Yeh, that was a rhetorical question. Funny how big bad Barney is all over the press today touting his "anger" Where was he all along?

No he isn't the only one, but still. He is the Financial Services Committee Chairman. It was his job. Seems rather hypocritical to come out and be all pissed off when he was the one charged with preventing this sort of thing.

I'll just shut up now and say "Good job Barney" :vomit:

Barney has been a master at deflecting any responsibility he has in this. And he has plenty. Another great example of the double standards of the Dems. If he jumps up and down enough and makes a big fuss over all of it he can be seen as taking the issue head on, all the while ignoring history.

On another note, this was a very good discussion concerning AGI:

42 min long

click listen now

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...ryId=101936770

Yeah...that's really interesting, Merc, but we were discussing AIG...


:P

I would suggest you are ignoring history if you ignore the role of Frank's republican predecessor, Michael Oxley, as chairman of the House Financial Services Committee for six years...particularly the unintended (?) consequences of SOX (Sarbanes-Oxley Public Accounting Reform Act).

As well as the impact of the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act by Clinton and the Republican Congress that torn down the wall between commercial and investment banking.

And Chris Cox, the Bush appointed chairman of the SEC who failed in holding the SEC to its independent oversight role.

There is plenty of blame to go around.

HOLY CRAP! :eek:

Rage at AIG Swells As Bonuses Go Out
A tidal wave of public outrage over bonus payments swamped American International Group yesterday. Hired guards stood watch outside the suburban Connecticut offices of AIG Financial Products, the division whose exotic derivatives brought the insurance giant to the brink of collapse last year. Inside, death threats and angry letters flooded e-mail inboxes. Irate callers lit up the phone lines. Senior managers submitted their resignations. Some employees didn't show up at all... http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...031602961.html



It really does seem like these people are completely clueless, otherwise they would have been willing to waive their bonuses, like so many other people are being forced to do all around the country, even though they also had contracts. If this isn't brought under control, violence might break out, and that really would be a shame.

This is only the beginning of $400 million going to that department. AIG also has $600 million more in retention awards going out to about 4,700 people throughout its global insurance units. I expect some of those death threats/threats of violence may happen if something isn't done about this.


In addition, the bonuses are retention awards, but many of the people receiving them no longer work there. 11 people who don't work there received more than $1 million each.... According to the attorney general's office, the top individual bonus was more than $6.4 million, and the top seven received more than $4 million each...
http://www.usatoday.com/money/indust...g_N.htm?csp=34

You know, this isn't a secret (the bonuses). It really is disingenuous the way President Obama, Geitner and all the others are expressing such outrage. They should never have given AIG money without first outlining this stuff. While most of the money went out before Obama was president (I believe), they certainly could have held back that last $30 billion. THAT is on them. And hasn't Gietner been involved in this since the beginning?

Meanwhile one of our top disgraced bankers over here has walked away from the train wreck with a £650k per annum pension. Apparently he refuses to give up any of it. If he takes it in a lump sum I think he's due about £6m.

Yup - Remember that conversation Bush and Obama had just after the election? The one where the tarp money HAD to be released so that the world didn't crumble? Hmm, now they are blaming him for this too. Interesting.

I've also seen a whole lot of Barney Frank on all the cable news talking tough and playin politics. Not one question from any of the anchors about his position and what he was doing to prevent this type of thing from happening.
Anyone see where all the AIG donations went over the last few years? Chris Dodd was #1 on the list. Did he jump up to give that money back? Did any of them? They're FULL OF SHIT.

Even if they got AIG to pay back the bonus money, its coming from taxpayer money anyway. They're gonna pay you back with YOUR money - feel better now? WTFFF JFC GDMFPOS

So give it to him. In coins. From a great height.

It'd break my heart.

We found one guy to blame - Chris Dodd

Ummm...

By that standard, Harry Truman was personally behind every mistake and misdeed the entire government (congress included) made during both of his terms, because "the buck stops here".

Twist it however you like.

Hahahaha!

Sorry. Did I just laugh at you out loud?

Probably, but only your imaginary friends were around to hear it. Did they laugh along with you?

Hey what are you doing here anyway? Have you secured all the concrete yet?
Get going, You got work to do.

If TGRR laughs in the woods...

AIG is directly linked to the whole crisis.

I don't ignore them. I am talking about the person who is on the headlines trying to deflect his own responsibility.

TGRR Master Twister. :D

I was making fun of the typo:P

Oh, I missed it. :lol2: good one. :D

Chris Dodd is the one who changed the part of the legislation that would have prevented this. He really should resign or not run for reelection after this. Shame on him. He was on TV last night trying to justify his actions.

classic, the original AIG bailout wasn't part of the TARP. As for the Tarp, when Bush originally was trying to get it passed, it was 3 pages long. They (Congress) rewrote it so it was much longer, and it actually DID have stuff in there about excessive pay, bonuses and golden parachutes, but they somehow secretly overrode that part after the fact. Maybe that is part of what Chris Dodd changed? I don't know. I looked for the bill, but I'm having trouble finding the original one.

I did find this about AIG though...
http://seekingalpha.com/article/1235...saga-in-review

d'oh, sorry, didn't read far enough to see someone already posted that.

Thanks classic for posting that. I WAS really hoping that this whole fiasco would cause new rules and laws about Wall Street, and maybe even rework compensation for the majority of the people in this country, so everyone makes a decent, living wage, and a few people at the top don't get SO filthy rich. You know, maybe narrow the gap some. I fear now though that it may not happen.

IMHO, all those people who make boatloads of money unethically, by speculating, artificially inflating and deflating prices, playing with people's lives by controlling markets, I really do wish harm on those people. I wish they would all go to prison for the rest of their lives. and yes, I include politicians in there as well, when they've done things that have allowed this happen.

You're just jealous 'cause the voices talk to me. :cool:


Sorry, I'm holding out for that new labor bill.

It's mine, and I can twist it if I want to.

A very liberal friend of mine is telling me he thinks this whole thing, the outrage over the bonus deals, is nothing but a cover to distract us from the billions being funneled to foreign banks through AIG. I all but fell off my chair hearing him talk like that.

So, since these compensation packages are so common in this industry, when are all the other banks that got money gonna fess up?
Maybe they're all makin backroom deals now to cover it up. hmm Damn wacko extremist conspiracy theorists. :tinfoil:

Already happening.

I have a link, if you want it. It'll piss you off plenty.

*rolls out guillotine*

I'll bring it back in thirty years when the next wave of smarter corrupt businessmen/politicians fuck up.

Yes, something like $40 BILLION went to foreign banks, at least from what I heard reported. In addition, many other banks that we already bailed out got more money from AIG. (Maybe it was $40 billion total. I don't remember.)

Don't you think that, when people gamble, they should have to pay for their losses? Because that's what happened here. Why should WE be paying for their gambles? It just really has me angry and upset. Perhaps I should take Dana's advice and stop watching the news. *sigh* My anxiety level has increased significantly over the past year, and even more over the past few months, since this whole thing started.

yes, link please.

Yes I want the link please.

To me the issue of these bonuses is NOTHING. Dodd lying is a much larger deal. Barney Frank and Chris Dodd were trusted to oversee this. Why aren't they being asked about what was going on under their watch? Why is no one putting them on the spot? They grilled Libby who came back out of retirement for $1 a year and lambasted him. Like it was his doing? I call BS.

The total amount of these bonuses is the equivalent of you asking to borrow $1000 from me. I lend you the money. I find out you buy a $1 candy bar and freak the fuck out. Its ridiculous.

I agree. After watching the hearings, I think there is an easy way to solve this whole thing. Tell the people who were getting bonuses that they will still get them, after the money is paid back. Just defer them until then. Then we won't have this big mess. From what I heard, the people still there really are good employees, they did not cause the company to fail. Those people are gone. But, since they wouldn't have ANY paycheck if we hadn't bailed them out, they shouldn't be upset that we don't want to be the ones paying them. So, if they are deferred to a later date, then we won't be paying for them, and they will still get them. Just not until the company is standing on it's own, and the money they owe us is paid back.

* edit to add* classic, it isn't ridiculous to people who are lsoing their jobs, or who have had to forgo their bonuses, because we've had to bail out these companies. $170 million is still a LOT of money. And a huge chunk of that was for bonuses more than $1 million.

Which are you more upset at the $1000 or the $1?

both actually

:)

Freddie Mac got bonuses, too! :)

Also, there's just some fun info there.

There's more. Yep, you guessed it. Fannie May is paying out, too.

Dodd lying is very serious.

But save some tar and feathers for the bankers. We aren't talking about a dollar.

The $1 is enriching the person who caused the $1000 loss. Should be blame and punish the economy - of those whose actions cause it? classicman would rather punish the economy when those $billion are already gone and no longer recoverable. That $1 can be recovered - with wrath so severe that other ‘financial experts’ think twice about what is more important.

classicman would rather encourage more corruption? Apparently. People who profited excessively from deregulation and to screw American for self serving gain - classicman says they deserve to be rewarded.

Money to AIG was to pay off incurred debts. AIG payments flow all over the world because AIG was contracting internationally. Why could AIG suck up $40billion and need many times more? AIG used Enron accounting that was openly encouraged by deregulation. AIG wrote their contracts so as to have no government oversight - another economic miracle encouraged by the George Jr administration. Therefore nobody knew where all that TARP money was going until secret corporations created by AIG suddenly appeared demanding money.

$40billion to save AIG means paying off the world. America owes money to everyone due to extremist economics that said, "Reagan proved that deficits don't matter." Bailout money must go to numerous overseas entities because that is what a bailout is - paying off the debts.

Meanwhile AIG rewards those who created 'money game' contracts and then hide those losses in secret corporations. Bonuses even to employees for creating secret corporations because they did good - according to Enron accounting techniques that are still legal.

got any proof of any of that tw?
The secret corps?
The money laundering?
Their accounting practices?
Copies of their contracts?

I didn't think so. You are just wildly speculating and playing the fear game.
yawn.

Putting aside the issue of who caused what....there is plenty of blame to go around....

The political reality is that the current Congressional and public obsession with AIG ultimately is likely to play right into the hands of Obama and the Democratic Congress by creating even greater public support for tougher regulations of banking/financial institutions and higher taxes on the top income earners....both of which the Republicans have long opposed but now find themselves either having to continue to defend their "free market/anti-regulation, anti-tax" agenda with no public support or compromising at the expense of one of their core constituencies.

Sounds like a good scenario to me.

Why should we put aside the issue of transparency and holding people accountable? Isn't that what this administration, in part, got elected to do? We now know Geithner & Dodd were responsible, they admitted it. Very clearly they should be held accountable.

Who is putting aside the issue of transparency and accountability?

There is more transparency now than when Bush first approved and signed the TARP bill and Paulson administered its implementation.

Accountability?

Do you want Geitner fired for this one small "transgression" rather than judge him on the entirety of his work to date as Treasury Secretary, including his plan to prevent further housing foreclosures by assisting those responsible home owners who are facing financial hardship because they may have lost their job or seen the value of their home decline?

Do you want Dodd to face a Senate ethics inquiring even though the act of inserting the particularly language in the bill does not rise to the level of an ethics investigation. If that is the case, shouldnt we hold the Republicans in Congress accountable as the ones who opposed including any limits on executive compensation in the original legislation.

I stand by what I wrote...the ultimate outcome is likely be what Obama and the Democrats want and the Republicans have fought - tougher regulation of the financial services/banking sector and higher taxes on the top income earners.

Sure. Keep telling yourself that. Eventually you will believe it.

Yep..I absolutely believe we will see tighter regulations of the financial services and banking industries....the American public is demanding it...despite the Republican opposition to more regulation.

And we'll see the end of the Bush tax cuts on the top income earners...with no complaints from that same public, despite the Republican opposition.

Define the bush tax cuts you'd like to see end.

Define the top income earners you'd like this to apply to.

Please.

The reality is not going to change. transparency ...
It is a good, no a great thing. We seem to have it to some degree.

As far as accountability...

Where is the outcry about Dodd obviously lying? Good grief. Now we have Geithner blaming some unnamed "staffers." Thats BS.
but fine then, whoever it is that was responsible - yes, I want them top be held accountable - R, D, it doesn't matter. After all thats what this administration got elected on - Change. What we have now is the transparency and no one being held accountable. This is the same shit as always.

What should happen to Dodd? I don't know. Should he be stripped of his chair? Maybe - This all happened on his watch.
As far as Geithner - I really don't know that either. It would look really good and go a long way if Obama, who said he was gonna get to the bottom of this, would do something now that he has. HIS guys are responsible. Since then we haven't heard a thing.
Just more diversions like you are doing right now.

What I want is some accountability. An example set and made. Words backed up - I don't care if its a public reprimand a slap on the wrist or public flogging....something.

So you want Geitner fired?

Or you want to change the standards for Senate ethics violations in order to "get" Dodd? That is the only way he could be stripped of his chairmanship.

I honestly dont know what you want.

By Bush tax cuts, I mean the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 and the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003.

Both were intended to phase out in 2010.

The Republicans want to extend them in the current form and make them permanent; Obama and the Democrats want to let then expire as was stipulated in the legislation when they were enacted, return the top tax bracket to the pre-2001 level and enact new tax cuts focused primarily on the the middle two tax brackets...the middle class.

No I certainly don't want that. I don't support changing rules to hose any individual even if I don't like him very much. Of course, our congress doesn't feel that way or they wouldn't have ramrodded a 90% tax on the bonuses that were paid out because of their own incompetence.

OK, Redux, I understand the names for what you are talking about. Now I'm asking you to define what the appropriate tax levels should be and who they should apply to. If you'd care to provide some logic for it that would be cool too, because you know I'll probably ask for it.

I thought I made it clear....return to pre-2001 tax levels as is currently mandated in the 01 and 03 laws and re-focus tax cuts on those most facing financial hardship....that would not be the top tax bracket who did pretty well in the 90s under the old tax rate.

I know your words, now I want to know the math and who it affects in something other than soundbyte friendly terms.

Who deserves to keep less of their own money? Why do they deserve to keep less?

Who deserves to keep more of their own money? Are they actually just keeping more of their own money or are they actually getting refunds in excess of what they paid?

I read you. You want to ignore Demoncratic responsibility for the mess. Nice try.

WTF? I stated quite clearly that I would like some action taken. Be it symbolic, punitive, criminal, public, personal.... Something, anything. Dock the offenders a months pay, I don't give a shit. Right now it would go a long way.

I'll say it again.

I want the current law administered as intended when enacted...the 01 and 03 tax cuts returned to pre-2001 levels as stipulated in the legislation.

Those who want it extended should justify it. :)

Can you really not read english or are you this big of a fuckstick in verbal communication too?

I have simply asked some questions that you only want to answer with media friendly soundbytes.

What is so hard to understand about abiding by existing law?

But I wont call you a fuckstick for not understanding such a simple concept.

Ok...we're done.