PDA

View Full Version : Obama Tells Treasury Chief to Block A.I.G. Bonuses



ink
03-16-2009, 12:43 PM
Obama Tells Treasury Chief to Block A.I.G. Bonuses

By HELENE COOPER
Published: March 16, 2009

WASHINGTON — President Obama vowed to try to stop the faltering insurance giant American International Group from paying out hundreds of millions of dollars in bonuses to executives, as the administration scrambled to avert a populist backlash against banks and Wall Street that could complicate Mr. Obama’s economic recovery agenda.

“In the last six months, A.I.G. has received substantial sums from the U.S. Treasury,” Mr. Obama said. He added that he had asked Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner “to use that leverage and pursue every single legal avenue to block these bonuses and make the American taxpayers whole.”

In strongly-worded remarks delivered in the White House East Room before small business owners, Mr. Obama called A.I.G. “a corporation that finds itself in financial distress due to recklessness and greed.”

“Under these circumstances, it’s hard to understand how derivative traders at A.I.G. warranted any bonuses at all, much less $165 million in extra pay,” Mr. Obama said. “How do they justify this outrage to the taxpayers who are keeping the company afloat?”

White House officials said that the administration is not looking to take A.I.G. to court to stop the company from paying out the bonuses. But they said the Treasury Department would be trying to figure out what they can do to block A.I.G. from making the payments within the legal confines of A.I.G.’s contractual obligations to the executives.

NYT (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/17/us/politics/17obama.html?_r=1&hp)

SmthBluCitrus
03-16-2009, 12:57 PM
I thought they had already been paid out.

CubsGirl
03-16-2009, 01:14 PM
It's so weird when I see articles calling him Mr. Obama. Is there a grammatically acceptable abbreviation for President, like Pres.? Or there isn't and that's why they say Mr. instead?

behindmydesk
03-16-2009, 01:17 PM
Yes CG that is weird.


The problem is this, these guys are some of the most brilliant minds in the world. They did their jobs.

But of course we all know why they aren't deserving.

SmthBluCitrus
03-16-2009, 01:27 PM
It sucks, that's for sure.

But, I just don't see the point of tying this up in courts, cutting the bonuses (that were contractually agreed upon before the collapse), axing the employees, and rehiring and retraining a new AIG workforce.

The cost of all that is greater than the bonus payout.

DenButsu
03-16-2009, 01:31 PM
It's so weird when I see articles calling him Mr. Obama. Is there a grammatically acceptable abbreviation for President, like Pres.? Or there isn't and that's why they say Mr. instead?

I think that's standard issue New York Times protocol.

ari1013
03-16-2009, 01:36 PM
It's so weird when I see articles calling him Mr. Obama. Is there a grammatically acceptable abbreviation for President, like Pres.? Or there isn't and that's why they say Mr. instead?
That's how they do it. It's always Mr. and Ms.

ari1013
03-16-2009, 01:37 PM
Yes CG that is weird.


The problem is this, these guys are some of the most brilliant minds in the world. They did their jobs.

But of course we all know why they aren't deserving.
It's odd that bonuses aren't tied to performance. Every company I worked for tied end-of-year bonuses to actual performance.

SmthBluCitrus
03-16-2009, 01:44 PM
Obama: We'll Pursue 'Every Legal Avenue' to Reclaim AIG Bonuses
By Elana Schor - March 16, 2009, 12:50PM

President Obama addressed the growing controversy over AIG's retention bonuses this afternoon. Excerpts from his remarks can be found here (http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/news/2009/03/excerpt_of_the_presidents_remarks_today_-_as_prepa.php), but it's notable that he did not signal much of a change in his administration's approach.

Obama said he has asked Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner to use the "leverage" of the taxpayers' investment in AIG to press for the return of the retention bonuses -- which is exactly what Congress has been pressing for all weekend.

But using "every legal avenue" to recoup the money may not be enough, as AIG's lawyers have already advised the company that it's legally obligated to pay out the bonuses. And Obama said that Geithner would continue "to resolve this matter with the new CEO, Edward Liddy," who has already made it pretty clear that he wants the bonuses paid. (And at least one senior Democrat, Rep. Elijah Cummings [MD], is already calling for Liddy's resignation.)

TPMDC (http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/03/obama-well-pursue-every-legal-avenue-to-reclaim-aig-bonuses.php)

blenderboy5
03-16-2009, 01:44 PM
It's so weird when I see articles calling him Mr. Obama. Is there a grammatically acceptable abbreviation for President, like Pres.? Or there isn't and that's why they say Mr. instead?

It's just what the Times does. I actually did some research on it. I guess the reason is because "Senator" or "President" sounds... like they're placing the people on a pedastal or something. Like name dropping or something.

I personally find it really disrespectful when the newspaper refers to "Mr. Obama," "Mr. McCain," etc.

It also confused me when they referred to Palin as "Ms. Palin" when she's clearly married. They do that with all women though.

ari1013
03-16-2009, 01:49 PM
It's just what the Times does. I actually did some research on it. I guess the reason is because "Senator" or "President" sounds... like they're placing the people on a pedastal or something. Like name dropping or something.

I personally find it really disrespectful when the newspaper refers to "Mr. Obama," "Mr. McCain," etc.

It also confused me when they referred to Palin as "Ms. Palin" when she's clearly married. They do that with all women though.
It's not just the NY Times. It's every big time news source, both here and abroad. The Economist does it. The LA Times does it. The Washington Post does it. Etc.

World leaders are referred to as Mr. or Ms.

behindmydesk
03-16-2009, 01:53 PM
It's odd that bonuses aren't tied to performance. Every company I worked for tied end-of-year bonuses to actual performance.

Well maybe they actually hit their bonuses! AIG only had a certain part of the company that tore down the whole unit. I think that's actually the problem, is 3/4 of the company was doing well, and shoudl be paid.

ari1013
03-16-2009, 02:48 PM
Well maybe they actually hit their bonuses! AIG only had a certain part of the company that tore down the whole unit. I think that's actually the problem, is 3/4 of the company was doing well, and shoudl be paid.
On NPR this morning they mentioned that the bulk of these bonuses was going to the division that acquired the mortgage-backed securities.

Hawkize31
03-16-2009, 04:48 PM
Well maybe they actually hit their bonuses! AIG only had a certain part of the company that tore down the whole unit. I think that's actually the problem, is 3/4 of the company was doing well, and shoudl be paid.

But when they are using TARP money, thats not ok. If a struggling company wants to pay bonuses to a ton of people, thats stupid but its fine. They cannot ask for government help and then pay those bonuses with it. If you are struggling enough to ask the government for billions in help, you don't issue ridiculous bonuses.

Also, even if there are people deserving bonuses, when your company is struggling that much, you have to make some sacrifices. Some executives take one dollar salaries as a symbolic gesture that they are doing everything they can. This is a gesture that you pretty much don't give a ****, you just want extra money for yourself- not that you want money you are entitled (salary), but that you want extra money in addition to that. Its just wrong.

DenButsu
03-16-2009, 08:21 PM
It also confused me when they referred to Palin as "Ms. Palin" when she's clearly married. They do that with all women though.

Ms. can be used without regard to marital status.

gcoll
03-16-2009, 08:50 PM
Why'd we bail out AIG in the first place?

I can see the logic behind pumping capital into the banks, but why AIG? Why not just let them go bankrupt?

cabernetluver
03-16-2009, 09:14 PM
Why'd we bail out AIG in the first place?

I can see the logic behind pumping capital into the banks, but why AIG? Why not just let them go bankrupt?

In short, they really were the insurance for the entire finacial services industry. If we allowed them to fail to pay claims, the stress on the entire system would be far worse than what we have experienced, in fact, it would be on a level equal to 1932 world wide.

This is a company that quite frankly should not have been allowed to get into this position. One of the problems of deregulation run amok.

blenderboy5
03-16-2009, 11:04 PM
Ugh... what a stupid PR disaster. I understand when companies go on vacations they planned in advance. And do to the high cost of security and such, I understand why they'd take private jets.

But this? In the private corporate world, I thought people were paid based on their performance.

hoosiercubsfan
03-16-2009, 11:05 PM
Short of public humiliation and degradation there really isn't much that can be done about the bonuses. They where contractual bonuses and as far as I know the federal government cannot yet go in and just rewrite contracts they do not like. The only way to currently legally break a contract is within a bankruptcy court. You can get concessions like the UAW is doing for the automotive industry but to actual sever a contract that is the only way. So if the bonuses where stopped the people who where to receive the bonus could very well sue for breach of contract and win in a court of law.

blenderboy5
03-16-2009, 11:23 PM
Wait were the bonuses really part of the contract? What an absurd idea...

If a bonus is part of the contract, it's not a bonus... it's a salary. A bonus is, by definition, something extra given based on performance that was great/above and beyond standard.

Running a company/economy into the ground is neither.

If it's a contract, then Obama can't do too much... we can only hope these people have the integrity to give the money back.

ink
03-16-2009, 11:43 PM
... we can only hope these people have the integrity to give the money back.

Exactly. What are the chances of that though?

hoosiercubsfan
03-16-2009, 11:45 PM
Wait were the bonuses really part of the contract? What an absurd idea...

If a bonus is part of the contract, it's not a bonus... it's a salary. A bonus is, by definition, something extra given based on performance that was great/above and beyond standard.

Running a company/economy into the ground is neither.

If it's a contract, then Obama can't do too much... we can only hope these people have the integrity to give the money back.

Ok I will admit I am kind of confused by your post. You are telling me that bonuses can't be part of a contract? That you are contracted to make X amount of widgets in this quarter. But if you are able to make this many more you will receive an additional sum of money. That is a very essential part of a contract.

You will have a better chance at making a snowball in hell as you will having these people give the money back. They earned it by way of their contract and they are entitled to it. But if this is the road you want to go down don't forget to go to all these retired auto workers and tell them that they from this day forward are no longer getting their entire medical insurance paid for by the auto companies. If they want to keep it it will be X amount a month every month.

behindmydesk
03-16-2009, 11:47 PM
In short, they really were the insurance for the entire finacial services industry. If we allowed them to fail to pay claims, the stress on the entire system would be far worse than what we have experienced, in fact, it would be on a level equal to 1932 world wide.

This is a company that quite frankly should not have been allowed to get into this position. One of the problems of deregulation run amok.

It pretty much was the first bank bailout disguised as something else.

ink
03-16-2009, 11:52 PM
They earned it by way of their contract and they are entitled to it.

They may be entitled to it, but they sure as hell didn't earn it.

gcoll
03-16-2009, 11:58 PM
In short, they really were the insurance for the entire finacial services industry. If we allowed them to fail to pay claims, the stress on the entire system would be far worse than what we have experienced, in fact, it would be on a level equal to 1932 world wide.

But didn't we already bail out the loans by bailing out the banks? It seems like we paid for the same thing twice. Bailed out the loan, and the insurance on the loan.


But on a note about the bonuses. Neil Cavuto made an interesting point. The administration dismissed the pork spending in the last bill as unimportant due to it's small size. Under 2% I believe. But, these bonuses are a very small percentage as well.

hoosiercubsfan
03-17-2009, 12:09 AM
They may be entitled to it, but they sure as hell didn't earn it.

Well they obviously had to have earned them or they would not have been able to receive them. Whether or not you agree that they deserve them is moot since you where not a party to the contract when it was formed.

ink
03-17-2009, 12:12 AM
Well they obviously had to have earned them or they would not have been able to receive them. Whether or not you agree that they deserve them is moot since you where not a party to the contract when it was formed.

I can see the legal entitlement associated with the contract. Earning has to do with competence and achievement, something they didn't provide.

hoosiercubsfan
03-17-2009, 12:21 AM
Again I go back to my point prior and restate it. The people receiving the bonuses had to have done something that enabled them to stand for the bonus. Unless it is written into their contract that they get a bonus no matter what they had to have met some sort of measuring stick to qualify. Now I agree that they should not have been paid them and that is more a measure of having a bad contract to start with. But that is not the fault of the person receiving the benefit. I equate this to the retired UAW worker who is recieving a golden goose by having their medical insurance paid for for their life or however it works. The ones that are retired are not doing a thing to provide for this benefit. Again its a bad contract so are you going to stand up and say that these people should start paying their fair share as well? If not then there is a double standard since it is not being applied evenly across the board of companies receiving bailouts.

egoc
03-17-2009, 03:20 AM
as I understand it (and I could be wrong) the bonus's were tied to the volume of loans insured (creating revenue) rather than the quality of loans insured (now defaulting creating debit). The best idea i've heard so far is for the government, now the majority stockholder, to spin off a subsidiary company responsible for paying the bonuses and not fund it, which would force it into bankruptcy which would deny the bonus earners their bonus. If these clowns ARE the best and the brightest, we could offer to renegotiate their contracts sans bonuses if they agreed not to pursue legal recourse. Or they could quit (who cares) and let THEM initiate litigation. I'd say fire 'em, but they probably all have golden parachutes built into their contracts.

ari1013
03-17-2009, 09:34 AM
Ok I will admit I am kind of confused by your post. You are telling me that bonuses can't be part of a contract? That you are contracted to make X amount of widgets in this quarter. But if you are able to make this many more you will receive an additional sum of money. That is a very essential part of a contract.

You will have a better chance at making a snowball in hell as you will having these people give the money back. They earned it by way of their contract and they are entitled to it. But if this is the road you want to go down don't forget to go to all these retired auto workers and tell them that they from this day forward are no longer getting their entire medical insurance paid for by the auto companies. If they want to keep it it will be X amount a month every month.
Fine, but how the heck could you say that their performance was above and beyond expectations. Were expectations outright bankrupcy?

Yay! We got the government to bail us out instead! Bonus time!

ari1013
03-17-2009, 09:35 AM
But didn't we already bail out the loans by bailing out the banks? It seems like we paid for the same thing twice. Bailed out the loan, and the insurance on the loan.


But on a note about the bonuses. Neil Cavuto made an interesting point. The administration dismissed the pork spending in the last bill as unimportant due to it's small size. Under 2% I believe. But, these bonuses are a very small percentage as well.
And neither one was a good thing. Good to see Cavuto still fighting for the little guys :rolleyes:

ari1013
03-17-2009, 09:37 AM
as I understand it (and I could be wrong) the bonus's were tied to the volume of loans insured (creating revenue) rather than the quality of loans insured (now defaulting creating debit). The best idea i've heard so far is for the government, now the majority stockholder, to spin off a subsidiary company responsible for paying the bonuses and not fund it, which would force it into bankruptcy which would deny the bonus earners their bonus. If these clowns ARE the best and the brightest, we could offer to renegotiate their contracts sans bonuses if they agreed not to pursue legal recourse. Or they could quit (who cares) and let THEM initiate litigation. I'd say fire 'em, but they probably all have golden parachutes built into their contracts.
The litigation will probably be more costly than the $165M for the taxpayers. No thanks.

behindmydesk
03-17-2009, 10:23 AM
They have armed guards outside of AIG offices now

Cadarn
03-17-2009, 01:13 PM
I'm sorry, but the obama adminstration just approved 30 billion in new loans for AIG earlier this month. Now those idiots are complaining?

cabernetluver
03-17-2009, 01:25 PM
I'm sorry, but the obama adminstration just approved 30 billion in new loans for AIG earlier this month. Now those idiots are complaining?

The problem is that AIG is so interlaced with the entire financial services sector that if it fails, the whole mess comes down. AIG should never have been allowed to grow so big without competition in the marketplace. It is one of those cases where all that can be done is make the best of a bad situation. The alternative is even worse.

ari1013
03-17-2009, 01:32 PM
The problem is that AIG is so interlaced with the entire financial services sector that if it fails, the whole mess comes down. AIG should never have been allowed to grow so big without competition in the marketplace. It is one of those cases where all that can be done is make the best of a bad situation. The alternative is even worse.
That's where regulation should have come into play so that an insurance company wouldn't be able to have a $500B hedge fund riding on its back.

cabernetluver
03-17-2009, 01:37 PM
That's where regulation should have come into play so that an insurance company wouldn't be able to have a $500B hedge fund riding on its back.

You are so right. It is a current problem that needed to be addressed in the past.

blenderboy5
03-17-2009, 03:02 PM
Best idea I've heard so far:

Senator Grassley to AIG Exec's: Kill yourself

http://www.comcast.net/articles/finance/20090317/Grassley.AIG/

ari1013
03-17-2009, 03:04 PM
Best idea I've heard so far:

Senator Grassley to AIG Exec's: Kill yourself

http://www.comcast.net/articles/finance/20090317/Grassley.AIG/
Gotta love Grassley. The best part is that he really is serious :)

dbroncos78087
03-17-2009, 03:07 PM
Best idea I've heard so far:

Senator Grassley to AIG Exec's: Kill yourself

http://www.comcast.net/articles/finance/20090317/Grassley.AIG/

Hmm...a senator from Iowa, well we know there are only a handful of people in Iowa...i would bet ANYTHING that guy is Croce's pseudonym.

SmthBluCitrus
03-17-2009, 03:07 PM
Yea he is. That should help him here in 2010 -- not that he needs it.

SmthBluCitrus
03-17-2009, 03:07 PM
Hmm...a senator from Iowa, well we know there are only a handful of people in Iowa...i would bet ANYTHING that guy is Croce's pseudonym.

HEY! :mad:

I'm in Iowa.

ari1013
03-17-2009, 03:12 PM
HEY! :mad:

I'm in Iowa.
No offense to Iowa, but it doesn't look like Grassley gets that much sun. There's no way he was just in Cabo.

SmthBluCitrus
03-17-2009, 03:15 PM
No offense to Iowa, but it doesn't look like Grassley gets that much sun. There's no way he was just in Cabo.

Grassley is too old for the sun. We have to keep him contained so his face doesn't melt, so he's only let out during legislative sessions.

That said, he should come home today. It's 71, sunny, and gorgeous in Des Moines right now.

dbroncos78087
03-17-2009, 03:18 PM
HEY! :mad:

I'm in Iowa.

I imagine you are president of Iowa.

SmthBluCitrus
03-17-2009, 03:20 PM
I imagine you are president of Iowa.

:laugh2:

Yes. Yes I am.

SmthBluCitrus
03-17-2009, 04:21 PM
From Claire McCaskill (http://clairecmc.tumblr.com/post/87342185/beyond-mad-at-aig-time-for-action):


Beyond mad at AIG...time for action.

There will be a letter sent to the CEO of AIG from most, if not all, of the Democratic Senators momentarily. This letter will demand that any bonuses be withheld or repaid immediately. The letter goes on to explain that we will proceed to recover the bonuses through taxation if AIG fails to recover this money for taxpayers. We state the obvious in the letter, bonuses should not be given for failure.

Legislation wil be introduced in the next 48 hours or so that will tax these companies and the bonus recipients. The tax will be aimed at executives at companies that have recieved significant taxpayer assistance through the TARP funds and will recover almost all of these funds for taxpayers. The Finance Committee is drafting the legislation with the assistance of a number of Senators.

I feel better. We are taking action. It’s time we right this wrong on behalf of hard working Americans everywhere.

ari1013
03-17-2009, 05:17 PM
From Claire McCaskill (http://clairecmc.tumblr.com/post/87342185/beyond-mad-at-aig-time-for-action):
My blue dog's pretty close to leaving Bayh's caucus.

dbroncos78087
03-17-2009, 05:23 PM
:laugh2:

Yes. Yes I am.

Well there have to be some smart people, for every Croce in the world there has to be a person of the complete opposite intelligence and fail level.

Cadarn
03-18-2009, 01:34 AM
When will Obama and Dood give back their AIG bonuses to taxpayers?


The two biggest Congressional recipients of bonuses from AIG are - Chris Dodd and Barack Obama.

DodgersFan28
03-18-2009, 03:01 AM
When will Obama and Dood give back their AIG bonuses to taxpayers?

Right about when they stop blaming Bush for everything.

ari1013
03-18-2009, 08:35 AM
When will Obama and Dood give back their AIG bonuses to taxpayers?


The two biggest Congressional recipients of bonuses from AIG are - Chris Dodd and Barack Obama.
You mean campaign contributions? That money's long gone. Obama and McCain both got money from AIG employees for the presidential campaign. That wasn't money they could keep.

spartanbear
03-18-2009, 12:11 PM
I have been waiting on the AIG thread for a while because I have what I believe is an interesting take on the situation (excuse my inflated sense of self-worth). I saw some of my thoughts in a few other posts as well but here goes:

Populist dissent is yummy, delicious even, and sometimes very filling but truly it's all empty calories. It's not substantive at all and you're going to be hungry later. If you want to determine who's to blame on this one then you've gotta look at Congress and the White House. The perception of bonuses is one thing the actual practice is totally different and for our elected official to actually expect an incompetent entities that are recepients of bail-out funding to actually do the right thing is naive, silly, and d-da-dee-D-damn DUMB. When you rush into things like this bail-out and capital infusion and things of the like this stuff happens. We are not getting the money back! I repeat WE ARE NOT GETTING THE MONEY BACK!

With respect to bonuses what needs to be understood here is that a bonus can be contractual and tied to performance as well as be counter productive to the overall goals of the institution. Which is/was the case with AIG. You can receive a bonus for the amount of widgets you pump out each year within your compensation agreement and this agreement doesn't have to specify whether or not these widgets have to pass inspections or not be returned by the customer or not illicit warranty claims or what have you. Smart companies make sure that doesn't happen AIG an incompetent, bail-out recipient company didn't and so they're on the hook for $165M in bonuses based on last year's targets. They're getting free billions from the government so they're meeting their obligations with it. Public perception? C’mon who cares? What public perception?

It's funny that we see so much outrage regarding these bonus dollars but didn't see as much regarding the spending bill. I mean these bonuses are last year's business for AIG. The omnibus spending bill? Last year's business for the federal government? Just take $165M out of the next $80B we send their way...problem solved. This is silly and distracting. The real issue to address is the conundrum of moral hazard that got us into this situation. The financial sector as well as an insurer like AIG should no longer be able to go on a drunken risk spree only to lean on the federal government when all their chickens come home to roost. If this is not address through intelligent regulations, restrictions and rethinking the financial system and its role in our economy then we’re right back here in 20 years or so.

ari1013
03-18-2009, 12:35 PM
I don't know how you can say that we're not getting any of that money back. It's possible, but if the company doesn't pay, the government could just seize assets and then sell the company off bit by bit.

spartanbear
03-18-2009, 01:08 PM
I don't know how you can say that we're not getting any of that money back. It's possible, but if the company doesn't pay, the government could just seize assets and then sell the company off bit by bit.

Think about what you're saying...

In your scenario the government is taking money from itself. Since the US government now owns most of the company seizing assets amounts to nothing more than grandstanding. Consider that 11 of these executives already left the company. Why would the government sell the company off bit by bit? That my friend sounds like bankruptcy. If in fact that's the answer why bail them out in the first place? This silly bonus discussion is clouding folk's judgement. $165M is a drop in the bucket. Dead that noise there are bigger fish to fry. Just take the amount out of the next installment of funds we're about to give them plus a penalty and keep it moving.

cabernetluver
03-18-2009, 01:19 PM
Think about what you're saying...

In your scenario the government is taking money from itself. Since the US government now owns most of the company seizing assets amounts to nothing more than grandstanding. Consider that 11 of these executives already left the company. Why would the government sell the company off bit by bit? That my friend sounds like bankruptcy. If in fact that's the answer why bail them out in the first place? This silly bonus discussion is clouding folk's judgement. $165M is a drop in the bucket. Dead that noise there are bigger fish to fry. Just take the amount out of the next installment of funds we're about to give them plus a penalty and keep it moving.

Factually, companies spin off parts of themselves, all the time, outside of bankruptcy. Campbell Soup spun off several divisions this past 18 months.

It is my contention that AIG needs to do this for both business and political purposes. We, the people need to not be in the position of having companies that are to big to fail.

ari1013
03-18-2009, 01:34 PM
Think about what you're saying...

In your scenario the government is taking money from itself. Since the US government now owns most of the company seizing assets amounts to nothing more than grandstanding. Consider that 11 of these executives already left the company. Why would the government sell the company off bit by bit? That my friend sounds like bankruptcy. If in fact that's the answer why bail them out in the first place? This silly bonus discussion is clouding folk's judgement. $165M is a drop in the bucket. Dead that noise there are bigger fish to fry. Just take the amount out of the next installment of funds we're about to give them plus a penalty and keep it moving.
But that's the last option. That's my point.

If the company is solvent then they WILL pay back the loans. If not, then the government takes them over and strips them down.

spartanbear
03-18-2009, 02:17 PM
Factually, companies spin off parts of themselves, all the time, outside of bankruptcy. Campbell Soup spun off several divisions this past 18 months.

It is my contention that AIG needs to do this for both business and political purposes. We, the people need to not be in the position of having companies that are to big to fail.

That's not what I'm debating... "Bit-by-bit" was my point of contention. Selling the company off "bit-by-bit" until we get our money back sounds like bankruptcy. AIG the going concern is more important to us right now then AIG the lost cause. In these current market conditions (not to mention the global economic fallout if AIG can't meet its commitments) the company's assets won't fetch us our money back. Again my point is $165M is a drop in the bucket. I'm not pleased about this either but we gotta be real here. The retention agreements required that the folks that knew their portfolios the most got paid a bonus for sticking around and significantly winding them down. Otherwise the alternative would have been to try and hire new people to do that job. Were you going to take it? Who would? So the decision was to incentivize those folks so they wouldn't just up and leave because of course they had no real reason to stay. I am not happy either but my goodness the amount of fanfare around this is not healthy. Let's not lose site of the goal...SAVING THE FINANCIAL SYSTEM. Right?

ari1013
03-18-2009, 02:20 PM
That's not what I'm debating... "Bit-by-bit" was my point of contention. Selling the company off "bit-by-bit" until we get our money back sounds like bankruptcy. AIG the going concern is more important to us right now then AIG the lost cause. In these current market conditions (not to mention the global economic fallout if AIG can't meet its commitments) the company's assets won't fetch us our money back. Again my point is $165M is a drop in the bucket. I'm not pleased about this either but we gotta be real here. The retention agreements required that the folks that knew their portfolios the most got paid a bonus for sticking around and significantly winding them down. Otherwise the alternative would have been to try and hire new people to do that job. Were you going to take it? Who would? So the decision was to incentivize those folks so they wouldn't just up and leave because of course they had no real reason to stay. I am not happy either but my goodness the amount of fanfare around this is not healthy. Let's not lose site of the goal...SAVING THE FINANCIAL SYSTEM. Right?
You're reading into it too much. Obama's not trying to get back that $165M because we gave them too much. The admin is using AIG as a tool to bring about higher taxes on the uber-wealthy.

To the other point:
The loans themselves -- to many companies other than just AIG (hence why I say "company" in the post above) -- will be repaid or else the companies will be liquidated.

PHX-SOXFAN
03-18-2009, 02:25 PM
Not sure if anyone is watching this AIG CEO testimony before congress but it's just a bunch of grandstanding. democratic congressman belittling credit default swap and the bonuses. republican congressman are purely focused on linking the bonuses to Geitner. they have a complete focus on bringing down geitner. IT's disgusting to watch them play politics purely to make a political score. they will have no recommendation on his replacement or any alternative actions to be taken.

furthermore, this ceo of AIG is not to blame for this. he was appointed 6 months ago and is working for free to help the country, not to make money. he;s basically a government employee and conducting himself as such.

this whole thing is nothing but political grandstanding.

spartanbear
03-18-2009, 02:29 PM
Ari, unfortunately I'm a horrible politician. Too honest, too direct, too straight-forward I'm the black, young, inner-city version of McCain 2000. :) Just playin' but if that is the case then it's excellent politics but I'm disappointed at the venom that's come from this. It appears that folks just don't understand the way things work. I figured there was something else at play here because the populist ranting thats been going on this week makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. They're *****in' about someone exploiting legislation they proposed and signed? Then they hired the guy they're chastising?

Thanks for clearing that up.

ari1013
03-18-2009, 02:38 PM
I don't know that I'm right -- it just seems to be the most likely scenario because that's just how things work in DC.

spartanbear
03-18-2009, 02:43 PM
I think you might be. BHO is too crafty to allow a "one fell swoop" opportunity to slip from his grasp. Here he can push for hire taxes on the "rich" and more regulations on the financial industry while maintaining support from the American people.

behindmydesk
03-18-2009, 03:59 PM
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Fannie-plans-bonuses-of-up-to-apf-14679491.html

Fannie Mae in on the bonus game! YAY

ari1013
03-18-2009, 04:36 PM
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Fannie-plans-bonuses-of-up-to-apf-14679491.html

Fannie Mae in on the bonus game! YAY
I'd love to see Barney Frank run over and ***** slap his old friends at FM&FM.

"What did the fingers say to the face?"

behindmydesk
03-18-2009, 04:42 PM
I'd love to see Barney Frank run over and ***** slap his old friends at FM&FM.

"What did the fingers say to the face?"

OH yea. I was goign to say way to go Barney Frank, but figured it'd be real partisan for me to say.

ari1013
03-18-2009, 04:51 PM
OH yea. I was goign to say way to go Barney Frank, but figured it'd be real partisan for me to say.
Why do you have to be so partisan all the time?

ink
03-18-2009, 06:16 PM
Edward Liddy has asked AIG employees (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/19/business/19web-aig.html?_r=1&nl=pol&emc=pola1) to give back half of their bonuses.

PHX-SOXFAN
03-18-2009, 07:07 PM
OH yea. I was goign to say way to go Barney Frank, but figured it'd be real partisan for me to say.

It would be the same as imposing the name of Phil Gramm. only gramm was actually writing legislation and deregulation for decades that lead to this fiasco. It's a good thing he just drifted away instead of headed up a campaign economic team, whoops.

behindmydesk
03-18-2009, 07:41 PM
It would be the same as imposing the name of Phil Gramm. only gramm was actually writing legislation and deregulation for decades that lead to this fiasco. It's a good thing he just drifted away instead of headed up a campaign economic team, whoops.

Ha no it'd be me saying wow look at who Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae gave money too!

Name Office State Party Grand Total Total from
PACs Total from
Individuals
Dodd, Christopher J S CT D $165,400 $48,500 $116,900
Obama, Barack S IL D $126,349 $6,000 $120,349

Atleast Barney Frank is farther down the list, compared to these two lets get rid of lobbyists!

Or better yet, putting James JOhnson and his fraudulent accounting practices in the 90's so he could get a higher bonus, on the vetting for a VP committees.


And please left wing talking point PHX, tell me how deregulation caused this? Because the housing market crash was caused at the start by Mr Alan Greenspan, and President Clinton and others pushing for more low income housing.

cabernetluver
03-18-2009, 07:49 PM
Ha no it'd be me saying wow look at who Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae gave money too!

Name Office State Party Grand Total Total from
PACs Total from
Individuals
Dodd, Christopher J S CT D $165,400 $48,500 $116,900
Obama, Barack S IL D $126,349 $6,000 $120,349

Atleast Barney Frank is farther down the list, compared to these two lets get rid of lobbyists!

Or better yet, putting James JOhnson and his fraudulent accounting practices in the 90's so he could get a higher bonus, on the vetting for a VP committees.


And please left wing talking point PHX, tell me how deregulation caused this? Because the housing market crash was caused at the start by Mr Alan Greenspan, and President Clinton and others pushing for more low income housing.

Ha! Gotcha!

I just wanted to start that way! The reason is that in fact, since 1980 there has been a strong movement toward deregulation and a tearing down of the laws and rules that were formed during the depression.

Over and over I would see the problems of this movement. The savings and loan scandals that put the head of Lincoln Savings into jail (does anyone but me know the term Keating 5?), the tearing down of a law called Glass-Steagle, the resulting bank failures, I can go on if you really want me to.

In fact, the reality is that we need a mixed economy that encourages the free market, but has good regulation so that we don't wind up in the mess we are in now.

behindmydesk
03-18-2009, 07:52 PM
Ha! Gotcha!

I just wanted to start that way! The reason is that in fact, since 1980 there has been a strong movement toward deregulation and a tearing down of the laws and rules that were formed during the depression.

Over and over I would see the problems of this movement. The savings and loan scandals that put the head of Lincoln Savings into jail (does anyone but me know the term Keating 5?), the tearing down of a law called Glass-Steagle, the resulting bank failures, I can go on if you really want me to.

In fact, the reality is that we need a mixed economy that encourages the free market, but has good regulation so that we don't wind up in the mess we are in now.

Agreed we need more regulation but it has been longer then 8 years. Not to mention, it was greenspan and clinton pushing for more unwise loans that wouldn't have flown under regulation.

cabernetluver
03-18-2009, 07:55 PM
Agreed we need more regulation but it has been longer then 8 years. Not to mention, it was greenspan and clinton pushing for more unwise loans that wouldn't have flown under regulation.

I fully agree that it was not just a problem of the last 8 years, but it is fair to say that the problem was exacerbated during that time frame.

behindmydesk
03-18-2009, 08:13 PM
I fully agree that it was not just a problem of the last 8 years, but it is fair to say that the problem was exacerbated during that time frame.

And while a Republican talking point, Bush and company were raising flags on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and Barney Frank and his lispy grubby fingers said no no no it's fine.

cabernetluver
03-18-2009, 08:17 PM
And while a Republican talking point, Bush and company were raising flags on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and Barney Frank and his lispy grubby fingers said no no no it's fine.

Do you want to take a walk through the mess that Phil Graham and the lovely Wendy created?

PHX-SOXFAN
03-18-2009, 08:39 PM
Ha! Gotcha!

I just wanted to start that way! The reason is that in fact, since 1980 there has been a strong movement toward deregulation and a tearing down of the laws and rules that were formed during the depression.

Over and over I would see the problems of this movement. The savings and loan scandals that put the head of Lincoln Savings into jail (does anyone but me know the term Keating 5?), the tearing down of a law called Glass-Steagle, the resulting bank failures, I can go on if you really want me to.

In fact, the reality is that we need a mixed economy that encourages the free market, but has good regulation so that we don't wind up in the mess we are in now.

who authored that by the way? was it the guy who lobbied and worked for insurance and investment firms before and after his stint in congress? at least old Phil Gramm took some time out recently to interject economic policy to a presidential campaign. at least he knows firsthand how deregulation causes problems.

PHX-SOXFAN
03-18-2009, 08:40 PM
Do you want to take a walk through the mess that Phil Graham and the lovely Wendy created?

I Sure do. It's much more interesting, easily tied to the status quo, wreaking of corporate driven coruption and lobbying. It's a lot easier to see the consequences from Phil Gramm's pen than it is to see the consequences of a news clip of barney frank. really it is, it's called legislation and deregulation.:clap: