Article: Soros, Tyson, Martin Wolf to Headline Discussion on What Will (or Won't) Replace US Consumer

Soros, Tyson, Martin Wolf to Headline Discussion on What Will (or Won't) Replace US Consumer

By Steve Clemons - March 22, 2009, 4:43PM

Regrettably, the Obama administration seems to be fumbling the ball on an economic policy course that restores confidence in the American economy on both the optics level and also on a substantive front that reorganizes the "social contract" and design of the real economy in the U.S.

Obama, in his 'loyalty' to his current economic team and the mistakes they are making is the antithesis of Abraham Lincoln. Obama may have tried to mimic Lincoln's "team of rivals" approach to politics -- but he needs to read the chapters on the number of generals Lincoln fired during the Civil War to finally get things moved forward.

Obama may need to fire a number of his economic generals who have been trying to restore Wall Street to what it once was -- not boldly and critically reorganize the financial sector in a way that the dysfunctional behavior that characterized its bubble success is dismantled and reshaped.

Civil society should not wait quietly while Obama's team continues to fumble -- and while its key economic policy chiefs play "point the finger" at their colleagues behind the scenes. It's time for serious discussion about what needs to be done. . .and we need better benchmarks than we have for applauding, critiquing, and simply measuring the policy steps the administration is taking.

Paul Krugman, James Galbraith, Joseph Stiglitz, Robert Reich, Robert Kuttner and others have been invaluable commentators and truth-tellers on the macro and micro dimensions of the economic policy steps and missteps the Obama team has been making.

Under the auspices of the New America Foundation Economic Growth Program,Next Social Contract Initiative, and Smart Globalization Initiative -- my colleagues and I are organizing a set of economic policy forums that are going to raise questions about our economic policy course.

The first "Bernard L. Schwartz Economic Policy Symposium" will take place in Washington at the New America Foundation offices on Thursday, 26 March 2009. Attendance information is here.

Financier and former Loral CEO Bernard Schwartz has been trying to push the administration and Congress to realize that there are different kinds of deficits the nation has to struggle with -- and the most important in his mind is leaving an "infrastruture deficit" to the next generation. He will be helping to open this important conference.

Philanthropist and investor George Soros will also be speaking -- and has been pushing a five point plan for the Obama team to consider. His new book is about to appear -- but a short primer piece of his recently appeared on Huffington Post and outlined five key points of an economic recovery plan that the Obama team has flubbed up on for the most part:

1. A fiscal stimulus package

2. A thorough overhaul of the mortgage system

3. Recapitalization of the banking system

4. An innovative energy policy

5. Reform of the international financial system

Former National Economic Adviser to President Clinton, Laura D'Andrea Tyson, will also be engaging in a discussion with Chief Economics Commentator and Associate Editor of the Financial Times Martin Wolf. Wolf, who recently authored the book Fixing Global Finance thinks that there is very little that can be done at present time to respond to the collapse of consumption by American consumers that have been the essential driver of global growth. Tyson has been very focused on the question of what America needs to do to rewire a "new social contract" with middle class American workers who have been left behind by the patterns of economic growth in the past.

I have been suggesting for some time that "Tysonomics" -- which recognizes a need for government prioritizing of certain strategic sectors and of regulation -- is very different than the Rubinomics that dominated the Clinton administration (even when Laura Tyson worked for it) and which arguably were at the root of much of the deregulatory, neoliberal mania that helped hatch the economic disaster the nation and world find themselves in today.

Others in this conference will be Mark Zandi, Chief Economist and Co-Founder, Moody's Economy.com as well as author of Financial Shock: Global Panic and Government Bailouts -- How We Got Here and What Must Be Done to Fix It;Tom Gallagher, Senior Managing Director, International Strategy and Investment (ISI) Group; Richard Vague, Chairman and CEO, Energy Plus and Founder and Former Chairman & CEO, First USA Bank; Leo Hindery, Managing Partner, Inter-Media Partners and former CEO, AT&T Broadband Network as well as Former CEO, Yankee Entertainment and Sports Network -- who has been writing recently on the "Obama job creation deficit"; Jeff Madrick, Director of Policy Research, Schwartz Center for Economic Policy Analysis, The New School and author most recently of The Case for Big Government.

Also. . .Sherle R. Schwenninger, Director, Economic Growth Program, New America Foundation; William Gerrity, Chairman and CEO, Gerrity International; Clyde V. Prestowitz, Jr., President and Founder, Economic Strategy Institute; Nicholas Lardy who recently co-authored China's Rise: Challenges and Opportunities and is Senior Fellow, Peterson Institute for International Economics; and finally one of the most prescient forecasters of today's major economic crisis -- Desmond Lachman, Resident Fellow, American Enterprise Institute.

I will be moderating the meeting along with my colleague Sherle Schwenninger and New America Foundation President and New Yorker staff writer Steve Coll.

Bernard Schwartz. . .George Soros. . .Laura Tyson. . .Martin Wolf. . .Clyde Prestowitz. . .Desmond Lachman. . .Tom Gallagher. . .Steve Coll. . .Mark Zandi. . .William Gerrity. . .Leo Hindery. . .Richard Vague. . .Nicholas Lardy. . .Jeff Madrick. . .Sherle Schwenninger. . .and others make up quite a line up for a great meeting.

For those who are deeply interested in these issues, I should note that George Soros' revised book (in paperback) will be released next week on March 30th and is titled The Crash of 2008 and What it Means: The New Paradigm for Financial Markets. Soros will also have a major economic policy critique/op-ed in tomorrow's (Monday, 23 March) Financial Times and another economic policy op-ed in Tuesday's (24 March) Wall Street Journal. Leo Hindery will have a front cover featured article on the Obama administration's job creation deficit in the April 1 edition of The Nation which should be online early this next week.

This entire conference will STREAM LIVE at The Washington Note between approximately 8:30 am and 1:00 pm EST on Thursday, 26 March 2009.

If you would like to attend, RSVP information is here.

The purpose we have in organizing this meeting is to try and position some of the key issues that should be considered at the London G-20 meeting and to begin to emphasize that the fumbling on economic policy needs to stop.

It's time to begin organizing a Team B economic policy effort -- even if it is organized by a network of concerned civil society leaders.

-- Steve Clemons publishes the popular political blog, The Washington Note

AIG Exec Bonuses: "Logic" Critiques (post 1 of 2)

Dear all,

I am contributing to the blog, Obama IS America!. I just read 2 articles - one in the NY Times and one on Anderson Cooper's blog. These articles ENRAGE me. They discuss reasons for why the government and other entities are justifying GIANT corporate bonuses to AIG.

To me, the logic being used is complete and utter bull**** of the stankiest kind. It makes me think that the 'powers that be' think that I am stupid. Well, unfortunately for them, I am not.

Let's review the "logic" for why bonuses should be paid, as expressed in these articles.

I am going to write 2 blog posts - one for each article. This post will be on the NY Times article, called "The Case for Paying Out Bonuses at AIG," written by Andrew Ross Sorkin.

The second blog post (which you can access by clicking HERE) will critique the Anderson Cooper blog post written by Ed Henry. This article presents the "logic" of Obama's chief economic advisor Larry Summers as well as Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner.

I will present the argument of the NY Times article (as represented by direct quotes from the article itself), and will then critique it. I will then do the same with the AC blog post.

NY Times:

1. Excuse for why they should get their bonuses #1 - The 'fundamental value' of contracts is sacred, and should not be messed with, even in this situation. Quote:

...The “fundamental value” in question here is the sanctity of contracts.

That may strike many people as a bit of convenient legalese, but maybe there is something to it. If you think this economy is a mess now, imagine what it would look like if the business community started to worry that the government would start abrogating contracts left and right.

As much as we might want to void those A.I.G. pay contracts, Pearl Meyer, a compensation consultant at Steven Hall & Partners, says it would put American business on a worse slippery slope than it already is. Business agreements of other companies that have taken taxpayer money might fall into question. Even companies that have not turned to Washington might seize the opportunity to break inconvenient contracts.

If government officials were to break the contracts, they would be “breaking a bond,” Ms. Meyer says. “They are raising a whole new question about the trust and commitment organizations have to their employees.” (The auto industry unions are facing a similar issue — but the big difference is that there is a negotiation; no one is unilaterally tearing up contracts.)

2. Excuse for why they should get their bonuses #2:

A.I.G. built this bomb, and it may be the only outfit that really knows how to defuse it.

A.I.G. employees concocted complex derivatives that then wormed their way through the global financial system. If they leave — the buzz on Wall Street is that some have, and more are ready to — they might simply turn around and trade against A.I.G.’s book. Why not? They know how bad it is. They built it.

So as unpalatable as it seems, taxpayers need to keep some of these brainiacs in their seats, if only to prevent them from turning against the company. In the end, we may actually be better off if they can figure out how to unwind these tricky investments.

3. Here is the logic for why bonuses were written into executive contracts in the first place:

A.I.G. knew it needed to keep its people.

That is the explanation offered by Edward M. Liddy, who was installed as A.I.G.’s chief executive when the government effectively nationalized the company last fall. (He is being paid $1 a year.)

“We cannot attract and retain the best and brightest talent to lead and staff” the company “if employees believe that their compensation is subject to continued and arbitrary adjustment by the U.S. Treasury,” he said.

4. This article even seems to attempt to envoke pity or empathy from the reader for these executives - note the sentence in parentheses above stating that Mr. Liddy is earning '$1' a year. Yes, that would be $1, 000,000. The article then continues with:

“The jobs are terrible,” said Robert M. Sedgwick, an executive compensation lawyer at Morrison Cohen who represents a number of employees of banks that have taken government money. “You have to read about yourself in the paper every day. These people are leaving as soon as they can.”

4. Finally, the article concludes with the following sentence. 'You' refers to us, the readers/taxpayers/people being screwed over:

Let them leave, you say. Where would they go, given the troubles in the financial industry? But the fact is, the real moneymakers in finance always have a place to go. You can bet that someone would scoop up the talent from A.I.G. and, quite possibly, put it to work — against taxpayers’ interests

So, using this brain that I have been giving and drawing on my knowledge of economics, politics, the law, history, and government action, this is what I think of this "logic":

1. Honoring contracts is, of course, important. Extremely important, especially because contracts legitimate, limit, and delineate so many transactions and relationships in American society, which are only made using contracts because people know that once you sign something you are legally bound to honor what you sign. The importance of upholding contracts is a KEY part of American law and the American Constitution.

HOWEVER, legalese, or legal language is quite amazing at including endless stipulations and limitations to anything and everything. Say, for example, that President Obama signed an executive order (the favorite tool of Bush to make legal whatever he wanted to) that nullified the contracts of AIG corporate executives. There is pretty much no end to the amount of stipulations he could include in the executive order to preserve the sanctity of contracts in general (right, lawyers out there?), in the meantime ensuring that this blatant robbery is stopped. He could say that this executive order ONLY applies in this specific instance due to the nature of the circumstances, being that - AIG is now 80% owned by the people to whom the government is primarily responsible according to its contract with the people (see THIS article); the greed and gambling of these corporate executives is responsible for the loss of lifetimes of savings of the American people/primary shareholders of AIG;  their greed is also responsible at least in part for economic recession around the world.

Additionally, talking about precedent, if the government shuns the outcry of the people - whose interests it is supposed to be primarily representing because this is a Democracy/Republic, and the people are supposed to be the government - it will essentially be choosing to take the side of business over the people. That cannot be a good precedent to set, in the least.

I would also like to note that if the California Supreme Court decides to nullify the 18,000 gay marriages in California, then the government would be nullifying contracts signed between American citizens. I certainly have not heard any outcry anywhere with regard to how terrible and illegal it would be if the government decided to override the power and sanctity of contract with regard to these married couples. At this point, it is pretty unimaginable that someone would say something like "If you think this [country] is a mess now, imagine what it would look like if the [American people] started to worry that the government would start abrogating contracts left and right." Those gay couples and all couples that get married before the law sign marriage contracts because of their faith in the power of the contract and the power of the US government to uphold those contracts. 

2. "AIG built the bomb and is the only entity that knows how to diffuse it." Come on folks, banking is not rocket science. When the atom bomb was built, there were only a handful of people who knew how it worked. AIG is a financial institution and the greedy corporate execs no doubt went to top US business schools and were taught by top notch professors. Well, where are those professors now? Let's put them and their knowledge to use! No matter how messy this AIG situation is, I am SURE that there are people out there with the mental capacity to figure out how to unravel the AIG mess BESIDES the very same bankers who caused this mess in the first place.  Also, just for some context, what if someone had made this same statement about Bush and the war in Iraq?: "Bush built the bomb and is the only entity who knows how to diffuse it." Yeah. Right.   Do I even have to say more?

3.  The fact that AIG's CEO is 'only' making $1, 000, 000 a year really does not make me soften up to this man in the least.  Particularly considering the fact that so many people and families are losing homes and jobs that 'tent cities' are starting to spring up around the country, particularly in California.  And this man is still a millionaire!  Further, saying that 'the jobs are so terrible' and hearing that these 'poor' executives have to read about themselves in the paper everyday also does not strike pity into my heart. I think that not only should these people be reading about themselves in the paper, but they should be forced to meet with the people they have screwed over and they should see their faces and names plastered all over every media outlet in existence.  They should not be allowed to just walk away silently and privately from this job and this mess with millions of dollars.  If they are fighting for public money, their faces and identities should be made public so we can see who it is that we will now be working for.

4. How is it possible that other companies in the financial industry could possibly swoop these people up to use them against the taxpayers? Do these people completely lack any sense of morality whatsoever?  Why are we giving the financial sector billions of dollars without provisions to protect us from future abuse from greedy bankers/corporate executives? I take it that protections are lacking, considering the inclusion of the idea in Sorkin's article that AIG execs could be swooped by other companies that will then cause more ills for the American people.   Additionally, why is it that the only industry that seems to lavishly reward people for incompetence, greed, and failing miserably at their job is the financial industry? If those morons were working pretty much anywhere else, they would be out on the streets to join the tent communities by now. I think it is ridiculous that this 'top talent' will be so 'easily swooped up' by another financial company against which I have no protections.  That is an f'ing joke. 

If the US government can pass the Patriot Act, take away the rights of American citizens in the name of 'national security', torture people in Guantanamo Bay, pass these bailouts in the first place, start wars in other countries (against international protocol), and do a million and one other things that I don't agree with or know about but for which I am paying, I don't understand why the government can't stop these ridiculous bonuses from being paid. 

OBAMA NEEDS TO SAY NO! SOMEONE NEEDS TO SAY NO!!! THIS IS LUDICROUS!!!!

AIG Exec Bonuses: "Logic" Critiques (post 2 of 2)

Click HERE to get to Part 1 of this blog post.

Hey, all:

I am a contributor to this blog, and am writing about and critiquing in this blog post the "logic" contained in the article "Summers: Pushing AIG Might Have Sparked Lehman-Style Crisis," written by Ed Hardy and posted on Anderson Cooper's blog.  This article reviews the "logic" of Obama's senior economic advisor Larry Summers and the US Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner for why corporate execs should get bonuses.  

Prepare yourself for the bull**** contained below.  It smells particularly pungent today.

1.  Apparently, according to Summer, Geithner has 'used all legal authorities' to do what he can to put a stop to giving execs bonuses, but simply can't 1) because of the employment contracts these execs signed and 2) because not giving these people bonuses and breaking their contracts will somehow put the entire financial system at risk.  Quote:

Larry Summers suggested that if Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner had pushed the insurance giant too hard on the bonuses, AIG could have collapsed just like Lehman Brothers and sparked an even bigger crisis.

“Secretary Geithner has used all the legal authorities that are open to him to contain and limit the payment of bonuses,” said Summer, chairman of the National Economic Council. “What he did not do, and what would have been irresponsible to do, as outrageous as these payments are, would have been to put at risk the stability of the financial system. To have courted the kind of disaster that followed the decision to let Lehman Brothers simply collapse might have felt good briefly but it would have touched the lives of a huge number of Americans who would have unnecessarily become unemployed or seen destruction of their lifetime savings.”

Summers said Geithner was notified about the bonuses last week and tried to stop them but ran up against a legal contract. 

2.  According to Summers, Geithner: "courageously has gone after these bonuses and will continue to go after these bonuses in a very aggressive way but we can’t suspend the rule of law and we can’t put the whole economy at risk,” said Summers.

3.  Guess what, even though they are giving millions of dollars in taxpayer money, the government is still willing to give AIG MORE OF OUR MONEY!!!!!: 

Asked whether AIG could get more bailout funds down the road, Summers suggested the door is open to more taxpayer money — despite the bonus controversy.

4.  Summers is clearly in touch with his inner Tao because this article concludes with the following zen-like quote:

“It is wrong to govern out of anger,” said Summers. “We have to recognize what we are angry about, do something about it. That’s why we are focused on a new resolution regime as part of a sweeping overhaul of the financial system … But we can’t let anger stop us from taking the steps that are necessary to maintain the stability of the financial system, keep credit flowing.”

Critique:

1.  How is it possible that not giving bonuses to executives will cause an economic meltdown?  It seems infinitely more logical that not giving them money will help prevent economic meltdown by leaving more money for AIG to use on whatever it needs the money for = keeping more credit flowing for AIG by keeping the credit in the system rather than putting it in the personal bank accounts of greedy executives.  Perhaps the logic is the same as the last article, which implied that not giving bonuses will mean that 'top talent' will leave AIG, leaving them worse off than before.  But, as stated in Post 1, it again makes NO SENSE to call these people 'top talent' as they are the ones that screwed everything up in the first place.  HOW DO THEY STILL HAVE THEIR JOBS AT ALL, NEVERMIND MILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN BONUSES????

2.  I am not convinced.  These are empty words.  Courage was obviously not involved in this Geithner's negotiations, or these bankers would no longer be employed.  If Geithner or ANYONE for that matter in top levels of the US government had any courage at all, this bonus business would be a complete non-issue. 

3.  This makes me LIVID!!!!!!!  If these bonuses pass, these bankers should be required to GIVE THEM BACK IN FULL to the US government, perhaps in the form of tax breaks for low, lower middle, and middle income Americans.  Or maybe in the form of temporary housing for people living in tents.

4.  Summers obviously has a skewed understanding of 'anger' and the causes of 'anger.'  Anger is how I feel right now.  It makes no sense to say that STOPPING this madness of giving the people responsible for US and world economic meltdown MILLIONS OF DOLLARS for their own, personal, private use is 'governing out of anger.'  Governing out of anger would be to publicly humiliate these people by pasting their faces and addresses in every media outlet imaginable.  Governing out of anger would be sending these people to Guantanamo Bay.  Governing out of anger would be stripping these people of everything they have and dumping them in a homeless tent camp in Minnesota during winter.

That's all.  Hope you enjoyed reading these posts.  I don't know how America is going to actually change, but I hope that something does happen because this system is so unsustainable, I don't see how it could possible continue in the way that it has been for another 5 years nevermind 60.

I think Obama needs to stop trying to court big business and the American people, and needs to step up into his role as President and STOP this madness.  He or SOMEONE in the administration needs to put their foot down and say NO to these financial sector ***holes.  No! Enough is enough!  If they can't....what can we do?  Nothing maybe.  Something hopefully.  Who knows what will happen...

That's my piece.  Love it or leave it.  

The American People are Angry! And pretty confused!

Tell us your thoughts on this post!

It seems that The American people are angry, jaded and pretty confused about government bailouts for mega-companies, particularly due to the bonuses being doled out to executives, including those responsible for the mess in the first place.

This blog post includes several things:

1.  Links to articles related to bailouts for financial giants such as AIG

2.  Link to a MoveOn.org call to action, which is asking people to write questions they have for bankers and ideas on different strategies for how to get our money back.  Apparently some of the questions for bankers will be selected and asked to the bankers during upcoming legislative hearings.

3.  Blog post by blogger TannerLeah of the blog Stop Annoying Me.  His words embody the feelings of anger, frustration, and helplessness that many people likely feel towards the bailouts and executive bonuses.  If you find some of his wording choices to be offensive, please feel free to leave a comment on this blog or on his.

4.  Reader comments on a NY Times article on AIG executive bonuses and government impotency.

*****Also, please look out for upcoming Obama IS America! posts on the following:******

• Interview with Dr. Carol Wise, Associate Professor at the University of Southern California on NAFTA and the American economy, and her take on American identity.
• Breakdown of why the movie Slumdog Millionaire is a scam, and a call to action to make filmmakers more socially responsible and accountable.

Links:

Blog: The Daily Bail - news and analysis on the bailouts

NYTimes Article: AIG Planning Huge Bonuses After $170 billion Bailout

Time.com Article: Why the AIG Bailout Keeps Getting Bigger

Time.com Article: Economy Cleanup, Clawback to the Future

CALL TO ACTION:  MoveOn.org

Stop Annoying Me blog post:

Why Can’t AIG Be Allowed To Fail?

Over and over I keep hearing this mantra about how the American government cannot allow AIG to fail. So, because it cannot be allowed to fail, the government continues to funnel a never ending supply of money into it. But WHY can’t it be allowed to collapse? What horrible thing is going to happen? 

I know this much. Ben Bernanke must be the worst poker player in the entire world. How else can you explain the fact that he keeps telling the world that he will do whatever it takes to keep AIG afloat? 150 billion? No problem. 200 billion? Sure thing. 300 billion? Ben will be really, really mad and slamming his phone down but the check is in the mail. 

Of course the good folks at AIG are spending like drunken sailors. They have an open ended credit card and they know it. Want to spend 100 million on bonuses? Knock yourself out. Want to send billions of dollars to foreign banks so that, essentially, the American people are bailing them out? No sweat. Keep acting like you are mad, Ben. It is working like a charm. 

Up to the plate stomps Barney Gay and Nancy “who stole my eyebrows” Pelosi. Even more and more barking with no action being taken. How is it possible that the Fed AND the government have no control over the situation? Oh, I know. Because they have NEVER had control which is how this whole thing came to be in the first place. Of course, since all of these people belong to the same gene pool, I think it is a little unreasonable to think they will actually punish each other. 

Hey AIG…be very grateful that the US citizens are powerless in such matters. If we weren’t, you would be shut down by the end of the day and you could take your “bonuses” and shove them up your collective a**es. Of course, you would have no bonus to shove because we would have already taken that money back. 

If you can create the FDIC to protect banks, just make up a new acronym to protect insurance companies. Surely, it would be cheaper than just flooding these idiots with money on virtually a daily basis. Better yet, let AIG fail and let their competitors swoop in and pick the bones clean. Then, make the ex-employees work at McDonalds until they save enough money to pay the US taxpayer back. 

In the meantime, Bernanke, Frank, Reid, Pelosi and crew, could you just shut the hell up?!? Either do something to fix the problem or just shut up about it. Acting like a powerless victim is exceedingly annoying. 

And hey, where the hell is Barry while all this is going on? Can’t the POTUS shut this thing down in the blink of an eye? Well? What are you waiting for…a fist bump?

---

Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)

• $700 Billon? Do We Get An IOU?
• Why the AIG bailout just keeps getting bigger
• U.S. May Break Up AIG To Keep It Afloat
• Sunday

This entry was posted on Monday, March 16th, 2009 at 11:15 am and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

NY Times Reader Comments:

RSSAll Comments - Oldest First

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | Next »

1 - 25 of 884

SHOW:

                         Oldest First                                               Newest First                                               Readers' Recommendations                                               Editors' Selections                                               Replies                     

1.

March 15, 2009 12:48 am

Link

This makes me ill. As a taxpayer, paying for these bonuses, I'd like to see exactly who the recipients are and how much each is getting. I'd much prefer my tax money to go the homeless, needy, NPR, guide dogs for the blind, cancer research...you name it. This is absurd. Let AIG fail, and then let's see what those executives believe they are entitled to receive. Let 'em fail, baby, let 'em fail.

— Marc S, Left Coast

 Recommend Recommended by 960 Readers

2.

March 15, 2009 12:48 am

Link

Utterly and completely pathetic.

— rick jones, sunnyvale, ca

 Recommend Recommended by 321 Readers

3.

March 15, 2009 12:48 am

Link

I'm against their giving any bonuses, but if they do it should be in AIG stock, and will only be worth something if the company turns around. What are these bailed out companies thinking? They just don't get it!

— ValorieK, Scottsdale, AZ

 Recommend Recommended by 586 Readers

4.

March 15, 2009 12:48 am

Link

The government should immediately withdraw any and all bail out money and then we will see who gets a bonus, or a paycheck. Audacity, chutzpah, bad form, greed, ineptitude, and stupidity is all these persons have displayed - let's see how far that gets them after their company folds up on Monday morning.

— Andrew, NY

 Recommend Recommended by 721 Readers

5.

March 15, 2009 12:48 am

Link

This simply has to stop.

— John, Butte, Montana

 Recommend Recommended by 398 Readers

6.

March 15, 2009 12:48 am

Link

This is so outrageous it is almost humerous. Is there nothing the US Government can do - or do we the people need to take it upon ourselves? This becomes worse than the robber barons of the 1920s. Now is the time to stop this - but how?

— Joan Rutkowski, Florence, Italy

 Recommend Recommended by 331 Readers

7.

March 15, 2009 12:48 am

Link

they feel that they need to pay these bonuses so they can "continue to attract top talent?" I think that horse has left the barn.

— mark, new york

 Recommend Recommended by 593 Readers

8.

March 15, 2009 12:48 am

Link

Absolutely disgusting. If these execs have any ethics, they will refuse the bonuses.

— Mike, MI

 Recommend Recommended by 327 Readers

9.

March 15, 2009 12:48 am

Link

Business as usual. I think they should tear up the contracts and fire the "best and brightest" that got AIG into the mess. Let's try "better and brighter".

— NJahn, Seattle, WA

 Recommend Recommended by 431 Readers

10.

March 15, 2009 12:48 am

Link

The people at AIG should be incredibly ashamed of themselves, including and especially the man at the top. It is outrageous that they are giving bonuses out to people who have helped to contribute to the current state of economics. To say they are obligated by contract is pure bull. They were obligated to run their company right and not have to be bailed out with $170 BILLION tax payer dollars. There is NO obligation to reward anyone at that company. They should all be fired and start with a fresh team in there who will have a better chance of running the company properly.

— emeliacarson, Las Vegas, NV

 Recommend Recommended by 567 Readers

11.

March 15, 2009 12:48 am

Link

This is outrageous. When will Wall Street execs understand that they are NOT ENTITLED to this money? You go into business, and the business fails, you don't get well paid. That's it.

This bailout money is designed to keep AIG afloat for the good of the country. Either you take it under our rules (and we should order that no bonuses be given), or you go under.

— Brian, Boston

 Recommend Recommended by 670 Readers

12.

March 15, 2009 12:48 am

Link

This is a travesty! How can it be that AIG rewards the same executives responsible for their spectacularly greedy and disastrously destructive performance in 2008. We taxpayers should not pay a penny for any of their salaries.

— D1036, Seattle

 Recommend Recommended by 340 Readers

13.

March 15, 2009 12:48 am

Link

What is this "obligated to pay them", the bonuses. I don't think so. Is there no end to the greed of these people? Have they no feeling/conscience in regard to the hardship their folly has wreaked on the American public they were supposed to be serving. This is obscene!

— Jeanette Rigopoulos, San Diego, California

 Recommend Recommended by 378 Readers

14.

March 15, 2009 12:48 am

Link

This is criminal.Instead of being fired for there incomptence they are being rewarded.How can congress allow this to happen

— David Weidler, New Orleans

 Recommend Recommended by 370 Readers

15.

March 15, 2009 12:48 am

Link

Amazing. UAW is told they have to abrogate their contracts and renogotiate. But AIG seems to have no power to do so and is obligated to honor the contract. That this was the very unit that brought AIG down just is more unbelievable.

— Charles Reiss, Shushan, N.Y.

 Recommend Recommended by 658 Readers

16.

March 15, 2009 12:48 am

Link

let them go bankrupt. Please.

— incredulous, West Palm Beach

 Recommend Recommended by 469 Readers

17.

March 15, 2009 12:48 am

Link

I am so tired of the disparity between business struggles and consumer struggles. Is there any other way to classify this AIG bailout as anything other than a handout? To make matters worse, bonuses to the tune to $100 million are still paid out? What do we tell our children about "working hard and good things will happen to you", when in fact it really doesn't occur.

— jeff, ohio

 Recommend Recommended by 245 Readers

18.

March 15, 2009 12:48 am

Link

Stop handing money to people who clearly have no idea how to spend it!

— Rebecca0o, Columbus, OH

 Recommend Recommended by 141 Readers

19.

March 15, 2009 12:48 am

Link

"On the other hand, we cannot attract and retain the best and brightest talent to lead and staff the AIG businesses — which are now being operated principally on behalf of the American taxpayers — if employees believe that their compensation is subject to continued and arbitrary adjustment by the U.S. Treasury."

They've used that term AGAIN! - "THE BEST & THE BRIGHTEST"
WE NEED TO SEE "THE BEST & THE BRIGHTEST" HEADS ROLL!!!

— F_Bardamu, NY,NY

 Recommend Recommended by 436 Readers

20.

March 15, 2009 12:48 am

Link

If this doesn't start the revolution, then we deserve what we get.

— Disgusted, NYC

 Recommend Recommended by 770 Readers

21.

March 15, 2009 12:48 am

Link

These are the best and brightest? Based on what? Their fabulous profitability? How nice that they're now doing their good work on behalf of the taxpayers. The mind reels.

— Andy, Jersey Shore

 Recommend Recommended by 212 Readers

22.

March 15, 2009 12:48 am

Link

Let these "high performing" executives sue for their bonuses in court. $100 billion can buy allot of government lawyers to fight them. And they WOULD lose.

— N. R. Murray, Bangor, ME

 Recommend Recommended by 406 Readers

23.

March 15, 2009 12:51 am

Link

I just got this NY Times alert. I am speechless. You will hear more from me later! I have to process this. Where's our bonuses?

— Spinlink, Greensboro, NC

 Recommend Recommended by 121 Readers

24.

March 15, 2009 12:51 am

Link

Does anyone care that AIG bought 6 Falcon fan Jets
in the middle of this Mess!

— ttwar, Brooklyn

 Recommend Recommended by 183 Readers

25.

March 15, 2009 12:51 am

Link

Yet another insult to the American taxpayer and all those displaced by the shenanigans of the 'best and brightest' at AIG and the investment houses. Doesn't anybody in this Administration have enough backbone to put an end to this continued looting of Main Street? What's it going to take before someone stands up and says 'Enough's enough'?

— Sipkins, Minneapolis