Er, campaign contribution:

http://www.examiner.com/x-268-Right-Side-Politics-Examiner~y2009m3d17-Obama-Received-a-101332-Bonus-from-AIG

The entire bailout was insane taxpayer blackmail. This should become clear any day now.

to write something this inspired. Brilliant and quietly hilarious. And kinda sad that this colossal bamboozlement was perpetrated on us all.

Well, then. Beautiful. Absolutely gorgeous.Sheer perfection. You only made us wait this long in order to fully appreciate you. Come on, admit it. Rah-rah-rah! Sis! BOOM! Baaaaaah! You gotta' love a good goat rope. Man, that was good. Life was really sucking chicken boogers and then you made me laugh. See scintilla fly.

... for a country beset by much larger FUTURE problems that require attention to be CONSUMED with such a trivial - and for all intents and purposes - historical matter is beyond me.

AIG bonuses ... 24/7 TV coverage, THE focus on capitol hill? I'm sure there are other things of more importance that should be taking up that time.

IF ANYTHING - the fact that people are so preoccupied with this tells me the economy can't be that bad after all. If this is the top story and THE topic of discussion then I guess all that "Great Depression" talk was just that ... talk.

Wait, so you mean Miley Cyrus hasn't been running AIG all these years? You live and learn.

None of this explains why you should have awarded yourselves those bonuses. Forget the people who'd like to see you chained to a rock. But the idea of being rewarded for... for what exactly? For overseeing a grand disaster? This just doesn't stand to reason. One would think you're getting paid extra when you deliver, not when you fail to do so. And with money the line is so clear: you generate money - you get the carrot, you don't - you get the stick.

And the part about the bonuses getting a unanimous go-head? Come on, you gotta be kidding! All were interested in getting their money, so why would they want to rock the boat, let alone scuttle it.

Probably gonna get hatemail for this, but just wanted to point out a few things.

Traders usually get paid for perfomance. You beat a certain benchmark and you get a percentage of this 'profit'. It is conceivable that certain traders actually made money for AIG even as the company as a whole lost. They would obviously have a case for stating that they 'earned' their bonuses. If bonuses were given for other reasons, this wouldn't apply. Without contract details, we cant know what percentage are deserving or not.

As for those who think that there is no 'talent' involved in quants, you are very much mistaken. Many people can comment on pro sports, but few can actually play. Same applies here. Think of what would happen if you were to take on Kobe for a one on one matchup. You may find flaws in his playing when you watch him on TV, but that does not mean he wouldnt kick the average person's butt any day of the week. To take the analogy further, imagine replacing Kobe with a good college player. Would you really expect the same results?

Replacing AIG's quants with a bunch of new people who have no experience with AIG's particular curcumstances would be insane, period.

Also, unless, you could implement restraint of trade clauses, which you would have trouble doing since their contract would be voided due to non-payment of bonuses, they could easily turn around and play AIG's book.

The world isnt fair, never has been and never will be. The obviously unfair outcome of rewarding those resposible for the crisis may still be the best one available.

Oh Phuleeeeze! dont lecture anyone about what the "contracts" are and what "actually happens" in the financial world. If anyone actually knew what happened in that world we all would not be where we are. Its very clear that the "Know-alls"of the financial world are a joke!

Its the symbolism of the action of AIG that the populous upheaval is all about. The bonuses were given to some people who had left the company, and the contracts (bonuses to be paid no matter how the company fared) were made AFTER they knew the company had made mistakes and were going to take a hit.

We are the fools to have helped without contracts. How was that possible? They are now like the teenager who turns around and tells the parent "Who forced you to help?"

There is a huge population of the world that lives on the edge. History tells us that every time they have been so grossly insulted and their misery made so minimal (even symbolically) there have been consequences. The populous consequences can become pretty horrific very quickly and companies such as AIG and political heads should know that.

Amazing how people miss irony when they are mad...some people are actually taking this seriously.

Garrison is still a national treasure, even though, as I have mentioned in other posts the last couple of days, I don't fully agree with his pov on this one. But I'll defend down to the last olive in a painfully dry martini his right to speak it.

Here we see the current head of AIG Financial Products and former vice chairman of Morgan Stanley, Gerry Pasciucco. (Blue blazer)

http://www.fairfieldcountylook.com/albums/familycenters/img_4598jpg-gerry-ke_fmt.jpeg

Yeah, just for one instance, back in the Nixon Administration (yeah, I'm old) I was a Newspaper Guild member working for a New York newspaper under a union contract that called for raises of (can't remember exact figures, but let's say) 11%, 8% and 8% over three years. As an anti-inflationary move, Nixon set a cap on salary increases of (let's say) 6%. There went my raise and the raises of hundreds of my coworkers. No business leaders wept about the sanctity of The Contract then. Also, how about all the treaties, conventions, rules and accords George W. Bush's administration busted. There was no tearing of garments and bathing in dust over those, as I recall.

So let's just call it like it is -- these AIG hogs got caught with their faces buried in the trough, so now we want our money back, and it doesn't matter which end of the pig we get it from. Screw me? Screw you.

Don