The AIG travesty

I know, I know...by now you've heard about the AIG bonuses thing, stimulus packages and bailouts but here is a few things that really piss me off about the whole thing.

1. You have the audacity to want a bonus after doing such a horrible job managing the company and its assets. The last time I checked, a person usually gets fired or demoted to a position with less responsibility and pay.

2. I don't think that those who were receiving or going to receive those bonuses are going to do anything to stimulate the economy. Most would have reinvested it or put it into some kind of tax shelter. If you gave $165,000,000.00 to 100,000 struggling tax payers ($1,650 each) you would actually see something start happening with the economy. I'm not suggesting that $1,650 is a lot of money (especially in NY) to spend but it would offer some relief to taxpayers. It could help someone pay another month of rent or a mortgage. It could feed a family for a month or two. It would definitely be spent on gas (and don't get me started on those guys). It might keep them afloat for a few more weeks until a job offer came through.

3. If AIG didn't receive the stimulus and TARP money, how were they going to pay out the bonuses? According to CEO Ed Liddy, he said if the company didn't receive the funds, the company would have to declare bankruptcy and would not have been able to pay the bonuses so they would have legal trouble from law suits. In my opinion, I feel that the company should have claimed bankruptcy. The obligation for them to pay the bonuses to the execs. was written in the fall of 2007 so I believe they saw this coming and wanted to make sure that no matter what happened that they would still get paid, even for underperforming. They should stick to what they make money on, selling insurance products.

4. The biggest thing about this whole mess is that these banks and financial institutions have received all this money. They have not been lending out money or extending credit (which is how they make money, by charging interest). If and when they do start lending, the terms are probably going to be very stringent for the average taxpaper who because of the current economy, would not have the best credit score or the best payment record on past or present financial obligations. So the bank that performed poorly and got taxpayers money to stay afloat gets to choose IF it wants to lend the same taxpayer money and gets to charge that taxpayer whatever INTEREST RATE it deems fit (which would probably be a rate they could make a hefty profit on). The money they make will be used to pay back the obligations to the government and to make more money, yet the taxpayer doesn't get a stake in the bank, stock or a return on the interest profit. What's wrong with this picture?