It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Obama Tells Treasury Chief to Block A.I.G. Bonuses

page: 2
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in


posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 02:24 PM
Oh my God this is so great!!!
And I thank God..
I sure hope we can do it, 80% that should mean something, but i was wandering that means "we" own 80% correct lol

posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 02:26 PM

Originally posted by kosmicjack
The entire situation is absurd, but I hold Washington DC just as accountable as AIG, IMHO. That is where your anger should be directed. Keep it in perspective.

The bailout for AIG is straight up money from the FED in a credit window and there were no stipulations on it's allocation. Most of it has already gone overseas but you won't hear a peep about about that - why? Because it would tick-off our so-called allies.

The outrage coming from DC on this topic is phony posturing so as to limit the grime they get on them from wallowing in the mud with the Money Mafia. Obama asking Geithner to look into it is just a dog and pony show.

Here is the document that was circulated around DC prior to the AIG bailout:

It's extortion. Give me this or else... And our elected officials did. They are ALL to blame.

[edit on 16/3/2009 by kosmicjack]

Thank you Kos! You are absolutley correct and this will be the umpteenth time they are going to say the next bailout they take from us to reditribute the wealth to the wealtiest (those poor bankers) will have more oversight Pffft what happend to all the oversight they were supposed to have NOW?

No one is held accountable and its time to vote NONE or any butcher baker and candlestick maker as long as it isn't an incumbent and as long as they have no political experience which is tantamount to saying "criminal experience" these days

posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 02:29 PM
Whoever supported this bailout cannot complain about the bonuses. Why?......Because the Obama administration and Congress put no stipulations on the bailout. They could have easily put in some provisions which would have not allowed this but instead the bailout came with NO stipulations.

The bonuses were mostly for sales performances and the bonuses are in their contract. I guess since the government owns like 80% of AIG the employees who did not receive their contractual bonuses could have sued the government.

This is why the bailout was not a good idea from the beginning. Just give money back to the people and let the companies die who cannot float on their own.

Obama should have thought about this before releasing the money.

Way to go Mr. Messiah with your faux outrage.

[edit on 3/16/2009 by WhatTheory]

posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 02:29 PM

Originally posted by grover

Originally posted by ModernAcademia
People who call Obama a socialist do not understand politics


Or economics or society or much of anything else for that matter.

That's right. He's a Marxist with socialistic tendencies. Please don't make the mistake of confusing the two.

posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 02:48 PM
Yeah...notice how Obama screams outrage but IGNORES the money that was sent out of the country by AIG to other banks!

This is BS...and they freaking know it.

The money was owned to them by sucks but it has to be honored.

It's also funny that they passed the legislation...why didn't they put in provisions for this?

They won't take responsibility for this?


If they don't give money this doesn't happen in the first place.

It's all a damn charade. Quit falling for this nonsense.

This bonus crap was a diversion.

posted on Mar, 17 2009 @ 06:32 AM
reply to post by sos37

You're funny and obviously know nothing about either Marxism or socialism.

posted on Mar, 17 2009 @ 06:45 AM
reply to post by grover

I would argue that Obama does fall under the category of Socialist as a "Social Democrat"

In general, contemporary social democrats support:

A mixed economy consisting of both private enterprise and government-owned or subsidized programs of education, health care, child care and related social services for all citizens.
An extensive system of social security (although usually not to the extent advocated by socialists), with the stated goal of counteracting the effects of poverty and insuring the citizens against loss of income following illness, unemployment or retirement.
Government bodies that regulate private enterprise in the interests of workers and consumers by ensuring labor rights (i.e. supporting worker access to trade unions), consumer protections, and fair market competition.
Environmentalism and environmental protection laws; for example, funding for alternative energy resources and laws designed to combat global warming.
A value-added/progressive taxation system to fund government expenditures.
A secular and progressive social policy, although this varies markedly in degree.
Immigration and multiculturalism.
Fair trade over free trade.
A foreign policy supporting the promotion of democracy, the protection of human rights and where possible, effective multilateralism.
Advocacy of social justice, human rights, social rights, civil rights and civil liberties.

Social democrats propose selective nationalization of key national industries in mixed economies and tax-funded welfare programs and the regulation of markets


posted on Mar, 17 2009 @ 06:47 AM
I get tired of "You can't get and keep good peopl without bonuses." Well where I come from good people don't run a business into the ground and expect to be rewarded. So they didn't get the good people or what?

posted on Mar, 17 2009 @ 08:11 AM
reply to post by WhatTheory

The bailout for AIG was negotiated and approved by Hank Paulsen, Treasury Secretary under the Bush Administration. The shakedown began then.

AIG's biggest insured client is Goldman Sachs, who was subject to the most risk if AIG went under. And, conversely, if GS failed, AIG would have been more likely to do down.

So what happened? GS got the first bailout. Hank Paulson was the former Chairman of Goldman Sachs. It's all so nice and cozy. The fox watching the hen house.

Few elected representatives said a word last fall. Again, Washington - both parties - are ultimately responsible for this inside job.

The real outrage should not be on the bonuses, but the disparate treatment of the auto industry - specifically the contract compromise that was forced on the blue-collar labor unions while DC padded the pockets of white-collar Wall St.

Perception is everything.

posted on Mar, 17 2009 @ 09:36 AM
The best part about this whole story is this line here:

as the administration scrambled to avert a populist backlash against banks and Wall Street that

Am I reading this right?? Does this mean that the government is actually still afraid of us? Does this mean that even they realize they don't have complete control over the populous? This one line could possibly the best news of the whole article! They better be afraid of us because they can only control us as long as we comply, the one day we, the people, decide to no longer follow like sheep they will have one BIG angry mob and no hollow gesturing or useless legislator will stop it.

In response to the rest of it this entire bailout situation makes me completely ill and all it does is show how completely corrupt the government is. If you can't see this bailout of these corporations as nothing more than the further raping of the American citizen by the elite rich you should get your eyes checked and stop drinking the kool aid.

The 700 TRILLION dollars should've been given back to the populous and we could've decided how it was spent. The money would've stayed in the country and went back into the economy. People would've been able to pay mortgages and loans, afford to feed their families and maybe even survive a loss of employment. Instead, the government has basically flushed that money down the toilet while we all watch.

posted on Mar, 17 2009 @ 09:46 AM
Now I'm really skeptical about this "outrage".

Below is AIG's restructured bailout from 03.02.09 it specifically refers to the TARP from 2008 as a guide for executive compensation:

Executive Compensation:
Until such time as no obligation of AIG arising from financial assistance provided under the Troubled Asset Relief Program remains outstanding (excluding any period during which the federal government only holds warrants to purchase common stock of AIG), AIG shall comply in all respects with Section 111 of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008, as amended, as implemented by any guidance or regulations issued and/or to be issued thereunder including any amendments to the guidelines implementing the Programs of Systemically Significant Failing Institutions.

Now here is the original TARP Legislation, Section 111, which is supposed to put parameters for executive compensation. The "problem" is that it doesn't refer to the type of bailout that AIG received - and open FED credit window (printed money), not specifically allocated funds.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong but didn't Geithner run the NY Fed? Shouldn't he be at least partly responsible for negotiating these terms? How could he have not known?

Phony outrage. This is either DC incompetence or collusion.

[edit on 17/3/2009 by kosmicjack]

posted on Mar, 17 2009 @ 10:07 AM

this is the story that's all over the airwaves, yet...AIG forking out 90 billion dollars to other banks (particularly in Europe) gets no attention.

90 billion tax dollars just went to help out another country ... again.

US insurer AIG stoked further controversy after revealing UK banks were among the beneficiaries of its massive state bail-out amid mounting anger over bonus payouts.

AIG said more than 90 billion dollars (£63.3 billion) was paid to banks, including Barclays, HSBC and Royal Bank of Scotland, between its taxpayer rescue last September and the end of the year.

The firm - now 80% government owned after more than 170 billion dollar (£119.5 billion) in US State aid - was condemned over the weekend by US politicians over its payment of around 165 million dollars (£113 million) in executive bonuses.


....this bonuses thing is just a cover-story. It's so depressing...

posted on Mar, 17 2009 @ 10:17 AM
I recall Chris Dodd, during the haggling over the "spendulus" bill, as he held up a sheet of paper on the Senate floor. Chiding the Repubs for holding the proceedings up for the "earmarks", amounting to less than 5% of the total.

The bonuses to AIG amount to less than 1%.

Dodd also placed provisions in the spendulus bill to allow the bonuses to AIG.

I say this is another smokescreen to divert attention. A draw to spotlight Obama, acting on behalf of the people, while campaigning for HIS $3.6T budget.

Smoke and mirrors, and I'm still trying to unravel the Natalee Halloway case.

Edit to show correted budget figure.

[edit on 17-3-2009 by pyrytyes]

posted on Mar, 17 2009 @ 10:22 AM
reply to post by pyrytyes

No doubt!

AIG contributions

Two senators who chair committees charged with overseeing AIG and the insurance industry, Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) and Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.), are among the top recipients of AIG contributions. Baucus chairs the Senate Finance Committee and has collected more money from AIG in his congressional career than from any other company--$91,000. And with more than $280,000, AIG has been the fourth largest contributor to Dodd, who chairs the Senate's banking committee.

posted on Mar, 17 2009 @ 10:29 AM
reply to post by David9176

What's really messed up is all of us who where opposed to the bailouts from the start have to now listen to how the money we opposed to be given away is being thrown away overseas and on bonuses. Insult to injury.

Maybe if we actually let the banks FAIL, we would get real reform in what rose from the ashes. Instead, we get what you see now.

I'm sorry, but any outrage from politicians you see now is too late and lacks any amount of sincerity. Especially from those who voted FOR the bailouts to begin with.

posted on Mar, 17 2009 @ 10:37 AM
Geitner has everything to do with this. It's a "DOG AND PONY SHOW". the agreement to allow these bonuses was agreed to in advance, by Gietner, prior to the money being handed over. Obama knew about it.

posted on Mar, 17 2009 @ 11:03 AM
the 'bonuses' are in reality 'deferred compensation',

we the people can/should be outraged, because this bogusness is the typical outcome of manipulating shysters with business degrees sitting as executive CEOs & captains of industry.

If the many lawyer degreed politicians and their educated staffs
did not realize the 'bonus' structured wages that are the norm of Wall-Street, would come back to bite them in the rump, then every one of the Capitol Hill incompetents need to be recalled
& new representatives put into office.

Next, as another poster states.... the Bonus outrage is a 'device'

because the real outrage is that OF the $173 Billion AIG bailout $$$s
AIG paid out $120 billion of it to several major TARP fund receipients !

Goldman Sachs received some $32billion as the counter-party to billions of AIG derivatives or Swaps in the last two AIG rescues

whats going on is that all these elite banks & investment firms
issue/create all these unsecured debt instruments far & away beyond any collateral to back of the derivatives with any real assets....
other than the possibility that the FDIC or other govt agency would rescue them from bankruptcy...
(collapse models were never contemplated)
so, the taxpayers are now paying AIG to transfer monies to GS, while GS cries 'non-performing toxic assets', "we-need-a-bailout"... and all the bogus bonus pay rates that were based on phoney calculations of non-asset derivatives are still being paid out in taxdollars...

How can non-performing, Toxic Assets, that are freezing up the credit making simeotaneously claimed as 'Lost value assets'
requiring bailout funds...
then in the next quarter, those same non-peforming, toxic asset, derivatives be claimed as a loss at AIG because of payment due to GS and others of the top-20 banks receiving TARP monies/& bailout $$$s ????

posted on Mar, 17 2009 @ 11:12 AM
I think Geithner might be done. The confidence level in him was already low.

John Behner and the GOP are now drawing the obvious conclusions that he knew all along or at least should have. But hell, they all should have known so maybe they'll all give each other a free pass.

If Geithner is so smart and, as all the pundits claimed, was the man to do the job and fix our economy - why didn't he prevent this little AIG flap?

Either he was incapable and is not the man for the job, couldn't because there are other players running the show or he didn't want to prevent it. None of those options help our crisis of confidence.

posted on Mar, 17 2009 @ 11:12 AM
I had actually thought that one of the reasons these bonuses are so important may be because they help offset the loss of the value of company stock which I assume these execs owned.

Either way this whole stimulus plan and the bail outs are nothing more than a scam

posted on Mar, 17 2009 @ 11:13 AM
reply to post by vor78

It doesn't matter what conditions they had. The company is obligated by contract to pay these people. Period.

There is a clause in the contract that bonuses don't have to be paid during a CALAMITY, referencing something like a hurricane. So if they can define the downturn as a calamity, they may be able to get out of the contract.

The money itself has no effect.

Their options are to not pay them and go to court, which could end up costing quite a bit more.

To pay the people who insist on the bonuses and then fire them. I am all game for that one.

The company is urging the executives to rejet the bonusus.

I think a website needs to be created of the most wanted white collar criminals. And if you accept the bonus, your name and picture and location goes on the site.

[edit on 17-3-2009 by nixie_nox]

top topics

<< 1    3  4 >>

log in