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.