Video: Obama outrageously outraged by AIG outrage; Update: Treasury to reduce AIG’s bailout funds?
posted at 3:20 pm on March 16, 2009 by Allahpundit
In which The One attempts to douse a populist brushfire with a little heat of his own. Two issues here: Can the feds legally force AIG to break their contracts with their traders and deny the bonuses, and if so, should they? Ambinder advises ignoring the first question and focusing on the second. How likely is it, he wonders, that AIG’s traders would sue to recover them given the Madoff-ian public opporobrium they’d receive for doing so? Pretty likely, counters Tom Maguire, who agrees that the second question is the more important — and likely to cause further headaches if the bonuses are denied:
First of all, as I wasted my breath explaining, AIG [Financial Products division] is active in many businesses, not all of which are focused on credfit derivatives. Secondly, Joe Cassano, who led the unit until he was pushed out in March 2008, had enemies inside and ouside AIG FP, some of whom may have agreed to emerge from internal exile and attempt to clean up after him. Thirdly, insurance companies which don’t honor their contracts don’t last long; it is possible that failure to honor this obligation would represent the sort of default whch would ordinarily trigger a bankruptcy or reorganization, which so far the Feds have labored mightily to avoid. Fourth, if the new concept of selective default is that AIG won’t pay people or firms the public doesn’t like, how confident will, for example, Goldman Sachs be that AIG will honor its obligations to them? (Ok, why are we honoring the AIG obligations to Goldman – surely the Goldman execs could take it out of their bonus pool, yes? Instead, my tax dollars went to AIG, from there to Goldman, and from there to some trader’s estate in the Hamptons. Troubling, I would think.)
And FWIW, as the letters to Geithner explained, AIG wil have to pay double bonuses after they lose this suit, which they will.
What about a one-time tax on bonuses paid to employees of TARP recipients? That would sidestep the legal issue of breach of contract, although you’d still have the problem of scaring away talented managers from troubled firms. Then again, you’ve got that problem anyway: The more public anger grows, the likelier it is that people who work for TARP companies will be targeted in the future. While you mull a solution, enjoy the sublime irony in the second clip below of one of the chief culprits in the subprime implosion railing about profiting from incompetence.
Update: Forgot the link to Bill Kristol’s piece in WaPo today begging the GOP to figure out that two can play at the populist game before Obama claims it for himself.
Can capitalism survive the behavior of some capitalists? It’s always been an open question. But if capitalism is to survive, shouldn’t the Republican party, the party that defends democratic capitalism, be particularly vehement in denouncing its excesses? Isn’t this a pretty spectacular one? And isn’t this a moment for the GOP to separate itself from the Bush administration as well as the Obama administration, who together have been responsible for an incompetent and improvident bailout? Figuring out the right policy going forward with respect to toxic assets and the rest is, of course, a major intellectual task. But being on the side of a healthy populist reaction to the AIG situation is at least a good political start.
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
Update: More good news from Geraghty: Not only have the checks already gone out, but many of the recipients aren’t even U.S. citizens. Ambinder claims Treasury is scrambling to punish the firm somehow, possibly by knocking the cost of the bonuses off of their bailout package. How does that make sense, though? If the point of the funds is to keep the company afloat, reducing the package only reduces the likelihood of that while not taking the money out of the traders’ pockets. Which I guess explains this:
Speaking of punishing AIG: Rep. Gary Peters (D-MI) plans to introduce a bill to tax AIG bonuses at a high rate this year. A spokesman for Peters says that details are still being worked out. Targeting legislation at one company is tantamount to the Congress’s passing a bill of attainder against AIG. But these are extraordinary times.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »
Michelle’s pissed ’cause she didn’t get a cut. That’s where the outrage is coming from….The One has been “cut off”, “shut out”, and “sleeping on the couch”.
BobMbx on March 16, 2009 at 4:06 PM
Who would have thought a Harvard grad could be so…not smart.
ballz2wallz on March 16, 2009 at 4:06 PM
You show up on every thread spewing the same nonsense.
Your point of view, lies and logic are utterly cut to shreds by 10-15 commenters, making you look like a horses @ss.
Yet you return, again and again.
Idiot Cum Laude.
fogw on March 16, 2009 at 4:07 PM
I’ve seen two sets of numbers re the bonuses — $165 million at CNN, but $450 million on other sites. Either way, this bonus money about which we are supposed to be so outraged represents either 0.1% or 0.3% of the $170 billion bailout to AIG.
Now I’m thinking a financial company, which doesn’t have assembly lines to maintain or expensive supply chain costs, probably spends the majority of its budget on personnel costs. In contrast, we know from the numbers published earlier this year that the reason that Big Three (manufacturing) can’t compete with Japan is because of their labor costs.
So excuse me for not deciding to abandon my conservative principles so I can join in on the class warfare. Why should I want to lynch AIG workers who earned their bonuses (which I believe we found out last fall are retention bonuses, not performance bonuses) just because they make more money than I do… but somehow I should give a pass to the fat slob turning a bolt on GM’s assembly line?
It’s none of my business. If they have a contract negotiated prior to the bailout that says they’re entitled to these bonuses, it’s not my business. The horse left the barn when Congress pushed the bailout through last year.
Y-not on March 16, 2009 at 4:08 PM
Obama:
President Obama, how do you justify the wording of the bill you signed that allowed this to happen?
Obama:
President Obama, the Democrats in Congress wrote the rules for the bailout, and you agreed to those rules, or the lack of rules, when you signed the bill you claimed was necessary and right. Now that you don’t like the consequences, you want to change the rules after the fact.
Also, when was the last time a President of the United States got on national television to threaten a business by name?
Loxodonta on March 16, 2009 at 4:08 PM
Please reconcile the passage of The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 with your statement above.
Neo-con Artist on March 16, 2009 at 4:08 PM
And yet the market always seems to drop when P.BO goes on TV.
Count to 10 on March 16, 2009 at 4:08 PM
Barney Frank should be in jail for robbing the American people. It was a ponzi scheme just like Madoff’s.
Christian Conservative on March 16, 2009 at 4:09 PM
Obama speaks, the market leaks.
I used to think it was just one of those bizarre coincidences. I mean, he’s the President. Odds are he’s gonna speak somewhere on the days where the Dow happens to go down. But the market had been rallying for 4 consecutive days and was on pace for a 5th when he opened his piehole about AIG and bonuses and lo and behold. The market tanks again.
Doughboy on March 16, 2009 at 4:09 PM
Que the Fifth Dimension….
PappaMac on Mar 16,2009 at 4:02PM.
PappaMac: How about,Come ride with me in my beautiful
Hope and Change Balloon,not!hehe:)
canopfor on March 16, 2009 at 4:09 PM
Normally yes. But the sitting President is unlike any other we’ve had in recent history. His views on the economy and how the government has the right to radically restructure it is, well, radical.
Every time he speaks, whether or not he says anything of substance, is a reminder to the markets that we are in for 4 years of turmoil.
SPCOlympics on March 16, 2009 at 4:10 PM
fogw on March 16, 2009 at 4:07 PM
You lost an argument, no big deal.
As usual, cons are not outraged with the majority of Americans.
Hint, AIG and the reason you will lose again.
getalife on March 16, 2009 at 4:10 PM
Seeing Barney Frank always brings to mind so many ugly and disturbing images.
Must think about something else. Must think about something else. Must think about something else…
Star20 on March 16, 2009 at 4:11 PM
Funny, that’s the exact same thing the Democrats say about earmarks.
WisCon on March 16, 2009 at 4:12 PM
Barry gets very upset when anybody undermines the power of the state.
Star20 on March 16, 2009 at 4:15 PM
Obama+The Who+Crisis=goodness
portlandon on Mar 16,2009 at 4:04PM.
portlandon:That was Awesome,I salute you sir!:)
canopfor on March 16, 2009 at 4:16 PM
its not a gov bail out you idiot , its a tax payer bail out , that means we the people not you the morons in congress and the white house. So i say lets sell off our stock in aig .
and how in the hell did congress think they deserve a pay raise . first off they dont read the bills they just vote on them and stick us “we the people “ with the bill .
lol i love the fact somebody put “cough” on the TelePromter
Mojack420 on March 16, 2009 at 4:16 PM
Justification for bankruptcy? Since BK would allow contracts, even with employees to be set aside,this “mess” would have been agreed to as part of the bankruptcy plan. By not going into bankruptcy, more questions and accusations of malfeasance arise, especially when a incorruptible entity like the federal government gets involved. Additionally, it seems BK would also have allowed the courts to determine whether payments to foreign banks were necessary – payments in terms of Billions.
Unfortunately, we’re left with another shining example where there is a process to resolve the matter, but government circumvents the process.
Neo-con Artist on March 16, 2009 at 4:16 PM
Hopefully the Idiot in Chief will learn from the lesson being handed to him by the bankers.
If large, American-owned banks will take advantage of well-meaning but poorly written legislation and tell the POTUS to “shove it!”, the I-n-C must consider what the real a$$-holes of the world will do when he gives them an advantage or shows weakness.
My guess is the lesson never makes it beyond the over-emotional concensus meeting concerning the issue.
BobMbx on March 16, 2009 at 4:16 PM
I think the principles at stake are substantially different.
This AIG thing is solely about class warfare. The folks whose compensation are at stake are referred to as “executives,” not “workers.” The former smacks of a fat cat who somehow doesn’t deserve his money, the latter is the sort of populist jargon that is applied to folks working for GM. Class warfare is, imo, inherently inconsistent with conservatism. We’re all supposed to aspire to success, including wealth.
Earmarks are a kind of unseemly way for congress critters to appease the folks in their districts… They may be sleazy politics, but I don’t see a major principle of conservatism that they weaken.
Y-not on March 16, 2009 at 4:17 PM
A question we should all be asking:
Imagine you were a superstar financial guy, one of the few who might be able to come in and run AIG or other companies… are our leaders creating an environment where it would be in your best interest to do that?
DaveS on March 16, 2009 at 4:17 PM
Wait a tick,
who’s signature is on the bailout,
and I bet its Obama’s!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
canopfor on March 16, 2009 at 4:20 PM
Oh, I agree that they shouldn’t be taking government money. That’s definitely where the mistake was. I’d love to see some more information on exactly who is getting bonuses for what.
hawksruleva on March 16, 2009 at 4:21 PM
Atricle I, section 10, clause 1 of the Constitution forbids Congress from passing laws impairing the obligations of contracts.
In a bankruptcy, a bankruptcy judge can set aside contractual obligations, but outside, there would be little basis for it. Which is what AIG and the Treasury lawyers probably concluded.
And keeping AIG out of bankruptcy appears to be Treasury’s prime motive here.
There might be ways of getting the AIG bonus recipients to “voluntarily” waive their bonuses. But since some bonuses are going to people leaving AIG, there’s no motivation for them to preserve their jobs by waiving the bonus.
Wethal on March 16, 2009 at 4:21 PM
How about money being taken from taxpayers and given to entities that haven’t earned it? Does that have anything to do with conservatism?
WisCon on March 16, 2009 at 4:21 PM
Yep. We had a couple of choices. Don’t interfere… or, if a bailout was deemed necessary, take the time to think about the unintended consequences and plan accordingly.
Personally, I object to the premise that the majority of these AIG employees did not earn the bonuses they were promised. I simply have not seen any evidence of that. Based on what I read last fall, there are hundreds of folks involved and the sizes of the bonuses span a huge range, from thousands to millions.
Y-not on March 16, 2009 at 4:21 PM
So, we’re told that $165M is a big deal, but $18 or so billion in earmarks is chump change no one should care about? Riiiiiight.
CP on March 16, 2009 at 4:22 PM
That’s the bailout.
This issue is about employee compensation. Prove to me that these employees — these specific employees — didn’t earn it.
Even if you fire someone, you owe them for the work they performed… even if it was crappy.
Y-not on March 16, 2009 at 4:23 PM
canopfor on March 16, 2009 at 4:20 PM
I think it is w’s.
getalife on March 16, 2009 at 4:23 PM
Ok let me get this straight.
It’s ok for the Govt. to intervene with AIG and its contractual obligations to its employees because they are getting “bonuses” and the media is hyping it up because it may involve taxpayer funds.
But it’s not ok for the Govt. to interfere or force the Auto Unions to renegotiate their labor contracts with the Big 3 Automakers which equal billions of dollars (far more than all the Wall Street bonuses put together) in taxpayer subsidized bail out funds?
Am I missing something here?
thegreatsatan on March 16, 2009 at 4:23 PM
Nope.
myrenovations on March 16, 2009 at 4:25 PM
thegreatsatan on March 16, 2009 at 4:23 PM
Yeah, the UAW did renegotiate.
getalife on March 16, 2009 at 4:26 PM
Headline: Rally Killer – Market Sinks 180 Points as Obama Reveals His Socialist Agenda
Dow now negative for the day.
faraway on March 16, 2009 at 4:28 PM
That contract would be fun reading. AIG loses $62 billion dollars in the fourth quarter of 2008 and their contract calls for $170(?) million in bonuses.
It’s scary to think how large their bonuses would have been had AIG actually made any profit let alone billions in profit!
RJL on March 16, 2009 at 4:30 PM
Would you have a problem if the executives at AIG decided to give themselves pay raises with the bailout money?
WisCon on March 16, 2009 at 4:31 PM
Excellent point. Hence, the necessity of “retention” bonuses, which seem to be overlooked or intentionally mislabeled by the MSM and the current administration. My money’s on the latter.
Without the retention bonus, you may very well end up with a BK situation, as all the “talent” walking out the door might not come back. But, again, is there any justification for keeping AIG’s doors open? I’d love to hear reasoning for doing so, I just haven’t seen one yet.
Neo-con Artist on March 16, 2009 at 4:32 PM
now that’s funny
scalleywag on March 16, 2009 at 4:34 PM
Here come the trolls.
faraway on March 16, 2009 at 4:34 PM
Neo-con Artist on March 16, 2009 at 4:32 PM
Yeah, they should retain that talent that collapsed their company to the point of using your money to save it and give them bonuses.
Do you ever think your ideology keeps you from thinking wrong from right?
getalife on March 16, 2009 at 4:35 PM
Ford, which the last time I checked had not taken any bailout money, renegotiated its contract with the UAW.
I haven’t found the deal with GM or Chrysler. I didn’t think they had agreed to a new deal — I thought that they had until the end of this month. Does anyone have a link?
The last I remember, the concessions were to eliminate the pay for no work program and cutting benefits for retired workers. This is the most recent thing I can find for GM, dated March 11th.
Y-not on March 16, 2009 at 4:35 PM
It needs to combine these lyrics as well:
msmveritas on March 16, 2009 at 4:35 PM
getalife:
all the UAW contracts changed was the payment schedule to the healthcare funds, pushing it down the road instead of changing it. Oh and it killed off a pittance of the job bank where people were paid 95% of their salary to not work
thegreatsatan on March 16, 2009 at 4:35 PM
Agreed. I, too, object with the premise and mischaracterization of the employees that you highlighted previously. But, then, I was raised to honor my obligations. Shame on me for thinking others, including the government, should honor theirs.
The real jumping-off point was not going into BK. That decision was made, now you have to live with the consequences of that.
Neo-con Artist on March 16, 2009 at 4:41 PM
Yep, Obama’s handling this thing quite well. Just when Ben Bernanke, after only a weeks rally, states that the recession will be over by the end of the year; all the news programs lead with Ben’s statement; and Pres. Obama says that these CEOs better shape up and the ‘fundamentals of the economy are sound’, the stock market only loses 7 points. Great job, fair leader!
Sultry Beauty on March 16, 2009 at 4:41 PM
thegreatsatan on March 16, 2009 at 4:35 PM
That’s great but it was more than that since the start but what did these greedy captalists give up?
Not their bonuses but it is okay. I know your ideology forbids it.
getalife on March 16, 2009 at 4:41 PM
There are two issues: what the bailout allows and what the company should do.
I don’t know what the bailout allows in terms of raises.
What I care about is that the company does what it needs to do to be competitive enough to get off the taxpayers’ dime. Since I am not an expert in that area, I don’t know what that would entail… but, because I assume personnel costs represent the major source of expenditures at a company at AIG, I do not think there’s anything wrong with keeping the compensation competitive. It’s equivalent (not in a strict business sense, I know) to keeping your machines upgraded.
I do know that when Congress tried to interfere in higher ed (trying to make them spend down their endowments) finances — an area in which I do have expertise — their solution was asinine. As it turns out, it’s a damned good thing that universities held on to those cash reserves since the endowments are now performing for shit.
Y-not on March 16, 2009 at 4:41 PM
“he protected or created seven points”-GetaClue
(of course ignore the 116 point swing from the high of +106.4….)
sven10077 on March 16, 2009 at 4:44 PM
So they gave up two of the most treasured, yet unnecessary parts of their CONTRACTS. Exactly what you guys are claiming is impossible for AIG. No matter how you slice it unions have made concessions this year. Deal.
DeathToMediaHacks on March 16, 2009 at 4:44 PM
This is a great example of why Government should stay out of private businesses business and a taste of what business will be like when Government is more involved in an Obama world.
What was a normal business action – bonuses (earned or un-earned) has now gone from a business decision (bonuses must be paid to retain employees and fulfill contracts) to a political decision by some Government bureaucrats.
Business decisions will no longer made based on what is good for the business, but what is good for the politicians.
albill on March 16, 2009 at 4:45 PM
Can’t even tell when you lost. Why am I not surprised? You had your hat handed to you, cupcake. This is what normally happens when one’s only defense is throwing around worn-out, canned talking points.
Keep talking. Keep losing.
fogw on March 16, 2009 at 4:45 PM
considering they are the ones that are strangling their own goose, and further subsidizing the gremlins feeding the cookfire they gave hardly enough….
sven10077 on March 16, 2009 at 4:45 PM
DeathToMediaHacks on March 16, 2009 at 4:44 PM
Deal.
getalife on March 16, 2009 at 4:46 PM
Forgive me for thinking that it is a heck of a lot easier to replace a guy who turns bolts on some assembly line than it is to replace a VP at AIG.
Oh, yeah, the market is glutted with Executive Search firms charging thousands of dollars to help Ford hire guys with GEDs and strong wrists.
My point is that we should feel no more (or less) ire for the AIG worker than we do for the UAW guy.
However, I know from experience that the higher the position, the longer and more costly the search process.
Y-not on March 16, 2009 at 4:48 PM
I guess Obama thinks were all too stupid to understand contractual law, and he can bloviate all he wants about being outraged and how he’s going to sick his goons on AIG, but there’s nothing he can do here; Instead of being in such a hurry to get that initial bailout done, he should have spent a little time reading the fine print on it.
He does know how to read, doesn’t he?
anniekc on March 16, 2009 at 4:48 PM
I agree in principle that government interference will hurt a company’s bottom line, but if the people running AIG feel no repurcussions for their gigantic screwup, what is to stop them from taking enormous risks again?
This question here is whether the executives who are taking the money are actually concerned with, as you say, making the company competitive again. As far as I can tell, we have now created a huge incentive for any company to become too big to fail.
WisCon on March 16, 2009 at 4:53 PM
A Trillion $$ “stimulus” rewarding all of his stealing thug friends (as in ACORN, who have been given 4 BILLION $$)and Ozero is “choked up with anger”??? There are no words to describe his hypocritical nerve. The gall of this “man”.
tigerlily on March 16, 2009 at 4:53 PM
WisCon on March 16, 2009 at 4:31 PM:
Would you have a problem if the executives at AIG decided to give themselves pay raises with the bailout money?
No disrespect intended, but WTF is wrong with you people?
Once you give something away, IT IS NOT YOURS ANYMORE.
This is no longer taxpayer money. It belongs to AIG. So, yes, their board of directors can do anything they want with it.
The time to bitchenmoan and apply restrictions to AIG was BEFORE we gave them the money.
You should be demanding the resignation / tar and feathering of your splendid representatives who signed off on the no-strings deal to AIG, because, as usual, IT’S YOUR STUPID AGENTS IN THE GOVERNMENT WHO GOT YOU SCREWED AGAIN.
Troll Feeder on March 16, 2009 at 4:55 PM
What does my ideology have to do with whether the doors at AIG should have kept open? And, doesn’t your comment support my point the government shouldn’t be involved in circumventing the process to recovery? If a company is insolvent, then there is a process in place to work the company out of insolvency or liquidate its assets. I am still awaiting for justification for keeping these entities afloat. Even though this occurred under Bush’s term, I have no problem questioning that decision. How have you questioned the Obama administration?
Neo-con Artist on March 16, 2009 at 4:56 PM
They aren’t my agents you moron. But go ahead and keep on promoting corporate welfare, that will win so many converts over.
WisCon on March 16, 2009 at 4:59 PM
We agree on that!
:^P
Y-not on March 16, 2009 at 5:02 PM
Neo-con Artist on March 16, 2009 at 4:56 PM
Yes, you would have to ask w but the President has not explained it well too. Of course, cheney did nothing but attack and deflect.
The too big to fail argument has run its course and the bailout fatigue has set in.
Personally, I thought it was a bad idea until you look at the costs of letting them fail is larger than the bailout costs. Both inherited options are bad.
getalife on March 16, 2009 at 5:06 PM
Or the fact that when he laughed at McCain for saying the ‘fundamentals of the economy are sound’ the time when the DOW fell around 678 points to 8,579. Pres. Obama laughed at him basically saying McCain was nuts for indicating this HORRIBLE ECONOMY was anything but HORRIBLE. Now PRES. OBAMA ends a rally with a 7 point loss after HE SAYS, ‘the fundamentals of the economy are sound’. hehehe. I’ll use the Socialist Trolls favorite moniker: Hypocrite!
During the campaign gas prices were upwards of $4.00 a gallon here in the Golden State. Funny thing. Interesting how gas prices changed so drastically after the Drill Here, Drill Now fiasco. Now they’re about $2.50 a gallon. The DOW is at, what, 7,216.97? It was at 6,500 a little while ago. Funny, what’s changed? Two weeks of stimulus dollars for investigating bullfrogs? LMAO! And these happy Socialist Troll Yahoos over here are saying that Dear Leader is taking care of all us little people and sticking it to Capitalist Corporate Pigs. HAH! Tell that to everyone’s retired mother, father, grandmother, and grandfather’s 401k and Money Market Retirement Funds! LMAO!! HOHOHO! BWAHAHAHA!
Yep! These trolls are worthy of you addressing them because they’re Economic Geniuses!
Sultry Beauty on March 16, 2009 at 5:11 PM
Ogabe “fixed the inherited Bush depression” on the 10th mate….
he just flushed a 106 point gain with his mouth…so are all the downturns Bush’s and the gains his or what?
sven10077 on March 16, 2009 at 5:11 PM
“…so please give me a moment while teleprompter regains its composure…”
ddrintn on March 16, 2009 at 5:12 PM
Obama speaks. The market goes UP. Obama is wonderful. Obama speaks, the market goes DOWN. Fucking greedy neo-con capitalists!
That about cover it?
GarandFan on March 16, 2009 at 5:12 PM
If you remember, the markets were also religiously dropping last year around Sept-Oct timeframe whenever GWB came on air to soothen people’s nerves. Bottom line – it was about the banks. When traders saw (see) a president giving a speech which had no concrete plans to stabilize the banks, they plummeted (plummet), exactly similar to what happened with Tim Geithner recently.
Let us not pay too much importance to the empty suits (both right and left), market insiders are smart enough to know exactly what information matters.
peter_griffin on March 16, 2009 at 5:12 PM
My point exactly. A lot of commentors pay way too much importance on these political speeches wrt how they correlate to the market. The markets are concerned about only one thing – FUNDAMENTALS. Ever since last Sept, the fundamentals have all been about the banking industry.
peter_griffin on March 16, 2009 at 5:14 PM
Ogabe just coopted Bush’s embryonic stemcell ban after a whole 48 hours, he cribs McCain on taxing medical coverage, and “fundmaentally sound” and trolls try to back their Mazda trucks up to the rig carrying Ogabe’s crap and spoonfeed us the bull$hit….
too funny
sven10077 on March 16, 2009 at 5:15 PM
you have the sheet music for DeathToMediaHacks and Getalife’s dance card…
sven10077 on March 16, 2009 at 5:16 PM
So, you have seen, in print, the costs of letting these entities fail? I have not. If you can link, I would appreciate it. However, I imagine those “costs” are supported by assumptions that are aggressive and improbable, much like Obama’s projected savings in terms of workforce and $.
Also, I note your disregard of my last question. So, let me reiterate… How have you questioned the Obama administration?
Neo-con Artist on March 16, 2009 at 5:17 PM
ordinarily I’d agree with you but the market is watching a Marxist stoke class war and envy everyday….
take the Pepsi challenge watch as “oddly” every time Ogabe gives a speech on the economy 100+ points fall away….
90+% so far.
sven10077 on March 16, 2009 at 5:18 PM
Oh, this is all just garbage to get Obama’s flagging ratings back up. Ditto the Leno appearance and all of the other campaign-like junk.
ddrintn on March 16, 2009 at 5:20 PM
I call unconstitutional. How can you single out a single company for higher taxes?
I’m sure they’ll “discover” this and make all bonuses taxable at a higher rate.
Which is really what they want anyways.
lorien1973 on March 16, 2009 at 5:21 PM
Actually Bush signed TARP into law and that’s where the AIG funds came from. TARP funds are not free grants they are loans that have to be paid back. Obama did vote for it but didn’t sign it as did quite a few conservatives but then Paulson changed the rules after the fact to include AIG. Banks that received funds under TARP are racing to get those loans paid back ASAP to avoid these kinds of restrictions on how they do business. The problem is the Dems will just find a way to spend the money instead of paying down the debt or returning the money to TARP.
goat on March 16, 2009 at 5:21 PM
here is a post showing the convergence of AIG, the Democrats, and the banks. Part of this scandal is related to the fall of Richradson among others. What we have is a Federal government then when its not investigating these groups, is now funneling tax payer money to them.
rob verdi on March 16, 2009 at 5:21 PM
Hey, we can’t expect Barry to pass up this big an opportunity to demonize some capitalists, can we? It’s what Demagogues do…
drunyan8315 on March 16, 2009 at 5:25 PM
Oy vey
canditaylor68 on March 16, 2009 at 5:26 PM
Neo-con Artist on March 16, 2009 at 5:17 PM
Sorry, I did not save that data and my computer came under attack.
No, the Obama administration does not heed my advice.
Have to go now.
getalife on March 16, 2009 at 5:27 PM
Right, because EVERY employee contributed to the downfall. I mean, there’s only like 5 people working there right . . . ? Get a clue, getalife, in a company like AIG there are many business units, some doing better than others. Should the employees who are making their units profitable be punished for the employees that aren’t?
Personally, I would leave a company that said I’m doing a job worthy of great rewards PER MY CONTRACT, but I won’t be getting it because another employee screwed up. It’s why some of the best people work for themselves.
PastorJon on March 16, 2009 at 5:27 PM
The market it up 170 points. The inept fool opens his mouth, and it closes down. I’m beginning to think this is all in his plan.
DUTCH Van Atlanta on March 16, 2009 at 5:28 PM
Couple of things … Obama actually praised the CEO of AIG today calling him a good guy and not one that was at the helm when the meltdown occurred. Okay fine – but he IS at the helm now while they’re paying out these bonuses. How can Obama be in LOVE with the AIG CEO but yet still catch fire on the bonuses? Oh wait, it’s Obama – I forgot.
Second thing is, why bother? The bonuses are contractual. We are supposed to honor our words to people and, our written contracts. The folks should get paid. Now – a bigger question – who are the schmucks that gave out our taxpayer dollars to an organization that was going to give away BILLIONS in contracted bonuses? Shouldn’t we be pissed at the ones who gave out the money? The bonuses shouldn’t be a surprise – they are contractual. They were written down somewhere when we gave out this money – why didn’t our elected leaders make an attempt to put a firehose on this before it consumed the whole house?
This just illustrates the folly of government intervention in Wall Street and our banking system. Had we let everyone fail – we’d still have all all that money in the kitty now. And sure, we would have been a nuclear experience – everything melting down – but by now we’d have hit rock bottom, and on our way up. And we’d be surround with WINNERS not ZOMBIES.
HondaV65 on March 16, 2009 at 5:30 PM
For clarity….the 165 million bonus is for the financial arm on AIG that traded in the big money losing secondary mortgage bundles. You know the stuff that caused the worldwide financial collapse. In one way it makes sense since the company got 160 billion of our money because of their “work”. The 400 plus millions is for the total bonus payouts within AIG. They are staggered 165 million now more later and more later to cover up the size of the bonuses I guess.
kanda on March 16, 2009 at 5:33 PM
That’s right, we’re against regulations that both create a market for and encourage bad lending practices (the CRA) that leads to a derivative market that so badly wounds ONE unit of AIG that they are in this trouble.
Won’t even mention that Hank Greenberg, the founder of AIG, wouldn’t have allowed AIG to invest in the crappy paper to begin with, if Eliot Spitzer hadn’t intimidated, bullied and blackmailed him into leaving, then charged him with NOTHING. It was the new DEMOCRATS running AIG that decided to go into the sub-prime mortgage derivatives game, leveraged 35-1.
PastorJon on March 16, 2009 at 5:36 PM
First, of course it did. LOL.
Second, I didn’t ask if the Obama heeded your advice, as you didn’t ask me if w heeded mine. So, how have you questioned the Obama administration?
Third, “cut-and-run”. Seems to be a mantra for the left? Must be genetic?
Neo-con Artist on March 16, 2009 at 5:36 PM
Well, I would beg to differ. IMHO, if we did not rescue AIG, we would not be on our way up *now*, we would have still been way away from recovery. What you forget is the reach that AIG has not only in US, but also internationally, specially in China (which incidentally buys most of our debt). So, I don’t think it was even on the cards to let AIG fail, there are too many affected parties outside the US.
peter_griffin on March 16, 2009 at 5:38 PM
No Obama opens his damn mouth again and the market went down *again*. I just looked up the times. Can’t he just shut the f*k up and let the place recover? dammit. I was doing fine until he opened his yap. Let it heal. Quit picking at it. gawd sakes
johnnyU on March 16, 2009 at 5:40 PM
If he ever had it, Obama has lost the sense of the Presidency.
Obama is making the Presidency seem small and petty.
Lowering the Presidency to the level of whining about a single companys bonuses is not leadership.
Rick9911 on March 16, 2009 at 5:42 PM
Ok. The AIG Sharks made billions for themselves.
They ran a “Business” an International one.
Obama can’t run a hot dog cart in Chicago, got elected because He is Black, hired Fools his Cabinet in the grandest
Social Engineering mistake ever made.
AIG took advantage of that and Obama still does not know what happened. Most Incompetent Pretender in Chief Ever!
old trooper2 on March 16, 2009 at 5:44 PM
What Up?
Market was down as Obama and his Lapdog Cuomo announced they are going to investigate AIG for “Fraud”. All except the President of AIG, the good donor to the Obama campaign.
This is as Fascist as it gets, State Control of private businesses, endless investigations because the Chairman “wants” them, friends of the Administration getting a pass, while the underlings get examined. Payoff’s.
All this over 00.01% of the Bailout money. I can’t wait to see how “others” are handled by Chairman Obama.
GunRunner on March 16, 2009 at 5:47 PM
Didn’t these self righteous blowhards in the Congress just get an automatic pay raise? You know because it was already there on the books like it was a contract or something.
Stephen Macklin on March 16, 2009 at 5:47 PM
Stock market is down…so now according to you, it is Obama’s depression…
right2bright on March 16, 2009 at 5:47 PM
For all you fans of The Who:
Another Tricky Day for Barry
Christien on March 16, 2009 at 5:49 PM
You still have shit stuck between your teeth.
csdeven on March 16, 2009 at 5:50 PM
Oh geez, the stock market did close down. What happened to today’s huge surge?
getalife! Where are you? What happened man?
Seriously, what an effffffing farce!
ORconservative on March 16, 2009 at 5:50 PM
Great points. Nothing is more essential to an advanced economy than confidence in contractual arrangements – the ability to rely upon financial arrangements made with willing actors. If Obama’s heavy-handed populist fumbling makes investors and CEOs believe that contracts have become meaningless, that their terms can be rearragned by government fiat because an angry mob demands it, you’re in the same basic economic position as Kenya or Venezuela.
The truly scary aspects of Obamanomics aren’t the short-term drops in market value (which are terrible indeed) but the long-term systemic damage to the core of the economic system. The immorality of socialism is matched only by its inefficiency, and giving business leaders the idea that only politically popular investments are safe from irrational government interference, or outright seizure, will cripple the market’s ability to allocate resources effectively. If every sector of the economy is treated like a giant Wal-Mart filled with minimum-wage hourly employees, every sector of the economy will become equally miserable.
Having said that, this AIG bonus stuff is truly outrageous. It’s the essential dileman of a fascist economy, which is what we have become. If taxpayers fund the continuned existence of AIG, then don’t we have a right to tell them how to spend the money we give them? (And, of course, “we” means the political leaders who have managed to gain power.) Should we also be able to decide what kind of cars AIG executives drive, what sort of houses they live in, and what they eat? It’s amazing that we’ve already slipped to the point that we’re seriously talking about issuing bills of attainder. Maybe we should also think about quartering troops in the homes of AIG’s traders. And the fact many of the people collecting those huge bonuses are foreigners is just icing on the cake… exhibit A for illustrating the taxpayer as sucker for slick con men. If we’re going down the road of government controlling and funding industry, we can expect much more of this kind of nonsense.
Doctor Zero on March 16, 2009 at 5:51 PM
These companies need to stop calling these payments “bonuses”. Contract Terms Completion Payment or Job Task Completion Dividend or anything similar would be better. Problem solved…oh, maybe that and not give these financial companies any tax payer funds at all would be good too.
Wyznowski on March 16, 2009 at 5:51 PM
Algore comes to mind…as I recall he spent most of his time at Harvard smoking funny cigarettes and playing pool.
Of course, his 2000 opponent, who got a history degree from Yale and also a Masters in Business Administration from Harvard, is an “idiot”.
Funny thing, though. Gore won 59% of the high school dropout vote, a mark that would stand until November of 2008, when our new President beat his record by 11 percent.
Del Dolemonte on March 16, 2009 at 5:54 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »