A question on taxpayer funded AIG bonuses

[IDemo]

Would it violate any contracts, upset the wrong people, or simply not make sense to deduct the stated bonus payouts prior to cutting them
a bailout check? Or would the pirates simply come back three weeks later, hat in hand, and ask for another few billion with, oh yeah, an
extra $165M tossed in for good measure?

At this point, hasn't the expectation of a continuous supply of bailout money simply become part of the business plan for these criminals?
How is the continuous flow of money to the pirates any different than putting food on the front porch for a stray cat and not expecting it
to come back for more?

[Fumesucker]

1. "Hat in hand"?

It's more like "A nice economy you've got there, a pity if something should happen to it"..

[IDemo]

3. Yoose doesn't think these gentlemen would kneecap America, does yoose?

[Triana]

4. exactly - it's called extortion. n/t

[valerief]

2. Cats generally don't overeat like these AIG pigs. nt

[GoesTo11]

5. Not enough

If they received $165M less, they would still give the bonuses, and cut the $ from elsewhere. But if they received $50B less, maybe they would go out of business. They are sticking it to us because they think that Obama is more afraid of them going out of business than they are. Screw it. Call their bluff. Break the stranglehold of the greedy.

[IDemo]

7. But if they cut the $ from elsewhere, would it matter?

Is doing that going to topple the business, out of the $170B they have received? It would represent well under 1% of their total bailout.

[GoesTo11]

8. Exactly - they need a serious stick

The can blow off a threat to reduce the bailout money by 1/10 of 1%. They'll just pay themselves off and leave a little less in some corporate account somewhere.

They need a smack between the eyes with a 2 by 4 to get their attention. Stop the bonuses or get closed and go to jail.

[dkofos]

6. The only way to eliminate the bonus payout is to fire those assholes.