Limbaugh Defends AIG

soon rush will own miss precious perfect

This sort of thing is really why they shouldn't have been bailed out in the first place. If it makes you feel any better, the top economist from Citigroup (you know, one of those other companies that received a massive bailout, and whose economists apparently couldn't foresee the economic mess ahead) just got pulled up to be a major counselor to Geithner and the Treasury Department. What a world we live in.

im like 90% that rush limbaugh is secretly a comedian

On March 18 2009 14:44 nolan wrote: im like 90% that rush limbaugh is secretly a comedian

you mean like an uber level?

or he could be a big democrat and figure the best way to help is to act like a huge lunatic and make the republicans look horrible so that they can't win any elections.

rush is a bigot.

even ppl inside AIG do not like the 165 million in bonuses. they said their hands are tied because its contractually obligated to make those payments.

really douche move by AIG as well to have the largest losses ever in company history, in the midst of a horrible recession /depression and they pay out HUGEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE bonuses.

i hope someone flies a plane into their building.





(only half joking about the plane thing :/ 100% serious if all the airline execs were on it tho )

For those of you not actually familiar with what AIG does:

AIG is an operationally sound insurance company, arguably the best, that wrote a huge book of market rate cds that is currently bringing book of the company down as the default risk on the underlyings gets upped. I don't personally know any AIG executives, but I would imagine most are quite deserving of their bonuses given that they run one of the best insurance books in the business and have continued to do so despite the trouble eminating from CDS book (With which 95% of AIG employees have nothing to do).

Beyond the question of dessert is one of consequences. I can't imagine that you guys don't understand the impact of government intervention in private employment contracts. In an environement where heightened sensitivity to counterparty risk has frozen many contract markets (fixed income, cds, ABCP for a while, lending in general) the last thing anyone needs is to start factoring gov't intervention risk into the structure and pricing of private contracts.

I find the villification of the highest skilled Americans because of their often deserved high compensation disgusting and dangerous at a time when America needs more experts, not populists.

I agree Rush Limbaugh is a tool though, but for other reasons.

They're paying huge bonuses to the exact department that you mentioned, the CDS book shit. In other words, the exact people who fucked up and put AIG onto the verge of bankruptcy. Are you ok with that?

Plus, if I have a job at my neighborhood auto-mechanic and I do a great job, but some other fucking idiot who works there manages to put the shop on the verge of bankruptcy, I don't still get a bonus. It sucks. It really sucks. But in a shitty economy when your company is about to go out of business, even it's not your fault you still get screwed. That's how it works in the real world. But I guess when you're AIG those rules don't apply? That's BS. You have small business owners going WITHOUT pay so that they can keep the doors open and make payroll. I'm not saying stop paying the employees who had nothing to do with causing the company trouble, but I do think this is a year where those employees aren't getting a bonus. As for the employees who DID cause the mess, they should be getting fired or pay cuts or some sort of punishment, but instead they're getting BONUSES?!?!

So I hear your argument but I think if you see the facts you'll also agree with me on this.

yea fuck the world im over it

k2o4, usually you have some good, well informed blogs, but this one is just silly. Try not to think of these as bonuses, but rather as severance payments. A majority of these execs had nothing to do with the collapse. When they signed up to work with AIG, they were almost all contractually guaranteed something if the company tanked. There's certainly some people receiving a ton of money who were directly responsible for the collapse, but for the most part, most of the people basically had no control over it.


and


listen

i do know an AIG employee who worked on security pricing in NYC. He says while he likes his company, he feels they did not do it perfectly. also, it is not demonizing them unjustly if their actions fit the description. if a world renowned doctor/surgeon performed what was a complex surgery, but one that was not uncommon or unfamiliar, and botched it. What about drug companies who design and manufacture complicated chemical and biological concoctions to help people medically? What if they screw up a drug, after getting government approval, and hurt millions (billions) of lives. Should they not be accountable? the financial industry is obviously different but all require expert knowledge of the given field, responsibility, and just compensation. so the drug company that messes up lives or the surgeon who botches a surgery, or the financial company that screws up economy; how can one say paying very big bonuses to the people who mismanaged and mispriced and misrepresented securities, for whatever reason or intention?

the question is, should they lose their jobs? maybe, maybe not. but should they get 165 million usd after losing billions? where do you think the money comes from? its from the funds they were given in bailout money or from company resources. if one cannot see how irresponsible that is.....

The bailout shouldn't of happened in the first place, but it's not the governments place to rewrite existing LEGAL contracts because they don't like the terms.

lolol my god i want a million bucks for running a massive multi billion dollar company into the shit hole.

On March 18 2009 16:40 ikc5 wrote: Try not to think of these as bonuses, but rather as severance payments. A majority of these execs had nothing to do with the collapse. When they signed up to work with AIG, they were almost all contractually guaranteed something if the company tanked. There's certainly some people receiving a ton of money who were directly responsible for the collapse, but for the most part, most of the people basically had no control over it.

The thing that makes me angry is the people who killed AIG and then got bonuses. And many of them are getting more money. Not cool.

Are you saying that if AIG filed for bankruptcy like they were gonna have to do without a bailout, that those people STILL would have gotten money? That doesn't sound right to me. My understanding is that if AIG hadn't been bailed out, they would have filed for bankruptcy and the people with contracts would have gotten nothing. I think people getting bonuses goes bye bye once the gov money comes in, cause it's either no bonus and AIG dies or no bonus and AIG lives imo.

Btw, your logic is weird. You said that "they were almost all contractually guaranteed something if the company tanked". But it seems that AIG didn't tank since it got bailed out, so why do these guys get a bonus?

btw, did you miss this paragraph in my blog:

Again, these payments were all made to individuals in the subsidiary whose performance led to crushing losses and the near failure of AIG. Thus, last week, AIG made more than 73 millionaires in the unit which lost so much money that it brought the firm to its knees, forcing taxpayer bailout. Something is deeply wrong with this outcome. I hope the Committee will address it head on.

On March 18 2009 18:10 k2o4 wrote: Are you saying that if AIG filed for bankruptcy like they were gonna have to do without a bailout, that those people STILL would have gotten money? That doesn't sound right to me. My understanding is that if AIG hadn't been bailed out, they would have filed for bankruptcy and the people with contracts would have gotten nothing. I think people getting bonuses goes bye bye once the gov money comes in, cause it's either no bonus and AIG dies or no bonus and AIG lives imo.

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. These people would be paid regardless of whether AIG had been bailed out or not. Didn't you listen to either of my videos?

To keep a company afloat, you do have to actually pay the people who work there. There's surely plenty of people who were directly responsible for AIG's financial troubles who are receiving copious amounts of taxpayer dollars for their vacations. But AIG is a MASSIVE company, and probably hundreds of those executives basically had nothing to do with AIG's downfall. What are we going to do? Fire them all? Don't pay them and expect them to just stay out of the kindness of their heart? Have Obama bust through the door and demand the taxpayers money back? Kindly ask WHITE MALE EXECUTIVE to live more frugally to appease the masses? Seriously, there's some bad shit going on here obviously, and people getting taxpayer money even though they totally sucked balls and ran the company into the balls, but that's definitely the minority. Most of the people there are doing their job and are contractually owed money regardless of how poorly or how well AIG is doing.

Seriously, I want to hear your solution. We gave them money to stay afloat and now we're mad they're using it to pay employees? Sure it seems excessive to us, but those execs probably wouldn't be too happy about drastic paycuts mandated by the government, lots of them would leave and then AIG would have to hire and train tons of new exec personnel, which would probably cost just as much, and probably more money to entice good people to come work for a failing company.

IF we'd let AIG just file bankruptcy, ignoring other potential repercussions, a lot of those execs would still be receiving severance payments, but then at least we wouldn't have to worry about AIG becoming a long-term liability and us constantly pouring bailout money to keep them afloat.

No, I didn't miss the last paragraph, but that's just silly. Can we really accurately pinpoint the exact individuals who caused AIG's bailout, ignore all the external factors which may have caused it's collapse, and then specifically exempt those individuals from receiving any money from AIG? Does this honestly sound feasible to you?

I keep saying that I'm not against PAYING PEOPLE THEIR SALARY. I'm against PAYING THEM A BONUS. Like I keep saying, if my neighborhood auto shop is on the verge of bankruptcy the last thing they're gonna do with a loan from the bank is pay out bonuses, even if some of the employees did a really good job and deserve one. You keep paying salaries.

Well I have a little news for you. In the world out there when you sign you pay. Thats the end of the story. But in the same world if you sign and fuck up you dont get bailed out either.

So basically its like you borrowed money to a guy and you go bankrupt. Now father Obama comes in and bails you out when you dont deserve anything. You obv go out and pay what you are supposed to pay which was the loaned money. The bonuses had to be paid under the contracts.

Geithner and Bernanke fucked up by saving Bear in the first place. Then Bush and Paulson came in and bombed everything to hell and back with their bailout. Then Obama comes in and fucked up even more with another bail out. These are all symptoms of a really massive fuckup political game whose purpose is to go after votes from idiots.

Limbaugh is a fucked retard who is just trying to fill out his show with controversy. Why people waste their time with this ignorant piece of shit is beyond me.

Bottom line. Bonuses ARE justified.
You are a hypocrite. How come its OK for AIG to get money when they fuck up cause they are too important to let go. But then employees who are too important to let go cants get money when they fuck up?

Whats fucked up is the actions of Bush/Obama/Geithner/Bernanke/Paulson/Democrats/Republicans and most importantly American Voters!!

I KEEP SAYING TO PAY PEOPLE THEIR SALARIES DO YOU NOT HEAR ME?

YOU ARE A HYPOCRITE CAUSE I SAY YOU ARE, SO THERE!

Jesus, even Ben Stein, who normally drives me crazy with his republican wackoness is saying the same shit as me.

Learn how the system works. Bonus ARE part of their regular salary. Its in their contract. They HAVE TO pay it. There is almost zero difference between salary and these bonuses.