GatewayRedbirds.com

I don't understand why bonus clawbacks are being discussed as part of our 'peculiar condition', but nobody talks about clawing back AIG's larger payouts to Goldman Sachs, Deutsche Bank, Societe Generale, Merrill Lynch and friends. Those payments wouldn't have been made if AIG had gone into bankruptcy either. The UBS billions -- from taxpayers ultimately -- are particularly offensive to me, since they'd been running a tax evasion scheme, and while that's stopped apparently, they still won't give our government the names of the American citizens who evaded taxes through this scheme. Again, taxpayers just gave them billions.

For some reason corporations have immunity in this clawback discussion. That's a disturbing blind spot for us and our politicians.

greenback44 wrote:I don't understand why bonus clawbacks are being discussed as part of our 'peculiar condition', but nobody talks about clawing back AIG's larger payouts to Goldman Sachs, Deutsche Bank, Societe Generale, Merrill Lynch and friends. Those payments wouldn't have been made if AIG had gone into bankruptcy either.

Isn't continuing these payments the whole point of not allowing AIG to go bankrupt?

Not disagreeing with maddash or HJ...but I think when the government is coming to your aid and propping up your business, the contracts that would be null and void due to bankruptcy should be null and void due to bailouts.

If the government went in and just told a well-established, well-funded business that their contracts are null and void, then we have a constitutional problem.

...and I'm all for the constitution, I like my rights...but I also like my rights as a taxpayer as well.

greenback44 wrote:I don't understand why bonus clawbacks are being discussed as part of our 'peculiar condition', but nobody talks about clawing back AIG's larger payouts to Goldman Sachs, Deutsche Bank, Societe Generale, Merrill Lynch and friends. Those payments wouldn't have been made if AIG had gone into bankruptcy either. The UBS billions -- from taxpayers ultimately -- are particularly offensive to me, since they'd been running a tax evasion scheme, and while that's stopped apparently, they still won't give our government the names of the American citizens who evaded taxes through this scheme. Again, taxpayers just gave them billions.

For some reason corporations have immunity in this clawback discussion. That's a disturbing blind spot for us and our politicians.

I agree...which brings me to my next question.

Couldn't the government just go after AIG and prop them up while AIG goes and settles the insurance money for GS, DB, SG and ML?

Seems like a double bailout...in some cases.

Arthur Dent wrote:

greenback44 wrote:I don't understand why bonus clawbacks are being discussed as part of our 'peculiar condition', but nobody talks about clawing back AIG's larger payouts to Goldman Sachs, Deutsche Bank, Societe Generale, Merrill Lynch and friends. Those payments wouldn't have been made if AIG had gone into bankruptcy either.

Isn't continuing these payments the whole point of not allowing AIG to go bankrupt?

I don't know any more what the point of the AIG bailout was, since I'm pretty sure some of these companies could have survived without these benefits. What's particularly odd is that these corporations, some still profitable and most still viable, didn't take a haircut and nobody cares -- I understand we'll have to pay them something, but we didn't have to pay them in full -- while Congress attempts to pass a law forcing employees to take a paycut.

EDIT: I guess AIG was supposed to be a shortcut to keep The System functioning. Fine and dandy, we benefit from a functioning financial system. But when we spend more time worrying about keeping the corporations functioning instead of figuring out how to directly keep people whole, be it through pensions or bank deposits or life/health/auto insurance, we're going to face some ugly and predictable side effects. A big chunk of this bailout isn't saving the system so much as feeding Goldman Sachs shareholders, and that's disgusting.

maddash wrote:

Socnorb11 wrote:

maddash wrote:

cpebbles wrote:While it may be serving as a red herring that allows Congress to get around curbing the bigger problem, the outrage over these bonuses is perfectly acceptable. The taxpayers saved AIG from a bankruptcy reorganization that almost certainly would have seen these obligations wiped out, and clamping down on these bonuses will be the first real action the government has taken to insure that the bailout money they're feeding into these corporations is actually going to the purposes they intended.

I understand the outrage, but it just seems so petty when you look at the big picture problems. You know, if they [expletive] up that badly, AIG should fire them. Wouldn't firing the people at AIG who created and implemented the flawed derivative polices be a better solution? Oh, and fire the people who drafted a contract that says you're still entitled to a bonus even if the company has a net lose for the year.

I'll take a line from Obama on the omnibus - these are last year's contracts. I don't like the idea of paying these execs and traders with taxpayer money, but I do think we should honor their contracts. Once that business is done, then you start getting into re-organizing AIG from the top down.

I'm for firing the guy that issued the contracts.

But saying "these are last year's contracts" doesn't really pacify me much. I don't think the demise happened overnight, or even within the last year. If it was so bad that they needed a government bailout, these people have been doing their jobs poorly for quite awhile, and don't deserve a bonus for their efforts last year or the year before or whatever the case may be.

It may seem "petty" by their standards, but to the average taxpayer, it's not petty at all. Those people don't deserve the bonuses........ period. As a taxpayer, I think they money should be given to someone that needs it more, and those people wouldn't consider it "petty" at all.

Well, I sympathize with that view. I'm just saying that A) there are bigger fish to fry, and B) I really think that the government's hands are tied as far as the bonuses go. I'm certainly no expert, but I would imagine that the contracts in place are pretty solid, and even our government just can't go in and start nullifying contracts (without some kind of bankruptcy). But again, I'm not an expert.

And now we find out that Christopher Dodd (after lying about it on Tuesday) was the one who, at the direction of Geitner, put the protection clause in the stimulus package...and Geitner was with the Fed Reserve and helped write the "contracts". I am SOOO sick of being lied to by congress....

jimedmondsfan wrote:And now we find out that Christopher Dodd (after lying about it on Tuesday) was the one who, at the direction of Geitner, put the protection clause in the stimulus package...and Geitner was with the Fed Reserve and helped write the "contracts". I am SOOO sick of being lied to by congress....

I think this story is still leaking, as I've heard several versions of this over the last 24 hours. The consistant part being Dodd. It's not quite clear (to me) that it was specifically Geithner, someone with Treasury, the White House, or the Federal Reserve. Republicans are really going after Geithner right now, so I'm trying to see through the rhetoric.

Last I heard was that Dodd was simply told that there may be a legal issue with the language he originally had, not that it needed to be removed for AIG. But, yeah, Dodd was definitely doing some cya by implying it was a staffer in committee.

This guy
posted this opinion article
http://seekingalpha.com/article/127201- ... ut-of-ammo
and one person replied with this:
Boss Man 1 Comment who are you? you look like a cross between Hitler (love the hair do! Haven't seen a comb over like that it a friggin' long time...and the 'stache, how cute! You look like a poodle without the papers) and the pillsbury doughboy, only fatter. Don't you know, fat people are not believable. Get a lap band porky. And by the way...you'll know 10% of what Bernanke has forgotten you inbred, knuckle walking, planktain, Mar 22 04:12 PM | Link | Reply +3-19

Embattled bank JPMorgan Chase, the recipient of $25 billion in TARP funds, is going ahead with a $138 million plan to buy two new luxury corporate jets and build "the premiere corporate aircraft hangar on the eastern seaboard" to house them, ABC News has learned.

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/Story?id=7146474&page=1

dangerous wrote:This guy
posted this opinion article
http://seekingalpha.com/article/127201- ... ut-of-ammo
and one person replied with this:
Boss Man 1 Comment who are you? you look like a cross between Hitler (love the hair do! Haven't seen a comb over like that it a friggin' long time...and the 'stache, how cute! You look like a poodle without the papers) and the pillsbury doughboy, only fatter. Don't you know, fat people are not believable. Get a lap band porky. And by the way...you'll know 10% of what Bernanke has forgotten you inbred, knuckle walking, planktain, Mar 22 04:12 PM | Link | Reply +3-19

Part of me thinks the next Weimar Republic is right around the corner.