Is Obama letting us down on AIG?

[Onlooker]

The Obama Administration has been incredibly weak with AIG. Here's the most arrogant of companies now giving out bonuses of $165 million. The Obama administration at first said its hands were tied because the bonuses were contractually obligated. Well, were its hands tied when it pressured the UAW to make concessions, when it pressured mortgage lenders to make concessions, when it pressured Citibank to cancel some corporate jets? Why in the world can't US government, which owns somethings like 75% of AIG, demand major changes and get rid of those in AIG responsible for this disaster?

So far, the Obama administration has, if anything, been to the right of many Republicans on this one. Consider Sen. Charles Grassley comment about AIG: “The first thing that would make me feel a little bit better towards them if they’d follow the Japanese model and come before the American people and take that deep bow and say I’m sorry, and then either do one of two things — resign, or go commit suicide.”

Wall Street is corrupt, and the Obama Administration needs to be far more courageous if they are going to end that culture of obscene greed.

[jefferson_dem]

1. Flamebait disguised as a "poll" much?

Weak.

[Onlooker]

8. If it's not worship, it's flamebait?

I think that's ignorant. I like Obama as much as anyone, but I'm not going to give him the same free ride that Republicans gave Bush.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

11. There's a difference between giving someone a free ride

and posting something that makes no real suggestions as to how Obama could act differently under authority that he actually has. It seems you've taken a role similar to Congressional Republicans, in that you bitch about what Obama's doing wrong but offer no real suggestions as to how he might do it right.

[Teaser]

12. Nah, just flamebait because of the way you posted it.

But you knew that.

Hell, you counted on it.

[alcibiades_mystery]

15. Onlooker voted for McCain

There's criticism, and then there's criticism.

[Onlooker]

17. alcibiades_mystery works for Wall Street?

Can't imagine why else he would stick up for massive Wall Street bonsues by accusing me of voting for McCain. Or perhaps he believed that Obama was the new Lieberman, a good solid DLC Democrat?

[alcibiades_mystery]

25. LOL

:rofl:

Oh, that's great.

:rofl:

[MADem]

2. Ironically, "Countrywide Chris" Dodd has come up with a clever proposal

Tax the shit out of those bonuses--write a law that takes direct aim at them.

[tekisui]

4. That is brillant. Do it for every corp that took bailout money.

Hell, do it for any multi-million dollar bonuses.

[tekisui]

3. Do you expect him to send in federal agents and take the money at gunpoint?

[Onlooker]

7. Did you make the same point with UAW?

The Obama administration didn't say its hands were tied, but made it clear that the bailout would require substantial concessions from all sides. What concessions has AIG made? (Then again, maybe you're just anti-union, or feel the Obama administration isn't strong enough to stand up to AIG.)

[tekisui]

9. I didn't say a goddamned thing about the UAW. They got a raw deal.

What do you expect Obama to do NOW with AIG?

Keep you strawmen.

[Onlooker]

18. Read this website

There are many things Obama can do: Go to court, have the branch of AIG declare bankruptcy, demand to see the contracts, etc. But, of course, to know that, you'd have to read the points of view of true progressives and liberals.

[tekisui]

19. It's not so easy.

There are laws in place that even the President cannot circumvent. He can't force a company to declare bankruptcy. NY has subpoenaed the contracts. They are doing what they can.

Read this, too.
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/Economy/story?id=7097759&page=1

And, don't lecture me about the points of view of true progressives and liberals. I see one in the mirror every morning.

[Onlooker]

21. how to stop AIG's bosuses

If you consider ABC news progressive, then your definition of progressive, IMHO, is lacking. Try reading Huffington Post:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/william-black-tom-ferguson-rob-johnson-walker-todd/how-to-stop-aigs-bonuses_b_175351.html

[tekisui]

22. Jesus, man.

Did I say ABC was progressive? I was linking to an article that talked of some of the limitations. There are a lot of steps and a lot of ifs to that process explained in HuffPost.

I hope to hell that they don't get the bonuses. Obama is against it, too. They are doing all that they legally can to stop it.

[Onlooker]

5. Wow, these poll results must be bringing a tear to Wall Street's eyes

I'm sorry I posted it. I could have sworn that most of us voted for Obama in part because we opposed Wall Street greed and manipulation of our government. Never mind, AIG, you go award those bonuses. Those hard-working executives deserve every penny. Don't expect liberals to stand in your way.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

10. WAAAAAHHHH! I posted a poll and don't like the results! WAAAAH!

Not everyone thinks exactly like I do!!! :cry:

[alcibiades_mystery]

16. It's not the first election Onlooker didn't like the results of

:rofl:

[Onlooker]

20. I'm a leftist, but try to think independently

Perhaps you have a greater need for approval than I do, so only say what the majority agrees with, even if it embraces the worst aspects of capitalism.

[ejpoeta]

6. you know, I will admit that I have found myself faltering at times. I hear things

that sound bad, but then I remember that I can't just trust what anyone says. They LIE and purposely misstate things to make them sound a certain way. We have the benefit of being about to fact check things for ourselves. Something that was not available in the past. So, even though we have a borg media whose goal is to create their own reality, we do have the ability to find out for ourselves what the facts are.

[Kahuna]

13. Since AIG received those bailout funds before he became pres., No. He is not letting me down..

:eyes:

[JTFrog]

14. The time to have addressed this shit and not been let down was at least SIX FUCKING MONTHS AGO.

How many letters did you write to your Senators saying that this was exactly what was going to happen?!? Everyone in my household was up in arms about this months ago when it could have actually mattered.

[Beacool]

23. Oh, please.................

It's politics as usual. When the government took over last fall and appointed Liddy as CEO, they were already aware of these bonuses. It was the government attorneys who told AIG that they had no choice but to pay them because it would be cheaper than the lawsuits that would ensue if they didn't keep their contractual obligations.

So, why is Obama and Congress choking with rage since this is nothing that they were not already aware?

Read this:

"Attorneys working for the Fed had been examining the matter for months and determined that the retention payments couldn't be touched because AIG would face costly lawsuits and be subject to penalties from states and foreign governments. Administration officials said over the weekend that they agreed with that assessment.

AIG disclosed its retention-payment program more than a year ago, and the amount of the bonuses -- more than $400 million for Financial Products alone -- had been widely reported. But as the payments were coming due in recent days, the White House began to express its indignation.

------------------

The payment plan had been no secret.

Beginning in the first quarter of 2008, AIG disclosed the plan to offer retention awards at Financial Products. The unit had already begun to hemorrhage money, a problem that would later grow exponentially. The unit's executives, fearing they might lose valuable employees in the tumultuous months to come, successfully negotiated more than $400 million for their workers, to be paid this month and again next year.

At the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, which has directly overseen AIG since its federal takeover in September, officials have studied the possibility of rescinding or delaying the bonuses. They even brought in outside lawyers for advice. The conclusion: If the bonuses weren't paid, the AIG staffers would be able to sue the company and probably would win, not just what they were owed but also punitive damages that would make the ultimate cost perhaps two to three times as high as the bonuses themselves."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/16/AR2009031602961.html

[hay rick]

26. Thanks for the link. nt

[WeDidIt]

24. Flamebait n/t

[berni_mccoy]

27. Flamebait.

[Bold Sea Captain]

28. not an Obama fan in the Primaries, i take it

[JuniperLea]

29. flamebait... eom

[Ikonoklast]

30. No.

[ChimpersMcSmirkers]

31. Obama, and probably no one else knew about this crap. AIG was bailed out by Bush and Paulson.

Congress has let me down. I let them slide a bit though since I do believe that the financial system was close to melting completely down, taking us all with it. Bush-Paulson of course took full advantage of it with the usual fear mongering.

You could argue that we just take AIG over completely and replace management, which I'm in favor of, along with Citi and BoA. The thing is Obama is on a knife-edge. He has a shit-load more work to do before the banking system is clean and it's going to cost tax dollars. He also has an enormous budget to get through congress. The card that the pukes have in this is the nationalize/socialism BS.

I do think that now might be the time that Obama could get away with taking AIG over completely. He has a pretty good reason to do it, but I don't think he will.

[CreekDog]

32. Is being weak or strong the most important goal?

If being strong led to worse economic consequences versus being strong, do you think that would or should have any impact on whether Obama is "weak" or "strong" towards AIG.

Also, what legal options does the administration actually have?

I think the adminstration is merely trying to fly the plane so it doesn't crash. Now if they are doing things to keep it in the air that amount to rewarding guys that are jerks...well, that's possible, but in that context undertandable.

I just think it's pretty simplistic on your part to say Obama's being "too weak" as if being weak or strong is the what our policy should be decided upon?

When you fed your children, were you too weak or strong on them when you did that? Or did you feed them regardless because that's more important.

[AirBaud]

33. Since when did this become President Obama's mess?

Looks like blaming Obama is the flavor of the day.