See what others have said

Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.

Comments

1. #1
   On March 17th, 2009 at 3:27 pm, CO2 Producer said:

   Answer: you don’t. They do, and our government enabled them to do so with our money.

2. #2
   On March 17th, 2009 at 3:27 pm, DagneyT said:

   Can you say, “Rats fleeing a sinking ship”?

3. #3
   On March 17th, 2009 at 3:30 pm, Room 237 said:

   The real issue is why shareholders are not holding management’s feet to the fire on this.

4. #4
   On March 17th, 2009 at 3:30 pm, right4life said:

   could be one or more of several reasons…

   1) be big democrat donors
   2) be smokin hot
   3) have some dirt on the boss

5. #5
   On March 17th, 2009 at 3:31 pm, right4life said:

   The real issue is why shareholders are not holding management’s feet to the fire on this.

   taxpayers are the shareholders..and what we say matters little in DC, if you haven’t noticed..

6. #6
   On March 17th, 2009 at 3:33 pm, RedDog said:

   It’s called a RETENTION bonus for a reason. You get it when you finish out your transitional term of service there. I would not have stayed one minute longer either. It’s essentially a severence package.

7. #7
   On March 17th, 2009 at 3:34 pm, Rogue Cheddar said:

   It’s only fair, don’t ya know.

8. #8
   On March 17th, 2009 at 3:35 pm, Regulus said:

   Question: “How do I get in on a deal like that?”

   Answer: You don’t.

   In a Bailout Economy(TM), somebody has to bail. And if you wake up to an alarm clock, then here’s your bucket.

9. #9
   On March 17th, 2009 at 3:35 pm, Old Tanker said:

   ReDog is right on this, these are basically severance pay. Even my last employer gave me one when they broomed me……and I didn’t even have a signed contract!

10. #10
    On March 17th, 2009 at 3:37 pm, feebiebabe said:

    Hush money.

11. #11
    On March 17th, 2009 at 3:38 pm, John Deaux said:

    On March 17th, 2009 at 3:30 pm, Room 237 said:
    The real issue is why shareholders are not holding management’s feet to the fire on this.

    Because shareholder’s don’t have the same stake in the company that they once did. In the past, most investors were in it for the long term and actually cared about the company’s performance. Now most investors are in until the stock ticks up a few points, then they dump it for the next one. This means the management doesn’t have to actually be accountable to the shaeholders, just give the illusion of it long enough to cash in.

12. #12
    On March 17th, 2009 at 3:39 pm, CyberCipher said:

    Pretty clear they’re not going to be committing hari kari per Iowa Sen. Charles Grassley suggestion. Got any ideas, collie?

    My collie says:

    Let’s send Dog (the bounty hunter) after them — and tell him not to bother coming back until he’s retrieved ALL of the bonus money. We could offer him 10% of the money as his reward.

13. #13
    On March 17th, 2009 at 3:39 pm, Old Tanker said:

    The money is to keep them to the end of their term and ensure they don’t destroy data, steal clients, or come in and shoot the place up. To ensure their no-compete clauses.

14. #14
    On March 17th, 2009 at 3:40 pm, mattymatt10 said:

    Congress placed no restrictions at all on how the bailout money could/should be used.

    Blame them.

15. #15
    On March 17th, 2009 at 3:40 pm, ajmontana said:

    How do I get in on a deal like that?

    Well, people like us earn it.
    This is what happens when you just hand over $$$$ w/o seeing the obligations from said companies and or reading a Bill before you pass it.
    flippin genuises.

16. #16
    On March 17th, 2009 at 3:41 pm, Joy said:

    Michelle – In the other thread someone said these bonuses were paid to people who knew they would be laid off but agreed to stay until that time for the bonuses… and they stayed and are just now getting paid for it.

    That’s a lot different than getting paid to stay and not staying.

    Which is it?

17. #17
    On March 17th, 2009 at 3:42 pm, RedDog said:

    Keep in mind that since govt. bureaucrats are “running” the company now, they likely are clueless as to how companies work and their culpability in the failure of this one. No wonder they are “shocked” when these bonuses started to be paid out. I wonder if the GAO will show Barney, Chris, and Chuck how to do the one-time write off?

18. #18
    On March 17th, 2009 at 3:43 pm, Old Tanker said:

    On March 17th, 2009 at 3:40 pm, mattymatt10 said:
    Congress placed no restrictions at all on how the bailout money could/should be used.

    Blame them.

    In fact, Sen Dodd specifically exempted these bonuses…..

19. #19
    On March 17th, 2009 at 3:44 pm, zorro said:

    This whole bailout fiasco illustrates the complicity or incompetence of those who infest Washington DC and pretend to legislate. Someone there with some brass Malkins needs to introduce a Constitutional Amendment for term limits on the legislative branch. Either that or rename that cesspool after Benedict Arnold. They’ve done enough damage to George Washington’s good name. That would be change I could believe in.

20. #20
    On March 17th, 2009 at 3:44 pm, rockhauler said:

    A retention bonus works like this:

    your employer says, “if you will stay with the firm for a year, at the end of the year you will get a nice bonus.”

    So you get your bonus and leave, because the bonus was for staying with the firm last year not for staying with the firm for another year.

    Several commentators appear to be confused by this reasoning. Apparently they negotiate their bonuses up front; get the bonus and then do the work.

    That’s the gig y’all seem to be thinking about.

21. #21
    On March 17th, 2009 at 3:45 pm, emjem24 said:

    Perhaps, some of these corporate weasels knew that AIG was going down or sensed the coming catastrophe with the overleveraging of the sub-prime market and made plans accordingly.

    I still feel like we don’t know much as to the true nature of these “bonuses.” Yet, if the bonuses were part of the “contract” they signed these corporate executives are entitled to them.

    No matter if they are weasels or not.

22. #22
    On March 17th, 2009 at 3:46 pm, UrbanSpaceman said:

    I agree with those not seeing anything really wrong with the employees leaving.

    When I worked at a software company (and then a consulting firm), the agreement was that I would get my bonus if I stayed until a certain time (usually the day the bonuses got paid); if I left before that date, I did not get the bonus.

    I see what happened at AIG as the same idea–if they stay until this date, they get the bonus.

23. #23
    On March 17th, 2009 at 3:49 pm, Misscheryl said:

    But Obama and Congress are throwing AIG under the bus to the point that armed guards have to be stationed outside it’s doors! Obama and Congress know what’s up with all of this, but they won’t take the heat they deserve. They will sacrifice others so they don’t have to. I see nothing wrong with AIG and everything wrong with our POS and Congress.

24. #24
    On March 17th, 2009 at 3:50 pm, RedDog said:

    What will be really funny is when White Helmet Dodd tries to tax the money away, the courts will spank him silly. A little thing called contracts, retroactivity etc.

    Jail time for Dodd, Frank, and Schumer. Nothing less.

    My brittany says “I want my savings back you congressional crooks!” Apologies to Cypher’s pup.

25. #25
    On March 17th, 2009 at 3:50 pm, mattymatt10 said:

    In fact, Sen Dodd specifically exempted these bonuses…..

    Source, please?

26. #26
    On March 17th, 2009 at 3:51 pm, sims said:

    Red Dog and rockhauler are right. These bonuses were negotiated to keep the execs in place for the last year. Once they get the bonus they are free to leave and that is how it is supposed to work under the terms of their contract. AIG cannot renege on these contracts. The gov’t knows this and those who don’t need to get a clue-it’s not that hard to understand. Congress pushed for the bailout last year. Pelosi pushed for “bi-partisan” support of the bailout so that now the Pres. can come back and blame it on the last admin. Pres. Obama is it the last admin’s fault that you did not read and understand the content of these bills?
    Are anyone in the MSM going to ask any of these people any tough questions?

27. #27
    On March 17th, 2009 at 3:52 pm, On-my-soap-box said:

    On March 17th, 2009 at 3:46 pm, UrbanSpaceman said:

    I see what happened at AIG as the same idea–if they stay until this date, they get the bonus.

    Now, about that bonus money…

28. #28
    On March 17th, 2009 at 3:56 pm, sims said:

    Gibbs was just asked a question in the press conference about the Pres. knowing about the bonuses. Gibbs said: ” I’ll have to write that down.” (to ask him later?)

29. #29
    On March 17th, 2009 at 3:59 pm, Old Tanker said:

    On March 17th, 2009 at 3:50 pm, mattymatt10 said:
    In fact, Sen Dodd specifically exempted these bonuses…..
    Source, please?

30. #30
    On March 17th, 2009 at 3:59 pm, Joy said:

    Mattymatt – SOURCE

    That’s one source…..

31. #31
    On March 17th, 2009 at 4:00 pm, Old Tanker said:

    Linky fix…..

32. #32
    On March 17th, 2009 at 4:01 pm, mattymatt10 said:

    In fact, Sen Dodd specifically exempted these bonuses…..

    Acoording to this, bonuses in place before Feb. 11, 2009 are exempt from Dodd’s restrictions.

    Hat tip to Kent18 in the other thread.

33. #33
    On March 17th, 2009 at 4:02 pm, EdDantes said:

    Hey. If any of you are looking for any last-minute Saint Patty’s day gift ideas for me, I have one. I’d like Barney Frank right here tonight. I want him brought from his self induced, deluded fiscal slumber over there on Capitol Hill with all the other worthless congressman and I want him brought right here, with a big ribbon on his head, and I want to look him straight in the eye and I want to tell him what a cheap, lying, no-good, rotten, four-flushing, low-life, snake-licking, dirt-eating, inbred, overstuffed, ignorant, blood-sucking, dog-kissing, brainless, hopeless, heartless, bug-eyed, stiff-legged, spotty-lipped, worm-headed sack of monkey (crap) he is. Hallelujah.

    Where’s the Tylenol?

34. #34
    On March 17th, 2009 at 4:05 pm, sims said:

    EdDantes said: dog-kissing

    Poor dog.

35. #35
    On March 17th, 2009 at 4:07 pm, mattymatt10 said:

    OldTanker: I think I understand what you’re saying now, I wasn’t reading your posts correctly. I thought we were disagreeing, but we’re actually agreeing right?

    Sorry, didn’t get much sleep last night! My brain is a little foggy today. I gotta stop all this internet commenting…

    Thanks for the source too, Joy!

36. #36
    On March 17th, 2009 at 4:13 pm, sonofdy said:

    I would not have stayed one minute longer either.

    Can’t agree more. 2 seconds later, I am on a plane to Brazil.

    Congress is looking for someone to put in jail.

37. #37
    On March 17th, 2009 at 4:16 pm, RedDog said:

    As I have said many times before…. revoke the bailouts, reduce income and capital gains taxes, suspend Congress for two years and the economy will be good to go.

38. #38
    On March 17th, 2009 at 4:17 pm, cheapseat said:

    you could run for congress, lie through your teeth telling everyone you will give them whatever they want, when elected put in for earmarks o’plenty, and remind everyone of your constituents what great things you are doing for them, and retire after 10 years. your pension is FABULOUS.

39. #39
    On March 17th, 2009 at 4:31 pm, Old Tanker said:

    On March 17th, 2009 at 4:07 pm, mattymatt10 said:

    OldTanker: I think I understand what you’re saying now, I wasn’t reading your posts correctly. I thought we were disagreeing, but we’re actually agreeing right?

    Correct sir, I was giving you a specific example of how correct you were/are.

40. #40
    On March 17th, 2009 at 4:33 pm, Old Tanker said:

    Actually, another good source was one of MM’s earlier posts……

41. #41
    On March 17th, 2009 at 4:43 pm, NJ-Aviator said:

    So they took the money they were due, and left AIG, likely for for another job that would still be there at the end of 2009.

    If you haven’t worked in the Financial sector, you may not know that you generally don’t leave…. just BEFORE you get the “bonus” portion of your pay.

    And if anyone wants that job as a derivatives analyst/trader… all you have to do is get a masters in math, physics or similar field, maybe add a PhD at some point…work like a dog trying to get a decent job, probably as an intern without pay for a period of time… work your way up the ranks over years.. all while essentially giving up any life a normal human being might expect… then one day play with he big dogs and have immense responsibility and have your job hang on every single decision you make.

    It’s a highly compensated field… but if you think it’s easy, think again.

42. #42
    On March 17th, 2009 at 5:09 pm, NJ-Aviator said:

    RedDog said:

    What will be really funny is when White Helmet Dodd tries to tax the money away, the courts will spank him silly. A little thing called contracts, retroactivity etc.

    They’re just making it up as they go along. Total clueless. Blind leading the blind. Heads up their…. well, you get the idea.

43. #43
    On March 17th, 2009 at 5:10 pm, hawkeye54 said:

    Either that or rename that cesspool after Benedict Arnold

    Washington, D.C. (District of Columbia)to become Arnold, D.C. (Democrat Cesspool)?

    Fitting.

44. #44
    On March 17th, 2009 at 5:27 pm, rambler said:

    I don’t need a bail out or a hand out, I just want to keep more of the money I’ve earned and pay less in taxes.

45. #45
    On March 17th, 2009 at 5:55 pm, Buy Danish said:

    Maybe it’s just me, but $73 million shared by 73 people beats the $91.1 million “earned” by one person in the form of Franklin Raines (including some $52.6 million in inflated bonuses), acquired while running Fannie Mae, and ultimately the entire housing market into the ground.

    Besides, Americans don’t care about little porky things, so why the fuss?

46. #46
    On March 17th, 2009 at 9:04 pm, tettes said:

    Dodd’s actions are inexcusable, but he wasn’t alone.

    He was in good company with Republicans who wanted nothing to do with any kind of compensation restrictions on the TARP money.

    Anyone remember these greatest hits as the TARP bailout was discussed?

    Mitch McConnell:
    “I really don’t want the government to take over these businesses and start telling them everything about what they can do. […] We have to resist the temptation to basically dictate to these businesses how to run every aspect of their operation.” LINK

    Richard Shelby:
    “It should be up to the board of directors of a private corporation to set the compensation of an executive; it shouldn’t be Congress’s role.” LINK

    Eric Cantor:
    “I’m not necessarily advocating going forward, that the federal government be able to set salaries across the board for any company.” LINK

    And here’s one from yesterday, for good measure:

    Rush Limbaugh:
    “I am all for the AIG bailouts, and I am all for the AIG bonuses. Well, I’m not for the bailouts, well, in a way I’m for the bailout because I’m for the bonuses.” LINK

    At least Rush is consistent. The rest of these fools are loudly denouncing the bonuses today while they are just weeks removed from stating they didn’t want to restrict compensation in any way!