Punked: Stimulus Bill Guaranteed AIG bonus payments

[basso]

it would have helped if someone had read the damn thing. (http://www.butasforme.com/2009/03/17/obamas-stimulus-bill-explicitly-grants-aig-the-legal-right-to-hand-out-bonuses/)

From page H1412 of the Final Stimulus Bill, “SEC. 111. EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION AND CORPORATE GOVERNANCE:

“(iii) The prohibition required under clause (i) shall not be construed to prohibit any bonus payment required to be paid pursuant to a writte 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.”

the above, apparently inserted at Chris Dodd's insistence, means the bonuses Obama is railing against were made explicitly legal by his own gargantuan "stimulus" bill.

Can you say "it's the competence stupid?"

Yes you Can!

[Mr. Clutch]

It just says it won't prohibit them. It says nothing about guaranteeing them.

[SamFisher]

Sorry Perry Mason, but this clause isn't applicable for a number of reasons.

STOP.

GETTING.

ALL.

YOUR.

INFORMATION.

FROM.

RIGHT WING BLOGS.

[Bogey]

I didn't think the bonuses were from the Stimulus bill, I thought it came out of that bailout money from before?

[Northside Storm]

This seems to be given as a compromise hand and foot to the retards who crashed the economy in the first place...and look at what has happened. sigh. Words cannot describe how much Wall Street fails at the moment and how much antipathy is directed towards it.

Let's just pull a Spartacus. No mercy. Get some punishment for God's sakes, don't the Republicans believe in "personal discipline?" Jail time. 100% taxation. Whips. Jesus, why are we rewarding the incompetence of these idiots?

[Major]

It just says it won't prohibit them. It says nothing about guaranteeing them.

Exactly - and everyone was in agreement with that clause. There was a lot of concern that the government shouldn't try to back to recoup legally paid bonuses (and whether it was even legal or ethical) and this was to ensure that. Even now, the Obama admin has asked to look at all LEGAL ways to recover the money - because the gov't didn't and doesn't have the authority to demand it back for payments it's already made.

[quote=basso]Can you say "it's the competence stupid?"[/basso]

I can say "it's the ignorance, stupid!" Do you think it might be worth spending maybe 5 minutes before posting a new thread to actually know something about the topic you're posting on?

[SamFisher]

And...surprise, here's where basso got this (note the similar typo in the word "writte"

The Free Republic forums:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2208424/posts


basso, next time you are hanging with the freepers - please inform them that this is appears to be dealing with section 111 of TARP - TARP's executive compensation provisions only apply to the 5 most senior executives at the company - Hence it is inapplicable to AIGFP people.

[basso]

And Harry, foresight is even better...

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/17/aig.bonuses.congress/

Bonuses allowed by stimulus bill

"Hindsight is 20/20," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid Tuesday
Bill makes exception for bonuses in pre-existing contracts, effectively exempting AIG
Senate originally passed amendment to bill, taxing bonuses
Amendment was stripped in final negotiations on the bill

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Democratic leaders scrambling to strip AIG executives of bonuses are having a hard time answering a key question: Why didn't Congress act to prevent the bonuses in the first place?


Sen. Chris Dodd says he has no idea how the exemption clause got inserted into the recent stimulus bill.

"There's always more we can do, and hindsight is 20/20," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid Tuesday.

But though some lawmakers did move to prevent bonuses in the stimulus bill last month, the final language actually makes an exception for pre-existing contracts, effectively exempting AIG.

Senate Banking Committee Chairman Chris Dodd, D-Connecticut, who originally proposed the executive compensation provision, said he did not include the exemption clause, which said new rules "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."

In an interview with CNN, Dodd denied inserting that exemption at the 11th hour, and insisted he doesn't know how it got there.

"When I wrote the language there was no such language like that," Dodd told CNN Tuesday.

Multiple Senate Democratic leadership sources also deny knowing how the exemption got into the bill.

The mystery isn't just how what was effectively a protection for AIG was put into the stimulus bill -- it's also how a provision intended to prevent AIG from giving executive bonuses, was taken out.

The Senate passed a bipartisan amendment proposed by Sen. Olympia Snowe, R- Maine, and Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Oregon, that would have taxed bonuses on any company getting federal bailout dollars, if the company didn't pay back the bonus money to the government.

But the idea was stripped from the stimulus bill during hurried, closed-door negotiations with the White House and House of Representatives.

Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, D-Montana, who is now pursing a similar bonus tax idea in the wake of outrage over AIG, said it was a mistake to drop it from the stimulus bill. He made a stunning admission. Watch why Americans are angry »

"Frankly it was such a rush -- we're talking about the stimulus bill now -- to get it passed, I didn't have time and other conferees didn't have time to address many of the provisions that were modified significantly," said Baucus.

"We shouldn't be here. That should have passed, but it didn't," he said.iReport.com: Sound off on AIG

Snowe chastised colleagues for expressing outrage about AIG's bonuses, when just last month they did away with her amendment intended to prevent it.

"We tried. It simply didn't happen, and that's a tragedy, given what's happened today," Snowe told CNN in an interview.

Majority Leader Reid would not directly answer a question from CNN about whether that was a mistake.

[FranchiseBlade]

It just says it won't prohibit them. It says nothing about guaranteeing them.Once again the familiar egg on basso's face.

[basso]

another freeper weighs in. (http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/politics&id=6715304)

Stimulus backroom deal backfires
Tuesday, March 17, 2009 | 8:41 PM
By Mark Matthews
There is growing outrage over the AIG executive bonuses and now there is a new plan to get the money back. It was a backroom deal between Congress and the White House that led to those bonuses and the whole mess is now threatening to unravel the president's agenda.

During a late-night, closed door meeting last month, negotiators for the House, Senate and White House agreed to strip an amendment to the stimulus bill that would have restricted bonuses to any company receiving federal bailout funds. Instead of that measure, another measure by Senator Chris Dodd (D) from Connecticut was inserted that limited "executive compensation," but specifically exempted bonuses.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D) of Nevada was in on those closed door negotiations when the bonus limitation was stripped from the stimulus bill.

"I'm wondering sir, if that was a mistake by Democrats to drop that and you wish you hadn't at this time?" asked a reporter.
"I think we should look at what we did put in the bill. We did put the Dodd language..." said Senator Reid.

Senator Reid never addressed whether it was a mistake, but Republican leaders were all over it.

"Corporation executives that run their corporation into the ground, should not be rewarded for doing that," said Senator Chuck Grassley (R) of Iowa.

"It's shocking that they would -- the administration would come to us now and act surprised about these contracts. Why didn't they ask the question two weeks ago before they gave them $30 billion?" said Sen. Mitch McConnell (R), the Minority leader.

New York's attorney general has been investigating the AIG bonuses.

In a letter to the chair of the House Banking Committee he said the top bonus was more than $6.4 million. The top 10 bonuses add up to $42 million total and 73 AIG employees received bonuses of $1 million or more.

Congressional Democrats have a plan to get the bonus money back by imposing a huge 91 percent tax on it.

"The only way you can get the money back is to tax it back," said Representative Steve Israel (D) of New York.

But having Congress go after the money doesn't really help restore confidence in the president or his treasury secretary who signed off on the bonuses before the president was against them.

"The president is going to have to take a much more decisive stand. He's going to have to really get involved," said ABC7's political analyst Bruce Cain.

Professor Cain says the president is still expressing confidence in his treasury secretary, but Timothy Geithner's credibility has become a political liability.

"And I don't think he can allow the secretary of the treasury to be the spokesperson on this issue any longer. I think he, Barack Obama, has to be the person who takes the questions, who makes the decisions who seems to be in charge of this issue. I think Geithner just can't do it," said Professor Cain.

Professor Cain says nothing less than the president's agenda is at stake.

"If he can't live up to that moment, then he's got a problem that's going to make a lot of things unravel. So this is a defining moment for his presidency," says Professor Cain.

On Tuesday, Geithner wrote a letter to Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D) promising that in the future, AIG bonuses will be subject to the strict executive compensation provisions in the stimulus package, but bonuses written prior to February 1, 2009 are exempt.

ABC News reports there are another $230 million in AIG bonuses due to be paid out later this year.

AIG's chief executive testifies before Congress on Wednesday.

[DCkid]

Exactly - and everyone was in agreement with that clause.
Where did you see that? It seems like there's just a bunch of confusion.

From CNN: (http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/17/aig.bonuses.congress/index.html)

In an interview with CNN, Dodd denied inserting that exemption at the 11th hour, and insisted he doesn't know how it got there.

"When I wrote the language there was no such language like that," Dodd told CNN Tuesday.

Multiple Senate Democratic leadership sources also deny knowing how the exemption got into the bill.

The mystery isn't just how what was effectively a protection for AIG was put into the stimulus bill -- it's also how a provision intended to prevent AIG from giving executive bonuses, was taken out.

[weslinder]

I don't care if the thread is inaccurate, can we still Tar-and-Feather Chris Dodd?

[Northside Storm]

This is beginning to look like the Dems have no idea what the hell is going on, although the fact that they already have a plan in motion to recoup the losses and the fact that Obama brought this up in the first place does reflect well on the Administration.

[DCkid]

...and the fact that Obama brought this up in the first place does reflect well on the Administration.
Does it? I mean it had already gotten out to the public. I don't think he had a choice but to show disdain.

[SamFisher]

For the last time in this turd of a thread - section 111 does not apply to AIGFP employees.

[Major]

Where did you see that? It seems like there's just a bunch of confusion.

From CNN: (http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/17/aig.bonuses.congress/index.html)


During and around the stimulus and TARP-2 debates, everyone was up in arms about bonuses and executive compensation, but almost everyone agreed that any changes or requirements would have to be done going forward and there were all sorts of problems trying to change it retroactively. The bonus payments are the same debate as the executive compensation limits - it's all the same thing.

It sucks, but even if you take out that clause, the gov't couldn't legally go back and undo those bonuses, just as they couldn't go back and undo people's previously guaranteed compensation. The outrage now is because these AIG bonuses became public in the last week and it's good political posturing.

[justtxyank]

In an interview with CNN, Dodd denied inserting that exemption at the 11th hour, and insisted he doesn't know how it got there.

"When I wrote the language there was no such language like that," Dodd told CNN Tuesday.

Multiple Senate Democratic leadership sources also deny knowing how the exemption got into the bill.


Love it.

You wrote the bill. The passed the bill into law. You are befuddled by language in the bill you've never seen before.

I seem to recall Dodd and his boys saying they needed to vote on the stimulus as fast as possible and that everyone had their chance to read it.

[luckystrikes]

This is beginning to look like the Dems have no idea what the hell is going on, although the fact that they already have a plan in motion to recoup the losses and the fact that Obama brought this up in the first place does reflect well on the Administration.


Personally, I don't think that ANYTHING they've done so far reflects well on this joke of an administration.

[basso]

For the last time in this turd of a thread - section 111 does not apply to AIGFP employees.

scream a little louder- the american people can't hear you.

[SamFisher]

scream a little louder- the american people can't hear you.
The american people aren't represented by the ignorance of the FREEPER forums. That is why you are irrelevant.

[basso]

The american people aren't represented by the ignorance of the FREEPER forums. That is why you are irrelevant.

is Andrew Cuomo a freeper? he seems to think the FP bonues are part of the discussion:

Furthermore, we know that AIG was able to bargain with its Financial Products employees since these employees have agreed to take salaries of $1 for 2009 in exchange for receiving their retention bonus packages. The fact that AIG engaged in this negotiation flies in
the face of AIG's assertion that it had no choice but to make these lavish multi-million dollar bonus payments. It appears that AIG had far more leverage than they now claim...

http://feeds.gothamistllc.com/click.phdo?i=fdd5f3e70a7d12819e7a914991a51414

[SamFisher]

is Andrew Cuomo a freeper? he seems to think the FP bonues are part of the discussion:

Furthermore, we know that AIG was able to bargain with its Financial Products employees since these employees have agreed to take salaries of $1 for 2009 in exchange for receiving their retention bonus packages. The fact that AIG engaged in this negotiation flies in
the face of AIG's assertion that it had no choice but to make these lavish multi-million dollar bonus payments. It appears that AIG had far more leverage than they now claim...

http://feeds.gothamistllc.com/click.phdo?i=fdd5f3e70a7d12819e7a914991a51414

This is discussion of a separate issue regarding his attempt to categorize them as a fraudulent and use that to abrogate the contract - this has nothing to do with Section 111 of TARP, which does not cover these bonuses

Much like yesterday, when you confused these bonuses to the AIGFP unit with TARP payments to the top level entity - you don't understand this issue.

[basso]

This is discussion of a separate issue regarding his attempt to categorize them as a fraudulent and use that to abrogate the contract - this has nothing to do with Section 111 of TARP, which does not cover these bonuses

Much like yesterday, when you confused these bonuses to the AIGFP unit with TARP payments to the top level entity - you don't understand this issue.

then neither does Obama, Geithner, Dodd, Frank, CNN, ABC, the NYTimes, WaPo, or Cuomo.

you, sam fisher, are the only person on teh interwebs who understands the issue.

no one would care about AIG bonuses were it not for the TARP funds.

[SamFisher]

then neither does Obama, Geithner, Dodd, Frank, CNN, ABC, the NYTimes, WaPo, or Cuomo.Uh really? Where does it say anywhere on the internet that Section 111 of TARP "guarantees" the payment of bonuses, other than your incorrect thread title and the FREEPER forums and the right wing stupidosphere?


When did Obama, Geithner, Dodd, Frank, CNN, ABC, NYTimes, WaPo state that the bonuses to AIGFP employees had to be paid, due to the "guarantee" contained by TARP, SEction 111(b)(3)(D)(iii)? Please provide a link.

For the last time: TARP Section 111 initially only applies to the top 5 execs, plus possibly the top 20 after that, depening on the institutions and Second, the clause that you are talking about doesn't guarantee pre-existing bonuses, it only exempts them from the automatic holdback provsions of 111(b)(3)(D)(i). I have the freaking statute right in front of me.


no one would care about AIG bonuses were it not for the TARP funds.

That's right, because if not for TARP (and the non-TARP portion which is the vast majority of the AIG bailout, which occurred prior to the EESA's passage), AIGFP employees who bankrupted the company would not get any bonuses - that doesn't mean TARP section 111 is applicable to them.

[Hak34]

Or its just the fact that no matter how hard basso tries, he can never ever make this administration look near as inept as the last one. Here lets reflect.

1. WMD's
2. Preemptive war plan in place when administration took office
3. Yellowcake from Niger
4. No Bid Halliburton Contracts (Remind us all who has strong ties to that company?)
5. Patriot Act used way out of context.
6. Illegal wire taps
7. "Your doing a heck of a job Brownie" Fema
8. Torture and Abu Ghirab
9. Katrina
10. Mission Accomplished


Theres a few for ya

[FranchiseBlade]

Personally, I don't think that ANYTHING they've done so far reflects well on this joke of an administration.
Fortunately most people disagree with you. His moves to phase out troops in Iraq, shut down Gitmo, end the policy of torture, etc. have all been incredibly popular.

Too bad you don't like it.

[Bogey]

Fortunately most people disagree with you. His moves to phase out troops in Iraq, shut down Gitmo, end the policy of torture, etc. have all been incredibly popular.

Too bad you don't like it.


Although those might be nice changes, to many of us they are way down the list of importance.

[DaDakota]

Although those might be nice changes, to many of us they are way down the list of importance.

Got to start somewhere.....

DD

[rocket3forlife2]

Or its just the fact that no matter how hard basso tries, he can never ever make this administration look near as inept as the last one. Here lets reflect.

1. WMD's
2. Preemptive war plan in place when administration took office
3. Yellowcake from Niger
4. No Bid Halliburton Contracts (Remind us all who has strong ties to that company?)
5. Patriot Act used way out of context.
6. Illegal wire taps
7. "Your doing a heck of a job Brownie" Fema
8. Torture and Abu Ghirab
9. Katrina
10. Mission Accomplished


Theres a few for ya



You forgot the VP had his team of contract killers running around America and the rest of the globe assassinating people as well.

[Hak34]

You forgot the VP had his team of contract killers running around America and the rest of the globe assassinating people as well.

Attack the point at hand, or make a driveby one liner to deflect. Yep, right up a republicans alley. FAIL

As I recall several of those on that list have been called a mistake by W's administration at some point.

[OddsOn]

Sorry Perry Mason, but this clause isn't applicable for a number of reasons.

STOP.

GETTING.

ALL.

YOUR.

INFORMATION.

FROM.

RIGHT WING BLOGS.

As opposed to all the left wing blogs which are always accurate? :rolleyes:

So we are supposed to believe they knew nothing about these bonuses and are now "shocked" that they are paying them out? Admittedly its a pretty tacky thing to do by AIG but I find it hard to believe the democrats knew nothing about this.

This is typical political grand standing to attempt to show they are "taking action" on an issue when they could have prevented it to begin with had they taken more time to craft the bill instead of steam rolling it through.

[FranchiseBlade]

As opposed to all the left wing blogs which are always accurate? :rolleyes:

So we are supposed to believe they knew nothing about these bonuses and are now "shocked" that they are paying them out? Admittedly its a pretty tacky thing to do by AIG but I find it hard to believe the democrats knew nothing about this.

This is typical political grand standing to attempt to show they are "taking action" on an issue when they could have prevented it to begin with had they taken more time to craft the bill instead of steam rolling it through.
If you have accurate information which shows a source to be accurate please feel free to show that evidence.

I'm not sure where you will get your information from, though, since you have a quote attributed to Churchill which is not from him. You've been wrong about much of the other posts and information you've provided.

[FranchiseBlade]

Although those might be nice changes, to many of us they are way down the list of importance.
They are great changes which help restore the principles our nation has embraced and help to make us the strong, respected country that we are.

Also just because those changes are occurring doesn't mean nothing else is being done.

[wakkoman]

I have a hard, hard time believing Geithner did not know about this for a while.

[cwebbster]

Why cant SamFisher and Basso get along? I swear...you guys need to go out for a beer and settle your differences! So much monkey poo being flung at eachother.....how bout it....all of us meet up at Buffalo Wild Wings Midtown tonight for the Rockets game and bury the hatchet. Watch the Rockets kick some ass and not worry about the stimulus package (even though it does suck) :)

You guys have a good day!

[Major]

As opposed to all the left wing blogs which are always accurate? :rolleyes:


The difference is you rarely see anything from DailyKos or the like posted here. You do see things from HuffPo or TPM - but of course, those websites have actual professional reporters. While they have a bias, they actually have factual foundations in their reporting.

The big difference here is that when something from the left is posted, the right whines about "why are you posting things from HuffPo!" When something from the right is posted, they are dismantled using facts and then it's pointed out what the weakness is when you get your news from right-wing blog sources that are factually incorrect. If a HuffPo or TPM piece is factually incorrect, feel free to demonstrate that. Until you do that, there's a huge difference between the posts from the left sources and the right sources.

[SamFisher]

I have a hard, hard time believing Geithner did not know about this for a while.
Everything about it indicates it was revealed last week. Are you saying that Liddy's 3-14 letter, which discussed the initial revelation to him last week - was an orchestrated cover up?

[pgabriel]

The difference is you rarely see anything from DailyKos or the like posted here. You do see things from HuffPo or TPM - but of course, those websites have actual professional reporters. While they have a bias, they actually have factual foundations in their reporting.

The big difference here is that when something from the left is posted, the right whines about "why are you posting things from HuffPo!" When something from the right is posted, they are dismantled using facts and then it's pointed out what the weakness is when you get your news from right-wing blog sources that are factually incorrect. If a HuffPo or TPM piece is factually incorrect, feel free to demonstrate that. Until you do that, there's a huge difference between the posts from the left sources and the right sources.


that and if you post something from a respectable newspaper supporting a democratic issue, they will call that legitimate newspaper liberal bias

[Bogey]

The difference is you rarely see anything from DailyKos or the like posted here. You do see things from HuffPo or TPM - but of course, those websites have actual professional reporters. While they have a bias, they actually have factual foundations in their reporting.

The big difference here is that when something from the left is posted, the right whines about "why are you posting things from HuffPo!" When something from the right is posted, they are dismantled using facts and then it's pointed out what the weakness is when you get your news from right-wing blog sources that are factually incorrect. If a HuffPo or TPM piece is factually incorrect, feel free to demonstrate that. Until you do that, there's a huge difference between the posts from the left sources and the right sources.

Actually when right wing stuff is posted I normally only see a bunch of Basso and Bigtexx bashing and not much discussion about the article at all.

[wakkoman]

Everything about it indicates it was revealed last week. Are you saying that Liddy's 3-14 letter, which discussed the initial revelation to him last week - was an orchestrated cover up?

You really think they found out after the contractual deadline passed? They had no idea about this when they struck the deal for the bailout?

Regardless, why the administration and government is not acting like the majority shareholder in this situation is mind boggling. Why are they standing around and throwing stones, when they should be telling them "Look, we own 80% of this company so this is how it will be done..."

[Bogey]

They are great changes which help restore the principles our nation has embraced and help to make us the strong, respected country that we are.

Also just because those changes are occurring doesn't mean nothing else is being done.


That's all fine and good, but don't really address issues that majority of Americans are currently facing and really has no effect on my life or anyone that I know.

[basso]

Everything about it indicates it was revealed last week. Are you saying that Liddy's 3-14 letter, which discussed the initial revelation to him last week - was an orchestrated cover up?

it's just Geithner (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/17/business/17bailout.html?_r=1&ref=business) who's been in the dark.

For all of the furor since details of the bonuses became public over the last several days, the issue of retention payments to A.I.G. employees globally has been percolating publicly since A.I.G. was bailed out in mid-September. About $1 billion in retention payments for 2008 and 2009 are in question, but the controversy involves about half of that, about $450 million over two years, that was intended for employees of A.I.G.’s financial products unit. That unit was the source of the financial derivatives blamed for the near-collapse at the heart of the economy’s downturn.

The Treasury and Federal Reserve officials said they had known about the bonus program as far back as last fall. The program has provoked public protests from a handful of critics and at least one Democratic lawmaker in Congress — Representative Elijah E. Cummings of Maryland, a member of the House Committee on Government Oversight, who demanded without success in December that A.I.G. provide information about the bonuses.

Mr. Cummings said he had been communicating regularly with A.I.G.’s chief executive, Edward M. Liddy, about the bonuses ever since December. Mr. Cummings said he was particularly concerned that the bonuses were supposed to be paid by March 15, adding that he assumed Treasury officials had the same worries.

“I assumed that they were well aware of it and would take appropriate action” before the March 15 deadline, Mr. Cummings said. “In light of the biggest quarterly loss in history, you would think that A.I.G. and Mr. Liddy would have been able to convince folks who were supposed to be getting these retention payments, based at least in part on performance, that they might want to voluntarily not take all or part of them.”

Treasury and Fed officials said they knew that A.I.G. paid $55 million in bonuses in December.

But administration officials said that the Treasury secretary, Timothy F. Geithner, did not personally become aware until last week that an even bigger round of payments was due on March 15. Administration officials said Mr. Geithner learned of the deadline early last week, when the Federal Reserve Bank of New York alerted him that the bonus payments were coming due.

[SamFisher]

You really think they found out after the contractual deadline passed? They had no idea about this when they struck the deal for the bailout?

According to published reports and contemporaneous evidence - yes, that is exactly what happened. Do you have evidence to the contrary?



Regardless, why the administration and government is not acting like the majority shareholder in this situation is mind boggling. Why are they standing around and throwing stones, when they should be telling them "Look, we own 80% of this company so this is how it will be done..."
I agree with this, of course the supposed legal obstacles are the same. HOwever as I said yesterday, I don't buy AIG's response that these contracts are absolutely airtight. There's a number of avenues you could use to challenge them.

[MoonDogg]

Regardless, why the administration and government is not acting like the majority shareholder in this situation is mind boggling. Why are they standing around and throwing stones, when they should be telling them "Look, we own 80% of this company so this is how it will be done..."

Because they don't want to bite the hand that's been feeding them.

[wakkoman]

According to published reports and contemporaneous evidence - yes, that is exactly what happened. Do you have evidence to the contrary?




Well, if that's true, then the lack of oversight is terribly frightening. I guess that's what happens when you can't get a team to work for you.

[basso]

According to published reports and contemporaneous evidence - yes, that is exactly what happened. Do you have evidence to the contrary?


Why yes, yes I do. (http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showpost.php?p=4338584&postcount=42)

[SamFisher]

Why yes, yes I do. (http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showpost.php?p=4338584&postcount=42)

when your contrary evidence says this:

But administration officials said that the Treasury secretary, Timothy F. Geithner, did not personally become aware until last week that an even bigger round of payments was due on March 15.

it sort of undercuts the argument that Geithner was not unaware until last week.

[jcantu]

As criminal as it seems that these AIG execs are going to get huge bonuses for doing a terrible job (through our tax dollars nonetheless), I would find it really unnerving if the government/IRS really institutes a 91% tax on the bonus dollars.
Even if it is a "special" one time tax, something seems very wrong with that kind of tactic.

[DaDakota]

As criminal as it seems that these AIG execs are going to get huge bonuses for doing a terrible job (through our tax dollars nonetheless), I would find it really unnerving if the government/IRS really institutes a 91% tax on the bonus dollars.
Even if it is a "special" one time tax, something seems very wrong with that kind of tactic.

That is a great idea.......why not? The companies are essentially insolvent, their leadership should not get a bonus until they lead the company back to solvency.

DD

[Bogey]

As criminal as it seems that these AIG execs are going to get huge bonuses for doing a terrible job (through our tax dollars nonetheless), I would find it really unnerving if the government/IRS really institutes a 91% tax on the bonus dollars.
Even if it is a "special" one time tax, something seems very wrong with that kind of tactic.


So they are getting our tax dollars as a bonus then our government is going to tax it heavily and take it back. :rolleyes:

Illustrates one reason I'm not in favor of big government.

[SamFisher]

So they are getting our tax dollars as a bonus then our government is going to tax it heavily and take it back. :rolleyes:

Illustrates one reason I'm not in favor of big government.
How does that translate to that situation; that would be the government intervening to prevent an unjust outcome that was set up in the absence of regulation.

[Bogey]

How does that translate to that situation; that would be the government intervening to prevent an unjust outcome that was set up in the absence of regulation.


I see your point about the absence of regulation, but is also highly inefficient.

[insane man]

That is a great idea.......why not? The companies are essentially insolvent, their leadership should not get a bonus until they lead the company back to solvency.

there are probably constitutional issues to having a tax that is just on a handful of people. essentially this is bill of attainder-ish situation.

[wakkoman]

And the drama continues...

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/18/aig.bonuses.congress/index.html

(CNN) -- Senate Banking committee Chairman Christopher Dodd told CNN Wednesday that he was responsible for language added to the federal stimulus bill to make sure that already-existing contracts for bonuses at companies receiving federal bailout money were honored.
Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Connecticut, appears on CNN's "The Situation Room" on Wednesday.

Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Connecticut, appears on CNN's "The Situation Room" on Wednesday.

Dodd acknowledged his role in the change after a Treasury Department official told CNN the administration pushed for the language.

Both Dodd and the official, who asked not to be named, said it was because administration officials were afraid the government would face numerous lawsuits without the new language.

Dodd, a Democrat, told CNN's Dana Bash and Wolf Blitzer that Obama administration officials pushed for the language to an amendment designed to limit bonuses and "golden parachutes" at those companies.

"The administration had expressed reservations," Dodd said. "They asked for modifications. The alternative was losing the amendment entirely."

On Tuesday, Dodd denied to CNN that he had anything to do with adding the language, which has been used by officials at bailed-out insurance giant AIG to justify paying millions of dollars in bonuses to executives after receiving federal money.

He said Wednesday that the "grandfather clause" language "seemed like innocent modifications" at the time. Video Watch Dodd's interview with CNN's Dana Bash »

"I agreed reluctantly," Dodd said. "I was changing the amendment because others were insistent."

Dodd said he did not speak to high-ranking administration officials and the change came after his staff spoke with staffers from Treasury.

The White House did not immediately respond to CNN's request for comment.

On Capitol Hill on Wednesday, AIG chief executive Edward Liddy called the roughly $165 million in bonuses "distasteful" but necessary because of legal obligations and competition.

"We have to continue managing our business as a business -- taking account of the cold realities of competition for customers, for revenues and for employees," Liddy told a House Financial Services subcommittee. "Because of this, and because of certain legal obligations, AIG has recently made a set of compensation payments, some of which I find distasteful."

Pennsylvania Rep. Paul Kanjorski, the hearing's chairman, responded to Liddy's statement by arguing that AIG should have refused to pay all the bonuses -- regardless of its contractual obligations with the bonus recipients.

"Let them sue us," said Kanjorski, a Democrat.

Liddy, who joined AIG after the bailout, said some employees have returned their bonus money.

Senators and representatives have vowed to get the bonus money back, but questions have arisen about why Congress didn't act to prevent the bonuses in the first place.

"Well, the only lever we have in this is the fact that these corporations have come to the Congress of the United States and want a taxpayers' bailout," Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, said Wednesday on CNN's "American Morning."

"If it weren't for that, we would not have any leverage on how any individual corporation is being run, and we don't pretend to have any leverage on any corporation today in the United States that's not seeking federal help," said Grassley, the top Republican on the Senate Finance Committee. Related: Grassley defends 'suicide' comment

AIG, an ailing insurance giant, has received more than $170 billion in federal assistance. Taxpayers now own nearly 80 percent of the company.

In a letter to Congress on Tuesday, New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo confirmed that AIG paid 73 employees bonuses of $1 million-plus each this year after it received federal bailout money.

AIG will have to return the $165 million it paid in executive bonuses to the Treasury Department, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner said Tuesday.

Grassley and Sen. Max Baucus, D-Montana, on Tuesday introduced a plan that would impose a hefty tax on retention bonuses paid to executives of companies that received federal bailout money or in which the United States has an equity interest. Video Watch Grassley describe how the tax would work »

Other lawmakers, such as Rep. Charlie Rangel, D-New York, said it would be unfair to use the tax code as punishment, but Grassley said it's not a question of being fair.

"It's unfair what they did to the taxpayers by paying bonuses when they don't have the money to pay bonuses," he said. iReport.com: Sound off on AIG

AIG Chairman and CEO Edward Liddy has defended the bonuses, saying the company needed them to retain top talent and because of contractual rights. He has pledged to reduce 2009 bonus payments, which AIG refers to as "retention payments," by at least 30 percent.

Libby is testifying Wednesday on Capitol Hill. He's likely to face tough questions from lawmakers despite not being at the helm of AIG when the financial fiasco happened. He took over about six months ago. Who's insured by AIG? »
advertisement

Rep. Barney Frank, D-Massachusetts, said Wednesday that Congress can't just pass a law to abrogate any past contracts because that move would not hold up in court. Instead, he argued the executives don't deserve bonuses under the contract. Video Watch what Frank says about the bonuses »

"We own this company in effect, and we're not asking that these bonuses be rescinded because we have lent money to the company. I believe we are saying as the owners of the company, we do not think ... we should have paid bonuses to people who made mistakes who were incompetent," said Frank, chairman of the House Financial Services Committee.

[basso]

Sam, I'm sure, is outraged at Dodd's earlier lie, and no doubt at Obama for insisting this language be reinstated, thus guaranteeing the bonuses that he now decries, would be paid.

Outrage forthcoming...

MGIA

[FranchiseBlade]

Sam, I'm sure, is outraged at Dodd's earlier lie, and no doubt at Obama for insisting this language be reinstated, thus guaranteeing the bonuses that he now decries, would be paid.

Outrage forthcoming...

MGIAAgain, the bonuses were not guaranteed by Dodd or Obama.

[SamFisher]

Sam, I'm sure, is outraged at Dodd's earlier lie, and no doubt at Obama for insisting this language be reinstated, thus guaranteeing the bonuses that he now decries, would be paid.

Outrage forthcoming...

MGIA

I also read over on the FREEPER forums that AIGFP employees, at Obama's insistence, were guaranteed pet Chupacabras as a means of Ninja defense, which was initially supposed to be combat cyborgs only.

How uncool is that! :(

[Refman]

it would have helped if someone had read the damn thing. (http://www.butasforme.com/2009/03/17/obamas-stimulus-bill-explicitly-grants-aig-the-legal-right-to-hand-out-bonuses/)

From page H1412 of the Final Stimulus Bill, “SEC. 111. EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION AND CORPORATE GOVERNANCE:

“(iii) The prohibition required under clause (i) shall not be construed to prohibit any bonus payment required to be paid pursuant to a writte 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.”

the above, apparently inserted at Chris Dodd's insistence, means the bonuses Obama is railing against were made explicitly legal by his own gargantuan "stimulus" bill.

Can you say "it's the competence stupid?"

Yes you Can!
This is the dumbest thing you have ever posted. For God's sake, read the damned thing man.

It does not guarantee the bonuses. It merely states the obvious. They cannot revoke bonuses that are otherwise due by contract.

If AIG had tried to take away the bonuses, they would get sued. They would lose. Back to square one plus a lot of legal bills.

The stimulus package was NEVER about modifying employment contracts. It never was supposed to be. That is why we have bankruptcy courts.

And you talk about incompetence. HA!!!!!

[DCkid]

The stimulus package was NEVER about modifying employment contracts. It never was supposed to be.

Then why the outrage?

[dumbartonbass]

Then why the outrage?

That phrase sums up most reactions to faux-outrage exhibited by Republicans thus far into Obama's presidency.

[Refman]

Then why the outrage?
AIG has taken large amounts of Federal money to stay afloat. Large bonuses were paid to the deck crew of the Titanic known as AIG. People are angry. It is human nature to lash out.

[Major]

Then why the outrage?

Because its good politicians' careers to act outraged at whatever people from their district are outraged about.

[Major]

Another way to look at it - the policy goals are generally to find the best solution going forward. The political goals are generally to make the people that screwed up pay for it. The problem is that these goals are not aligned, and in many cases, conflict with each other.

So you'll continue to get policy designed to fix things with political hyperbole angry that we're not making people pay for their screwups. That's how it was with the original bailout as well. It's just the nature of politics - fortunately, whether you agree with the strategies being employed, they've done a pretty good job trying to focus the actual laws on getting things right going forward, - which is the most important thing - rather than worrying about the past screwups.

[Invisible Fan]

^I think the more hardcore liberals are angry that Obama hasn't pushed punishment hard enough.

Republicans will talk a good game for punishment until they sense there's enough political will by Democrats to actually carry it out.

Then it'll shift into, "Woah there, buddy! We don't want none of that Wall Street wreckin wealth redistribution Communist crap in the good ol' US of A!", or whatever bloated garbage Boner decides to flip flop from months before.

The political climate from both ends is absolutely disgraceful in crisis mode.

One side is the party of no, and the other is eagerly looking to consolidate dogmatic policy shifts in hopes that it'll stick for decades. Both are more concerned about winning for their party than for their nation's best interest.

[DCkid]

AIG has taken large amounts of Federal money to stay afloat. Large bonuses were paid to the deck crew of the Titanic known as AIG. People are angry. It is human nature to lash out.
I'm not really talking about "people." I'm asking why Obama is saying he'll explore every avenue possible to block the bonuses. Why is congress threatening to subpoena the names of the execs that received a bonus?

Wouldn't the politicians just be better off explaining why the bonuses can't be blocked? Rather than giving a half-assed, phony attempt at getting them back with no chance of success? They're just making themselves look more incompetent.

[FranchiseBlade]

I'm not really talking about "people." I'm asking why Obama is saying he'll explore every avenue possible to block the bonuses. Why is congress threatening to subpoena the names of the execs that received a bonus?

Wouldn't the politicians just be better off explaining why the bonuses can't be blocked? Rather than giving a half-assed, phony attempt at getting them back with no chance of success? They're just making themselves look more incompetent.
I think because the taxpayers are now basically shareholders, and the shareholders don't like failures to get huge bonuses. So the politicians are trying to see if there is a way to get some justice in this case.

[SamFisher]

I'm not really talking about "people." I'm asking why Obama is saying he'll explore every avenue possible to block the bonuses. Why is congress threatening to subpoena the names of the execs that received a bonus?

Wouldn't the politicians just be better off explaining why the bonuses can't be blocked? Rather than giving a half-assed, phony attempt at getting them back with no chance of success? They're just making themselves look more incompetent.

There's not "no chance of success" - by raising a furor over it they increase their chance of success.

Furthermore, the point shouldn't be lost is that this is is to forestall what, to me, is a pretty obvious injustice - the destroyers of AIG being rewarded on a technicality. I don't mind politicians acting to prevent something that is wrong, even if they are grandstanding while doing it. Better than nothng.

[wakkoman]

I'm not really talking about "people." I'm asking why Obama is saying he'll explore every avenue possible to block the bonuses. Why is congress threatening to subpoena the names of the execs that received a bonus?

Wouldn't the politicians just be better off explaining why the bonuses can't be blocked? Rather than giving a half-assed, phony attempt at getting them back with no chance of success? They're just making themselves look more incompetent.

It's all pandering to populism. It's the whole "Main Street vs Wall Street" fight this administration wants to keep advertising as if that's going to solve the real issues.

It's incredibly silly. But it's not surprising.... Politicians will always be politicians.

[SamFisher]

It's all pandering to populism. It's the whole "Main Street vs Wall Street" fight this administration wants to keep advertising as if that's going to solve the real issues.

It's incredibly silly. But it's not surprising.... Politicians will always be politicians.
It's also doing what's right.

It's simply wrong for the architects of AIG's destruction to be saved by virtue of the fact that the very recklessness they perpetrated was so incredibly vast that normal measures (which would have prevented their being rewarded) were inapplicable.

[bobrek]

So, is Dodd lying here:

"Senate Banking Committee Chairman Chris Dodd, D-Connecticut, who originally proposed the executive compensation provision, said he did not include the exemption clause, which said new rules "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."

In an interview with CNN, Dodd denied inserting that exemption at the 11th hour, and insisted he doesn't know how it got there."

Or is he lying here:

"Senate Banking committee Chairman Christopher Dodd told CNN Wednesday that he was responsible for language added to the federal stimulus bill to make sure that already-existing contracts for bonuses at companies receiving federal bailout money were honored."

[MoonDogg]

So, is Dodd lying here:

"Senate Banking Committee Chairman Chris Dodd, D-Connecticut, who originally proposed the executive compensation provision, said he did not include the exemption clause, which said new rules "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."

In an interview with CNN, Dodd denied inserting that exemption at the 11th hour, and insisted he doesn't know how it got there."

Or is he lying here:

"Senate Banking committee Chairman Christopher Dodd told CNN Wednesday that he was responsible for language added to the federal stimulus bill to make sure that already-existing contracts for bonuses at companies receiving federal bailout money were honored."

Depends on what the definition of "lying" is :D

[basso]

It's also doing what's right.

It's simply wrong for the architects of AIG's destruction to be saved by virtue of the fact that the very recklessness they perpetrated was so incredibly vast that normal measures (which would have prevented their being rewarded) were inapplicable.

i assume you're equally outraged then at Senators Dodd and Obama, who were the largest recipients of AIG campaign contributions? what measures would you deem appropriate- should they be forced to return the funds, or have them redirected to the treasury (aka the american people)?

[SamFisher]

i assume you're equally outraged then at Senators Dodd and Obama, who were the largest recipients of AIG campaign contributions? what measures would you deem appropriate- should they be forced to return the funds, or have them redirected to the treasury (aka the american people)?

No I am not - because I'm discussing a separate issue that basso has demonstrated that he doesn't understand.

Though if basso wants to fight this fight, he'd be very embarrassed to know that Hank is probably the single biggest benefactor of the Republicans in all of New York.

Of course, that would require him to know who Hank is. Which he doesn't. Because he is ignorant of the problems here.

[OddsOn]

For the last time in this turd of a thread - section 111 does not apply to AIGFP employees.

Apparently it does (http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showthread.php?t=164953)

[SamFisher]

Apparently it does (http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showthread.php?t=164953)
It does if you're an idiot who can't read a statute. We all know that you have at least one half of that equation fulfilled. And it's cool you started a duplicate thread. Now we have 3 on this issue! :)

[basso]

when your contrary evidence says this:



it sort of undercuts the argument that Geithner was not unaware until last week.

and you, geithner, and obama are all lying. at the latest, he knew on March 3rd. (http://hotair.com/archives/2009/03/20/video-congress-geithner-knew-about-bonuses-on-march-3rd/)

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Welcome to the committee, Mr. Geithner, and thank you for your responses so far. It never ceases to amaze me the level of apparent amnesia some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have had about how we got to this problem in the first place, and I thank you for answering Mr. Heller’s question in particular. By the line of questioning, you’re almost led to believe that because of a last month and a few days of a presidency we had the problem we have today, and thank you for setting the record straight. This didn’t happen overnight. This took eight years in the making of stagnant, at best, growth.

But yesterday, Mr. Secretary, the Treasury and the Federal Reserve announced a new fourth plan to rescue troubled financial services giant AIG. I do agree that AIG’s sustainability is the lynchpin for some of our recovery efforts, and it’s important for the federal government to work to keep it afloat. However, I must demand that AIG increase the accountability and transparency, something that was not done during the previous administration.

For example, just last month, AIG paid 343 employees of AIG FP — their Financial Products division that created the financial hole that AIG is in, and in turn a multibillion-dollar bill for American taxpayers — $56 million in bonuses and are slated to pay an additional $162 million in bonuses to 393 participants in the coming weeks. And there’s more. Further bonus payments totaling approximately 230 million (dollars) are due to 407 participants at AIG’s Financial Products division in March 2010. This makes no sense to my constituency.

do you need to contact JurnoList to figure out to message this?

[SamFisher]

and you, geithner, and obama are all lying. at the latest, he knew on March 3rd. (http://hotair.com/archives/2009/03/20/video-congress-geithner-knew-about-bonuses-on-march-3rd/)



do you need to contact JurnoList to figure out to message this?
This does not say what you claim. You are an imbecile.

[basso]

This does not say what you claim. You are an imbecile.

congress told geithner on March 3rd AIG was due to pay the bonuses. please demonstrate how this does not say that.

MGIA.

[SamFisher]

congress told geithner on March 3rd AIG was due to pay the bonuses. please demonstrate how this does not say that.

MGIA.

This is not Geithner speaking on this, is it?

Arguing that he should have known is one thing. Arguing that he did know is another.

HOwever basso is an imbecile and a liar, so conflating the two is unsurpising.

[basso]

This is not Geithner speaking on this, is it?

Arguing that he should have known is one thing. Arguing that he did know is another.

HOwever basso is an imbecile and a liar, so conflating the two is unsurpising.

it's geithner listening, mon imbecile.

[basso]

This is not Geithner speaking on this, is it?

Arguing that he should have known is one thing. Arguing that he did know is another.

HOwever basso is an imbecile and a liar, so conflating the two is unsurpising.

watch it and weep.

<object width="365" height="340"><param name="movie" value="http://www.c-spanarchives.org/flash/cspanPlayer.swf?pid=284395-1&clipStart=7537.81&clipStop=7785.89&autoplay=0"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.c-spanarchives.org/flash/cspanPlayer.swf?pid=284395-1&clipStart=7537.81&clipStop=7785.89&autoplay=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="365" height="340"></embed></object>

[SamFisher]

it's geithner listening, mon imbecile.

And this supports the argument that he knew about this "for months" how?

[basso]

And this supports the argument that he knew about this "for months" how?

you said there was no evidence he knew about the bonuses before they were paid. clearly he did.

[michecon]

Just admitted the company is now NATIONALIZED and send a Treasury official to sit on the board. This can save a lot of trouble and nonesense.

At least, people would know whom to blame that way.

[SamFisher]

you said there was no evidence he knew about the bonuses before they were paid. clearly he did.


I said that there was no evidence that the entire thing was a cover-up that has been existing for months.

At most, it pushed the timeline back one week.

Congrats.

[wakkoman]

And this supports the argument that he knew about this "for months" how?

Well he was head of the NY Fed, who were involved with the original deal...

So either

a. He has known about this for a while
b. He is so incompetent that he was oblivious to the entire thing

Just to give him the benefit of the doubt, Ill go with A.

[TSchmal]

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/1000_times.png

It's similar to me giving you $1,700 and you lose $1.65 of it. Should I really be that angry that you lost $1.65 of it? No, probably not.

These AIG bonuses are being blown way out of proportion and time is being wasted on it in the government instead of real issues.

[SamFisher]

Well he was head of the NY Fed, who were involved with the original deal...

So either

a. He has known about this for a while
b. He is so incompetent that he was oblivious to the entire thing

Just to give him the benefit of the doubt, Ill go with A.
Uh, did you do the diligence on the deal?

[basso]

Uh, did you do the diligence on the deal?

Geithner, as head of the NY Fed, did.

[Republic]

This thread and threads like it are ass. There's no point other than partisan insults. You people have way too much free time to continue bringing up stupid of the past in order to excuse stupid of the present and future. Are none of you concerned with the neverending presence of stupid itself?

I'm willing to bet that no one out there is truly proud of their current national representation. I'm tired of elections being a battle between "the lesser of all the evils". I'm frankly amazed this administration was the best we could come up with. I didn't think it was possible for the Dems to find someone who'd make the last administration look a little less stupid, but they did. At least he was marketable though, right? I mean, someone needs to tell him he's no longer campaigning. It's time to pony up.

Our government needs a serious enema. BTW, how long was any of this legislation posted online for voter review?

[SamFisher]

Geithner, as head of the NY Fed, did.
evidence?