I am putting this in IMHO and not GD precisely because I want to solicit opinions, not start a debate. After thinking about it for a while, I am of the opinion that the argument is not trivial and to point out that the bonuses represented only about .1% of the bailout misses an important point, even leaving out the symbolism.
The people who accepted the bonuses are the same people who piloted AIG into the ground. Strike one against them. It is said that they are the only ones who understand the business. But these top executives move from company to company at the drop of a hat (or of a check, maybe). They have demonstrated their incompetence and if they are capable of moving the company into the black, promise them bounuses if and when that happens. In accepting the bonuses, they demonstrate that the are still fully-fledged members of the “me” generation.
In some cases, the bonuses were in lieu of a years pay, and were under $100,000. I don’t see anything wrong with a worker getting a modest bonus. But those megabuck bonuse for the dudes who led the company astray are what sticks in my craw.
the people who drove the company into the ground are gone. The people who earned the bonuses got them because they agreed to stay behind and help wrap up the portfolios. They were the most knowledgeable, and as part of getting the company out of the mess, they needed to keep them around to finish up the work.
We pay Congress about $90 million a year and they can’t manage to read a trillion dollar budget because ___________(fill in your favorite excuse).
The AIG group was tasked with specific goals. A contract was negotiated. They recovered 1.2 trillion dollars and were paid per their contract.
If anyone should give money back it should be Congress.