# Obama Stunned By Bonuses??



## MA-Caver (Mar 19, 2009)

Is anyone else surprised besides the President about the AIG bonuses thing? You mean he didn't think they would do that? How long ago did we find bankers misappropriating the bail out funds they were given? Are insurance companies different somehow than bankers? Morally, ethically? Remember we're talking insurance companies... the ones who try to sell us insurance for us to pay on for the rest of our natural born lives and then subtract amounts from death benefits because it was borrowed upon. 


> *Obama tells Leno he was stunned by AIG bonuses*
> 
> 
> By MARK S. SMITH, Associated Press Writer        Mark S. Smith, Associated Press Writer               1 hr 1 min ago
> ...


Tell me Mr. President; how do you propose to do that? Garnish their wages? 

If he really REALLY wants to bail out somebody then bail US out... the little guys the people of the U.S. from whom the money comes from in the first place. How many people would love to have the money in a lump sum to pay off their mortgages? Wouldn't being able to pay off the mortgages likewise "bail-out" the mortgages companies? Oh, yeah right... they'd lose thousands.. excuse me millions in interest rates. Well... :idunno: umm, maybe the next batch of people can line your already lined coffers. 
How many credit card debts can be wiped out with a simple bail out to the people? 
Dunno why the concept of owning your own business to the point that you can't take care of it long enough to stay afloat in hard times is so hard that you'd need millions/billions to help you when you look into your own private accounts and the money to keep the business afloat is RIGHT there but no, it means having to downgrade your plush lifestyle and posh living. 
Well hey cousin... Pffffftttttt!! 



> Too many in Washington are trying to figure out who to blame for things  when they should be focused on fixing them, Obama said.


We do need to get out of the sibling habit of blaming and get into the parental habit of finding a solution to the problems facing us... one of them I think is to stop giving money to the ones who blew it in the first place.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Mar 19, 2009)

Who is to blame?

Every last one of them who voted for the gods damned thing without reading it, without checking it, without making sure that it really was the best possible option, and had all of the required safeguards it needed.

After all, it was over 400 fracking pages!!!!!!!

Surely, there was room for the words "not to be used to pay bonuses, raises or other such" in between the lines "$10 million for arrow fletchers in Nevada" and "$50 million for Rum".


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 19, 2009)

The White House, as it will eventually come out, insisted on the bonuses.  Oh yeah!  Dodd is a fall guy.  I'm not sure why he's being made to fall on his sword, but he is.  Geithner is a goner too.

http://www.factcheck.org/politics/blame_dodd_attacks_ignore_facts.html


> As was widely reported at the time, *Dodd's language was much tougher than the White House wanted.* No such language appeared in the version passed by the House. When the two versions went to a Senate-House conference to work out a final compromise, Dodd's strict ban was rewritten. Most important, the final bill said the prohibition on bonus payments (page 404) ...   *H.R. 1, Final version: *... shall not be construed to prohibit any bonus payment required to be paid pursuant to a written employment contract executed on or before February 11, 2009, as such valid employment contracts are determined by the Secretary or the designee of the Secretary.
> ​In simple language, Dodd's ban would have applied to AIG and any institution that had yet to repay TARP funds, regardless of whether existing employment contracts called for the bonuses. The bill that emerged from the House-Senate conference committee, and was signed into law by President Obama, only applies to bonus agreements made after Feb. 11.


----------



## Gordon Nore (Mar 19, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Oh yeah!  Dodd is a fall guy.  I'm not sure why he's being made to fall on his sword, but he is.  Geithner is a goner too.



If Dodd doesn't get re-elected to his seat, I'm sure there will be a parachute. Geithner is now on the radar -- I don't think he'll last.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 19, 2009)

Gordon Nore said:


> If Dodd doesn't get re-elected to his seat, I'm sure there will be a parachute. Geithner is now on the radar -- I don't think he'll last.



Obama expressed his 'full faith and confidence' in Geithner, that's the Mafia kiss of death.  Echoes of "Brownie, you're doing a heck of a job."  Too bad, Geithner seemed to be a bit of a wiz-kid, even if he has a basic contempt for paying taxes.


----------



## Hand Sword (Mar 19, 2009)

From what I heard, If AIG's donation background is checked Dodd and.........Obama are numbers 1 and 2 for funds received by them. No wonder it went through, with Dodd admitting he's the reason (after lying about not knowing) it did. Surprise? Hardly! They are all guilty of using the situation to get their ideas through. Dodd, Barney Frank, etc.. It's only beginning.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Mar 19, 2009)

*cough* traitors *cough*


----------



## Hand Sword (Mar 19, 2009)

Can our congress people be fired? (if they had any sense of honor they'd quit!)


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 19, 2009)

Hand Sword said:


> From what I heard, If AIG's donation background is checked Dodd and.........Obama are numbers 1 and 2 for funds received by them. No wonder it went through, with Dodd admitting he's the reason (after lying about not knowing) it did. Surprise? Hardly! They are all guilty of using the situation to get their ideas through. Dodd, Barney Frank, etc.. It's only beginning.



I don't think it was the donations.  McCain was #3 on the list.  And it was donations by AIG employees, not AIG.

http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/did_aig_give_100000_to_obama.html



> During the 2008 election, presidential candidate Barack Obama received more than any other federal candidate, a total of $104,332, according to CRP's tabulation. Senate Banking Committee Chairman Chris Dodd, a Democrat, received the second-highest amount, $103,900. And Sen. John McCain, the Republican presidential nominee, received the third highest amount, $59,499. (These are donations from individual employees of the company or its political action committee, not donations from the company itself.)


----------



## Hand Sword (Mar 19, 2009)

I get that, but from a personal view..I'm tired of the splitting of hairs that both parties use. "It's not the company...just those who work for it" or "It's political action committee?" To me it's all the same. The workers for the company are the company IMHO. Those who are linked are linked and they are linked to the company they are linked to.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 19, 2009)

Hand Sword said:


> I get that, but from a personal view..I'm tired of the splitting of hairs that both parties use. "It's not the company...just those who work for it" or "It's political action committee?" To me it's all the same. The workers for the company are the company IMHO. Those who are linked are linked and they are linked to the company they are linked to.



Not unless you want to call me a company toady too.  I work for a big company.  I make political donations.  I'm nobody's butt-kisser, nor has anyone ever suggested that I donate to this or that cause in order to make things better for my boss.  I suspect most people are just like me - we have jobs, we work, but our political beliefs are our own.


----------



## Hand Sword (Mar 19, 2009)

I'm not calling anyone anything. If I did- I would to yours or anybody elses face. All I'm saying, when things are this big, with few individuals making up the board of trustees for MANY corporations, some that the average person would even see a link too, there is cause for suspicion. Politicians don't fight so hard for them when the voting pop. is pissed or try and sneak things through (admittedly) without a connection I've alluded too.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Mar 19, 2009)

Hand Sword said:


> Can our congress people be fired? (if they had any sense of honor they'd quit!)


Yes, every November We The People get a chance to fire them.
We keep rewarding them because we don't take the time to consider other than the Dem/Reps.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Mar 19, 2009)

Bob Hubbard said:


> Yes, every November We The People get a chance to fire them.
> We keep rewarding them because we don't take the time to consider other than the Dem/Reps.





> *  Watch AIG's payouts, not the bonuses, Spitzer says *
> 
> 
> 
> ...


http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/19/aig.spitzer/index.html



> *  House passes bill taxing Wall Street bonuses*
> 
> 
> 
> ...


http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/19/bonus.bill/index.html

One screwup to fix another, to fix another, to fix another.




I just shredded my copy of the US Constitution. We don't need it anymore it seems.


----------



## crushing (Mar 20, 2009)

I agree with Spitzer, follow the money!  The retention bonuses are such a tiny part of the bailout and the manufactured outrage is likely to serve as a distraction for what is really going on.  Why did so much of US taxpayer money that AIG recieved end up going to help European banks that were even more leveraged and made even worse decisions than many of the US financial institutions?

Also, despite what ignorant politicians and talking heads are saying, it is not uncommon for a company that may be at the end of it's life to give bonuses to keep the experienced people in critical positions on until the end.  That is not a performance bonus, it is a retention bonus.


----------



## arnisador (Mar 20, 2009)

Can you recall Congressmen in every state or only some?

The 90% tax seems like a Bill of Attainder--not literally, of course, but it still rankles. The recipients of those bonuses are doing something unseemly, but not illegal. Targeting  their salaries and other remuneration by law is the wrong solution. That having been said, I think an honourable person would have declined, or at least deferred, such a bonus.

By all I've read, AIG was contractually obligated to pay these bonuses and could've been sued for 2x the bonus + damages if they didn't. That could've cost the taxpayers more (and been a court order so Congress would find it harder to mess with it)...and driven anyone actually talented out of AIG out of it.

Well, if John McCain had been elected he and Sarah Palin were going to maverick on down to Wall Street and root this kind of thing out...I say, they're honouring their contracts. Let's judge them moving forward.


----------



## JadeDragon3 (Mar 20, 2009)

Bob Hubbard said:


> Who is to blame?


 
Obama is to blame, thats who.  It's because of his inexperience that he didn't read the whole damn bailout plan.  

It's his inexperience when he decided to bill vets for combat related injuries and then when he saw the outrage by the American Legion and others he decided against it.  If he were experienced he would have realized that the people would never stand for that one.  

I think that the blinders are slowly starting to come off all those who voted for the "Messiah" (Barack Hussein Obama).  Thank God.  

The sooner he's out of office the better we'll all be.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Mar 20, 2009)

Obama was -1- of 50 Senators.

 				How the Senate voted Wednesday on the financial bailout bill (S. Amdt. 5685 to H.R. 1424):
 Akaka (D-HI), Yea 
Alexander (R-TN), Yea 
Allard (R-CO), Nay 
Barrasso (R-WY), Nay 
Baucus (D-MT), Yea 
Bayh (D-IN), Yea 
Bennett (R-UT), Yea 
Biden (D-DE), Yea 
Bingaman (D-NM), Yea 
Bond (R-MO), Yea 
Boxer (D-CA), Yea 
Brown (D-OH), Yea 
Brownback (R-KS), Nay 
Bunning (R-KY), Nay 
Burr (R-NC), Yea 
Byrd (D-WV), Yea 
Cantwell (D-WA), Nay 
Cardin (D-MD), Yea 
Carper (D-DE), Yea 
Casey (D-PA), Yea 
Chambliss (R-GA), Yea 
Clinton (D-NY), Yea 
Coburn (R-OK), Yea 
Cochran (R-MS), Nay 
Coleman (R-MN), Yea 
Collins (R-ME), Yea 
Conrad (D-ND), Yea 
Corker (R-TN), Yea 
Cornyn (R-TX), Yea 
Craig (R-ID), Yea 
Crapo (R-ID), Nay 
DeMint (R-SC), Nay 
Dodd (D-CT), Yea 
Dole (R-NC), Nay 
Domenici (R-NM), Yea 
Dorgan (D-ND), Nay 
Durbin (D-IL), Yea 
Ensign (R-NV), Yea 
Enzi (R-WY), Nay 
Feingold (D-WI), Nay 
Feinstein (D-CA), Yea 
Graham (R-SC), Yea 
Grassley (R-IA), Yea 
Gregg (R-NH), Yea 
Hagel (R-NE), Yea 
Harkin (D-IA), Yea 
Hatch (R-UT), Yea 
Hutchison (R-TX), Yea 
Inhofe (R-OK), Nay 
Inouye (D-HI), Yea 
Isakson (R-GA), Yea 
Johnson (D-SD), Nay 
Kennedy (D-MA), Not Voting 
Kerry (D-MA), Yea 
Klobuchar (D-MN), Yea 
Kohl (D-WI), Yea 
Kyl (R-AZ), Yea 
Landrieu (D-LA), Nay 
Lautenberg (D-NJ), Yea 
Leahy (D-VT), Yea 
Levin (D-MI), Yea 
Lieberman (ID-CT), Yea 
Lincoln (D-AR), Yea 
Lugar (R-IN), Yea 
Martinez (R-FL), Yea 
McCain (R-AZ), Yea 
McCaskill (D-MO), Yea 
McConnell (R-KY), Yea 
Menendez (D-NJ), Yea 
Mikulski (D-MD), Yea 
Murkowski (R-AK), Yea 
Murray (D-WA), Yea 
Nelson (D-FL), Nay 
Nelson (D-NE), Yea 
Obama (D-IL), Yea 
Pryor (D-AR), Yea 
Reed (D-RI), Yea 
Reid (D-NV), Yea 
Roberts (R-KS), Nay 
Rockefeller (D-WV), Yea 
Salazar (D-CO), Yea 
Sanders (I-VT), Nay 
Schumer (D-NY), Yea 
Sessions (R-AL), Nay 
Shelby (R-AL), Nay 
Smith (R-OR), Yea 
Snowe (R-ME), Yea 
Specter (R-PA), Yea 
Stabenow (D-MI), Nay 
Stevens (R-AK), Yea 
Sununu (R-NH), Yea 
Tester (D-MT), Nay 
Thune (R-SD), Yea 
Vitter (R-LA), Nay 
Voinovich (R-OH), Yea 
Warner (R-VA), Yea 
Webb (D-VA), Yea 
Whitehouse (D-RI), Yea 
Wicker (R-MS), Nay 
Wyden (D-OR), Nay


Anyone with a Yea by their name is responsible.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 20, 2009)

This is the best take on it I've read so far...

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/20/pm.aig.obama/index.html?iref=mpstoryview


> There was no reason for anyone in Washington to be surprised: AIG has been under government control for months and it announced the bonus payouts well in advance.
> But President Obama spoke as if they were a sudden shock.
> He announced his administration would "pursue every legal avenue" to block the payments.





> In fact, the bonuses are written into contracts the administration is reluctant to break. Republicans and Democrats are rushing to suggest ways to get at the money nonetheless.
> *Attacking AIG is smart populist politics*, an easy way to exploit the outrage of ordinary voters. The president also has a much bigger political goal.
> Obama isn't through bailing out the U.S. economy or spending billions to do it.
> *If Americans come to believe that they are being tricked into subsidizing scoundrels, they're not likely to support the president's plans.*


----------



## shesulsa (Mar 20, 2009)

Bob Hubbard said:


> Cantwell (D-WA), Nay
> Murray (D-WA), Yea



One has to wonder if they plan it.

Other Western state votes:


Boxer (D-CA), Yea
Feinstein (D-CA), Yea


Smith (R-OR), Yea
Wyden (D-OR), Nay


Craig (R-ID), Yea 
Crapo (R-ID), Nay 


Ensign (R-NV), Yea
Reid (D-NV), Yea 


Kyl (R-AZ), Yea
McCain (R-AZ), Yea


Baucus (D-MT), Yea
Tester (D-MT), Nay


Allard (R-CO), Nay 
Salazar (D-CO), Yea


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Mar 20, 2009)

Biden (D-DE), Yea 
Clinton (D-NY), Yea
McCain (R-AZ), Yea 
Obama (D-IL), Yea 

Maybe they should have read it.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 20, 2009)

Bob Hubbard said:


> Biden (D-DE), Yea
> Clinton (D-NY), Yea
> McCain (R-AZ), Yea
> Obama (D-IL), Yea
> ...



I'm sure none of them knew this particular issue was going to pop up and become a news item.  Nor that it would be used as a fulcrum to create some manufactured outrage.

Seriously, this whole thing is a red-herring.  You can be sure that the real action is happening someplace else - not here.  This is a ruse, a distraction, and you and the rest of America are falling for it bigtime.  Don't let the media lead you around by the nose and tell you want to be outraged at.

Here is where the magician's other hand is:

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=aOsvwdYztl7Q&refer=news

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123749350368087807.html

_



			I don't want to spark any more conspiracy theories - surely we have enough already in today's fevered environment - but the number one holder of these bonds is the Chinese government. They became America's lead banker late last year. Last Friday the prime minister, Wen Jiabao, took the extraordinary step of telling the world how "worried" he was about his government's estimated $740 billion worth of Treasury bonds. At the time they had been sliding. *A few days later the Federal Reserve offered to bid them up with taxpayers' funds and they started rising again.*

Click to expand...

_
_



			It is hardly a confident sign when one of the few big customers left for US government paper is the US government. It smacks of a bar that starts to sell a lot of booze to the owner. On credit.
		
Click to expand...

_
This is the first time in fifty years this has been tried in the US.  It's big news, but it is being completely ignored.  As planned.  We're too busy being outraged about a few hundred million, while trillions are going sliding out under our noses.


----------



## shesulsa (Mar 20, 2009)

Since I'm the Procrastinatora Ultima, I copied and pasted the data you provided, Bob, verbatim, into a spreadsheet format, splitting it into columns of name, state, party, vote.  Then I ran a couple of data sorts and ran a couple of numbers:

There are 49 Democratic senators
There are 49 Republican senators
There are 2 Independent party senators


_Of the Democrats:_
39 voted yea  = 73.59% of the Dem vote
9 voted nay = 18.37% of the Dem vote
1 not voting = 2.04% of the Dem vote

_Of the Independants:_
1 voted yea = 50% of the Ind vote
1 voted nay = 50% of the Ind vote

_Of the Republicans:_
34 voted yea = 69.39% of the Rep vote
15 voted nay = 30.61% of the Rep vote


That's a total of 74% voting yea, 25% voting nay and 1% not voting.

I would encourage everyone to write their senators.


----------



## JadeDragon3 (Mar 20, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Seriously, this whole thing is a red-herring. You can be sure that the real action is happening someplace else - not here. This is a ruse, a distraction, and you and the rest of America are falling for it bigtime. Don't let the media lead you around by the nose and tell you what to be outraged at.


 
Sorry but I'm already outraged that America has voted in this pompous, arrogant, narcicistic man as president. I take it that your one of those liberal demcrats. I can't stand Barack Hussein Obama. He is going to ruin this country. He's inexperienced and doesn't know what in the hell he's doing.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 20, 2009)

JadeDragon3 said:


> Sorry but I'm already outraged that America has voted in this pompous, arrogant, narcicistic man as president. I take it that your one of those liberal demcrats. I can't stand Barack Hussein Obama. He is going to ruin this country. He's inexperienced and doesn't know what in the hell he's doing.



You take it incorrectly.

I'm not liberal, I'm conservative.

I'm not a Democrat, although I am not a Republican, either.  I'm much closer to the Republican Party than I am the Democratic party, though.  I'm a Goldwater conservative, if that means anything to you.

I did not vote for Barack Obama, but he is my President and I want him to succeed, to the extent that I want America to succeed.

I don't say _"Barack Hussein Obama"_ as if the word *"Hussein"* held some special meaning because I am not a racist.  You might want to knock it off; it makes you look like an angry racist.  I'm sure you're not one, but that's how it makes you look.

The country was already ruined when he got into office.  I do not agree with the way he is going about fixing it, but he didn't break it.  It was pre-broken.

He *is* inexperienced, but the only Presidents who are experienced (at being President) are second-termers, and they only get another four years to be experienced.

You misunderstood my criticism.

My point is not that AIG is great - they're not - they're bad.  I get it.

My point is that AIG's bonus situation was well-known to everyone involved long before it became a news item - everyone is expressing their shock and dismay, but they all knew about it.  The links I posted prove that.

And when the government AND the media tell YOU to _"look over there, get outraged, jump up and down"_ *and you DO IT, you're being used*.  Is that really want you want?

You are being led by the nose by the left-leaning media, who are taking their marching orders from the White House.  Stop being a lapdog for Obama.  He wants you to be outraged by AIG's puny bonuses, so you won't notice the 1 TRILLION dollars the Fed just pumped into government bonds, essentially propping up the bond market for the benefit of our new lords and masters, the Chinese, and devaluing our currency by printing a trillion dollars of new money for no good reason at all.

This AIG thing is a red herring, meant to distract.  It worked, huh?


----------



## JadeDragon3 (Mar 20, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> You take it incorrectly.
> 
> I'm not liberal, I'm conservative.
> 
> ...


 
I'm not a racist either....he's the one who insisted on being sworn in using his middle name.  He normally does not use his middle name but when being sworn in he wanted to use it.  

Second termers are not the only ones with experience in governing.  For example Sarah Palin had experience in that she was a mayor and govenor of a state.  Ronald Reagan had experience as Govenor of California, Thomas Jefferson was govenor of Virginia, Bill Clinton had experience his first term because he had governed Arkansas, George W. Bush had experience when he took office because he had been gov. of Texas.  What did Obama have experience at doing???? Being a organizational leader for ACORN??  Look at what happened there.  Did being a senator for 4 years give him the experience? No.  He only voted present 140 something time that whole 4 years.  Obama was a bad choice for president.  He will ruin us by the time his term is up.  Yes things were bad with Bush but things will be 1000 times worse with Obama.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Mar 20, 2009)

> Obama was a bad choice for president. He will ruin us by the time his term is up. Yes things were bad with Bush but things will be 1000 times worse with Obama.



Yes.
Him and Congress will.
Yep, they were.
Yep, they will be, especially with the current crop of treasonous weasels in Congress.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 20, 2009)

JadeDragon3 said:


> I'm not a racist either....he's the one who insisted on being sworn in using his middle name.  He normally does not use his middle name but when being sworn in he wanted to use it.



With respect - continuing to harp on the 'middle name' thing is a small angry act of a small angry person.  

It's his name.  If his middle name was _"Joseph"_ we would not be having this conversation - so it is something about _"Hussein"_ that gets people so riled up.  

Racism may not be your motive - but it is one of the few real reasons that might exist for this irrational fixation on the man's name.  

It is reasonable for people to presume (and a lot of them do) that others who cannot stop themselves from mentioning it as if spitting a curse word "Barack *HUSSEIN* Obama," are indeed racists, bigots, or worse.

That's why I suggesting dropping it, because it makes the person harping on it sound like a racist.


----------



## Gordon Nore (Mar 20, 2009)

JadeDragon3 said:


> I'm not a racist either....he's the one who insisted on being sworn in using his middle name.  He normally does not use his middle name but when being sworn in he wanted to use it.



So what?

Ever hear of...
George *Walker* Bush? 
William *Jefferson* Clinton? 
George *Herbert Walker* Bush?
Richard *Milhous* Nixon?
John *Fitzgerald* Kennedy?
Franklin *Delano* Roosevelt?

They were all sworn in using their middles names. Notable exceptions: Dwight *D.* Eisenhower, Harry *S.* Trueman, and Gerald *R.* Ford. The audio of LBJ's swearing in aboard Air Force One does not include his name.






I don't know that your President insisted on using his middle name; rather it appears he opted to do so, just like many of his peers.


----------



## arnisador (Mar 20, 2009)

JadeDragon3 said:


> I'm not a racist either....he's the one who insisted on being sworn in using his middle name.  He normally does not use his middle name but when being sworn in he wanted to use it.



That's quite standard in such circumstances.


----------



## crushing (Mar 21, 2009)

[YT]Tz1yeX8Fh30[/YT]


----------



## JadeDragon3 (Mar 23, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> With respect - continuing to harp on the 'middle name' thing is a small angry act of a small angry person.
> 
> It's his name. If his middle name was _"Joseph"_ we would not be having this conversation - so it is something about _"Hussein"_ that gets people so riled up.
> 
> ...


 
I'm not continuing to harp on it.  Just  merely pointing out a fact.  But since you told me not to harp on it......Hussein Hussein Hussein Hussein Hussein.


----------



## arnisador (Mar 23, 2009)

"I cried because I had no middle name until I met a man with the middle name 'Hussein'."
-*Harry S Truman

*


----------

