Obama Received a $101,332 Bonus from AIG

March 17, 3:01 PM
by Dan Spencer

Senator Barack Obama received a $101,332 bonus from American International Group in the form of political contributions according to Opensecrets.org. The two biggest Congressional recipients of bonuses from the A.I.G. are - Senators Chris Dodd and Senator Barack Obama.

The A.I.G. Financial Products affiliate of A.I.G. gave out $136,928, the most of any AIG affiliate, in the 2008 cycle.  I would note that A.I.G.’s financial products division is the unit that wrote trillions of dollars’ worth of credit-default swaps and "misjudged" the risk.

The Washington Post reports a "mob effect" at A.I.G financial products division:


Quote:

A tidal wave of public outrage over bonus payments swamped American International Group yesterday. Hired guards stood watch outside the suburban Connecticut offices of AIG Financial Products, the division whose exotic derivatives brought the insurance giant to the brink of collapse last year. Inside, death threats and angry letters flooded e-mail inboxes. Irate callers lit up the phone lines. Senior managers submitted their resignations. Some employees didn't show up at all.

With the anger and rage that is being exhibited against A.I.G., perhaps the bonuses Obama received from A.I.G. explain Obama's A.I.G crocodile tears.

Now that the Wall street Journal has revealed that A.I.G. paid bonuses of $1 million or more to 73 employees, it's time to ask if recipients of A.I.G. "bonuses," including President Obama, will give what now ought to be taxpayer money back?

While  they're at it perhaps all of the employees' bonus and any charitible donations from the past should be returned.

just sayin'

with warm regards,
Tony

Here are two questions that immediately spring to mind:

1. Is there anything wrong with the treatment AIG has received from this administration in light of the fact that Obama received over $100K in campaign contributions from them last year?

2. Is pay for play alright only when liberal democrats are involved?

You will not see this on tonight's news, and probably not in the future either. However I can guarantee you that if another administration was involved, all three networks plus most of the cable news outlets would have broken into regular programming with a Special Report.

It's called a complicit media machine.

Now THAT'S reaching............

Quote:

WASHINGTON, March 16 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- The leader of the nation's largest veterans organization says he is "deeply disappointed and concerned" after a meeting with President Obama today to discuss a proposal to force private insurance companies to pay for the treatment of military veterans who have suffered service-connected disabilities and injuries. The Obama administration recently revealed a plan to require private insurance carriers to reimburse the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) in such cases. "It became apparent during our discussion today that the President intends to move forward with this unreasonable plan," said Commander David K. Rehbein of The American Legion. "He says he is looking to generate $540-million by this method, but refused to hear arguments about the moral and government-avowed obligations that would be compromised by it." The Commander, clearly angered as he emerged from the session said, "This reimbursement plan would be inconsistent with the mandate ' to care for him who shall have borne the battle' given that the United States government sent members of the armed forces into harm's way, and not private insurance companies. I say again that The American Legion does not and will not support any plan that seeks to bill a veteran for treatment of a service connected disability at the very agency that was created to treat the unique need of America's veterans!"

More fuel for the Obama bash

AIG has donated heavily to both parties in the past. Some years, they split their contributions 50-50. In 2002, they heavily favored the Republicans. In 2004 - 2008, they saw the writing on the wall and shifted their money to the Dems.  Does this speak to the character of individual candidates that got money, or to the structural problems of the campaign finance system?  

START PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or END PRINTPAGE


By way of comparison:

START PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or END PRINTPAGE
START PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or END PRINTPAGE
START PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or END PRINTPAGE
START PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or END PRINTPAGE

Brew wrote on Mar 17^th, 2009 at 5:15pm:

Here are two questions that immediately spring to mind: 1. Is there anything wrong with the treatment AIG has received from this administration in light of the fact that Obama received over $100K in campaign contributions from them last year? 2. Is pay for play alright only when liberal democrats are involved? You will not see this on tonight's news, and probably not in the future either. However I can guarantee you that if another administration was involved, all three networks plus most of the cable news outlets would have broken into regular programming with a Special Report. It's called a complicit media machine.

don't have time to read. were are you getting your info from?

Quote:

Dodd, Chris        $103,100 Obama, Barack        $101,332 McCain, John        $59,499 Clinton, Hillary        $35,965 Baucus, Max        $24,750 Romney, Mitt      $20,850 Biden, Joseph R Jr      $19,975 Larson, John B      $19,750 Sununu, John E      $18,500 Giuliani, Rudolph W      $13,200 Kanjorski, Paul E      $12,000 Durbin, Dick      $11,000 Perlmutter, Edwin G      $10,500 Rangel, Charles B      $9,000 Edwards, John      $7,850 Corker, Bob      $7,400 Smith, Chris      $6,900 Neal, Richard E      $6,500 Rockefeller, Jay      $6,500 Reed, Jack      $6,000 START PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or END PRINTPAGE

Does anyone doubt that if Guiliani or Romney or Hillary had gotten the nomination, they would have gotten more money from AIG?  Or that if they were seen as the likely winner in November, they would have gotten even more?

I'm not going to condemn or defend what this guy wrote. It is what it is - I didn't write it, nor have I pretended to. I have my opinions, and most of you know what they are.

Also, if anyone wants to know my sources, just google the guy's name - Dan Spencer.

Whats your solution to cure the worlds economy Brew if you were President?

Sean C wrote on Mar 17^th, 2009 at 9:02pm:

Whats your solution to cure the worlds economy Brew if you were President?

First, the question is off topic. Start a new thread and see who might want to take a stab at answering.

Second, I would never be President, so I don't think in those terms.

ok

Quote:

Second, I would never be President, so I don't think in those terms.

The mother of all cop outs Brew.
Everyone has a right to express their opinion.but if opinions are soley criticsims without any thoughts on how things should be handled then the critisism becomes wining for the sake of wining.
Brew you are to smart to not have an opinion on how you would like things to be done differently.

I'm not an economist so don't really know what the solution is but I'm fairly certain rewarding bad behavior is not the way.  The guys who created this mess are laughing all the way to the bank (West Indies bank of course).

karma wrote on Mar 18^th, 2009 at 9:51am:

Quote: Second, I would never be President, so I don't think in those terms. The mother of all cop outs Brew. Everyone has a right to express their opinion.but if opinions are soley criticsims without any thoughts on how things should be handled then the critisism becomes wining for the sake of wining. Brew you are to smart to not have an opinion on how you would like things to be done differently.

With all due respect, don't tell me when I should or should not express my opinion. I do express my opinions when I choose to do so - this piece was merely my sharing something I had found that was written by someone else.

Cop out, my ass.

Brew wrote on Mar 17^th, 2009 at 7:46pm:

I'm not going to condemn or defend what this guy wrote. It is what it is - I didn't write it, nor have I pretended to.

What puzzles me - why submit something for discussion, and then completely distance yourself from what you submitted and refuse to offer any opinion on the topic?  I think it is only natural that others would comment on the thread you started, even direct questions to you about what you brought up.  

monty wrote on Mar 18^th, 2009 at 11:21am:

Brew wrote on Mar 17th, 2009 at 7:46pm: I'm not going to condemn or defend what this guy wrote. It is what it is - I didn't write it, nor have I pretended to. What puzzles me - why submit something for discussion, and then completely distance yourself from what you submitted and refuse to offer any opinion on the topic?  I think it is only natural that others would comment on the thread you started, even direct questions to you about what you brought up.

'Scuse me? I was asked what I would do to fix the world economy if I were President, not what my opinion was on this specific topic.

The only observation I have about this specific topic is that I find it very interesting that Sen. Dodd and then-Sen. Obama topped the list of AIG campaign contributions on Capital Hill.

I merely posted it to show that people are seeing a connection between the last-minute language inserted in this bailout/stimulus bill allowing these bonuses and who received big bucks from AIG. When I see corruption (i.e., walks like a duck, quacks like a duck), I'm going to point it out. That's all this is. Let others comment and opine.

I continue to offer no comments or opinions on how to fix the world economy. It's off topic and above my paygrade.

This post brought up questions from me.  
Who, at AIG or other companies, makes the decisions to give money to political candidates?

I don't understand why a company would give to both Obama and McCain in last year's election.
Why would a company give to both Clinton and Obama in the nomination race?

Brew wrote on Mar 17^th, 2009 at 5:15pm:

Here are two questions that immediately spring to mind: 1. Is there anything wrong with the treatment AIG has received from this administration in light of the fact that Obama received over $100K in campaign contributions from them last year? 2. Is pay for play alright only when liberal democrats are involved? You will not see this on tonight's news, and probably not in the future either. However I can guarantee you that if another administration was involved, all three networks plus most of the cable news outlets would have broken into regular programming with a Special Report. It's called a complicit media machine.

Just curious, what are your answers to your questions?

Brew wrote on Mar 17^th, 2009 at 5:15pm:

Here are two questions that immediately spring to mind: 1. Is there anything wrong with the treatment AIG has received from this administration in light of the fact that Obama received over $100K in campaign contributions from them last year? 2. Is pay for play alright only when liberal democrats are involved? You will not see this on tonight's news, and probably not in the future either. However I can guarantee you that if another administration was involved, all three networks plus most of the cable news outlets would have broken into regular programming with a Special Report. It's called a complicit media machine.

There's a little truth in that but it's understandable when Bush & Company....as well as many Congressmen, got together every morning to look over their data sheets to learn the lastest thing to justify calling the press liberal conspirators. Also, calls for censorship almost always come from the right side of the aisle as well......anyway.....

I watched a few minutes of the hearings today---hoping to see our legislative servants cut Libby a new one---still waiting and it was disappointing to see mostly Republicans defend much of the A. I. G. bonuses.....when I think about it though, it's likely to bode well for Democrats in the 2010 elections. Lots of soundbites of their tone-deaf actions.

Charlie

wrote on Mar 18^th, 2009 at 11:59am:

Brew wrote on Mar 17th, 2009 at 5:15pm: Here are two questions that immediately spring to mind: 1. Is there anything wrong with the treatment AIG has received from this administration in light of the fact that Obama received over $100K in campaign contributions from them last year? 2. Is pay for play alright only when liberal democrats are involved? You will not see this on tonight's news, and probably not in the future either. However I can guarantee you that if another administration was involved, all three networks plus most of the cable news outlets would have broken into regular programming with a Special Report. It's called a complicit media machine. Just curious, what are your answers to your questions?

Are you that thick? Do you know what they call a question that, when phrased a certain way, makes the author's point of view painfully obvious but truly requires no answer?

Just trying to get you back on topic.  will you expand on your rhetoric?  

Don't let me stir the Brew!!!

I see where this is going already. I'm out.
Hey, Brew
No malice intened.

BMoneeTheMoneeMan wrote on Mar 18^th, 2009 at 11:50am:

I don't understand why a company would give to both Obama and McCain in last year's election. Why would a company give to both Clinton and Obama in the nomination race?

Because they may prefer one candidate over the other, but want all candidates to be ingratiated to them. That way, they win regardless of which horse comes in first.  That is the way the system works (for them, not for us).

My proposal - develop a cryptographic system so that people can give to candidates, they can verify that their contributions got to the candidate, but they cannot conclusively prove to the candidate that they gave a certain amount, if anything.  This effectively 'launders' the money and makes it impossible to buy influence (unless the company and candidate stoop to a transfer of cash in shoe boxes).

Brew wrote on Mar 17^th, 2009 at 5:15pm:

Here are two questions that immediately spring to mind: 1. Is there anything wrong with the treatment AIG has received from this administration in light of the fact that Obama received over $100K in campaign contributions from them last year? 2. Is pay for play alright only when liberal democrats are involved?

i don't know. according to petes earlier post thats a little bit more than half of what gw received. perhaps both parties should be held equal standards.

-johnny- wrote on Mar 18^th, 2009 at 5:33pm:

Brew wrote on Mar 17th, 2009 at 5:15pm: Here are two questions that immediately spring to mind: 1. Is there anything wrong with the treatment AIG has received from this administration in light of the fact that Obama received over $100K in campaign contributions from them last year? 2. Is pay for play alright only when liberal democrats are involved? i don't know. according to petes earlier post thats a little bit more than half of what gw received. perhaps both parties should be held equal standards.

I don't know the time span of the numbers in Batch's post - this one was the 2008 election cycle. I believe AIG donated around 4:1 to democrats vs. republicans. GWB wasn't running for anything this last time around.

All this... and what are you doing about it?

All the attempts at enlightenment on the many recent threads concerning the Economy and Government have gone where?

Start at the local level and write your so called representatives. They are prostitutes and will lean with the noise. Or...?, vote the jerks out of office.

Personally, I have attended Council meetings, attended Town Hall meetings, hosted neighborhood strategy meetings and written my local jackasses and let them know my position and how I feel about some of their decisions.

If you are exclusively bitching about the way things should be on this Site without extending your thoughts where it may actually do some good is of no use.

This whole system is in the process of massive change. Pick any category that affects or impacts what you use to believe and throw it away. The thought that you are striving to make a better World for your children is a pipe dream. Their existence is going to be much different than the one we grew up in. It's going to be rough. I have no doubt.  The whole era of consumerism is unwinding before of eyes.

Am I a Doomer? Maybe. Those of you that may recall the tone of some of my previous posts know how I feel about getting back to the simple ways and preparing for what I consider an inevitable collapse of all the things we take for granted.

I have adopted a "No Regrets Policy". If I'm wrong about where I believe things are headed...so what. I am beginning to relish working the soil and living a life that reduces my impact on the limited resources available.  "Leave No Trace" is a slogan that my wife and I have adopted from our trips to the Great Smoky Mountains.

Learn the benefits of Composting. Buy some good sturdy shoes. And don't forget to get extra shoe laces. Sometimes it's the little things that count the most.



Grand Pa...tell us the story about how people use to fly around the World in metal tubes with wings...Yes, please Grand Pa.

Rant over.

Steve G

Quote:

Senator Barack Obama received a $101,332 bonus from American International Group in the form of political contributions according to Opensecrets.org. The two biggest Congressional recipients of bonuses from the A.I.G. are - Senators Chris Dodd and Senator Barack Obama.

Fat lot of good it did A. I. G.

Charlie

I'm with Steve... been saying the same thing for years around here.

My garden is getting ready to plant now. Shoes are about as sturdy as they make and maybe the old back ain't what it used to be, but it'll do... at least we'll eat around here.

Can't do a whole lot about the jackasses in DC (although they DO get letters letting them know what I think weekly), but the jackasses locally have NO doubt what I think about things and know there's another election just around the corner....

Hugs BD

Just following your lead Barb. I know you have been active in letting the Government folks know where you stand.

A new interchange is scheduled to be built at LA 1088 and I-12 and the developers have the land around our area slated to be rezoned to Highway Commercial. Their argument to the Parish Council is that it would be a waste to have our land remain Residential. Boo!

We neighbors mounted a campaign and have convinced our Councilman to change the proposed rezoning back to the way it was. It was a classic case of taking from the many and reallocating it to the few. We know we must remain diligent and fight all future retractions but we won...for now.

Everyone quotes the Founding Fathers of our Country and what they may say if they witnessed what is going on today. Their sacrifice, effort and brilliance was incredible. But I think they would be most disappointed in how we decide who represents us. Just look at the choices they offer. Can we get anywhere with either of the two? Yet we pick sides and keep fighting one another and get what we deserve.

Our vote is how we can change the direction of our Country. We seem to keep re-electing these creepy people. And we all loose. Just look at the Congress, their lies and their own belief in their lies. What do they really think of us? I wonder but I think I know. Just look at the crap Chris Dodd shoveled out recently. Can you believe that slug?

It's more than just voting. Personal involvement is key. The Internet is your vehicle. Write to your servants. It's important.

Our Country is at stake.

Steve G

The Federalist Papers: Alexander Hamilton wrote:

It is not, however, my design to dwell upon observations of this nature. I am well aware that it would be disingenuous to resolve indiscriminately the opposition of any set of men (merely because their situations might subject them to suspicion) into interested or ambitious views.

Candor will oblige us to admit that even such men may be actuated by upright intentions; and it cannot be doubted that much of the opposition which has made its appearance, or may hereafter make its appearance, will spring from sources, blameless at least, if not respectable--the honest errors of minds led astray by preconceived jealousies and fears.

So numerous indeed and so powerful are the causes which serve to give a false bias to the judgment, that we, upon many occasions, see wise and good men on the wrong as well as on the right side of questions of the first magnitude to society. This circumstance, if duly attended to, would furnish a lesson of moderation to those who are ever so much persuaded of their being in the right in any controversy. And a further reason for caution, in this respect, might be drawn from the reflection that we are not always sure that those who advocate the truth are influenced by purer principles than their antagonists. Ambition, avarice, personal animosity, party opposition, and many other motives not more laudable than these, are apt to operate as well upon those who support as those who oppose the right side of a question.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

with warm regards,
Tony