|
Post by hisea on Mar 18, 2009 10:11:37 GMT -4
Chris Dodd slipped language into the stimulus bill to allow for the 165 million in bonuses for AIG. This man need to be remove from office! Dodd an Obama were #1,#2 in money received from AIG! We need to stand together to defeat these thugs!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 19, 2009 0:01:58 GMT -4
The initial rescue of AIG ($85 Billion) took place mid September of 2008. The rescue was put together by the treasury department (part of the administration at that time), not congress. Dodd may have had some type of input, but it was spearheaded by the Bush administration. It would seem that both congress and administration at the time should have reviewed all of the details of the plan.
I recall all the news coverage of the importance of the issue, the economy was going to tank, McCain suspended his campaign and headed back to DC, Obama was criticized for not rushing back.....
This all started even before the election had even happened. I am pretty sure that Obama did not take office until January 20th of 2009.
|
|
|
Post by hisea on Mar 19, 2009 5:30:59 GMT -4
Sorry your wrong! Stop drinking the cool aid! Thanks to Dodd's addition to the stimulus bill AIG will get to keep the bonuses!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 19, 2009 8:58:42 GMT -4
Which parts of what I said are wrong? Break it down for me please.
|
|
|
Post by dej on Mar 19, 2009 9:02:55 GMT -4
The initial rescue of AIG ($85 Billion) took place mid September of 2008. The rescue was put together by the treasury department (part of the administration at that time), not congress. Dodd may have had some type of input, but it was spearheaded by the Bush administration. It would seem that both congress and administration at the time should have reviewed all of the details of the plan.. You partially right. It was actually the Federal Reserve that spearheaded the initial AIG rescue under the previous adminstration. The Federal Reserve Bank of New York had (and still has) primary oversight of AIG. The president of the New York Federal Reserve, and a primary architect of the AIG bailout at the time was a gentleman named Timothy Geithner (name sound familiar??) As for oversight, the contractual obligations for these bonuses were in place during that Sept timeframe, and apparently were overlooked by Geithner, just as he was willing to over look their spa retreat and release another 37.5 billion in bailout money in October, the day after the news of the retreat broke out. Dodd, as Senate Banking Committee chairman also bore oversight responsibility. While that oversight was sorely lacking early in the process, at least he did try to step it up in Jan 2009, attempting to add executive salary compensation caps to AIG just like he had already added to banks in the TARP bill. He was persuaded not to add the caps by Obama's National Economic Chairman, Larry Summers and by Geithner. So while the lousy oversight began on Bush's watch, it was actually Obama's advisors that made sure the bouses could happen. Geithner's work on the AIG bailouts were also cited as part of the reason the Obama adminstration declared him so indispensable to the econmic recovery that we just had to get over him being a tax cheat.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 19, 2009 9:42:40 GMT -4
I left out that the Federal Reserve was involved, but the Treasury Departments was in it too. Here's an excerpt from a Wall Street Journal article from September 2008.
.....the final decision to help AIG came Tuesday as the federal government concluded it would be "catastrophic" to allow the insurer to fail, according to a person familiar with the matter. Over the weekend, federal officials had tried to get the private sector to pony up some funds. But when that effort failed, Fed Chairman Bernanke, New York Fed President Timothy Geithner and Treasury Secretary Paulson concluded that federal assistance was needed to avert an AIG bankruptcy, which they feared could have disastrous repercussions.
Staff from the Federal Reserve and Treasury worked on the plan through Monday night. President George W. Bush was briefed on the rescue Tuesday afternoon during a meeting of the President's Working Group on Financial Markets.
That the government would prop up AIG financially offers a stark indication of the breadth of the insurer's role in the global economy. If it were to have trouble meeting its obligations, the potential domino effect could reach around the world.....
I just don't see how only one or two people can be blamed for this mess. Saying Dodd, Obama and Geithner caused or allowed this to happen is just not factual. Obama hadn't even been elected yet, so he's off the hook for right now. As for the others.....Congress, Treasury, Federal Reserve, AIG, and the administration at the time all had a hand in it. Even if Giethner was doing something below the radar.....where were all of the others that were involved. They just went along with what Geithner proposed.....I don't think so.
|
|
|
Post by mcbeth on Mar 19, 2009 18:40:40 GMT -4
I think what bothers me even more is that Dodd "reversed" what he originally said (at first he said he didn't add the exemption to executive bonuses; now today he admits it). www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/03/18/sen-dodd-admits-adding-bonus-provision-stimulus-package/I'm REALLY tired of being lied to, and it seems like both sides of the aisle have perfected the art. And they wonder why we are so jaded and angry? I'm registered as a Democrat, but they are sorely testing my decision there. The Republicans lost me in the late 80s. Since I can't vote in a primary as the Independent that I guess I really am, I'm kinda toast... I don't have a problem with people who EARN their bonuses if they are producing, making money for their company and growing the economy. However, in the case of the companies that are basically majority-owned by the people of the United States (e.g. AIG and a few others), they have not proven that they deserve bonuses because had they done a "good job" that merited them, their companies would never have needed TARP, TALF, or whatever part of the alphabet that is out there. These folks cost their companies money, so how did they "earn" a bonus? I'm just tired of all the lies. Seems no one has the ability to tell their "constituents" (read: "Their Employers", as they supposedly answer to us folks who put them in office) the truth anymore.
|
|
|
Post by tacobell on Mar 19, 2009 19:41:52 GMT -4
AIG (arrogance ignorance and greed) I saw on the news today that the feds want a 90% tax on bonues for the employees and every other company that got bailout money as well
|
|
|
Post by adaml on Mar 19, 2009 22:21:35 GMT -4
I saw tonight that BGE top Executives are getting a nice raise also! What a world we live in!
|
|
|
Post by mcbeth on Mar 19, 2009 22:40:28 GMT -4
On the plus side, BGE hasn't let the power system fail. Just don't get me started on the ridiculous increase in my power bill....
|
|
|
Post by dej on Mar 20, 2009 2:58:40 GMT -4
I just don't see how only one or two people can be blamed for this mess. Saying Dodd, Obama and Geithner caused or allowed this to happen is just not factual. Obama hadn't even been elected yet, so he's off the hook for right now. As for the others.....Congress, Treasury, Federal Reserve, AIG, and the administration at the time all had a hand in it. Even if Giethner was doing something below the radar.....where were all of the others that were involved. They just went along with what Geithner proposed.....I don't think so. Actually we pretty much agree except for the part about Obama being off the hook for now. Here's part of a ABC news story from Mar 17: "Last month, the Senate unanimously approved an amendment to the stimulus bill aimed at restricting bonuses over $100,000 at any company receiving federal bailout funds. The measure, which was drafted by Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, and Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., applied these restrictions retroactively to bonuses received or promised in 2008 and onward.
But then...
The provision was stripped out during the closed-door conference negotiations involving House and Senate leaders and the White House. A measure by Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., to limit executive compensation replaced it. But Dodd's measure explicitly exempted bonuses agreed to prior to the passage of the stimulus bill.
Here's the exact language from Dodd's measure in the stimulus: "The prohibition required under clause (i) shall not be construed to prohibit any bonus payment required to be paid pursuant to a written employment contract executed on or before February 11, 2009..."This was the stimulus bill that provided the most recent bailout payment to AIG. Obama was in the White House when these negotiations occurred to make sure executives did not loose their bonus money. I don't see how he's off the hook for deals cut by the White House, Senate & Congress while he is in office.
|
|
|
Post by falgar25 on Mar 20, 2009 4:39:53 GMT -4
I think the idea in this thread, and popularized on the new channels recently, might be a bit unfair to Dodd. Here are some thoughts:
- The text in dej's message is not the exact text of Dodd's amendment, it is the partial text of a revision to his amendment.
- I believe (and I'm still looking for a source on this) that it is Dodd's amendment that limits bonus compensation to restricted stock that vests only after the company has paid back the bailout money. This doesn't sound so bad.
- I believe (and again I need to find a source) that the rest of the text of the revision clarifies that this exemption covers only bonuses that are part of an employment contract written before the bailout was given that is found to be a legal contract. It is the Govt. admitting that they cannot abrogate a legal contract. The Govt. may have no more right to limit these particular bonuses than they have to change the terms of the contracts the auto-industry unions work under.
- From what I've heard, it sounds like Dodd inserted an amendment that was later modified. Given the way things work in Washington, it's very likely that negotiations on this change to the original wording were handled by staffers and not by Dodd himself. He may not have been aware that the wording had changed. He should have been aware, things shouldn't work the way they do, but I suspect that's the way a lot of things get done.
|
|
|
Post by dej on Mar 20, 2009 5:53:50 GMT -4
Falgar you're correct in that the news story had the revised amendment. The wording of the original amendment is on the THOMAS (Library of Congress) website. It was Senate Amendment 354.
His original amendment applied to any company taking bailout money from the TARP or stimulus. It would have banned bonus money, retention awards or similar incentives to the 25 highest paid employees of any company taking bailout money. It would have required a retroactive review of any bonuses already paid or contracted for. It also would have banned the "golden parachutes" execs like to use when bailing out.
The revised version came about after objections raised in the White House/Senate conferences by the Treasury Dept and National Economic Council. I really don't have any idea if the rewrite was done by Dodd. It may have also been done during the House & Senate conference where differences between the House & Senate bills are hashed out. Dodd was not a part of that committee.
|
|
|
Post by falgar25 on Mar 20, 2009 6:01:12 GMT -4
dej: I hope you didn't take my post as criticism towards you. The text that you posted is what I had seen in most of the articles I had read. Only once did I see a more complete paragraph and I wasn't able to find it again this morning. Thank you for mentioning THOMAS. I know I've been to that site before but I keep forgetting about it.
|
|
|
Post by kl on Mar 20, 2009 7:19:37 GMT -4
I think what bothers me even more is that Dodd "reversed" what he originally said (at first he said he didn't add the exemption to executive bonuses; now today he admits it). www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/03/18/sen-dodd-admits-adding-bonus-provision-stimulus-package/I'm REALLY tired of being lied to, and it seems like both sides of the aisle have perfected the art. And they wonder why we are so jaded and angry? I'm registered as a Democrat, but they are sorely testing my decision there. The Republicans lost me in the late 80s. Since I can't vote in a primary as the Independent that I guess I really am, I'm kinda toast... I don't have a problem with people who EARN their bonuses if they are producing, making money for their company and growing the economy. However, in the case of the companies that are basically majority-owned by the people of the United States (e.g. AIG and a few others), they have not proven that they deserve bonuses because had they done a "good job" that merited them, their companies would never have needed TARP, TALF, or whatever part of the alphabet that is out there. These folks cost their companies money, so how did they "earn" a bonus? I'm just tired of all the lies. Seems no one has the ability to tell their "constituents" (read: "Their Employers", as they supposedly answer to us folks who put them in office) the truth anymore. And can we please, please, please not forget to remember that the main reason this is being discussed, and everyone is outraged, that the bottom line, and the ones where the blame should lie, and where all of our collective fingers should be pointed at are the Corporations like AIG, Citigroup, Bank of America...No matter how we argue, or discuss this, we can not continue to lay the blame at the feet of the homeowner who has lost their home to foreclosure. After all, these home owners didn't steal these Mortgage loans, or put a gun to the broker's or lender's collective heads, but the lenders, and brokers, who signed off on these loans. And as AIG and their FP division packaged these toxic assets, or CDOs, as greed ran rampant with $200,000 20+ year old homes were all of a sudden being appraised at $300,000+..we can't really say that no one, but no one saw this coming?
|
|
|
Post by dej on Mar 20, 2009 14:43:05 GMT -4
dej: I hope you didn't take my post as criticism towards you. The text that you posted is what I had seen in most of the articles I had read. I didn't take it as criticism at all. In fact your post reminded me that I had meant to comment on the difference between the original amendment & the revised amendment quoted in the article. I had gotten distracted & hit send before adding that.
|
|
|
Post by kl on Mar 21, 2009 10:20:09 GMT -4
|
|