TheCorinthian Posted March 19, 2009 Report Share Posted March 19, 2009 http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/03/18/sen-dodd-admits-adding-bonus-provision-stimulus-package/ In a dramatic reversal Wednesday, Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., confessed to adding language to the stimulus bill last month that exempted all bonuses that bailed-out companies had promised to employees before Feb. 11, 2009. Dodd told FOX News that Treasury officials forced him to make the change. Fucker should be ridden out on a rail! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TroyinEwa/Perv Posted March 19, 2009 Report Share Posted March 19, 2009 Wonder how much his cut was......prick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Faustian Posted March 19, 2009 Report Share Posted March 19, 2009 Yep, odd clause to have included....he's quite the idiot. I imagine he will have a nice job on a board someplace, later on....AIG maybe? I love how "forces" are blamed. Must be powerful, mind altering forces, which are always conveniently nameless... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugh_Hoy Posted March 19, 2009 Report Share Posted March 19, 2009 The Treasury Dept. is run by the Secretary of The Treasury. You can bet this "force" was not applied by some undersecretary. And who does the Secretary take orders from? No ! Tell me it's not true ! HH Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flashermac Posted March 19, 2009 Report Share Posted March 19, 2009 Trilateral Commission??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cavanami Posted March 19, 2009 Report Share Posted March 19, 2009 Sen Dodd ws "given" $100K+ from AIG for his "campaign fund". Obama was given $100K also...like this $$$ isn't expected to produce some "favors"... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flashermac Posted March 19, 2009 Report Share Posted March 19, 2009 Bet they gave to both parties' candidates. They must have covered all of their bases. Still, if Obama is going to slam AIG, he should return their contribution. Supposedly, he has many millions left over from his campaign funds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeartThais Posted March 19, 2009 Report Share Posted March 19, 2009 I find this entire witch-hunt silly. Wake up, people. While we are getting worked up over $165M in bonuses, AIG CDS counterparties are being paid the full value of their contracts. We are talking exposure of tens of BILLIONS PER BANK or hedge fund. These are counterparties that would have been holding worthless pieces of paper had AIG gone bankrupt. All this executive bonus outcry is really ridiculous considering the many bigger problems we have. It's like we handed out $1,000 out to some family members with severe gambling problems and instead of keeping an eye on that, we're really pissed off because Uncle Louie gave $1 to his son for ice-cream. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugh_Hoy Posted March 19, 2009 Report Share Posted March 19, 2009 Sure, it's "chump change". But it is also something politicians and greedy financial folks don't seem to appreciate: a principle. I'm not sure that a million $ bonus is a paltry amount for many of the recipients. HH Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeartThais Posted March 20, 2009 Report Share Posted March 20, 2009 Sure, it's "chump change". But it is also something politicians and greedy financial folks don't seem to appreciate: a principle. I'm not sure that a million $ bonus is a paltry amount for many of the recipients. Bonuses are easy targets for lazy minds. I can understand how Joe Q. Public gets confused because we aren't expected to be sophisticated about finance. But we should have sent every politician to school for a week to get some basic financial literacy so we don't waste time over rinky dink crap like this. Obama is just as guilty as anyone for fueling the flames on this one and I'm disappointed. What is the difference between using bailout money to meet contractual obligations to employees vs. counterparties? It is the counterparties that got us into this mess with their excessive leveraging. The contractual obligations to counterparties dwarfs the ones to employees. And they too would have been holding nothing had the bailout not happened. In terms of moral hazard, paying back the counterparties at 100% is just as bad as rewarding employees for taking excessive risk. In principle, there is no difference between the two. The employee bonuses are a scam to distract us from the real robbery taking place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.