?

Answer. Referral, hiring, and retention bonuses are not very common. In the March2000 data, only 9 percent of civilian workers had access to a referral, hiring, or retentionbonus plan. Eighty-five percent did not have access to any of these bonus plans. (Datawere unavailable for 6 percent of workers.) Referral bonus plans were available to about7 percent of workers; hiring bonus plans to 3 percent; and retention bonus plans to 2percent. (Note: Three percent of workers had access to multiple bonus plans.)Question

6. What percentage of workers with access to a plan actually receivedreferral, hiring, or retention bonuses?

Answer. BLS did not capture the percentage of workers who received a bonus in eitherthe December 1999 or March 2000 tests. However, based on supporting documentationreceived in the test, it appears that few workers with access actually received a bonusduring the quarters surveyed.

Source: US Department of Labor - BLS.Gov 2000

Posted by OneVote at 03/18/2009 @ 11:54pm
I just can't wait to hear leftist explain why THIS is a great plan by Obamanation and the Demoncrats; (this should be good)

Fannie Mae plans to pay retention bonuses of at least $1 million to four key executives as part of a plan to keep hundreds of employees from leaving the government-controlled company.

Rival mortgage finance company Freddie Mac is planning similar awards but has not reported on which executives will benefit.

The two companies, which together own or back more than half of the home mortgages in the country, have been hobbled by skyrocketing loan defaults. Fannie recently requested $15 billion in federal aid, while Freddie has sought a total of almost $45 billion.

Fannie Mae disclosed its "broad-based" retention program in a recent regulatory filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The company was required to disclose only the amounts for the top-paid executives, who will pocket at least $470,000 on top of their base salaries.

The bonuses are more than double last year's, which ranged from $200,000 to $260,000. Another round of bonuses ranging from $330,000 to $429,000 are planned for February.

A company spokesman declined further comment.

Fannie Mae said regulators determined that the bonuses were needed because keeping key employees "was essential to ensure our viability through 2010, which would allow Congress, the administration and other parties involved time to determine what the form and function of the company will be in future years."

The bonuses were authorized last year by the Federal Housing Finance Agency, which seized control of Fannie and Freddie in September and ousted the companies' former CEOs

Posted by comancheamerican at 03/19/2009 @ 01:10am
"Why is it such children always forget to flush!"

if only more children forgot to flush. is urine really so unsanitary?

folks, bush cost us in the trillions. all of this shit in which we are currently mired, was caused by BUSH.

you ALL know it. so don't we all just shut the f*ck up and finally admit that bush was TOXIC.

his entire presidency was CHAOS.

and clinton didn't cause it, or carter, ok?

Posted by darladoon at 03/19/2009 @ 01:12am
obamanation and the demoncrats.

you know, comanche, that doesn't exactly roll off the tounge. if you're gonna start a fad, or trend, you really need to find something that.....well.....that....works.

yours, doesn't work. in fact, it totally sucks. i can't even read it. it's almost anti-grammatical.

Posted by darladoon at 03/19/2009 @ 01:15am
"Knowing that your strong suit is baseless empty rhetoric filled with generalizations only betraying your biased unfounded hatred, it is troubling and no comfort to realize people such as you make up at least 52% of the voting public!"

so, bush saved us? gosh, i think i'll plant a few more trees tomorrow.

Posted by darladoon at 03/19/2009 @ 01:19am
come to think of it, the GOP should just produce porn.

Posted by darladoon at 03/18/2009 @ 10:52pm

Darla, Some of them already have. I saw a documentary showing where Phil Gramm backed a softcore porn flick before his political career took off. The same fellow behind pushing a lot of the deregulation that caused this mess.

Posted by Wolfgang1 at 03/19/2009 @ 07:36am
The truth of the matter is that all of us have been duped. The political show put on for us in D.C. is nothing more than a political show. It's a three ring circus with clowns and the works. Plenty of drama, people pointing fingers at each other and screaming, occasionally someone goes to jail, but business goes on as usual behind the scenes.

The laws are legislated to protect the well to do and well established. Enforement of those laws applies to the not well to do or not well established. We've seen this time and time again.

The UAW legislation versus the AIG legislation proves my point. When Scooter Libby was convicted, he was given walking papers and didn't serve one second of time.

My guess if that Madoff is fearing for his life and that is why he turned himself over to the feds, otherwise, he'd still be playing his game. He pissed somebody more powerful than himself off and needs 24/7 bodygaurds.

The small time investers like Happy who think they are the big shots are only kidding themselves and are mere milllionires at best. The big players are multi billionaires who's names never come up during times like these, but they are the ones waltzing off with all of the cash and laughing their rich asses off at how easy they raided the cookie jar and were able to pin it on the small fry.

On a smaller scale, it reminds me of Rumsfeld trying to blame the enlisted guys for the torture he himself ordered to take place.

Posted by Wolfgang1 at 03/19/2009 @ 07:48am
Bill Clinton and Bob Rubin are JUST AS MUCH responsible for this as Dubya. I'm not letting the Chimp off the hook, just saying that there's plenty of blame to go around.

If we are the good liberals we believe ourselves to be, then we can't front when it comes to admitting the mistakes of the leaders we selected and their eggheaded Secs of the Usury.

Posted by snowball666 at 03/19/2009 @ 07:47am

Ditto! The only thing I'd add to that is that the Clinton administration may not have caused quite as much damage as Bush Jr's administration, but he sure as hell added kindling to the fire we are presently dealing with.

Posted by Wolfgang1 at 03/19/2009 @ 07:54am
Let me see if I've got the Right's talking points straight...

attacking Dodd for supporting the AIG exec bonuses?

attacking Obama for not knowing about it?

but THEY (The Right) support the bonuses?

So they're attacking Dodd and Obama for somehow "facilitating" something they support?!??!??

Posted by Mask at 03/19/2009 @ 08:05am
It's never been clear why liberals have so much faith that regulators are smarter or better able to foresee the future than businessmen.

Posted by Happy at 03/18/2009 @ 4:59pm

It's never been clear to me why cons let incompetent "experts" off the line so easy, and act like apologists for greedy pigs. Protecting your own, I guess.

---- Ayn Randian! Posted by Happy at 03/18/2009 @ 10:38pm |

How do Ayn and Jesus get along?

-------

Why is it such children always forget to flush!

Posted by comancheamerican at 03/18/2009 @ 11:04pm

Your turd floated for 8 years till the adults got tired of the stank. Now you have that "Who farted" look the guy that farted gets.

Posted by crabwalk at 03/19/2009 @ 08:22am
This unending back-and-forth of who--Democrats or Republicans--are more to blame for our downward spiraling country reminds me of those first generation video ping-pong games: outdated, simplistic, repetitive, but somehow strangely hypnotic too.

Posted by theo51 at 03/19/2009 @ 08:54am
I cashed out a good chunk of my 401(k) in May 07. Do you think I was just GUESSING about something like that?

Posted by snowball666 at 03/19/2009 @ 08:49am

Please don't be dense.....My point, repeated in different words for years here, remains the same!

You are dealing with 100% of your own ?hard-earned? money and YOU are the best judge of how to deploy, park (as you probably did in May 07), or blow YOUR OWN MONEY.

Executives, exactly like politicians, WILL TAKE HUGE CHANCES with OPM Financing, to enrich themselves....the only major difference between us cons and you Libs, is that we'd rather trust the motives of business execs than pols; since each and everyone of us, believes in making our OWN CHOICES as to whether we deploy/park/divest our money from the business execs. With pols, once they set policies in motion, gambling with my AND your money, there is NO CHOICE!

Now, does my key point register? On this AIG fiasco thread?

Posted by Happy at 03/19/2009 @ 10:11am
Post their names, addresses, phone numbers, license numbers of their cars, names and locations of their yachts and planes, google earth longitude and latitude coordinates of their real estate holdings. And just for good measure feature them on You Tube. Also include downloadable MapQuest locations for GPS.

Then ask them if they would like to be so kind as to return our money and then voluntarily banish themselves to the Island of Formentara...

Posted by chaoszen at 03/19/2009 @ 10:19am
Posted by Happy at 03/19/2009 @ 10:11am

I get it HAP. But the only problem with the pols is when they are in the pocket of the execs. That is when things go wrong.

Posted by !immutable at 03/19/2009 @ 10:29am
but THEY (The Right) support the bonuses?

So they're attacking Dodd and Obama for somehow "facilitating" something they support?!??!??

Posted by Mask at 03/19/2009 @ 08:05am

Yep. Hypocracy knows no bounds. That's the difference I've seen here. Only republican leaders can dole out federal money to private interests (defense spending measures can't be too much in their book). If a democrat president lines the pockets of the banking industry folks, he has to do it by the letter of the law, but he's still of son of a bitch for doing so because he's a socialist.

I don't know why these guys hated Clinton so much, nor do I understand why they don't like Obama. Clinton was a republican and signed deregulation legislation into action and so far, a lot of Obamas appointees would have made Milton Friedman proud.

Posted by Wolfgang1 at 03/19/2009 @ 10:39am
And what the hell are "Credit Default Swaps"? Looks like we could bail out AIG to the tune of the entire GNP of the entire world and it would not be enough. Credit Default Swaps at about USD 57+ trillion?

G20 Summit must focus on Derivatives, Off-Balance-Sheet Vehicles

8 Bubbles Quadrillion Play Grows 22% to $206k per person-on-planet

London, UK - 19th March 2009, 10:30 GMT

As the April G20 summit in London approaches, it is worth noting that the trans-national play of derivatives has grown from USD 1.144 Quadrillion to USD 1.405 Quadrillion, ie, +22% worldwide. This is a staggering increase and most of it is seen in the Over-The-Counter (OTC) category as opposed to exchange traded derivatives. As a result, the global size of the derivatives bubble which was calculated last year at USD 190k per person-on-planet, has risen to USD 206k per person-on-planet. The ever rising commitment of governments for the repeated bailouts of financial institutions is partially linked to various flavours of derivatives exposure settlements and "black hole" losses emanating from off-balance-sheet vehicles.

The traditional argument has been to discount derivatives altogether: "On one side of the equation there is a loss, on the other side there is a gain. Nothing disappears. It is just one big shuffle of wealth and assets." However, if this is the case, why has the US tax-payer had to bail out AIG repeatedly in excess of a hundred and fifty billion dollars so that AIG could settle the Credit Default Swap.

1. Listed credit derivatives stood at USD 542 trillion, about the same as before; however

2. Over-The-Counter (OTC) derivatives stood in notional or face value at USD 863 trillion (UP +44%) and include:

a. Interest Rate Derivatives at about USD 458+ trillion.

Posted by chaoszen at 03/19/2009 @ 10:45am
Republicans(Ding)...... Democrats(Ding)..... Republicans(Ding)......Democrats(Ding)..... Republicans(Ding)......Democrats(Ding)..... Republicans(Ding)......Democrats(Ding)..... Republicans(Ding)......Democrats(Ding)..... Republicans(Ding)......Democrats(Ding)..... Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Posted by theo51 at 03/19/2009 @ 10:48am
Google mi2g under articles G20 Summit must focus on Derivatives,... For the entire twilight zone article.

Posted by chaoszen at 03/19/2009 @ 10:51am
Here is a thought. If the execs are so smart and our pols are taking money from the execs to do their bidding, how come we are not experiencing great prosperity?

How about execs run on greed and that is something that you can't run a country on.

Posted by !immutable at 03/19/2009 @ 10:52am
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Posted by theo51 at 03/19/2009 @ 10:48am

If your bored there is always masturbation.. It always works for me. :D

Posted by chaoszen at 03/19/2009 @ 10:54am
We have elections all the time. Exercise THAT CHOICE, Hap.

Posted by snowball666 at 03/19/2009 @ 10:38am

I prefer `execution' of decisions in .08 seconds!

BTW: Thanks to the blog for taking my advice to buy AIG yesterday. It touched $2.00 at the open...let's push it over $2 before the end of the week!

GE accounted for 10% of NYSE trading volume yesterday.....will likley exceed 200 million shares again today, now up almost $5 from when I picked up another batch at around $6!

Ain't this a lot more fun than sitting mostly in TIPs; not that it's all that bad....but somehow, 2% to 3% above inflation just don't give me the urge to crank up the PC every morning!

Posted by Happy at 03/19/2009 @ 10:56am
uh, hello, clinton did not invade and occupy iraq. he might not even have invaded occupied afghanistan.

BUSH did both, and bankrupt us. clinton, for whom i never voted, whose fiscal policies may have partially led us down the road we are on today, would not have bankrupt the country like his succesor, given these two disastrous foreign wars.

Posted by darladoon at 03/19/2009 @ 11:01am
"Darla, please put down the bong. You're making my pro-legalization agenda look bad"

bongs are for college boys, son. i don't use bongs. and even if i did, i have a hard time believing that, because i made the hardly outrageous claim that bush destroyed the country, i am making you look bad......

Posted by darladoon at 03/19/2009 @ 11:03am
Posted by Happy at 03/19/2009 @ 10:56am

BTW, before HAPP gets into his "I'm the King of all Day Traders" braggadochio again...

ask him how much he LOST starting last summer despite his Criswell clairvoyance.

Posted by Mask at 03/19/2009 @ 11:12am
So, the Fed is going to print up a quick trillion, just like that. Why don't they just print the money checkbook style? In $20 denomination. On recycled paper of course.How about $5,000 per checkbook? Then mail it out to every adult US citizen. And then we can tear one out each time we need to buy that $20 loaf of bread.

Posted by theo51 at 03/19/2009 @ 11:14am
Posted by theo51 at 03/19/2009 @ 11:14am

Ooooh, think I smell a Drudge reader!

Posted by Mask at 03/19/2009 @ 11:18am
Posted by darladoon at 03/19/2009 @ 11:03am

Not to worry. Drugs will either be decriminalized or legal soon. Tax and savings incentives for governments are just too attractive at these times of global depression. And the fact that the war on drugs does not work. Prohibition apparently fires up drug abuse. Hmmm.. Seems like I knew that a long time ago..

Anyway, there will be no shame in polishing up that 3ft Bong. I'm breaking out all my drug paraphernalia for review and sorting. Some of it is quite classic. Ebay? And my collection of ZAP comix. "The Furry Freak Brothers", "Flakey Foont", "Mr. Natural" and hundreds of others. Could be a Boon!

Posted by chaoszen at 03/19/2009 @ 11:18am
Ooooh, think I smell a Drudge reader! Posted by Mask. Nope, never read him, probably never will. Got the news from the NY Times. I just think that if we are going to survive, we have got to laugh. At least for me.

Posted by theo51 at 03/19/2009 @ 11:21am
Posted by theo51 at 03/19/2009 @ 11:14am

I bought some "bread" the other day. 5 twenty's for twenty. They look real good to. Oh, you mean THAT kind of bread.. Still about a buck twenty five a loaf round here for the cheap stuff..

Posted by chaoszen at 03/19/2009 @ 11:23am
Speaking of joking in the face of adversity. I read a book about the history of laughter. Laughter as a challenge to authority. Anyway, I was surprised to learn that there were several Jewish stand-up comedians "performing" in the death camps. Now, that's a tough gig. My apologies for being off-topic. It's just my way of calling for some levity in the midst of all this.

Posted by theo51 at 03/19/2009 @ 11:26am
question for the forum:

if bush had not invaded/occupied iraq and/or afghanistan, would the united states still find itself in its current financial predicament?

darla says: NO!

and if gore won the 2000 election, would he have invaded iraq and afghanistan?

darla says: NO (iraq) and YES (afghanistan)

and if gore invaded afghanistan, and not iraq, would the united states therefore have saved 2 trillion?

darla says: YES

Posted by darladoon at 03/19/2009 @ 11:28am
BUSH did both, and bankrupt us. clinton, for whom i never voted, whose fiscal policies may have partially led us down the road we are on today, would not have bankrupt the country like his succesor, given these two disastrous foreign wars.

Posted by darladoon at 03/19/2009 @ 11:01am

Darla, You are right, Clinton didn't cause the damage that W did, but then again, what president did besides possibly Hoover or Coolidge?

The point I was making is that Clinton at best is a very very very conservative democrat, but by the old definition of democrat versus republican, he was a republican. If you look at most of his policies, he sided with big business.

Now, take a look at Obama. He has appointed to neocons who are presently overseeing this financial disaster. Kind of like letting the fox guard the henhouse so to speak. His reasoning for appointing them was that they are experienced and know the system, but from a laymen's point of view, he put people who associate with the very people they are supposed to be watching over. Not a good idea. Kind of like putting Dick Cheney to head a task force investigating whether or not the enemy combatants were tortured or not.

I hope Obama does well and I voted for him, but I have to say that so far I'm wondering what the hell his administation is doing. So far there hasn't been any accountability for what's happened from the Iraq debacle nor the present financial straights we're in.

Being president in times like this requires serious intestinal fortitude. Obama didn't create this situation, but he's the one who is going to have to clean it up. A good start would be getting to the bottom of this cluster f*&^ of a financial crisis and finding out how far W and Cheney went to deceive us into 2 wars.

Posted by Wolfgang1 at 03/19/2009 @ 11:30am
The traditional argument has been to discount derivatives altogether: "On one side of the equation there is a loss, on the other side there is a gain. Nothing disappears. It is just one big shuffle of wealth and assets." However, if this is the case, why has the US tax-payer had to bail out AIG repeatedly in excess of a hundred and fifty billion dollars so that AIG could settle the Credit Default Swap.

1. Listed credit derivatives stood at USD 542 trillion, about the same as before; however

2. Over-The-Counter (OTC) derivatives stood in notional or face value at USD 863 trillion (UP +44%) and include:

a. Interest Rate Derivatives at about USD 458+ trillion.

Posted by chaoszen at 03/19/2009 @ 10:45am

This is what is really incredible. The derivative market traunches multiply "the value" of the underlying instrument, say a collaterized mortgage obligation, far beyond its inherent value (ability to yield real cash flow). We seem to be propping up a unreal world of fictitious wealth created by the mad scientists so as to enable banks, governments, corporations, etc. to falsify their balance sheets so as to generate more profits on less reserves and less credit worthiness. To wit:

Trends in Residential Housing Wealth According to the Flow of Funds data published by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, household real estate assets totaled about $20.6 trillion dollars at the end of 2006. Thus, with mortgage liabilities totaling about $9.8 trillion, household net real estate wealth--which I'll simply call net housing wealth from now on--totaled a little less than $11 trillion at the end of 2006.

Source: Federal Reserve of St. Louis

This is a never never world that is the biggest Ponzi scheme ever perpetrated on mankind.

Posted by OneVote at 03/19/2009 @ 11:31am
1. Yes. Greedy, unregulated bankers and money changers and their ilk and the subservient politicians of both parties were around long before Iraq and will be around for the foreseeable future.

2. No to Iraq. Yes to Afghanistan.

3. No. We would be even more mired in Afghanistan then we are now, because we would have sent more troops. But, of course, Obama is making sure we sink in deeper in Afghanistan as troops are freed up from Iraq. War is very profitable to too many corporations. The big spending in WWII was what saved the US economy during the last depression. "It's the System, Stupid" would be my bumpersticker.

Posted by theo51 at 03/19/2009 @ 11:38am
So, the Fed is going to print up a quick trillion, just like that. Why don't they just print the money checkbook style? In $20 denomination. On recycled paper of course.How about $5,000 per checkbook? Then mail it out to every adult US citizen. And then we can tear one out each time we need to buy that $20 loaf of bread.

Posted by theo51 at 03/19/2009 @ 11:14am | ignore this person | warn this person

Heard that the nation's money supply in circulating hard cash actually represents less than about 5% of the so called money supply. Money supply is actually electronic book entries on computers. No need to print up the money via the magic of electronic funds transfer. Cool huh? No need for the wizard to even print up paper!

Posted by OneVote at 03/19/2009 @ 11:47am
No need to print up the money via the magic of electronic funds transfer. Cool huh? No need for the wizard to even print up paper! Posted by OneVote

Hey just like in Second Life! Virtual money, virtual lives, virtual meals....Oppps, I forgot we have to eat real food.

Posted by theo51 at 03/19/2009 @ 11:51am
snowball, iraq has already cost us 1.5 trillion. and you believe that we would have spent that anyway even if we hadn't gone in.

are you feeling ok?

Posted by darladoon at 03/19/2009 @ 11:57am
"Mistakes were made at AIG on a scale that few could have imagined possible," he said.

Quoting AIG's Mr. Liddy in testimony before Congress yesterday.

Probe into AIG bonuses launched; BBC News 03/19/09

A jury ain't gonna believe it either. Unimaginable mistakes which enriched corporate governance and their lackeys at the expense of shareholders and AIG customers and counterparties.

Time to prosecute.

Posted by OneVote at 03/19/2009 @ 12:05pm
Hey just like in Second Life! Virtual money, virtual lives, virtual meals....Oppps, I forgot we have to eat real food.

Posted by theo51 at 03/19/2009 @ 11:51am | ignore this person | warn this person

Isn't it grand!

Posted by OneVote at 03/19/2009 @ 12:07pm
This is a never never world that is the biggest Ponzi scheme ever perpetrated on mankind.

Posted by OneVote at 03/19/2009 @ 11:31am

It is the greatest Ponzi scheme ever! Im so relieved that somebody gets it. I was starting to think I was crazy. (Well, I am a bit. But in a good way)

"The Masters of the Universe" are using these derivatives in order to leverage money. In the old days a bank would work the formula. If it had a million dollars in the bank it would loan money up to 10 million. 1-10 ratio. It would charge interest like maybe 3 or 4 percent. Since it just created 9 million out of thin air, this Ponzi scheme would work out quite well. Usually with little or no problemo.

But then the greedy get even more greedy and design exotic derivatives in order to make even more money on money which is mostly nonexistent. And then they come with the idea to insure these investments on nonexistent collateral. (AIG).. So that they are the first in line when it comes to collecting on any loss that might be incurred. Brilliant! But diabolical and evil. And so it goes with a true Capiltalist. A dickwad who sits around contributing nothing, making nothing but wealth for themselves off of money that does not exist. And then looking for a handout when it all turns to shit.

Posted by chaoszen at 03/19/2009 @ 12:09pm
Posted by chaoszen at 03/19/2009 @ 11:18am | ignore this person | warn this person

Zap number one is quite valuable. I have number two, not quite so.$200 when last I checked.

Posted by emile duBois at 03/19/2009 @ 12:13pm
Feed the Zombies. Feed the Zombies. Look, here come a fresh load of flesh--1 trillion pounds. If we don't feed them, then they will come after us.

Posted by theo51 at 03/19/2009 @ 12:16pm
A dickwad who sits around contributing nothing, making nothing but wealth for themselves off of money that does not exist. And then looking for a handout when it all turns to shit.

Posted by chaoszen at 03/19/2009 @ 12:09pm | ignore this person | warn this person

In a nutshell Chao - well said.

Posted by OneVote at 03/19/2009 @ 12:16pm
No, we'd have spent it slightly differently, but with the same piglets to always line up at the MIC trough.

And we'd have the same problems with a 'fissile' Pakistani political environment either way.

Mired is mired. Veteran's bleed regardless of where they were standing when they got hit.

Posted by snowball666 at 03/19/2009 @ 11:50am

Here's the thing. If Gore had been president instead of W, we wouldn't have gone into Iraq, and Gore would have dealt with Afghanistan in a different manner. Remember that right after 9/11 most of the world sypathized with the U.S. Gore would have capitalized on that, removed the Taliban from power and gone after Bin Laden. The Taliban would not have had the chance to regroup as they did once W moved everyone to Iraq.

We would have spent a few years in Afghanistan, made way less enemies, and the many countries would have helped us out with the endeavor.

It was W's wild west mentality of you're either with us or against us crap that pissed everyone in the world off at us plus the fact that he attacked Iraq for no apparent reason other than the fact that Sadam threatened his daddy (and there's a lot of black gold there).

As far as Afghanistan goes now, we don't have the resources to fight a continued war there. The Soviets tried to set up shop there and we saw what happened to them...pretty much what happened to us in Iraq. History has a way of repeating itself. Unless Obama wishes to completely bankrupt the U.S. and watch teh country implode, he'd better look very carefully at going into Afghanistan or even staying in Iraq.

Posted by Wolfgang1 at 03/19/2009 @ 12:16pm
I am very much enjoying the Billville "Inside the Money Bubble" stuff from Firesign Theatre...almost...prophetic!

Posted by snowball666 at 03/19/2009 @ 11:32am

I cut my psychedelic eye teeth on such classics as "I think we're all Bozos on this Bus", "Don't Crush That Dwarf, Hand me the Pliers", "How can you be in two places at once When your not Anywhere at All" and "Waiting for the Electrician or Someone Like Him". Firesign Theatre still bears a close listen. Especially after a doobie or two..

Posted by chaoszen at 03/19/2009 @ 12:17pm
Feed the Zombies. Feed the Zombies. Look, here come a fresh load of flesh--1 trillion pounds. If we don't feed them, then they will come after us.

Posted by theo51 at 03/19/2009 @ 12:16pm | ignore this person | warn this person

Did you catch Obama's statement yesterday in California?......

He likened these characters to suicide terrorists with plastic explosive tapped to their chests and their fingers on the detonator. Keep Gitmo open for the real terrorists.

Posted by OneVote at 03/19/2009 @ 12:21pm
In response to Wolfgang1 about Gore in Afghanistan. Why would we have succeeded where USSR didn't? We had zero support from Afghan population in 2002 for the invasion, and now we have even less; now we have the majority even angrier. They didn't ask us in then, and they don't want us there now. It's only US hubris and Imperialism that thinks it can go anywhere, do anything, and viola' problem solved.

Posted by theo51 at 03/19/2009 @ 12:26pm
what viola problem?

viola players always get the shaft.

Posted by emile duBois at 03/19/2009 @ 12:31pm
Sorry, bad French. Speaking violas, what do you call two viola players together.....a minor second. I guess you have to be a musician to understand that one, which I am.

Posted by theo51 at 03/19/2009 @ 12:35pm
Unless Obama wishes to completely bankrupt the U.S. and watch teh country implode, he'd better look very carefully at going into Afghanistan or even staying in Iraq.

Posted by Wolfgang1 at 03/19/2009 @ 12:16pm | ignore this person | warn this person

Can't wait for the grand plan. Gates says - golly I don't what to do in Afghanistan.

My fear is that we are going to get an Iraq plan - need to build an Afghan army about 400,0000 strong or so (and of course with unflinching loyalty to the US) and we have to build a new embassy like the George Bush palace in Iraq.

This is a monumental undertaking and we are far from finished in Iraq.

We haven't even established the beginning a legitimate government in Afghanistan yet and we have been there 8 years!

This is really BS.

Besides Afghanistan, we have got to recreate a government for Pakistan as part of the nation building grand plan.

Just insane.

Posted by OneVote at 03/19/2009 @ 12:43pm
Keep Gitmo open for the real terrorists.

Posted by OneVote at 03/19/2009 @ 12:21pm

"DICK "SHOOTER" CHENEY". <- That is a plaque that should be reserved for an un-distinguished guest at Guantanamo, who should have an entire wing of the prison dedicated to a "True American Terrorist".

We should keep his bionics going for centuries in order to educate future Americans on the dangers of Neo-Fascism. No money could be better spent. And even Disney World could sell tickets to a "Cuban Boat Excursion" and "Maglev Train" ride to view the Exhibit.

Posted by chaoszen at 03/19/2009 @ 12:46pm
From what I read, there is not one Afghan human rights group, economic development organization, women's right group, or political party that does not want the US to leave ASAP if not sooner, as my father use to say.

Posted by theo51 at 03/19/2009 @ 12:48pm
I think Obama is treading water in both Iraq and Afghanistan. first things first.

Posted by emile duBois at 03/19/2009 @ 12:55pm
And it 1-2-3-4 what are we fighting for. Don't ask me I don't give a damm Next stop is Afghanistan.

Posted by theo51 at 03/19/2009 @ 12:59pm
"DICK "SHOOTER" CHENEY". <- That is a plaque that should be reserved for an un-distinguished guest at Guantanamo, who should have an entire wing of the prison dedicated to a "True American Terrorist".

We should keep his bionics going for centuries in order to educate future Americans on the dangers of Neo-Fascism. No money could be better spent. And even Disney World could sell tickets to a "Cuban Boat Excursion" and "Maglev Train" ride to view the Exhibit.

Posted by chaoszen at 03/19/2009 @ 12:46pm | ignore this person | warn this person

You know that is a great idea.

Heard last night on MSNBC that nearly 700 persons were held without any evidence of being a terrorist, and only about approximately 2% of the "detainees" had any real link to terrorism. Bush and Cheney kept all these folks jailed for the sake of keeping up appearances. British citizens jailed denied extradition, and Tony Blair was a Bush cheerleader.

We all need a constant reminder of who the true terrorists are. Spot on.

It is trully amazing that Darth pathetic scumbag is still given a GD audience in the media (CNN but of course, a slightly less obnoxious but no less dangerous promoter of US imperialism and foreign agendas compared to Fox).

Posted by OneVote at 03/19/2009 @ 12:59pm
Not to change the subject, but our current President is talking up "Clean Coal" alongside "Green Energy" in Pomona, California. With roaring applause. Don't know about you but I am more than a bit worried about our current President.

Seems that some of the criticism about his being a little "Green" himself may not be without merit. And on top of that he is actively persuing another quagmire in Afghanistan.

Do we ever get a break? I mean "Clean Coal"???

I'm thinkin bout cashing in on my recent profits on Gold and Silver and buying a little piece of land with a modest hut on Fiji. Viti Levu or Bust. No phone, no internet, no hassel. Just an Azure Blue Lagoon with tremendous sunrises and sunsets while letting the crabs nibble at my toes while I play hide n seek with the sand...

Posted by chaoszen at 03/19/2009 @ 1:25pm
Posted by chaoszen at 03/19/2009 @ 1:25pm | ignore this person | warn this perso

dream on.

but spare us the revery.

Posted by emile duBois at 03/19/2009 @ 1:30pm
Obama has mentioned "clean coal" several times already. Remember he is from Illinois. He is first and foremost a brilliant politician.

Posted by theo51 at 03/19/2009 @ 1:31pm
BTW, Mr Hayes in his new "Capitolism" post has an answer to all those worried about "contract law" and bonuses for AIG execs.

Posted by Mask at 03/19/2009 @ 1:41pm
if the gov't had not stepped in to save AIG, its executives would not have received a dime of bonus, as the company would have been bankrupt. their contracts would have been of no use.

it's always easier to force labor to take less than their contracts provided for.

Posted by emile duBois at 03/19/2009 @ 1:51pm
but spare us the revery.

Posted by emile duBois at 03/19/2009 @ 1:30pm

That's "reverie" where I come from, and if you need to be spared an abstracted state of absorption or a preoccupation with the exclusion of all else then you are truly cursed.

And with that attitude will never be invited into my hut! You make the mistake of underestimating my intentions. I know nothing of "Dream On". I make my dreams happen when I feel I have suffered enough. As I am bursting with imagination. I have already lived in a number of tropical paradises for quite some time and did'nt realize my fortunate circumstances and thrust myself into more suffering as I was not yet worthy.

But now I might be ready. So don't shit on my dreams with your negative mockery.

Thanks!

Posted by chaoszen at 03/19/2009 @ 1:53pm
To continue your "hut" metaphor. The problem is that clean coal soaked acid rain with dissolve your thatched paradise roof.

Posted by theo51 at 03/19/2009 @ 2:01pm
revery One entry found.

Main Entry: rev�er�ie Variant(s): also rev�ery \ˈre-və-rē, ˈrev-rē\ Function: noun Inflected Form(s): plural rev�er�ies Etymology: French r�verie, from Middle French, delirium, from resver, rever to wander, be delirious Date: 1654 1 : daydream

Posted by emile duBois at 03/19/2009 @ 2:11pm
don't bore me with your vapid dreams, and I won't shit on them. in other words: grow up.

Posted by emile duBois at 03/19/2009 @ 2:13pm
"As I am bursting with imagination."

yeah, right. Gauguin you're not

if you wish others to praise you, don't praise yourself.

Posted by emile duBois at 03/19/2009 @ 2:15pm
Posted by theo51 at 03/19/2009 @ 2:01pm

Fortunately Fiji has one of the lowest CO2 emissions on it's own and is effected by it less than anywhere in the entire world. There is no Acid Rain and it has the purest Artesian water supply on the planet.

So I think my thatched roof will do just fine. I do my hard research, even when in reverie!

Posted by chaoszen at 03/19/2009 @ 2:17pm
"As I am bursting with imagination."

yeah, right. Gauguin you're not

if you wish others to praise you, don't praise yourself.

Posted by emile duBois at 03/19/2009 @ 2:15pm

Hey now! Imagination is not all it's cracked up to be.

Posted by chaoszen at 03/19/2009 @ 2:19pm
House just passed a tax on AIG bonuses...

Goodly portion of REPUBs voted for it too!

Posted by Mask at 03/19/2009 @ 2:20pm
BTW, Mr Hayes in his new "Capitolism" post has an answer to all those worried about "contract law" and bonuses for AIG execs.

Posted by Mask at 03/19/2009 @ 1:41pm

Too late Mask.....House just passed a bill to tax the bonuses.....the fight is getting a little too embarrassing for both sides, and its better to sweep it under the rug quickly.

As for the recipients of the bonuses, I will not be surprised that there will a loophole or two to avoid the full impact of such taxes, including litigating with the IRS in hopes of settling for far less or not paying them at all.

Posted by OneVote at 03/19/2009 @ 2:25pm
Posted by emile duBois at 03/19/2009 @ 2:15pm

Are you of Northern French decent? That would explain alot. My family comes from near Severac le Chateau. We are a little more civilised than our Northern cousins.

Just wondering..

Posted by chaoszen at 03/19/2009 @ 2:36pm
Goodly portion of REPUBs voted for it too!

Posted by Mask at 03/19/2009 @ 2:20pm

Of course they did! Repugnants are attemptin to play the Populist Card so that maybe they won't be identified with the corporate ass sucking neo-fascists that they are..

Posted by chaoszen at 03/19/2009 @ 2:40pm
It's only US hubris and Imperialism that thinks it can go anywhere, do anything, and viola' problem solved.

Posted by theo51 at 03/19/2009 @ 12:26pm

Theo, I wasn't talking about going into Afghanistan to set up shop like the Russians. I was talking about going in strictly to get Bin Forgottena and get the hell out which, I thought, was the reason for going in there anyway.

The word was, at the time anyway, that Bin Laden was in hiding in Afghanistan and trained the AQ terrorists there. Now, we all know NOT to trust the intelligence coming from the Bush administration, but that was what we were all told.

I don't think Gore would have gone into that country trying to take it over and be the police force there like the position we are now in. As you said, it's a no win scenario.

Posted by Wolfgang1 at 03/19/2009 @ 3:06pm
Goodly portion of REPUBs voted for it too!

Posted by Mask at 03/19/2009 @ 2:20pm

Strange times we live in indeed. When republicans are all for taxing the crap out of rich people!! Will miracles never cease?! LOL

Nothing like scoring a few cheap political points to try to act like they are just as upset as the ordinary Bloke out there....and that is for both sides of the isle.

Posted by Wolfgang1 at 03/19/2009 @ 3:27pm
'The most current proposal: tax the bejeezus out of the recipients. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and other congressional Democrats have proposed a 91 percent tax. There are problems with this, too. The NYT writes that some of the AIG employees are thought to be foreigners based in offices abroad and not liable for U.S. taxes.

But could such a tax also run into Constitutional problems? Some pundits (for example, here and here) have suggested yes. The most commonly mentioned difficulties include the prohibitions on so-called Bills of Attainder and retroactive laws (laws passed Ex Post Facto) mentioned in Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution. Other possible problems brought to our attention deal with the Contract Clause of the Article I, Section 10; the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment; and the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment.'

March 18, 2009, 4:07 PM ET Would an AIG-Bonus Tax Pass Constitutional Muster? (A Tribe Calls �Yes!') Wall Street Journal

Plaintiff class action attorneys getting ready as we speak.

Perhaps this is what our Congress has in mind.

Hastily crafted legislation may be suspect and subject to constitutional challenge. And what about those overseas employees receiving bonuses that have no liability for US taxes?

Posted by OneVote at 03/19/2009 @ 3:34pm
Just wondering.. Posted by chaoszen at 03/19/2009 @ 2:36pm | ignore this person | warn this person

Emile duBois is a nom de plume. I am not french. Emile duBois in france is like John Doe here. a sort of everyman character. it's ironic in my case, as I am in no way an everyman.

I mean you no ill, I just would like to stay with reality, which is difficult enough.

Posted by emile duBois at 03/19/2009 @ 4:28pm
Shall pay tax at rate of 90%, less any offset for specifically outlined campaign contributions to the following list of Senators... Posted by snowball666 at 03/19/2009 @ 2:36pm | ignore this person | warn this person

when I proposed a 90% top tax bracket here some time ago, I was shouted down by both sides. my sanity was questioned, even when I pointed out that this was the policy of the US during war time, among others.

funny how reality makes some of us clairvoyant and others just aparatchicks.

and when was SERBIA ever an ally of the US?

Posted by emile duBois at 03/19/2009 @ 4:33pm
Hmm the part I like is how they still managed to distract various and sundry with mere peanuts.

And no I am not talking about money, the peanuts I refer to are the execs.

Posted by V at 03/19/2009 @ 4:33pm
Serbia, wrong thread.

Posted by emile duBois at 03/19/2009 @ 4:34pm
Posted by Mask at 03/19/2009 @ 1:41pm 

Pity, after this I was expecting better analysis from Mr. Hayes. Unfortunately, all I got was "currently auto companies are having to break contracts." One, since most employees are at-will, this seems dubious to start with. More importantly, though, if they're not bankrupt right now and have the money to pay them...no, no they don't have to break contracts.

If they are...OK. But...AIG isn't. If the government hadn't given them money, they would have had to break their contracts as well. But the government DID give them money, so the contracts are still in play.

Again...not to harp, but...since many of these people are not the same ones who caused this mess, the punitive rationale is not that compelling.

As for taxes...yeah, US citizenship kind of matters...OneVote summarizes many of the obstacles rather nicely.

Posted by Thrawn at 03/19/2009 @ 4:35pm
As for taxes...yeah, US citizenship kind of matters..

say what? citizenship does not matter in paying taxes. green card holders for instance, pay the same taxes as citizens. you may explain.

Posted by emile duBois at 03/19/2009 @ 6:55pm
and I'm in the top 3%.

sure you are.

Posted by emile duBois at 03/19/2009 @ 7:05pm

John Nichols

Breaking news and analysis on political, social, economic and cultural activism that mainstream media commonly ignore.

Suicide for AIG Execs? Don't Let Them Off That Easy

posted by John Nichols on 03/17/2009 @ 8:47pm

John Nichols

Archives

» The Beat

» Editor's Cut

» The Notion

» The Dreyfuss Report

» Act Now!

» And Another Thing

» Altercation

Suicide for AIG Execs? Don't Let Them Off That Easy

posted by John Nichols on 03/17/2009 @ 8:47pm

Share this article

John Nichols

Archives

» The Beat

» Editor's Cut

» The Notion

» The Dreyfuss Report

» Act Now!

» And Another Thing

» Altercation