Back OpEd News | |||||||
Original Content at https://www.opednews.com/articles/AIG-aGAIN-by-Steven-Saw-090315-480.html (Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher). |
March 15, 2009
AIG aGAIN
By Steven Saw
How does one guarantee a bonus that still pays when a company suffers a 97% loss? They would have to contain language tantamount to, "The bonus is paid no matter what happens.", because there is absolutely no measure of success at AIG, reasonable or otherwise.
::::::::
Again, in a massive demonstration of complete incompetence and utter greed, AIG continues to ensure that executives are paid six-figure bonuses while millions of taxpayers who were forced to provide the money are out of jobs and losing their homes.1
AIG posted the largest corporate quarterly loss in history, losing over $685,000,000 a day after receiving the largest individual government supplied corporate bailout in the history of the world. How can this possibly qualify anyone for a bonus, especially considering that AIG has laid off scores of thousands of workers?
Forty two executives will each receive an average of $112,000 now, and another $57,000 in July and September if the AIG board determines "that the company is meeting the goals the government has set for dealing with the company's financial troubles."
So, what are these goals? How are these bonuses determined, and how has it been determined that they deserve the bonuses they are receiving now?
According to the news, the Treasury Department didn't have legal authority to stop the bonus payments. Exactly how does the government have legal authority to rob the taxpayers of the money to give to AIG, but they don't have the authority to control what they do with the money? Who is so completely incompetent as to suggest we, the taxpayer, do not have control of either our government or an AIG funded with our money?
This is the same thing that happens when you give a spoiled teenager money with no restrictions. They squander it without consideration of responsibility, usually with excuses or reasons behind their waste. The fact is, the government gave AIG the money, and like any other responsible lender, should have defined specific purposes for it. But in their regular fascist practice of protecting the boy's club, they didn't.
Considering that AIG's stock dropped 97% in 2008, by what measure were these contracts honored? That is, how does one guarantee a bonus that still pays when a company suffers a 97% loss?
Yet the "best and brightest" staff spent a considerable amount of time ensuring their bonuses are subject to "continued and arbitrary" certainty in spite of a 97% stock drop and the largest corporate loss in history, but they couldn't save the company from such failure? I would love for Liddy, or anyone else for that matter, to explain to me with any sense of reason how those contracts were accepted. Basically, the contracts would have to contain language tantamount to, "The bonus is paid no matter what happens," because there is absolutely no measure of success here, reasonable or otherwise.
If they didn't know, they should now be immediately fired for being such extreme idiots.
The government and the corporations are playing on the psychology of financially strapped and emotionally defeated Americans in faking good news to wean another couple of trillion more from the taxpayers. Don't let it work!