quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov GOP Senator Grassley On AIG Execs: "Resign, or go commit suicide." So tactful.

I've never been one to advocate PC, but to me that comment also seemed pretty offensive to Japanese people.

quote:

Originally posted by Groundhog Boy And if we taxed AIG, we'd just be taxing ourselves.

let's say AIG didn't have losses, taxing would be an effective method of penalizing AIG because we would be collecting a percentage of the bonus payments without reducing any principal on the loans to AIG. Thus, the government would recoup the entire loan plus a percentage of the bonus. I envision a tax like that on golden parachutes.

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov GOP Senator Grassley On AIG Execs: "Resign, or go commit suicide." So tactful.

what a moron. fuck that guy

quote:

Originally posted by Alex Really?

Oh yes indeed-y.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblo..._seppuku_ti.asp

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by Kinezi They are not outraged, Obama's Political capital gets eroded if he cant stop this bonus payment, he sees it like AIG CEO is showing him middle finger and wants to potrayit to world like that, but the fact remains that AIG is bound by contractual agreement to disperse the bonus to performing employees. Unless they amend the contract and re-write it again there is nothing that the CEO can do. Obama/media is making a scapegoat out of CEO.

Obama is giving the new CEO a free pass telling the media to be sure to understand he's doing a great job and this isn't his doing (he's a big democrat party contributer) and demonizing the one who put the contracts in place. This administration could have stopped the bonuses by simply stopping the bailout. They could have forced AIG into bankruptcy, which would have voided the company's contractual compensation obligations. Instead, the Obama administration chose to inject liquidity into AIG (as did the Bush administration at the end of 2008). That kept AIG's doors open, and therefore kept its contractual obligations to its employees intact.


It's crazy... I'm reading now about how the peasants with pitch forks are surrounding AIG and how they are getting death threats and shit. These contracts were reported IN FULL over a year ago. There is no surprise and they knew it was coming. It's populist nonsense and a dangerous distraction the administration is facilitating here... I think they ran out of capital on the Rush thing and they need a new outrage to fire up the sheep, and this was perfect timing.


*sigh*.... if a failing business is just given free money with no strings attached, you can expect them to continue to operate the way the were. If we want to avoid having taxpayer dollars go to Wall Street bonuses we should not be bailing out private companies with taxpayer dollars.

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 I've never been one to advocate PC, but to me that comment also seemed pretty offensive to Japanese people.

And also offensive to regular "alive" people. And maybe offensive to robots too!

How interesting is this:

Two Weeks Ago: White House Says It's Confident It Knows What Happened to Previous AIG Billions

quote:

From White House press secretary Robert Gibbs' briefing two weeks ago, when $30 billion in additional funds were announced for AIG. AIG had at this point designated $165 million in retention bonuses for officers of the Financial Products subsidiary, as well as an additional $121.5 million in executive bonuses. TAPPER: AIG, is the administration confident that it, that it knows what happened to the tens of billions of dollars previously given to AIG? GIBBS: Is it confident -- I'm sorry? TAPPER: That they know -- that you guys know what happened to the previous billions before you hand over this next $30 billion. GIBBS: Yes -- yes, the -- I mean, I don't think it's a -- well, obviously, you've got a huge insurance company that is losing money, not the least of which because of its sheer size and sheer size and decrease in the growth in our economy. It experiences a far bigger drop, largely because of its size. But, again, the steps that -- that Treasury and -- and others took were to ensure a larger systemic problem wasn't one that we had to deal with here today in letting something just die. TAPPER: But in terms of specifically the -- I guess it's like $150 billion before, you guys are confident... GIBBS: Yes.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalp...eeks-ago-w.html

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss .........They could have forced AIG into bankruptcy, which would have voided the company's contractual compensation obligations. ..........

which would have caused billions of dollars in losses to banks and states, which would have been an absolute financial nightmare. avoiding bankruptcy was absolutely necessary. fuck the bonuses, the government did what it had to do. undeserved bonuses to a group of idiots shouldn't prevent the government from saving the country (and potentially the world) from a potential economic depression. some people are real idiots!!!

moral of the story, if it's too big to fail it's simply too big. i've said it before, but it's really the lesson we need to take from all of this.

quote:

moral of the story, if it's too big to fail it's simply too big. i've said it before, but it's really the lesson we need to take from all of this.

I'm surprised that some of these "too big to fail" companies haven't been cut down to size like the old Standard Oil saga's of the late 1800's and 1900's where regulators kept going after them in anti-trust challenges. I guess it's a slightly different scenario since none of these banks or financial institutions have a monopoly on anything.

___________________
Paul

quote:

Originally posted by pmoisse I'm surprised that some of these "too big to fail" companies haven't been cut down to size like the old Standard Oil saga's of the late 1800's and 1900's where regulators kept going after them in anti-trust challenges. I guess it's a slightly different scenario since none of these banks or financial institutions have a monopoly on anything.

I'm not sure about the standard for anti-trust challenges, but the DOJ has the power to challenge any acquisition and the pressure alone from the DOJ may be enough to prevent an acquisition.

apparently, in the case of AIG, it was the only company really doing credit default swaps. The problem is, however, being the only player probably isn't enough because that isn't anti-competitive.

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 I'm not sure about the standard for anti-trust challenges, but the DOJ has the power to challenge any acquisition and the pressure alone from the DOJ may be enough to prevent an acquisition. apparently, in the case of AIG, it was the only company really doing credit default swaps. The problem is, however, being the only player probably isn't enough because that isn't anti-competitive.

Good points. I guess one could say that they cornered the market on shitty toxic assets that now have the square root of fuckall value.

___________________
Paul

Hmm, welp, there goes the "necessity for bonuses for retention purposes" bullshit argument for AIG:

quote:

And get this: Though the payments were called "retention" bonuses, 11 of those 73 millionaires, including one who got $4.6 million, are no longer even at AIG. So if, as AIG has claimed, the bonuses were handed out for the purpose of holding on to talented employees, they often didn't succeed in doing so. http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsme...illion_each.php

Man did we get played.

I am a little confused by this ordeal, however. According to Rep. Frank:

quote:

And he reminded reporters that Congress had no control over the AIG bailout, which was conducted via the Federal Reserve rather than the legislation that set up the TARP program late last year. "Remember, the legislative authority for this is essentially the 1932 statute" that set the Fed's lending rules, Frank said. http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/...-it.php?ref=fp5

He said this on Rachel Maddow's show last night, pointing to the legislation that was done last Fall under Bush's watch. That may be true, but does that mean that Congress could not in any way intervene when they had a few chances to do so and close the loophole? Or was this something that they simply had no power over since it was a Fed loophole? Anyone know?

I do think this is an interesting idea being pushed by Frank:

quote:

House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D-MA) just finished a press conference on AIG, where he divulged a new wrinkle in the ongoing push to recoup the company's lavish bonuses. The U.S. government apparently added "covenants" to its deal with AIG to cede some of its rights as the majority owner of the company, Frank said, adding in plain English: "It's time to act as the owner." http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/...-it.php?ref=fp5

Since we own something like 80% of the the company, is there legal merit for Congress to stop the payments acting as an "owner" of the company? Thoughts?

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...