I'm not disagreeing that Obama should have stepped up and stopped these before the firestorm; however, I do believe there needs to be some perspective on the formation of the bonuses.
There is plenty of blame to go around on this - for both the current and past administrations. On Mar 18, 8:51 am, jgg1000a <[email protected]> wrote: > That Bush did not stop them is reason for Obama to justify and approve > the Dodd amendment on his watch??? What you are telling me is that > Obama should have known about the issue from the git go, and then did > little to stop it... And now to fain outrage under that circumstance > is outrageous... The amendment of Dodd gives Obama ownership of the > AIG bonus... Then to ask for tax codes changes to "punish" Americans, > well, Obama's fine spun narrative is spinning out or has spun out of > control... And for Obama, that is a major negative... > > Not unlike the earmaks issues... Maureen Dowd said today > > http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/18/opinion/18dowd.html?_r=1 > > >>> At first, on the nutty bonuses, Team Obama thought it could get away with > >>> the same absurd argument used to justify the nearly $8 billion in > >>> unnecessary earmarks it allowed Congress to jam into this year’s overdue > >>> spending bill: It was written last year; we’re just signing off on it; > >>> we’ll do better in the future. > > On Mar 18, 10:26 am, "J.C." <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > This isn't entirely true, and I'll tell you why. > > > The bonuses were actually filed with the SEC several months ago; > > Bernake and Paulson knew that AIG was planning on paying the retention > > bonuses when the FIRST bailout bill was written, and provided no > > oversight to stop them - in fact, Paulson came out publicly against > > limiting executive bonuses. > > > From the Seattle Post Intelligencer: > > > AIG's plans to pay hundreds of millions of dollars were publicized > > last fall, when Congress started asking questions about expensive > > junkets the company had sponsored. A November SEC filing by the > > company details more than $469 million in "retention payments" to keep > > prized employees. > > > Back then, Rep. Elijah E. Cummings, D-Md., began pumping Liddy for > > information on the bonuses and pressing him to scale them back. "There > > was outrage brewing already," Cummings said. "I'm saying (to Liddy), > > 'Be a good citizen. ... Do something about this.' " > > > Around the same time, outside lawyers hired by the Federal Reserve > > started reviewing the bonuses as part of a broader look at retention > > and compensation plans, according to government officials who spoke on > > condition of anonymity. The outside attorneys examined the possibility > > of making changes to the company plans - scaling them back, delaying > > them or rescinding them. They ultimately concluded that even if AIG's > > bonuses were withheld, the company would probably be sued successfully > > by its employees and be forced to pay them, the officials said. > > > In January, Reps. Joseph E. Crowley of New York and Paul E. Kanjorski > > of Pennsylvania wrote to the Federal Reserve and the Treasury > > Department pressing the administration to scrutinize AIG's bonus plans > > and take steps against excessive payments. > > > "I at that point realized that we were going to have a backlash with > > regard to these bonuses," Kanjorski said in an AP interview. In a > > meeting with Liddy later that month, he said he told the AIG chief > > that "all hell would break loose if we didn't find a way to inform the > > public ... and that we should take every step to put that information > > out there so we wouldn't have the shock." > > > ********** > > While I don't agree with the backroom deal made by Obama this time, > > the blame for this does not rest entirely with him; a good chunk of it > > rests with the previous administration, because the legislation > > preventing these bonuses should have been written into the first > > bailout bill, which, by the way, was written in May of last year, > > after the collapse of IndyMac Bank. > > > Another interesting side note: > > > While AIG was begging for money from the government, it was spending > > an intense amount in lobbying - nearly $11 million. Why? To stop the > > passage of a mortgage fraud bill. > > > Seems kind of stupid, doesn't it? Personally, I think AIG should be > > allowed to collapse, and every one of the execs should be sent packing > > (since 11 of them have already packed up after receiving their $1 > > million bonus). > > > On Mar 18, 8:16 am, jgg1000a <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > between Democrats in Congress and Obama in the rush to pass the > > > Stimulus Bill should not say the Stimulus Bill is aptly named??? Can > > > one see Obama's rage in any other light than dishonest as he demanded > > > immediate passage without giving Congress a chance to READ THE BILL > > > FIRST??? > > > >http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/politics&id=6715304 > > > > >>> During a late-night, closed door meeting last month, negotiators for > > > >>> the House, Senate and White House agreed to strip an amendment to the > > > >>> stimulus bill that would have restricted bonuses to any company > > > >>> receiving federal bailout funds. Instead of that measure, another > > > >>> measure by Senator Chris Dodd (D) from Connecticut was inserted that > > > >>> limited "executive compensation," but specifically exempted bonuses.- > > > >>> Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
