FRIHOST FORUMS SEARCH FAQ TOS BLOGS COMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


Obama approved the AIG bonuses!





Voodoocat
You don't hear that on CNN or the Huffington Post, now do you? It turns out that the TARP bill, SIGNED BY OBAMA clearly exempts bonuses contracted before February 11, 2009. This includes the much maligned multimillion dollar AIG bonuses. What! You don't believe me? Follow this link to read the full bill: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_bills&docid=f:h1enr.pdf

the exemption is on page 404, D(iii), just above section E. Here are the actual words:

"(iii) The prohibition required under clause (i) shall
not be construed to prohibit any bonus payment required
to be paid pursuant to a written employment contract
executed on or before February 11, 2009, as such valid
employment contracts are determined by the Secretary or
the designee of the Secretary."

What idiot would add this amendment? It must have been one of those evil, big-business loving Republicans. After all, they would sell their souls to gain favor with the corrupt capitalists that run our large corporations, right? WRONG!!!! The amendment was added by CHRIS DODD, DEMOCRAT! Yet Dodd is all over the media decrying the bonuses as an arrogant misuse of government money when HE ADDED THE EXEMPTION!!!!! Can you say hypocrite?

Why would he write such an exemption and Obama sign it into law? There may be over 100,000 reasons: AIG gave over $100,000 each to Dodd and Obama. Now we know how much a president costs: $100,000.

Read more about it: http://www.foxbusiness.com/story/markets/industries/finance/dodd-cracks-aig---time/
ocalhoun
Voodoocat wrote:
a written employment contract

Before we get all worked up, might we consider that it is reasonable to not force people to break contracts? You'd put them in quite a problem, because honoring the contract would be illegal, but breaking the contract would also be illegal.
jmi256
ocalhoun wrote:
Voodoocat wrote:
a written employment contract

Before we get all worked up, might we consider that it is reasonable to not force people to break contracts? You'd put them in quite a problem, because honoring the contract would be illegal, but breaking the contract would also be illegal.


I agree with you in principle, but just a few things:

Number one: Dodd shouldn't have gone out of his way to inject the language that protects such bonuses, especially given that he was the recipient of AIG's largest political contributions, followed closely by Obama. It's one thing to not force someone to do something, and another to go out of the way to protect certain activities, such as giving out bonuses. Whether it's true or not, it has the appearance of political kickbacks.

Number two: Obama can get on TV all he wants to express his supposed outrage at the bonuses, but he's the one who signed the bill providing them the taxpayer money and legal protection to do so. Seems very hypocritical to me.

Number three: This supports the point that the Stimulus Bill was packed full of giveaways, and that it is full of pitfalls. If politicians were provided time to read, let alone understand the ramifications, of the bill, and the public was allowed to also see the bill before they were forced to be on the hook for $1+ trillion of waste that ends up in someone else's pockets, perhaps this could have been avoided.

Number four: This highlights Obama's lack of understanding of how the businesses that he wants to "regulate" function. From everything I have heard about AIG (and Wall Street in general), the desire to make money is what drives these individuals. And bonuses are a big part of overall compensation. There are many executives who make 5x or 10x of their salaries by way of bonuses. So why wouldn't Obama and the Democrats want to address that issue before agreeing to funding the bailout? If Obama and the Democrats were intent on a bailout they could have simply gone to the executives and said, "Listen, you are going lose everything, including your job, salary and bonuses. Or you can agree to nullify/renegotiate your compensation plans to something more appropriate and then receive a bailout." Seems like an easy choice that would have avoided all this, but instead they decided to actually protect the bonuses. Either Obama doesn't understand the business world, he's unethical (see number one above) or he's incompetent. Take your pick, but either way he shouldn't be tinkering with our capital system.
ocalhoun
^Oh, you're right of course that most politicians (including Obama, no doubt) are bought and paid for by large corporations.

This translates into politicians saying one thing to the public, but actually doing another.
There have been worse outrages before than simply allowing them to honor already-written contracts though.
buxneo
ocalhoun wrote:
^Oh, you're right of course that most politicians (including Obama, no doubt) are bought and paid for by large corporations.

This translates into politicians saying one thing to the public, but actually doing another.
There have been worse outrages before than simply allowing them to honor already-written contracts though.


i love obama.. he is a great man
Moonspider
The contractually obligated bonuses were untouchable before the law. It's unconstitutional for either states or the federal government to void legal contracts. They are untouchable and should be untouchable. But the fact is, $165 million is nothing. It's a non-issue. It's pocket change. It's a number that fits on your calculator screen. It's one of the many shells moving around Washington without a ball underneath it.

The real story is the tens of billions of dollars AIG has paid out to other institutions and countries since the United States bailed out AIG.


  • Goldman Sachs: $12.9 billion
  • Germany's Deustche Bank: $11.8 billion
  • Bank of America & Merrill Lynch: $12 billion
  • France's Societe Generale: $11.9 billion
  • Various U.S. municipalities: $12.1 billion


All in all from what I've seen, more than $90 billion in payouts to domestic and foreign institutions.

I'm a financial conservative, so I was against the bailouts period. I'd rather see such companies fail rather than propped up by the government, which now owns 80% of AIG alone. But I find this executive bonus outrage to be a manufactured furor. Everyone throws a fuss over 165 pennies getting lost in the sofa and develops plans to recover those 165 pennies while ten $100 bills get flushed down the toilet.

Sources:
Goldman, others get AIG payouts: report
AIG details $105 billion in payouts
Cash used to cover collateral payments, wind down derivatives contracts

Who got AIG's bailout billions?

Respectfully,
M
deanhills
ocalhoun wrote:
^Oh, you're right of course that most politicians (including Obama, no doubt) are bought and paid for by large corporations.

This translates into politicians saying one thing to the public, but actually doing another.
There have been worse outrages before than simply allowing them to honor already-written contracts though.

This just convinces me over and over that the Government is not qualified NOR equipped to get involved in business dealings. They are not specialists in this field. It further convinces me over again that AIG is still doing business in the same way. The same officers are in charge, and obviously they want to continue with business as before, which means maximum advantage for themselves. Which is as it should be of course in the nature of the business. That is why it has convinced me again that the banks and insurance companies should have been allowed to fail, so that it could have been completely re-engineered from the roots up. The BIG Banks and Insurance Companies have grown too BIG and too far away from its customers. Something completely new should have been created that is more in touch with its customers with less layers in the top floors.
peyote
Does Obama know about frihost? Maybe he' ll give us $100!
deanhills
I'm sure Obama must have some Internet specialists who send out bots on a daily basis to check up on stats. So indirectly I am sure he knows about us.
Voodoocat
I hope he reads this forum- maybe he will learn something Laughing
liljp617
Voodoocat wrote:
I hope he reads this forum- maybe he will learn something Laughing


Probably not.
silverdown
I thought they were required to return the money? guess not..
deanhills
silverdown wrote:
I thought they were required to return the money? guess not..
All of it I think is inexact. Some of it will be returned and some of the employees offered to return half. Sort of a mess I think. Typical consequence of bailing out a private company with private contracts with public funds. Twisted Evil
atul2242
The government is bailing out financial institutions to try and recover the economy.
The big Q is -Will it work????

Idea

Why not do things at the grassroot level - make policy decisions so that people will be encouraged to become self-sufficient. Go back to farming, grow veggies, do small enterprises, why just prop up the mega-projects.
After all they are the ones which failed and will fail again.....

Is my understanding of the economics right
Question
deanhills
atul2242 wrote:
The government is bailing out financial institutions to try and recover the economy.
The big Q is -Will it work????

Idea

Why not do things at the grassroot level - make policy decisions so that people will be encouraged to become self-sufficient. Go back to farming, grow veggies, do small enterprises, why just prop up the mega-projects.

Is my understanding of the economics right
Question
Absolutely agreed. Get rid of the big banks and start up a number of credit unions serving their communities directly. Let's dismantle big business and get back to basics. It is only when we do that, that the economy will be transparent again. Right now everything is "as clear as mud", and everything can be twisted to suit those in their multi-million/multi-billion executive offices in co-operation with Government.
Nick2008
Giving money to big corporations won't fix the problem. The government needs to oversee what the corporations are doing, so they don't go on $45,000 luxury vacations and give $1 Million bonuses.

This is a time for a moment of socialism to restart the economy. If I lent someone $1,000,000,000; I might as well regulate how my money is spent, I have every right to under a signed contract.
ocalhoun
Nick2008 wrote:

This is a time for a moment of socialism to restart the economy. If I lent someone $1,000,000,000; I might as well regulate how my money is spent, I have every right to under a signed contract.

This is acceptable only as long as the person or entity getting the money has the right to refuse it because of the strings attached.
deanhills
Nick2008 wrote:
Giving money to big corporations won't fix the problem. The government needs to oversee what the corporations are doing, so they don't go on $45,000 luxury vacations and give $1 Million bonuses.

This is a time for a moment of socialism to restart the economy. If I lent someone $1,000,000,000; I might as well regulate how my money is spent, I have every right to under a signed contract.
Excactly the reason why this bail-out operation should never have been approved in the first place. Government is never good at balancing accounts. We also do not want more Government. More Government means more taxes, more interference.
Nick2008
If there's less governments then we got rich CEOs going on $45,000 luxury vacations with the governments bailout money (which they were supposed to use to help their company).

I guess there's pros and cons of each.
ocalhoun
Nick2008 wrote:
If there's less governments then we got rich CEOs going on $45,000 luxury vacations with the governments bailout money (which they were supposed to use to help their company).

I guess there's pros and cons of each.

Ideally, we'd get no bailouts at all with less government, and then there'd be no problems at all with how people spend the money they never got.
atul2242
[/quote]
Ideally, we'd get no bailouts at all with less government, and then there'd be no problems at all with how people spend the money they never got.[/quote]

True!
Who are these economists who advise the government, are they not the very same people who make their living giving lectures and talks to big business houses.
I read in a recent article how 3 large Indian Corporations including Reliance Industries had paid for lectures by the Chief Economic Adviser to the United States Government.
Talk about being hand in hand.....
deanhills
atul2242 wrote:
True!
Who are these economists who advise the government, are they not the very same people who make their living giving lectures and talks to big business houses.
I read in a recent article how 3 large Indian Corporations including Reliance Industries had paid for lectures by the Chief Economic Adviser to the United States Government.
Talk about being hand in hand.....
Totally agreed. Having a Government bailing out the Big Banks is like the fox being put in charge of a hen house.
Related topics
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Politics

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.