Punked: Stimulus Bill Guaranteed AIG bonus payments

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.

 

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

 

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.

 

^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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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

 

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.

 

Apparently it does

 

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!

 

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

 

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.