4 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

MercuryPDX

December 2, 2008 6:41 PM

@weakdome: Like I have said, keep watching... they are setting the tone for every other company asking for a handout.

\"If AIG can do it, so can we.\" will be the new Mantra.

$\"user-pic\"$

goodpete

December 2, 2008 3:54 PM

@weakdome: When they said they weren't going to use taxpayer money to pay bonuses, I expected they'd just find some \"non-taxpayer\" money to pay the bonuses with and pick up the slack using tax-payer dollars.

\"We didn't pay bonuses with taxpayer dollars, we did it with funds from our employee retirement accounts! And we paid those funds back! (*cough* with taxpayer dollars *cough*).

But I guess redefining the word \"bonus\" works, too.

$\"user-pic\"$

dorianh49

December 2, 2008 5:54 PM

@plamoni: it depends on what the meaning of the word, \"word\", is.

$\"user-pic\"$

BrianDaBrain

December 2, 2008 3:26 PM

@weakdome: Really, I think that if it involves AIG spending unnecessary money onits executives, we can count AIG in. Idiots. :)

$\"user-pic\"$

SadSam

December 2, 2008 1:14 PM

Of course, its standard operating procedure to give out retention bonuses when a company is floundering so that the smart leadership sticks around to lead the company back to profits. In this case, you are paying the same bone heads retention bonuses who swamped the ship in the first place. And if these executives want to jump ship where the heck are they going to go??? Its not like there are a ton of other financial services jobs for overpaid failures out there.

2 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

bonzombiekitty

December 2, 2008 2:54 PM

@SadSam: \"In this case, you are paying the same bone heads retention bonuses who swamped the ship in the first place.\"

Not necessarily. Remember, AIG is made up of several branches, most of which are profitable. To my knowledge, there was one particular branch of the company that is the root cause of the company's financial woes. That one branch lost AIG a crapton of money. So the \"bone headedness\" is not a problem throughout AIG, the problem is with the branch of the company that caused the problems and all the executives above it that allowed it to happen.

As an example in the OP, the retirement service chief is getting a retention bonus. Is retirement services a profitable part of the company? Does the guy do his job well? If yes (and I don't know the answer to those questions), then it's unfair to label the guy as a bone head just because he happens to be an executive with AIG.

$\"user-pic\"$

SadSam

December 2, 2008 6:09 PM

@bonzombiekitty:

Sounds reasonable, but if AIG has divisions that are doing well and turning a tidy profit (enough so they want to hand out retention bonuses to the non bone heads running those divisions to the tune of $3 million) why are they not using profit from those divisions to prop up the non-profitable divisions? Why do they need tax payer bail out if they've got profit available for bonuses?

December 3, 2008 12:27 AM

$\"user-pic\"$

ohenry

@SadSam: Because even if they are profitable, that doesn't necessarily mean they can single handedly correct all the damage done by the guys who are indeed boneheads in the division that messed things up with the mortgage insurances.

For example, let's just say that you're five years old and you have a lemonade stand. You're making $20 a day. This is GREAT for a lemonade stand. But then a tornado comes by and tears your house down. Your $20 a day, while comparatively good, isn't going to fix your ruined house.

It's not the best analogy, but I think it gets my idea across; basically, these divisions are indeed incredibly profitable in the world of insurance, but they're still not enough to cover the costs of the complete collapse of the housing market.

And yes, the guys who were in charge of that part are boneheads, and I'm gonna be pissed if they get a bonus or anything.

$\"user-pic\"$

RedwoodFlyer

December 3, 2008 6:24 AM

@ohenry: That's why you skim the credit cards of your customers...

$\"user-pic\"$

startertan

December 2, 2008 1:33 PM

Where can I find a list of all the politicians who voted for the bailout? I want to be sure not to vote for them in the next election.

December 3, 2008 12:09 AM

9 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

grumpygirl

@startertan: What a shame you missed the last election, but this site was helpful for me when I chose to vote a strictly anti-bailout ticket: [supportedthebailout.org]

$\"user-pic\"$

XianZhuXuande

December 2, 2008 6:13 PM

@startertan: McCain and president elect Obama were both supporters of the bailout. Obama loves the idea and was looking forward to other similar measures. It was originally struck down but after the bill got loaded with pork it sailed through the senate and the house. They're a bunch of corrupt losers who should be voted out of office, but they know the American population isn't educated enough to actually get something done.

December 2, 2008 11:57 PM

$\"user-pic\"$

working class Zer0

@XianZhuXuande: Yes if I remember right the politicians were outraged that $700 billion of taxpayers money was going to bail out these evil money grubbing companys. They said it was too much, think of the poor taxpayers, we can't do this to them! But once they were able to add an extra $150 billion in pork it was suddenly affordable. Look kids it's voodo economics at it's finest!

$\"user-pic\"$

econobiker

December 2, 2008 4:06 PM

@startertan: Just don't vote Democrat or Republican and you will see some real change...

But the media doesn't want you to know this since they are funded by advertising by the same businesses which fund those two political parties...

$\"user-pic\"$

itsallme

December 2, 2008 2:21 PM

@startertan: Senate [www.politico.com]

House: [www.diggersrealm.com]

$\"user-pic\"$

startertan

December 2, 2008 4:58 PM

@itsallme: Thanks for the links!

Jeez, I hate to feel this way but it just seems like some guy who lost his whole life savings b/c of all this just needs to go postal before these execs might get their heads out of their @sses. It's like the auto execs, you could've flown first class and no one would've probably said anything.

$\"user-pic\"$

dlynch

December 2, 2008 2:06 PM

@startertan: yeah, right?

$\"user-pic\"$

Anonymous

December 2, 2008 1:41 PM

@startertan: The chance has already passed.The whole of the House and 1/3 of the Senate was up for re-election this year. Almost every one of the thieves was re-elected. The simple solution would have been to not vote for ANY incumbent. Or to have voted for neither Republican or Democrat.

$\"user-pic\"$

stardeo

December 2, 2008 4:45 PM

@DouglasEspio: I seemed to have voted for Walz (D-MN) who was both a Democrat and an incumbent.

Hmm...seems to be that he didn't vote for the bailout either time.

Hmm...

Yes, I'm still proud he voted against it twice.

$\"user-pic\"$

Ash78 ain't got time to bleed

December 2, 2008 1:36 PM

A little more annual retentiveness is exactly what this company needs. Turnover would probably just make things worse.

1 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

alexburrito

December 2, 2008 1:50 PM

@The Name's Ash78, Housewares: Maybe these executives needed some anal rententiveness about how they conducted business!

$\"user-pic\"$

G99

December 2, 2008 1:38 PM

Congress just needs to step up and say:

\"You f-ed around too much with our money. From now on you will no longer get a single dollar from us unless you either fire the entire executive staff or place the current executive staff on a government pay scale with a maximum of $200,000 pay [Total including bonuses and compensation] until you guys get back into profitability.\"

3 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

Erwos

December 2, 2008 3:31 PM

@G99: Sounds great if you want all of the executives to leave. Are we going to start putting salary caps on everyone who has anything to do with government money? Why don't you just confiscate any net wealth over $1m while you're at it?

$\"user-pic\"$

December 2, 2008 2:20 PM

@G99: I'll do you one better: Congress should hold on to the money for them. They have to come and justify every single dollar before a congressional panel if they want it.

$\"user-pic\"$

Oranges w/ Cheese hates what Christmas has become

December 2, 2008 2:26 PM

@WiglyWorm: I dunno if that's a good idea. The Panel gave them the money in the first place. Its probably going to bail out the big 3 today as well, even though its the HUGE overhead and Union that is choking them, in addition to their stupid marketing decisions.

$\"user-pic\"$

December 2, 2008 3:18 PM

@Oranges w/ Cheese: True, but some oversight is better than none. There would still be issues but you can rest assured that no politician would have authorized dollars for renamed bonuses designed to keep the Captain at the helm of the Titanic.

As far as the auto makers go, we have a tough choice there. Yeah they do have a lot of overhead that hurts them, and maybe bankrupcy would be the best solution. But bankrupcy tends to hurt consumer confidence. Who's going to buy a care from the big 3 if they're bankrupt?

Personally, I'd like to flip the bird to the \"Big 3\" and give their $25 bnillion to companies like Tesla and other companies that have had the vision to produce the cars we're going to be using in the future.

$\"user-pic\"$

ADismalScience

December 2, 2008 3:26 PM

@WiglyWorm:

Personally, I'd like to flip the bird to the \"Big 3\" and give their $25 bnillion to companies like Tesla and other companies that have had the vision to produce the cars we're going to be using in the future.

You realize that Tesla epitomizes the kind of no-profit, false, fake bullshit company that caused the 2000-2002 market collapse? Their whole business model was constructed on getting venture capitalists and wealthy friends to give them cash to burn, not on building cars. I guarantee they will never fill the orders they've taken for those damn cars.

$\"user-pic\"$

December 2, 2008 3:42 PM

@ADismalScience: Actually... they already have entered production and are filling orders. It's not a lot, and they just asked for more cash to help keep them going, but they are serious about producing cars.

I think you underestimate how much capital it takes to start an auto company. That's why they're only making one super-performance vehicle right now. They'd hemorage money if they tried to compete with the civic.

@Erwos: There's a big difference here. We're not hiring AIG to perform a task for us. We OWN AIG. And you know what? Maybe we do want most of the execs to jump ship. Bring in a CEO who specializes in cutting costs and righting sinking ships.

$\"user-pic\"$

Erwos

December 2, 2008 4:38 PM

@WiglyWorm: Ah, yes. The highly-effective cost-cutting exec who works for only $200k? Be real. Guys like that make _way_ more than $200k in the real world, and they are worth every penny.

$\"user-pic\"$

December 2, 2008 4:44 PM

@Erwos: Who works for only 200k unless he can do his job, according to the OP \"$200,000 pay [Total including bonuses and compensation] until you guys get back into profitability.\"

Make the company profitable and you can have whatever you want, because you'll have paid back the loan and the American taxpayer no longer has a vested interested in executive compensation. Seems like a fair deal to me.

$\"user-pic\"$

Erwos

December 2, 2008 5:37 PM

@WiglyWorm: You won't be able to get him in the first place, though, because he's already making a ton of money elsewhere.

$\"user-pic\"$

Anonymous

December 2, 2008 1:38 PM

LMFAO!! Now THAT is funny. I can see \"normal\" expenses. You know, keeping the independant agents happy. Rewarding those who bring IN money. But seriously, any higher up AIG executive _______ who has designed the company's method to fail can properly leave. No bonus. BTW...\"buyers for various units\"? I thought our tax dollars was helping them \"revise\" the way they work and \"fix\" their company. Now they're looking to kill off the dying limbs? Wouldn't this have saved BILLIONS of taxpayer dollars to do this at a reduced cost, for quicker selloff, in the first place? Just possibly?

$\"user-pic\"$

chrisjames

December 2, 2008 1:39 PM

I hate to say I told you so...

Git Em SteveDave loves this guy->★

$\"user-pic\"$

December 2, 2008 1:40 PM

I said it. They won't give them a bonus, they'll get a \"sunob\".

1 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

Oranges w/ Cheese hates what Christmas has become

December 2, 2008 2:25 PM

@Git Em SteveDave loves this guy->★: I could use a $3 million \"sunob\" right about now.

$\"user-pic\"$

vastrightwing

December 2, 2008 1:51 PM

These people are going NOWHERE! They won't leave. Will where they go? LMAO!

1 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

Anonymous

December 2, 2008 2:06 PM

@vastrightwing: Zurich, ACE, XL, Gen Re, Liberty, Allianz, Axis, Arch or any other number of large multi-national insurance companies.

These are highly knowledgable people that are in demand. AIG biggest asset on the insurance side of the house is it's people. If they lose the people, their ability to tell a good deal from a bad one diminishes. Skilled positions aren't easily replaced by anyone, especially when the company's future is in question.

$\"user-pic\"$

tmlfan81

December 2, 2008 1:52 PM

Wow. When is someone going to step in and do something about this? For all the things that we know are happening, I wonder how much underhanded crap is going on without our knowledge. There needs to be an investigation into AIG and how the funds are being used and assess fines and penalties as necessary. There seems to be no oversight into how the bailout money is to be spent by companies requesting the assistance, and to me that is troubling.

Or, if there *is* oversight, it isn't being utilized at all.

5 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

concordia

December 2, 2008 5:43 PM

@tmlfan81: \"There seems to be no oversight into how the bailout money is to be spent by companies requesting the assistance, and to me that is troubling.\"

That's by design.

Where have you been?

$\"user-pic\"$

tmlfan81

December 3, 2008 8:30 PM

@concordia: Living under a rock, apparently.

$\"user-pic\"$

johnva

December 2, 2008 6:03 PM

@concordia: Yep. This is just proof of the corruption of our political system. NO WAY should that kind of money just be handed out without the taxpayers having total control of the company.

$\"user-pic\"$

Anonymous

December 3, 2008 1:05 AM

For all the things that we know are happening, I wonder how much underhanded crap is going on without our knowledge. There needs to be an investigation into AIG and how the funds are being used and assess fines and penalties as necessary.

Problem is that it isn't just AIG. Look at all of the large corporations and try hard to find a company where the exec's are penalized for poor performance and awarded for good performance. Today Google announced that they will be getting rid of 10,000 people. My bet is that upper management won't take a pay cut even though the company is struggling.

$\"user-pic\"$

Red_Eye

December 2, 2008 3:13 PM

@tmlfan81: Why waste millions or billions more investigating them. SHUT them down. Screw wall street

$\"user-pic\"$

tmlfan81

December 3, 2008 8:30 PM

@Red_Eye: Be realistic, it won't cost billions.

$\"user-pic\"$

Fuzz

December 2, 2008 1:59 PM

Does anyone see the problem with paying a \"retention bonus\" to keep the sad SOB's that got AIG into the whole mess in the first place around?

Isn't that like shooting yourself in the foot then paying the doctor to NOT remove the bullet and let your foot go all gangreeny and fall off?

6 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

bonzombiekitty

December 2, 2008 3:14 PM

@Fuzz: It's a bit more like a doctor at one hospital shooting you and paying a good doctor who works at the same hospital to try and save your life, and then your health insurance starts going crazy over the fact that the doctor who treated you works at the same hospital as the doctor who shot you.

Now, I'm all for stopping bonuses and getting rid of executives. But it has to be for those that are responsible for the current mess. When you start dealing with the people who are not responsible for the current mess, a pragmatic approach needs to be taken. Don't demand that AIG cut off its nose to spite its face.

$\"user-pic\"$

acknight

December 2, 2008 2:22 PM

@Fuzz: It's not like we have a wonderful financial/insurance services job market right now where people can jump ship easily...

$\"user-pic\"$

Tmoney02

December 2, 2008 2:19 PM

@Fuzz: My thoughts exactly. I never know to laugh or cry when I see a company in trouble say that they have to increase the pay in order to keep the same execs that caused the problem in the first place.

Cutting Pay and Firing responsible parties - Great
Cutting Pay and Keeping responsible parties - okay
Increasing Pay and Firing responsible parties - okay
Increasing Pay and Keeping responsible parties - Stupidly Bad.

$\"user-pic\"$

G99

December 2, 2008 2:11 PM

@Fuzz:
Greed overpowers many things...

That's what you get when the people who run the company also decide how much money they should give themselves.

$\"user-pic\"$

EyeHeartPie

December 2, 2008 2:06 PM

@Fuzz: More like some random guy in the street shooting you in the foot, then paying the same guy to remove it.

Git Em SteveDave loves this guy->★

$\"user-pic\"$

December 2, 2008 2:05 PM

@Fuzz: Well, what happened is more analogous to shooting yourself in the foot, then going to the Dr., but he's a really crappy Dr., and b/c of his god awful mishandling of your foot, you lose it.

$\"user-pic\"$

Oranges w/ Cheese hates what Christmas has become

December 2, 2008 2:24 PM

Yay greed wins out again.

$\"user-pic\"$

Clare116

December 2, 2008 2:24 PM

I get why they don't want tons of turnover, but is anyone really dying to give high-paying executive jobs to these bozos? Is it necessary to make sure they aren't lured away?

1 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

bonzombiekitty

December 2, 2008 3:08 PM

@Clare116: Depending on the executive, yes people do want them. A lot of executives at AIG are running very profitable parts of the business.

AIG didn't lose all it's money because all of the parts of the business performed poorly. They have high performing parts of the business, decently performing parts of the business, and more or less one part of the business that was an abysmal failure. The latter was so bad that it dealt a huge blow to the company.

In order to recover from that blow, the WORST thing to do is to allow the people that are making the company money go elsewhere.

$\"user-pic\"$

APFPilot

December 2, 2008 2:26 PM

\"The plan unveiled by New York-based AIG includes no 2008 annual bonuses and no salary increases through 2009 for AIG's top seven officer leadership group and no salary increases through 2009 for the 50 next highest paid executives, in addition to other bonuses, severance and retention award restrictions.

The insurer is also developing a funding structure to ensure that no taxpayer dollars are used for annual bonus or future cash performance awards as part of AIG's \"Senior Partners,\" the top 60 members of management.\"

From:

[www.ifawebnews.com]

$\"user-pic\"$

morganlh85

December 2, 2008 2:34 PM

Why is it that the government continues to give these asses money when they just flaunt how much they are going to WASTE it, but they won't give a measly $25 billion loan to the auto industry, which actually produces PRODUCTS and supports MILLIONS of jobs in the US???

December 3, 2008 12:17 AM

4 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

grumpygirl

@morganlh85: Because companies like AIG own most of Congress and certainly all of the Congressional leadership of both parties.

$\"user-pic\"$

econobiker

December 2, 2008 4:16 PM

@morganlh85: Because making products to sell to make money is so old school and dirty versus moving \"paper\" around to make money. Remember we are dealing with a different class of people who only know how to move \"paper\" both the politicians and the financial guys/gals versus people who manufacture items for profit.

Most politicians come from being lawyers or high level executives versus running manufacturing plant floors. If I remember it correctly Bill Frist was/is the only doctor in high level government...

$\"user-pic\"$

howie_in_az

December 2, 2008 3:52 PM

@morganlh85: Because none of them drive shitty American cars?

$\"user-pic\"$

Parting

December 2, 2008 3:51 PM

@morganlh85: That could be an idea, let AIG sink, and transfer money to auto industry.

That way auto industry will have to behave, since it would know, that the government can always take back the money.

$\"user-pic\"$

lowercase

December 2, 2008 2:35 PM

Once again, we're not differentiating between the profitable units and the unprofitable units of AIG. These bonuses are to keep good people who are running good units. So it's somewhat justifiable.

But frankly, even I don't think it's a good idea. At the most, they should offer them deferred bonuses, payable if and when their units get sold or the company as a whole returns to profit. So you offer the carrot if you need to, keep the good people in place, but don't blow more cash on these bonuses until they finish their jobs and things stabilize.

2 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

bonzombiekitty

December 2, 2008 3:03 PM

@lowercase: I'm mostly with you on this one. People are getting hysterical about how the company is spending money. AIG executive != One of the people responsible for AIG losing money. The executives getting the bonuses could very well be manging very profitable parts of the business and then it makes sense to keep them around.

At that sort of executive level, people can fairly easily move to another company, especially if they perform well. Simply keeping their job isn't much of an incentive to stay at the company. Retention bonuses such as these are a part of business.

$\"user-pic\"$

Parting

December 2, 2008 3:50 PM

@bonzombiekitty: If they are so profitable, then why are they hiding it? Why rename a bonus, then? Why not make it clear, that bonuses are reserved for profitable parts of the company?

If those bonuses were legit, AIG wouldn't hide behind words.

$\"user-pic\"$

exconsumer9

December 2, 2008 4:15 PM

@Meltdown: Sadly, they don't know how to be honest. At this point, I don't think it's outright maliciousness anymore, but just habit. It's never been part of the corporate culture, and it's going to be difficult in the extreme to get them to develop the habit now. Even when it's in their best interest, the truth will be next to impossible to tell. They just don't know how. The kind of accountability the public expects is a foreign language to them.

December 3, 2008 12:49 AM

$\"user-pic\"$

ohenry

@exconsumer9: Read bonxombiekitty's post -- the posts you see on here are the very reason AIG doesn't come upfront with these things.

Despite what you guys may thank, AIG is OVERALL in good hands. They didn't get to be the world's biggest insurance company for no reason. I think they all know better than any of us how to run an insurance company. This, aside from the boneheads who didn't have the foresight to see that insuring the mortgages was a bad idea.

The public in general isn't going to understand if they try to explain that they're funding their profitable company parts and making sure that the people who make them money are staying with AIG and not going elsewhere. The momen you mention big spending with AIG management, it's a knee jerk \"OMGWTFBBQ!!11!\" because of it being tax funded.

If the people won't listen it doesn't particularly pay to explain it to them.

$\"user-pic\"$

bonzombiekitty

December 2, 2008 3:57 PM

@Meltdown: Because of exactly what we're seeing here. Emotional, negative public reaction. I think renaming it was a dumb idea, but I can't blame them for trying to hide it.

$\"user-pic\"$

Bargaineering.com

December 2, 2008 2:47 PM

This makes me absolutely furious... these AIG execs are absolute assholes.

$\"user-pic\"$

DashTheHand

December 2, 2008 2:51 PM

You want someone to blame, then blame congress for letting these assholes have more money on top of the money they already gave them that they lied about how they were going to use.

Of course none of the congress members are going anywhere over this, people will just piss and moan about it for awhile and then not do anything.

I think its time to move to Antarctica.

1 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

johnva

December 2, 2008 5:45 PM

@DashTheHand: Corruption is a disease, and it's what usually kills great nations. I think we're witnessing corporate corruption of the political system at an unprecedented scale. THAT is the fundamental problem with America right now...our government doesn't really care about even pretending to work for the interests of its citizens.

Your job, according to the people who run our country, is to \"move along, citizen\". There's nothing to see here; just elites looking out for each other.

$\"user-pic\"$

Adisharr

December 2, 2008 3:03 PM

Someone should wait outside their door and stomp them as they exit. Just saying.

*** disclaimer **

I am not a Walmart customer and do not officially condone stomping.

1 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

concordia

December 2, 2008 5:48 PM

@Adisharr: Tap X to curb-stomp AIG executives.

$\"user-pic\"$

ADismalScience

December 2, 2008 3:09 PM

AIG's retirement services group is very profitable - yes, even still - so it's appropriate for that guy to get paid. The firm is being sold off in chunks, and loss of top leadership will make an already-difficult process impossible.

That said, that doesn't give the guys running the successful divisions of AIG the right to extort taxpayers. But since these guys are the IP behind a lot of the more successful subsidiaries/divisions that AIG is charged with selling off, they can demand payment to stay. It's indefensible, ethically, but then again these guys have all the leverage - to a man, they could walk away tomorrow and work just about anywhere else or simply sit on the largesse of years past.

2 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

Parting

December 2, 2008 3:47 PM

@ADismalScience: Well, since USA does not negotiate with terrorists, I don't see why it should negotiate with greedy upper management.
Let them quit, and hire someone else.

$\"user-pic\"$

ADismalScience

December 2, 2008 4:04 PM

@Meltdown:

The gambit is presented thus:

Will you get more for selling XYZ division of AIG with - or without - the presence of XYZ's managing director? You won't. So the rest is just a judgement as the executive assesses his or her value in the sale and demands a ransom to stick around in the meantime.

$\"user-pic\"$

Saboth

December 2, 2008 3:18 PM

Retention? Cash rewards? For what? Failing? How many times has a CEO gotten into a company...driven it into the ground, then left with like 10 million in his pocket? Hell, I could do that, and would save taxpayers tons of money. Just give me 1 million and I will take a company from profitable to failure in a few months.

$\"user-pic\"$

Saboth

December 2, 2008 3:23 PM

Although while we are on bailouts...I got a notice my citibank card was going from 11% interest to 19%. Now, I've had this card for around 12 years now, and also have like a 780 credit score. So I called them up to complain, and the girl said \"well you can either cancel the card or opt out and you will no longer be a customer when your card expires\". Wow...no retention policy? No apologies, counteroffers or anything? My first 2 options right off the bat is to take my business elsewhere? So I told her right then and there I'll opt out. She said, ok, anything else I can do for you today? She sure seemed bright and cheerful to be driving away a 12 year customer in a matter of minutes. I said nope, I think that does it. And our tax dollars are going to be bailing out these business failures?

2 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

econobiker

December 2, 2008 4:59 PM

@Saboth: They are tightening up and shedding customers who won't drink the high interest cool-aid...ie those who manage their money well.

$\"user-pic\"$

Saboth

December 2, 2008 5:50 PM

@econobiker:

Hmm you'd think they'd want to keep people that used the cards daily and provided them with a pretty steady stream of revenue, rather than people that run up their cards and then declare bankruptcy...oh well. Guess I'll have to live with my suntrust card with 8.9 interest.

$\"user-pic\"$

private1111

December 2, 2008 3:26 PM

Your American congress was in on it the whole time. They knew what was going to happen when they gave the bailout money. Are we forgetting all those smaller bills your congressmen tacked on to the bailout for thier own self serving greedy purposes? Your whole government is corrupt. Everything they tell you is lies used to placate the people so you all dont go nuts and revolt against what is really going on.

1 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

chrisjames

December 2, 2008 4:40 PM

@private1111: How dare you talk about our country like that! I'll have you know... No, wait. That's more or less spot on. Most Americans figured that out decades ago, though. By then it was too late. We've been consciously growing a blind spot out of ramped consumerism and ignorance ever since.

$\"user-pic\"$

Parting

December 2, 2008 3:45 PM

It's very nice : bonuses paid by your tax money!

It would be acceptable, only if an average taxpayer would receive similar bonuses on the work. But 3 millions? That's insane.

I still think, that this company should have been left to sink.

1 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

Saboth

December 2, 2008 3:52 PM

@Meltdown:

What's funny is I got my Christmas bonus this year. It was the same as last year, despite my company doing an extra 4 million in profit this year. We all busted our asses for that 4 million too. Anyhow, out of a 1,000 bonus, Uncle Sam's cut? About 40% of it. Gee, Uncle Sam, I don't remember you being at work until 8pm after hours every other night and coming in early and skipping lunches to meet deadlines! Oh hey, thanks for taking that tax money and giving it to AIG executives!

$\"user-pic\"$

darkryd

December 2, 2008 3:55 PM

Screw AIG.

$\"user-pic\"$

Ein2015

December 2, 2008 4:10 PM

For the love of humanity STOP REWARDING FAILURE!

$\"user-pic\"$

SKURRY

December 2, 2008 4:34 PM

Take 'em out back...

$\"user-pic\"$

lalaland13

December 2, 2008 5:14 PM

This year, my bonus might be a gift card to Wal-Mart. Otherwise, nothing.

$\"user-pic\"$

katylostherart

December 2, 2008 6:11 PM

and yet the ford ceo said he'd work for a dollar to get help from congress. i wonder what his retention bonus will be after getting a dollar salary.

$\"user-pic\"$

bearymore

December 2, 2008 6:20 PM

This is just typical. Executives in corporate America think they are royalty. Below a certain level you get laid off. Above that level you get $3,000,000 extra to retain your \"services\". Bring back the 90% tax bracket if only to stop all this nonsense. It didn't seem to impede growth during the Eisenhower administration. On the other hand, look at the wonderful success wrought by tax breaks to the rich and exploitative.

$\"user-pic\"$

Bertmanintx

December 2, 2008 6:25 PM

Can you imagine what's happening in their boardroom? Exec's giving each other high-5's. What's next?
So Congress says no more retention bonus. So these Exec will say its \"hiring bonus\" to rehire those that left due to a loss of a bonus. What a joke.

$\"user-pic\"$

rafe1230

December 2, 2008 6:35 PM

The execs should receive a bonus. A severence bonus. Give them cab fare and tell them thanks for tanking most of the company!

$\"user-pic\"$

ras_d

December 2, 2008 8:28 PM

This disgusting and disheartening. The upper class will always win.

December 2, 2008 10:14 PM

$\"user-pic\"$

kaptainkk

This government is so corrupt and it's just freaking amazing that this kind of crap is tolerated by the citizens. Sad that enough people probably don't even care that would allow this to happen. They don't need to stick around for the retention bonuses, I think these executives need to be shipped to North Korea.

December 3, 2008 12:23 AM

1 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

grumpygirl

@kaptainkk: Most people are far more irritated by losing cable TV channels than they are by all this. Collectively, we're getting exactly what we deserve.

December 3, 2008 12:10 AM

$\"user-pic\"$

ZukeZuke

Man, these unscrupulous crooks have the biggest balls ever.

Between the $500k executive retreats, spa treatments, retention bonuses, etc. that have happened post-government bailout, nothing these slimeballs do surprise me anymore. They're trying to pull new crap every friggen month now!

$\"user-pic\"$

sonneillon

December 3, 2008 1:34 AM

can't we just let them go bankrupt already. Good lord the government could do their job better.

$\"user-pic\"$

BytheSea

December 3, 2008 5:24 AM

Dear Santa: For Christmas this year I would like an indictment. No no, not for me, it's better to give than receive. I would like my indictment to go to my good friend AIG. They've really earned it this year and I think they deserve it.

Love,
BytheSea