關於AIG，奧巴馬和國會的表演可以收場了 (圖)

這些拿納稅人的錢不當錢的政客們，信誓旦旦地對AIG發紅包要給他們點兒顏色看看。

民主黨也好，共和黨也罷，國會山上的政客們個個義憤填膺。　奧巴馬更是一馬當先，大有要為老百姓報仇雪恨的樣子。

GIVE　ME　A　BREAK！

就是這些國會議員們不顧老百姓的反對一意孤行要BAIL　OUT　這個搖搖欲墜的AIG。在送錢的時候，AIG同員工的合同早就簽完了，那時候，你們怎麽不跳出來說，WAIT　A　MINUTE，既然政府擁有AIG80%的股份，公司重組，一切從頭來？　布什的人馬到處鼓吹AIG不能不救，民主黨大佬有誰說不嗎？　在搞競選的奧巴馬說什麽了嗎？

現在都出來耍橫的了。嗬嗬，早幹嘛了您呐。

奧巴馬上台不到60天，製造出美國曆史上最大的政府開支計劃和赤字。今天說國會不通過就是曆史的罪人，明天說隻有政府才能擺脫經濟衰退。民主黨議員們知道奧巴馬的BILL肯定能通過，紛紛把自己的跟刺激經濟毫無關係的項目加進去，使這個95%的開銷與基礎設施建設毫無關係的所謂經濟刺激計劃，在全國老百姓一片反對聲中，草草通過，在奧巴馬的辦公桌上放了4天，最後又大張旗鼓地把它簽成法律。

這個龐大的浪費計劃和奧巴馬後來天文數字的財政赤字預算對美國經濟社會機製將產生的破壞，怎麽沒見你們這些議員們出來放個P？

在奧巴馬和民主黨大佬們要對AIG施刑的時候，別忘了中國有句成語，叫搬起石頭砸了自己的腳。

AIG現任的董事長Edward M. Liddy，是由政府任命的。美國政府擁有80%AIG的股份。換句話說，美國政府就是AIG。這位咱自家人最近給財政部長Timothy Geithner寫信，說這些紅包必須發，不然會削弱AIG員工的積極性。用他自己的話說：“We cannot attract and retain the best and the brightest talent to lead and staff the AIG businesses — which are now being operated principally on behalf of American taxpayers — if employees believe their compensation is subject to continued and arbitrary adjustment by the U.S. Treasury。”

奧巴馬的國家經濟委員會主任Larry Summers說,發這些紅包令人發指，但還得發，因為美國是法製國家，簽完了的合同受法律保護。

為什麽奧巴馬和這些政客們還氣勢洶洶地, 象要討還血債似的, 要對AIG拿紅包的人不依不饒呢？

純粹是作秀給老百姓看！

該收場了！

對於那些不明真相的老百姓，我這麽跟您說吧：

從道德上說，紅包不該發。從法律上說，紅包該發還得發。拿紅包的也是員工，也是打工的，不是老板。您要是給別人打工，說好了發紅包，到時候公司賴帳，說您是吸血鬼，不能給您。那您是無所謂啊，還是惱怒啊。

拿不拿是良心說話，該不該拿是合同說話。要是跟政府公司的合同如廢紙一張的話，傻瓜才去AIG上班。

知道拿RETENTION紅包的都是些什麽人嗎？

都是要人家走或人家要走，公司（政府）出來挽留人家，說您先別走，　您幫幫忙，再工作一段時間，到時候，有紅包給您。到日子政府不給錢，翻臉不認人，跟打發民工有什麽區別？這些打工的不是什麽萬惡的資本家。　

嫌給人錢多了，當初有本事您別留人家。

您說是不是這個理兒？

[noso]

回複kallisummer的評論:



民主黨國會光天化日之下搞的白色恐怖


http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Better-Hide-Your-Badge-AIG-cnbc-14701729.html

American International Group's corporate security advised employees of the insurance giant, which has received more than $170 billion in taxpayer money, to take measures "to increase their overall safety and security" due to "a growing sense of public attention fueled by increased media scrutiny."



In a memo, employees are advised to "avoid wearing any AIG (NYSE:AIG - News) apparel (bags, shirts, umbrellas, etc.) with the company insignia" and to make sure badges with the AIG name are not visible when they are outside the office.



Employees should also report to building security any individuals "who appear to be out of place or spending an inordinate amount of time near an AIG facility," according to the memo.

"Avoid public conversations involving AIG and do not engage any media personnel regarding the company," the memo also warned.

Visitors should be escorted by an AIG employee at all times when inside an AIG building, and employees are advised to "question individuals that you do not recognize and appear to be out of place."

Employees are also advised to avoid propping doors and be aware of those trying to "piggy back" into the building.

[kallisummer]

博主說得太對了。
I feel exactly the same.

[noso]

回複hairycat的評論:

再簡單不過了：

奧巴馬和財政部部長知道這個事都好幾個月了，突然跳出來裝不知道，罵來罵去的給老百姓看，好象他們有多為納稅人著想似的。真以為老百姓都是好騙的了。

[noso]

回複黃則和的評論:


: D

[hairycat]

你是少數幾個明白人，很多人為AIG的事情生氣，其實一句話，就是如果合同裏有紅包這一條而員工的表現也符合合同的要求，這個紅包就是必須給的。嗬嗬，很多的人跟著奧巴馬起哄啊！

[Erica_NJ]

Thanks Noso for sharing.I missed those articles. I really wish WSJ could say something about it.

[Embassy]

"We cannot attract and retain the best and the brightest talent to lead and staff the AIG businesses..."

lol

If it's true, then who is the dumbest in the world?

[noso]

空話連篇 曆史會不幸證明，奧巴馬拯救不了美國

　　王小東

　　空話連篇的“美式八股”

　　一個網站的編輯想讓我評論一下奧巴馬的新書《我們相信變革》。他把書都寄來了，我也隻能順手翻翻，好歹寫篇評論。好在這本書看上去不薄，其實沒有多少字，很快就能翻完。坦率地說，這是一本滿篇空話、胡吹大氣、讓人不堪卒讀的書，它唯一的價值就在於給我們提供一個了解這個世界上最有權勢的人的窗口。

　　這本書的上半部是奧巴馬的施政方略，下半部是他的八篇競選演說。我們老是說中國式八股空話連篇，沒有內容，可這本書還不如咱們的呢，他除了吹牛還是吹牛，實質性內容甚至不如咱們常拿來開涮的“ 動員報告”。他在這本書裏，全都是完全不切實際的許諾，要給老百姓這個，要給老百姓那個，可全都是口號，我看不出任何可操作的可行性。他甚至說：美國到2050年，要減少碳排放量的80%。這有可能性嗎？有！一是在此之前人類已經把石油用完了，沒有什麽碳可以排放了；二是打核戰爭了；也有可能是二者一起來了。如果不發生人類曆史上最大的災變，美國到 2050年碳排放量能夠做到不增長都難。可奧巴馬把這些告訴美國人民了嗎？他自己想過這個問題嗎？當然了，到2050年，奧巴馬自己都不知道在哪裏了，現在就隨便吹吧。可這是一種負責任的態度嗎？

　　我記得曉軍曾給我打電話說：中國國內那些親美媚美派，在奧巴馬當選的問題上已經分為兩派，那些雖然親美媚美，但和美國尚無血肉相連的感覺，或者見識較淺的人，都在歡呼奧巴馬的勝利，可是那些已經真正全身心地效忠於美國，與美國血肉相連，有比較有見識的親美媚美派，卻都在因奧巴馬的當選而替美國擔憂。我看這些真正效忠於美國的中國人見識倒還是有的。

　　奧巴馬當選美國總統，美國國內確實一片歡呼，我也看了中國電視，中國專家們也是一片歡呼，都認為美國很多的問題可以迎刃而解了。對此我實在是深表懷疑。要解決美國今天的問題，是不能光喊口號的，你要給出東西，就必須找到東西的來源。能量守恒、物質不滅，是基本的物理學規律，沒有任何人能夠超越。那麽我們看一看，要實現奧巴馬給美國人民許的那些給好處的願，以及他的“綠色”構想，來源在哪裏？

　　我認為，第一個來源隻能是實事求是地要求美國人民共度時艱，在一定程度上改變自己揮霍無度的生活方式。這件事當然是很難的，由儉入奢易，由奢入儉難。但奧巴馬原本可以利用自己的高人氣，引導美國人民往這個方向走。畢竟，就算是美國真的把碳排放量減少80%，也隻不過是達到了中國現在的人均碳排放水平，既然中國人可以做到，也還活著，為什麽美國人就不可以呢？至少在一定程度上改變揮霍無度的生活方式，是美國一切“ 變革”的基礎。沒有這個基礎，一切所謂的“變革”都是空談。但奧巴馬的施政方略和演說完全沒有涉及這樣一個方向，而是給出可以過更揮霍無度的生活的許諾。這也就是說，奧巴馬在那裏聲嘶力竭地喊叫的“變革”，隻是一種指望天上“變革”出餡餅的虛偽許諾，而眾多的美國人相信這樣的許諾，則表明了他們不會有什麽出息。

　　第二個來源是劫富濟貧，即拿美國的富人開刀，從他們那裏拿東西，也就是實行偏左的經濟政策。奧巴馬有這個意思，這也使得美國國內外的左派欣喜若狂。但他上台之後，偏左的經濟政策許諾到底會不會兌現？如果不兌現，他辜負了今天懷著滿腔希望把他選上台的選民。雖說美國總統選上之後一般都會對選舉時的承諾打折扣，但你說話完全不算數還是會有不少問題。如果兌現呢？增稅，懲罰那些把業務搬到海外的美國的企業？要是這樣，人家企業幹脆就不當美國企業了你又如何？現在這個世界上不準備實行偏左的經濟政策的地方很多，奧巴馬如果真這麽幹很有可能把企業趕跑，那不是給美國經濟雪上加霜了嗎？

　　就拿眼前的事說，美國的三大汽車公司如果不大幅裁減工人工資，至少減到美國本土的外資汽車廠，如豐田、日產、本田等的水平，就是沒救的。即使能救得了幾個月，也不過一年半載，還是救不了永遠。所以，要救美國經濟，單純偏左的經濟政策是不可行的，必須有的地方比現在更左，有的地方比現在更右。奧巴馬有這個政治智慧做到嗎？有這個政治本錢做到嗎？我看這些都沒有。

　　現在奧巴馬的就職演說已經發表了。他的就職演說簡而言之，就是表明了要走“ 社會主義道路”。他說：“小政府、大社會”的事你們就不要吵吵了，我該大政府就大政府了；自由市場的事你們也別吵吵了，我該政府幹預就政府幹預了。這似乎頗有羅斯福的氣概，但是，我已經說過，今天美國的問題和羅斯福時代大有不同：羅斯福時代的美國，生產能力極強，確實就是一個生產過剩，有效需求不足的問題，而今天的美國，本來就欠著債呢，不是有效需求不足，而是本國生產能力根本就滿足不了自己的消費欲求的問題。用同樣的藥方治完全相反的病症，我看要出更大的問題。

　　我實在看不出奧巴馬就能更好地把美國從金融危機中拯救出來。我已經講過，美國的金融危機有著深刻的原因，籠統地說，就是它在各方麵都老了，美國人“八旗子弟化”了。美國社會老化這個問題使得美國今天的金融危機雖然沒有1929年那麽猛烈，卻比那一次更難解決，換誰都一樣，但像希拉裏、麥凱恩等至少還穩健一點，少吹一點牛。

　　第三個來源是外國人。一是騙，騙外國人的錢。在美國金融賭場穿幫之後，這件事的難度越來越高了，大家不僅接受了教訓，也沒錢被它騙了——也許隻剩下想去華爾街“抄底”的中國買辦還準備拿著中國人的錢主動去被它騙。二是向外國人借。可現如今，歐洲的盟友自身難保，自己也錢緊得很，有錢也未必會幫它。就連美國最鐵，也是最有錢的盟友日本，都連續減持美國國債。隻剩下一個經常挨它敲打，被它看作潛在的敵人的中國，還在那裏執著地增持它的國債，但中國國內反對的聲音日漸增高，使得任何人，對美國再有深厚的感情，要大把花錢去幫它時，也心有忌憚。

　　第四個來源就隻能是搶了。美國的軍事力量超級強大，這是美國唯一突出的長處。我有一位朋友的老板是美國人，她在我的博客上留言道：“有次美國老板和我們說到美國財政赤字難以解決，國債淹腳麵。我說阿拉斯加有很多自然資源，美國可以以這個為抵押還款。他不假思索地說，美國真慘到那光景混不下去的時候，好歹我們還有那麽多軍隊可以出去搶錢，何必賣家當呢？”看來這個美國人還是挺坦率的，直白他們在經濟危機時首先想到的就是用軍隊出去搶錢。我看這是美國人很有代表性的觀點，隻不過那些記者、教授、政客們未必會這麽直白地說出來。然而，如我以前說過的，美國人去搶伊拉克已經被證明效率不高，如果要搶比伊拉克還強大得多的國家，未必能賺。奧巴馬不是要從伊拉克撤軍，把力量集中到對於中國和俄羅斯更有威脅的戰略要地阿富汗、巴基斯坦一線嗎？然而，製造或助長緊張局勢，挑唆其他國家打仗，然後賣軍火賺錢，確實是美國的長項。所以，中東、南亞次大陸等局勢的緊張，應該是預料之中的。

　　搖滾歌星式的奧巴馬“變革”

　　簡而言之，美國的問題是不那麽容易解決的，誰當政都不可能輕易解決，但奧巴馬搖滾歌星式的執政方式是更不行的。我看他執政不如希拉裏、麥凱恩，乃至小布什。有人也許會說，美國的政治製度好，能夠製衡一個沒有執政經驗和智慧的總統，甚至能夠製約一個胡來的總統，我在相當程度上認可這種說法。但這樣一來，美國所謂的“變革 ”也就成了胡扯了。

　　有人把美國選出一個黑人總統這件事本身認為是美國社會一個重要的變革，認為這意味著美國社會中的種族主義徹底被清除了，並且認為這是全世界各族人民走向大同世界的一個重要裏程碑。《紐約時報》稱奧巴馬當選掃除了美國“種族屏障”，中國一些學者也說奧巴馬當選表明了美國種族問題淡化了。我看還不一定。首先，美國的種族問題還是解決不了，變壞的可能性都有。種族問題要是那麽好解決，現在美國應該早就不存在白人和黑人的分界了——都一起住了好幾百年了，早該混血混得差不多了。可事實是白人和黑人的分界還是鮮明地存在著。這次，如果隻有白人投票，奧巴馬還是輸了。有些人說奧巴馬這次已經創造了近幾十年民主黨在白人選民中的最高支持率，但是，考慮到小布什這些年內外政策的不得人心和金融危機所造成的無與倫比的天時、地利、人和，如果奧巴馬是個白人，我認為他一定也會在白人選民中獲勝。再次，你看看麥凱恩承認失敗的講話時的場麵：在場的幾乎都是白人，當麥凱恩說祝賀奧巴馬當選時，全場一片噓聲。小布什在臨下台時有個講話，告誡共和黨人不要對於奧巴馬仇恨過甚，這恰恰說明了在共和黨內部對於奧巴馬的怨懟超過了以往一般的政權交替。我認為，美國的一些種族主義觀念較強的白人反而會因為這一次的失敗，變得更“種族主義”，並有可能更多地從思想轉化為行動。當然，美國也有相當一部分白人正沉浸在他們的國家選舉出一個黑人總統給他們帶來的道德優越感中，美國最近的民意調查也顯示，大多數人願意給奧巴馬較多的時間來取得成效。但我認為，美國人的這種欣喜如果沒有奧巴馬所能給他們帶來的實質性利益迅速跟上，希望很快就會轉化成失望，這時候他們本能的種族主義情緒會不會又上來？

　　從國際層麵上說，美國所麵對的國際局勢大大複雜化了，我懷疑奧巴馬能做得更好。奧巴馬當選，歐洲的歡呼聲比美國本土還強，期待美國會放棄小布什時代的單邊主義、一味強硬。但放棄單邊主義和強硬政策，美國在國際關係領域的問題就一定能解決嗎？這裏麵有幾個問題。一個是伊拉克問題。奧巴馬準備兌現競選時的承諾，在上任16個月內從伊拉克撤軍，把力量集中於阿富汗嗎？現在很多擁護他的美國人民都盼著他兌現諾言呢。可如果他真這麽做了，對於美國在中東地區的影響力和控製力究竟意味著什麽？現在還很難說。現在能說的是，奧巴馬準備把兵力集中到阿富汗、巴基斯坦一線，以加強對於中國和俄羅斯的圍堵，對美國的國家利益也許是一個正確的選擇。另一個俄羅斯問題，俄羅斯對於美國的挑戰姿態是明顯的。俄羅斯總統梅德韋傑夫在奧巴馬當選的同一天發表的國情谘文強烈譴責了美國，並明確宣布：由於美國在歐洲部署反導係統，俄羅斯拒絕解散導彈部隊的三個團，同時準備在加裏寧格勒州部署“伊斯坎德爾”導彈係統，擺明了強硬對抗的姿態。比起冷戰後那一段美國一極獨大的黃金歲月，俄羅斯的對抗姿態使得今天的美國所麵對的國際局勢大大複雜化了。不管是誰當美國總統，這都是個難題，奧巴馬就能做得更好？我懷疑。而恰恰由於奧巴馬是屬於少數族裔的黑人，在國際問題上，如果處理不好，他會受到比一個白人總統更多的批評和懷疑。

　　這次奧巴馬的就職典禮，去了200萬人，氣氛熱烈到了極點。毫無疑問，在今天它的民眾陷入茫然無措的情況下，美國需要一個搖滾歌星似的總統來調動一下大家的情緒，讓大家暫時忘卻現實中的困窘。真正優秀的搖滾歌星凱莉在現場把大家的情緒調動到如火箭一飛衝天，但戲散了大家還得回家麵對現實。我認為，無論現在美國人民多麽熱烈地擁護奧巴馬，隻要他不能立即帶來明顯的好處，美國今天所表現出來的對於他的擁護、國民的團結，很快就會轉變成懷疑、批評和分裂，期望越高，失望越大。在當今這個困難時期，由少數族裔擔任總統，立即成功便罷，否則就很快會轉變成劣勢，他會得不到多數族裔背景的總統所能得到的那種諒解和信任。

　　我在前麵的大多數判斷，都是從美國的角度出發的。我無意於 “jinx”美國，我隻是說出自己的一些疑問，提醒大家除了一片樂觀之外的其他可能性，而不是必然性。我衷心希望美國人民成功。從中國的角度說，我們需要的是警惕美國出現嚴重危機時，為了擺脫危機選擇戰爭或挑唆戰爭。所以，張兆垠將軍2008年12月2日在《解放軍報》上發表的那篇文章主張“我們必須摒棄 ‘和平建軍、建和平軍’的觀念，牢固樹立準備打仗的思想”，乃是十分正確和及時的。

[viewer]

白宮發言人的瘋狂英語
By 九喻

語言普遍性的瘋狂，不過瘋狂的語言在某些人的嘴裏，就格外瘋狂一點。

故事背景是：2008年9月，當時的共和黨總統候選人麥凱恩（John McCain）在一次競選演說中說：“我們經濟的根本strong”（fundamentals of our economy are strong）。

此話遭到當時民主黨候選人奧巴馬（Barack Obama）的抨擊，奧巴馬說：“10天前，麥凱恩說經濟的根本sound…我根本不能同意。”（John said that the fundamentals of the economy are SOUND…I just fundamentally disagree)

可是幾天前，奧巴馬的經濟顧問開始說，美國經濟的根本比較sound。

終於在新聞發布會上，記者提出了這個問題。

白宮發言人Robert Gibbs回答說：我相信strong和sound這兩個詞在定義上有不同。

我看不出這兩個詞在這個語境裏有多大區別，因此Gibbs的回答讓我感覺耳目一新。記者恐怕跟我的想法差不多，所以追問說：你認為經濟的根本現在不strong，但是還很sound？

我會問：你認為什麽東西可以比較weak，同時還很sound？
很有興趣知道幾個weak而sound的例子。

布什總統經常被人指為笨嘴拙舌，我倒是沒有這個印象。而笨嘴拙舌有一個天然的好處，那就是沒有機會巧言令色。不知道什麽時候，人就賺到了，不是嗎？

想起了民主黨的前輩級“語言大師”克林頓，他對sex的定義也讓人耳目一新。

瘋狂的語言遊戲的時代又回來了嗎？

[momo_ca]

樓主是說奧巴馬一邊要推行社會主義，一邊支持向富人發獎金？現在的激烈反對隻是作秀？莫非要推行的是有中國特色的社會主義？

[noso]

回複TristateMD的評論:

Thanks, shake hand!

Now, let's check out this double faced politician here:


Two Faced: Dodd Protected Bonuses, Now He Wants Them Out

Tuesday, March 17, 2009 2:30 PM

By: Jim Meyers

Democratic Sen. Christopher Dodd on Monday criticized the bonuses given to executives of American International Group Inc. and suggested that the government could tax the recipients to recoup some or all of the payouts.

But it was Dodd who inserted language — known as the Dodd amendment — in the $787 billion stimulus bill that allowed all bonuses awarded before February 11, 2009, to be paid to AIG executives. That very amendment, which is now law, is now the chief hurdle to government officials who want to recover that money.

The amendment was meant to restrict executive pay for bailed-out banks, but it also included the exception for "contractually obligated bonuses agreed on or before Feb. 11, 2009."

Dodd is the largest single recipient of 2008 campaign donations from AIG, with $103,100, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. That was more than presidential candidates Barack Obama and John McCain got, and nearly three times the $35,965 Sen. Hillary Clinton received.

Dodd's amendment in the stimulus bill is a "prohibition on what the president is now talking about," Virginia Rep. Eric Cantor, the House minority whip, told Fox News, referring to regaining the money through taxation or other means.

But Dodd is telling reporters that his original language was changed in committee and he is not to blame.

"When the language went to the conference and came back, there was different language," he told Fox News. "I can tell you this much, when my language left the Senate, it did not include it (the exception). When it came back, it did."

Early Thursday evening, though, Democrats were at a loss to explain how and why the Dodd amendment was altered. Much of the stimulus bill was rushed through Congress with little opportunity to read or study exactly what was in it, despite frequent GOP requests to do exactly that.

AIG lost $61.7 billion in the fourth quarter of 2008, the biggest quarterly loss in corporate history, and has received $173 billion in federal aid. But the company is paying $450 million in bonuses to employees of its financial products unit.

Dodd, chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, thundered on Monday: “This is another outrageous example of executives — including those whose decisions were responsible for the problems that caused AIG’s collapse — enriching themselves at the expense of taxpayers.”

Incredibly, Dodd has now demanded a full briefing from the Federal Reserve and the Treasury on why “clauses weren’t attached to the four AIG bailouts to halt bonuses,” according to the New York Daily News.

“Why wasn’t the Fed putting conditionality four different times they provided resources to AIG?” Dodd asked.

Meanwhile, the News is reporting that New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo said his office will investigate whether the bonus payments are fraudulent because they were promised when AIG knew it wouldn’t have the money to cover them.

[noso]

回複Erica_NJ的評論:

Thanks. I'd like to share this with you all:


Obama, Congress Knew About AIG Bonuses for Months

Tuesday, March 17, 2009 8:33 PM



WASHINGTON -- Cue the outrage. For months, the Obama administration and members of Congress have known that insurance giant AIG was getting ready to pay huge bonuses while living off government bailouts. It wasn't until the money was flowing and news was trickling out to the public that official Washington rose up in anger and vowed to yank the money back.

Why the sudden furor, just weeks after Barack Obama's team paid out $30 billion in additional aid to the company? So far, the administration has been unable to match its actions to Obama's tough rhetoric on executive compensation. And Congress has been unable or unwilling to restrict bonuses for bailout recipients, despite some lawmakers' repeated efforts to do so.

The situation has the White House and Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner on the defensive. The administration was caught off guard Tuesday trying to explain why Geithner had waited until last Wednesday to call AIG chief executive Edward M. Liddy and demand that the bonus payments be restructured.

Neither Obama nor Geithner learned of the impending bonus payments until last week, senior administration officials told The Associated Press late Tuesday, speaking on condition of anonymity about internal discussions.

Publicly, the White House expressed confidence in Geithner _ but still made it clear he was the one responsible for how the matter was handled.

"I do know that Secretary Geithner last week engaged with the CEO of AIG to communicate what we thought were outrageous and unacceptable bonuses," White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said. Gibbs declined to provide a timeline that would show when members of the administration _ including the president and others at the White House _ became aware of the bonuses.

In an interview with The Associated Press, Obama's chief economic adviser Lawrence Summers said: "In the context of what we're doing, Secretary Geithner was notified, he has said, last week. As he reported to the rest of us, he moved aggressively and immediately, aggressively and immediately, to recoup whatever could be legally recouped. He recognized that you can't just abrogate contracts willy-nilly, but he moved to do what could be done."

The bonus problem wasn't new, as many lawmakers and administration officials knew only too well. 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."

Around the same time, Congress and Obama's team were passing up an opportunity to put in place strict laws to revoke bonuses from recipients of the $700 billion Wall Street bailout. In February, the Senate voted to add such a proposal to the economic recovery bill that cleared Congress, but in final closed-door talks on the measure, that provision was dropped in favor of limits that affect only future payments.

"There was a lot of lobbying against it and it died," said Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., who proposed the measure with Republican Sen. Olympia J. Snowe of Maine. He said Obama's team is sending mixed messages on what will and won't be tolerated on bonuses, with the president coming out strongly against excessive Wall Street rewards but top officials not following through.

"The president goes out and says this is not acceptable, and then some backroom deal gets cut to let these things get paid out anyway," Wyden said. "They need to put this to bed once and for all."

Last Wednesday, an apparently tense conversation between Geithner and Liddy brought the matter to a head. Geithner had learned of the bonus payments the previous day, said a Treasury Department official familiar with the government's dealings with AIG.

Liddy, in a letter to Geithner on Saturday, referred to their "open and frank conversation" over the retention payments on March 11. "I admit that the conversation was a difficult one for me," Liddy wrote.

On Thursday, as Treasury lawyers scrambled to find a way to cancel the payments, Geithner informed the White House of the situation, and senior aides there relayed it to Obama, the administration officials said.

Meanwhile, the administration moved to get ahead of what was certain to be an embarrassing story.

Unprompted, officials leaked news of the bonuses to select reporters late Saturday afternoon, highlighting what Geithner had done to try to restrain the payments. The story quickly became fodder for the Sunday news talk shows.

Then on Monday, the president himself came out strongly on the issue, calling the payments "an outrage" and publicly directing his team to look for ways to cancel the payments.

Questioned repeatedly to explain this in light of the fact that the administration had already scoured its options and come up empty _ and that the bonuses had already gone out the door to their recipients _ Gibbs said that the president wanted his aides to make sure "to exhaust all legal remedies."

That's done little to quell the expressions of outrage that were blasting about by Tuesday.

"It's shocking," said Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., the minority leader, that "the administration would come to us now and act surprised."

___

Associated Press writers Ieva M. Augstums, Jeannine Aversa, Martin Crutsinger, Ben Feller, Jim Kuhnhenn and Jennifer Loven contributed to this report.

[Erica_NJ]

Thanks for telling the voice of so many frustrated. Obama's administration must get the act together. Come on, AIG's bonus is not a surprise to them and WHY they acted as if they had no control over it.

What is even worse, the media all seemed to just show outrage Obama on AIG. Who is there to tell the viewer that it is just a show? I am mad at the Obama adminstration but worse with the media. Don't they need to pay tax as well? So irresposible!1

[TristateMD]

Noso 你好，
握個手吧。
這個國家朝著社會主義的道路恐怕得走上一陣子。等更多的人認識到社會主義的弊端，保守勢力才會強盛。當然如果能出現傑出的，有號召力的保守黨領袖，行進的方向有可能早些調轉。

[ewatcher]

A lot of insightful comments here.

Just want to add that these big shots have been stealing from the beginning of time, which is the beauty of capitalism. They steal in good times and they steal in bad times, too. They just can't help themselves. There is no law that says these big shots can not steal, because all the laws are written by lawyers and created by judges that are bought and sold by these big shots and their bosses. Laws are for keeping the little guys in place, not the big ones. Heard of “竊鉤者誅，竊國者侯”？ This is capitalism and this is America.

It would be strange if the theft did not happen this time.

[風行水上]

所謂的民主，民主國家，不負責任的國家的典範。到處judge別的國家與民族的榜樣。把犯罪說成正義的胡說家。這就是美國。
還有一點，從上到下的洗腦成功代言人。比中國曆害多了。

[bornin1968]

“使這個95%的開銷與基礎設施建設毫無關係的所謂經濟刺激計劃，在全國老百姓一片反對聲中，草草通過..."

-- 寫博克雖然不是論文，也要做到尊重事實，你這句話是從何說起呢？有什麽依據呢？Fox?

你說的這件事情，關鍵在於布什政府給錢的時候沒有提到限製高層的薪資而已，這是他們一貫相信富人的結果。奧巴馬隻是亡羊補牢。

你說現在關於AIG的討論是奧巴馬做戲。我想問，如果因為這件事情，以後的bailout中加入高層薪籌條例，你是否要道歉呢？

民主政治就是這樣，共和黨人現在負責監督，但是，不負責任的胡亂指責隻是徒勞。

[iorikyox]

雖然我知道美國警察的子彈是鉛彈頭，殺傷力極大，但是該革命還是得革命！

把我們中國大陸的民運傳統輸出到美國，現在是時候了。

讓全世界看看，“自由民主”的美國zf是如何對待人民的

[碎石機]

Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont., is expected to propose a special tax for the bonuses and Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla., said the tax could be as high as 90%.

[benchi]

回複大姐夫的評論:
也許你懂一點政治，也許你來美國很久了，也許你經曆過了幾屆總統，也許你有投票權，也許你拿冷臉貼過民主黨的熱PG，也許沒有錢的白人很待見你。。。但那又能怎樣！

要說話就好好說，別太盛氣淩人！

[benchi]

奧巴馬跟其他的政客沒什麽不同。也是接了大筆大筆從大business來的捐款。大家還記得競選初始奧巴馬是如何信誓旦旦要依靠聯邦競選基金，後來又是怎麽把說出來的話吃回去的？連臉都沒紅一下!
說到底，拿了人家的手短。對AIG這類公司在表麵上做做戲，也就沒什麽大驚小怪了。

[iamhereforfun]

So you think AIG executives still should be paid for the bonus ? And you think they are just the labor for the company ? I think you are totally wrong. It is true that they signed the contract with the company at earlier time. But, the fundamentals have significantly changed -- They are responsible for ruining the whole company by holding and trading the high risk porfolio, they cost tax payer billions of $$$ because of their fault. Under such condition, government should have the power to pass new law to cancel the contract, contract is civilian contract and is subject to law. Government has the power to change and pass new law that conflict with ANY current civilian contract.

Secondly, give me a break, don't tell me those CEOs are "labor". They are greedy criminals. Don't you feel sick to call them "labors" for the company ? Plus, don't worry about not being able to find new CEOs, in this world you can find MANY MANY more talented people that are better than those trash. CEOs have been spoiled to have extraordinary pay package. Once you completely cut this evil chain, you can still find CEOs. Why ? simple, if you think it is low pay, find a higher paid CEO position by yourself. If the law enforces a limit on that, then you can not find anywhere. And when you can not find it anywhere, you will adjust yourself to the reality and realize you are NOTHING, you should never worth that much, that evil era is gone. So, it will never be a problem for finding CEOs. Just like job market, when it is hot everyone wants to get higher salary, but when you can't find any job, you live with whatever job you have, simple.

[HCC]

>>>let's be clear, first of all, Clinton left money on paper, there is no money left. second of all, Bush did spend like crazy, but Obama could reserve the spending not expend it.
No sir. With his own words: " it is all about spend."
Does Obama and Democrates care about who is going to pay for this?
Not a bit.


I don't know where you got your information from, but I would suggest you to take a look at the figures from the Congressional Budget Office. Clinton has left a budget surplus of $559 billion when he left office. In fact, I'd suggest you read Alan Greenspan's biography as well. He spent considerable effort addressing the Clinton surplus.

Greenspan is a Republican, by the way.

You also asked: "Who is going to pay for this?"
The American people. They will have to pay for the corporate greed and lack of oversight. We can choose not to do anything and just save the money -- let the banks and insurance fail, let the personal savings and the jobs disappear and the crisis worsen -- if you feel that is a better solution. As a taxpayer, I don't disagree with the current plan.

[donotlike]

回複noso的評論:
If the capitalism does not work, why does bother sticking to it?

[中國民主]

回複noso的評論:
哈哈，“money talks, people listen”！怎麽阿Q的後代都成了美國人？！哈哈--感謝新聞自由，民主法製萬歲！！

[noso]

回複中國民主的評論:

no problem, money talks, people listen.

get involved with your local politics, run for any office, or donate money or time to support your candidate, tell people what you think, engage in political discussion...

This is America, we got people and we got money. : )

[中國民主]

回複noso的評論:
Haha, noso, I admire your optimism! Long long live ”阿Q“！

[nywalker]

回複中國民主的評論:
所得太好了！一針見血地指出美國民主的虛偽！F* taxpayers! Go AIG!

[中國民主]

回複大姐夫的評論:
你好大姐夫！我相信你來美國很久也有投票權，因為你所講的"Spitzer"的故事應該基本上是真的（有一點大姐夫一定知道但沒有寫出來--那位“媽媽”有一長串的嫖客名單，為什麽隻有那可憐的Spitzer嫖妓被抓？），不過我不太明白你所說的“對美國經濟，甚至對許多平頭百姓的生活會產生巨大影響”？

[noso]

回複nywalker的評論:


說得好，謝謝！

[noso]

回複中國民主的評論:


sadly it is true, but at leat we still can do something about it.

[noso]

回複大姐夫的評論:

你說的這個是事實，這個我知道。

從另一個角度說明，　當政府插手私人企業的時候，兩敗俱傷。公私和營是不可能成功的，中國建國時期對私有企業就是這麽幹預的，最後變成公有企業，改革開放又變成私有企業。　

奧巴馬所謂的變革說白了就是要搞社會主義。

死路一條。

[誰說非得注冊]

同意 中國民主
一針見血！

[nywalker]

回複半世的評論:
AIG的虧損主要是因為與房產壞債的CDS(信貸違約掉期)引起的。也正因為這些高風險CDS的存在，才使貸款買房變的容易。在房產泡沫後，大量房產貸款捆綁的證卷違約，作為這些CDS的擔保者，AIG必須對各大金融機構支付保險賠償。如果AIG倒閉，各大銀行金融機構將收不到賠償而競相倒閉，金融體係將停止運轉。所以，1。AIG有巨額虧損； 2。AIG不能倒閉。 但是這不能說明AIG每個部門都虧損。更不能說明員工不能拿合同上寫明的獎金。隻要政府在對AIG注資時沒提這些合同的事，獎金應該發。

問題在哪？是當年為對金融機構管理的政府部門和聯邦儲備的機構等閉眼不視房產金融泡沫。是政府為對AIG的CDS等高風險業務進行幹涉造成的。那時也正是美國人從房子瓦片裏拔錢出來花的“繁榮期“。

自由經濟玩兒過火了，最後還是納稅人買單。美國政府政客誰也沒責任。如果不是媒體揭露AIG獎金的事，納稅人還蒙在鼓裏哪。當然，歐巴馬也不用做秀了！（媒體不知道的事又有多少哪？！）

[大姐夫]

回複noso的評論:
AIG和那些倒掉的投行有很大區別，業務廣的多，一旦倒閉，牽涉麵太廣，對美國經濟，甚至對許多平頭百姓的生活會產生巨大影響，這就是兩黨都不希望看到AIG垮掉，還要救助它的主要原因。

其實當年前CEO，Hank Greenberg主理AIG時，它的業務一直穩步發展，是美國保險業絕對的龍頭老大，開始走下坡路開始於幾年前，AIG因為業內流行的某些會計作業被當時的NY總檢察長，同為猶太老鄉的Spitzer抓到把柄，他為了給自己未來的政治前途鋪路，把個Greenberg和他兒子Micheal Greenberg，另外一家大保險公司的CEO(Marsh)，整的死去活來，隨後，父子倆都因此被迫辭去CEO的職務。

自那時起，這個保險屆的老大從此一蹶不振，開始走了下坡，如今碰到金融海嘯，更是雪上加霜。

至於那位嫉惡如仇的總檢察長，後來終於如願以償爬上了紐約州長的寶座，隻是好景不長，報應就來了，他州長的位子還沒坐熱，也就是一年多的時間，這位正義化身的勇士就因為嫖妓醜聞被迫下台，給自己的政治生涯畫上了句號。

[中國民主]

哈哈，時間呆久了，你就會明白這就是民主與法製！可憐的米國老百姓，整天被洗腦，無時無刻真以為他們是上帝、無時無刻地以民主和法製為自豪！他們那裏知道，民主隻不過是那些既得利益者和政客們的護身符！法製隻不過是可憐老百姓的金箍咒！民主：自由選舉、自由言論、新聞自由。自由選舉—那是有錢人進入“股票俱樂部”的成人禮；自由言論—那是老百姓發泄“無可又耐何”的地下室；自由新聞—那是“控股董事會”用來洗腦的麻醉劑。我有錢我進俱樂部。進了俱樂部我如何“玩”, 那是我的權利！你如果不喜歡，而且無論你怎麽不喜歡，你有言論自由—你可以罵我。但是，哈哈，對不起—你罵你的—我可能連聽都聽不到！為什麽—因為你的言論不能通過“控股董事會”的批準，所以不能成為新聞！你罵你的—我會仍然“我自巋然不動”！為什麽—因為我是你“自由選舉”的！法製：民法、刑法和行政法。首先，這些法是誰製定的—各位知道“金子定理”嗎—The man who has gold makes the roles! 再次，你有集會遊行的“自由”，但是這個自由必須要經過“股票俱樂部”的批準！你有言論自由，但是你隻能在地下室動口而不能出門“動手”！至於行政法—隻有天知地知還有“股票俱樂部”知！

[土撥鼠撥土]

什麽合同不合同的，你幹的好，盈利了，合同才生效，幹的不好還給錢，這不是天上掉餡餅嗎？
其他公司員工的工資就不是合同訂的了？為什麽他們的工資不升還降呢？

[noso]

回複都市紅塵的評論:

據說靠咱們領薪水的是咱們的領導。: )

[都市紅塵]

民主在哪？
議員和總統不是代表選民的嗎？

[noso]

回複用戶名被占用了的評論:

I don't think so.

$90 billions bail-out money went to banks through AIG, what AIG is doing here? : )

[用戶名被占用了]

AIG紅包事件，政府有很簡單的辦法，但總統和國會未必肯這麽得罪人

1、挖出得紅包那些人的名單，公布。然後開始美國式的人肉搜鎖。美國是律師的國家，左右兩派都會有人找茬打官司的。而且那些人一旦上黑名單，在公司的職業生涯基本死了，認為人際形象太差。紐約州檢查長已經開始了。

2、政府起訴AIG，告那時定的合同有欺騙嫌疑，那些拿紅包的為錢而忽略公司即將虧損的事實。這點很容易證實，從而取消合同。但這開了一非常先例，為取證，AIG得公布許多細節，無形判了許多公司和人的職業死刑。得罪許多人和整個行業。不知道政府、尤其是拿了華爾街N多錢的奧巴馬是否樂意做。

[noso]

回複萱草花的評論:

BAIL—OUT當時老百姓就反對，布什提出來說要保。反布什的民主黨大佬包括奧巴馬都說要保。

結果怎麽樣？AIG越保越虧，GM越保越虧。這個BAIL—OUT從一開始就沒把納稅人放在眼裏。　

現在紙保不住火了，政客們不願承認失敗，拿打合同工的開涮算什麽本事？　

這不是作秀是什麽？　

[noso]

回複半世的評論:

嗬嗬。　

問題的關鍵是：這些合同是政府任命的AIG董事長大人認可的，但現在董事長的老板不幹了。實在說不過去啊，怎麽跟老百姓說啊。跳出來當好漢是真好漢還是假好漢，不言而喻。

[noso]

回複gasbag的評論:


: D

[萱草花]

呦，大姐夫這熱臉貼的民主黨很舒服嘛！您來美國多久？經曆過幾屆總統？ 俺不是白人，也沒有錢，但就是見不得民主黨這幫 liberals 這麽折騰這個國家。

[誰說非得注冊]

BAILOUT AIG 是布什政府通過的。當時的財長有利益所在。現在應立法讓他們都吐出來！

[半世]

合同是保障工資。分紅是和盈利掛鉤。AIG虧海了去，憑什麽分紅？所以，在這兒別講法律。。。。有人講美國承受不起AIG倒，那麽承受的起這樣燒錢嗎？

[大姐夫]

本貼不是對NOSO的，是回那位”萱草花“的。

[大姐夫]

不懂政治就不要亂感歎，你來美國多久，經曆過幾屆總統，有投票權嗎？
如果你初來乍到，對美國政治一無所知，你還真得省省了，別拿熱臉去貼人家共和黨的冷PG，人家不待見你這號的主:)當然，如果你是個有錢的白人，那就另當別論了。

[nywalker]

回複LaoChu的評論:

I want to know the reason(s) why we can not talk about AIG's bailout?

[gasbag]

回複LaoChu的評論:
估計這位可能蹲坑時候偶爾看了兩眼貨幣戰爭之類的書，變得高深了

[noso]

回複LaoChu的評論:

ever heard of Freedom of Speach?

We are taxpayers, that's who we are. We are paying for all those BS that 's what we are focred to do.

[LaoChu]

你們都是些什麽人? AIG這樣的事也是你們討論的?
知道這次金融危機的本質是什麽嗎?

YOU CANNOT HANDLE THE TRUTH!

[noso]

回複HCC的評論:

let's be clear, first of all, Clinton left money on paper, there is no money left. second of all, Bush did spend like crazy, but Obama could reserve the spending not expend it.

No sir. With his own words: " it is all about spend."

Does Obama and Democrates care about who is going to pay for this?

Not a bit.

[HCC]

One thing though:
>>>奧巴馬上台不到60天，製造出美國曆史上最大的政府開支計劃和赤字

He may have proposed the biggest government bailout, but the deficit? That was from Bush. Clinton left one of the greatest surplus in history, and Bush turned that around.

[noso]

回複萱草花的評論:

同哀。。。　謝謝。

[萱草花]

要說民主黨就是一幫烏合之眾都算高抬他們了。唉，國將不國啊！

[noso]

回複duffer的評論:

說得太對了。謝謝。

[不怕做不到就怕想不到]

法律給這些經濟罪犯發紅包，法律卻不去製裁這些經濟罪犯，不把他們投到監獄裏麵去。腐敗，最無恥的腐敗，所有的這些政客都被收買了，包括奧巴馬。

[duffer]

you are right. This is a show. A show O8 has to perform to curb the angry of people, to try to draw a line between this mess and his administration.

For other posters, this mess is created by congress and government, by GOP and Demos, by crooks in wallstreet.

This shows bail out is such a rushed idea without any thoughtful process. This shows for so many years we ignored the economy basics and tried to use economy for own political agenda.

[不怕做不到就怕想不到]

法律保護給他們發紅包，法律卻不去懲罰他們違反法律的罪過。真是笑話，老百姓總是被玩弄的對象。

[noso]

回複buzz的評論:

在BAIL—OUT問題上，前總統布什政府有負責。

但民主黨把持的國會一沒製止，二在奧巴馬上台後變本加厲揮霍納稅人的錢。紅包的事早就白紙黑字寫在那裏。　國會大員接受AIG的時候，是沒看見啊還是裝著沒看見？

有73人拿$100萬以上的紅包，其中11人已經離開AIG。知道拿RETAINING紅包的都是些什麽人嗎？

都是要人家走或人家要走，公司（政府）出來挽留人家，說您先別走，　您幫幫忙，再工作一段時間，到時候，有紅包給您。到日子政府不給錢，翻臉不認人，跟打發民工有什麽區別？這些打工的不是什麽萬惡的資本家。　嫌給人錢多了，當初有本事您別留人家。

這個道理再簡單不過了。

政客們（民主黨共和黨全算上）慷慨激昂，義憤填膺，跟真的似的，表演該收場了。

[注冊一次成功]

現在拿錢發錢就是政治不正確. 其實這個很好辦, 打個白條先, 將來脫困了, 再來拿也行. 白條是白宮的背書. 奧8簽字, 說不定過幾年, 這白條比什麽都值錢.

[buzz]

GOP created all the problem, Obama is trying to fix it... the system is broken, if there is a party and a person can fix it, it won't be GOP! It got to be Obama, so far what he has done is good. I wish he would take bolder action -- put those guys in jail!

Down GOP -- it is the back of these bankers!

[noso]

回複nywalker的評論:

你的觀點很好。

謝謝！

[ihope2]

看不懂作者想說什麽。 奧巴馬批評AIG有什麽不對嗎？況且這事還沒完呢。

[nywalker]

歐巴馬隻是象競選時喊喊話。政客從來不為納稅人考慮。拯救AIG就是
一個實例。

整個拯救計劃中，政府根本沒有規定AIG應該怎樣花納稅人的錢，更沒有監督具體的執行情況。等於是說“嘿AIG,需要多少？1750億？好，那去花吧!"

人家AIG與員工有合同，政府在接管AIG時一沒聲明任何此類合同無效，二沒修改此類合同，你政府憑什麽事後責備AIG？人家隻是履行一個由法律效應的合同。納稅人要怪隻能怪政府對納稅人的錢不負責任！跟AIG沒關係。你應該感謝AIG沒有把每個員工的工資都提到最高限額的50萬元同時發最高的獎金！反正是政府買單，政府又沒有規定新公司該如何花納稅人的錢。不發白不發！

有人說“如果沒有納稅人的錢，AIG的獎金合同早作廢了。“，這是廢話！事實是政府已經給了AIG一千七百五十億美元，AIG自己也明白它已經成功地跟政客們綁在一起了，因為沒有政客會承認拯救AIG是錯誤的決定，更沒有政客會為拯救AIG負責，現在讓AIG垮台，1750億就完全泡湯了。

AIG會繼續拿到更多的政府的拯救款。由政府買單，為什麽不繼續發獎金？！Go AIG! F* 納稅人！

[gasbag]

不滿民主黨政策可以理解，但是凹八刺激經濟提案中earmarks按照費用排列的頭10名有6個是由共和黨議員提出來的，其中包括花費最高的頭兩名。更具諷刺意義的是，提earmark案的共和黨人，知道提案肯定通過，所以反而投反對票，政治，經濟資本兩不誤。。

建議以後發言之前多做調查研究

[LLC]

AIG should crash!

[showme]

Can anyone do better than Obama? Yes, Noso can!

[cmucaptain]

AGREE!!!!