Thursday, March 19, 2009

Who really deserves the wrath?

I had better hide behind the wall here after I say this because I have a feeling some rotten tomatoes are about to come flying my way.

I watched a lot of the AIG hearing yesterday and I have to be honest, I felt some pity for Liddy. The guy has been working since around the first of the year for basically no pay in order to try to get that company back in shape. Then yesterday he had to take the wrath of those representatives for something that was done way before he arrived on the scene.

I have to wonder how much of the wrath coming at him was sincere and how much was simply dramatics on the part of the questioners? I just have to wonder. Where are the culprits who were running the show during the time it was going down the drain? Why aren’t they called there to take the wrath?

Oh, and if you are wondering how things got so bad on Wall Street, you might want to read or reread this from January of this year. The FBI saw what was going on back in 2002, but the white house told them to turn their attention to searching for “terrorists”.


Blogger FranIAm said...


Well no tomatoes from here PoP. I agree with you and was thinking along the same lines.

That article from January... Holy crap. That really underscores who the real terrorists were, our own leaders from that time.

March 19, 2009 3:02 AM  
Blogger Mauigirl said...

Very interesting, PoP. It just goes to show you how long this stuff has been going on with no one minding the store.

March 19, 2009 5:16 AM  
Blogger betmo said...

pop, hubby and i were discussing why folks are so angry. he doesn't understand because all of this is 1) legal under the bush stimulus bill that passed pelosi's and reid's congress back in september or so and 2) these folks 'earned' bonuses. this is what happens in corporate america- you get bonuses depending on how much money you make the company- it isn't necessarily merit based. you also get rewarded with trips and whatnot. his company does that too- although not like aig. my husband's company doesn't deal in speculations or derivatives or anything- strictly mutual funds and life insurance.

anyhoo, as i told him- it would be different if the company had not gone bankrupt. the bonuses paid out- ok, you can make the case based on the above. but the trips- nuh uh. your company is bankrupt and hey, you don't get to go. salaries and commitments and that's it.

so, just wanted to throw a different pov in there too. hubby can't figure out why everyone is so angry. i told him that i thought folks should be turning their wrath on congress. they didn't have to vote for that particular bill. they did it on purpose.

March 19, 2009 6:08 AM  
Blogger Sherry said...

it seems that olympia snow and one other(can't remember his name) placed a provision in the bill that would have capped those bonuses but someone took it out at the last minute.

that's the person i want to see hauled up before congress and the american people.

March 19, 2009 6:34 AM  
Blogger Randal Graves said...

I say we put 'em all in stockades and bring out the pails full of rotten tomatoes.

Then some jail sentences.

March 19, 2009 6:55 AM  
Blogger dguzman said...

Like everyone else here, I think the real criminals were in the Bush Admin and the Congress. I am certain that all those hysterics going on during the hearings are just that -- melodrama and scenery-chewing of the highest order, just to protect their own fat asses.

And that FBI story--wow. Unbelievable.

March 19, 2009 7:22 AM  
Blogger robin andrea said...

It was histrionics and fake outrage. The $165 million is just a symptom of a larger problem. We are about to print $1 trillion dollars, materialized out of thin air to buy up bad debt. I'd like to hear some real outrage about that.

I have no pity for these guys.

March 19, 2009 7:46 AM  
Blogger SB Gypsy said...

Liddy was also lying his a** off... check out firedoglake and the article here

Money quote:
"Cummings says that he met with Liddy on January 15, and at that time Liddy admitted that under his tenure, he had expanded the retention bonus program to cover 2100 employees. Cummings asked how many retention bonuses Liddy had approved, and he estimated 4500 to 4700. However, that number didn't include bonuses agreed to by managers of other divisions. He asked how much money the company had paid in bonuses in 2008 and how much was scheduled to be paid out in 2009, and Liddy said he didn't know."

So, not only did Liddy agree to pay the bonuses, he EXPANDED the program to include thousands more employees - on OUR dime.

Pah, the whole thing stinks of pillage and looting.

March 19, 2009 8:36 AM  
Blogger Lisa said...

I don't know what to think anymore. Well, except what I've always thought. Until we have publicly funded elections, very little with change. There's stink on that money.

March 19, 2009 12:13 PM  
Blogger two crows said...

hi PoP--and, from what I gathered from MSNBC last night, AIG scrambled to get those bonuses paid out just before the s**t hit the fan.
I think that was after Liddy was on board.

So, between that and the info Gypsy noted above-- I'm not feeling TOO sorry for him.

As for Congress' "outrage" -- imho, that's all smoke and mirrors. "Look all you peons back home! See how I'm looking out for your interests?"

March 19, 2009 1:09 PM  
Blogger Cujo359 said...

I assume that most of what I hear from the congresspeople at committee hearings is for show. That even applies to things I hear that I agree with, particularly when they're said by people I wouldn't expect to agree with me.

Yes, Liddy's trying to do what's right, at least by his standards. I think that's part of the problem, though - his standards. It seems not to have occurred to him that people who are already earning lots of money don't need bonuses, particularly when they screwed up so royally. It's sad that other people are punished for the mistakes of a few, but almost no one who is getting a bonus needs one so his kids can have shoes.

It's to Liddy's credit that he was willing to step up. Unfortunately, I think he needs a better understanding of what the rest of us are going through before he can pass judgment about what's fair.

March 19, 2009 3:33 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home