Senator suggests AIG execs should kill themselves

[RadioFreeSeaLab]

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20090317/D96VPA601.html

By NIGEL DUARA

IOWA CITY, Iowa (AP) - Iowa Sen. Charles Grassley suggested that AIG executives should take a Japanese approach toward accepting responsibility for the collapse of the insurance giant by resigning or killing themselves.

The Republican lawmaker's harsh comments came during an interview with Cedar Rapids, Iowa, radio station WMT on Monday. They echo remarks he has made in the past about corporate executives and public apologies, but went further in suggesting suicide.

"I suggest, you know, obviously, maybe they ought to be removed," Grassley said. "But I would suggest the first thing that would make me feel a little bit better toward them if they'd follow the Japanese example and come before the American people and take that deep bow and say, I'm sorry, and then either do one of two things: resign or go commit suicide.

"And in the case of the Japanese, they usually commit suicide before they make any apology."

Grassley spokesman Casey Mills said the senator isn't calling for AIG executives to kill themselves, but said those who accept tax dollars and spend them on travel and bonuses do so irresponsibly.

"Senator Grassley has said for some time now that generally speaking, executives who make a mess of their companies should apologize, as Japanese executives do," Mills said. "He says the Japanese might even go so far as to commit suicide but he doesn't want U.S. executives to do that."

The senator's remarks added to a chorus of public outrage over the disclosure that AIG intends to pay its executives $165 million in bonuses after taking billions in federal bailout money. President Barack Obama lambasted the insurance giant for "recklessness and greed" on Monday and pledged to try to block payment of the bonuses.

Sometimes I wish congressmen would take their own advice.

[K Frame]

I heard that last night on the news going home.

I think he should start sending short swords to those buttmunches.

[HankB]

Let's not paint with too broad a brush . . .

According to a guy I heard on the radio last night (unimpeachable source, of course.  :rolleyes: ) AIG is comprised of a LOT of companies, most of which made a profit. It's not ethical to penalize the folks who actually did a good job.

Of course, the guys running the losing business units - as well as the CEO and Board at the corporate level - should be GONE.

With no "golden parachutes."

[RadioFreeSeaLab]

I'm just posting the article for your enjoyment.  Personally, I'd prefer Seppuku by congress more than by AIG.

[Gewehr98]

I'd prefer the 400+ folks in AIG who wrangled that mess got short-sworded by themselves, as events unfold.

Last night, while watching the news, reporters snagged an AIG executive who had flown in from Singapore to work with his particular team. 

He was angry as hell, and in his British accent, he related that the majority of AIG employees are also absolutely furious about the huge bonuses.  He also clarified that it was the small core branch of AIG, roughly 450 people, that were responsible for both the mess and the huge bonuses, compared to the many thousands of AIG employees doing what AIG was supposed to be doing all along. 

[BlueStarLizzard]

Let's not paint with too broad a brush . . .

According to a guy I heard on the radio last night (unimpeachable source, of course.  :rolleyes: ) AIG is comprised of a LOT of companies, most of which made a profit. It's not ethical to penalize the folks who actually did a good job.

Of course, the guys running the losing business units - as well as the CEO and Board at the corporate level - should be GONE.

With no "golden parachutes."

i still don't get it then. in fact i get it less. if they're making a profit, why are they needing gov (taxpayer) money?
and i would think that employees (even ones that do deserve a bonus for working hard) would understand that under current circumstances they would not be getting bonuses.

if they have failing business whatevers, wouldn't it make more sense to spend the money there then giving out bonuses to the groups that are doing well? isn't that what the money is for?

[El Tejon]

Careful, Senator, or Moderator Gewehr will cluck his tongue about your discussion of violence.

[Gewehr98]

The senator can suggest anything he wants, I could care less - it's his venue.

However, it ain't just Moderator G-98 who grows weary of folks promulgating violence here on APS.

Trust me on that one, or you can PM Oleg himself to find out. 

[HankB]

i still don't get it then. in fact i get it less. if they're making a profit, why are they needing gov (taxpayer) money?

Let's say you've got 10 companies under a common banner. Companies 1-9 had profit targets of $10,000,000 each. The people who work for them did well, and made more - $12,000,000 each. They did THEIR jobs.

Meanwhile, the guys in Company 10 lost a lot of money - $10,000,000,000. They put the whole parent company deep into the red, and wiped out the profits of companies 1-9.

Clearly, the guys in charge of Company 10 should be FIRED, as should the big bosses - meaning the CEO and entire Board of Directors of the parent company, for allowing Company 10 to foul up so badly. But . . . is it fair to punish the guys in companies 1-9 who actually outdid themselves, and actually earned what they were promised?

[RaspberrySurprise]

Let's say you've got 10 companies under a common banner. Companies 1-9 had profit targets of $10,000,000 each. The people who work for them did well, and made more - $12,000,000 each. They did THEIR jobs.

Meanwhile, the guys in Company 10 lost a lot of money - $10,000,000,000. They put the whole parent company deep into the red, and wiped out the profits of companies 1-9.

Clearly, the guys in charge of Company 10 should be FIRED, as should the big bosses - meaning the CEO and entire Board of Directors of the parent company, for allowing Company 10 to foul up so badly. But . . . is it fair to punish the guys in companies 1-9 who actually outdid themselves, and actually earned what they were promised?

Damn your logic.

[mtnbkr]

But . . . is it fair to punish the guys in companies 1-9 who actually outdid themselves, and actually earned what they were promised?

No, but that's how it works in a lot of companies, including mine.

We frequently get dinged on bonuses and such because an unrelated division doesn't do well enough.  We almost didn't get bonuses one year (and didn't get a raise) because our company bought another one and wanted to bring the two into salary parity.  Our managers went to bat for us with the executive caste and got us part of what we normally got.

Chris

[BlueStarLizzard]

Let's say you've got 10 companies under a common banner. Companies 1-9 had profit targets of $10,000,000 each. The people who work for them did well, and made more - $12,000,000 each. They did THEIR jobs.

Meanwhile, the guys in Company 10 lost a lot of money - $10,000,000,000. They put the whole parent company deep into the red, and wiped out the profits of companies 1-9.

Clearly, the guys in charge of Company 10 should be FIRED, as should the big bosses - meaning the CEO and entire Board of Directors of the parent company, for allowing Company 10 to foul up so badly. But . . . is it fair to punish the guys in companies 1-9 who actually outdid themselves, and actually earned what they were promised?

it makes sense, but is that what AIG did?

and is it still fair when the taxes are paying for it?

sorry, but bonuses are bonuses, not your paycheck.

[Jamisjockey]

I'm just posting the article for your enjoyment.  Personal, I'd prefer Seppuku by congress more than by AIG.

They would have to feel a sense of guilt and honor about what they are doing....

[RadioFreeSeaLab]

They would have to feel a sense of guilt and honor about what they are doing....

Oh I know, but I can dream.

[Marvin Dao]

/post removed. misread question.

[Waitone]

Not verified but one reason AIG was bailed out while Lehman was sunk had to do with just who AIG insured.  Seems AIG big insurance customer (client) was none other than Goldman Sachs.  Curiously enough Hank Paulson left Goldman with a $700 million wet kiss, a lot of which was in various financial instruments held by Goldman.  So if AIG sinks by necessity Goldman will suffer.  If Goldman suffers Paulson's deferred compensation suffer dramatically.  Is it not convenient that Paulson was in a position to do the honorable thing and protect his former employer.

[agricola]

No, but that's how it works in a lot of companies, including mine.

We frequently get dinged on bonuses and such because an unrelated division doesn't do well enough.  We almost didn't get bonuses one year (and didn't get a raise) because our company bought another one and wanted to bring the two into salary parity.  Our managers went to bat for us with the executive caste and got us part of what we normally got.

Chris

Over here we had a bank that was reasonably stable (Lloyds TSB) be talked (by the Prime Minister, no less) into taking over a bank that was on the verge of collapse (HBOS).  The PM waived the due dilligence process as part of the deal, and - sure enough - Lloyds realised too late that it had been sold an absolute crock and are now in the position of having to take taxpayers cash in order to survive - and the PM's allies on the Treasury Select Committee are attacking Lloyds for paying bonuses to its employees, who without the Governments "help" would have been in a great position to weather the storm.

As for the seppuku of bankers and politicians, I think one should bear in mind that if al-Qaeda, Iran, North Korea or whoever the bad guys will be for this Presidency are had done the damage to our countries that those fools have, we would probably nuke them and their immediate surroundings.  The politicians and bankers should not be retiring on pensions.

[Seenterman]

Its unfortunate for the 80% of AIG employees did thier job and did it well, but your co workers messed up on a astronomical scale. They essentially distroyed your company, if it where not for American tax payers NONE of them would even be getting a pay check, yet they still think their entitled to their contractual bonuses. Well I say bullocks! Their contract was written up by AIG executives when they could still claim they owned AIG, American tax payers now own 80% of AIG so where their new bosses and as such should render previous contracts null and void, as they were part and parcell of the AIG that FAILED. Reportedly three employees got 3 million each!

Its like your job declaring bankruptcy in August, and you demanding you Christmas bonus. Do you think you'd get it?

[makattak]

Its unfortunate for the 80% of AIG employees did thier job and did it well, but your co workers messed up on a astronomical scale. They essentially distroyed your company, if it where not for American tax payers NONE of them would even be getting a pay check, yet they still think their entitled to their contractual bonuses. Well I say bullocks! Their contract was written up by AIG executives when they could still claim they owned AIG, American tax payers now own 80% of AIG so where their new bosses and as such should render previous contracts null and void, as they were part and parcell of the AIG that FAILED. Reportedly three employees got 3 million each!

Its like your job declaring bankruptcy in August, and you demanding you Christmas bonus. Do you think you'd get it?

Except they didn't declare bankruptcy. All these bonuses are CONTRACTUALLY required. Contract, as in, enforceable by law.

Since we were stupid enough not to let AIG go into bankruptcy (since they've been REAL nice to politicians), they are still responsible for their contracts.

Since congress was "too stupid" to put requirements on the money, these must be paid.

Or do you think when a new owner comes in, he can revoke all contracts without consequence?

[mtnbkr]

sorry, but bonuses are bonuses, not your paycheck.

Depends on your compensation package.  My "bonus" is actually just a portion of my total compensation that is more directly tied to performance (mine and the company's) than my official salary.  We call it a bonus, but it has some other name that indicates it's the merit based portion of your "salary".

Chris

[AJ Dual]

Depends on your compensation package.  My "bonus" is actually just a portion of my total compensation that is more directly tied to performance (mine and the company's) than my official salary.  We call it a bonus, but it has some other name that indicates it's the merit based portion of your "salary".

Chris

Exactly, and as makattak above stated too. The bonuses are often contractual compensation for achieving certain goals.

And part of the bailout process is for the company to make a profit and get back on it's feet. Compensation for good performance is part of that process. Although I know that the whole "getting paid only when you do a good job"-thing is hard for the political left to understand.

Now it's possible these bonuses are ill-concieved "corporate greed" or a "fat-cat" kind of thing, but the fed.gov making the determination if that's so or not, and not the marketplace overall is definitely one of those "The cure is worse than the disease" kind of moments.  :|

[roo_ster]

http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2009/03/aig-execs-demand-senators-resign-or.html

AIG Vice Chairman and Chief Marketing Officer Robert G. Krebs suggested that Senators Chris Dodd (D-CT), Charles Grassley (D-IA) and Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) take a "Japanese approach" toward accepting responsibility for the collapse of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac by resigning or killing themselves.

"In all candor, I don't know why they're so exercised by some bonuses. These pathetic excuses for politicians cost the taxpayers trillions of dollars and, worst of all, they're still in power."

"I suggest they ought to be removed," Krebs said. "But I would suggest the first thing that would make me feel a little bit better toward them if they'd follow the Japanese example and come before the American people and take that deep bow and say, I'm sorry, and then either do one of two things: resign or go commit suicide. And in the case of the Japanese, they usually commit suicide before they make any apology."

"And, frankly, suicide would appear to be the only way to get these recidivists out of office," Krebs added.

"From my standpoint, it's irresponsible for unaccountable bureaucrats to allow themselves to receive raises when they're sucking at the teat of the taxpayer," AIG Senior Vice President James Sullivan explained.

Krebs noted that Frank, Dodd, Maxine Waters (D-CA) and a host of other Democrats were largely responsible for the entire mortgage meltdown through their decade-long fight against regulation of mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

"Recall that in 2004, Alan Greenspan warned of a systemic risk to the economy and, even earlier, the White House tried repeatedly to rein the GSEs in. But, no, B-B-B-arneys Fwank and Kwistopha Dudd were protecting their donors," Krebs said, mocking the portly Frank.

Sullivan continued to express his displeasure with the federal government that is adding trillions of dollars to the national debt for "non-stimulating stimulus, better known as pork projects."

He said Senators and Congress in general should not be rewarded for "running the country into the ground."

The executives' remarks added to a chorus of public outrage over the disclosure that Congress continues to rape the American people with pork projects and massive unfunded liabilities that are bankrupting the country.

[makattak]

http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2009/03/aig-execs-demand-senators-resign-or.html

AIG Vice Chairman and Chief Marketing Officer Robert G. Krebs suggested that Senators Chris Dodd (D-CT), Charles Grassley (D-IA) and Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) take a "Japanese approach" toward accepting responsibility for the collapse of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac by resigning or killing themselves.

"In all candor, I don't know why they're so exercised by some bonuses. These pathetic excuses for politicians cost the taxpayers trillions of dollars and, worst of all, they're still in power."

"I suggest they ought to be removed," Krebs said. "But I would suggest the first thing that would make me feel a little bit better toward them if they'd follow the Japanese example and come before the American people and take that deep bow and say, I'm sorry, and then either do one of two things: resign or go commit suicide. And in the case of the Japanese, they usually commit suicide before they make any apology."

"And, frankly, suicide would appear to be the only way to get these recidivists out of office," Krebs added.

"From my standpoint, it's irresponsible for unaccountable bureaucrats to allow themselves to receive raises when they're sucking at the teat of the taxpayer," AIG Senior Vice President James Sullivan explained.

Krebs noted that Frank, Dodd, Maxine Waters (D-CA) and a host of other Democrats were largely responsible for the entire mortgage meltdown through their decade-long fight against regulation of mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

"Recall that in 2004, Alan Greenspan warned of a systemic risk to the economy and, even earlier, the White House tried repeatedly to rein the GSEs in. But, no, B-B-B-arneys Fwank and Kwistopha Dudd were protecting their donors," Krebs said, mocking the portly Frank.

Sullivan continued to express his displeasure with the federal government that is adding trillions of dollars to the national debt for "non-stimulating stimulus, better known as pork projects."

He said Senators and Congress in general should not be rewarded for "running the country into the ground."

The executives' remarks added to a chorus of public outrage over the disclosure that Congress continues to rape the American people with pork projects and massive unfunded liabilities that are bankrupting the country.

PLEASE tell me one of the AIG execs actually had the guts to say that.

If people don't realize Fanny and Freddy are at the core of this current meltdown, they need to be enlightened.

[AJ Dual]

PLEASE tell me one of the AIG execs actually had the guts to say that.

If people don't realize Fanny and Freddy are at the core of this current meltdown, they need to be enlightened.

OMG... Agreed PLEASE let that be true.

[Sawdust]

Unfortunately, only satire.

Now it has been disclosed that $35 billion was funneled through AIG to bail-out *foriegn* banks. 

Please stop the world - I want to get off...

Sawdust