May 15, 2024, 02:22:28 PM

Author Topic: Livid Democrats demand AIG return bailout bonuses  (Read 3239 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline zuluwarrior

  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 3048
  • use your tongue to count your teeth
    • View Profile
    • http://pointalive.com
Livid Democrats demand AIG return bailout bonuses
« on: March 17, 2009, 05:11:51 PM »
Livid Democrats demand AIG return bailout bonuses
WASHINGTON, Tue Mar 17, 06:01 PM
 

 
   
People who read this also read 
New England pastor houses child killer, riles town
 
Study: 'Smart drug' Provigil may be habit-forming
 
Obama confronts Dem skepticism on economic plans
 
Cuomo says AIG paid $1M-plus bonuses to 73 workers
 
Long game's journey into night a 6-OT Syracuse win
 
 
 
 
Talking tougher by the hour, livid Democrats confronted beleaguered insurance giant AIG with an ultimatum Tuesday: Give back $165 million in post-bailout bonuses or watch Congress tax it away with emergency legislation. Fresh details, meanwhile, pushed AIG outrage ever higher: New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo reported that 73 separate company employees received bonus checks of $1 million or more last Friday. This at a company that was failing so spectacularly the government felt the need to prop it up with a $170 billion bailout.

And while Democratic lawmakers talked tax penalties, Republicans declared the Democrats were hardly blameless, accusing them of standing by while the bonus deal was cemented and suggesting that Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner could and should have done more.While the White House expressed confidence in Geithner, it was clearly placing the responsibility for how the matter was handled on his shoulders.

The financial bailout program remains politically unpopular and has been a drag on Barack Obama's new presidency, even though the plan began under his predecessor, George W. Bush. The White House is well aware of the nation's bailout fatigue — anger that hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars have gone to prop up financial institutions that made poor decisions, while many others who have done no wrong have paid the price.


 
AIG chief executive Edward Liddy can expect a verbal pummeling Wednesday when he testifies before a House subcommittee.

On Capitol Hill late Tuesday, House Democrats directed three powerful committees to come up with legislation this week to authorize Attorney General Eric Holder to recover massive bonus payments made by companies like the ones paid last week by American International Group Inc.

Senate Democrats, meanwhile, suggested that if the AIG executives had any integrity, they would return the $165 million in bonus money. One leading Democrat even suggested they might honorably kill themselves, then said he didn't really mean it.

Whatever the process, lawmakers of all stripes said, the bonus money belongs back in the government's hands.

"Recipients of these bonuses will not be able to keep all of their money," declared Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid in an unusually strong threat delivered on the Senate floor.

"If you don't return it on your own, we will do it for you," echoed Chuck Schumer of New York.

Not all Democratic leaders were racing in that direction. Penalizing people with the tax code is inappropriate, declared Rep. Charlie Rangel, D-N.Y., chairman of the taxwriting Ways and Means Committee. He said, "It's difficult for me to think of the code as a political weapon."

Others saw the connection as reasonable and relevant. House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank, D-Mass., noted that the government, through the bailout, is now an 80 percent owner of the company and suggested that was grounds to sue to recover the bonuses.

Republicans said President Obama and his administration should have leaned harder on AIG executives to reject the extra pay, raising some speculation over Geithner's future.

"I don't know if he should resign over this," said Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Ala. "He works for the president of the United States. But I can tell you, this is just another example of where he seems to be out of the loop. Treasury should have let the American people know about this."

The administration quickly moved to quash talk of Geithner's ouster. White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said Obama retains full confidence in his treasury secretary.

There was a daylong rush to the microphones on Capitol Hill — a bipartisan campaign to out-outrage each other.

Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, led the stampede with a statement Monday night on a radio show that AIG executives should either return the money or commit suicide in what he described as the Japanese style of taking responsibility. He spent much of Tuesday backtracking but still calling for corporate titans to take responsibility for grievous errors in judgment.

Other Republicans said Democratic leaders last month killed a plan that would have forced financial institutions to compensate taxpayers if they paid their executives large bonuses after receiving federal bailout money.

Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, a co-sponsor of the amendment to Obama's stimulus bill, said striking it "left open an escape hatch of golden parachutes for top executives on Wall Street."

AIG has received more than $170 billion from U.S. taxpayers. With bailouts in hand, AIG has paid out tens of billions of dollars to banks, municipal governments and other financial institutions around the world.

AIG is no stranger to controversy, nor is it the only publicly rescued company to give bonuses while being bailed out of financial ruin.

Merrill Lynch paid $3.6 billion in bonuses to its executives while its sale to Bank of America Corp., a big recipient of bailout money, was pending.

In recent months, AIG also has come under fire for a $440,000 weeklong retreat at the St. Regis Resort in California for top-performing insurance agents and a hunting trip in England.

The picture for AIG got no prettier Tuesday when subpoenas issued by New York Attorney General Cuomo revealed more details. He said the company last week had paid bonuses of $1 million or more to 73 employees, including 11 who no longer work there.

Cuomo said that despite their company contracts, the AIG employees agreed to take 2009 salaries of $1 in exchange for receiving their bonus packages. And he said the fact that AIG could negotiate the terms of the payments "flies in the face of AIG's assertion" that it had no choice but to make the contractual bonus payments.

Administration officials said Geithner did all that he legally could to avert the payments.

Geithner urged AIG chief executive Edward Liddy last week to renegotiate the contracts that called for the bonuses.

"He recognized that you can't just abrogate contracts willy-nilly, but he moved to do what could be done," Larry Summers, Obama's chief economic adviser, told The Associated Press in an interview Tuesday.

Though AIG's bonus plans were disclosed last year, Congress' outrage and threats have begun pouring forth only recently.

At least three Democratic bills and one Republican measure were introduced to crack down on the Treasury Department and stiffen rules for recipients of bailout funds.

The Internal Revenue Service currently withholds 25 percent from bonuses less than $1 million and 35 percent for bonuses more than $1 million.

The Obama administration said it was trying to put strict limits on how future government bailout dollars could be used, and Reid on Tuesday said he urged the administration to step up its pace on that.

———

 


.
good things happening to good people: a good thing
good things happening to bad people: a bad thing
bad things happening to good people: a bad thing
bad things happening to bad people: a good thing

truetrini

  • Guest
Re: Livid Democrats demand AIG return bailout bonuses
« Reply #1 on: March 17, 2009, 05:14:41 PM »
Democrats and dem hypocritical as de  damn republicans is not dem who iron out de bailout and de terms limiting de pay but allowed for packages and bonuses/

steups

Offline zuluwarrior

  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 3048
  • use your tongue to count your teeth
    • View Profile
    • http://pointalive.com
Re: Livid Democrats demand AIG return bailout bonuses
« Reply #2 on: March 17, 2009, 05:27:43 PM »
Want to bet when they close that loop hole that would not happen again and hear what they might even get back the money every cent .
.
good things happening to good people: a good thing
good things happening to bad people: a bad thing
bad things happening to good people: a bad thing
bad things happening to bad people: a good thing

truetrini

  • Guest
Re: Livid Democrats demand AIG return bailout bonuses
« Reply #3 on: March 17, 2009, 05:53:18 PM »
Want to bet when they close that loop hole that would not happen again and hear what they might even get back the money every cent .

I see thats what they want to do, trouble is dem is de same ones who does rely on de big men in firms like AIG for cash when dey hounding votes.  dey went quick and broker deal to bail out without careful study and allowed dem to pay deyself that way.  In de first place dey restrict pay for CEO's but allow dem to get it on de back end, now dey crying cause dey get exposed...dem is real pardners oui.

When all de de-regulation was happening none ah dem say peep.....

in fact the FIRST man to start de-regulating banking etc. is Bill Facking Clinton!

giggsy11

  • Guest
Re: Livid Democrats demand AIG return bailout bonuses
« Reply #4 on: March 17, 2009, 06:07:11 PM »
Lawd as long as United get dey shirt money.

Offline zuluwarrior

  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 3048
  • use your tongue to count your teeth
    • View Profile
    • http://pointalive.com
Re: Livid Democrats demand AIG return bailout bonuses
« Reply #5 on: March 17, 2009, 06:10:48 PM »
11 OF THE 73 that was paid the bonus left the company ah ready .
.
good things happening to good people: a good thing
good things happening to bad people: a bad thing
bad things happening to good people: a bad thing
bad things happening to bad people: a good thing

Offline D.H.W

  • Forever Man Utd
  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 17937
  • "Luck Favours The Prepared"
    • View Profile
Re: Livid Democrats demand AIG return bailout bonuses
« Reply #6 on: March 17, 2009, 06:40:16 PM »
Lawd as long as United get dey shirt money.

 :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:
"Evil is powerless if the good are unafraid."
Youtube Channel


Offline WestCoast

  • The obvious is that which is never seen until someone expresses it simply
  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 16066
  • "Let We Do What We Normally Does" :)
    • View Profile
Re: Livid Democrats demand AIG return bailout bonuses
« Reply #7 on: March 17, 2009, 06:56:42 PM »
in fact the FIRST man to start de-regulating banking etc. is Bill Facking Clinton!
I thought that all started because of the republicans
I goin an google it
but that is what I thought
Whatever you do, do it to the purpose; do it thoroughly, not superficially. Go to the bottom of things. Any thing half done, or half known, is in my mind, neither done nor known at all. Nay, worse, for it often misleads.
Lord Chesterfield
(1694 - 1773)

Offline capodetutticapi

  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 10942
  • veni vidi vici
    • View Profile
Re: Livid Democrats demand AIG return bailout bonuses
« Reply #8 on: March 17, 2009, 08:09:39 PM »
in fact the FIRST man to start de-regulating banking etc. is Bill Facking Clinton!
I thought that all started because of the republicans
I goin an google it
but that is what I thought
people jumpin on de bush hate train,sayin he get the economy like this,this is maybe half true,de man who do de initial damage is infact clinton,everybody coulda get money to buy house,car every damn ting.
soon ah go b ah lean mean bulling machine.

truetrini

  • Guest
Re: Livid Democrats demand AIG return bailout bonuses
« Reply #9 on: March 17, 2009, 08:15:04 PM »
in fact the FIRST man to start de-regulating banking etc. is Bill Facking Clinton!
I thought that all started because of the republicans
I goin an google it
but that is what I thought

The Gramm-Leach-Bliley act started it all.  While it was sponsored mainly by Phil Gramm, the dems agreed to it and Clinton had the power to veto it but agreed and signed it.


truetrini

  • Guest
Re: Livid Democrats demand AIG return bailout bonuses
« Reply #10 on: March 17, 2009, 08:16:49 PM »
By the way gramm is the man who Mc Cain wanted in charge of the economy eh  lol

Greenspan do a lot os hsit too eh, he was against regulation BIG time, he now states that he amde an error there.  I feel Greenspan cause this bubble in de first palce although he is touted as a brilliant man, it seems that in hindsight he was most destructive to the economy.

Clinton also make Fannie Mae expand lending to sub-prime borrowers. De dems had complete control of both houses of Congress since 2006 and also had the power to regulate housing, banking and the stock market if they wanted to.  De Reps did control  de House Bush  first term and dey mess up plenty. Dems control de House for part ah Bush second term and dey sit dey spending money and funding he war instaed ah regulating de banks and businesses. 

Blame enough to go around.  De head man ah Countrywide give loans helter skelter too.  Blame enough for plenty!

Some time ago me and asylum had a big debate about how important de housing market was for de US and he say nah ah wrong...well the chickens come home to roost..de Housing market was propping up de US economy for years...!  I was correct!


« Last Edit: March 17, 2009, 08:29:46 PM by Trinity Cross »

Offline WestCoast

  • The obvious is that which is never seen until someone expresses it simply
  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 16066
  • "Let We Do What We Normally Does" :)
    • View Profile
Re: Livid Democrats demand AIG return bailout bonuses
« Reply #11 on: March 17, 2009, 08:18:12 PM »
in fact the FIRST man to start de-regulating banking etc. is Bill Facking Clinton!
I thought that all started because of the republicans
I goin an google it
but that is what I thought

The Gramm-Leach-Bliley act started it all.  While it was sponsored mainly by Phil Gramm, the dems agreed to it and Clinton had the power to veto it but agreed and signed it.
ok ok
I unna stan now
Thanks
Maintainig the Status Quo is the best thing Politicians do...scratch my dem back and i go scratch your repub back

as ya mention Gramm
he jump the dem ship back in 83 to go Republican
politicians here does do that all too regular
« Last Edit: March 17, 2009, 08:34:02 PM by WestCoast »
Whatever you do, do it to the purpose; do it thoroughly, not superficially. Go to the bottom of things. Any thing half done, or half known, is in my mind, neither done nor known at all. Nay, worse, for it often misleads.
Lord Chesterfield
(1694 - 1773)

truetrini

  • Guest
Re: Livid Democrats demand AIG return bailout bonuses
« Reply #12 on: March 17, 2009, 08:39:04 PM »
Clinton was not a very good Democrat lol...as far as his role as President.  He was a good friend of corporate America, and he dump all dem labor unions who help elect him.  He is Mr. NAFTA too!  Bill did say if NAFTA was policy Mexicans will stop coming to AMerica,,we know dat eh happen..he in fact help put plenty Mexican farmers outta business.

He financed planned parenthood and demw ent about holding "special sessions" educating balck women on sterilization and abortion!

3 strikes yuh out too...more black people get jailed thru laws he signed.  He was de man who signed the Welfare Reform Bill too...dat man dsmantled social welfare in america, something the Reps try to do for years and couln't.

Clinton also introduced in 1998 a $200-billion highway and transportation package for the big construction companies and a $17-billion increase in the military budget.  Datw as de largest increase in lilitary spending sine de end of the cold war.  Slick Willy also lowered de capital gaisn tax from 28 % to 20%, a reduction htat helped the wealthiest 1 % ah de population to derive 80 percent of the tax savings.

54 years ago in America de Corporations did pay 45% - 50 % ah de income tax.  Today they pay 6 or 7 %.  Our infrastructure crumbling, we eh have no universal health care, we public education in crisis, regulatory agencies are impotent and our poor and working class are desperate.

Thanks clinton. thanks Congress..Plenty blame to go around!

Offline Bakes

  • Promethean...
  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 21980
    • View Profile
Re: Livid Democrats demand AIG return bailout bonuses
« Reply #13 on: March 17, 2009, 10:21:22 PM »
Democrats and dem hypocritical as de  damn republicans is not dem who iron out de bailout and de terms limiting de pay but allowed for packages and bonuses/

steups

the topic of bonuses wasn't part of the bailout discussions... executive compensation was.  Bonuses are a different matter altogether, and the case against it isn't as open and shut as Congress is making it seem (political grandstanding).

Additionally, it's inaccurate to say that de-regulation started with Clinton.  The Republicans were in charge of both houses of Congress so they could have gotten the bill passed without much input from the Democrats.  Clinton may have signed the Bill into law but that hardly gives him ownership of it.

truetrini

  • Guest
Re: Livid Democrats demand AIG return bailout bonuses
« Reply #14 on: March 17, 2009, 11:07:41 PM »
Democrats and dem hypocritical as de  damn republicans is not dem who iron out de bailout and de terms limiting de pay but allowed for packages and bonuses/

steups

the topic of bonuses wasn't part of the bailout discussions... executive compensation was.  Bonuses are a different matter altogether, and the case against it isn't as open and shut as Congress is making it seem (political grandstanding).

Additionally, it's inaccurate to say that de-regulation started with Clinton.  The Republicans were in charge of both houses of Congress so they could have gotten the bill passed without much input from the Democrats.  Clinton may have signed the Bill into law but that hardly gives him ownership of it.

If you look at the voting on the Bill you will see that it got sweeping thumbs up from congressional Dems as well as Senate dems!

And guess who made calls to help get the passage?  Yep good old Bill...if he wanted he could ahve used theveto, he used it quite well as President!

And isn't bonuses a part of a compensation package, especially if it is written into the contract?

Oh and Alan Greenspan too is a big shit hound, he used housing to float the US economy by helping create shit laons that in teh end made miniorities home owners in record numbers,,,,now dem same people all losing their homes by the SECOND!
« Last Edit: March 17, 2009, 11:53:40 PM by Trinity Cross »

truetrini

  • Guest
Re: Livid Democrats demand AIG return bailout bonuses
« Reply #15 on: March 17, 2009, 11:50:16 PM »
The current Subprime Mortgage Crisis, which has been the single biggest factor in helping lead the United States into a recession, (and depending on which economic analyst is talking, a depression) has it's root's in the Clinton Administration.

Let's take a quick walk through history to find out more.

After four years of investigating the Black Friday crash in 1929, Franklin D. Roosevelt's Administration figured out that the main actions that lead us into the Depression were bank's using their clients money to speculate on risky investments and pushing other risky investments on the very same customers. Some of the investments were sold directly to the bank's investors, others were made by the banks themselves. When the investments went belly up, the banks had no money to pay their customers back.

To stop this from ever happening again, FDR and fellow Democratic Senators and Congressmen passed the Glass-Steagall Act in 1933. The law stopped commercial banks from merging with investment banks, established the FDIC to insure bank deposits, gave the Federal Reserve control over setting interest rates, and made other banking reforms. The entire point was to protect deposits and stop banks from speculating with that money.

Strictly speaking, the Glass-Steagall Act was a huge success. It restored confidence in America's banking system and worked relatively well for six decades. That is, until Citigroup decided to spend over 30 years working behind the scenes to repeal parts of the act.

In the 1960's, Citigroup, then known as First National City Bank, (and later Citibank and Citi) started talking to Washington about repealing the Glass-Steagall Act. It took many years, and to make a long story short, they finally succeeded in 1999.  BTW, First National City Bank (Citi) is to blame for the modern credit card society, having introduced in 1967 the card that later was renamed Mastercard, the first credit card.

What does this have to do with Bill Clinton, or the current economic feces-fest we are currently in?

When Bill Clinton was President in 1998, Citibank, by then called Citicorp, was trying to merge with Traveller's group (the investment firm with the ads with the red umbrella). Under the Glass-Steagall Act, this was prohibited. Way back in 1933 FDR and Co. were wise enough to know that commercial banks shouldn't own investment banks, it leads to all sorts of illegal shenanigans.

But years of bribing, er, lobbying Congress had done it's trick, and Citicorp's CEO Sandy Weill said he was assured by Federal sources the merger would be approved, which it was in 1998. (Technically the merger was illegal in 1998 as the law wasn't repealed until November, 1999.) Renamed Citigroup after the merger, they have gone on to purchase other investment firms.

The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999 (called the Financial Services Modernization Act at the time) repealed 66 years of consumer protections and paved the way for financial mergers and the introduction of new investment products. The Act was written by Republican Senators including Phil Gramm, and early voting was split down party lines until President Clinton forced a rewrite of the bill.

Clinton vowed to veto the Senate version of the bill unless it was re-written to include "requirements that banks make loans to minorities, farmers, and others who have had little access to credit." The new version passed 90-8 in the Senate, passed the House, and Clinton signed it into law. Clinton's required reworking of the bill should be studied closely to see what role, if any, it played in illegal, often racist, subprime loans at higher rates than Caucasian borrowers were offered.

Days before the act passed, Clinton's Secretary of the Treasury, Robert Rubin, resigned. As Secretary of the Treasury, Rubin had oversight over enforcing the Glass-Steagall Act. While the resignation at the time looked like Rubin had been against repealing the act, that might not be the actual story. While Rubin had been critical of repealing the Act during the early stages, a year after resigning, Rubin took a cushy job with the newly formed Citigroup as Chairman of the Executive Committee, drawing a salary of $40 million a year, a position Rubin still holds.

As for Phil Gramm, the Republican Senator from Texas left Washington to become Vice Chairman for UBS Investment Bank, a Swiss bank that used the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act to purchase Paine Weber and become the largest private financial services bank in the world.  To make the story even more complicated, Phil Gramm is also serving as co-chairman and financial adviser of John McCain's 2008 Presidential campaign, and would reportedly be in the running for a cabinet job if McCain were to win, most likely as Treasury Secretary.

In recent years, not content with helping destroy the U.S. economy and send us into a recession, Phil Gramm has lobbied Congress and George W. Bush on behalf of UBS to remove remaining state regulations that protect consumers from predatory lending. Gramm was paid an additional $750,000 for his lobbyist work for UBS.

And for the heck of it, let's also disclose that Gramm and his wife were tied to the Enron scandal when it was revealed that Wendy Gramm wrote an exemption from federal oversite for Enron while she was head of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. What that means is that Wendy Gramm used her position as the head honcho of a major government agency to stop federal investigations and oversite of Enron's shady practices.

Wendy Gram then quit the commission and took a directorship with Enron. So Phil and Wendy Gramm each used their government positions to make specific companies richer and remove federal oversite, then quit their government jobs and went to work for those same specific companies (UBS, Enron). After the Enron disaster, Wendy Gramm and other former Enron directors agreed to pay $13 million of their own funds (plus $155 million from their insurance companies) to settle a lawsuit accusing them of insider trading.

Another random fact I discovered while researching:

Ron Paul voted against the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, however, as he says in this speech 4 days before it was signed into law, he was for repealing the Glass-Steagall Act.

Citigroup CEO Sandy Weill, along with his company, was under investigation by the Feds in 2002 for behavior that would never have been allowed had Citigroup not succeeded in removing the Glass-Steagall Act. Among the illegal actions Citigroup was accused of taking: "hyping the stocks of lackluster companies in order to rake in those companies' IPO business; using loans as loss leaders to encourage companies to give Citigroup their investment-banking business; helping Enron and WorldCom conceal their massive debts; "spinning" rocketing IPO shares to executives in exchange for business from the executives' companies."

What ever became of the investigations? Under the Bush Administration, nothing. No charges were filed. Sandy Weill was eventually replaced as CEO of Citigroup on October, 1, 2003, and sold $300 million in Citi stock back to the company. Weill received $1.967 billion worth of Citigroup stock as part of the Traveller's-Citicorp merger. And we can't forget this, "as of April 2006 he held 16,518,365 shares of Citigroup, Inc. and another 3,109,173 unexercised options."

So what have we learned? Hillary Clinton and John McCain are each connected to the current recession, either through the incompetent behavior of their spouse or their campaign manager.

The main players in repealing the Glass-Steagall Act - Sandy Weill, Phil Gramm, Robert Rubin, and Bill Clinton, have all continued to rake in ridiculous amounts of money, while the law they enacted contributed to the implosion of the U.S. banking system and our current recession. People are losing their homes, but the likes of Robert Rubin are still earning $40 million dollars a year. Bill Clinton has earned over $100 million dollars since leaving office despite not officially having a job. Sandy Weill apparently broke many federal laws, but didn't even get a slap on the wrist while pocketing $2 billion.

And then there's Phil Gramm. The man who may have actually had the most do with destroying the lives of hundreds of thousands of Americans, and affecting millions more, has enjoyed a posh job with a company that directly benefited from his legislation. And in a bizarro-world twist of irony, he may be "rewarded" for destroying our economy by being appointed to save us from himself.



UPDATE: UBS, the Swiss bank that Phil Gramm now works for, is accused of helping at least 19,000 of the wealthiest U.S. citizens avoid paying taxes by setting up offshore bank accounts to hide their wealth.

Offline Bakes

  • Promethean...
  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 21980
    • View Profile
Re: Livid Democrats demand AIG return bailout bonuses
« Reply #16 on: March 18, 2009, 12:03:53 AM »
Democrats and dem hypocritical as de  damn republicans is not dem who iron out de bailout and de terms limiting de pay but allowed for packages and bonuses/

steups

the topic of bonuses wasn't part of the bailout discussions... executive compensation was.  Bonuses are a different matter altogether, and the case against it isn't as open and shut as Congress is making it seem (political grandstanding).

Additionally, it's inaccurate to say that de-regulation started with Clinton.  The Republicans were in charge of both houses of Congress so they could have gotten the bill passed without much input from the Democrats.  Clinton may have signed the Bill into law but that hardly gives him ownership of it.

If you look at the voting on the Bill you will see that it got sweeping thumbs up from congressional Dems as well as Senate dems!

And guess who made calls to help get the passage?  Yep good old Bill...if he wanted he could ahve used theveto, he used it quite well as President!

And isn't bonuses a part of a compensation package, especially if it is written into the contract?

Oh and Alan Greenspan too is a big shit hound, he used housing to float the US economy by helping create shit laons that in teh end made miniorities home owners in record numbers,,,,now dem same people all losing their homes by the SECOND!

Curb yuh ADD fuh ah second... let's focus on the topic at hand... Bonuses.

the compensation packages discussed late last year as part of the bailout negotiations was limited to Executive Compensation, essentially CEO's and Directors.  The bonuses in question are performance bonuses for employees in specific practice areas within AIG... not Executive Compensation.




... ultimately I think the bonuses should be reduced, not eliminated (these employees must be retained if AIG is too recover), but it's hardly a cut and dry matter.

Offline Bakes

  • Promethean...
  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 21980
    • View Profile
Re: Livid Democrats demand AIG return bailout bonuses
« Reply #17 on: March 18, 2009, 12:07:32 AM »
The current Subprime Mortgage Crisis, which has been the single biggest factor in helping lead the United States into a recession, (and depending on which economic analyst is talking, a depression) has it's root's in the Clinton Administration.

Let's take a quick walk through history to find out more.

After four years of investigating the Black Friday crash in 1929, Franklin D. Roosevelt's Administration figured out that the main actions that lead us into the Depression were bank's using their clients money to speculate on risky investments and pushing other risky investments on the very same customers. Some of the investments were sold directly to the bank's investors, others were made by the banks themselves. When the investments went belly up, the banks had no money to pay their customers back.

To stop this from ever happening again, FDR and fellow Democratic Senators and Congressmen passed the Glass-Steagall Act in 1933. The law stopped commercial banks from merging with investment banks, established the FDIC to insure bank deposits, gave the Federal Reserve control over setting interest rates, and made other banking reforms. The entire point was to protect deposits and stop banks from speculating with that money.

Strictly speaking, the Glass-Steagall Act was a huge success. It restored confidence in America's banking system and worked relatively well for six decades. That is, until Citigroup decided to spend over 30 years working behind the scenes to repeal parts of the act.

In the 1960's, Citigroup, then known as First National City Bank, (and later Citibank and Citi) started talking to Washington about repealing the Glass-Steagall Act. It took many years, and to make a long story short, they finally succeeded in 1999.  BTW, First National City Bank (Citi) is to blame for the modern credit card society, having introduced in 1967 the card that later was renamed Mastercard, the first credit card.

What does this have to do with Bill Clinton, or the current economic feces-fest we are currently in?

When Bill Clinton was President in 1998, Citibank, by then called Citicorp, was trying to merge with Traveller's group (the investment firm with the ads with the red umbrella). Under the Glass-Steagall Act, this was prohibited. Way back in 1933 FDR and Co. were wise enough to know that commercial banks shouldn't own investment banks, it leads to all sorts of illegal shenanigans.

But years of bribing, er, lobbying Congress had done it's trick, and Citicorp's CEO Sandy Weill said he was assured by Federal sources the merger would be approved, which it was in 1998. (Technically the merger was illegal in 1998 as the law wasn't repealed until November, 1999.) Renamed Citigroup after the merger, they have gone on to purchase other investment firms.

The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999 (called the Financial Services Modernization Act at the time) repealed 66 years of consumer protections and paved the way for financial mergers and the introduction of new investment products. The Act was written by Republican Senators including Phil Gramm, and early voting was split down party lines until President Clinton forced a rewrite of the bill.

Clinton vowed to veto the Senate version of the bill unless it was re-written to include "requirements that banks make loans to minorities, farmers, and others who have had little access to credit." The new version passed 90-8 in the Senate, passed the House, and Clinton signed it into law. Clinton's required reworking of the bill should be studied closely to see what role, if any, it played in illegal, often racist, subprime loans at higher rates than Caucasian borrowers were offered.

Days before the act passed, Clinton's Secretary of the Treasury, Robert Rubin, resigned. As Secretary of the Treasury, Rubin had oversight over enforcing the Glass-Steagall Act. While the resignation at the time looked like Rubin had been against repealing the act, that might not be the actual story. While Rubin had been critical of repealing the Act during the early stages, a year after resigning, Rubin took a cushy job with the newly formed Citigroup as Chairman of the Executive Committee, drawing a salary of $40 million a year, a position Rubin still holds.

As for Phil Gramm, the Republican Senator from Texas left Washington to become Vice Chairman for UBS Investment Bank, a Swiss bank that used the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act to purchase Paine Weber and become the largest private financial services bank in the world.  To make the story even more complicated, Phil Gramm is also serving as co-chairman and financial adviser of John McCain's 2008 Presidential campaign, and would reportedly be in the running for a cabinet job if McCain were to win, most likely as Treasury Secretary.

In recent years, not content with helping destroy the U.S. economy and send us into a recession, Phil Gramm has lobbied Congress and George W. Bush on behalf of UBS to remove remaining state regulations that protect consumers from predatory lending. Gramm was paid an additional $750,000 for his lobbyist work for UBS.

And for the heck of it, let's also disclose that Gramm and his wife were tied to the Enron scandal when it was revealed that Wendy Gramm wrote an exemption from federal oversite for Enron while she was head of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. What that means is that Wendy Gramm used her position as the head honcho of a major government agency to stop federal investigations and oversite of Enron's shady practices.

Wendy Gram then quit the commission and took a directorship with Enron. So Phil and Wendy Gramm each used their government positions to make specific companies richer and remove federal oversite, then quit their government jobs and went to work for those same specific companies (UBS, Enron). After the Enron disaster, Wendy Gramm and other former Enron directors agreed to pay $13 million of their own funds (plus $155 million from their insurance companies) to settle a lawsuit accusing them of insider trading.

Another random fact I discovered while researching:

Ron Paul voted against the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, however, as he says in this speech 4 days before it was signed into law, he was for repealing the Glass-Steagall Act.

Citigroup CEO Sandy Weill, along with his company, was under investigation by the Feds in 2002 for behavior that would never have been allowed had Citigroup not succeeded in removing the Glass-Steagall Act. Among the illegal actions Citigroup was accused of taking: "hyping the stocks of lackluster companies in order to rake in those companies' IPO business; using loans as loss leaders to encourage companies to give Citigroup their investment-banking business; helping Enron and WorldCom conceal their massive debts; "spinning" rocketing IPO shares to executives in exchange for business from the executives' companies."

What ever became of the investigations? Under the Bush Administration, nothing. No charges were filed. Sandy Weill was eventually replaced as CEO of Citigroup on October, 1, 2003, and sold $300 million in Citi stock back to the company. Weill received $1.967 billion worth of Citigroup stock as part of the Traveller's-Citicorp merger. And we can't forget this, "as of April 2006 he held 16,518,365 shares of Citigroup, Inc. and another 3,109,173 unexercised options."

So what have we learned? Hillary Clinton and John McCain are each connected to the current recession, either through the incompetent behavior of their spouse or their campaign manager.

The main players in repealing the Glass-Steagall Act - Sandy Weill, Phil Gramm, Robert Rubin, and Bill Clinton, have all continued to rake in ridiculous amounts of money, while the law they enacted contributed to the implosion of the U.S. banking system and our current recession. People are losing their homes, but the likes of Robert Rubin are still earning $40 million dollars a year. Bill Clinton has earned over $100 million dollars since leaving office despite not officially having a job. Sandy Weill apparently broke many federal laws, but didn't even get a slap on the wrist while pocketing $2 billion.

And then there's Phil Gramm. The man who may have actually had the most do with destroying the lives of hundreds of thousands of Americans, and affecting millions more, has enjoyed a posh job with a company that directly benefited from his legislation. And in a bizarro-world twist of irony, he may be "rewarded" for destroying our economy by being appointed to save us from himself.



UPDATE: UBS, the Swiss bank that Phil Gramm now works for, is accused of helping at least 19,000 of the wealthiest U.S. citizens avoid paying taxes by setting up offshore bank accounts to hide their wealth.

You really should stop plagiarizing other people's material and passing it off under your name... a link or attribution would be nice, it helps to know who the author is so as to better understand what biases and presumptions might be accompanying their work.

Offline Bakes

  • Promethean...
  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 21980
    • View Profile
Re: Livid Democrats demand AIG return bailout bonuses
« Reply #18 on: March 18, 2009, 07:34:27 AM »
Curb yuh ADD fuh ah second... let's focus on the topic at hand... Bonuses.

the compensation packages discussed late last year as part of the bailout negotiations was limited to Executive Compensation, essentially CEO's and Directors.  The bonuses in question are performance bonuses for employees in specific practice areas within AIG... not Executive Compensation.




... ultimately I think the bonuses should be reduced, not eliminated (these employees must be retained if AIG is too recover), but it's hardly a cut and dry matter.

I may have to stand corrected after all... former AIG CEO, Edward Liddy writes in a Washington Post Op-Ed today that these bonuses were part of the Executive packages debated last December.

Offline E-man

  • Board Moderator
  • Hero Warrior
  • *
  • Posts: 8711
  • Support all Warriors. Red, White and Blacklisted.
    • View Profile
    • T&T Football History
Re: Livid Democrats demand AIG return bailout bonuses
« Reply #19 on: March 18, 2009, 08:47:39 AM »
Chris Dodd (D-senator) slipped an amendment into the stimulus bill which actually allowed these bonuses to be paid.  (now he denies he did and doesn't know how the language got there - just shows they never read the bill before they passed it). Now that it's out he's crying along with the rest of congress to get it back. clowns

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/17/aig.bonuses.congress/

Democratic leaders scrambling to strip AIG executives of bonuses are having a hard time answering a key question: Why didn't Congress act to prevent the bonuses in the first place?

 But though some lawmakers did move to prevent bonuses in the stimulus bill last month, the final language actually makes an exception for pre-existing contracts, effectively exempting AIG.

Senate Banking Committee Chairman Chris Dodd, D-Connecticut, who originally proposed the executive compensation provision, said he did not include the exemption clause, which said new rules "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."

In an interview with CNN, Dodd denied inserting that exemption at the 11th hour, and insisted he doesn't know how it got there.

"When I wrote the language there was no such language like that," Dodd told CNN Tuesday.

The mystery isn't just how what was effectively a protection for AIG was put into the stimulus bill -- it's also how a provision intended to prevent AIG from giving executive bonuses, was taken out.

truetrini

  • Guest
Re: Livid Democrats demand AIG return bailout bonuses
« Reply #20 on: March 18, 2009, 09:01:20 AM »
passing what as my own Bakes?  So I failed to put a link...I never said that article was mine..I made the original posts and dem...I dont use proper English when making a post here...all my post and dem does sound jes like dis.

it does not alter the FACT that Clinton had the Bill re-written and made calls to Senate and House dems to get it passed and then to add insult to injury, made it inventive enough to create loans for low income individuals who under normal circumstance should not have benefitted from such loans.

Bush then expanded it during his tenure, in fact he made it even easier.

Offline Bakes

  • Promethean...
  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 21980
    • View Profile
Re: Livid Democrats demand AIG return bailout bonuses
« Reply #21 on: March 18, 2009, 09:07:36 AM »
passing what as my own Bakes?  So I failed to put a link...I never said that article was mine..I made the original posts and dem...I dont use proper English when making a post here...all my post and dem does sound jes like dis.

You don't have to say the post was yours... no one suggested you're deliberately trying to pass off the article as your own, so sit down and sit yuh Xanax fella, no need for the spittle to fly.

it does not alter the FACT that Clinton had the Bill re-written and made calls to Senate and House dems to get it passed and then to add insult to injury, made it inventive enough to create loans for low income individuals who under normal circumstance should not have benefitted from such loans.

Bush then expanded it during his tenure, in fact he made it even easier.

Where is your proof of this... some opinionated rant that you copied from somewhere on the internet?  What is the credibility of your source?  I feel no particular need to defend Clinton but far too often misinformation is passed on the internet and presented as fact.  JDB et al rightly called me on the mat last week for my comments on Keisha Knight-Pulliam since I didn't have a source to support my statements... as I usually do.

truetrini

  • Guest
Re: Livid Democrats demand AIG return bailout bonuses
« Reply #22 on: March 18, 2009, 09:15:32 AM »
AIG chief calls bonus payments ‘distasteful’
Appearing before Congress, Liddy admits company made mistakes


Nightly News
BREAKING NEWS
updated 7 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - The chairman and CEO of American International Group is calling some of the company’s compensation payments “distasteful” and says the firm made financial mistakes on a scale few could have imagined.

In prepared testimony to a House Financial Services panel Wednesday morning, Edward Liddy said the company grew into an internal hedge fund that became overexposed to market risks. AIG is the largest recipient of federal government emergency assistance. It has received $170 billion in bailout help and the government holds a nearly 80 percent stake in the company.

AIG is under fire for $220 million in retention bonuses paid to employees in its troubled financial products division. The most recent payment of $165 million began to be paid last Friday and caused a furor.
Story continues below ↓advertisement | your ad here

Liddy, who has led American International Group Inc. since last fall, has become the reluctant defender of princely employee bonuses that members of Congress — and much of the American public — find indefensible.

The retention payments — ranging from $1,000 to nearly $6.5 million — were not his idea. Liddy himself is not getting a bonus. The deals were cut early last year, long before then-Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson asked Liddy to take over the company.

“I do not like these arrangements and find it distasteful and difficult to recommend to you that we must proceed with them,” Liddy wrote to the current treasury secretary, Timothy Geithner, over the weekend.

But the payments went out. Congress is in a lather and wants the money back. And Liddy, who had been scheduled to testify about AIG before the bonus story took root, is a timely target.

The clamor over compensation overshadowed AIG’s weekend disclosure that it used more than $90 billion in federal aid to pay out to foreign and domestic banks, including some that had multibillion-dollar U.S. government bailouts of their own. AIG is the single largest recipient of government assistance — a company whose financial transactions were so intricate and intertwined that it was considered simply too big to fail.

In an essay published Wednesday in The Washington Post, Liddy wrote: “The company’s overall structure is too complex, too unwieldy and too opaque for its component businesses to be well managed as one entity. So the strategy we continue to pursue ... is to isolate the value in the company’s component parts, capture that value to pay back money owed to the government, and allow AIG’s healthy insurance companies to continue to prosper for the benefit of policyholders and taxpayers.”

Lawmakers already were troubled by the idea of an institution that could single-handedly topple the financial system. Now, Liddy will appear before a House Financial Services subcommittee just as lawmakers from both parties are casting his company as the symbol of excess and abuse of taxpayer dollars.

Meanwhile, Rep. Barney Frank, chairman of the Financial Services panel, said he hopes Congress can rewrite a Depression-era law the Federal Reserve used to plow $85 billion into AIG, without conditions and without the need for congressional approval.

“The federal government is a major owner of this company. We’re the owners, not just the regulators,” Frank, D-Mass., said Wednesday on CBS’s “The Early Show.”

“It is my hope that before much further, we will amend that statute,” he said. Frank said the mere existence of the 1932 statute enabling the Fed to make the direct payment rendered a no-strings bailout as “a fait accompli.”

Rep. Carolyn Maloney, a New York Democrat who is on Frank’s committee, said that “Congress is going to recoup this money.”

Maloney said this will happen one way or another, “whether it’s through taxes, through a contract change. They say you can’t change a contract. We change contracts all the time.”


  AIG CEO faces lawmakers over bonuses
March 18: AIG chief executive officer Edward Liddy will answer tough questions on Capitol Hill today about the $168 million in bonuses handed out to company executives. NBC’s chief White House correspondent Chuck Todd reports.

Maloney said on NBC’s “Today” show that “we’re looking at a number of proposals.”

Congress and the Obama administration on Tuesday appeared to race each other to find ways to strip bonus recipients of their money. The Democratic chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, Max Baucus of Montana, and the panel’s top Republican, Charles Grassley of Iowa, immediately proposed legislation that would require companies and individuals to pay a 35 percent tax on all retention awards and on all other bonuses over $50,000. Others suggested even higher tax rates.

“If you don’t return it on your own, we will do it for you,” said Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y.

Geithner said he was working with the Justice Department to find ways to recover some of the payments. He cited a provision in the recent economic stimulus law that gave him authority to review compensation to the most highly paid employees of companies that already have received federal assistance.

Explaining the sudden burst of official outrage, the White House for the first time on Tuesday night said Geithner learned of the impending bonus payments a week ago Tuesday; he told the White House about them last Thursday, and senior aides informed President Barack Obama later that day.

As talk of Geithner’s possible resignation swirled around Washington, White House officials were obliged to say that he still retained the president’s full confidence.

Overall, AIG has paid $220 million in retention awards to its financial products employees; it distributed $55 million in December and $165 million had to be paid by Friday. Documents provided by AIG to the Treasury Department said the awards ranged from $1,000 to nearly $6.5 million. Seven employees were to receive more than $3 million. New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo said AIG last week paid bonuses of $1 million or more to 73 employees, including 11 who no longer work there.

But even as the White House continued to label the payments outrageous, Geithner noted that Liddy, the former CEO of Allstate Corp., took the helm of AIG at the government’s request.

“He inherited a difficult situation, including these ... retention contracts, which were entered prior to his or the government’s involvement in AIG,” Geithner wrote in a letter to congressional leaders Tuesday.

In his own letter to Geithner on Saturday, Liddy wrote that if it had been up to him, he would have designed the retention payments differently and at lower levels. But, he said, his hands were tied.

“Honoring contractual commitments is at the heart of what we do in the insurance business,” he said.

 

1]; } ?>