I understand your sentiment completely oleeb, however a minor point, (or two), if I may. If BHO comes out and states categorically that no bonuses will be awarded to AIG execs on his watch, and it turns out that there are legal grounds for awarding those bonuses, BHO would ultimately be perceived as being even more powerless than he would under his current statement. In the end we are a nation of laws, (albeit with a brief interruption in service between Jan. 20, 2001 and Jan. 20, 2009), and the rule of law will undoubtedly prevail. I know nothing of the legality of writing a law regarding the use of TARP funds all ready distributed, that would or could be binding retroactively in this matter, but if there is such an avenue of approach to this issue, I would support it wholeheartedly.

I understand where you're coming from but that's all inside baseball and doesn't amount to much for the average American and what we're talking about here is perception as much as anything else. It's the sort of excuse one comes up with when you don't have any other cover in a political situation. Do you really think those swine at AIG are going to want to challenge Uncle Sam on their bonuses after what they've done? I don't think so. It's a brazen, arrogant bluff on the part of people whose brazeness and arrogance have wrecked the world economy. Screw em!

What counts with the public is being decisive and appearing to be in command. And frankly, while I understand from whence it springs, all the handwringing about the legalities is just not reasonable: it's hiding behind a weak argument. Even it turned out the worst case scenario takes place then the President is fine. He simply responds "well they didn't get the bonuses because we didn't do our damndest to stop those thieves!" The chances of that scenario taking place are teeny weeny. As Holmes once said: "Let the timorous stay home!"

"Are these real companies, or, like, Monopoly companies? They'll flee to the B&O Railroad?"
Hopefully they'll land on the 'go to jail' square on the way to B&O. Good suggestion re. doj team to investigate & clawback bonus $.

They aren't even monopoly companies, they're just pure BS. Thing is ya see, they've been feeding this BS to people for so long and it has worked, that they figure they can make it work again. That's why I'm saying call their friggin bluff!

The government needs to take the attitude to these companies and the people who run them the proverbial attitude of the bandits who say: "Badges? We don't need no stinking badges!" Only then will it be clear to the thieves and fraudsters (and importantly also to the public) just how it's goin down from now on.

THAT'S the one! Don't know why but I just can't stop chuckling at the thought of it.

They really love that metaphor too so it's particularly enjoyable to use it against them.

I have always viewed it as them telling the goose that laid the golden egg (workers and average citizens)that they were the golden goose whilst stealing the golden eggs right out from under the actual golden goose. Now after many years of this scam being pulled off it has become obvious who is the goose and who is the lying, thieving, lowlife and I pray the goose never again forgets who she is.

It's about friggin time!

Did he say anyting about badges?

I haz cheese to go with the whine, and eds, it's hardly impotent, the "whining" is making the pols nervous

=D

Gregor - that involves keeping one's eyes peeled for things like explicit and implicit expansions in the funds available for bailing out banks and their stakeholders, like this:
"Dodd, cunningly, is proposing adjustments to Treasury borrowing limit by the FDIC under the pretext that it will benefit depositors, when in actuality it is only bank holding companies and further TLGP issuers that will be the sole beneficiaries of this bill. The DPA 2009 effectively increases the implicit bailout capital available to banks by up to half a trillion!"

...(albeit with a brief interruption in service between Jan. 20, 2001 and Jan. 20, 2009)...

8 damn tortuous years and you call them brief??? What do you call long-term, pray tell? :-)

Didn't B & O Railroad go bankrupt decades ago?

Idjit: one must wait for wrong to happen before one can attack the wrong.

The Republicans, of course, being the Party of Greed, said it -- the unconscionable greed -- should have been anticipated. I don't know about you, but I, being characteristically honest, don't anticipate dishonesty, at least as a norm.

As Barney Frank puts it: the contracts are apparently, "Heads I win, tails I break even." And that Congress needs to look at that also.

Losers should lose, not win or break even.

Not here.

It sure looks regressive to me, but if you like that taste ...

Misplaced populism is a very old story, one I'd like to see us move beyond (aka Change).

There is a world of difference between standing up to the Soviets and standing up to our corporations. The corporations are an adversary within and reflect flaws inherent in our society. The Soviet menace justified extreme measures. Truman created the NSA, signed the Espionage Act (precursor to PATRIOT), and put us in a state of emergency that persists to this day. If anything, this mirrors Bush's Presidency, from his doctrine pre-emptive war (a furtherance of the Truman doctrine of containment via proxy wars, targeted killings, and destabilization), the passing of the PATRIOT Act, and the creation of the Homeland Security Department.

So, Oleeb, I would be careful when using Truman as an historical justification. The measures his administration took to stand up to the Soviets undermined the Constitution, perhaps irrevocably. Further, the provided a blueprint for the expansion of executive powers that undermine the traditional balances. In order to deal with a crisis now, there can be a tendency to demand a dictatorial populism. All too often, populists are merely dictators who haven't tasted power yet.

The issue of the bonuses is becoming a symbolic wedge. Progressives should not be arguing for an executive fiat that demands that lawful contracts be violated ex post facto. All avenues should be perceived. What are the consequences of the demand? What if AIG is put into a conservatorship... what will happen to the securities that were recklessly insured? What of bankruptcy? These are the kinds of questions that need to be asked. The reason being is because the answer might water down the appetite for pitchforks and torches.

The fact is that these bonuses are small and belong to executives who were not the architects of the disaster. They escaped with a golden parachute. These bonuses are for legitimate insurance salesmanship. They are stupid given the situation, but our ire is misdirected. And we are falling into a trap if we demand that Obama take extrajudicial action in order to satisfy our need for a scapegoat.

I believe we are still stuck in a shock doctrine pattern. A crisis occurs and we react emotionally and blindly, and the media plays off of our fears. We increasingly demand, right and left, a strong leader who will consolidate power in order to bypass the gridlock. Domestic and internation spying consolidated. Increased nationalization without a path to easing taxpayer subsidization of risk. And, most disturbingly, a tendency to want "our guy" (the one our side elected) to damn the opposition and impose our agenda because their side did it first.

In other words, empires begin as a Republic but die a dictatorship. Crises become so frequent and overwhelming that only the steady hand of a purpled ruler with the power of God can guide us through the troubled times. A return to a Republic is too difficult and costly. The only thing that matters is ideology and feeling as if your side has the power. And all the while the moneyed interests walk away scot free.

More or less, I am saying that we need to return to the republican form of government and become once again a nation of laws. This may prolong the current agony, but in the long run our nation will prosper. I think it is a disaster to advocate for rugged executive powers that will lead us into dynastic dictatorships. We don't want a President to illegally detain and torture, but we do want a President to overturn contracts ex post facto. You can't pick and choose your extraconstitutional powers.

Excellently well said.

"Jesus liberals grow some damn balls."

Amen and hallelujah to that!

But that places corporations in the same boat as persons. That's what has me irritated! I see a qualitative difference between abusing persons and placing corporations under regulation. Indeed, the bonuses, in my view, torture the taxpayer!

That is where we disagree. The Bay of Pigs and the escalation of Vietnam can be laid squarely on Kennedy's "balls" in assuming dictatorial powers. Truman and the NSA, the Greek civil war, the Espionage Act were all dictatorial in nature. You also can not say that these examples are precedent for the further erosion of checks and balances as we have seen from Nixon through Obama.

We agree on the principle, namely, that criminals who bilked the world out of trillions based on risky margin speculations deserve justice. I also want to see justice for future generations in the forms of a well-maintained and respected representative government that does not violate its own laws in pursuit of short term revenge DISGUISED as justice. If the DOJ finds the legal means to overturn these bonuses, then by all means. But for Obama to sack up the nuts in a manner that suits our immediate grievance will damage already corroded fabric of our government further.

I was pointing out in my post that you should be more mindful of your definition of courage in terms of solving our societal problems. One man's courage is another man's hubris. Even hubris with good intentions is hubris. Just because we happen to torture one person who gives us information that saves lives does not mean torture is justifiable under any circumstances. Just because overturning contracts happens to save taxpayer money and dispense justice now does not mean that overturning legitimate contracts are justifiable under any circumstances. Both give the executive broad semi-divine powers that the precedent bequeaths to the next leader who may not be so magnanimous.

Zip - I found the rest of your remarks very informative! thanks! Just finance and the bail-out is my little obsessional pet peeve, so zeroed in on that.

I do think the little issue of these 160M is quite important - just shows the unbelievable incompetence of Treasury lawyers, failing to do basic due diligence. We're going to war with the Treasury we've got, and it doesn't look good...

I, being characteristically smart, don't anticipate stupidity - or idjit questions. Your's will remain unanswered.

Saladin, you nailed it! Make them sue for the money. It's a standard operating procedure at insurance companies. "You think your policy covers that? We don't! take us to court." It is the perfect example of what goes around, comes around.

William Black is my basis, buddy.

Sorry to make you do the work for me! I had no time but for some glib throw-away line... I'll get back to you in a bit. But what's wrong with those sources you've got there? Black's a big hero from the Keating scandal days. Pretty good authority. If I'm going to trust a source, that one comes pretty high on the list.

I'll go take a look at your arguments, eds.

"Also, there may be reasons to keep these people on, but not because they are in any way competent."

Oh? And your basis for that is what?

Look, I just see you and the mob lashing out blindly, taking fractional evidence and jumping to conclusions. The traders on staff at AIG last year might be competent enough. If you can blow a hole in the official AIG line, it's up to you to do so. Absent a major hole, there's no basis for thinking Treasury or its lawyers were at all incompetent, much less significantly so. And given that the retention contracts are a tiny fraction of the money apparently at risk (about $2T a year ago, now less) and a small fraction of the "bailout monies" (0.01% to date), are you just fooling around here?

Also, as you noted, the executives who may have set policy at AIG in 2001-2006 when the "bad" deals were written aren't likely the nuts and bolts people, aka "traders" who were employed a year ago.

Irrational exuberance is a market phenomenon, but irrationality is what is driving most of the AIG chat these days.

That's not the official AIG line, that's a caricature of it.

If they can keep things from blowing up, they are competent even if not worth a bonus.

Again, how does this reflect on Treasury lawyers, and how is it significant (other than as a false symbol to stir up the mob into lunch mob mentality)?

Why not just admit that you lost a bundle by betting on B & O, thus are characteristically smarting?