关于AIG，奥巴马和国会的表演可以收场了 (图)

这些拿纳税人的钱不当钱的政客们，信誓旦旦地对AIG发红包要给他们点儿颜色看看。

民主党也好，共和党也罢，国会山上的政客们个个义愤填膺。　奥巴马更是一马当先，大有要为老百姓报仇雪恨的样子。

GIVE　ME　A　BREAK！

就是这些国会议员们不顾老百姓的反对一意孤行要BAIL　OUT　这个摇摇欲坠的AIG。在送钱的时候，AIG同员工的合同早就签完了，那时候，你们怎么不跳出来说，WAIT　A　MINUTE，既然政府拥有AIG80%的股份，公司重组，一切从头来？　布什的人马到处鼓吹AIG不能不救，民主党大佬有谁说不吗？　在搞竞选的奥巴马说什么了吗？

现在都出来耍横的了。呵呵，早干嘛了您呐。

奥巴马上台不到60天，制造出美国历史上最大的政府开支计划和赤字。今天说国会不通过就是历史的罪人，明天说只有政府才能摆脱经济衰退。民主党议员们知道奥巴马的BILL肯定能通过，纷纷把自己的跟刺激经济毫无关系的项目加进去，使这个95%的开销与基础设施建设毫无关系的所谓经济刺激计划，在全国老百姓一片反对声中，草草通过，在奥巴马的办公桌上放了4天，最后又大张旗鼓地把它签成法律。

这个庞大的浪费计划和奥巴马后来天文数字的财政赤字预算对美国经济社会机制将产生的破坏，怎么没见你们这些议员们出来放个P？

在奥巴马和民主党大佬们要对AIG施刑的时候，别忘了中国有句成语，叫搬起石头砸了自己的脚。

AIG现任的董事长Edward M. Liddy，是由政府任命的。美国政府拥有80%AIG的股份。换句话说，美国政府就是AIG。这位咱自家人最近给财政部长Timothy Geithner写信，说这些红包必须发，不然会削弱AIG员工的积极性。用他自己的话说：“We cannot attract and retain the best and the brightest talent to lead and staff the AIG businesses — which are now being operated principally on behalf of American taxpayers — if employees believe their compensation is subject to continued and arbitrary adjustment by the U.S. Treasury。”

奥巴马的国家经济委员会主任Larry Summers说,发这些红包令人发指，但还得发，因为美国是法制国家，签完了的合同受法律保护。

为什么奥巴马和这些政客们还气势汹汹地, 象要讨还血债似的, 要对AIG拿红包的人不依不饶呢？

纯粹是作秀给老百姓看！

该收场了！

对于那些不明真相的老百姓，我这么跟您说吧：

从道德上说，红包不该发。从法律上说，红包该发还得发。拿红包的也是员工，也是打工的，不是老板。您要是给别人打工，说好了发红包，到时候公司赖帐，说您是吸血鬼，不能给您。那您是无所谓啊，还是恼怒啊。

拿不拿是良心说话，该不该拿是合同说话。要是跟政府公司的合同如废纸一张的话，傻瓜才去AIG上班。

知道拿RETENTION红包的都是些什么人吗？

都是要人家走或人家要走，公司（政府）出来挽留人家，说您先别走，　您帮帮忙，再工作一段时间，到时候，有红包给您。到日子政府不给钱，翻脸不认人，跟打发民工有什么区别？这些打工的不是什么万恶的资本家。　

嫌给人钱多了，当初有本事您别留人家。

您说是不是这个理儿？

[noso]

回复kallisummer的评论:



民主党国会光天化日之下搞的白色恐怖


http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Better-Hide-Your-Badge-AIG-cnbc-14701729.html

American International Group's corporate security advised employees of the insurance giant, which has received more than $170 billion in taxpayer money, to take measures "to increase their overall safety and security" due to "a growing sense of public attention fueled by increased media scrutiny."



In a memo, employees are advised to "avoid wearing any AIG (NYSE:AIG - News) apparel (bags, shirts, umbrellas, etc.) with the company insignia" and to make sure badges with the AIG name are not visible when they are outside the office.



Employees should also report to building security any individuals "who appear to be out of place or spending an inordinate amount of time near an AIG facility," according to the memo.

"Avoid public conversations involving AIG and do not engage any media personnel regarding the company," the memo also warned.

Visitors should be escorted by an AIG employee at all times when inside an AIG building, and employees are advised to "question individuals that you do not recognize and appear to be out of place."

Employees are also advised to avoid propping doors and be aware of those trying to "piggy back" into the building.

[kallisummer]

博主说得太对了。
I feel exactly the same.

[noso]

回复hairycat的评论:

再简单不过了：

奥巴马和财政部部长知道这个事都好几个月了，突然跳出来装不知道，骂来骂去的给老百姓看，好象他们有多为纳税人着想似的。真以为老百姓都是好骗的了。

[noso]

回复黄则和的评论:


: D

[hairycat]

你是少数几个明白人，很多人为AIG的事情生气，其实一句话，就是如果合同里有红包这一条而员工的表现也符合合同的要求，这个红包就是必须给的。呵呵，很多的人跟着奥巴马起哄啊！

[Erica_NJ]

Thanks Noso for sharing.I missed those articles. I really wish WSJ could say something about it.

[Embassy]

"We cannot attract and retain the best and the brightest talent to lead and staff the AIG businesses..."

lol

If it's true, then who is the dumbest in the world?

[noso]

空话连篇 历史会不幸证明，奥巴马拯救不了美国

　　王小东

　　空话连篇的“美式八股”

　　一个网站的编辑想让我评论一下奥巴马的新书《我们相信变革》。他把书都寄来了，我也只能顺手翻翻，好歹写篇评论。好在这本书看上去不薄，其实没有多少字，很快就能翻完。坦率地说，这是一本满篇空话、胡吹大气、让人不堪卒读的书，它唯一的价值就在于给我们提供一个了解这个世界上最有权势的人的窗口。

　　这本书的上半部是奥巴马的施政方略，下半部是他的八篇竞选演说。我们老是说中国式八股空话连篇，没有内容，可这本书还不如咱们的呢，他除了吹牛还是吹牛，实质性内容甚至不如咱们常拿来开涮的“ 动员报告”。他在这本书里，全都是完全不切实际的许诺，要给老百姓这个，要给老百姓那个，可全都是口号，我看不出任何可操作的可行性。他甚至说：美国到2050年，要减少碳排放量的80%。这有可能性吗？有！一是在此之前人类已经把石油用完了，没有什么碳可以排放了；二是打核战争了；也有可能是二者一起来了。如果不发生人类历史上最大的灾变，美国到 2050年碳排放量能够做到不增长都难。可奥巴马把这些告诉美国人民了吗？他自己想过这个问题吗？当然了，到2050年，奥巴马自己都不知道在哪里了，现在就随便吹吧。可这是一种负责任的态度吗？

　　我记得晓军曾给我打电话说：中国国内那些亲美媚美派，在奥巴马当选的问题上已经分为两派，那些虽然亲美媚美，但和美国尚无血肉相连的感觉，或者见识较浅的人，都在欢呼奥巴马的胜利，可是那些已经真正全身心地效忠于美国，与美国血肉相连，有比较有见识的亲美媚美派，却都在因奥巴马的当选而替美国担忧。我看这些真正效忠于美国的中国人见识倒还是有的。

　　奥巴马当选美国总统，美国国内确实一片欢呼，我也看了中国电视，中国专家们也是一片欢呼，都认为美国很多的问题可以迎刃而解了。对此我实在是深表怀疑。要解决美国今天的问题，是不能光喊口号的，你要给出东西，就必须找到东西的来源。能量守恒、物质不灭，是基本的物理学规律，没有任何人能够超越。那么我们看一看，要实现奥巴马给美国人民许的那些给好处的愿，以及他的“绿色”构想，来源在哪里？

　　我认为，第一个来源只能是实事求是地要求美国人民共度时艰，在一定程度上改变自己挥霍无度的生活方式。这件事当然是很难的，由俭入奢易，由奢入俭难。但奥巴马原本可以利用自己的高人气，引导美国人民往这个方向走。毕竟，就算是美国真的把碳排放量减少80%，也只不过是达到了中国现在的人均碳排放水平，既然中国人可以做到，也还活着，为什么美国人就不可以呢？至少在一定程度上改变挥霍无度的生活方式，是美国一切“ 变革”的基础。没有这个基础，一切所谓的“变革”都是空谈。但奥巴马的施政方略和演说完全没有涉及这样一个方向，而是给出可以过更挥霍无度的生活的许诺。这也就是说，奥巴马在那里声嘶力竭地喊叫的“变革”，只是一种指望天上“变革”出馅饼的虚伪许诺，而众多的美国人相信这样的许诺，则表明了他们不会有什么出息。

　　第二个来源是劫富济贫，即拿美国的富人开刀，从他们那里拿东西，也就是实行偏左的经济政策。奥巴马有这个意思，这也使得美国国内外的左派欣喜若狂。但他上台之后，偏左的经济政策许诺到底会不会兑现？如果不兑现，他辜负了今天怀着满腔希望把他选上台的选民。虽说美国总统选上之后一般都会对选举时的承诺打折扣，但你说话完全不算数还是会有不少问题。如果兑现呢？增税，惩罚那些把业务搬到海外的美国的企业？要是这样，人家企业干脆就不当美国企业了你又如何？现在这个世界上不准备实行偏左的经济政策的地方很多，奥巴马如果真这么干很有可能把企业赶跑，那不是给美国经济雪上加霜了吗？

　　就拿眼前的事说，美国的三大汽车公司如果不大幅裁减工人工资，至少减到美国本土的外资汽车厂，如丰田、日产、本田等的水平，就是没救的。即使能救得了几个月，也不过一年半载，还是救不了永远。所以，要救美国经济，单纯偏左的经济政策是不可行的，必须有的地方比现在更左，有的地方比现在更右。奥巴马有这个政治智慧做到吗？有这个政治本钱做到吗？我看这些都没有。

　　现在奥巴马的就职演说已经发表了。他的就职演说简而言之，就是表明了要走“ 社会主义道路”。他说：“小政府、大社会”的事你们就不要吵吵了，我该大政府就大政府了；自由市场的事你们也别吵吵了，我该政府干预就政府干预了。这似乎颇有罗斯福的气概，但是，我已经说过，今天美国的问题和罗斯福时代大有不同：罗斯福时代的美国，生产能力极强，确实就是一个生产过剩，有效需求不足的问题，而今天的美国，本来就欠着债呢，不是有效需求不足，而是本国生产能力根本就满足不了自己的消费欲求的问题。用同样的药方治完全相反的病症，我看要出更大的问题。

　　我实在看不出奥巴马就能更好地把美国从金融危机中拯救出来。我已经讲过，美国的金融危机有着深刻的原因，笼统地说，就是它在各方面都老了，美国人“八旗子弟化”了。美国社会老化这个问题使得美国今天的金融危机虽然没有1929年那么猛烈，却比那一次更难解决，换谁都一样，但像希拉里、麦凯恩等至少还稳健一点，少吹一点牛。

　　第三个来源是外国人。一是骗，骗外国人的钱。在美国金融赌场穿帮之后，这件事的难度越来越高了，大家不仅接受了教训，也没钱被它骗了——也许只剩下想去华尔街“抄底”的中国买办还准备拿着中国人的钱主动去被它骗。二是向外国人借。可现如今，欧洲的盟友自身难保，自己也钱紧得很，有钱也未必会帮它。就连美国最铁，也是最有钱的盟友日本，都连续减持美国国债。只剩下一个经常挨它敲打，被它看作潜在的敌人的中国，还在那里执著地增持它的国债，但中国国内反对的声音日渐增高，使得任何人，对美国再有深厚的感情，要大把花钱去帮它时，也心有忌惮。

　　第四个来源就只能是抢了。美国的军事力量超级强大，这是美国唯一突出的长处。我有一位朋友的老板是美国人，她在我的博客上留言道：“有次美国老板和我们说到美国财政赤字难以解决，国债淹脚面。我说阿拉斯加有很多自然资源，美国可以以这个为抵押还款。他不假思索地说，美国真惨到那光景混不下去的时候，好歹我们还有那么多军队可以出去抢钱，何必卖家当呢？”看来这个美国人还是挺坦率的，直白他们在经济危机时首先想到的就是用军队出去抢钱。我看这是美国人很有代表性的观点，只不过那些记者、教授、政客们未必会这么直白地说出来。然而，如我以前说过的，美国人去抢伊拉克已经被证明效率不高，如果要抢比伊拉克还强大得多的国家，未必能赚。奥巴马不是要从伊拉克撤军，把力量集中到对于中国和俄罗斯更有威胁的战略要地阿富汗、巴基斯坦一线吗？然而，制造或助长紧张局势，挑唆其他国家打仗，然后卖军火赚钱，确实是美国的长项。所以，中东、南亚次大陆等局势的紧张，应该是预料之中的。

　　摇滚歌星式的奥巴马“变革”

　　简而言之，美国的问题是不那么容易解决的，谁当政都不可能轻易解决，但奥巴马摇滚歌星式的执政方式是更不行的。我看他执政不如希拉里、麦凯恩，乃至小布什。有人也许会说，美国的政治制度好，能够制衡一个没有执政经验和智慧的总统，甚至能够制约一个胡来的总统，我在相当程度上认可这种说法。但这样一来，美国所谓的“变革 ”也就成了胡扯了。

　　有人把美国选出一个黑人总统这件事本身认为是美国社会一个重要的变革，认为这意味着美国社会中的种族主义彻底被清除了，并且认为这是全世界各族人民走向大同世界的一个重要里程碑。《纽约时报》称奥巴马当选扫除了美国“种族屏障”，中国一些学者也说奥巴马当选表明了美国种族问题淡化了。我看还不一定。首先，美国的种族问题还是解决不了，变坏的可能性都有。种族问题要是那么好解决，现在美国应该早就不存在白人和黑人的分界了——都一起住了好几百年了，早该混血混得差不多了。可事实是白人和黑人的分界还是鲜明地存在着。这次，如果只有白人投票，奥巴马还是输了。有些人说奥巴马这次已经创造了近几十年民主党在白人选民中的最高支持率，但是，考虑到小布什这些年内外政策的不得人心和金融危机所造成的无与伦比的天时、地利、人和，如果奥巴马是个白人，我认为他一定也会在白人选民中获胜。再次，你看看麦凯恩承认失败的讲话时的场面：在场的几乎都是白人，当麦凯恩说祝贺奥巴马当选时，全场一片嘘声。小布什在临下台时有个讲话，告诫共和党人不要对于奥巴马仇恨过甚，这恰恰说明了在共和党内部对于奥巴马的怨怼超过了以往一般的政权交替。我认为，美国的一些种族主义观念较强的白人反而会因为这一次的失败，变得更“种族主义”，并有可能更多地从思想转化为行动。当然，美国也有相当一部分白人正沉浸在他们的国家选举出一个黑人总统给他们带来的道德优越感中，美国最近的民意调查也显示，大多数人愿意给奥巴马较多的时间来取得成效。但我认为，美国人的这种欣喜如果没有奥巴马所能给他们带来的实质性利益迅速跟上，希望很快就会转化成失望，这时候他们本能的种族主义情绪会不会又上来？

　　从国际层面上说，美国所面对的国际局势大大复杂化了，我怀疑奥巴马能做得更好。奥巴马当选，欧洲的欢呼声比美国本土还强，期待美国会放弃小布什时代的单边主义、一味强硬。但放弃单边主义和强硬政策，美国在国际关系领域的问题就一定能解决吗？这里面有几个问题。一个是伊拉克问题。奥巴马准备兑现竞选时的承诺，在上任16个月内从伊拉克撤军，把力量集中于阿富汗吗？现在很多拥护他的美国人民都盼着他兑现诺言呢。可如果他真这么做了，对于美国在中东地区的影响力和控制力究竟意味着什么？现在还很难说。现在能说的是，奥巴马准备把兵力集中到阿富汗、巴基斯坦一线，以加强对于中国和俄罗斯的围堵，对美国的国家利益也许是一个正确的选择。另一个俄罗斯问题，俄罗斯对于美国的挑战姿态是明显的。俄罗斯总统梅德韦杰夫在奥巴马当选的同一天发表的国情咨文强烈谴责了美国，并明确宣布：由于美国在欧洲部署反导系统，俄罗斯拒绝解散导弹部队的三个团，同时准备在加里宁格勒州部署“伊斯坎德尔”导弹系统，摆明了强硬对抗的姿态。比起冷战后那一段美国一极独大的黄金岁月，俄罗斯的对抗姿态使得今天的美国所面对的国际局势大大复杂化了。不管是谁当美国总统，这都是个难题，奥巴马就能做得更好？我怀疑。而恰恰由于奥巴马是属于少数族裔的黑人，在国际问题上，如果处理不好，他会受到比一个白人总统更多的批评和怀疑。

　　这次奥巴马的就职典礼，去了200万人，气氛热烈到了极点。毫无疑问，在今天它的民众陷入茫然无措的情况下，美国需要一个摇滚歌星似的总统来调动一下大家的情绪，让大家暂时忘却现实中的困窘。真正优秀的摇滚歌星凯莉在现场把大家的情绪调动到如火箭一飞冲天，但戏散了大家还得回家面对现实。我认为，无论现在美国人民多么热烈地拥护奥巴马，只要他不能立即带来明显的好处，美国今天所表现出来的对于他的拥护、国民的团结，很快就会转变成怀疑、批评和分裂，期望越高，失望越大。在当今这个困难时期，由少数族裔担任总统，立即成功便罢，否则就很快会转变成劣势，他会得不到多数族裔背景的总统所能得到的那种谅解和信任。

　　我在前面的大多数判断，都是从美国的角度出发的。我无意于 “jinx”美国，我只是说出自己的一些疑问，提醒大家除了一片乐观之外的其他可能性，而不是必然性。我衷心希望美国人民成功。从中国的角度说，我们需要的是警惕美国出现严重危机时，为了摆脱危机选择战争或挑唆战争。所以，张兆垠将军2008年12月2日在《解放军报》上发表的那篇文章主张“我们必须摒弃 ‘和平建军、建和平军’的观念，牢固树立准备打仗的思想”，乃是十分正确和及时的。

[viewer]

白宫发言人的疯狂英语
By 九喻

语言普遍性的疯狂，不过疯狂的语言在某些人的嘴里，就格外疯狂一点。

故事背景是：2008年9月，当时的共和党总统候选人麦凯恩（John McCain）在一次竞选演说中说：“我们经济的根本strong”（fundamentals of our economy are strong）。

此话遭到当时民主党候选人奥巴马（Barack Obama）的抨击，奥巴马说：“10天前，麦凯恩说经济的根本sound…我根本不能同意。”（John said that the fundamentals of the economy are SOUND…I just fundamentally disagree)

可是几天前，奥巴马的经济顾问开始说，美国经济的根本比较sound。

终于在新闻发布会上，记者提出了这个问题。

白宫发言人Robert Gibbs回答说：我相信strong和sound这两个词在定义上有不同。

我看不出这两个词在这个语境里有多大区别，因此Gibbs的回答让我感觉耳目一新。记者恐怕跟我的想法差不多，所以追问说：你认为经济的根本现在不strong，但是还很sound？

我会问：你认为什么东西可以比较weak，同时还很sound？
很有兴趣知道几个weak而sound的例子。

布什总统经常被人指为笨嘴拙舌，我倒是没有这个印象。而笨嘴拙舌有一个天然的好处，那就是没有机会巧言令色。不知道什么时候，人就赚到了，不是吗？

想起了民主党的前辈级“语言大师”克林顿，他对sex的定义也让人耳目一新。

疯狂的语言游戏的时代又回来了吗？

[momo_ca]

楼主是说奥巴马一边要推行社会主义，一边支持向富人发奖金？现在的激烈反对只是作秀？莫非要推行的是有中国特色的社会主义？

[noso]

回复TristateMD的评论:

Thanks, shake hand!

Now, let's check out this double faced politician here:


Two Faced: Dodd Protected Bonuses, Now He Wants Them Out

Tuesday, March 17, 2009 2:30 PM

By: Jim Meyers

Democratic Sen. Christopher Dodd on Monday criticized the bonuses given to executives of American International Group Inc. and suggested that the government could tax the recipients to recoup some or all of the payouts.

But it was 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. That very amendment, which is now law, is now the chief hurdle to government officials who want to recover that money.

The amendment was meant to restrict executive pay for bailed-out banks, but it also included the exception for "contractually obligated bonuses agreed on or before Feb. 11, 2009."

Dodd is the largest single recipient of 2008 campaign donations from AIG, with $103,100, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. That was more than presidential candidates Barack Obama and John McCain got, and nearly three times the $35,965 Sen. Hillary Clinton received.

Dodd's amendment in the stimulus bill is a "prohibition on what the president is now talking about," Virginia Rep. Eric Cantor, the House minority whip, told Fox News, referring to regaining the money through taxation or other means.

But Dodd is telling reporters that his original language was changed in committee and he is not to blame.

"When the language went to the conference and came back, there was different language," he told Fox News. "I can tell you this much, when my language left the Senate, it did not include it (the exception). When it came back, it did."

Early Thursday evening, though, Democrats were at a loss to explain how and why the Dodd amendment was altered. Much of the stimulus bill was rushed through Congress with little opportunity to read or study exactly what was in it, despite frequent GOP requests to do exactly that.

AIG lost $61.7 billion in the fourth quarter of 2008, the biggest quarterly loss in corporate history, and has received $173 billion in federal aid. But the company is paying $450 million in bonuses to employees of its financial products unit.

Dodd, chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, thundered on Monday: “This is another outrageous example of executives — including those whose decisions were responsible for the problems that caused AIG’s collapse — enriching themselves at the expense of taxpayers.”

Incredibly, Dodd has now demanded a full briefing from the Federal Reserve and the Treasury on why “clauses weren’t attached to the four AIG bailouts to halt bonuses,” according to the New York Daily News.

“Why wasn’t the Fed putting conditionality four different times they provided resources to AIG?” Dodd asked.

Meanwhile, the News is reporting that New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo said his office will investigate whether the bonus payments are fraudulent because they were promised when AIG knew it wouldn’t have the money to cover them.

[noso]

回复Erica_NJ的评论:

Thanks. I'd like to share this with you all:


Obama, Congress Knew About AIG Bonuses for Months

Tuesday, March 17, 2009 8:33 PM



WASHINGTON -- Cue the outrage. For months, the Obama administration and members of Congress have known that insurance giant AIG was getting ready to pay huge bonuses while living off government bailouts. It wasn't until the money was flowing and news was trickling out to the public that official Washington rose up in anger and vowed to yank the money back.

Why the sudden furor, just weeks after Barack Obama's team paid out $30 billion in additional aid to the company? So far, the administration has been unable to match its actions to Obama's tough rhetoric on executive compensation. And Congress has been unable or unwilling to restrict bonuses for bailout recipients, despite some lawmakers' repeated efforts to do so.

The situation has the White House and Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner on the defensive. The administration was caught off guard Tuesday trying to explain why Geithner had waited until last Wednesday to call AIG chief executive Edward M. Liddy and demand that the bonus payments be restructured.

Neither Obama nor Geithner learned of the impending bonus payments until last week, senior administration officials told The Associated Press late Tuesday, speaking on condition of anonymity about internal discussions.

Publicly, the White House expressed confidence in Geithner _ but still made it clear he was the one responsible for how the matter was handled.

"I do know that Secretary Geithner last week engaged with the CEO of AIG to communicate what we thought were outrageous and unacceptable bonuses," White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said. Gibbs declined to provide a timeline that would show when members of the administration _ including the president and others at the White House _ became aware of the bonuses.

In an interview with The Associated Press, Obama's chief economic adviser Lawrence Summers said: "In the context of what we're doing, Secretary Geithner was notified, he has said, last week. As he reported to the rest of us, he moved aggressively and immediately, aggressively and immediately, to recoup whatever could be legally recouped. He recognized that you can't just abrogate contracts willy-nilly, but he moved to do what could be done."

The bonus problem wasn't new, as many lawmakers and administration officials knew only too well. AIG's plans to pay hundreds of millions of dollars were publicized last fall, when Congress started asking questions about expensive junkets the company had sponsored. A November SEC filing by the company details more than $469 million in "retention payments" to keep prized employees.

Back then, Rep. Elijah E. Cummings, D-Md., began pumping Liddy for information on the bonuses and pressing him to scale them back. "There was outrage brewing already," Cummings said. "I'm saying (to Liddy), 'Be a good citizen. ... Do something about this.' "

Around the same time, outside lawyers hired by the Federal Reserve started reviewing the bonuses as part of a broader look at retention and compensation plans, according to government officials who spoke on condition of anonymity. The outside attorneys examined the possibility of making changes to the company plans _ scaling them back, delaying them or rescinding them. They ultimately concluded that even if AIG's bonuses were withheld, the company would probably be sued successfully by its employees and be forced to pay them, the officials said.

In January, Reps. Joseph E. Crowley of New York and Paul E. Kanjorski of Pennsylvania wrote to the Federal Reserve and the Treasury Department pressing the administration to scrutinize AIG's bonus plans and take steps against excessive payments.

"I at that point realized that we were going to have a backlash with regard to these bonuses," Kanjorski said in an AP interview. In a meeting with Liddy later that month, he said he told the AIG chief that "all hell would break loose if we didn't find a way to inform the public ... and that we should take every step to put that information out there so we wouldn't have the shock."

Around the same time, Congress and Obama's team were passing up an opportunity to put in place strict laws to revoke bonuses from recipients of the $700 billion Wall Street bailout. In February, the Senate voted to add such a proposal to the economic recovery bill that cleared Congress, but in final closed-door talks on the measure, that provision was dropped in favor of limits that affect only future payments.

"There was a lot of lobbying against it and it died," said Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., who proposed the measure with Republican Sen. Olympia J. Snowe of Maine. He said Obama's team is sending mixed messages on what will and won't be tolerated on bonuses, with the president coming out strongly against excessive Wall Street rewards but top officials not following through.

"The president goes out and says this is not acceptable, and then some backroom deal gets cut to let these things get paid out anyway," Wyden said. "They need to put this to bed once and for all."

Last Wednesday, an apparently tense conversation between Geithner and Liddy brought the matter to a head. Geithner had learned of the bonus payments the previous day, said a Treasury Department official familiar with the government's dealings with AIG.

Liddy, in a letter to Geithner on Saturday, referred to their "open and frank conversation" over the retention payments on March 11. "I admit that the conversation was a difficult one for me," Liddy wrote.

On Thursday, as Treasury lawyers scrambled to find a way to cancel the payments, Geithner informed the White House of the situation, and senior aides there relayed it to Obama, the administration officials said.

Meanwhile, the administration moved to get ahead of what was certain to be an embarrassing story.

Unprompted, officials leaked news of the bonuses to select reporters late Saturday afternoon, highlighting what Geithner had done to try to restrain the payments. The story quickly became fodder for the Sunday news talk shows.

Then on Monday, the president himself came out strongly on the issue, calling the payments "an outrage" and publicly directing his team to look for ways to cancel the payments.

Questioned repeatedly to explain this in light of the fact that the administration had already scoured its options and come up empty _ and that the bonuses had already gone out the door to their recipients _ Gibbs said that the president wanted his aides to make sure "to exhaust all legal remedies."

That's done little to quell the expressions of outrage that were blasting about by Tuesday.

"It's shocking," said Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., the minority leader, that "the administration would come to us now and act surprised."

___

Associated Press writers Ieva M. Augstums, Jeannine Aversa, Martin Crutsinger, Ben Feller, Jim Kuhnhenn and Jennifer Loven contributed to this report.

[Erica_NJ]

Thanks for telling the voice of so many frustrated. Obama's administration must get the act together. Come on, AIG's bonus is not a surprise to them and WHY they acted as if they had no control over it.

What is even worse, the media all seemed to just show outrage Obama on AIG. Who is there to tell the viewer that it is just a show? I am mad at the Obama adminstration but worse with the media. Don't they need to pay tax as well? So irresposible!1

[TristateMD]

Noso 你好，
握个手吧。
这个国家朝着社会主义的道路恐怕得走上一阵子。等更多的人认识到社会主义的弊端，保守势力才会强盛。当然如果能出现杰出的，有号召力的保守党领袖，行进的方向有可能早些调转。

[ewatcher]

A lot of insightful comments here.

Just want to add that these big shots have been stealing from the beginning of time, which is the beauty of capitalism. They steal in good times and they steal in bad times, too. They just can't help themselves. There is no law that says these big shots can not steal, because all the laws are written by lawyers and created by judges that are bought and sold by these big shots and their bosses. Laws are for keeping the little guys in place, not the big ones. Heard of “窃钩者诛，窃国者侯”？ This is capitalism and this is America.

It would be strange if the theft did not happen this time.

[风行水上]

所谓的民主，民主国家，不负责任的国家的典范。到处judge别的国家与民族的榜样。把犯罪说成正义的胡说家。这就是美国。
还有一点，从上到下的洗脑成功代言人。比中国历害多了。

[bornin1968]

“使这个95%的开销与基础设施建设毫无关系的所谓经济刺激计划，在全国老百姓一片反对声中，草草通过..."

-- 写博克虽然不是论文，也要做到尊重事实，你这句话是从何说起呢？有什么依据呢？Fox?

你说的这件事情，关键在于布什政府给钱的时候没有提到限制高层的薪资而已，这是他们一贯相信富人的结果。奥巴马只是亡羊补牢。

你说现在关于AIG的讨论是奥巴马做戏。我想问，如果因为这件事情，以后的bailout中加入高层薪筹条例，你是否要道歉呢？

民主政治就是这样，共和党人现在负责监督，但是，不负责任的胡乱指责只是徒劳。

[iorikyox]

虽然我知道美国警察的子弹是铅弹头，杀伤力极大，但是该革命还是得革命！

把我们中国大陆的民运传统输出到美国，现在是时候了。

让全世界看看，“自由民主”的美国zf是如何对待人民的

[碎石机]

Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont., is expected to propose a special tax for the bonuses and Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla., said the tax could be as high as 90%.

[benchi]

回复大姐夫的评论:
也许你懂一点政治，也许你来美国很久了，也许你经历过了几届总统，也许你有投票权，也许你拿冷脸贴过民主党的热PG，也许没有钱的白人很待见你。。。但那又能怎样！

要说话就好好说，别太盛气凌人！

[benchi]

奥巴马跟其他的政客没什么不同。也是接了大笔大笔从大business来的捐款。大家还记得竞选初始奥巴马是如何信誓旦旦要依靠联邦竞选基金，后来又是怎么把说出来的话吃回去的？连脸都没红一下!
说到底，拿了人家的手短。对AIG这类公司在表面上做做戏，也就没什么大惊小怪了。

[iamhereforfun]

So you think AIG executives still should be paid for the bonus ? And you think they are just the labor for the company ? I think you are totally wrong. It is true that they signed the contract with the company at earlier time. But, the fundamentals have significantly changed -- They are responsible for ruining the whole company by holding and trading the high risk porfolio, they cost tax payer billions of $$$ because of their fault. Under such condition, government should have the power to pass new law to cancel the contract, contract is civilian contract and is subject to law. Government has the power to change and pass new law that conflict with ANY current civilian contract.

Secondly, give me a break, don't tell me those CEOs are "labor". They are greedy criminals. Don't you feel sick to call them "labors" for the company ? Plus, don't worry about not being able to find new CEOs, in this world you can find MANY MANY more talented people that are better than those trash. CEOs have been spoiled to have extraordinary pay package. Once you completely cut this evil chain, you can still find CEOs. Why ? simple, if you think it is low pay, find a higher paid CEO position by yourself. If the law enforces a limit on that, then you can not find anywhere. And when you can not find it anywhere, you will adjust yourself to the reality and realize you are NOTHING, you should never worth that much, that evil era is gone. So, it will never be a problem for finding CEOs. Just like job market, when it is hot everyone wants to get higher salary, but when you can't find any job, you live with whatever job you have, simple.

[HCC]

>>>let's be clear, first of all, Clinton left money on paper, there is no money left. second of all, Bush did spend like crazy, but Obama could reserve the spending not expend it.
No sir. With his own words: " it is all about spend."
Does Obama and Democrates care about who is going to pay for this?
Not a bit.


I don't know where you got your information from, but I would suggest you to take a look at the figures from the Congressional Budget Office. Clinton has left a budget surplus of $559 billion when he left office. In fact, I'd suggest you read Alan Greenspan's biography as well. He spent considerable effort addressing the Clinton surplus.

Greenspan is a Republican, by the way.

You also asked: "Who is going to pay for this?"
The American people. They will have to pay for the corporate greed and lack of oversight. We can choose not to do anything and just save the money -- let the banks and insurance fail, let the personal savings and the jobs disappear and the crisis worsen -- if you feel that is a better solution. As a taxpayer, I don't disagree with the current plan.

[donotlike]

回复noso的评论:
If the capitalism does not work, why does bother sticking to it?

[中国民主]

回复noso的评论:
哈哈，“money talks, people listen”！怎么阿Q的后代都成了美国人？！哈哈--感谢新闻自由，民主法制万岁！！

[noso]

回复中国民主的评论:

no problem, money talks, people listen.

get involved with your local politics, run for any office, or donate money or time to support your candidate, tell people what you think, engage in political discussion...

This is America, we got people and we got money. : )

[中国民主]

回复noso的评论:
Haha, noso, I admire your optimism! Long long live ”阿Q“！

[nywalker]

回复中国民主的评论:
所得太好了！一针见血地指出美国民主的虚伪！F* taxpayers! Go AIG!

[中国民主]

回复大姐夫的评论:
你好大姐夫！我相信你来美国很久也有投票权，因为你所讲的"Spitzer"的故事应该基本上是真的（有一点大姐夫一定知道但没有写出来--那位“妈妈”有一长串的嫖客名单，为什么只有那可怜的Spitzer嫖妓被抓？），不过我不太明白你所说的“对美国经济，甚至对许多平头百姓的生活会产生巨大影响”？

[noso]

回复nywalker的评论:


说得好，谢谢！

[noso]

回复中国民主的评论:


sadly it is true, but at leat we still can do something about it.

[noso]

回复大姐夫的评论:

你说的这个是事实，这个我知道。

从另一个角度说明，　当政府插手私人企业的时候，两败俱伤。公私和营是不可能成功的，中国建国时期对私有企业就是这么干预的，最后变成公有企业，改革开放又变成私有企业。　

奥巴马所谓的变革说白了就是要搞社会主义。

死路一条。

[谁说非得注册]

同意 中国民主
一针见血！

[nywalker]

回复半世的评论:
AIG的亏损主要是因为与房产坏债的CDS(信贷违约掉期)引起的。也正因为这些高风险CDS的存在，才使贷款买房变的容易。在房产泡沫后，大量房产贷款捆绑的证卷违约，作为这些CDS的担保者，AIG必须对各大金融机构支付保险赔偿。如果AIG倒闭，各大银行金融机构将收不到赔偿而竞相倒闭，金融体系将停止运转。所以，1。AIG有巨额亏损； 2。AIG不能倒闭。 但是这不能说明AIG每个部门都亏损。更不能说明员工不能拿合同上写明的奖金。只要政府在对AIG注资时没提这些合同的事，奖金应该发。

问题在哪？是当年为对金融机构管理的政府部门和联邦储备的机构等闭眼不视房产金融泡沫。是政府为对AIG的CDS等高风险业务进行干涉造成的。那时也正是美国人从房子瓦片里拔钱出来花的“繁荣期“。

自由经济玩儿过火了，最后还是纳税人买单。美国政府政客谁也没责任。如果不是媒体揭露AIG奖金的事，纳税人还蒙在鼓里哪。当然，欧巴马也不用做秀了！（媒体不知道的事又有多少哪？！）

[大姐夫]

回复noso的评论:
AIG和那些倒掉的投行有很大区别，业务广的多，一旦倒闭，牵涉面太广，对美国经济，甚至对许多平头百姓的生活会产生巨大影响，这就是两党都不希望看到AIG垮掉，还要救助它的主要原因。

其实当年前CEO，Hank Greenberg主理AIG时，它的业务一直稳步发展，是美国保险业绝对的龙头老大，开始走下坡路开始于几年前，AIG因为业内流行的某些会计作业被当时的NY总检察长，同为犹太老乡的Spitzer抓到把柄，他为了给自己未来的政治前途铺路，把个Greenberg和他儿子Micheal Greenberg，另外一家大保险公司的CEO(Marsh)，整的死去活来，随后，父子俩都因此被迫辞去CEO的职务。

自那时起，这个保险届的老大从此一蹶不振，开始走了下坡，如今碰到金融海啸，更是雪上加霜。

至于那位嫉恶如仇的总检察长，后来终于如愿以偿爬上了纽约州长的宝座，只是好景不长，报应就来了，他州长的位子还没坐热，也就是一年多的时间，这位正义化身的勇士就因为嫖妓丑闻被迫下台，给自己的政治生涯画上了句号。

[中国民主]

哈哈，时间呆久了，你就会明白这就是民主与法制！可怜的米国老百姓，整天被洗脑，无时无刻真以为他们是上帝、无时无刻地以民主和法制为自豪！他们那里知道，民主只不过是那些既得利益者和政客们的护身符！法制只不过是可怜老百姓的金箍咒！民主：自由选举、自由言论、新闻自由。自由选举—那是有钱人进入“股票俱乐部”的成人礼；自由言论—那是老百姓发泄“无可又耐何”的地下室；自由新闻—那是“控股董事会”用来洗脑的麻醉剂。我有钱我进俱乐部。进了俱乐部我如何“玩”, 那是我的权利！你如果不喜欢，而且无论你怎么不喜欢，你有言论自由—你可以骂我。但是，哈哈，对不起—你骂你的—我可能连听都听不到！为什么—因为你的言论不能通过“控股董事会”的批准，所以不能成为新闻！你骂你的—我会仍然“我自岿然不动”！为什么—因为我是你“自由选举”的！法制：民法、刑法和行政法。首先，这些法是谁制定的—各位知道“金子定理”吗—The man who has gold makes the roles! 再次，你有集会游行的“自由”，但是这个自由必须要经过“股票俱乐部”的批准！你有言论自由，但是你只能在地下室动口而不能出门“动手”！至于行政法—只有天知地知还有“股票俱乐部”知！

[土拨鼠拨土]

什么合同不合同的，你干的好，盈利了，合同才生效，干的不好还给钱，这不是天上掉馅饼吗？
其他公司员工的工资就不是合同订的了？为什么他们的工资不升还降呢？

[noso]

回复都市红尘的评论:

据说靠咱们领薪水的是咱们的领导。: )

[都市红尘]

民主在哪？
议员和总统不是代表选民的吗？

[noso]

回复用户名被占用了的评论:

I don't think so.

$90 billions bail-out money went to banks through AIG, what AIG is doing here? : )

[用户名被占用了]

AIG红包事件，政府有很简单的办法，但总统和国会未必肯这么得罪人

1、挖出得红包那些人的名单，公布。然后开始美国式的人肉搜锁。美国是律师的国家，左右两派都会有人找茬打官司的。而且那些人一旦上黑名单，在公司的职业生涯基本死了，认为人际形象太差。纽约州检查长已经开始了。

2、政府起诉AIG，告那时定的合同有欺骗嫌疑，那些拿红包的为钱而忽略公司即将亏损的事实。这点很容易证实，从而取消合同。但这开了一非常先例，为取证，AIG得公布许多细节，无形判了许多公司和人的职业死刑。得罪许多人和整个行业。不知道政府、尤其是拿了华尔街N多钱的奥巴马是否乐意做。

[noso]

回复萱草花的评论:

BAIL—OUT当时老百姓就反对，布什提出来说要保。反布什的民主党大佬包括奥巴马都说要保。

结果怎么样？AIG越保越亏，GM越保越亏。这个BAIL—OUT从一开始就没把纳税人放在眼里。　

现在纸保不住火了，政客们不愿承认失败，拿打合同工的开涮算什么本事？　

这不是作秀是什么？　

[noso]

回复半世的评论:

呵呵。　

问题的关键是：这些合同是政府任命的AIG董事长大人认可的，但现在董事长的老板不干了。实在说不过去啊，怎么跟老百姓说啊。跳出来当好汉是真好汉还是假好汉，不言而喻。

[noso]

回复gasbag的评论:


: D

[萱草花]

呦，大姐夫这热脸贴的民主党很舒服嘛！您来美国多久？经历过几届总统？ 俺不是白人，也没有钱，但就是见不得民主党这帮 liberals 这么折腾这个国家。

[谁说非得注册]

BAILOUT AIG 是布什政府通过的。当时的财长有利益所在。现在应立法让他们都吐出来！

[半世]

合同是保障工资。分红是和盈利挂钩。AIG亏海了去，凭什么分红？所以，在这儿别讲法律。。。。有人讲美国承受不起AIG倒，那么承受的起这样烧钱吗？

[大姐夫]

本贴不是对NOSO的，是回那位”萱草花“的。

[大姐夫]

不懂政治就不要乱感叹，你来美国多久，经历过几届总统，有投票权吗？
如果你初来乍到，对美国政治一无所知，你还真得省省了，别拿热脸去贴人家共和党的冷PG，人家不待见你这号的主:)当然，如果你是个有钱的白人，那就另当别论了。

[nywalker]

回复LaoChu的评论:

I want to know the reason(s) why we can not talk about AIG's bailout?

[gasbag]

回复LaoChu的评论:
估计这位可能蹲坑时候偶尔看了两眼货币战争之类的书，变得高深了

[noso]

回复LaoChu的评论:

ever heard of Freedom of Speach?

We are taxpayers, that's who we are. We are paying for all those BS that 's what we are focred to do.

[LaoChu]

你们都是些什么人? AIG这样的事也是你们讨论的?
知道这次金融危机的本质是什么吗?

YOU CANNOT HANDLE THE TRUTH!

[noso]

回复HCC的评论:

let's be clear, first of all, Clinton left money on paper, there is no money left. second of all, Bush did spend like crazy, but Obama could reserve the spending not expend it.

No sir. With his own words: " it is all about spend."

Does Obama and Democrates care about who is going to pay for this?

Not a bit.

[HCC]

One thing though:
>>>奥巴马上台不到60天，制造出美国历史上最大的政府开支计划和赤字

He may have proposed the biggest government bailout, but the deficit? That was from Bush. Clinton left one of the greatest surplus in history, and Bush turned that around.

[noso]

回复萱草花的评论:

同哀。。。　谢谢。

[萱草花]

要说民主党就是一帮乌合之众都算高抬他们了。唉，国将不国啊！

[noso]

回复duffer的评论:

说得太对了。谢谢。

[不怕做不到就怕想不到]

法律给这些经济罪犯发红包，法律却不去制裁这些经济罪犯，不把他们投到监狱里面去。腐败，最无耻的腐败，所有的这些政客都被收买了，包括奥巴马。

[duffer]

you are right. This is a show. A show O8 has to perform to curb the angry of people, to try to draw a line between this mess and his administration.

For other posters, this mess is created by congress and government, by GOP and Demos, by crooks in wallstreet.

This shows bail out is such a rushed idea without any thoughtful process. This shows for so many years we ignored the economy basics and tried to use economy for own political agenda.

[不怕做不到就怕想不到]

法律保护给他们发红包，法律却不去惩罚他们违反法律的罪过。真是笑话，老百姓总是被玩弄的对象。

[noso]

回复buzz的评论:

在BAIL—OUT问题上，前总统布什政府有负责。

但民主党把持的国会一没制止，二在奥巴马上台后变本加厉挥霍纳税人的钱。红包的事早就白纸黑字写在那里。　国会大员接受AIG的时候，是没看见啊还是装着没看见？

有73人拿$100万以上的红包，其中11人已经离开AIG。知道拿RETAINING红包的都是些什么人吗？

都是要人家走或人家要走，公司（政府）出来挽留人家，说您先别走，　您帮帮忙，再工作一段时间，到时候，有红包给您。到日子政府不给钱，翻脸不认人，跟打发民工有什么区别？这些打工的不是什么万恶的资本家。　嫌给人钱多了，当初有本事您别留人家。

这个道理再简单不过了。

政客们（民主党共和党全算上）慷慨激昂，义愤填膺，跟真的似的，表演该收场了。

[注册一次成功]

现在拿钱发钱就是政治不正确. 其实这个很好办, 打个白条先, 将来脱困了, 再来拿也行. 白条是白宫的背书. 奥8签字, 说不定过几年, 这白条比什么都值钱.

[buzz]

GOP created all the problem, Obama is trying to fix it... the system is broken, if there is a party and a person can fix it, it won't be GOP! It got to be Obama, so far what he has done is good. I wish he would take bolder action -- put those guys in jail!

Down GOP -- it is the back of these bankers!

[noso]

回复nywalker的评论:

你的观点很好。

谢谢！

[ihope2]

看不懂作者想说什么。 奥巴马批评AIG有什么不对吗？况且这事还没完呢。

[nywalker]

欧巴马只是象竞选时喊喊话。政客从来不为纳税人考虑。拯救AIG就是
一个实例。

整个拯救计划中，政府根本没有规定AIG应该怎样花纳税人的钱，更没有监督具体的执行情况。等于是说“嘿AIG,需要多少？1750亿？好，那去花吧!"

人家AIG与员工有合同，政府在接管AIG时一没声明任何此类合同无效，二没修改此类合同，你政府凭什麽事后责备AIG？人家只是履行一个由法律效应的合同。纳税人要怪只能怪政府对纳税人的钱不负责任！跟AIG没关系。你应该感谢AIG没有把每个员工的工资都提到最高限额的50万元同时发最高的奖金！反正是政府买单，政府又没有规定新公司该如何花纳税人的钱。不发白不发！

有人说“如果没有纳税人的钱，AIG的奖金合同早作废了。“，这是废话！事实是政府已经给了AIG一千七百五十亿美元，AIG自己也明白它已经成功地跟政客们绑在一起了，因为没有政客会承认拯救AIG是错误的决定，更没有政客会为拯救AIG负责，现在让AIG垮台，1750亿就完全泡汤了。

AIG会继续拿到更多的政府的拯救款。由政府买单，为什麽不继续发奖金？！Go AIG! F* 纳税人！

[gasbag]

不满民主党政策可以理解，但是凹八刺激经济提案中earmarks按照费用排列的头10名有6个是由共和党议员提出来的，其中包括花费最高的头两名。更具讽刺意义的是，提earmark案的共和党人，知道提案肯定通过，所以反而投反对票，政治，经济资本两不误。。

建议以后发言之前多做调查研究

[LLC]

AIG should crash!

[showme]

Can anyone do better than Obama? Yes, Noso can!

[cmucaptain]

AGREE!!!!