Comments on: Somebody Set Up Us the Bailout

By: Dremoor

Dremoor — Sun, 29 Mar 2009 22:57:14 +0000

I don't think that they deserved bonuses, but at the same time I'm not in charge.

The best part of all this is how Congress knew all along that these bonuses were contractually obliged, in fact the stimulus bill that was passed providing the last loans had written in it that the cap on bonuses and pay would not affect contracts made prior to February 16 (or 19, can't remember) 2009, that part was written by Dodd who later went on to say that he had no idea who would have put such wording in there to allow these bonuses, then a week later he said that he put it in there when reconciling the house and senate bills.

By: Oberon

Oberon — Fri, 27 Mar 2009 13:59:58 +0000

@ Jason: A quote from the article you linked.
” Summers said the government would examine its options, but he acknowledged it might not be able to terminate prior bonus agreements.
“We are a country of law. There are contracts. The government cannot just abrogate contracts,” he said [...]”

That is so false as to be shocking coming from someone who should very much know better. The government loans to AIG came in place of AIG going bankrupt and being placed into receivership. During receivership the government looks at the contracts a company has and tears them up or modifies them as it sees fit. This is covered under the many different types of bankruptcy, and the government does this _all_the_time_.

This is why the Fed is looking to expand it’s powers. Right now we have a black and white situation: Not in receivership? Free to do whatever you want with government bailout money. In receivership? Government dictates everything to both the company and all of it’s creditors. The Fed is looking to get some authority over the companies in the first case, so they can’t both take government/taxpayer money and also do whatever they want with no strings attached.

By: Oberon

Oberon — Fri, 27 Mar 2009 13:50:17 +0000

“Bonuses (Boni?) are just that; a bonus, and shouldn’t be a contractual obligation.”
“Should not” and “are not” are two different things. I’m no lawyer, but from all news reports on the subject those “bonuses” were not tied to performance (or at least, not the overall performance of the company. Some AIG employees may well have made their quote of credit default swaps sold necessary to quality for the bonus…), they were indeed contractual obligations.

The only fishy business I see are the “employee retention” bonuses paid to employees who are no longer at AIG. You would think that any smart HR rep would know the definition of “retention.”

By: Adam Zikes

Adam Zikes — Fri, 27 Mar 2009 07:08:48 +0000

Main problem is that it’s the government directly involving itself with a PRIVATE company. No matter what you feel toward the people at AIG or any other big company the fact is that the government is trying to state that it’s ok to target individuals with a law geared toward screwing them over. One day it’s AIG because they didn’t spend the money THE GOVERNMENT gave them with NO strings attached and next it’s a small business that is ‘just not getting with the program.’
I know that might seem far fetched and even to the point of hist aria but it’s really not that far off. Government will grow and go as far as it can until the people say when and that should have been off the break. Something you can do about this if you don’t like it is to write your representative and tell them you don’t like it. It’s their job to listen, so the first step is to send them a letter, email or even a phone call.
So now you know and knowing is half the battle. GO JOE!! (Had to have a nerd reference somewhere.)

By: Karl

Karl — Fri, 27 Mar 2009 03:50:02 +0000

The bonuses for AIG were less than 1/10th of one percent of the bailout budget, get over it!