Did Congress & the Senate vote to give AIG the money?

[wartrace]

Isn't this a failure of our legislators rather than that of AIG management? It was in the bill, wasn't it? Not reading the bill is no excuse, voting for something without reading it is negligence. AIG granted those bonuses due to the negligence of our elected officials. Our officials had the power to set conditions for the money yet they didn't. Now they want to enact an illegal retro active tax on that bonus money???? Is anyone else sensing they do not have a clue on Capital hill?

It makes me ill to hear that some members charged with regulating AIG received "campaign contributions" from that company. Does anyone else suspect a conflict there? Are we supposed to turn a blind eye to that? Business as usual? Is that kind of greed acceptable to you? Should an elected official be able to enrich themselves while in office? Elected office USED to be a sacrifice people made in service of their country. It seems to me they are making citizens sacrifice in service to them at this point.


Take this for what it is, a disgusted rant. It is directed at "the system" we have in place right now. Entrenched politicians that apparently have no accountability for their actions and have enriched themselves while "serving" us.

[Dreamer Tatum]

Yes, you have it right.

It's in the bill, period and paragraph.

The tax passed today is a terrible way to try and recover, too. A bad few days for Congress.

[LakeSamish706]

1. Congress on both sides of the isle are a bunch of useless tits as far as I am concerned...

Not one of them has done the job that they were elected to do in the past 8 years, so I really don't expect much from them. 160,000 plus per year is their salary, and not one of them earns it.

[emilyg]

3. Tits and selfish twits.

[wartrace]

6. There are deeper problems.

I doubt there are many not making ten times their salary in "donations" , "perks" & inside information. I am sorry to have to agree it is not isolated to one party. They are supposed to be serving the country, not themselves.

[DeepBlueC]

18. I don't think this has to do with corruption

I think it has to do with difficult choices. They have to solve problems and deal with optics as well and those two can lead in different directions. Look the way I think it might have happened in committee is that Treasury asked Dodd to except contracts already in existence from his amendment to bring in into conformity with the law. To Dodd I think it sounded like a standard legal refinement (that's exactly the sense I got from his comments...he did not know that it applied to AIG)and Treasury is in a position to comment on these things. Treasury may have known exactly why they needed it or they may not have; these were possibly bureaucrats dealing with legal generalities. In any case they were all simply trying to find the least applecart-upsetting way of managing legalities and purpose which was in fact to get the job done. Liddy would have argued for what he needed to do that. Treasury would want to keep it straightforward and not open to expensive time-consuming and counter-productive legal challenge. The Fed would not care. They really have no political exposure at all. They just needed a coherent deal that got the figures and the terms right. What happened is that since Liddy was getting the money from the Treasury and from the Fed, these were the people he dealt with. I see a lot of difficult and unattractive options here and lots of fodder for tabloid news but no malfeasance.

[Common Sense Party]

7. Most tits are hardly useless.

The same cannot be said for most members of Congress.

[Southpaw07]

2. What I saw today......

was a reactionary, cover your ass, mob mentality.

[DeepBlueC]

19. yep

But you think any reporter would have listened to them give a more detailed explanation, or even more unlikely, talk to all the players and come up with the whole story before they started reporting it? Not possible in the 24 hour news cycle. No time for facts..just impressions and propaganda from anyone offering.

[DeepBlueC]

4. they had a contract that preceded the bill

Dodd was advised that there would be legal problems in passing legislation that voided an existing contract, so he caved. Frankly I think it was right. They could have tried to negotiate changes to the contract, possibly. If they void it by a law passed after the fact AIG will be sued. They will very likely lose. AIG or the American people will then have to cover legal costs possibly for both sides and it ends up being a lot more expensive although it does push the problem down the road. They do need these people to wrap up the projects, essentially work themselves out of a job. I would not wait in their position without the incentive. I'd take the best damn offer for a job that had some likelihood of security. These jobs have to have people managing trades for each book every day. No time for headhunters. If it all falls apart because of all this populist ignorance and political grandstanding it will cost us all dearly. I listened to Liddy and he made a good case in my estimation, rather to my surprise as I was expecting something like the Detroit CEOs. Not at all.

[FLyellowdog]

5. Good explanation. Thanks. n/t

[Rage for Order]

8. But there will be no legal issue with the law the House voted on today?

Sorry, but I find their excuses to be lame. Also, if it is this easy to explain, why did it take 24 hours for Dodd to fess up after having previously denied it? If it wasn't shameful, why did he act ashamed?

[LakeSamish706]

12. It may come down to whether or not Congress has enacted the tax as...

a punishment or not for breach of the Constitution... I think it may all end up in court anyway, will have to wait and see.

[DeepBlueC]

13. the news spin...

Dodd got in the main point of his amendment but accepted small changes on legal advice that covered honoring contracts already made. These refinements are made in conference as everyone cleans up things in the bill that are misleading, legally questionable, or have implications legislators may not have seen at first. That is the process. The restrictions on bonuses are still in the law, just not so as to void existing contracts. But for the news story people and that includes the fact-shy reporters are not interested in details or judgment or difficult facts. They cared only about what Obama knew and when did he know it. The usual drama. The bailout got backlash but the media-created sense is that the American people draw the line right here at the bonuses. The bailout is in comparison less odious. You can blame the gossip-hungry, fact-averse news media. Even the committee listened to Liddy and then acted and spoke as if they had not heard what he said. They are thinking of one thing and that is political cover. This tax thing provides at least that, shows they all fought the good fight. There is some question raised by several journalists as to whether this itself is legal. But arguing against the tax man in court is not something any citizen relishes. If they do fight it will take a long time and if they win it will be a footnote in the news, and beyond the best efforts of our valiant politicians. That's what the chairman said...kick it down the road...had Liddy considered that? Liddy had but his concern is hanging on to the people he needs to get the job done. When you add it all up it's a classic clusterfuck. The Congress may understand the logic but the news has carried us beyond logic and fact. What fun for them! :sarcasm:

[LakeSamish706]

9. I agree with having listened to Liddy on this one.... For someone that as far as...

I can tell, is not profiting at all from this I tend to trust him and certainly felt some angst during the tough questioning of him yesterday. What would we have done if he had said, hey I am not being paid to do this job so screw you, I quit? I don't recall the monies that they have gotten back, but it seemed that he had the company on the right track. He mentioned how he dealt with problems; ie: Took the problem and broke it into a number of parts and then worked on each part to solve it.. He seems legit to me...

[DeepBlueC]

14. I was wondering if he'd tell them to fuck themselves

It must have been tempting to leave those fucking blowhards to their own devices. They did not consider at all his main concern of keeping a team in place until the job is done. It's as if the Congress doesn't really think this is a challenge or critical to staving off a catastrophic meltdown. Both parties.

[LakeSamish706]

16. You know what, I just don't think that these parasites really give a shit....

Most of them (including Frank) were just GrandStanding IMO...

[DeepBlueC]

17. They do but they know they're getting hammered in the news

and that it matters. They may not be able to get further assistance through Congress because of this. That's why many of the DEmocrats had to be seen objecting so loudly to this Outrage. It's theater now but they do care. Liddy underestimated how difficult it is to make a case to a public that will not listen if the opponents can pull together a simple chant of protest. He did not realize what a difficult position he put the committee in and that is why they were so mad. If it had to be done they wanted a part in deciding how to get it done. The chairman said "Didn't I ask you to report to us...blah blah. Do you know how hard it will be to pass subsequent necessary legislation now?" They were mad at him because they could have anticipated this shit storm. The Fed does not care. It is not enough to be right, to be reasonable, to make the best of a bad situation created by the other guys.

[wartrace]

11. Why all the false outrage from congress?

I thought the majority of congress were lawyers (another problem), do they not understand contractual law or are they covering their buttocks? I will state it plainly, they are lying to us and they KNOW that we know that they are. I have no respect for someone caught red handed that doesn't apologise or resign.

[DeepBlueC]

15. what they did not know was what a massive news event it would be

That puts it out of the reach of reason alone. Now it is political cover. The decision made was right in balance but no one feels that they can defend it in ten words of one syllable.

[DeepBlueC]

10. I believe that there were negotiations with the Federal Reserve

Their deal was independent of the TARP funds. This is what Barney Frank was saying the other day. They got 40 billion from one and 38 billion from the other. The Fed does not have to consult Congress in making these arrangements. They have their own authority to act independently. So there is some element of the right hand not knowing what the left was doing. But there is a real question of the simple legality of legislating the voiding of a contract. It would be a real mess. They would have to get voluntary compliance and apparently it was felt that we were not in a good position to do so.