Obama Received a $101,332 Bonus from AIG

The title is BOGUS!!! A campaign contribution is not a BONUS. you and your source are using a highly charged word to deceive.

I think you should have to change the title. Let's be accurate here.


according to this website Lehman brothers gave more to the Democrats than the Republicans but I DON"T see them getting bonuses.

Lehman Brothers' campaign contribution stats

[edit on 3/18/09 by stikkinikki]

Originally posted by BlasteR
Why would a brand new president risk his newly-achieved social and professional status only to quite possibly see his entire administration go down in flames over a hundred grand after only 3 months in the white house???

Because the right says so I guess.

Seriously, these guys contribute across the board.
I'm not seeing the sinister connection just yet.

Any corp. can donate to anyone they choose, that doesn't equate to a no bid contract given to a company you worked for or ran after you get elected.

Isn't Obama attacking them for being "selfish and greedy", plus working to block the bonuses or retrieve the money right now?

- Lee

Originally posted by stikkinikki
The title is BOGUS!!! A campaign contribution is not a BONUS.

Good point.
I wasn't paying attention I guess, because I missed that.

Yes this is NOT a bonus.
The title seems to imply that Obama worked or does work for AIG.

Star for you.

- Lee

reply to post by stikkinikki


Its the title of the article he quoted.

You can argue that it isn't a bonus, but he is not wrong with the title of the thread, he quoted the article.

Originally posted by jd140
reply to post by stikkinikki

 

Its the title of the article he quoted.

You can argue that it isn't a bonus, but he is not wrong with the title of the thread, he quoted the article.

then this should get a HOAX label. You can't go around posting blatant lies just because someone else did. This is shameful political baiting and quite frankly Karl Rovian political propaganda.

DEBUNKED /thread

[edit on 3/18/09 by stikkinikki]

Originally posted by stikkinikki
according to this website Lehman brothers gave more to the Democrats than the Republicans but I DON"T see them getting bonuses.

Lehman Brothers' campaign contribution stats

It's true that he just used the title given to the article by his source, as ATS rules dictate. So changing the title of this thread might not be the solution.

But I wish people would be a little more aware of when they're just buying into the hype.

And thanks for getting those stats on Lehman; they are very interesting.

For instance, Barack Obama received $216,135 from Lehman Brothers in 2008 according to your source.

That's right, more than twice what he received from AIG. But no bailout for Lehman.

reply to post by stikkinikki


Then tell a mod to delete the thread or discredit the source. I honestly don't think its that big of a deal, but you seem to think it is.

Nice referance to Karl Rove, I like how you snuck in a Bush Administration attack. I see why you are against this thread.

We can also talk about John McCain's questionable campaign contributions if you want.. It goes both ways.

The point is that all campaign contributions are pretty questionable.. Noone knows what else is going on behind the scenes..

Money can easily decide who wins and who loses in an election and the average American doesn't exactly have the money to write huge campaign conribution checks.. All we can do is vote while what amounts to suitcases full of money are changing hands.

Pretty much all politicians are money whores when it comes campaign time and this isn't really a partisan issue.

This shadows my previous point too which is that this is all speculation. You can speculate all day about any campaign contribution. I know Obama is the president but he isn't necessarily responsible for running our financial system either. And, to my knowledge, it was not Obama who decided who got the money and who didn't..

Remember, these bailout bills passed through the House and the Senate with support from people on both sides of the aisle. It wasn't exactly the best choice for America. These bailouts will continue until these people realize that they are caught in a self-fulfilling prophecy of corporate negligence and zero accountability. Look at AIG!
"AHHH look at all this taxpayer money. Lets give ourselves millions in bonuses for not doing our jobs."

This is a last ditch, temporary effort to salvage what is left after the worldwide bankers and the corporate oligarchy have literally demanufactured our entire economy (let's hope that Obama is not in on it). The assumption that these bailouts are going to have any real permanent impact on our economy is all theoretical nonsense. It is only acting to speed up our demise in alot of ways. Speeding up the rate of inflation is one of the big ones.

Right now our money isn't worth the paper its printed on. There are many ways to get this economy back on its feet again and to get people back to work. Shelling out massive government bailouts is not one of them. It is just a short-term tool when we have no long-term plans to actually address what is wrong with our economic system. Our politicians all have their heads way up their patooters! Noone seems to care that much as long as bailouts continue to go out... Some people are just completely ignorant of what is going on.. Some are just so fed up that they don't care anymore. You can't ever fix something if you and everything you stand for are part of the problem. Right now our current economic system is the problem when they're trying to fix Corporate America. It's all backwards.

-ChriS

[edit on 18-3-2009 by BlasteR]

Originally posted by lee anoma

Originally posted by BlasteR
Why would a brand new president risk his newly-achieved social and professional status only to quite possibly see his entire administration go down in flames over a hundred grand after only 3 months in the white house???

Because the right says so I guess.

Seriously, these guys contribute across the board.
I'm not seeing the sinister connection just yet.

Any corp. can donate to anyone they choose, that doesn't equate to a no bid contract given to a company you worked for or ran after you get elected.

Isn't Obama attacking them for being "selfish and greedy", plus working to block the bonuses or retrieve the money right now?

- Lee

I'm sorry but to me the connection is too simple! AIG was in the tank and even though I can't show proof right now, You know they knew they were getting ready to go into the tank and they still spent money like crazy - If you have the money to contribute, great but if your company is going down the tubes and you know a lynching may be in your future what do you do.... You do one of two things.. 1) you stop spending and account for your company or 2) you spend your final blast of money on someone who you know is going to be Prez hoping that if things start to come to light that he will do what he can to stop it.. but the Public wouldn't let that happen......And even Sent. Dodd knew about it - why do you think HE put the provision in the bail out. Cause he knew he was a recipient of the money and with the way it was written; the people who got the money from "Bonuses" would not be touched. Or so he thought.. Now look where he is - He is back tracking trying the fight this .... So what are they going to do - Tax the He** out of them….Everyone who received our money should have to make a public apology and return the money.. my two cents…..

This shouldn't be a party or partisan issue. As sickening at it is, this kind of thing is endemic in politics generally. No party is actually clean in this, in whatever country it is and whatever political/economic system those countries run.

The sad reality is that very, very few people enter politics for wholly altruistic reasons, no matter where they stand on a political compass. You can always tell where a politician's heart really lies with how their nest gets feathered: the 'consultancy' work they do after office, the firms they become directors of and so on.

While the title is misleading the OP has followed the rules of BAN and used the exact title of the article they found. It's a cheap ploy by the site that wrote the article but it stays.

This was a contribution and totally legal. Big companies do it all the time, they try and pass money out to everyone who might wind up making legislation that could impact their business. Oddly, and I don't think I saw it here, Bush gave them their first bailout money, before Obama was in office so, theirs no monetary favoritism here. The Lehman reference is further indication of this.

Whole thread's ridiculous. Obama didn't bail out AIG, the Bush administration bailed out AIG with $150 Billion last year and promises to give more to keep them afloat. Almost $8 Trillion was handed to the banks and AIG by Bush and Paulson in the form of capital injections, federal reserve loans, asset purchases and government guarantees on their losses.

Where's the damned outrage over THAT from 'conservatives'? Conservative my ass..

reply to post by WhatTheory

Wow, what a coincidence.

Couldn't agree more ! )

Originally posted by SuperSlovak
You wanted change right?
Obama has lots of change now.

Priceless dude!


Lovin it

Originally posted by visible_villain
reply to post by WhatTheory

 

Wow, what a coincidence.

Couldn't agree more !

)

Originally posted by LockwithnoKey

Originally posted by SuperSlovak
You wanted change right?
Obama has lots of change now.

Priceless dude!

Lovin it

One liners? If you had read the rest of the thread, instead of making a simple slap on the butt knee jerk reaction reply, you would realize that in fact President Obama is not an employee of AIG and received NO bonus from them. I won't rehash the entire two page thread as it is of a size that should be easily readable to most computer users.

I have seem to remember bogus articles from that reporter before. I will be keeping my eyes open for that fellow and notify Sorcha Fal that he may have some competition.

Originally posted by WhatTheory
Well this does explain a lot. No wonder Obama wanted to save AIG while letting other big institutions fail. Apparently this entire AIG bailout is nothing but payback for the campaign contributions.

As Crakeur points out in his post, it was Hank Paulson that decided to save AIG and let Lehman Brothers go down, before Obama was even in Office.

If we go by the same logic being employed here, then perhaps Hank Paulson let Lehman Brothers go down because they donated more to the Democrats than they did to the Republicans, as stikkinikki mentioned.

Somehow I don't think that's it.


The title of the article is misleading, but that's exactly the point. This is in the Examiner. For anyone who doesn't know, examiner.com is basically a blog about recent events. Anyone can apply to be an 'examiner' and have their articles published.

About Examiner

I can't comment on the story except to say the source is unreachable. Opensecrets.org is not coming up as a website and Opensecret.org is a help site for rape victims.

reply to post by stikkinikki


What your doing is changing the subject.
Did obama accept money from aig..for any reason? YES
Is obama doing everything in his power including bankrupt America to bail them out?YES

So to mark as HOAX is nothing more than a obamabot tactic..

You know he as in OBAMA is in AIG'S pocket..and owe's them favor's...along with alot of other people in congress ect.

So bonus maybe not....
But a contribution that insures Aig alot of money in return is called what then?
Via favor's...

reply to post by WhatTheory


Exactly at the end tax payer money will still be funneled to AIG as now is under the Federal government and we will not see a penny of that money because they are to fail anyway.

This is a slap in the faces of Americas tax payer, people doesn't understand that the biggest scam and corruption scheme is unveiled in front of your own eyes and as usual our own government is on it, while allowing AIG fat rats run with our tax payer money.

But as usual we just sit down or better yet we just bend over a littler more.

Originally posted by BlasteR
Why would a brand new president risk his newly-achieved social and professional status only to quite possibly see his entire administration go down in flames over a hundred grand after only 3 months in the white house???

That doesn't make any sense...
Honestly, that sounds more like Rush Limbaugh vomit to me than anything else. I am not a Democrat, but I really wish Republicans/conservatives would get over losing the election already. We haven't even given the man a chance yet. Alot of Republicans won't even give him that..

Speculation is one thing. I'd be willing to read more into it if there was some kind of proof/evidence of any wrongdoing.. Other than Obama trying to be president of a pissed off nation.

-ChriS

[edit on 18-3-2009 by BlasteR]

Seriously?