Comments on: AIG outrage[s] of the day

By: Assistant Village Idiot

Assistant Village Idiot — Thu, 19 Mar 2009 12:44:59 +0000

Other presidents who have inherited more troubles? Oh, I don’t know. Nixon? Reagan? Eisenhower?

Adams…Jefferson…Pierce…Jackson…both Johnsons…yeah, hardly anyone.

By: Oblio

Oblio — Thu, 19 Mar 2009 12:07:34 +0000

On selective, confiscatory taxation: I believe that a lot of the bonuses are going to employees of a London-based unit. Unless they are U.S. citizens or green card holders, the arm of the IRS won’t reach them. More grandstanding from idiot politicians.

By: Oblio

Oblio — Thu, 19 Mar 2009 12:05:17 +0000

At first blush, promising these retention bonuses in the first place appears to have been an unsound business decision.

But as I reflect on it, what would have been the risks to AIG of letting the trading team leave for hedge funds who are looking for a chance to pick up deeply discounted assets (i.e. AIG’s assets)? How would you manage a book that size (enormous and highly complex) with a completely new team? How would you compensate them for managing what would only be losses and liquidation (traders get performance bonuses out of profits)? What would be the risk of AIG getting skinned much, much worse under that scenario?

Hmmm. Maybe not as bad a decision as it appears at first. People are missing the competitive aspects of the labor market and the potential for an even greater downside. You could look at it as a kind of insurance premium against the most catastrophic results. Ironically for AIG, it is yet another insurance policy that didn’t work out the way they planned.

By: Dan

Dan — Thu, 19 Mar 2009 12:04:25 +0000

What I saw reported last evening threw a chill down my spine. To guard against future excesses like the AIG bonus scandal, Pres BHO is proposing a huge federal agency to “oversee” the banking, mortgage and insurance industries. I think his outrage is fake. He knew exactly what he was doing when he overlooked the payments, allowing populist rage to be fanned by his lapdogs in the MSM, and the “solution” is a government run economy. He’s crazy, but he ain’t stupid!

By: Mrs Whatsit

Mrs Whatsit — Thu, 19 Mar 2009 10:07:28 +0000

I am told that AIG’s bailout bill, voted by Congress, signed by Obama, evidently read by nobody, REQUIRED the payment of all of its contracts through some date in Feb. 2009, including, supposedly, the employment/bonus contracts. Does anyone know if it’s true?

By: huxley

huxley — Thu, 19 Mar 2009 03:27:19 +0000

douglas — Thank you.

Truman, FDR, … or how about Lincoln or George Washington?

I’d switch it around — I don’t think our nation in its history has ever been up against a president as inexperienced, as unaccomplished, as narcissistic, as far to the left, or as incompetent as Obama.

By: douglas

douglas — Thu, 19 Mar 2009 00:46:57 +0000

“I don’t think any president in our history when he first took office has been up against what Obama is up against at the start of his presidency.”

Heh, that lefty commenter obviously never heard of Truman or FDR for that matter. I’m sure there are others, but what a ignoramus to make such a statement.

I just want to point out that the one Rep. who actually tried to ask meaningful questions was Tom Campbell (R) California. He at least has a background in business (having previously been an owner of several car dealerships). The rest, (D) or (R) were doing pure grandstanding of the worst kind.

By: kaba

kaba — Wed, 18 Mar 2009 23:49:39 +0000

I saw a list of political contributions AIG has made in the last year. I could be a little more outraged at AIG if those politicos would return those contributions before pointing their finger at the AIG execs.

By: Artfldgr

Artfldgr — Wed, 18 Mar 2009 23:02:33 +0000

A sitting President of the United States is “organizing a political organization loyal to him, bound by a pledge, outside the government and existing party apparatus. The historical precedents are ominous.”

Pledge canvassers, armed with your name, will ask you to pledge loyalty to the President too. A president whose term has already become a permanent campaign, is signing up ground forces in a mass organization pledged to personal loyalty to their Leader.

Does anyone know of any historical precedents for this in the United States?

Did Mitch Stewart, youthful director of OFA, who asks Obama’s acolytes to organize “neighborhood by neighborhood” study anything at school about Mao’s “Red Guards?

How about Fidel Castro’s “widespread system of neighborhood informers”?

Or Hugo Chavez’s use of “neighborhood committees”?

Did Stewart learn anything about democracy at all?

Do any of Obama’s pledged servants understand why a sitting president has no business creating and deploying his own supporters to help organize their neighbors?

Keep in mind that these acolytes have renounced any thought of questioning the actual policies of the maximum leader. Whatever he says, they are for it. They have given their word.

And they are coming to have a talk with you.

As Thomas Lifson wrote, “This is not the way a democracy is supposed to operate.”

By: I R A Darth Aggie

I R A Darth Aggie — Wed, 18 Mar 2009 22:53:05 +0000

commenters agreed with Maureen Dowd that Obama is being ill-served by his financial appointees Ill-served? that's one way of putting it. And yet, Obama is neither incompetent or inexperienced when he appoints such chowderheads to their respective posts. One wonders how many others are chowderheads, and if they should be downsized. Dr. Chu, head of the Dept. of Energy managed to tick off the Chinese (and presumably other governments) by proposing carbon tariff trade wars. One of these days, the Chinese are gonna say We're not buying any of your debt. In fact, we're going to start unloading our current holdings to sink you even faster. Then after your government crashes and burns, we'll swoop in and pick up the pieces for $0.01 on the dollar.