Dodd Tries to Undo Bonus Protections He Put In
(http://www.foxbusiness.com/story/markets/industries/finance/dodd-cracks-aig---time/)
Senator Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) on Monday night floated the idea of taxing American International Group bonus recipients so the government could recoup some or all of the $450 million the company is paying to employees in its financial products unit. Within hours, the idea spread to both houses of Congress, with lawmakers proposing an AIG bonus tax.
The move represents somewhat of an about-face for the Senator.
While the Senate was constructing the $787 billion stimulus last month, Dodd added an executive-compensation restriction to the bill. That amendment provides an "exception for contractually obligated bonuses agreed on before Feb. 11, 2009" -- which exempts the very AIG bonuses Dodd and others are now seeking to tax.
The amendment made it into the final version of the bill, and is law.
Separately, Sen. Dodd was AIG's largest single recipient of campaign donations during the 2008 election cycle with $103,100, according to opensecrets.org.
Dodd's office did not immediately return a request for comment.
I think THIS says alot about the democrat party and our state of the economy... ;)
There is something I started wondering about last night about these bonus'. I always thought to earn a bonus one had to perform and under the circumstances it would seem like the executives failed to do so by the fact that the company would have had to go into bankruptcy, or so they say, without the bail out money. If this is fact then they would not be eligible for any bonus money because they did not perform in such a manner as to deserve one. Anyway that's my thought on the subject for what it's worth. I'm sure Ex will have some thoughts on this, my thoughts being worth anything that is....
I think this article (http://money.cnn.com/2009/03/16/news/companies/aig_bonuses.fortune/index.htm) hits the nail on the head.
That is interesting....i don't know the fulll story, but this DOES seem to fit the "outrageously one-sided and unconscionable - contract terms"...
let's think about this for a minute......congress gives AIG...$173 billion....and $93 billion of that ends up at a bunch of European banks and Goldman Sachs.....and Obama has a wedgy over $165 MILLON to executives?....that is chump change in the whole light of things........the bigger question is...why are we bailing out European banks (http://financetech.com/news/insurance/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=215900317)?... :confused:
and if they would have simply let them go bankrupt....there would have been NO bonus' for anybody....and we could have used the $173 BILLION dollars for tax cuts, that would have stimulated this economy NOW!
I don't want to see a tax on these bonuses, I want them paid back in full now. Also no more money to AIG ever.
I think the Mafia might be able to help us out with this problem; probably at a bargain-basement price. And I'm not putting a "smiley" at the end of this post.
two more thoughts....shouldn't the people who hired these executives be the ones who should be paying back these outrageous bonus'?....
and, why is there not more outrage at CONGRESS, the ones who just THREW BILLIONS of dollars at these guys, without any REAL accountability?...
Quote from: Henry Hawk on March 18, 2009, 08:17:16 AM
two more thoughts....shouldn't the people who hired these executives be the ones who should be paying back these outrageous bonus'?....
Not sure where you're going with that.
Quoteand, why is there not more outrage at CONGRESS, the ones who just THREW BILLIONS of dollars at these guys, without any REAL accountability?...
Maybe because a lot of the money initially didn't come from Congress but from the Federal Reserve working on Bush's authority?
Quote from: Exterminator on March 18, 2009, 08:35:54 AM
Not sure where you're going with that.
I mean the board members or whoever makes the decision to hire and assign the bonus'.......those guys should be the ones accountable, not the guy who is getting the bonus.
Quote from: Exterminator on March 18, 2009, 08:35:54 AM
Maybe because a lot of the money initially didn't come from Congress but from the Federal Reserve working on Bush's authority?
No, it was people like Frank and Dodd who
inserted language — known as the Dodd amendment — in the $787 billion stimulus bill that allowed all bonuses awarded before February 11, 2009, to be paid to AIG executiveshe should be the one paying back this....quit trying to defend these guys and pin it on Bush....these guys are frauds...period.
Dodd ironically received over $100,000 in campaign donations from AIG last year....and then he decided to protect these guys with their bonus'...........Obama should call for the resignation of Dodd....he is caught RED HANDED with his hand in the cookie jar.....THAT is where ALL the OUTRAGE should be!!!...
So did Obama. He received $101,332 in contributions.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on March 18, 2009, 08:40:39 AM
No, it was people like Frank and Dodd who inserted language — known as the Dodd amendment — in the $787 billion stimulus bill that allowed all bonuses awarded before February 11, 2009, to be paid to AIG executives
he should be the one paying back this....quit trying to defend these guys and pin it on Bush....these guys are frauds...period.
I tried to give you enough information to encourage you to research the subject before continuting to make yourself look uninformed but to no avail...
On September 16, 2008, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York extended a line of cerdit to AIG in the amount of $85 billion. Congress had nothing to do with it.
On October 9, 2008, the company borrowed an additional $37.8 billion from the Fed via a second line of credit. Congress also had nothing to do with this.
On November 10, 2008, the Treasury announced it would purchase an additional $40 billion in preferred stock from AIG, this time under the authority of H.R. 1424 (TARP); this was approved by Congress.
The workings of these three incidents get somewhat convoluted but as you can see, most of the money used to bail out AIG came directly from the Fed and was never voted on by Congress. You can't hold them responsible for something over which they neither had a vote nor any control.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on March 18, 2009, 09:14:48 AM
Dodd ironically received over $100,000 in campaign donations from AIG last year....and then he decided to protect these guys with their bonus'...........Obama should call for the resignation of Dodd....he is caught RED HANDED with his hand in the cookie jar.....THAT is where ALL the OUTRAGE should be!!!...
Funny, where was the outrage when the banks were buying congressmen left and right to get their bankruptcy bill passed? Does it seem to anyone else like the banks were so adamant about banruptcy reform because they saw this coming?
QuoteThe Homeowner Affordability and Stability Plan
The HASP provides assistance to homeowners by providing lower rates to individuals that can not refinance their homes because of the reduction in home prices; help for homeowners facing foreclosure and capital injections to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to keep mortgage rates low.
The Treasury has set-up a site http://financialstability.gov/ to provide the public with information on the evolution and success of the plan, including providing online access to all the contracts with recipients of aid.
A look at what has already been done: the TARP (it's only been 5 months, but there's been plenty of action...)
The by now famous (or infamous depending on your point of view) TARP came into existence just a few months ago, on October 3, 2008. The plan was first introduced by the then Treasury Secretary John Paulson as a mechanism to assist struggling financial institutions re-capitalize themselves and re-start lending by purchasing their toxic assets, so that they could take them off their balance sheets. The TARP was the Treasury's and Fed's response to the havoc that broke through the market in the aftermath of Lehman Brothers' bankruptcy and the "bailout" of the insurance giant AIG, which received a gigantic $85 billion loan in exchange for an 80% ownership stake in the company. A few days after these events, the credit markets which had been under severe strain, seized with the announcement that a money market fund heavily invested in Lehman's debt could not return 100% of the assets to its investors. This caused a run on money market funds and inter-bank lending went to a standstill. By the evening of Thursday September 18, Paulson and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke announced plans to put together a facility to buy the troubled assets of financial institutions so that they could stop the string of continuous losses in their portfolios caused by bad mortgage and derivative bets and thus have a hope of recapitalizing themselves and start lending.
Congress approved a $700 billion package under the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act, which authorized the Treasury to take the necessary steps to address the credit crises. The funds were to be disbursed through the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) in two tranches of $350 billion. Soon after the TARP was authorized, the Treasury decided that buying troubled assets was no longer the best course of action to take to help the financial markets. Rather it proceeded to inject capital directly to banks and other financial and non-financial institutions. The table below provides a summary of the top recepients of TARP funds (this table provides the full list).
While most of the funds went to banks, the former insurance giant AIG received $70 billion from the TARP (bringing the total investment from the government, Fed and Treasury, to $180 billion), and two of Detroit's "Big Three" received close to $21 billion in total ($5 billion going to GMAC, the financial arm of GM and Cerberus), so that they would avoid bankruptcy. and To date the Treasury has parted with over $300 billion of the first $350 billion of funds approved, and a few days before the Obama administration took power, Congress approved the disbursement of the remaining $350 billion to the Treasury. Citigroup and Bank of America deserve special mention, to help them avoid insolvency in light of the large losses in their portfolios of assets (BoA's coming in large part from their acquisition of Merrill Lynch in mid September), the Treasury provided additional capital investments and loss guarantees.
TARP Funds Disbursed
($ million)
AIG 70,000
Citigroup 50,000
Bank of America 45,000
JPMorgan Chase & Co. 25,000
Wells Fargo & Company 25,000
General Motors Corporation 10,284
Morgan Stanley 10,000
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. 10,000
The PNC Financial Services Group Inc. 7,579
U.S. Bancorp 6,599
GMAC LLC 5,000
SunTrust Banks, Inc. 4,850
Chrysler Holding LLC 4,000
Capital One Financial Corporation 3,555
Regions Financial Corp. 3,500
Fifth Third Bancorp 3,408
American Express Company 3,389
BB&T Corp. 3,134
Bank of New York Mellon Corporation 3,000
KeyCorp 2,500
While most of the funds went to banks, the former insurance giant AIG received $40 billion from the TARP (bringing the total investment from the government, Fed and Treasury, to $125 billion), and two of Detroit's "Big Three" received close to $21 billion in total ($5 billion going to GMAC, the financial arm of GM and Cerberus), so that they would avoid bankruptcy. To date the Treasury has parted with over $330 billion of the first $350 billion of funds approved, and a few days before the Obama administration took power, Congress approved the disbursement of the remaining $350 billion to the Treasury. Citigroup and Bank of America deserve special mention, to help them avoid insolvency in light of the large losses in their portfolios of assets (BoA's coming in large part from their acquisition of Merrill Lynch in mid September), the Treasury provided additional capital investments and loss guarantees.
All in all 362 institutions in 46 states have received TARP funds. AIG at top with $70 billion of capital in the form of common looking preferred shares, for an ownership stake of 77.9%, and at the bottom small banks receiving $1.3 million.
The distribution of banks by state receiving funds non-surprinsingly sees New York on top as home of most of the investment banks and many a commercial bank. North Carolina, home of Bank of America comes a distant second. California, one of the epicenters of the mortgage crisis, comes in first with the "distinction" of having the most banks receiving funds from the TARP; North Carolina and New York are second and third. The following table provides a snapshot of the states whose banks have received the most aid. The full list is available here.
Total TARP Funds Disbursed
($ million)
Number of Institutio
http://trackthestimulus.com/TARP.aspx
Quote from: Exterminator on March 18, 2009, 09:36:45 AM
I tried to give you enough information to encourage you to research the subject before continuting to make yourself look uninformed but to no avail...
On September 16, 2008, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York extended a line of cerdit to AIG in the amount of $85 billion. Congress had nothing to do with it.
On October 9, 2008, the company borrowed an additional $37.8 billion from the Fed via a second line of credit. Congress also had nothing to do with this.
On November 10, 2008, the Treasury announced it would purchase an additional $40 billion in preferred stock from AIG, this time under the authority of H.R. 1424 (TARP); this was approved by Congress.
The workings of these three incidents get somewhat convoluted but as you can see, most of the money used to bail out AIG came directly from the Fed and was never voted on by Congress. You can't hold them responsible for something over which they neither had a vote nor any control.
Do you have a point? Perhaps the sources I researched were outdated but even if AIG has gotten $70 billion under TARP, the bulk of the money still came from the Fed without any involvement from Congress whatsoever.
Quote from: Exterminator on March 18, 2009, 09:36:45 AM
I tried to give you enough information to encourage you to research the subject before continuting to make yourself look uninformed but to no avail...
On September 16, 2008, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York extended a line of cerdit to AIG in the amount of $85 billion. Congress had nothing to do with it.
On October 9, 2008, the company borrowed an additional $37.8 billion from the Fed via a second line of credit. Congress also had nothing to do with this.
On November 10, 2008, the Treasury announced it would purchase an additional $40 billion in preferred stock from AIG, this time under the authority of H.R. 1424 (TARP); this was approved by Congress.
The workings of these three incidents get somewhat convoluted but as you can see, most of the money used to bail out AIG came directly from the Fed and was never voted on by Congress. You can't hold them responsible for something over which they neither had a vote nor any control.
Okay, you are correct on who actually gave the money out....
but it is congress' job to look out for our best interests of this country....and they are doing everything but that ....they buddied up with these banks, like AIG to line their own pockets and putting their personal agenda's before the needs of the people...
and Barney Frank and Dodd are two, that can be directly pin pointed for NOT looking out for the best interest of the people....imo
Quote from: Exterminator on March 18, 2009, 09:38:57 AM
Funny, where was the outrage when the banks were buying congressmen left and right to get their bankruptcy bill passed? Does it seem to anyone else like the banks were so adamant about banruptcy reform because they saw this coming?
the Banks knew exactly what was going on.....they are much smarter than those in congres...
we are drifting away from the point to this thread....Dodd and congress is outraged about these bonus' and it was DODD and Congress that passed a bill in the Stimulus package that allowed them to get their bonuses....they knew damn well that they was getting a huge bonus....and NOW!! these B@st@r# are crying that these guys need to give it all back or they are going to TAX is back from them....now, isn't THAT illegal as hell to do?...is there NOT suppose to be no Taxation without representation?
:rant:
Quote from: Henry Hawk on March 18, 2009, 10:19:09 AM
but it is congress' job to look out for our best interests of this country....and they are doing everything but that ....they buddied up with these banks, like AIG to line their own pockets and putting their personal agenda's before the needs of the people...
Like this is anything new?
Quoteand Barney Frank and Dodd are two, that can be directly pin pointed for NOT looking out for the best interest of the people....imo
Correct but you are looking at this through your partisan colored glasses. The aforementioned bankruptcy bill was a republican initiative that clearly favored the interests of the campaign contributors over those of the constituents. Of course, once those contributors started spreading money around on the other side of the aisle, enough dems jumped on board to finally get the thing passed. These are exactly the types of things that make me believe there is no real substantial difference between the two major parties...both work for the same corporations.
Quote from: Exterminator on March 18, 2009, 10:50:57 AM
Like this is anything new?
Correct but you are looking at this through your partisan colored glasses. The aforementioned bankruptcy bill was a republican initiative that clearly favored the interests of the campaign contributors over those of the constituents. Of course, once those contributors started spreading money around on the other side of the aisle, enough dems jumped on board to finally get the thing passed. These are exactly the types of things that make me believe there is no real substantial difference between the two major parties...both work for the same corporations.
Ex, I am right there with you on this...there are very, very few in washington that are there representing the people...from either side of the parties...they are vastly representing the one's who are lining their pockets...
I'm just as sick of the repubs, ex....I want to see, all of them out of there........
we SHOULD have let these guys GO bankrupt!
Quote from: Henry Hawk on March 18, 2009, 10:54:29 AM
Ex, I am right there with you on this...there are very, very few in washington that are there representing the people...from either side of the parties...they are vastly representing the one's who are lining their pockets...
I'm just as sick of the repubs, ex....I want to see, all of them out of there........
Anyone who doubts this need only pay attention to the lavish private parties thrown by these companies at either of the national conventions. No surprise that these types of events are illegal at any other time.
Quotewe SHOULD have let these guys GO bankrupt!
They very well still may...the difference now is that we own 80% of them.
Quote from: Exterminator on March 18, 2009, 11:04:45 AM
They very well still may...the difference now is that we own 80% of them.
tell me they did NOT know exactly what they were doing...(the banks that is)
I'm serious....Dodd and Frank need to resign...I'm not being biparisan here....we CAN control those who were involved...
Quote from: Henry Hawk on March 18, 2009, 11:08:07 AM
tell me they did NOT know exactly what they were doing...(the banks that is)
Of course they did...very well played, too!
QuoteI'm serious....Dodd and Frank need to resign...I'm not being biparisan here....we CAN control those who were involved...
Everyone is involved...would you like for the entire government to resign?
Quote from: Exterminator on March 18, 2009, 11:25:21 AM
Of course they did...very well played, too!
Everyone is involved...would you like for the entire government to resign?
as a mater of fact yes... :yes:
but you can start with the ones who had a direct hand in this mess...
It would seem that there is some confusion about who actually added the exclusion for these bonuses to the ammendment as the original version did not contain it.
Quote from: Exterminator on March 18, 2009, 12:14:09 PM
It would seem that there is some confusion about who actually added the exclusion for these bonuses to the amendment as the original version did not contain it.
you mean these guys are acting like they cannot figure out WHO added anything to a bill?.........THAT IS A BUNCH of crap...as confusing as they can be......are they saying that our system is THAT flawed when something can be added to a bill without any way to trace who or what was attached......I'm not buying that for a minute... :no:
You are certainly welcome to research it but that's how the system works and it happens all of the time.
Quote from: Exterminator on March 18, 2009, 12:33:59 PM
You are certainly welcome to research it but that's how the system works and it happens all of the time.
so no one is responsible?..........Dodd was the author of the Bill.....if something got on it that HE did not want....then HE is not doing HIS job....another reason HE should be fired or resign.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on March 18, 2009, 01:04:16 PM
so no one is responsible?..........Dodd was the author of the Bill.....if something got on it that HE did not want....then HE is not doing HIS job....another reason HE should be fired or resign.
That's ridiculous and is nothing more than a partisan witch hunt. Dodd did not author the bill, he authored the amendment and someone apparently slipped something into it at the last minute. If you expect everyone in the House to re-read every piece of legislation in its entirety over and over again to make sure nothing like this ever gets by, they'd never get anything done. What about all of the people who voted to approve the legislation with this clause in it; don't they have the some culpability?
Quote from: Exterminator on March 18, 2009, 01:51:54 PM
That's ridiculous and is nothing more than a partisan witch hunt. Dodd did not author the bill, he authored the amendment and someone apparently slipped something into it at the last minute. If you expect everyone in the House to re-read every piece of legislation in its entirety over and over again to make sure nothing like this ever gets by, they'd never get anything done. What about all of the people who voted to approve the legislation with this clause in it; don't they have the some culpability?
hell, who had time to even read this one....certainly no one in congress, this bill got passed WAY too fast....
why do you feel the need to defend this?....I have no denial, that I do not like Dodd or Franks....but, I am also, sick an tired of CONGRESS in general....the people are getting fed up....I know that I am....spending IS out of control, especially when times are extremely tough....
Ah, yes, the good old days. Remember the ABSCAM sting, when agents disguised as Arabian oil sheiks outed Congressmen for taking bribes in return for their intercession in Congressional matters? Remember our national outrage that elected officials would stoop so low? Sigh. Nowadays, if an investigation turned up a Senator or Congressman who was squeaky clean, the news would stop traffic! :eek: How low we've sunk. Clean house? Just get more of the same. :mad: :mad: :mad:
Quote from: Henry Hawk on March 18, 2009, 01:56:41 PM
why do you feel the need to defend this?....I have no denial, that I do not like Dodd or Franks....but, I am also, sick an tired of CONGRESS in general....the people are getting fed up....I know that I am....spending IS out of control, especially when times are extremely tough....
I am not defending this; I'm simply over listening to you blame a democrat for every issue coming down the pike when it's every bit as probable that it wasn't a democrat that slipped that little turd in there. They're all douche-bags.
Quote from: Exterminator on March 18, 2009, 02:36:55 PM
I am not defending this; I'm simply over listening to you blame a democrat for every issue coming down the pike when it's every bit as probable that it wasn't a democrat that slipped that little turd in there. They're all douche-bags.
I agree they are ALL douche-bags...I will tell you now, I really don't care if they are dems or repubs...if a repub is doing this, then I don't want him there either.....but, for now, there seems to be a lot of evidence pointing at franks and dodd on this issue.
Actually, there's no evidence.
The plot thickens...now Dodd is admitting that he added the exemption. (http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/18/aig.bonuses.congress/index.html) At the very least, he a dirtbag liar. Henry's right, he should go home.
(http://i292.photobucket.com/albums/mm14/mcgonser/478468.jpg)