You missed the point of my post completely.

I agree with you 100% that the Federal Imperial Government should never, ever, ever be bailing out private companies. This issue has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the bailout - this issue is 100% related to employees who signed contracts with a private corporation. Two parties to the contract - employee, corporation. IF the employee fulfills his responsibility as outlined in the contract, then the corporation MUST fulfill its own responsibility: PAYING THE BONUS AS PER THE CONTRACT.

You are confusing the source of funds (the darn bailout that is illegal) with the fulfillment of a contract (which is perfectly legal and constitutionally protected).

So, I restate: people whining about these bonuses ought to quit their whining. If you held a contract guaranteeing you a bonus for performance, and you performed, you would be getting your bonus, too, regardless of where your employer got their money.

Congress sucks. Let's start the revolution NOW.

Herrin Illinois, not Herron - not that it matters, and yes, that guy most likely voted for PBO - funny, they just closed a Circuit City distribution wharehouse in Marion, right next to Herrin and there's no quotes from those folks, but they found an angry dem, laid off 2 years ago to comment - rent a mob maybe?

Envy is a sin so I guess none of these people complaining have any religion. -And all of these people worried about AIG bonuses have just missed the fact that the Senators and President are greedier than the people they are complaining about. While the circus is in town over the few lousy million in AIG bonuses, why don't you guys worry about the payoffs, that Dodd,Barney Frank and your president got from AIG and Acorn and Fannie Mae. You people are ignorant.

I don't believe that people should be given or should accept the unearned, the undeserved, and something for nothing. I don't think they should receive something for destruction.

I posted some of this on a different thread, but it applies here too:
The bonuses, per se, are not the problem; it’s the source of the bonuses. I’m a capitalist. If you profit through hard work, risk, perseverance, and smart business decisions, more power to you. Taxpayer bailouts for failure don’t figure into the equation. Capitalism is supposed to reward SUCCESS. If you fail, don’t dig into my pocket for rescue.
Was it shareholder money? NO. Was it money that AIG had leftover from profits? NO. It’s ours. It was taken by the government against our will and given to a failed business in the name of “bailout”.
I don’t give a damn about their contracts. Let them get sued. Let them go into bankruptcy like every other business that goes tits up.
It’s not just a bailout; it’s a lack of integrity and accountability. Even some state governors are turning down stimulus money because they know they will be forced to spend it on pork. AIG has no shame. But again, they’re just another pig at the trough.
Given the fact that these CEOs are already making millions, and getting additional bonuses on top of that, disallowing money that didn’t come from AIG in the first place, wouldn’t put a dent in their lifestyle. If I were in that position, I WOULD NOT HAVE CASHED THE CHECK. So, you are mistaken.
We, the benefactors, did not sign the contract which the government is indirectly “honoring” with our money. I don’t recall MY signature being on any AIG contract.
Under any other circumstances involving normal business transactions that would be illegal.
A legal example: My car insurance company was sued in a class action suit, and as a paying CONTRACTUAL customer directly involved in the financing of said company, (through premiums) I get a settlement. That’s fair, because I signed a contract with the company and I’m getting back some of MY OWN money. People not included in the contract are not liable.
Though we never agreed to a binding contract, we are being held liable for AIG’s failure. How is that legal?
AIG CEO Edward Liddy opined that these contract agreements were in place in 2007, before he took over.
I don’t care how long it’s been in place, that’s not what the bailout money was intended for. It was supposed to put AIG back in the black and prevent it from going into bankruptcy, not pay for bonuses. When all is said and done, AIG committed fraud. And, they’re still in the red.
Expect more “contractual obligation” excuses to come up every time corporate heads are questioned about their own CEO ‘bailouts’, in lieu of rescuing their companies.
We are sick of being gouged for pork barrel projects, a bloated welfare system, scientific “studies” on everything from the “climate change” hoax to the sex life of insects, and propping up failed corporations.
We’ve had it. WE want a bailout.

Many comments, but there is grey area here. A contract is a contract and should be honored. What we need to do is change the laws from here on out. Companies can do what they want to do unless they need help. If they accept help, then they need to accept terms that weren't in the first bailout. Terms like, you don't get promised a bonus, you earn a bonus. I have no wealth envy. To one guy's point, the benificiaries of the AIG bonuses might start new businesses and create more jobs. Well hell, if I just got a million or two, I could and would do that as well. The issue for me is earning the bonus vs, getting promised it without regard for performance. That is what most people are angry about. Capitalism with honesty is what we need here.

My gawd are we in trouble with these attitudes. All business simply must be done with the understanding that contractual agreements are absolutely binding, in other words exactly black and white. If you contract with someone to do some work on your house for $20K and when it's done he decides to 'subtly shade' it up to $25K - do you honestly think you would agree with his going to that 'gray area?' Business just cannot be conducted without the mutual trust that contracts provide. Without it there would be simply chaos (and to anticipate the rebuttals about this statement - if you think we truly have chaos now think again. The grocery store shelves are still full. Chaos just might be when you can't get toilet paper like most of the time under the old Soviet system). You people have to stop letting the mob do your thinking for and get rational.

Why is Neal so insistent that these contracts be honored, yet has no problem with the auto industry voiding union contracts?
I'm unsure how I feel about AIG, without the bailout money, there would likely be nothing to pay these bonuses with. But it is in the contract, and congress approved these as part of the bailout. And while I agree that the UAW unions are killing the auto industry, they have contracts as well.
We live in a time with many complex issues with alot of gray areas. Black and white just does not apply always. Unfortunately, most of our elected officials as well as a majority of our population seem to lack the insight to see the more subtle shades.

Capitalism only works when companies who do stupid things, like pay billions of dollars to executives who make stupid decisions, go bankrupt. If AIG was bankrupt, none of these execs would be getting any bonuses. Perfect solution.

Today's Libertarian Slant
http://jasonfalter.wordpress.com/2009/03/18/america-is-falling-apart-as-the-moochers-seize-control/

"I understand you are upset. We all are. But you are mad at the wrong people. Be mad at Washington for not taking care of this before they gave them the bailout"

I'm mad at both the government and entities like AIG.

"...so no, sorry but it does not matter if the bonuses were paid with our taxpayer money."

They're being rewarded for failure, with our money. It matters.

"However, we can and should call out Dodd and anyone else involved in this cover up. And stop this type thing from happening again."

We get gouged by taxation and reckless government spending all the time. The AIG catastrophe is the straw that broke the camel.

American taxpayers are sick of being gouged for pork barrel projects, a bloated welfare system, scientific "studies" on everything from "climate change" to the sex life of insects, and propping up failed corporations. MY signature was not on the AIG contract.

I've had it. I want a bailout.

You couldn't be more right. I used to be a salesman at a company and a good part of my earnings were from bonuses, IF I made my quota. How many of these people who got bonuses are just poor mensches who worked their butts off to make an agreed upon quota and manage nothing but a sales territory? I don't know - but neither do most of the mutton-headed people that seem to be so outraged. And (Jon Miller) as for 'spreading the wealth' - I made the right decisions and worked hard for mine - you nor anyone else has any right to it.

There is a simple way to stop ALL future "bail-outs". First define how large a company has to be before it is considered "to large to allow to fail." Then make it illegal for a company to grow to that size. Any time a company grows to the set size, it must split into separate companies. Shareholders would get stock in the new companies equal to the value of stock they had in the old company. Then ALL companies would be treated the same and if they fail, they go through the bankruptcy courts.

I agree...no more bailouts, unless the ridiculous filthy rich professional politicians forgo their tax-payer funded salaries and pay AIG out of their own pockets.

"Whining about bonuses"....nice try, no dice. The bonuses, per se, are not the problem; it's the source of the bonuses. You may not mind digging into your pockets to fund a taxpayer bailout of an irresponsible corporation, but don't expect the rest of us to follow suit.

I don't recall MY signature being on any AIG contract.

It's not my obligation to fulfill a contract I had no part in. But since you feel it's perfectly fine for the government to honor a contract you didn't sign, brace yourself. There's more "contractual obligations" for you to pay.

Spread the wealth.

Wow, what a lot of great comments. I'll keep mine short. Let the government start voiding contracts it doesn't like-either directly or indirectly (by taxation) and there will be nothing left to envy about this country - let alone wealth.

I'm the last guy to have wealth-envy. I say pay good CEOs the going market rate. At the same time, I do know for a fact that some CEOs are cutting wages on their employees in the middle of recession. The main purpose is to increase their bonuses on the backs of their workers. That is morally WRONG WRONG WRONG!!!

Not saying that this is happening here with AIG, but it is happening in several other companies throughout the country. To continually hammer the nit-wits in the government, but refuse to address the issue with these greedy executives is ignoring the 800 lb. gorilla in the room.

It's nice and alliterative, and I'd be surprised if we don't hear it more often from now on.

Of course that phrase leaves out Pelosi (maybe she's just dreaming of eight years from now and Air Force One) and all other politicians (The President arguably IS "entitled").

But is that what people dream of thesedays - to become a big famous politician (or sports star, movie star or pop singer even despite American Idle being rigged), instead of dreaming of going into the business world, where there are more opportunities than all other areas combined to become wealthy?

Oh, that's it, they don't care about working hard to become wealthy themselves, they just want to stop OTHERS from becoming wealthy in the business world.

What does "wealth envy" have to do with anger over how taxpayer money is spent?
I thought conservatives would be able to differentiate between letting free enterprise run its course, and government interference (which usually involves our money).

What kills me is all of the people who are supposedly against big government suddenly screaming "wealth envy" when government gets too big.

Was taxpayer bailout money part of the "contract"? I don't think so.

-- "Giving tax dollars to AIG to pay bonuses is atrocious," Clark said. "You don't reward people in the private sector for doing a bad job."

This guy is almost there. Just take away the phrase 'in the private sector' and Mr. Clark (quoted in the original article) will have a firm grasp of economics 101. He almost sounds like a conservative, and not a blue-collar leftie.

What makes me sad is that these same people cry when top executives make a good living for saving companies, creating jobs, creating work, but they have no problem with their sports idles make multimillion dollars to hit a ball, or put it in a ring ?

The six elements of a contract were present--the AIG executives were entitled to their bonuses.

To simply "void" a contract because it's "unfaaaaaaaaaaair" sounds like whiny liberalism to me.

Maybe we should go back and look at WHO voted to bail out AIG in the first place without first putting in terms and conditions that would have PREVENTED these payouts in the first place.

But from this angle, Melissa in Dayton doesn't want to hold Barney Frank accountable and wants to punish AIG executives instead.

I realize we have a serious problem with public education in America--but ignorance of contractual law strikes a cord of fear into all of us who rely on contracts each and every day in the business world.

No question that some people have an element of wealth envy. But do you think most of these people would have this same reaction if AIG wasn't bailed out? There are a LOT of people who were against this bailout. These bonuses wouldn't have been paid if our tax dollars weren't used to prop up this company. It isn't wealth envy as much as it is disgust with the corporate welfare we gave AIG. While legally bonuses, this money is indirectly a welfare payment.

come on neal, you sit there and say that aig must honor their contracts with their exectuives, ever though they received bailout money (our money), but the auto makers, and any other company for that matter, should void their contracts with their employees if they recieve bailout money (our money). make up your mind! like my grandpa use to say what is fair for the goose is fair for the gander.

If there were no bail outs, this would be moot. I'm more irate about Congress' auto raise.... where is the outrage about this!!! They can start running for (re)election years before they should, miss votes and important issues about THE PEOPLE and they still receive a pay check, have all their perks and pensions to boot. I don't know about you, but if I didn't show up for work, I wouldn't have a job. Maybe voters should wake up and hold this true for OUR representatives as well. Maybe they should work for minimum wage since most put out minimum results for THE PEOPLE !!

If we're going to go after executives, we should also go after the absurdly high pay of sports figures and movie types, as neither is taxed high enough.

Lifestyle - What has been said is people base their financial decisions on planned income. These publicly hated men and women who received this bonus money, I would guess, have plan for the money. I would suspect that they would be either investing it or starting new business endeavors themselves. They're not the type to place it under their mattresses and actually remove the money from the economy. It's like the money multiplier, this money, in bonuses, will go somewhere.

I am not for limiting executive compensation. However, when using government bailout money, the people have the right to know exactly why these bonuses were given out. I for one want to know exactly what these executives achieved to get these bonuses. I think we should have full disclosure from AIG on this one.

It looks like th egeneral public is finally fed up with the frustrations caused by the executives who make the decisions on their lives. We see our pay cut and our freinds laid off, and our promotions denied by these guys who receive millions in bonuses while they cut our income. Yes they should make more than the people who actually do the majority of the work, but things have turned rediculous. The really dissapointing part is if you look around it seems that corporate america has decided that dishonesty is ok if it is for business.

It's just and example community organizing, just in case you didn't know what that is.

Barking up the wrong tree, copy. The middle class, and everybody else including you for that matter should directing the outrage to the looting federal government.

The double speak is astounding.

The Dems want us to be more outraged about the one-tenth of 1% of AIGs $170B than we were about Chuckie Schumer's "porky" 3% of $787B.

That's $165 million versus $23.6 BILLION folks.

Clear proof that it's never been about amouts to the Dems, but who the recipients are.

As I said yesterday and Monday, Neal... "Good luck with your anti-populist theme on this one."

The working class apparently does have a tolerance limit for corporate looters. And there's only so far they're willing to go in fighting their own best interests in order to serve the wealthy.

Looks like your audience, along with most of America, has reached that limit. It's just a shame it took so long.

The executives and millionaires are just going to have to get used to the new reality: they don't matter much in economic policy. The middle class does. And that's exactly how it should be.

The financial deals that led to the collapse of AIG probably happened 4 or 5 years ago. The bonuses earned and given were fot this past fiscal year. The AIG compensation plan may be flawed however if the employees met their goals, they earned the bonuses!