AIG To Use Bailout Cash To Pay $165 Million In Bonuses. Yes, Seriously

So, those guys at AIG who underwrote trillions of dollars worth of credit default swaps backed by securitized mortgages? The ones the Times says were “at the very heart of A.I.G.’s worldwide conflagration?” They’re taking $165 million of our bailout money for bonuses. Because if we don’t pay them, these people—described by AIG’s government-appointed Chairman Ed Liddy as the “best and brightest talent”—will apparently leave to go ruin some other country’s financial system, and we can’t have that. Liddy acknowledged that the bonuses were “distasteful and difficult” before saying that he had “grave concern about the long-term consequences” of not paying up.

The bonuses will be paid to executives at American International Group’s Financial Products division, the unit that wrote trillions of dollars’ worth of credit-default swaps that protected investors from defaults on bond backed by subprime mortgages.

Of all the financial institutions that have been propped up by taxpayer dollars, none has received more money than A.I.G. and none has infuriated lawmakers more with practices that policy makers have called reckless.

Mr. Liddy, whom Federal Reserve and Treasury officials recruited after A.I.G. faltered last September and received its first round of bailout money, said the bonuses and “retention pay” had been agreed to in early 2008 and were for the most part legally required.

The company told the Treasury that there were two categories of bonus payments, with the first to be given to senior executives. The administration official said Mr. Geithner had told A.I.G. to revise them to protect taxpayer dollars and tie future payments to performance.

The second group of bonuses cover some 2008 retention payments from contracts entered into before government involvement in A.I.G. that the company says it is legally obligated to fulfill. The official said Treasury concluded those contracts could not be broken.

Indeed, in his letter to Mr. Geithner, Mr. Liddy wrote that he had shown the details of the $450 million bonus pool to outside lawyers and been told that A.I.G. had no choice but to follow through with the payment schedule.

Six fair-minded chaps, including Mr. Liddy, have declined the bonuses. Others will get between $1,000 and $6.5 million. Seven execs in the financial services unit will get around $3 million.

Don’t worry, though, AIG, which has taken $180 billion of our dollars so far, will do its best to reduce its taxpayer-funded bonuses next year to only $70 million.

A.I.G. to Pay $100 Million in Bonuses After Huge Bailout [The New York Times]


Edit Your Comment

  1. private1111 says:

    are they joking???
    why is the gov’t following thru with the payouts if its going to be wasted on these greedy people who are responsible for effing up the economy to begin with??
    Wow there is some major corruption going on somewhere, because what lawmaker in their right mind would give them a bailout while fully knowing what its going to be used for???
    INSANE!!! Im sooooooo glad im not an american!!!

  2. Verucalise (Est.February2008) says:

    Always hiding behind those cruddy contracts…. at least six of them were smart enough to realize the money wasn’t fairly earned.

  3. chuckv says:

    This is why we need to let the companies that can’t make any money fail

    • Drew5764 says:

      @chuckv: Agreed – had we let the company go belly up, they wouldn’t be getting any bonuses. Now that we’ve bailed them out… they are rewarded for fucking up the company?

      Can we have a new election now???

  4. Etoiles says:

    I can’t mind them still giving the smallest bonuses — the $1000 ones — because those go to low-ranking folks who pretty much do the best they can with the company they’re given. Those are peons (I too am at the peon level in my company, which is happily NOT AIG) who are doing the actual writing and copying and calling and what-have-you.

    Executive bonuses, on the other hand, are subject to an entirely different set of rules. You put a lot on the line by being a senior executive; it’s a high-risk / high-reward kind of job. It’s a job you can lose a lot more easily than you can a lower-profile one (when a network’s ratings sag, it’s not the editors who are made to leave; similarly, when a team has a failed season, it’s not the equipment manager who gets fired). Sure, one of the benefits is supposed to be that IF you perform well, THEN you get a huge bonus. But if you run the company into the ground, you’re supposed to be out on your ass.

    I’m mostly dismayed that they had the balls to write a fixed bonus level into the CONTRACTS. Then it’s not a bonus, it’s an end-run around comp, and that’s yet another dirty trick.

    tl;dr: AIG deserves to be drop-kicked into the nearest active volcano.

    • lordargent says:


      I come from an age where bonuses were given for a job done above and beyond the call of duty, and not a part of your contract.

      • shepd says:


        …it was my understanding that during that age Christmas bonuses were the norm. Nor for “doing well”, but because it was the season for giving.

        All that’s happened is that Christmas bonuses moved to another month. Woooo.

    • ludwigk says:

      @Etoiles: I think this high-risk executive situation has long since been eliminated by cronyism, and modern executive employment contracts, and creatively structured compensation.

      These exec with 8-figure bonuses are the same ones who receive 8-figure parachutes in the event that they are terminated for any reason. So, they have their obscene salaries and bonuses. If the business starts to tank, they have even more bonuses lavished upon them as “retention bonuses”. If they do end up getting ousted (i.e. Thain from Merrill getting acquired by BoA), they end up with 8 figures in their pockets now instead of later. Where’s this risk you speak of?

      Ok, in Thain’s case it was 9-figures, but what’s an order of magnitude among friends?

    • syzygy says:

      “But if you run the company into the ground, you’re supposed to be out on your ass.”
      @Etoiles: Better yet, fire them all. From a cannon. Into the sun.

  5. Inail says:

    Can’t help but wonder how this obligation was overlooked by our government officials while negotiating the bailout.

    Surely, with the right terms and agreements, this could have been avoided or at least merit based.

  6. KyleOrton says:

    I like that their excuse is that the company is contractually obligated to pay them.

    Isn’t that why people get laid off right before bonuses like this are due? I wonder if AIG is forced to ditch typical underhanded corporate BS because there’s a spotlight on them right now.

  7. Inail says:

    There are some 113 million households in the United States.

    AIG’s $180 billion bailout is costing each of household about $1,600 via taxes.

    What would the per household loss be if this place went under?

  8. bohemian says:

    No. No. Absolutely no.
    They need to demand back all of the money put in and let AIG die. If we need to prop up anything then prop up either with the homeowner or the bank in between that is holding the note but no more money to AIG. No wonder they were failing they were diverting so much money to executive excess and swanky trips while writing sketchy products.

    I want a list of these people who are still taking bonuses. The people in those supposed contracts could opt to not take that portion of the contract. We should know who they are.

  9. H3ion says:

    Are these incentive bonuses where the incentive is to see how much money a company can lose?

    If Congress wanted to do something, they could impose a 100% tax on any bonus in excess of $X for a company receiving government bailout funds. The company would be fulfilling its legal “obligation” to pay these bonuses but the money would wind up back in the Treasury.

    “Best and the brightest” my ass. The best and the brightest are what got us into the Vietnam war and now seem to be the ones who have decimated the international banking system.

    • consumerfan says:

      @Barrister76: No, that doesn’t add up. You’re then punishing the company’s finances which you’re trying to fix with a bailout.
      And the people still get their bonuses.

      The only solution I see is to withdraw the bailout and reinstate it on the condition that the employees formally waive their contractual right to the bonuses.
      That gives the employees the option of a bonus and loss of job, or a job and loss of bonus.

  10. H3ion says:

    Another thought. The government owns the majority of the shares of AIG. Wouldn’t the shareholders be within their rights to replace the entire AIG board with people who have some common sense?

  11. minsky says:

    I’m so fucking tired of hearing about having to keep the ‘best and brightest’ or whatever other bullshit euphemism they use to justify paying off these assholes.

    These people fucked up the company and now get rewarded for having done so.

    And there’s tons of people waiting in the wings to take over for these jerks, people that would do a much better job of actually running the company properly.

    Just let fucking AIG die a big nasty death and get it over with already. These bloodsuckers have drained enough cash from our coffers and they deserve to rot in hell.

  12. SergioDingo says:

    Put them in jail for treason.

    Traitors don’t get paid anything.

  13. RodAox says:

    Where would they go? No one would hire them based on their resume….Yeah I worked at AIG which tanked based on my decisions so please hire me for millions so I can tank your company….THEY GOT NO PLACE TO GO….LET EM LEAVE, HELL.

    Like Stewart said, we foot the bill while they get rich… capitalism at its finest….

  14. DesignerToast says:

    Dear AIG,

    You Suck.

    With all our hatred,
    Hard working Americans who pay for your greed.

  15. LostTurntable says:

    First of all, I don’t think it’s right to call AIG a company anymore, they’re a state-subsidized rapist, anally penatrating the American public on a daily basis.

    Secondly, real companies base their bonuses on the overall performance of the company and the performance of the individual. How much did that individual have to do with the company’s success? That’s how a bonus is determined in the real world.

    Based on that criteria the bonus for every AIG exectutvie should be a hot iron shoved up their sphinter.

    It’s only fair.

  16. CaptZ says:

    So…..had AIG been able to go bankrupt like they would have, these bonuses would have been null and void by the bankruptcy judge. Assuming that they would have gone bankrupt had the taxpayer bailout not been given, the bonuses should still be null and void. This should have been a condition fo the handout, if the fucked up Feds had written any stiputaions for the handout. Pin the blame on the Feds…not on AIG.

  17. working class Zer0 says:

    There are people that are losing their jobs and homes because of the actions of these assholes!
    “Best and brightest” what does this say about what big business looks for in top people who’s actions can make or break their company? Companies really need to rethink their criteria for identifying the “best and brightest”.
    These people deserve nothing. Well maybe a subpoena to come in and answer some questions.

  18. Trai_Dep says:

    While AIG might be obligated by pre-existing contract to pay the bonuses, could the gov’t not also let it be known that any exec accepting the payment will get a brand new, shiny seven-year IRS audit as a bonus-bonus, along with a promise to be added to any forthcoming criminal indictments that may emerge?

    And, WTF Cat will now haunt my dreams. Thanks, Carey.

    • AfraidOfVelcro_GitEmSteveDave says:

      @Trai_Dep: I’m sure these people hired accountants other than Enron’s, and will pass an audit. Also, I’m sure their contract is like the one the jet company had w/Citibank. Break it, and you have to pay a heavy penalty, so it might cost us less, but it will cost us.

  19. ShadowFalls says:

    It seems the market itself is a very fearful one. The government from past experiences goes with the method that is less likely to produce more variables. Letting AIG fail would increase the number of variables that is affecting the economy and the government itself is historically unwilling to take a complicated path.

    Simply put, they are going to have to let something fail, sit back and watch what happens. Sure AIG might be huge, but there is nothing to say it can’t be broken down and allow the useless divisions to fail.

    The stock market itself is a reactionary joke. If the government announced tomorrow that they will just let AIG fail, the stock market will suddenly plummet for no other reason than an announcement. That reaction would have nothing to do with actual effect on the economy, but instead of perceived effect. Yes, the same people who were involved with this mess to begin with and couldn’t predict that the economy would tank, still influence the market today.

    In the end, you can’t save everything. GM is going to likely tank, they cannot be bailed out indefinitely. It might sting a little, but there isn’t going to be some huge collapse. Right now, the government is pouring more money into the black hole that is AIG with no realistic turnaround. Allowing AIG to fail might hurt like when you are resetting a bone, but it is a necessary step for the path to healing.

    The government has made a big mistake in the first place with the “bailouts”. They figured they could just throw money at a money problem and everything would be ok, instead of actually fixing what caused the problem to begin with. The worst thought here is simply, how much is it going to cost for them to learn their lesson? 1 trillion? 10 trillion? 100 trillion? We may never know.

  20. mrsultana can't get a password to work says:

    No, no, no! We have to pay to keep these execs at AIG. Otherwise, they’ll move on to other companies and screw up the ones that aren’t completely failing now. Then, we’ll all be really fucked.

  21. James Falcon says:

    It is great and all to talk about how our money saved them and how we should just let them fail…..

    However, you have to realize that AIG is not a bank in terms of going and depositing money and getting free toaster for a new account. AIG is an insurance company above all and with all of the property and medical and life insurances that they have written, it would be monumentally disastrous to allow them to fail. Do they deserve bailout? Yes. Do they deserve to have bonuses? No!

  22. Coles_Law says:

    Well, kudos to Mr. Liddy and the five others who had the good sense to turn down the bonuses. As to the rest of them, I like Barrister76’s idea-100% tax on earnings.

  23. lestat730 says:

    Good to hear some of them declined the bonus. It makes me mad that hard working people like myself have to willingly NOT ask for a very well deserved raise because of the way the economy is right now. Meanwhile, you have company’s using bailout money to dish out massive bonuses…

  24. savdavid says:

    Someone needs to step-in NOW and stop this travesty!!

  25. wellfleet says:

    I get a good salary and a pretty sweet bonus structure. My bonus structure is 100% dependent on how well we do. Wellfleet Fail = No bonus. Wellfleet Win = Bonus. I don’t see a scenario where Epic Fail = Sweet bonus. Contract or not, why are these people being rewarded for massive failure at their job? Isn’t that encouraging more fails?

  26. Hoss says:

    It’s the scale of the franchise that’s making this all seem so ridiculous. But if this was a medium-sized partnership that just got a loan from the local bank; the bank would happily support one one-thousandth of the loan value being used as retention bonuses for key individuals, wouldn’t it?? Now, let’s see how many use those retention bonuses to buy stock…

  27. Tommy Yu says:

    If these idiots did care about our fellow citizens and the well being of their own company, they would sacrifice for the sake of the American taxpayer and the corporation. If the executive “high-talent” staff of AIG can’t look past their stupid paycheck, then maybe the board should take a look at their talent pool. If they hire individuals to run the company that “jump ship” if they don’t get extra monetary compensation, then we are all screwed. Have some balls, don’t pay 165 million taxpayer dollars, and weed out the leeches. With all the educational talent in this country, we should always be able to find somebody to fit the executive profile. Especially now with the unemployment rate at the way it is. Anyone with scruples or any glimpse of a virtuous soul, gives their heart to the companies they work for so they can survive. AIG is fucked up.

  28. outinthedark says:

    2 words for you Mr. Liddy…


  29. randombob says:

    lol, I just got through writing a blog about this very topic, based off the same NYT article.

    Seriously: If AIG had been allowed to go under, who would have paid their bonuses? No one, right? Because you can’t enforce a contract on a party that doesn’t exist. Well shit, what I’m saying is that essentially, AIG DOESN’T exist anymore. the Gov’t exists, and they put the letters AIG on the side of a building. These guys happen to work of this same building.

    The contracts should be void, because AIG as they knew it – before they killed it – no longer exists.

  30. Julia789 says:

    They are worried the executives will go find other jobs if they don’t get huge bonuses? Where are these other jobs they speak of?

    Last I checked, there were no other jobs available. The company I work for is taking full advantage of this fact, doubling workloads and taunting “What are you going to do, find another job somewhere else? HA HA HA!”

  31. danger355 says:

    this is ridiculous, these guys cry to the government and convince them the financial stability of the entire planet rests in their hands, then hand out *our billions of dollars* to some of the people responsible for this depression in the first place.

    in the words of Jon Stewart: FUCK YOU

  32. FuryOfFirestorm says:


  33. u1itn0w2day says:

    The bonuses will go to the AIGs Financial Products Division . You mean to bonuses to the same crap that not only caused this mess but failed to stand up and point out this isn’t going to work ? .

    Sounds like hush money .

  34. Grrrrrrr, now with two buns made of bacon. says:

    Well, if I were the feds, I’d take all the money they were paying out as bonuses and subtract that from the bailout money. Better yet, I’d take all the bailout money away and let the fail. If they lose their “talent” to other companies by not paying bonuses, it serves them right. Remember, this is survival mode, so they shouldn’t get to pick and choose! I have no doubt they’ll be able to find replacements for those folks who go looking for employment elsewhere.

    For 20 years, these companies were screaming “Get the government out of our private business!” Live by the sword, die by the sword, I say.

  35. Major-General says:

    We should have let AIG fail.

  36. Joe Lachiana says:

    The only place these people should be moving to is PRISON.


  37. Pylon83 says:

    What part of “contractually obligated” is so hard to understand? These are contracts that were written pre-meltdown and are still valid. AIG also wrote a ton of various insurance contracts around the same time, probably some to Lehman and Citi; should they refuse to pay those too?

  38. LegoMan322 says:


    You cannot be serious? Basically your idea is to feed the fat person because they are fat?

  39. PollyHaerk says:

    What really saddens and pisses me off here is the EPIC FAIL that this is considering the campaign that PRESIDENT OBAMA ran just a few months ago.
    He promised us he would be bringing executives to justice, however, he nor the people he has hired to help save the public from greed fueled banks and restore our economy EVEN HAVE THE FORTITUDE NOR ABILITY to stop millions and millions of dollars from going to executives FROM A COMPANY THAT THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA OWNS AN 79% SHARE OF! OBAMA AND HIS ADMINISTRATION OWN THIS COMPANY TOGETHER WITH THE US TAXPAYERS and they can’t even stand up to a unethical practices of a company they freakin own? Amazing.
    Just let that set the example for how they are going to “bring to justice” companies they don’t own.


  40. SteelersAreGo says:

    @Pylon: Glad you asked. These might be contracts that have existed previous to the meltdown, but AIG can still refuse to pay. The execs then sue, and we have a nice court fight to determine who get what money. If AIG was truly interested in not paying the bonuses, I’ll bet they can use the case as leverage to pay less, or perhaps find some terminology and contract law to escape completely.

    But instead they are throwing up their hands, because they are “bound.” Well let me tell you, there’s no such thing as “bound.” People can, and often should, break contracts all the time if it makes economic sense. I’m certain AIG has in the course of their life. Why not now is a question that we should be asking.

    • Pylon83 says:

      Breaking a contract is only economically efficient if the legal fees and ultimate settlements are less than the cost of just paying. Compund that with the reputational damage (as far as recruiting later on) and the equation isn’t so simple. Further, I don’t think it’s appropriate for the federal govt to encourage breaking contracts.

      • SteelersAreGo says:

        @Pylon83: I would argue Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code is the federal govt’s sanction of, at least, contract modification. In any event considering how deeply the constituents are against further payments for bonuses, I think the governmental role as an extension of the people’s will makes their advocacy permissible.

        As for reputational damages it’s true AIG takes a hit there; Clearly under the present plan it looks like AIG takes care of their own. But for court costs and the rest, I would predict (but do not know) that the execs and board go into a private room and hash a settlement out pretty darn quick. I think even token resistance will create a more palatable end result.

        • Pylon83 says:

          Ch. 11 is obviously for use in a very narrow set of circumstances, a set that doesn’t currently include AIG. I think your analogy is weak for that reason. With regard to the settlement, court costs aren’t the concern, legal fees are. When the board meets with the execs, the room is also likely to be full of an army of big firm lawyers, probaly partners billing in the $700-1000/hr range. Not to mention the hours billed by the lawyers preparing for the meeting.

          • SteelersAreGo says:

            @Pylon83: Not really an analogy, just another instance where the government “advocates” contract reformation. It’s kind of moot anyway: Congresspeople demanding answers from AIG execs on where the money is going indicates their feelings on the issue.

            As for legal fees, somewhat true. But there are ways to open a dialogue before the lawyers get involved. I would be infinitely more satisfied if they released a statement talking about bonus reductions, and the employees playing hardball, and that they decided the most cost-effective plan was to pay up. But instead their public comment was simply citing to “legal obligations” which to me smacks of complicity.

            If they are literally saying “cannot be broken,” that is not about being cost-effective. “Cannot be broken” is simply untrue.

  41. albokay says:

    its a sad day when news like this is not as shocking as it should be?

  42. Anonymous says:

    Ok complaints are easy to make, but there is two side to the thing.

    For example. Last November I too a job as CEO of small business. I took it at around 50% of my old salary, and had to close my consultant practice as well.

    I did that because the company has great growth potential, and I’m putting my money where my mouth is, since I am the one in charge of seeing this potential actualize.

    The salary is acceptable to me in the end because of the various milestone bonuses. No bonus, and I end up unable to pay my financial responsibilities.

    No – I wish, but I am not making millions here.

    Still, many of the folks at whom you point fingers are just hard workin stiffs, with student loans, mortgage and baseball team membership for the kids to pay.

    When they took the job, they also took in account the promises of bonuses made on certain milestones, most of which will obviously NOT be achieved under current economic circumstances. So they are already taking a pay cut there.

    Is YOUR employer entitled to cut your salary, as described in your labor agreement or contract, be verbal of written, if it hits hard time and accepts subsidies?

    Even what you call large bonuses – says 10K. 100K – is only large subjectively. If the standard salary for that job is 200K, and your base is 100K plus bonus to a potential of 275K (if all goes well), you took a gamble in your contract, an non-assured premium greater that an assured base, but you still expect to make something akin to market, not half…

    So that’s what I think for *most* bonuses. However million $ bonuses for senior management that run a company in the ground by showing so little foresight? Shareholders should be asking for their money back – if consumer laws on expectation of performance on a purchase would apply.

    And – with government investments, added to what we already own via retirement funds and pension plans, we are ALL shareholders now.

  43. bigmac12 says:

    It’s shit like this that brings people out into the streets throwing bricks.
    AIG must die….the “brightest and Best Execs” can start to figure out which end of a shovel to use!!

  44. boxjockey68 says:

    What ever happened to survival of he fittest? Or accountability? or even responsibility?

  45. Fuzz says:

    The problem is bonuses are like tips these days. Everyone expects to get them, no matter how shitty of a job they do.

  46. kwsventures says:

    Like I said last year, the federal government has no business giving taxpayer funded welfare to businesses. We have bankruptcy laws for companies that go belly up. I don’t want to hear, or believe, the world was going to end because AIG is bankrupt. It was typical scare tactics to rush through legislation that was unconstitutional in my view.

    • Pylon83 says:

      I’m curious as to why you believe it is unconstitutional. Do you believe it violates a particular provision, or do you just believe congress simply doesn’t have the power under the constitution?

    • SteelersAreGo says:

      @kwsventures: Congress has the power to tax and spend and regulate commerce. I agree it was some terrible decisions, but the constitution gives them the right to make those bad decisions.

  47. suburbancowboy says:

    Any bonuses paid to executives by companies who received bailout money should be subject to a 100 percent tax rate. The company obviously doesn’t need the money to afloat, and we the people who are paying the bill should get that money back.

    The rich are against welfare until they need it for themselves.

  48. superhumanben says:

    So we’re retaining jackasses from ruining other countries economy by encouraging them to continually f’ over our own with their greedy ways?

  49. Papa Midnight says:

    CNN just ran a story about this, actually.

  50. Anonymous says:

    AIG is not the only location of festering greed, even when our country is submerged in dark chasm of unemployment and foreclosures. The reason AIG, a massive mega insurance company became insolvent is that it got too big? It is a stain on America integrity as the ponzi scheme of Mr. Maldoff has shown us. When Americans taxpayers are suffering from this terrible plight cause by so many individual issues.

    The import of thousands of fraudulent cheap labor through the H-1B visa game, hardly ever supervised by the dept of labor, engineered by iniquitous immigration attorneys. The unceasing betrayal of our politicians as Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) who has sold out the American worker by killing E-Verify. Unfair trade agreements that have seen our industrial base disappear into third, cheap labor countries, so that millions of US companies have closed their gates.

    All around the country we have seen the padlocked factories and silent machines, because it was cheaper to import car parts from Mexico. Then to import them back across the distressed drug infested borders. All around the country we have seen the padlocked factories and silent machines, because it was cheaper to import car parts from Mexico. Then to import them back across the distressed drug infested borders. Then the taxpayer bails out banks, insurance and hundreds or other defaulted business to the tune of more than a trillion dollars. Then without any oversight the executives are still receiving massive bonuses even though the company has failed. As we sink lower into this financial quagmire, our bumbling politicians led by Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV), has dishonored his Oath to Nevada constituents and the US people. By tearing out the E-Verify amendment in both the Stimulus/omnibus spending bills. It will now allow at the least 300.000 illegal labor to take construction jobs from documented workers.

    Thanks to the Democratic leadership even our workforce must–submit–to millions of illegal cheap labor. They have squirreled into the both blue collar to the higher professional echelon of positions. We have till September to right this disgusting wrong, by demanding every politician revise–EVERIFY– in perpetuity. Washington switchboard for your incensed calls to 202-224-3121

  51. quizmasterchris says:

    The investment in the Obama and McCain campaigns pays off!

  52. shmianco says:

    this is so fucked up. makes me un-proud to be an american.

  53. ceez says:

    hold the phone!

    so these are the bright people that they gotta pay extra because they are the best at what they do, yet these bright minds failed to see the disaster area that AIG was headed to?!?!

    it’s infucking credible….and how is all that bonus money going to stimulate the economy? they are going to save their millions in their banks and not do anything with it.

    these rich dickheads are incredifuckulous!

  54. JollyJumjuck says:

    This is why the IRS has to hammer the small businessman and the little guy for “unpaid” tax revenue. They can’t go after the rich folks and the corporations, so SOMEONE has to pay! >:(

  55. ninjatoddler says:

    What AIG needs is someone with sanity in charge.

  56. LunaDawgie says:
  57. Anonymous says:

    Actually, it was the small London office of AIG that exposed the company to toxic derivative debt. These bonuses aren’t going to the people responsible, but others in unrelated branches and subsidiaries.

  58. RichasB says:

    THAT’S IT! I’m leaving America and moving to the middle of the ocean, to International Waters! I can rest easily being surrounded by ravenous sharks but still knowing my money isn’t going to a corrupt government.

    Yeah, I said it, the US is F-ed! Obama wants to help these clowns with bailout money and now he’s thinking about raising taxes? WTF? Why the hell are they taxing those who work and then giving it to the idiots who lost everything. No one forced them to buy that mansion on a janitor’s pay! Tax the rich and give to the poor. Eventually, everyone stops working >:0 All the smart people will leave the US and take their lucrative businesses else where.

    That’s how Cuba’s communism first worked out (An extreme comparison, I know, but not irrelevant).

  59. savdavid says:

    As long as we, the PEOPLE, allow the Peter Principal flunkies to walk away with our money we deserve it.
    BTW, the Peter Principal means “In a Hierarchy Every Employee Tends to Rise to His Level of Incompetence.”

  60. valleygirl_18002 says:

    Wake up, folks!


  61. MooseOfReason says:

    Maybe we should have earmarked some of that.

    Oh no wait, “earmarks are evil!”

  62. Danj3ris says:

    Lets play a little word association game.



  63. Garbanzo says:

    Meh. My company cancelled everyone’s merit raises and variable compensation this year because other divisions were unprofitable, even though my division should have gotten bonuses based on our performance against revenue goals. And my company isn’t even taking taxpayer money!

    AIG employees should just suck it up like we did. Company finances down = no bonuses.

  64. TrueBlue63 says:

    This country has been engaged in class warfare for 100 years, unfortunately its the rich engaged in warfare against the poor, and it always has been.

    It is sad and pathetic. The best and the brightest. Its like these corporate bozo’s aren’t a dime a dozen. What makes one exec different from the next, yes I know its the frat or secret society or eating club they belonged too.

    The rich have become parasites.

  65. ReverendBrown says:

    AIG bought my car insurance company a little before the bailouts hit. My opportunity to switch away has just come up…

  66. ZukeZuke says:

    All these AIG execs and every congressman who voted for the (continued) bailout needs their ass kicked! This gets more ridiculous every week!

  67. MooseOfReason says:

    What about the people who were against all the bailouts, and thought AIG or any other company should be allowed to go bankrupt?

    Should we have listened to them?

    Or should we have had the government try to solve an economic problem with cheap credit and no strings attached, like it always does, and then get mad when something goes awry?

  68. John Roberts Dabon says:

    wow and i thought the philippines had issues with government spending. this is so ridiculous that i cant stop laughing.

  69. xspook says:

    blah blah blah. Have any of you actually written to your representative/s in Congress? Do you know how?

  70. hi says:

    This is criminal. And who voted for giving them the bailout money once again….???

  71. kaceetheconsumer says:

    Let them die. Pull the plug and let them die.

  72. vladthepaler says:

    1. Give tons of money to an irresponsible company.
    2. Watch the irresponsible company spend the free money irresponsably.
    3. OMG outrage!

    Come on, folks. Figure it out. Stop giving away money.

  73. darkryd says:

    I guess this just shows that “Too Big to Fail” also just means “Too Big” in general.

  74. Anonymous says:

    If executives are to be paid a bonus for outstanding performance it would be helpful for the public to see the goals to be met to deserve a bonus. If sinking the company is to be rewarded perhaps that goal should be removed from the incentive plan. If the “best and the brightest” can do that I am confident the company can find many that don’t have to be paid bonuses to accomplish the same goal. Ed Liddy, the bureaucrat put in as chairman, is showing all the traits of a bureaucrat, that is following proper procedures in a sort of mechanical, inflexable like manner with little imagination or pragmatic judgement. To justify the paying of bonuses with taxpayer money that prevented the company from filing bankruptcy and justifying the payments by saying to not do so what have long term consequences shows little thought about consequences. To pay bonuses after destroying a company for short term gains, i.e, bonuses, that ruined a company and then saying bonuses are deserved is much like saying “heads I win, tails you lose.” So if the company made money bonuses are to be paid and when the company lost enormous sums of money bonuses are to be paid has a consequence for the future that says no punishment or liabilitiy will be in store for poor decision making. This incident may be a sign of the begining of a cancerous condition developing in America’s capitalism.