| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front Economy |
| Obama "choked up with anger" |
| 2009-03-16 |
| THE US Government will modify a planned $US30 billion ($45 billion) capital injection for American International Group to try to recoup hundreds of millions of dollars in controversial bonuses, a Treasury official said. Meanwhile, New York's top legal officer vowed to take AIG to court if it did not provide full details of the bonus payments. The US Government's actions came after President Barack Obama expressed "outrage" over the bonuses to AIG employees, and ordered officials to take all legal measures to block them. The Treasury Department plans to attach new provisions to the terms of its latest AIG rescue package, announced on March 2, to force repayment of the bonuses, said the official, speaking on condition of anonymity. Meanwhile, New York Attorney General Mr Obama said in remarks at the White House he was "choked up with anger" over the executive payments, which is a hot button issue in the deepening recession. "How do they justify this outrage to the taxpayers who are keeping the company afloat?," said Mr Obama. The US Government has spent up to $US180 billion in taxpayer money to bail out AIG, and the insurance giant continues to bleed red ink. AIG said last week its hands were tied contractually over $US165 million in bonuses due to AIG employees on Sunday. Mr Cuomo told reporters on a conference call that he believed the bonus payments were paid last week. Chief Executive Edward Liddy told US Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner in a letter the insurer was legally obligated to make 2008 employee retention payments, but had agreed to revamp its system for future bonuses after the Obama administration objected. AIG disclosed that Goldman Sachs Group and a parade of European banks were the major beneficiaries of $US93 billion in payments - more than half of the US taxpayer money spent to rescue the massive insurer. |
| Posted by:tipper |
| #8 remember Andy Cuomo at HUD in the Clinton Admin? Remember the threats to make loans to those "less able to qualify"? |
| Posted by: Frank G 2009-03-16 22:13 |
| #7 hahaha, I heard this today and LMAO. What a bunch idiots our congresscritters are - they are only getting what they asked for. Of course the $$$ was going to fulfill contractual obligations, especially since Obama and Sheriff Joe Biden didn't put any strict stipulations on how AIG was supposed to divvy it up from the beginning. What a bunch of morons. Thank you again to the ignorant American electorate for electing these two clowns. |
| Posted by: Broadhead6 2009-03-16 22:09 |
| #6 Well, now he understands how we feel about the Donk Porkout Act of 2009 Bonus that his party rewarded itself with. Not that the federal budget has had much of a better year than AIG. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2009-03-16 21:44 |
| #5 Meanwhile, New York's top legal officer vowed to take AIG to court if it did not provide full details of the bonus payments. That will prove interesting. But a point, Nimble Spemble: the autoworkers' unions have had to give back contractual pay and benefits, and likely will have to give back more, because conditions have changed significantly since the contracts were signed. How does that differ from what the government is demanding from AIG? |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2009-03-16 21:20 |
| #4 Read the fine print suckah. You own it. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2009-03-16 20:50 |
| #3 I don't remember anything in AIG contracts saying that the US taxpayer will fork over $160 billion in what is a deal between two private parties. Nor do I remember any clause that the US taxpayer has to pick the $2 trillion of AIG possible liabilities. |
| Posted by: ed 2009-03-16 20:42 |
| #2 Watch it. The One is a professor of constitutional law. He knows all about Middlebury v Vermont. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2009-03-16 20:26 |
| #1 Guess Bambi has never heard of the word "contract" before. Most of them bonuses are due to contractual signed agreements. Go ahead donks destroy AIG for fulfilling its signed agreements and kiss goodbye to any hope of businesses staying in the US. It wont be a safe haven for any type of business if the goverment can come in at anytime and say any or all of you contracts are void. |
| Posted by: Valentine 2009-03-16 20:22 |