Obama's pick that keeps on giving [ taxpayor money ]

OpEdNews » Lying Or Incompetent - Either Way, Geithner Needs to Be Fired (http://www.opednews.com/articles/Lying-Or-Incompetent--Eit-by-David-Sirota-090318-93.html)





The AIG bonus contracts being cited by the administration were signed in 2008, and as the 80 percent owner of AIG, the federal government (ie. the Treasury Department and the Obama administration) have had access to the company's books and contracts for many months. Indeed, even if you believe that only the Federal Reserve bank was told about the AIG bonus contracts, recall that Geithner was a top official at the Federal Reserve bank when the AIG bailout was crafted and when AIG was telling the Federal Reserve about its finances and obligations - and the Wall Street Journal reported that Geithner was intimately involved in the AIG bailout (meaning he had access to their books/contracts months ago).

That means either Geithner is lying to the public by pretending he never knew about the AIG bonuses when, in fact he did.* Or, he's egregiously uninformed/incompetent and therefore absolutely unfit to hold one of the most important economic offices in our country.






American International Group: Recipients | OpenSecrets (http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/toprecips.php?id=D000000123)

And who is the top 2008 congressional AIG money recipient?:eek:


They write in faux outrage on the teleprompter don't they ;)

So what do all the Obama voters have to say?









G&P

Fallout: Dems in disarray over AIG - Lisa Lerer and Victoria McGrane - POLITICO.com (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0309/20140.html)


Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.), tagged by Republican aides for sponsoring an amendment to the stimulus bill that allowed the bonuses, shifted the blame to the Treasury Department and “the bill conferees,” saying he had no idea that the AIG bonuses were coming



Ahh, the fingerpointing among the Dems begins as they play CYA.

Seems like the Dems have been in bed with the banks and wallstreeters all along.









G&P

Yesterday Barney Frank ,in his best Joe McCarthy impersonation... or was that Madame Defarge... was asking for names of AIG employees who received bonuses. Dust off the guillotines! When asked if he would keep the names confidential he said NO... that it was his intent to haul their a$$es up to Capitol Hill for some bullying . It did not disuade him to hear that AIG employees were already receiving death threats.

President Obama lied yesterday when he claimed that Geither wasn't involved in TARP. As head of the NY Fed. Geithner was not only involved in the negotiations ;but I've heard he led the meetings. Also the President was asked if he intended to return the donations made by AIG execs last year to his campaign. The President ducked the question and the reporter (suprise surprise ) did not ask a follow-up.

Hello lefty's:

From my CONSERVATIVE viewpoint, I think the AIG execs were ENTITLED to their bonus's.

After all, if they're too big to fail, that means we want them around for SOME purpose. Whatever purpose it is, apparently it CAN'T be carried out by ex McDonald's employees. So, if we want them to DO, what we think they SHOULD do, then we need to adhere to their contracts.

A contract is a contract, in this country. No? But, in the name of consistency, how come you lefty's think we can abrogate THESE contracts, but not the Auto workers??

And, you righty's out there, how come you think we can abrogate the Auto workers contracts, but NOT these??

I'm just curious about your TWO different mindsets... You lefty's are silly.

excon

Hello lefty's:

From my CONSERVATIVE viewpoint, I think the AIG execs were ENTITLED to their bonus's.

After all, if they're too big to fail, that means we want them around for SOME purpose. Whatever purpose it is, apparently it CAN'T be carried out by ex McDonald's employees. So, if we want them to DO, what we think they SHOULD do, then we need to adhere to their contracts.

A contract is a contract, in this country. No? But, in the name of consistency, how come you lefty's think we can abrogate THESE contracts, but not the Auto workers????

And, you righty's out there, how come you think we can abrogate the Auto workers contracts, but NOT these???

I'm just curious and your TWO different mindsets... You lefty's are silly.

excon


Morning koolaid sipper.
Well, IF and that is a big IF the auto industry were to go into chapter11 then the union contracts could be renegotiated along with every contract that the auto companies have with every employee and subcontractor. This would allow them to get contracts that are more in line with salary/benefit packages that the foreign companies are paying their workers. Which by the way are quiet generous In my opinion. Personally this whole thing is smoke and mirror's to shift the Americans focus away from something far bigger and potentially far worse that is happening or about to happen. Like maybe the cap and tax legislation that will all but kill business in America? I don't know, but there is something far worse and this AIG fiasco is being used to cover it up. Seems like politics as usual in Washington to me!

I don't know, but there is something far worse and this AIG fiasco is being used to cover it up. Seems like politics as usual in Washington to me!Hello 450:

I think you're right. Yesterday, while we were howling about $165 million, the fed printed another $ TRILLION!

Buy gold.

excon

I am not faulting AIG employees .If it were me I'd pull a 'Clark Griswold' and say the bonus was already spent on the built in swimming pool.

The contracts should've been REnegotiated during the negotiations of TARP . That was not done and Paulson ,Geithner,Bernanke et al are at fault . When Geithner approved an ADDITIONAL bailout for them a couple of weeks ago these bonuses had not been paid out then ;and another opportunity to renegotiate was lost.

I do not approve of the mock outrage by the administation or Congress.

You are right ;in the scope of things the money being talked about is chump change... and we need our best money manipulators to launder the bailout money through AIG to all those foreign banks and Goldman Sachs.
I agree with 450donn that had they been allowed to go belly up then all contracts would've been subject to revision . Chapter 11 was set up to deal with these types of situations and that is how both the financials and the auto industry should've been handled .

By the way ;why haven't they asked Franklin Raines return the money he plundered from Fannie ?

"It strikes me that the A.I.G. financial products division received an unbelievably sweet deal. Did its managers slip it under the radar? Did the managers act in good faith? And who at A.I.G. signed off on this and did they focus on the risks and rewards? Yet more avenues for possible litigation.

"But of course, this is all merely a diversion for what should be the main focus: Where did the $170 billion go that taxpayers spent on A.I.G and why, and what we are going to do with A.I.G. going forward."
Dissecting the A.I.G. Bonus Contract - DealBook Blog - NYTimes.com (http://dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/18/dissecting-the-aig-bonus-contract/?ref=business)

Dodd (again) can't make up his mind on his role in this.


After denying (http://edition.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/19/aig.bonuses.congress/) having anything to do with crafting language in the stimulus bill that allowed bailed-out insurance giant American International Group to keep its bonuses, Sen. Christopher Dodd admitted that he and the Treasury Department were responsible for the loophole.

BTW ex, I haven't advocated abrogating anyone's contract.

Yesterday, while we were howling about $165 million, the fed printed another $ TRILLION!


Yup and with interest rates in the effective negative rates ,there is a sell off the dollar.

Sad thing is that it is still one of the strongest currencies and with worsening conditions around the globe ,the dollar weakness may not last long.

Good call Ex ! While everyone is still taking about $165 million a $trillion move was made under our noses.

Bernanke looked so cool on 60 Minutes .But this move seems like a panic move to me. So much for incremental easing of credit . I doubt the Fed has too many moves like this left in it's arsenal .

But my guess is that this could work to end deflationary trends. The question then becomes how fast does the Fed reverse course when the inevidible inflationary cycle begins ?


The left got what it wants , the government managing the economy .

The Wall Street Journal observed :


After their experience with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, you'd think that Congress would no longer be interested in creating companies seen by the market as backed by the government. Yet that is exactly what the relevant congressional committees — the Senate Banking Committee and the House Financial Services Committee — are now considering.
In the wake of the financial crisis, the idea rapidly gaining strength in Washington is to create a systemic risk regulator. The principal sponsor of the plan is Barney Frank, the chair of the House Financial Services Committee. A recent report by the Group of Thirty (a private sector organization of financial regulation specialists), written by a subcommittee headed by Paul Volcker, also endorsed the idea, as has the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Securities Industry Financial Markets Association. …

If implemented, this would give the government the authority to designate and supervise "systemically significant" companies. Presumably, systemically significant companies would be those that are so large, or involved in financial activities of such importance, that their failure would create systemic risk.

Congress Is the Real Systemic Risk - WSJ.com (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123725470200650641.html?mod=rss_opinion_main)

Even more... the President wants to seize the assets of these companies

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/mar/19/obama-seeks-financial-seizure-powers/

How come when I posted this here in October (twice) and again in December, nobody even acknowledged it, let alone expressed outrage?


As for the bailout, it's not clear yet how much will go to mortgages. Of the $700 billion given to financial institutions so far, $40 billion is going to a handful of executives who are owed various bonuses and deferred compensation. They are apparently getting paid right off the top, so they don't have to wait or worry about not getting their "due."

You read it right. Forty billion dollars to just a few people whose bad decisions helped wreck our economy. Hopefully, we can at least agree that's pretty offensive.

This was under our beloved last president, Bush. Big business is basically blackmailing the government. "Clean up the mess we made because it'll be worse for you if you don't." Maybe if enough people protest, more executives will give back the money and downsize to smaller houses and boats.

How come when I posted this here in October (twice) and again in December, nobody even acknowledged it, let alone expressed outrage?



This was under our beloved last president, Bush. Big business is basically blackmailing the government. "Clean up the mess we made because it'll be worse for you if you don't." Maybe if enough people protest, more executives will give back the money and downsize to smaller houses and boats.

Good call, but who is black-mailing whom? As for the original observation of $40B for bonuses and deferred compensation, are you a bit high? The AIG issue is $165M.

Not high and not specific to AIG. The $40 billion was the Wall Street Journal's estimates back in October. It was a pretty detailed analysis of what was contractually owed to these guys. It was a front page story. I couldn't believe that hardly anyone was talking about it.

From my CONSERVATIVE viewpoint, I think the AIG execs were ENTITLED to their bonus's.

Acontract is a contract, in this country. No? But, in the name of consistency, how come you lefty's think we can abrogate THESE contracts, but not the Auto workers????
excon

"The embattled insurance giant, which has received about $170 billion in federal bailout money, has said it is legally bound to pay the bonuses because of a provision in the Connecticut Wage Act. Many of those receiving the bonuses work for AIG's financial products unit in Wilton...
"If AIG failed to pay the bonuses, under state law the company could be forced to pay a double penalty, legislators said."
AIG Bonuses Required Under Connecticut Labor Law, Company Says: CONNECTICUT AS SCAPEGOAT (http://www.tmcnet.com/usubmit/2009/03/18/4066331.htm)

asking . Your 1st posting was towards the end of a 123 response posting ,and the 2nd one was not on this board.

It would be helpful if links to claims like that were included .

Back in the fall the $40 Billion figure was for the gvt to buy preferred shares of the company. Not for executive compensation.
Government Adds $40 Billion To Aid For AIG (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/11/10/government-adds-40-billio_n_142571.html)

Back in the fall the $40 Billion figure was for the gvt to buy preferred shares of the company. Not for executive compensation.
Government Adds $40 Billion To Aid For AIG (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/11/10/government-adds-40-billio_n_142571.html)

Tom,
You are talking about a different $40 billion. The $40 billion I'm talking about was for executive compensation.


Banks Owe Billions to Executives
Financial giants getting injections of federal cash owed their executives more than $40 billion for past years' pay and pensions as of the end of 2007, a Wall Street Journal analysis shows.

The government is seeking to rein in executive pay at banks getting federal money, and a leading congressman and a state official have demanded that some of them make clear how much they intend to pay in bonuses this year.

But overlooked in these efforts is the total size of debts that financial firms receiving taxpayer assistance previously incurred to their executives, which at some firms exceed what they owe in pensions to their entire work forces.

The sums are mostly for special executive pensions and deferred compensation, including bonuses, for prior years. Because the liabilities include stock, they are subject to market fluctuation. Given the stock-market decline of this year, some may have fallen substantially.
Some examples: $11.8 billion at Goldman Sachs Group Inc. $8.5 billion at J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. and $10 billion to $12 billion at Morgan Stanley.
Few firms report the size of these debts to their executives. (Goldman is an exception.) In most cases, the Journal calculated them by extrapolating from figures that the firms do have to disclose.
Most firms haven't set aside cash or stock for these IOUs. They are a drag on current earnings and when the executives depart, employers have to pay them out of corporate coffers.

MORE AT:
Banks Owe Billions to Executives - WSJ.com (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122542331644887249.html)

The October 31 story goes on to quote Bush's Treasury:

Asked about the Journal's calculation, the Treasury said, "Every bank that accepts money through the Capital Purchase Program must first agree to the compensation restrictions passed by Congress just last month -- and every bank that is receiving money has done so."

But in December, it was revealed that there were in fact no restrictions, due to a technicality in the wording of the bailout agreement.

I'm not giving the Obama administration a free pass, but this problem had momentum long before he came on board.

I'm not giving the Obama administration a free pass, but this problem had momentum long before he came on board.

Correct . No doubt about that . Geithner chaired the TARP meetings with AIG .

However ; he also negotiated an additional bailout for AIG just a couple of weeks ago knowing the compensations were coming due. For the President to claim ignorance is a flat out lie.


Thanks for the link . It illustrates the folly of using bailouts over the bankruptsy option.

I agree with 450donn that had they been allowed to go belly up then all contracts would've been subject to revision . Chapter 11 was set up to deal with these types of situations and that is how both the financials and the auto industry should've been handled .

I agree too.

I also agree that the congressional outrage is disingenuous and hypocritical.

All the populist rage has led to this (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1163328/Dont-wear-says-AIG-Insurer-gives-employees-security-tips-fury-bonuses-grows.html?ITO=1490)...

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2009/03/20/article-1163328-0400D537000005DC-551_468x725.jpg

Dude, what happened to my country?

Hugo Chavez... oops I mean President Obama is going to send his flunky Tim Geithner to Congress today to make a case for expanded executive authority to seize non-bank financial companies, such as large insurers, investment firms and hedge funds.

U.S. Seeks Expanded Power to Seize Firms (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/23/AR2009032302830_pf.html)

Hmmm, no. 1 recipient Barack Obama, no. 2 Chris Dodd. What a surprise.

Speaking of Hugo, he called our dear president an “ignoramus (http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSTRE52L19G20090322?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&rpc=22&sp=true).” That's got to hurt the Hollywood fans of both men.

Odd how the Obama voters don't respond.

Too busy at his koolaid stand ?;)











G&P

The following is a letter sent on Tuesday by Jake DeSantis, an executive vice president of the American International Group's financial products unit, to Edward M. Liddy, the chief executive of A.I.G.

DEAR Mr. Liddy,
It is with deep regret that I submit my notice of resignation from A.I.G. Financial Products. I hope you take the time to read this entire letter. Before describing the details of my decision, I want to offer some context:
I am proud of everything I have done for the commodity and equity divisions of A.I.G.-F.P. I was in no way involved in — or responsible for — the credit default swap transactions that have hamstrung A.I.G. Nor were more than a handful of the 400 current employees of A.I.G.-F.P. Most of those responsible have left the company and have conspicuously escaped the public outrage.
After 12 months of hard work dismantling the company — during which A.I.G. reassured us many times we would be rewarded in March 2009 — we in the financial products unit have been betrayed by A.I.G. and are being unfairly persecuted by elected officials. In response to this, I will now leave the company and donate my entire post-tax retention payment to those suffering from the global economic downturn. My intent is to keep none of the money myself.
I take this action after 11 years of dedicated, honorable service to A.I.G. I can no longer effectively perform my duties in this dysfunctional environment, nor am I being paid to do so. Like you, I was asked to work for an annual salary of $1, and I agreed out of a sense of duty to the company and to the public officials who have come to its aid. Having now been let down by both, I can no longer justify spending 10, 12, 14 hours a day away from my family for the benefit of those who have let me down.
You and I have never met or spoken to each other, so I'd like to tell you about myself. I was raised by schoolteachers working multiple jobs in a world of closing steel mills. My hard work earned me acceptance to M.I.T., and the institute's generous financial aid enabled me to attend. I had fulfilled my American dream.
I started at this company in 1998 as an equity trader, became the head of equity and commodity trading and, a couple of years before A.I.G.'s meltdown last September, was named the head of business development for commodities. Over this period the equity and commodity units were consistently profitable — in most years generating net profits of well over $100 million. Most recently, during the dismantling of A.I.G.-F.P., I was an integral player in the pending sale of its well-regarded commodity index business to UBS. As you know, business unit sales like this are crucial to A.I.G.'s effort to repay the American taxpayer.
The profitability of the businesses with which I was associated clearly supported my compensation. I never received any pay resulting from the credit default swaps that are now losing so much money. I did, however, like many others here, lose a significant portion of my life savings in the form of deferred compensation invested in the capital of A.I.G.-F.P. because of those losses. In this way I have personally suffered from this controversial activity — directly as well as indirectly with the rest of the taxpayers.
I have the utmost respect for the civic duty that you are now performing at A.I.G. You are as blameless for these credit default swap losses as I am. You answered your country's call and you are taking a tremendous beating for it.
But you also are aware that most of the employees of your financial products unit had nothing to do with the large losses. And I am disappointed and frustrated over your lack of support for us. I and many others in the unit feel betrayed that you failed to stand up for us in the face of untrue and unfair accusations from certain members of Congress last Wednesday and from the press over our retention payments, and that you didn't defend us against the baseless and reckless comments made by the attorneys general of New York and Connecticut.
My guess is that in October, when you learned of these retention contracts, you realized that the employees of the financial products unit needed some incentive to stay and that the contracts, being both ethical and useful, should be left to stand. That's probably why A.I.G. management assured us on three occasions during that month that the company would “live up to its commitment” to honor the contract guarantees.
That may be why you decided to accelerate by three months more than a quarter of the amounts due under the contracts. That action signified to us your support, and was hardly something that one would do if he truly found the contracts “distasteful.”
That may also be why you authorized the balance of the payments on March 13.
At no time during the past six months that you have been leading A.I.G. did you ask us to revise, renegotiate or break these contracts — until several hours before your appearance last week before Congress.
I think your initial decision to honor the contracts was both ethical and financially astute, but it seems to have been politically unwise. It's now apparent that you either misunderstood the agreements that you had made — tacit or otherwise — with the Federal Reserve, the Treasury, various members of Congress and Attorney General Andrew Cuomo of New York, or were not strong enough to withstand the shifting political winds.
You've now asked the current employees of A.I.G.-F.P. to repay these earnings. As you can imagine, there has been a tremendous amount of serious thought and heated discussion about how we should respond to this breach of trust.
As most of us have done nothing wrong, guilt is not a motivation to surrender our earnings. We have worked 12 long months under these contracts and now deserve to be paid as promised. None of us should be cheated of our payments any more than a plumber should be cheated after he has fixed the pipes but a careless electrician causes a fire that burns down the house.
Many of the employees have, in the past six months, turned down job offers from more stable employers, based on A.I.G.'s assurances that the contracts would be honored. They are now angry about having been misled by A.I.G.'s promises and are not inclined to return the money as a favor to you.
The only real motivation that anyone at A.I.G.-F.P. now has is fear. Mr. Cuomo has threatened to “name and shame,” and his counterpart in Connecticut, Richard Blumenthal, has made similar threats — even though attorneys general are supposed to stand for due process, to conduct trials in courts and not the press.
So what am I to do? There's no easy answer. I know that because of hard work I have benefited more than most during the economic boom and have saved enough that my family is unlikely to suffer devastating losses during the current bust. Some might argue that members of my profession have been overpaid, and I wouldn't disagree.
That is why I have decided to donate 100 percent of the effective after-tax proceeds of my retention payment directly to organizations that are helping people who are suffering from the global downturn. This is not a tax-deduction gimmick; I simply believe that I at least deserve to dictate how my earnings are spent, and do not want to see them disappear back into the obscurity of A.I.G.'s or the federal government's budget. Our earnings have caused such a distraction for so many from the more pressing issues our country faces, and I would like to see my share of it benefit those truly in need.
On March 16 I received a payment from A.I.G. amounting to $742,006.40, after taxes. In light of the uncertainty over the ultimate taxation and legal status of this payment, the actual amount I donate may be less — in fact, it may end up being far less if the recent House bill raising the tax on the retention payments to 90 percent stands. Once all the money is donated, you will immediately receive a list of all recipients.
This choice is right for me. I wish others at A.I.G.-F.P. luck finding peace with their difficult decision, and only hope their judgment is not clouded by fear.
Mr. Liddy, I wish you success in your commitment to return the money extended by the American government, and luck with the continued unwinding of the company's diverse businesses — especially those remaining credit default swaps. I'll continue over the short term to help make sure no balls are dropped, but after what's happened this past week I can't remain much longer — there is too much bad blood. I'm not sure how you will greet my resignation, but at least Attorney General Blumenthal should be relieved that I'll leave under my own power and will not need to be “shoved out the door.”
Sincerely,

Jake DeSantis

By the way:
Yesterday's Wall Street Journal reported that AIG's infamous bonus division sued the federal government last month for $61 million in taxes they felt they should not have had to pay. Apparently, the IRS thought they were engaging in some questionable tax avoidance schemes. Now AIG is trying to get $61 million back.

Hello, again:

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

Letter dated BEFORE the bailout.

Dear Mr. DeSantis:

Even though I've been told that AIG is too big to fail, I don't believe it, so I'm NOT going to bail you out.

Therefore, you're not going to get ANY bonus's and you'll be looking for work.

I'm sorry you chose to work for a company that was bankrupt. But that ain't MY fault.

Good luck,

Barack

PS: If, on the other hand, we decide to SAVE your job, there are strings attached. It's not going to be business as usual. I actually can't believe that you think it should be.

PPS: I also noticed in your letter, that you didn't even mention having been bailed out by the American taxpayer. Your arrogance, Sir, is noteworthy

-----------------
excon

Well, that's the longest most self serving letter I've ever read.
It's perfectly sensible to leave when the trough is empty, I'll hand him that.

It's weird that he is COMPLAINING about not being paid, yet claiming that he willingly worked for $1/year for some reason, and then says he got $742,000, which he seemingly finds unsatisfactory. This is a guy who is so out of touch that he has no idea how he comes across to people who'd be delighted with the $42,000 in change.

He agreed to work for $1 under the promise of bonus to help dismantle to company and perhaps help the American tax payers recoup some of the money lost to them in the bailout.

The American taxpayer through the whipped up frenzy of their elected officials have renaged. It will cost the American taxpayer more as a result. Perhaps Barney Frank or Chris Dodd feel more qualified than Mr. DeSantis to perform this function. Let them try.
Mr. DeSantis will go on to earn a living somewhere else. But we will end up paying more because AIG no longer has his expertise.

I wish Mr. DeSantis luck . No doubt the leash of wrath by Conn. AG Blumenthal will be loosed on him with the same vigor that was used when the public officials went after Joe the Plumber .

Letter dated BEFORE the bailout.

Dear Mr. DeSantis:

Even though I've been told that AIG is too big to fail, I don't believe it, so I'm NOT going to bail you out.

Therefore, you're not going to get ANY bonus's and you'll be looking for work.

I'm sorry you chose to work for a company that was bankrupt. But that ain't MY fault.

Good luck,

Barack

PS: If, on the other hand, we decide to SAVE your job, there are strings attached. It's not going to be business as usual. I actually can't believe that you think it should be.

PPS: I also noticed in your letter, that you didn't even mention having been bailed out by the American taxpayer. Your arrogance, Sir, is noteworthy


Dear Mr. Obama ;
You are a person who has twice skirted public servant ethic rules by signing book contracts with advance bonuses prior to you entered public service.I do not expect you to understand honor and integrity .

I however would like to point out that if AIG had been allowed to go Chapter 11 there is a very good possibility that I would've been retained by the company and a bankruptcy judge to perform the services I have done for the last year under a similar compensation package to minimize losses and maximize recovery for legitimate stakeholders.

In the current case ;since the government assumed control ,I had assumed by doing this I was also performing a service that benefitted the tax payers... and I would've been right.

You have a reputation of throwing people under the bus after you have used them so I guess I should not be surprised that I am also a victim of your M.O. Perhaps this is why no one is rushing forward to fill all those empty slots in your administration.

Sincerely ,
Jake DeSantis

I however would like to point out that if AIG had been allowed to go Chapter 11 there is a very good possibility that I would've been retained by the company and a bankruptcy judge to perform the services I have done for the last year under a simular compensation package to minimize losses and maximize recovery for legitimate stakeholders.Hello again, Jake:

On this, we agree.

Once we (1) let your company grow too big to fail, we were (2) doomed no matter what we did. We (3) tried to rescue you, and by doing so, we (4) put our teat in the ringer.

Love,

excon, or Barack, or whomever.

P.S.> Look, I know you're not the DeSantis dude either. I can tell by the way you leave a space between the end of your sentences and the period.

He agreed to work for $1 under the promise of bonus....

To me that's not really agreeing to work for $1/year. He contracted to get more. So he can't then claim he was working for a $1/year. That's disingenuous.

The fact that he feels that 3/4 million dollars is insufficient is a testament to his deep and unjustified sense of entitlement. His poor judgement in sending this letter to the New York Times is a measure of his incompetence. To me it reads like the whining of a spoiled brat who lost at Monopoly for the first time ever.

He did not say that the compensation promised was insufficient. He rightly resents the treatment ;the threats that he and fellow AIG employees have been under since Congress whipped up a mob frenzy... and the renaging of his contract without cause.

Fresh off his AIG fumbling, Geithner sent the dollar for a ride (http://www.fx360.com/commentary/kathy/895/dollar-collapses-on-geithner-comments-updated.aspx?num=1237993405066) today after saying the US was open to China's suggestion for a move to "Special Drawing Rights" in place of the dollar.

It made some gains again once he "clarified" his remarks, nevertheless, haven't we already had enough amateurism for one administration during "the worst crisis since the great Depression?"

Geithner has got to go!! Even Robert Rubin knew the Treasury Sec. job is to defend the currency. This is absolutely ridiculous given the fact that the President defended the dollar against the very suggestion of an international currency last night . Is Geithner deaf ? You would think that Geithner is listening to EXCON and is hoarding gold the way he is killing the dollar .Maybe Soros has him in a hypnotic spell . I don't know. It is baffling .

Speaking of people that need to go...

Rahm Emanuel's profitable stint at mortgage giant (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/obama/chi-rahm-emanuel-profit-26-mar26,0,5682373.story)

Don't you think Rahmbo needs to return his ill-gotten gains? Maybe Congress can pass a highly punitive targeted tax on the corruptocrats that ran Fannie and Freddie... starting at the White House.

Hello, again:

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

Letter dated BEFORE the bailout.

Dear Mr. DeSantis:

Even though I've been told that AIG is too big to fail, I don't believe it, so I'm NOT going to bail you out.

Therefore, you're not going to get ANY bonus's and you'll be looking for work.

I'm sorry you chose to work for a company that was bankrupt. But that ain't MY fault.

Good luck,

Barack

PS: If, on the other hand, we decide to SAVE your job, there are strings attached. It's not going to be business as usual. I actually can't believe that you think it should be.

PPS: I also noticed in your letter, that you didn't even mention having been bailed out by the American taxpayer. Your arrogance, Sir, is noteworthy

-----------------
excon


Mr Obama,

You did not bailout AIG or anyone else. Congress has allowed the taxpayors of this generation and future generations to bear that burden. Your lack of experience is overshadowed by your incredibly incompetent pick of Mr Geithner, and by your arrogance.

I understand that the AIG situation has provided a perfect cover for your agenda to expand the power and control of your form of government.

I would challenge you to donate your personal presidential salary, which I remind you is paid by we the taxpayors, to those devastated by this economic disaster you are presiding over.




Mr DeSantis






G&P

Good luck with that one!
Remember there are the haves and the have not's. Those of the East coast elite and anyone in Government is clearly the haves. Those of us that are being forced against our will to pay the ever increasing burden to support the have's are the have not's. Clearly we will all be on the communal farms within the next 10 years.
For a glimpse of what this country will look like in about fifteen years one need to only look to our neighbors to the south.

For a glimpse of what this country will look like in about fifteen years one need to only look to our neighbors to the south.Hello again, 450:

I LOVE tacos.

excon

Do you also love mud floored huts with no heat, no running water, and no toilets?