Spring Break
Yes, they took your money and thought it was fair
Alex Stephens
Issue date: 3/27/09 Section: Opinion
The American International Group, AIG, was exposed to have spent $218 million -- up from a previously estimated $165 million -- on its executive's bonuses after receiving $170 million in Federal aid.
That's correct, we, the tax payers, have been robbed in order to provide the executives of AIG (the very same company that posted the largest quarterly loss in history) with year-end bonuses. The anti-Robin Hood -- stealing from the poor, giving to the rich.
A bonus -- what exactly is it? I always believed that, in a business related sense, a bonus was something extra awarded to someone that went "above and beyond" in their job performance -- a prize given to the members who sold the most product. More fundamentally, a bonus is something that's contingent on success.
If the company that holds the dubious award for posting the largest loss in history is able to award bonuses, they must be on the merit of failure. It's safe to say, without exaggeration, that while you and I might be fired for performing poorly at work, AIG executives are rewarded with your cash, courtesy of the spineless Sen. Chris Dodd, chair of the Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee who arranged the Troubled Assets Relief Program bailout.
Dodd feared that the government would be sued by AIG if they did not allow bonuses to be awarded, so he threw money at them with no strings attached and prayed like hell that no one would notice.
In an article in the Wall Street Journal last week, former vice-president of AIG, Ron Shelp, argued that while the $165 ($218) million in bonuses might seem like an injustice, it really isn't one.
First of all, he argued, the framework programs for bonuses were in place before the federal funding was dolled out. Secondly, the bonuses are legally required to be given out, as stipulated by contracts between executives and the company itself.
That's right, AIG has contracts with their executives that award them bonuses regardless of the company's holdings, meaning performance doesn't matter in the least. They will still be given handfuls of (your) cash no matter how many jobs were lost, lives ruined, dreams shattered, futures compromised due to their inability to act responsibly.
That's correct, we, the tax payers, have been robbed in order to provide the executives of AIG (the very same company that posted the largest quarterly loss in history) with year-end bonuses. The anti-Robin Hood -- stealing from the poor, giving to the rich.
A bonus -- what exactly is it? I always believed that, in a business related sense, a bonus was something extra awarded to someone that went "above and beyond" in their job performance -- a prize given to the members who sold the most product. More fundamentally, a bonus is something that's contingent on success.
If the company that holds the dubious award for posting the largest loss in history is able to award bonuses, they must be on the merit of failure. It's safe to say, without exaggeration, that while you and I might be fired for performing poorly at work, AIG executives are rewarded with your cash, courtesy of the spineless Sen. Chris Dodd, chair of the Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee who arranged the Troubled Assets Relief Program bailout.
Dodd feared that the government would be sued by AIG if they did not allow bonuses to be awarded, so he threw money at them with no strings attached and prayed like hell that no one would notice.
In an article in the Wall Street Journal last week, former vice-president of AIG, Ron Shelp, argued that while the $165 ($218) million in bonuses might seem like an injustice, it really isn't one.
First of all, he argued, the framework programs for bonuses were in place before the federal funding was dolled out. Secondly, the bonuses are legally required to be given out, as stipulated by contracts between executives and the company itself.
That's right, AIG has contracts with their executives that award them bonuses regardless of the company's holdings, meaning performance doesn't matter in the least. They will still be given handfuls of (your) cash no matter how many jobs were lost, lives ruined, dreams shattered, futures compromised due to their inability to act responsibly.
Viewing Comments 1 - 4 of 4
Registered Independent
posted 3/27/09 @ 10:24 AM MST
Yep, I think we can all agree that Wall Street needs to be much more heavily regulated going forward.
However Mr. Stephens forgot to mention a few pertinent facts regarding the AIG bonus debacle. (Continued…)
You Are Dumb
posted 3/27/09 @ 11:23 AM MST
They should have read the bail out plan BEFORE giving the money to them. It CLEARLY says in there that these bonuses must be paid. And you should read the bail out plan before writing retarded pieces such as this one. (Continued…)
Sick of Idiots
posted 3/27/09 @ 6:01 PM MST
"You are dumb"? Wow, that's clearly the writings of a scholar.
To the journalist of this article: Thank you for your continual works of art. I love reading your opinions. (Continued…)
Sue de Nimes
posted 3/28/09 @ 4:41 PM MST
Pssst. You're getting your units mixed up.
AIG didn't receive $170 million in Federal aid. It received $170 billion. That's right. Billion. 1000 times as much as your figure. (Continued…)
Post a Comment