Re contracts: We both know contracts are altered, negated and outright cancelled every day of the week in America. That whole argument was a straw man to begin with. Frankly, if your company has to go on life support to avoid bankruptcy, you ARE IN BANKRUPTCY as far as your previous contractual agreements go. After all, without the TARP program AIG would have filed Chapter 11 in October. Where would all these contracts be then? The chances of anyone suing for damages would be 0.00%. That is the position AIG, and Treasury, should have taken. I think you might be right about bonus comp: wags & salaries would be protected, but not bonuses. For that very reason they should NOT be honored.

As for executive compensation: that problem's been brewing for a long, long time. I joke with my friends that I missed the big score: I could have been hired as a CEO/COO of a Fortune 500 company, shown for the incompetent fool I am, and got fired with a $35 million severance. Yeah, I'll take my pink slip and live with that shame...

My hope is that institutional stockholders--who actually own enough shares to exert influence on the board--start to rein in the inflationary executive pay schemes. Why should dividends get cut while the CEO pays himself a bonus??

Resentment.

Your entire post reeks of resentment. Were you truly unaware at age 17 that doctors do make more money than the person who take care of his kids? That investment advisors and attorneys make more than restaurant cooks and sanitation workers? Of course you weren't, if you didn't know that then you didn't care to find out. Or maybe didn't care at all. You chose your career and your job, you certainly must have had an idea what the salary range was for your position. Did you ever say "I want more than this"? Maybe you did, but did you ever try to figure out HOW you could do that?

Maybe, like all the people you mentioned, you decided that personal satisfaction was an acceptable tradeoff for the big bucks. Maybe you were happy working for the Peace Corp building water pipelines in Zambia. That's fine, and a great use of one's life and skills. Just don't complain that you thought you were going to get paid $250,000 for that job, you weren't. The point is: make an educated choice, and if you aren't happy about it, CHANGE YOURSELF. Everybody has that power.

As for entitlement: yes, I believe that someone who applies themselves, works hard and helps others deserves to be richly compensated. I don't believe in bailouts, subsidies or other crutches for the able-bodied or able-minded or those who make foolish decisions.

Great points here. To clarify: bailouts are horrible. I absolutely believe AIG should never have been bailed out. Neither should GM, Chrysler, Citi etc. If I believe in the modern free market system, where the winner takes all, then the loses loses all. That to me is fair.

[Ok, why does it have to go to bolshevism immediately? Look, the guy is in SALES. S&T is a skillset in finance that is not necessarily rocket science.]

Agreed, although most people are not willing to make 1000 calls a day knowing that 990 people will tell them to go f**k themselves. To be able to do that day after day is a rare skill. :)

[The issue is whining about being bailed out. Remember without taxpayer dollars he'd be an unsecured creditor in a bankruptcy. So he'd get some cents on the dollar rather than the whole amount. So perhaps he shouldn't be whining so much.]

Okay. Technically under bankruptcy laws he as an employee would be entitled to get paid before anyone else--just like the mail room staff, the janitor, etc. But consider this: he has a very transferable skill set in demand by many industries. Although he might take a (relative) pay cut, a guy like that will always have a job in America.

[The NYL example is a good one for why this seems so unfair. NYL is now competing with a company that has been bailed out of its poor decisions. So they passed up the opportunity to make a lot of fake profits and still have a competitor being propped up by the government that benefited. Why shouldn't the employees of the company that didn't offload its bad bets on the taxpayer have more latitude to pay (and poach Mr. DeSantis if need be)?]

Full disclosure: I know something about NYL's workings. They are NOT hurting. In fact, they are having a record year. Their sales staff is making hay right now because nobody in their right mind wants their retirement money or their life insurance guaranteed by a near-bankrupt company. They took in over $10 BILLION in personal annuity sales alone last year. I'd feel worse for the small savings and loan banks competing against Bank of America--they're getting the shaft.

[Perhaps a bit of populist agitation will remind the rich of what the government does for them--prevent the rest of the chimps from taking what they have. If they then are willing to pay a bit more in taxes and act a little more understated in their entitlement, so much the better.]

No question. My argument isn't really against the rich--you can be rich with a social conscience, and live modestly. I know people who do. My argument is with those responsible for putting their companies, and the livelihood of thousands (or, in the case of a giant insurance/investment company, millions) of people on a kamikaze course to doom. For example, when the Big Three automakers flew their private jets to beg for taxpayer money. I mean, Ford can spend $20,000 per flight for the CEO to fly from Detroit to Washington, but can't make a car engine that (in my experience) lasts more than 100,000 miles?? Why do they deserve help when they turn out crap?

Anyway, thanks for the thoughtful input. It's nice having a discussion instead of a blamewar.