Why all the rage about AIG bonus money but none for the 1000's of earnmarks and other wasteful government spending?

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Dari
There's nothing to be afraid of. We're all adults here. Just answer the question.

Then address the topic or my comments on the topic.

 

[misle]

Originally posted by: ayabe

Originally posted by: misle
Government = All holy and good

Business = Terrible evil

With you it's the opposite, and both are wrong.

Wow, we have a psychic here! He's not very good, though. Keep trying buddy!

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: NeoV
come on Cad - Obama hasn't even been in office for 'months', yet you are going to spew forth crap like "which was known to some in the Admin months ago". We get it, you don't like Obama - Messiah - Hussein - whatever the nickname of the day is - he could solve all the world's problems tomorrow, and you would still be crying about something, it's just your nature.

As for the Op's question - rewarding people who screwed up with taxpayer funds - is it really hard to figure out the outrage? Earmarks are often used for legit purposes - I think the process that allows them to be created sucks, but it is what it is - at the very least, at least they are not hidden as much anymore.

Are you really that naive to think that these weren't known about months ago?

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: Sawyer
What am I missing? Isn't the bonuses a drop in the bucket compared to the rest? And if you want to get technical, the earnmarks could be seen as bonuses to the politicians and their districts/supporters.

Because the American people don't give two craps about earmarks. The only people railing on about it tend to be grandstanding idiots who don't get that fact.

 

[NeoV]

right, just like the bailout money given to the banks had such specific directions on what it could and could not be used for.......

nice sig, go back to your little cave and stock up on guns and ammo - the evil black/arab president man is out to get us all

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Because the American people don't give two craps about earmarks.

Or deficits, for that matter.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Marlin1975
-snip-
You mean the Bailout that started with Bush and his team? Obama has not even been in office 100days yet and you trolls want to blame everything on him. Don;t worry no one takes what you winer111, Pjohn, etc... say anymore since its all just trolling.

Obama and his team (Geithner) worked with the GWB admin in an unprecended manner post election (before inauguration) on the bailout. Obama even requested more bailout of GWB before taking office etc.

Geithner's hands (as NY Fed Chairman etc) were all over TARP and bailout, not to mention the Dem controlled Congress taht drafted and passed the legislation.

Yes, the GWB admin (Paulson) was initially involved, but to pretend the Obama Admin had little-to-nothing to do with this and only became involved recently is fictional.

Fern

 

[WaTaGuMp]

AIG doesn't give a fuck about anyone but themselves, the government though not perfect of course, tries to do whats best for the country.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Sawyer
What am I missing? Isn't the bonuses a drop in the bucket compared to the rest? And if you want to get technical, the earnmarks could be seen as bonuses to the politicians and their districts/supporters.

Yeah, it's a drop in the bucket.

The last AIG bailout a couple of weeks ago was $30 Billion IIRC.

The 'bonuses' are only about one-half of 1% of that amount.

Much less when you consider all the bailout money attributable to AIG ($170 Bill)

It's an even smaller % compared to the stim package. And isn't this just a 'stim payment', when is stim is defined like the Dems during discussion of that package?

So, did this become such a big deal?

Obama did it himself:

Unprompted, officials leaked news of the bonuses to select reporters late Saturday afternoon, highlighting what Geithner had done to try to restrain the payments. The story quickly became fodder for the Sunday news talk shows.

LINK

Exectly why they did that, IDK. But it's now become obvious that they either knew about it, or should have, well before hand.

It's clear from this article, among many other reports (e.g., MSNBC's news programs last night) that many Dem Congresspersons knew about it, the bonuses have been disclosed for a longtime, they were established in 2008, they were reported on all the SEC forms etc.

Geithner was in all the bailout plan discussions and they were mentioned there.

I can only assume at that time the small amount (> 1%) received no attention. But then some reason Obama decided to publicize it and then demonize it.

Look to me like they shot themselves in the foot.

Since these bonuses were contractual obligations of AIG going back to 2008, and the bailout payments are intended, in some significant regards, to help AIG meet it's obligations the only 'real fuss' can be about 'appearence' and the resulting 'public furor'. But the public furor was started by Obama?

Good Judgement? I think not.

Good campaigning tactic? Yeah, but that doesn't work so well when you're in office and responsible. Looks like he accidentally turned his 'campaign cannon' on himself this time.

Fern

 

[sandorski]

repost

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: WaTaGuMp
AIG doesn't give a fuck about anyone but themselves, the government though not perfect of course, tries to do whats best for the country.

HAHAHAHAHAHA!

 

[rudder]

If the msm didn't have this AIG thing to broadcast 26 hours a day... they would have to turn their attention to the stimulus crap. The One can not have that.

 

[ccbadd]

Originally posted by: BoberFett
Some of us are pissed off about both, but since this forum is 99% partisan hacks they only care about one or the other.

I think both parties like it that way too, keeps the working men and women distracted with bs rather then paying attention to what the crooks in DC are really doing. The media is just as divided and on the extremes..