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？
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。”
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.
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)
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 發表評論於
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 發表評論於
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
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.
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%.
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 發表評論於
>>>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 發表評論於
回複noso的評論:
If the capitalism does not work, why does bother sticking to it?
中國民主 發表評論於
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 發表評論於
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 發表評論於
回複noso的評論:
Haha, noso, I admire your optimism! Long long live ”阿Q“！
nywalker 發表評論於
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!
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！
I want to know the reason(s) why we can not talk about AIG's bailout?
gasbag 發表評論於
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 發表評論於
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 發表評論於
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 發表評論於
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 發表評論於
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.
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.
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!
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？
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。”
