Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION THE FIGHT TO KEEP OUR DEMOCRACY -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Karen Lawrence who wrote (3135)	3/24/2009 11:23:04 AM
From: Jim S	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 3197

Karen, I understand your anger, but not your logic. If the amount given to AIG had been $1000, the bonus amounts would have been about $2.00. Peanuts in relation to the total amount of the so-called bailout. And yes, it was because of Dodd and Geithner that the bonuses were paid instead of being withheld until the company could show profitability. But my point is that the amount is so tiny, relatively, who cares? Further, had there been no bailout, the bonuses would have probably been paid out of whatever assets the company had, even before a bankruptcy declaration. And, even if they weren't, those execs would have been ahead of bond and stock holders in a collapse of the company. I really think that the bonus issue is part of a plan to distract you and me from a more significant issue, namely that 60% of AIG's bailout money went to FOREIGN banks, not US banks. I also think that the bonus issue is part of a larger plan to foment anger against a particular class of people, part of the bigger issue of class warfare. And, obviously, it's working. I very much doubt that those AIG execs are "bad" people, any more than intellectuals in 1912 Russia or Jews in 1938 Germany were "bad" people. They are just tokens in a broader scheme. Karen, your anger is justified, I just think it is misdirected.