Obama Tells Geithner to Block A.I.G. Bonuses

[Zenlitened]

Source: New York Times

WASHINGTON — President Obama vowed to try to stop the faltering insurance giant American International Group from paying out hundreds of millions of dollars in bonuses to executives, as the administration scrambled to avert a populist backlash against banks and Wall Street that could complicate Mr. Obama’s economic recovery agenda.

“In the last six months, A.I.G. has received substantial sums from the U.S. Treasury,” Mr. Obama said in his prepared remarks. He added that he had asked Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner “to use that leverage and pursue every legal avenue to block these bonuses and make the American taxpayers whole.”

In strongly-worded remarks to be delivered in the White House East Room before small business owners, Mr. Obama called A.I.G. “a corporation that finds itself in financial distress due to recklessness and greed.”

“Under these circumstances, it’s hard to understand how derivative traders at A.I.G. warranted any bonuses, much less $165 million in extra pay,” Mr. Obama said. “How do they justify this outrage to the taxpayers who are keeping the company afloat?”


Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/17/us/politics/17obama.html?hp

[Beetwasher]

1. Good! Seriously, These Bonuses CANNOT BE PAID!!!

N/T

[JayMusgrove]

2. WOW he just said that less than 5 minutes ago!

The NY Times is fast.

[TheWraith]

11. They may have been warned.

It's not unheard of--at least in business, and I assume politics too--for the press to be tipped a little ahead of time to an announcement so that they can get ready, with the information under embargo until it's made public. It's a courtesy measure for the publications, so they're not caught flat-footed just trying to jam something out the door.

[bluestateguy]

3. The Obama Administration has a great opportunity here

There is great populist outrage at these bonuses, on the Left and and the Right. Obama can piggy back ride this backlash, to even co-opt it.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

39. the ordinary american doesn't want the big rich guys to have their bonuses

[Igel]

53. The "ordinary american" doesn't much like contracts ...

unless, of course, it's a contractual obligation owed to the ordinary american. Mostly they just don't understand them--they sign them blindly and are confused when they're asked to comply with what's written.

However, contracts are one way we implement the rule of law. They both restrict and compel behavior. They make assumptions, of course--that people are both smart enough and wise enough when entering into them. Many are neither.

AIG wasn't. Neither was */Obama, it seems. Now that they've executed the terms of the contract, they want to rewrite the terms for political purposes. Neither in keeping with contract law, nor constitutional law. Odd, that.

That's what I like about having governments involved in business. They get involved saying "better finance and legal oversight," but it always devolves to "what political gain can I get?"

[GinaMaria]

56. I know enough about contracts to tell you I never signed one for AIG

If AIG entered into a contractual agreement that's AIG's problem not mine, not yours and not any other taxpayer. AIG can apply for a loan, liquidate assets or be dragged to court by their employees. If I entered into a contract in which I owed money in exchange for work and couldn't pay up, do you think AIG would hand over the money for me? No, my options would be to apply for a loan, liquidate assets or go to court. Why should AIG be any different? This is so far over the top at this point. They need to return the money and just fail and fade away.

[SahaleArm]

64. At will employees sign employee agreements not contracts

Bonuses are rarely if every guaranteed and unless they are unionized they can be fired at any time. Goof luck getting that bonus after being fired. Frankly they could fire them for cause, incompetence.

[ProfessorGAC]

72. I'll Believe In Those Contracts When I See Them

I've been in industry for quite some time now, and i'm part of a bonus structure as well. There's no contract regarding the company HAVING to pay out a bonus, no matter the fiscal condition of the company.

I simply don't believe AIG's excuse about the contracts, and if in fact they did sign such contracts, everybody in the executive offices should be fired for a complete lack of business sense.
GAC

[acmavm]

89. You betcha! Us dumbass knuckledragging buffoons don't got no

understand of nothin' like contracts and all that high finance shee-it. We be stupid.

[GinaMaria]

57. That's not accurate

the ordinary american doesn't want the big rich guys to have their bonuses paid with taxpayer money. There's no problem if AIG is footing the bill, but sadly, it is the average American and future Americans who are being robbed to pay these bonuses. We're getting nothing but screwed.

[KakistocracyHater]

66. Losers don't get paid to fail

except in Bizarro-World, or a world ruled by madmen.

[Optical.Catalyst]

74. I wish I could join the 'club' of rich folks that get big bonuses for just showing up for work

Who cares that the company lost billions of dollars, I would still get my big bonus. Who cares that my bonus was paid with tax payer dollars, because I belong to the 'club'.

[JTFrog]

71. Ignoranance x 10. How much was your bonus gonna be?

:shrug:

[Baby Snooks]

84. But they already have them....

One report yesterday said the bonuses have already been paid. In all likelihood they have been.

While the president rails about it, some in Congress have suggested just deducting the $165 million from the next payment to AIG.

Read that carefully. The next payment. The problem is not only AIG. The problem is also Congress.

[hamsterjill]

4. Great job!

I hope he is successful at keeping them from paying the bonuses.

It's time a little common sense came back into the economic equation. These people should not be rewarded for failing to do their jobs.

[babylonsister]

5. Rec'd. Good. nt

[47of74]

6. And this should be followed by turning this damn bailout into...

...as Keith Olbermann has said a number of times, "...the reason Daddy went to prison!"

[90-percent]

78. I memorized that quote

"Mark my words; today they call it a bailout. Tomorrow they'll call it; why daddy had to go to jail." - Keith Olbermann

Keith has said that maybe five times on air so far?

-90% Jimmy

[goclark]

95. I love KO nt

[msongs]

7. people who ran their companies into the dirt ought to be FIRED en mass but only workers get fired

it's the American way.

Msongs

[Name removed]

35. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Kajsa]

8. Fantastic news!

And the MSM was full of the "Obama Admins said they can do nothing"story
yesterday!

Looks like they ( MSM) didn't do their homework, did they?

Fire those bastards at AIG and let's clean house.

And big :kick: and R.

[mbperrin]

9. Okay! The President is listening!

Now he needs to make the tone deaf bastards at AIG hear!

[Naipes]

10. This is what gets me...

"A.I.G. executives say that they are contractually obligated to pay the bonuses to their executives, including those who are part of the A.I.G. division where the company’s crisis originated."

WTF! That's total bullshit. What if AIG was allowed to tank? How would they pay the bonuses then?

[GinaMaria]

58. They would pay the same way you or I would

get a loan, liquidate assets, get sued. At no point is the American taxpayer obligated fulfill AIG's contractual and legal obligations. I'd like to get a bunch of taxpayers together to sue AIG and demand the money back. Let them fail and fade away.

Yes AIG is obligated to pay, but you and I are not. Do we own, run and manage AIG? Did we make agreements with their employees? This is complete bullshit.

And the apologists are out in force today on multiple sites peddling the 'contractual obligation' and the 'you just hate rich people' illogical steaming dung heap that no one in their right mind is buying.

[marshall]

12. The cows are already out of the barn in this case

Restrictions should have been set on the bailout BEFORE the money was handed over. AIG top execs are laughing all the way to the bank now.

But it is a cautionary tale for future bailouts.

[mbperrin]

19. Nah. That's what clawbacks are FOR.

And big bizness has been using them for a long time.

C'mon, say it with me!

Claw-BACK!Claw-BACK!Claw-BACK!Claw-BACK! Claw-BACK!Claw-BACK!Claw-BACK!Claw-BACK!Claw-BACK!Claw-BACK!Claw-BACK!Claw-BACK!Claw-BACK!Claw-BACK!Claw-BACK!Claw-BACK!Claw-BACK!Claw-BACK!Claw-BACK!Claw-BACK!Claw-BACK!Claw-BACK!Claw-BACK!Claw-BACK!Claw-BACK!Claw-BACK!Claw-BACK!Claw-BACK!Claw-BACK!Claw-BACK!Claw-BACK!Claw-BACK!Claw-BACK!Claw-BACK!Claw-BACK!Claw-BACK!Claw-BACK!Claw-BACK!Claw-BACK!Claw-BACK!

Fun, idn't it?

[twitomy]

86. There WERE restrictions...

in the bailout deal pertaining to bonuses except for a "exemption" inserted in the deal by Chris Dodd..This exemption said that previous bonus contracts negotiated BEFORE the date of the bailout were not subject to the bonus restrictions of the bailout.

...and then he turns around and says in faux outrage that the exempted payouts should be taxed....

Greedy CEO's and idiot poiticians...a pox on both their houses...

[biopowertoday]

13. Maybe the WH read this essay and is finally getting the message??...

!!
The WH is late on the draw in making this move today

March 16, 2009
News Analysis
Bracing for a Backlash Over Wall Street Bailouts
By ADAM NAGOURNEY

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration is increasingly concerned about a populist backlash against banks and Wall Street, worried that anger at financial institutions could also end up being directed at Congress and the White House and could complicate President Obama’s agenda.

The administration’s sharp rebuke of the American International Group on Sunday for handing out $165 million in executive bonuses — Lawrence H. Summers, director of the president’s National Economic Council, described it as “outrageous” on “This Week” on ABC — marks the latest effort by the White House to distance itself from abuses that could feed potentially disruptive public anger.

“We’ve got enormous problems that need to be addressed,” David Axelrod, Mr. Obama’s senior adviser, said in an interview. “And it’s hard to address because there’s a lot of anger about the irresponsibility that led us to this point.”

“This has been welling up for a long time,” he said.

Mr. Obama’s aides said any surge of such a sentiment could complicate efforts to win Congressional approval for the additional bailout packages that Mr. Obama has signaled will be necessary to stabilize the banking system.

As it is, there have already been moves in Congress to limit compensation to executives at banks and Wall Street firms that are receiving government help to survive.

Beyond that, a shifting political mood challenges Mr. Obama’s political skills, as he seeks to acknowledge the anger without becoming a target of it. A central question for Mr. Obama is whether his cool style — “in a time of crisis, we cannot afford to govern out of anger,” he said in his address to Congress last month — will prove effective when the country may be feeling more emotional.

Even as Mr. Summers was denouncing A.I.G. for the bonuses, he suggested that there was little if anything the government could do to stop them, seconding the conclusion of Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner. But even if their reasoning was legally sound, they also risked having the administration look ineffectual in the face of what Mr. Summers said was the worst financial abuse of the last 18 months, since the economy began turning down in earnest.

“Never underestimate the capacity of angry populism in times of economic stress,” said Robert Reich, a professor of public policy at the University of California, Berkeley, and labor secretary under President Bill Clinton. “A big challenge for President Obama will be to maintain a rational and tactical public discussion in the midst of this severe downturn. The desire for culprits at times like this is strong.”..................



http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/16/us/politics/16assess.html?_r=1&th=&emc=th&pagewanted=print

[stillcool]

37. when was that published....

yesterday? Yeah, I'm sure that's what did it! Actually, Obama said nothing different than Geithner, did he?

[biopowertoday]

67. you missed the point.

[Auggie]

14. Go get 'em, Mr President...

[tomm2thumbs]

15. Give their jobs to soldiers returning from Iraq

those that were responsible for financial/equipment/services budgeting for this multi-billion dollar war could do better than the folks that ran their company into the ground and I'm sure they could use the job and would appreciate it

[tuckessee]

90. What a stupid idea. n/t

[PetrusMonsFormicarum]

16. I believe the new term is 'retention awards'

their little doublespeak to allow an end run around the inevitably harsh regulations coming from their new taxpayer bosses.

Rewards, bonuses, retention awards lose their power as a motivator when they are taken for granted and never really earned.

And let's face it, the most potent punishment many of these financial swindlers will ever see is to not get a bonus.

[SPedigrees]

17. ditto what marshall said. nt

[acmavm]

18. A half assed attempt at best:

<snip>

White House officials said that the administration is not looking to take A.I.G. to court to stop the company from paying out the bonuses. But they said the Treasury Department would be trying to figure out what they can do to block A.I.G. from making the payments within the legal confines of A.I.G.’s contractual obligations to the executives.

<snip>

If Obama was serious he'd do any and everything it took to stop this obscene greed-fest.

[Abq_Sarah]

20. They are closing the barn door after the horses have hauled ass

The treasury department doesn't have the legal authority to void preexisting contracts. This should have been addressed BEFORE they started tossing money around as if it were some giant freaking party.

[acmavm]

23. The fucking contracts are based on FRAUD. Do you see any of

these fuckers as deserving of a bonus? Do you know of many companies that would pay a retention bonus to greedy bastards that brought down the company?

The whole premise is fraudulent.

[Abq_Sarah]

26. The contracts are not based on fraud

Unfortunately, they are written to pretty much guarantee a pay off. The government isn't a party to those contracts and Washington didn't demand a voiding when they shoveled money at AIG. A bailout with no strings attached was completely irresponsible and as far as I'm concerned, we ought to be taking that money out of the hides of every jackass who voted for it. If they had nationalized AIG they would have firm ground to stand on but instead they took shares under the existing contracts.

[SahaleArm]

65. No trader anywhere is *guaranteed* a bonus

Very few executives have guaranteed contracts and those that do are corporate officers.

[Hestia]

83. Did y'all see Barney Frank on Rachel Maddow last night? He stated that since the

US taxpayer owns 80% of AIG, they are in effect our employees, and no matter what some 'contract' states, the employees are not guaranteed anything, especially their jobs. Once again, we are having smoke blown up our butts by a corporation nation state, but Franks et al are blowing it away.

He also stated that they are going to start breaking up AIG to stop this madness. If anything is anyone's fault, it is Paulson, but he is long gone, and now the Senate & House is cleaning up his mess. Thank Goddess that Frank has the intestinal fortitude to last them all out and clean it up.

[Pastiche423]

29. Yeah, bbbut...

He made strongly-worded remarks! (It's a cya kinda thing.)

The taxpayers are being forced to give miliions of dollars in bonuses to the mofos that put us in this crisis, yet his legal team can't break their bs contracts?


AIG should have gone bankrupt. Then their contracts would be null and void.

[GinaMaria]

59. AIG is contractually obligated, not the taxpayers

none of the bailout money should be used for bonuses. AIG must find another way to satisfy their legal obligations. This belongs to them not us. So screw this line of BS, figure out what they can do to block A.I.G. from making the payments within the legal confines of A.I.G.’s contractual obligations to the executives.

We need to take AIG to court ourselves if our elected officials won't!

[JCMach1]

70. I call bullshit- simply remove federal funds if they don't comply

and face bankruptcy... Employees would have a choice... keep your job, or the company goes bankrupt and you are last in line with a contractual claim.

We ask unions to do this all the time. Remember the auto bailout?

[Marie26]

79. "try"

That's the weasel word. Hey, I'll "try" to take a trip to Mars today, let's see if it happens. Although honestly the bonuses are just a drop in the bucket anyway. 126 million of 175 billion is... 0.073% percent of the bailout money.

[Veruca Salt]

21. OMG I love him!

Stick it to them Mr. President! :applause: :woohoo: :patriot:

[dysfunctional press]

22. the corporations have subverted the meaning of the word "bonus" ...

in order to avoid taxes on exorbitant executive pay levels.
a "bonus" implies something extra for a job well done- but in actuality, it's all part of their regular pay structure, but it's just called a 'bonus'.

[Robbien]

24. Obama should tell Geithner to block the hundreds of billions AIG paid to banks

A mere half billion in bonuses gets screams

Hundreds of billions AIG paid to Goldman, UBS and other banksters gets silence

[Bake]

25. Let them die (AIG). Screw them like they're screwing us.

Bake

[harun]

27. Use the Patriot Act against them.

[Catshrink]

28. This is excellent news.

Wasn't Geitner saying just yesterday that these couldn't be blocked because of contracts? Well contracts be damned! Not with my money.

[Marie26]

30. Ooo, a strongly-worded statement.

Am I the only one who thinks this is a PR effort to placate the public?

[enlightenment]

32. No, you're not.

Looks like it works, too . . .

I'll hold my fire, but words don't mean much if they can't be backed with action - and that's what Treasury seems to be saying is the problem.

[Marie26]

93. If they really cared,

it seems like they would've put some restrictions on the bailout money *before* they doled it out to AIG. Also, I saw that the media has reported on these AIG bonuses since Jan., so I find it hard to believe that the Obama Admin. didn't know about it before now. IMO the politicians' wailing now is just a show.

[TBF]

34. Yes, I'm afraid DOJ will decide it's not worth it. It is an opportunity for

Obama, though, if he's truly interested in bi-partisanship (of someone other than elites on both sides).

[SemiCharmedQuark]

36. Exactly. Until that money is back, it's all just words.

[Marie26]

96. I'm actually vaguely offended.

Obama doesn't have to agree w/the public opinion on this issue, but he should avoid blatantly lying to/patronizing us. The Tres. Dept. knew about these bonuses way back & no one cared until the public backlash came. And even in Obama's press conference, he couldn't really fake the moral outrage very well. It was like someone told him to go out there & make a good show of righteous anger. Obama himself even sort of snarked at his own "show" - when he cleared his throat, he made a joke & said he was so *outraged*, he couldn't even speak straight.

[Botany]

31. Leadership

n/t

[skooooo]

33. How long has it been since someone in the WH fought for us?

I don't dislike Clinton, but does anyone think he was very populous, or consistently tried to help the common person?

Maybe I've forgotten something...

[dugaresa]

38. If we had let AIG go under, they would get NOTHING so why should

the US taxpayer bail them out to stabilize them and then they get rewarded????

[nichomachus]

40. The bonuses are contractual obligations

so doesn't that make them just another "entitlement program." If so, we should be able to cut that and no Republican should complain.

[depakid]

43. Contracts are breached all the time- in fact sometimes it's WISE to breach

and say "let them sue."

[Joe Chi Minh]

47. Workers employment contracts are breached every day by their employers.

Someone posted an article on DU on this very topic. Some professors found the notion that they should be treated as a special cases as beyond risible.

[GinaMaria]

60. Yes. AIG's obligations not ours

What gets labeled an entitlement program are things that taxpayers pay for but also use when needed, Medicare, SS etc. This is something the taxpayer pays for and will never see any service, product or money returned to them when they need it. This is a rip off. AIG execs may feel entitled but this is not an 'entitlement' program.

This is so infuriating. :argh: :grr: :nuke:

[nichomachus]

80. You missed my point

We should turn their own rhetoric back on them. I don't really think they're entitlement programs, but we should start calling them that -- since the right wing has spent so much time denigrating entitlements.

[GinaMaria]

88. I got you,

Was just really worked up yesterday over this blatant theft. I'd like to start referring to Medicare and SS as investments any time they try to call it an entitlement.

[Imagevision]

41. So, how many of the AIG boyz are hooked up with Illimianti / Skull & Bones?

[Thothmes]

42. You mean with bush and kerry

[Imagevision]

54. yep, the same club with bush and kerry

[jordi_fanclub]

44. Obama Asks Geithner to Find Way to Rescind AIG Payouts

Source: The Wall Street Journal

President Barack Obama, trying to contain a political firestorm, instructed Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner to "pursue every legal avenue" to block $165 million in bonuses to American International Group Inc. executives who were in part responsible for the company's near collapse.
(...)
It was unclear what legal options the government can pursue. Monday afternoon, a White House official said the Treasury Department will use a planned $30 billion infusion into AIG to compel the company to repay the bonuses to employees of its financial-products group, which is responsible for selling the exotic financial instruments that brought the company to near-collapse.

The infusion, announced March 2, won't be finalized until the company and the Treasury work up repayment options, the official said. The bonuses to the financial-products division were "found to be completely unacceptable given that AIG is already surviving on taxpayer funds," the official said.

Read more: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123721970101743003.html#mod=testMod

---

Maybe after that they have some time to take a look at the Grand Scam,... errrr..., I mean, the Goldman Sachs.

[phantom power]

45. I defended the AIG bailout in Nov, but I'm rapidly losing my patience.

It's time for the govt to get major equity and a seat on their board, or yank the bailout and let these arrogant fuckers prove what Mighty Mighty Capitalists they all are and sink or swim on their own.

[Joe Chi Minh]

49. I was going to say "See a doctor, asap", but you appear to be recovering.

[demo dutch]

46. They should be able to do something, The Govt practically owns AIG

[Scout]

48. the unions/UAW seem able to renogotiate contracts when the need arises....

AIG execs should be able to do the same, no?

[Igel]

55. Yes and no.

Depends on the contract, and whether both sides are open to renegotiating.

In the case of the UAW, the UAW had the option of saying 'no', IIRC. The consequences were large, and covered not past time but the future.

It's rather like having GM renegotiate the autoworker's contracts and reduce their salary as of 2006, requiring "clawbacks" for the last 3 years. What's past is past. You can apply pressure to get things repaid, but that's usually not quite kosher.

What they can do is apply enough political pressure in the name of "good finance" to compel renegotiating the contracts as they pertain to the future. They might be able to exert pressure to recoup past payouts; the principle there, however, is that the all-powerful government can ignore contracts and laws when it sees fit and there's enough political gain for it. I seem to recall some people not much liking it when * was said to do the same--apparently the principle isn't so much obeying the law and Constitution, but getting what you can. In other words, we differ from AIG's execs not in principles or morals, but simply in raw power. Welcome to the jungle.

[GinaMaria]

61. Who cares? It's AIG's obligation not the taxpayers'

negotiate, renegotiate, don't whatever. This is AIG's contractual mess and they need to pay for it, not us.

[UpInArms]

50. Treasury to rework AIG aid to recoup bonuses

Source: Reuters

NEW YORK (Reuters) - President Barack Obama said on Monday that American International Group Inc's payment of $165 million in bonuses is an "outrage" and ordered the treasury secretary to take all legal measures to block them.

Meanwhile, New York's top legal officer threatened to issue subpoenas to get details of the bonuses.

AIG paid the bonuses to AIG employees on Sunday, the same day that the company disclosed for the first time a list of U.S. and European banks that have been paid some $90 billion.

Obama said in remarks at the White House he was "choked up with anger" over the executive payments, which is a hot button issue in the deepening recession.

"Under these circumstances, it's hard to understand how derivative traders at AIG warranted any bonuses, much less $165 million in extra pay," Obama said. "How do they justify this outrage to the taxpayers who are keeping the company afloat?"

Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE52F60220090316?sp=true

---

now I want more than money - I want them in prison

[tomm2thumbs]

51. take away their passports - let them stay out of the country permanently with their beloved AIG

[gristy]

52. I've seen the qualifier "try to" in too many headlines over the course of today

It's still there in many of them.

http://news.google.com/news?pz=1&ned=us&hl=en&q=aig+bonuses 8,068 hits
http://news.google.com/news?pz=1&ned=us&hl=en&q=%22try+to%22+aig+bonuses 1,021 hits

[GOTV]

82. They say "try to" because they know they'll AIG will keep the bonuses in the end....

.... I don't think I really believe that they even want to take back the bonuses. They just feel they need to appear like they do.

[condoleeza]

87. Unfortunately, I think you are right

[natrat]

62. and this bonus money is nothing compared to what the other banks have stolen with aig's help

[noamnety]

63. It's a little late, isn't it?

This is like arguing with your army recruiter about the contract you wanted, after you've already taken the oath and headed out to boot camp.

The moral blame may rest with AIG, but the responsibility rests with the government officials who authorized it. It wasn't like they had no idea this would happen.

[emilyg]

68. Best post of the night.

[Vehl]

69. Good! +rec

paying incompetent bunglers from the taxpayers money? its beyond belief...

its good that Obama is not buying AIG's excuses

[sendero]

73. Bonuses...

... are generally paid as a reward for profits. Based on AIG's profits, I think the folks involved owe AIG $165 million.

As for the "sanctity" of contracts, I didn't hear a lot of outrage when Obama publicized his plans to force bankers to renegotiate mortgages.

Not only should there be no bonuses paid, every company taking gov't bailout money should have ALL salaries capped at $250K. Don't like it, LEAVE.

[fasttense]

75. Just another mess left behind by the bush and dick.

The initial bailout to AIG was made by Ben Bernanke and the Fed under a forgotten 1932 provision of the Federal Reserve Act in September of last year. Tell me helicopter Ben, the bush and dick didn't know about these supposed unbreakable bonus contracts last September? This was all made possible by the bush and dick. Congress never voted on it and the Fed took it upon itself to dole out our tax dollars with the encouragement and support of the bush and dick.

This is what happens when Republicons go into action. They make a bad situation worse.

[tomp]

76. the problem stems from the bailout, which makes obama partly responsible.

the terms of the bailout, if you believe in one at all, which i don't, were far too lenient on the people who were the source of the problem. hell, it appears there weren't any terms. obama has himself to blame. the only way he can redeem himself for his poor choices is to go after these people retroactively. Immediate revision of the tax code or of regulations governing aig could recover a good portion of the money, at least.

[Name removed]

91. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[tomp]

94. paulson sucks. what about obama going along with it?

doesn't make him seem much like the smartest guy in the room anymore does it? the great chess player, ha! we must learn to assume that politicians and capitalists are up to no good until proven otherwise (and that includes obama).

[eilen]

77. How about stopping all and any planned infusions of bailout money

to AIG? I'm sure Liddy and his army of lawyers can get creative with their contracts in the face of that.

[chimpymustgo]

85. How about that? THe bonuses have already been PAID. we are being bullshitted.

[2feeedle2]

81. What do you expect these companies to do?? No oversight means no shame

[Jambalaya]

92. NOVERSIGHT

Oversight has become to mean to overlook ,instead of look over the books.