Find your diamond
Find your jewelry
shape
carat
color
clarity

100% tax on AIG bonuses?

Status
Not open for further replies. Please create a new topic or request for this thread to be opened.

ksinger

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jan 30, 2008
Messages
5,078

Well, there are the legalities to be considered. I doubt they can do much LEGALLY. But I DO love the idea that, OK, if we can''t find a quickie legal way to stop this, or get these yayhoos have any shame, (and OMG how I hope their names are published!!) then tax those bonuses at 100%. Ah! The tax man cometh!


Two good articles about the AIG bailout.
http://www.usnews.com/blogs/flowchart/2009/03/17/whats-good-whats-bad-about-the-aig-bailout.html
http://www.usnews.com/blogs/flowchart/2009/3/16/the-real-harm-caused-by-the-aig-bonuses.html
The final link is more on the 100% tax bill.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iNRov4y45sOcxD19w5vzO3FJIixwD96VT1UO0
 

steph72276

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Mar 16, 2005
Messages
4,212
I would love it if their bonuses were taxed 100%. That is just crazy. No wonder this company is down the tubes when it is run in such a way. DH just got a bonus this month (first time in a loooong while) because the company had a great month. When things were not so great, no bonus. It doesn''t take a rocket scientist to figure this stuff out....a little common sense from these people would go a long way, but if they are not going to get a clue, then they should have their bonuses taken away.
 

AllieGator

Shiny_Rock
Joined
Dec 1, 2008
Messages
316
It made me mad when they got their bonuses out of bailout money, but apparently, even after their bonuses, a bunch of them just cut and run, anyway. (Article at the bottom of the page)

I agree with Steph--Bonuses should be the product of good times, not an expectation. And the fact that those bonuses were paid out of taxpayer money makes me even angrier.

I wholeheartedly agree with asking them to give them back, or have them taxed 100%. It was not appropriate for them to get the bonuses, and they should have to deal with the consequences.


CNN Article
 

tlh

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Dec 31, 2008
Messages
4,511
Date: 3/17/2009 2:29:00 PM
Author: steph72276
I would love it if their bonuses were taxed 100%. That is just crazy. No wonder this company is down the tubes when it is run in such a way. DH just got a bonus this month (first time in a loooong while) because the company had a great month. When things were not so great, no bonus. It doesn''t take a rocket scientist to figure this stuff out....a little common sense from these people would go a long way, but if they are not going to get a clue, then they should have their bonuses taken away.
Ditto.

My DH actually did really well, as did our company in 2008... The company closed a couple offices and tried to move employees that wanted to move to open locations, BUT to prevent layoffs looking into 2009, the company said, no bonuses this year - no payraises... across the board. A lot of people are complaining - however, this is always met with - what if you lost your job because you were the one laid off... what if it was me. Most people are supportive to give up a 3% pay increase and a bonus - to gaurantee a job for a few more months... so we''ll see how it pans out.
 

sklingem

Brilliant_Rock
Joined
Feb 6, 2008
Messages
641
What gets me the most upset is the "defense" of the bonuses by AIG:
"We need them to retain the best and brightest"

Hellllooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


(1) The "best and brightest" failed miserably!!!! You want to reward these incompetent idiots??? Best and brightest?? Just shows how bright these people are in evaluating performance. It is plain disgusting!!!!

(2) "retain" ??? 11 (of 70) of these high paid executives jumped ship!!! Works well at retaining people indeed. But maybe 1 million plus in BONUS was not enough. My bad. What was I thinking.

Please look at the compensation that other countries have in place - MUCH less than in the US. And they have been doing pretty well, at least not worse than anybody here. So stop with these bogus arguments. I can''t help but agree with the Republican official (!!!) who suggested that these people either fire themselves or commit suicide, just like in Japan. Or at least a bit of decency and humility would be appreciated. Foreign language to such people, unfortunately.
 

Dancing Fire

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Apr 3, 2004
Messages
31,823
i been saying ..."let them money burning companies die"
 

swimmer

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Nov 9, 2007
Messages
2,516
I felt the same as you all, sort of confused/frustrated/annoyed then irate that tax monies are underwriting this firm and then these idiots (who make more money than anyone should) get their bonuses.

The I asked my father to explain it to me.

He said that the bonus pay structure was designed and contracted prior to the collapse. So this money is not a reward for performance, it was payment for staying at the company till X date. That date has passed so they get to collect their cash.

So I said, yes, but the company is failing! Why do they get money for failing? Schools, hospitals, and restaurants get shut down if they are not meeting standards, we can all agree that AIG failed.

He said, well, it is a huge company. Parts of it are still wildly successful (he listed some, but I don''t remember), others are not. In fact, the risky stuff from London is what started the tsunami. So to just call it all evil is like shooting a child for having a badly infected foot. Chances are that the infection will go away with care and time and that the child will continue to develop in a positive direction.

Nice analogy dad.

OK, please help me Ksinger and folks who read widely. I need more evidence in my argument that the AIG corporate folks should not get their bonuses. Arguing with my retired commie history prof dad makes me batty. I know it caused him pain to point out that the legally are entitled to that much money, but how to argue against it with something more than emotion?
TIA!
 

JSM

Brilliant_Rock
Joined
Mar 17, 2008
Messages
802
This makes me SO MAD.

If it weren't for taxpayer money, AIG would have failed, right?

I don't want to hear whining about how they are 'entitled' to this money. One, if your company is failing, you aren't entitled to SH*&. Two, LIFE isn't FAIR. We have to sit here and accept the fact that our money is wiping up the mess you made. Accept the fact that you don't deserve a million dollars. I, and most Americans who are footing this bill, will never, NEVER see that kind of money.



Rational, no. But how can we not be outraged by this?


Oh, and I'm in Iowa - people LOVE Chuck Grassley here. He'll be re-elected almost no matter what. He says what he's feeling!
 

ksinger

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jan 30, 2008
Messages
5,078
Date: 3/18/2009 11:38:02 AM
Author: swimmer
I felt the same as you all, sort of confused/frustrated/annoyed then irate that tax monies are underwriting this firm and then these idiots (who make more money than anyone should) get their bonuses.

The I asked my father to explain it to me.

He said that the bonus pay structure was designed and contracted prior to the collapse. So this money is not a reward for performance, it was payment for staying at the company till X date. That date has passed so they get to collect their cash.

So I said, yes, but the company is failing! Why do they get money for failing? Schools, hospitals, and restaurants get shut down if they are not meeting standards, we can all agree that AIG failed.

He said, well, it is a huge company. Parts of it are still wildly successful (he listed some, but I don''t remember), others are not. In fact, the risky stuff from London is what started the tsunami. So to just call it all evil is like shooting a child for having a badly infected foot. Chances are that the infection will go away with care and time and that the child will continue to develop in a positive direction.

Nice analogy dad.

OK, please help me Ksinger and folks who read widely. I need more evidence in my argument that the AIG corporate folks should not get their bonuses. Arguing with my retired commie history prof dad makes me batty. I know it caused him pain to point out that the legally are entitled to that much money, but how to argue against it with something more than emotion?
TIA!

Well, I did hear a bit more this morning - at work so I haven''t actually read it myself - that not only were the "bonuses" legal insofar as they were contracts not to be abrogated, but that these guys did forego a salary - i.e. - contracted for the "bonus" and accepted a salary of ONE DOLLAR (said in my best "Trading Places" inflection). So, am I so bent as I was yesterday? Probably not. Should they pursue getting the money back? Hell, I don''t know now. BUT...this "best and brightest" justification crap is..well..crap. They got themselves, and by extension - US, into this mess, and the bonuses didn''t make them "stay" apparently, and that was one of the stated reasons for giving them. And if they were and are so bloody smart, then they should have known what they were doing was if not illegal, certainly ill-advised for long-term anything, and highly immoral at best. The smartest guys in the room are just monsters if they have no moral compass except greed. So, they operated in a regulatory gray zone that allowed them to sell "insurance" but hold no reserves to pay claims, essentially. You simply cannot tell me that those "best and brightest" working for a bleedin'' INSURANCE company, had no idea of what they were really doing. So while it was strictly legal, it was certainly unethical in the extreme.


Thomas Freidman pointed out this morning that:
"Let’s not forget, A.I.G. was basically running an unregulated hedge fund inside a AAA-rated insurance company. And — like Madoff, who was selling phantom stocks — A.I.G. was selling, in effect, phantom insurance against the default of bundled subprime mortgages and other debt — insurance that A.I.G. had nowhere near enough capital to back up when bonds went bust. It was a hedge fund with no hedges. That’s why taxpayers have had to pay the insurance for A.I.G. — so its bank and government customers won’t tank and cause even more harm. Unfortunately, all the money we have already spent on A.I.G. and the banks was just to prevent total system failure. It was just to keep the body alive."

I''m like every average person - my first reaction was rage. But rage no matter how justified, doesn''t fix the mess, and as one of the articles I posted way above points out, it may actually create more heat than light and distract from the fact that as odious as it is, the saving of AIG may have saved us from a collapse of the financial system that would have been completely on par with the 30''s. It could also distract from the real reform needed to make sure this doesn''t happen again. Of course the sad thing is, is that this HAS happened before, lawmakers put the laws in place to make sure it never happened again, and then greed and temporal distance made us forget, and the laws were gutted and voila! All over again. As a culture, we''re not very bright.


I thought this was a good piece.


http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/18/business/economy/18leonhardt.html?_r=1&hp

 

swimmer

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Nov 9, 2007
Messages
2,516
Thanks Karen,
I read that and Friedman and have to agree that the picture is muddier that at first it appeared eh?
So in addition to making $1 for yearly salary, most of them lost most of their savings as they had been paid in AIG stock that you can''t sell for at least 5 yrs...
I''m not feeling badly for the bastards. But it would suck to be the guy whose financial products were doing well, but in a company whose name is mud. Even more are jumping ship now. Listening to NPR.

Thanks for posting even at work!
 

ksinger

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jan 30, 2008
Messages
5,078

And this little gem will elicit nigh unto endless streams of cynical laughter, bordering upon maniacal. Trust me. With what we know now - actually re-learned the hard way is more like it - it''s like reading the perfect plan to derail the train. The wording is hilarious.


http://www.occ.treas.gov/ftp/workpaper/wp2000-5.pdf

 

tulip928

Brilliant_Rock
Joined
Jan 4, 2006
Messages
695
Before y''all get your panties in a bunch, you might want to look into how Dodd and Obama and Geitner and Pelosi all got these bonuses signed off on in that great "stimulus" bill that everyone voted on without reading. You might want to be blaming the right persons for this before condemning AIG alone. There''s still rot running the show in Washingon. How do you like the "change" so far?
 

AllieGator

Shiny_Rock
Joined
Dec 1, 2008
Messages
316
Date: 3/19/2009 6:32:37 AM
Author: tulip928
Before y'all get your panties in a bunch, you might want to look into how Dodd and Obama and Geitner and Pelosi all got these bonuses signed off on in that great 'stimulus' bill that everyone voted on without reading. You might want to be blaming the right persons for this before condemning AIG alone. There's still rot running the show in Washingon. How do you like the 'change' so far?
This sounds interesting, do you have any sources that support this? I'd like to read up on it. (To answer your question, I do like many of the changes so far :) )

Edited to add: I did find what you are speaking about, and posted the link I found below.

Dodd is actually stating that he is responsible for the loophole...I appreciate the fact that he's admitting to it. He says that the administration requested the language, and now Obama has taken responsiblity for the bonuses. I'm happy that he is manning up to it, after an administration full of pointed fingers.




Dodd CNN Article
 

ksinger

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jan 30, 2008
Messages
5,078
Obama made a HUGE mistake picking Geithner, both in bending the rules for him and now, in taking his advice on this. I have NO doubt that this came from Geithner, who is steeped in the Wall Street mentality of the last 20 years. He''s a tool of Wall Street and Obama needs to throw him under the bus, take his lumps for choosing him in the first place, and move on.
 

ksinger

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jan 30, 2008
Messages
5,078

Rank Amateur

Brilliant_Rock
Joined
Feb 26, 2003
Messages
1,553
Date: 3/19/2009 8:59:25 AM
Author: AllieGator

Date: 3/19/2009 6:32:37 AM
Author: tulip928
Before y''all get your panties in a bunch, you might want to look into how Dodd and Obama and Geitner and Pelosi all got these bonuses signed off on in that great ''stimulus'' bill that everyone voted on without reading. You might want to be blaming the right persons for this before condemning AIG alone. There''s still rot running the show in Washingon. How do you like the ''change'' so far?
This sounds interesting, do you have any sources that support this? I''d like to read up on it. (To answer your question, I do like many of the changes so far :) )

Edited to add: I did find what you are speaking about, and posted the link I found below.

Dodd is actually stating that he is responsible for the loophole...I appreciate the fact that he''s admitting to it. He says that the administration requested the language, and now Obama has taken responsiblity for the bonuses. I''m happy that he is manning up to it, after an administration full of pointed fingers.




Dodd CNN Article
Don''t give Dodd credit for anything. They have him on tape saying that he had nothing to do with it and then when he was caught red-handed he "admitted" to it. He''s an incompetent twit or a liar. Your choice.

These guys are all smarmy. The public hue and cry should have come out weeks ago rather than now, long after the damage is done.
 

Beacon

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Jul 14, 2006
Messages
2,037
I listened to the congressional testimony of the new AIG CEO with great interest yesterday.

I don''t like these bonuses and neither does he. I think those bonuses will end up being mostly forfeited one way or another. But I think they are not that important.

Here is what is important: AIG is in the process of winding down a huge amount of complex financial instruments. So far that unwind has been fairly orderly. The people who worked in those business segments, who created those securities, are working on winding them down.

I think of it like a bomb defusion team carefully unwiring a live bomb. So now these guys may walk off the job. They have had a bad time being the object of scorn over their retention bonuses.

What I wonder is: Are there other people who will work for less pay, equally qualified to take their places? Because we really do not want AIG''s book of bad business to blow up in our faces. I think Gordon Brown (PM of the UK) looked pretty scared in his address to Congress a few weeks ago.

We will find out what will happen. It may become part of history. Or it may quietly carry on winding down. The bonuses are not that material; they represent an emotional issue, and I can relate to that. I just hope we don''t cause a disruption over it.
 

Dancing Fire

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Apr 3, 2004
Messages
31,823
Date: 3/19/2009 1:03:28 PM
Author: Beacon

What I wonder is: Are there other people who will work for less pay, equally qualified to take their places? Because we really do not want AIG''s book of bad business to blow up in our faces. I think Gordon Brown (PM of the UK) looked pretty scared in his address to Congress a few weeks ago.

We will find out what will happen. It may become part of history. Or it may quietly carry on winding down. The bonuses are not that material; they represent an emotional issue, and I can relate to that. I just hope we don''t cause a disruption over it.
even i''am over qualify. i wouldn''t have any trouble losing billions of $$$''s
 

ksinger

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jan 30, 2008
Messages
5,078
Date: 3/19/2009 1:03:28 PM
Author: Beacon
I listened to the congressional testimony of the new AIG CEO with great interest yesterday.

I don''t like these bonuses and neither does he. I think those bonuses will end up being mostly forfeited one way or another. But I think they are not that important.

Here is what is important: AIG is in the process of winding down a huge amount of complex financial instruments. So far that unwind has been fairly orderly. The people who worked in those business segments, who created those securities, are working on winding them down.

I think of it like a bomb defusion team carefully unwiring a live bomb. So now these guys may walk off the job. They have had a bad time being the object of scorn over their retention bonuses.

What I wonder is: Are there other people who will work for less pay, equally qualified to take their places? Because we really do not want AIG''s book of bad business to blow up in our faces. I think Gordon Brown (PM of the UK) looked pretty scared in his address to Congress a few weeks ago.

We will find out what will happen. It may become part of history. Or it may quietly carry on winding down. The bonuses are not that material; they represent an emotional issue, and I can relate to that. I just hope we don''t cause a disruption over it.
I think of it more like the people who created the midden having to muck it out. They deserve quite a bit more than scorn. So no sympathy from me. I suspect not too many of them have much shame anyway, or they never would have created the mess in the first place. Before, they were the "smartest guys in the room", but now - gosh! these derivatives are just SO opaque we have no way of knowing what all they touch or how pulling out a single stick from the pile will affect the whole thing. Which one is it I wonder? Smart enough to build the Frankenstein monster but too dumb to kill it without burning down the entire village and everyone in it? Lord.

I too hope it doesn''t distract - from the necessary re-regulation and oversight of an industry - if you can even call it that - that has proven over and over that it cannot be trusted without it. No single entity like a corporation in a free society should be "too big to fail". If they are, then we are all slaves to them. And we are.
 

Beacon

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Jul 14, 2006
Messages
2,037
Date: 3/19/2009 1:32:48 PM
Author: ksinger


I think of it more like the people who created the midden having to muck it out. They deserve quite a bit more than scorn. So no sympathy from me. I suspect not too many of them have much shame anyway, or they never would have created the mess in the first place. Before, they were the 'smartest guys in the room', but now - gosh! these derivatives are just SO opaque we have no way of knowing what all they touch or how pulling out a single stick from the pile will affect the whole thing. Which one is it I wonder? Smart enough to build the Frankenstein monster but too dumb to kill it without burning down the entire village and everyone in it? Lord.

I too hope it doesn't distract - from the necessary re-regulation and oversight of an industry - if you can even call it that - that has proven over and over that it cannot be trusted without it. No single entity like a corporation in a free society should be 'too big to fail'. If they are, then we are all slaves to them. And we are.
I have zero sympathy. I also don't care too much about the upset over the bonuses. So much emotion, but it doesn't do much good. I care a lot about getting the AIG derivative overhang wound down w/o any more damage.

That the people who built the stuff are smart, they are. People who invented nuclear bombs were smart too. That doesn't help us much though, does it!
 

HollyS

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Jul 18, 2007
Messages
6,099
Date: 3/19/2009 8:59:25 AM
Author: AllieGator


Date: 3/19/2009 6:32:37 AM
Author: tulip928
Before y''all get your panties in a bunch, you might want to look into how Dodd and Obama and Geitner and Pelosi all got these bonuses signed off on in that great ''stimulus'' bill that everyone voted on without reading. You might want to be blaming the right persons for this before condemning AIG alone. There''s still rot running the show in Washingon. How do you like the ''change'' so far?
This sounds interesting, do you have any sources that support this? I''d like to read up on it. (To answer your question, I do like many of the changes so far :) )

Edited to add: I did find what you are speaking about, and posted the link I found below.

Dodd is actually stating that he is responsible for the loophole...I appreciate the fact that he''s admitting to it. He says that the administration requested the language, and now Obama has taken responsiblity for the bonuses. I''m happy that he is manning up to it, after an administration full of pointed fingers.




Dodd CNN Article
Congress was fully aware of, and had many a discussion about, contractural bonuses as outlined -- specifically outlined, with no ambiguity at all -- in the stimulus package. Geitner was certainly in the know, if he was paying attention at all; and so did the rest of the administration. After all, it was their piece of legislation.

And you can find ''proof'' of the AIG contributions to Democrat politicians, including the Prez, everywhere. Even the mainstream media has discussed this; it shouldn''t come as a surprise. Oh, and Dodd is ''giving his back'' now that the public outcry is so loud. Seems it wasn''t much of a moral issue for him prior to being ''outed''.

Feigned outrage in the DC corridors is such a yawn.
 

ksinger

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jan 30, 2008
Messages
5,078
Date: 3/19/2009 1:42:18 PM
Author: Beacon
I have zero sympathy. I also don''t care too much about the upset over the bonuses. So much emotion, but it doesn''t do much good. I care a lot about getting the AIG derivative overhang wound down w/o any more damage.

That the people who built the stuff are smart, they are. People who invented nuclear bombs were smart too. That doesn''t help us much though, does it!
Nope. It sure doesn''t. What was it I said above about about smart without a moral compass equalling monsters? :-/ Sigh....

As a culture though, the moral/ethical issues need to be discussed. There are ethical assumptions that have driven this situation, and they are NOT irrelevant. It isn''t just this neutral issue of winding down the bomb and OK, everything is back to business as usual. I think we are going to see more of this national soul-searching as we go along. Just my opinion.
 

fleur-de-lis

Brilliant_Rock
Joined
Apr 25, 2007
Messages
1,343
I still find it hard to believe how quickly the powers that be deemed that there was "no way" to stop the bonuses. An argument based on Force Majeure clauses that are present in nearly every business contract these days? A shareholder derivative suit to at least bring about an injunction to put those bonuses on hold while the third branch of government takes a look at the legality?

That said, it''s interesting to note that these bonuses on which we are focusing account for 1/10th of 1% of the amount of money being funneled to AIG. Beacon, I''m with you; unfortunately, when one rightly uses terms like "derivative overhang", what percentage of the general population''s eyes glaze over?

Most people "get" the concept of higher-ups getting big bonuses they don''t deserve. Nearly everyone has experienced that at some point in their lives on a personal level. But in a country where less than 50% of Americans can even name the three branches of government (http://clipmarks.com/clipmark/66E05AB2-B182-4674-9F6D-C9361A9F6790/), you might be expecting too much for focused populist discourse on, err, collateralized debt obligations.
 

fleur-de-lis

Brilliant_Rock
Joined
Apr 25, 2007
Messages
1,343
Date: 3/19/2009 9:38:24 AM
Author: ksinger
Then again, maybe not...This whole thing is swirling quite nicely. Lord, what a mess.


How the Fed Failed to Tell Obama About The Bonuses
Karen, still really liking your posted links. With so much flotsam and jetsam out there, your selected articles are quite informative. (Gee, I can only imagine your super-sleuthing skills when applied to the diamond-search... can I page you for your help when it comes to my next sparkly-stone project?
)
 

tradergirl

Brilliant_Rock
Joined
Jan 26, 2008
Messages
787
Commentary:

They Know Better?
Jennifer Rubin - 03.19.2009 - 9:51 AM
Douglas Holtz-Eakin wasn’t very good at constructing an economic blueprint for John McCain’s campaign, but he’s a pretty good analyst. He writes:

The AIG debacle teaches us two things: First, it does not make sense to try to save any single financial institution. Failed enterprises should fail — and go away… The second lesson is that no matter how bad you think market capitalism is, the federal government has proved it is worse.


It is this latter point that may prove troublesome for the Obama administration. The president’s New Deal II agenda depends on two premises — the sky is falling and only the government can protect us. The first argument is being downplayed as Obama figured out that talking down the markets might not be the best strategy. But the second is called seriously into question by the gang that can’t shoot straight.


Obama’s mantra about collecting the “best and the brightest” for his cabinet was not just puffery. It was a message: we’re smarter than those fools who messed up the economy. We have the answers and can devise exquisitely refined solutions, with thousands of interconnected parts, to do what the “broken” free market system cannot. But how credible is that?


The AIG mess revolves around a very simple issue: could the government have stopped the bonuses prospectively? This was such a vexing matter that it has now engulfed the entire administration and all of Congress, and served as fodder in an election two weeks away. But how much more complicated is cap-and-trade regulation and taxation for the entire economy? The AIG bonus issue is child’s play compared to devising a universal health care system that is simultaneously going to expand coverage, improve care, reduce cost, protect privacy, and digitize all our medical information. We’re just supposed to have faith in the Employee Free Choice Act’s phalanx of government arbitrators who will set wages, benefits, and working conditions in every newly organized factory and workplace in America.


The lesson from AIG is that the entire premise of the Obama administration — we know better — is fundamentally flawed. The Obama team can’t effectively manage a single troubled company without getting itself and the whole country tied up in knots. The notion that we should invest the federal government with authority to control vast swatches of the economy can now be seen for what it is: madness. We should consider ourselves lucky that the public is getting a glimpse of its government in action on a (relatively speaking) low-dollar item of limited consequences.


»Back to Contentions
 

JSM

Brilliant_Rock
Joined
Mar 17, 2008
Messages
802
Date: 3/19/2009 3:31:56 PM
Author: tradergirl
Commentary:


They Know Better?

Jennifer Rubin - 03.19.2009 - 9:51 AM

Douglas Holtz-Eakin wasn’t very good at constructing an economic blueprint for John McCain’s campaign, but he’s a pretty good analyst. He writes:

The AIG debacle teaches us two things: First, it does not make sense to try to save any single financial institution. Failed enterprises should fail — and go away… The second lesson is that no matter how bad you think market capitalism is, the federal government has proved it is worse.



It is this latter point that may prove troublesome for the Obama administration. The president’s New Deal II agenda depends on two premises — the sky is falling and only the government can protect us. The first argument is being downplayed as Obama figured out that talking down the markets might not be the best strategy. But the second is called seriously into question by the gang that can’t shoot straight.



Obama’s mantra about collecting the “best and the brightest” for his cabinet was not just puffery. It was a message: we’re smarter than those fools who messed up the economy. We have the answers and can devise exquisitely refined solutions, with thousands of interconnected parts, to do what the “broken” free market system cannot. But how credible is that?



The AIG mess revolves around a very simple issue: could the government have stopped the bonuses prospectively? This was such a vexing matter that it has now engulfed the entire administration and all of Congress, and served as fodder in an election two weeks away. But how much more complicated is cap-and-trade regulation and taxation for the entire economy? The AIG bonus issue is child’s play compared to devising a universal health care system that is simultaneously going to expand coverage, improve care, reduce cost, protect privacy, and digitize all our medical information. We’re just supposed to have faith in the Employee Free Choice Act’s phalanx of government arbitrators who will set wages, benefits, and working conditions in every newly organized factory and workplace in America.



The lesson from AIG is that the entire premise of the Obama administration — we know better — is fundamentally flawed. The Obama team can’t effectively manage a single troubled company without getting itself and the whole country tied up in knots. The notion that we should invest the federal government with authority to control vast swatches of the economy can now be seen for what it is: madness. We should consider ourselves lucky that the public is getting a glimpse of its government in action on a (relatively speaking) low-dollar item of limited consequences.



»Back to Contentions

I agree with a lot of what you just said, though admittedly it''s hard to swallow. It''s sad, I think, that we''re talking about over a hundred million dollars being a relatively low-dollar item - which I think is the sticking point here. Most Americans are not very familiar with the markets (myself included). And hundreds of millions isn''t much money when we''re talking about trillion dollar debts. But to the average person, that seems like a HELL of a LOT of money. Hence the outrage and energy that probably could be going elsewhere.
 

beebrisk

Brilliant_Rock
Joined
Dec 18, 2005
Messages
1,000
The lesson from AIG is that the entire premise of the Obama administration — we know better — is fundamentally flawed. The Obama team can’t effectively manage a single troubled company without getting itself and the whole country tied up in knots. The notion that we should invest the federal government with authority to control vast swatches of the economy can now be seen for what it is: madness. We should consider ourselves lucky that the public is getting a glimpse of its government in action on a (relatively speaking) low-dollar item of limited consequences.


..As the lemmings chomp at the bit for the same screwballs to administer their health care.

I guess it will take a "HIGH-dollar item of VAST consequences" for some to figure it out.

Feh!
 
Status
Not open for further replies. Please create a new topic or request for this thread to be opened.
Be a part of the community It's free, join today!
    Princess Diana: Timeless Jewelry Every Woman Should Own
    Princess Diana: Timeless Jewelry Every Woman Should Own
    Diamond Jewelry For 4th Of July Quarantine Celebrations
    Diamond Jewelry For 4th Of July Quarantine Celebrations
    Fancy Greyish Yellowish Green Diamond
    Fancy Greyish Yellowish Green Diamond

Need Something Special?

Get a quote from multiple trusted and vetted jewelers.

Holloway Cut Advisor



Diamond Eye Candy

Click to view full-size image.
Top