This really makes me sick. How out of touch are these people.

[jgcrawfish 232]

If they do fail, and government is going to spend money either way, i would rather they spend it ti either create new banks, or help the regional players who were not corrupt take their place. Same goes for the auto makers, we do not need all these damb brands....and if the government would stop making things so damb expensive these organizations would be more competitive.

 

maybe you're right. i've long said we need to tax the fock out of imports, tax the fock out of companies that are producing their products or providing their services from overseas because their cheaper, get rid of the 15 different brands that the big 3 have (toyota has 3 available to us as US consumers, Lexus, Toyota and Scion) and promote the American economy to be more American. However, I see helping the companies to survive as the lesser of two evils when compared to devastation that double digit unemployment will bring if/when they fail.

[wolf4birdie 0]

The funny thing about this is you guys are pissed at AIG, and not our government for giving AIG the money....

 

What did you think was going to happen? We give them free money and they all of a sudden they start being responsible?

[KSB2424 3,083]

The funny thing about this is you guys are pissed at AIG, and not our government for giving AIG the money....

 

What did you think was going to happen? We give them free money and they all of a sudden they start being responsible?

I already said that you can't give a crack head money because they will just buy more crack.

[RLLD 3,455]

The funny thing about this is you guys are pissed at AIG, and not our government for giving AIG the money....

 

What did you think was going to happen? We give them free money and they all of a sudden they start being responsible?

 

The laundry list of entities with whom I am pissed extends well beyond AIG, and has been documented in many threads. AIG is just the latest example of how repugnant we have become.

[wiffleball 4,646]

Well, you kids will love this then. I just read an article out on reuters - Turns out the AIG money that was distributed (you know, beyond it's own pockets) went largely to 2 places 1) Goldman Sachs - The most politically connected investment bank in America and 2) European banks.

 

So, basically, we're propping up lobbyists for a firm that doesn't loan commerically and other country's banks. - Which would explain why there's still a HUGE lack of domestic liquidity. Excellent.

 

http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSN1548789520090316

[RLLD 3,455]

Well, you kids will love this then. I just read an article out on reuters - Turns out the AIG money that was distributed (you know, beyond it's own pockets) went largely to 2 places 1) Goldman Sachs - The most politically connected investment bank in America and 2) European banks.

 

So, basically, we're propping up lobbyists for a firm that doesn't loan commerically and other country's banks. - Which would explain why there's still a HUGE lack of domestic liquidity. Excellent.

 

http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSN1548789520090316

 

 

Shock and awe......

[gocolts 300]

This shiit makes me sick. I dunno, I still think there's something we're not being told about AIG. Why them? Why are they so focking special?

 

Oh yeah, that's right - They insure Congresses' pensions. No kidding.

 

WTF? This money could be used to help out one hell of a lot of people. I don't know how these guys take it in good consceince.

 

 

You are focking incredible man. Just unbelievable. And I mean that literally. Like usual, wiffle is talking out his ass again.

 

http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/aig.asp

[gocolts 300]

Well, you kids will love this then. I just read an article out on reuters - Turns out the AIG money that was distributed (you know, beyond it's own pockets) went largely to 2 places 1) Goldman Sachs - The most politically connected investment bank in America and 2) European banks.

 

So, basically, we're propping up lobbyists for a firm that doesn't loan commerically and other country's banks. - Which would explain why there's still a HUGE lack of domestic liquidity. Excellent.

 

http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSN1548789520090316

 

Now THIS is correct. Focking shocking that wiffle figured this part out. I guess Rush must have talked about this today.

[wiffleball 4,646]

Now THIS is correct. Focking shocking that wiffle figured this part out. I guess Rush must have talked about this today.

 

Your validation means so much to me punkin'.

 

 

And by "so much", I mean "not at all you unemployed half-witted pre-pubescent pemus owning retard."

[gocolts 300]

Your validation means so much to me punkin'.

I realize that. Look, it's pretty obvious I have made a tremendous impact on you. You mention me in your posts quite often. That is why I posted that after finally seeing you post something correct. I know my opinion means a great deal to you. It has been long over due with this constant talking out your ass you do here so often, along with just making sh!t up. You can see just a few posts up from this one of the many examples of this talking out your ass you do here daily. Hopefully this is a sign of things to come. Just trying to help out one of my biggest fans on this board.

[SUXBNME 1,340]

Everything I have foreseen is coming to pass. Thanks to the greed of a few, we must all suffer. Can you see why have been so pissed about this for the last few years?

 

Thank you, Norstadorkus

[kilroy69 995]

The funny thing about this is you guys are pissed at AIG, and not our government for giving AIG the money....

Oh I questioned the rationale of giving money to the crooks that started all this from the start with no STRICT oversight. I know I should not be suprised by the actions of these focks but really. How did they think people would react to this. Not to mention calling it a retention bonus is offensive. Their "retention bonus" is having a focking job.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Oh and Obama NEVER made a no earmarks pledge you asshat.

 

 

So, Obama wasn't talking about earmarks when he said this:

 

“new higher standard of accountability, transparency and oversight. We are going to ban all earmarks, the process by which individual members insert projects without review.”

[gocolts 300]

Oh and Obama NEVER made a no earmarks pledge you asshat.

 

So, Obama wasn't talking about earmarks when he said this:

 

"new higher standard of accountability, transparency and oversight. We are going to ban all earmarks, the process by which individual members insert projects without review."

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[SUXBNME 1,340]

So, Obama wasn't talking about earmarks when he said this:

I think that he meant to say "earwigs"...

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Oh, he said "earwigs".. I guess we found something Obama and I agree on.

 

 

[pimptastic69 0]

Oh I questioned the rationale of giving money to the crooks that started all this from the start with no STRICT oversight. I know I should not be suprised by the actions of these focks but really. How did they think people would react to this. Not to mention calling it a retention bonus is offensive. Their "retention bonus" is having a focking job.

 

If you think that's bad, check this out. My MIL's fiancee works for AIG. He's one of like ten or so medical doctors that review life insurance cases. He's been asked to not work so many cases in a day so that AIG's sub-contractors can have work to do.

 

Just by going by what he tells me about AIG, I would equate the company to a JV version of the US Government. They have no focking idea whats going on and no idea how to get control of it, other than to pump more money in.

[kilroy69 995]

If you think that's bad, check this out. My MIL's fiancee works for AIG. He's one of like ten or so medical doctors that review life insurance cases. He's been asked to not work so many cases in a day so that AIG's sub-contractors can have work to do.

 

Just by going by what he tells me about AIG, I would equate the company to a JV version of the US Government. They have no focking idea whats going on and no idea how to get control of it, other than to pump more money in.

Just a giant bloated company that probably should be broken up into smaller more manageable companies with strict oversight.

[kilroy69 995]

"Later, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said the administration would modify the terms of a pending $30 billion bailout installment for AIG to at least recoup the $165 million the bonuses represent. That wouldn't rescind the bonuses, just require AIG to account for them differently."

 

Anyone find anything wrong with the fact that we are going to GIVE them 165 mill less in the next round of 30 BIL? WTF. Ill take that trade every time. Hell if it works like that let me give my peeps 1 bil. That should equate to what like 200 bil in return? Go ahead and fine me the 1bil. Cost of doin business.

[pimptastic69 0]

"Later, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said the administration would modify the terms of a pending $30 billion bailout installment for AIG to at least recoup the $165 million the bonuses represent. That wouldn't rescind the bonuses, just require AIG to account for them differently."

 

Anyone find anything wrong with the fact that we are going to GIVE them 165 mill less in the next round of 30 BIL? WTF. Ill take that trade every time. Hell if it works like that let me give my peeps 1 bil. That should equate to what like 200 bil in return? Go ahead and fine me the 1bil. Cost of doin business.

 

In the big scheme of things, $165 million is nothing. It's like 1/10th of 1% of the bailout. Obviously the govt knew this was coming up, and they're trying to save face right now. Either that, or they are a bunch of focking idiots.

[kilroy69 995]

In the big scheme of things, $165 million is nothing. It's like 1/10th of 1% of the bailout. Obviously the govt knew this was coming up, and they're trying to save face right now. Either that, or they are a bunch of focking idiots.

option B

[Korben Dallas 0]

So, Obama wasn't talking about earmarks when he said this:

 

Nope. He wasn't.

 

On the March 4 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, host Bill O'Reilly aired a clip of President Obama stating, "We are going to ban all earmarks, the process by which individual members insert pet projects without review," which O'Reilly falsely characterized as "President Obama pledging last January to end earmarks in federal spending." Later in the show, referring to earmarks included in the omnibus appropriations bill, O'Reilly stated, "But Obama's on record -- we just played the clip -- that he's going to do away with this. And then he takes 9,000 of them and signs it?" In fact, in the January 6 clip O'Reilly played, Obama was referring to his desire to "ban all earmarks" from his "recovery and reinvestment plan," which he specifically distinguished from "the overall budget process."

 

During his January 6 media availability, Obama stated:

 

OBAMA: But we're not going to be able to expect the American people to support this critical effort unless we take extraordinary steps to ensure that the investments are made wisely and managed well. And that's why my recovery and reinvestment plan will have -- will set a new higher standard of accountability, transparency, and oversight.

 

We are going to ban all earmarks, the process by which individual members insert pet projects without review. We will create an economic recovery oversight board made up of key administration officials and independent advisers to identify problems early and make sure we're doing all that we can to solve it. We will put information about where money is being spent online so that the American people know exactly where their precious tax dollars are going and whether we are hitting our marks.

 

But we're not going to be able to stop there. We're going to have to bring significant reform not just to our recovery and reinvestment plan, but to the overall budget process, to address both the deficit of dollars and the deficit of trust. We'll have to make tough choices, and we're going to have to break old habits. We're going to have to eliminate outmoded programs and make the ones that we do need work better.

 

pwned - jeebus, there are 50 google hits on how that was a false representation and he's said that he wanted reform and transparency, not elimination about 30 times.

 

Look, I don't like the AIG crap any more than anyone else. This is what happens when you give them a huge amount of money without oversight, which is what Obama's predecessor did. Obama found out the same way as the rest of us and at least he's whining about it and pledging to hold them to some level of accountability. However, where I think you will have a legitimate beatch down the road will be if he is unable to move quickly over the next 6 months to achieve that accountability factor. I get that we need to prop up these scumbags for the time being, but we better be planning somehow to break up AIG and get some value for this.

[SUXBNME 1,340]

Oh, he said "earwigs".. I guess we found something Obama and I agree on.

You both have earwigs?

[Lackman 0]

How disgusting is it hearing politicians whining about money that a business spends, considering the tax cheating and drunken spending that they are doing on a daily basis.

[Vikings4ever 496]

Question:

 

Were these bonuses given out of the blue, or were they contractually obligated?

 

If it's the former, then it's complete bullsh*t, and another reason we shouldn't be bailing these douches out.

 

If it's the latter, the government has no business interfering in legal contracts.

[DanXIII 8]

Question:

 

Were these bonuses given out of the blue, or were they contractually obligated?

 

If it's the former, then it's complete bullsh*t, and another reason we shouldn't be bailing these douches out.

 

If it's the latter, the government has no business interfering in legal contracts.

 

It was a little of both, actually.

 

In fairness, most people are looking at the headlines and going no further. They assume that, because AIG is paying bonuses and, because AIG is doing poorly as a conglomerate, bonuses = retarded. The fact of the matter is that it is AIG's financial services division that is the call of most of the company's woes. There are other divisions that are doing nicely and actually turning a profit. It seems unfair to void the contracts of the employees of those divisions based on a headline, which is precisely what many in Washington and elsewhere want.

 

ETA: Many of the contracts were signed by AIG execs last year, execs who knew (or should have known) of the dire straits the company was facing at the time...

[kilroy69 995]

WASHINGTON – Congressional Democrats vowed Tuesday to all but strip AIG executives of their $165 million in bonuses as expressions of outrage swelled in Congress over eye-catching extra income for employees of a firm that has received billions in taxpayer bailout funds.

 

"Recipients of these bonuses will not be able to keep all of their money," declared Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, in an unusually strong threat delivered on the Senate floor.

 

"If you don't return it on your own we will do it for you," said Chuck Schumer of New York.

 

The bonuses were paid legally, part of a program that had been disclosed in advance in filings that American International Group Inc. made with the government.

House and Senate Democrats were crafting separate bills to tax up to 100 percent of generous bonuses awarded by companies rescued by taxpayer money. Republicans said President Barack Obama's administration should have done more to stop the bonuses.

AIG would not be the only firm named by either Democratic bill, but there was no question whose executives inspired the legislation.

 

"They're not going to get the financial benefit of those bonuses," said Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont.

 

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

 

"We will use any means necessary," said Ryan. "It boggles my mind how these executives can be so unaware of what the American people are going through."

 

The Internal Revenue Service currently withholds 25 percent from bonuses less than $1 million and 35 percent for bonuses more than $1 million.

 

As lawmakers stampeded to the microphones over the American International Group Inc. bonuses, the Obama administration said it was trying to put strict limits on how future government bailout dollars could be used. But sharp questions have been raised about what the administration knew about the bonuses — and when.

 

Sen. Richard Shelby, the ranking Republican on the Senate Banking Committee, chastised the administration, saying Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner should have blocked the payouts.

 

"I don't know if he should resign over this," the Alabama senator said. "He works for the president of the United States. But I can tell you, this is just another example of where he seems to be out of the loop. Treasury should have let the American people know about this."

 

AIG also was raked over the coals at a banking committee hearing on regulating the insurance industry.

 

"One way or another, we're going to try to figure out how to get these resources back," said Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., the panel's chairman.

 

"This is ridiculous," exclaimed Sen. Jon Tester, D-Mont. He said AIG executives "need to understand that the only reason they even have a job is because of the taxpayers."

 

Edward Liddy, the CEO of American International Group Inc., is to testify Thursday before a House subcommittee.

 

On Monday, Obama lambasted the insurance giant for "recklessness and greed" and pledged to try to block payment of the bonuses. Obama said he had directed Geithner to determine whether there was any way to retrieve or stop the bonus money.

 

The financial bailout program remains politically unpopular and has been a drag on Obama's new presidency, even though the plan began under his predecessor, President George W. Bush. The White House is aware of the nation's bailout fatigue; hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars have gone to prop up financial institutions that made poor decisions, while many others who have done no wrong have paid the price.

 

Sen. Charles Grassley suggested in an Iowa City radio interview on Monday that AIG executives should take a Japanese approach toward accepting responsibility by resigning or killing themselves.

 

"Obviously, maybe they ought to be removed," the Iowa Republican said. "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 spokesman Casey Mills said the senator wasn't calling for AIG executives to kill themselves, but said those who accept tax dollars and spend them on travel and bonuses do so irresponsibly.

 

New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo said he has issued subpoenas for the names of AIG employees given bonuses despite their possible roles in its near-collapse. Cuomo said his office will investigate whether the bonus payments are fraudulent under state law because they were promised when the company knew it wouldn't have the money to cover them. AIG reported this month that it lost $61.7 billion in the fourth quarter of last year, the largest corporate loss in history, and it has benefited from more than $170 billion in a federal rescue.

 

___

[bushy 0]

This is what happens when you give them a huge amount of money without oversight, which is what Obama's predecessor did. Obama found out the same way as the rest of us and at least he's whining about it and pledging to hold them to some level of accountability.

 

That's funny. Didn't Sen Obama support and vote for this fiasco last fall? Are you telling me he had no idea what he was voting for?

 

Can you please let me know when we can start holding President Obama accountable for the circus going on in D.C.?

[pimptastic69 0]

That's funny. Didn't Sen Obama support and vote for this fiasco last fall? Are you telling me he had no idea what he was voting for?

 

Can you please let me know when we can start holding President Obama accountable for the circus going on in D.C.?

 

Prolly not anytime soon. "The Last 8 Years" is still a catchy slogan.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Nope. He wasn't.

pwned - jeebus, there are 50 google hits on how that was a false representation and he's said that he wanted reform and transparency, not elimination about 30 times.

 

 

What part of "we will ban all earmarks" confuses you?

 

Moron.

[naomi 343]

It was a little of both, actually.

 

In fairness, most people are looking at the headlines and going no further. They assume that, because AIG is paying bonuses and, because AIG is doing poorly as a conglomerate, bonuses = retarded. The fact of the matter is that it is AIG's financial services division that is the call of most of the company's woes. There are other divisions that are doing nicely and actually turning a profit. It seems unfair to void the contracts of the employees of those divisions based on a headline, which is precisely what many in Washington and elsewhere want.

 

ETA: Many of the contracts were signed by AIG execs last year, execs who knew (or should have known) of the dire straits the company was facing at the time...

 

Liddy's representation of the bonuses sounded understandable in terms of winding down books of business using the people who had been on with them and could best do it.

 

But what I don't get it is how much of the $ went to understood ineffectual bonuses...but still just contractually obligated ones.

 

Towards your eta:...it seems the bonuses Liddy justified (books of business winding down ones...he said cross cutting defaulting or something rather would happen otherwise) were an acknowledging of the dire straits, they knew they'd have to successfully be winding them down to stay alive.

 

As an aside, all the Federal Reserve monitoring and directing of AIG (and Treasury's alleged ignorance with a former NY Fed Reserve President in the post. He recused himself of that position yeah, but he still has to know what's up) and what they get out of things is shady as usual. Liddy's testimony made it sound like the Federal Reserve heavily influences how they do everything. Wonder why most of Congress is shy to go there...a few on the subcommittee today slightly did, but there's a general deference there. IF congress wants to have a show of outrage over the bonuses, and an extra governmental agency considered just governmental has been there every step of the way, that needs to be questioned.