Congratulations on winning the thread. Bush and Obama have both made the same mistake of not putting any stipulations behind the bailout money. Obama's mistake was worse as it has been widely talked about since Bush screwed it up. Obama, Geithner, and the other idiots can't seem to grasp this issue though. If you have a problem with what they're doing, give them money with conditions.
My only question is where the money for the bonuses would have come from without the bailout? I got a nice bonus this year, but we cleared over $30,000,000. It is very clearly written that if we don't make money all bonus payment are off the table.
But they didn't, so it is what it is. My point is that AIG is bending over backwards here to do everything the Gov't asks and to get the company in position to pay back the loans. I'd like to see a little of that Democrat outrage directed at the f***ing politions that caused this mess.
Without the bailout, I would presume bankruptcy and voiding of all employment contracts would have precluded bonus payments. Of course, it would also have precluded teachers having any money to retire on, forced 94% of Fortune 500 companies to go out shopping for insurance coverage, including work comp, which would not be readily available and shut down the construction industry until they could secure new Performance Bonds assuming there was a company that could fill that void.
Guess I just have a hard time getting my thoughts around getting a bonus for losing money and using money that was not earned, but given to prevent a cataclysmic event to the economy, as a source of revenue to fund said bonuses. Maybe it is as simple that I just don't understand what the word bonus means.....
Your $1.6 million bonus is very important when you've agreed not to accept your $400,000 salary, I suppose.
It's a competitive market. I'm sure the contracted "bonuses" were put in there to secure their services.
