AIG

[TheMercenary]

That is not what I stated.

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

That is not what I stated.

I am just trying to understand how it is "too little, too late" for the remaining TARP funds that have already been authorized.

[TheMercenary]

I don't think the addendum is a bad thing. But we should not ignore who is responsible for the failure up to this point, or do you just want to ignore what Geithner and his people failed to do, when they knew full well what was going on?

[tw]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

And let's follow that up with another billion dollar hand out from the Demoncrats!

You should have thought about that years ago when extremists were running up those bills. "Reagan proved that deficits don't matter". That was their agenda. After so much economic stimulus and open contempt even for responsible accounting (even refusing to prosecute Lay and Skilling), we are now paying those bills. And will be paying for the next ten years. This is what money games (also called economic stimulus) do.

Meanwhile, the whole AIG discussion ignores what nobody - especially in government - wants to discuss. Saving AIG is not sanity. It's dead. Nonsense is a myth about keeping good people. Either the productive parts of AIG are sold off, or even those company parts die. No one with any sanity could claim that AIG can be saved. Company should be sold off with stockholders taking complete losses and executives getting nothing - not even a golden parachute - and a bad entry on their resume.

Bonuses are nonsense. Nobody should be getting bonuses. Employees will stay because they always were so incompetent OR will hope to become part of a more productive company that needs their knowledge. Otherwise employees will leave - with or without bonuses. AIG is dead. They know it. We should know it. Government will eventually have to admit it. Only question left is how to cut up the carcass. Due to the George Jr's administration claim of systemic risk, the American government must bail out contracts with everyone - especially and including foreign banks.

The time to worry about AIG was when wacko extremists passed laws that intentionally kept government from regulating derivatives. That openly encouraged insurance companies to write policies that were exempt from state laws. That was when the wackos were running up the debts. Now is when we pay for debts that come due four to ten years later.

Nobody wants to admit the obvious. AIG is already dead. Time now to harm those responsible including AIG employees, management, Board of Directors, and stockholders. Massive pain on all is necessary because we still did not learn the lessons of Enron and LTCM.

AIG is also accounting fraud. AIG was hiding losses in dummy corporations using the same techniques found in Enron. Not only are we ignoring the obvious - AIG is dead - but we are ignoring accounting practices that, well, as one corporate president said to me (after drinking too much), "He makes the books say what they have to say."

AIG is dead. Arguing about keeping good employees is a joke to further protect and enrich the problem.

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

I don't think the addendum is a bad thing. But we should not ignore who is responsible for the failure up to this point, or do you just want to ignore what Geithner and his people failed to do, when they knew full well what was going on?

Absolutely Geitner is responsible., as is Dodd and other Democrats.

So are Bush (and many Congressional Republicans) who refused to include limits on executive bonuses when the TARP legislation was drafted and enacted last year.

"What executives have done is troubling, but it's equally troubling to have government telling shareholders how much they can pay the executives," said Sen. Mel Martinez (R-FL).

Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) .". is this still America? Do we really tell people how to run [a business], and who to pay and how much to pay?" . . . .

As I have said...there is plenty of blame to go around if you look at the bigger picture.

[TheMercenary]

Geithner was asked about it on 3 March, he said he did not hear about it till 10 March. In Dec the details were known. In Feb they knew all the details. His office let it go and were expected to go forward allowing the bonus money to be paid.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Redux

Absolutlely Geitner is responsible., as is Dodd and other Democrats

So are Bush (and many Congressional Republicans) who refused to include limits on executive bonuses when the TARP legislation was drafted and enacted last year.

As I have said...there is plenty of blame to go around if you look at the bigger picture.

As I recall, Bush et. al. were making decisions in conjunction with the Obama team immediately after the election results were announced. It was a historic period of cooperation between the transition teams. The Obama team had their hands in the Democratic plan from the beginning. It will be very hard to pass this off on Bush.

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

As I recall, Bush et. al. were making decisions in conjunction with the Obama team immediately after the election results were announced. It was a historic period of cooperation between the transition teams. The Obama team had their hands in the Democratic plan from the beginning. It will be very hard to pass this off on Bush.

Your recollection is not quite right. The TARP bill, in which Bush refused to include a provision to limit executive compensation, was signed before the election.

Some Republicans were opposed to limits on executive compensation at the time as well:

"What executives have done is troubling, but it's equally troubling to have government telling shareholders how much they can pay the executives," said Sen. Mel Martinez (R-FL).

Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) "... is this still America? Do we really tell people how to run [a business], and who to pay and how much to pay?"

There is plenty of blame to go around.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Redux

Your recollection is not quite right. The TARP bill, in which Bush refused to include a provision to limit executive compensation, was signed before the election.

"What executives have done is troubling, but it's equally troubling to have government telling shareholders how much they can pay the executives," said Sen. Mel Martinez (R-FL).

Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) "... is this still America? Do we really tell people how to run [a business], and who to pay and how much to pay?"

There is plenty of blame to go around.

Immediately followed by Dodd's little addition.

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Immediately followed by Dodd's little addition.

Yep....plenty of blame to go around.....IMO, starting with Bush's refusal to include a provision to limit executive compensation...that is now being corrected by this latest draft amendment.

[TheMercenary]

You keep talking about transparency. That is false.

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

You keep talking about transparency. That is false.

What is false?

[TheMercenary]

You obviously have the ability to read, try again.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by Redux

The bill seems like is a good amendment to me to deal with the remaining TARP Funds under the Bush bailout that have yet to be allocated.

A second bailout may be a harder sell, but would certainly include more transparency and oversight than Bush signed into law.

Is this the Bush bailout that "couldn't wait" till Obama took office? If so, thats a pretty shitty thing to be blaming on him. If not, then you are not saying anything at all. There are already provisions in the last bailout, or so said Dodd and Frank. Then again, I guess you are right. We better do something they cannot be taken on their word any more than any other politician.

Originally Posted by Redux

So what do you suggest? Firing Geitner?

How many times are you going to ask that same question which I've repeatedly answered?
I have NEVER suggested that. Why do YOU keep bringing up firing Geithner? IS that what you want?

Punishing the responsible parties would send a serious message of accountability to everyone immediately. It will prevent said parties from doing it again, being proactive and preventing a problem instead of dealing with it after the fact. Doesn't that sound like a logical solution? It would also further Obama's message of change and, to me, earn him a lot more respect. Taking action is what needs to be done here.

As far as this selective bill to return the contractually obligated money... water after the damn. The amount of money being discussed here is negligible, relatively speaking. Again, its 1/1000th of what we gave to AIG. Selectively taxing these people is borderline unconstitution and not the most viable solution to me.

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (the stimulus bill that Obama signed) included several provisions to strengthen executive compensation restrictions on recipients of financial assistance from the U.S. Treasury, such as:

* Restricting bonuses for executives that take excessive risks that threaten the company's value;

* Prohibiting any golden parachutes for up to the top 10 senior executives of a company;

* Prohibiting compensation practices that encourage earnings manipulation, or "cooking of the books";

* Restricting all bonuses for most senior executives, with the number of those covered varying on the basis of the amount of assistance received, certifying compliance with these requirements,

* Instituting a company-wide policy on luxury expenses; and

* Allowing for shareholders to vote on approval of executive compensation packages.

IMO, that is transparency and accountability.