• That SOB sure lies. He campaigned that he was for the little people. But we neo-cons new all along that he was the real con-man. (I don't like Alex Jones)
  • Not sure if he can get anything done about it, sounded to me like he was just echoing everyone else's opinion. I'm not too happy with his 'change' so far. Over 9,000 earmarks in the latest stimulus package, he promised to go through all spending bills line by line to eliminate pork. He lied, just wanted to get his stimulus bill passed ASAP instead of doing what's right.
  • I'm hoping he follows through with it and it's not just "lip service"! It certainly would be refreshing if it happens!
  • It shouldn't have been allowed in the first place, without stipulations like that already in the agreements. He should have thought about that then, not after the fact and after the outrage of so many people. I only hope he follows through with his fight.
  • I say: damned right. Because the AIG bailout was Bu$h's idea. Leave it to the CONServatives to get all huffy over the notion that they can't just take the money and run.
  • Better late than never! I was extremely perturbed by the whole bailout and this only added insult to injury especially when all this money was given out without nary a restriction on it's use so far. Billions up in smoke and now at least there seems to be somewhat of an effort to account for it's use and bonuses in a failing company is not a good one. I just wish Obama showed more moxy and insight into what he is doing.
  • Yeah, but what REALLY can be done about them? I am on the fence about this. After all, it IS contractual. Right or wrong (wrong in my book) there does need to be some sanctity when contracts are concerned. Who pays when they get sued? The only thing we can hope for is a loophole :( Ed Liddy will be speaking in defense of these bonuses today... I am eager to hear what he has to say.
  • They should have let the banks fail. If you're going to give them money you can't really miro manage how they use it. This money wasn't supposed to have strings on it, now after the fact you want to tell them what to do with it?
  • I say he sponsored the legislation that allowed it to happen, but that is just fact and a detail people will ignore SHEEP.
  • Good for him, good for us, good luck!
  • yes and yee haw.... go Obama.. :)
  • Yeah, right! Apparently, his idea of fighting is telling them that what they're doing is disgraceful - as if we were dealing with people who gave a damn or had any shame more less moral values
  • Were these bonuses actually all going to the fat cats, or were a lot of them going to relatively small people at the bottom of the company who happened to hit the targets they were set in 2007/8, and are now due what is effectively a commission on the insurance they sold that year? Remember that the company was brought down by a relatively small investment department that lost a lot of money, while the rest of AIG was working away as a normal insurance company. Should your local salesman be deprived of the bonus he got for good selling because of a few idiots in head office who blew the company cash pile away?
  • It's all smoke and mirrors. Bush gave AIG the bailout, but Democrats voted on it, Republicans did not. Also it was in the agreement put in by the Dems that they could pay the bonuses. Now Dems poll numbers are dropping and they need to get us looking at something else to get us diverted off their own failures. These bonuses are chump change compared to the money and crap the Dems are throwing at every special interest group and pet project every day.
  • It was the government that bailed them out and so took on the contractually bound bonuses and pensions, therfore they rightly or wrongly must be paid..... If they had done nothing and AIG went to the wall and then the government nationalised it / took over as a going-concern no problem, no bonuses..... The US is meant to be a capitalist society and so failure should mean bankruptcy otherwise what have you but state run businesses; is that not communism.....!!!
  • I say its too little, too late. This should have been talked about before the money was handed out to them in the first place.
  • If he really does then he will have done something to make me happy. The next step is to get these crooks in jail.
  • What I say is this: That's all well and good, but how "on the side of we the people" can Obama be if he is seriously considering making WOUNDED veterans PAY for their OWN medical treatment — including any treatment for injuries recieved during their terms of service. Eric Shinseki, Secretary of Veterans Affairs (and a retired General, no less!), confirms that the plan is under consideration.
  • Man, you guys are gullible. AIG is only alive because they have funded political campaigns in the past. They are on life support. We are fighting against the natural order of things here. It's never cheap to do so. This is like giving someone a heart transplant and then bitching about how much it costs to keep them in meds afterward.
  • I'm with you all the way, Rosie!
  • Abrogate the contracts and let 'em sue. Can you imagine a plaintiff attempting to argue that he or she earned said bonus?
  • Inconveniently, there's the little problem of the Law of Contracts. AIG is contractually bound to pay these bonuses, and these contracts predate the bailout. AIG's hands are tied: if it doesn't pay them it's in breach. As the Constitution itself is inferior to and dependent upon the Law of Contracts, there's nothing that the government can do legally, let alone Constitutionally, to stop AIG from paying the bonuses. If AIG does not pay these bonuses, THE COURTS will make them pay, and pay every cent they are contractually obligated to pay. However, it is possible for Congress to enact a tax law that places a 100% tax rate on all bonuses paid to officers and employees of a corporation that has been bailed out by the US taxpayer in the current or previous tax year. However, they'll have to be very VERY careful about how they define "bonus". By generic terminology, the entire variable component of one’s compensation is termed "bonus". Thus even minimum wage workers could find themselves stripped of their over-time, salesmen of their commissions and target bonuses, customer service reps stripped of their performance bonuses, and the like. If a salesman or sales manager for AIG met his bonus targets, are you suggesting that he should be denied his justly and contractually due compensation? Remember, the "fat cats" aren't the only people in a company that get paid bonuses. For some average Joe-blow employees in some companies, "bonuses" can be up to 70% of their compensation. I don't know about AIG, but when I was a working in corporate training (for a training provider) - 80% of my compensation came from "bonuses" simply for the number of classes taught, timely filing of paperwork, and my performance evaluations. And I was only bringing in 55k/year tops, and that was working in Chicago back in the 90s.

Copyright 2023, Wired Ivy, LLC

Answerbag | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy