All Americans are up in arms about this issue and rightfully so:
Although it received a taxpayer-funded bailout of more than $170 billion dollars, American International Group will pay executives in its most problematic business departments tens of millions of dollars in new bonuses.
These executives have created, rather than solved problems, yet they must be rewarded?
The official spokesman insisted on anonymity "because of the sensitivity of the issue." In other words, this person knows he would be targeted by outraged taxpayers if his name were known. AIG corporate attorneys and other lawyers have informed the company that AIG has contractual obligations to make the bonus payments and could face lawsuits if it did not do so.
AIG Chairman Edward Liddy said "quite frankly, AIG's hands are tied" although he said that in light of the company's current situation, he found it "distasteful and difficult" to recommend going forward with the payments.
AIG is contractually obligated to pay a total of about $165 million of previously awarded "retention pay" to employees in this unit by Sunday, March 15. Liddy said "We cannot attract and retain the best and brightest talent to lead and staff the AIG businesses, which are now being operated principally on behalf of the American taxpayers - if employees believe their compensation is subject to continued and arbitrary adjustment by the U.S. Treasury."
Why does AIG want to retain this bunch of incompetent employees?
How can executives who screwed up so badly be considered the best and brightest?
Is Liddy so deluded or secluded that he does not realize that there is a long line of eager, well-qualified candidates waiting to take these jobs? Most would probably work for just enough to hold onto their homes and feed their families.
Why are our elected officials not acting to 'untie' AIG's hands?
Let these execs sue. People sue, win and can't collect every day. Sorry, but the money may have been available when the bonus contracts were made, but it's gone now......and whose fault is that?
Suck it up, AIG. We are in a recession. Re-negotiate the contracts, find some smarter people and don't retain selfish, incompetent employees. Grow a spine and a conscience. The American people are fed up with these games.
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 44
This is one reason I am very very much against the bailouts.
There have been more restrictions and planning with the auto bailouts, but look at Chrysler and GM, how many billions did they burn through and now they are back, along with their auto suppliers and unions wanting MORE...this country can't afford to give more.
mooch
That phrase is a great stand alone sentence all on its own; because paying big bonuses obviously DID NOT get AIG the best and brightest talent in the first place.
No matter what you call it "bonuses" or "retention pay" it is money supposedly awarded in addition to regular pay; for doing STELLAR work that MADE THE COMPANY GOOD MONEY.
AIG teetered on bankruptcy because of the work its people were doing. As far as I know, AIG is still struggling financially. Giving bonuses is usually a perk that only successful companies provide.
I agree, plenty of people are available to take these jobs if the current employees want to quit because they've lost their "bonuses."
NOT!!!!!!!
May God Bless you and keep you closed to his Heart. In the name of JESUS.
why are they even GETTING bonuses?
I hope that Obama opens his eyes and does something before we are really in a bigger mess.
If they gave the america people a bail out none of this trash would be going on.
Spicecomments.com - Hi Hey Hello Comments
Joanne's Glitter Comments
Joanne's Layouts!
Obama is trying to find a way to block these bonuses, he should ask for their bail out money back, they defaulted after all!
I hope heads roll over this one..... just ridiclous
This American is not upset with AIG. They already had contracts with these people and they are legally binding. I'm upset with Congress for rushing this bailout - and the spending bill and more bailouts - without proper preparation. They are to blame and it's time they admitted to that and went on.
If they try to get the money back or try to raise taxes on these bonuses to 98 percent as threatened, that's not good for any of us, or at least anyone who gets bonuses. Once they've done something like that, they'll be more likely to do it again. That's the way the government works. Nothing is small or temporary; everything grows and becomes permanent. After that, they'd be going after other bonuses they thought were too large, even for companies who didn't get bailouts. And soon the poor guy with a 500 dollar bonus will see the same kinds of tax.
Seriously, I do hate it when anyone starts something assuming that everyone is behind him/her. The media does it all the time.
My ire is with the government, not this company.
http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/up/player/popup/?rn=3906861&cl=12525576&ch=4226713&src=news
This page speaks for itself and contains what is probably a textual version of what many of us recently witnessed on Television with our own eyes and ears. Here is an excerpt:
Eleven Hundred Page timebomb ..
It's Obama's Crisis Now
By Byron York
Chief Political Correspondent 3/20/09
". . . remember that provisions regarding the bonuses -- and who knows what else -- were buried deep inside the $787 billion economic stimulus bill that Obama and his fellow Democrats rushed through Congress. . ."
. . . "Every single Republican in the House voted against it, and all but three GOP senators did the same. There's no way Obama can blame the stimulus, and its contents, on anyone other than himself..."
Unreal. Let's hope Obama can step in and stop this. If a company is forced to go under (and at this point, maybe that's just what they need) then there is no way to pay which would be the best thing for them, and let the US put that money to where it's needed ~ saving people's homes!
~*~ tinksmagic ~*~, Mar 17, 2009, 8:45am EDT
that is so wrong!
why are they even GETTING bonuses?
regina k., Mar 16, 2009, 5:42pm EDT
Obama gives arguments similar to Bush's ...
March 19, 2009
" . . .They also argued, as President George W. Bush's team had before them, that enacting strict compensation limits could hamper companies' ability to attract and retain vital talent at in tough financial times, according to aides who spoke privately about the internal talks."
Obama protected the bonuses
" . . .In order to protect its bailout plan, the Obama administration protected the bonuses. . ."
Visit this Gather article as context for my quotes below:
"Dear AIG . . ."
This is what I said in response to the above article:
"If true, my opinion about the bonuses has changed. At first I thought, well, they got bonuses and they shouldn't have gotten them, but it was legally obtained so I'll live with it. And they don't amount to very much in the scheme of things compared to what Obama is spending. "
"But now ... I say stand by the contract you signed Mr. President. Man-up for once and take your medicine instead of pretending you had nothing to do with it (and if the letter is genuine, the bonuses were the right thing to do in any case). Mr. President, claim it for goodness sake; it might be the only right thing you'll have done before your term in office is finished. You signed the bill into law that authorized those bonuses so stop sikking the dogs (bus tours to exec homes etc) on the party of the 2nd part when you yourself were the party of the first part (so to speak ... ). "
Unreal. Let's hope Obama can step in and stop this. If a company is forced to go under (and at this point, maybe that's just what they need) then there is no way to pay which would be the best thing for them, and let the US put that money to where it's needed ~ saving people's homes!
~*~ tinksmagic ~*~, Mar 17, 2009, 8:45am EDT
that is so wrong!
why are they even GETTING bonuses?
regina k., Mar 16, 2009, 5:42pm EDT
Since when can't you renegotiate a contract?
httpXXXXhtml
George McNaughton , Mar 17, 2009, 5:33pm EDT
Grassley was illadvised, negligent, even possibly deliberately inflamatory and guilty of inciting to assault if not worse.
I can tolerate people who make money - even those who are like B. Frank, Pelosi, Obama, Reid, J. Moran, and M. Waters 1, M. Waters 2, M. Waters 3 better than I can tolerate anyone in Grassley's position who even hints something like he actually put into words ...
+sigh+ ... Let me just say it and if I have to take it back later when or if he gives a really good apology and makes tons of ammends for his comment ... then I will certainly think about an apology (accepting it as well as giving it) at that time; but for now - he's an idiot who needs to get a grip. On himself. On his own tongue. On his own outward actions.
Since when can't you renegotiate a contract?
httpXXXXhtml
George McNaughton , Mar 17, 2009, 5:33pm EDT
What's with the rest of us who tolerate, accept, tout, forward, and even cheer on this type of comment and attitude? It's okay in this context but not okay in some others we could all name? How is that possible?
Murder, either by suggestiion, by word or by implicit deed is murder just the same.
Christians among us? Jesus said even the thought of adultery was indeed already an act of adultery committed. So it would follow that even the thought or insinuation of this kind of thing is just as if it had already been committed by the one who expresses it. And there are too many crazies out there for anyone, much less a guy in his position, to endorse this kind of thing.
Have we all also lost our own inner moral compasses? Have we all been playing too many bloody video games and do we all actually think we should carry that kind of "enjoyment" over into real life?
Have we really lost so much of our supposed humanity that we can no longer discern the line between appropriate and inapproriate? That we have even possibly lost our ability to discern that there is such a line at all? Shall we all descend into 3stoogehood? Are we all really this close to being the cowards and lemmings the Obama admin et al thinks we are and seems to be encouraging us to be?
Since when can't you renegotiate a contract?
httpXXXXhtml
George McNaughton , Mar 17, 2009, 5:33pm EDT